• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
2012 06-13 draft facilities planning report
 

2012 06-13 draft facilities planning report

on

  • 295 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
295
Views on SlideShare
295
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    2012 06-13 draft facilities planning report 2012 06-13 draft facilities planning report Document Transcript

    • DRA AFTFEAS SIBILITY STUD & FA Y DY ACILITIE PLA ES ANNING REPO G ORT TOW OF YOUNTVIL WN Y LLE RECY YCLED W WATER EX XPANSIO PROJE ON ECT YOUN NTVILLE, C CALIFOR RNIA June 2 2012 Prepared for: d Mr. Graham Wadsworth PE h, Tow of Youn wn ntville 6550 Yount S Street Yountv ville, CA 94 4599 Prepared by: d 223 Mercury Way, Suite 150 35 e Santa R Rosa, CA 95 5407 (707) 523-1010
    • DRAFTFEASIBILITY STUDY & FACILITIES PLANNING REPORTTOWN OF YOUNTVILLE RECYCLED WATER EXPANSION PROJECTYOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIAProject No. 12027-11001-37020Prepared for:Mr. Graham WadsworthTown of Yountville6550 Yount StreetYountville, CA 94599Prepared by:____________________________________Reviewed by:___________________________________2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150Santa Rosa, CA 95407(707) 523-1010June 2012
    • Contents1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1  1.1  BENEFITS OF THE RECYCLED WATER PLAN...............................................................1  1.2  FACILITY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................1  1.3  RECOMMENDED PROJECT .............................................................................................2 2.  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 3  2.1  BACKGROUND AND PROJECT PURPOSE.....................................................................3  2.2  STUDY AREA .....................................................................................................................4  2.3  PLANNING PROCESS .......................................................................................................4  2.3.1  WORKSHOPS AND PUBLIC OUTREACH ..................................................................... 4  2.4  DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ..........................................................................................5 3.  PROBLEMS AND NEEDS ................................................................................. 6  3.1  STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................6  3.1.1  HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS AND AMBIENT WATER QUALITY ...................... 6  3.1.2  LAND USE TRENDS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ............................................ 7  3.2  WATER SUPPLY ...............................................................................................................7  3.2.1  RECTOR RESERVOIR ................................................................................................... 7  3.2.2  STATE WATER PROJECT WATER SUPPLY................................................................. 8  3.2.3  GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................ 8  3.2.4  RECYCLED WATER ....................................................................................................... 9  3.2.5  WATER DEMAND TRENDS............................................................................................ 9  3.2.6  SOURCES FOR ADDITIONAL WATER AND PLANS FOR NEW FACILITIES ............... 9  3.2.7  WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND BALANCE .................................................................. 9  3.3  WASTEWATER TREATMENT & DISPOSAL ..................................................................10  3.3.1  EXISTING WATER RECYCLING AND EFFLUENT RIGHTS ........................................ 11  3.4  ENVIRONMENTAL WATER.............................................................................................11 4.  WATER REUSE OPPORTUNITIES (MARKET ASSESSMENT) ..................... 12  4.1  IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS ..........................................................12  4.2  DEMAND DEVELOPMENT ..............................................................................................14  4.3  SUMMARY OF MARKET ASSESSMENT RESULTS ......................................................18 5.  PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................ 19  5.1  ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS ................................19  5.1.1  RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY AND WATER BALANCE .............................................. 19 Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204DRAFT Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report i June 2012
    • 5.1.2  TREATMENT SYSTEM CAPACITY .............................................................................. 23  5.1.3  PUMPING AND DELIVERY RATE ................................................................................ 24  5.1.4  DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CAPACITY ........................................................................... 24  5.2  COST ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................................25  5.3  ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS .....................................................................................26  5.3.1  ALTERNATIVE 1 – SERVE ALL TIER 2 CUSTOMERS ................................................ 26  5.3.2  ALTERNATIVE 1A – SERVE TIER 2 CUSTOMERS WEST OF THE NAPA RIVER ............................................................................................................................ 27  5.3.3  ALTERNATIVE 2 – SERVE ALL TIER 2 CUSTOMERS AND IMPROVE DELIVERY RATE TO TIER 1 CUSTOMERS................................................................. 29  5.3.4  ALTERNATIVE 2a – SERVE TIER 2 CUSTOMERS WEST OF THE NAPA RIVER AND IMPROVE DELIVERY RATE TO TIER 1 CUSTOMERS........................... 30  5.3.5  ALTERNATIVE 3 – MAXIMUM BUILDOUT OF RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM WITH LOOPED SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 32  5.3.6  ALTERNATIVE 3a – MAXIMUM BUILDOUT OF RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM WITHOUT LOOPED SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 33  5.3.7  ALTERNATIVE 4 – CONSTRUCT A MINIMUM REUSE PROJECT ............................. 34  5.3.8  ALTERNATIVE 5 – CONSTRUCT AN URBAN WATER REUSE SYSTEM .................. 35  5.3.9  ALTERNATIVE 6 – CONSTRUCT A LAND DISPOSAL PROJECT .............................. 36  5.4  SUMMARY AND INITIAL SCREENING ...........................................................................37 6.  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................. 39  6.1  ALTERNATIVES TO RECYCLED WATER ......................................................................39  6.1.1  ADDITIONAL SWP SUPPLY ......................................................................................... 39  6.1.2  TOLERATE THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF DROUGHT ............................................. 39  6.2  COMPARISION OF ALTERNATIVES ..............................................................................40 7.  RECOMMENDED PROJECT .......................................................................... 42  7.1  PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................42  7.1.1  BASIS FOR SELECTION .............................................................................................. 42  7.1.2  SELECTED CUSTOMERS AND USERS ...................................................................... 43  7.2  PROPOSED FACILITIES .................................................................................................43  7.2.1  FACILITIES DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 43  7.3  PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................43  7.3.1  FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION......................... 44  7.3.2  POLICY AND FUNDING ACTIVITIES ........................................................................... 45  7.3.3  CUSTOMER ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 46  7.3.4  PROJECT PERMITTING ACTIVITIES .......................................................................... 46  7.3.5  PROJECT DESIGN ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 47 Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204DRAFT Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report ii June 2012
    • Table Index Table 1-1: Revenue Requirements and Unit Costs of Recycled Water ............................... 2  Table 2-1: Document Outline Requirements and Location of Information ........................... 5  Table 3-1: Water Supply and Demand Balance in the Study Area .................................... 10  Table 4-1: Tier 1 Users and Area Irrigated ........................................................................ 12  Table 4-2: Table 4-2: Tier 2 Users and Area Irrigated ....................................................... 13  Table 4-3: Tier 3 Users and Area Irrigated ........................................................................ 13  Table 4-4: Urban Customers ............................................................................................. 14  Table 4-5: Recycled Water Supplied to Tier 1 Users ......................................................... 15  Table 4-6: Average Monthly Percentage of Tier 1 Recycled Water Demand ................... 16  Table 4-7: Tier 2 and Tier 3 Irrigation Area and Demand by User ..................................... 16  Table 4-8: Urban Customer Irrigation Demand by User .................................................... 17  Table 4-9: Market Assessment Summary .......................................................................... 18  Table 5-1: Average Monthly Recycled Water Production Rates (MGD) ............................ 20  Table 5-2: NOAA Rainfall Data – Napa, California ............................................................ 21  Table 5-3: WRCC Evaporation Data – Berryessa Station ................................................. 21  Table 5-4: Pond Volume and Working Storage by Tier ..................................................... 23  Table 5-5: Distribution System Design Criteria .................................................................. 24  Table 5-6: Costs Included within Major CSI Divisions ....................................................... 25  Table 5-7: Average Annual Recycled Water O&M Costs .................................................. 26  Table 5-8: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 1 .................................... 27  Table 5-9: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 1a .................................. 28  Table 5-10: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 2 .................................. 30  Table 5-11: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 2a ................................ 31  Table 5-12: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 3 .................................. 33  Table 5-13: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 3a ................................ 34  Table 5-14: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 4 .................................. 35  Table 5-15: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 5 .................................. 36  Table 5-16: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 6 .................................. 37  Table 5-17: Initial Alternative Screening ............................................................................ 38  Table 6-1: Economic Consequences Drought ................................................................... 40  Table 6-2: Summary Economic Comparison .................................................................... 41 Figure Index Figure 2-1: Study Area Figure 3-1: Study Area Figure 4-1 Recycled Water CustomersTown of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204DRAFT Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report iii June 2012
