No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2004-069 Water System Plan UpdateRESOLUTION NO. R-2004- 69 A RESOLUTION adopting the 2004 Water System Plan Update with its Appendices for the City of Yakima, Washington. WHEREAS, the City of Yakima, is required to adopt the Water System Plan Update in accordance with WAC 246-290-100 by the Washington State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, the City of Yakima has complied with all of the requirements of WAC 246-290-100 in developing said Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has given notice, held public study sessions, completed a SEPA and distributed copies of said Plan upon request; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: The document entitled "City of Yakima Water System Plan Update" dated March 2004, together with its appendices, a true copy of said Plan and Appendices is on file in the City Clerk's Office and are incorporated by reference herein, are adopted by the City of Yakima. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 20th day of April, 2004. C?tA SC" - Paul P. George, Mayor ATTEST: Karen S. S. Roberts, City Clerk BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.� 7 For Meeting of 4/20/04 ITEM TITLE: Adoption of the 2004 Water System Plan Update SUBMITTED BY: Dave Brown, Water/Irrigation Manager Glenn Rice, Assistant City Manager CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Dave Brown / 575-6204 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The Washington Department of Health (DOH) requires water purveyors to complete an update to the Water System Plan (formerly know as the Water Comprehensive Plan) for the drinking water system every 6 years. Yakima must submit a Water System Plan Update in 2004. WAC 246-290-100 requires that the City Council adopt the plan by resolution. The draft Water System Plan Update was discussed at the July 15, 2003 Council Study Session. In September of 2003 Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was issued, no comments were received. In November of 2003 the Director of Community and Economic Development, SEPA Responsible Official, issued a Determination of Non -significance (DNS). All City Council comments from the July, 2003 Study Session and comments from Yakima County Planning have been addressed and incorporated into the final Plan. Staff respectfully requests City Council approve the attached resolution adopting the 2004 Water System Plan Update. The next Water System Plan Update will be due in the year 2009. Resolution X Ordinance Other (Specify) Contract Mail tO (name and address): Funding Source 477 Water CIP APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve resolution adopting the 2004 Water System Plan Update with its Appendices for the City of Yakima, Washington. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. R-2004-69 City of Yakima System Number 991509 Yakima County Washington 111111111111' Water System Plan Update March 2004 �1 Thomas E. Coleman, P.E. I Consulting Services in association with Carollo Engineers • EXPIRES q City of Yakima System Number 991509 Yakima County X%011111111 /lllIIIII1111 Washington Water System Plan Update Chapters 1 through 9 March 2004 Table of Contents 1 Description of Water System 1.1 Ownership and Management 1-1 1.2 System Background 1-3 1.3 Inventory of Existing Facilities 1-3 1.4 Related Plans 1-15 1.5 Existing Service Area Characteristics 1-22 1.6 Future Service Area 1-24 1.7 Service Area Agreements 1-27 1.8 Service Area Policies 1-27 1.9 Satellite Management Agencies 1-29 1.10 Conditions of Service 1-29 1.11 Complaints 1-30 2 Basic Planning Data and Water Demand Forecasting 2.1 Current Population, Service Connections, Water Use, and Equivalent Residential Units 2-1 2.2 Water Use and Equivalent Residential Units 2-3 2.3 Projected Land Use, Future Population, and Water Demand 2-17 3 System Analysis 3.1 System Design Standards 3-1 3.2 Water Quality Analysis 3-18 3.3 System Description and Analysis 3-29 3.3.1 Objectives 3-29 3.3.2 Source 3-29 3.3.3 Water Treatment 3-32 3.3.4 Storage 3-49 3.3.5 Distribution System 3-69 3.3.6 Summary of System Deficiencies 3-83 3.3.7 Selection and Justification of Proposed Improvement Projects 3-88 4 Conservation Program, Water Right Analysis, System Reliability, and Interties 4.1 Conservation Program Development and Implementation 4-1 4.1.1 Introduction 4-1 4.1.2 Required Measures for All Systems 4-2 4.1.3 Other Recommended Conservation Measures 4-2 4.1.4 Conservation Program 4-4 4.1.5 Summary of Water Conservation Program 4-.15 4.1.6 Water Reuse 4-15 4.2 Source of Supply Analysis 4-19 4.2.1 General 4-19 4.2.2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) 4-19 4.3 Water Right Evaluation 4-22 4.3.1 Permits, Certificates, Claims, and Applications 4-22 4.4 Water System Reliability Analysis 4-39 4.5 Interties 4-44 5 Source Water Protection 5.1 Source Water Protection Overview 5-1 5.2 Wellhead Protection Program 5-1 5.3 Watershed Control Program 5-2 5.3.1 Regulatory Requirements/Program Overview 5-2 5.3.2 Watershed Description/Characteristics 5-3 5.3.3 Identification of Activities/Land Uses Detrimental to Water Quality 5-7 5.3.4 Watershed Management and Control Measures 5-13 5.3.5 Recommended Specific Actions for Watershed Monitoring and Control .5-27 5.3.6 Monitoring Program 5-30 6 Operation and Maintenance Program 8-5 6.1 Water System Management and Personnel 6-1 6.2 Operator Certification 6-4 6.3 System Operation and Control 6-4 6.4 Comprehensive Monitoring (Regulatory Compliance) Plan E5-19 6.5 Emergency Response Program E5-25 6.6 Safety Procedures 6-30 6.7 Cross -Connection Control Program 6-31 6.8 Customer Complaint Response Program 6-31 6.9 Recordkeeping and Reporting 6-32 6.10 O & M Improvements 6-32 7 Distribution Facilities Design and Construction Standards 7.1 General 7-1 7.2 Project Review Procedures 7-2 7.3 Policies and Requirements for Outside Parties 7-2 7.4 Design Standards, (Performance Standards and Sizing Criteria) 7-3 7.5 Construction Standards, (Materials and Methods) 7-5 7.6 Construction Certification and Follow-up Procedures 7-5 8 Improvement Program - - 8.1 Objective 8-1 8.2 Descriptions of Recommended Improvements 8-2 8.3 Improvement Schedule 8-5 9 Financial Program 9.1 Objective and Plan Content 9-1 9.2 Past and Present Financial Status 9-2 9.3 Available Revenue Sources 9-4 9.4 Allocation of Revenue Sources 9-5 9.5 Program Justification 9.7 9.6 Assessment of Rates 9-9 10 Appendices (Separate Volume) - - 11 W List of Tables No. Table Description/Title page iii Tables in Chapter 1 - Description of Water System 1-1 Groundwater Supply Facilities 1-6 1-2 Pump Stations 1-11 1-3 Pressure Reducing Valves 1-12 1-4 Distribution Storage Reservoirs 1-13 1-5 Interties 1-14 1-6 Yakima Wastewater Service and Planning Area Population Projections 1-17 Tables in Chapter 2 - Basic Planning Data and Water Demand Forecasting 2-1 Current Population for the City of Yakima and Yakima County 2-1 2-2 Current Population for the City of Yakima Water Service Area and Zones 2-2 2-3 Number of Service Connections by Customer Class - 1994 to 2000 2-2 2-4 Monthly Water Supply Data (WTP Effluent plus Well production) 2-3 2-5 Use by Pressure Zone calculated from "use by zone" data. 2-4 2-6 Metered Water Use by Customer Class 2-5 2-7 Other Water Uses and Unaccounted for Water 2-6 2-8 Adjusted Water Use by Customer Class (100 ft) 2-8 2-9 Adjusted use by zone using water supplied data (WTP + Wells) based on ...Table 2-5 2-9 2-10 Adjusted by zone use calculated by subtracting non -revenue uses from ... Table 2-9 2-9 2-11 Land Area and Population by Land Use Zoning Code 2-11 2-12 Distribution of Land Use Classification Areas among the Pressure Zones 2-12 2-13 Calculated Single Family residential use by zone using data from Tables 2-8 and 2-12 2-14 2-14 Calculated Multi Family residential use by zone using data from Tables 2-8 and 2-12 2-14 2-15 Population Summary by Pressure Zone (from Table 2-11) 2-15 2-16 Estimated per capita use by pressure zone (gal/capita/day) 2-15 2-17 Estimated number of residents per single family connection 2-15 2-18 ERU calculation by pressure zone 2-16 2-19 Future Land Use Inventory 2-18 2-20 Projections of,the Yakima County Resident Population for GMA 2-21 2-21 Yakima Water Service Area Population Projections by Pressure Zone (Low series) 2-22 2-22 Yakima Water Service Area Population Projections by Pressure Zone (Int. series) 2-22 2-23 Yakima Water Service Area Population Projections by Pressure Zone (High series) 2-22 2-24 Residential Water Demand Projections by Pressure Zone based on Intermediate series 2-23 2-25 Forecast Commercial use average day demand based on Intermediate series 2-23 2-26 Forecast Industrial use average day demand based on Intermediate series 2-24 2-27 Subtotal of residential, commercial, and industrial ADD forecasts by zone (Int. series) 2-24 2-28 Total of residential, commercial, and industrial ADD forecasts by zone (Int. series) 2-25 2-29 Residential Water Demand Projections by Pressure Zone based on High series 2-25 2-30 Forecast Commercial use average day demand based on High series 2-26 2-31 Forecast Industrial use average day demand based on High 2-26 2-32 Subtotal of residential, commercial, and industrial ADD forecasts by zone (High series) 2-27 2-33 Total of residential, commercial, and industrial ADD forecasts by zone (High series) 2-27 2-34 Maximum Day Demands from 1994 through 2000 and MDD/ADD Ratios 2-32 iii a List of Tables - continued No. Table Description/Title page 2-35 Projected Maximum Day Demands through 2025 2-32 2-36 Observed Peak Hour Demands and PHD to MDD Ratios 2-33 2-37 Factors and Coefficients for Equation 5-3 from DOH #331-123 2-34 2-38 Projected Peak Hour Demands through 2025 2-34 3 Tables in Chapter 3 - System Analysis 3-1 National Primary Drinking Water Standards for Microbial Contaminants 3-2 3-2 National Primary Drinking Water Standards for Disinfection By-products 3-3 3-3 National Primary Drinking Water Standards for Disinfection Residuals 3-3 3-4 Inorganic Chemical Primary MCLS and MCLGs 3-5 3-5 Volatile and Synthetic Organic Chemical Primary MCLGs and MCLS 3-6 3-6 Volatile and Synthetic Organic Chemical Primary MCLGs and MCLS (cont.) 3-7 3-7 Current Radionuclide MCLs from WAC 246-290 3-8 3-8 Radionuclide MCLGs and MCLs from EPA Radionuclide Rule 3-8 3-9 National Secondary Drinking Water Contaminants 3-9 3-10 Projected 6 year and 20 year Average Daily Demands in MGD 3-10 3-11 Projected 6 year and 20 year Maximum Daily Demands in MGD 3-10 3-12 Projected 6 year and 20 year Peak Hour Demands in MGD 3-13 3-13 Summary of Naches River Raw Water Quality (1994 to 2000) 3-18 3-14 EPA Regulated Inorganic Chemical Primary MCLs 3-25 3-15 EPA Regulated Inorganic Chemical Secondary MCLs 3-25 3-16 Parameters Tested for, but NOT Regulated 3-26 3-17 Other Finished Water Quality Data 3-26 3-18 Emergency Wells Regulated Inorganic Chemical Primary MCLs 3-27 3-19 Emergency Wells EPA Regulated Inorganic Chemical Secondary MCLs 3-27 3-20 Wells Parameters Tested for, but NOT Regulated 3-28 3-21 Emergency Wells Maximum Total Trihalomethane Potential Test Results 3-28 3-22 Source Capacity Analysis for Years 2000 through 2025 in MGD 3-31 3-23 Existing Design Criteria Naches River Water Treatment Plant 3-33 3-24 Preliminary Design Criteria for Proposed Upgrades and Modifications to the WTP 3-42 3-25 Distribution Storage Reservoirs 3-49 3-26 Assumed Peak -Week Demand Conditions used to estimate the OS +ES Requirements 3-51 3-27 Assumed Peak -Week Supply Conditions used to estimate -the OS +ES Requirements 3-51 3-28 Recommended OS + ES (Level 1 plus Level 2) 3-55 3-29 Actual Operating Ranges and OS+ES during Peak Demand Periods 1999 - 2000 3-59 3-30 Level 2 and Level 3 Equalization Storage Requirements 3-61 3-31 Projected Supply for Years 2008 and 2022 in MGD 3-65 3-32 Projected 6 and 20 year Standby (SB) Storage Requirements 3-66 3-33 Required Fire Flow Storage (FSS) by Pressure Zone 3-67 3-34 Summary of Storage Analysis 3.67 3-35 Comparison of the Projected Storage Requirements with the Current Storage Facilities 3.68 3-36 Water Distribution System Pipe Diameters and Lengths 3-69 3-37 Summary of Pressure Zone Operating Conditions 3-71 iv L List of Tables - continued No. Table Description/Title page 3-38 Comparative Pipe Roughness Coefficients for Yakima Water System Hydraulic Model 3-73 3-39 Recommended Hazen -Williams Roughness Coefficients for Hydraulic Model 3-74 3-40 Daily Diurnal Demand Patterns for City of Yakima Water System Hydraulic Model 3-76 3-41 Recommended Locations for Hydrant Tests 3-77 3-42 City of Yakima Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration (2002) 3-78 3-43 Hydraulic Analysis under Fire Flow Conditions at Selected Nodes 3-79 Tables in Chapter 4 - Conservation Program, Water Right Analysis, System Reliability, and Interties 4-1 Recommended Water Conservation Program for Public Water Systems 4-3 4-2 Minimum Program Measures to be Considered for Conservation Program 4-5 4-3 Conservation Measure Costs, Savings, Participation Rates, and Levelized Costs 4-7 4-4 Recommended Conservation Measure Program Promotion/Public Education 4-11 4-5 Recommended Conservation Measure Meter Replacement Program 4-12 4-6 Recommended Conservation Measure Leak Detection Program 4-12 4-7 Recommended Conservation Measure New Plumbing Code 4-13 4-8 Recommended Conservation Measure Irrigation Efficiency Measures 4-14 4-9 Potential Reclaimed Water Users Within 2 Miles of the WWTP 4-18 4-10 Existing Water Right Status 4-33 4-11 Forecasted Water Right Status 4-36 4-12 Suggested Public Information Demand Reduction Actions 4-40 4-13 Suggested Government Demand Reduction Actions 4-41 4-14 Suggested User Restrictions Demand Reduction Actions 4-42 4-15 Suggested User Penalties Demand Reduction Actions 4-42 4-16 Suggested Pricing Demand Reduction Actions 4-43 Tables in Chapter 5 - Source Water Protection 5-1 US Bureau of Reclamation Stream Flow Data Naches River at Naches, WA 5-5 5-2 Naches River Near Naches River Flow Statistics 5-5 5-3 Naches Watershed Land Ownership 5-7 5-4 Naches Watershed Land Uses Within National Forest Boundary 5-9 5-5 Land -Use Pollutant Analysis Matrix 5-12 5-6 City of Yakima Watershed Protection Plan Partial List of Contacts 5-30 Tables in Chapter 6 - Operation and Maintenance Program 6-1 Responsibility/Authority for Key Functions 6-3 6-2 City of Yakima Sources of Water Supply 6-6 6-3 Distribution Storage Reservoirs 6-11 6-4 Booster Pump Stations 6-13 6-5 Water Division Equipment Listing 6-17 6-6 Materials on Hand 6-18 6-7 Support agencies/organizations for Materials and Services 6-19 6-8 City of Yakima Routine Water Quality Monitoring 6-21 u u List of Tables - continued No. Table Description/Title page 6-9 City of Yakima Water System Personnel - Emergency Call-up List 6-26 6-10 Emergency Notification Procedures Checklist 6-28 Tables in Chapter 7 - Distribution Facilities Design and Construction Standards None vi Tables in Chapter 8 - Improvement Program 8-1 Summary of Recommended Capital Improvements 2003 to 2008 8-5 8-2 Capital Improvement Schedule 2003 to 2022 8-7 Tables in Chapter 9 - Improvement Program 9-1 Summary of Income and Expenses 1997 to 2002 and Budget for Current Year (2003) 9-3 9-2 Projected Capital Improvement Financing Plan 9-6 9-3 Projected Operating Fund Cash Flow 9-8 9-4 Water services charges (7.68.250) 9-10 9-5 Water volume charges (7.68.250) 9-10 9-6 Fire service charges (7.68.282) 9-11 vi 0 List of Figures No. Figure Description/Title Page Figures in Chapter 1 - Description of Water System 1-1 City of Yakima Water Division Organizational Structure 1-2 1-2 City of Yakima Water System Map follows 1-4 1-3 City of Yakima Water System Hydraulic Profile 1-8 1.4 Distribution System Piping Map (including valves and hydrants) follows 1-10 1-5 Regional Sewer Service Boundaries follows 1-16 1-6 Adjacent Purveyor Service Areas follows 1-22 1-7 Urban Area Boundary map follows 1-22 Figures in Chapter 2 - Basic Planning Data and Water Demand Forecasting 2-1 Future Land Use Map follows 2-18 2-2 Current Zoning Map follows 2-18 2-3 ADD 1977 to 2000 with forecast to 2025 2-28 2-4 Comparison of int. and high ADD forecasts based on GMA 2-29 2-5 ADD Forecasts by Zone based on OFM high 2-31 Figures in Chapter 3 - System Analysis 3-1 Projected 6 and 20 year ADD 3-11 3-2 Projected 6 and 20 year MDD 3-12 3-3 Projected 6 and 20 year PHD 3-14 3-4 Daily Raw Water Turbidity 1994 to 2000 3-20 3-5 Frequency distribution of Daily Avg. Raw Water Turbidity 3-21 3-6 Finished Water Turbidity 1994 to 2000 3-23 3-7 Finished Water Turbidity Frequency Distribution Curve 3-24 3-8 Water Treatment Plant Process Schematic 3-35 3-9 Water Treatment Plant Plan View 3-36 3-10 Hydraulic Profile and Storage Reservoir Operating Diagram 3-52 3-11 Estimated OS + ES for 2008 based on Supply/Demand simulation 3-53 3-12 Estimated OS + ES for 2022 based on Supply/Demand simulation 3-54 3-13 Level 1 Reservoir Elevations 7-12-99 through 7-14-99 3-56 3-14 Level 2 Reservoir Elevations 7-12-99 through 7-14-99 3-56 3-15 Level 1 Reservoir Elevations 8-1-00 through 8-3-00 3-57 3-16 Level 1 Reservoir Elevations 8-1-00 through 8-3-00 3-57 3-17 Level I Reservoir Elevations 8-15-01 through 8-17-01 3-58 3-18 Level 2 Reservoir Elevations 8-15-01 through 8-17-01 3-58 3-19 Level 3 Reservoir Elevations 8-1-00 through 8-3-00 3-60 3-20 Level 3 Reservoir Elevations 8-15-01 through 8-17-01 3-60 3-21 2008 Peak -Week Maximum Daily Equalization Requirement 3-62 3-22 2022 Peak -Week Maximum Daily Equalization Requirement 3-63 3-23 Water System Distribution Piping Map follows 3-70 3-24 Water System Pressure Zone Map follows 3-70 vii List of Figures - continued No. Figure Description/Title Page 4-1 Ahtanum-Moxee Basin Area Map follows 4-20 4-2 Place of Use Map follows 4-32 5-1 Location of watershed and WTP map 5-2 Watershed Topographic Map 5-3 Watershed land ownership map 5-4 Watershed land use map 6-1 City of Yakima Water Division Organizational Structure viii follows 5-4 follows 5-6 follows 5-8 follows 5-8 6-2 W • Chapter 1 Description of Water System V 1 Description of Water System 1.1 Ownership and Management The name of this water system, as officially listed in the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) records, is the City of Yakima Water Division. The DOH System Identification number is 991509. The City of Yakima, which owns the system, is a municipal corporation. Yakima is a first class city as defined in Chapter 35.01.010 RCW. Yakima has a Council -Manager type of municipal government as defined under Chapter 35.18 RCW. An organizational chart of the Water Division is shown in Figure 1-1. The Water/Irrigation Division Manager is directly responsible to the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager. A copy of the current Water Facilities Inventory (WFI) form is included in Appendix C of this water system plan. 1-1 TaryWakefied Irrigation SLpMsor Nbria Martinez 1irig3tim CA11I Jdn(JR)Rapp AL ie L.Ma)ey Irrigatim CreMeader III IrrigationCreMeaclar WaltarFrideyBrianVetsh IrrigationSpec I Iingation Spec I RiclgdSanido III Tim Han Ireg IRicdimSpecll W ation Spec I Pa Time • Richard A.Zas, Jr. 11 CilyMarega 11 GennRice A ssist art Ciry Anagi�r Dave Brom Ar4ngW&Orrigaticn Manager ATPO 4, WDM 4 Cat # 3441 Alvie Matey Water Dis IlUon Su pe rvisor WDM 2&CCS Cat #3493 JimBung3rrer RonGipin Waterworks Crevdeader Watenwnrla Crevieader WDM 1 WDM 2 Cat#4351 Cert #5935 Rich Peck W11Morme Waterworks CreWeacbr WatavwtksCieaiceTech. WDM 2 WIPO 1, CCS 1, BAT Cat#39E Cert. #2371 Sieve MatirEz Brandin Baker Waterworks Device Tern WateworksSpec. I WO M 2 CCS, BAT WDM 1 Cat#5125 Kenn Rivard RichGuedn Waterworks Spec I WbtawrrksSpec II WDS1 WDM1 Cat#8275 Cert. #111246 Dustymio Emlio Lopez Waterworks Spec 11 AwworksSpec 11 WDM1 C at # 9721 Brenda Hill Janes Dean AbterwksCrafting WatavaksSpec II SernceRep MMI&CCS MM 1#9697 Cert. #7731 DaleKedh Jeff Mads WaterwodrsSpec I WaterworksSpec11 X M Z CCS, BAT VM M Z CCS Cert#6856-B2571 Cett#8183 NomnanEdinga Walerwodcs Spec I Md Yong WTP Supervisor WIPO Z BAT Cat # 791 George Dibhe WFP Chid Cpaator WIPO 2 Cent #2N4 Mike Sweemgn WFPChid Cpaator WFPO 3 Get #2939 Jeff Bord Wat a Ceality Spec idist WFPO 3 Cert #719 VaaI WTPChid Operator StaneCourts WfPChid CpErjor WTP03,WDM2 Cad. #4757 R ick Martin WTPChid Cpaator WIPO 2 Cert #7235 Ron Foreman WTPChid Operator WFPO 3 Cert #4831 DaveBrown W;a VAriig,@tion E rgnea WFPO4 WDM4 Cat# 3441 Lynne &ck Wbta4rriga do n Admnistiation Specialist Ron Smith Utilities Locator WDM 1 Cat #9742 AdaaeBetang Wbta4rrigation Storekeeper Figure 1-1 City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division Organizational Structure 1-2 0 1.2 System Background The original City of Yakima water system was developed by the Pacific Power and Light Company (PP&L) in the early 1900s. The City of Yakima purchased the system on July 1, 1926. At that time, the supply consisted of a diversion from the PP&L power canal. In an effort to expand the water supply, the City purchased 343 acres of land at Oak Flats to develop a source on the Naches River. A 14 -mile, 24 -inch wood stave transmission main was constructed to transport the supply to twin concrete reservoirs with a combined 24 -MG capacity. Three shallow wells, including a Ranney collector were later developed in 1948 and 1950 to supplement the Oak Flats supply. The first well developed was the Wright Avenue Well. (The water right for the Wright well was later transfer to the Kissel Park well.) The second well developed was located near 16th Avenue and what is now Highway 12. This well was abandoned in 1969 when this section of Highway 12 was expanded to four lanes. It was not being used at the time it was abandoned because of high coliform levels. A portion of the Ranney collector well has also been transferred to the Kissel Park well. Two deep wells were developed in 1962 and 1965 to further supplement the Oak Flats supply. The first of these was the Kiwanis Park Well (1962) and the second was the Airport Well (1965). Both of these wells are in service today as emergency sources of supply. A water treatment plant near Rowe Hill on the Naches River and a 48 -inch transmission pipeline to the City were constructed during the period from 1969 to 1971 to replace the Oak Flats supply. The water treatment plant is discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this plan. In 1993 the Kissel Park Well was added to the City's system. This well is also used for emergency purposes and to help meet peak demands. In recent years, the City has not found it necessary to make any major expansions to the water system facilities, in part because of the high level of service that the system is already capable of providing, and also because expansion of the City's water service area is limited by the surrounding water association and municipal water purveyors. Potential for expansion is also limited by the "place of use" conditions of the surface water rights. 1.3 Inventory of Existing Facilities This section describes the major components of the City's water system including: supply and treatment, the distribution system, and storage. The physical facilities as well as the operation of each of these components are summarized here. More detailed evaluations and analyses of the water system components are discussed in subsequent chapters: 1-3 V Water Supply - Chapters 3 and 4 Storage - Chapter 3, Section 3.3.4 Distribution System - Chapter 3, Section 3.3.5 Water System Operation - Chapter 6 A map of the water system is presented in Figure 1-2. The ordinance for the City's water system is City Code Chapter 7.68, which is contained in Appendix D. Supply Facilities The supply system consists of a surface water treatment plant (WTP) on the Naches River and four wells. One of the four wells is the Ranney collector which is temporarily out -of -service. A portion of the Ranney well water right has been transferred to the; Kissel Park well. The balance of the Ranney well water right is being held in reserve for possible transfer to a new groundwater supply well. The Naches River Water Treatment Plant (WTP) was constructed at Rowe Hill between 1969 and 1971 to replace the Oak Flats supply. The original capacity of the WTP was 20 MGD. The plant was laid out to allow space for expansion to 60 MGD capacity if and when demand warrants increased supply capacity and subject to the availability of the necessary water right. Treated water from the plant flows over a weir into a 48 -inch transmission main and to the City by gravity. In 1990, a filter media pilot study was conducted. This study indicated that a modification of the media would increase the WTP capacity to approximately 25 MGD. In 1991, the four filters were rehabilitated in accordance with that study by drilling out plugged orifices in the underdrains, regrouting the underdrains, replacing of gravel support layers, and replacing the original filter media with a new multi -media design. In 1993, a new supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system was installed at the WTP to provide improved monitoring and control of the treatment processes including a new filter control algorithm to maintain constant filtration flow rates during filter backwash cycles, improved coagulation and chemical feed systems controls, and improved capacity for collection and storage of water quality data. The SCADA system also upgraded each of the remote telemetry installations for improved monitoring and control of the wells, reservoirs, and booster pump stations from the WTP. In 1997, the City completed installation of a bulk soda ash storage; and feed system. These improvements were needed to comply with the Lead and Copper Rule guidelines and are used to increase the pH of the filtered water to 7.4. The copper action level of 1.3 mg/l was exceeded in monitoring which had been initiated in 1993. The City of Yakima water system currently has three wells that are used for emergency purposes and to help meet peak demands. The wells are located at the Airport, at Kiwanis Park, and at 1-4 � City Limits Water Mains I\vl 0 - 3 Inches 4 Inches 6 Inches 8 Inches 10 Inches 12 Inches /\V/ 16 Inches /`.,�,�18 Inches 20 Inches 24 Inches 48 Inches 54 Inches 0.8 0 0.8 1.6 Miles Water System Plan Updat, Figure 1-2 Yakima Water System Kissel Park. The Kissel Park well was constructed in 1993 and. was intended to partially replace the Ranney collector, which was located on the Naches River and was previously used to supplement the City's water supply. Table 1-1 shows the capacity, zone served, and other pertinent information about the wells. A discussion of the hydrogeology of the aquifers from which these wells withdraw water is presented in Chapter 4. 1-5 Table 1-1 Groundwater Supply Facilities Casing Ground Capacity Pump Well Diameter Surface Pump Type and Pump Designation MGD/ m Depth feet Depth feet (inches) Elevation (ft) Manufacturer HP Remarks b Kiwanis Park 3.3/2,300 330 850 20 1,037 Vertical turbine 300 Located in lower U.S. Pump Ellensburg aquifer Airport 4.0/2,800 310 1,100 16 1,056 Vertical turbine 300 Located in lower Peabody Floway Ellensburg aquifer Kissel Park 4.2/2,900 300 1,171 20 (first 472 1,112 Submersible 300 Located in lower feet) and 16 Peabody Floway Ellensburg aquifer Ranney 7.2 / 5000 40 60 40 1,170 N/A N/A Collector 1-6 0 Pressure Zones The City of Yakima water system has three major pressure zones, designated as the Low, Middle, and High zones, plus a separate pressure zone for Gleed. A water system hydraulic profile is shown in Figure 1-3. The relationship between the pressure zones is discussed in this section. Low Pressure Zone The gravity supply from the 48 -inch -diameter transmission main flows to a 6 -MG reservoir located at North 40th Avenue and Englewood Avenue. This reservoir supplies water to the Low zone. Flows from the WTP are manually adjusted to maintain a nominal hydraulic elevation of 1,264 feet, resulting in a static pressure range in the Low zone of approximately 54 to 110 psi. During emergencies, the Low zone can also be served from the three wells. In extreme emergencies, such as fire -flow conditions, the Low zone can also be served by the 12 pressure - reducing valves which allow water to flow from the Middle zone. Middle Pressure Zone The Middle pressure zone is served by the 401h Avenue Pump Station and the Stone Church Pump Station. The 40th Avenue Pump Station draws from the 48 -inch supply transmission main and pump operation is controlled by the WTP operators based on the water level in the zone's two 12 -MG reservoirs. The nominal hydraulic elevation is 1,380 feet, which results in a static pressure range of 43 to 105 psi. The Stone Church booster pump station was installed in 2000 near the intersection of North 32nd Avenue and Englewood Avenue. This second pump station and provides another alternative for supply the Middle zone to improve reliability and the ability to satisfy emergency demands. The Stone Church pump station is equipped with a 250 KW emergency generator to allow for operation during electrical power outages. During emergencies, the Middle zone can be supplied by two pressure -reducing valves from the High zone or, in case of emergency, by opening the valve that controls the intertie from the Nob Hill Water Association. During extreme emergencies, the High zone can supply some of the Middle zone's needs for approximately one day of average water use. High Pressure Zone The High pressure zone is served from the Middle zone by the Reservoir Road Booster Pump Station located at the site of the Middle zone's twin 12 -MG reservoirs. The booster pump station includes a new 250 -kilowatt (kW) generator to provide emergency power. The booster pump • station operation is controlled by two I -MG reservoirs located in the High zone. The nominal hydraulic elevation is 1,531 feet, resulting in a static pressure range of 70 to 115 psi . During emergencies, the High zone can be supplemented by opening the valve that controls the • intertie from the Nob Hill Water Association. During fire demand periods, water can be supplied • to the High pressure zone from the Middle pressure zone through the two 2 -way PRVs which connect the two zones. -7 1600 1500 1400 WTP Effluent Weir 1325' 1300 L FW�TPN High Zone (Level 3) 1531' 1 MG 1 MG Level 3 Reservoirs Scenic Drive PRVs (see Table 1-3 for locations) Level 3 Pump Station - Reservoir Rd Level 2 Resevoirs Reservoir Rd Middle Zone (Level 2) 1380' 12 MG t 1 112 MG Gleed P Pump Station PRVs (see Table 1-3 for locations) Low Zone (Level 1) 1264' W 1112' Kissel Park Well 0 1245' P P 16MG Level 1 Reservoir 1200 40th Ave. &Englewood 1146' 1150' W W LEGEND North 40th Ave. Stone Church 1100 1 MGI Reservoir Pump Station Pump Station 1056' © Booster Pump Station 1037' Airport = O Well Pump Station Kiwanis Well 1000 Park Well dPressure Reducing Valve (PRV) W 900 Proposed Control Valve connecting Level 2 Reservoirs to Level 1 Figure 1-3 City of Yakima Water System hydraulic Profile 1-s W 1112' Kissel Park Well 0 0 Gleed Pressure Zone The Gleed area,, with a service capacity of 100 residential units, is served from the 48 -inch transmission main through a booster pump station. Two 80-gpm pumps provide the average and maximum day demands, with a 2,000-gpm pump reserved for fire flow. No storage facilities are located in Gleed. Distribution System The pipelines in the distribution system range from 4 to 24 inches in diameter. The distribution system piping (6 inches and greater in diameter), the pressure -reducing valves, fire hydrants, and blowoffs are shown in Figure 1-4. The pipe materials are mainly cast iron, with ductile iron being used since the early 1970s. There are several steel pipelines and many unlined cast-iron pipelines remaining from the portions of the system that were privately owned before being acquired by the City. Since the steel and unlined cast-iron pipelines are more vulnerable to corrosion and leakage, the City is developing a program to replace these pipes during the next several years. The steel main replacement program includes the replacement of steel, galvanized iron, and unlined cast-iron pipelines 4 inches in diameter or less. These pipes are located mainly in the business district and in portions of the older residential districts. The pipe- lines are replaced with 6 -inch (minimum) ductile iron pipe. Two to three areas are targeted for replacement each year, with 500 to 2,000 linear feet of pipeline replaced each year. Booster Pump Stations The booster pump stations provide water to the Middle and High zones and to Gleed, as shown in the hydraulic profile in Figure 1-3. The pump station location, the supply location, the zone that is served, the number of pumps in each station, pump capacity, and other characteristics are listed in Table 1-2. Pressure -Reducing Valves Emergency supply from the High to the Middle zone and from the Middle to the Low zone is provided by 14 pressure -reducing valves (PRVs) located throughout the water system, as shown schematically in the hydraulic profile in Figure 1-3. The PRVs are set to open and close at various hydraulic elevations. Table 1-3 shows the location, size, inlet and outlet pressures, and other characteristics of each PRV. The purpose of the PRVs is to provide additional flow for emergency purposes. The reduction of pressure in a zone under emergency conditions because of a fire flow or other large water need causes the hydraulic elevation to decrease. Reduction in hydraulic elevation will cause the normally closed, hydraulically activated valves to open and provide additional flow into the zone. In addition to the 14 PRVs, there are three additional connections between the High and Middle zones: Check valve at Lincoln Avenue and North 40th Avenue to allow water to flow from the Middle zone to the High zone under emergency conditions (very low High zone pressure) 1-9 • Closed valve with a 2 -inch -diameter bypass for winter operation at Westpark Alley and North 40th Avenue Closed valve at Summitview Avenue and North 44th Avenue 1-10 !7 WHIJI MINI■I1V �� I 61111u?!lrr !11!!1!1 111111�M�rrM�111����Ou ...es.=. 1111111 11111i11111! 111i��� 11��■t�� 31110311 mums Iml [its MINE Lom li�li� *�W w ! JIM � �� - �II11luu:��E pip 11111 g1fig1ev11i•-IF" plolRy�Ifi� Ilis!■ 1r V4� Mr���. ��iMi��rcl�5,61IFPll 039I111111ic11SO �ir*iil���w�o������� *`'���+y������ INr'E611101:11"4111i111filitul Willwt q ``w7i xt A��oka in � . f' 1jI -- W. .r-�l �� r+' -"i 11 fill 116,11 oil I U OwIlPf X1110 AMR 0 Z_Iww ZP6 INK 1W dim or �aiM ME R�L1'' *�Y =W mmaym 00, t �► ki �, Table 1-2 Pump Stations Station Name Location Zone Zone Pump Pump TDH (ft.) TDH (ft.) Pumping Local Pump Supply Service No. HP Operating Shut Off Rate (gpm) Elev. (ft.) Manufacturer High Zone, Reservoir Road Middle High 1 125 203.5 315 1,700 1372 Byron -Jackson Third Level"b 2 125 203.5 315 1,700 Byron -Jackson 3 30 203.5 315 400 Simons North 40' River Road & Low Middle 1 30 120 142 760 1,146 Peerless Avenue Powerhouse 2 40 126 182 1,000 Peerless Road 3 60 125 176 1,500 Peerless 4 1100 130 240 2,500 Peabody Floway Gleed° Gleed Low Gleed 1 5 135 212 80 1,245 Aurora 2 5 135 212 80 Aurora 3 d 4 125 300 350 2,000 Aurora Stone Church Englewood Low Middle 1 125 172 221 2,500 1,150 PACO Ave. & 32 "d 2 100 172 221 1,500 PACO Ave. 3 50 172 235 700 PACO a Only one large pump at a time, in conjunction with the 40 -hp pump, is operated in the High zone under the present power source. The High zone pump station includes a 250 kW standby generator. b Controlled from reservoir level transmitters for pump start and stop. Controlled by pressure activated controls. d Not installed at the present time. Table 1-3 Pressure Reducing Valves PRV Location Valve Inlet Outlet I Upper Lower Elevation I Valve Model Serial No. size (in.) Pressure Pressure Zone Zone (feet) Manufacturer Number Number Remarks 1 S. 20t Ave. & 6 115 50 Middle Low 1105.0 Ross 40WR 4021 Tieton Drive 2 S. 19` Ave. & 6 71 40 Middle Low 1159.4 Ross 40WR 63230 Check valve Tieton Drive between 2 and 3 3 Park Ave. & 6 95 38 Middle Low 1145.2 Ross 40WR 63231 Summitview 4 W. Lincoln & 10 112 50 Middle Low 1114.4 Cla-Valve N/A N/A N. 20`x' Ave. 5 Bonnie Doon 8 103 51 Middle Low 1135.0 Ross 40WR 65643 Ave. 6 S. 30` Ave. & 12 100 50 Middle Low 1134.5 Ross 40WR 4584 Nob Hill Blvd 7 S. 31St Ave. & 6 112 56 Middle Low 1119.4 Ross 50W 6327 Clinton Way 8 S.32 " Ave. & 8 112 56 Middle Low 1119.5 Ross 40WR 66131 Viola Ave. 9 N. 26` Ave. & 6 N/A N/A Middle Low 1110.6 Ross 40WR 4741 Not in service Englewood 10 River Road & 12 103 51 Middle Low 1147.3 Ross 40WR 6332 Powerhouse 11 River Road & 8 103 51 Middle Low 1147.3 Ross 40WR 6328 Powerhouse 12 S.27 1Ave. & 4 105 50 Middle Low 1137.4 Ross 40WR 4604 Not in service Fraser Way 13 N. 401Ave. & 6 96 38 High Middle N/A Golden N/A N/A Richey Rd. Anderson 14 N. 401Ave. & 8 96 40 High Middle N/A Cla-Valve N/A N/A Fieldstone Englewood Development 1-12 • 0 Distribution Storage Reservoirs Each pressure zone has an established hydraulic elevation. This elevation is maintained by the distribution reservoir located in each of the pressure zones. The reservoirs shown in the hydraulic profile in Figure 1-3 are listed in Table 1-4. Table 1-4 Distribution Storage Reservoirs Zone Location Volume Max. Min. Zone Construction Designation MG Elevation Elevation Served Material Low Zone 401Ave. & 6 1,264 ft 1,234 ft Low Reinforced Englewood Concrete Middle Zone Reservoir 24 (two at 1,380 ft 1,356 ft Middle Reinforced Road 12 MG ea.) I Concrete High Zone Scenic 2 (two at 1 1,531 ft 1,511 ft High (1) concrete Drive MG ea.) (1) steel Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System In 1993, the City installed a new supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. The new system is a personal computer based system served by programmable logic controllers (PLC) that performs the following functions: Monitors WTP operations Continually records water quality Records storage reservoir levels continually Records pump station flow rates continually Actuates booster pumps from reservoir levels through local PLCs Sequences Pump operation through local PLCs The main control panel for the SCADA system is located at the Naches River WTP .Radio communications are used to transmit data between the main control panel and the remote sites (reservoirs, pump stations, and supply wells). 1-13 Interties with Adjacent Water Systems • As discussed previously, the City has common boundaries with, or is approximately adjacent to, four other water purveyors: Nob Hill Water Association City of Union Gap Terrace Heights area (Yakima County) City of Selah The City has three interties with the Nob Hill Water Association .and one government service connection with the City of Union Gap. The Union Gap connection is used as an emergency service connection and is new since the last Water Comprehensive Plan was prepared. A summary of the interties, including location, size, hydraulic grade line (HGL), adjacent purveyor, and other data, are included in Table 1-5. The 32nd and Ahtanum intertie is automatically activated. The other two interties are activated manually. The city of Yakima hydraulic grade line elevations shown in the table are base on the hydraulic grade line at the storage reservoir when full and under static conditions. The connection with Union Gap is one way from Yakima to Union Gap and is essentially a service connection. Table 1-5 Interties HGL (ft.) HGL (ft.) Main Size Main Size Pressure Adjacent City of Adjacent City of Adjacent Intertie Intertie Zone Location Purveyor Yakima Purveyor Yakima Purveyor Metered Agreement Low 3` Ave. City of South of Union 1,264 N/A 8 8 No No Washington Ga Low 32° Ave. & Nob Hill Ahtanum Water 1,199 1,415 12 12 No Yes Middle 45thAve. & Nob Hill Tieton Drive Water 1,380 1,394 8 6 No Yes High 56 Ave. & Nob Hill Lincoln Ave. Water 1,531 1,521 12 12 No Yes 1-14 1.4 Related Plans Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan The Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan was adopted in April 1997 and amended in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002 in compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW). Compliance with the Growth Management -Act (GMA) was also dependant on the adoption of the implementing regulations as defined in Chapter 36.70A.040 RCW including: 1. Zoning map amendments; 2. Zoning ordinance amendments; 3. Development standards; 4. Critical area ordinance; 5. New subdivision ordinance; 6. Transportation capacity management ordinance; 7. Regulatory reform procedure; 8. Future land use map; 9. Comprehensive plan text changes; 10. Revised transportation plan. Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (Yakima Municpal Code Title 15) was revised December 28, 1998 to comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act as discussed above. Plan 2015 — A Blueprint for Yakima County Progress Plan 2015 is the Yakima County Comprehensive Plan. This planning document provides the policy framework for how the County will develop in the years preceding 2015. It contains a land use map as well as the other planning elements required by the Growth Management Act. Volume 1 of Plan 2015 consists of three Chapters: the Policy Plan, Plan Development, and the Environmental Analysis. The Policy Plan is the key document in the series. Volumes Il and III provide background materials and support for the Policy Plan. Also an integral part of the long range plan for Yakima County, are the plans of the individual cities. Although not technically part of Plan 2015, each city in the county has adopted a comprehensive plan that defines their vision of the future. Yakima County is a partner with the City of Yakima in the adoption of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan which includes separately adopted neighborhood plans. The Terrace Heights Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1999 and the planning process to create the West- Valley Neighborhood Plan is on going. 1-15 City of Yakima Stormwater Management Plan A Draft Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) provides the City of Yakima and Yakima county with a document identifying water quality and flooding problems caused by stormwater runoff within the Yakima Urban Area including all of the incorporated areas of Yakima and Union Gap, as well as Terrace Heights and the urbanzing areas south and west of Yakima. The SWMP also sets out a plan for correcting existing problems and preventing projected problems., The recommendations of the draft SWMP have not yet been implemented, however the City of Yakima is currently considering the establishment of a stormwater utility to assist with the financing of the necessary improvement. At issue also is a pending compliance deadline which has been established in the EPA stormwater discharge regulations. The City of Yakima must have applications submitted to the Washington State Department. of Ecology requesting General Permit coverage for Phase II Stormwater Regulations no later than March 10, 2003. The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) may have substantial impacts on stormwater requirements for the; City of Yakima and the region as a whole. City of Yakima Wastewater Facilities Plan The City of Yakima provides regional wastewater treatment for the Yakima Urban Area, including the City of Yakima, the City of Union Gap, unincorporated lands to the east of Yakima referred to as Terrace Heights, and several other unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Yakima County including the area to the west of Yakima known as West Valley. The Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) may eventually provide service to the community of Gleed, located five miles northwest of the currrent City limits, and to the City of Moxee, located four miles east of the current city limits. The regional sewer service boundaries are shown in Figure 1-5. The most recent Wastewater Facilities Plan for the Yakima Regional Treatment Plant was completed in October 2000. The planning area population projections for the sewer service area as presented in the facilities plan are shown in Table 1-6. Since the regional wastewater treatment facilities are intended to serve the entire urban area, the service area boundaries and the and the associated population projections are considerably larger than those of the City of Yakima Water System. The urban areas not served by the City of Yakima Water System are served by the adjacent water purveyors which include the City ol'Union Gap, the Nob Hill Water Association, and Yakima County (Terrace Heights). 1-16 --Th J9Y11— j r 14 1 01IIIIIIIN Mlllllllff Ellillml MEJ NEIII01 M1lllllll1 .. ...... . I 0lllllllll1 Mllllllll1 T IT W MOB HILL all LIU V1lllllllM-- -71 + WN -� - �I 1� -T too law ollllllllls --j — L ,' l 7--j -�J I p u r e I - 5 Water System Plan Update Figure 1-5 Lakes / Reservoirs -� Railroad Line — City Limits MllllllllM = GMA Urban Growth Boundary Four Party Urban Area Service Area Inside Urban Area Service Area Inside Urban Growth Area Service area for Union Gap & Terrace Heights # 0' V 0 S qtio n Scale —I in = 5500ft 0 2750 5500 Created: April 15, 2003 Ok Table 1-6 Yakima Wastewater Service and Planning Area Population Projections Current Projected Projected Planned Household Total Projected Area Population Year 2015 Year 2020 Growth Conversion New Population Population to 2020 Factor Households Yakima Urban 78,9871 100,0002 102,000 20,013 2.503 9,205 Service Area Union Gap Urban 6,4774 7,9305 8,494 2,017 2.556 791 Service Area Terrace Heights 4,7157 7,3248 8,490 3,775 2.559 1,480 Urban Service Area Subtotals 90,179 115,254 118,984 28,805 2.50 11,476 Yakima Urban Area 3,00010 13,81211 23,420 20,420 2.503 8,16811 Reserve Totals 93,179 129,066 142,404 49,225 19,644 Notes: 1. 1998 Population Estimate from the 1998 Amendments Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, Adopted November 24,1998. 2. 2015 High Population Estimate from the 1998 Amendments Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, Adopted November 24, 1998, 21,013 assigned to existing Urban Service Area and 10,812 to Yakima Urban Reserve. 3. From the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, adopted April 1997. 4. 1996 Population Estimate from the City of Union Gap General Sewer Plan, September 1999 (less than 50% not served). 5. 2015 Population Estimate from the City of Union Gap General Sewer Plan, September 1999. 6. From the City of Union Gap Comprehensive Plan, January 1999. 7. 1996 Population Estimate from the Terrace Heights Neighborhood Plan, Neighborhood Review Draft, December 1997. 8. Adjusted from 2016 population estimate from the Terrace Heights General Sewer Plan, March 1998 - high estimate is 14,145. 9. From the Terrace Heights General Sewer Plan, March 1998. 10. From the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, adopted April 1997. 11. Anticipated growth within the Yakima Urban Reserve accounted for in the Yakima Urban Service Area or Union Gap Urban Service Area. 1-17 On-site sewage disposal regulations • Chapter 7.65.030 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code requires the use of public sewers wherever the sewer is within 200 feet of the property line. Chapter 7.65.040 requires that before commencement of construction of a private wastewater disposal system, the owner shall first obtain a written permit from the Yakima health district as set forth in chapter 10, as now or as hereafter may be amended, of the district's "Rules and Regulations Providing for the Regulation, of On-site Sewage Disposal Systems." Chapter 12.05 of the Yakima County Code permits the installation of on-site sewerage disposal systems only when a public sewer is not available. Wellhead protection programs The Upper Yakima Valley Regional Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP) was completed in October 2000. The purpose of this plan is to identify potential sources of contamination near the member purveyors' groundwater supplies, implement management strategies to prevent contamination of those supplies, and develop a contingency plan for the contamination mitigation in the event that groundwater does become contaminated. In this Regional WHPP, each member community in the Upper Yakima Valley plays a role in protecting the groundwater supplies of the entire area by pooling resources and management efforts to target an audience beyond that which could be reached at a local level. The member purveyors participating in this wellhead protection plan include: Yakima County City of Yakima Town of Naches City of Moxee Town of Tieton City of Union Gap City of Selah Nob Hill Water Association Regional management efforts adopted by the eight purveyors forming the Regional Wellhead Protection Committee include: Development of a Geographical Information System (GIS) database of the wellhead protection areas, potential contamination sources., and water quality data in order to monitor and track sources and receptors. 1-18 • Development of a planning trigger to distribute wellhead protection notification letters for development changes (i.e. building permits, zoning changes, SEPA, etc.) within wellhead protection areas. Coordination with Ecology to prioritize their Hazmat Technical Assistance Sweep within wellhead protection areas. Coordination with the State Health Department's Sanitary Surveys to ensure up-to-date information is maintained in the regional GIS potential contamination source inventory. Coordination with County Health District to identify septic tanks and private wells with Global Positioning System (GPS) units. Coordination with the Washington Association of Realtors to adopt a Property Disclosure Addendum that will help identify private and abandoned well locations during property transfers. Designation of the 6 -Month wellhead protection area as a critical "Red Zone" by County Emergency Management (LEPC) in order to prioritize wellhead protection during emergencies (i.e. hazardous material spills) Public education efforts including literature distribution. Coordination with Education Services District (ESD) which provides continuing education to area teachers in order to better integrate wellhead protection and water issues into school curriculum. Development of a regional website to increase public awareness on the need to protect groundwater. Development of a logo for wellhead protection area signs. Development of an interlocal agreement among the eight purveyors to make sure that wellhead protection is given a high priority in the Upper Yakima Valley. County water and sewer general plans The Yakima County Rural Water & Sewerage General Plan was adopted by Yakima County in May 1988. This plan was subsequently amended by the Yakima County Water System Satellite Management Plan which was completed in December 1996. This satellite management plan, prepared in accordance with the requirements of WAC 246-295, was approved by DOH thereby authorizing the county to become a satellite management agency (SMA). An SMA is an individual, purveyor, or entity approved by DOH to own or operate more than one public water system on a regional or county -wide basis. 1-19 The County's SMA includes all of Yakima County except the incorporated area, the Yakima Training Center, and certain areas of the Yakama Indian Nation. Under its satellite management plan, the County will acknowledge the service area boundary of any existing water system that has a DOH approved water system plan. Developments located within a defined service area boundary will be referred to that water purveyor for service, thus allowing the existing water purveyor the first right for providing water service. Yakima County currently owns and operates four satellite water systems which include: Buena Water System Terrace Heights Water System Gala Estates Water System, and Star Crest Water System The County does not currently operate any water systems which it does not own. Groundwater management plans In 1999, United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the Yakama Nation signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to fund and oversee a study of the ground water resources of the Yakima River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been contracted to perform the lead role in conducting the study which will be provide more detailed information with respect to ground water resources of the Yakima River Basin. This extensive study will require up to seven years from the date of the MOA to complete. Detailed analysis of existing data combined with analysis of the data collected during this study should provide the information needed to provide reasonable estimates of the availability of groundwater resources and of the interaction or "continuity" between groundwater and surface water in the Yakima River Basin. Basin plans In 1998, the Washington State Legislature passed the Watershed Management Act (RCW 90.82, [ESHB 2514]) (WMA). The WMA identifies the "initiating governments" that select a lead agency, apply for grant funding, determine the scope of planning, and convene a "Planning Unit." In the Yakima Basin, the Tri -County Water Resource Agency (TCWRA) represents the initiating governments under WMA. Representation on the TCWRA includes Benton, Kittitas, and Yakima Counties; the Cities of Yakima and Ellensburg; Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, Roza Irrigation District, and Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. TCWRA convened a Planning Unit which held its first meeting in October 1998. The Planning Unit formed four technical committees (Surface Water Quantity, Ground Water, Water Quality, and Habitat), as well as a Steering Committee. The organization of the Planning Unit and the 1 -20 technical committees was Phase I of the Watershed Management planning process which built directly on a variety of previous and ongoing planning activities. These include activities undertaken by the Yakima River Watershed Council, Yakima Valley Conference of Governments, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Yakama Nation, and many other organizations. These previous and ongoing planning activities provide a foundation for much of the information documented in the Watershed Assessment document which was compiled as part of the Assessment Phase (Phase II) of the watershed planning process. The purpose of the Assessment Phase was to provide information needed to develop water resource management strategies in the Planning Phase (Phase III). Specific objectives of this Watershed Assessment document were as follows: • Identify and summarize available data with regard to, surface and ground water quantity, water quality, and habitat; • Assess the limitations of the available data, with regard to development of water resource management strategies in the Planning Phase; • Identify additional data that may be needed to support the development of water resource management strategies in the Planning Phase; and, • Fulfill requirements of the WMA for the Assessment Phase. The Watershed Assessment was completed in January 2001. The Planning Phase was begun in March 2001 and was completed in January 2003. A detailed discussion of the Watershed Management Plan and the Surface Water Quality Technical Memorandum developed during the planning process is included in Chapter 5 of this Water System Plan Update. The Planning Area for the watershed planning process is the entire Yakima Basin, with the exception of the Yakama Nation Reservation (Reservation). The Basin comprises three of the State's Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs): WRIAs 37, 38, and 39. At the request of the Yakama Nation, the Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit did not perform planning with respect to water resource use or management on the Reservation. However, the Steering Committee of the Planning Unit determined that some types of information regarding the Reservation would be necessary to fully understand water resource conditions within the overall Yakima Basin. Therefore, public information involving water resources on the Reservation was compiled during the Assessment Phase and documented in the Assessment Report. Water system plans for adjacent purveyors City of Union Gap The City of Union Gap's most recent water system plan update was completed in January 1997. The area presently served by the Union Gap water system is shown in Figure 1-6. 1-21 Nob :Hill Water Association A draft of the Nob Hill Water Association Water System Plan Update was completed in October 2001. The area presently served by the Nob Hill Water Association water system is shown in Figure 1-6. 1.5 Existing Service Area Characteristics The City's water system is within the Yakima Urban Area, as defined in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in April 1997 and amended in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002. The Urban Area, city limits, and the Four Party Urban Area are shown in Figure 1-7. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) passed in 1990, requires municipalities to establish boundaries within which "urban services" such as water supply will be provided. The areas that are not inside the water service boundary as shown in Figure 1-6, could be considered to be potential wholesale water supply users. However, no water demands for these possible future users have been included in the demand forecast, because the City has decided not to pursue regionalization at this time. It should also be noted that these areas are also outside of the "place of use" boundaries which are reference in the City's surface water rights. For the purpose of this plan, the existing and future water service areas are essentially the same. The City of Yakima's existing water service area shown in Figure 1-6 is delineated by the boundary of plats currently served by mains and service connections. The existing service area extends beyond other boundaries such as city limits, urban boundary, and future service boundary. For example, City service is provided to county areas, such as the Gleed area. If the existing service area extends into an adjacent purveyor's future service area, it is by mutual verbal or written agreement until the adjacent purveyor's system is extended. Adjacent Purveyors Four water purveyors supply water to areas adjacent to or within the City of Yakima: Noh Hill Water. Association, the City of Union Gap, Yakima County in the Terrace Heights area, and the City of Selah. The existing service areas of these purveyors are shown in Figure 1-6. Nob Hill Water Association The Nob Hill Water Association serves the West Valley area west of Yakima. A significant portion of the system is located within the City's corporate limits and the remainder is located in unincorporated Yakima County. The system is operated as an association with a board of directors. There are approximately 6,600 services, serving a population of 17,000. Nob Hill's 1984 Comprehensive Water Plan projected an average growth rate of 3.4 percent through the year 2000. The system is supplied by five wells with a capacity of 6,500 gprn. The distribution storage consists of five reservoirs with a total capacity of 3.6 MG. Nob Hill is currently constructing two new community wells to serve the southwest portion of their service area. 1 -22 1 ,...ni �,� •��Il�!'I�Iillill����' �� sy, I�A�nt�` Incl 11111.1111 +Il-- III �;ISII� �_ ......C� Ifllllllllllllllllll..l;�Il`�-J asl . ll � I,J:rlJlllll,,, �Illll__11.�•- .,• 11�111InIk; 'llnlluoul111_�:ut_7111-1i ul�� I�Illa-- alYrnull�: + t•�uuulu.�lr�l �� ��,�- I\a�� III:,����1�uil�ul�IV�•i�lII,IIII���,i111�1 N noun loon .. .+ i-I1111111�`� 11� 1111111 �I It nil iiiiii r""li 111 •'a �1! =mom•Lnuupun„n.lilaillllliltillt��il�Il711-=�� �dulrllllpll�\\\\\ III11.t1AIl�flTl IN elito, \\wit „`u�\\\`'IrIIIII;IY�i�_I,''�IIC11 11 GtC�JJG a,a� o�.,. ..., s- •11111 fl Ga lKrlblid`== -- — t`��•;:,'`,�•-,`• pan'_=JNIIII_IIE�=� �\ apn'aa\\a��pi� r•11n==' �f:ri11J,.�.► ` �.r l\\aa p..•` p�\'� ' -1'l'� � t::�1r•a`� 11�- -�'t., 1\ aim �.� moi, i 11 ll��l u�t ■Ill�...i■111"�T11i► �,Z��.�► � T, 0 DIWIDENiA AV r C - ----------- j ir -j Water System Plan Update Figure 1-7 Lakes / Reservoirs Railroad Line City Limits Four Party Urban Area GMA Urban Growth Boundary N Olycr* 0 14 Scale -I m = 5500ft 0 2750 5500 Created: April 15, 2003 0 The City has three interties with the Nob Hill Water Association. The three interties are located at West Lincoln Avenue and North 56`h Avenue, Tieton Drive and South 45`h Avenue, and South 32 n Avenue and Ahtanum. These interties are for emergency purposes only and are covered in a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Association dated September 6, 2000, a copy of which is included in Appendix E. These interties are not designed for normal operation of either system and are not considered as a source of supply in the storage and supply analyses presented in Chapter 3 of this plan. In the past, whenever an intertie has been activated, it has been a joint effort. Crews from Nob Hill and the City have been present to open the two valves (each with a locking cap) and to check system pressure. The interties are not metered. Instead, supply has been estimated by comparing the current pump records to the previous year's pump records during the same time period. The intertie at 56th Avenue has been used twice. The first time was in the summer of 1985 when Nob Hill received water from the City for about one month because it had a well down for repairs and a second well failed. The second time was in 1990 when the City was having icing problems at the water treatment plant and there was concern that the wells would not be able to provide adequate supply. During this event, the City received water from Nob Hill over a period of a few days. To the City's knowledge, the intertie at 45th Avenue has never been activated. The 45th Avenue intertie was reportedly installed to provide an emergency supply for Memorial Hospital. City of Union Gap The City of Union Gap is located in the southeast corner of the urban area. Union Gap's water system supplies approximately 1,100 services. The source of supply is three wells with a combined capacity of approximately 1,600 gpm and a reservoir capacity of 1.6 MG. The water system growth rate is projected at approximately one percent per year. The City has one intertie with the City of Union Gap. The intertie is located in 3rd Avenue and Washington Avenue, and is in the City's Low pressure zone. The intertie is manually operated. This intertie is a one-way intertie that is only capable of supplying water from the City's system to Union Gap's water system. The City's records indicate that the intertie has not been used within the last 5 years. The City provides domestic water service to some areas inside of Union Gap. The agreement is in Appendix F. Terrace Heights Area (Yakima County) Until recently, the Terrace Heights area consisted of four water systems with greater than 100 services and approximately 20 water systems that served between 10 and 99 customers. The major systems were the Country Club District, Terrace Estates, Sun Country Mobile Estates, and Skyline Mobile Estates. There were also a number of systems that served mainly commercial establishments or had fewer than 10 connections. 1-23 0 The City of Yakima had planned to serve the area through a water transmission main extension. However, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the development rate declined, and the project was never constructed. In 1992, Yakima County drilled a new well and constructed infrastructure improvements to enable the County to provide water service to a large portion of the Terrace Heights area. Therefore, the City of Yakima will not provide water service to Terrace Heights during the planning period. The County's existing service area is entirely east of its western future service boundary that is coincident with the City of Yakima's east boundary. Overlaps and islands of service do not exist and are not anticipated. The county utility is expected to grow into a major purveyor within the urban boundary and may soon be providing service adjacent to the City of Yakima service area. City of Selah Selah is located east of the Gleed area and North of the City of Yakima (see Figure 2-1). Because Selah is located across the Naches River and is outside the current water service area and urban area, it is not expected that the City will provide water service to this area. 1.6 Future Service Area The areas currently designated or planned to be included in Yaldma's future water service area are discussed in this Section and are shown in Figure 1-6. Potential Service Area The fixture service boundary describes the specific area for which water service is planned by a public water system (WAC 246-293). The future service boundary is important to meet the requirements of the GMA, and it is critical to the efficient and cost-effective development of the water system. Annexations by the City of Yakima or its neighboring cities will not affect that water service area, because the water service boundaries are established by separate agreements. From a technical viewpoint, the area that could reasonably be served by the City of Yakima is a gentle slope confined on two sides by natural barriers consisting of: Selah Heights on the north Ahtanum Ridge on the south On the west and east sides, the size and increasing elevation of the potential area could be a practical limitation. It is possible to extend the system beyond these natural barriers, but to do so would be a significant undertaking. The Yakima River is a natural barrier, but it could be crossed with an acceptable cost -benefit ratio. 1 -24 • However, as described in the previous section, four other utilities provide service within or near the urban boundary. Service agreements have been or are being developed among the utilities to determine which utility will serve new areas of growth. A 1993 study for Terrace Heights and Yakima County (January, 1993, CH2M HILL) suggested a long-term combined supply from both the City's surface supply and groundwater in the Terrace Heights area. Since that time, Yakima County has developed a well in the Terrace Heights area, purchased two systems, and intends to serve the area within the urban boundary east of the Yakima River. The criteria used to determine the City of Yakima's future service boundary include: Place of Use - The "place of use" boundary (see Figure 4-2 in Chapter 4) defines the specific area within which the City is allowed to utilize its surface water supply. Physical features - Boundaries formed by physical features are usually expensive and often impractical to cross. Adjacent jurisdictional boundaries - Jurisdictional boundaries include other city limits and adjacent purveyor future service areas. It is inefficient and perhaps impossible politically to serve in areas already planned for service by adjacent purveyors. Urban Growth Boundary - The GMA requires that the water utilities establish common future service boundaries within the growth management planning area designated by the Urban Growth Boundary. Policy - The City's current policy is to provide service outside the existing service area only where it is economical and practical. Resolution No. D- 1250, adopted March 29, 1965, describes the City policy regarding service outside the existing city limits (Appendix Q. The alignment of different sections of the City's future service boundary is based on different combinations of these criteria. The main sections of the City's .future service boundary in terms of these criteria are discussed below. Northwest Boundary (Gleed) The final urban growth boundary and policy criteria influence the alignment of this section. The Gleed area has historically been served by the City from the City's 48 -inch diameter transmission main, which conveys treated water from the treatment plant to the low-level reservoir. The existing service area is shown in Figure 1-5 and extends north of Maple Way Road. The urban boundary shown in Figure 1-5 coincides with Maple Way Road. It is the City's policy to continue serving the existing customers north of Maple Way Road, but to provide service for new customers only within the water right "place of use" boundary. It is expected that customers currently served by the privately owned community water systems in the Gleed area will continue to be served by those systems. 1-25 North Boundary The Naches River, the urban boundary, the adopted urban area of the City of Selah, and the City of Yakima boundary define the north section of the future service; boundary. East Boundary The east boundary is defined by the Yakima River and the City of Yakima boundary. This boundary is coincident with Yakima County's future service boundary for Terrace Heights. South Boundary The south boundary primarily depends on adjacent jurisdictional boundaries and policy. The Water Service Agreement between the City of Yakima and the City of Union Gap dated April 21, 1987 (Appendix F), did not completely define the service areas of Yakima and Union Gap. As a result, some disagreement arose over which purveyor would provide service to some areas. These disagreements are described in the following sections. Although Union Gap recently annexed all of the land south of Washington Avenue, water service is still provided to some areas by the City of Yakima. On South Side or Washington Avenue, the current service area of the City of Yakima extends into the Union Gap service area as defined by the agreement (as shown in Figure 1-6). By verbal agreement, the City of Yakima serves all parcels abutting the south side of Washington Avenue east of South 16th Avenue and west of Voelker Avenue. Thus, the necessity for both cities to install. a main in Washington Avenue is avoided. The maximum parcel size that would be served by the City of Yakima is being discussed. Some parcels south of, but not adjacent to, Washington Avenue are served by the City of Yakima by verbal agreement between the two cities. It is understood that, when the City of Union Gap system is extended to these areas, the ownership of the mains and services will be transferred from Yakima to Union Gap. West .boundary The N"ob Hill Water Association operates and maintains a water system in the western part of the City of Yakima under -a 25 -year franchise agreement {City of Yakima Ordinance No.93-86, December 1, 1993, Appendix E). The association's service area also extends well beyond city limits. Generally, as shown in Figure 1-6, the City's future service boundary is the same as the existing boundary .There are several areas that can be served by either utility. Some of these areas are "islands" completely surrounded by the other utility's service area. Other parcels abutting the future service area boundary may be served by either utility, creating an erratic boundary. In this 1 -26 0 case, the boundary might alternate from a street centerline to the back property line on either side of the same street. Nob Hill Water Association and the City of Yakima have verbally agreed to maintain the status quo. Most of the parcels currently receive water service, and the distribution grid is well established. Where in- fill services are requested, the customer is given the choice of utility where both utilities have water mains in the same street. 1.7 Service Area Agreements The City of Yakima currently has written service area agreements with the Nob Hill Water Association and with the City of Union Gap. Copies of these agreements are included in Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively. There are currently no comprehensive service area agreements between the City of Yakima and the other two adjacent purveyors, the City of Selah and Yakima County. 