HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-07 - Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee Meeting Agenda PacketYorba Linda
Water District
AGENDA
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
PLANNING - ENGINEERING - OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
Thursday, March 7, 2013, 3:00 PM
1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
COMMITTEE STAFF
Director Robert R. Kiley, Chair Steve Conklin, Acting General Manager
Director Phil Hawkins John DeCriscio, Acting Operations Manager
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any individual wishing to address the committee is requested to identify themselves and state the matter on
which they wish to comment. If the matter is on this agenda, the committee Chair will recognize the individual for
their comment when the item is considered. No action will be taken on matters not listed on this agenda.
Comments are limited to matters of public interest and matters within the jurisdiction of the Water District.
Comments are limited to five minutes.
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
This portion of the agenda is for matters such as technical presentations, drafts of proposed policies, or similar
items for which staff is seeking the advice and counsel of the Committee members. This portion of the agenda
may also include items for information only.
4.1. Meter Testing Update (Verbal Report)
4.2. Status Report on Northeast Area Planning Study
4.3. Draft FY 13/14 Engineering Department Budget
4.4. Draft FY 13/14 Operations Department Budget
4.5. Vehicle Equipment & Capital Outlay Budget
4.6. Monthly Groundwater Production and Purchased Import Water Report
4.7. Monthly Production Summary Report
4.8. Monthly Preventative Maintenance Report
4.9. Groundwater Producers Meeting Report
4.10. Status Report on Capital Projects in Progress
4.11. Future Agenda Items and Staff Tasks
5. ADJOURNMENT
5.1. The next Planning- Engineering- Operations Committee meeting is scheduled to be held
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 3:00 p.m.
Items Distributed to the Committee Less Than 72 Hours Prior to the Meeting
Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, non - exempt public records that relate to open session agenda items
and are distributed to a majority of the Committee less than seventy -two (72) hours prior to the meeting will be available
for public inspection in the lobby of the District's business office located at 1717 E. Miraloma Avenue, Placentia, CA
92870, during regular business hours. When practical, these public records will also be made available on the District's
internet website accessible at http: / /www.ylwd.com /.
Accommodations for the Disabled
Any person may make a request for a disability - related modification or accommodation needed for that person to be
able to participate in the public meeting by telephoning the Executive Secretary at 714 - 701 -3020, or writing to Yorba
Linda Water District, P.O. Box 309, Yorba Linda, CA 92885 -0309. Requests must specify the nature of the disability and
the type of accommodation requested. A telephone number or other contact information should be included so the
District staff may discuss appropriate arrangements. Persons requesting a disability - related accommodation should
make the request with adequate time before the meeting for the District to provide the requested accommodation.
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Presented By:
Prepared By:
Subject:
SUMMARY:
AGENDA REPORT
March 7, 2013
Planning- Engineering-
Operations Committee
Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Status Report on Northeast Area Planning Study
ITEM NO. 4.2
The subject Study is in the process of being finalized for presentation to the Board on March 14. A
near -final draft version has been completed. Due to the size of the document, we are unable to
attach it to this agenda report. Please contact the District's Executive Secretary, Annie Alexander,
for a copy of the Study. The findings and recommendations of the Study will be reviewed and
discussed with the Planning- Engineering- Operations Committee on March 7, 2013.
• 47 j.
9L
w
Yorba Linda Water District
DRAFT REPORT
Northeast Area Planning Study
Job No. 2010 -116
March 2013
C CAM #Ww„A#%
Engineers... Working Wonders With Water°
to
7 .7
Yorba Linda Water District
Northeast Area Planning Study
2010 -11 B
REPORT
DRAFT
March 2013
199 SOUTH LOS ROBLES AVENUE - SUITE 530 - PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101 - (626) 535 -0180 - FAX (626) 535 -0185
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienUCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
Northeast Area Planning Study
DRAFT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... ...........................ES
-1
StorageEvaluation ............................................................... ...............................
ES -1
Pump Station Evaluation ...................................................... ...............................