    • Figure 5-1: Alternative 1 Figure 5-1a: Alternative 1a Figure 5-2 Alternative 2 Figure 5-2a: Alternative 2a Figure 5-3: Alternative 3 Figure 5-3a: Alternative 3a Figure 5-4: Alternative 4 Figure 5-5: Alternative 5 Figure 5-6: Alternative 6Appendices A Water Balances  B Cost Estimates  C Environmental Document   D Rate Study E Recycled Water Use Ordinance F Existing User AgreementsTown of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204DRAFT Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report iv June 2012
    • 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Town of Yountville has, with the assistance of a State Water Resources Control Board planning grantand a United States Bureau of Reclamation Feasibility and Environmental Studies cooperativeagreement, prepared a Feasibility Study and Facilities Planning Report (Report) for the Town of YountvilleRecycled Water Expansion Project (Project). The Project expands upon the existing recycled watersystem to include new users which will maximize the recycled water supply delivered to current/futurecustomers, minimize discharges to the Napa River and establish a flexible system for connecting newcustomers.The Report:  presents background water and wastewater information relating to the Town  provides detailed planning criteria for the required recycled water facilities  provides a market assessment of potential users  evaluates several alternatives for providing recycled water to customers  develops and analyzes the construction and operating costs for the alternatives, and  presents a financing and revenue plan and preliminary construction schedule for the recommended project.1.1 BENEFITS OF THE RECYCLED WATER PLANIf implemented, the Project will create multiple benefits including:  reducing the water that would otherwise be withdrawn from the groundwater or Napa River for vineyard use by the proposed customers.  providing an effective means of disposing of excess wastewater that is already treated to a high level.  promoting the State’s policies of recycling water to supplement existing water supplies, maximizing reuse of wastewater for beneficial uses, and discontinuing the use of potable water and well water for irrigations when recycled water is available.1.2 FACILITY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONSIn addition to the technical considerations of facility planning (ie flows, pressure, peaking factors),consideration must also be given to the costs of the recycled water system and the resulting rates for therecycled water users. Thus alternative systems with the ability to deliver different volumes of recycledwater for varying number of potential customers were considered and analyzed.Below summarizes the parameters for alternatives reviewed which were retained for this study. The Townhas selected Alternative 1a as the preferred alternative.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 1 June 2012
    • Table 1-1: Revenue Requirements and Unit Costs of Recycled Water Alternative 1a Alternative 2a Alternative 3aCapital Costs ($1,000) $2,722 $4,318 $11,200Annual Operation and Maintenance $54,100 $54,100 $54,100Water Delivered (AF) 179 179 335Cost Per AF Delivered $15,210 $23,480 $34,4301.3 RECOMMENDED PROJECTAlternative 1a, the recommended project, results in the lowest unit cost and it provides a benefit inreducing water withdrawal from groundwater, consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board’spolicies. This alternative provides for expansion of the recycled system and reduces discharges to theNapa River.Alternative 1a was selected as the recommended project for the following reasons:  It achieves reduction in ground water and Napa River water use by the vineyards during the irrigation season  It utilizes existing storage ponds on the future recycled water users’ property  It results in compliance with the Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge flow limitations  It provides for an effective cost per acre foot of recycled water compared to other alternatives evaluated  It provides a benefit to all water users  It minimizes environmental impacts.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 2 June 2012
    • 2. INTRODUCTIONThis report, prepared in coordination with the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, presents anengineering evaluation and an economic and financial analysis of a proposed expansion of the Town ofYountville’s (Town’s) recycled water system.The report is intended to fulfill the requirements of the U. S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau ofReclamation Public Law 102-575, Title XVI (the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study andFacilities Act of 1992, as amended) and the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board’sPlanning Grant Program. Title XVI provides a mechanism for Federal participation and cost-sharing inapproved recycled water projects and provides general authority for appraisal and feasibility studies. TheState Water Board’s planning grant program also funds feasibility level studies and assists applicants indeveloping the application materials necessary to qualify for other financial assistance programsadministered by the State Water Board.2.1 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT PURPOSEThe Town currently delivers tertiary treated recycled water to a golf course and 770 acres of vineyards.The Town produces approximately 450 acre-feet (AF) of recycled water annually and deliversapproximately 275 AF to customers. In an effort to balance both demands on the local water supplies andto reduce seasonal discharges to the Napa River, the Town is developing a recycled water expansionproject that will reuse more of its high quality effluent.Funded by planning grants from the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) and the State WaterResources Control Board (State Board), the Town’s work includes developing a range of projectalternatives which have the potential to contribute to the resolution of several regionally-based, watershedspecific management problems.The project area is tributary to the Napa River which supports a number of endangered species and is onthe State Board’s list of “impaired water bodies” for sediment, pathogens and nutrients. Restoration of theNapa River is the subject of the award-winning Napa River Plan. Both wastewater discharges andagricultural diversions can negatively impact the habitat of the Napa River. Pumping irrigation water fromgroundwater aquifers also reduces the flow of water in the Napa River. An expanded recycled watersystem will reduce discharge and provide an alternative water supply. This is consistent with the NapaRiver Plan and the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Basin Plan.While the Town draws its primary water supply from local, state-operated Rector Reservoir, it cansupplement this supply with State Water Project (SWP) water. The operation of the SWP and its impacton the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is arguably the largest regional water management problem facingCalifornia today. An expanded recycled water project could lessen dependence on imported water.Finally, the groundwater in the Napa Valley is a very valuable and increasingly taxed resource. Some ofthe Town’s recycled water customers do not have any irrigation water source besides the recycled water.The 2050 Napa Valley Water Resources Study (Napa 2050 Study) recognizes that expanded waterrecycling within the Napa Valley would provide an alternative water supply and reduce demands on thelocal groundwater basin. Recycled water is also a more sustainable and reliable source of water than thelocal surface water, which is affected by droughts.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 3 June 2012
    • The Town operates a small utility system with a limited rate base of 800 customers and its efforts toresponsibly contribute to regionally-based watershed management problems must be developed in thecontext of being affordable and manageable in the rural context. Specifically the Town has analyzedalternatives for expanding the recycled water system in order to:  Maximize the recycled water supply delivered to current/future customers  Minimize discharges to the Napa River  Establish a flexible system for connecting new customers.2.2 STUDY AREAThe project study area, illustrated in Figure 2-1, was developed to evaluate opportunities for expandingrecycled water use within the Town and portions of Napa County which adjoin the Town. The study areaincludes properties that are reasonably proximate to the Town’s existing infrastructure and includes anumber of properties that have existing, onsite seasonal water storage ponds, which can be used tobalance recycled water supplies with potential demands.2.3 PLANNING PROCESS2.3.1 WORKSHOPS AND PUBLIC OUTREACHOn August 26, 2011 the Town conducted a workshop with existing and potential recycled water users. Atthe workshop, the Town provided an overview of:  The recycled water program including drivers for the program and current customers  Recycled water quality and allowable uses  The proposed expansion project including the need for storage and benefits of offsetting groundwater useCustomers expressed a general understanding of the benefits of an expanded program and requestedadditional information on costs.On March 23, 2012 the Town conducted a second workshop describing alternatives, financing methodsand potential costs shares. The Town provided and overview of:  The history and purpose of the recycled water system  The recommended project scope and benefits  The existing rate structure  The proposed future rate structureThe new customers mentioned they would only realize the benefit of a reliable water supply from theproject for water during the period from June 1 through October 31. Based on this feedback, the Townrecognizes the need to structure future recycled water contracts, for existing and new customers, toprovide the opportunity for all customers to receive some water during the summer months while stillmaximizing the use of existing seasonal storage ponds.The existing and potential customers seemed agreeable to the project.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 4 June 2012
    • Path: J:12027 - The Town of Yountville12027-11-001 Recycled Water Expansion Project08-GISMapsFiguresMaster PlanFigure 2-1 Study Area.mxd - 3:33:24 PM Legend Study Area Town Limits Parcel Boundary Existing Customers Figure 2-1 Study Area Existing 6-inch Pipeline JTP Vintner G.C. YOUNTVILLE Veterans Memorial Park Hi gh wa y2 9 Sil e ra v do Tra il