1.8 Service Area Policies The City of Yakima's service area policies are applicable to various sections of this water system plan update and may also be referenced and discussed in more detail elsewhere in this document. However, the policies are presented together here in one location in a summary form with reference made, where applicable, to other documents which the City provides for distribution to persons interested in developing within the water service area. A brief summary of each applicable service area policy is included below. Wholesaling Water: The City of Yakima Water Division does not currently provide water to any other utilities on a wholesale basis, and does not anticipate doing so in the future. Wheeling Water: The City of Yakima Water Division currently does not allow the system's mains to be used to wheel water to another water system. A need to consider any wheeling arrangements with adjacent purveyors is not anticipated during the planning period. Annexation: The City of Yakima does not currently require annexation as a condition of obtaining water service. However, the City does not provide water service outside of the defined service area (see Figure 1-2) and, with only a few exceptions, the City limits lie entirely within 1 -27 7 the service area. Significant areas in the western portion of Yakima are actually served by the Nob Hill Water Association. The only significant area outside the Yakima City limits served by the Yakima water system is the unincorporated community of Gleed. Direct Connection and Satellite/Remote Systems : Section 12.04.010 of the Yakima Municipal Code requires that; All new lots and development shall be served by a public water supply line maintained by the, City of Yakima, Nob Hill Water Company, or other water purveyor, and located adjacent to the, lot or development site. Yakima Municipal Code does not prohibit satellite water systems within the City limits or water service area. The City has, however, elected not to become a satellite management agency. The only approved satellite management agency in the area in Yakima County. Design and Performance Standards: The water system minimum design and performance standards for new development have been developed by the City of Yakima Engineering Department. The standards are available to the public upon request in a document titled WATER Specijtication and Details (1999). This document can be obtained from the engineering department at the following address: City of Yakima — Engineering 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 Phone (509) 575-6111 Fax (509) 576-6305 Title 12 of the Yakima Municipal Code also establishes development standards for water service extensions. Copies Title 12 — Development Standards are also available from Yakima City Engineering. Chapter 12.04 covers water system development standards. Section 12.04.030 requires that all water lines shall be looped. Section 12.04.040 requires that all new water lines within the City of Yakima water service area shall be constructed of Class 52 ductile'iron and shall be a minimum of eight inches in diameter, and that improvements and additions to the Nob Hill Water Company system shall conform to the requirements of Nob Hill Water Company. (Ord. 98-64 § 1 (part), 1998). Surcharge for Outside Customers : The City imposes a surcharge of 1.5 X the volume rate for customers outside of the service. There is no surcharge on the connection fee. Due to the limitations of the water rights "place of use" boundary and agreements with adjacent purveyors, the circumstances in which the City might provide service to outside customers would be very limited. UGA: The City's service area and water rights "place of use" boundaries are entirely within and significantly smaller that the Urban Growth Area (except for Gleed which was included in the interim UGA, but not in the final UGA). Because of this the growth which occurs within the 1 -28 • City's service area will be primarily through in -fill, and the need to proactively finance extensions in anticipation of growth is not expected to be necessary. Late -Comer Agreements: The City has a policy allowing late -comer agreements for applicants or developers who propose water system extensions. The latecomer agreements are developed by project proponents and reviewed and administered by the City Engineering Department. The maximum duration allowed for latecomer agreements is 15 years. Cross -Connection Control Program: Cross Connection control is covered in Chapter 7.68 of the Yakima Municipal Code under Article 7.68.070. The Water Division currently has two full time Water Device Technicians who are dedicated to the inspection of cross connection control devices and enforcement of this ordinance. Extension: Water line extensions within the City of Yakima water service area are governed by Chapter 12.04.020 of the Yakima Municipal Code which states that; Water lines shall be extended to the point where the adjoining property owner's responsibility for further extension begins. This typically requires extension across the street or easement frontage of the developing property. In some cases it will require dedication of an easement and a line extension across the property or extension along two or more sides of the developing property. Extensions will be consistent with and implement the city's adopted water comprehensive plan. (Ordinance. 98-64 § I (part), 1998). 1.9 Satellite Management Agencies The City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division is not now and is not currently considering becoming a Department of Health approved Satellite Management Agency (SMA). The only currently. approved SMA in the area is Yakima County. It will be the City's intent to refer any existing or propose satellite systems within its service area boundaries to Yakima County as the approved SMA. 1.10 Conditions of Service The primary condition of service is that the customer be within the boundaries of the "place of use" area which is a condition of the City's surface water rights. The other conditions of service are that the customer pays all applicable connection and user costs. All water system extensions required to serve a customer must conform to the City design standards and developer standards. 1-29 1.11 Complaints All water service related complaints are handled through the Water/Irrigation Division office which can be reached at (509) 575-6154. This number also serves as the Nights and Weekend Emergency telephone number to report problems and complaints after normal working hours. All water quality complaints are referred to the Water Quality Supervisor at the Water Treatment Plant. The Water Quality Supervisor investigates the complaints and maintains records describing the nature of the complaint and the steps taken to resolve it. All complaints are assigned a work order number which can then be tracked in the Automated Inventory and Maintenance Management Systems (AIMMS). AIMMS is a City, wide program which tracks information about all of the City's facilities and equipment. Additional information on AIMMS is included in Chapter 6 of this Water System Plan Update. All low pressure and other distribution system related complaints are referred to the Distribution Supervisor who investigates and takes corrective actions as necessary. As with the water quality complaints, the distribution system related complaints are assigned a work order number and tracked in AIMMS. 1-30 • Chapter 2 Basic Planning Data and Water Demand Forecasting 0 2 Basic Planning Data and Water Demand Forecasting 2.1 Current Population, Service Connections, Water Use, and Equivalent Residential Units Current Population The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) official 2000 Census population figures and April 1, 2001 population estimates for Yakima County and the City of Yakima are listed in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Current Population for the City of Yakima and Yakima County Municipality 2000 Census Population April 1, 2001 OFM Estimate Yakima County 222,581 224,500 Unincorporated 93,192 93,171 Incorporated 129,389 131,329 City of Yakima 71,845 73,040 As discussed in Section 1.5, Existing Service Area Characteristics, the City of Yakima water system does serve some small areas outside the current municipal boundaries (including Gleed and a small portion of Union Gap) however, it does not serve significant areas in the western portions of Yakima which do lie within the city limits and are served by the Nob Hill Water Association. The net result is that the actual population served by the City of Yakima water system is significantly less than the OFM population figures for the corporate limits as indicated in Table 2-1, above. The current population within the City of Yakima water service area was estimated using the City's geographical information system (GIS). The GIS database includes the 2000 Census population figures for each of the census blocks within the city limits. By overlapping (intersecting) the water service area boundaries with the census block boundaries and population data, the GIS can be used to calculate the population within the service area as well as the population within the individual pressure zones. Where the service area lines cut through a census block the amount of population assigned to each area or zone was interpolated based on the relative areas of the resulting census block segments. The populations of the individual pressure zones and the total service area population as calculated from 2000 census block data in the GIS coverages, as described above, are listed in Table 2-2. The estimated April 1, 2001 populations for the water service area and the individual pressure zones were estimated using the same ratio of 2001 to 2000 population as was used by OFM in estimating the 2001 population for the City of Yakima as shown in Table 2-1. 2-1 0 Table 2-2 Current Population for the City of Yakima Water Service Area and Zones Service Area 2000 Census Population April 1, 2001 Estimate Level 1 (Low) pressure zone 50,962 51,810 Level 2 (Middle) pressure zone 12,024 12,224 Level 3 (High) pressure zone 2,052 2,086 Total for Water Service Area 65,038 66,120 a 2000 Census Population times 1.0166 (73,040 _ 71,845) Total Service Connections The number of service connections for each customer class from 1994 to 2000, are presented in Table 2-3. These customer classes are derived from the billing codes for the various classes of use which have been established in the City of Yakima utility billing system. Table 2-3 Number of Service Connections by Customer Class - 1994 to 2000 Customer Class 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Single Family Residential 14,997 15,454 15,549 15,607 15,109 15,140 15,150 Multi Family Residential 745 771 773 782 774 814 817 Commercial 2,161 2,213 2,222 2,242 2,058 2,146 2,124 Industrial 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Commercial Irrigation Only 461 480 477 444 388 395 387 2-2 0 2.2 Water Use and Equivalent Residential Units Water Supply Data The water use data as determined by measurement of the water supply sources is summarized in Table 2-4. The Naches River Water Treatment Plant (WTP) production is measured by the filter effluent flow meters. Each of the wells which are currently available for use (Kiwanis, Airport and Kissel) are equipped with a flow meter. The sum of the WTP production and the output of the well pumps represents the total water supplied for a given period. Table 2-4 Monthly Water Supply Data (WTP Effluent plus Well production) Monthly Averages (MGD) Averages Month 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 by Month (MGD) Jan 8.85 9.95 8.91 11.76 10.84 9.71 8.90 9.84 Feb 8.83 10.02 10.88 11.74 10.17 9.76 9.41 10.11 Mar 9.47 10.00 9.36 11.51 10.29 10.09 9.80 10.07 Apr 11.80 11.62 10.97 13.51 12.05 12.13 12.50 12.08 May 13.07 13.82 8.75 17.13 14.42 13.65 14.07 13.56 Jun 14.88 16.07 15.84 17.01 15.77 16.36 15.90 15.98 Jul 18.12 16.98 18.20 17.23 18.68 16.86 19.22 17.90 Aug 17.80 16.60 17.24 18.16 18.18 16.19 19.12 17.61 Sep 15.79 14.93 14.14 15.02 16.37 14.69 15.17 15.16 Oct 12.67 11.50 11.93 12.23 12.06 11.54 11.64 11.94 Nov 10.08 9.81 10.05 10.49 9.96 8.92 10.69 10.00 Dec 10.11 9.59 10.53 10.26 10.40 8.51 10.34 9.96 Annual Averages 12.62 12.57 12.23 13.84 13.27 12.37 13.06 12.85 • In addition to the flow meter at the water treatment plant and the wells, there are flow meters at . each of the booster pump stations. The data from these flowmeters together with the continuously recorded reservoir level data make it possible to estimate the water use in each pressure zone. Because the "by -zone" use estimates are derived from additional flow meter and 2-3 level measurement devices which each are subject to some inherent variation, the total water use estimates obtained by adding the use in each pressure zone will be close to but not exactly the same as the total water supplied estimates in Table 2-4, above. The "by -zone" estimates are presented in Table 2-5, below. Table 2-5 Use by Pressure Zone calculated from "use by zone" data. Zone Parameter 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Avg. Low Total (MG) 3,616 3,631 3,992 4,166 3,903 3,594 3,825 3,818 Avg. Day (mgd) 9.91 9.95 10.91 11.41 10.69 9.85 10.45 10.45 % of Total Use 78.6% 79.3% 82.4% 83.3% 80.6% 80.3% 79.8% 80.6% Middle Total (MG) 700.98 749.0 649.0 596.6 678.1 630.4 715.4 674.2 Avg. Day (mgd) 1.920 2.052 1.773 1.635 1.858 1.727 1.955 1.846 % of Total Use 15.2% 16.4% 13.4% 11.9% 14.0% 14.1% 14.9% 14.3°/o High Total (MG) 279.8 197.8 205.2 238.9 258.5 252.1 250.8 240.4 Avg. Day (mgd) 0.767 0.542 0.561 0.654 0.708 0.691 0.685 0.658 % of Total Use 6.1% 4.3% 4.2% 4.8% 5.3% 5.6% 5.2% 5.1% Gleed Total (MG) 5.223 6.398 7.702 12.582 5.225 5.498 5.585 6.888 Avg. Day (mgd) 0.014 0.018 0.021 0.034 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.019 % of Total Use 0.11 % 0.14% 0.16% 0.25% 0.11% 0.12% 0.12% 0.14% Total Total (MG) 4,602 4,578 4,846 5,001 4,839 4,477 4,791 4,734 Avg. Day (mgd) 12.61 12.54 13.24 13.70 13.26 12.27 13.09 12.96 Water Use Data Water use by customer class can be estimated by the City's utility billing records. By comparing the water consumption data generated from the billing records to the water supply data in Table 2-4 it is also possible to estimate the amount of water which is either non -revenue producing (fire, flushing mains, etc.) or unaccounted for water (leaks, under reporting meters, etc.) A summary of the water consumption by customer class is presented in Table 2-6 below. Non - revenue and unaccounted for water estimates are presented in Table 2-7. 2-4 0 0 Table 2-6 Metered Water Use by Customer Class Customer Class 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Single Family Residential Use (100 ft') 1,326,723 1,311,168 1,387,261 1,384,690 1,437,961 1,522,425 1,379,865 Number of Single Family connections 14,997 15,454 15,549 15,607 15,109 15,140 15,150 Single Family % of total metered use 28% 28% 29% 26% 27% 29% 27% Multi Family Residential Use (100 ft') 690,399 684,929 703,353 713,901 672,421 695,840 650,623 Number of Multi Family connections 745 771 773 782 774 814 817 Multi Family % of total metered use 14% 15% 14% 13% 13% 13% 13% Commercial Use (100 ft) 1,589,795 1,580,850 1,563,468 1,965,329 1,932,152 1,861,071 1,874,860 Number of Commercial connections 2,161 2,213 2,222 2,242 2,058 2,146 2,124 Commercial % of total metered use 33% 34% 32% 37% 37% 36% 37% Industrial Use (100 ft) 340,083 336,755 359,547 430,732 423,191 352,934 385,028 Number of Industrial connections 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Industrial % of total metered use 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 7% 8% Commercial Irrigation Only (100 ft) 821,728 738,471 851,861 854,084 799,814 734,869 795,063 Number of Irrigation Only connections 461 480 477 444 388 395 387 Irrigation Only % of total metered use 17% 16% 18% 16% 15% 14% 15% Total metered water use (100 ft) 4,768,728 4,652,173 4,865,490 5,348,736 5,265,539 5,167,139 5,085,439 2-5 Table 2-7 Other Water Uses and Unaccounted for Water Type of Use J 1 1 OQA 11JV 1 OOC 1JlJ 1 00K 1lJV 1 nn'7 1JJ / , npo 17JV , nnn 1777 van" LVVV Water Treatment Plant (incl. backwash, 170.93 243.50 290.38 256.07 196.12 171.24 151.04 surface wash, and service water) MG Subtotal Water Treatment Plant use 228,514 325,538 388,207 342,338 262,188 228,935 201,931 (100 ft) Use for Street Flushing (100 ft) 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Estimated Use for Fire (100 ft) 124,813 115,508 135,642 135,642 145,909 139,733 131,471 Estimated Water System Flushing Use 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 (100 ft') Wastewater Collection System 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 Flushing Use (100 ft) Subtotal of Other Estimated Water 183,313 174,008 194,142 194,142 204,409 198,233 189,971 Uses (100 ft) Total of WTP Use plus Other 411,826 499,546 582,349 536,480 466,598 427,168 391,902 Estimated Water Use (100 ft) Total metered water use from Table 2-6 4,768,728 4,652,173 4,865,490 5,348,736 5,265,539 5,167,139 5,085,439 (100 ft) Total Water Accounted for; metered 5,180,554 5,151,718 5,447,839 5,885,216 5,732,137 5,594,307 5,477,341 use, WTP use, & other uses (100 ft3) Total Water Produced (WTP effluent 6,170,830 6,143,338 5,986,548 6,544,536 6,459,713 5,940,992 6,266,238 plus wells) (100 ft) Unaccounted for Water (100 ft) 990,276 991,620 538,709 659,320 727,576 346,685 788,897 Unaccounted for Water as % of 16.0% 16.1% 9.0% 10.1% 11.3% 5.8% 12.6% Water Produced 2-6 0 In order to estimate the total usage by each customer class it is necessary to add an appropriate percentage of the unaccounted for water into the metered usage for that customer class. A proportionate fraction of the estimated unaccounted for water amounts for each year (as shown in Table 2-7) are added to the usage by each customer class to result in the Adjusted Use by Customer Class estimates presented in Table 2-8. For example, the adjusted single family residential use for 1994 includes 28% of the unaccounted for water estimate corresponding to that year since the single family use in that year was 28% of the total metered use. Since the water supply totals (WTP plus well production) was used to estimate the unaccounted for water quantities in each year it is appropriate to also estimate the total usage in each zone as a percentage of the total supply. This means using the percentages in Table 2-5 times the total supply volume in each year rather than the total "by zone use" estimates (also in Table 2-5) to estimate the total annual use in each pressure zone. The estimates of use by zone as a percentage of the total supply volumes are presented in Table 2-9. Table 2-10 calculates the adjusted use by zone estimates by subtracting estimated non -revenue uses from the values in Table 2-9 in proportion to the percentages of use by pressure zone in Table 2-5. The usage estimates in Table 2-10 are used below in the subsection titled "Equivalent Residential Units" to estimate the per capita water use and to determine the amount of usage which represents an equivalent residential unit (ERU). It should be noted that inaccuracies in the current billing system is one of the factors in the variability of the unaccounted for water. This current system does not allow for separate tracking of revenue and consumption. The City is currently in the process of implementing a new billing system which is expected to be in place by 2004. 2-7 Table 2-8 Adjusted Water Use by Customer Class (100 ft) Customer Class 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Avg. Max. Unaccounted for Water 990,276 991,620 538,709 659,320 727,576 346,685 788,897 Adjusted Single Family 1,604,000 1,588,822 1,543,487 1,556,113 1,634,407 1,622,964 1,592,867 1,591,808 1,634,407 Residential Use including unaccounted pro rata share Adjusted Multi Family 829,038 833,672 778,772 799,613 767,006 740,909 753,180 786,027 833,672 Residential Use including unaccounted pro rata share Adjusted Commercial Use 1,916,586 1,918,001 1,735,855 2,209,277 2,201,355 1,985,878 2,166,752 2,019,101 2,209,277 including unaccounted pro rata share Adjusted Industrial Use 409,402 406,168 397,257 483,478 481,397 377,202 448,140 429,006 483,478 including unaccounted pro rata share Adjusted Comm. Irrigation 990,075 897,130 948,829 959,575 908,950 783,405 913,398 914,480 990,075 only USc including unaccounted pro rata share 2-8 0 00 0 a Table 2-9 Adjusted use by zone using water supplied data (WTP + Wells) proportioned based on the percentages of use in each zone as shown above in Table 2-5 units of 100 ft) Zone 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Avg. Max. Total 6,170,830 6,143,338 5,986,548 6,544,536 6,459,713 5,940,992 6,266,238 6,216,028 6,544,536 Low 4,848,769 4,872,709 4,931,299 5,451,203 5,209,542 4,769,908 5,002,678 5,012,301 5,451,203 Middle 939,863 1,005,173 801,755 780,737 905,107 836,491 935,601 886,390 1,005,173 High 375,196 265,457 253,493 312,596 345,064 334,593 327,959 316,337 375,196 Gleed 7,002 8,586 9,541 16,464 6,975 7,296 7,324 9,027 16,464 Table 2-10 Adjusted by zone use calculated by subtracting estimated non -revenue uses from the values in Table 2-9 in ro ortion to the ercenta es of use in Table 2-5 ( units of 100 ft) Zone 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Avg. Max. Total 6,170,830 6,143,338 5,986,548 6,544,536 6,459,713 5,940,992 6,266,238 6,216,028 6,544,536 Non- Revenue 411,826 499,545 582,349 536,480 466,598 427,168 391,902 473,695 582,349 Low 4,525,174 4,476,485 4,451,601 5,004,347 4,833,246 4,426,943 4,689,802 4,629,657 5,004,347 Middle 877,139 923,437 723,763 716,737 839,729 776,346 877,087 819,177 923,437 High 350,156 243,871 228,834 286,972 320,139 310,535 307,448 292,565 350,156 Gleed 6,535 7,888 8,613 15,115 6,471 _6,771 6,866 8,323 15,115 2-9 Equivalent Residential Units • To further analyze the water use patterns within the different customer classifications and pressure zones, the areas and populations of each zoning code classification were determined for each pressure zone using the 2000 census block data in the GIS coverages for the zoning code areas and pressure zones. These areas and populations are shown in Table 2-11. The land use zoning code classifications in Table 2-11 are grouped to correspond to the billing code classifications which as previously noted are as follows: Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Commercial Industrial The Commercial Irrigation Only billing code water consumption is assumed to occur primarily within zoning areas that are grouped under the Commercial category in Table 2-11. It should also be noted that the current billing system does not in all cases enable the residences in the R2 zoning classification to be identified as to whether they are treated as single family or multifamily in the billing records. For example, a duplex that has individual water meters on each unit would be treated as single family while a duplex with a. single meter would typically be treated as multi family in the billing system. For the purpose of correlating the customer class usage data with the current population and zoning it is assumed that 40% of the R2 population and area is in the Single Family category and 60% of the R2 population and area is in the Multi Family category. 2-10 71 Table 2-11 Land Area and Population by Land Use Zoning Code Land Level Level Level Totals U Use Acres % Total Popu- % Total Acres % Total Popu- % Total Acres % Total Popu- % Total Acres Popu- Code Area' lation Pop. Area' lation Pop. Area lation Pop. lation R-1 1266.91 45.5% 16,525 61.9% 1151.39 41.3% 8,531 31.9% 369.07 13.2% 1,648 6.17% 2,787.37 26,704 R-2 1611.65 89.4% 15,248 92.0% 172.35 9.6% 1,197 7.2% 18.57 1.03% 132 0.80% 1,802.58 16,577 SR 857.46 95.4% 18 47.4% 4.01 0.4% 2 5.3% 37.41 4.16% 18 47.4% 898.88 38 Outside 266.15 97.9% 499 100.0% 5.62 2.1% 271.77 499 Con Subtotal 3035.18 64.9% 23,141 68.3% 1230.97 26.3% 9,012 26.6% 413.91 8.85% 1,719 5.1% 4,679.06 33,872 . R-3 592.89 77.4% 7,061 80.0% 157.32 20.5% 1,578 17.9% 15.80 2.06% 189 2.14% 766.02 8,828 w Subtotal 1559.89 84.4% 16,210 86.3% 260.73 14.1% 2,296 12.2% 26.94 1.46% 268 1.43% 1847.56 18,774 B-1 263.93 79.1% 1,312 76.4% 64.42 19.3% 389 22.7% 5.36 1.61% 16 0.93% 333.71 1,717 B-2 90.04 77.6% 605 79.6% 25.96 22.4% 155 20.4% 0.01 0.01% 116.01 760 CBD 215.75 100.0% 1,168 100.0% 215.75 1,168 U CBDS 1667.75 100.0% 4,860 100.0% 1667.75 4,860 HB 3.24 100.0% 57 100.0% 3.24 57 0 U LCC 57.15 77.3% 74 73.3% 16.77 22.7% 27 26.7% 73.92 101 SCC 109.35 12.6% 466 72.2% 754.01 86.7% 157 24.3% 5.99 0.69% 22 3.41% 869.34 645 Subtotal 2407.21 73.4% 8,542 91.8% 844.38 25.7% 701 7.5% 28.12 0.86% 65 0.70% 3279.71 9,308 M-1 2223.66 99.2% 2,725 99.5% 17.68 0.8% 15 0.5% 2,241.34 2,740 M-2 359.00 100.0% 344 100.0% 359.00 344 Subtotal 2582.66 99.3% 3,069 99.5% 17.68 0.7% 15 0.5% 2600.34 3,084 Totals 9584.93 77.3% 50,962 78.4% 2352.76 19.0% 12,024 18.5% 468.98 3.78% 2,052 3.2% 12,406.7 65,038 a percent of the total area of the listed zoning code classification which lies within the respective pressure zone level. b assumes 40% of R2 population and area is in the Single Family category and 60% of R2 population and area is in the Multi Family category. 2-11 The distribution of the land use zoning classification areas among the pressure zones is shown in Table 2-12. The land use classifications are grouped according to the water use customer classifications as represented by the subtotal area figures in the table above. Table 2-12 Distribution of Land Use Classification Areas among the Pressure Zones" Customer Class Level 1 Low Zone Level 2 Middle Zone Level 3 High Zone Sum Single Family 65.8% 25.7% 8.6% 100.0% Multi Family 83.9% 14.6% 1.5% 100.0% Commercial 73.4% 25.7% 0.9% 100.0% Industrial 99.3% 0.7% 0.0% 100.0% a This analysis of land use zoning distribution does not include Gleed since it is not within the City's GIS coverage and since the water use in Gleed is insignificant with respect to total use. The total use in each customer class including an allowance for unaccounted for water was estimated previously in Table 2-8, above. A portion of the total unaccounted for water in each year is added into the use in each customer class in proportion to the percentage of the total use which is attributable to that customer class. 2-12 0 The current utility billing system is not capable of correlating the water usage to the location of use. It only differentiates the water use by customer class. However, based on the GIS analysis of the land use zoning classifications with respect to the pressure zones (see Tables 2-11 and 2- 12) it can be seen that nearly all of the industrial categories and 73% of the commercial categories are located in the Level* 1 pressure zone. A large majority (approximately 84%) of the multi family zoned area is also located in Level 1. In order to estimate the single family residential water use in each pressure zone, the estimated usages by the other customer classes in that zone were subtracted from the total use in the zone. These estimates are presented in Table 2-13. The usage by each of the other customer classes in the zone was estimated by prorating the adjusted total use by that customer class (Table 2-8) according to the distribution of the land use zoning codes corresponding to that customer class as summarized in Table 2-12. The multi family customer class use by pressure zone as determined by prorating the adjusted use according to land use, as described above, is presented in Table 2-14. The estimated single family and multi family residential population is presented in Table 2-15. The population not residing within either the single family or multi family land use zoning classifications is included in the "Other" category in this table. The total single family and multi family residential population columns each include a prorated share of the "Other" population. 2-13 Table 2-13 Calculated Single Family residential use by zone using adjusted use data from Table 2-8 above and subtracting the other Customer Class usage in proportion to the corresponding land use area percentages in Table 2-12, above. (100 ft) QU "--:A > k3r iLU31luential Use by Zone I nn,� 177Y n 1795 � not 1770 .1 "AM 177/ + nnn i77a � nnn 1777 .nnn LUUU averages Level 898,959 915,569 1,086,245 1,080,133 982,939 981,163 906,607 978,802 Level 382,727 453,100 251,667 213,413 354,791 355,832 401,820 344,764 Level 325,682 220,152 205,575 262,567 296,677 289,435 284,440 269,218 Table 2-14 Calculated Multi Family residential use by zone using adjusted use data from Table 2-8 above in proportion to the corresponding land use area percentages in Table 2-12, above. (100 ft) MF Residential Use by Zone 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Averages Level 695,489 699,377 653,321 670,804 643,450 621,557 631,851 659,407 1 oval 2 121 Q75 , 121 757 ,/✓ � 1 11 7'24 ,/✓ 1 1 6 '77Q ,/ / V 1 1 7 M A 1 1 L.,V 1 V 1 I1Q 7t1G . V V, L V✓ M0007 1 V l, J l / 1 1 n '70A 1 1 T, / l T Level 3 12,474 12,543 11,717 12,031 11,540 11,148 11,332 11,826 2-14 0 0 Table 2-15 Population Summary by Pressure Zone (from Table 2-11) Pressure Zone/ Population SF Subtotal MF Subtotal Subtotal SF + MF Other Total in Zone Est. SF Total in Zonea Est. MF Total in Zone Level 1 23,141 16,210 39,351 _ 11,612 50,962 29,969 20,993 Level 9,012 2,296 11,308 717 12,024 9,582 2,442 Level 1,719 268 1,987 66 2052 1,775 277 Totals 33,872 18,774 52,646 12,395 65,038 41,327 23,711 a includes proportionate fraction of population in "Other" category (Total=SubtotalsF+MF)X SF b includes proportionate fraction of population in "Other" category (Total=SubtotalsF+MF)X MF Using the estimated population figures in Table 2-15, and the water use by zone estimates in Tables 2-13 and 2-14, it is possible to estimate the per capita consumption by zone for both single family and multi family residential users. The per capita consumption estimates are shown in Table 2-16. Table 2-16 Estimated per capita use by pressure zone (gal/capita/day)a Pressure Zone SF gpcd MF gpcd gpcd for combined SF + MF use in zone Level 1 66.9 64.4 65.9 Level 2 73.7 96.4 78.3 Level 3 310.8 87.5 280.7 a based on average usage estimates from 1994 through 2000 Using the total single family residential population estimate from Table 2-15, and the current (2000) number of single family connections, the number of residents per connection is estimated in Table 2-17, below. Table 2-17 Estimated number of residents per single family connection Number of SF connections (year 2000) Estimated Single Family Population Estimated SF Population per connection 15,150 41,327 2.73 2-15 • Using; 2.73 residents per single family connection from Table 2-17, the ERU value for each pressure zone is calculated in Table 2-18 using the gallons per capita per day estimates in Table 2-16. Table 2-18 ERU calculation by pressure zone (gal//day)a Pressure Zone SF gpcd Residents per ERUb ERU by Pressure Zone al/da Lever 1 66.9 2.73 183 Level. 2 73.7 2.73 201 Leve]. 3 310.8 2.73 848 a based on average usage estimates from 1994 through 2000. b the same number of residents per connection is used in each zone since insufficient data is available to differentiate among the zone with regard to this parameter. 2-16 2.3 Projected Land Use, Future Population, and Water Demand Projected Land Use The Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan was adopted in April 1997 and amended in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002 in compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW). The Future Land Use Map (Figure 2-1) shows the proposed general distribution and general location of various land uses anticipated during the next twenty year planning period. The Map provides a graphic display of where development is expected to occur, and serves as a guide for development and land use planning. The Future Land Use Map represents a mixture of land uses which are necessary for the future of the community, including provisions for various residential densities located throughout the Urban Service Area, and appropriate commercial service centers located to serve neighborhoods. The current City of Yakima Water Service Area is also shown on Figure 1-6. The Yakima Water Service Area is less than the area within the Yakima City limits, and is substantially less that the Urban Service Area. The potential for expansion of the geographic boundaries of the Yakima Water Service Area is very limited. It is anticipated that residential, commercial, and industrial growth will occur within the water service area primarily through infill on vacant land and increases in population density. Future Land Use designations indicate the preferred use of lands within a particular area. Along with these land use designations, the comprehensive plan includes facility planning for the necessary urban services within this Urban Service Area. In the future, land use designations will be assigned to the Urban Reserve, as facility planning is conducted. GMA requires development regulations to implement the comprehensive plan. The Future Land Use Map is a generalized proposal for where development is expected to occur, and is not the official zoning map for the City. The Future Land Use Map acts as a guide to evaluate development proposals for consistency with the Plan, along with applicable goals and policies. The City of Yakima Zoning Map, not the Future Land Use Map, continues to be the basis for land use project permit decisions. The current zoning map is presented in Figure 2-2. The City of Yakima's current zoning map can only be modified through the public hearing process. Changes from the current zoning map will include an evaluation process with criteria established to determine when and if rezoning of land will be necessary. The evaluation criteria includes: existing residential densities; water / sewer availability; street capacity; neighborhood characteristics; vacant land; and existing institutions (schools, hospitals, etc.) There may be more than one appropriate zoning category within any future land use designation to suit a particular proposal. If the Future Land Use Map supports a proposed development, but current zoning does not relate to the proposal, a rezone maybe considered appropriate, depending upon the results of the evaluation process described above. The Future Land Use Map for the Yakima Urban Service Area identifies the land use preferences of the community as a result of citizen participation. The Map was presented to the community 2-17 and analyzed as a series of future land use alternatives. The inventory and composition of land use designations included in the Future Land Use Map is summarized on Table 2-19. Development opportunities for additional residential units of all densities are identified by the Futw•e Land Use Map. A community preference for low density housing is evident. Infill of existing vacant lots within neighborhoods is a high priority for implementing affordable housing and efficient use of existing infrastructure. However, significant increases in opportunities for medium and high density land are also identified by the Future Land Use Map. A variety of commercial and industrial development land use opportunities are identified within the Urban Service Area, consistent with the past development patterns of the community and the future needs of a growing and changing community. The majority of the areas designated for multifamily residential, commercial, and industrial land uses lie within the Yakima city limits and within the Yakima Water Service Area. Table 2-19 Future Land Use Inventory Futw•e Land Use Parcel Acres Land Use% Percent Vacant Low Density Residential 6,768 45% 21% Medium Density Residential 1,320 90/% 36% High Density Residential 581 40/'0 33% Professional Office 415 30/'0 39% Neighborhood Commercial 180 10//0 19% Large Convenience Center 116 1% 23% Arterial Commercial 1,187 80/'0 25% CBD Core 121 ION 14% Warehouse/Wholesale 1,278 8% 48% Industrial 1,235 8% 47% Institutional 1,073 6% 26% Parks and Open Space 845 60/'0 65% Subtotal Urban Service Area 15,119 100% 21% RESIDENTIAL LAND USE The Future Land Use Map designates residential lands into three basic categories, which vary by density and permitted land uses. These include the following: Low Density Residential - Primarily single family, detached residences. Net residential density before considering roads and right of ways is less than 7.0 dwelling units per acre, which is considered the lowest residential density to efficiently support public services. 2-18 0 I L I i F-7--t—N - . xH ,..� CII" � �r��. � ...� � r■■ ��� :�.,- _ ■�� � 111 — uil nC I . ■. a /■�I _— gni � ,/� � '. I�■■�� 1■ - - I�si■ill■_= ,�.� _Ilii- .II°• �' � ���■ - 1 11► I I I figure2-1 Cb I , e i f li o 1� ' i I if — r T I I I —�r _ l I f : I' - ! � � — F �-, � ' � •I � _"•"F,�t� l i I i ,..�. u! - � �' 1 r IT i ._ — - �4 1 11 -•' " n" 'fil►I a �'°•lyy — ! `. r LI J L 6 �— -- J - I Ell ----- Water System Plan Update Figure 2-1 FUTURE LAND USE Low Density Residential figure2-1 Cb I , e i f li o 1� ' i I if — r T I I I —�r _ l I f : I' - ! � � — F �-, � ' � •I � _"•"F,�t� l i I i ,..�. u! - � �' 1 r IT i ._ — - �4 1 11 -•' " n" 'fil►I a �'°•lyy — ! `. r LI J L 6 �— -- J - I Ell ----- Water System Plan Update Figure 2-1 Four Party Urban Area Interim Urban Growth Area Lakes / Reservoirs Oil 7 �► 5 ofion Scale -lin = 4500ft 0 2254500 Created: April 15, 2003 FUTURE LAND USE Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential W High Density Residential Professional Office Neighborhood Commercial ■ Large Convenience Center Arterial Commercial ■ CBD Core Commercial Industrial Urban Reserve City Limits Four Party Urban Area Interim Urban Growth Area Lakes / Reservoirs Oil 7 �► 5 ofion Scale -lin = 4500ft 0 2254500 Created: April 15, 2003 a 0 Medium Density Residential - Characterized by a mixture of single family detached residences and duplexes, with a variety of other housing types at a residential density ranging between 7.0 and 11 dwelling units per acre. High Density Residential - Apartments and densely developed planned residential developments ranging from 12 and above dwelling units per acre. A limited range of other land uses may be permitted, such as some professional offices and community services. An adequate and affordable supply of housing for all income levels within the community is a major goal of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. To accomplish this goal, opportunities must be available for new development, but must also be balanced by the preservation of existing neighborhoods and the need to infill or redevelop some areas. As noted previously, infill will be a major factor with respect to growth occurring within the Yakima Water Service Area. In the western portion of the Urban Service Area, residential densities are lower with scattered regions of high or medium density zoning. Currently, there is a definite lack of vacant land zoned for medium or high density residential development. It should be noted that much of the western portion of the Urban Service Area lies outside of the Yakima Water Service Area. The Future Land Use Map identifies some new areas for high densities. A stated goal of the comprehensive plan is that housing opportunities for all income levels and housing types should be distributed throughout the Urban Service Area to balance the community needs. COMMERCIAL LAND USE The Future Land Use Map includes four categories of Commercial uses, which vary intensity by function and location. Professional Office - Includes financial institutions, real estate, insurance, engineer, legal, medical offices and other similar business uses. Neighborhood Commercial - Small scale shopping centers, with shared parking and access, usually located on arterial streets. Neighborhood commercial centers are dispersed throughout the Urban Service Area to provide convenience shopping to the residential population. Large Convenience Center - Provides areas for commercial activities to meet retail shopping and service needs of the community and accommodates clusters of retail, financial, professional service business and entertainment activities that attract shoppers from an area significantly larger than a neighborhood. Regional centers may be considered appropriate when they demonstrate that they will complement, and not have a detrimental impact on existing commercial areas or surrounding land uses. Arterial Commercial - Land uses which require high auto visibility such as restaurants, service stations, car washes, as well as wholesale and retail activities. 2-19 • CBD Core Commercial - The Yakima Downtown area is the regional center for commerce, cultural and governmental land uses. This area provides for a wide variety of intense retail, office, institutional, and high density residential land uses. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS The Future Land Use Map includes two categories of industrial uses, which are closely related and supportive of each other. Most of the land designated for industrial land use lies within the Yakima Water Service Area. Wholesale /Warehouse - Quasi -industrial areas which provide for a mixture of wholesale and warehousing activities, as well as some limited office and retail land uses. Industrial - Mixture of land uses which provide a range of activities, including construction businesses, manufacturing, transportation, communication and utilities. This zone is not appropriate for residential or high traffic generating retail land uses, which would introduce conflicting vehicular traffic into industrial areas. Industrial development is concentrated along 1-82, Fruitvale Boulevard, North 6th Avenue and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, making for convenient transportation of products. The Boise Cascade plant and storage area, highly visible from the Interstate 82 system has been located at that site since the turn of the century. The Airport region continues to provide industrial opportunities for warehouse and light industrial activities. Within the Yakima Urban Service Area there exist large areas already zoned for industrial use which have not been developed. Many of the areas currently zoned for industrial development are not desirable for immediate development, including such problems as small parcels and multiple ownerships; location in the flood plain; or remoteness from utilities and major transportation corridors. These multiple problems indicate that some of those areas should be reexamined for more suitable land uses. Another unusual feature of the Yakima Urban Service Area is the amount of land which surrounds the railroad corridor. The railroad corridor creates a large linear pattern which bisects the entire city and limits access to adjoining land uses. Due to this fact, is difficult to maximize the development potential of much of the vacant land near the railroad corridor. 2-20 0 Projected Population RCW 43.62.35 directs the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) to prepare 20 year Growth Management Act (GMA) planning projections. Updates are required every five years. Each county's GMA projection is expressed as a range within a reasonable "High" & "Low" projection. Counties select a GMA planning population within the range released by OFM. This provides counties with reasonable discretion in determining a GMA planning target. Typically, ranges provided by OFM are as much as 15% higher than the middle projection on the high side, and 14% lower on the low side. County projections are developed within the state "high, "intermediate," and "low" projection series. That is, the sum of the counties in each projections series (high, intermediate, and low) needs to add to the state total. It is the responsibility of county and city governments in each county to allocate the projected planning population to the cities and unincorporated area in their county. The Low, Intermediate, and High series OFM GMA projections for Yakima County through 2025 are shown in Table 2-20, below. Table 2-20 Projections of the Yakima County Resident Population for the Growth Management Act (Source: OFM/Forecasting 2002) 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Low Series 222,581 215,131 220,577 229,975 237,073 242,863 Intermediate Series 222,581 225,622 237,435 254,257 269,401 283,884 High Series 222,581 237,411 255,599 279,873 303,076 326,254 As discussed in Section 2. 1, above, the population of the City of Yakima water service area was estimated using the City's GIS and the 2000 Census population figures for each of the census blocks by overlapping the water service area boundaries with the census block boundaries and population data. The population within the entire service area, as well as the populations within the individual pressure zones, was estimated in this manner. For the purpose of this water system plan, the population growth within the water service area and within the individual pressure zones is estimated to occur at the same rate as the growth within the entire county since the OFM projections are not formulated below the countywide level. It could be argued that this approach will overestimate population growth since the City of Yakima water service area is not expected to change significantly over the coming years. On the other hand, the implementation of GMA should encourage greater in -fill and population growth within the existing service area boundaries. (See Appendix G — Memorandum from the City of Yakima Planning Department for additional discussion of this issue.) The projected populations within the service area under the Low, Intermediate, and High GMA projections are presented in Tables 2-21, 2-22, and 2-23, respectively. 2-21 Table 2-21 City of Yakima Water Service Area Population Projections by Pressure Zone based on the OFM GMA Low Series Projections for Yakima County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Level 50,962 49,256 50,503 52,655 54,280 55,606 Level 2 12,024 11,622 11,916 12,423 12,807 13,120 Level 2,052 1,983 2,034 2,120 2,186 2,239 Totals 65,038 62,861 64,452 67,199 69,273 70,964 Table 2-22 City of Yakima Water Service Area Population Projections by Pressure Zone based on the OFM GMA Intermediate Series Projections for Yakima County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Level 50,962 51,658 54,363 58,215 61,682 64,998 Level 2 12,024 12,188 12,826 13,735 14,553 15,336 Level 2,052 2,080 2,189 2,344 2,484 2,617 Totals 65,038 65,927 69,378 74,294 78,719 82,951 Table 2-23 City of Yakima Water Service Area Population Projections by Pressure Zone based on the OFM GMA High Series Projections for Yakima County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Levell 50,962 54,357 58,522 64,080 69,392 74,699 Leve12 12,024 12,825 13,808 15,119 16,372 17,624 Level 2,052 2,189 2,356 2,580 2,794 3,008 Totals 65,038 69,371 1 74,686 T 81,779 88,559 95,331 Projected Water Demands To adequately serve customers throughout the planning period, population and water demand forecasts of future needs should be conservative enough to ensure that sufficient water will be available to meet those needs as growth occurs. Therefore, only the Intermediate and High OFM population projections will be considered in estimating future wager demands. Future water demands have been projected based on the OFM Intermediate and High water service area population forecasts shown in Tables 2-20 and 2-23, above. Residential water demand forecasts have been calculated for each scenario based on the per capita consumption figures presented in 2-22 V Table 2716. For the purpose of these projections, the combined single family and multifamily per capita use figures from Table 2-16 are used. This assumes that the relative proportion of single family and multi family residential population and the per capita usages by zone will not change significantly over the planning period. Commercial and industrial water demand projections are based on historic usage data and growth rates proportional to the OFM Intermediate and High Series population projections. Estimated residential, commercial, and industrial average day demands based on the Intermediate Series OFM population projections are presented in Tables 2-24 through 2-26, respectively, and summarized in Table 2-27. Table 2-24 Residential Water Demand Projections by Pressure Zone based on the OFM GMA Intermediate Series Population Projections for Yakima County (ADD in gpd) population forecast (includes Commercial Irrigation demands). 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Leven 3,357,206 3,403,074 3,581,250 3,834,978 4,063,396 4,281,844 Level2 941,779 954,646 1,004,629 1,075,806 1,139,883 1,201,163 Level 575,950 583,818 614,386 657,914 697,101 734,577 Totals 4,874,935 4,941,538 5,200,265 5,568,698 5,900,379 6,217,584 Table 2-25 Forecast Commercial use average day demand based on Intermediate Series OFM population forecast (includes Commercial Irrigation demands). 2000* 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Forecast annual 3 Commercial use (100 ft)' 2,163,931 2 193 496 2,308,342 2 471 885 ' 2619,115 ' 2759918 Avg. Annual Commercial Irrigation use (100 ft) 914,480 914,480 914,480 914,480 914,480 914,480 Total forecast annual Commercial use (gpd) 6,308,634 6,369,221 6,604,577 6,939,729 7,241,449 7,530,000 Level 1 commercial use forecast (gpd) * * * 4,630,341 4,674,810 4 847 554 5,093,545 5 314 998 ' 5,526,785 Level 2 commercial use forecast (gpd) * * *' 1,624,198 1 639 796 1,700390 1 786 677 ' ' 1864,357 ' 1938 646 Level 3 commercial use forecast (gpd) * * * 54,095 54,615 56,633 59 507 ' 62 094 ' 64,568 * 2000 demand forecast based on linear regression of Commercial demand data from 1994 to 2000 ** Commercial Irrigation demand based on average of data from 1994 to 2000 ***Commercial use prorated among pressure zones based on percentages in Table 2-12. 2-23 Tablle 2-26 Forecast Industrial use average day demand based on Intermediate Series OFM population forecast. 2000* 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total forecast annual Industrial use (100 ft3) 444,266 450,335 473,914 507,490 537,717 566,625 Total forecast annual Industrial use (gal/day) 910,440 922,879 971,198 1,040,007 1,101,951 1,161,192 Level IIndustrial 637,852 646,347 679,346 � 726 339 768 644 809 102 > �use forecast gal/day 668,235 677,364 712,829 763,333 808,798 852,279 Level 2 Industrial use 12,094,009 12,233,638 12,776,040 13 548 433 ' 14 243 780 14 908 776 > forecast gal/day ** 234,399 237,601 250,041 � 267 756 283 704 298 956 > Level Industrial use forecast gal/day ** 7 807 7 914 8,328 8,918 9 449 9 957 > * 2000 demand forecast based on linear regression of Industrial demand data from 1994 to 2000 ** Industrial use prorated among pressure zones based on percentages in Table 2-12. Table 2-27 Sub -total of residential, commercial, and industrial average day demand forecasts by zone based on Intermediate Series OFM forecasts. 2000* 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Level 1 use forecast gal/day * * 8,655 782 8 755 248 � 9 141 633 9 691 855 � 10 187 192 � 10 660 ,908 Level 2 use forecast gal/day * * 2 800 376 2 832 044 2 955 061 3 130 240 3 287 944 3 438 766 � , Level 3 1 use forecast gal/day * * 637,852 646,347 679,346 � 726 339 768 644 809 102 > Sub -total ADD forecasts all zones 12,094,009 12,233,638 12,776,040 13 548 433 ' 14 243 780 14 908 776 > * 2000 demand forecast based on linear regression of Industrial demand data from 1994 to 2000 *'k Sum of forecast demands for each zone from Tables 2-24, 2-25, and 2-26. To the subtotals of the water demand forecasts presented in Table 2-27, above it is necessary to add an allowance for non -revenue water demands such as fire, street flushing and water main flushing. Based on historic water use data, the total non -revenue water demands amount to approximately 8% of the total water supplied. The totals of the residential, commercial, and industrial demand forecasts by zone and for the entire service area based on Intermediate Series OFM forecasts are presented in Table 2-28, below. 2-24 0 Table 2-28 Total of residential, commercial, and industrial ADD forecasts by zone based on Intermediate Series OFM forecasts (including projected non -revenue water demands). 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Levell 3,357,206 2000* 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Level 1 Total use forecast gal/day **' 9,348,244 9,455,668 9 872 964 10,467,203 11 002 167 ' 11,513,781 Level 2 Total use forecast gal/day * *' 3,024 406 3,058,607 3 191 465 3,380,659 3550980 ' 3 713867 Level 3 Total use forecast gal/day ** 688,880 698,054 733,694 784 446 ' 830,135 873,830 Total ADD forecast all zones gal/day 13,061,530 13,212,330 13,798,123 14,632,308 15,383,282 16,101,478 * 2000 demand forecast based on linear regression of Industrial demand data from 1994 to 2000 ** Includes an additional 8% of the subtotal amount in Table 2-27 in each zone to account for non -revenue uses such as fire, street flushing and water main flushing Estimated residential, commercial, and industrial demands based on the High Series OFM population projections are presented in Tables 2-29 through 2-31, respectively, and summarized in Table 2-32. Table 2-29 Residential Water Demand Projections by Pressure Zone based on the OFM GMA High Series Population Projections for Yakima County (ADD in gpd) 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Levell 3,357,206 3,580,888 3,855,219 4,221,346 4,571,318 4,920,914 Level2 941,779 1,004,528 1,081,484 1,184,192 1,282,368 1,380,438 Level3 575,950 614,324 661,387 724,198 784,238 844,213 Totals 4,874,935 5,199,739 5,598,090 6,129,735 6,637,924 7,145,565 2-25 Table 2-30 Forecast Commercial use average day demand based on High Series OFM population forecast (includes Commercial Irrigation demands). 2000* 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Forecast annual 3 Commercial use (100 ft ) 2,163,931 2,308,108 2,484,932 2,720,923 2,946,503 3,171,839 Avg. ,Annual Commercial Irrigation use (100 ft) 914,480 914,480 914,480 914,480 914,480 914,480 Total forecast annual Commercial use (gal/day) 6,308,634 6,604,099 6,966,466 7,450,087 7,912,370 8,374,156 Level 1 commercial use forecast (gal/day) * * *' 4,630,341 4,847,203 5,113,169 5 468 132 5,807,433 6 146 369 Level 2 commercial use forecast (gal/day) * * *' 1,624,198 1 700 267 1,793,561 1 918 072 2,037,090 2 155 980 Level 3 commercial forecast (gal/day) 54,095 56,629 59,736 63,883 67,847 71,807 * 2000 demand forecast based on linear regression of Commercial demand data from 1994 to 2000 ** Commercial Irrigation demand based on average of data from 1994 to 2000 ***Commercial use prorated among pressure zones based on percentages in Table 2-12. Table 2-31 Forecast Industrial use average day demand based on High Series OFM population forecast. 2000* 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Total forecast 3 444,266 473,866 510,169 I 558,619 604,931 651,194 Industrial use (1100 00ftft ) Total forecast annual Industrial use (gal/day) 910,440 971,100 1,045,496 1,144,786 1,239,695 1,334,502 Level 1 Industrial use forecast gal/day * * 668,235 712,757 767,362 840,237 909,897 979 483 ' Level 2 Industrial use forecast gal/day * * 234,399 250,016 269,170 I 294,732 319,167 343,576 Level 3 Industrial use 7,807 8,327 8,965 I 9,816 10,630 11,443 forecast gal/day ** * 2000 demand forecast based on linear regression of Industrial demand data from 1994 to 2000 ** Industrial use prorated among pressure zones based on percentages in Table 2-12. 2-26 6 Table 2-32 Sub -total of residential, commercial, and industrial average day demand forecasts by zone based on High Series OFM forecasts. 2000* 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Level 1 **e forecast gal/day 8,655,782 9,140,848 9,735,749 10,529,715 11,288,649 12,046,766 Level use forecast gal/dayl/day * * 2,800,376 2954811 3,144,215 3,396,996 3,638,625 3,879,993 Level 3 **e forecast gal/day 637,852 679,279 730,088 797,897 862,715 927,463 Sub -total ADD forecasts all zones' 12,094,009 12,774,938 13,610,052 14,724,608 15 789 989 ' 16 854 222 ' ' * 2000 demand forecast based on linear regression of Industrial demand data from 1994 to 2000 ** Sum of forecast demands for each zone from Tables 2-29, 2-30, and 2-31. The totals of the residential, commercial, and industrial demand forecasts by zone and for the entire service area based on High Series OFM forecasts and including the 8% allowance for non - revenue water demands such as fire, street flushing and water main flushing are presented in Table 2-33, below. Table 2-33 Total of residential, commercial, and industrial average day demand forecasts by zone based on High Series OFM forecasts. 2000* 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Level 1 Total use forecast gal/day * *' 9,348,244 9,872,116 10 514 609 11,372,092 12 191 741 13 010 507 ' ' Level 2 Total use forecast gal/day * *' 3,024,406 3 191 195 3,395,752 3 668 756 3929715 ' 4 190 393 ' ' Level 3 Total use forecast gal/day * * 688,880 733,622 788,495 861,729 931 732 ' 1001660 ' ' Total ADD forecast all zones gal/day' 13,061,530 13,796,933 14,698,856 15,902,577 17 053 188 ' 18 202 560 ' ' * 2000 demand forecast based on linear regression of Industrial demand data from 1994 to 2000 ** Includes an additional 8% of the subtotal amount in Table 2-32 in each zone to account for non -revenue uses such as fire, street flushing and water main flushing For the purpose of comparison to the demand projections based on the Intermediate and High Series OFM population projections, a linear regression analysis of the historic water usage data from 1977 to 2000 was also carried out and the results shown graphically in Figure 2-3. The linear regression projection and the demand projections from the OFM population data are presented together for comparison in Figure 2-4. 2-27 20 18 16 4 2 Figure 2-3 Average Day Demand (MGD) 1977 to 2000 and Forecast Average Day Demand to 2025 s Average Day Demand (ADD) - MGD Forecast Average Day Demand - MGD 0 i I I TTI -'I -I I I 7T I "I -T' I I I I I f I I ITI I I -I I I I I I I I I I ITT i I T I I I I I (0 CO O N � OJ 00 O N IT CD 00 O N d CD CO O N CD 00 O N st I,- 1- 00 co 00 CO 00 O O O O) O O O O O Cl .- r- r N N N CA CA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r- •- �- T_ � N N N N N N N N N N N N N Year 2-28 0 19.000 18.000 17.000 16.000 Q 15.000 C7 14.000 Q 13.000 12 000 11 000 10.000 9.000 -1- 2000 Figure 2-4 Comparison of intermediate and high ADD forecasts based on GMA population projection to forecast from 1977 to 2000 data 2005 2010 -*-Total ADD forecast all zones - intermediate forecast (MGD) Total ADD forecast all zones - high forecast (MGD) -*-Total ADD forecast from 1977 to 2000 forecast data 2-29 2015 2020 2025 0 • As can be seen in Figure 2-4, the linear regression plot projecting future demand from the historical water use data from 1977 to 2000 most closely matches the demand estimates generated from the OFM High Series population estimates. The OFM High Series water demand projections are very close to the projections based on historical data for the first half of the planning period. Towards the end of the planning period the projected ADD based on OFM High Series projection is about 4% higher that the ADD based on the linear regression of the historical data. For the purpose of this Water System Plan Update, the water demand projections based on the OFM High Series GMA population forecast will be used. The use of the GMA projections is required by the Department of Health planning guidelines. The use of the High Series OFM projections is the most conservative approach, and the good correlation with the forecast of the historical use data also supports this decision. The projected average daily demands for each zone and for the total service area through 2025 are shown in Figure 2-5. 2-30 2000 18.00 • �l 1400 12.00 D C7 = 10.00 Q 8.00 AM 400 2.00 NM Figure 2-5 ADD Forecasts by Zone based on OFM high population projections through 2025 --+-- Level 1 Total use forecast MGD -M- Level 2 Total use forecast MGD -A- Level 3 Total use forecast MGD --Total ADD forecast all zones MGD 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2-31 • 9 Maximum Day and Peak Hour Water Demands The maximum day demand (MDD) for each year from 1994 through 2000 is shown in Table 2- 34. Also shown in this table are the ADDS for each year and the ratio of the MDD to ADD. Table 2-34 Maximum Day Demands from 1994 through 2000 and MDD/ADD Ratios Year MDD (MGD) Date of MDD ADD (MGD) MDD/ADD ratio 1994 20.777 7/23/1994 1.2.62 1.646 1995 19.895 7/31/1995 12.57 1.583 1996 21.860 7/16/1996 1.2.23 1.787 1997 23.033 5/19/1997 1.3.84 1.664 1998 26.176 7/28/1998 1. 3.27 1.973 1999 21.517 6/17/1999 1.2.37 1.739 2000 22.854 8/2/2000 1.3.06 1.750 Average (MGD) 1.206 1.735 Median 1.508 1.631 1.753 1.739 The average of the MDD to ADD ratio is 1.735 and the median value is 1.739. For the purpose of projecting maximum day demands through the planning period, the MDD/ADD ratio will be rounded up to 1.75. The projected maximum day demands through the planning period are shown in Table 2-35, below. Table 2-35 Projected Maximum Day Demands through 2025* 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Level 1 MDD forecast (MGD) 16.359 17.276 18.401 19.901 21.336 22.768 Level 2 MDD forecast (MGD) 5.293 5.585 5.943 6.420 6.877 7.333 Level 3 MDD forecast (MGD) 1.206 1.284 1.380 1.508 1.631 1.753 Total AADD forecast all zones (MGD) 22.858 24.145 25.723 27.830 29.843 31.854 * MDD estimated as 1.75 x ADD using ADD estimates from Table 2--33. 2-32 0 The peak hour demand (PHD) corresponding to each of the maximum demand days in the years 1997 to 2000 was estimated by graphing the moving average the instantaneous demands observed on those days. The instantaneous demands were calculated from the water treatment plant supply and well pumping data together with the reservoir level data for each zone. This data is available from the WTP SCADA system archive records at approximately 8 minute increments. Moving averages of the calculated instantaneous demands were taken to account for the inherent inaccuracies in the instantaneous reservoir data readings which results in excessive fluctuations in single point calculations. The observed peak hour demands and the corresponding PHD to MDD ratios are summarized in Table 2-36, below. Table 2-36 Observed Peak Hour Demands and PHD to MDD Ratios Year MDD (MGD) Date of MDD PHD (MGD) PHD/MDD ratio 1997 23.033 5/19/1997 37.5 1.63 1998 26.176 7/28/1998 42.1 1.61 1999 21.517 6/17/1999 34.4 1.60 2000 22.854 8/2/2000 35.0 1.53 Average 1.59 Median 1.60 The generalized equation for PHD determinations from the Washington State Department of Health Water System Design Manual (DOH #331-123) is: PHD = (MDD/1440) x [(C) x (N) + F] + 18 (Equation 5-3 from DOH #331-123) Where: PHD = Peak Hourly Demand, (gallons per minute, gpm) C = Coefficient Associated with Ranges of ERUs N = Number of Service Connections, ERUs F = Factor Associated with Ranges of ERUs MDD = Maximum Day Demand, (gpd/ERU) Table 2-37 (Table 5-1 from DOH 9331-123) identifies the appropriate coefficients and factors to substitute into Equation 5-3 for the ranges of ERUs: 2-33 • Table 2-37 Factors and Coefficients for Equation 5-3 from DOH #331-123 Range of N (ERUs) C F 15-50 3.0 0 51-100 2.5 25 101 -250 2.0 75 251 -500 1.8 125 > 500 1.6 225 From examination of DOH Equation 5-3 it is apparent that as the number of ERUs in the system becomes large with respect to 500 (as is the case with the City of' Yakima water system which has in excess of 50,000 ERUs) the equation can be approximated by: PHD = 1.6 x MDD The use of a PHD to MDD ratio of 1.6 for the projection of future peak hour demands as suggested by the DOH design manual is entirely consistent with historical data for the Yakima water system as shown in Table 2-36. This ratio has, therefore, been used to project the peak hour demands through the year 2025 as presented in Table 2-3 8, below. Table 2-38 Projected Peak Hour Demands through 2025* 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Level 1 PHD forecast (MGD) 26.175 27.642 29.441 31.842 34.137 36.429 Level 2 PHD forecast (MGD) 8.468 8.935 9.508 10.273 11.003 11.733 Level 3 PHD forecast (MGD) 1.929 2.054 2.208 2.413 2.609 2.805 Total PHD forecast all zones (MGD) 36.572 3 8.6 311 41.157 44.527 47.749 50.967 * PHD estimated as 1.6 x MDD using MDD estimates from Table 2-35. 2-34 0 Chapter 3 System Analysis 3 System Analysis 3.1 System Design Standards The purpose of this section is to identify and describe the design standards which apply to the City of Yakima Water System. Standards which are incorporated by reference include the Washington State Department of Health Water System Design Manual (DOH #331-123, June 1999, or latest edition) and Chapter 246-290 WAC Public Water Supplies (December 14, 2001 update, or latest revision). Specific design standards applicable to the City of Yakima Water System established and listed in this Water System Plan Update include: • Water Quality Standards; • Average and Maximum Daily Demands; • Peak Hour Demand; • Storage Requirements; • Fire Flow Rate and Duration; • Minimum System Pressure; • Minimum Pipe Sizes; • Telemetry Systems; • Backup Power Requirements; • Valve and Hydrant Spacing; and • Other System Policies and Design Standards (e.g. Looping). Water Quality Standards The 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and its 1986 and 1996 amendments established specific legislation for regulation of public water systems by federal and state governments. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is authorized to develop national drinking water regulations and oversee the implementation of the SDWA. Once federal regulations become effective, the states may adopt the federal law as state law and accept the primary responsibility for implementation and enforcement of the law. The State of Washington has adopted as state law all of the SDWA regulations promulgated by the EPA. The State has delegated the authority to oversee drinking water regulations to the State Department of Health (DOH). State drinking water regulations are published in WAC 246-290, which establishes monitoring requirements, maximum contaminant levels, and requirements for follow-up actions. Minimum standards for water quality are often specified in terms of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLS). Primary MCLs are based on chronic and/or acute human health effects. Secondary MCLs are based on factors other than health effects, such as the aesthetic quality of the water. Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) are based on the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. 3-1 MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non -enforceable public health goals. Public water purveyors have the responsibility of meeting the requirements of the regulations on a day-to-day basis. Monitoring requirements are often established for regulated contaminants to ensure that water systems demonstrate compliance with MCLS or treatment technique requirements. Public water suppliers are also required to retain certain records and submit reports to the DOH. Microorganisms - Indicator organisms are often used to test for bacterial and other microbial contamination in drinking water. Total coliform, fecal coliform, and E. Coli are typical indicator organisms. The absence of coliform bacteria generally assures the; water purveyor that pathogenic bacteria are not present. WAC 246-290 establishes bacteriological requirements for public water systems. Compliance with this rule is based on the presence/absence of total coliforms. Monitoring requirements and schedules are provided in the City's Coliform Monitoring Plan. A copy of the Coliform Monitoring Plan is included in Appendix H. Samples are collected to cover each pressure zone, reservoir outfall, and source distribution area. The monitoring program specifies the collection of samples on a rotating basis, such that the sites are re-sarripled each quarter. The current MCLS and MCLGs pertaining to microbiological water quality standards are summarized in Table 3-1, below. Table 3-1 National Primary Drinking Water Standards for Microbial Contaminants Microorganisms MCLG MCL or Treatment Technique (TT) Cryptosporidium zero 99% removal (as ofl/1/02 for systems serving >10,000 and 1/14/05 for systems serving<10,000). Giardia lamblia zero 99.9% removal/inactivation Heterotrophic plate n/a No more than 500 bacterial colonies per milliliter. count (HPC) Legionella zero No limit, but EPA believes that. if Giardia and viruses are removed/inactivated, Legionella will also be controlled. Total Coliforms zero No more than 5.0% samples total coliform -positive in a (including fecal month. Every sample that has total coliform must be coliform and E. Coli) analyzed for either fecal coliforms or E. coli if two consecutive TC -positive samples, and one is also positive for E.coli fecal coliforms, system has an acute MCL violation. Turbidity n/a As of January 1, 2002, turbidity may never exceed 1 NTU, and must not exceed 0.3 NTU in 95% of daily samples in any month. Viruses (enteric) zero 99.99% removal/inactivation 3-2 Disinfection By-products (DBPs) — DBPs, including trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAS) are a group of organic compounds that can be formed as a result of drinking water disinfection by oxidants such as chlorine, chlorine dioxide and ozone. The current MCLGs and MCLS for disinfection by-products are summarized in Table 3-2, below. Table 3-2 National Primary Drinking Water Standards for Disinfection By-products Disinfection Byproducts MCLG (mg/L) MCL (mg/L) Bromate zero 0.010 Chlorite 0.8 1.0 Haloacetic acids (HAAS) bromoform (zero); dibromochloromethane (0.06 mg/L) 0.060 Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) dichloroacetic acid (zero); trichloroacetic acid (0.3 mg/L) 0.080 Residual Disinfectants - Water in the distribution system must maintain a residual disinfectant concentration of total free chlorine of at least 0.2 mg/L. Distribution system residual disinfectant Concentrations, measured as total free chlorine, must be detectable in at least 95 percent of the samples taken each calendar month. For groundwater systems that are required to disinfect, systems are required to have a CT (concentration of chlorine (mg/1) multiplied by contact time (min)) of 6 in accordance with WAC 246-260-451. Residual disinfectant concentration within the distribution system is measured at the same time and location that routine coliform samples are collected. The current Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goals (MRDLGs) and Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels (MRDLs) for disinfection by-products are summarized in Table 3-3, below. Table 3-3 National Primary Drinking Water Standards for Disinfection Residuals Disinfectant MRDLG (mg/L) MRDL (mg/L) Chloramines (as C12) 4 4 Chlorine (as C12) 4 4 Chlorine dioxide (as C1O2) 0.8 0.8 3-3 Lead And Copper - The EPA published the final regulations for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) in 1991 as part of the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Amendments. LCR is intended to reduce tap water concentrations of lead and copper. LCR requires an initial monitoring phase in which two rounds of water sampling for lead and copper are conducted. Lead samples, collected according to 40 CFR, must have concentrations below the 'Action bevel' of 0.015 mg/L in the 90th percentile. Similarly, copper samples must have concentrations less than 1.3 mg/L in the 90th percentile. Systems exceeding the action levels are required to implement corrosion control measures. The MCLG for lead is zero and, the MCLG for copper is 1.3 mg/L. IOCs, VOCs and SOCs- The State of Washington has adopted Federal MCLs and monitoring regulations for inorganic chemicals and physical parameters (IOCs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and synthetic organic compounds (SOCs). The Federal standards were originally promulgated in the Phase I Rule and updated in the Phase II and Phase V rules. The current MCLGs and MCLs for IOCs, VOCs and SOCs are presented in Tables 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6, below. The City of Yakima's monitoring plans for inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals, radionuclides, disinfection/disinfection by-products, and turbidity/free chlorine residual/pH are included in this plan as Appendices I, J, K, L, and M. 3-4 Table 3-4 Inorganic Chemical Primary MCLs and MCLGs Substance MCLG (mg/L) MCL (mg/L) Antimony (Sb) 0.006 0.006 Arsenic (As) zero 0.01 (as of 1/23/06) Asbestos (fiber >10 µm long) 7 million fibers/liter 7 million fibers/liter Barium (Ba) 2.0 2.0 Beryllium (Be) 0.004 0.004 Cadmium (Cd) 0.005 0.005 Chromium -Total (Cr) 0.1 0.1 Copper (Cu) 1.3 1.3 (note 1) Cyanide (HCN) 0.2 0.2 Fluoride (F) 4.0 4.0 Lead (Pb) zero 0.015 (note 1) Mercury (Hg) 0.002 0.002 Nickel (Ni) 0.1 0.1 Nitrate (as N) 10.0 10.0 Nitrite (as N) 1.0 1.0 Selenium (Se) 0.05 0.05 Sodium (Na) n/a 20 (note 2) Thallium (Tl) 0.0005 0.002 Note I — MCL not established, however lead and copper are regulated by a Treatment Technique that requires systems to control the corrosiveness of their water. If more than 10% of tap water samples exceed the action level, water systems must take additional steps. For copper, the action level is 1.3 mg/L, and for lead is 0.015 mg/L. Note 2 — MCL not established, however EPA has also established a recommended level of twenty mg/L for sodium as a level of concern for those consumers that may be restricted for daily sodium intake. 