ES -1
PipelineEvaluation ............................................................... ...............................
ES -2
WaterQuality ........................................................................ ...............................
ES -3
Other Recommendations ..................................................... ...............................
ES -3
1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................ ..............................1
2.0 PROJECTED DEMANDS ............................................................. ..............................1
2.1 Existing Demands ........................................................... ............................... 1
2.2 Planned Developments ................................................... ............................... 1
2.3 Projected Demands by Pressure Zone ........................... ............................... 5
3.0
STORAGE CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS ....................................... ..............................6
3.1
Storage Components ...................................................... ............................... 6
3.2
Recommended Storage Criteria ..................................... ............................... 9
3.3
Storage Evaluation ....................................................... ...............................
11
3.4
Storage Recommendations for Development ............... ...............................
15
4.0
PUMP
STATION CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS ............................. .............................17
4.1
Pump Station Sizing Criteria ......................................... ...............................
17
4.2
Pipeline Sizing Criteria .................................................. ...............................
18
4.3
Existing Pump Station Capacities ................................. ...............................
18
4.4
Operating Conditions Based on Supply Mix Percentages ...........................
19
4.5
Pump Station Sizing ..................................................... ...............................
22
5.0
HYDRAULIC MODELING ........................................................... .............................31
5.1
Updates to Hydraulic Model .......................................... ...............................
32
5.2
Near -Term Facilities Included in Hydraulic Model ........ ...............................
33
6.0
WATER
QUALITY ANALYSIS ..................................................... .............................33
6.1
Nitrification Action Plan and Current Operating Practices ...........................
33
6.2
Sampled Chlorine Levels in Distribution System .......... ...............................
34
6.3
Impact of Proposed Improvements on Water Quality ... ...............................
39
6.4
Recommendations .......................................................... .............................45
7.0
SUMMARY
OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. .............................47
March 2013 ES -i
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES.1
Fairmont PS Sizing ........................................................... ............................... 2
Table 1
Estimated Development Demand ..................................... ...............................
3
Table 2
Assumed Demands for Shapell Development Development ........................... 4
Table 3
Future Demand Summary ................................................. ...............................
4
Table 4
Projected Demands by Pressure Zone ............................. ...............................
5
Table 5
Storage Criteria for Various Southern California Purveyors ........................... 10
Table6
Storage Criteria ............................................................... ............................... 11
Table 7
Existing Storage Analysis ............................................... ...............................
12
Table 8
Future Storage Analysis .................................................. ............................... 13
Table 9
Required Storage for New Development ........................ ...............................
15
Table 10
Existing Pump Station Capacity... .................................................................. 19
Table 11
Operating Conditions based on Supply Mix Percentages ..............................
19
Table 12
Pressure Zone Supply by Operating Condition ............... ...............................
21
Table 13
Fairmont Pump Station Sizing ......................................... ...............................
24
Table 14
Hidden Hills and Santiago PS Sizing .............................. ...............................
29
Table 15
Existing Pump Station Hydraulics ................................... ...............................
31
Table 16
Chlorine Residual by Sample Site and Zone .................. ............................... 35
Table 17
Sampled Water Quality Data at Reservoirs .................... ...............................
38
Table 18
Fairmont PS Sizing ......................................................... ...............................
48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Development Locations .................................................... ............................... 2
Figure 2
Seasonal Valve Locations ................................................. ...............................
8
Figure 3
On -Site Storage Siting .................................................... ...............................
16
Figure 4
Percentage Groundwater of Total Supply ....................... ...............................
20
Figure 5
Fairmont PS Site ............................................................. ...............................
23
Figure6
Fairmont PS Sizing ......................................................... ...............................
25
Figure 7
Fairmont PS Conditions 1 through 5 (Zone 780 -3 to 1,000- 1) .......................
27
Figure 8
Fairmont PS Conditions 6 and 7 (Zone 675 to 920/1,000 -1) .........................
27
Figure 9
Fairmont PS Condition 8 (Zone 675 to 780 -3) ................ ...............................