    • 2.4 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATIONThis document has been organized to facilitate review under both the Bureau and the State Board’splanning grant programs. Table 2-1 outlines those requirements and illustrates where they can be foundin this document. Table 2-1: Document Outline Requirements and Location of InformationReports Table of Contents Feasibility Report (Bureau) Facilities Plan/Project Report (State Board)1. Executive Summary Executive Summary2. Introduction Introduction3. Problem and Needs Problems and Needs Study Area Characteristics Research Needs Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities Treatment Requirements for Discharged and Reuse4. Water Reuse Opportunities Water Reuse Opportunities Recycled Water Market(Market Assessment)5. Project Alternatives Description of Alternatives Project Alternative Analysis6. Economic Analysis Economic Analysis of Project Alternative Analysis Alternatives7. Recommended Project Legal and Institutional Recommended Facilities Project Requirements Plan Construction Financing Plan and Revenue ProgramAppendix A – Water BalancesAppendix B – Cost EstimatesAppendix C – Environmental Environmental Analysis ofDocument AlternativesAppendix D – Rate Study Financial Capability of the Rate Study Sponsor Construction Financing Plan and Revenue ProgramAppendix E – Recycled Water Recycled Water Use OrdinanceUse OrdinanceAppendix F –Existing User Existing User AgreementsAgreementsTown of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 5 June 2012
    • 3. PROBLEMS AND NEEDSThe Town has undertaken this study because it recognizes the need to optimize the use of its waterresources. The first part of this section provides a general overview of the study area including the localhydrologic characteristics and water quality and land use and population trends. The second part of thissection provides detail on water supplies and demands and future water supply projects that may benecessary to meet these demands. The third part provides a similar detail on the wastewater treatmentand disposal systems. An expanded recycled water system has the potential to meet water demands,resolve disposal challenges and support both the economy and the ecology of the study area.Like many agencies, the Town describes its water supply and water demands in terms of acre-feet (AF)and its wastewater flows and wastewater capacity in terms of million gallons (MG). There areapproximately 3 AF in 1 MG.3.1 STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICSThe project study area, shown in Figure 3-1 is in the central part of the Napa Valley and includes theTown’s incorporated area, the California Veterans Home, and unincorporated vineyards proximate to theTown’s existing recycled water infrastructure. The study area is located in one of the most renownedvinticultural regions in the world and the study area includes significant agricultural land along with urbanuses that support a tourist industry.The study area is 8 miles north of the City of Napa, 9.5 miles south of the City of St. Helena and straddlesboth sides of the Napa River.3.1.1 HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS AND AMBIENT WATER QUALITYAs illustrated in Figure 3-1, the study area is located in the watershed of the Napa River, over the NapaValley groundwater basin and in the North Bay portion of the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. Thestudy area is characterized by a Mediterranean climate with warm dry summers and wet cool winters.Rain generally occurs between October and May. January and February are usually the wettest months.The Town’s primary water supply is drawn from Rector Reservoir on Rector Creek, a tributary to the NapaRiver. The Napa River is tributary to the San Pablo Bay estuary, whose remaining tidal wetlands serve ina vital ecological role as nurseries for fisheries and wintering areas for migratory waterbirds. The BasinPlan for the San Francisco Bay Region lists the beneficial uses of the Napa River as:  Agricultural & municipal water supply  Habitat for cold and warm water species  Habitat for rare species  Spawning habitat  Wildlife use  Recreation use  Navigation useThe Napa River is listed on the State Water Board’s 2006 303(d) impaired water bodies list as impairedfor nutrients, pathogens and sedimentation and siltation. The Napa County Flood Control and WaterTown of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 6 June 2012
    • CO O K RD D R R YE DW corpwkprojectssro12027 - The Town of Yountville12027-11-001 Recycled Water Expansion Project08-GISMapsFiguresMaster PlanFigure 3-1 Study Area.mxd YO UN T M IL L RD RD SS O R C LE IL N RD TV N U YO YO FI NN SODA CAN EL L T RD O ES AY NR W NA MO N DE LN ER JE PA LA ST F N OO RE FE KR R VIS FO R D SO TA Na p a R NS D HO R T YO LL Y UN ST ST iv e r Stags TS R RY BE T L CI R Leap MU K OA ST N ST IO SS AT MI DR WA E E LN HI N S Veterans GH G D HIN PA N W Memorial M LA AY GT A RIDGE Park CH CT 29 ON ST DR I A RN Clos Du Val/ FO A LI Regusci SCADA C Upgrades RWPS PRESIDENTS CIR RI D Upgrades GE CA JTP P DR PS Upgrades DR DR IE W DV AR EY Chimney VIN Mondavi Rock SI SO LN LV LA N E MA RA NO FF DO HO AV TR E LDR Z LN Y GAT CR RA EE K RD Town Limits Tier 1 Service Area Existing 6-inch Pipe 0 900 1,800 ft Figure 3-1 www.ghd.com Study Area Parcel Boundary Tier 2 Service Area 1 inch = 1,800 feet printed at 8.5x11 Recycled Water Ponds Tier 3 Service Area Sources: ESRI Basemap: Aerial; Napa County GIS: Parcels, City Limits, Project Cartography Date Project # Roads; Winzler and Kelly GIS: Study Streams and Rivers Area, RW Pipes, Tiers. AF 5/31/2012 1202711001 Town of Yountville
    • Conservation District has partnered with the Army Corps of Engineers on an ambitious multi-yearrestoration program that intended to enhance beneficial uses, improve water quality and reduce flooding.The Town’s recycled water program generally supports beneficial uses of the river and restoration ofecological function through the reduction of discharges to the River.3.1.2 LAND USE TRENDS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONSAs illustrated in Figure 3-1 the study area includes significant agricultural development surrounding thecompact urban development within the Town and the Veterans Home. There is very little “undeveloped”property within the study area.Existing agricultural uses are protected as Agricultural Resource lands in the Napa County Land UsePlan. The Town, which was incorporated in 1965, is generally described as “built out”. The Town has apopulation of 2,900, of which 1,000 reside in the Veterans Home of California. Because of its reputationas a high quality visitor’s destination, the Town has experienced pressure for expansion but has adoptedpolicies to restrict development to modest expansion of local-serving businesses.3.2 WATER SUPPLYThe Town has defined a study area that includes its municipal boundaries, the California Department ofVeterans Affairs Yountville Veteran’s Home and approximately 4,000 acres of vineyards within a five mileradius of its existing recycled water pipelines. The study area has four principal sources of water, besidesrecycled water. These include:  Rector Reservoir which provides primary water supply to the Town and the Veteran’s Home and which is owned and operated by the State of California  Groundwater which provides backup municipal water supply, irrigation water supply and frost protection of planted vines  Napa River which provides irrigation water supply and frost protection of planted vines  The North Bay Aqueduct, which is owned and operated by the California Department of Water Resources, and can deliver State Water Project (SWP) supplies through an agreement with Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) to the Town under certain types of emergency conditions3.2.1 RECTOR RESERVOIRThe Town’s principal water supply is Rector Reservoir on Rector Creek, This facility, which is owned andoperated by the State of California, delivers local surface water to the California Veteran’s Home and theTown for municipal supply and to the Department of Fish & Game (DFG) for environmental uses and afish hatchery.There have been several studies of Rector Reservoir’s capacity and safe yield. The most recent technicalstudy by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2000 calculated the reservoir capacityto be 4,535 acre-feet. The safe yield was estimated to be 1,670 acre feet annually (AFA) based on actualdeliveries during the 1992 drought including 1,190 AFA in flow releases needed to meet DFG’s in-streamflow requirements. The Town’s contractual capacity allowance in Rector Reservoir is 500 AF per year.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 7 June 2012
    • Based on safe yield reliability analyses developed by the California Department of Water Resources(DWR), this supply is estimated to be reduced to 125 AF per year in dry years.3.2.2 STATE WATER PROJECT WATER SUPPLYThe Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservations District (District) administers the SWP contractfor municipalities in Napa County. Surface water is delivered by the SWP through the North Bay Aqueduct(NBA), treated at the City of Napa’s Jameson Canyon water treatment plant and delivered to Yountvillethrough the Conn transmission main.The Town had historically held an entitlement for a total SWP contractual amount of 1,100 AF per year.Upon completion of its municipal well, the Town entered into an agreement with the District to sell thisentitlement but retain an emergency supply of 25 AF per year (intended to provide fire or short-termsupply) and the right to be included in the District’s dry-year water bank negotiations for an amount up to200 AF. The Town is not guaranteed that it will receive the 200 AF and is obligated to pay market price forthe water at the time it is secured.3.2.3 GROUNDWATERThe Town overlies the Napa Valley groundwater subbasin, which provides municipal and agriculturalwater supply in the area. The groundwater level data illustrates generally stable long term trends in theSt. Helena, Yountville, and Napa areas. Groundwater quality is generally good, with some selected areasof elevated constituents, along the Napa valley floor of elevated nitrates. The Town has developed agroundwater supply system which is anticipated to yield 300 AF annually and which is generally used as abackup to the Rector Reservoir supply.In 2005 the District, as part of its water supply functions, developed the 2050 Napa Valley WaterResources Study (Napa 2050 Study) which reviewed the water supply and demand balances formunicipal and agricultural uses in Napa County. The Napa 2050 Study projected that the safe yield ofNapa Valley groundwater sub-basin is 28,000 AF. The Napa 2050 Study indicates that basin demandscould exceed supply during dry years by 6,000 AF in 2020 and 10,000 AF in 2050.For preliminary planning purposes, the Town estimated that the study area, which covers approximately10-percent of the groundwater basin area, could experience shortages of 600 to 1,000 AF (10-percent ofthe total basin shortages). Complicating this simple estimate of potential shortage is the fact that thegroundwater supply is subject to geographic variability. Generally, groundwater is available west of theNapa River but much scarcer east of the Napa River.Importantly for the Town and agricultural water users around the Town, the Napa 2050 Study highlightsthat the groundwater resource may be unable to meet the full range of demands placed upon it, duringdry periods in the relatively near future.3.2.3.1 Groundwater ManagementThere are three basic methods available for managing groundwater resources in California:  management by local agencies under authority granted in the California Water Code or other applicable State statutes,  local government groundwater ordinances or joint powers agreements, and  court adjudications.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 8 June 2012