3-5 Table 3-5 Volatile and Synthetic Organic Chemical Primary MCLGs and MCLs Substance MCLG (mg/L) MCL (mg/L) AcrylEanide zero TT Alachlor zero 0.002 Atrazine 0.003 0.003 Benzene zero 0.005 Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) zero 0.0002 Carbo furan 0.04 0.04 Carbon tetrachloride zero 0.005 Chlordane zero 0.002 Chlorobenzene 0.1 0.1 2,4-D 0.7 0.7 Dalapon 02 0.2 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) zero 0.0002 o -Dichlorobenzene 0.6 0.6 p -Dichlorobenzene 0.075 0.075 1,2-Dichloroethane zero 0.005 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007 0.007 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.07 0.07 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.1 0.1 Dichloromethane. Zero 0.005 1,2-Dichloropropane zero 0.005 Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate 0.4 0.4 Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate zero 0.006 Dinoseb 0.007 0.007 Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) zero 0.00000003 Diquat 0.02 0.02 Endothall 0.1 0.1 Endrin 0.002 0.002 3-6 W Table 3-6 Volatile and Synthetic Organic Chemical Primary MCLGs and MCLs (cont.) Substance MCLG (mg/L) MCL (mg/L) Epichlorohydrin zero TT' Ethylbenzene 0.7 0.7 Ethylene dibromide zero 0.00005 Glyphosate 0.7 0.7 Heptachlor zero 0.0004 Heptachlor epoxide zero 0.0002 Hexachlorobenzene zero 0.001 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05 0.05 Lindane 0.0002 0.0002 Methoxychlor 0.04 0.04 Oxamyl (Vydate) 0.2 0.2 Polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) zero 0.0005 Pentachlorophenol zero 0.001 Picloram 0.5 0.5 Simazine 0.004 0.004 Styrene 0.1 0.1 Tetrachloroethylene zero 0.005 Toluene 1 1 Toxaphene zero 0.003 2,4,5 -TP (Silvex) 0.05 0.05 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.07 0.07 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.2 0.2 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane 0.003 0.005 Trichloroethylene zero 0.005 Vinyl chloride zero 0.002 Xylenes (total) 10 10 When acrylamide and epichlorohydrin are used in drinking water systems, the combination of dose and monomer level shall not exceed: Acrylamide = 0.05% dosed at 1 mg/L (or equivalent); Epichlorohydrin = 0.0 1 % dosed at 20 mg/L (or equivalent) 3-7 Radionuclides - The current radionuclide MCLs as defined be WAC 246-290 are shown in Table 3-7. EPA published the final version of the Radionuclide Rule on December 7, 2000 which revised the radionuclide MCLs. The radionuclide MCLs which will be in place after the new rule becomes effective are shown in Table 3-8. The effective date of the final Radionuclide Rule is December 8, 2003 for systems that have begun initial monitoring under state -specified monitoring plan, unless the state permits the use of grandfathered data, and December 31, 2007 for all systems, including those using grandfathered data. Table 3-7 Current Radionuclide MCLs from WAC 246-290 Radionuclide MCLG (pCi/L)' MCL (pCi/L)' Radium -226 n/a 3 Combined Radium -226 and Radium- 228 n/a 5 Gross alpha particle activity excluding Uranium n/a 15 Beta particle and photon radioactivity from man made radionulclides n/a 4 millirem/year pCi/L = picocuries per liter Table 3-8 Radionuclide MCLGs and MCLs from EPA Radionuclide Rule Radionuclide MCLG MCL Beta/photon emitters 2 zero 4 millirem/year Gross alpha particle zero 15 pCi/L 1 Combined Radium -226 and Radium- 228 zero 5 pCi/L' Uranium zero 30 µg/L pCi/L = picocuries per liter 2 A total of 168 individual beta particle and photon emitters may be used to calculate compliance with the MCL. 3-8 0 Secondary Drinking Water Contaminants - National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWRs or secondary standards) are non -enforceable guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. EPA recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not require systems to comply. The secondary standards as established by EPA and adopted by the Washington State DOH are presented in Table 3-9. Table 3-9 National Secondary Drinking Water Contaminants Contaminant Secondary MCI. Aluminum 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L Chloride 250 mg/L Color 15 (color units) Copper 1.0 mg/L Corrosivity noncorrosive Fluoride 2.0 mg/L Foaming Agents 0.5 mg/L Iron 0.3 mg/L Manganese 0.05 mg/L Odor 3 threshold odor number pH 6.5-8.5 Silver 0.10 mg/L Sulfate 250 mg/L Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L Zinc 5 mg/L 3-9 Average and Maximum Daily Demands 9 The average daily demand (ADD) and the maximum daily demand (MDD) projections based on the basic planning data presented in Chapter 2 are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, respectively. The MDD is estimated as 1.75 times the ADD based on historical data. The 2008 (6 year) and 2022 (20 year) ADD and MDD projections for each pressure zone were determined graphically from the demand projection curves in these figures. These ADD and MDD projections are summarized in Table 3-10 and Table 3-11, respectively. Table 3-10 Projected 6 year and 20 year Average Daily Demands in MGD Pressure Zone 2008 (6 year) projection 2022 (20 year) projection Level 1 10.21 12.52 Level 2 3.31 4.03 Level 3 0.77 0.97 Total 14.31 17.52 Table 3-11 Projected 6 year and 20 year Maximum Daily Demands in MGD Pressure Zone 2008 (6 year) projection 2022 (20 year) projection Level 1 17.87 21.91 Level 2 5.79 7.05 Level 3 1.35 1.70 Total 25.04 30.66 3-10 • Figure 3-1 Projected 6 year and 20 year Average Day Demand 20 im 16 14 12 8 go 4 2 -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- -- ----- - ------ ---- --- - -- - ----- - - ------------ - --I-- ----- - �-- --- -_. .T_ - - - - - ----� -- -- - - - ----- - --- 2022 Total ADD = 17 52 I ---------I - - - - -1 -------- --- - - 2022 L1 ADD -- - - - 1 � 2008 Total ADD - 14.31 MGD --- -_- = 12 52 2008 L1 ADD=10.21 MGD - --- _________ ----- -- - - I _ _ --M- Total ADD forecast all zones MGD Level 1 ADD use forecast MGD Level 2 ADD use forecast MGD +Level 3 ADD use forecast MGD - '-- -- -- -- - - - - - i- -- - - -- - 2008 L2 ADD = 3 31 MGD - - ----- _-----�- !- - 2022 L3 ADD - 4 03 i 2008 L3 ADD = 0 77 MGD J2022 L3 ADD = 0.97 0! - 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 3-11 Figure 3-2 Projected 6 year and 20 year Maximum Day Demand 35 R022 Total MDI = 30 66 MGD 30 12008 Total IVIDD =25 04 MGD 25 12022 LI IVIDD 21 91 IVIGD 08 Ll MDD=17.87 MGD 20 go A Total IVIDD forecast all zones MGD E 15 J - Level 1 IVIDD use forecast MGDD -7 4 Level 2 IVIDD use forecast MGD 10 Level 3 MIDID use forecast MGD i-�2008 L2 IVIDD 5 79 MGDT --- --- I Iz, n 5 [L�2MDD 7 05 MGD -1 _ _ _ 2008 L3 IVIDD = 1 35 MGD 2022 L3 IVIDD 1 70 MGD -T 7 0 I I ... 1 1 1 . . i I . I I I I i 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 3-12 Peak Hour Demands The peak hour demand (PHD) projections based on the basic planning data presented in Chapter 2 are shown in Figure 3-3. The PHD is estimated as 1.6 times the ADD based on historical data and DOH guidelines. The 2008 (6 year) and 2022 (20 year) PHD projections for each pressure zone were determined graphically from the demand projection curves in Figure 3-3. The PHD projections are summarized in Table 3-12. Table 3-12 Projected 6 year and 20 year Peak Hour Demands in MGD Pressure Zone 2008 (6 year) projection 2022 (20 year) projection Level 1 28.59 35.06 Level 2 9.27 11.28 Level 3 2.16 2.72 Total 40.01 49.06 3-13 Figure 3-3 Projected 6 year and 20 year Peak Hour Demand - _ — _ - - - --------------- -------------------------------------- -..2022 Total PHD = 49 06 MGD -- - -- -- ------=1=- --I =- --- I - - - - _ _---- - ------------ ----------------------- 50 r 2008 Total PHD =40 01 MGD I 40 + f __ � __ 2022 L1 PHD - 35 06 MGD 2008 L1 PHD-28.59 MGD 30 = - -0 Total PHD forecast all zones MGD CL ---- - Level 1 PHD use forecast MGD Level 2 PHD use forecast MGD20 � __ - - - -- ------ ---- - - - - - - — - - ' - -------� -- --- ---- -- --- -- - -- - - --- -- — -- --�— I i PHrI lige fnracast hA(:fl --- - k =2008 L2 PHD = 9.27MGD — -_ - - - ---- - - - - - - - I - - - - - --- -- -- - 10 ___. _ ..___. _ �__._._ __ .___._ _... - j 2022 L2 PHD = 11 28 MGD I i 2008 L3 PHD = 2 16MGD 2022 L3 PHD = 2.72 MGD - - -- '- 0 - I- - - - _ -- -- -- - - - - --- - _ 1 11 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 3-14 Storage Requirements The design of storage requirements must consider each of the five (5) storage component listed below (reference WAC 246-290-235(3)): 1. Operational storage (OS); 2. Equalizing storage (ES); 3. Standby storage (SB), 4. Fire suppression storage (FSS); and 5. Dead storage (DS), if any. 1. Operational storage (OS) As defined in WAC 246-290-010, operational storage is the volume of the reservoir devoted to supplying the water system while under normal operating conditions when the source(s) of supply are "off'. This volume will vary according to two main factors: (1) the sensitivity of the water level sensors controlling the source pumps, and (2) the configuration of the tank designed to provide the volume required to prevent excessive cycling (starting and stopping) of the pump motor(s). The definition specifies that OS is an additive quantity to the other components of storage. This provides an additional factor of safety to the ES, SB, and FSS components if the reservoir is full when that component of storage would be needed. According to the DOH guidelines, operational storage may not apply to systems operating under a continuous pumping mode or a gravity fed supply such as from a water treatment plant (see discussion below under equalizing storage). 2. Equalizing storage (ES) When the source pumping capacity cannot meet the periodic daily (or longer) peak demands placed on the water system, Equalizing Storage (ES) must be provided (reference WAC 246-290-235(2)) as a part of the total storage for the system and must be available at 30 psi to all service connections. The volume of ES depends upon several factors, including peak diurnal variations in system demand, source production capacity, and the mode of operation. If pumping is to be continuous or if the system is supplied by gravity, it is necessary to prepare a mass analysis by either graphical or tabular methods, or a computer simulation in order to determine the OS and ES requirements. According to the DOH Design Manual, ES should be calculated using the following equation: ES = (PHD - Qs) x (150 min.), but in no case less than zero. Where: ES = Equalizing storage component, in gallons. PHD = Peak hourly demand, in gpm, Qs = Sum of all installed and active source of supply capacities, except emergency sources of supply in gpm.. 3-15 3. Standby storage (SB) • The purpose of SB is to provide a measure of reliability should sources fail or when unusual conditions impose higher demands than anticipated. The SB volume recommended for systems served by one source may be different than for systems served by multiple sources as indicated in the following equations. Water Systems With A Single Source The recommended SB volume for systems served by a single source of supply is two (2) times the system's average day demand (ADD) for the design year to be available to all service connections at 20 psi. SBTss = (2 days) x (ADD) Where: SBTss = Total standby storage component for a single source system, in gallons; ADD = Average day demand for the design year, in gpd Water Systems With Multiple Sources The recommended SB volume for systems served by multiple sources should be based upon the following equation: SBTNIs = (2 days) x (ADD) - tmx (Qs - QL ) Where: SBTNIs = Total standby storage component for a multiple source system; in gallons ADD = Average day demand for the system, in gpd; Qs = Sum of all installed and continuously available source of supply capacities, except emergency sources, in gpm. QL = The largest capacity source available to the system, in gpm. tm = Time that remaining sources are pumped on the day when the largest source is not available, in minutes. (Unless restricted otherwise, this is generally assumed to be 1440 minutes.) 4. Fire Flow Rate and Duration Public water systems are required to construct and maintain facilities, including storage reservoirs, capable of delivering fire flows in accordance with the determination offire flow requirement made by the local fire protection authority or County Fire Marshal while maintaining 20 psi pressure throughout the distribution system (WAC 246-290- 221(5)). The magnitude of fire suppression storage (FSS) is the product of the maximum flow rate and duration established by the local fire protection authority or County Fire Marshal. For water systems located in areas governed under the Public Water System Coordination Act of 1977 (PWSCA), Chapter 70.116 RCW, minimum flow rates and durations that must apply for residential, commercial, and industrial developments are 3-16 0 specified in the Water System Coordination Act regulations, WAC 246-293-640. Greater FSS requirements may be specified by the local fire protection authority, County Fire Marshal, and/or locally adopted Coordinated Water System Plan. Fire -flow volumes are typically calculated based on the largest fire flow occurring in each pressure zone. 5. Dead storage (DS), if any. Dead storage (effective only to provide adequate pressure) is the volume of stored water not available to all consumers at the minimum design pressure in accordance with WAC 246-290-230(5) and (6). DS volume is excluded from the volumes provided to meet OS, ES, and/or FSS. Minimum System Pressure The minimum system pressure design standard which has been established by the City of Yakima provides that during peak -hour demands, the distribution system should provide a minimum service pressure of 30 psi to all customers. Under fire -flow conditions, service pressures across the City should not drop below 20 psi. These design standards are consistent with the DOH Design Manual requirements and the applicable portions of WAC 246-290-230. Minimum Pipe Size Title 12 of the Yakima Municipal Code establishes development standards for water service extensions. Chapter 12.04 covers water system development standards. Article 12.04.030 requires that all water lines shall be looped. Article 12.04.040 requires that all new water lines within the City of Yakima water service area shall be a minimum of eight inches in diameter and be constructed of Class 52 ductile iron. Telemetry Systems The existing telemetry system provides for monitoring and control of booster pumps, reservoir levels, the water treatment plant, and each of the wells. Each telemetry location can communicate with the water treatment plant and with each of the other telemetry locations. Each telemetry unit consists of a programmable logic controller (PLC) and a VHF radio transmitter which communicates via a digital packet burst protocol. Any new telemetry points must be compatible with the existing system. Backup Power Backup power shall be provided for the various components of the water system in accordance with the DOH Design Manual and applicable regulations. Valve and Hydrant Spacing Fire hydrant location and number requirements are stipulated in Article 10. 10.070 of the Yakima Municipal Code. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in single-family zones shall be 600 feet. In all other areas, including areas of single-family zones impressed with public buildings, and/or schools, the maximum distance between fire hydrants in single-family zones shall be 400 feet. 3-17 With regard to valve spacing, each project is reviewed to determine valve spacing based on main isolation for minimal disruption in service. In addition, valves are required at each intersections. Other Requirements Section 12.04.030 of the Yakima Municipal Code requires that all water lines shall be looped. Temporary dead-end lines may be permitted based on an agreement between the developer and the City with provisions for timely completion of looping. Copies of the City's Development Standards and Water System Specification and Details are included in Appendix O and Appendix P, respectively. 3.2 Water Quality Analysis Raw Water Quality The normal water supply source for the City of Yakima is the Naches River Water Treatment Plant located approximately 8 miles west of Yakima on Highway 12. Like many surface waters in the Pacific Northwest, the Naches River can be categorized by its low hardness and low alkalinity. However, its water quality can vary significantly throughout the year. Storm events and spring snowmelt in the mountains to the west can increase turbidity and color rapidly. A summary of the raw water quality data for the time period 1994 through 2000 in presented in Table 3-13. Table 3-13 Summary of Naches River Raw Water Quality (1994 to 2000) Parameter Units Average Minimum Maximum Turbidity NTU 10.8 0.52 939 pH -- 7.30 (median) 6.15 8.53 Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 25 15 41 Temperature °C 9.4 1.0 21 Calcium mg/L 23 13 40 Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 19a -- -- Color - Apparent ACU 58a -- -- Color - True TCU 0a -- -- UV254 cm-� 0.04a -- -- Tot,al Organic Carbon mg/L 2.0 1.2 5.1 a Data collected between May 12 and May 15, 1998 (Carollo Engineers, Naches River Water Treatment Plant Evaluation Final Report, August 1998) 3-18 W a The raw water turbidities ranged during the period from 0.52 NTU to 939 NTU with an average of 10.8 NTU. The daily raw water turbidity values from 1994 to 2000 are shown in Figure 3-4. A frequency distribution curve of the same influent turbidity data is shown in Figure 3-5. The direct filtration criterium for raw water turbidity is 15 NTU. As indicated in Figure 3-5, this raw water turbidity value is exceeded approximately 10 % of the time (i.e. 90 % of the raw water turbidity values do not exceed 15 NTU). The implications of the raw water quality with respect to turbidity are discussed below in Section 3.3, System Description and Analysis. 3-19 10000 1000 D 1- Z X100 L 10 Figure 3-4 Daily Raw Water Turbidity 1994 to 2000 01 , I i I I I I I I I I I I I , qt � 0 (f) (f) LO (0 (0 (0 (0 f- f- 1l- f'- 00 00 00 00 O O) O O O O O O � O CU O) Q O O O O M-' --) O Q O O O O -moi 0) Q O O O O -) O Q O O O O --)) O Q O O O O -" O Q O � O O O -) O Q O -' O O O -j 3-20 100% 90% 80% 70% c d 60% m x w 0 50% Z c v 40% d a 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 3-5 Frequency distribution of Daily Average Raw Water Turbidity Values 1994 to 2000 1 10 100 1000 Raw Water Turbidity (NTU) 3-21 Finished Water Quality A time series chart of finished water turbidity for the WTP from 1994 through 2000 is shown in Figure 3-6. The current MCL for finished water turbidity is 0.5 NTU for 95 percent of the samples in any month. The upcoming Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (ESWTR) will most likely lower the turbidity MCL to 0.3 NTU. The WTP has not violated the monthly 95 percent turbidity standard since the effective date of the existing regulation (June 30, 1993), nor has it violated the more stringent MCL in the upcoming ESTWR. .A frequency distribution curve of the same finished water turbidity data is shown in Figure 3-7. EPA Regulated inorganic chemicals (IOCs) for which Primary and Secondary MCLS have been established are tested annually in the WTP finished water. The results of the finished water IOC testing :from 1996 to 2001 are summarized in Tables 3-14 and 3-15. Parameters which are tested for but not regulated are summarized in Table 3-16. Other parameters including total coliform, volatile organic compounds, and lead and copper are summarized in Table 3-17. During this period there have been no violations with respect to meeting the applicable standards for safe, clean water as delivered into the city's water distribution system. In all categories, the levels of regulated chemical species are substantially below acceptable contamination levels set by EPA. In addition, the City has routinely tested for another 53 compounds including the regulated and unregulated volatile and synthetic organic compounds. In all cases no detectible levels of these compounds were found. Emergency Well Water Quality Monitoring The three wells (Airport Well, Kissel Well, and Kiwanis Well) are currently classified as emergency sources of supply and, as such, are not subject to annual monitoring. The City has, however conducted periodic monitoring. Recent IOC testing results for the wells are summarized in Table 3-18. In addition, the Maximum Total Triha.lomethane Potential (MTTF[P) has been tested annually for emergency well supplies since 1996. The results of these MTTHP tests are summarized in Table 3-19. The City has also tested the well supplies for the regulated and unregulated volatile and synthetic organic compounds. The results of these tests are summarized in Tables 3-20 and 3-21. As with the WTP finished water, no detectible levels of these compounds were found in the well water tests. 3 -22 035 030 D H ? 0.25 :a L E- 0.20 Q LJ 015 D Q 010 Q 005 0.00 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 C d 7 U C d U Q O � Q O Figure 3-6 Finished Water Turbidity 1994 to 2000 rn rn rn rn M M M 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 C: Q a Q O Q 3 -23 ti 0 0 0 0 rn rn rn m o 0 0 0 rn rn a� rn rn rn rn rn m 0 0 0 0 }i 1 L-. I L ♦+ 1 L 5 Y U CL 7 U Q U C Q 7 U O �d Q -' O `-° Q O Q� O 100% 90% 80% 70% 0 v 60% d d v w 50% 0 z E 40% m v L 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 3-7 Finished Water Turbidity Frequency Distribution Curve 000 0.05 0.10 015 0.20 0.25 Filtered Water Effluent Turbidity (NTU) 3-24 0.30 0.35 O Table 3-14 EPA Regulated Inorganic Chemical Primary MCLs Concentrations in arts per billion Concentrations in arts per billion Chemical MCL MCLG 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Arsenic 50 n/a <5* <5* <5* <5* <5* <5* Cadmium 5 5 <1* <1* <1* <1* <1* <1* Chromium 100 100 <10* <10* <10* <10* <10* <10* Mercury 2 2 <0.5* <0.5* <0.5* <0.5* <0.5* <0.5* Selenium 50 50 <5* <5* <5* <5* <5* <5* Beryllium 4 4 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Nickel 100 100 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 Antimony 6 6 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 Thallium 2 0.5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Cyanide 200 200 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 Concentrations in arts per million Fluoride 4 4 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Nitrite -N 1 1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Nitrate -N 10 10 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Barium 2 2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 * Denotes that the detected value is below the minimum reporting level required by the Washington Department of Health. Table 3-15 EPA Regulated Inorganic Chemical Secondary MCLs Concentrations in arts per billion Chemical MCL MCLG 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Iron 300 300 <100* <100* <100* <100* <100* <100* Manganese 50 50 <10* <10* <10* <10* <10* <10* Silver 100 100 <10* <10* <10* <10* <10* <10* Concentrations in arts per million Chloride 250 250 5* <5* 5* <5* <5* 3* Sulfate 250 250 13 11 8* <5* <5* 6* Zinc 5 5 <0.2* <0.2* <0.2* <0.2* <0.2* <0.2*- * Denotes that the detected value is below the minimum reporting level required by the Washington Department of Health. 3-25 Table 3-16 Parameters Tested for, but NOT' Regulated Microbiological Concentrations in artspe-r million Parameter MCL MCLG 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Sodium 2% 2% 1 <5 <5 9 <5 <5 7 Hardness 1998 1999 25 27 25 25 25 <10* 0 Value in color units Color 15 30 5 1 5 1 5 5 5 10 32 Value in Micromhos at 25 degrees Celsius Conductivity2 700 each quarter are averaged and the averages of each quarter are added and averaged for the year. 1 70 T70 3 Prior to 2001 the MCL for TTHMs (total trihalomethanes) was 100 parts per billion (ppb). 1 90 1 80 1 80 90 ' The EPA has established a recommended level of twenty ppm for sodium as a level of concern for those customers that may be restricted for daily sodium intake. 2 Conductivity testing is done in lieu of the more expensive test for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). Exceeding the conductivity MCL would require that the City perform the test for TDS. Table 3-17 Other Finished Water Quality Data Microbiological MCL MCLG 1 1998 1999 2000 2001 Contaminants Percent of samples testing positive for total coliform Total Coliform >5% 2% 2% 2% 1 2% The 21NO detected level for Total Coliform indicates that one sample out of fifty samples collected during the year was positive. Each year 600 Coliform samples from the system are collected and analvzed. Volatile Organic MCLS MCLG 1998 1999 2000 2001 Contaminants Concentrations in parts per billion TTHM' 80 0 33 45 40 30 HAAS' 60 0 27 32 1 TTH1vIs (total trihalomethanes) are sampled quarterly and added to obtain a yearly average. The concentration value in parts per billion shown above is the yearly maximum. 2 HAA5s (haloacetic acids) are sampled quarterly at four city locations. The four samples taken each quarter are averaged and the averages of each quarter are added and averaged for the year. The concentration value in parts per billion shown above is the yearly maximum. 3 Prior to 2001 the MCL for TTHMs (total trihalomethanes) was 100 parts per billion (ppb). Inrganic MCL MCLG 1998 1999 2000 2001 Contaminants Concentrations in parts per million (co er) and parts per billion (lead) Copper 1.3 1.3 0.31 0.67 Lead 15 0 9 5 All lead and copper sample results were below the EPA lead and copper Action Levels (AL). 3 - 26 0 Table 3-18 Emergency Wells Regulated Inorganic Chemical Primary MCLs Concentrations in arts per billion Concentrations in arts per billion Chemical MCL MCLG Airport Well Kissel Well Kiwanis Well 1997 1997 2000 1997 2000 1997 2000 Arsenic 50 n/a <5* <5* <5* <5* <5* <5* Cadmium 5 5 <1* <1* <1* <1* <1* <1* Chromium 100 100 <10* <10* <10* <10* <10* <10* Mercury 2 2 <0.5* <0.5* <0.5* <0.5* <0.5* <0.5* Selenium 50 50 <5* <5* <5* <5* <5* <5* Beryllium 4 4 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Nickel 100 100 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 Antimony 6 6 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 Thallium 2 0.5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Cyanide 200 200 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 Concentrations in arts per million Fluoride 4 4 <0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Nitrite -N 1 1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Nitrate -N 10 10 <0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Barium 2 2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 * Denotes that the detected value is below the minimum reporting level required by the Washington Department of Health. Table 3-19 Emergency Wells EPA Regulated Inorganic Chemical Secondary MCLs Concentrations in arts per billion Chemical MCL MCLG Airport Well Kissel Well Kiwanis Well 1997 2000 1997 2000 1997 2000 Iron 300 300 <100* --** <100* 170 <100* <100* Manganese 50 50 <10* <10* <10* <10* <10* <10* Silver 100 100 <10* <10* <10* <10* <10* <10* Concentrations in arts per million Chloride 250 250 5* <5* <5* <5* <5* <5* Sulfate 250 250 -- -- -- -- -- -- Zinc 5 5 <0.2* <0.2* <0.2* <0.2* <0.2* <0.2* * Denotes that the detected value is below the minimum reporting level required by the Washington Department of Health. * * Sampling error 3-27 Table 3-20 Wells Parameters Tested for, but NOT Regulated Concentrations in arts per million Parameter MCL MCLG Airport Well Kissel Well Kiwanis Well 1999 2000 Airport Well 1997 2000 1997 2000 1997 2000 Sodium Kissel Well 100 18 20 18 18 18 18 Hardness 100 -- 36 34 41 39 37 36 Value in color units Color 15 --1 10 1 5 10 5 10 Value in Micromhos at 25 degrees Celsius Conductivity 700 234 150 160 140 150 140 1 The 1,"PA has established a recommended level of twenty ppm for sodium as a level of concern for those customers that may be restricted for daily sodium intake. 2 Conductivity testing is done in lieu of the more expensive test for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). Exceeding the conductivity MCL would require that the City perform the test for TDS. Table 3-21 Emergency Wells Maximum Total Trihalomethane Potential Test Results MTTHP results in parts per billion MCL 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Airport Well 100 16.1 15 24 ND 9.9 4.6 Kissel Well 100 10.7 11 5 ND 5.4 10.5 Kiwanis Well 100 -- 15 4 ND 5.6 3.7 3 -28 0 3.3 System Description and Analysis 3.3.1 Objectives With reference to the system performance design standards described in Section 3. 1, this section includes a description of the general condition of each system facility as well as an analysis of the physical capacity of each facility. These analyses consider each facility individually, and as a functional component group, (i.e., source, treatment, storage, and distribution). The description of the general condition of system facilities includes a summary of the physical condition of the facility as well as the facility's anticipated remaining life expectancy. The overall system analysis also includes a comparison of the existing facility capacity with the existing and projected water demands identified in Chapter 2 and in Section 3.1. The objective of the system description and analysis presented in this section is the identification of the extent and timing of any individual facility and/or functional group deficiencies. Deficiencies identified in the first 6 years of the planning period are addressed and remedied by a specific project or action, including a project schedule. Deficiencies identified in years 7 through 20 are, in most cases, placed in the capital improvement program without identifying a specific schedule for implementation. 3.3.2 Source General Description and Condition The current supply sources consist of a surface water treatment plant (WTP) on the Naches River and four wells. One of the wells (Randall Park) is used only for irrigation at the present time The Naches River Water Treatment Plant (WTP) was constructed at Rowe Hill between 1967 and 1970 to replace the Oak Flats supply. Treated water from the plant flows over a weir into a 48 -inch transmission main and to the City by gravity. The condition and performance characteristics of the water treatment plant along with recommended capital improvements are described in detail below in Section 3.3.3, Water Treatment. The City of Yakima water system currently has three wells that are used for emergency purposes. The wells are located at the Airport, at Kiwanis Park, and at Kissel Park. The Airport and Kiwanis wells were developed in 1962 and 1965 to further supplement the Oak Flats supply. The first of these was the Kiwanis Park Well (1962) and the second was the Airport Well (1965). Both of these wells are in service today for emergency purposes. The Kissel Park well was constructed in 1993. The Kissel Park well partially replaced the Ranney collector, which was located on the Naches River and was previously used to supplement the City's water supply. Table 1-1 in Chapter 1 shows the capacity, zone served, and other pertinent information about the wells. A discussion of the hydrogeology of the aquifers from which these wells withdraw water is presented in Chapter 4 of the plan. The static water levels in the Kiwanis and Airport wells have declined over the years due to increased water withdrawals from the aquifer. 3 -29 Source Capacity Analysis The City of Yakima holds a number of water rights that supply the City's domestic and municipal irrigation distribution systems. All of these water rights are described in Chapter 4 of this plan and in Tables 4-10 and 4-11 (see Section 4.3). The City holds several other water rights that are; not considered in this source capacity analysis, because they are not part of the City's municipal water distribution systems and are not used for domestic purposes. As described above, the City's domestic water distribution system is primarily supplied by surface water, with diversions occurring at the City's Naches River Water Treatment Plant. The City currently uses its groundwater supply system as an emergency backup supply. The City also has three interties with the Nob Hill Water Association for emergency supply purposes. A source capacity analysis for the years 2000 through 2025 is presented in Table 3-22. This analysis is based on the following assumptions: The existing water treatment plant is rated at 25 MGD (17,400 gpm) in normal water supply years consistent with the DOH Water Facilities Inventory (WFI). Existing groundwater wells (Kiwanis, Airport, and Kissel Park Wells) are designated for emergency use only. Since the existing groundwater wells are for emergency use, they are excluded from the Non -Drought year (Normal) supply. During, 2001, and due to drought conditions, the USBR reduced the storage control capacity of the WTP to 29%. This was the most severe reduction in storage control capacity since the Naches River Water Treatment Plant was placed into service and is therefore assumed to be a worst ease scenario for the purpose of this source capacity analysis. The 2001 drought was considered to be an emergency condition, and therefore, the Groundwater Wells were activated. A new well is proposed for installation at Elks Park. This new well would use the remaining 3000 gpm of the Ranney Well water right. (The other 2000 gpm of the original 5000 gpm Ranney Well water right had been previously transferred to the Kissel Park Well.) Installation of the new Elks Park Well is planned for 2004. Two future 2,500 gpm (3.6 MGD) Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells are proposed. A discussion of the 2002 ASR Study is included in Chapter 4 of this plan. A summary report of the ASR project is included in Appendix S. The entire ASR project reports are to be incorporated into the Water System Plan Update by reference. Installations of the proposed ASR wells are planned for 2004 and 2008. Initially both ASR wells will be designated as emergency sources. In 201.5 one ASR well will be changed to a normal source. 3-30 Table.3-22 Source Capacity Analysis for Years 2000 through 2025 in MGD Projected Demands 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Average Day Demand 13.1 13.8 14.7 15.9 17.0 18.2 Maximum Day Demand 22.9 24.1 25.7 27.8 29.8 31.9 Peak Hour Demand 36.6 38.6 41.2 44.5 47.7 51.0 Existing Supply Capacity Existing Water Treatment Plant 1 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Existing Wells - Emergency Use Only Kiwanis Well (3.4 MGD / 2,350 gpm) 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Airport Well (4.0 MGD / 2,800 gpm) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Kissel Well (4.2 MGD / 2,900 gpm) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Total Emergency Well Capacity 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Supply Capacity - Non -Drought Years Existing Water Treatment Plant 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Existing Emergency Supply Wells 2,3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capacity 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Supply Capacity - Drought Years Existing WTP (10 cfs + 29% of 29 cfs) 4 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 Existing Wells (Emergency Use)',' 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Total Capacity 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 Supply Requirements Required Supply to meet MDD 22.9 24.1 25.7 27.8 29.8 31.9 Projected Deficiency (w/o adding supply) -- -- 0.7 2.8 1 4.8 6.9 Future New Supply Sources (Proposed) Elks Park Well (1 at 3000 gpm or 4.3 MGD) 6 0.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 ASR Groundwater Wells 7 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.2 7.2 7.2 Total Additional Supply from New Sources 0.0 7.9 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 Projected Supply Existing Water Treatment Plant (non -drought) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Existing Water Treatment Plant (drought) 4 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 Existing Groundwater Wells'' 3 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Future Elks Park Well 6 0.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Future ASR Groundwater Wells 7 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.2 7.2 7.2 Total Capacity - Non -Drought Year 3 25.0 29.3 29.3 32.9 32.9 32.9 Total Capacity - Drought Year 3' 4''' 7 23.5 27.8 31.4 1 35.0 1 35.0 35.0 1. The existing water treatment plant is rated at 25 MGD (17,400 gpm) consistent with the DOH Water Facilities Inventory (WFI) 2. Existing groundwater wells are designated for emergency use only. 3. Since the existing groundwater wells are for emergency use, they are excluded from the Non -Drought year supply. 4 During 2001, and due to drought conditions, the USBR reduced the storage control capacity of the WTP to 29%. 5. During 2001 drought conditions, the Groundwater Wells were activated. 6. The proposed Elks Park Well would use 3000 gpm of the Ranney Well water right. Installation estimated for 2005. 7. Two future 2,500 gpm (3.6 MGD) ASR wells are proposed. Installations are estimated for 2007 and 2010. Initially both ASR wells will be designated as emergency sources. In 2015 one ASR well will be changed to a normal source 3.3.3 Water Treatment Background and General Information 0 The City of Yakima Naches River WTP was built between 1967 and 1970 with a design capacity of 20 MGD). The nominal capacity was increased to 25 MGD by filter upgrades in 1991. However, making allowance for the filter backwash periods, the actual throughput capacity of the WTIP is estimated to be 23.5 MGD. Since original construction, the City had made process renovations to the plant in 1991, 1993, 1997, and 2001. In 1991, the four filters were rehabilitated. Components of that project were as follows: • ]Drilled out plugged orifices in the Leopold block underdrains. • Replaced gravel support layers. • Replace original filter media with new multi -media design. As part of the filter rehabiiitation project, the State of Washington increased the rated capacity of the WTP from 20 to 25 MGD based on results of a concurrent pilot filter demonstration study. In 1993, a new supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system was installed, and it included the following items: Continuous individual filter monitoring Greater capacity to gather water quality data Change in flow control to reduce influent flow rate during a filter backwash cycle to prevent a sudden flow increase to the remaining filters in service. In 1997, the City completed installation of a bulk soda ash storage and feed system. This was in response to exceeding the copper action level of 1.3 mg/L in 1993. To achieve compliance with Lead and Copper Rule guidelines, the soda ash feed system is used to increase filtered water pH to 7.4. A new fluoridation facility was constructed in 2001 and placed into service during the spring of 2002. The facility includes a new building containing hydrofluosilicic acid storage tanks and chemical feed equipment. The fluoridation equipment also includes fluoride monitoring instrumentation and a containment tank to prevent the release of hydrofluosilicic acid in the event of an accidental spill. A 1998 report by Carollo Engineers titled Evaluation of the Naches River Water Treatment Plant (Carollo Engineers, August 1998) provided an assessment of the existing treatment plant components. This report identified deficiencies and recommended improvements to the WTP as needed to meet current and anticipated performance requirements. The design criteria for existing WTP unit processes, as presented in the 1998 evaluation report are shown in Table 3-23. A process flow schematic of the existing WTP is shown in Figure 3-8. A site plan is shown in Figure 3-9. 3 - 32 0 Table 3-23 Existing Design Criteria Naches River Water Treatment Plant Description Units Criteria Plant Capacity Plant Capacity - Nominal MGD (gpm) 25 (17,400) Plant Capacity - Actual MGD (gpm) 23.5 (16,300) Raw Water Supply Source: Diversion Structure on the Naches River Screens: Mechanical Raw Water Pipeline Diameter in 54 Length (approximate) ft 4,000 Velocity g 25 MGD ft/sec 2.4 Contact Time @ 25 MGD min 28 Rapid Mix Dimensions ft x ft 17 x 18.5 Water Depth ft 15.5 Volume ft (gal) 4,900 (36,000) Theoretical Mixing Time g 25 MGD sec 120 Mixer Power hp 15 Mixing Energy X Time (GT) na 25 MGD -- 32,000 Contact Basins Type: Rectangular, inlet orifices, outlet ports, inlet and outlet submerged gates y Number of Basins -- 2 Dimensions per Basin ft x ft 36 x 131 Water Depth (varies due to sloped bottom) ft 15.0 Volume per Basin ft (gal) 71,000 (530,000) Total Volume ft (gal) 140,000 (1,100,000) Detention Time @ 25 MGD (based on tracer study) min 60 Surface Loading Rate g 25 MGD gpm/ft- 1.8 Filters Type: Gravity, multi -media. rate of flow control, gravity backwash, Clay Block Underdrains Number of Filters -- 4 Dimensions per Filter ft x ft 26 x 24 Surface Area Per Filter (Total Surface Area) ft 624 (2,496) Filter Box Depth ft 13.5 Filtration Rate @ 25 MGD gpm/ft- 7.0 Depth of Water Above Media ft 5.0 Headloss Available for Solids a ft 9.9 Depth of Support Gravel in 12 Filter Media Anthracite Coal Depth in 18 Effective Size mm 1.05 Uniformity Coefficient -- 1.5 Specific Gravity -- 1.65 3 - 33 0 Table 3-23 Existing Design Criteria Naches River Water Treatment Plant continued Sand Depth in 9 Effective Size mm 0.5 Uniformity Coefficient -- 1.43 Specific Gravity -- 2.62 Garnet Depth in 3 Effective Size mm 0.28 _ Uniformity Coefficient -- 1.60 Specific Gravity -- 4.0 Total L/d Media Ratio -- 1,160 Distance from Media to Top of Backwash Trough in 44 Distance from Media to Bottom of Backwash Trougho in 17 Distance from Media to Surface Wash in 7 to 9 Filter Backwash Type: Gravity, elevated storage tank Backwash Rate (and Duration) Igpm/ft (min) 17(5.0) Backwash Storage Tank Type: steel, cylindrical, above grade -- -- Diameter ft 40 Height ft 80 Volume ft (gal) 100,000 (750,000) Number of Supply Pumps -- 2 Pump Capacity gpm (hp) 1,725 (40) Surface Wash Type: Rotating arms Wash Rate gpm/ft1 0.5 Duration min 2.5 Number of pumps -- 1 Pump Capacity gpm (hp) 320 (20) Filter Waste Washwater and Solids Handling Type: Earthen pond, trapezoidal Dimensions (approximate) -- -- Top ft x ft 450 x 60 Bottom ft x ft 450 x 12 Depth (approximate) ft 7 Volume ft (gal) 110,000 (850,000) Recycle Pipeline Diameter (Length) in (ft) 8 (250) Recycle Pump Capacity gpm (hp) 400-700 (5) Filtered Water Clearwell Type: Buried concrete, rectangular, 2 compartments) Dimensions (of both West and East compartments) ft x ft 13 x 19.3 Water Depth @ 25 MGD Minimum (Maximum) ft 8.9 (9.8) Volume g Minimum Water Depth ft (gal) 2,200 (17,000) 3-34 NACHES RIVER, ACTIVATED♦ FLUORIDE LIQUID CHLORINE FILTER SODAASH POLYMER CARBON (F) ALUM (CLS) AID (SAS) (LP) (AC) (LA) (FA) WATER U U U BAR SCREENLLFFLOWMETW ER WET WELL AND RAPID MIX CONTACT MECHANICAL BASINS 2L SCREEN 71 FILTERS WASHWATER EARTHEN LINED RETURN WASHWATER BASIN PUMP Figure 3-8 Water Treatment Plant Process Schematic 3-35 BACKWASH STORAGE TANK CLEARWELL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FILTER NO. 4 FILTER NO. 2 S PR ASN VE AN FLUOMDATON BUILDING FILTER NO. 3 FILTER NO. 1 I LF11%ING BASIN OPERATIONS BUILDING ENTRY CONTACT BASIN LOADING OOCK INFLUENT VALVE PIT Figure 3-9 Water Treatment Plant Plan View 3-36 ENTRANCE GATE A summary of existing conditions, deficiencies, and recommended improvements for each WTP unit process is provided below. A more detailed discussion of these issues can be found in the 1998 Carollo WTP evaluation report. The WTP consists of the following process elements: • Raw water intake • Rapid mix (coagulation) • Contact basins • Filtration • Disinfection • Residuals (sludge) handling • Chemical storage and feed systems Raw Water Intake Existing Conditions - The intake facilities include an intake canal which diverts flow from the Naches River as well as tailwater from the Pacific Power & Light powerhouse. Excess water from the Wapatox Canal feeding the powerhouse spills into the Naches River WTP intake canal just upstream of the WTP intake structure. Excess water flows over and through a gated spillway and stays in the Naches River adjacent to the WTP intake structure. Originally designed with stop log slots, flows over the intake spillway are now controlled by radial gates which were installed during the 1970s. Deficiencies - Major concerns with the existing intake facilities are listed below. • Accumulation of ice and debris • Fish migration up the Naches River. • Water quality • Uncontrolled flow changes in the Wapatox Canal • Introduction of ice, debris, sediment, and large rock fragments from the erosion of the Wapatox Canal's powerhouse bypass channel • Worker safety • Limited access to both sides of the intake channel for maintenance Recommended Improvements - The installation of a subsurface collection system to alleviate problems associated with ice and debris accumulation and fish migration issues was recommended in the 1998 Carollo WTP evaluation report. Three possible types of subsurface collection systems include: • Infiltration gallery • Shallow vertical wells • Ranney Wells A potential benefit of a subsurface collection system is solids removal. As was shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5, raw water turbidity exceeds the limitation for direct filtration of 15 NTU about 10 percent of the time. This means the existing treatment train at the WTP is incapable of reliably producing high quality finished water under all conditions. High raw water turbidity is dealt with by the treatment staff in the following ways: 3-37 • Reduce plant capacity. • Overflow backwash water to the Naches River instead of recycling it to allow more frequent backwashing. • Allow plant finished water turbidity levels to rise above good practice limits (0.1 NTU). • Turn on groundwater wells. Another solids removal process must be added upstream of filtration to reliably produce filtered water with turbidities less than 0.1 NTU under all conditions. The reasoning in the 1998 report was that if a subsurface collection system could reliably produce raw water with turbidities less than 15 NTU, it would serve as the additional solids removal process. However, based on a survey of the experiences in other parts of the country with subsurface collection systems, it was determined that this approach would not be feasible due to clogging problems from sediments and the difficulty in getting a backwash system to work. The potential impact of a backwash system on fish was also identified as a concern. In lieu of installing a subsurface collection system,, the installation of new screening equipment has been recommended. The recommended system will consist of flat screen panels with air backwash and continuous air curtain to mitigate the build-up of ice in the winter months. Installation of the new screens is scheduled for completion in Spring of 2003. Rapid Mix (Coagulation) Existing Conditions - Rapid mix, or coagulation, is the process by which chemicals are added to a raw water supply to destabilize particulates and dissolved contaminants. Coagulation is accomplished at the Naches River WTP using a mechanical mixer mounted inside a concrete basin. Alum with cationic polymer is the primary coagulant used at the plant. Deficiencies - A well designed coagulation system is a critical link. in the optimization of the WTP. It requires the rapid (one second) and uniform dispersal of a coagulant throughout the entire raw water flow. A mixing energy (G) of approximately 750 sec -1 for one second is generally adequate to achieve optimal coagulation. To compensate for an inefficient flash mix system., coagulant overdoses of up to 30 percent may have to be used. Deficiencies with the existing; rapid mix arrangement at the WTP include: • A mixing time (T) of 120 seconds at 25 MGD. A mixing energy (G) of 270 sec -1. • A corresponding G X T of 32,000. Recommended Improvements - A new pump diffusion flash mix system is recommended to replace the existing rapid mix. It would have the following advantages over the existing mechanical mixer: Designed for an optimal GT of 750 under all flow conditions • Provides instantaneous mixing of a primary coagulant across the entire flow stream • Higher efficiency can result in up to a-3) 0 percent reduction in coagulant demand 3-38 • Reduced power consumption • Lower maintenance • Non-proprietary "off the shelf parts and flexibility in retrofitting and installation The recommended improvements to the rapid mix/coagulation system are scheduled for installation in late 2003 or early 2004. These improvements together with related piping modifications will enable the City to achieve compliance with the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule which goes into effect June 8, 2004. Contact Basins Existing Conditions - Two rectangular contact basins are located between the rapid mix basin and the filters. Coagulated water must flow through them before it goes onto the filters. No mechanical sludge removal equipment exists in the basins, and plant staff does not have the capability to add chemicals to the basins. In essence, the contact basins are a wide spot in the process flow. During episodes of high raw water turbidities caused by excessive sand and other gritty materials, the contact basins serve as pre -sedimentation basins capturing the heavy particulate matter. Deficiencies - Identified deficiencies with the existing contact basins are presented below. • Lack of mechanical sludge removal equipment to remove heavy solids that settle out during episodes of high turbidity. • Minimal flocculation energy is provided to the water as it flows through the basins. • Minimal settling of floc (inlet and outlet turbidities measured on May 12. 1998 were 19 and 13 NTU, respectively) • Large surface area exposed to the atmosphere results in operational problems, i.e. loss of chlorine residual, algae formation. ice and slush formation. • No chemical addition capabilities Recommended Improvements - At a minimum, the existing contact filtration process should be converted to direct filtration. The primary difference between these two processes is mechanical flocculation. Direct filtration is a more versatile process than contact filtration, and, as such, can more reliably treat raw water turbidities up to 15 NTU. The addition of mechanical flocculation to the treatment train will form a more filterable floc than contact filtration. This will improve filter performance. Retrofitting the existing contact basins provides a means to add mechanical flocculation to the treatment train. The following improvements are recommended to add flocculation and resolve some of the operational deficiencies at the WTP: • Convert the first 48 feet of the contact basins into three -stage baffled flocculation compartments. This requires installation of twelve vertical shaft flocculators and six baffle walls. • Install a longitudinal baffle down the center of each contact basin (in effect this creates four basins). 3 - 39 • • Install mechanical sludge removal equipment • Cover the contact basins. Covering the contact basins would provide the following benefits: • Protect the flocculator motors and sludge removal drives. • Protect the water from the elements to prevent ice formation and algal growth. • Prevention of the ice formation will allow for operation of mechanical sludge removal equipment during winter freezing conditions. • Lack of ice formation will allow for installation of high rate settlers (see below). The recommended improvements to the contact basins are not currently scheduled for installation but we be reconsidered in subsequent water system plan updates. In order to produce high quality filtered water that complies with future regulatory requirements, it may require the addition of another solids removal process at the plant. Sedimentation could be added to the treatment train by modification of the existing contact basins. Installation of high rate settlers (tubes or plates) to the last 62 feet of the contact basins would provide a sedimentation process to the WTP. It is important to recognize that previously discussed improvements to the contact basins (i.e. mechanical sludge removal equipment, covering the basins to prevent ice formation) would also need to be implemented. Preliminary design criteria for proposed flocculation and sedimentation processes placed in the existing; contact basins based on standard design criteria for conventional treatment are presented in the 1998 Carollo WTP evaluation report. Using these criteria, the dimensions of the existing contact basins would limit conventional treatment capacity to 13 1V[GD. To provide conventional treatment for 25 MGD capacity, two additional basins with similar dimensions could be constructed. Filtration Performance and condition of the existing four filters at the WTP were evaluated using the following criteria: • Filter Operation • Backwash Strategy • Filter -to- Waste Facilities • Filter Production Efficiency A discussion on the existing conditions, deficiencies, and recommended improvements for each of the above criteria follow. 3-40 0 Filter Operation Existing Conditions - The existing WTP is equipped with four gravity, multi -media filters. Existing design criteria were presented in Table 3-24. The existing filter media configuration of 18 -inches of 1.05 mm effective size (ES) anthracite, 9 -inches of 0.5 mm ES sand, and 3- inches of 0.28 mm ES garnet was placed into the filters in 1991. The rated filtration rate is 7.0 gpm/ft2. An elevated backwash tank coupled with a rotary arm surface wash is used to backwash the filters. Original media specifications called for a depth of 30 -inches. In media depth measurements taken in Filter No.2 on May 12, 1998 media depths ranged between 27 and 29.5 -inches. Deficiencies - Deficiencies noted in the 1998 Carollo WTP evaluation report with respect to the existing filter components, operations, and performance are as follows: • The distance between the top of the media and the surface wash arm is about 8 -inches. This distance should be at most 3 -inches to provide for effective surface wash. • There is no access to the filter plenums. • Water depth above the filter media is about 5 feet. This could lead to negative pressures within the filter bed, and could result in air binding. • Excessive mudball formation and media mounding. Causes may include: Filter aid polymer dose too high promoting the formation of a mud layer on top of the filter media; Ineffective surface wash that does not break up the mud layer that forms on the filter surface; Poor distribution of backwash water, resulting in gravel migration and media mounding. The 1998 report points out that four percent of average daily filtered water turbidity values were greater than 0.1 NTU. While the results are below existing and future Federal regulations, turbidity values above 0.1 NTU exceed good operating practice limits. In addition, the Partnership for Safe Water (PSW) recommends an individual filter turbidity goal of 0.1 NTU. The 1998 report further concludes from analysis of raw and finished water turbidity data, that when average daily raw water turbidity values were greater than 25 NTU the resulting average daily filtered water turbidities were greater than 0.1 NTU. In addition, it was shown that average daily raw water turbidities greater than 15 NTU resulted in average daily maximum filtered water turbidities of about 0.3 NTU. As raw water turbidity increased, plant flow rate decreased. These decreases were reactions by the operators to prevent process disruptions. These data indicate that the existing contact filtration process at the plant is not capable of reliably treating raw water with a turbidity above 15 NTU. Recommended Improvements - The existing filters should be upgraded and modified. Rehabilitation of the filters, coupled with upgrading and improving pretreatment (coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation), would resolve the deficiencies discussed above. With these improvements, the WTP would be able to reliably produce high quality filtered water with turbidities less than 0.1 NTU under all conditions. Recommended improvements to the filters include: 3-41 • • Replace the existing Leopold clay block underdrains with a nozzle underdrain system. Benefits of this type of underdrain system are: Elimination of gravel support system; Elimination of grout fillet along edge of the filter walls; Elimination of gravel allows for an additional foot of water depth above filter media; Compatible with air scour system. • Install an air scour system to supplement the water backwash system. • Replace the existing multi -media configuration with a dual media design. The new media design would consist of 12 -inches of 0.65 mm ES sand and 24 -inches of 1.2 mm ES anthracite. This new media design will provide excellent filtered water quality and increase solids storage capability of the filter bed. • Replace the existing rotary arm surface wash mechanism with a fixed grid surface wash system. This system provides a more thorough wash of the entire filter surface. The recommended improvements to the filters are scheduled for installation in late 2004 or early 2005. Table 3-24 contains design criteria for the filters based on the recommended improvements. Table 3-24 Preliminary Design Criteria for Proposed Upgrades and Modifications to the Naches River Water Treatment Plant Descri tion Units Criteria Filters Type: Gravity, dual media,. rate of flow control, gravity backwash, Nozzle Underdrains Number of Filters -- 4 Dimensions per Filter ft x ft 26 x 24 Surface Area Per Filter (Total Surface Area) ft- 624 (2,496) Filter Box Depth ft 13.5 Filtration Rate 2 25 MGD gpm/ft- 7.0 Depth of Water Above Media ft 6.0 Headloss Available for Solids a ft 7.0 Filter Media Anthracite Coal Depth in 24 Effective Size mm 1.20 Uniformity Coefficient -- <1.4 Specific Gravity -- 1.65 Sand Depth in 12 Effective Size mm 0.65 Uniformity Coefficient -- <1.4 Specific Gravity -- 2.65 Total L/d Media Ratio -- 980 Distance from Media to Top of Backwash Trough in 54 Distance from Media to Bottom of Backwash Trough b in 27 Distance from Media to Surface Wash in 2 3-42 Backwash Strategy Existing Conditions - A gravity backwash system which includes an elevated storage tank is used to backwash the filters. A rotary arm surface wash mechanism is supplied by a single pump located in the pump room. Filters are generally backwashed after about 8 to 10 hours of operation. Filter headloss is usually between 7 and 8 feet. Water level is brought down to the top of the backwash troughs before initiating a backwash sequence. A backwash duration usually lasts about 13 minutes. Based on data presented in the 1998 Carollo WTP evaluation report, the following observations can be made regarding the effectiveness of the current backwash process: Solids loading was primarily in the top 6 to 12 -inches. Below 12 -inches there was not a discernible difference between turbidity values before and after backwash. • There was not a linear distribution of solids throughout the filter bed. Backwashing removed solids captured within the top 12 -inches. Based on turbidity data generated by collecting samples from the washwater troughs during a backwash sequence it was also observed in the 1998 report that: The turbidity level never reached the recommended backwash termination value of 15 NTU. • There was a gradual removal of solids throughout the entire backwash duration. (It is recommended to terminate the backwash when the turbidity level reaches approximately 15 NTU. Washing beyond this period will produce an over -cleaned media and could result in longer filter ripening periods. In addition, it reduces filter production efficiency and wastes product water that could be available to the consumers.) Deficiencies - Deficiencies noted with the existing backwash strategy in the 1998 Carollo WTP evaluation report are discussed below. • The concurrent operation of the surface wash and backwash is too long. These systems should only overlap for up to 2 minutes. • The ramped backwash rates are ineffective which wastes product water. In addition, the backwash rates are too low. Solids are efficiently removed from a filter bed when the media layers are adequately expanded. An appropriate backwash rate for the existing media configuration is 17 gpm/ft2 at 20°C. The filters should be washed at this rate throughout the backwash duration. • The water level should be taken down to 6 inches above the media surface before the backwash sequence is started. This will minimize media loss by preventing it from flowing over the backwash troughs at the beginning of a backwash cycle. • The shape of the floc retention curves for Filter No.2 would suggest one or more of the following conditions: — In-depth filtration of solids is not occurring. — Solids applied to the filter are large in size promoting surface straining. 3 - 43 — Filter media contains excessive solids that are not being washed from the bed. — Excessive headloss accumulation due, in part, to residual solids in the filter bed. • The lack of a distinct peak and rapidly decreasing turbidity values in the filter waste washwater turbidity profile suggests an ineffective wash. These results were most likely caused by the ramped backwash rates and the inappropriate (too low) maximum backwash rate. • Backwash rates are not currently adjusted throughout the year to account for changes in water temperature. As the temperature of water decreases, its density increases. Thus, as the water temperature decreases, the appropriate backwash rate should be decreased to compensate for increased density. Recommended Improvements - Recommended improvements to the existing backwash strategy include the following: • Reduce the concurrent operation of the surface wash and backwash to 2 minutes. • Eliminate the use of a ramped backwash approach. The appropriate backwash rate should be used throughout the entire backwash duration. • Adjust backwash rates seasonally as the water temperature changes. • Draw the water level down to six inches above the filter surface before initiating a backwash sequence. This will allow any boils that occur at the beginning of the backwash to dissipate without losing filter media over the backwash trough. • Adoption of the above recommendations will most likely result in a shorter backwash duration. This will improve production efficiency and reduce the waste of product water. Filter waste washwater profiles should be periodically prepared and the backwash duration should be adjusted accordingly. The recommended improvements to the backwash strategy have been completed. Filter -to -Waste Facilities Existing Conditions - The purpose of Filter -to -Waste (FTW) is to allow water generated during turbidity breakthroughs to be diverted to waste. This period occurs every time a filter is started up after backwash. The Naches River WTP is equipped with FTW facilities. A 4 -inch diameter pipeline tees off the filter effluent line. Water is discharged through the 4 -inch line to an 8 -inch diameter line that is connected to the 30 -inch diameter waste line. An air gap is provided between the 4 -inch and 8 -inch diameter lines. Plant staff uses FTW for up to 15 minutes after every filter backwash. Deficiencies - Deficiencies with the existing FTW system observed in the 1998 WTP evaluation report are as follows: The 15 -minute duration used by plant staff does not cover the entire maturation period. Water with turbidities greater than 0.1 NTU is being allowed to reach the finished water supply. 3-44 0 • The existing FTW piping is undersized. The filtration rate used during FTW is substantially lower than the filtration rate used during normal filtration mode. The arrangement of the FTW piping frequently results in spillage of this water onto the pipe gallery floor. Recommended Improvements - Recommended improvements to operation of the existing FTW system as well as recommended upgrades and modifications are discussed below: • Based on individual filter turbidity data presented in 1998 Carollo WTP evaluation report, the FTW operating period should be increased from 15 to at least 30 minutes. This change to the FTW operating period has been implemented. • The existing FTW system should be replaced with a fully operational FTW system. Features of this system should include: — Filtration rates during FTW and normal filtration modes should be the same. — FTW flow stream should be modulated and metered. — Control from the FTW valve to the filter effluent control valve should be in such a manner that the actual filtration rate remains constant. — FTW flow streams should not spill onto the pipe gallery floor. Recommended improvements to the filter gallery piping to accomplish the above recommendations are detailed in the 1998 report. The change to the FTW operating period has been implemented. The other recommended improvements are scheduled for installation in late 2003 or early 2004. Disinfection Facilities Existing Conditions - Chlorine is used for both primary disinfection (CT compliance) and as a secondary disinfectant (distribution system residual). Chlorine is added upstream of the contact basins (prechlorination) and downstream of the filters (post chlorination). Chlorine is stored on site in one -ton containers. Up to eight containers are stored in the first floor chemical storage room. Chlorinators are used to educt chlorine gas from the containers into water to form a chlorine solution. Deficiencies - Deficiencies noted in the 1998 Carollo WTP evaluation report in the existing disinfection facilities with respect to safety and treatment capabilities are summarized below: • The primary deficiency with the chlorination system with regards to safety is a lack of a chlorine scrubber. Status and condition of ancillary safety equipment, such as alarms and leak detectors, will require additional evaluation at the time a preliminary design is undertaken. • Treatment Capabilities. Two deficiencies related to treatment capabilities include: — Inability to disinfect chlorine resistant pathogens, such as Crl-ptosporidium. 3 -45 — The existing primary disinfection facilities in place for CT compliance are near their limit at a treatment capacity of 25 MGD. Recommended Improvements - Recommended improvements to resolve safety and treatment capability deficiencies are presented below: With regards to resolving the identified safety issue, the following options were considered: • Install a chlorine scrubber, upgrade the safety and alarm systems, and modify the existing chlorine feed and storage rooms to meet safety and building codes, or; • Convert from gaseous chlorine to sodium hypochlorite (liquid chlorine). Options available for liquid chlorine include bulk storage or on-site generation. The chlorine scrubber option was dismissed in favor of conversion to sodium hypochlorite. The conversion to sodium hypochlorite is scheduled for late 2003 or early 2004. Addition of ozone to the process train was evaluated as a means of resolving the identified deficiencies with the treatment capabilities of the disinfection system. Ozonation could provide the following benefits: • Provide a way to inactivate chlorine resistant pathogens, most notably Cryptosporidium. • Allow the City to meet potential increased disinfection requirements for Giardia. • Allow the City to meet increased disinfection at a capacity greater than 25 MGD. • Improve particle removal during filtration. • Enhance taste and odor control. However, no decision to proceed with ozone equipment installation has been made at this time. The City will instead evaluate the installation of ultraviolet (UV) disinfection equipment as an alternative means of achieving enhanced disinfection. Residuals Handling Existing; Conditions - An earthen lined sludge lagoon with a capacity of about 850,000 gallons is used to handle residuals (sludge) generated at the plant. Filter waste washwater streams and settled solids from the contact basins are directed to the sludge lagoon. Decanted water is recycled back to the plant downstream of the rapid mix basin. The recycle rate is about 600 gpm and is operated based on water level within the lagoon. Settled sludge is pumped out of the lagoon on an intermittent basis. Based on operations data from 1993 to 1997, a total of about 670,000 pounds of dry sludge was produced each year. This equates to about 140 pounds per million gallons of water treated (Carollo 1998 WTP evaluation report). Deficiencies - Identified deficiencies with the existing residuals handling process at the WTP are listed below: • Settled sludge cannot dry because it is always submerged in water. 3-46 • Existing lagoon does not provide adequate settling time for particles in the filter washwater stream. • Existing lagoon is too small to accommodate a full volume of water from the contact basin. The lack of a polymer feed system to add polymer to the influent flow to aid particle settling. Recommended Improvements - Construction of three concrete lined lagoons with a recycle pump station is recommended to replace the existing residuals handling process. Benefits of a three lagoon system and recycle pump station include the following: • Promote particle settling through proper design and polymer addition. . • Improve quality of recycled water to the front of the plant. • Provide redundancy. • Allow lagoons to cycle out of service and accumulated sludge to dry. • Provide adequate volume to drain an entire contact basin. • Maintain constant recycle flow rate set at 5 percent of plant flow rate. The recommended improvements to the residuals handling facilities are scheduled for installation in 2006. Chemical Storage and Feed Facilities Existing Conditions - Chemicals used at the WTP include alum, filter aid polymer, chlorine, and soda ash. The bulk soda ash storage and feed system was installed in 1995. The other chemical equipment is original to the plant construction in 1967. Motors for two of the alum feed pumps have been replaced within the last five years. The two polymer feed pumps were replaced in 1997. Deficiencies - Deficiencies identified with the existing chemical feed and storage facilities (excluding chlorine) are as follows: • Inadequate spill containment for bulk storage of alum and filter aid polymer solution. • Limited chemical selection and application points. Recommended Improvements - The following improvements to the chemical storage and feed facilities are recommended at the WTP: • Construct a new chemical storage and containment and provides space for a primary coagulant and three polymer feed systems. • Provide three new polymer feed systems for coagulant aid, flocculant aid, and filter aid. 3-47 • Replace existing chemical feed equipment and piping not compatible with iron based coagulants. • Install additional chemical application points for soda ash and polymers. The recommended improvements to the chemical storage and feed facilities are scheduled for installation in late 2003 or early 2004. 3-48 3.3.4 Storage General Description and Condition The City of Yakima water systems currently has three storage locations, one in each of the three pressure zones. The distribution storage reservoir information is summarized in Table 3-25, below. Table 3-25 Distribution Storage Reservoirs Location Total Usable Turnover at Year Zone Construction Volume MG Volume MG 2008 ADD constructed Served Material 401h Ave. & 6 6 0.59 days 1970 Low Reinforced Englewood Concrete Reservoir 24 (two at 12 24 7.3 days 1920s Middle Reinforced Road MG ea.) Concrete Scenic One of two 1 1920s High concrete Drive at 1 MG ea. 2.6 days Scenic One of two 1 1980 High steel Drive at 1 MG ea. Based on recent inspections and cleaning, all of the reservoirs are in good condition. The one million gallon steel Level 3 reservoir was last coated October 1995. The steel reservoir is typically recoated every 25 years or as dictated by conditions at time of inspection. Vent and overflow screens are inspected 2 times per year, repairs made as necessary. All four reservoir access hatch covers have been replaced, two in May 2002 and two in March 2003. 3-49 Storage Capacity Analysis The storage capacity analysis must consider each of the five (5) storage component listed below (reference WAC 246-290-235(3)): • Operational storage (OS); • Equalizing storage (ES); • Standby storage (SB), • Fire suppression storage (FSS); and • Dead storage (DS), if any. Operational storage (OS) Operational storage is normally defined as the volume of the reservoir devoted to supplying the water system while under normal operating conditions when the source(s) of supply are "off'. The requirement specifies that OS is an additive quantity to the other components of storage. This provides an additional factor of safety to the ES, SB, and FSS components if the reservoir is full when that component of storage would be needed. According to the DOH guidelines, the above definition of operational storage does not apply to some systems such as those operating under a continuous pumping; mode or a gravity fed supply such as from a water treatment plant as is the case in Yakima. In these cases, it is necessary to prepare a mass analysis by either graphical or tabular methods, or a computer simulation in order to determine the OS and ES requirements. (see also discussion below under equalizing storage, below). Figure 3-10 shows the City of Yakima Water System hydraulic profile and storage reservoir operating diagram. All of the supply sources feed Level 1. Level. 