28
Figure 10
Fairmont PS Condition 9 (Zone 675 to 780 -3/1, 000- 1) ... ...............................
28
Figure 11
Potential Pipeline Improvements .................................... ...............................
30
Figure 12
Hydraulic Model Screenshot ........................................... ...............................
32
Figure 13
Sampled Chlorine Residuals by Sampling Site ............... ...............................
37
Figure 14
Predicted Effect of Development on Little Canyon Reservoir ........................
40
Figure 15
Sampled and Predicted Existing Chlorine Residuals ...... ...............................
41
Figure 16
Predicted Near -Term Chlorine Residuals ....................... ...............................
43
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A
References
Appendix B
Operating Conditions
Appendix C
Reservoir Storage Groups
Appendix D
Hydraulic Model Manual
Appendix E
Hydraulic Model Calibration
ES -ii March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Northeast Area Planning Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the Northeast Area Planning Study is to evaluate the capacity of existing
distribution system facilities and size new infrastructure required to provide water under
anticipated operational conditions for future demands. The proposed Esperanza Hills
Estates (EHE) and Sage (SG) developments are projected to add 542 acre -feet per year
(afy) to the District's annual demands, resulting in an overall system annual demand of
25,388 afy, which equates to a 2 percent demand increase. The District's current maximum
day demand is estimated to increase by 0.7 million gallons per day (mgd) to 33.6 mgd.
Storage Evaluation
Due to topology, the proposed Esperanza Hills Estates and Sage developments will need to
be divided into two pressure zones, with hydraulic grade lines at 1,200 feet above mean
sea level (ft -msl) and 1,390 ft -msl. Based on updated storage criteria, these developments
would require approximately 1.3 million gallons (MG) of storage. After evaluation of the
following two alternatives, it is recommended that storage be accommodated as discussed
in Option 1 below:
1. The entire 1.3 MG storage would be located within both development areas. Each zone
would need 0.18 MG of dedicated fire flow storage (0.36 MG). The remaining 0.94 MG
storage would need to be prorated by the demands of each pressure zone. As detailed
in Section 3.4.1, additional offsite improvements will be required.
2. Utilizing the Hidden Hills Reservoir for additional storage is not a viable option as
discussed in detail in Section 3.4.2.
Pump Station Evaluation
This project focused on the sizing of the District's Fairmont Pump Station (FPS) as the FPS
is critical to serve the new developments and is planned for replacement due to aging. The
FPS currently has a capacity of about 2,100 gallons per minute (gpm), and can be manually
operated to alternate its suction and discharge pressure zones. Sizing of the proposed FPS
was developed to include a variety of operating conditions to achieve ranging Basin
Pumping Percentages (BPP). Twelve different operating scenarios for BPP ranging from 0
to 100 percent were developed. These conditions were grouped in three categories based
on the different suction and discharge conditions as listed in Section 4.5.1.
To accommodate these wide variety of pumping operations, four groups of pump units are
required as summarized in Table ES.1. All seven pump units are recommended to be
variable frequency drives (VFDs), but could be configured as constant speed pumps with
the addition of one unit as described in Section 4.5.1.
March 2013 ES -1
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
In addition to the FPS improvements, Hidden Hills PS and Santiago PS would each need
one additional pump unit if storage for the new development is partially provided from
Hidden Hills Reservoir and the development is served from Zone 1,000 -2 (Santiago
Reservoir) or Zone 1,390 (Hidden Hills Reservoir). Details are provided in Section 4.5.2.
Table ES.1 Fairmont PS Sizing
Design
To
From
TDH
Capacity(')
Units Zone
Zone
(ft)
(gpm)
Notes
1 920
675
237
800
No standby unit included since OC89
provides reliability.
2 - 3 1,000 -1
675/780 -3
388
2,800
1 +1 configuration
4 - 6 780 -3
675
120
5,500
2 +1 configuration
No standby unit included since not
7 1,000 -1
920
212
2,800
assumed to be a typical operating
condition.