    • No law requires that any of these forms of management be applied in a basin. Management is ofteninstituted after local agencies or landowners recognize a specific groundwater problem. The level ofgroundwater management in any basin or sub-basin is often dependent on water availability and demand.Napa County currently has a groundwater management ordinance. The ordinance was promulgated bythe findings of the Napa 2050 Study.Specifically, the ordinance prioritizes “available groundwater for agricultural and rural residential uses…”and seeks to ensure “that discretionary projects will be required to assess and mitigate their potentialimpacts…” By utilizing recycled water as a use for agricultural purposes the project can potentially offsetexisting groundwater use for irrigation.3.2.4 RECYCLED WATERThe Town currently produces approximately 450 acre-feet (AF) of recycled water annually and deliversapproximately 275 AF to its existing customers including four vineyards and Vintners’ Golf Course locatedat the Veterans Home.3.2.5 WATER DEMAND TRENDSAccording to both the Town’s Water Supply Plan Supplement and the Napa 2050 Study, estimated waterdemand at build-out is 679 AF per year.Equally important to the water balance for the study area is the agricultural water demand, becauseagricultural demands are also placed on the groundwater basin and because recycled water can helpoffset the need for groundwater pumping. As part of its work, the Town developed estimated agriculturaldemands within its study area through the use of a GIS database and historic recycled water deliveryrates. This work, discussed in detail in Chapter 4, indicates that an additional 384 AF of agriculturaldemand exist in the Study Area.3.2.6 SOURCES FOR ADDITIONAL WATER AND PLANS FOR NEW FACILITIESThe Town is largely developed and land use restrictions within Napa County effectively preclude theexpansion of urban uses into the prime vineyard area surrounding the Town. As such the Town’s plansfor maximizing its water supply, and the water supply within the Study Area, include an active waterconservation program and expanded recycled water use. The Town’s conservation program includes atiered water rate system, which charges a higher rate for higher water use and plumbing retrofit andwasher rebate programs.3.2.7 WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND BALANCETable 3-1 summarizes the projected water balance for the Study Area. This water balance indicates thatthere is the potential for a small shortfall in the urban water supply during critically dry years. However,more importantly, as indicated in the Napa 2050 Study, dry years can challenge the groundwater basinwhich supports both municipal and agricultural supplies. Offsetting groundwater use with recycled wateruse, where possible, could provide an important element of reliability in critically dry years and reduceprojected groundwater shortfalls during these periods.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 9 June 2012
    • Table 3-1: Water Supply and Demand Balance in the Study Area Normal Year Dry Year Water Supply Balance (AF) (AF) Urban Water Supplies Rector Reservoir 500 125 Local Groundwater 300 300 SWP 0 200 Total 800 625 Urban Water Demand (Napa 2050 Study) 679 679 Difference (Supply – Demand) 279 (54) Additional Agricultural Demands in the Study Area 384 384 Potential Dry Year Groundwater Shortage (Napa 2050 Study) 105 (600-1,000)3.3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT & DISPOSALThe Town’s wastewater treatment plant known as the Joint Treatment Plant or JTP treats wastewaterfrom the Town and the Yountville Veterans Home. The Town operates the JTP under San Francisco BayRegional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) Order R-2010-0072 (NPDES No. CA 00381210)and its water recycling system under SFBRWQCB Order 96-011 (a set of waste discharge requirements).Wastewater treatment processes at the JTP include grit removal, primary clarification, first stage tricklingfiltration, intermediate clarification, second stage trickling filtration, aerated solids contact, finalsedimentation, disinfection (chlorination), and dechlorination (sodium bisulfite). These processes producesecondary- treated wastewater which flows to an effluent storage pond for discharge to the Napa River, orto a fuzzy filter and chlorination system which produces tertiary treated effluent.The Town disposes of secondary effluent to the Napa River during the wet season from October 1through May 15, when the Napa River flow is high. The Town’s NPDES permit sets a minimum dilutionratio of 42:1 for river discharge. Flow data from a USGS monitoring station located about ten milesupstream of Yountville indicates that for the 2008/09 season, most river flow-to-effluent ratios weregreater than 1,000:1 and all were greater than 100:1. Between May 15 and September 30, or when Riverflows are low, the Town treats the secondary effluent recycles to meet Title 22 reclamation requirementsthrough additional filtration and disinfection, and then pumped to storage ponds for golf course andvineyard irrigation.The average dry weather design treatment capacity of the JTP is 0.55 MGD, and its hydraulic capacity is2.0 MGD. The average discharge rate from 2004 to 2007 was 0.57 MGD, and the highest maximum dailyeffluent flow rate during this period was 1.76 MGD. The JTP can accept up to 2.8 MGD through itsprimary system during peak wet weather conditions. Flows in excess of the JTP’s secondary treatmentcapacity are stored in a 3.8 million gallon pond for later treatment. As noted above the service area for theJTP is largely built-out. The JTP has adequate capacity to treat flows from the service area and to complywith its water quality and discharge requirements.Operationally, the JTP has the ability to currently produce tertiary-treated water up to 1.0 mgd with theexisting fuzzy filter and associated disinfection. Equalization basins and the effluent storage pond providethe Town with some capacity to store water during large storm events. Under its current NPDES permit,the Town is required to make the following upgrades to its recycled water system:  Upgrade and upsize recycled water electrical system, distribution piping and pumps including the addition of variable speed drives by December 2013Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 10 June 2012
    •  Complete installation of a SCADA system to monitor pump operation, wet well levels, storage pond volume, operational alarms and continuing monitoring results by December 2015.3.3.1 EXISTING WATER RECYCLING AND EFFLUENT RIGHTSAs noted above, the Town has an existing, permitted recycled water system. This system delivers waterto four vineyards and the Vintner’s Golf Course. During the period 2007-2010, the Town produced anaverage of 429 acre-feet per year (AFY) treated effluent. During the period 2004-2010, the Towndelivered an average of 268 AFY of recycled water delivered to its existing customers, indicating that theexisting reclamation system utilizes approximately 62.5-percent of the JTP flow and provides a significantoffset to discharges to the Napa River.3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL WATERThe project area is tributary to the Napa River, which supports endangered species including steelheadtrout, Coho salmon, California red legged frog, and California freshwater shrimp. Restoration of the NapaRiver is the subject of the award-winning Napa River Plan, which has received state and federalsponsorship. Both wastewater discharges and agricultural diversions can negatively impact the habitat ofthe Napa River. An expanded recycled water system will reduce discharge and provide an alternativeagricultural water supply. This is consistent with the Napa River Plan and the Basin Plan for the NapaRiver.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 11 June 2012
    • 4. WATER REUSE OPPORTUNITIES (MARKETASSESSMENT)This chapter describes the methodology used to identify potential recycled water customers andquantifies the recycled water market in the study area. Specifically, this chapter:  Identifies potential recycled water customers and organizes those customers in a manner that facilitates decision making  Quantifies potential demand for recycled water in annual totals by customer class and size-  Summarizes the development and use of the water balance model to further refine market potential based on the seasonal “matching” of supply and demand.4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL CUSTOMERSBecause of the quality of the water produced and the characteristics of the study area, this study focuseson expanding irrigation use. There is little or no potential for industrial process water or cooling use withinthe Town. Potential recycled water customers were identified through the use of a GIS database (theDemand Database) that included all Assessor Parcels within the study area. The Demand Database alsoincorporated:  Parcel size and land use  Historic water demands based on City billing records or agronomic estimates  Availability of recycled water storage on site  Availability of alternative water supply sources. Generally, vineyard owners located east of the Napa River have limited groundwater pumping capability whereas vineyard owners west of the Napa River have greater access due to higher groundwater levels.The Demand Database was used to identify and classify customers.Tier 1 Customers consist of customers currently receiving recycled water from the Town. The Tier 1Customers are listed in Table 4-1 and illustrated in green on Figure 4-1. Other than the Vintners GolfCourse, Tier 1 customers are located east of the Napa River, where it is difficult to develop groundwatersupplies. Table 4-1: Tier 1 Users and Area Irrigated User Irrigated Area Stags Leap 129.6 Regusci / Clos du Val 184.1 Chimney Rock 119.9 Mondavi 318.0 Vintner’s Golf Course 58.2 Total 809.8Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 12 June 2012
    • ACACIA DR RD ST ILL CO AT TM OK E U N RD LN YO RD SS O CRJ:12027 - The Town of Yountville12027-11-001 Recycled Water Expansion Project08-GISMapsFiguresMaster PlanFigure 4-1 RW Customers.mxd LE IL D TV R UN R YE YO W D YO UN T M IL L RD FI NN EL T ES AY L RD N RO W NA MO N DE PA LA JE NO FF OK RD ER YO VIS SO UN TA NS TS DR HO T T LL ST Y RY ST ER R LB CI MU AK O ST N IO SS DR MI ST NE LN WA AT G D PA E N SH LA HI AM ING G RIDGE CH CT HW TO AY DR NS 29 I A T RN FO LI PR CA E SID NTE CA SC DR PP IEW IR DV S DR DR R OUT Y E YA CR SI VIN LV E EE RA K ER RD AD LEM O TR EDA L SO LN L AN AN F FM OA HO VE LN TZ GA RA Figure 4-1 Winzler & Kelly Town Limits Tier 1 Service Area Existing RW Pipelines 0 1,000 2,000 ft www.ghd.com Recycled Water Customers 1 inch = 2,000 feet printed at 8.5x11 Parcel Boundary Tier 2 Service Area Recycled Water Sources: ESRI Basemap: Aerial; Napa Project County GIS: Parcels, City Limits, Cartography Date Project # Tier 3 Service Area Roads; Winzler and Kelly GIS: Study Area, RW Pipes, Tiers. AF 4/27/2012 1202711001 Town of Yountville