2 is supplied from Level 1 by the North 40th Avenue Pump Station and the Stone Church Pump Station. Level 3 is supplied from Level 2 by the Level 3 Pump Station on Reservoir Road. The Level 3 Pump Station is controlled based on level transmitters in the Level 3 Reservoirs. The levels in the Level 1 and Level 2 reservoirs are controlled manually by the water treatment plant operators. The Level 1 reservoir water elevation is controlled by regulating the water treatment plant output and, secondarily, by setting the pumping rate from Level 1 to Level 2. The Level 2 reservoir water elevation is controlled by regulating the pumping output of the North 40th Avenue and Stone Church Pump Stations which can be done from the Water Treatment Plant via telemetry. For historical reasons the largest volume of reservoir storage is in Level 2 even though the highest percentage of usage is in Level 1. What are now the Level 2 reservoirs were originally served by gravity when the source of the surface water supply was at Oak Flats. At that time Level 1 was served entirely through the PRV connections between Level 1 and Level 2. The Level 1 reservoir was installed in the early 1970s in conjunction with the construction of the Naches River Water Treatment Plant at Rowe Hill and the North 40th Avenue Pump Station. However, the operation of the Level 2 reservoirs is still closely linked to the water supply requirements of Level 1 and the entire volume of the Level 2 reservoirs would be available to the Level 1 distribution system if needed. Increased Level 1 demand would be met first by shutting 3-50 off the North 401h Avenue and Stone Church booster pumps allowing the Level 2 reservoirs to draw down to meet Level 2 demand. If the Level 1 demands could still not be met then the PRVs would begin to open to maintain pressure in Level 1. In order to provide the operators with even greater flexibility and control over the use of the Level 2 reservoir storage capacity in Level 1, a new automated control valve is proposed for installation at the North 401h Avenue Pump Station as shown in Figure 3-10. This will also enable the operators to periodically increase the turnover rate in the Level 2 reservoirs. Because the Level 1 and Level 2 pressure zones each have a continuous source of supply which is manually controlled by the treatment plant operators, and because the Level 1 and Level 2 supply, demand, and reservoir storage factors are interrelated as described above, it is necessary to analyze the storage capacity requirements for both of these pressure zones together in a single computer simulation. The results of the simulation can be compared to historical Level 1 and Level 2 reservoir operating levels during peak demand periods in order to confirm the estimates of the OS plus ES requirements. The procedure used to calculate the needed equalization and operational storage (OS + ES) volume involved the use of the water system hydraulic model algorithm to simulate a period of operation representing a typical peak demand week. The demand condition during a typical peak week was assumed to contain one maximum day with the balance of the week days representing near peak days as shown in Table 3-26, below: Table 3-26 Assumed Peak -Week Demand Conditions used for Computer Simulation to estimate the OS +ES Requirements. The Daily Demands are expressed as a percentage of the Maximum Day Demand (MDD) Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6' Day 7 85% 95% 100% 95% 85% 85% 85% For purposes of simulating a reasonable lag in supply rate and to account for other operational limitations (such as filter backwash periods at the Water Treatment Plant), the following peak - week supply rate assumptions as shown in Table 3-27 were used: Table 3-27 Assumed Peak -Week Supply Conditions used for Computer Simulation to estimate the OS +ES Requirements. The Daily Supply rates are expressed as a percentage of the Maximum Day Demand (MDD) Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 82% 93% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% The estimated OS + ES for the year 2008 can be determined graphically from the output of the simulation as shown in Figure 3-11. The corresponding estimated OS + ES for the year 2022 is shown in Figure 3-12. 3-51 1600 S1•--IL7---- /1 - -1'%% Ar -f/1 MU11 I-Une tLwei o) i oo i 1 MG 1 MG Level 3 Reservoirs 1500 Scenic Drive P PRVs (see Table 1-3 for locations) Level 3 Pump Station - Reservoir Rd Level 2 Resevoirs 1400 Reservoir Rd Middle Zone (Level 2) 1380' WTP Effluent 12 MGAL AL 12 MG Weir 1325' PRVs (see Table 1-3 for locations) 1300 WTP Gleed P Pump Station Low Zone (Level 1) 1264' 1245' P P 6 MG Level 1 Reservoir I 1200 40th Ave. & Englewood 1146' 1150' W W LEGEND North 40th Ave. Stone Church 1112' 1100 1 MG Pump Station Pump Station Reservoir Kissel ,�? U 1056, Park Well Booster Pump Station 1037' �- Airport cKiwanis OWell Well Pump Station 1000 Park Well adi Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) W 900 � Proposed Control Valve connecting Level 2 Reservoirs to Level 1 Figure 3-10 City of Yakima Water System Hydraulic Profile and Storage Reservoir Operating Diagram 3-52 C7 4 C M E m a CL M 0 cn KIM Peak -Week Operational + Equalization Storage Requirements 2008 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 Time (Hours) Figure 3-11 Estimated OS + ES for 2008 based on Supply/Demand simulation 3-53 I IA'I I Required Operational + Equalizaton Storage (OS+ES) in 2008 = 0.60 - (- 3.22) MG = 3 82 MG I ., tl Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 i Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 Time (Hours) Figure 3-11 Estimated OS + ES for 2008 based on Supply/Demand simulation 3-53 M 4 -4 -8 Peak -Week Operational + Equalization Storage Requirements 2022 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 Time (Hours) ------------Required Operational+ ; Equalizaton Storage (OS+ES) in 2022 = 0.73 - (-3 93) MG = 4.66 A.r MG Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 Figure 3-12 Estimated OS + ES for 2022 based on Supply/Demand simulation 3 -54 Davi Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 Time (Hours) ------------Required Operational+ ; Equalizaton Storage (OS+ES) in 2022 = 0.73 - (-3 93) MG = 4.66 A.r MG Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 Figure 3-12 Estimated OS + ES for 2022 based on Supply/Demand simulation 3 -54 The supply/demand simulations presented graphically in Figures 3-11 and 3-12 are for the entire water system including all of the pressure zones. However, as discussed below, the OS + ES for Level 3 is a very small percentage of the total OS + ES, and therefore, the results of the simulations can be considered the approximate combined OS + ES requirements for Level 1 and Level 2 together. Since, as noted previously, the Level 2 storage is available to Level 1, it is necessary to consider these two pressure zones together in the storage analysis for OS + ES. Based on the simulation the recommended OS + ES volumes for 2008 and 2022 would be as shown in Table 3-28, below: Table 3-28 Recommended OS'+ ES (Level 1 plus Level 2) Year Recommended OS + ES (MG) 2008 3.82 2022 4.66 The actual water elevations for the Level 1 and Level 2 reservoirs during the peak demand periods in 1999, 2000, and 2001 are shown in Figures 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, and 3-18. These operating levels as well as the operating levels for Level 3 are summarized in Table 3-29. Level transmitters in the Level 3 reservoirs are used to control the Level 3 Pump Station within a narrow operating range between 16.5 and 18 feet or 17 and 18 feet. The actual water elevations for the Level 3 reservoirs during the peak demand periods in 2000 and 2001 are shown in Figures 3-19 and 3-20. As shown in Table 3-29, the observed combined for Level 1 and Level 2 OS + ES during the peak operating periods of 1999, 2000, and 2001 averaged 2.51. This data indicates that the recommended OS + ES volumes determined from the simulated supply/demand analysis are conservative. These more conservative OS + ES volumes summarized in Table 3-28, above will be used for the purpose of determining the total storage requirements for this Water System Plan Update planning period. 3-55 ITI N O O 0'00:01 2:10:01 4:20:01 6:30:01 8:40:01 10:50:01 13'0001 15:10.01 1720'01 19:30:01 21 40:01 23:50:01 2:00:01 m 4'10:01 0 6:20:01 CL << 8:30'01 v 104001 !� 12:50:01 40 15'00:01 0 1710,01 A 19.20:01 coo 21:30:01 23:40:01 i :50:Oi 4:00:01 6:10:01 8:20:01 10 30:01 12.40.01 14'5001 17'00:01 19'10:01 21:20 01 23:30.01 Level 2 Reservoir Elevation Feet O O O O O O O O ITI W O O 0:00:01 2:10:01 4.20:01 6.3001 8:40:01 10.50:01 13' 00'01 15.10:01 17:20.01 19:30:01 21 40.01 23.50.01 2:00:01 m 4.10:01 !Z 62001 CL 8:30:01 v 10.40.01 N 1250.01 15'00:01 0 17 10:01 19:20:01 21 3001 23:40:01 1:50:01 4:00:01 6:10:01 8:20' 01 10:30:01 12'40'01 14:50 01 17' 00:01 19' 10:01 21:20 01 233001 Level 1 Reservoir Elevation Feet N N N N N W O N A 0) co O O O O O O O 0111 Level 2 Reservoir Elevation Feet 0 0 0 cn (.n b 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:00:01; 2:10:01, 4:20:01 6:30:01. 8:40:01 10:50:01 13:00:01 15.10:01 17:20:01 19:30:01 21 40:01 23:50:01 -4 2:00:01 §* 410:01 CD 0 6:20:01 CL 8:30:01 a) 90 1< 10:40:01 1 6 C 15:00:01 17,10:01 co 19:20'01 21 30:01 23:40:01 1:50:01 4:00:01 6:10:01 8:20,01 10:30:01 12:40:01 14:50:01 1700:01 19:10:01 21:20:0, 23:30:01 W IQ N) 4 C) (n C)C) 0:00:01 2:10:01 O C:) C) Level O 1 Reservoir O C) N) 4 cn 0 C) 0 Elevation K) 0) 0 N) —4 6 C) 0 Feet N) 00 0 K) (D O C) to 0 ITI 4:20:01 Qr* 6:30:01 C 1% 8:40:01 10:50:01 13:00:01 15:10'01 m 17:20:01 fep 19:30:01 2140:01: 23:50:01 2:00:01 3 4 10:01 CD 0 6:20:01 83001 CL 10:40:01 00 12:50:01 6 Q 15:00:01 9 17,10:01 19:20:01 21:30:01 (:6 23:40:01 1:50:01 6:10:01 8:20:01 00 10:30:01 12:40:01 O 14:50:01 O 17:00:01 19:10:01 21:20:01 23:30:01 0.00:01 2:10:01 4:20:01 6:30:01 eDD 8:40:01 W 10:50'01 00 13:00:01 r* 15.10:01 17'20:01 :D. 19.30:01 N 21 4001 23:50.01 A 2:00:01 C(2D 4'10.01 0 6:20.01 ISf ) 8:30.01 CcO 10:40.01 : N 12:50:01 M o O _— 15:00:01 0 17 10:01 00 co v 19:20:01 V� b 21'30:01 O 23:4001 PEI. 50.01 :T 400.01 O 6:10:01 fJQ O 8.20:01 10:30:01 ~ 12:40.01 J p 14:50:01 17'00:01 19:10:01 21:20 01 23:30.01 iyTl 4 Level 2 Reservoir Elevation Feet N N N N N N N N O N N W W A VI lJ UI C, UI 0 C. lJ O O O O O O O O 0:00.01 2:10.01 OTI 4:20:01 OQ 6:30:01 8:40:01 W 10:50.01 H+ J 13:00:01 t..� 15.10:01 C 17.20:01 19:30:01 ~ 2140.01 23:50:01 m2:00:01 O m 4 10:01 0+ 6:20:01 CL 8:30:01 C CO 1040:01 12.50:01 .•• o O _— 15'00:01 0 17 10:01 co v 19:20:01 C/1 b 21:30:01 O 23:40.01 �+ 1:50:01 Cr' "1 4:00:01 O C 6.10:01 QQ �r 8:20:01 00 10:30:01 ~ J 12:40:01 O 14:50.01 H+ 17'00:01 19:10:01 21:20' 01 23:30 01 N O O Level 1 Reservoir Elevation Feet N W A (n 0) V OND (D O O O O O O O O O O O r Table 3-29 Actual Operating Ranges and OS+ES during Peak Demand Periods 1999 - 2000 Level 1 Reservoir: Volume - 6.0 MG; Volume per foot — 200,000 gallons Operating Ranges during Peak Periods High (ft) Low (ft) OS+ES (MG) 7/12/99 to 7/14/99 26.33 20.18 1.23 8/1/00 to 8/3/00 26.29 22.79 0.70 8/15/01 to 8/17/01 27.34 22.31 1.01 Level 2 Reservoir: Volume - 24.0 MG; Volume per foot — 980,000 gallons Operating Ranges during Peak Periods High (ft) Low (ft) OS+ES (MG) 7/12/99 to 7/14/99 22.80 21.47 1.30 8/1/00 to 8/3/00 23.46 21.95 1.48 8/15/01 to 8/17/01 23.93 22.44 1.46 Level 3 Reservoir: Volume - 2.0 MG; Volume per foot —100,000 gallons Operating Ranges during Peak Periods High (ft) Low (ft) OS+ES (MG) 7/12/99 to 7/14/99 18 17 0.10 8/1/00 to 8/3/00 18 17 0.10 8/15/01 to 8/17/01 18 16.5 0.15 Total OS+ES during Peak Demand Periods OS+ES (MG) 7/12/99 to 7/14/99 2.63 8/1/00 to 8/3/00 2.28 8/15/01 to 8/17/01 2.62 Average 2.51 3 - 59 ITI �Q C W N O r w O� O 61, O 0:00 01 2:10'01 4.20:01 6.30:01 8:40:01 10:50' 01 13:00:01 15:10:01 17:20:01 19:30:01 21 4001 23:50:01 2:00:01 m 4'10:01 0 6:20:01 CL 8'30:01 90 10.40:01 b 12:50:01 � 15:00:01 0 17 10.01 y 19:20 01 6 2130:01 23:40:01 1,50:01 400:01 6:10:01 8:20:01 10:30'01 12:40:01 14.50:01 17:00:01 19' 10:01 21.20:01 23:30:01 Level 3 Reservoir Elevation Feet N Ul O O V V 00 OD (O CD O O O O O O O O O O O 021 Level 3 Reservoir Elevation Feet N O U7 O Ut O N O U7 O N O O O O O O O O O O O O 0:00:01 �- 2:10.01 j 4:20:01 E 630.01 8:40:01 10:50.01 13.00:01 15.10:01 17:20:01 19'30:01 21 40:01 23:50:01. i 2:00:01 410.01 E p 6:20:01: CL 8:30 01 ' 10'40:01 12:50:01 C. 15'00'01 0 0 17 10:01 w 19:20:01 0 21:30:01 23:40:01 1:50:01 ; 4'00'01 [ 6:10:01 8:20:01 i[ 10:30:01 12:40'01 14:50 01 17:00:01: 19 10:01 21:20:01: 23'30'01 _ C Equalizing storage (ES) When the source capacity cannot meet the periodic daily (or longer) peak demands placed on the water system, Equalizing Storage (ES) must be provided (reference WAC 246-290-235(2)) as a part of the total storage for the system and must be available at 30 psi to all service connections. The volume of ES depends upon several factors, including peak diurnal variations in system demand, source production capacity, and the mode of operation. According to the DOH Design Manual, ES would normally be calculated using the following equation: ES = (PHD - Qs) x (150 min.), but in no case less than zero. Where: ES = Equalizing storage component, in gallons. PHD = Peak hourly demand, in gpm, Qs = Sum of all installed and active source of supply As noted above, if pumping is to be continuous or if the system is supplied by gravity, it is necessary to prepare a mass analysis by either graphical or tabular methods, or a computer simulation in order to determine the combined OS and ES requirements. A simulation can also be done to estimate ES alone. The OS could then be estimated as the difference between OS + ES and the ES estimates as determined by the simulation. For the purpose of this storage analysis, it would normally be sufficient to estimate OS + ES. However, it might also be useful to estimate ES alone, since OS could possibly be reduced by future changes in operational control while ES will remain a function of available supply sources and system demands. The results of simulations estimating the ES for the system as a whole for 2008 and 2022 are shown in Figures 3-21 and 3-22, respectively. The ES requirement for Level 2 and Level 3 can be estimated using the equation above from the DOH Design Manual by considering QS to be the capacity of the booster pumps supplying the respective pressure zone as shown in Table 3-30. Since the pump station capacities (Qs) exceed the PHDs, no additional ES is required to meet demands within the Level 2 and Level 3 pressure zones. Table 3-30 Level 2 and Level 3 Equalization Storage Requirements Projected 2008 PHD Projected 2022 PHD Pressure Zone MGD gpm MGD gpm Level 9.3 6,460 11.3 7,850 Level 2.2 1,530 2.7 1,870 Level 2 plus Level 3 11.5 7,990 14.0 9,720 Pump Stations Qs gpm ES= (PHD - Qs) x (150 min.) Qs gpm ES= (PHD - Qs) x (150 min.) North 401h Avenue 5,760 5,760 Stone Church 4,700 4,700 Total Level 2 pumps 10,460 <0 10,460 <0 Level 3 Pump Station 3,800 <0 3,800 <0 3-61 40,000 1---- --- -- -- 35,000 E CL 0 25,000 C M E 20,000 G. 15,000 CL Required Daily Equalization Storage in 2002 2.19 MG —Peak Week Supply 2008 —Peak -Week Demand 2008 10,000 5,000 I Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 0 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 Time (Hours) Figure 3-21 2008 Peak -Week Maximum Daily Equalization Requirement 3-62 a a 40,000 -- - - Required Daily Equalization 35,000 - Storage in 2022 = 2.67 MG 30,000 - - - --- CL 25,000 = i E 20,000 0 Q 15,000 co 10,000 5,000 —Peak Week Supply 2022 —Peak -Week Demand 2022 i I I i A ' Ai 10,000 ISI►ff�II�►1I�►I Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 o------ -- --- -- --- - - — - 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 Time (Hours) Figure 3-22 2022 Peak -Week Maximum Daily Equalization Requirement 3-63 Standby storage (SB) I The purpose of SB is to provide a measure of reliability should sources fail or when unusual conditions impose higher demands than anticipated. The SB volume recommended for systems served by one source may be different than for systems served by multiple sources as indicated in the following equations. The recommended SB volume for systems served by a single source of supply is two (2) times the system's average day demand (ADD) for the design year to be available to all service connections at 20 psi. SBTss = (2 days) x (ADD) Where: SBTss = Total standby storage component for a single source system; in million gallons MG). ADD = Average day demand for the system, in MGD; The recommended SB volume for systems served by multiple sources can be calculated based upon the following equation: SBTMS = (2 days) X (ADD) - t (Qs - QL ) Where: SBTNis = Total standby storage component for a multiple source system; in million gallons (MG) ADD = Average day demand f'or the system, in MGD; Qs = Sum of all installed and continuously available source of supply capacities, except emergency sources, in MGD. QL = The largest capacity source available to the system, in MGD. tm = Time that remaining sources are used on the day when the largest source is not available, in days. (Unless restricted otherwise, this is generally assumed to be one (1) day.) The projected supply quantities for 2008 and 2022 to be used to estimate the Standby (SB) Storage requirements in those years are presented in Table 3-31. 3-64 :J Table 3-31 Projected Supply for Years 2008 and 2022 in MGD Source of Supply 2000 2004 2008 2015 2020 2022 Existing Water Treatment Plant (non -drought)' 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Existing Water Treatment Plant (drought) 4 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 Existing Groundwater Wells 2,3 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Future Elks Park Well 6 0.0 0.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Future ASR Groundwater Wells 7 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.2 7.2 7.2 Total Capacity - Non -Drought Year 3 2 5. 0 25.0 29.3 32.9 32.9 32.9 Total Capacity - Drought Year 3.4°', 7 23.5 23.5 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Non -Drought Year QS - QL 0 0 4.3 7.9 7.9 7.9 1. The existing water treatment plant is rated at 25 MGD (17,400 gpm) consistent with the DOH Water Facilities Inventory (WFI). 2. Existing groundwater wells are designated for emergency use only. 3. Since the existing groundwater wells are for emergency use, they are excluded from the Non - Drought year supply. 4. During 2001, and due to drought conditions, the USBR reduced the storage control capacity of the WTP to 29%. 5. During 2001 drought conditions, the Groundwater Wells were activated. 6. The proposed Elks Park Well would use 3000 gpm of the Ranney Well water right. Installation estimated for 2004. 7. Two future 2,500 gpm (3.6 MGD) ASR wells are proposed. Installations are estimated for 2004 and 2008. Initially both ASR wells will be designated as emergency sources. In 2015 one ASR well will be changed to a normal source. 3-65 The calculated Standby Storage requirements for 2008 and 2022 are presented in Table 3-32. Table 3-32 Projected 6 and 20 year Standby (SB) Storage Requirements 2008 ADD 2008 SB' 2022 ADD 2022 SB2 Pressure Zone MGD MG MGD MG Level 1 10.2 16.1 12.5 17.1 Level 3.31 6.62 4.03 8.06 Level 0.77 1.54 0.97 1.94 Total 14.3 24.3 17.5 27.1 1. In 2008 there will be two normal supply sources; the WTP at 25 MGD; and the Elks Park well at 4.3 MGD. QS — QL = (29.3 MGD — 4.3 MGD) = 4.3 MGD. Since both of the supply sources will be in Level 1, SBTMS is calculated for Level 1 and for the total system as SBTMS = [(2 days) X (ADD)] — [(1 day) X (QS - QL)]- SB for Level 2 and Level 3 are calculated as SB = 2 days X ADD. 2. In 2022 there will be three normal supply sources; the WTP at 25 MGD; the Elks Park well at 4.3 MGD; and one ASR well at 3.6 MGD. QS — QL = (32.9 MGD — 25 MGD) = 7.9 MGD. Since all three of the supply sources will be in Level 1, SBTMS is calculated for Level 1 and for the total system as SBTMS = [(2 days) X (ADD)] — [(1 day) X (QS - QL)]- SB for Level 2 and Level 3 are calculated as SB = 2 days X ADD. Fire Flow Rate and Duration Public; water systems are required to construct and maintain facilities, including storage reservoirs, capable of delivering fire flows in accordance with the determination offire flow requirement made by the local Fire Marshal while maintaining 20 psi pressure throughout the distribution system (WAC 246-290-221(5)). The magnitude of fire suppression storage (FSS) is the product of the maximum flow rate and duration established by the local fire Fire Marshal. Fire -flow volumes are typically calculated based on the largest fire flow occurring in each pressure zone. The maximum flow rates and durations which have been established for the City of Yakdma for each pressure zone are summarized in Table 3-33. FSS can be nested within the standby storage (SB) provided as long as SB exceeds the FSS. 3-66 a Table 3-33 Required Fire Flow Storage (FSS) by Pressure Zone Pressure Zone Largest Required Fire Flow in m Duration (hours) Required Fire Flow Volume MG Level 1 6,000 6 2.2 Level 2 5,000 5 1.5 Level 3 5,000 5 1.5 Dead storage (DS) Dead storage (effective only to provide adequate pressure) is the volume of stored water not available to all consumers at the minimum design pressure in accordance with WAC 246-290- 230(5) and (6). DS volume is excluded from the volumes provided to meet OS, ES, and/or FSS. The entire volume of each of the reservoirs in the City of Yakima Water System is available to meet minimum design pressures. Therefore DS does not need to be added in the determination of the total storage requirements. Storage Analysis Summary A summary of the storage analysis prepared for this Water System Plan Update is presented in Table 3-34, below. Table 3-34 Summary of Storage Analysis Year/ Level Type of Storage 2008 Operational OS Equalization (ES) Standby SB) Fire Suppres- sion (FSS) Dead (DS) Total Stora e Level 1 3.82 16.1 2.2 0 19.9 Level 2 included in Level 1 0 6.62 1.5 0 6.62 Level 0.15 0 1.54 1.5 0 1.69 Totals 3.97 24.3 5.2 0 28.2 2022 Operational OS Equalization (ES) Standby (SB) Fire Suppres- sion (FSS) Dead DS Total Storage Levell 4.66 17.1 2.2 0 21.8 Leve12 included in Levell 0 8.06 1.5 0 8.06 Leve13 0.15 0 1.94 1.5 0 2.09 Totals 4.81 27.1 5.2 0 31.9 3-67 • A comparison of the projected storage requirements with the current storage facilities is presented in Table 3-35. Table 3-35 Comparison of the Projected Storage Requirements with the Current Storage Facilities Pressure Zone Current Storage MG 2008 Storage Required MG 2008 Storage Surplus (Deficit) MG 2022 Storage Required MG 2022 Storage Surplus (Deficit) MG Level 1 6.0 19.9 N/A 21.8 N/A Level 2 24 6.62 N/A 8.06 N/A Level 1 + Level 2 30 26.5 3.5 29.9 0.1 Level 3 2.0 1.69 0.31 2.09 (0.09) Total Storage 32 28.2 3.8 31.9 0.1 As cart been seen in Table 3-35, the currently available storage in adequate until 2022 with the exception of Level 3 which shows a deficit of 0.09 MG at that time. The deficit could be addressed by constructing additional Level 3 storage prior to 2022, or by reducing the operating storage requirement by installing variable frequency drives on the pumps in the Level 3 booster pump station. 3-68 3.3.5 Distribution System General Description and Condition A map of the City of Yakima water distribution system piping is shown in Figure 3-23. A summary of the pipe diameters and the respective lengths of each diameter in the system is shown in Table 3-36. Approximately 5000 feet of the distribution system piping is still asbestos cement (AC) pipe material. The pipe material in the rest of the system is either ductile iron or cast iron (about 50% of each). The remaining AC is gradually being replaced as part of the ongoing water main replacement program. All new water mains are constructed using ductile iron pipe in accordance with the City standards (refer to Chapter 7 of this plan for additional information regarding construction standards). Table 3-36 Water Distribution System Pipe Diameters and Lengths Pipe Diameter Length in Feet Length in Miles 1.00 3,296 0.62 1.25 675 0.13 1.50 5,035 0.95 2.00 12,809 2.43 2.50 724 0.14 3.00 214 0.04 4.00 6,115 1.16 6.00 477.257 90.39 8.00 515,081 97.55 10.00 602 0.11 12.00 281,186 53.25 14.40 72 0.01 16.00 78.576 14.88 18.00 683 0.13 20.00 12,668 2.40 24.00 20,514 3.89 30.00 3.770 0.71 48.00 45.173 8.56 Totals 1,464,449 277.36 3-69 The pressure zones which make up the distribution system are shown in Figure 3-24. The City of Yakima water system has three major pressure zones, designated as the Low, Middle, and High zones, plus a separate pressure zone for Gleed. A water system hydraulic profile was shown in Figure 3-10. The relationship between the pressure zones is discussed in this section. Low Pressure Zone (Level 1) The gravity supply from the 48 -inch -diameter transmission main flows to a 6 -MG reservoir located at North 40th Avenue and Englewood Avenue. This reservoir supplies water to the Low zone. Flows from the WTP are manually adjusted to maintain a nominal hydraulic elevation of 1,264 feet, resulting in a static pressure range in the Low zone of approximately 54 to 110 psi. During emergencies, the Low zone can also be served from the three wells. In extreme emergencies, such as fire -flow conditions, the Low zone can also be served by 14 pressure reducing valves that allow water to flow from the Middle zone. Middle Pressure Zone (Level 2) The Middle pressure zone is served by the River Road and Powerhouse Road Booster Pump Station from the 48 -inch supply transmission main. The booster pump operation is controlled from the zone's two 12 -MG reservoirs. The nominal hydraulic elevation is 1,380 feet, which results in a static pressure range of 43 to 105 psi. During emergencies, the Middle zone can be supplied by two pressure -reducing valves from the High zone or, in case of emergency, by opening the valve that controls the intertie from the Nob Hill Water Association. During extreme emergencies, the High zone can supply some of the Middle zone's needs for approximately one day of average water use. In 2000 a new booster pump station was installed near the intersection of North 32nd Avenue and Englewood Avenue. This has been designated the Stone Church booster pump station and provides another alternative for supply the Middle zone to improve reliability and the ability to satisfy emergency demands. High Pressure Zone (Level 3) The High pressure zone is served from the Middle zone by the Reservoir Road Booster Pump Station (also referred to as the Level 3 Pumps Station) located at the site of the Middle zone's twin 12 -MG reservoirs. The booster pump station includes a new 250 -kilowatt (kW) generator to provide emergency power. The booster pump station operation is controlled by two 1 MG reservoirs located in the High zone. The nominal hydraulic elevation is 1,531 feet, resulting in a static pressure range of 70 to 115 psi . During emergencies, the High zone can be supplemented by opening the valve that controls the intertie from the Nob Hill Water Association. A summary of the pressure zone operating conditions is presented in Table 3-37. 3-70 OR 'R,lip an! �� Raw saw Mrd Ri M46W ddo a 2111 0-0 win 1111M Villi -2-011run -�I �•���� 11�.���IYI�.I�I1I����I�II�IY�I.11.►�•°\,,���!!�tl aL 1.■ � 11�! ONE IIpoll ! MR1111111111,,1, III, �11�111111 1\\�I IIIIIA IAIAII�[ �� `11111111= IIIU111= 111111�� i1 i llll AMM murw ~ ''�""' �.III:IIII 111111 ■ ��t"t1111111C:1 �l���� ��1111�1111111FIRM .= PS M.��IAiI�:lli:iu I In111111111111 ��11C on IIMi 1 ■i1�11111�t!t'Et11El[II�I�t11R ...11lltl&I 71 Ci11A1 III11111111 111t�'::1X11=1���1111111111�HIM M NEI 11111111111 o �1111�11111111111t ~�, �•A1�11 . : ` 1 , I VP"m i h h ks J, Ingm; iia It1 9. iNLW a— �l�l! 11 Now I War =Mimi= �i► m —!" I RF" -@M- 1, Iras 103iffmillim Bill ""■ =1�IE ae s" onmw 00- �Tirr�i�� SO m m Is ROME N.0 AM a Ir�l'J 11 111 " �iiAllilll,'����;�o�w� oil MINIMUM �►��:..������..�� uu1 �"I1 7�• 1 E -riNIIlIIlIEI�I�IhA�lllll��"1°�� IN ���':���� '"� 1111���•�������� 111 n�i ��uullullim i n �Elfi " .. 111111 1 �IIEIIIlIL.� Milo. :1 PI'm I IA1111 A■ ■11"" 11111�� [frill ��11m 1p"' 111 1111 1 Wrl Rlem••mE�I FEN oilI ■QiiST, '� �������Lm �'llllllilllll 111111111111 E>i� 111md` 0 i, Table 3-37 Summary of Pressure Zone Operating Conditions Pressure Zone Nominal Hydraulic Elevation (feet) Static Pressure Range (psi) Low High Level 1 (Low) 1,264 54 110 Level 2 (Middle) 1,380 43 105 Level 3 (High) 1,531 70 115 System Conditions and Leakage The distribution system is generally in very good condition. In 1993, the City of Yakima conducted an extensive leak detection program because their non -revenue producing water represented approximately 30 percent of the total water produced. The program used extremely sensitive sound amplification instruments and a computer-based leak correlation program to help pinpoint the location of the leaks. Approximately 220 miles of the distribution system (90 percent of the total system) were included in the program. In this program, 85 leaks were detected and repaired in water mains, meters, hydrants, service lines, service connections, and valves. Additional leak detection and repair programs were conducted in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000. As a result the unaccounted for water percentages have been greatly reduced. (See discussion in Chapter 2 of this plan.) The distribution system mapping is included in the City's Geographic Information System (GIS). This system enables the Water Division personnel to continually update the map to record changes. The GIS mapping also facilitates recordkeeping for tracking the age and condition of the distribution system pipe segments. In 1995 City also implemented a maintenance management system which has been named "Automated Inventory and Maintenance Management Systems" (AIMMS). This program includes information about all of the City's facilities and equipment. This system automated the Water/Irrigation Division's existing preventive maintenance program. Refer to Chapter 6 for more complete information regarding the AIMMS. Distribution System Design Standards Refer to Chapter 7 of this plan for a discussion of the City of Yakima Development Standards and Water System Specifications and Details. These standards cover pipe and valve materials, valve and hydrant spacing, and water/sewer separation. Copies of these water system standards are included in Appendix O and Appendix P, respectively. 3-71 Hydraulic Capacity Analysis The purpose of the hydraulic analysis was to evaluate the hydraulic capacity and operational behavior of the City's water distribution system and to determine how the supply, pumping, and storage components interact. The City's water distribution system was evaluated using the ArcInfo and ArcCAD Geographic Information System (GIS) and EPANET hydraulic analysis software. This combination of software was first used in the development of the 1995 Water Comprehensive Plan to add hydraulic analysis capabilities to the City's existing Arclnfo and ArcCAD systems. This application of the EPANET hydraulic model allows City staff to perforin static and dynamic hydraulic and water quality analyses. The City has adopted the new versions of the EPANET model as they have become available. EPANET Version 2.0 was used for the hydraulic model analyses conducted in the development of this Water System Plan Update. The City's current water distribution system hydraulic model, was reviewed by Carollo Engineers for this Water System Plan Update. in EPANET version 2 format on January 15, 2002. Carollo provided a Technical Memorandum summarizing their review and which included recommendations for enhancing the existing hydraulic model. The hydraulic model data elements required for performing the calculations of pressures at nodes and the flows in pipe segments include the following data sets: 1. Physical data set, 2. Operational data set, 3. Consumption data set, and 4. Calibration data set Physical data set The physical data set includes information on the physical characteristics of the water distribution facilities. Components of this set include pipe diameters and lengths, pipe roughness coefficients, valve diameters, tank sizes, geographical locators (x acid y coordinates), and elevations (z coordinates) at junctions, tanks, pumps, and valves. The level of confidence in the component data of this set is relatively high since Water Division staff has diligently kept the physical characteristics updated in their GIS database. One observation was noticed while reviewing the pipe roughness coefficients assigned to pipes, and a recommendation was provided. Pipe Roughness As pipes age, their roughness tends to increase. This increase in roughness produces a lower Hazen -Williams C -factor or a higher Darcy -Weisbach roughness coefficient, resulting in greater frictional headloss in flow through the pipe. The most popular method for estimating the headlosses in pipes in the United States is the Hazen -Williams method. The current hydraulic model uses the Darcy -Weisbach coefficients. Observed values for the Darcy -Weisbach in the hydraulic model were set at either 8.3 or 29.1. Typical values of this coefficient should be around 0.005 for Asbestos Cement, 0.85 for new Cast Iron, 0.005 for plastic, and 0.15 for steel. Table 3-38 provides comparisons of roughness coefficients between Hazen -Williams and Darcy -Weisbach. 3-72 a Recommendation: It is suggested that the coefficients be adjusted to reflect pipe material and age. It is also recommended that the more conventional Hazen -Williams method be used. Table 3-39 provides suggested coefficients for new and aging cast iron pipes. Carollo provided recommended pipe roughness factors based on a distribution system map with pipe materials and age submitted by City staff. Table 3-38 Comparative Pipe Roughness Coefficients for City of Yakima Water System Hydraulic Model Pipe Material Manning's Coefficient n Hazen -Williams C Darcy -Weisbach Roughness Height k (mm) k (0.001 ft) Asbestos cement 0.011 140 0.0015 0.005 Brass 0.011 135 0.0015 0.005 Brick 0.015 100 0.6 2 Cast-iron, new 0.012 130 0.26 0.85 Concrete: Steel forms 0.011 140 0.18 0.6 Wooden forms 0.015 120 0.6 2 Centrifugally spun 0.013 135 0.36 1.2 Copper 0.011 135 0.0015 0.005 Corrugated metal 0.022 --- 45 150 Galvanized iron 0.016 120 0.15 0.5 Glass 0.011 140 0.0015 0.005 Lead 0.011 135 0.0015 0.005 Plastic 0.009 150 0.0015 0.005 Steel Coal -tar enamel 0.010 148 0.0048 0.016 New unlined 0.011 145 0.045 0.15 Riveted 0.019 110 0.9 3 Woodstave 0.012 120 0.18 0.6 Source: Haestad Methods 3 -73 Table 3-39 Recommended Hazen -Williams Roughness Coefficients for City of Yakima Water System Hydraulic Model Pipe Material Roughness Coefficient (C) Asbestos Cement 140 Brass 130-140 Brick sewer 100 Cast-iron New, unlined 130 10 yr. Old 107-113 20 yr. Old 89-100 30 yr. Old 75-90 40 yr. Old 64-83 Concrete or concrete lined Steel forms 140 Wooden forms 120 Centrifugally spun 135 135 Copper 130-140 Galvanized iron 120 Glass 140 Lead 130-140 Plastic 140-150 Steel Coal -tar enamel, lined 145-150 New unlined 140-150 Riveted 1.10 Tin 1.30 Vitrified clay (good condition) 110-140 Wood stave (average condition) 120 Source: Haestad Methods 3-74 Operational data set The operational data set describes the operational characteristics of the hydraulic controls. Tank water levels and rates of replenishment, pump characteristic curves and pump controls , PRV settings (downstream and upstream), groundwater seasonal elevations (winter/summer) for wells, flow control valve settings, and other hydraulic controls. The operational data set can often be obtained from SCADA measurements. Carollo reported a high level of confidence in the operational data set assembled by the City staff. They did however recommend some enhancements to the methodologies for modeling the surface supply and groundwater wells. Surface Supply The City's primary source of potable water the surface Water Treatment Plant (WTP) which extracts and treats water from the Naches River and conveys it to the transmission system. Flow from the WTP had historically been modeled as a fixed negative demand (e.g. flow into the distribution system). During extended period simulations and varying demand levels, this fixed demand could prevent the model from converging. Recommendation: Options to mitigate this condition include: 1) replacing the node at the treatment plant with a reservoir and flow control valve that is based on the maximum capacity of the plant, and/or 2) adding a diurnal pattern to the flow from the WTP. Groundwater Wells The City's existing groundwater wells are designated for emergency use. Of the three existing groundwater wells, one has been included in the current hydraulic model as a fixed negative demand. The wells include the Kiwanis Park well, the Airport well, and the Kissel Park well. Recommendation: Add the groundwater wells as they may be needed for simulating hypothetical emergency conditions. It was suggested that pump manufacturer curves be obtained and entered in the hydraulic model to provide a better representation of their operational characteristics. In the absence of pump manufacturer's curves, 3 -point field tests could be conducted to assess the operational characteristics of the pumps. Extended Period Simulations City staff had previously enhanced the model by adding a 2 -hour Extended Period Simulation (EPS) for assessing the impact of hypothetical fires. Recommendation: Further enhancements should include adding a 24-hour EPS to monitor and evaluate the city' storage reservoir replenishment and depletion rates. Longer simulations may be needed to evaluate extended disruptions of surface supply or power outages. Consumption data set The consumption data set consists of water requirements that are applied at junction nodes to simulate various demand conditions. The demands are calculated based on the average annual production records and assigned to nodes/junctions of the hydraulic model. Normalize Demands A review of the hydraulic model indicated that the current demands, distributed at model junctions, add up to approximately 17,100 gpm or 24.6 MGD. Recommendation: It was recommended that the demands be normalized to the average annual daily demand (ADD) for the last complete year on record. In this task, recent water production 3 -75 and consumption records were reviewed to determine the average demand. Higher demands, representing the maximum day or peak hour, can be simulated by applying peaking factors. Table .3-40 provides a typical diurnal pattern for the City of Yakima. Table 3-40 Daily Diurnal Demand Patterns for City of Yakima Water System Hydraulic Model Hour Ratio of Hourly Demand to ADD Annual Average Daily Demand ADD Maximum Day Demand MDD 1 0.88 1.58 2 1.00 1.80 3 0.88 1.58 4 0.44 0.79 5 1.00 1.80 6 1.06 1.91 7 1.31 2.36 g 1.56 2.81 9 1.19 2.14 10 1.06 1.91 11 1.41 2.53 12 1.03 1.86 13 1.00 1.80 14 0.97 1.74 15 0.50 0.90 16 0.69 1.24 17 1.03 1.86 18 1.00 1.80 19 0.97 1.74 20 1.09 1.97 21 1.06 1.91 22 0.91 1.63 23 0.94 1.69 24 1.00 1.80 24 Hour Average 1.00 1.80 3-76 Calibration data set In addition to the previously described data sets, the calibration data set is needed for comparing the hydraulic model predictions with field observed and measured values. The comparison should yield reasonably close pressures. The calibration data set consists of pressure measurements at critical distribution system locations, as determined by City staff and consultant. Recommendation: Carollo Engineers suggested at least 10 locations (Table 3-41) along the major water transmission mains (12 -inches and higher) to conduct a steady state calibration of the hydraulic model for the Water System Plan Update. A detailed description of the methodology for fire flow tests may be found in the American Water Works Association Manual 17 (AWWA M17), Chapter 6. A useful form for assisting City staff in reporting hydrant test information may be found in AWWA M17, Figure 5-4. Recording of information on the operations of the water system during each test is critical to the calibration effort. In addition to the hydrant test information, the following data is also needed: • Production from the Water Treatment Plant • Water Reservoir levels, at static conditions and during the test. Booster Station Flows, at static conditions, and during the test. • Date and time of each test. • Estimated flow through the Interties with adjacent water systems, if any. Table 3-41_ Recommended Locations for Hydrant Tests Test No. Test Location 1 N. 4t Street and E. S Street 2 E. Maple Street and Chalmers Street 3 E. Yakima Ave. and South Front Street 4 Cherry Avenue and North 16 tAvenue 5 W. Mead Avenue and Forney Road 6 W. Washington Avenue and S. 24t Avenue 7 Ahtanum Road and and extension of 18t Avenue 8 Summitview Avenue and S. 40 Avenue 9 Tieton Drive and N. 24t Avenue 10 Englewood and North 53` . Avenue Calibration Results The results of the model calibration conducted based on the hydrant tests at the Iocations recommended above are presented in Table 3-42. As can be observed from the data presented in the table, the model calibrated well with the field test conditions. 3-77 Table 3- 42 City of Yakima Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration (2002) :V� --It E 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 z z z z E o E E i� i� is > Q id > L Q z p EQ N N a dnN ¢ O O O O O O O O U 3 0 75 n a� a� a> v rs O O O v O 0 a� o Z b a d° i w N oo w _ ti aci r v a� aci _ aci _ ti aci _ ti aci 0 aci 3 y 3 E 7 b cL Q c� Q. 3 o v a� c c a>i 0 aN p, y ¢ N cd O �l z O O, �•L,k 4. 4k .� .� 'C d' O� U vOi vii vii w vii w vii _ vii vii C vOi C �n �J •� 3 z _y W in °' 0 3 — ase c -Y - rn cn f� v� p cn p v� v, v, y ._. y N h W cn W v E O z w Lt, p y ° •� O O O a>> °' °' N- O °d aj tU. ti v`ni i ti sN. E 3 a� a cv v c .b a @j ° v a� U, 3 F- F a� �- a� o v N a� oo a o a.. _ ¢ a... Q :G O v in �\ V o o Ua U • ,� o �> •p y .O y y N > E"' E E E E �C E M E M E a� E ti O> z E ¢ a c U U > O �� y O h wo O h od„ O O O O O> v a .a W 3 o ,�, >, -j °° E oo kn ;? a H E w rx Q E v c E c c o c c c c o c o in y Q U Lz EEi 0a�Ei aEi a�Ei a�Ei a�Ei aEi aEi 1 5770 1072 80 82 1244 5760 1072 77 82 74 80 3 2 6729 0 125843 137930 152860 1212 1526 7292 79 90 87 96 54 63 45 50 2/22/02 11 55 2 2017 1028 98 100 1353 780 1031 96 99 85 97 11 2 6688 0 125808 137943 152889 1254 458 7222 85 90 94 95 58 63 48 50 214 02 14 20 3 759 1065 80 84 903 781 1068 79 83 75 83 4 6708 0 1258.64 137936 152817 1226 395 7292 85 90 96 96 57 63 47 50 21 100:35:35 4 527 1093 70 75 1244 556 1092 71 75 67 75 4 6667 0 125717 137961 1528.69 1160 426 6805 86 91 94 97 57 64 46 50 2121102 12:10 5 1829 1005 105 111 1476 1833 1003 105 112 95 110 10 2 6680 0 125714 137955 152869 1309 443 6805 85 89 95 96 49 62 47 50 2121102 1 12:40 6 5730 1065 82 85 1353 2578 1062 80 86 76 83 4 3 6798 0 125880 137939 152830 1034 429 7292 86 89 95 96 57 62 46 50 2/22102 1000 7 1925 1038 90 97 1453 2529 1050 83 92 79 88 4 4 6542 0 125709 1379 55 1528.74 1314 432 6805 N/A 89 N/A 96 N/A 62 N/A 50 2/21102 13:10 8 830 1267 48 46 888 829 1264 45 47 36 44 9 3 6625 0 125936 137948 1528.49 1144 416 7292 86 91 96 97 59 64 43 48 2122102 745 9 1141 1162 92 88 1135 1183 81 80 74 77 7 3 0 1259 09 1379.28 1528 50 1225 371 7292 85 91 96 97 59 64 44 47 2122102 11327 14965 1 8:55 10 478 1347 80 79 1053 480 1343 81 80 77 78 4 2 6667 0 125918 137948 1528.49 1070 414 7292 86 91 97 97 57 64 45 50 2122102 8:30 11 1909 1003 105 111 1524 1908 1005 104 110 97 107 7 3 6653 0 125700 137955 152874 1314 432 6805 N/A 90 N/A 96 N/A 63 N/A 50 2/21/02 1342 3-78 n 'u Results of Hydraulic Model Analyses The hydraulic model was run to simulate fire flow conditions at representative node locations throughout the system. The fire -flow demands (in gpm) and durations (in hours) were based on the land use and building types which presently exist in the vicinity of the node locations as determined by the Uniform Fire Code Division III, Fire Protection, Appendix III -A, Fire flow Requirements for Buildings. These requirements are used by the City's fire code enforcement officials in establishing fire -flows and durations for all structures within their jurisdiction. To be conservative the projected 2025 MDD demands were used in creating a dynamic model of the system pressures under the simulated fire -flow conditions. The results of these hydraulic model analyses are presented in Table 3-43. The Department of Health requirement that pressure at all points in the system remain a minimum of 20 psi under fire -flow conditions can been met in all cases according to these hydraulic model analyses. It should also be pointed out that the fire - flows and durations used in the hydraulic analyses are very conservative and in most if not all cases exceed the minimums required by the fire code officials. Table 3- 43 Hydraulic Analysis under Fire Flow Conditions at Selected Nodes Run Flow Fire Duration Residual Location ton Pressure Comments No. Node # (hours) ( ) By Greenway/I-82 2 2651 across from Gateway 5000 5 26 ok Fair Avenue and 102 2652 Gateway Center 5000 5 35 ok Pacific and 18 St. 4 1179 3000 3 24 ok Rudkin Road and 5 1909 East Mead 4000 4 35 ok S. Is' St. and 7 1826 Washington Ave. 4000 4 60 ok S. 1 S` St. and 8 1826 Washington Ave. 5000 5 50 ok S. IS` St. and 9 1826 Washington Ave. 6000 6 45 ok 16 th Ave. and 10 1920 Ahtanum 6000 6 45 ok 24 1h Ave. and 11 1794 Washington Ave. 6000 6 40 ok 36` Ave. and 12 1729 Washington Ave. 4000 4 25 ok 3-79 • Table 3- 43 Hydraulic Analysis under Fire Flow Conditions at Selected Nodes Run Flow Fire Duration Residual Node # Location Flow (hours) pressure Comments (gpNo. m (psi) Nob Hill Blvd. and 13 2173 46`h Ave. 4000 4 20 ok N. 6` Ave. and 14 142 River Road 3000 4 45 ok N. 6` Ave. and 15 142 River Road 5000 5 30 ok N. 6` Ave. and 16 142 River Road 6000 6 25 ok Nob Hill Blvd. and 17 2173 46`h Ave. 2000 3 60 ok Nob Hill Blvd. and 18 2173 46`h Ave. 3000 4 45 ok Nob Hill Blvd. and 19 2173 46`h Ave. 4000 4 20 ok S. 32 Id Ave. and 20 1384 Nob Hill Blvd. 4000 4 45 ok S.32 Ave. and 21 1384 Nob Hill Blvd. 5000 5 30 ok N. 44` Ave. and 24 842 Summtiview 2000 3 30 ok N. 40` Ave. and 101 830 Summtiview 3000 3 26 ok Englewood and 25 476 N. 56`h Ave. 2000 3 59 ok Englewood and 26 476 N. 56`h Ave. 3000 3 45 ok Webster and 27 332 N. 44`h Ave. 3000 3 55 ok N. 32" Ave. and 28 817 Summitview 3000 3 65 ok N. 32 A,. e. and 29 817 Summitview 4000 4 58 ok N. 32" Ave. and 30 817 Summitview 5000 5 50 ok M:1I; Table 3- 43 Hydraulic Analysis under Fire Flow Conditions at Selected Nodes Run Flow Fire Duration Residual No. Node # Location Flow (hours) Pressure Comments River Road and 31 1859 N. 16th Ave. 5000 5 42 ok Longfibre and 32 1821 Washington Ave. 6000 6 48 ok E. Mead and 33 1667 S 1St St 6000 6 32 ok W. Mead and 34 1640 S. 10th Ave. 3000 3 55 ok W. Mead and 35 1640 S. 10th Ave. 4000 4 45 ok Nob Hill Blvd. and 36 1409 S. 10th Ave. 5000 5 40 ok Nob Hill Blvd. and 37 1378 Railroad Ave. 6000 6 30 ok Nob Hill Blvd. and 38 1442 S 18I St 4000 4 40 ok Maple and 39 871 Fair Ave. 4000 4 40 ok S. Front St. and 40 966 Pine Ave. 4000 4 42 ok Poplar Ave. and 42 419 N 1St St 5000 5 28 ok Erickson and 43 128 N 6th St 4000 4 25 ok N. l It St. and 44 5872 E. `B" St. • 4000 4 38 ok N. l It St. and 45 5872 E. "B" St. 5000 5 28 ok "S" St. and 46 5770 N 4th St 4000 4 25 ok W. Chestnut Ave. 47 993 and S. 24th Ave. 3000 3 44 ok Yakima Ave. and 48 864 6th Ave. 5000 5 44 ok 3-81 i While not required to meet the DOH minimum pressure requirements under either normal MDD or fire -flow demands the City Water/Irrigation Division staff has identified several distribution systern upgrade projects to be included in the capital improvement program to be included in this Water System Plan Update. These projects are part of the City's on-going distribution system improvement program. The identified improvements are described briefly below: East Mead Avenue Water Main The existing 8 -inch main on East Mead Avenue east of South 1 st Street is only marginally sufficient to convey fire flows to the industrial area along I-82. An improvement completed under an earlier CIP should be extended to include a 12 -inch pipe along East Mead Avenue between South 1 st Street and the existing 12 -inch pipe that extends eastward from South 10th Street. Replace the existing 8" in Mead from 1St St to 10th St and replace about 300' the existing 6" in S. 1 st St with a 12" to connect with existing 12" Viola Avenue Freeway Crossing Currently, the 6 -inch main that crosses under I-82 is only marginally sufficient to convey fire flows to the industrial area east of I-82 including the Yakima WWTP & K -Mart. A 12 -inch pipe is needed extending from the eastern end of Viola Avenue under I-82 to connect to the existing 12 -inch pipe. Long Fiber to South 0 Water Main This project would connect the existing 12 inch main in Long Fiber Avenue to an existing 12 inch main in South 1St Street to complete a loop which would serve this area. This will strengthen the distribution system in this location, so it could better serve potential future development in this area. Private Water Main Replacement Program The City of Yakima has an on-going program that replaces private mains less than 6" and complete loops in the areas where the mains are replaced. PRV Replacement Program The City of Yakima is planning to replace 11 of the 13 pressure reducing valves as part of an on- going distribution system maintenance upgrade. Main Replacement Powerhouse Road to Level 2 Reservoir Due to its age, the 24 inch diameter steel main from Powerhouse Road to the Level 2 Reservoir is schedule for replacement in order to maintain the reliability and integrity of this important component of the Level 2 system. 3-82 W 3.3.6 Summary of System Deficiencies The individual system component analysis sections included in this chapter identified a number of needed improvements. Based on these analyses, a list of system deficiencies has been developed for each water system functional group. Each of these deficiencies is briefly described in this section. The list of deficiencies will be prioritized. An assessment of various improvement alternatives and development of improvement schedules is provided in the next section. When evaluating water system needs, the Department of Health gives highest priority to health related issues. These priorities are taken into consideration in the development of the recommended improvement schedule. The system deficiencies identified in this Chapter are summarized below for each of the following water system component facilities: • Source • Water Treatment • Storage, and • Distribution Source The current normal source of supply is the Naches River Water Treatment Plant with a nominal capacity of 25 MGD. This supply is adequate to meet the projected maximum day demand (MDD) up until 2008. The three active wells (Kiwanis, Airport, and Kissel Park) have been designated as emergency use supplies. A drought condition such as that which occurred during 2001 is an example of an emergency condition in which the emergency wells would be activated, as they were then. A majority portion of the normal surface water source of supply is subject to proration during low water years. In 2001, which has been the most severe drought since the Naches Water Treatment Plant has been in operation, the output of the water treatment plant was reduced to 11.9 MGD due to proration of the storage capacity water right. Including the emergency wells the total supply capacity during 2001 was 23.5 MGD (refer to Table 3-22). Referring to Figure 3-2, we can project that during a severe drought condition similar to 2001 the available supply might be less than the MDD beginning in 2004 if no additional source of supply is placed into service. prior to that time. Water Treatment . A 1998 report by Carollo Engineers titled Evaluation of the Naches River Water Treatment Plant (Carollo Engineers, August 1998) provided an assessment of the existing treatment plant components. The Carollo report and Section 3.3.3 of this Water System Plan Update identified deficiencies and recommended improvements to the WTP as needed to meet current and anticipated performance requirements. The identified deficiencies are summarized below. Raw Water Intake - Major concerns with the existing intake facilities are listed below. r • Accumulation of ice and debris 3-83 • Fish migration up the Naches River. • Water quality • Uncontrolled flow changes in the Wapatox Canal • Introduction of ice, debris, sediment, and large rock fragments from the erosion of the Wapatox Canal's powerhouse bypass channel • Worker safety • Limited access to both sides of the intake channel for maintenance Rapid Mix (Coagulation) - A well designed coagulation system is a critical link in the optimization of the WTP. It requires the rapid (one second) and uniform dispersal of a coagulant throughout the entire raw water flow. A mixing energy (G) of approximately 750 sec -1 for one second is generally adequate to achieve optimal coagulation. To compensate for an inefficient flash mix system, coagulant overdoses of up to 30 percent may have to be used. Deficiencies with the existing rapid mix arrangement at the WTP include: • A mixing time (T) of 120 seconds at 25 MGD. • A mixing energy (G) of 270 sec -I. • A corresponding G X T of 32,000. Contact Basins - Identified deficiencies with the existing contact basins are presented below. • Lack of mechanical sludge removal equipment to remove heavy solids that settle out during episodes of high turbidity. • Minimal flocculation energy is provided to the water as it flows through the basins. • Minimal settling of floc (inlet and outlet turbidities measured on May 12. 1998 were 19 and 13 NTU, respectively) • Large surface area exposed to the atmosphere results in operational problems, i.e. loss of chlorine residual, algae formation. ice and slush formation. • No chemical addition capabilities Filter Operation - Deficiencies identified with respect to the existing filter components, operations, and performance are as follows: • The distance between the top of the -media and the surface wash arm is about 8 -inches. This distance should be at most 3 -inches to provide for effective surface wash. • There is no access to the filter plenums. • Water depth above the filter media is about 5 feet. This could lead to negative pressures within the filter bed, and could result in air binding. • Excessive mudball formation and media mounding. Causes may include: Filter aid polymer dose too high promoting the formation of a mud layer on top of the filter media; Ineffective surface wash that does not break up the mud layer that forms on the filter 3-84 ' surface; Poor distribution of backwash water, resulting in gravel migration and media mounding. Backwash Strategy - Deficiencies identified with the existing backwash strategy are discussed below (these improvements have been implemented since the 1998 Carollo report was completed). • The concurrent operation of the surface wash and backwash is too long. These systems should only overlap for up to 2 minutes. • The ramped backwash rates are ineffective which wastes product water. In addition, the backwash rates are too low. Solids are efficiently removed from a filter bed when the media layers are adequately expanded. An appropriate backwash rate for the existing media configuration is 17 gpm/ft2 at 20°C. The filters should be washed at this rate throughout the backwash duration. • The water level should be taken down to 6 inches above the media surface before the backwash sequence is started. This will minimize media loss by preventing it from flowing over the backwash troughs at the beginning of a backwash cycle. • The shape of the floc retention curves for Filter No.2 would suggest one or more of the following conditions: — In-depth filtration of solids is not occurring. — Solids applied to the filter are large in size promoting surface straining. — Filter media contains excessive solids that are not being washed from the bed. — Excessive headloss accumulation due, in part, to residual solids in the filter bed. • The lack of a distinct peak and rapidly decreasing turbidity values in the filter waste washwater turbidity profile suggests an ineffective wash. These results were most likely caused by the ramped backwash rates and the inappropriate (too low) maximum backwash rate. • Backwash rates are not currently adjusted throughout the year to account for changes in water temperature. As the temperature of water decreases, its density increases. Thus, as the water temperature decreases, the appropriate backwash rate should be decreased to compensate for increased density. Filter -to -Waste Facilities - Deficiencies identified for the existing FTW system are as follows: • The 15 -minute duration used by plant staff does not cover the entire maturation period. Water with turbidities greater than 0.1 NTU is being allowed to reach the finished water supply. (This recommendation has also been implemented.) • The existing FTW piping is undersized. The filtration rate used during FTW is substantially lower than the filtration rate used during normal filtration mode. • The arrangement of the FTW piping frequently results in spillage of this water onto the pipe gallery floor. 3-85 • Disinfection Facilities - Deficiencies identified in the existing disinfection facilities with respect to safety and treatment capabilities are summarized below: The primary deficiency with the chlorination system with regards to safety is a lack of a chlorine scrubber. Status and condition of ancillary safety equipment, such as alarms and leak detectors, will require additional evaluation at the time a preliminary design is undertaken. • Treatment Capabilities. Two deficiencies related to treatment capabilities include: — Inability to disinfect chlorine resistant pathogens, such as Cryptosporidium. — The existing primary disinfection facilities in place for CT compliance are near their limit at a treatment capacity of 25 MGD. Residuals Handling - Identified deficiencies with the existing residuals handling process at the WTP are listed below: • Settled sludge cannot dry because it is always submerged in water. • Existing lagoon does not provide adequate settling time for particles in the filter washwater stream. • Existing lagoon is too small to accommodate a full volume of water from the contact basin. • The lack of a polymer feed system to add polymer to the influent flow to aid particle settling. Chemical Storage and Feed Facilities - Deficiencies identified with the existing chemical feed and storage facilities (excluding chlorine) are as follows: • Inadequate spill containment for bulk storage of alum and :filter aid polymer solution. • Limited chemical selection and application points. Storage Based on the storage analysis presented Section 3.3.4 of this Water System Plan Update, the existing storage capacity is adequate for the projected supply and demand conditions through 2022. For historical reasons the largest storage capacity is located in Level 2 although that storage capacity is also available to Level 1 where the majority of the demand is located. One problem that has been identified is the low turnover rate in the Level 2 reservoirs during low demand periods. 3-86 The reservoirs have been well maintain and are currently in good condition. With normal periodic cleaning and maintenance, their useful life can be expected to extend well beyond the 20 year planning period. Distribution While no specific deficiencies have been identified as a result of the hydraulic analyses conducted as part of this Water System Plan Update, the City has identified several projects to be included in the current capital improvement program. East Mead Avenue Water Main The existing 8 -inch main on East Mead Avenue east of South 1 st Street is only marginally sufficient to convey fire flows to the industrial area along I-82. An improvement completed under an earlier CIP should be extended to include a 12 -inch pipe along East Mead Avenue between South 1 st Street and the existing 12 -inch pipe that extends eastward from South 10th Street. Replace the existing 8" in Mead from 1St St to 10`" St and replace about 300' the existing 6" in S. 1St St with a 12" to connect with existing 12" Viola Avenue Freeway Crossing Currently, the 6 -inch main that crosses under I-82 is only marginally sufficient to convey fire flows to the industrial area east of I-82 including the Yakima WWTP & K -Mart. A 12 -inch pipe is needed extending from the eastern end of Viola Avenue under 1-82 to connect to the existing 12 -inch pipe. Long Fiber to South 0 Water Main This project would connect the existing 12 inch main in Long Fiber Avenue to an existing 12 inch main in South 1St Street to complete a loop which would serve this area. This will strengthen the distribution system in this location, so it could better serve potential future development in this area. Private Water Main Replacement Program The City of Yakima has an on-going program that replaces private mains less than 6" and complete loops in the areas where the mains are replaced. PRV Replacement Program The City of Yakima is planning to replace 11 of the 13 pressure reducing valves as part of an on- going distribution system maintenance upgrade. Main Replacement Powerhouse Road to Level 2 Reservoir Due to its age, the 24 inch diameter steel main from Powerhouse Road to the Level 2 Reservoir is schedule for replacement in order to maintain the reliability and integrity of this important component of the Level 2 system. 3-87 3.3.7 Selection and Justification of Proposed Improvement Projects This section contains analyses and discussion of potential improvements that will resolve existing and anticipated deficiencies. Analyses and discussion are presented for each of the water system functional components (Source, Water Treatment, Storage, and Distribution) in the same order that they were discussed in the previous section. Source As discussed above in Section 3.3.6, it is projected that an additional normal supply source will be necessary by 2008 in order to meet the MDD without have to utilize the emergency well supplies. The source capacity analysis presented in Table 3-22 is based on the development of new supply sources as shown below in Table 3-44. Table 3 -44 New Source of Supply to Meet Future MDD New Source Capacity MGD Year Installed Type of Supply Elks Park Well 4.3 2005 Normal ASR Well No. 1 3.6 2007 Emergency ASR Well No. 2 3.6 2010 Emergency) Initially both ASR wells will be designated as emergency sources. In 2015 one ASR well will be changed to a normal source. The alternatives for developing new supply sources for the City of Yakima water system are limited. by water rights considerations. As discussed in Section 4.3 of this Water System Plan Update, the City of Yakima holds a number of water rights that supply the City's domestic and municipal irrigation distribution systems. All of the City's surface: water rights are currently under the jurisdiction of the Yakima County Superior Court as part of the surface water rights adjudication, Ecology v. Acquavella, et al. On November 21, 2002, the Court issued a Conditional Final Order that approves a proposed settlement of the City's Naches River water rights diverted at the Naches River Water Treatment Plant and at Nelson Bridge. For purposes of this plan, the Conditional Final Order provides an appropriate point of reference for the analysis of future supply source development. Refer to Section 4.3 for a complete discussion of the individual water rights. Ideally any new source of normal water supply would not be subject to proration during low water years and would be available year around. All but one of the surface water rights are subject: to seasonal time of use limitations. The one existing groundwater right which is not currently fully utilized is the Ranney Well right. The original Ranney Well water right was for 5000 gpm and can be used year around. Of this 5000 gpm, 2000 gpm has been transferred to the Kissel Park Well. This leaves 3000 gpm which could be transferred to a new well. Under current: regulations, the Ranney Well would likely be considered groundwater under the influence of surface water and therefore not suitable for domestic use without additional treatment. A new 3000 gpm deep well would enable the City to beneficially use this existing water right, thereby providing the additional year around source which is needed and assuring that this right is not lost in the future for failure to put it to use. as required by state water law. The proposed location for the new 3000 gpm deep well is the Elks Park located in the northeast 3-88 0 section of Yakima. The property is already owned by the City. The estimated cost of a new well included well pump, well house and engineering and administrative costs is $1,500,000. Another alternative which was considered as a possible new source of supply was the installation of a new membrane filtration plant near Nelson Bridge. A preliminary cost estimate for this alternative was $8,000,000. In addition to the relatively high cost, the water right status of the surface water withdrawal which would supply this plant has not yet been resolved and may not be resolved for several more years. For these reasons this alternative will not be considered further at this time. It could be considered again in future a Water System Plan Update should the circumstances warrant. Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is discussed in Chapter 4 as a possible source of additional supply during peak use periods or under emergency conditions. During seasonal low demand periods water would be treated in excess of the amounts required to meet demand with the excess being stored in the aquifer for later withdrawal during peak demand periods. This in effect enables the City to utilize their excess water right capacity during low demand periods to meet peak demands in summer months when surface water supplies are limited be drought conditions or other emergencies. If the projected maximum day demands are realized by the year 2015, one of the proposed ASR wells would be converted from an emergency source of supply status to a normal supply source. The first ASR well would be installed in 2007. The second ASR well would be installed about 2010. The estimated cost for each of the ASR wells would be the same as the Elks Park Well, or approximately $1,500,000. Water Treatment The 1998 Carollo report and Section 3.3.3 of this Water System Plan Update identified alternatives and recommendations for improvements to the WTP as needed to meet current and anticipated performance requirements. The improvement alternatives and a discussion of the prioritization of these improvements, where applicable, are summarized below. Raw Water Intake - The investigation of a subsurface collection system to alleviate problems associated with ice and debris accumulation and fish migration issues was recommended in the 1998 Carollo WTP evaluation report. A potential benefit of a subsurface collection system is solids removal. Another solids removal process must be added upstream of filtration to reliably produce filtered water with turbidities less than 0.1 NTU under all conditions. However, based on a survey of the experiences in other parts of the country with subsurface collection systems, it was determined that this approach would not be feasible due to clogging problems from sediments and the difficulty in getting a backwash system to work. The potential impact of a backwash system on fish was also identified as a concern. In lieu of installing a subsurface collection system, the installation of new screening equipment has been recommended. The recommended system will consist of flat screen panels with air backwash and continuous air curtain to mitigate the build-up of ice in the winter months. Installation of the new screens is scheduled for completion in the Spring of 2003. Rapid Mix (Coagulation) - A new pump diffusion flash mix system is recommended to replace the existing rapid mix. It would have the following advantages over the existing mechanical mixer: 3-89 • Designed for an optimal GT of 750 under all flow conditions • Provides instantaneous mixing of a primary coagulant across the entire flow stream • Higher efficiency can result in up to a 30 percent reduction in coagulant demand • Reduced power consumption • Lower maintenance • Non-proprietary "off the shelf parts and flexibility in retrofitting and installation The recommended improvements to the rapid mix/coagulation system are scheduled for installation in late 2003 and 2004. The estimated cost of these improvements is $1,186,000. Contact Basins — The 1998 Carollo report suggested that the existing contact filtration process be converted to direct filtration. The primary difference between these two processes is mechanical flocculation. Direct filtration is a more versatile process than contact filtration, and, as such, can more reliably treat raw water turbidities up to 15 NTU. The addition of mechanical flocculation to the treatment train will form a more filterable floc than contact filtration. This will improve filter performance. Retrofitting the existing contact basins provides a means to add mechanical flocculation to the treatment train. The following improvements have been identified to add flocculation and resolve some of the operational deficiencies at the WTP: • Convert the first 48 feet of the contact basins into three -stage baffled flocculation compartments. This requires installation of twelve vertical shaft flocculators and six baffle walls. • Install a longitudinal baffle down the center of each contact: basin (in effect this creates four basins). • Install mechanical sludge removal equipment • Cover the contact basins. Since the water treatment plant performance has been satisfactory, these contact basin improvements are not considered to be as high a priority as the other recommended improvements which are identified in this section. The contact basin deficiencies do not pose any immediate health or safety risk and improvements are not required to meet current regulatory requirements. Because of these factors, the contact basin improvements are not scheduled for implementation in the capital improvement program covering the next six years. Implementation of these, or equivalent improvements, will be reconsidered in subsequent water system plan updates. Filter Operation - Rehabilitation of the filters, coupled with uporading and improving pretreatment would resolve the deficiencies discussed above in Section 3.3.6. With these improvements, the WTP would be able to reliably produce high quality filtered water with turbidities less than 0.1 NTU under all conditions. Recommended improvements to the filters include: 3-90 • Replace the existing Leopold clay block underdrains with a nozzle underdrain system. Benefits of this type of underdrain system are: Elimination of gravel support system; Elimination of grout fillet along edge of the filter walls; Elimination of gravel allows for an additional foot of water depth above filter media; Compatible with air scour system. • Install an air scour system to supplement the water backwash system. • Replace the existing multi -media configuration with a dual media design. The new media design would consist of 12 -inches of 0.65 mm ES sand and 24 -inches of 1.2 mm ES anthracite. This new media design will provide excellent filtered water quality and increase solids storage capability of the filter bed. • Replace the existing rotary arm surface wash mechanism with a fixed grid surface wash system. This system provides a more thorough wash of the entire filter surface. The recommended improvements to the filters are scheduled for installation in late 2004 or early 2005. The estimated cost of these filter improvements is $900,000. Backwash Strategy - Recommended improvements to the existing backwash strategy include the following: • Reduce the concurrent operation of the surface wash and backwash to 2 minutes. • Eliminate the use of a ramped backwash approach. The appropriate backwash rate should be used throughout the entire backwash duration. • Adjust backwash rates seasonally as the water temperature changes. • Draw the water level down to six inches above the filter surface before initiating a backwash sequence. This will allow any boils that occur at the beginning of the backwash to dissipate without losing filter media over the backwash trough. • Adoption of the above recommendations will most likely result in a shorter backwash duration. This will improve production efficiency and reduce the waste of product water. Filter waste washwater profiles should be periodically prepared and the backwash duration should be adjusted accordingly. The recommended improvements to the backwash strategy have been completed as of March 1999. Filter -to -Waste Facilities - Recommended improvements to operation of the existing FTW system as well as recommended upgrades and modifications are discussed below: • Based on individual filter turbidity data presented in 1998 Carollo WTP evaluation report, the FTW operating period should be increased from 15 to at least 30 minutes. This change to the FTW operating period has been implemented as of March 1999. • The existing FTW system should be replaced with a fully operational FTW system. Features of this system should include: — Filtration rates during FTW and normal filtration modes should be the same. 3-91 — FTW flow stream should be modulated and metered. — Control from the FTW valve to the filter effluent control valve should be in such a manner that the actual filtration rate remains constant. — FTW flow streams should not spill onto the pipe gallery floor. Recommended improvements to the filter gallery piping to accomplish the above recommendations are detailed in the 1998 Carollo report. The change to the FTW operating period has been implemented. The other recommended improvements are scheduled for installation in late 2003 and 2004. The estimated cost of these improvements is $500,000. Disinfection Facilities - Recommended improvements to resolve safety and treatment capability deficiencies are presented below: With regards to resolving the identified safety issue, the following options were considered: • Install a chlorine scrubber, upgrade the safety and alarm systems, and modify the existing chlorine feed and storage rooms to meet safety and building; codes, or; • Convert from gaseous chlorine to sodium hypochlorite (liquid chlorine). Options available for liquid chlorine include bulk storage or on-site generation. The chlorine scrubber option was dismissed in favor of conversion to sodium hypochlorite. The conversion to sodium hypochlorite is scheduled for late 2003 and 2004. The estimated cost of the conversion is $300,000. Addition of ozone to the process train was evaluated as a means of resolving the identified deficiencies with the treatment capabilities of the disinfection system. Ozonation could provide the following benefits: • Provide a way to inactivate chlorine resistant pathogens, most notably Cryptosporidium. • Allow the City to meet potential increased disinfection requirements for Giardia. • Allow the City to meet increased disinfection at a capacity greater than 25 MGD. • Improve particle removal during filtration. • Enhance taste and odor control. However, no decision to proceed with ozone equipment installation has been made at this time. The City will instead evaluate the installation of ultraviolet (UV) disinfection equipment as an alternative means of achieving enhanced disinfection. Consequently, this item has not been included in the capital improvement plan for the next six years. A related capital improvement item will be conversion of the chlorine gas injection equipment at the three emergency wells to chlorine tablet systems. The estimated cost is $30,000 and installation is schedule for 2003 and 2004. Residuals Handling - Construction of three concrete lined lagoons with a recycle pump station is recommended to replace the existing residuals handling process. Benefits of a three lagoon system and recycle pump station include the following: 3-92 0 • Promote particle settling through proper design and polymer addition. . • Improve quality of recycled water to the front of the plant. • Provide redundancy. • Allow lagoons to cycle out of service and accumulated sludge to dry. • Provide adequate volume to drain an entire contact basin. • Maintain constant recycle flow rate set at 5 percent of plant flow rate. The recommended improvements to the residuals handling facilities are scheduled for installation in 2006. The estimated cost of the backwash lagoon upgrade is $1,800,000. Chemical Storage and Feed Facilities - The following improvements to the chemical storage and feed facilities are recommended at the WTP: • Construct a new chemical storage and containment and provides space for a primary coagulant and three polymer feed systems. • Provide three new polymer feed systems for coagulant aid, flocculant aid, and filter aid. • Replace existing chemical feed equipment and piping not compatible with iron based coagulants. • Install additional chemical application points for soda ash and polymers. The recommended improvements to the chemical storage and feed facilities are scheduled for installation in late 2003 and 2004. The estimated cost for the new chemical storage and feed facilities is $1,156,000. Storage As discussed in Section 3.3.6, above, the existing storage capacity is adequate for the projected supply and demand conditions through 2022. The only deficiency which has been noted is the low turnover rate in the Level 2 reservoirs during low demand periods. A cost effective remedy to this deficiency is the installation of an automated flow/pressure control valve interconnection between Level 2 and Level 1. The control valve interconnection could be installed within the 40th Avenue Pump Station without the need for construction an additional building or vault. It could be tied into the existing telemetry system at the 40th Avenue Pump Station to enable control remotely by the operators from the Water Treatment Plant. The recommended improvement at the 40th Avenue Pump Station is scheduled for installation in late 2003 or early 2004. The estimated cost of the proposed control valve including the necessary piping modifications and telemetry is $25,000. Distribution The following distribution projects, while not needed to correct any existing deficiencies, are included in the capital improvement program as part of the City's on-going efforts to maintain and upgrade the quality of the system to meet current and future needs. 