Note:
1. Rounded up to nearest 100
gpm.
It is recommended that the District include either a portable diesel generator or on -site
natural gas powered backup generator at FPS and that the PS include pressure reducing
valves to supply Zone 675 from Zone 780 -3 and supply Zone 920 from Zone 1,000 -1 to
increase operational flexibility.
Pipeline Evaluation
Based on hydraulic model analysis, two pipelines in the vicinity of FPS were also identified
as deficient, resulting in high headloss and additional pumping head requirements for the
new PS. To minimize the pump unit sizing and energy cost, it is recommended to increase
the capacity of the following pipelines with large diameter pipeline replacements or parallel
pipelines:
The 12 -inch diameter Zone 1,000 -1 pipeline extending 3,500 feet along Fairmont
Boulevard between FPS and Forest Avenue. This pipeline should be replaced by a
16 -inch diameter pipeline or paralleled with a 12 -inch diameter pipeline.
The 12 -inch diameter Zone 780 -3 pipeline extending 670 feet along Fairmont
Boulevard from Bastanchury Road onto the District's FPS. Adding a dedicated
pipeline to the Bryant Cross Feeder south of Bastanchury Road would require about
800 feet of 24 -inch diameter pipeline.
ES -2 March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Water Quality
The key steps the District can implement to limit nitrification and residual loss from
occurring are reducing water age and improving mixing within the District's reservoirs. It is
recommended that the District continue to follow its reservoir cycling practices, following the
guidelines recommended in the nitrification study.
For new reservoirs, it is recommended that the District include within the design systems to
increase cycling within the reservoirs, consisting of separate inlet and outlets (using multiple
diffused inlets where possible), samplers to provide real -time automated monitoring of
disinfection residual, and a mixing device within the reservoir. A reservoir management
system could provide this functionality in a single system along with boosting disinfection
residual.
For the Fairmont PS, it is recommended that the District incorporate a disinfection station
into the design that can inject free chlorine. If this emergency approach is not sufficient, the
next recommended step would be to install reservoir management systems (mixers,
analyzers, and potentially injection of chloramines).
Other Recommendations
This Northeast Area Planning Study is primarily limited to the system evaluation
surrounding the new Esperanza Hills /Sage developments and the FPS. It is recommended
that a comprehensive system evaluation be conducted for all pump stations and the entire
distribution system under the variety of operating scenarios. In addition, it is recommended
that the updated hydraulic model be used to optimize the system operational controls of the
system for the most common BPP target scenarios to make system operations more
consistent year- around.
March 2013 ES -3
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Northeast Area Planning Study
DRAFT REPORT
1.0 BACKGROUND
The Yorba Linda Water District (District) is an independent special district that provides
water and sewer service to residents and businesses within its 27 square mile service area.
Some of the last remaining developments within the District's service area are anticipated
to be constructed in the near future. The District is undertaking this study to evaluate water
service in the northeast area of the District. Specifically, this study is intended to evaluate
the capacity of the system to supply the areas of new development and recommend sizing
of infrastructure to provide water under anticipated operational conditions for future
demands.
2.0 PROJECTED DEMANDS
2.1 Existing Demands
The District's fiscal year (FY) 2011/12 demands were 20,433 afy, averaging 18.2 mgd
(including unaccounted for water). As has been observed throughout the region, demands
for the District peaked in calendar year 2007 at 24,840 afy, falling by 25 percent to
18,654 afy in calendar year 2010. For conservative planning, existing demand distribution
for this study was based on an Average Day Demand (ADD) of 21.7 mgd, equivalent to
FY2007/08. Demands had been geospatially allocated within the hydraulic model during a
previous project based on billing data. Based on the 2005 Water Master Plan (WMP), the
District's seasonal peaking factor (MDD /ADD) is 1.48, resulting in a MDD of 32.2 mgd.