    • Tier 2 Customers consist generally of agricultural customers that do not receive recycled water from theTown but have the ability to store recycled water in onsite impoundments. Tier 2 Customers are locatedboth east and west of the Napa River, indicating that they may have varying ability to utilize groundwateras an alternative supply. The Town’s Veterans Park is also included as a Tier 2 Customer. Tier 2Customers are listed in Table 4-2 and illustrated in pink on Figure 4-1. Table 4-2: Table 4-2: Tier 2 Users and Area Irrigated User Irrigated Area (Acres) Beringer 240.0 Silverado East 130.0 Herrick Ranch 171.0 Silverado West 94.0 Veterans Park 3.7 Total 638.7Tier 3 Customers consist of agricultural customers that do not receive water from the Town, are generallyfurther from existing recycled water transmission mains and generally do not have onsite impoundmentsfor storage. These customers are also located east and west of the Napa River, indicating that they havevarying ability to develop an alternative water supply. Tier 3 Customers are listed in Table 4-3 andillustrated in yellow on Figure 4-1. Table 4-3: Tier 3 Users and Area Irrigated User Irrigated Area(Acres) Hartwell Vineyards LLC 29.3 Pine Ridge Winery LLC 50.3 Phillips Arlie J. Trust 114.4 Treasury Wine Estates Americas 107.6 Shafer Douglas F 64.5 Shafer Family Partnership 8.5 Hanabi 42.4 Kathleen K. Spicer 10.0 Janet P. Hackett Trust 14.0 Traina and Todd Buchanan 22.0 Total 463.0Urban Customers consist of irrigation customers on the Town’s domestic water system. While thesecustomers are generally relative close to existing distribution mains, they are small, compared to theTown of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 13 June 2012
    • agricultural customers and cannot provide onsite storage. Urban Customers are listed in Table 4-4 andillustrated in purple on Figure 4-1 Table 4-4: Urban Customers User Larkspur - Tot Lot Yountville Park Veterans Park Hopper Creek Vineyard Park Washington St. Path Heritage Park Oak Leaf Bridge Park Forrester Park Forrester Creek Path Foxglove Pathway Van de Leur Park Yountville Square Path Town Hall (6550 Yount) Community Center (6516 Washington) Community Center (6516 Washington) Community Hall4.2 DEMAND DEVELOPMENTOriginally an effort was made to assess demand based on combining total existing acreage currentlyunder irrigation with the application of typical vineyard crop factors and average monthlyevapotranspiration data from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS).However, based on feedback provided by Town staff this methodology overestimated demand and wassubsequently replaced by using monthly average demand data provided by the Town for the period 2004to 2010. Table 4-5 presents the recycled water supplied to each of the Tier 1 users, and includes theaverage irrigation amount per acre by use type for the period 2004-2010.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 14 June 2012
    • Table 4-5: Recycled Water Supplied to Tier 1 Users Total Water Deliveries (AFY) IrrigatedRW User Area 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average (Acres)Stags Leap 129.6 40.17 24.15 25.22 47.87 45.50 76.04 54.50 44.78Clos du Val 184.1 51.76 40.56 43.17 58.64 67.87 69.41 42.25 53.38Chimney Rock 119.9 59.28 62.84 64.38 72.20 80.27 66.89 40.93 59.54Mondavi 318.0 - - - - - 91.12 97.72 94.92Golf Course 58.2 80.09 122.22 89.17 60.69 82.48 74.50 47.19 79.48 231.30 249.77 221.94 239.40 276.13 377.96 282.59 268.44 TotalAverage per 4.1 3.5 3.6 4.9 5.3 4.7 3.7 4.2Vineyard Acre(in)Average per 16.5 25.2 18.4 12.5 17.0 15.4 9.7 16.4Golf CourseAcre (in)Total yearly irrigation demand for existing Tier 1 users was assessed using partial year vineyard demanddata for May-November, and year-round data for the Vintner’s Golf Course. There was some demandfrom the vineyard users during the months of December through April, but generally it was assumed to befor frost protection. Since frost protection demand is highly variable, it was not included in the overalldemand for Tier 1 users. Consequently, demand values were calculated based on year-round demandfor the Golf Course and May-November demand for the vineyard customers. Table 4-6 presents theirrigation use by month as a percentage of annual totals.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 15 June 2012
    • Table 4-6: Average Monthly Percentage of Tier 1 Recycled Water Demand Month % of Yearly Total Tier 1 Demanda by Month User Type Jan. 0.24% Golf Course Feb. 0.02% Golf Course March 0.50% Golf Course April 2.14% Golf Course May 16.82% Golf Course + Vineyard June 13.56% Golf Course + Vineyard July 13.56% Golf Course + Vineyard Aug. 12.75% Golf Course + Vineyard Sept. 11.87% Golf Course + Vineyard Oct. 12.42% Golf Course + Vineyard Nov. 15.14% Golf Course + Vineyard Dec. 1.00% Golf Course Total 100%a Total average yearly demand for the period 2004-2010 excluding frost protection equals 244.9 AFY.Demand for Tier 2 and Tier 3 agricultural customers was calculated by applying the average irrigation rateof 4.2 inches per acre to the total area under irrigation by individual customer. Table 4-7 provides Tier 2and Tier 3 vineyard surface area and projected irrigation demands. Table 4-7: Tier 2 and Tier 3 Irrigation Area and Demand by User Tier 2 User Area (Acres) Total Demand (AFY) Beringer 240 84.0 Herrick Ranch 171 59.8 Silverado East 130 45.4 Silverado West 94 32.8 Totals 635 222 Tier 3 User Area (Acres) Total Demand (AFY) Hartwell Vineyards LLC 29.31 10.3 Pine Ridge Winery LLC 50.31 17.6 Phillips Arlie J. Trust 114.38 40.0 Treasury Wine Estates 107.55 37.6 Shafer Douglas F 64.53 22.6 Shafer Family Partnership 8.5 3.0 Hanabi 42.39 14.8 Kathleen K. Spicer 10.03 3.5Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 16 June 2012
    • Janet P. Hackett Trust 13.97 4.9 Traina and Todd Buchanan 22 7.7 Totals 463 162Demand for Urban Customers was developed using water use records provided by the Town. Table 4-8below summarizes this use pattern. Table 4-8: Urban Customer Irrigation Demand by User User Total Demand (AFY) Larkspur - Tot Lot 0.20 Yountville Park 2.90 Veterans Park 4.16 Hopper Creek 0.57 Vineyard Park 4.52 Washington St. Path 0.23 Heritage Park 0.62 Oak Leaf Bridge Park 0.02 Forrester Park 1.81 Forrester Creek Path 0.39 Foxglove Pathway 0.26 Van de Leur Park 1.33 Yountville Square Path 0.48 Town Hall (6550) Yount) 1.80 Community Center (6516) 1.21 Community Center (6516) 0.06 Community Hall 1.71 Totals 22.27Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 17 June 2012
    • 4.3 SUMMARY OF MARKET ASSESSMENT RESULTSTable 4-9, below summarizes the total projected irrigation demand from each class of user analyzed inthis market assessment. Meeting this demand with recycled water depends on availability of recycledwater, infrastructure to deliver it to customers, and storage to balance the timing of the supply with thetiming of demands. Table 4-9: Market Assessment Summary User Total Area (Acres) Total Demand (AFY) Tier 1 (Existing) 809.8 466.0 Tier 2 635.0 222.0 Tier 3 463.0 162.0 Urban Irrigation NA 22.27 Totals 872.27Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 18 June 2012
    • 5. PROJECT ALTERNATIVESThis chapter describes the methodology used to develop alternative recycled water supply systems withinthe study area. Specifically, this chapter:  Summarizes the development and use of the water balance model which “matches” the seasonal supply of and demand for recycled water and identifies the need for seasonal storage;  Summarizes the capacity of existing recycled water treatment and distribution systems and identifies the need for any improvements to those systems;  Describes the development of recycled water system alternatives that could serve the recycled water market identified by the Town;  Develops a capital and operating cost element for each alternative.5.1 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTSEach potential project alternative needs to include adequate seasonal storage for recycled water,adequate capacity to treat the recycled water and adequate capacity to distribute the recycled water.Because project alternatives can serve different combinations of demands, these components may varyby alternative.5.1.1 RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY AND WATER BALANCEIn order to effectively understand how the Town’s recycled water system functions, a detailed waterbalance was prepared to analyze the relationship between recycled water supply, demand, storage andhydrological factors including rainfall and evaporation. Generally, recycled water is more readily availableduring wet weather months when irrigation demand is at its lowest. Consequently, the ability to storewater in the winter for use during the irrigation season is critical to serving irrigation customers.The water balance models the rainfall, evaporation, recycled water supply and irrigation demands on anaverage monthly basis over the course of a year. The goal is to balance the amount of water produced atthe JTP with customer demand during a twelve month period. Since temporal differences occur whencomparing production versus demand, storage provides the ability to bridge that gap during the “shoulderseason” of December to April when irrigation demand is low. The model was developed iteratively: firstby analyzing existing customer demand and storage, and then by adding additional users withaccompanying storage until a “balance” was achieved.5.1.1.1 Recycled Water Supply and DemandRecycled water production data provided by the Town for the period 2007-2010 was included in the waterbalance model. Average recycled water production rates were calculated, as illustrated in Table 5-1, andincorporated into the model.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 19 June 2012
    • Table 5-1: Average Monthly Recycled Water Production Rates (MGD) Month 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average Jan. 0.323 0.708 0.278 0.608 0.479 Feb. 0.553 0.676 0.688 0.613 0.633 March 0.407 0.443 0.509 0.532 0.473 April 0.374 0.363 0.353 0.54 0.408 May 0.352 0.345 0.373 0.441 0.378 June 0.324 0.342 0.342 0.306 0.329 July 0.317 0.331 0.279 0.297 0.306 Aug. 0.323 0.317 0.268 0.288 0.299 Sept. 0.323 0.315 0.251 0.271 0.290 Oct. 0.334 0.294 0.309 0.293 0.308 Nov. 0.301 0.328 0.26 0.314 0.301 Dec. 0.339 0.324 0.286 0.629 0.395 Average 0.356 0.399 0.350 0.428 0.383 Total (MGY) 129.9 145.6 127.6 156.1 139.8 Total (AFY) 398.6 446.8 391.7 479.0 429.0For the same period, the Town also recorded maximum daily production rates. During this four-yearperiod, the maximum daily production rate was recorded in February, 2009 at 1.76 MGD. The increase inJTP effluent flow during winter months compared to dry season average flow rates is due to an increaseof inflow and infiltration into the sewer collection system resulting from surface stormwater and highergroundwater levels. The recycled water demands used in the water balance model were brought forwardfrom Table 4-9. The annual demands were distributed based on the historic monthly distribution patternpresented in Table 4-6.5.1.1.2 Hydrologic DataData related to the amount of precipitation into and evaporation out of the user’s storage ponds was alsoincorporated into the water balance. Rainfall data was obtained from the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA), and evaporation data was obtained from the Western RegionalClimate Center (WRCC). Rainfall data for Napa, California from the period of 2007 to 2010 was averagedand in the water balance, as shown in Table 5-2. WRCC data including the pan correction factor (0.75)was obtained for the Berryessa Station and is provided in Table 5-3.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 20 June 2012