3 -93 /1 East Mead Avenue Water Main The existing 8 -inch main on East Mead Avenue east of South 1 st Street is only marginally sufficient to convey fire flows to the industrial area along I-82. An improvement completed under an earlier CIP should be extended to include a 12 -inch pipe along East Mead Avenue between South 1 st Street and the existing 12 -inch pipe that extends eastward from South 10th Street. Replace the existing 8" in Mead from 1St St to 10th St and replace about 300' the existing 6" in S. 1St St with a 12" to connect with existing 12" Viola .Avenue Freeway Crossing Currently, the 6 -inch main that crosses under I-82 is only marginally sufficient to convey fire flows to the industrial area east of I-82 including the Yakima WWTP & K -Mart. A 12 -inch pipe is needed extending from the eastern end of Viola Avenue under I-82 to connect to the existing 12 -inch pipe. Long ]Fiber to South 0 Water Main This project would connect the existing 12 inch main in Long Fiber Avenue to an existing 12 inch main in South 1St Street to complete a loop which would serve this area. This will strengthen the distribution system in this location, so it could better serve potential future development in this area. Private Water Main Replacement Program The City of Yakima has an on-going program that replaces private mains less than 6" and complete loops in the areas where the mains are replaced. PRV Replacement Program The City of Yakima is planning to replace 11 of the 13 pressure reducing valves as part of an on- going distribution system maintenance upgrade. Main Replacement Powerhouse Road to Level 2 Reservoir Due to its age, the 24 inch diameter steel main from Powerhouse Road to the Level 2 Reservoir is schedule for replacement in order to maintain the reliability and integrity of this important component of the Level 2 system. 3 -94 9 Chapter 4 Conservation Program, Water Right Analysis, System Reliability, and Interties 4 Conservation Program, Water Right Analysis, System Reliability, and Interties The objective of this chapter is to develop a conservation program that will promote efficient water use, ensure adequate water rights are secured for existing and future needs, promote system reliability, and describe existing and proposed interties. Applicable state laws include RCW 90.03.005, .080, 383 (3), and .400, RCW 43.20.230, and .235; RCW 43.70.310, RCW 43.27A.090 (6), RCW 90.44.110, Chapter 90.46 RCW, RCW 90.54.020 (2) (6), .050 and .180, as well as WAC 246-290-100 and Chapter 173-590 WAC. This chapter consists of five main sections: 4.1 Conservation Program Development and Implementation; 4.2 Source of Supply Analysis; 4.3 Water Right Evaluation; 4.4 System Reliability; and 4.5 Description of existing and proposed interties. A conservation program, as presented in this chapter, is one of the three required elements of a conservation plan. The other two elements, water use data collection and water demand forecasting, are discussed in Chapter 2, Basic Planning Data and Water Demand Forecasting. 4.1 Conservation Program Development and Implementation 4.1.1 Introduction Water conservation plans include three elements: • Water conservation program — Evaluation and selection of specific conservation measures for implementation. • Water demand forecasting — Calculation/estimation of water demand six and twenty years into the future. • Water use data collection and reporting — Collection of specific water use data elements. Development and implementation of cost effective conservation programs are required by the Department of Health for approval of a water system plan. It is also required by the Department of Ecology when applying for new water rights. The applicable water conservation planning requirements and guidelines are contained in Conservation Planning Requirements- Guidelines and Requirements for Public Water Systems Regarding Water Use Reporting, Demand Forecasting Methodology, and Conservation Programs (Health PUB 331-008 and Ecology Publication #94-24, March 1994). The requirements for all three components of a conservation plan vary based upon water system size and whether or not additional water rights will be needed within twenty years. In all cases, the larger the size of the system, the more detailed and comprehensive the program. Additionally, if water rights are identified as being necessary within twenty years in the systems 4-1 water demand forecast, the conservation planning must also evaluate conservation/efficiency measures in addition to other supply alternatives. 4.1.2 Required Measures for All Systems Required conservation measures for all systems include: • Installation of source meters for new sources; • Conservation program promotion; • Leak repair if unaccounted for water is > 20%; • Evaluation of service meter installation and conservation pricing (water rates). Other conservation measures identified for various sized systems must be evaluated and implemented if deemed to be cost effective (see RC W 43.20.230 and 90.54.180). Table 4-1 identifies the various conservation measures that must be evaluated. As noted in Table 4-1, those systems identifying the need for additional water rights are required to comply with the conservation guidelines for the next sized water systems (e.g., small systems would be required to comply with the medium system program). 4.1.3 Other Recommended Conservation Measures In addition to the mandatory conservation measures described above, water systems, depending on size, are required to conduct a written evaluation of other conservation measures and implement those which are cost effective. The conservation measures which are required to be evaluated for each size system are listed in Table 4-1. Additional conservation measures which apply to medium sized water systems (1000 to 25,000 service connections) include; Technical Assistance Purveyor Assistance Customer Assistance • Bill Showing Consumption History Incentives/Other Measures • Single-Family/Multi-Family Kits • Nurseries/Agriculture • Landscape Management/Playfields • Conservation Pricing 4-2 Table 4-1 Recommended Water Conservation Program for Public Water Systems Measures Public Water Sys ems Large Medium Small A. Public Education 1. School Outreach X 2. Speakers Bureau X 3. Program Promotion (implementation required) X X X 4. Theme Shows and Fairs X B. Technical Assistance 1. Purveyor Assistance X X 2. Customer Assistance X X 3. Technical Studies X 4. Bill Showing Consumption History X X C. System Measures 1. Source Meters (required if requesting water X X X rights) X X X 2. Service Meters X X 3. Unaccounted Water/Leak Detection (leak repair required if unaccounted for water exceeds 20%) D. Incentives/Other Measures 1. Single-Family/Multi-Family Kits X X 2. Nurseries/Agriculture X X 3. Landscape Management/Playfields X X 4. Conservation Pricing X X X 5. Utility Financed Retrofit X 6. Seasonal Demand Management X 7. Recycling/Reuse X DEFINITIONS: Large System - Applies to utilities having 25,001 or more service connections. This program requires considerable staff effort and possible changes in land use or building code controls for implementation of some of the program measures. Medium System - Applies to utilities with 1,000 to 25,000 service connections. Small System - Required of all public water systems with fewer than 1,000 service connections, which must prepare a water system plan or obtain water rights. NOTE: Systems identifying the need for additional water rights must comply with the conservation program for the next largest size of system (i.e. small systems must comply with medium system program). Additionally, such systems must also evaluate water right changes, interties, artificial recharge and water reuse as alternatives to new water rights. 4-3 4.1.4 Conservation Program The elements to be included in the conservation program include the following: • Conservation Objectives • Evaluation of Conservation Measures • Identification of Selected Conservation Activities • Target Water Savings Projections Conservation Objectives The City has established four main objectives to be achieved in its conservation program: 1) Minimize impact of conservation program on domestic water rates 2) Encourage conservation ethic through increased customer awareness 3) Reduce commercial and industrial water consumption 4) Comply with state guidelines. The Conservation Planning Requirements describe measures that either are required to be included in a conservation program or should be considered for inclusion. DOH has divided these measures into four program elements: 1) Public education 2) Technical assistance 3) System measures 4) Incentives/other measures Under the Conservation Planning Requirements, the measures within each program element shown in Table 4-2 are the minimum measures to be considered by the City of Yakima. Measures that are evaluated and determined to be of limited effectiveness or are not cost- effective are not required to be implemented. Certain measures are required to be implemented: program promotion, installation of source meters, a leak detection program if unaccounted-for water exceeds 20 percent, and an inventory of the sources and uses for reclaimed water. 4-4 Table 4-2 Minimum Program Measures to be Considered for Conservation Program Public Education Technical Assistance System Measures Incentives/Other - Measures Program promotion Customer assistance Source meters Single-family, multifamily retrofit kits Bill showing Service meters for Increased irrigation consumption history all public uses efficiency for large and customers users/nurseries Leak detection Landscape management of play- fields, parks, etc. , and xeriscaping program Conservation pricing (seasonal, inverted block rate, overuse surcharge) Inventory of sources and uses for reclaimed water In recent years the City has made significant progress towards achieving its conservation objectives by implementing the required measures and by implementing many other measures suggested for consideration. A brief summary of the City's past and ongoing water conservation activities is presented below. Estimated savings from these programs are summarized later in this section under Evaluation of Water Conservation Measures. Beginning in 1989, the City began to distribute water conservation brochures to educate the public about water conservation, including Water Saving Guidelines 1, 2, 3, and 4 from DOH and the Washington State Department of Ecology. While the water savings associated with public education are difficult to quantify, public education is crucial for the implementation of a successful program. As soon as a new billing system is in place (see discussion on page 4-9), consumption history will be shown on each customer billing statement. All sources of supply and all customer accounts on the potable water system are metered, enabling the City to measure water consumption and provide the basis for evaluating water use patterns and the potential for conservation. In 1990, the City began a program to replace existing 3 -inch and larger meters with state-of-the-art compound/turbine meters to ensure greater accuracy in monitoring water usage. As noted in Section 3.3.5 of this plan, in 1993, the City of Yakima conducted an extensive leak detection program because their non -revenue producing water represented approximately 30 percent of the total water produced. The program used extremely sensitive sound amplification instruments and a computer-based leak correlation program to help pinpoint the location of the leaks. Approximately 220 miles of the distribution system (90 percent of the total system) were included in the program. In this program, 85 leaks were detected and repaired in water mains, meters, hydrants, service lines, service connections, and valves. Additional leak detection and repair programs were conducted in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000. n All water from a potable source used at the wastewater treatment plant is metered. Since the late 1970s, reclaimed water has been used for all wash downs and for irrigation at the treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant uses 1.0 to 1.5 MGD of reclaimed water for 8 months per year and 0.5 to 0.7 MGD for the remainder of the year. Recycling of water in commercial or industrial applications (cooling systems, car washes, commercial laundries, water fountains) refers to the reuse or multiple use of a process or ancillary flow stream that would otherwise be discharged after a single use. The potential water savings for this type of recycling are dependent on site-specific conditions, but in general can be considered great because of the large amounts of water used in some industrial and commercial applications. Often, water used in commercial and industrial applications is discharged to the sewer. In recent years, the City's wastewater pretreatment program staff has been working with businesses and industries to reduce the amount of discharge by in -plant recycling. In addition, commercial and industrial water users have been encouraged to take steps to reduce their water usage. In July 1993, the new state building code went into effect, prohibiting the sale in Washington of plumbing fixtures that do not meet the standards for efficient water use (maximum of 1.6 gallons per flush for toilets and 2.5 gallons per minute for faucets and showerheads). Thus, all fixtures in Yakima installed after July 1993 should be water efficient fixtures and will result in reduced indoor water use. Evaluation of Conservation Measures The steps used to evaluate the potential measures for Yakima's conservation program include: • Identify conservation measures • Estimate costs and savings for each measure • Estimate participation rates • Screen measures for cost-effectiveness Identify conservation measures During, the preparation of the 1995 Water Comprehensive Plan, an initial list of 25 potential conservation measures was developed for consideration by City staff and the Advisory Committee. The list included measures implemented by other Northwest water utilities and the minimum program measures required by DOH. From these 25 measures, the measures that were deemed to be applicable to Yakima were placed on a "short list" for more detailed evaluation. Measures that have already been implemented (installation of source meters and service meters, high technology meters, leak detection, and the new state plumbing code) were included in the measures selected for the conservation program so that the conservation savings already achieved could be quantified. The inventory of the sources and potential uses for reclaimed water is presented at the end of this chapter. Estimate costs and savings Once the short list of conservation measures was developed, the measures were evaluated in the 1995 plan to determine which ones would provide the maximum effectiveness in water savings at the lowest possible costs. The costs and expected water savings from conservation measures to be analyzed were derived from literature describing existing programs at other utilities. The costs and savings data used in the analysis are summarized in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 Conservation Measure Costs, Savings, Participation Rates, and Levelized Costs Conservation Total Cost per Total Annual Participation Levelized Cost Measure Measure ($1995) Savings per Rate (%) ($ per summer Measure ( ccf) ccf) Program promotion $22,000 1% of residential 100% 1.96 Customer assistance use Bill showing consumption history Retrofit k. its Toilet bags $0.60 4.0 49% 1.23 Toilet flappers $14.56 10.0 60% 7.34 Low -flow $5.20 10.0 60% 0.50 showerheads Faucet aerators $1.35 0.6 60% 2.86 Leak/dye test $4.16 5.0 8% 2.10 and repairs Residential $57.20 15.0 75% 2.40 audits Irrigation $3,000 10% of summer 100% 0.66 efficiency water use Landscape $15,000 5% of summer 10% 0.91 management water use Conservation $20,000 2% of annual 100% 0.26 pricing water use Commercial/ $5,000 5% of large 100% 8.84 industrial audits users' annual water use 4-7 Estimate participation rates The number of customers who participate in a particular conservation measure determines the amount of water saved by that measure. The "participation rate" is defined as the product of the following percentages: • Target rate, percent — the number of customers who receive a particular measure, such as a low -flow showerhead. This number is determined by the water utility; sometimes certain customer classes are targeted for a particular measure (e.g. , all of the residential customers but none of the commercial or industrial customers may receive a low -flow showerhead) • Penetration rate, percent — the number of customers who install or implement the measure. It has been shown that not all customers who receive a low -flow showerhead will install it. • Retention rate, percent — the number of people who continue to use the measure over time. Some percentage of customers will discontinue practicing a measure (efficient irrigation) or remove a device (e.g., dissatisfaction with the spray of a low -flow showerhead). Also, customer behavior may change over time (e.g., following the installation of low - flow shower -heads, customers may begin taking longer showers, thus reducing the effectiveness of the measure). Retention rates may vary based on how the measure is delivered; a customer is more likely to retain a low - flow showerhead installed by the utility or a professional contractor. The estimated participation rates for each measure are listed in Table 4-3 Screen. measures for cost-effectiveness The cost-effectiveness screening for water conservation measures involved a comparison of the costs of implementing conservation measures with the costs of the water that would otherwise have to be supplied. The first step was to determine the water supply costs that the City would be able to avoid paying through conservation. These "avoided costs" include the City's cost for water supply, treatment, pumping, distribution system improvements, additional wastewater treatment capacity to respond to the increased water use and disposal without conservation, and energy associated with hot water demands. The avoided cost does not take into account the societal value of new water supplies from an area with limited water resources, or the difficulty in obtaining additional water rights. The avoided cost for the City was determined to be $0.83 per 100 cubic feet (ccf) of water supplied during the peak (summer) demand period. The second step was to compute the costs associated with implementation of the conservation measures (including actual costs of the devices and program administration costs). The avoided cost and the implementation costs were evaluated in terms of the "levelized cost" per ccf: The levelized cost method compares measures with different costs, service lifetimes, and water savings. Measures with a levelized cost less than or equal to the avoided cost of $0.83 per surrnmer ccf were considered to be cost-effective and thus were included in the conservation 0 plan, which is described in the next section. The levelized costs of each measure are also shown in Table 4-3. Results of the Evaluation Although the program promotion and customer assistance do not appear to be cost-effective, some form of public education is required by the Conservation Planning Requirements. Also, the other measures implemented will be more effective when accompanied by an aggressive public campaign. Of the measures in the retrofit kit, only the low -flow showerheads were shown to be cost- effective when each measure was compared individually with the avoided cost of new water supplies. However, a program that delivers retrofit kits containing low -flow showerheads to residences can also include faucet aerators, toilet bags, and leak/dye tablets. The levelized cost of the entire retrofit kit containing two showerheads, three faucet aerators, two toilet bags, and two dye tablets is $1.47 per summer ccf. This levelized cost includes the administrative and costs of delivering the kits to the customers. The retrofit kit could be reduced to $1.22 per summer ccf by eliminating the faucet aerators. Because the levelized cost of the retrofit kit exceeded the avoided cost of a new supply, retrofit kits were not recommended in the 1995 Water Comprehensive Plan. However, the 1995 plan suggested that the City may wish to explore, in the future, the possibility of collaborating with Pacific Power to distribute retrofit kits. The advantage to Pacific Power would be the energy saved from decreased use of hot water. Other measures that were shown to be cost-effective are the irrigation efficiency measures and the conservation pricing measure. A description of each of these measures is included in the section on Selected Conservation Activities. Measures That Were Not Selected for the Conservation Program The other measures that were evaluated in the 1995 plan, but are not recommended for implementation at that time, are described briefly below. Bill showing consumption history A water bill that shows a customer's consumption history is considered a public information and education tool. The intent of the billing history is to visually display water use patterns and to alert customers to unusually high usage during any particular billing period. This measure had been considered in the past, but was deferred based on the analysis in the 1995 plan. Currently, there is no room for printing consumption history on the bill because information about the City's water revenues and expenditures is presented on the bill instead. A new billing system has been identified in this water system plan update as a recommended capital improvement to be implemented within the next six years. The new billing system when implemented will include the ability to show the consumption history on each customer's bill. Retrofit Kits The other items which were considered for the retrofit kit, the toilet flappers (devices that regulate the amount of time for filling the toilet bowl) and the residential water audits, are • ®1 expensive to implement. The toilet flappers often require installation by utility personnel; toilet flappers that are only delivered to the customer are often not installed. The residential water audits are usually conducted by a representative of the water utility at the resident's request. The utility representative discusses indoor and outdoor water use, suggests water saving practices, and may install water retrofit devices. Audits typically take approximately one hour. The cost of the audit includes scheduling, follow-up, and materials and conservation devices. Although this measure was not shown to be cost-effective using utility personnel, the City may want to consider diverting some of its community youth volunteers to a pilot residential audit program. The costs of such a program would be less, and the publicity surrounding such efforts would promote the conservation message. Landscape Management/Xeriscape Although this measure was not shown, in the 1995 plan, to be cost-effective for the City to implement, the City may want to discuss the idea of promoting regionally adapted, low -water - use landscaping with the nurseries and landscaping industry in Yakima. Such plants require both less care and less water and provide a diverse landscape. The City of Vancouver, Washington, has implemented such a program with its local nurseries; the program is so successful that one nurser, specializes in low -water -use landscaping. Comutercial/Industrial Audits Like the residential audits, commercial/industrial can be time-consuming and expensive for the City to conduct. However, the City may want to consider holding a forum with key business leaders to discuss the idea of water conservation, encourage them to explore ways of reducing their own water use (and hence their water bills), and provide examples of businesses and industries that have successfully reduced water use without sacrificing product quality or service. The potential for use of reclaimed water to offset potable water use is discussed at the end of this chapte r. Selected Conservation Activities The following programs and measures are those which were recommended in the 1995 plan for implementation as part of the City's conservation plan. • Program promotion/public education • Meter replacement program • Leak detection • New plumbing code • Irrigation efficiency • Conservation pricing A description of the programs, a schedule for implementation, the annual budget for the program, a monitoring plan, and the targeted water savings for each of these programs are on the following pages in Tables 4-4 through 4-8. As noted above, the printing of consumption history on bills was not recommended in the 1995 Water Comprehensive Plan. However, when a new billing system is implemented within the next six years, billing history will be included as a feature of the bills. 4-10 0 Table 4-4 Recommended Conservation Measure Program Promotion/Public Education Description: o Mail bill inserts with water -saving tips to all 18,000 customers 4 times per year. o Conduct elementary school assembly on water conservation once per year. o Place additional water saving tips in the Yakima City News. o Develop televised public service announcements modeled on the water -saving information contained in the Yakima City News. ® Contact local television stations to explore the possibility of a series on efficient water use. o Meet with Park Department and School District officials to discuss ways for them to reduce water use without negative aesthetic impacts. o Contact the Yakima Herald to obtain space for regular statements supporting responsible water use practices. s Meet with business and industrial customers to discuss ways to reduce water use. • Conduct awareness training sessions as part of water utility staff meetings and provide conservation materials to be carried by field personnel. Schedule for Implementation: u These programs began in 1995 and are ongoing. Annual Program Budget • $22,000 per year (equivalent of 20 percent of a full-time equivalent [FTE] staff member). Monitoring Requirements: o Log calls to water department with questions or comments regarding conservation. v Each year - document time spent on conservation issues; reevaluate staffing levels during each year's budget cycle. Targeted Savings Goal: Is Assume 1 percent reduction in annual residential water use. 4-11 Table 4-5 Recommended Conservation Measure Meter Replacement Program Description: • Since 1990, the City has replaced existing 3 -inch and larger meters with compound or turbine meters for greater accuracy. In addition, 5% of the 3/4 and 1 inch meters are replaced every year Schedule for Implementation: • Installation 3 -inch and larger complete, 3/4 -inch meter replacement on-going. Annual Program Budget • $35,000 per year. Monitoring Requirements: • Compare customer water use before and after meter installation to estimate amount of water saved. Targeted Savings Goal: • Water savings will be reported in the next Water System Plan Update. Greater accuracy in meter reading should continue to reduce the non -revenue-producing water. Table 4-6 Recommended Conservation Measure Leak Detection Program Description: • In 1993, the City completed a comprehensive leak detection program. Additional leak detection programs were conducted in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000. Schedule for Implementation: o Repeat leak detection program every 4 years. Annual Program Budget • Estimated cost = $32,000 every 4 years starting in 2003. Monitoring Requirements: • Compare total water system production and total metered usage annually to deter- mine the effectiveness and water savings from the ongoing leak detection program. Report savings in next Water System Plan Update. Targeted Savings Goal: • Actual savings will be monitored and reported in the next Water System Plan Update. 4-12 ar Table 4-7 Recommended Conservation Measure New Plumbing Code Description: • Plumbing fixtures sold after July I, 1993 must meet minimum efficiency standards. • New facilities and replacement of old fixtures will result in increasing water savings from "code -driven" conservation. Schedule for Implementation: • In effect. Annual Program Budget • None; inspection of new fixtures will be done as part of regular building inspection. Monitoring Requirements: • No monitoring is required beyond regular meter reading. Targeted Savings Goal: 2008 (6 -year projection) 1.4 MGD 2022 (20 -year projection) 4.5 MGD 4- 13 V Table 4-8 Recommended Conservation Measure Irrigation Efficiency Measures Description: • Discuss alternative irrigation operations with nurseries, Parks Department, School District, and other large water users. • Explore use of automatic sprinkler systems, flow timers, drip irrigation, low- volume sprinklers, and early morning watering to reduce overall irrigation use in public parks and other City -owned, high -water -use landscaping. • Improve the irrigation efficiency of two public parks per year for 5 years. • Provide a list of trained, licensed irrigation system auditors to customers to identify irrigation deficiencies and suggest improvements. • Schedule for Implementation: • Schedule of implementation depends on cost-effectiveness and payback period of instituting measures at specific locations. Annual Program Budget • Estimated costs are part of public education budget. • Estimated cost of irrigation improvements in parks and other public irrigated land is $3,000 per park ($6,000 per year for 2 parks) for 5 years. • Cost of installation of irrigation equipment on private property to be at property owners' expense; property owners will receive payback in reduced water bills. Monitoring Requirements: • Monitor water use before and after for facilities that implement irrigation efficiency measures and report observed savings in next Water System Plan Update. Targetted Savings Goal: 2008 (6 -year projection) 0.2 to 0.5 MGD Conservation Pricing In 1996 the City conducted a Cost of Services and Rate Study which recommended that the City begin a transition to a conservation rate structure. The existing water rate structure is a hybrid of several types of rate structures, based in part on a modified declining block -rate, which includes a minimum bill (ready -to -serve -charge) similar to the one defined in the American Waterworks Association's M1 - Water Rates Manual. The hybrid form of rate structure currently utilized by the City provides a customer with six (6) Units of Service (600 cubic feet of water). This initial block is designed to recover customer costs, as well as costs associated with use and capacity requirements of the smallest users. While; the declining block -rate structure attempts to derive revenues in accord with the cost responsibilities of each class of customers, the rate structure does not promote the conservation 4-14 of water. Little, if any, incentive is provided for conservation of water when the per unit cost decreases as the volume of water used increases. This form of rate structure is negative by the very fact that it rewards excessive use. The 1996 study recommended that two (2) of the existing six (6) declining rate blocks be eliminated from the present structure, thereby reducing the total rate blocks to four (4). The 1996 study also recommended elimination of the Government Irrigation rate category. The review of the then existing rate structure revealed that rate City policy had been providing a substantial subsidy to Governmental Irrigation. Both of these recommended conservation pricing measures went into effect in 1997. Another Cost of Service and Rate Study was completed in March 2001. The 2001 study recommended a continuing transition to conservation pricing by reducing the total rate blocks from four (4) to three (3). The recommended rate changes were implemented in July 2001. 4.1.5 Summary of Water Conservation Program The water conservation program recommended for Yakima, in the 1995 plan, consisted of implementation of two new measures (irrigation efficiency program and conservation pricing), continuation of two measures (program promotion and leak detection), and monitoring of two measures that have already been implemented (meter replacement and the new plumbing code). Some of the water savings will come from "code -driven" measures (as mandated by the plumbing code), which will increase steadily over the planning period. The programmatic measures (the measures proposed in the 1995 plan) will result in increased water savings as conservation becomes an accepted practice in Yakima. As noted above, since completion of the 1995 plan, the City has begun the transition to a conservation pricing rate structure. It has been difficult to monitor the effectiveness of the conservation programs which have been put into place since 1995 due to the limitations of the current billing system in tracking usage by user class and geographic area. The City has budgeted and is currently evaluating alternatives for a new billing system which will greatly improve the ability to track usage and the effectiveness of the various conservation measures which have been implemented or may be implemented in the future. The new billing system is schedule to be in place by the end of 2004. 4.1.6 Water Reuse An inventory of the potential sources and uses for reclaimed water is required by the Conservation Planning Requirements to be included in the conservation plan. A discussion of the regulations governing the use of reclaimed water and the potential sources and uses is presented below. The use of reclaimed water was not included in the current conservation plan except for its continued use at the wastewater treatment plant. 4-15 Reclaimed water is commonly used for landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, or industrial processes. The feasibility of using reclaimed water as a water supply depends upon the quality and quantity of the reclaimed water, the requirements of the intended application site, the economics of treating, supplying, and distributing the reclaimed water. and public acceptance. Regulations In 1996, Chapter 90.46 RCW was enacted by the legislature to address reclaimed water use. In passing this legislation, the legislature encouraged the development of wastewater reclamation and reuse facilities and the use of reclaimed water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and fish and wildlife habitat including wetlands. The legislature directed the departments of Health and Ecology to coordinate efforts towards developing an efficient and streamlined process for creating and implementing processes for the use of reclaimed water. The legislature declared that the people of the state have a primary interest in the development of facilities to provide reclaimed water to replace potable water in non -potable applications, to supplement existing surface and groundwater supplies, and to assist in meeting future water requirements of the state. The legislature also declared that the use of reclaimed water is not inconsistent with the policy of anti -degradation of state waters as provided under Chapter 90.48 RCW and Chapter 90.54 RCW. Reclaimed water facilities are water pollution control facilities as defined in Chapter 70.146 RCW and are eligible for financial assistance as provided in that RCW. The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) issued final water reclamation and reuse standards in Chapter 246-272 WAC in September of 1997. These standards, as directed by the legislature, were the result of a joint effort by Ecology and DOH. While the standards are primarily administered by the DOH for facility plan review, Ecology has state wastewater discharge permitting authority under the provisions of Chapter 90.48 RCW. The 1997 Reclamation and Reuse Standards (Chapter 246-272 WAC) establish requirements for wastewater treatment and reuse. A multi -tiered (Class A through D) reclaimed water classification system defines the characteristics of the reclaimed water for each class. The definitions for each class are listed below: "Class A Reclaimed Water" means reclaimed water that, at a minimum, is at all times an oxidized, coagulated, filtered, disinfected wastewater. The wastewater shall be considered adequately disinfected if the median number of total coliform organisms in the wastewater after disinfection does not exceed 2.2 per 100 milliliters, as determined from the bacteriological results of the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed, and the number of coliform organisms does not exceed 23 per 100 milliliters in any sample. "Class B Reclaimed Water" means reclaimed water that, at a minimum, is at all times an oxidized, disinfected wastewater. The wastewater shall be considered adequately disinfected if the median number of total coliform organisms in the wastewater after disinfection does not exceed 2.2 per 100 milliliters, as determined from the bacteriological results of the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed, and the number of total coliform organisms does not exceed 23 per 100 milliliters in any sample. 4-16 a "Class C Reclaimed Water" means reclaimed water that, at a minimum, is at all times an oxidized, disinfected wastewater. The wastewater shall be considered adequately disinfected if the median number of total coliform organisms in the wastewater after disinfection does not exceed 23 per 100 milliliters, as determined from the bacteriological results of the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed, and the number of total coliform organisms does not exceed 240 per 100 milliliters in any sample. "Class D Reclaimed Water" means reclaimed water that, at a minimum, is at all times an oxidized, disinfected wastewater. The wastewater shall be considered adequately disinfected if the median number of total coliform organisms in the wastewater after disinfection does not exceed 240 per 100 milliliters, as determined from the bacteriological results of the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed. Reclamation and reuse regulations specifically identify groundwater recharge as a beneficial use, and reclaimed water can be used to mitigate water rights limitations, should they exist. Potential Sources Effluent from wastewater treatment plants is the most common source of reclaimed water for municipal applications; however, other sites may also serve to provide a source of water for reuse, depending on the reliability and treatment requirements of the applied water. The primary source of reclaimed water in the City is the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located between Interstate 82 and the Yakima River off Frontage Road. The activated sludge plant is operated by the City of Yakima and primarily discharges secondary effluent into the Yakima River. The WWTP is the most likely source for reclaimed water for additional uses within the City. During the early irrigation season, a portion of the effluent is used to irrigate 95 acres of adjacent farmland. In the past, wastewater from a pear processing facility was used to irrigate pasture land during the latter part of the irrigation season. The practice has recently been discontinued due to Department of Ecology imposed regulatory considerations. Boise Cascade operates a timber products facility at the northern end of the City. The facility has five water meters and used approximately 346,000 CCF of water in 1993. The facility discharges approximately 0.3 MGD. Depending on the use and the resultant water quality of the facility discharge, it is possible that Boise Cascade could potentially reclaim a portion of that water for in -plant uses. There is one fish hatchery located in the vicinity of the City. Currently, wastewater from the hatchery is discharged into adjacent surface waters. The fish hatcheries could potentially become a source of reclaimed water, although their distance from the City would likely eliminate most uses other than agricultural irrigation based on economics. Potential Reclaimed Water Users The feasibility of using reclaimed water depends on the volume and quality of the source, the size and location of suitable application sites and the proximity of the source to the application or use sites. Table 4-9 presents an inventory of potential reclaimed water users located within 2 miles of the WWTP, which was considered to be the most likely source of water. As the 4-17 distance from the source increases, the economic feasibility of serving reclaimed water typically diminishes unless there is a large, constant user available. Potential users were identified based on maps of the area and a listing of the top 30 water users. Table 4-9 Potential Reclaimed Water Users Within 2 Miles of the WWTP Application Number Golf courses 2 Parks and arboretum 9 Schools 5 Industrial/cominercial facilities 2 Nurseries 1 Freeway landscape irrigation 1 Yakima WWTP 1 Misc.-pipeline flushing, street cleaning dust control, etc. --- Although two industrial/commercial facilities with high water use are located within the 2 -mile radius area, it is unlikely that either would use reclaimed water. Both facilities work with food products. The remaining reuse applications could potentially use a range of Class A to Class C reclaimed water, depending on the specific water quality requirements of each use as represented in the Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards (September 1997, Department of Ecology Publication No. 97-23). Another potential user of reclaimed water could be the Boise Cascade facility. It is located outside of the 2 -mile radius from the WWTP source included in the evaluation; however, it is possible that an onsite recycling system could be established to allow Boise Cascade to use a portion of its own wastewater. A more detailed analysis would be required to determine the feasibility of this alternative. In general, a suitability study is required to determine whether reclaimed water is feasible for landscape or agricultural irrigation. The chemical quality of the water must be com- pared with the water quality and quantity requirements of the vegetation on which it will be applied. For industrial applications, a reclaimed water characterization is required to provide potential industrial users the information necessary to make an informed decision. Elements of a characterization would include chemical composition, corrosivity, annual temperature cycles, and physical attributes such as color, scaling potential, and particulate content. 4-18 Although use of reclaimed water in Yakima may be technically feasible, some institutional constraints must be considered. The unit cost of potable water is relatively low in Yakima, so the unit cost of reclaimed water may exceed the unit cost of potable water and may be difficult to sell. Although the use of reclaimed water to help meet large-scale agriculture's irrigation needs would likely be acceptable, the quantities of reclaimed water that could be made available may be too small to justify the investment in reclaimed water facilities. Finally, the use of reclaimed water to irrigate schools, parks, and other public landscaping may meet with public skepticism unless it is accompanied by a public education program focused on the safe use of reclaimed water. 4.2 Source of Supply Analysis 4.2.1 General The purpose of a source of supply analysis is to evaluate opportunities to obtain or optimize the use of existing sources already developed, and evaluate other innovative methods to meet water needs. DOH planning guidelines require a source of supply analysis for systems that will be pursuing water rights within 20 years of approval of their WSP as defined by the water demand forecast (see Chapter 2, Basic Planning Data and Water Demand Forecasting). A discussion of the current status of the water rights held by the City of Yakima is provided in the following section of this chapter. The City does not anticipate the need to pursue additional water rights within 20 years of the completion of this WSP update. For that reason, a formal source of supply analysis will not be included here. The City did, however, undertook an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) pilot study beginning in 2000. ASR is being considered as a means of better utilizing existing primary water rights. ASR could serve to supplement existing emergency water supplies under drought conditions or other emergencies such as a failure of the water treatment facilities. A summary of the ASR study is provided below. 4.2.2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) The City of Yakima conducted an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) pilot test under the direction of Golder Associates during the winter of 2000-2001 to assess the operational and technical feasibility of incorporating ASR as part of the municipal water supply system. The source of the water was the Naches River (Rowe Hill) Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The recharge well was the City's Kissel Well, which is screened between 876 and 1,163 feet below ground surface, in the Lower and Middle Members of the Upper Ellensburg Formation. Recharge to the Kissel Well was conducted for 25 days at a rate of approximately 1,200 gallons per minute (gpm). A total of 45.2 million gallons (Mgal; approximately 139 acre feet [AF]) was recharged. After a storage period of 55 days, recovery was conducted at a constant pumping rate of approximately 2,000 gpm for 30 days. A total of 89.7 Mgal (275 AF) was recovered. Additional water was removed during post -pilot test step tests. Water for the pilot test was delivered through the existing municipal water supply system of the City of Yakima. The distribution system operated without disruption of public service. 4-19 Short-term well efficiency of the Kissel Well at a pumping rate of 2,000 gpm decreased during recharge activities by approximately 25%. It is interpreted that introduction of distribution system pipe scale and to a lesser extent precipitation of aluminum hydroxide (gibbsite) may have caused most of the temporary reduction in well efficiency. Well efficiency was fully recovered after approximately eight hours of pumping, most likely as a result of effective flushing of any introduced scale, and precipitated minerals. Groundwater levels increased in the aquifer during recharge and remained approximately six feet above the ambient static groundwater level during the approximately two month period of storage. The maintenance of raised water levels during the storage period indicates that the recharged water is not migrating rapidly away from the recharge well or leaking from the storage zone. This indicates that physical aquifer properties of the Lower Member of the Upper Ellensburg Formation are favorable for a full-scale ASR program in that recharged water is relatively contained by the aquifer. Water quality monitoring throughout the pilot test indicated compliance with drinking water standards. Although disinfection byproduct (DBP) concentrations did increase temporarily during storage before decreasing, DBP concentrations remained well below drinking water standards at all times. Based on the results of tracer analyses, it is estimated that approximately 70% of the water recharged to the aquifer was recovered. Aquifer Storage and Recovery in the Ellensburg Formation aquifer of the Ahtanum-Moxee Basin is hydrogeologically feasible. The aquifer has significant storage capacity and the response to artificial recharge is a sustained rise in aquifer water levels. Recharge can be accomplished through the Kissel Well. Recharge through the Airport and Kiwanis Wells may be possible although pilot testing at those wells would be needed to ensure feasibility. However, use of these wells in an ASR program will not result in an increase in the total withdrawal capacity of the City of Yakima's groundwater supply system. To increase the capacity of the groundwater supply system, additional wells will have to be installed. Permitting of withdrawals is anticipated to be facilitated if they are operated as part of an ASR program. Permitting of an ASR program would likely be facilitated by development of regulations by the Washington Department of Ecology. Key regulatory components that will affect the feasibility for the City of Yakima include: 1) how ASR operations using chlorinated potable water containing DBPs will be addressed under existing Water Quality Standards for Groundwater (Ch. 173-200 WAC); and, 2) the means of quantifying the permitted amount of water that may be recovered following recharge. As noted above, recharge testing at the Kissel Well has been conducted at rates of about 1,000 to 2,000 gpm, and the well was operated during the pilot test at about 1,200 gpm. The recharge capacity of the other City wells (Airport and Kiwanis) has not been tested, however, ASR is also expected to be feasible at these wells. A constant recharge rate was maintained over the recharge period, indicating that the distribution system pressure was sufficient to allow recharge to the well with the rising water level and a decrease in recharge efficiency during the recharge period. Although the distribution system 4-20 1580000 1600000 1620000 104LFJLNJ 166uuuu ,! f ' Lr +�� + -- Oil � -��%1P.3�/'tt.S "'� \ `Jig ... --c:✓ - �..— �-%-- ✓- T ` �` -- Mountain I , - Y s� e , I • J �- O IG z ' tbY/ i I ! - I-- -- – _ �I •• •– -----I I I " O O ��i I� T �200 � r--- - • 1 -- - - - - 00 Yakima 1050 1500 • • �• ;-, � ' ® • � -- � • 1550 �_ • r� —�I ---- • I • 1100 � . J L ley - i � + 1 1400 1350 • 1150 --1050 -- _ ti. I �-- 1 J. • • T T- ,_ _--- ; - -- —n •� - ^ �- ---1100 1 I i 1800 1000 1 , 1 1450 i 1! ( •i---- 1000 `p o .0-- �� • • 1250 �- , i1 1 �,!� • �• a -- 1 168�0000 ,f+ --Rattlesnake Hills f Soudism EXlent Of UpperENens(Wrgf/On''� i—" ----�. In the Ahtanuxee Valley ( ! � I F 1s8n000 isnnnnn 1R9fV= 1640000 1660000 - Elephant Mountain i N + 1 S 1680000 I LEGEND p Upper Ellensburg Formation Well with Water Level Data Upper Ellensburg Formation Flowing Artesian Well N Groundwater Elevation Contours in the Upper Ellensburg Formation (feet above MSL) (dashed where inferred) 000- Inferred Direction of Groundwater Flow o Kissel Well - Proposed ASR Well Candidate Zone and Well Locations for Implementation of an ASR program Water System Plan Update Figure 4-1 Ahtanum-Moxee Basin DATA SOURCES: Yakima County GIS Golder Associates, Inc. WA Department of Ecology Well Log Flies A N 0 10000 Scale 1'=10,00O Feet Map Prujectlon: Washington State Plane South NAD 83, Feet RECOMMENDED ASR WELLS YAKIMA TECHNICAL COMPILATION / ASR / WA Drawn: Gla AWd: Date: Dec. 5,2D01 Figure: u0J1U%fr t1550lL1WLLCb 0 pressure at the Kissel Well was relatively constant at about 55 psi, the system pressure in other parts of the distribution system ranges up to 110 psi, including at prospective future dedicated ASR well sites. Higher system pressure will allow higher recharge rates. Hydraulic modeling of the distribution system is recommended to determine the resulting individual and cumulative effects of conducting recharge from multiple points in the distribution system. Recharge water may be available for approximately 200 days (approximately October 15 to May 15). If three wells are used for recharge over this period with an average recharge rate of 1,000 gpm per well, a total of 864 Mgal (approximately 2,650 AF) could be recharged, assuming water availability and continuous recharge. The recovery capacity of the three existing City wells is about 8,050 gpm (11.6 MGD). If the assumed peak City demand is 22 MGD, the existing wells have about half of the capacity required to meet demand in the event of a total shutdown of the Naches River Treatment Plant. New wells or other supplies may be advisable to increase system capacity in the event of a long- term shutdown of the Naches River (Rowe Hill) Treatment Plant. If the City were to pursue the drilling of additional wells for the purposes of an ASR program, the following items should be given consideration when siting wells: 1. Hydraulic modeling of the distribution system should be conducted to determine the resulting individual and cumulative effects of conducting recharge from multiple points in the distribution system 2. New wells should be sited in areas where the Ellensburg Formation is the thickest. Figure 2.8 in the Technical Compilation (Golder, 2000a) provides information on the thickness of the Ellensburg Formation. 3. New wells should be completed in the Lower Member of the Upper Ellensburg Formation. 4. New wells should be sited in areas of low aquifer hydraulic gradient. The general area of the Ahtanum-Moxee Basin that meets these criteria is displayed in Figure 4- 1 (Figure 5-1 in the ASR report). Candidate well sites include, clockwise form the north, Elks Park, the White Dove Mobile Home Park, the south railroad yard, and Gardner Park. It is recommended that development of a full-scale ASR program follow a phased approach in which new ASR wells would be installed and evaluated sequentially. Continued monitoring of this system, including well efficiency and aquifer response would allow for informed decisions regarding the siting of subsequent wells. 4-21 4.3 'Water Right Evaluation 4.3.1 Permits, Certificates, Claims, and Applications The City of Yakima holds a number of water rights that supply the City's domestic and municipal irrigation distribution systems. All of these water rights are described in the following narrative and in Tables 4-10 and 4-11. The City holds several other water rights that are not discussed in this plan because they are not part of the City's municipal water distribution systems and are not used for domestic purposes. As described elsewhere in this plan, the City's domestic water distribution system is primarily supplied by surface water, with diversions occurring at the City's Naches River Water Treatment Plant. (The City's Naches River Water Treatment Plant has also been known as the Rowe Hill or Gleed plant.) The City currently uses its groundwater supply system as an emergency backup supply. The City also has three interties with the Nob Hill Water Association for emergency supply purposes. The City also owns a municipal irrigation distribution system. The system is supplied by surface water with diversions occurring at the Nelson Bridge diversion. By serving some of the need for irrigation of residential property, operation of the system lessens the demand on the City's domestic water distribution system. Water rights associated with the municipal irrigation system are described in the following narrative and in Tables 4-10 and 4-11. All of the City's surface water rights are currently under the jurisdiction of the Yakima County Superior Court as part of the surface water rights adjudication, Ecology v Acquavella, et al., Yakima County Superior Court, Cause No. 77-2-01484-5. On November 21, 2002, the Court issued a Conditional Final Order that approves a proposed settlement of the City's Naches River water rights diverted at the Naches River Water Treatment Plant and at Nelson Bridge. Future steps will occur to implement the Conditional Final Order, including for example the issuance of permit: and certificate documents by the Department of Ecology. For purposes of this plan, the Conditional Final Order provides an appropriate point of reference. Accordingly, the water right parameters discussed in this plan are as set forth in the Conditional Final Order. 4-22 Narrative Description A. Surface Water Rights 1. Claim # 120529 (6/30/1902 —10 cfs) Source Type: Surface water (Naches River). Source Location: Naches River Water Treatment Plant — 900 feet north 640 20' east of the southwest corner of Section 13, being within the SW '/4 SW '/4 of Section 13, Township 14 North, Range 17 East. Purpose of Use: Municipal supply. Place of Use: City of Yakima current Place of Use area as shown on Figure 4-2. Time of Use: Year round. Provisions or Limiting Conditions: None 2. Claim # 064441 (5/10/1905 -- Reclamation Contract Water Right) Source Type: Surface water (Naches River). Source Location: Naches River Water Treatment Plant: 900 feet north 64° 20' east of the southwest corner of Section 13, being within the SW '/4 SW '/4 of Section 13, Township 14 North, Range 17 East. or Nelson Bridge diversion: 1,790 feet south and 1,600 feet east from the northwest corner of Section 9, being within the SE '/4 NW '/4 of Section 9, Township 13 North, Range 18 East. Purpose of Use: Municipal supply. Place of Use: City of Yakima current Place of Use area as shown on Figure 4-2. Time of Use: The beginning of storage control, as determined by the US Bureau of Reclamation, through October 15. 4-23 Provisions or Limiting Conditions: • Of the 5,083 acre feet available for diversion under this right, 3,583 may be diverted at the Naches River Water Treatment Plant, and 1,500 acre feet may be diverted at Nelson Bridge. • After a "transition period" ending in 2013, the annual quantity available for diversion at Nelson Bridge is reduced by 583 acre feet (i.e., portion of the right diverted at Nelson Bridge decreases to 917 from 1,500 acre feet). • 7,826 acre feet is the maximum combined annual quantity that may be diverted in any single calendar year under Certificate S4-01141 and the'portion of the Reclamation contract right diverted at the Naches River Water Treatment Plant. Like other Bureau contract water, this contract right is subject to pro -ration in water short years. The contract states: "In years of shortage, the diversion and delivery of water provided for in this contract shall be reduced on a proration or proportionate basis in accordance with paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment of January 31, 1945." 3. Certificate 938-D (10/1/1928 — 3 cfs — Former Oak Flats) Source Type: Surface water (Naches River) Source Location: Naches River Water Treatment Plant — 900 feet north 64° 20' east of the southwest corner of Section 13, being within the SW '/4 SW '/4 of Section 13, Township 14 North, Range 17 East. Purpose of Use: Municipal supply. Place of Use: Certificate reads "City of Yakima." Current and future service areas. Time of Use: Restricted to off-season (non -storage control period) use only — see below. Provisions or Limiting Conditions: Ecology's August 14, 2000 approval of a change of point of withdrawal imposed the following conditions: 4-24 • "This is a natural flow right. As such, this right shall not obligate the United States Bureau of Reclamation to provide storage flows at any time." • "This right has a priority date of October 1, 1928. As such, it is junior to all prior rights on the Naches River, including the May 10, 1905 Yakima Project right(s) held by the United States Bureau of Reclamation." • "No diversion shall be made pursuant to this right when the Naches/Yakima river system is on storage control." • In addition, this water right is subject to pending adjudication in Acquavella and was not included in the settlement. 5. Water Right # 54-01141 (A) and (B) (1/29/1951— 30 cfs) (a) Certificate 54-01141 (A) Source Type: Surface water (Naches River). Source Location: Naches River Water Treatment Plant — 900 feet north 64° 20' east of the southwest corner of Section 13, being within the SW '/4 SW '/a of Section 13, Township 14 North, Range 17 East. Purpose of Use: Municipal supply. Place of Use: City of Yakima current Place of Use area as shown on Figure 4-2. Time of Use: Restricted to off-season use (October 16 to the beginning of storage control) only — see below. Provisions or Limiting Conditions: • 7,826 acre feet is the maximum combined annual quantity that may be diverted in any single calendar year under Certificate S4-01141 and the portion of the Reclamation contract richt diverted at the Naches River Water Treatment Plant. Certificate contains the following conditions: 4-25 • "Beginning with the period each year when waters are released from the Bumping Lake or Tieton Reservoirs to supplement the natural flow of the Naches River to supply water for various irrigation projects to October 15, no water shall be available for diversion under this certificate." • "Screening of the diversion intake shall be maintained in accordance with terms of the permit." "No dam shall be constructed in connection with this diversion." (b) Permit 54-01141P (B) Source Type: Surface water (Naches River). Source Location: Naches River Water Treatment Plant — 900 feet north 64° 20' east of the southwest corner of Section 13, being within the SW 1/4 SW '/4 of Section 13, Township 14 North, Range 17 East. Purpose of Use: Municipal supply. Place of Use: City of Yakima current Place of Use area as shown on Figure 4-2. Time of Use: Restricted to off-season use (October 16 to the beginning of storage control) only — see below. Provisions or Limiting Conditions: Certificate contains the following conditions: • "Full beneficial use shall be within 20 years of issuance of this permit [i.e., by 2023]. The permittee shall submit status reports to the Department of Ecology, Central Regional Office, Water Resources program through submittal of the Department of Health required Water System Plans." s "Screening of the diversion intake shall be maintained in accordance with applicable law of Department of Fisheries and Wildlife." • "No dam shall be constructed in connection with this diversion." 4-26 5. Claim # 120528 (4/1/1869 — Former Glaspey) Source Type: Surface water (Naches River). Source Location: Nelson Bridge diversion: 1,790 feet south and 1,600 feet east from the northwest corner of Section 9, being within the SE '/4 NW 1/4 of Section 9, Township 13 North, Range 18 East. Purpose of Use: Municipal supply. Place of Use: City of Yakima current Place of Use area as shown on Figure 4-2. Time of Use: April 1 through October 31 Provisions or Limiting Conditions: None 6. Claim # 120528 (6/30/1878 — Former Old Union) Source Type: Surface water (Naches River). Source Location: Nelson Bridge diversion: 1,790 feet south and 1,600 feet east from the northwest corner of Section 9, being within the SE1/4 NWIA of Section 9, Township 13 North, Range 18 East. Purpose of Use: Municipal supply Place of Use: City of Yakima current Place of Use area as shown on Figure 4-2. Time of Use: April 1 through October 31. Provisions or Limiting Conditions: • After a "transition period" ending in 2013, the annual quantity is reduced to 2,879 acre feet (from 5,585 acre feet). B. Groundwater Rights 1. Water Right # 190-A (A) and (B)P (10/01/1948 — Former Wright) (a) Certificate #190-A(A) 4-27 Source Type: Ground water. Source Location:: Kissel Well: NW 1/4 NW 1/4 NW 1/4, Section 35, Township 13 North, Range 18 East. The well, drilled to 1171 feet, is approximately 300 feet east and 100 feet south of the north west corner of Section 35. Purpose of Use: Municipal supply. Place of Use: Superceding certificate reads "City of Yakima." Current and future service areas. Time of Use: Year round. Provisions or Limiting Conditions: Rescinding Order (of prior certificate) contains the following: • "A Superseding Certificate No. 190-A(A) shall issue to the City of Yakima in the amount of 900 gpm, 958 acre-feet per year for a municipal water supply." Superceding certificate contains the following conditions: • "Of the 900 gpm and 1448 acre-feet of water authorized, only 900 gpm and 958 acre-feet per year have been perfected by application to beneficial use." "Based on the preceding, the 490 acre-feet not withdrawn under Ground Water Certificate 190-A is rescinded due to lack of perfection of the water to the authorized beneficial use. Therefore; a superceding Certificate No. 190A(A) shall issue to the City of Yakima in the amount of 900 gpm, 958 acre-feet per year for municipal water supply." (b) Permit #190 -A(B)P Source Type: Ground water. Source Location: Kissel Well: NW 1/4 NW 1/4 NW 1/4, Section 35, Township 13 North, Range 18 East. The well was drilled to 1171 feet. Purpose of Use: Municipal supply. 4-28 • Place of Use: Superceding permit reads "City of Yakima." Current and future service areas. Time of Use: Year round. Provisions or Limiting Conditions: Rescinding Order (of prior certificate) contains the following: "A Superseding Permit No. 190-A(B) shall issue to the City of Yakima in the amount of 900 gpm [not additive to Ground Water Certificate No. 190-A(A)], 490 acre-feet per year for a municipal water supply. The water is to be put to full beneficial use by July 1, 2025." Superceding permit contains the following conditions: "The authorization would in no way excuse the permittee from compliance with any applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations including those administered by other programs of the Department of Ecology and those administered by local and State Health Departments for public water supplies." • "A final Certificate of Water Right will reflect the extent of beneficial use within the limitations of the permit." "A written report describing the water system status (i.e., Water Comprehensive Plan) shall be submitted every 6 years to the Central Regional Office, Department of Ecology Water Resources Program." • "A water conservation plan must be in place and implemented. This plan may include rate structures that are intended to ensure efficient water use is encouraged and additional measures that the City deems appropriate and incorporates into their comprehensive water system plan." • "Metering of water withdrawn from the source well with record keeping and periodic reporting of information to Ecology." 2. Certificate #4116 (8/21/1956 — Ranney) Source Type: Ground water. 4-29 Source Location: Ranney Well: NWl/4 NW1/4 SWI/4, Section 10, Township 13, Range 18 East. Also called Well No. 3, the Ranney system consists of a vertical well (13 feet diameter, and 21 feet deep) and 10 horizontal laterals. It is located approximately 30 feet from the Naches River. Purpose of Use: Municipal supply. Place of Use: Certificate reads "City of Yakima." Current and future service areas. Time of Use: Year round Provisions or Limiting Conditions: None 3. Certificate 95318-A (7/24/1958 — Airport) Source Type: Ground water. Source Location: AirportWell: NEI/4 NW1/4 SETA, Section 35, Township 13 North, Range 18 East. Airport Well, also known as Well #5, is 16 inches in diameter and drilled to a depth of 1099 feet. Purpose of Use: Municipal supply. Place of Use: Certificate reads "City of Yakima." Current and future service areas. Time of Use: Year round. Provisions or Limiting Conditions: Certificate contains the following condition: • "The total yearly withdrawal authorized under this filing shall be considered as a supplemental and/or additional supply. Withdrawal at any given time shall be limited to 3200 acre-feet per year, or that quantity necessary to supplement the available supply to satisfy existing requirements." 4. Certificate #4646-A (8/04/1958 — Kiwanis) Source Type: Ground water. Source Location: Kiwanis Well: SW '/4 NW '/4 of Section 20, Township 13 North, Range 19 East. 4-30 Purpose of Use: Municipal supply. Place of Use: Certificate reads "City of Yakima." Current and future service areas. Time of Use: Year round. Provisions or Limiting Conditions: Certificate contains the following condition: • "The total yearly withdrawal authorized under this filing shall be considered as a supplemental and/or additional supply. Withdrawal at any given time shall be limited to 3680 acre-feet per year, or that quantity necessary to supplement the available supply to satisfy existing requirements." 