    • Table 5-2: NOAA Rainfall Data – Napa, California Average Monthly Rainfall (in.)* Month 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average Jan. 0.36 10.06 0.97 9.19 5.15 Feb. 5.12 3.44 9.2 3.98 5.44 March 0.35 0.35 2.36 2.63 1.42 April 1.52 0.19 0.95 3.86 1.63 May 0.35 0.08 1.47 1.16 0.77 June 0 0 0.05 0 0.01 July 0 0 0 0 0.00 Aug. 0 0 0 0 0.00 Sept. 0.05 0 0.15 0 0.05 Oct. 1.5 0.59 5.08 3.71 2.72 Nov. 1.05 3.0 0.83 3.05 1.98 Dec. 4.1 2.57 2.14 8.64 4.36 Total - Year 14.4 20.3 23.2 36.2 23.5* Average annual rainfall for the period 2002-2010 = 27.6 inches. During this period, the wettest months are December andFebruary, followed by January and March. Heavy rain in late spring months such as April 2010 significantly reduces seasonal golfcourse and vineyard irrigation demands. Table 5-3: WRCC Evaporation Data – Berryessa Station Month Monthly Avg. Pan Evap. (in.) Corrected Monthly Pan Evap. (in.) Jan. 1.53 1.15 Feb. 2.15 1.61 March 3.79 2.84 April 5.82 4.37 May 8.9 6.68 June 11 8.25 July 13.22 9.92 Aug. 12.06 9.05 Sept. 8.67 6.50 Oct. 5.72 4.29 Nov. 2.48 1.86 Dec. 1.66 1.25 Total – Year 77.0 57.8Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 21 June 2012
    • 5.1.1.3 Recycled Water StorageGross pond storage volumes for Tier 1 and Tier 2 users were provided by Town staff. Operationally,pond levels are never emptied completely due to minimum submergence requirements for pumping andpiping equipment. Vineyard managers were contacted by Town staff to inquire about minimum pondelevations required. The general consensus was that pond operators require a minimum 4-foot depth intheir storage facilities. As a result, the amount of total available (working) storage is calculated as themaximum pond volume minus the volume contained in the ponds when pond levels are at 4 feet. Ponddepths were calculated by dividing total pond volume by surface area. Although the Golf Course has 25AF of storage in its ponds, this volume was not included in the water balance working storage calculationssince these ponds are used as a water feature, remain full throughout the year, and are not available foroperational storage. For ponds with calculated depths less than 8 feet, working storage was assumed tobe 50% of total pond volume. Table 5-4 provides total pond volume versus working storage for Tier 1,Tier 2 and Tier 3 users. The Tier 3 user ponds are estimated based on the best available data on theproperties and are less precise than the data available for the Tier 1 and 2 customers.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 22 June 2012
    • Table 5-4: Pond Volume and Working Storage by Tier Users – Tier 1 Total Pond Vol. (AF) Approx. Depth (ft) Working Storage (AF) Stags Leap* 8.5 3.5 (avg.) 4.3 Clos du Val/Regusci 49.5 16.0 37.1 Chimney Rock 34.8 8.7 18.7 Mondavi* 111.9 15 (avg.) 82.3 Vintner’s Golf Course 25 7.2 - Subtotal Tier 1 229.7 - 142.4 Users – Tier 2 Total Pond Vol. (AF) Approx. Depth (ft) Working Storage (AF) Beringer 46.0 15.0 34.1 Herrick Ranch 31.0 14.0 22.4 Silverado – East 22.5 16.0 16.8 Silverado – West 23.0 14.0 16.2 Subtotal Tier 2 122.5 - 89.5 Total 352.2 - 231.9 Users – Tier 3** Total Pond Vol. (AF) Approx. Depth (ft) Working Storage (AF) Hartwell Vineyards 21.0 - 21.0 Pine Ridge Winery 6.7 - 6.7 Phillips Arlie J. Trust 5.0 - 5.0 Treasury Wine Estates 2.0 - 2.0 Shafer Douglas F 14.6 - 14.6 Hanabi 2.0 - 2.0 Kathleen K. Spicer 2.0 - 2.0 Traina and Todd 4.0 - 4.0 Total 57.3 - 57.3* Storage calculated based on multiple storage ponds per user.** Tier 3 total pond volumes and working storage were considered to be the same for this exercise.5.1.2 TREATMENT SYSTEM CAPACITYThe JTP is currently capable of producing 1.0 mgd of tertiary-treated water. The limitation is set by thecapacity of the existing tertiary filtration system (fuzzy filter). For effluent flow rates beyond 1.0 mgd, theJTP produces secondary-treated water. Current California Department of Public Health (CDPH)standards provide for vineyard crop and golf course irrigation with secondary-treated water. However,recycled water for landscaping users such as parks and schools must be tertiary-treated (Title 22“unrestricted use” designation).During the study period 2007-2010, data provided by the Town indicated the maximum average monthlyflow for irrigation season months (May-November) occurred in November 2008 (0.76 mgd). Underaverage flow conditions during irrigation months, it appears that the Town may not require the ability toTown of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 23 June 2012
    • produce more than 1.0 mgd of tertiary-treated water since users requiring this level of water quality aretypically not irrigating from December through April. When the JTP must process wastewater flowsgreater than 1.0 mgd during the wet weather season (maximum JTP capacity equal to 2.0 mgd),secondary-treated water can be discharged to the golf course and vineyard storage ponds.5.1.3 PUMPING AND DELIVERY RATEThe existing recycled water pump station is served by two 40-hp Gorman-Rupp self-priming O-seriescentrifugal pumps. The pump station is currently configured with one pump supplying the golf course andthe other pump supplying vineyard customers. The Town has purchased and installed variable frequencydrives (VFDs), although they are not operational since the existing pump motors require upgradesincluding inverter duty motors. These pumps are capable of producing approximately 300-600 gallonsper minute (gpm) depending on the location of the user being served. This equates to 0.43 to 0.86 mgd.At 500 gpm (0.72 mgd), velocity in the existing 6-inch recycled water distribution system piping isapproximately 6 feet per second (fps). It is operationally desirable to keep flow rates under 6 fps toreduce the chance of operational instabilities associated with higher flow rates.5.1.4 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CAPACITYThe existing recycled water distribution system consists of 24,500 linear feet of 6-inch diameter pipeline todeliver recycled water to the Tier 1 users’ water storage ponds. Each user pumps from its storage pondwith a private system that is designed to deliver adequate system pressure for irrigation. Proposedexpansions of the distribution system were modeled using WaterCAD v8i.The pipe sizes were calculated using the Hazen-Williams Formula. Although the type of pipe can affectthe friction coefficient for a pipeline, a “C” value of 150 was used for all pipelines because on a long termbasis, most pipeline interiors converge on this roughness value.Pipe diameters were selected to stay within a pre-determined maximum flow velocity, and also to limitheadloss due to pipe friction within an acceptable operating range for pumping. A maximum head loss of1 feet per 100 feet of pipe was used for sizing the pipes. Velocities in the smaller diameter pipes werekept to a maximum of 5 feet per second (fps) to limit stress and erosion on the pipes.Per Town standards, the minimum pipe diameter is 6-inches. The pipeline design criteria used issummarized in Table 5-5 and the pipeline network was sized to distribute the maximum flow expected foreach reach or segment in the distribution network. Table 5-5: Distribution System Design Criteria Peak Flow Rate Low Flow High Flow (gpm) Roughness Diameter Coefficient HL per Velocity HL per Velocity Low High (inches) (C) 100 feet (fps) 100 feet (fps) 6 150 0 350 0 0 1 4.4 8 150 0 700 0 0 1 4.5fps = feet per second, LF = linear feet, HL = head lossTown of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 24 June 2012
    • 5.2 COST ASSUMPTIONSEstimates for construction costs were developed through a review of recent bid data. All costs wereadjusted to an ENR Construction Cost Index for San Francisco of 10,191. Costs were developed usingthe Construction Specification Institute’s (CSI) format and include estimates for a range of constructiontrades as well as general conditions and contractor’s overhead and profit. Table 5-6 below presents thevarious types of costs that accounted for within each CSI division. Detailed costs for each alternative areincluded in Appendix B. Table 5-6: Costs Included within Major CSI Divisions Division 1 Mobilization & Demobilization (5%) Environmental Mitigation Traffic Control Potholing Bypass Pumping Division 2 02235 Selective Tree and Vegetation Trimming and Removal 02240 Dewatering 02250 Shoring and Trench Safety (Open Cut Construction) 02300 Earthwork (Pipeline Trenching) 02532 Pipe and Fittings 02700 Asphalt Concrete Pavement 02760 Traffic Stripes and Pavement Markings Division 3 03300/ 03600 Cast-in-Place Concrete / Grout 03480 Precast Concrete Utility Boxes Division 13 13420 Process Instruments: 13451 Programmable Logic Process Controller: 13453 SCADA Hardware and Software: 13460 Two-Way Radio Data Transmission System: Division 15 15100 Valves and Appurtenances Valves: Division 16 16123 Wire and Cable 16130 Conduit and Raceway 16150 Variable Speed Drives 16225 Motors 16310 Transmission and Distribution Accessories 16442 PanelboardsOperational costs are estimated based the costs of pumping recycled water. Table 5-7 presents currentannual costs for operation and maintenance (O&M) and pumping.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 25 June 2012
    • Table 5-7: Average Annual Recycled Water O&M Costs Average yearly recycled water pumped 2004-2010 (AFY) 336 (109.5 MG/year) Average pumping rate (gpm) 350 Total hours of pumping per year 5,214 Rated pump power (hp) 40 Horsepower to kilowatt conversion 0.746 kW·hr consumed per year (assumes 90% electrical efficiency) 172,860 kW·hr per million gallons pumped 1,579 Average cost per kW·hr $0.20 Average annual pump operation cost $34,500 O&M* $19,600 Total Annual Cost $54,100* Based on 196 hours annually at $100 per hour.5.3 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS5.3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – SERVE ALL TIER 2 CUSTOMERSThis alternative would provide approximately 225 AF of dry year water supply benefits by connecting theYountville Veterans Memorial Park (an urban user) and all of the Tier 2 vineyards with onsite storage tothe recycled water system as shown in Figure 5-1. This would reduce demands on groundwater byoffsetting some urban and agricultural use. This alternative avoids the need for constructing additionaltreated effluent storage because available onsite storage ponds are used. The alternative includes 374.3AF of storage, 142.4 of which belongs to existing users and the remainder belonging to new users.The Alternative includes the following project elements:  Approximately 8,200 feet of new 8-inch and 1,190 feet of new 6-inch PVC distribution piping to connect Tier 2 customers from the existing 6-inch transmission main.  6-inch and 8-inch gate valves for distribution pipe isolation.  Motorized open/closed duty isolation control valves for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 turnout locations. Includes radio telemetry for SCADA control of isolation valves.  Level control instrumentation at Tier 1 and 2 pond locations with radio telemetry.  Recycled water pump station upgrades including installation of (1) new pump and (3) new 40-hp inverter duty motors and pump discharge manifold upgrades.  JTP upgrades including existing fuzzy filter actuator upgrades, adapter plate, programmable logic controller (PLC) and new filter media.  Additional JTP upgrades including replacing existing pneumatic valves with electric modulating- duty control valves (2), and valve vault rehabilitation (2).Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 26 June 2012