5. Permit #G4 -29864P (12/08/1988 — Kissel) Source Type: Ground water. Source Location: Kissel Well: NW 1/4 NW '/4 NW I/4, Section 35, Township 13 North, Range 18 East. The well was drilled to 1171 feet. Purpose of Use: Municipal supply. Place of Use: Permit reads "Service area of the City of Yakima. Current and future service areas. Time of Use: Year round. Provisions or Limiting Conditions: Permit contains the following conditions: • "This well shall be cased and permanently sealed by pressure grouting to a minimum depth of 460 feet below land surface. Such sealing shall be performed in accordance with the provisions and standards of WAC Chapter 173-160-075 and Chapter 173-160-245 through 173-160-285 (Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Water Wells)." • "All water wells constructed within the state shall meet the minimum standards for construction and maintenance as 4-31 provided under RCW 18.104 (Washington Water Well Construction Act of 1971) and Chapter 173-160 WAC (Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Water Wells)." "Flowing wells shall be so constructed and equipped with valves to ensure that the flow of water can be completely stopped when not being used. Likewise, the well shall be so maintained as to prevent the waste of water through leaky casings, pipes, fittings, valves, or pumps -- either above or below land surface." • "If flowing conditions are encountered, a suitable pressure gauge shall be installed and maintained to measure the shut-in well water pressure." • "Installation and maintenance of an access port as described in Ground Water Bulletin No.l is required. An air line and gage may be installed in addition to the access port.' • "Ground Water Certificate No. 2851-A shall be formally relinquished before issuance of a certificate for the proposed well." • "The City of Yakima public water system shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Interim Guidelines for Public Water Systems Regarding Water Use Reporting, Demand Forecasting, Methodology and Conservation Programs, or rules later adopted for implementing the interim guidelines by 1996. Failure to comply shall be grounds for permit cancellation." 4-32 ISIS. IIK ISIS 0011SWUNMEN, 0 Malang b %0N EMIL mom r. solia— A 1021 0-0f, Al- ims 1 10 fit ON Slak Vp MEN mm MEW 11011111ME MINN om�mmoAll III Zr" 131 0N Jill Oil [j1111111111�1Ak 1r1I ■ �� �1 �-1�1�■ � �1�! IS � I ��II � gill 1111111 IFI11rrrl Jill 111111 `B11I11Ii111111N1111111111-== 111111 0 111111116,1111 ■sw rl ■1111 ,11111 0,111,11,ll 1111 11IM11 MIN 31111111111111 111115% MON Tu111111111111111l 111C 111!Ef E1t11tlFll" i11R i tI I Mo■ m � ��t�Cl�t�l _�t���tl[i11■11111�111111 �w�YWa 6211111_���IIIIIIIIIIIt �' MM�' MI1111 M 50111=1 @2 ! � Sam sin't It E; b L 1 N&I ,1111110 Table 4-10 Existing Water Right Status Permit Name of Priority Source Primary or Existing Water Rights Existing Consumption Current Water Right Certificate Rightholder Date Name/Number Supplemental Status or Claim or Claimant Excess/Deficienc Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Flow Rate (QiJ Volume (Qa) Flow Rate (Qi) Volume(Qa) Flow Rate (Qi) Volume(Qa) Permits/ Certificates 1.938-D City of 10/01/1928 Naches River Primary 3.0 cfs 2172 AF/YR 3.0 cfs 1,516 Equal to 656 Yakima WTP (winter use (1,350 gpm) AF/YR current water AF/YR only) right 2.S4-01141 01/29/1951 Naches River Primary 29 cfs (A) 4,414 20 cfs 1,792 9 cfs 4,608 (A) WTP (winter use only) (13,015 gpm) AF/YR' AF/YR AF/YR Certificate and (B) (B) 1,986 Permit AF/YR 3. 190-A 10/01/1948 Kissel Well Emergency 900 gpm (A) 958 900 gpm 403 Equal to 1,045 (A) AF/YR AF/YR current water AF/YR Certificate right and (B) (B) 490 Permit AF/YR 4. G4- 12/08/1988 Kissel Well Emergency 2000 gpm 3200 AF/YR 2,000 gpm 897 Equal to 2,303 29864P (Qi/Qa appear AF/YR current water AF/YR supplemental to right 4116) 5.4116 08/21/1956 Ranney Well Emergency 5000 gpm 8000 AF/YR 0 gpm 0 AF/YR 5,000 gpm 8,000 AF/YR 6.5318-A 07/24/1958 Airport Well Emergency 2800 gpm 3200 AF/YR 2,800 gpm 290 Equal to current 2,910 AF/YR water right AF/YR 7. 4646-A 08/04/1958 Kiwanis Well Emergency 2300 gpm. 3680 AF/YR 2,300 gpm 472 Equal to current 3,208 AF/YR water right AF/YR ' Subject to a combined quantity limitation: 7,826 acre feet is the maximum combined annual quantity that may be diverted in any single calendar year under Certificate S4 -01141(A) and the portion of the Reclamation contract right diverted at the Naches River Water Treatment Plant. The combined quantity limitation does not apply to Permit S4 -01141(B). 4-33 Table 4-10 Existing Water Right Status Permit Name of Priority Source Primary or Existing Water Rights Existing Consumption Current Water Right Certificate Rightholder Date Name/Number Supplemental Status or Claim or Claimant Excess/Deficienc -• Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Flow Rate (Qi) Volume (Qa) Flow Rate (Qi) Volume(Qa) Flow Rate (Qi) Volume(Qa) Claims 1.120528 City of 04/01/1869 Naches River/ Primary 1.5 — 3.0 cfs 945 AF/YR 3.0 cfs 945 Equal to Equal to Yakima Nelson (4/1 — 10/15) (673-1,346 AF/YR current water current Bridge gpm) right water right Diversion 2.120528 06/30/1878 Naches River/ Primary 8.87 — 17.73 cfs 5,585 AF/YR 17.73 cfs 5,585 Equal to Equal to Nelson (4/1 — 10/15) (3,981 — 7,957 (2,879 AF/YR AF/YR current water current Bridge gpm) beginning in right water right Diversion 2013) 3.120529 06/30/1902 Naches River Primary 10 cfs 7,260 AF/YR 10 cfs 7,130 Equal to current 130 WTP (4,488 gpm) AF/YR water right AF/YR 4.064441 U.S. Bureau 05/10/1905 Naches River Primary Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson (Reclamation of WTP and (4/1-10/31) Diversion Diversion Diversion Diversion Diversion Diversion Contract Reclamation Nelson 6.2 cfs 1,500 AF/YR 2.27 cfs 673 3.93 cfs 827 Right) Bridge AF/YR AF/YR Diversion WTP WTP WTP WTP WTP WTP Diversion Diversion Diversion Diversion Diversion Diversion 29 cfs 3,583 AF/YR 20 cfs 2,958 9 cfs 625 35.2 cfs total 5,083AF/YRZ AF/YR AF/YR (Total of 4,500 AF/YR beginning in 2013) TOTAL Low: Low: 33 cfs (winter) 22,661 9 cfs (winter) 6,846 AF 17,503 gpm 19,415 AF 53 cfs AF 12 93 cfs High:4 High :6 (summer) (summer) 40,589 gpm 43,773 AF '` Subject to a combined quantity limitation: 7,826 acre feet is the maximum combined annual quantity that may be diverted in any single calendar year under Certificate 54-01141(A) and the portion of the Reclamation contract right diverted at the Naches River Water Treatment Plant. Combined quantity limitation does not apply to the portion of the Reclamation water right diverted at Nelson Bridge. 4-34 0 0000000 0 Table 4-10 Existing Water Right Status Permit Name of Priority Source Primary or Existing Water Rights Existing Consumption Current Water Right Certificate Rightholder Date Name/Number Supplemental Status or Claim or Claimant Excess/Deficienc Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Flow Rate (Qi) Volume Qa Flow Rate (Qi) Volume(Qa) Flow Rate (Qi) Volume(Qa) Intertie Name/Identifier Name of Purveyor Providing Water Existing Limits on Existing Consumption Current Water Right Intertie Water Use Through Intertie Status Excess/Deficienc Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Flow Rate Volume Flow Rate Volume Flow Rate Volume (Qi) (Qa) NO (Qa) (Qi) (Qa) 1. Nob Hill Water Nob Hill Water N 56'hAve. & W Lincoln Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (Dave England — tel. 509/966-0272) 2. Nob Hill Water Nob Hill Water S. 45h Ave. & Tieton Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Nob Hill Water Nob Hill Water (32 Id Ave. & Ahtanum Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTALS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pending Name on Date Submitted Primary or Pending Water Rights Maximum Instantaneous Maximum Annual Volume Water Permit Supplemental Right Flow Rate (Qi) (Qa) Application Requested Re uested N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A s The range of instantaneous quantities (Qi) available is a function of the system elements considered (Naches River WTP, Nelson Bridge, and groundwater wells), and the season (winter vs. summer). The "low" figure shown in the table only reflects water available as primary supply through the City's current domestic water supply system -- the Naches River WTP. The figure therefore does not include water available at Nelson Bridge or through the emergency groundwater supply system. Further, the figure only reflects water availability during the summer irrigation season (generally beginning of USBR storage control through October 15). 4 The "high" Qi includes water available through all City municipal systems: Naches River WTP, Nelson Bridge and groundwater wells. It also reflects water available during the irrigation season (summer). However, it does not include the Qi authorized under permit 190 -A(B)P, which is supplemental to the Qi authorized under certificate 190-A(A). It also does not include the Qi authorized under permit G4 -29864P, which appears to be supplemental to the Qi authorized under ground water certificate 4116. 5 The range of annual quantities (Qa) available is a function of systems considered. The "low" Qa figure reflects water available at the Naches River WTP only. Further, it only reflects the maximum portion of the Warren Act contract right available for diversion at the WTP (3,583 AF). 6 The "high" Qa includes water currently available through all City municipal water systems. However, it does not include the Qa authorized under permit G4 - 29864P, which appears to be supplemental to the Qa authorized under ground water certificate 4116. 4-35 Table 4-11 Forecasted Water Right Status Permit Name of Priority Source Primary or Existing Water Rights Forecasted Water Use Forecasted Water Right Certificate Rightholder Date Name/Number Supplemental From Sources Status (Excess/Deficiency — 20 or Claim or (20 Year Demand) Yr Demand in Water Right) Claimant Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Flow Rate Volume Flow Rate Volume Flow Rate Volume NO (Qa) NO (Qa) (Qi) (Qa Permits/ City of 10/01/1928 Naches River Primary 3.0 cfs 2,172 AF/YR 3.0 cfs 2,172 Equal to 0 AF/YR Certificates Yakima WTP (winter use (1,350 gpm) AF/YR current water 1. 938-D only) right 2.S4-01141 01/29/1951 Naches River Primary 29 cfs (A) 4,414 29 cfs 5,110 Equal to 1,290 (A) WTP (winter use (13,015 gpm) AF/YR7 AF/YR current water AF/YR Certificate only) right and (B) 1,986 (B) Permit AF/YR 3. 190-A 10/01/1948 Kissel Well Emergency 900 gpm (A) 958 900 gpm (A) AF/YR Certificate and (B)490 (B) Permit AF/YR 4. G4- 12/08/1988 Kissel Well Emergency 2,000 gpm 3,200 AF/YR 2,000 gpm 29864P8 (Qi/Qa appear supplemental to 4116) 5.4116 08/21/1956 Ranney Well Emergency 5,000 gpm 8,000 AF/YR 0 gpm 6.5318-A 07/24/1958 Airport Well Emergency 2,800 gpm 3,200 AF/YR 2,800 gpm 7.4646-A 08/04/1958 Kiwanis Well Emergency 2,300 gpm. 3,680 AF/YR 2,300 gpm Subject to a combined quantity limitation: 7,826 acre feet is the maximum combined annual quantity that may be diverted in any single calendar year under Certificate S4 -01141(A) and the portion of the Reclamation contract right diverted at the Naches River Water Treatment Plant. The combined quantity limitation does not apply to Permit S4-0114I(B). 8 A transfer of 2,100 gpm of the Ranney Right is to be moved to the Kissel Well, replacing G429864P. A transfer of 2,900 gpm will be moved to a new well at Elks Park (see table 3-22). 4-36 I Table 4-11 Forecasted Water Right Status Permit Name of Priority Source Primary or Existing Water Rights Forecasted Water Use Forecasted Water Right Certificate Rightholder Date Name/Number Supplemental From Sources Status (Excess/Deficiency — 20 or Claim or (20 Year Demand) Yr Demand in Water Right) Claimant Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Flow Rate Volume Flow Rate Volume Flow Rate Volume (Qi) (Qa) NO (Qa) NO (Qa) Claims 1. 120528 City of 04/01/1869 Naches River/ Primary 1.5 - 3.0 cfs 945 AF/YR 3.0 cfs 945 Equal to 0 AF/YR Yakima Nelson Bridge (4/1 — 10/15) AF/YR current water Diversion right 2.120528 06/30/1878 Naches River/ Primary 8.87— 17.73 5,585 AF/YR 8.62 cfs 1,375 9.11 cfs 1,504 Nelson Bridge (4/1 — 10/15) cfs (2,879 AF/YR AF/YR Diversion AF/YR beginning in 2013) 3.120529 06/30/1902 Naches River Primary 10 cfs 7,260.AF/YR 10 cfs 7,260 Equal to current 0 AF/YR WTP (4,488 gpm) AF/YR water right 4.064441 U.S. Bureau 05/10/1905 Naches River Primary Nelson Nelson 33 cfs 4,500 2.2 cfs 0 AF/YR (Reclamation of WTP and (4/1-10/31) Diversion Diversion Contract Reclamation Nelson Bridge 6.2 cfs 1,500 AF/YR Right) Diversion WTP WTP Diversion Diversion 29 cfs 3,583 AF/YR 35.2 cfs total 5,083AF/YR9 (Total of 4,500 AF/YR beginning in 2013) TOTAL Low: Low: 42 cfs (winter) 21,362 AF 0 cfs (winter) 14 2,794 AF 17,503 gpm 19,415 AF 51.62 (summer) 11.31 cfs High. tt High:13 (summer)la Subject to a combined quantity limitation: 7,826 acre feet is the maximum combined annual quantity that may be diverted in any single calendar year under Certificate S4 -01141(A) and the portion of the Reclamation contract right diverted at the Naches River Water Treatment Plant. Combined quantity limitation does not apply to the portion of the Reclamation water right diverted at Nelson Bridge. o The range of instantaneous quantities (Qi) available is a function of the system elements considered (Naches River WTP, Nelson Bridge, and groundwater wells), and the season (winter vs. summer). The "low" figure shown in the table only reflects water available as primary supply through the City's current domestic water supply system -- the Naches River WTP. The figure therefore does not include water available at Nelson Bridge or through the emergency groundwater supply system. Further, the figure only reflects water availability during the summer irrigation season (generally beginning of USBR storage control through October 15). 4-37 Table 4-11 Forecasted Water Right Status Permit Name of Priority Source Primary or Existing Water Rights Forecasted Water Use Forecasted Water Right Certificate Rightholder Date Name/Number Supplemental From Sources Status (Excess/Deficiency-20 or Claim or (20 Year Demand) Yr Demand in Water Right) Claimant Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Flow Rate Volume Flow Rate Volume Flow Rate Volume (Qi) (Qa) (Qi) (Qa) (Qi) (Qa) 40,589 gpm 43,773 AF Intertie Name/Identifier Name of Purveyor Providing Water Existing Limits on Existing Consumption Current Water Right Intertie Water Use Through Intertie Status (Excess/Deficienc ) Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Instantaneous Annual Flow Rate Volume Flow Rate Volume Flow Rate Volume (Qi) Qa NO Qa Qi Qa 1. Nob Hill Water Nob Hill Water - N 56h Ave. & W Lincoln Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (Dave England — tel. 509/966-0272) 2. Nob Hill Water Nob Hill Water - S. 45 1h Ave. & Tieton Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Nob Hill Water Nob Hill Water - 32 nd Ave. & Ahtanum Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pending Name on Date Submitted Primary or Pending Water Rights Water Permit Supplemental Maximum Instantaneous Maximum Annual Volume Right Flow Rate (Qi) (Qa) Application Requested Requested N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 The "high" Qi includes water available through all City municipal systems: Naches River WTP, Nelson Bridge and groundwater wells. It also reflects water available during the irrigation season (summer). However, it does not include the Qi authorized under permit 190 -A(B)P, which is supplemental to the Qi authorized under certificate 190-A(A). It also does not include the Qi authorized under permit G4 -29864P, which appears to be supplemental to the Qi authorized under ground water certificate 4116. 12 The range of annual quantities (Qa) available is a function of systems considered. The "low" Qa figure reflects water available at the Naches River WTP only. Further, it only reflects the maximum portion of the Warren Act contract right available for diversion at the WTP (3,583 AF). 13 The "high" Qa includes water currently available through all City municipal water systems. However, it does not include the Qa authorized under permit G4 - 29864P, which appears to be supplemental to the Qa authorized under ground water certificate 4116. 1`1 Emergency wells not included in the totals. 4-38 0 4.4 Water System Reliability Analysis The purpose of the water system reliability analysis is to summarize the steps which can be undertaken to ensure that an adequate quantity of water can be provided at all times. When water shortages or interruptions in service occur, public health can be threatened because customers may use other non -potable sources of water inappropriately, or system pressure may be reduced such that basic public health needs are not met or other back flow related problems occur. Source Reliability: The normal water supply source for the City of Yakima is the Naches River Water Treatment Plant located approximately 9 miles west of Yakima on Highway 12. Potential causes of reduction or interruption of the normal supply source include: • Spring runoff resulting in flooding and increased turbidities exceeding the process capabilities of the Water Treatment Plant. • Extended periods of drought resulting in loss of river flow. • USBR proration of water storage rights. • Failure of 48 inch transmission main transporting water from the Water Treatment Plant to the City's water distribution system. • During winter months, the Water Treatment Plant supply could be temporarily reduced or interrupted due to icing of the intake structure or contact basins. A failure of the Naches River WTP supply was caused by a break in the 48 -inch transmission main in spring 1974. The pipeline floated during flooding conditions and was out of service for approximately 3 months for repairs because a significant length of the pipeline was damaged. The configuration of the 48 -inch transmission main has since been altered to ensure that the pipeline is always full, eliminating the potential for flotation during flooding. It is estimated that the extent of any future failure of the 48 -inch pipeline would be limited to short lengths and could be repaired within 3 days. This type of failure would, however, reduce the available supply to the entire system. Reduction or interruption in supply due to high turbidity or icing conditions would not be expected to last more than 3 days. The City has approximately 11.6 mgd available from the existing groundwater well supplies. The wells are categorized as emergency sources of supply only would be put into service in the event of the types of failures identified above. The City also has interties with Nob Hill Water Association and the City of Union Gap. • Prolonged supply from these interties cannot be relied upon because these systems may not have excess supply capacity available in the summer months. The water quality characteristics of the Naches River water supply have been summarized in • Chapter 3. As indicated there, the raw water turbidity values exceed 15 NTU approximately 10 % of the time. Raw water turbidity of 15 NTU is the recommended limit for the direct filtration treatment process. A comprehensive evaluation of the Naches River Water Treatment Plant was • 4-39 completed by Carollo Engineers in 1998. A summary of the findings of this report are included in Chapter 3. Water quality data for the emergency well sources is also provided in Chapter 3. Water Right Adequacy: A detailed discussion the status of the current water rights is included in Section 4.3 of this WSP update. The rights which are "contract rights" can be reduced through proration by the USBR in water short years. Under these conditions the emergency well supplies are brought on line to make up the difference. In the future, Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) may be used to further augment the emergency well supplies in water short years (see discussion in Section 4.2 and below under Water Shortage Response Planning). Specific measures taken in response to water shortages are described below. Facility Reliability: A detailed discussion of the water treatment facilities is included in the 1998 Carollo report. The report also includes recommendations for improvements necessary to maintain the reliability and performance of the treatment facilities. Water Shortage Response Planning Short term reduction or loss of the Naches River WTP supply due to raw water high turbidity, transmission main failure, or icing conditions in the WTP have historically lasted three days or less. The response to short term disruptions such as these is to activate one or more of the emergency well supply sources. Depending on the magnitude and duration of the WTP supply disruption, it may be necessary to utilize some of the standby storage capacity. Refer to Section 3.3.4 of this Water System Plan Update for the discussion of the storage capacity analysis as it relates to stand-by storage and emergency storage requirements. Potential causes of longer term reduction or interruption of the normal supply source include: Extended periods of drought resulting in loss of river flow. USBR proration of water storage rights. The purpose of water shortage response planning is to identify measures which can be implemented under these circumstances. These measures could include demand reduction, supply augmentation, or a combination of both. Problem Assessment: The City's 1902 surface water right of 10 cfs (6.5 MGD) for the Naches River Water Treatment Plant is a senior right. The other rights for the WTP withdrawal are subject to proration or interruption in years of extreme water shortage. In 2001, which has been the worst water shortage year since the existing WTP has been in service, the USBR contract water rights were prorated to 29% of normal during the summer months. In was necessary during this period to make up the supply shortfall by bringing the emergency well supply sources on line. By utilizing the emergency wells it was not necessary to implement demand reduction measures other than the ongoing conservation measures that are described in Section 4.1 of this water system plan. However, in future years as demands increase and as the possibility exists for M more serious drought conditions, it may become necessary to implement additional demand reduction measures and/or supply augmentation. Options for Demand Reduction in a Water Shortage: Selected demand reduction options would be implemented based on the degree of water shortage that exists. Stages of a water shortage and corresponding demand reduction measures include (source: Guidelines for the Preparation of Water Shortage Response Plans, Washington State Department of Health, DOH # 22-647 June 1988 [Revised April 2001]): • Stage 1: Minor Shortage - Voluntary Measures This is the first step in reducing water consumption during a potential or actual water shortage. Based on experience in other states, a 5 to 10 percent reduction in consumption can be achieved with a voluntary program. An appropriate response at this stage is initiation of a public information program. • Stage 2: Moderate Shortage — Mandatory Measures Based on the experience of utilities in other states, a 10 to 20 percent reduction in consumption can be achieved with a mandatory program. An appropriate response at this stage is to institute mandatory demand reduction measures, enforceable under the authority of special ordinances, or a revised rate schedule. Stage 3: Severe — Rationing Program Upwards of 30 percent savings can be achieved with a water -rationing program. An appropriate response at this stage is instituting rationing programs through fixed allotments or percentage cutbacks. This response should be initiated only in rare circumstances. It allows the maximum amount of water savings possible in a community without severe hardship. Again, this action would have to be enforceable under the authority of special ordinances. Demand reduction options should be considered corresponding to each stage of water shortage are summarized in provided in Tables 4-12 through 4-16. Table 4-12 Suggested Public Information Demand Reduction Actions Stage Water Shortage Public Information Actions Condition 1 Minor: - Prepare and distribute water conservation materials (bill Voluntary Measures insert, etc.). - Prepare and disseminate technical conservation information to specific customer types. - Prepare conservation retrofit kits. - Coordinate media outreach program. - Issue news releases to the media. 2 Moderate: - Distribute conservation retrofit kits. Mandatory Program - Continue public information program. 3 Severe: Rationing - Continue public information program. Program 4-41 0 Table 4-13 Suggested Government Demand Reduction Actions Stage Water Shortage Government Actions Condition 1 Minor: - Increase enforcement of hydrant opening. Voluntary Measures - Increase meter reading efficiency and meter maintenance. - Promote intensive leak detection and repair program. - Draft and adopt ordinances* banning water waste. A typical ordinance could require: - No unfixed leaks; - No hosing of paved surfaces; - No fountains except those using re -circulated water; - No water running onto streets; - No watering during the middle of the day; and - No irrigation runoff. - Draft and adopt ordinances allowing a utility to declare a water emergency and requiring: - Fixed consumption allotments or percentage cutbacks (rationing). - All homes and businesses to have retrofitted showers and toilets. 2 Moderate: - Reduce water usage for main flushing, street cleaning, Mandatory Program public fountains, and park irrigation. - Watering of parks, cemeteries, etc., restricted to nights or designated irrigation days. 3 Severe: Rationing - All public water uses not required for health or safety Program prohibited unless using tank truck water supplies or reclaimed waste water - Irrigation of public parks, cemeteries, etc., severely restricted. - Pool covers required for all municipal pools. - Main flushing allowed only for emergency purposes. - Reduce system pressure to minimum permissible levels. 4-42 0 Table 4-14 Suggested User Restrictions Demand Reduction Actions Stage Water Shortage User Restrictions Condition 1 Minor: - Implement voluntary water use reductions (see Table 4-12, Voluntary Measures above). 2 Moderate: - Implement ordinance banning water waste (see Table 4 - Mandatory Program 13, above). - Adopt landscape irrigation restrictions incorporating one 3 Severe: Rationing or more of the following: Program - Time of day (e.g., 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., etc.) weekly frequency (e.g., odd/even, time per week, etc.) - sprinkle bans (e.g., hand) - Commercial car washed should intensify voluntary use reductions. - Golf course irrigation restricted to 6 p.m. to -11 a.m. on designated irrigation days. 3 Severe: Rationing - Implement ordinance allowing utilities to declare a water Program emergency and to require rationing (see Table 4-13, above) - Car washing permitted only during specified watering hours of designated irrigation days. - Times of day restrictions applied to commercial car washes. - Golf course watering times and weekly watering limits reduced. - Manage water consumption to stay within water allotments. - Permissible watering hours and weekly frequency for landscaping irrigation further reduced. Table 4-15 Suggested User Penalties Demand Reduction Actions Stage Water Shortage User Penalties Condition 1 Minor: - None Voluntary Measures 2 Moderate: - Warning. Mandatory Program - House call. - Shut off and reconnection fee. 3 Severe: Rationing - Fines. Program i "K Table 4-16 Suggested Pricing Demand Reduction Actions Stage Water Shortage Pricing Condition 1 Minor: - None. Voluntary Measures 2 Moderate: - Institute rate changes to encourage conservation. Mandatory Program - Impose surcharges. 3 Severe: Rationing - Same as above. Program Ordinances should be adopted for all demand reduction measures requiring legal sanction or authorization. Those measures which require such sanction or authorization should be identified in advance to allow plenty of time to get ordinances passed. For the City of Yakima surface water supply source, water shortage conditions can be anticipated well in advance of their occurrence from precipitation and snowpack data. This data is monitored very closely each year by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Bureau of Reclamation personnel should be consulted each spring to assess the possibilities for water shortages in the upcoming summer months. Options for Supply Augmentation in a Water Shortage: Thus far, the City of Yakima has been able to meet current demands even in water short years by supplementing the surface water supply with the emergency well supply sources. In 2001 it was necessary to rely on the wells for a significant amount of the demand during the summer months. In future years, as demands increase, and with the possibility that more severe drought conditions could occur, it is possible that demand reduction and/or supply augmentation will be necessary. As discussed in Section 4.3, all of the City's surface water rights are currently under review by the Yakima County Superior Court as part of the Acquavella surface water rights adjudication, and it is unlikely that additional surface water rights could be obtained in the future. However, the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) pilot test described in Section 4.2 demonstrated that physical aquifer properties of the Lower Member of the Upper Ellensburg Formation are favorable for a full-scale ASR program in that recharged water is relatively contained by the aquifer. Using three ASR wells, it is estimated that a total of 864 Mgal (approximately 2,650 AF) could be recharged over a 200 -day period (October 15 through May 15) at an average recharge rate of 1,000 gpm per well. At a recovery rate of 100%, this would supply approximately 10.8 MGD for a period of 80 days. At a 2500 gpm recovery rate for each ASR well, three ASR wells would be required to produce 10.8 MGD. The recovery capacity of the three existing City wells is about 8,050 gpm (11.6 MGD). When using the proposed ASR wells in conjunction with existing wells the total capacity of the emergency sources would be 22.4 MGD. The addition of three 2500 gpm ASR wells is taken into consideration in the storage and supply analyses included in Chapter 3 of this Water System Plan Update. Additional ASR recovery wells could be considered if additional emergency supply augmentation were required in future years. i .E11 0 4.5 Interties As discussed in Chapter 1 of this Water System Plan Update, the City of Yakima has three interties with the Nob Hill Water Association and one government service connection with the City of Union Gap. The Union Gap connection is used as an emergency service connection and is new since the last Water Comprehensive Plan was prepared. A summary of the interties, including location, size, hydraulic grade line (HGL), adjacent purveyor, and other data, are included in Table 1-5 in Chapter 1. All of these interties are activated manually. The City of Yakima hydraulic grade line elevations shown in the table are based on the hydraulic grade line at the storage reservoir when full and under static conditions. The connection with Union Gap is one way from Yakima to Union Gap and is essentially a service connection. A pressure reducing valve is used to reduce the hydraulic grade line elevation to match that of Union Gap's system. The three interties with the Nob Hill Water Association are located at West Lincoln Avenue and North 56th Avenue, Tieton Drive and South 45th Avenue, and South 32"d Avenue and Ahtanum. These interties are for emergency purposes only and are covered in a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Association dated September 6, 2000, a copy of which is included in Appendix E. These interties are not designed for normal operation of either system and are not considered as a source of supply in the storage and supply analyses presented in Chapter 3 of this plan. No new non -emergency interties are proposed or anticipated during the 20 year planning period. 0 Chapter 5 Source Water Protection 5 Source Water Protection 5.1 Source Water Protection Overview The objective of this chapter is to outline a program to protect, and if possible, improve, source waters used by the City of Yakima water system. Source water protection for Group A systems is required under WAC 246-290-135, -668 and -690. The appropriate measures to be taken to ensure adequate source water protection depend on whether the source of supply is surface water or ground water. If the utility uses ground water, a wellhead protection program is required. A watershed control program is required for utilities using surface water. The City of Yakima's primary source of supply is surface water which is treated by the Naches River Water Treatment Plant. In addition, the City currently has three groundwater wells which are used as emergency sources of supply. 5.2 Wellhead Protection Program The Upper Yakima Valley Regional Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP) was completed in October 2000. The purpose of this plan is to identify potential sources of contamination near the member purveyors' groundwater supplies, implement management strategies to prevent contamination of those supplies, and develop a contingency plan for the contamination mitigation in the event that groundwater does become contaminated. In this Regional WHPP, each member community in the Upper Yakima Valley plays a role in protecting the groundwater supplies of the entire area by pooling resources and management efforts to target an audience beyond that which could be reached at a local level. The member purveyors participating in this wellhead protection plan include: Yakima County City of Yakima Town of Naches City of Moxee Town of Tieton City of Union Gap City of Selah Nob Hill Water Association The Town of Naches wellhead protection area also lies within the City of Yakima's surface water supply watershed Regional management efforts adopted by the eight purveyors forming the Regional Wellhead Protection Committee include: v Development of a Geographical Information System (GIS) database of the wellhead protection areas, potential contamination sources, and water quality data in order to monitor and track sources and receptors. 5-1 • Development of a planning trigger to distribute wellhead protection notification letters for development changes (i.e. building permits, zoning changes, SEPA, etc.) within wellhead protection areas. • Coordination with Ecology to prioritize their Hazmat Technical Assistance Sweep within wellhead protection areas. • Coordination with the State Health Department's Sanitary Surveys to ensure up- to-date information is maintained in the regional GIS potential contamination source inventory. • Coordination with County Health District to identify septic tanks and private wells with Global Positioning System (GPS) units. • Coordination with the Washington Association of Realtors to adopt a Property Disclosure Addendum that will help to identify private and abandoned well locations during property transfers. • Designation of the 6 -Month wellhead protection area as a critical "Red Zone" by County Emergency Management (LEPC) in order to prioritize wellhead protection during emergencies (i.e. hazardous material spills) • Public education efforts including literature distribution. • Coordination with Education Services District (ESD) which provides continuing education to area teachers in order to better integrate wellhead protection and water issues into school curriculum. 0 • Development of a regional website to increase public awareness on the need to protect groundwater. • Development of a logo for wellhead protection area signs. • Development of an interlocal agreement among the eight purveyors to make sure that wellhead protection is given a high priority in the Upper Yakima Valley. The Wellhead Protection Plans for the City of Yakima and the Town of Naches are incorporated into this Water System Plan Update by reference. 5.3 Watershed Control Program C 5.3.1 Regulatory Requirements/Program Overview Watershed control requirements apply to all Group A systems using surface water, (i.e. both filtered and unfiltered systems). A watershed control program is an integral part of a • 5-2 • 0 purveyor's overall strategy to ensure public health protection. The term "watershed" refers to the hydrologic drainage upstream of a utility's surface water intake. The watershed affects the physical, chemical and microbiological quality of the source. The watershed for the City of Yakima surface water source does not meet the criteria to remain unfiltered under the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), which is detailed in Part 6 of Chapter 246-290 WAC. The surface water supply has been filtered since the Naches River Water Treatment Plant was placed into service in the early 1970s. Several extensive analyses of the surface water resources and water quality of the Yakima River basin have been conducted in recent years including: • Yakima River Basin Water Quality Plan (YRBWQP), by the Yakima Valley Conference of Governments, June 1995. • Surface -Water -Quality Assessment of the Yakima River Basin, Washington Overview of Major Findings, 1987-91, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Water - Resources Investigations Report 98-4113 (1999). • Watershed Assessment Yakima River Basin, Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit and Tri -County Water Resources Agency, January 2001. • Technical Memoranda - Yakima River Watershed Plan, Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit and Tri -County Water Resources Agency, Fall 2002. • Watershed Management Plan Yakima River Basin, Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit and Tri -County Water Resources Agency, January 2003. Streamflow data for the Naches River near Naches was obtained from the US Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Yakima Hydromet Archive Data Access web site (http://macI.pn.usbr.gov/yakima/yakwebarcread.html) The data used in figures and tables presented in the following watershed characterization were derived from these sources as noted. 5.3.2 Watershed Description/Characteristics Location The City of Yakima's primary source of water is the Naches River. The City operates a 25-mgd water filtration plant located approximately 3 miles southeast of the City of Naches, and approximately 4.4 miles downstream of the confluence between the Tieton and Naches Rivers. The Naches River drainage is located on the eastern slope of the Central Washington Cascades in the Wenatchee National Forest. Figure 5-1 shows the location of the watershed and filtration plant and intake structure. The watershed area for Yakima's surface water supply consists of most of the area comprised by Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) Number 38. 5-3 Drainage Area The watershed drainage area is approximately 980 square miles. The Cleman Mountains form the divide between Wenas Creek and the Notches River and provide the northeastern boundary of the triangular-shaped drainage area. The west boundary is the Cascade Range and the southern boundary is formed by the Klickton Divide and Divide Ridge. The Notches River watershed is composed of two major subdrainages: the Tieton River drainage and the Notches drainage; the divide between the two is Bethel Ridge. The two rivers join at the junction of Highways 410 and 12, and continue southeasterly as the Notches River. The Notches watershed is part of the larger Yakima River basin. The Notches watershed is approximately 15 percent of the total Yakima River basin drainage area. Data for the overall Yakima River basin, as presented in the YRBWQP, June 1995, were used to describe features of the Notches watershed. Hydrology The major streams and rivers in the Notches River basin are shown in Figure 5-1. The average annual precipitation in the Notches basin ranges from 140 inches at the headwaters to 20 inches in the lower watershed. A USBR stream gauge is located on the Notches River just downstream of the Wapatox Canal diversion. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 summarize data for this gauging station. Because the gauge is located below the Wapatox Canal, the flows reported below do not include the water diversion into the canal. The flows, therefore, represent the discharge in the Notches River at what has historically been the City of Yakima Notches River WTP auxiliary river intake. The drainage area upstream of the gauging station is 941 square miles, as compared to approximately 980 square miles at the treatment plant intake. The treatment plant intake was originally designed to use the discharge water from PP&L (now Pacific Power) Wapatox Canal power generating station, so the Wapatox power plant return flow was also part of the water supply available to the City at the intake. Late in 2002, the power generating station was purchased by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and shut down to allow most of the Wapatox diversion to remain in the river to improve fish passage in the reach between the diversion and the WTP. New fish screens are being installed on the WTP intake with completion scheduled for early 2003. Upon completion of the new screens the river intake near the WTP will be the normal source of surface water supply. 5-4 n Water Treatment Plant State & Fed Roads Streams Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Lake or Pond Canal or Ditch Aquaduct / \ / Siphon Cities County Line = Watershed Boundary 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles Rattles = ' w Water System Plan Update Figure 5-1 Location of Watershed ima ; IlypIpUlllilU1111 ion 10 111\P~`` y Copyright (C) 2003 Yakima County This map was derived from several databases. The County cannot accept responsibility for any errors. Therefore,there are no warranties for this product. Plot date: Mar 17, 2003; mapl Table 5-1 US Bureau of Reclamation Stream Flow Data Naches River at Naches, WA Monthly Average, Average Low, and Average High for Water Years 1990-2001 Month Average (cfs) Average Low (cfs) Average High (cfs) January 764 324 1817 February 1315 392 3128 March 1207 516 2305 April 1873 964 3735 May 2886 1483 5272 June 2268 1231 3909 July 934 419 1872 August 410 236 815 September 1353 485 1947 October 540 161 1451 November 697 187 3023 December 853 288 2284 Annual 764 324 1817 Table 5-2 Naches River Near Naches River Flow Statistics Condition Value Drainage Area 941 square miles Mean Annual Flow 1,255 cfs 7 -Day, 10 -Year Low Flow 90 cfs 90th Percentile Exceedance Flow for Mean Daily Discharge 157 cfs 50th Percentile Exceedance Value for Mean Daily Discharge 743 cfs 10th Percentile Exceedance Value for Mean Daily Discharge 3,085 cfs Geology and Soils The soils in the upper Naches River basin are primarily cool, stony, forest soils and dark, stony, rangeland soils varying in depth from very shallow to deep. The midbasin consists primarily of dry silty and loamy soils; some areas contain drainage -impeding hardpans. The lower basin is primarily dry, coarse, silty soils, some with lime layers at 2 to 4 feet, and dark, stony, rangeland soils, some with hardpan. 5-5 Topography Topographic features of the watershed are shown in Figure 5-2. Elevations in the watershed vary from about 6,800 feet near the western and northern watershed boundaries to about 1,300 feet near the water treatment plant. The Klickton Divide and Divide Ridge form the southern and southeastern borders. This ridge separates the Tieton River drainage from the Cowiche Creek drainage. The northern border of the watershed is formed by several mountains and ridges including Blowout Mountain, Mt. Clifty, portions of Manastash Ridge (west end), Quartz Mountain, Bald Mountain, and Clemen Mountain. The watershed is primarily forested, but also contains flat valleys lying between steep forested or rock slopes that are used primarily for agri- cultural purposes or for livestock grazing. Point of Diversion The City's intake structure is located downstream of the City of Naches wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). In order to minimize the potential contamination of the river from a failure at the Naches WWTP, the water treatment plant intake was originally designed to utilize the return flow from PP&L's Wapatox Canal whenever the power -generating facility is operating. The Wapatox diversion is upstream of the Naches WWTP, so the risk of water quality degradation from a treatment plant failure would be reduced. With the changes currently being implemented to the intake structure, the diversion for the water treatment plant will always be downstream of the Naches WWTP. However, City staff has collected and analyzed river water samples from both diversion points and have determined that there is currently no reason for significant concern. City staff is planning to develop an operations manual that will include procedures for reacting to contamination events that might occur upstream of the intake structure. This issue is addressed further in Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 of this chapter. Wildlife The YRBWQP (reference Table I.C.3-2) indicates that the following animal species are present in the Naches watershed: • Mountain sheep • Chukar • Rocky Mountain elk • Mule deer • Golden eagle • Great Blue heron • Bald eagle • Osprey • Spotted owl • Beaver • Bear Overall, the watershed supports a diverse wildlife mix and the YRBWQP indicates several locations that provide good to excellent habitat for the animals and fish residing in the watershed. 5-6 Water Treatment Plant /\ / Rivers b State & Fed Roads Watershed Boundary Cities f ,! County Line }yam r L s. 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles i "✓' _ ` ^ ., o `hes f Tieton Water Treatment Plant v, i Tret Seiah Water System Plan Update ...,,.,,, "� I Figure 5-2 Watershed Topographic Map Apr" 4L" `'� Yakima v F— - Union Gip ���rnuunuurnimiwo^•`;' Copyright (C) 2003 Yakima County This map was derived from several databases. The County cannot accept responsibility for any errors. i+iMrr Therefore,there are no warranties for this product. Plot date: Mar 18, 2003; 6 0 The Tieton River and Little Naches drainages contain old growth forest that serves as habitat for the spotted owl. Land Ownership The majority of the watershed is part of the Wenatchee National Forest administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Approximately 41 percent of the watershed area is within the Norse Peak and William O. Douglas Wilderness Areas. Portions of the watershed are owned by the State of Washington, while some of the watershed is privately owned. Table 5-3 shows the land ownership in the Naches watershed. Figure 5-3 provides a geographic representation of land ownership. Table 5-3 Naches Watershed Land Ownership Ownership Square Miles Percent of Watershed Type/Agency Area National Forest 850a 87 (including wilderness) State of Washington 50 5 Private 80 8 Ownership/Unknown Totals 980T_ 100 aIncluding 350 square miles of wilderness area. Of the state-owned land in the watershed, roughly half is managed by the Department of Natural Resources, and the other half is managed by the Department of Wildlife. Virtually all, of the state lands are in the lower Naches area, just upstream from the City of Naches. 5.3.3 Identification of Activities/Land Uses Detrimental to Water Quality Land Uses The watershed area is host to a variety of land uses including municipal development at the City of Naches, several small rural mountain communities, agricultural uses, livestock grazing, forestry, recreation, and at least one sawmill. The land use designations are shown geographically on Figure 5-4. There are two state highways that traverse the watershed from east to west: Highway 12 and Highway 410. Highway 12 parallels the Tieton River and Highway 410 parallels the Naches River for several miles. The Burlington Northern Railroad had a short segment of line paralleling the north bank of the Naches River from the treatment plant into Naches. The track ends just west of Naches and is currently not in use. 5-7 • Although there is a wide range of land uses in the watershed, the intensity of these uses is low. The majority of the watershed is a reserved wilderness area or national forest. However, the development that does exist is concentrated along the state highways, which parallel the two major rivers. Therefore, the potential does exist for contamination of the water supply. A brief discussion of each land use type is provided below. Agriculture As indicated in Figure 5-4, the Naches watershed above the Water Treatment Plant contains very little agricultural land. The agricultural land in the watershed is concentrated in the lower Naches subbasin, near the City of Naches, and along Highway 410 paralleling the Naches River. However, the Yakima Tieton Irrigation Canal parallels the Tieton River from downstream of the Tieton Dam area to near the mouth of the Tieton River. The City's water supply was historically diverted into the Wapatox Canal before entering the City's intake structure. Water quality analysis results for the City's raw water supply have to date shown no indication of VOC, SOC, or pesticide problems. The risks associated with the possibility of agricultural crop spray entering the water supply as overspray along the Wapatox Canal will be somewhat reduced with the change in the normal point of diversion. There will still exist the potential for contamination from accidental/intentional introduction of agricultural or other hazardous chemicals into the Naches River, however greater dilution would take place. The risk and response to these conditions would be similar to the actions necessary for a transportation chemical spill, although detecting the problem in time to initiate response activities would be more difficult because the party responsible for the contamination may not even be aware that it is occurring. Dairies, Feedlots, and Livestock Grazing According to the YRBWQP, there are no known dairies or significant herds of dairy cows in the Naches River basin (reference Figures I.D.2.b-1 and I.D.2.b-4 in the YRBWQP). Feedlot data are only available by county, and there was no mapping showing the distribution of feedlots within Yakima County. The YRBWQP (reference Figure I.D.2.d-1) shows that rangelands within. the Naches basin are concentrated near the confluence of the Naches and Tieton Rivers, just upstream of the City of Naches. This rangeland area corresponds closely with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife managed lands. A smaller concentration of rangeland is also present in the lower Tieton basin and in the southwestern portion of the Naches basin, within the William O. Douglas Wilderness Area. Recreation Fishing is a primary form of recreation in the Naches watershed. The American, Bumping, Little Naches, and Tieton Rivers, Rattlesnake Creek, and Bumping and Rimrock Lakes all contain various species of trout. The lakes also support Kokanee salmon. Dispersed recreational uses such as backpacking, hiking, hunting, fishing, skiing, snowmobiling, offroad vehicle travel, camping, rafting, and kayaking are all common in the Yakima River basin. Most of the uses are present to some degree in the Naches watershed. There are no state or federal parks within the watershed, but there are at least 43 developed recreation sites in the watershed, most of which are managed by the USFS. The primary water quality concerns associated with recreation are nitrates and bacteriological contamination. Water quality analysis 5-8 0 0 ° a 0-71 Ir N%—N 70 ° o Neches r Tietoit Water Treatment Plant Teton r, QO � r �� r I• •'�. — — f Moxee F 13 Union Gap a� n Water Treatment Plant Rivers State & Fed Roads Watershed Boundary Cities E-3 County Line Public Owned Land US Bureau of Land Management - US Dept of Defense US Fish & Wildlife US Forest Service - Other Federal Agencies WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife WA Dept of Natural Resources - WA Dept of Transportation Other State Agencies Yakima County - School Districts Irrigation Districts - Fire Districts _ Municipal 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles N Water System Plan Update Figure 5-3 Watershed Land Ownership Copyright (C) 2003 Yakima County This map was derived from several databases. The County cannot accept responsibility for any errors. Therefore,there are no warranties for this product. Plot date: Mar 18, 2003; map3 I lJ f � 7'z IL r F r- - water.Tei.tmenr PJant Tieton River - r `� • �' w r 9 nw `Water Treatment Plant Rivers State & Fed Roads Watershed Boundary Cities _ J County Line Land Use Residential Commercial & Wholesale Education & Government - Parks & Other Open Spaces Agriculture Forestry ® Mining Vacant State Lands Fed & Yak. Nat. Trust Lands 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles Water System Plan Update Figure 5-4 Watershed Land Use Map Copyright (C) 2003 Yakima County This map was derived from several databases. The County cannot accept responsibility for any errors. Therefore,there are no warranties for this product. Plot date: Mar 18, 2003; map2 results for the City's raw water supply show that nitrate and bacteriological levels are well within the treatment plant's operating range for effective removal. Historical water quality data for the Yakima River basin, including the Naches River, have been summarized in the YRBWQP as well as the USGS Water -Resources Investigations Report 98-4113 (1999). Additional statistical analysis of available nitrate and bacteriological data may help evaluate whether concentrations of these parameters are increasing significantly over time. Future monitoring plans should include sites within the watershed that would provide information on the impact of recreation on water quality. Managed Forest Lands A land -use summary of the 850 square miles of National Forest in the watershed area is shown in Table 5-4. Table 5-4 Naches Watershed Land Uses Within National Forest Boundary Type of Use Total Acres (sq. miles) Percent of National Forest Area Private Land 35,978 (56) 6.6 Wilderness 223,768 (350) 41.2 Intensive Harvest 112,404 (176) 20.7 Other Harvest 128,113 (200) 23.5 Non -Harvest 43,604 (68) 8.0 Total Acreage 543,869 (850) 100 Wilderness and Protected Multi -Use Natural Areas Approximately 71 percent of the 50,293 -acre Norse Peak Wilderness is within the Naches watershed. The Norse Peak Wilderness Area has only 52 miles of trail, and visitor use is moderate. As a comparison, the Alpine Lakes Wilderness to the north, which is not within the watershed, contains 800 miles of trail and is one of the most heavily visited natural areas in Washington. Approximately 68 percent of the 151,730 acres of the William O. Douglas Wilderness is within the Naches watershed. The William O. Douglas Wilderness Area contains approximately 250 miles of trail and is moderately visited. A small portion (roughly 30,000 acres) of the Goat Rocks Wilderness is within the Naches watershed. The overall Goat Rocks Wilderness Area contains 120 miles of trails. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail crosses all three wilderness areas from north to south. Portions of the Oak Creek Wildlife Area are also located within the Naches watershed. This wildlife area supports deer, elk, and mountain sheep. Two segments of river within the watershed are eligible to be designated as wild and scenic rivers: the American River from the confluence with the Rainier Fork to the confluence with the 5-9 Bumping River (16 miles, scenic status) and the American River from its headwaters to the confluence with the Rainier Fork (6 miles, wild status). Roads and Transportation Corridors As stated earlier, Washington State Highway 410 parallels the Naches and American Rivers across the entire watershed and US Highway 12 parallels the Tieton River to Rimrock Lake, parallels the north shore of the lake and continues parallel to Clear Creek until it exits the western boundary of the watershed. There are also numerous USFS roads, county roads, and other secondary roads traversing the watershed. A short spur of Burlington Northern Railroad line runs parallel to the Naches River from the mouth of the river to the City of Naches. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater The City of Naches WWTP is located about 3 miles upstream of the City of Yakima WTP and discharges into the Naches River. Figure 5-1 shows the location of the City of Naches with respect to the water treatment plant. The treatment plant is a secondary treatment facility operating between a 90 and 95 percent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) removal efficiency. The Naches WWTP is currently undergoing a major upgrade which will improve reliability and performance to further reduce the potential for impact on the WTP source of supply. The improvements to the Naches WWTP are scheduled for completion in 2003. Septic Tanks The Town of Naches is sewered. Wastewater disposal outside the city limits is by septic tanks and drain fields. The total population in the watershed above the Naches-Tieton confluence is approximately 1,185 persons, according to the YRBWQP (reference Figure I.A-8). In addition, septic systems are probably present in some of the 43 camping areas and resorts that are located in the watershed. The largest concentrations of septic systems are probably in the communities of Squaw Rock, Pine Cliff, Gold Creek, and Rimrock. The urban and built-up areas within the Naches basin are, therefore, limited and are concentrated in the lower Naches subbasin. Residential and Commercial Land Uses The average population density above the Naches-Tieton confluence is about 1.2 persons per square mile. An additional 6,637 people live in the lower Naches drainage between the confluence and Selah, but this number does not include Selah. The equivalent gross population density is about 170 people per square mile. In addition to the City of Naches, other populated centers are the communities of Squaw Rock, Pine Cliff, Gold Creek, and Rimrock Retreat (also known as Trout Lodge). Rimrock Retreat is located near the Rimrock Reservoir on the Tieton River and the other three communities are located along Highway 410 upstream of the City of Naches. Mining Small-scale mining is present in the watershed. Figure I.D.2.h-1 from the YRBWQP shows the mining areas and types of metal that have been extracted from these areas. The Bumping Lake Mining District has produced a total yield of less than 10.000 troy ounces of gold and silver, and though the presence of lead, zinc, and uranium has been detected, no economic deposits have 5-10 0 been discovered. Silver, copper, gold, and tungsten have also been found northeast of the Tieton River headwaters. Three sand and gravel mining sites are located near the mouth of the Tieton River. Table 5-5 summarizes land uses in the watershed and indicates the possible contaminants from each type of land use. This table was adapted from Effective Watershed Management for Surface Water Supplies, American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF), 1991. 5-11 Table 5-5 Land -Use Pollutant Analysis Matrix Land Use/Contamination Source Contaminant Turbidity pH Nitrogen, Phosphorus Algae Viruses, Parasites Bacteria THM Precursors Pesticides Other SOCs VOCs Heavy Metals Iron, Manganese Cropland Runoff X X X X X X X X X Grazing X X X X X X Recreation X X Forest Management X X X X X X Roads (surface runoff) X X X X Wastewater Discharge (municipal and industrial) X X X X X X X X X X X X Septic Tanks X X X X X X X Urbanization X X X X X X X X X X X X Hazardous Materials/ Chemical Spills (transportation and agricultural users) X X X X X Mining X X X X Source: Effective Watershed Management for Surface Water Supplies, AWWARF 1991. 5-12 0 0 5.3.4 Watershed Management and Control Measures The vast majority of the City of Yakima surface water supply watershed is publicly owned. As pointed out in the Department of Health Sanitary Survey report dated April 22, 2002, the City is unable to control activities in the watershed which include; recreation, timber harvesting, vehicle traffic on two major transportation corridors, irrigation water storage and delivery systems including Rimrock and Bumping Lakes, and the Town of Naches Wastewater Treatment Plant. As stated in the Sanitary Survey report, the City is "doing the best that they can under the current ownership and control." The most effective approach available to the City under these circumstances is to work closely with the other federal, state, county and tribal agencies with jurisdiction over activities in the watershed to make sure that the policies and decisions affecting watershed management and water quality fully consider the potential impacts on the City's water supply. The most recent and comprehensive water quality enhancement strategy for surface waters was developed as part of the Yakima River Watershed Management Plan prepared under the direction of the Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit and the Tri -County Water Resources Agency. The City of Yakima Water Division was actively involved in this planning process, and a representative of the Yakima City Council serves on the board of directors of the Tri -County Water Resources Agency. The City will continue to actively support the ongoing planning and implementation of the water quality enhancement strategies identified in this plan particularly as they affect the watershed for the Naches River surface water supply. Specific water quality goals, objectives, and recommended actions were outlined in a Technical Memorandum titled Yakima River Basin Watershed Plan (Task 2-360) Surface Water Quality Strategy, January 2002. This surface water quality strategy as described in this technical memorandum is summarized in the following sections with emphasis on those components which are most important and most applicable to WRIA 38 and the Yakima surface supply watershed. Water Quality Goals The water quality strategy technical memorandum includes an overall goal and six supporting categorical goals. The categorical goals each have supporting objectives and actions proposed as necessary to implement the goals. The goals, objectives and related rationale are described below. The overall goal of this strategy is: Protect and improve water quality consistent with the needs of aquatic life, public/private water supplies, recreation, and other uses. More specific categorical goals were identified to support overall goal achievement for this strategy. The six categorical goals are listed below, together with the rationale supporting each goal: 1. Reduce non -point source pollution This categorical goal stresses non -point source pollution reduction and prevention. Best management practices as well as other approaches involve non -point pollution prevention activities that help maintain the integrity of high quality water generated in the upper watershed. Extending the concept of non -point source pollution, this can also include 5-13 maintenance and/or establishment of riparian vegetation, which helps stabilize streambanks (reducing soil erosion) and provides shade cover (to help keep waters cool). 2. Support/maintain point source programs This categorical goal calls for support and maintenance of point source pollution controls. Point sources such as municipal wastewater treatment plants or confined animal feeling operations are currently controlled through permit programs that require regular monitoring and reporting. Support of these programs is necessary to continue controlling point source pollution. 3. Improve interagency coordination of water quality programs This categorical goal addresses a need for improved interagency coordination for water quality programs. In the recent past an interagency committee performed this function in the Yakima Watershed; however, the group was recently disbanded. There is a current need to reestablish an effective interagency coordinating forum. 4. Improve watershed -wide information base This categorical goal seeks to improve and broaden the base of watershed -wide information. This goal is important for site-specific problem definition as well as for evaluation of water quality responses from a variety of project actions. The nature of local problems and cause -effect relationships also need to be better understood. 5. Ensure water quality standards reflect natural regional conditions This categorical goal is important as a guiding principle for regulatory agency consideration given concerns over local applicability of certain water quality criteria such as those associated with current water temperature standards and background levels associated with turbidity criteria. Water quality standards, when set, reviewed and enforced, should consider geographic conditions and natural background conditions. Studies are needed because regional conditions such as climate impacts are important to fish distribution, vegetation, hydrology and baseline water quality levels. Warmer summer air temperatures on the eastern slopes of the Cascades may account for the large number of 303(d) listings for temperature, many of which are in forested areas. Local public support for water quality and habitat protection enhancement efforts is increased when there is strong locally relevant rationale. 6. Minimize water resource management impacts on water quality. This categorical goal focuses on water quality impacts of water resource management on surface waters. Streamflow maintenance affects water quality through dilution, aeration and velocity effects. Water quantity affects water quality. Water resource development and operations can affect water temperatures through diminished flow, but also potentially can be used to enhance water quality (e.g. temperature) through carefully managed reservoir releases. Recommended Objectives and Actions Ten objectives were developed in the Surface Water Quality Strategy considering one or more aspects of the goals. These more specific objectives deal with aspects of the goals and other more detailed approaches that were considered in the development of actions. Categories of 5-14 proposed actions are identified and clustered under each objective. The objectives are listed for convenience below with their narrative statements: (1) Reduce/mitigate forest practices impacts (2) Reduce/mitigate agriculture impacts (3) Reduce/mitigate stormwater impacts (4) Reduce/mitigate resource extraction impacts (5) Reduce/mitigate recreation impacts (6) Maintain/improve compliance with discharge permits (7) Improve interagency coordination (8) Improve understanding of watershed problems and solutions (9) Ensure water quality standards reflect natural regional conditions (10) Minimize water resource impacts on water quality. Discussions of each objective and proposed actions for water quality improvement are provided below. Each objective statement is followed by its purpose, rationale, relationships to goals, and other objectives and a list of proposed actions. In many cases, the recommended actions are already being implemented to some degree by various agencies. Objective 1: Prevent/Mitigate Forest Practices Impacts Purpose: Support and encourage use of forest practice activities to protect and enhance water quality. Rationale: Activities on forested lands can have significant impacts on water quality, particularly as related to soil erosion and water temperature. Forest practice -related activities including timber harvest and road maintenance can alter hydrology with attendant impacts on streams, particularly in the headwaters of the watershed. Protection of forested headwater drainages is critical as a source of high quality water for downstream reaches, which support a variety of beneficial uses. Proposed Actions: Actions identified under Objective 1 are intended to support the USFS, national forest plans and forest practice rules under the Forest Practices Board consistent with recommendations of the USFS and DNR watershed assessments and supporting activities. These sources have identified numerous actions to protect and improve water quality. Specific actions addressing water quality include: Improve Forest Road/Trail Management. Numerous projects, plans and programs on federal and state/private forest lands are associated with forest roads and trails. These range from impact assessments, design modifications, and road density reduction programs to decommissioning of specific roads, trails or stream crossings. Examples of potential projects and programs under the Improve Forest Road/Trail Management category include: • Management of Forest Roads • Design of Forest Roads/Culverts • Construction Practices for Forest Roads 5-15 • Erosion Control for Forest Roads • Decommissioning of Forest Roads/Trails • Road Fill Evaluation • Road Density Evaluation. Improve Timber Harvest Management. Harvest -related actions include evaluations associated with pre -harvest plans and related criteria (e.g., riparian buffers) and mitigation of past logging impacts. Actions under this category addressing water quality include: • Evaluations of Unstable Slopes • Timber Harvest Management Plans • Riparian Canopy Closure Improvements • Road and Timber Harvest Buffers • Restoration of Riparian Recreation Areas • Soil Compaction Mitigation. Other Watershed Actions There are a number of types of water quality -related actions which are more general in nature or which do not fit into the previously identified action groups. These include: • Forest Pesticide Controls • Watershed Assessments • Evaluations of Water Temperature Impacts • Acid Rain Studies in Alpine Lakes • Coordinated Resource Management Plans • Water Quality Monitoring. Control of non -point pollution within the forested areas of the watershed receives high priority because of the importance of these headwaters to the quality of the City of Yakima surface water source of supply. Many of the kinds of actions identified are protective and/or preventive in nature but there are also mitigation or restoration needs, which are very important in selected subbasins where water quality impairment (e.g., erosion/turbidity) is an issue. The US Forest Service, DNR and private timber company watershed assessments outline management needs and prescriptions for recovery in specific subbasins. Obstacles to implementation of some actions exist due mainly to increasing recreational use pressures and the economics of timber harvest. The actions identified are mainly associated with on-going maintenance and good land stewardship. The Forest and Fish Report, developed for the State Forest Practices Board and the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office in the late 1990s, outlined a proposal for new forest practices rules, statutes and programs to protect salmon habitat on now federal lands in Washington. Ongoing federal Forest Service activities and the new state forest practice rules based on Forest and Fish Report recommendations include numerous elements which are directly linked to water quality protection and others which are more closely associated with habitat management. 5-16 0 Objective 2: Prevent/Mitigate Agricultural Impacts Purpose: Emphasize control of non -point pollution from agricultural sources to protect and improve water quality throughout the watershed. Rationale: Non -point pollution from agricultural activities is a particular problem in the Yakima River watershed. Sources are varied, ranging from irrigation return flow and agricultural chemicals to confined animal feeding operations and dairies. Many of the surface waters in the lower reaches of tributaries are in violation of water quality standards, reflecting past pesticide use and other practices. Other problems include turbidity and water temperature. Ongoing efforts by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) working with Conservation Districts, NRCS, Irrigation Districts and local water users to reduce non -point source impacts through TMDL programs are successfully addressing some of these problems. As efforts continue, additional improvements will be realized. Proposed Actions: Actions identified under Objective 2 are categorical in nature reflecting the diversity of agricultural activities. These categorical action groups relate to irrigation, agricultural chemicals, animal confinement and other miscellaneous topics. Action categories and identified project types addressing water quality are listed below: Improve Irrigation Water Management The following activities and other action needs are suggested for improvement of irrigation water management to benefit water quality. Progress is being made on many of these actions already in the Yakima Basin. Examples of types of actions under the Improve Irrigation Water Management category include: • Irrigation District system improvements • Irrigation Scheduling and Management • On-farm Irrigation System Upgrades/Conversions • Polymer Use for Tailwater Quality • On -Farm Sediment Ponds • Off -Farm Sediment Ponds • Tailwater Pump Back Systems Improve Cropland Management Tillage, residue management, and other practices have water quality implications for both irrigated and dry land farming. Examples of types of actions are listed below: • In -Furrow Residue Placement Row Crop Erosion Control Tillage Management. Reduce Impacts of Agricultural Chemicals Agricultural chemicals used in the watershed include pesticides for control of weeds, insects, other plant and animal pests; fertilizers such as nitrates, ammonium compounds and phosphates; and special chemicals for enhancement of crop quality or environmental factors (e.g., polymers for erosion control). Polymer use has improved water quality and received significant support, 5-17 but refinements are needed to achieve proper dosages for particular sites. Some past practices (e.g., DDT use outlawed in 1970s but previously applied on agricultural crops, forests, and in urban areas) have left accumulated residues in soils and aquatic life. Actions that could help understand and reduce impacts of agricultural chemicals are: • Split Fertilizer Applications • Soil Fertility Testing • Pesticide Application Training • Pesticide Licensing Programs • Row Crop Soil Erosion Controls • Irrigation Water Management • Deep Percolation Evaluations • Aerial Spraying Accuracy Evaluations • Polymer Use Evaluations and Education • Wind Criteria for Pesticide Application. Address Livestock Impacts Activities associated with confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), dairies, ranching, and small holdings (hobby farms) have water quality impacts. While these activities occur mainly in areas designated for agricultural production, they may occur on a smaller scale in rural residential areas as well. CAFOs and dairies are regulated through state permits and these generally address runoff issues and manure storage. Less intensively used lands such as pastures are managed more on a voluntary basis with input from advisory agencies such as the Washington State University Cooperative Extension (WSUCE). Some aspects of ranching and general animal confinement are more controlled to discourage animals from accessing tributary streams. There has been considerable attention in recent years to reducing water quality impacts of large animals on the region's waterways. Existing permit programs and voluntary measures to address water quality concerns offer means of making progress on this issue. Example of more specific actions are listed below, some of which are ongoing: • Maintain Technical/Financial Support to CAFOs • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting of CAFOs. • Maintain Dairy Permit Programs • Voluntary Fencing of Streams • Voluntary Buffer Strips near Streams • Small Landowner Assistance Programs • Application of Public Land Grazing Programs • Out of Stream Water Source Developments • Manure Management • Support Conservation District Efforts regarding Dairies • Support Ecology TMDL Efforts Control Other Agricultural Impacts There are impacts of agricultural -related activities that are not covered under the previous action groups. Needs also include educational and water quality monitoring activities as well as impacts 5-18 0 of agribusiness operations and irrigation canal maintenance, Examples of other agricultural - related project actions include: • Roadside Spraying Evaluations • Aquatic Weed Control Evaluations • Silt Removal from Canals/Laterals • Canal Weed Control Impacts • Pesticide Residue Monitoring in Aquatic Life • Agricultural Soil Monitoring for Pesticides • Educational and Assistance Programs for Small Farms/Ranches • Educational Tours/Demoristration for Commercial Growers • Consider Water Quality Impacts in Routine Operations and Maintenance Actions on Irrigation Drains. Based on studies reviewed in the Yakima River Basin Watershed Assessment (January 2002), agricultural land uses are strongly correlated with water quality impairment in the lower reaches of the Yakima River watershed. Water quality is generally excellent in the headwaters and deteriorates significantly within intensively farmed areas of the Yakima Valley. The impacts of agricultural activities in WRIA 38 above the WTP intake are more limited, however, there are significant agricultural lands between the confluence of the Naches and Tieton rivers and the WTP. There are also significant grazing areas and pasture lands in the Naches River basin above the confluence. In addition, the Oak Creek Feeding area on the Tieton River just upstream of the confluence is similar to a confined animal feeding operation during the winter months when the elk herd for winter feeding. While water quality impairment due to these agricultural activities does not appear to be significant at this point, the city should work with the US Forest Service, DNR, and landowners to encourage the implementation of the agricultural -related actions items identified above wherever necessary to maintain the quality of the surface water supply. Objective 3: Prevent/Mitigate Stormwater Impacts Purpose: Control municipal/industrial stormwater run-off impacts through implementation of approved management plans. Rationale: Stormwater runoff from developed urban areas and industrial sites contains pollutants that require management to avoid adverse impacts to receiving waters. State and regional guidelines exist (e.g., Eastern Washington stormwater guidelines) which identify appropriate stormwater management practices. Stormwater ordinances have been adopted by county governments and other municipalities in the Yakima basin, which identify water quality control approaches such as use of retention basins and bioswales. Proposed Actions: Actions identified with Objective 3 are associated with municipal and industrial stormwater planning and related implementation. Accordingly, two action groups have been identified as follows: Plan and Implement Municipal Stormwater Runoff Controls Actions identified for improvement of municipal stormwater runoff control plans and related implementation are listed below: -19 • Municipal Stormwater Ordinances • Regional Stormwater Runoff Control Guidelines • Municipal Stormwater Control Plans • Regional Stormwater Impact Assessments. Plan and Implement Industrial Stormwater Runoff Control Actions identified for control of industrial stormwater are listed below: • Industrial Stormwater Ordinances • Regional Industrial Stormwater Guidelines • Industrial Stormwater Control Plans • Regional Stormwater Impact Assessments Stormwater runoff management is needed in the Yakima Basin but is considered of lesser priority in most of the watershed than topics covered by Objectives 1 and 2. Potential stormwater impacts from larger municipalities such as the cities of Yakima, Richland, Ellensburg, Prosser, and Sunnyside may be significant, particularly from storms that may increase pollutant loads during times of lower river flow. The City of Yakima should work closely with the Town of Naches and Yakima County to ensure that appropriate stormwater management practices are followed for any municipal or industrial development within the watershed. Objective 4: Prevent/Mitigate Resource Extraction Impacts Purpose: Control water quality impacts from mining and extraction of gravel, and/or other natural resources. Rationale: Gravel mining activities have affected water quality in the Yakima Basin. There are major gravel extraction operations currently near the Yakima River mainstem. Gravel quarries operate under Ecology discharge permits and there are studies planned to evaluate effects of gravel quarry operations, including effects of varying locations on the floodplain, because of water quality and fish habitat concerns. Other natural resources extraction, such as coal mining, gold mining, and natural gas exploration has occurred in the watershed. Resource extraction impacts are not, as the present time, adversely affected the surface water quality in WRIA 38 above the WTP intake. The City should, however, make sure that they are notified of any proposed resource extraction activities within the watershed, so that the potential water quality impacts can be identified and mitigated during the permitting process for these activities. Proposed Action: Actions proposed under Objective 4 are grouped in one category as follows. Evaluate Gravel Extraction Operations There is a variety of concerns regarding gravel quarry operations, particularly within flood plain areas. Specific actions identified are listed below: Gravel Quarry Relocation Studies Gravel Extraction Impact Evaluations 5-20 M o Gravel Extraction Permit Assessment o Gravel Quarry Relocation Assistance These actions address localized impacts, which are important to water quality and fish habitat. Because these impacts are localized, they are considered a lower priority in the context of the overall Yakima Basin. Channel restoration activities will require time for healing. There are economic impacts associated with major changes in gravel extraction, which need to be considered along with possible benefits of restoration, relocation or other controls of gravel operations. Objective 5: Prevent/Mitigate Recreation Impacts Purpose: Control or relocate recreational activities and restore damaged recreational sites where water quality impacts occur. Rationale: Recreational uses can degrade water quality particularly where activities are near or within water bodies. Campgrounds in riparian areas that are intensively used result in soil compaction and alter runoff rates causing soil erosion. Stream crossings by recreational vehicles (e.g., ORVs) can be protected by hardening or relocated to less sensitive sites. Roads and trails to accommodate recreational use can contribute to erosion problems by concentrating runoff or because of design deficiencies, particularly in areas with a dense network of roads and trails. Objective 5 is closely allied with Objective 1 (forest practices) as both involve forest -oriented activities with many similar impacts associated with forest roads, compaction and soil erosion. Proposed Actions: The kinds of actions required to address Objective 5 are similar to some of those identified for timber harvest -related activities under forest practices. Additional actions specifically addressing objective 5 are described below: Improve Recreational Use Management Recreation activities can increase pressures on forested environments. Recreation management for water quality protection typically requires a wide variety of considerations ranging from mitigation of past damage to careful management of on-going activities such as campgrounds near streams. Action categories under recreation management include: o Off Road Vehicle Controls o Stream Crossing Mitigation o Soil Compaction Mitigation o Campground Management/Facilities o Recreational Use Evaluations o Camping/ORV Use Evaluations o Snowmobile Use Mitigation Based on watershed assessments conducted in forested areas recreational use impacts vary widely and are generally most significant near waterways, particularly where activities are within riparian corridors. Priorities for mitigation will vary depending on the project and its locations. Prevention -related priorities are generally high in order to guide future planning for 5-21 campgrounds and their access. Stream crossings and other more direct impact zones should generally be prioritized higher than upland projects involving diffuse recreation unless impacts on water quality are particularly compelling. Campground sanitation problems should receive high priority. Obstacles to implementation are expected especially where controls are needed to reduce intensity of recreational use in sensitive riparian areas and pristine uplands. Recreational use pressures are intensifying in the forested region so conflicts are likely when access is restricted. Rationale for water quality protection will need to be strong and communicated to the public in order to ensure support. Objective 6: Support/Maintain Point Source Pollution Control Programs Purpose: Continue to stress point source pollution controls as an ongoing need. Rationale: Considerable progress has been made in the abatement of point source pollution sources through construction and operation of wastewater treatment plants and other facilities. Permit programs have been refined and treatment technologies have advanced since the 1960s when the nation began to focus on cleanup- of municipal and industrial wastewater. Effective laws are in place and major progress has been achieved. Needs will generally consist of expanding facilities to meet the needs of population growth and replace aging facilities, or to address new regulatory requirements and technological advances in the future. These needs can generally be addressed within the framework of the existing NPDES permitting process, including provisions for expansion to serve growth, upgrading and maintenance of facilities to meet regulatory requirements, and continued monitoring of effluents and receiving waters. Proposed Actions: Actions identified under objective 6 include facility improvements on an as - needed basis. These are described below: Upgrade Wastewater Facilities There is one municipal wastewater treatment plant (the Town of Naches) and several small industrial facilities in the Naches basin above the WTP intake. There may also be areas around the Town of Naches which will need to be sewered as growth continues. The kinds of project actions needed include: • Address Pollutant Loading Impacts in Permit Process • Existing Municipal Treatment Plant Enlargements • Existing Municipal Treatment Plant Upgrades • Development of New Municipal Wastewater Facilities • Enlargement/Upgrading of Industrial Wastewater Facilities • Development of New Industrial Wastewater Facilities • Effluent Outfall Improvements • Effluent Reclamation/Reuse Facilities (e.g., spray fields) • Pumping Station and other Collection System Upgrades. Accommodate Service Area Growth As required in State rules, municipal facilities need to accommodate incorporation of new areas and growth to protect both ground and surface waters. Actions needed include facility service expansion and regulations as listed below: 5-22 0 0 • Sewer and Water Extensions to Serve Growth • Hookup Ordinances • Septic System Density Limitations • Water Well Density Limitations • Sewer Areas of Growth near Municipalities Point source pollution controls require continued monitoring and periodic upgrading to provide capacity treatment capabilities to accommodate growth and stricter effluent quality requirements such as ammonia, chlorine, and bacteriological limits. As noted previously, The City of Naches WWTP discharges into the Naches River about 3 miles upstream of the City of Yakima WTP intake. Because of the proximity of the WWTP discharge to the WTP intake, future NPDES permits conditions and design criteria for the Naches WWTP should include provisions for meeting Reliability Class I as defined by the Washington State Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works Design. Objective 7: Improve Interagency Coordination Purpose: Coordinate water quality improvement and monitoring projects. Rationale: The Yakima River drainage covers a large area with many jurisdictions that need to coordinate programs and projects to meet watershed water quality goals. In the recent past, an Interagency Council (IAC) reviewed and coordinated these activities. The IAC later became involved with prioritization of proposed salmon habitat restoration projects and controversy resulted that caused the group to disband. A similar interagency council is needed to coordinate water quality and habitat projects. This organization should be carefully structured to provide broad interagency involvement. Prioritization of grant applications and other proposed projects can now be accomplished by others such as lead entity groups established specifically for this purpose. Improve Interagency Coordination The main focus of the proposed action is to reestablish a coordinating council covering the watershed, which would have the following characteristics and functions: • Multi -agency Participation • Forum for Coordination of Water Quality Projects • Coordination of Water Quality Monitoring Plans • Water Quality Data Sharing • Forum for Discussion of Water Quality Topics • Forum for Discussion of Habitat Topics • Forum for Discussion of Water Resource Projects • Forum to Facilitate Interagency Collaboration • Forum to Compare Local Government Guidelines/Regulations • Upgrade Data Exchange The purpose of objective 7 is particularly important since there is currently no formal intergovernmental coordination forum in the watershed. The coordinating groups would 5-23 logically involve federal, state and tribal agencies which made up the previous IAC, but could include an expanded group of local entities including irrigation and timber entities, county governments and municipal governments. Objective 8: Improve Understanding of Watershed Problems and Solutions Purpose: Improve understanding of causal mechanisms, problems and effectiveness of solutions. Rationale: Information is key to understanding of watershed problems, their causes and effects of enhancement activities. Monitoring is one component of this information need but there is also a need for better understanding of complex interrelationships between water quality and habitat factors and effects concerned with fish/aquatic life protection and other uses. Additional research and monitoring data are needed. These informational processes are needed as feedback to guide future water quality and watershed improvement projects. These activities will need to be undertaken through intergovernmental coordination rather than by individual municipalities Proposed Actions: There are a number of types of actions identified under this objective as identified below: Basic Research to Improve Understanding of Cause and Effect Examples of research needs for water quality and watershed management are listed below: • Groundwater -Surface Water Interactions • Climate and Water Temperature Interactions • Flow and Water Quality Interactions • Water Quality Effects on Movements of Migrant Spawners • Riparian Shade Effects on Temperature • Turbidity Causes from Miscellaneous Sources • In -River Sedimentation Processes • Pesticide Decay in Aquatic Life/Sediments • Pesticide Decay in Soils • Pesticide Contamination Pathways • Effectiveness of Polyacrylimides • Effectiveness of Best Management Practices • Fertilizer Losses/Uptake • Effects of Reservoir Releases on Turbidity • Effects of Reservoir Releases on Temperature. Improve Problem and Solution Definition Definition of site-specific local needs and problems and the characterization of outcomes of projects is important and requires more information. Examples of needs are listed below: • Detailed Geographic Breakdown of Specific Needs • Stream Reach Assessments of Water Quality • Prioritization of Problems within Reaches • Assessment of Tributary Water Quality on Mainstem • Determination of Specific Project Outcomes 5-24 11 4 0 Adaptive Management Guidance Expand Monitoring Activities Water quality and other related watershed monitoring will need to be evaluated to ensure both data integrity and geographical coverage. Specific actions could include: • Broaden Monitoring to cover entire geographic area • Expand tributary monitoring outside of forest areas • Organize mainstem river monitoring • Broaden topics covered in monitoring information base • Upgrade data exchange network. Objective 9: Ensure Water Quality Standards Reflect Natural Regional Conditions Purpose: Water quality standards criteria need to be attainable considering natural regional conditions such as climate and geology. Rationale: Criteria used in water quality standards should protect beneficial uses while reflecting what is naturally attainable in the region considering climactic and geologic factors. Certain criteria such as turbidity are strongly influenced by natural processes (e.g., hydrology, soil erodibility) and reference background levels, which are to be used to determine compliance. Other criteria such as water temperature are linked closely to climatic driven factors such as air temperatures, presence vegetative shade cover, groundwater/surface water interactions and seasonal streamflows. There are also factors caused by human activity (e.g., removal of trees near waterways) that influence stream temperatures. Background levels for turbidity and temperature need to be better defined in the Yakima watershed. Proposed Actions: There are specific actions associated with objective 9 that are intended to provide information to standard setting agencies, as follows: Refine Water Temperature Criteria Information is needed to better relate observed water temperatures to natural background conditions and associated temperature influencing factors to determine standards compliance and to model temperature. Example project actions are: • Historic Riparian Vegetative Cover Maps • Simulations of Groundwater — Surface Water Interaction • Water Temperature Modeling • Climatic Change Evaluations re Water Temperature • Rationale for Special Temperature Standards • Natural Bull Trout Distributions • Timing/Seasonality of Temperature Criteria • Diurnal Duration of Elevated Temperatures • Critical Life Stage Timing by Geographic Area • Refugia Locations and Migration Linkages • Cold Water Source Evaluations 5 -25 • Assessments of Human Related Effects Define Background Turbidity Levels More information is needed to set background levels of turbidity as a basis for determining compliance with current standards. Examples of needs are: • Soil Erodibility/Erosion Risk Mapping Associated with Turbidity • Turbidity Resulting from Natural Runoff from Undisturbed Wilderness Areas • Turbidity Levels Associated with Various Storm Frequencies • Effects of Reservoirs on Background Turbidity • Turbidity Measurements during Snow Melt Events • Turbidity Measurements from Rainfall Events • Duration of Turbidity Levels Following Events • Diurnal Fluctuations in Background Turbidity. The information needed to meet needs of Objective 9 is expected to be used to develop rationale for water quality standards that are currently under review. Objective 10: Minimize water resource impacts on water quality Purpose: Design and operate surface and groundwater management activities to minimize water quality impacts and improve water quality. Rationale: Water quantity affects water quality. Surface water storage reservoirs and groundwater extraction can affect local water quality. Flow in surface waters is affected by water resource project operations including reservoir storage and release, canals and drains, (operational spills) and pumping from shallow aquifers near creeks. Opportunities exist for utilizing water resource projects and programs as a means to enhance in -stream flows and related water quality conditions while supporting water uses. Proposed Project Actions: The types of actions envisioned under Objective 10 vary among the kinds of water resource project elements involved. Projects may rely on reservoir releases, reservoir outlet modifications, or shallow groundwater modification involving pumping or infiltration/recharge. Improve Surface Water Resource Project Operations Examples of water resource project facility use in water quality control include deliberate releases for water supply that alter water quality through dilution effects and stratification in reservoirs as surface warming and due to water density differences. Example actions are listed below: • Flow Augmentation from Storage Releases • Flow Augmentation from Canal Releases • Multilevel Outlets for Storage Reservoirs • Impact Evaluations of Reservoir Warming and Cooling • Flow -Quality Relationship Studies. 5-26 Assess Groundwater Impacts on Surface Water There are interactions between shallow groundwater and surface water in the watershed that affect water quality (e.g., ongoing studies by Jack Stanford for USBR). Groundwater seepage and exchanges between surface and subsurface flows along the mainstem and in tributaries have water quality impacts. Assessment actions are listed below: o Evaluate seepage to Streams in Agricultural Areas o Evaluate Impacts of Pumping from Shallow Groundwater o Evaluate Shallow Aquifer Storage Benefits to Mainstem Hyporheic Zone u Consider Recharge of Shallow Groundwater with Return Flow o Evaluate Cooling Effects of Percolation from Cropland Irrigation Natural hydrographs are altered as result of storage reservoir operations, diversions and return flow accretions. Impacts result that can be mitigated by well-designed projects or operations. Multiple uses of existing water resource infrastructure can benefit water quality. Past federal laws have encouraged flow augmentation from storage for water quality benefit and multilevel reservoir outlet structures for downstream water quality enhancement. Management of present and future water resources to benefit all uses is a major challenge. 5.3.5 Recommended Specific Actions for Watershed Monitoring and Control The following additional activities are currently being pursued by the City to improve the effectiveness of this watershed protection plan. The water system operational activities are the responsibility of the Water/Irrigation Division staff. The area wide planning activities are being addressed by the City of Yakima's ongoing participation as a member of the Tri -County Water Agnecy. 1. Establish Sanitary Control Area. A sanitary control area should include areas of high vulnerability within the watershed. Portions of the watershed that may be designated as part of the sanitary control area include: areas directly adjacent to the City's diversion, a designated -width buffer zone (50 to 100 feet) along each bank of the river, with the lower reaches of the Naches and Tieton Rivers being most important, highly erosive areas, culverts that empty directly into the river, and reaches of the river where the stream is a "gaining" stream (groundwater is contributing to surface water flow). 2. Establish communication with landowners and public agencies that conduct activities in the watershed that could pose a threat to water quality, such as the USFS, commercial users, Town of Naches, State Patrol, etc. The following steps are suggested: a. Request that the City be added to the Washington State Patrol's emergency contact list when a hazardous material spill occurs on one of the highways (410 or 12). A written request should be sent to Captain J. A. Marlow. b. Contact agencies and explain the reason(s) why the City's water supply needs must be taken into consideration in policies and decisions pertaining to activities in the watershed. 5-27 c. Establish communications with the Ecology Departments of Water Quality and Toxic Wastes. Obtain an updated listing of potential contamination sites in the Naches watershed. The contacts for obtaining additional information on contamination sites in the Naches basin are provided in Table 5-6. d. Establish communications with Yakima County Planning Department and request that the City can be notified of pending commercial/industrial development proposals within the Naches watershed. 3. Establish a more specific assessment of contamination sources through a detailed visual assessment, direct communications with watershed users, and review of Ecology data on contamination sources in the Naches watershed. Establish specific procedures for monitoring and emergency notification in the event of contamination of the river (see item 5 below). 4. Develop and maintain an emergency contact list and distribute to all agencies conducting activities in the watershed that are potential sources of contamination (see Table 5-5). 5. Establish communications protocol and response plan for most critical watershed emergencies, such as transportation spills, a failure at the Naches wastewater plant, or an accidental release from any industrial or commercial site located upstream of the intake. The plan should include the following: a. Emergency numbers for City staff, other agencies, and watershed landowners/users, including responsibility and authority. Identify all conditions under which the City should be notified of an emergency in the watershed area and the person responsible for notification. b. Establish criteria (under what conditions/contamination events) the WTP should be shut down and the procedures to follow for the shutdown (start up of wells, public notification) in addition to specific mechanical tasks required to shut down plant. c. Establish well startup criteria and procedure (Refer to Chapter 6, Operation and Maintenance Program and also the Emergency Operations Guidelines included as Appendix T to this Water System Plan Update). d. Establish criteria and protocol for use of interties with adjacent purveyors for emergency supply (if potential exists). e. Establish plan for emergency water sampling needs (for use in assessing degree of contamination and for determining when to shut down the WTP and when to resume normal operations). 5 -28 0 40 40 f. Establish public notification procedures. The most critical message will likely be to reduce water use, if the WTP cannot be used. If the surface source must be used during the contamination event, a second message may be to boil water or temporarily use alternative sources of water for drinking, cooking, and/or bathing. Prepared public statements should be written in advance to address the most critical emergency scenarios to ensure that important facts are not inadvertently omitted in the haste of the emergency situation. g. Establish a contamination cleanup plan for the most critical emergencies (transportation spills, and M/I treatment system failures), including responsibility, emergency contacts, and any involvement by City staff. Establishment of this plan could require substantial cooperative efforts between agencies using the watershed. h. Determine cleanup equipment needs, location, and contact person including equipment available from other agencies, such as fire departments, USFS, Bureau of Reclamation, and Washington Department of Transportation. 6. Involve affected watershed users in the development of the response plan in item (5). Review the response plan with affected users and obtain approval. All agencies with a role in the response effort should sign the final plan and receive a copy. 7. Add the watershed contamination response plan to the City's current emergency plan, and review and update every 2 to 3 years. 8. Participate in on-going watershed management and monitoring efforts by the Tri -County Water Agency, the USBR, the Department of Ecology, and the USFS. 5-29 Table 5-6 City of Yakima Watershed Protection Plan Partial List of Contacts Name of Agency Location/Address Contact Person Phone Number Hazardous Chemical Spills -Transportation System Washington 2809 Rudkin Rd. Various (509) 577-1600 Department of Union Gap, WA 98903 Transportation Washington State 2715 Rudkin Rd. Captain D. J. Karmtz (509) 575-2320 Highway Patrol Union Gap, WA 98903 Agricultural Chemical Contamination US Bureau of 1917 Marsh Rd. Kate Pucket,.Hydrology (509) 575-5848 Reclamation Yakima, WA 98901 Department Head Yakima-Tieton 470 Camp Four Rd. Rick Dieker, District (509) 678-4101 Irrigation District Yakima, WA 98908 Manager US Bureau of 1917 Marsh Rd. David Murillo, Field Office (509) 575-5848 Reclamation (operators Yakima, WA 98901 Manager of the Wapatox Canal) Municipal/Industrial Contamination Washington 15 W. Yakima Ave. Various 575-2490 Department of Ecology Suite 200 Yakima, WA 98902 City of Naches (Public 306 Naches Av John Rath (509) 653-2881 Works Foreman) Naches, WA 98937 Yakima County Land Room 417,. Courthouse Richard F. Anderwald, (509) 575-4124 Use/Planning Dept. Yakima, WA 98901 Director of Planning Other State Agencies with Watershed Interests Washington 1500 W. Fourth, Rm 305 Mike Wilson, Regional (509) 456-2457 Department of Health Spokane, WA 99204 Engineer Washington 1701 S 24th AV Eric Bartrand (509) 457-9310 Department of Fish Yakima, WA 98902-5720 and Wildlife Washington Dept. of 2211 Airport Rd. Various (509) 925-8510 Natural Resources Ellensburg, WA 98926 Forest Management/Recreation USFS-Naches Ranger 10237 Highway 12 District Ranger (509) 653-2205 Station Naches, WA 98937 Randall Shepard 5-30 0 5.3.6 Monitoring Program As described in this Chapter of the Water System Plan Update, the City of Yakima Watershed is very large and encompasses a wide range of land uses and land ownership. Several agencies including the USBR, the USGS, the USFS, and the Department of Ecology maintain on-going water quality monitoring programs within WRIA 38. The Water/Irrigation Division does not have the staff or the resources to conduct routine monitoring within the watershed. However, the City of Yakima will continue to work with the Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit and the Tri -County Water Resources Agency to support the water quality goals of the Watershed Management Plan which has been developed under the Watershed Management Act (Chapter 90.82 RCW) administered by the Department of Ecology. By participating in this inter -agency effort, the City can make sure that potential water quality impacts to the surface water supply source are fully considered in all planning and land use policy decisions affecting the watershed. The City will continue to monitor the raw water quality of the surface water supply. In addition, the City plans to install on-line turbidity monitoring at the raw water intake structure. This will provide up to an hour to react to changes in raw water quality that might affect the water treatment plant performance. 5-31 0 Chapter 6 Operation and Maintenance Program 6 Operation and Maintenance Program 6.1 Water System Management and Personnel Figure 6-1 is an organizational chart for the City of Yakima Water/ Irrigation Division. Water and Irrigation Division Manager The Water and Irrigation Division Manager, Dave Brown, is responsible for overall management of the water utility, preparing and managing the annual budget, managing the water utility staff, responding to customer questions and concerns, and reporting on water system operations to the City Manager and Assistant City Manager. Water and Irrigation Engineer The Water and Irrigation Engineer, Dave Brown, is responsible for contract administration and field engineering. He also assists with operations, financial matters, and policy development. Water Treatment Plant Supervisor The Interim Water Treatment Plant Supervisor, Mel Young, is responsible for the overall opera- tion of the Naches River Water Treatment Plant, the wells, the reservoirs, and the pump stations. He is also responsible for the water quality monitoring of the system. His staff includes six WTP chief operators, all of whom are certified (as WTPO-2 or WTPO-3). Water Distribution Supervisor The operation of the distribution system is under the direction of the Water Distribution Supervisor, Alvie Maxey. He oversees a staff of 15 who perform installation of new services, fire hydrants, and fire services; preventive maintenance, repairs, and replacement of pipelines, PRVs and meters; and testing of cross -connection control devices and large valves. Meter reading is performed by utility billing staff and is, therefore, not included within the responsibilities of water distribution staff. Waterworks Crewleaders and Waterworks Specialist I and II Eleven positions within the water distribution group are classified as Waterworks Crewleaders or Waterworks Specialists I or II, as follows: U Waterworks Crewleaders are crew leaders for distribution system operations and maintenance Waterworks Specialists II are primarily equipment operators U Waterworks Specialists I are general laborers Water Device Technicians The distribution group includes two device technicians who are primarily responsible for cross - connection control and repair of large meters. The responsibilities and authority for key functions are summarized in Table 6-1. 6-1 TerryWakefied Irdgation SLpmsa Ma da Martinez IRigation DAII I Jon(JR)Rapp ILLJI AL ie L.Maxy lirigaticnCraMeader IrrigationCreMeacler WalterNoley BdanVetxh IrrigationSpec l I mglien Spec l RchardSarido Tim Hein IRig#ion Spec Imglion Spec I Pad Time i IRc hard A. Zas,C4MariagEr I I AssisGennRice tant City Marecg:r I Dave Brown AdingWaleVlydga9 on Manager WIPO 4, WDM 4 Cal # 3441 Alvie Mazy WaterDistbutionSupeMsa WDM 2&CCS Ced.# 3493 JimBuncarrer RonGipin Watemorks Cewiaaoler Walewks CreMeaoer WDM 1 WD M 2 Cat#4381 Cel #5945 RichPedc WilMonoe Wlemodcs Cewteaclar WatervndcsDeviceTedi WDM 2 WTP01, CCS 1, BAT Cat# 39% Cel # 2371 Slave MartinEz Brandon Baker WlemoftCemceTech Wk term fks S pec. I WD M 2 CCS, BAT WDM 1 Cert# 5125 Kevin Rivard RirhGuedn Wlemvodcs Spec WaterAaksSpec II WDS1 WDM1 Cert#8275 Cert. #10246 DustyMiley Emlio Lopez MterodcsSpecll MtervvaksSpecll WDM1 Cert # 9721 Brenda HII Janes Dean Wlerwarksaafting WaterwaksSpec II SeMceRep VAM 1& CCS WDM 1#9697 Cel # 7731 Da le Ke Eh Jelf Mads WlemodcsSpec I Waterw.arksSpecll WD M 2 CCS, BAT WA M 2 CCS Cel#6856-82571 Cel #8183 NortnanEdinger Wlemvodcs Spec I Md Youg WTP Superviso r WTPO 2 BAT Cat # 791 Cevge Dibde WTPChief Cperator WIPO 2 Cert #2044 Mile Svveamgn WTPChief Operator WIPO 3 Cel #2239 Jeff Bond Wal er Quality Specilist WIPO 3 Cert #7339 Vaca rt WTPChief Cperlor SfereC arts WTP Chief Cperlor WTP03 WDM2 Cert #4757 R ick Matin WTPChief Cperlor WIPO 2 Cel #7235 Ron Fbemar WRPChief Cperlor WIPO 3 Cel #4ED1 DaveBrown Waterllydg alo n E ngreer WTP0 4 WDM 4 Cert# 3441 Lynne Bids WateMnigation Adninistration Spedalist R on Smith Utilities Locator WDM 1 Cat #9742 AderreBehJng Waterllydgation Stoekeeper Figure 6-1 City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division Organizational Structure 6-2 • Table 6 -1 Responsibility/Authority for Key Functions Key Function Position/Responsible Person Day-to-day Distribution Operations Water/Irrigation Manager — Dave Brown Water Day-to-day Supply/Treatment Operations Distribution Supervisor - Alvie Maxey Interim Water Treatment Plant Supervisor - Mel Young Preventive Distribution Maintenance Water Distribution Supervisor - Alvie Maxey Preventive Supply/Treatment Maintenance Interim Water Treatment Plant Supervisor - Mel Young Field Engineering Water/Irrigation Engineer - Dave Brown Water Quality Monitoring Interim Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Mel Young - Water Quality Specialist Mel Young Distribution System Troubleshooting Water Distribution Supervisor - Alvie Maxey Supply/Treatment System Troubleshooting Interim Water Treatment Plant Supervisor- Mel Young Distribution Emergency Response Water Distribution Supervisor - Alvie Maxey Supply/Treatment Emergency Response Interim Water Treatment Plant Supervisor- Mel Young Cross -Connection Control Water Distribution Supervisor - Alvie Maxey Capital Improvements Program Water/Irrigation Engineer - Dave Brown Implementation Water/Irrigation Division Manager - Dave Brown Budget Formulation Water/Irrigation Division Manager - Dave Brown Water/Irrigation Engineer - Dave Brown Distribution System Pressure/Flow Complaints Water Distribution Supervisor - Alvie Maxey Water Quality Complaints Interim Water Treatment Plant Supervisor - Mel Young - Water Quality Specialist Mel Young Public and Press Contact Water/Irrigation Division Manager - Dave Brown (primary, all supervisors may have some role) 6-3 • 6.2 Operator Certification WAC 246-292 requires most utilities be operated by at least one certified operator each shift. For a system of Yakima's size, the following certified operator positions are required: • Water treatment plant operator (WTPO) • Water distribution manager (WDM) • Cross -connection control specialist (CCS) • Backflow Assembly Tester (BAT) The City's organization chart, Figure 6-1, also shows all of the current certifications held by Water Division staff. As this figure indicates, the Water/Irrigation Division meets current certifi- cation requirements. To maintain his or her certification, an operator is required to attend courses and seminars and to accumulate at least three Continuing Education Units (CEUs) every 3 years. The Water/Irrigation Division actively supports its staffs attendance at training courses to further the staff s professional development. Members of the utility staff are encouraged to become certified, and the City pays for exam and renewal fees, the employee's time spent during training, and training costs for the utility staff. 6.3 System Operation and Control In this section, the major system components and the procedures used to operate and maintain them are described. Major System Components - Overview The major water system components that are operated by the water utility are the Naches River Intake and Naches River Water Treatment Plant (WTP), the three wells (Kiwanis Park, Airport, and Kissel Park), the five storage reservoirs, the four pump stations, the pressure -reducing valves (PRVs), and the distribution system. The location of all of the components except for the distribution system is shown in Figure 1-2. The nonpotable irrigation system that serves many parts of the City with water for irrigation is not discussed in this section. The Naches River WTP operates year-round as the primary source of water. Additional supplies to meet peak demands are provided by one or more of the three wells. The treatment plant and wells deliver water to the low pressure zone. The booster pump stations deliver water to the Middle and High pressure zones. Water is stored in the five distribution reservoirs until needed by the customers. The PRVs control the flow of water between the High and Middle pressure zones and between the Middle and Low pressure zones. Description, and Operation and Maintenance of Major System Components Descriptions and the procedures used to operate the major components of the water supply and treatment system are described below. 6-4 , • Water Supply Facilities - Overview The primary water supply is from the tailrace of the PacifiCorp's Wapatox Canal which is supplied from the Naches River at the Wapatox diversion dam and intake structure. At times when the Wapatox Canal is out of service, direct diversions of raw water are made through the head gates of the City of Yakima's raw water intake structure. The head gates do not have adequate fish screening facilities, temporary screens shall be in place prior to opening the head gates. During periods of extremely low flows it may be necessary to erect a coffer dam to direct the flow into the intake structure. This has been accomplished in the past by using heavy equipment in the river to push up rubble from the river bottom to build a coffer dam. A hydraulic permit is necessary prior to placing equipment into the river. Through this structure the main source of supply is diverted to the City's Naches River Water Treatment Plant which provides complete filtration and disinfection of this supply. This water is delivered by gravity flow through a 48" transmission main to the distribution system. The secondary sources of supply include the City of Yakima's three wells which are capable of pumping directly into the distribution system, and three emergency interties with the Nob Hill Water Association. The three wells pump directly into the low pressure zone of the distribution system. Disinfection is provided for at each site. These groundwater supplies are utilized as a secondary water source and are maintained in a standby status. The three emergency interties between the Nob Hill Water Association and the City of Yakima distribution systems are as follows: 1. This intertie is located at the intersection of 56th Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. This connection is between the City of Yakima's high pressure zone and Nob Hill Water Association's middle pressure zone. The City of Yakima High Zone System pressure exceeds the Nob Hill Water System pressure by approximately 7 psi. 2. This intertie is located at the intersection of 45th Avenue and Tieton Drive. This connection is between the City of Yakima's middle pressure zone and Nob Hill Water Association's low pressure zone. This intertie was installed to provide a secondary supply to the hospitals on Tieton Drive. Utilization of the intertie for this purpose requires the isolation of the main line in Tieton Drive to divert water directly to the hospitals. 3. This intertie is located at S. 32nd Avenue and Ahtanum Road. This connection is between the City of Yakima's low pressure zone and Nob Hill Water Association's low pressure zone through a two way pressure reducing valve. Flow is limited to 2,500 gpm in both directions. The sources of supply are summarized in Table 6-2 below. 6-5 0 Table 6-2 City of Yakima Sources of Water Supply Source Type Primary Secondary/ Capacity Well Pump Pump Name Emergency MGD Depth Capacity HP Ft. gpm Naches River Surface X 25 Gravity at WTP Water Flow Kiwanis Park Ground X 3.4 850 2,350 300 Water Airport Ground X 4.0 1,100 2,800 300 Water Kissel Park Ground X 4.2 1,171 2,900 300 Water Nob Hill Interties X Water Assn. h Should the primary water supply source cease to be available, the following alternatives may be utilized to augment or replace the water system supply needs. 1. Activation of the City of Yakima's wells. Failure of the water system's main supply to be available may require rationing or restriction of use of the remaining available water supplies. The City of Yakima's groundwater sources are ample enough to meet the system's average day demand. Restrictions of water use may only be necessary during periods of the year when water usage exceeds the average day demand. 2. Activation of the interties with the Nob Hill Water Association. Utilization of the interties with the Nob Hill Water System as a sole source of supply would require rationing. This is because the amount of water available from Nob Hill's water system is limited; especially during the peak use summer months. In addition, the hydraulic capability of the piping making the interties is not of sufficient size to allow flows large enough to meet the City's needs. Therefore, isolation of the hospitals on Tieton Drive will need to be evaluated to insure that their supply is adequate. 3. Hauling of potable water from other safe sources. Hauling of water would only be implemented in extreme emergency when complete loss of the primary, secondary, and intertie source of supplies has occurred. Detailed procedures and alternatives for handling a loss of water supply are included in the Emergency Operations Guidelines (Appendix T) Naches River Raw Water Intake Structure The major features of the Naches River Raw Water Intake Structure are: 0 Head Gates to the Intake: The head gates are located at the extreme upstream portion of the structure. These gates are operated manually or powered by a gasoline driven power head. The gates are used to control direct river diversions. Direct river diversions are necessary when an inadequate supply is available from the Wapatox Canal. The head gates do not have adequate fish screening facilities. • Pacific Power Tailrace: The main source of raw water supply is the tailrace of the Pacific Power Company's electrical generation facility on the Wapatox Canal at Rowe Hill. . • Wapatox Canal Bypass: The canal bypass outlet is also located so that this flow enters into the intake structure. The water from this outlet is an alternate source of supply during times when Pacific Power's facilities are off-line yet water is continued to be diverted into the Wapatox Canal. • Radial Gates and Operators: The radial gates are located at the extreme downstream portion of the intake structure. These gates are powered by electric gear drive operators. The purpose of these gates is to control the outflow of water from the structure. • Bar Screens: These screens are located across the opening of the overflow weir and the outboard radial gate overflow weir. These screens were installed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife in the summer of 1984. The screens are cleaned of trash and operated by Water Treatment Plant staff. The screens are installed except during extreme cold winter weather. The purpose of the bar screens is to prevent" anadromous fish from entering the intake structure and moving up PacifiCorp's tailrace. This is necessary to prevent fish from being fooled by the natural attraction of the outflow from the intake as being a tributary where they might spawn. Concrete Wall of the Intake Structure: The concrete wall separates the river from the water confined in the structure. Water must be confined within the structure to build a head of water above the 54" pipeline so that the water may flow by gravity through this pipeline to the Water Treatment Plant. Hydraulic Boom: The hydraulic boom's purpose is to facilitate the movement of ice and debris out of the intake structure and back into the flow of the river. This apparatus also has the capability of assisting in the operation of the bar screens and the stop logs. The hydraulic boom is a 1085-B Case backhoe unit permanently mounted on a concrete pedestal. The electrical. power unit and hydraulic pump and reservoir are remotely located behind the electrical control building above the intake structure. Intake Structure Operating Modes and Alternatives: The function of the raw water intake is to divert a supply of water to the Naches River Water Treatment Plant. Under normal conditions, the Wapatox Canal supplies water to the intake structure through PacifiCorp's tailrace or the canal bypass. The river head gates may be used when the canal source is unavailable for direct diversion of water into the structure and temporary fish screens have been installed. 6-7 Should the intake structure cease to function, the following alternatives may be utilized to accomplish some or all of the same functions as stated above. Utilize the hydraulic arm and/or crane to remove debris or ice from the intake to allow flow of water to reach the 54 inch transmission main to the Water Treatment Plant. 2. Divert river water directly into the forebay of the 54 inch transmission main to the Water Treatment Plant by use of pumps. Failure of the intake structure would reduce or eliminate the water supply available to the Water Treatment Plant. Should the system reserves be inadequate to meet system demands before one of the alternatives above can be implemented, then the emergency should be handled as a loss of supply. Detailed procedures and alternatives for handling failure of the intake structure are included in the Emergency Operations Guidelines (Appendix T). Naches River Water Treatment Plant Description: The existing Naches River Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has a rated capacity of 25 MGD with a direct filtration process. Raw water enters the plant from the Naches River intake via a 54 inch raw water transmission main. The main is reduced in size and controlled by a 36 inch influent valve. WTP Operating Modes and Alternatives: Chemicals are applied at the flash mix chamber, which provides a mixing time of approximately 2-1/2 minutes. The chemically treated water dis- charges into one of two contact basins with a total detention time of about 30 to 75 minutes. The effluent from the contact basin flows to the filters, which discharge to a very small clearwell. (Refer to the treatment process schematic shown in Figure 3-8.) The chemicals available to be used in the treatment process include alum as a primary coagulant, polymer as a coagulant aid an as a filter aid, powdered carbon --for taste and odor control, soda ash for pH control and chlorine for disinfection. The installation of fluoridation equipment was completed in March 2002. Fluoride has been added to the finished water supply since that time. The backwash water storage reservoir has a capacity of 750,000 gallons of finished water for use in washing the filters. This water is then wasted to the waste pond for storage and further settling before being pumped back into the contact basin influent flume zone and recycled. Should the treatment facility become unable to produce water which meets or exceeds all of the drinking water standards, then the plant is to be placed out of service and the procedures for loss of supply followed. Should components of the Water Treatment Plant cease to function, the following alternatives may be utilized: Flash Mix: Make adjustments to the chemical feed pumps to increase the chemical dosage and rely on hydraulic mixing of the chemicals. 6-8 Contact Basin: The basin is divided in two and may be operated separately. Filters: Four filters are available and a maximum of three may be isolated at one time. Backwash Reservoir: The reservoir may be isolated through utilization of the 24 inch butterfly valve installed between the WTP and the reservoir. The backwash refill pumps are then used to pump water directly from the clear well to the filters for washing. A small 3 horsepower pump and the appropriate fittings are stored at the WTP to provide service water under the above conditions. Waste Pond: The backwash water could be allowed to be diverted directly to the river. Contact the Washington State Department of Ecology prior to the diversion of any water directly diverted to the river. Chlorinators: One option should the gas chlorine supply be unavailable is to secure the hypochlorinator from the Water/Irrigation Division Warehouse at 2301 Fruitvale Boulevard. Operators would then mix dry chlorine (calcium hypochlorite) in the polymer tanks and inject the solution into the water. Another option should the gas chlorine supply remain available is to secure one of the well chlorinators and replace the plant chlorinator temporarily until repairs or replacement is completed on the plant chlorinator, and/or divert the gas supply through one chlorinator into the Water Treatment Plant effluent. Detailed procedures and alternatives for handling loss of Water Treatment Plant function are included in the Emergency Operations Guidelines (Appendix T). CT Control Valves: The hydraulic gradient originally was such that the 48 inch pipeline did not become full of water under normal circumstances until somewhere between Eschbach Road and the community of Gleed. In 1998 a set of control valves was installed in the 48 inch main next to the Gleed Pump Station. These valves are automatically monitored and controlled from the Water Treatment Plant so that the pipeline between Gleed and the plant remains full and therefore provides the required CT time. If the CT Control Valves were to fail, one of the operators would drive to Gleed adjust valves by hand and observe the pressure reading locally to insure the proper valve settings. Naches River Water Treatment Plant Routine Operation and Maintenance: The WTP is staffed full time, with one to three operators on the 12 -hour day shift and one operator on the 12 - hour night shift. The plant operators are responsible for: Monitoring and adjusting chemical dosages for pretreatment and disinfection Manually operating the filter backwash cycles 0 Collecting water quality samples Collecting data on plant performance Performing bench -scale water quality analyses In accordance with WAC 246-290-654 (5), an operations plan for the Naches Water Treatment Plant is currently being prepared. Completion of the plan is anticipated by the end of 2003. Meters: The source meters at the water treatment plant and at the wells are monitored and maintained by the water treatment plant staff. Customer meters are read by the Utility Billing staff, but are maintained or replaced by the distribution system staff. Transmission Mains Description: The transmission mains are pretensioned concrete cylinder pipe and range in size from 54 inch to 48 inch to 30 inch. 54 inch = 3.500 L.F. 48 inch = 45.200 L.F. 30 inch = 3,000 L.F. These mains were installed during the period of 1968-1972. Water flows through these pipelines utilize the force of gravity only. No pumps are required to aid the movement of water. The 54 inch transmission main moves water from the Naches River Raw Water Intake Structure to the Naches River Water Treatment Plant. The 48 inch transmission main moves water from the Naches River Water Treatment Plant to the City of Yakima's domestic water distribution system. The 30 inch transmission main moves water between the equalizing reservoir at 40th Avenue and Englewood and the 48 inch transmission main. Transmission Main Operating Modes and Alternatives: The function of the transmission facilities is to transport large quantities of water from the source to the point of treatment and disinfection (Naches River Water Treatment Plant) and from this point to the City's distribution system. The 48 inch transmission main has outlets installed along its length at intervals of approximately every 1000 feet. Connections to this main can be accomplished through the use of an existing outlet or by direct tap. The 48 inch pipeline follows Highway SR 12 from the Water Treatment Plant crossing the Naches River to 40th Avenue where it turns south on 40th Avenue to Powerhouse Road. The main turns and runs along Powerhouse Road to Englewood Avenue at the intersection of Powerhouse Road and Englewood Avenue. The 30 inch pipeline between the equalizing reservoir at 40th Avenue and Englewood Avenue and the 48 inch pipelines are connected. The 48 inch main continues from this junction along Englewood Avenue to the intersection of 16th 6-10 0 Avenue and Cherry Avenue where the 48 inch pipeline terminates with several distribution pipe- lines radiating out from this terminus. Should the transmission facility cease to function between the source and 40th Avenue then this loss will be treated as a loss of supply. Should the break occur between 40th Avenue and 16th Avenue, then the damaged section will need to be isolated until repairs or replacement can be accomplished. Detailed procedures and alternatives for handling a transmission line failure are included in the Emergency Operations Guidelines (Appendix T). Distribution and Storage Systems The City's distribution system is adjacent to several water systems, but is only intertied with the Nob Hill Water Association and the City of Union Gap. Three interties exist with Nob Hill Water Association and one with the City of Union Gap. Nob Hill Water interties are located in the high zone pressure area at the intersection of 56th Avenue and Lincoln Avenue, at the intersection of 45th Avenue and Tieton Drive which is within the middle pressure zone and at S. 32nd Ave. and Ahtanum Road. The Union Gap intertie is located at the intersection of S. 3rd Ave. and W. Washington Ave. The distribution pipelines are 4 to 24 inches in diameter. The pipe materials are mainly cast iron, with ductile iron being used since the early 1970's. There are several steel pipelines and many unlined cast iron pipelines remaining in the system. The City's existing storage capacity is 32 million gallons (MG) distributed among five reservoirs within the three pressure zones. Each pressure zone has an established hydraulic elevation. This elevation is maintained by the distribution reservoir/s located in each of the pressure zones. The reservoirs are shown on the hydraulic profile and listed on the following table (Table 6-3). The table indicates the volume of storage, the zone served, the type of material, and the overflow and floor elevation of the five reservoirs in the distribution system. Table 6-3 Distribution Storage Reservoirs Zone Location Volume Max. Min. Zone Construction Designation MG Elevation Elevation Served Material Low Zone 401h Ave. & 6 1,264 ft 1,234 ft Low Reinforced Englewood Concrete Middle Zone Reservoir 24 (two at 1,380 ft 1,356 ft Middle Reinforced Road 12 MG ea.) Concrete High Zone Scenic 2 (two at 1 1,531 ft 1,511 ft High (1) concrete Drive MG ea.) (1) steel 6-11 • Distribution and Storage Systems Operating Modes and Alternatives: The function of the distribution system is to deliver potable water to the service connections and fire hydrants. The function of the storage reservoirs is to provide: 1) standby water storage for emergencies and short-term interruptions of source of supply; 2) additional source of water for fire protection purposes; 3) equalizing water for changes in water demands within the system. Distribution pipelines branch off from the transmission mains, conveying water to the three pressure zones -- high, middle, and low. Gravity alone provides adequate pressure to serve water to the low zone. Booster pump stations push the water up to the reservoirs in the middle and high zones, and pressure -reducing valves (PRV's) regulate water flows back from the middle to the low zones when necessary. Normally closed valves and one PRV station may be operated to move water from the high zone to the middle zone. Conversely, portions of the high zone could be served (at lower pressure) from the middle zone through operation of these normally closed valves and existing check valves. The six million gallon reservoir at 40th Avenue and Englewood Avenue is utilized as an equalizing reservoir for the entire water system. The flow at the WTP is based upon levels in this reservoir. Any water not consumed by the low pressure zone through customer demand; or by pumping to the middle and high pressure zones, is stored here. Should the distribution system cease to function in specific areas, these areas may be isolated by closing valves to sections as needed based to the distribution grid system in the affected area. Should the entire distribution system fail to provide its function, then water would necessarily have to be hand carried or transported by vehicles. No fire protection would be available from the system. Fire Department tankers would have to be utilized for fighting fires. Potable water would need to be made available at distribution points throughout the system. The Yakima Firing Center, the National Guard, and private carriers may be pressed into service in an emergency. Fire stations, City parks, and other City property make good points of distribution of potable water. City residents would be notified of these distribution points and instructed to bring containers to receive their allotment of water. The source of water for supplying the distribution points could be the Kiwanis Park and Airport artesian wells. Additionally, potable water could be purchased from any adjacent purveyors that would still have a safe plentiful supply. Should the storage reservoirs cease to function, the system's ability to meet all demands would become undependable. Some fire fighting capability might be retained, but not to normal standards. The interties with Nob Hill Water Association could be utilized to place their reservoirs into shared operation, it is unlikely that water could be obtained from the intertie with the City of Union Gap as the system pressure in the City system is much greater than the City of Union Gap. 6-12 The reservoirs could be isolated and water supply pumped directly into the system from the wells or by the gravity from the WTP. The 48" transmission main could act as a reservoir during an emergency. During extended emergencies portable storage reservoirs or temporary reservoirs could be utilized to accomplish the same function as a storage reservoir. Detailed procedures and alternatives for handling a distribution and storage system failure are included in the Emergency Operations Guidelines (Appendix T). Distribution and Storage System Routine Operation and Maintenance: Routine operation of the distribution system consists of operating line valves and manually opening and closing interties (when needed). Hydrants are flushed annually. The levels in the five storage reservoirs are controlled by the SCADA system. The levels in the system's reservoirs are continuously monitored by telemetry and recorded on 7 -day charts and in the history files of the City's computer system. Booster Pump Stations The pump stations are listed in Table 6-4, indicating the location, the supply location, the zone that is served, the number of pumps in each station, pump capacity, and some other characteristics. Table 6-4 Booster Pump Stations Station Location Zone Zone Pump Pump TDH TDH Pumping Local Pump Name Supply Service No. HP (ft.) (ft.) Rate Elev. Manufact Opera- Shut (gpm) (ft.) -urer ting Off High City Middle High 1 125 203.5 315 1,700 1372 Byron - Zone, Reservoir Jackson Third Road 2 125 203.5 315 1,700 Byron - Level* Jackson 3 30 203.5 315 400 Simons 40t 401Ave. & Low Middle 1 30 120 142 760 1146 Peerless Avenue Powerhouse 2 40 126 182 1,000 Peerless Road 3 60 125 176 1,500 Peerless 4 100 130 240 2,500 Peabody Floway Gleed** Gleed Low Gleed 1 5 135 212 80 1245 Aurora 3211 2 5 135 212 80 Aurora Mapleway 3 -"" 4 125 1300 350 2,000 Aurora Stone EnglewoodLo Middle 1 125 172 221 2,500 1150 PACO Church Ave. & 32nd d 2 100 172 221 1,500 PACO Ave. 3 50 172 235 700 PACO Note: Telemetry is controlled from reservoir level transmitters for pump start and stop. * Only one 125 hp pump at a time is capable of operating in the High Zone. ** Gleed is controlled by pressure activated controls. 6-13 • Booster Pump Stations Operating Modes and Alternatives: The booster pump stations provide water to the middle and high zones, as shown in the hydraulic profile. The 40th Avenue and Stone Church pumps are operated in a verity of lead lag positions depending on the demand and the season. The difference in water demands is due to an irrigation demand in the middle and high zones. These pumps are controlled by the middle zone's two reservoir levels through the radio telemetry system. The high zone pumping station is only capable of operating one of the 125 hp pumps at a time. This is due to the size of the electrical service available when the facility was constructed. The two 125 hp pumps are alternated with one placed in a standby role, while the other is being used and with the 40 hp pump placed in the lag position. The smaller 40 hp pump is placed in the lead during low demand times. This station's pumps are controlled by the water levels in the high zone's two reservoirs through the radio telemetry system. The Gleed pumping station is operated by utilizing the two 5 HP pumps to meet domestic water demands and the 125 HP pump for fire flow demands. This station's pumps are controlled by pressure sensing controls and a hydropneumatic tank. At 55 psi the lead pump will start and run until pressure builds to 75 psi. Should the pressure continue to drop after the lead pump starts then at 45 psi the backup pump starts. This pump shuts off at 65 psi. Should the first two pumps be unable to supply sufficient pressure above 30 psi, the 125 HP will start and run until it has run at 90 psi for 12 minutes before shutting off. A pressure relief valve is located in the manifold system and allows the bypass of water back into the 48" transmission main of any water in excess of 100 psi. Should the 40th Avenue and Stone Church pump stations cease to function, the available supply in the twin twelve (12) million gallon reservoirs needs to be determined. If additional water supply is needed to meet the demands, the Nob Hill Water Association may also be contacted to furnish a source of water through the emergency intertie in the middle and high zones. Should the station cease to function because of an electrical power outage, a portable electrical generator might be used to restore electrical power to the 40`h Ave. pump station and/or depend on the generator at the Stone Church pump station. Should the High Zone Pump Station cease to function, the available supply in the twin one (1) million gallon reservoirs needs to be determined. If additional water supply is needed to meet demands, the Nob Hill Water Association may be contacted to furnish a source of water through the emergency intertie at 56th Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. Should the station cease to function because of an electrical power outage, the electrical generator should be used to restore electrical power to the site. Should the Gleed pump station cease to function, the customers are without a water supply at adequate pressure (greater than 30 psi). However, as long as the 6 million gallon reservoir at 40th Avenue and Englewood Avenue is capable of maintaining at least a minimum level there is a positive pressure at Gleed. Currently, there are less than twenty customers served by this pump station and one school. Water supply for domestic purposes would continue to be available at low pressure (10-15 psi). A local carrier with a food grade tanker may be filled with water and connected to the fire hydrant near the Naches Primary School to supply the Gleed System. The 6-14 Cj Gleed Fire Department should be notified immediately if the station is to be out of service for any length of time. This rural department has the capability of fighting fires without adequate water supplies available close at hand through use of tanker trucks and can dispatch additional tanker units if necessary. Detailed procedures and alternatives for handling a booster pump system failure are included in the Emergency Operations Guidelines (Appendix T). Booster Pump Station Routine Operation and Maintenance: The four pump stations are controlled by the SCADA system, but are visited three times per week to check building temperature and pump operation. Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) Stations The PRV stations are listed in Table 1-3 in Chapter 1, indicating the location, size, pressure settings, the zone that is served and some additional information. The valves listed as "not in service" have been made redundant through changes in the boundaries of the pressure zones and are no longer required. PRV Operating Modes and Alternatives: Control of water flow between the middle and low pressure zones is provided by the PRV's located throughout the distribution system. These control valves are set to open and close at various hydraulic elevations depending on the intended purpose of the valve (continual supply or emergency only). The normal use of the City's PRV's is to provide additional water flow for emergency purposes. The reduction of pressure in the low zone under emergency conditions because of a fire flow or other large water demand will cause the hydraulic elevation to decrease. This reduction in hydraulic elevation will cause the normally closed hydraulically actuated valves to open and provide additional flow into the low zone. Should the PRV stations cease to function, the valves may be manually operated either open or closed. The effects of the PRV stations having failed are: 1) Water movement between zones which will result in losses and increases in water pressure in the distribution system, if failure is in the open position. 2) Inadequate water flows during an emergency or other high demand situations, should the valve fail in the closed position. Detailed procedures and alternatives for handling a PRV failure are included in the Emergency Operations Guidelines (Appendix T). PRV Routine Maintenance: The PRVs are checked and tested on a quarterly basis. 6-15 Wells The five wells are visited at least twice each day when in operation, but are also monitored by the SCADA System. Operational procedures include checking the chlorination equipment, reading the flowmeter, and checking the building's temperature, motor amperage, chlorine leak detection equipment, well drawdown, and the hour meters on the motors. Currently, the wells are started and stopped manually. Additional information regarding procedures and alternatives for well operation in the event of a loss of supply or water shortage are included in the Emergency Operations Guidelines (Appendix T). Preventive Maintenance Program Preventive maintenance consists of regularly servicing pumps and motors, exercising valves and hydrants, cleaning reservoirs, and flushing dead-end lines and other pipelines. These activities are performed on a priority basis, with service for pumps, motors, and meters being the highest priority. In 1994 and 1995 City implemented a maintenance management system we named "Automated Inventory and Maintenance Management Systems" (AIMMS). This program includes infor- mation about all of the City's facilities and equipment. This system has been implemented by the Water/Irrigation Division to automate the existing preventive maintenance program. AIMMS consists of number of modules that track and control purchasing and maintenance. A complete description of the AIMMS modules and their components is included in Section 6.9 of this Water System Plan Update. Chemicals, Equipment, and Supplies The utility maintains an inventory of equipment, such as vehicles, portable pumps, and backhoes, for servicing the water system. The utility also keeps a stock of regularly used supplies and chemicals. In addition to the materials and supplies maintained at the service yard, the utility maintains three completely equipped service trucks complete with the tools and equipment normally required for system operation and maintenance. Tables 6-5 and 6-6 list the equipment and materials, respectively, that are maintained by the utility. Suppliers used by the utility for pipe materials and pump service are shown in Table 6-7. 