    • CO O K RD D R R YE DW corpwkprojectssro12027 - The Town of Yountville12027-11-001 Recycled Water Expansion Project08-GISMapsFiguresMaster PlanFigure 5-1 Project Alternative 1.mxd YO UN T M IL L RD Silverado East D R SS O R C LE IL Y ON RD TV Beringer N U YO FI NN SODA CA N E LL 8" T RD ES AY 8" O W NR NA MO N DE LN R JE PA LA E ST F N OO RE FE K R VIS FO R RD SO TA NS Napa R D HO R T YO LL Y UN ST ST iv Stags TS RY er R BE T L CI R Silverado Leap MU K 8" OA ST West N ST IO SS AT R MI D WA E E LN HI N S Veterans G G D HIN PA HW N Memorial AM LA AY GT RIDGE Park CH C T 29 ON ST DR 6" I A 8" RN Clos Du Val/ FO LI Regusci SCADACA Upgrades RWPS PRESIDENTS CIR RI Herrick D Upgrades G CA E JTP Ranch P DR PS Upgrades DR W DR D VIE AR EY Chimney VIN Mondavi Rock SI SO LN LV LA N E MA RA NO FF DO HO AV TR E LDR LN TZ Y GA CR RA EE K RD Town Limits Tier 1 Service Area Existing 6-inch Pipe Isolation Valves 0 900 1,800 ft Figure 5-1 www.ghd.com Project Alternative 1 Parcel Boundary Tier 2 Service Area Alternative 1 - 6 & 8-inch Pipe Pond Level Control/Telemetry 1 inch = 1,800 feet printed at 8.5x11 Recycled Water Ponds Tier 3 Service Area Motor-Operated Control Valves Sources: ESRI Basemap: Aerial; Napa Project County GIS: Parcels, City Limits, Cartography Date Project # Roads; Winzler and Kelly GIS: Study Streams and Rivers Area, RW Pipes, Tiers. AF 5/1/2012 1202711001 Town of Yountville
    •  Upgrades to the JTP dechlorination system new residual analyzer, metering pump, PLC and connections.  Five pressure-sustaining valves (PSV) for ponds at elevations lower than RWPS. Includes radio telemetry for valve control.The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $3,245,000, which is presented in Table 5-8 below. Adetailed estimate is included in Appendix B. Table 5-8: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 1 CSI Division Description LS Total Cost Division 1 General Requirements 1 $168,000 Division 2 Sitework 1 $1,469,230 Division 3 Concrete 1 $59,668 Division 13 Special Construction 1 $273,400 Division 15 Mechanical 1 $266,250 Division 16 Electrical 1 $74,673 Subtotal Division 1 through 16) $2,311,221 Contractors Bonds, Insurance OH and profit 17% $393,000 Contingency 20% $541,000 Total Estimate of Probable Construction Cost (Rounded) $3,245,000GHD conducted environmental studies of potential alternatives concurrently with writing of this document.Due to potential frog and shrimp impacts by tunneling under the Napa River this alternative has beenmodified to create Alternative 1a below. This alternative was not fully evaluated in the environmentaldocument.5.3.2 ALTERNATIVE 1A – SERVE TIER 2 CUSTOMERS WEST OF THE NAPA RIVERThis alternative would provide approximately 179 AF of dry year water supply benefits by connecting theYountville Veterans Memorial Park (an urban user) and three vineyards (Herrick Ranch, Silverado Westand Beringer) with onsite storage to the recycled water system as shown in Figure 5-1a. This wouldreduce demands on groundwater by offsetting some urban and agricultural use. This alternative avoidsthe need for constructing additional treated effluent storage because available onsite storage ponds areused. The alternative includes 357.5 AF of storage, 142.4 of which belongs to existing users and theremainder belongs to new users.The alternative includes the following project elements:Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 27 June 2012
    • CO O K RD D R R YE DW corpwkprojectssro12027 - The Town of Yountville12027-11-001 Recycled Water Expansion Project08-GISMapsFiguresMaster PlanFigure 5-1a Project Alternative 1a.mxd YO UN T M IL L RD D R SS O R C LE IL Y ON RD TV Beringer N U YO FI NN SODA CA N E LL T RD ES AY 8" O W NR NA MO N DE LN R JE PA LA E ST F N OO RE FE K R VIS FO R RD SO TA NS Napa R D HO R T YO LL Y UN ST ST iv Stags TS RY er R BE T L CI R Silverado Leap MU K 8" OA ST West N ST IO SS AT R MI D WA E E LN HI N S Veterans G G D HIN PA HW N Memorial AM LA AY GT RIDGE Park CH C T 29 ON ST DR 6" I A 8" RN Clos Du Val/ FO LI Regusci SCADACA Upgrades RWPS PRESIDENTS CIR RI Herrick D Upgrades G CA E JTP Ranch P DR PS Upgrades DR W DR D VIE AR EY Chimney VIN Mondavi Rock SI SO LN LV LA N E MA RA NO FF DO HO AV TR E LDR LN TZ Y GA CR RA EE K RD Town Limits Tier 1 Service Area Existing 6-inch Pipe Isolation Valves 0 900 1,800 ft Figure 5-1a www.ghd.com Project Alternative 1a Parcel Boundary Tier 2 Service Area Alternative 1a - 6 & 8-inch Pipe Pond Level Control/Telemetry 1 inch = 1,800 feet printed at 8.5x11 Recycled Water Ponds Tier 3 Service Area Motor-Operated Control Valves Sources: ESRI Basemap: Aerial; Napa Project County GIS: Parcels, City Limits, Cartography Date Project # Roads; Winzler and Kelly GIS: Study Streams and Rivers Area, RW Pipes, Tiers. AF 5/1/2012 1202711001 Town of Yountville
    •  Approximately 6,110 feet of new 8-inch and 1,190 feet of new 6-inch PVC distribution piping to connect Tier 2 customers (excluding Silverado East) from the existing 6-inch transmission main.  6-inch and 8-inch gate valves for distribution pipe isolation.  Motorized open/closed duty isolation control valves for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 turnout locations. Includes radio telemetry for SCADA control of isolation valves.  Level control instrumentation at Tier 1 and 2 pond locations with radio telemetry.  Recycled water pump station upgrades including installation of (1) new pump and (3) new 40-hp inverter duty motors and pump discharge manifold upgrades.  JTP upgrades including existing fuzzy filter actuator upgrades, adapter plate, programmable logic controller (PLC) and new filter media.  Additional JTP upgrades including replacing existing pneumatic valves with electric modulating- duty control valves (2), and valve vault rehabilitation (2).  Upgrades to the JTP dechlorination system new residual analyzer, metering pump, PLC and connections.  Five pressure-sustaining valves (PSV) for ponds at elevations lower than RWPS. Includes radio telemetry for valve control.The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $2,722,000 which is presented in Table 5-9 below. Adetailed estimate is included in Appendix B Table 5-9: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 1a CSI Division Description LS Total Cost Division 1 General Requirements 1 $150,000 Division 2 Sitework 1 $1,099,874 Division 3 Concrete 1 $59,218 Division 13 Special Construction 1 $254,000 Division 15 Mechanical 1 $279,975 Division 16 Electrical 1 $95,333 Subtotal Division 1 through 16) $1,938,400 Contractors Bonds, Insurance OH and profit 17% $330,000 Contingency 20% $454,000 Total Estimate of Probable Construction Cost (Rounded) $2,722,000Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 28 June 2012
    • 5.3.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 – SERVE ALL TIER 2 CUSTOMERS AND IMPROVE DELIVERY RATE TO TIER 1 CUSTOMERSThis alternative is similar to Alternative 1 and provides the same dry year water supply benefits ofapproximately 225 AF by connecting the Yountville Veterans Memorial Park (an urban user) and all of theTier 2 vineyards with onsite storage to the recycled water system as shown in Figure 5-2. This alternativealso includes a parallel pipe that would increase the delivery rate of recycled water for the existing Tier 1users.Like Alternative 1, this alternative would reduce demands on groundwater by offsetting some urban andagricultural use. This alternative avoids the need for constructing additional treated effluent storagebecause available onsite storage ponds are used. The alternative includes 374.3 AF of storage, 142.4 ofwhich belongs to existing users and the remainder belongs to new users. The addition ofThe alternative includes the following project elements.  Approximately 8,200 feet of new 8-inch and 1,190 feet of new 6-inch PVC distribution piping to connect Tier 2 customers from the existing 6-inch transmission main.  Approximately 5,300- feet of new 8-inch transmission system piping to parallel the existing 6 inch piping beginning downstream of the Silverado West turnout location and extending towards the first Mondavi pond.  6-inch and 8-inch gate valves for distribution pipe isolation.  8-inch valves for distribution pipe isolation and tie-ins to the existing 6-inch distribution system piping.  Motorized open/closed duty isolation control valves for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 turnout locations. Includes radio telemetry for SCADA control of isolation valves.  Level control instrumentation at Tier 1 and 2 pond locations with radio telemetry.  Recycled water pump station upgrades including installation of (1) new pump and (3) new 40-hp inverter duty motors and pump discharge manifold upgrades.  JTP upgrades including existing fuzzy filter actuator upgrades, adapter plate, programmable logic controller (PLC) and new filter media.  Additional JTP upgrades including replacing existing pneumatic valves with electric modulating- duty control valves (2), and valve vault rehabilitation (2).  Upgrades to the JTP dechlorination system new residual analyzer, metering pump, PLC and connections.  Five pressure-sustaining valves (PSV) for ponds at elevations lower than RWPS. Includes radio telemetry for valve control.The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $4,318,000 which is presented in Table 5-10 below. Adetailed cost estimate is included in Appendix B.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 29 June 2012
    • CO O K RD D R R YE DW corpwkprojectssro12027 - The Town of Yountville12027-11-001 Recycled Water Expansion Project08-GISMapsFiguresMaster PlanFigure 5-2 Project Alternative 2.mxd YO UN T M IL L RD Silverado East RD SS O R C LE IL N RD TV Beringer N U YO YO FI NN SODA CAN 8" EL L T RD O ES AY NR W 8" NA MO N DE LN ER JE PA LA ST F N OO RE FE KR R VIS FO R D SO TA Na p a R NS D HO R T YO LL Y UN ST ST iv e r Stags TS R RY BE T L CI R Silverado Leap MU K 8" OA ST West N ST IO SS AT MI DR WA E E LN HI N S Veterans GH G D HIN PA N W Memorial M LA AY GT A RIDGE Park CH CT 29 ON ST DR 6" I A 8" RN Clos Du Val/ FO 8" A LI Regusci SCADA C Upgrades RWPS PRESIDENTS CIR RI Herrick D Upgrades GE CA JTP Ranch P DR PS Upgrades DR DR IE W DV AR EY Chimney VIN Mondavi Rock SI SO LN LV LA N E MA RA NO FF DO HO AV TR E LDR Z LN Y GAT CR RA EE K RD Town Limits Tier 1 Service Area Existing 6-inch Pipe Isolation Valves 0 900 1,800 ft Figure 5-2 www.ghd.com Project Alternative 2 Parcel Boundary Tier 2 Service Area Alternative 2 - 6 & 8-inch Pipe Pond Level Control/Telemetry 1 inch = 1,800 feet printed at 8.5x11 Recycled Water Ponds Tier 3 Service Area Motor-Operated Control Valves Sources: ESRI Basemap: Aerial; Napa County GIS: Parcels, City Limits, Project Cartography Date Project # Roads; Winzler and Kelly GIS: Study Streams and Rivers Area, RW Pipes, Tiers. AF 5/23/2012 1202711001 Town of Yountville
    • Table 5-10: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 2 CSI Division Description LS Total Cost Division 1 General Requirements 1 $204,000 Division 2 Sitework 1 $2,157,702 Division 3 Concrete 1 $64,127 Division 13 Special Construction 1 $273,400 Division 15 Mechanical 1 $301,150 Division 16 Electrical 1 $74,673 Subtotal Division 1 through 16) $3,075,053 Contractors Bonds, Insurance OH and profit 17% $523,000 Contingency 20% $720,000 Total Estimate of Probable Construction Cost (Rounded) $4,318,000This alternative would need additional cultural and environmental review if it were selected due tosensitive areas and river crossings. This alternative has not been included in the environmentaldocument at this time.5.3.4 ALTERNATIVE 2a – SERVE TIER 2 CUSTOMERS WEST OF THE NAPA RIVER AND IMPROVE DELIVERY RATE TO TIER 1 CUSTOMERSThis alternative is similar to Alternative 1a and provides the same dry year water supply benefits ofapproximately 179 AF by connecting the Yountville Veterans Memorial Park (an urban user) and all of theTier 2 (excluding Silverado East) vineyards with onsite storage to the recycled water system as shown inFigure 5-2a. This alternative includes the addition of parallel pipe into the system to increase the deliveryrate of recycled water for the existing Tier 1 users.Like Alternative 2, this would reduce demands on groundwater by offsetting some urban and agriculturaluse. This alternative avoids the need for constructing additional treated effluent storage because availableonsite storage ponds are used. The alternative includes 357.5 AF of storage, 142.4 of which belongs toexisting users and the remainder belongs to new users.This alternative includes the following project elements:  Approximately 6,110 feet of new 8-inch and 1,190 feet of new 6-inch PVC distribution piping to connect Tier 2 customers from the existing 6-inch transmission main.  Approximately 4,410- feet of new 8-inch transmission system piping to parallel the existing 6 inch piping beginning on the east side of Highway 29 to the Silverado West turnout location.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 30 June 2012
    • CO O K RD D R R YE DW corpwkprojectssro12027 - The Town of Yountville12027-11-001 Recycled Water Expansion Project08-GISMapsFiguresMaster PlanFigure 5-2a Project Alternative 2a.mxd YO UN T M IL L RD D R SS O R C LE IL Y ON RD TV Beringer N U YO FI NN SODA CA N E LL T RD ES AY 8" O W NR NA MO N DE LN R JE PA LA E ST F N OO RE FE K R VIS FO R RD SO TA NS Napa R D HO R T YO LL Y UN ST ST iv Stags TS RY er R BE T L CI R Silverado Leap MU K 8" OA ST West N ST IO SS AT R MI D WA E E LN HI N S Veterans G G D HIN PA HW N Memorial AM LA AY GT RIDGE Park CH C T 29 ON 8" ST DR 6" I A 8" RN Clos Du Val/ FO LI Regusci SCADACA Upgrades RWPS PRESIDENTS CIR RI Herrick D Upgrades G CA E JTP Ranch P DR PS Upgrades DR W DR D VIE AR EY Chimney VIN Mondavi Rock SI SO LN LV LA N E MA RA NO FF DO HO AV TR E LDR LN TZ Y GA CR RA EE K RD Town Limits Tier 1 Service Area Existing 6-inch Pipe Isolation Valves 0 900 1,800 ft Figure 5-2a www.ghd.com Project Alternative 2a Parcel Boundary Tier 2 Service Area Alternative 2a - 6 & 8-inch Pipe Pond Level Control/Telemetry 1 inch = 1,800 feet printed at 8.5x11 Recycled Water Ponds Tier 3 Service Area Motor-Operated Control Valves Sources: ESRI Basemap: Aerial; Napa Project County GIS: Parcels, City Limits, Cartography Date Project # Roads; Winzler and Kelly GIS: Study Streams and Rivers Area, RW Pipes, Tiers. AF 5/1/2012 1202711001 Town of Yountville
    •  6-inch and 8-inch gate valves for distribution pipe isolation.  8-inch valves for distribution pipe isolation and tie-ins to the existing 6-inch distribution system piping.  Motorized open/closed duty isolation control valves for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 turnout locations. Includes radio telemetry for SCADA control of isolation valves.  Level control instrumentation at Tier 1 and 2 pond locations with radio telemetry.  Recycled water pump station upgrades including installation of (1) new pump and (3) new 40-hp inverter duty motors and pump discharge manifold upgrades.  JTP upgrades including existing fuzzy filter actuator upgrades, adapter plate, programmable logic controller (PLC) and new filter media.  Additional JTP upgrades including replacing existing pneumatic valves with electric modulating- duty control valves (2), and valve vault rehabilitation (2).  Upgrades to the JTP dechlorination system new residual analyzer, metering pump, PLC and connections.  Five pressure-sustaining valves (PSV) for ponds at elevations lower than RWPS. Includes radio telemetry for valve control.The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $4,203,650 000 which is presented in Table 5-11 below. Adetailed cost estimate is included in Appendix B. Table 5-11: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 2a CSI Division Description LS Total Cost Division 1 General Requirements 1 $204,000 Division 2 Sitework 1 $2,068,702 Division 3 Concrete 1 $72,127 Division 13 Special Construction 1 $273,400 Division 15 Mechanical 1 $301,150 Division 16 Electrical 1 $74,673 Subtotal Division 1 through 16) $2,994,053 Contractors Bonds, Insurance OH and profit 17% $508,989 Contingency 20% $700,608 Total Estimate of Probable Construction Cost (Rounded) $4,203,650Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 31 June 2012
    • 5.3.5 ALTERNATIVE 3 – MAXIMUM BUILDOUT OF RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM WITH LOOPED SYSTEMThis alternative could provide approximately 385 AF of dry year water supply benefits by connecting theYountville Veterans Memorial Park (an urban user) and all agriculture users in the study area to therecycled water system. This would reduce demands on groundwater by offsetting urban and agriculturaluse. This alternative includes 431.6 AF of storage, 142.2 of which belongs to existing users and theremainder of which is added from new users.This alternative is the build-out project, and is intended to provide additional operational flexibility andreliability via a looped distribution system, increased storage capacity by providing the necessaryinfrastructure to serve future Tier 3 customers, and the ability to increase current recycled water pumpcapacity. This alternative is illustrated in Figure 5-3. The alternative includes the following majorcomponents:  Approximately 5,800-feet of new 8-inch distribution system piping extending from the RWPS to the Silverado West pond location (approximate). This requires an undercrossing of Highway 29.  Approximately 8,100-feet of new 8-inch distribution piping in Silverado Trail and 1,900 feet of new 8-inch piping to from Silverado Trail to Silverado East pond necessary to provide a recycled water system for Tier 3 to create a “looped” system and facilitate connection to future potential Tier 3 customers.  Upgrades to the RWPS including the following:  New 40-hp Gormann-Rupp U-Series pumps (3) and inverter duty motors.  Associated pump connection and header piping.  System pressurization equipment including a bladder style hydropneumatic tank and associated piping and isolation valves.  Construction a 5 million gallon tank at the JTPThe cost of this alternative is estimated to be $11,745,000 which is presented in Table 5-12 below. Adetailed cost estimate is included in Appendix B.Town of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 32 June 2012
    • CO O K RD D R R YE DW corpwkprojectssro12027 - The Town of Yountville12027-11-001 Recycled Water Expansion Project08-GISMapsFiguresMaster PlanFigure 5-3 Project Alternative 3.mxd YO UN T M IL L RD Silverado East RD SS O R C LE IL N RD TV Beringer N U YO YO FI NN SODA CAN 8" EL L T RD O ES AY NR W 8" MO DE LN 8" NA N ER JE PA LA ST F N OO RE FE KR R VIS FO R D SO TA Na p a R NS D HO R T YO LL Y UN ST ST iv e r Stags TS R RY BE T L CI R Silverado Leap MU K 8" OA ST West N ST IO SS AT MI DR WA E E LN HI N S Veterans GH G D HIN PA N W Memorial M LA AY GT A RIDGE Park CH CT 29 ON ST DR 6" I A 8" RN Clos Du Val/ FO 8" A LI Regusci SCADA C Upgrades RWPS PRESIDENTS CIR RI Herrick D Upgrades GE CA JTP Ranch P DR PS Upgrades DR DR IE W DV AR EY Chimney VIN Mondavi Rock SI SO LN LV LA N E MA RA NO FF DO HO AV TR E LDR Z LN Y GAT CR RA EE K RD Town Limits Tier 1 Service Area Existing 6-inch Pipe Isolation Valves 0 900 1,800 ft Figure 5-3 www.ghd.com Project Alternative 3 Parcel Boundary Tier 2 Service Area Alternative 3 - 6 & 8-inch Pipe Pond Level Control/Telemetry 1 inch = 1,800 feet printed at 8.5x11 Recycled Water Ponds Tier 3 Service Area Motor-Operated Control Valves Sources: ESRI Basemap: Aerial; Napa County GIS: Parcels, City Limits, Project Cartography Date Project # Roads; Winzler and Kelly GIS: Study Streams and Rivers Area, RW Pipes, Tiers. AF 5/23/2012 1202711001 Town of Yountville
    • Table 5-12: Summary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative 3 CSI Division Description LS Total Cost Division 1 General Requirements 1 $437,000 Division 2 Sitework 1 $4,953,952 Division 3 Concrete 1 $321,020 Division 9 Finishes 1 $500,000 Division 13 Special Construction 1 $1,726,450 Division 15 Mechanical 1 $351,750 Division 16 Electrical 1 $74,673 Subtotal Division 1 through 16) $8,364,846 Contractors Bonds, Insurance OH and profit 17% $1,423,000 Contingency 20% $1,968,846 Total Estimate of Probable Construction Cost (Rounded) $11,745,000This alternative would also need additional environmental analysis due to the inclusion of the Napa Rivercrossing for the looped portion from Beringer to Silverado East and has not been included in theenvironmental document at this time.5.3.6 ALTERNATIVE 3a – MAXIMUM BUILDOUT OF RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM WITHOUT LOOPED SYSTEMAlternative 3a would provide the same amount of dry year water supply benefits as Alternative 3,approximately 385 AF, by connecting the Yountville Veterans Memorial Park (an urban user) and allagriculture users in the study area to the recycled water system. This would reduce demands ongroundwater by offsetting urban and agricultural use. This alternative includes 431.6 AF of storage, 142.2AF of which belongs to existing users and the remainder of which is added from new users. Thedifference between this alternative and Alternative 3 is that the Napa River crossings have been removed,due to potential environmental issues. This alternative is illustrated in Figure 5-3a.Alternative 3a includes the following upgrades in addition to most of those listed for previous alternative2a:  Approximately 5,800-feet of new 8-inch distribution system piping extending from the RWPS to the Silverado West pond location (approximate). This requires an undercrossing of Highway 29.  Approximately 8,100-feet of new 8-inch distribution piping in Silverado Trail necessary to facilitate connection to future potential Tier 3 customers.  Construction a 5 million gallon tank at the JTPTown of Yountville GHD 12027-11001-32204Feasibility Study & Facilities Planning Report 33 June 2012
    • CO O K RD D R R YE DW corpwkprojectssro12027 - The Town of Yountville12027-11-001 Recycled Water Expansion Project08-GISMapsFiguresMaster PlanFigure 5-3a Project Alternative 3a.mxd YO UN T M IL L RD D R SS O R C LE IL Y ON RD TV Beringer N U YO FI NN SODA CA N E LL T RD ES AY 8" O W NR 8" NA MO N DE LN R JE PA LA E ST F N OO RE FE K R VIS FO R RD SO TA NS Napa R D HO R T YO LL Y UN ST ST iv Stags TS RY er R BE T L CI R Silverado Leap MU K 8" OA ST West N ST IO SS AT R MI D WA E E LN HI N S Veterans G G D HIN PA HW N Memorial AM LA AY GT RIDGE Park CH C T 29 ON 8" ST DR 6" I A 8" RN Clos Du Val/ FO 8" LI Regusci SCADACA Upgrades RWPS PRESIDENTS CIR RI Herrick D Upgrades G CA E JTP Ranch P DR PS Upgrades DR W DR D VIE AR EY Chimney VIN Mondavi Rock SI SO LN LV LA N E MA RA NO FF DO HO AV TR E LDR LN TZ Y GA CR RA EE K RD Town Limits Tier 1 Service Area Existing 6-inch Pipe Isolation Valves 0 900 1,800 ft Figure 5-3a www.ghd.com Project Alternative 3a Parcel Boundary Tier 2 Service Area Alternative 3a - 6 & 8-inch Pipe Pond Level Control/Telemetry 1 inch = 1,800 feet printed at 8.5x11