6-16 Table 6-5 Water Division Equipment Listing Number Description Fuel Type Location 2 Backhoe/Loaders Diesel City Shops Complex 1 Boom Truck Diesel City Shops Complex 3 Service Vans Diesel City Shops Complex 1 4WD Pickup Truck Gas Water Treatment Plant 1 4WD Jeep Gas Water Treatment Plant 1 4WD Pickup Truck Gas City Shops Complex 1 Valve Trucks Gas City Shops Complex 2 Valve/Vacuum Trailers Gas City Shops Complex 2 5 Yd. Dump Truck Diesel City Shops Complex 1 Van Gas City Shops Complex 2 Air Compressor Diesel City Shops Complex 2 Compact Pickup Truck Gas City Shops Complex 6-17 Table 6 -6 Materials on Hand Item Size and Material Type Pipe 4-, 6-, 8-, 12-, and 16 -inch DI Service Lines and Fittings 3/4 to 6 inch Repair Bands Full circle stainless steel for all above sizes Couplers Romac for all above sizes Valves 3 to 6 inch Gate Valves 6 to 12 inch tapping valves 8 to 16 inch Butterfly Valves Hydrants 4 to 6 foot bury Reducers Miscellaneous for above sizes Calcium Hypochlorite Tees Miscellaneous for above sizes Treatment Plant Chemicals Alum Chlorine gas Polymer Activated carbon Soda Ash Fluoride Treatment Plant Equipment Chlorinator repair kits Spare PLC Spare PLC cards Spare Telemetry Radio Recycle pump Sump Pumps Surface Wash Nozzles I Anthracite Coal 6-18 • Table 6-7 Support agencies/organizations for Materials and Services Available Required Organization Address Name Tele -phone Resources Authorization TTC 2206 Jerome Ave. AJ Heckart 457-3969 Debris removal Emergency PO Construction 945-6749 Large excavation equipment Picatti Bros. 105 S. 3rd Ave. N/A 248-2540 Motor and pump Emergency PO repair Russell Crane 505 Locust Don Russell 457-6341 Debris removal Emergency PO Service Ken Leingang 1117 N. 271h Ave. Ken or Daren 575-5507 Large excavation Emergency PO Excavating Leingang equipment Hoydar Buck 210 W. Orchard 697-8800 Electrician Emergency PO Inc. (Selah) H D Fowler 100 River Rd. 248-8400 Pipe and Emergency PO appurtenances Montgomery 1901 S. 13`h St. 248-9046 Pumps and Emergency PO Irrigation appurtenances Nob Hill Water 6111 Tieton Drive Preston 966-0272 Manpower and N/A Shepherd equipment SECO Rental 515 S. 5th Avenue N/A 248-7900 Pumps and Emergency PO construction equipment Washington 3705 W. Shop Person 575-2733 Temporary Fish Emergency PO Department of Washington Screens Fish & Wildlife Screen Shop LTI, Inc. 123 Alexander Rd. Allan 800-422- Tank Trucks Emergency PO Sunnyside, WA 5993 6.4 Comprehensive Monitoring (Regulatory Compliance) Plan The City Yakima Water Division conducts water quality monitoring and reporting in accordance with WAC 246-290-300. The sections below summarize the City's routine monitoring procedures for various categories of parameters. 6-19 Sampling Procedures Table 6-8 summarizes routine monitoring procedures for the City of Yakima, including sampling sites, person responsible for sampling, number of samples taken, sampling frequency, and laboratory that conducts analysis. As noted in Table 6-8, inorganic and organic monitoring plans are now required by DOH. The requirements for development of inorganic monitoring plans are described in WAC 246-290-300 (3f). Organic chemical monitoring plan requirements are described in WAC 246-290-300 (7e). Copies of the current monitoring plans are included in Appendix sections as listed below. Appendix H Coliform Monitoring Plan Appendix I Inorganic Chemicals Monitoring Plan Appendix J Organic Chemicals Monitoring Plan Appendix K Radionuclides Monitoring Plan Appendix L Stage 1 Disinfectant/Disinfectant By -Products Monitoring Plan Appendix M Turbidity/Free Chlorine Residual/pH Monitoring Plan 6-20 0 Table 6-8 City of Yakima Routine Water Quality Monitoring Parameter Sample Sample Point Person Responsible Number of Sampling Lab Type Location(s) Criteria for Sampling Samples Frequency Used Bacteriological See coliform Representative Private Contractor or 70 Monthly Cascade monitoring plan, coverage of assigned staff Analytical Appendix N distribution system Bacteriological See coliform Raw Water Private Contractor or 5 Monthly Cascade monitoring plan, assigned staff Analytical Appendix N Inorganics WTP effluent & After treatment, Water Quality Surface water Annually at WTP DOH Lab well discharge before entry to Specialist or assigned Groundwater Every 3 Years at line distribution system staff Wells Lead and Copper See initial mon- Same as initial Water Quality 30 Follow-up sampling Cascade itoring results sampling sites Specialist, assigned after corrosion Analytical Appendix K staff or customers control Turbidity WTP Before disinfection Water Treatment Continuous Continuous Onsite (source water) and coagulant Plant Operator analyzer, logged in chemical addition computer data files "Turbidity Filter effluent and Source water after Water Treatment continuous Continuous 'Onsite (treated water) Plant effluent treatment and Plant Operator analyzer, logged before entry to continuously on 7 - distribution day chart and computer data files Trihalomethanes Surface: dist- Surface: Water Quality Surface: 4 Surface: quarterly Edge ribution system; representative of Specialist or assigned Analytical see Coliform distribution system staff Plan, Appendix N plus one extreme. Groundwater: Groundwater: Groundwater: Groundwater: Edge each well (MTTF) before treatment 4 annually Analytical 6-21 Table 6-8 City of Yakima Routine Water Quality Monitoring (continued) Parameter Sample Sample Point Person Number of Sampling Lab Used Type Location(s) Criteria Responsible for Samples Frequency Sampling HAAS See DBP Representative of Water Quality 4 Quarterly Cascade Monitoirng Plan distribution system Specialist or Analytical Appendix _ plus one extreme assigned staff PH Raw Water Water Treatment continuous Continuous Onsite Filter Effluent Plant Operator analyzer, logged Plant Effluent continuously to Chlorine Contact computer data Chamber files Effluent Disinfection WTP effluent At entry to Water Treatment Continuous Continuous Onsite Residual distribution system Plant Distribution Distribution Distribution system: system: Daily system: at at routine coliform Distribution Cascade routine coliform sites, at system: 130- Analytical sites, City Hall, 150 Public Works Shop, and High Zone Pump Station SWTR CT Chlorine Contact At entry to Water Treatment Continuous Report lowest Onsite Monitoring Chamber distribution Plant Operator daily CT value (temperature, Effluent pH, C12, and flow) 6-22 0000•••• 0 • Table 6-8 City of Yakima Routine Water Quality Monitoring (continued) Parameter Sample Sample Point Person Number of Sampling Lab Used Type Location(s) Criteria Responsible for Samples Frequency Sampling SOC's WTP effluent & Source water after Water Quality 4 (one per Annual Cascade well discharge treatment and before Specialist or source) Analytical entry to distribution assigned staff VOC's W1T' effluent & Source water alter Water Quality 4 (one per Annual Cascade well discharge treatment and before Specialist or source) Analytical entry to distribution assigned staff Unregulated WTP effluent & Source water after Water Quality Not currently monitoring, to be in accordance Chemicals well discharge treatment and before Specialist or with 40 CFR 141.40, sections (a) -(e), g,i,j,l and entry to distribution assigned staff (n)1 -(n)9, (n)11, n(12) Radionuclides WTP effluent, At source, same Water Quality 4 (one per Quarterly samples DOH Labs well discharge point as for other Specialist or source) every 4 years, last line samples assigned staff monitoring date July, 1993 6-23 Surface Water Treatment Rule Monitoring Requirements The SWTR requires special monitoring and reporting requirements for filtered surface waters. These requirements are discussed in WAC -246-290-664, -666 and -668. In summary, monitoring and reporting are required for the following: Source coliform monitoring is required as shown in Table 6-8. 2. Source turbidity monitoring is required as shown in Table 6-8. 3. Filtered water turbidity monitoring is required as shown in Table 6-8. 4. Calculation of inactivation ratio (CT monitoring) is required as shown in Table 6- 8. 5. Disinfectant residual must be monitored at entry to distribution system and at coliform monitoring sites, as shown in Table 6-8. 6. The following conditions should be reported to DOH before the end of the next business day following the event: a. Waterborne disease outbreak b. Turbidity of effluent exceeds 1.0 NTU C. Residual disinfection concentration falls below 0.2 mg/L at entry to distribution system d. Emergency events that could affect water quality, such as spills of hazardous materials in watershed or treatment process failures 7. Report all SWTR monitoring results (items 1 through 5 above) within 10 days of the end of each month. Monthly reporting requirements are described in detail in WAC 246-290-666(3). 8. Watershed control programs must be developed and updated at least every 6 years. Requirements for watershed control are detailed in WAC 246-290-668. Chapter 8 includes a contamination assessment and recommendations for a framework to develop and implement a watershed control program for the City's Naches watershed. Violations Procedures Follow-up actions for various types of MCL violations are specified in detail in WAC 246-290- 320. In general, the following actions must be taken each time a primary standard violation occurs: Notify the DOH in accordance with WAC 246-290-480. G ►'' 0 0 Is is a 2. Notify the consumers served by the system. Notification requirements for various types of MCL violations are specified in WAC 246-290-330. Determine the cause of contamination. 4. Take any additional actions as directed by DOH. If a secondary standard is exceeded, notify DOH and take action as directed by DOH. Follow-up monitoring must be conducted when MCL violations occur. Specific requirements for follow-up monitoring are described in WAC 246-290-320(2) through (9). Bacteriological violations require repeat sampling in accordance with the City's coliform sampling plan (see Appendix N), and WAC 246-290-320(2). In the case of contamination of the surface supply, the City can shut down the water treatment plant and use groundwater only. The wells are capable of supplying approximately 12 MGD (about equal to the City's current ADD). The City also has the ability to activate interties with the Nob Hill Water Association. The City's emergency plan (Appendix O) describes procedures for accommodating a WTP shutdown as a result of inadequate finished water quality. Coliform Monitoring Plan The City of Yakima Water Division has developed a Coliform Monitoring Plan in accordance with the requirements of WAC 246-290-300 and the DOH guidelines presented in Preparation of a Coliform Monitoring Plan. The Coliform Monitoring Plan is presented in Appendix H. 6.5 Emergency Response Program The City of Yakima Water Division has developed an Emergency Response Plan for its water treatment plant and distribution facilities. The complete plan is shown in Appendix T. Emergency Call -Up List After normal working hours, emergencies with the water system are handled through an emergency calling procedure. An updated version of the emergency call-up list contained in the City's emergency plan is presented in Table 6-9. In the event of an emergency, a report is called in to the Water Department Operations Center, which is staffed 24 hours a day. The Operations Center directs the call to the appropriate person on call. In the event of an emergency situation involving the City's water system, the utility might need to inform the public or other services (such as medical services) immediately. Media contact is conducted by faxing bulletins or press releases to the following media representatives: 6-25 Table 6-9 City of Yakima Water System Personnel -- Emergency Call-up List Major Work Home Responsibility and Emergency Name Title Phone Phone Expertise Quality and 1. Mel Young WTP Supervisor 575-6177 457-0081 Intake structure, Treatment WTP, treatment processes and wells 2. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 Intake structure, Engineer WTP, treatment processes and wells 3. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 All Water Division Manager Department functions -- issue boil water order. Intake 1. Mel Young WTP Supervisor 575-6177 457-0081 Responsible for Structure flows to WTP. 2. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 Coordinate debris Engineer removal from intake. 3. Alvie Maxey Water Distribution 575-6196 965-3482 Coordinate debris Supervisor removal from intake. 4. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 Responsible for Division Manager system integrity. Distribution 1. Alvie Maxey Water Distribution 575-6196 965-3482 Responsible to and Supervisor respond to all Transmission general alarm fires and large main breaks. 2. Jim Bumgarner Waterworks 575-6154 574-5727 Responsible to Rich Peck Crewleaders 966-8032 respond to all Ron Gilpin 469-3763 general alarm fires and large main breaks. 3. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 Engineer 4. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 1966-4659 Responsible for Division Manager system integrity. 6-26 • 41 0 Table 6-9 City of Yakima Water System Personnel -- Emergency Call-up List continued Major Work Home Responsibility and Emergency Name Title Phone Phone Expertise PRV Valves 1. Alvie Maxey Water Distribution 575-6196 965-3482 Responsible for all Supervisor valves -- including PRV's. 2. Jim Bumgarner Waterworks 575-6154 574-5727 Responsible for all Rich Peck Crewleaders 966-8032 valves -- including Ron Gilpin 469-3763 PRV's. 3. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 Responsible for Engineer system integrity. 4. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 Responsible for Division Manager I system integrity. Pressure 1. Mel Young WTP Supervisor 575-6177 966-9747 Responsible for Stations and reservoir levels and Storage pressure stations. 2. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 Responsible for Engineer system integrity. 3. Alvie Maxey Water Distribution 575-6196 965-3482 Supervisor 4. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 Responsible for Division Manager system integrity. Pumping 1. Mel Young WTP Supervisor 575-6177 966-9747 Responsible for Activities wells and booster stations. 2. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 Responsible for Engineer system integrity. 3. Alvie Maxey Water Distribution 575-6196 965-3482 Supervisor 4. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 Responsible for Division Manager system integrity. Irrigation 1. Terry Irrigation 575-6194 453-6412 Responsible for Wakefield Supervisor irrigation systems and pumps. 2. Alvie L. Maxey Irrigation 575-6194 965-5511 John Rapp Crewleader 453-7528 3. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 Responsible for Engineer system integrity. 4. Dave Brown Water/Irrigation 575-6204 966-4659 Responsible for Division Manager system integrity. 6-27 F9 L Notification Procedures A notification checklist of persons and departments to be notified in the event of an emergency is included in Table 6-10. Table 6-10 Emergency Notification Procedures Checklist Position Name Work Phone Home Phone Time of Call Water/Irrigation Manager Dave Brown 575-6204 966-4659 Assistant City Manager Glenn Rice 575-6123 248-1849 Water/Irrigation Engineer Dave Brown 575-6204 966-4659 Water Distribution Supervisor Alvie Maxey 575-6196 965-3482 Waterworks Crewleader Jim Bumgarner Rich Peck Ron Gilpin 575-6154 574-5727 966-8032 469-3763 Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Mel Young 575-6177 966-9747 CityManager Dick Zais 575-6040 Fire Department Dispatch 576-6354 Police Department Dispatch 575-6200 Street/Traffic Division Wayne Deason 575-6005 Department of Health Mike Wilson Dan Sanders 509-456-2453 509-456-2457 Yakima Valley Office of Emergency Management 574-1900 Yakima County Health Dist. Gordon Kell 575-4040 Vulnerability Analysis A vulnerability analysis of the water system is included in the Emergency Response Plan (Appendix T), which identifies and assesses the major water system facilities that are particularly vulnerable to a disruption of service. Measures to respond to emergencies in the source of supply, raw water intake, water treatment plant, transmission mains, distribution system, storage reservoirs, booster pump stations, pressure -reducing valve stations, electrical power supply, materials and supplies, communications, and transportation systems are included in the plan. The measures planned to reduce the vulnerability of these facilities are summarized below under Contingency Operational Plan. 6-28 • 0 Contingency Operational Plan Contingency plans must address the possibilities of loss or reduction of water supply, distribution system disruption, loss of telemetry, and power failure. Sources of Supply: Water service from the major water supply source, the Naches River Water Treatment Plant, could be interrupted because of high turbidity runoff conditions, extended drought, contamination in the river, or blocking of the intake structure. Fortunately, the City has capacity in the three wells to provide 11.5 MGD of supply. In the event of high -turbidity conditions or a spill, the public would be notified to curtail water use for the few days necessary to clean up the spill. During drought, an emergency curtailment program would be implemented to limit overall water use to the output of the wells. If the water service from the water treatment plant was interrupted between the plant and Gleed, Gleed could be without water because the water treatment plant and 48 -inch transmission main are Gleed's only source of supply and storage. In the event of such an emergency, Gleed could either use its booster pump station to draw water remaining in the downstream portion of the 48 -inch transmission main or receive its water from tanker trucks. We need to discuss. Distribution system: The distribution system in general has adequate redundant piping to continue to provide service in case of disruption of service as the result of a main break or sabotage. In addition, each of the pressure zones can be served from the adjacent pressure zone in case of emergency by using PRVs, booster pump stations, and the emergency interties with Nob Hill Water Association. Loss of Telemetry System: Another concern is the potential for loss of the radio -based telemetry system due to equipment failure or power interruption. When the telemetry system is not operational, the booster pump stations and wells can be operated manually and would require that the reservoir levels be monitored visually. Power failure: Loss of power has historically not been a serious concern to the water utility because power is nearly always restored within a few hours. The water system has enough reservoir storage to supply demands for the duration of the power outage, and water can be moved from the High zone to the rest of the system by gravity. The Water Treatment Plant, Stone Church Pump Station and the Third Level Pump Station have standby generators which enables these facilities to remain operation even under extended periods of outage. If a power failure affecting the distribution system is of extended duration, portable generators could be obtained from the Yakima Training Center or Washington State National Guard. 6-29 0 6.6 Safety Procedures The City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division practices a safety program to ensure the health and welfare of water system personnel. All appropriate Occupational Safety and Health administration (OSHA) and Washington Industrial Safety and Health Administration (WISHA) regulations are followed during operation of the system. Maintenance and operation personnel are trained in safety practices, including confined space, asbestos handling, first-aid, fall restraint, and chlorine safety training. Specific safety considerations for the City of Yakima water system are provided in the following sections. Confined Space Some of the water treatment plant and distribution system valves and other system components are located in vaults or other confined spaces. All water system personnel are trained in confined space safety and the City maintains and operates the required safety equipment (blower, sniffer, tri -pod and harness) necessary to mitigate the dangers associated with confined space. Asbestos Handling Water/Irrigation Division personnel have been trained on the proper methods for repair and disposal of AC pipe in compliance with OSHA standards. General procedures for handling of AC pipe include: • Notification of the local clean air authority in advance of work if possible. • Use of protective garments. • Wetting of area to be services throughout the maintenance to minimize dust. • Cleaning debris off of tools with wet disposable towels. • Placing of towels, scraps, parts, and garments into disposable bag for transportation to nearest landfill. It should be noted that the City of Yakima has only a small amount of asbestos -cement pipe left in the system with the ultimate goal of eventually eliminating all remaining pipe made of this material. Fall restraint Each of the City's elevated reservoirs (The two 1 MG Level 3 reservoirs) are equipped with safety -climb structures that mitigate the threat of falling to Water/Irrigation Division personnel. Appropriate harness -type fall gear is used whenever inspecting reservoir roofs and interiors. Hazardous Chemicals The use of chlorine gas for disinfection of the treatment plant and well water supplies is a significant hazard to water system personnel. The operating staff has special training and education to mitigate the potential dangers associated with the handling and use of this chemical. As discussed in Chapter 3 of this plan, the recommended capital improvements to the water treatment plant include conversion from gaseous chlorine to on-site generation of sodium hypochlorite. This recommendation is based primarily on the safety concerns associated with chlorine handling. Small quantities of chlorine (150 lb cylinders) are also on hand at each of the 6-30 0 three emergency wells. The City has begun the process of converting the chlorination systems at the wells to calcium hypochlorite tablet systems to eliminate chlorine gas at these locations also. The other hazardous chemical used at the water treatment plant is fluoride in the form of hydrofluosilicic acid. This highly corrosive and toxic chemical is located is a separate building. The acid is stored in a high density polyethylene tank with secondary containment for the entire tank volume. As in the case of chlorine, the operating staff has special training and education to mitigate the potential dangers associated with the handling and use of hydrofluosilicic acid. The Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for these chemical are maintained at the place of use (the WTP and the Water/Irrigation Division Office/Shop facilities). 6.7 Cross -Connection Control Program Section 7.68.070 of the Yakima Municipal Code, titled Cross connection control, requires that, no water service shall be installed or continued in use by the purveyor unless the water supply is protected by backflow prevention devices as may be required by this section. The complete text of Chapter 7.68 of the Municipal Code, including Section 7.68.070, is included in this plan as Appendix D. This section of the code, as adopted by Ordinance No. 3078, implements WAC 246-290-490 which establishes cross connection control requirements for all community water systems within the State of Washington. Section 7.68.070 requires that the policies, procedures, and criteria for determining appropriate levels of protection shall be in accordance with the "Accepted Procedure and Practice in Cross Connection Control Manual --Pacific Northwest Section --American Waterworks Association, Third Edition," or any superseding edition. This manual is incorporated by reference into this water system plan update. A copy of the latest Cross Connection Control Annual Report is included in this plan as Appendix N. 6.8 Customer Complaint Response Program All water service related complaints are handled through the Water/Irrigation Division office which can be reached at (509) 575-6154. This number also serves as the Nights and Weekend Emergency telephone number to report problems and complaints after normal working hours. All water quality complaints are referred to the Water Quality Supervisor at the Water Treatment Plant. The Water Quality Supervisor investigates the complaints and maintains records describing the nature of the complaint and the steps taken to resolve it. All complaints are assigned a work order number which can then be tracked in the Automated Inventory and Maintenance Management Systems (AIMMS). AIMMS is a City wide program which tracks information about all of the City's facilities and equipment. Additional information on AIMMS is included in Chapter 6 of this Water System Plan Update. All low pressure and other distribution system related complaints are referred to the Distribution Supervisor who investigates and takes corrective actions as necessary. As with the water quality 6-31 complaints, the distribution system related complaints are assigned a work order number and tracked in AIMMS. 6.9 Recordkeeping and Reporting In 1994 and 1995 City implemented a maintenance management system which ahs been named "Automated Inventory and Maintenance Management Systems" (AIMMS). This program includes information about all of the City's facilities and equipment as well as recordkeeping and reporting. AIMMS consists of number of modules that track and control purchasing and maintenance. • Purchasing Module o Generates purchase orders o Tracks purchases of materials, equipment and services o Tracks costs • Stores Module o Generates requisitions for materials, equipment and services o Tracks inventory of materials and equipment o Issues materials, equipment and services to "Work Orders" o Receipts materials, equipment and services from purchase orders o Generates requisitions for materials and services based on inventory levels and/or requisitions from "Work Orders" • Maintenance Module o Assigns a unique number to each piece of equipment o Generates work orders for all work o Generates preventive maintenance work orders based on input schedule o Tracks all work o Tracks all materials, equipment and services used o Tracks labor hours and costs • Project Module o Tracks special projects including Capital Improvements In addition to the AIMMS recordkeeping and tracking program, the SCADA system software at the Naches River Water Treatment Plant provides for collection and storage of all of the water system process monitoring and control data. 6.10 O & M Improvements An Operation and Maintenance Manual for the Naches Water Treatment Plant is currently being prepared. The development of this manual will include a comprehensive review of current operational procedures and recommend improvements where applicable. Some recommendation have already been made and implemented such as the modification of the backwash sequence as 6-32 • described in Chapter 3 of this plan and in the August 1998 Evaluation of the Naches River Water Treatment Plant by Carollo Engineers. Additional O&M improvement recommendations will require capital improvements to the water treatment facilities. These improvements are also identified in Chapter 3 and in the 1998 Carollo report. Completion of the O&M manual is anticipated by the end of 2003. 6-33 0 Chapter 7 Distribution Facilities Design and Construction Standards 0 7 Distribution Facilities Design and Construction Standards 7.1 General The objective of this chapter is to describe and provide design and construction standards for water system distribution facilities to enable the City of Yakima Water Division to utilize an alternative approval process. By obtaining advance approval of design and construction standards (i.e., performance standards, sizing criteria, and construction materials and methods) along with an approved WSP, water purveyors do not need to obtain written DOH approval of individual project reports and construction documents for distribution mains and other distribution -related facilities. The purveyor must still comply with all applicable sections of the regulations, including project report and construction document requirements listed under WAC 246-290-110 and -120, whether or not documents are submitted individually to DOH for approval. Types of distribution -related projects eligible under the alternative review process include distribution reservoirs/storage tanks, booster pump facilities, transmission mains, distribution mains, pipe linings, and tank coatings. Source of supply and water quality treatment projects are not eligible under this alternative review process. Such projects must be submitted to DOH for review and approval prior to construction. Source of supply projects refer to all work involving the development of a new source, redevelopment of an existing source at the wellhead, interties, and/or any project that would result in source capacity changes (i.e. either increase or decrease source production capability). Design and construction standards must be based on DOH design guidance or other documents generally accepted by engineering professionals as containing fundamental criteria for design and construction of water utility projects. The water system standards must be at least as stringent as those discussed in Chapter 246-290 WAC and should not deviate from department design guidance unless adequately justified. Justification must include other acceptable industry standards, such as those referenced in WAC 246-290-200. This portion of the Water System Plan Update addresses the following elements related to water system distribution facilities design and construction: 1. Project Review Procedures; 2. Policies and Requirements for Outside Parties; 3. Design Standards; 4. Construction Standards; and 5. Construction Certification and Follow-up Procedures. The information contained here should be useful to a design engineer to prepare detailed construction plans and specifications. However, these plans and specifications are not required as a condition associated with utility -controlled distribution -related projects. They are required for projects involving water treatment, new sources of 7- supply, and storage reservoirs. Additional guidance is available from DOH on project report and construction document review. 7.2 Project Review Procedures It is City of Yakima policy that all improvements to be installed as PUBLIC facilities or in public right of way must be shown on engineering design plans, reviewed by the CITY OF YAKIMA, ENGINEERING DIVISION and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing any construction. The engineering design plans must be stamped, signed and dated by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the State of Washington. The plans must include all of the applicable requirements outlined below. At completion of construction, a set of reproducible RECORD DRAWNGS depicting all facilities as constructed shall be submitted to the City Engineer's Office, together with a construction cost summary for all public utilities and a transfer of ownership for all facilities. The purpose of this procedure is to outline the information that must be shown on all plans in order for the Engineering Division top roperly review the design. This shall apply to all projects within the City's jurisdiction including water system extensions and other water system improvement projects. A detailed outline of the plan submittal requirements is available from the Engineering Division upon request. A copy of this document titled ENGINEERING DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES — ENGINEERING DESIGN PLAN REQUIREMENTS, is included as Appendix Q to this Water System Plan Update. The City's Engineering Design Requirements also include by reference, the Department of Health Water System Design Manual. 7.3 Policies and Requirements for Outside Parties Yakima Municipal Code Title 12 — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS establishes requirements and standards for the design and construction of public works improvements by private applicants in conjunction with subdivision or development of real property, and establish fees for the city engineer's review of design documents for and inspection of the public works improvements. Chapter 12.04 WATER addresses the specific requirements applicable to the extension of municipal water service to the development. Specific requirement of Chapter 12.04 include: 12.04.030 Looping required. All water lines shall be looped. Temporary dead-end water lines may be 7-2 • permitted based upon an agreement between the developer and the city with provisions for timely completion of looping. 12.04.040 Minimum size and material standards. New water lines in the city of Yakima water system shall be constructed of Class 52 ductile iron and shall be a minimum of eight inches in diameter. Improvements and additions to the Nob Hill Water Company system shall conform to the requirements of Nob Hill Water Company. In addition, the City of Yakima Engineering Division has published the following documents which also apply to developer water service extensions: WATER — Specifications and Details (1999, or latest edition) CITY OF YAKIMA PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WORKS Both of these documents are available upon request from the City of Yakima Engineering Division and are also included in this plan Appendix P and Appendix R, respectively. The above PROCEDURES MANUAL also includes the necessary forms and checklist which are to be completed for each project which include the following: • Public Improvement Procedure Checklist • Project Acknowledgment (City) • Permit to Construct Public Improvements (City) • Contractor's Indemnity Agreement (Contractor) • Notice of Substantial Completion (Consulting Engineer) • Final Project Inspection (City) • Correction Notice (City) • Certification of Work Completion (Consulting Engineer) • Affidavit of Release of Liens and Claims (Owner/Developer and Contractor) • Final Acceptance (City) • Warranty Inspection (City) 7.4 Design Standards, (Performance Standards and Sizing Criteria) The criteria and standards are based, in some cases, on regulatory requirements and, in other cases, on the City's policy for service. The two sources for standards are the Insurance Services Office (ISO) and the State of Washington Department of Health (DOH). 7-3 The function of the distribution system is to convey water to customers at adequate serv- ice pressures and to provide fire flows. The capacity of the distribution system should be such that it can meet peak -hour demands with a residual pressure of no less than 30 psi. The distribution system should also be able to provide the required fire flows during a peak -hour demand. According to WAC 246-290-230, the minimum system residual pressure permitted throughout the rest of the system to prevent backflow from a customer service into the system under fire flow conditions is 20 psi. Usually, the inability to meet the above demand conditions is a result of inadequate distri- bution capacity; that is, pipes are not large enough or the pipeline grid is not well dis- tributed and lacks redundancy. The capacity of the distribution system is greatly reduced when head loss is greater than about 1 foot per 100 feet of pipe length. The minimum pipeline diameter is dictated by the minimum residential fire -flow require- ment of 1,500 gpm. Accordingly the City of Yakima Municipal Code and related design standards require that 8 inches be the minimum pipe diameter, in order to keep the velocity in the pipe below 10 feet per second. Pipeline velocities should also be maintained at approximately 3 to 5 feet per second for pumped systems and 7.5 feet per second for peak -hour conditions. It can generally be shown that it is more cost-effective (over a facility's service life) to increase the pipeline diameter to maintain 3 to 5 feet per second than to increase the pump horsepower. The spacing of supply mains, arteries, secondary feeders, and fire hydrants are factors considered in determining the WSRB fire rating. According to the ISO's Grading Sched- ule for Municipal Fire Protection, "... supply mains, arteries and secondary feeders shall extend throughout the system, shall be properly spaced (not more than 3,000 feet apart), and looped for mutual support and reliability of service ...." Table 5 in the Grading Schedule shows the average areas recommended to be served by a fire hydrant for vary- ing fire flows. Fire hydrants that serve a larger area for a particular fire flow can result in deficiency points being assessed against the City, thus lowering the City's fire rating. Pressure zone boundaries are based on ground contours and reservoir overflow eleva- tions. The lower boundary of the zone is along the ground surface contour that results in pressures of no more than 100 psi during static conditions (usually occurring in the early morning hours). The upper boundary of the zone is along the ground surface contour that results in static pressures of no less than 40 psi. This low-pressure standard is usually sufficient to ensure that the pressure will not be below 30 psi during peak demand conditions. Only the minimum number of pressure zones should be created. Wherever pressure zones are created, the system becomes fragmented and the water conveyance capacity can be severely limited by the PRV "bottleneck." Also, it is desirable to limit the number of PRVs because as a mechanical device they require maintenance and are subject to failure. ISO fire -fighting standards consider pipelines much more reliable than PRVs. 7-4 The number of PRVs serving any given zone should be sufficient to meet fire -fighting requirements if one is out of service. Therefore, at least two, and ideally three, PRVs should serve each zone. Pump station capacities must be adequate to provide peak -hour demands and fire -flow demands when pumping to a closed system (a pressure zone without storage). All pump stations require a minimum of two pumps for flexible operation. The total capacity of the pumps in a given pump station should generally be 25 to 50 percent greater than the calculated required capacity of the pump station, allowing a pump to be repaired without reducing supply capability. To increase emergency reliability, at least one pump in each pump station should be equipped with auxiliary power, which would include a diesel generator, a natural gas engine, or an auxiliary hookup so that it can be run from a port- able generator to supplement the standard electric motor drive. In this way, some emer- gency supply capacity is available even if a general power outage occurs. A similar degree of reliability could be provided if the pressure zone is served by a second pump station, provided the second pump station is on a separate power distribution grid. 7.5 Construction Standards, (Materials and Methods) Specifications for the materials and methods of construction of water system extensions are included in the above referenced document titled WATER — Specifications and Details available fro the Engineering Division. The requirements of these specifications include, but are not limited to the following: All water mains shall constructed using ductile iron pipe Class 52 with cement mortar lining complying with ANSFAWWA CI05/A21.50, C151/A21.51, and C104/A21.4 most current editions. Gate valves shall be resilient seated conforming to ANSI/AWWA C509 latest edition. Butterfly valves shall conform to ANSI/AWWA C504 latest edition. Refer to the document titled WATER — Specifications and Details, in Appendix P, for complete information regarding specifications and water system construction details. 7.6 Construction Certification and Follow-up Procedures The steps that the City of Yakima Engineering Division takes to assure that a water system extension project has been constructed in accordance with the applicable standards are described in the above referenced PROCEDURES MANUAL and WATER — Specifications and Details. The following description of the specific steps- related to project completion and acceptance are excerpted from the PROCEDURES MANUAL: 7-5 Step VII Upon written notice that the public improvements have been substantially completed, the City will, in the company of the Consulting Engineer and/or the Owner/Developer or his Agent, make a final inspection of the construction. The Owner/Developer shall see that all necessary additions, corrections, repairs, and/or modifications are made. Step VIII At the conclusion of construction and when all corrections and repairs have been made, the Consulting Engineer shall submit a reproducible set of "As Built" Record Drawings along with a Certification of Work Completion and a request for acceptance by the City. The City's inspector and the Owner/Developer's contractor will provide the Consulting Engineer with field notes of changes to the approved plans. It is the responsibility, however, of the Consulting Engineer to assume conformance of the construction with the plans and specifications. The Consulting Engineer shall also make all other appropriate certifications and copies shall be furnished to the City. No building or service connection to sanitary sewers, storm drains, or water lines will be permitted until these systems have received final acceptance by the City, or unless otherwise approved by the City for connections. No permit shall be issued for any building construction until all of the public improvements included in the permit are fully operational and accepted by the City unless agreed to in writing by the City. Step IX When all public improvements have been completed in an acceptable manner, the City shall certify its acceptance in writing. Final acceptance by the City shall not relieve the Owner/Developer, the Consulting Engineer, or the Contractor of any liability, present or future, for failure or omissions directly relating to the improvements as included in the approved plans and specifications. The City's letter of acceptance shall specify the effective period of the warranty. For the complete text of the PROCEDURES MANUAL refer to Appendix R. The specific requirements for hydrostatic pressure testing and final flushing and bacteriological testing are addressed in the Engineering Division's WATER — Specifications and Details which include the following provisions: All water mains and appurtenances shall be tested under a hydrostatic pressure of 180 psi. The Developer will pay for the cost of bacteriological testing. City Engineering Inspector with a Contractor Representative will collect bacteriological tests. 7-6 • Chapter 8 Improvement Program 0 8 Improvement Program 8.1 Objective The objective of this chapter is to outline an improvement program by incorporating the system needs identified in the previous chapters. The identified improvements have been analyzed and prioritized in the development of the improvement program schedule for this Water System Plan Update as required by WAC 246-290-100. The previously identified improvement projects have been evaluated and prioritized based on the following criteria: • Health Standards: Does the improvement option conform with all of the applicable health regulations and standards? • Land Use: Does the improvement option conform with and support adopted land use plans and policies? • Quantity: Does the improvement alternative result in an adequate amount of future water supply source? • Reliability: How much increased reliability does the improvement alternative provide the system? Is the system's desired level of reliability being achieved? • Costs: What are the initial and annual capital costs? What are on-going costs for operation and maintenance of the improvement alternative? • Regional Benefit: To what degree will the improvement alternative fulfill regional goals as well as individual system needs? Take into account regional water system needs and other multi-purpose benefits, such as flood control, and recreation. • Environmental Effects: What kinds of environmental impact will the improvement alternatives create? Can negative impacts be mitigated? • Flexibility: How well can the improvement alternative respond to changes in land use patterns, water demand projections, and resource management decisions? Can it be phased in? • Implementation: How easy will it be for the improvement alternative to be accepted, designed, constructed, and financed? • Life Expectancy: What is the useful life expectancy of the facility improvements? • Risk: What risks are associated with selecting, or not selecting, alternatives improvements taking into account health risks, economic risks, and reliability of service risks? The specific improvements which are recommended based on the evaluations conducted in the development of this plan are summarized in the following section. 8-1 8.2 Descriptions of Recommended Improvements The improvements identified in this Water System Plan Update are described here in the following functional component categories: • Source of Supply • Water Treatment • Storage, and • Distribution Source of Supply The current normal source of supply is the Naches River Water Treatment Plant with a nominal capacity of 25 MGD. This supply is adequate to meet the projected maximum day demand (MDD) up until 2008. The three active wells (Kiwanis, Airport, and Kissel Park) have been designated as emergency use supplies. A proposed new 3000 gpm deep well located in Elks Park would enable the City to beneficially use the balance of the Ranney Well water right, and provide the additional year around source which is needed to meet projected MDD after 2008. The estimated cost of a new well included well pump, well house and engineering and administrative costs is $1,500,000. Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is discussed in Chapter 4 as a possible source of additional supply during peak use periods or under emergency conditions. Two ASR wells are proposed which would initially be emergency only supply sources. If the projected maximum day demands are realized by the year 2015, one of the proposed ASR wells would be converted from an emergency source of supply status to a normal supply source. The first ASR well would be installed in 2006. The second ASR well would be installed in 2008. The estimated cost for each of the ASR wells would be the same as the Elks Park Well, or approximately $1,500,000. Water Treatment The recommended improvements in the water treatment facilities are described briefly below: Raw Water Intake - The recommended improvements to the Raw Water Intake will consist of flat screen panels with air backwash and continuous air curtain to mitigate the build-up of ice in the winter months. Installation of the new screens is scheduled for completion in the Spring of 2003. Rapid Mix (Coagulation) - A new pump diffusion flash mix system is recommended to replace the existing rapid mix. The recommended improvements to the rapid mix/coagulation system are scheduled for installation in late 2003 or early 2004. The estimated cost of these improvements is $150,000. 8-2 0 Filter Rehabilitation - Rehabilitation of the filters is recommended to resolve the deficiencies discussed above in Chapter 3 of this plan. The recommended improvements to the filters are scheduled for installation in late 2004 or early 2005. The estimated cost of these filter improvements is $1,500,000. Filter -to -Waste Facilities - Improvements to operation of the existing FTW system as well as upgrades and modifications to the filter gallery piping are recommended to address the deficiencies described in Chapter 3 of this plan. The change to the FTW operating period has been already been implemented as of March 2003. The filter gallery piping improvements are scheduled for installation in late 2003 or early 2004. The estimated cost of these improvements is $500,000. Disinfection Facilities - Conversion of the disinfection system from chlorine gas to sodium hypochlorite is recommended to resolve safety and treatment capability deficiencies. The conversion to sodium hypochlorite is scheduled for late 2003 or early 2004. The estimated cost of the conversion is $500,000. Residuals Handling - Construction of three concrete lined lagoons with a recycle pump station is recommended to replace the existing residuals handling process. The recommended improvements to the residuals handling facilities are scheduled for installation in 2006. The estimated cost of the backwash lagoon upgrade is $1,800,000. Chemical Storage and Feed Facilities - Improvements to the chemical storage and feed facilities are recommended at the WTP to improve operation and maintenance. The recommended improvements to the chemical storage and feed facilities are scheduled for installation in late 2003 or early 2004. The estimated cost for the new chemical storage and feed facilities is $2,020,000. Storage As discussed in Chapter 3 of this plan, the existing storage capacity is adequate for the projected supply and demand conditions through 2022. The only deficiency which has been noted is the low turnover rate in the Level 2 reservoirs during low demand periods. The recommended improvement to resolve this deficiency is the installation of an automated flow/pressure control valve interconnection between Level 2 and Level 1. The control valve interconnection will be installed within the 40th Avenue Pump Station. It will be tied into the existing telemetry system at the 401h Avenue Pump Station to enable control remotely by the operators from the Water Treatment Plant. The recommended improvement at the 401h Avenue Pump Station is scheduled for installation in late 2003 or early 2004. The estimated cost of the proposed control valve including the necessary piping modifications and telemetry is $100,000. Distribution The recommended improvements to the distribution system are described briefly below: 8-3 The following distribution projects, while not needed to correct any existing deficiencies, are included in the capital improvement program as part of the City's on-going efforts to maintain and upgrade the quality of the system to meet current and future needs. East Mead Avenue Water Main The existing 8 -inch main on East Mead Avenue east of South 1 st Street is only marginally sufficient to convey fire flows to the industrial area along I-82. An improvement completed under an earlier CIP should be extended to include a 12 -inch pipe along East Mead Avenue between South 1 st Street and the existing 12 -inch pipe that extends eastward from South 10th Street. Replace the existing 8" in Mead from 1St St to 10th St and replace about 300' the existing 6" in S. 1St St with a 12" to connect with existing 12" Viola Avenue Freeway Crossing Currently, the 6 -inch main that crosses under I-82 is only marginally sufficient to convey fire flows to the industrial area east of I-82 including the Yakima WWTP & K -Mart. A 12 -inch pipe is needed extending from the eastern end of Viola Avenue under 1-82 to connect to the existing 12 -inch pipe. Long Fiber to South 1St Water Main This project would connect the existing 12 inch main in Long Fiber Avenue to an existing 12 inch main in South 1St Street to complete a loop which would serve this area. This will strengthen the distribution system in this location, so it could better serve potential future development in this area. Private Water Main Replacement Program The City of Yakima has an on-going program that replaces private mains less than 6" and complete loops in the areas where the mains are replaced. PRV Replacement Program The City of Yakima is planning to replace 11 of the 13 pressure reducing valves as part of an on- going distribution system maintenance upgrade. 0 8.3 Improvement Schedule A summary schedule of the recommended improvements is provided in Table 8-1, below. Table 8-1 Summary of Recommended Capital Improvements 2003 to 2008 Project Description Section(s) in WSP where discussed Cost Estimate S Financing Source Year Source Improvements Elks Park Well (3000 gpm, 4.3 MGD) 3.3.2 (p. 3-30) 1,500,000 CIP/PWTF 2005 ASR Well No. 1 (2500 gpm. 3.6 MGD) 3.3.2 (p. 3-30) 1,500,000 CIP/PWTF 2007 Tablet C12 Disinfection at Wells 3.3.7 (p. 3-92) 30,000 CIP/PWTF 2003/4 Water Treatment Raw Water Intake 3.3.3 (p. 3-37) 980,000 CIP/BPA/SRFB 2003 Rapid Mix (Coagulation) 3.3.3 (p. 3-38) 1,186,000 CIP/PWTF 2003/4 Filter Rehabilitation 3.3.3 (p. 3-40) 900,000 CIP/PWTF 2004/5 Filter -to -Waste Facilities (Pipe Gallery) 3.3.3 (p. 3-44) 500,000 CIP/PWTF 2003/4 Disinfection Facilities (On -Site C12) 3.3.3 (p. 3-45) 300,000 CIP/PWTF 2003/4 Residuals Handling (Lagoons) 3.3.3 (p. 3-46) 1,800,000 CIP/PWTF 2006 Chemical Storage and Feed Facilities 3.3.3 (p. 3-47) 1,156,000 CIP/PWTF 2003/4 Storage 40th Avenue Pump Station Valve 3.3.6 (p. 3-89) 25,000 CIP 2003 Distribution E. Mead Av 1 st to 10th St. Water Main 3.3.5 (p. 3-82) 160,000 CIP 2007 Viola Ave Freeway Crossing 3.3.5 (p. 3-82) 180,000 CIP 2005 Long Fiber to S. 1st Water Main 3.3.5 (p. 3-82) 155,000 CIP 2006 Water Main Replacement Program 3.3.5 (p. 3-82) 175,000 CIP 2004 PRV Replacement 3.3.5 (p. 3-82) 100,000 CIP 2003 Main Replacement Powerhouse Rd to Level 2 Reservoir 3.3.5 (p. 3-82) 1,500,000 CIP 2005 Other Water System Plan Update N/A 55,000 CIP 2003 8-5 In the above table, CIP refers to funds from rates and reserves, PWTF refers to the Public Works Trust Fund, BPA refers to the Bonneville Power Administration, and SRFB refers to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The recommended capital improvements are shown in the order in which they are scheduled for implementation in Table 8-2. 0 Table 8-2 Capital Improvement Schedule 2003 to 2022 (Costs in Dollars) Improvement Project Description 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009-2022 WTP Raw Water Intake 980,000 PRV Replacement 100,000 Water System Plan Update 2 55,000 WTP Rapid Mix (Coagulation) 593,000 593,000 WTP Filter -to -Waste Facilities (Pipe Gallery) 250,000 250,000 WTP Disinfection Facilities (On -Site C12) 150,000 150,000 WTP Chemical Storage and Feed Facilities 573,000 583,000 Elks Park Well (4.3 MGD) 1,500,000 40'x' Avenue Pump Station Valve 25,000 Viola Ave Freeway Crossing 180,000 Filter Rehabilitation 575,000 325,000 East Mead Ave. 1 st to 10th St. Water Main 160,000 Long Fiber to S. 1 st St. Water Main 155,000 WTP Residuals Handling (Lagoons) 1,800,000 ASR Well No. 1 (2500 gpm. 3.6 MGD) 1,500,000 ASR Well No. 2 (2500 gpm. 3.6 MGD) 1,500,000 Water Main Replacement Program 175,000 175,000 175,000 Tablet Chlorine Disinfection at Wells 20,000 10,000 Main Replacement Powerhouse Rd. to Level 2 1,500,000 WTP Enhanced Disinfection 3 3,900,000 Totals 2,746,000 2,336,000 3,505,000 1,955,000 1,660,000 175,000 5,575,000 �Project began in 2002. Total project cost $1,900,000 2 Project began in 2001. Prior year costs not included. 3 To be further evaluated in future plans. 8-7 0 Chapter 9 Financial Program 0 9 Financial Program 9.1 Objective and Plan Content The objective of the financial program is to identify the total cost of providing water service, assure that the utility improvement schedule will be implemented, and assist in establishing adequate fees for service. Statutory authority for financial program is derived from Chapters 43.20, 70.116 and 70.119A RCW. Regulatory authorities include Chapters 246-293 and 246-294 WAC, plus WAC 246-290-100. Financial planning is one of the most important aspects of the Water System Plan. A comprehensive financial program is needed to successfully implement the recommended capital improvements and the continued operation and maintenance of the system. A complete funding program must indicate that the utility will be financially viable for the planning period. In order for a system to be financially viable, it must have the capacity to obtain sufficient funds to develop, construct, operate, maintain and manage the water system on a continuing basis in full compliance with federal, state and local requirements. The financial program for this Water System Plan Update includes the following information: • Past and Present Financial Status • Available Revenue Sources • Allocation of Revenue Sources • Program Justification • Assessment of Rates The City of Yakima completed a Cost of Service and Rate Study for the Domestic Water Utility in March 2001. Much of the information presented in this chapter is derived from that study. The first step of the study was to project future revenues under existing rates. Projections were also made in the study for operating expenses and financing requirements associated with the capital improvement program. The corresponding revenues were then evaluated to determine if they were adequate to meet the operating expenses and capital improvement program needs. A five year planning period (2001 through 2005) was used in the Cost of Service and Rate Study. Another Cost of Service and Rate Study will be conducted in 2004 which will cover the balance of the Water System Plan Update planning period. The second step of the study was a cost of service analysis, which allocated revenue requirements in accordance with various customer class demands. Uniform unit costs were calculated and used to distribute requirements to all classes based on customer demands. The cost of service analysis provided a guide toward making rate adjustments for each customer class. From the results of the cost of service analysis, the final step, a rate design, was accomplished. GMI 9.2 Past and Present Financial Status i A summary of the operating income and expenses for the last -6 years -is included in Table 9-1. Table 9-1 also lists the income and expense budget for the current year (2003). Obligations of the Domestic Water Utility Capital Fund are met from a combination of available funds on hand, proposed low interest loans, grants, cash transfers from the Domestic Water Utility Operating Fund, and interest income. It should be noted that the combination of funding sources shown in the capital -financing plan is dependent upon the amount of estimated capital costs to be incurred in any given year of the program. Should either of these amounts differ from the assumptions provided, the combination of funding sources could change. 9-2 Table 9-1 Summary of Income and Expenses 1997 to 2002 and Budget for Current Year (2003) Revenues i 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 474 Water Operating Revenue 5,016,122 4,409,950 5,300,950 4,678,350 5,135,373 5,448,450 5,493,450 Beginning Unencumbered Balance 800,000' 800,000, 891,000 1,000,000, 1,680,016 2,048,962 1,906,164 Expenditures 474-122; Fire Suppression 92,255 90,028 89,364 117,180 133,493 152,640 182,568 474-129 Fire Suppression Admin. 18,493 20,968 20,989 22,044 21,517 22,589 42,891 474-341 Water Distribution 1,627,380 1,559,217 1,554,280 1,564,810 1,512,681 1,637,858 1,767,687 474-343 Water Treatment Plant, Transmission & Storage 608,882 818,890 821,429 898,625 978,496 1,019,704 1,117' 641 474-348 Water/Irrigation Engineer 47,542 77,748 77,953 69,323 50,842 59,090 61,416 474-349 Water Administration 230,206 187,473 188,478 192,901 155,046 213,997 244,974 474-641 Interfund Charges Insurance 42,800 70,000 70,000 72,100 74,263- 81,689 102,112 474-642 PERS Prior Service 1,625 1,700 1,700 1,700 - - - 474-645 Debt service, and transfers 703,943 675,542 656,361 855,486 625,450 1,122,441 980,200 474-646 Interfund in Lieu Tax, City and Customer Services 1,013,668 1,131,402 1,136,856 1,147,406 1,214,640 1,281,240 1,332,207 Total Expenditures $ 4,386,793 $ 4,632,968 $ 4,617,410 $ 4,941,576 $ 4,766,428 $ 5,591,248 $ 5,831,696 Estimated amount for beginning unencumbered balance. 9-3 • 9.3 Available Revenue Sources Revenue for the Operating Fund is derived from user charges for metered water sales, miscellaneous revenues such as hookup fees and penalties, new water services, rental income, personnel services, and interest income from operations. Obligations of the Domestic Water Utility Capital Fund are met from a combination of available funds on hand, proposed low interest loans, grants, cash transfers from the Domestic Water Utility Operating Fund, and interest income. It should be noted that the combination of funding sources shown in the capital -financing plan is dependent upon the amount of estimated capital costs to be incurred in any given year of the program. Should either of these amounts differ from the assumptions provided, the combination of funding sources could change. Based on City accounting records, a beginning balance of $1,546,413 is available in the Capital Fund for 2003. The City does not plan to issue bonds to pay for Domestic Water Utility capital projects. This cost of service and rate study currently is proposing that the City borrow $10,000,000 in low-interest money from the Public Works Trust Fund. By utilizing operating transfers and grant funds as matching funds, it is believed that the these loans, $5,000,000 each in years 3 and 4 of the program, can be written with only a one-half of one percent interest burden. In 2002 the City received grants from the BPA and the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for funds totaling $1,900,000 to be used in the modification of the Water Treatment Plant Intake structure. The Intake structure modifications are scheduled for completion in 2003. Transfers from the Operating Fund are planned during each year of the study period to provide cash financing for the remaining identified water capital projects. The transfers will range in size from $100,000 to $600,000. Currently, there are limited alternative funding sources available. However staff will continue to seek outside funding sources. One such source that is currently being investigated is the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project - Title XII. As time progresses, the likelihood of funds becoming available through the State's Salmon Recovery Funding Program could potentially become another funding source for some projects. Interest income is generated from the investment of available annual balances in the water utility Capital Fund. An average annual interest rate of 4.0 percent was assumed in the 2001 Cost of Service and Rate Study. A Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) loan was obtained in September of 2003 in the amount of $2,694,500. These loan funds are to be applied to a WTP improvement project which includes rapid mix (pumped flash mix) improvements, on-site chlorine for disinfection, new chemical feed and storage equipment, and pipe gallery modifications. Future projects for which PWTF loans will be applied for include filter rehabilitation, the Elks Park Well, and WTP residuals handling. 0 9.4 Allocation of Revenue Sources Obligations of the Capital Fund include major capital improvements, bond reserve requirements for existing bonds, and capital financing issuance expense. Table 9-2 is the Projected Capital Improvement Financing Plan as presented in the 2001 Cost of Service and Rate Study. This projected CIP financing plan will be updated as part of the new cost of service and rate study to be completed in 2004. Table 9-2 shows a projected Capital Fund balance of $522,600 by the year 2005. Fund balances at the end of one year are generally carried forward to help fund projects the following year and to provide for unanticipated changes in project costs and schedules. SOURCE OF FUNDS Beginning of Year Fund Balance Proposed Bond Sales Issue Amount Less Issuance Costs (a) Less. Reserve Requirement (b) Net Proceeds Low Interest Rate Loans Amount of Loan Less Issuance Costs (c) Less Reserve Requirement (d) Table 9-2 Projected Capital Improvement Financing Plan Total Available Loan Funds $ - 2000 2001 2002 2003 $ 2004 2005 $ 1,259,500 $ 879,800 $ 206,300 $ 230,200 $ 3,589,300 $ 1,059,400 $ - $ - $ - Transfer from Operating Fund $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ 500,000 $ 400,000 $ 600,000 $ 550,000 Connection Charge Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (25,000) $ (25,000) $ - Total Available Loan Funds $ - $ - $ - $ 4,975,000 $ 4,975,000 $ - Grant Funds/Contributions $ 400,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Transfer from Operating Fund $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ 500,000 $ 400,000 $ 600,000 $ 550,000 Connection Charge Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Other $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Interest Earnings (e) $ 52,200 $ 26,500 $ 10,600 $ 93,200 $ 113,400 $ 38,600 Total Funds Available $ 1,811,700 $ 1,506,300 $ 716,900 $ 5,698,400 $ 9,277,700 $ 1,648,000 APPLICATION OF FUNDS Major Capital Improvements $ 931,900 $ 1,300,000 $ 486,700 $ 2,109,100 $ 8,218,300 $ 1,125,400 Total Funds Applied $ 931,900 $ 1,300,000 $ 486,700 $ 2,109,100 $ 8,218,300 $ 1,125,400 End of Year Fund Balance $ 879,800 $ 206,300 $ 230,200 $ 3,589,300 $ 1,059,400 $ 522,600 Minimum Desired balance $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 (a) Assumed to be equal too 0 percent of total issue amount. (b) Assumed to be equal to one year average debt service. (c) Assumed to be equal to 0 5 percent of total issue amount. (d) Assumed that there is no reserve requirement. (e) Interest earnings on unspent construction funds assumed at 4 0 percent. 9.5 Program Justification To provide for the continued operation of the Utility on a sound financial basis, revenue must be sufficient to meet revenue requirements. This section of the report analyzes projected Utility operating revenues and operating revenue requirements during the five-year study period and sets forth revenue adjustments needed to meet future revenue requirements. Table 9-3 presents the Domestic Water Utility Operating Fund cash flow as presented in the 2001 Cost of Service and Rate Study. Revenue for the Operating Fund is derived from user charges for metered water sales, miscellaneous revenues such as hookup fees and penalties, new water services, rental income, personnel services, and interest income from operations. Sources of operating revenues are shown on Table 9-3. Revenue of the Utility is derived principally from the sale of water. Estimates of future water sales revenues are based on a detailed analysis of the number of estimated customer meters, water usage, and projected customer growth throughout the study period. Water sales revenue is based on the rates, number of estimated meters, and projected volume of metered water. The revenue figures in Table 9-3 reflect the rates implemented in July 2001. The Utility also receives revenue from miscellaneous revenues such as hook-up fees, permitting fees, and penalties. Interest income is based on the estimated available balances in the Operating Fund for each investment period, and an average annual interest rate of four percent. Revenue requirements for the Operating Fund include operation and maintenance expense, debt service, transfers to the Capital Fund, routine capital outlays, and taxes. Operating and maintenance (O&M) expense consists of the cost of personnel and materials to supply, pump, and distribute water on a routine basis. Since these costs are an annual obligation of the Utility, they must be met from water sales revenue. Transfers to the Capital Fund for cash financing of capital improvements vary each year based on needs and carry-over amounts, and will range in size from $100,000 to $600,000. 9-7 Table 9-3 Projected Operating Fund Cash Flow Line No Revenue Under Existing Rates 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1 Water Sales Revenue $ 4,557,600 $ 4,566,200 $ 4,573,200 $ 4,580,100 $ 4,583,500 $ 4,586,900 Additional Revenue Required Percent # of Months Year Increase Effective 4 2001 20 12 $ - $ 913,200 $ 914,600 $ 916,000 $ 916,700 $ 917,400 5 2002 0 12 $ - $ $ - $ - 6 2003 0 12 $ $ $ 7 2004 0 12 $ $ 8 2005 0 12 $ - 9 Total Additional Revenue $ - $ 913,200 $ 914,600 $ 916,000 $ 916,700 $ 917,400 10 Total Revenue from Adj Rates $ 4,557,600 $ 5,479,400 $ 5,487,800 $ 5,496,100 $ 5,500,200 $ 5,504,300 11 Other Operating Revenue $ 187,100 $ 167,100 $ 167,100 $ 167,100 $ 167,100 $ 167,100 13 Non -Operating Revenue $ 145,400 $ 130,400 $ 130,400 $ 130,400 $ 130,400 $ 130,400 14 Interest Income $ 74,900 $ 87,400 $ 103,800 $ 112,100 $ 107,000 $ 81,500 15 Total All Revenues $ 4,965,000 .$ 5,864,300.• $ 5',88&,100 '$' 5,905;700 $ 5,904,700 $ 5,883,300, REVENUE REQUIREMENTS 16 Total Operation and Maintenance $ 3,927,400 $ 4,112,600 $ 4,244,300 $ 4,380,100 $ 4,520,300 $ 4,665,000 Debt Service 17 Existing Bonds $ 595,000 $ 552,200 $ 545,600 $ 340,400 $ 335,300 $ 321,700 18 Proposed Bonds $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 19 Total Bonds $ 595,000 $ 552,200 $ 545,600 $ 340,400 $ 335,300 $ 321,700 20 Existing Loans $ 74,500 $ 73,700 $ 102,900 $ 102,100 $ 101,200 $ 100,400 21 Proposed Loans $ - $ - $ - $ 131,700 $ 395,000 $ 526,600 22 Total Loans $ 74,500 $ 73,700 $ 102,900 $ 233,800 $ 496,200 $ 627,000 23 Total Debt Service $ 669,500 $ 625,900 $ 648,500 $ 574,200 $ 831,500 $ 948,700 24 Transfer to Capital Fund $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ 500,000 $ 400,000 $ 600,000 $ 550,000 25 Risk Management Ins 641 534 10 960 $ 72,100 $ 74,263 $ " 76,491 $ 78,786 $ 81,149 $ 83,584 26 Taxes $ 210,000 $ 275,600 $ 276,000 $ 276,400 $ 276,600 $ 276,800 27 Total Revenue Requirements $ 4,979,000 $ 5,338,363 $ 5,745,291 $ 5,709,486 $ 6,309,549 $ 6,524,084 FUND BALANCES 28 Change in Cash Position $ (14,000) $ 525,937 $ 143,809 $ 196,214 $ (404,849) $ (640,784) 29 Beginning Cash Balance $ 1,543,400 $ 1,529,400 $ 2,055,337 $ 2,199,146 $ 2,395,360 $ 1,990,511 30 Ending Cash Balance $ 1,529,400 $ 2,055,337 $ 2,199,146 $ 2,395,360 $ 1,990,511 $ 1,349,728 31 Minimum Desired Cash Balance $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 9-8 9.6 Assessment of Rates In 1996 the City conducted a Cost of Services and Rate Study which recommended that the City begin a transition to a conservation rate structure. The existing water rate structure is a hybrid of several types of rate structures, based in part on a modified declining block -rate, which includes a minimum bill (ready -to - serve -charge) similar to the one defined in the American Waterworks Association's M1 - Water Rates Manual. The hybrid form of rate structure currently utilized by the .City provides a customer with six (6) Units of Service (600 cubic feet of water). This initial block is designed to recover customer costs, as well as costs associated with use and capacity requirements of the smallest users. While the declining block -rate structure attempts to derive revenues in accord with the cost responsibilities of each class of customers, the rate structure does not promote the conservation of water. Little, if any, incentive is provided for conservation of water when the per unit cost decreases as the volume of water used increases. This form of rate structure is negative by the very fact that it rewards excessive use. The 1996 study recommended that two (2) of the existing six (6) declining rate blocks be eliminated from the present structure, thereby reducing the total rate blocks to four (4). The 1996 study also recommended elimination of the Government Irrigation rate category. The review of the then existing rate structure revealed that rate City policy had been providing a substantial subsidy to Governmental Irrigation. Both of these recommended conservation pricing measures went into effect in 1997. Another Cost of Service and Rate Study was completed in March 2001. The 2001 study recommended a continuing transition to conservation pricing by reducing the total rate blocks from four (4) to three (3). The recommended rate changes were implemented in July 2001. The current rate structure is shown in Tables 9-4, 9-5, and 9-6 below. As noted previously, another Cost of Service and Rate Study will be conducted in 2004. This rate study is expected to evaluate further steps in the transition to a conservation rate structure which began with the 1996 study. Table 9-4 Water services charges (7.68.250) Ready -to -Serve Charges: Meter size One -Month Period Two -Month Period 3/4" and smaller $3.65 $3.65 1" 4.24 5.65 1-1/2" 7.68 12.80 2" 14.17 26.00 3" 34.64 67.00 4" 54.57 107.00 6" 95.95 190.00 8" 156.55 310.00 10" 238.93 475.00 Table 9-5 Water Volume Charges (7.68.250) Usage Block (cubic feet) Rate Per 100 cubic feet 0--12 $ 1.13 13--20 $ 1.13 21--250 $ 1.00 251--500 $ 0.75 Over 500 $ 0.75 Minimum ready -to -serve and consumption charges for water supplied outside the city shall be computed by multiplying the applicable rate above by one and one-half. 9-10 0 Table 9-6 Fire service charges (7.68.282) Size of Service Inside City Outside City 1 ''/2" $5.00 $7.50 2" 5.00 7.50 3" 7.00 10.50 4" including hydrant only 11.00 16.50 6" including hydrant only 26.00 39.00 8" 35.00 52.50 " 10" 60.00 90.00 12" 150.00 225.00 9-11