2.2 Planned Developments
Two developments are currently planned for the northeast area of the District's service
area, the Esperanza Hills Estates development and the Sage development. The locations
of these developments are shown on Figure 1. Demands were estimated for these
developments based on the water demand factors developed in the 2005 WMP and an
average density of one dwelling unit per acre. Resulting demands are shown in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, projected ADD for both developments is 0.48 mgd, with a MDD of
0.72 mgd. While connection of the developments to the existing water distribution system
will be discussed in greater detail in Section 3.4 and 4.5, the developments will most likely
take supply from Zone 1,000 -1 or a zone downstream of Zone 1,000 -1.
March 2013 - DRAFT
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /Client/CA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
12" --6ino ills �`���
Rese oir
Le g end
0 Tanks
Little
Canyon
Pipes by Zone
S o
8„ Reservoir �,. �,
� 12 ^ %�
�s,
Parcels
Planned Developments
8 8,• N
Quarterhorse 60
Reservoir 8••
�� ryN` ,�; 812 2 ^�; 51n $Rd^ — —' Esperanza Hills
a R,z Estates
92 0 a" a' Saddle
12'
�` �____� ^/�
Esperanza Hills Estates
Sage
�; 12„ m >2„ gyp,• f2" �6%g'� g" O �7 Ridge Way
Sha
g
8,. 8"8"8"8" 10„ 70•• 7p,•,p„ „ g��.. ., a'- � ` ^ �� Sage Ride
6 1'8 „8„ 8„ z .—'– �, -..:8„ Drive
ti� r �
1
p ell
_
Fairmont Rrin it 1,y�1� '\�0
Reservoirl2e 10° 0 .
36” 8•• veo e 10 8 8 +-
_ !_L
8 10 ^ 8„ a „3�Ba8tan�U ,Z„ 8„ �o 'o $,. $„ g� o �dy Esperanza Hills
«: ��' �� Sage
39• ,��• 8`„° 6 ,o•• Estates d
` 7,, ^o $ R
��,.
8,. 8„ ,o•'; ..dam Old Edison
o” o 8„
/ V 0-3 s° 3s` 0 10" Qo��a Santiago
N
,. m o s" - Reservoir
, s" 8' o° ° ° o 33' ^ Stonehaven Dr a°
E "" ,= Cre
8„ 6' a" 0 10" 10" 10 10' 10,, 72„ ? 6
_s•• G e n
co � 6„
w � m ��$ � 6 v d: &'� 10•• 6 `����I° �`O �' 8 8•, M � � - 8_ 8 „$ 8” Ld
1' 14" I A4' 14' �P "L�14' 14 � 14 "•�!2" \�- / 8�
-TV ,A 80 N
\��v^ L- �co.L 8,. - -g 6„ • -_ LL
�ih
'6 _ B„ �. \`�'�, g•co m „m
cp
1„ g „` _ ra, 10„ 10 ,0, 6
8 a 8 „8
-`
FIF
8.,
9/ o
s ,z� �.,
e �� L a„ o„ 0 6 �•,
`ma �
- 16”
0 1,000 2,000 3,000
,Z„
m ^�
.� `. ,
Feet
Figure 1
6' 8 s„ Qo =L �:
=
�
Development Location
March 2013
6„ z8,
� .
�
_f� %
10” ,o' 6
N i d
Northeast Area Planning Stu
Yorba Linda Water District
$� _�
Lil
6�"--0,
w�
Table 1 Estimated Development Demand
Development
Projected Water
Equivalent
Demand
Acreage (1,2)
WDF
ADD AAD MDD(3)
Development Homes (acres)
(gpd /ac)
(mgd) (afy) (mgd)
Esperanza Hills Estates 340 340
1,070
0.36 407.5 0.54
Sage 112 112
1,070
0.12 134.2 0.18
Total 452 452
n/a
0.48 541.7 0.72
Notes:
1. Based on discussions with developer's engineer, any disturbed area will be irrigated.
2. Using assumption of average density of 1 dwelling
unit per acre with water demand
factor (WDF) from 2005 WMP of 1,070 gpd /ac.
3. Based on seasonal peaking factor of 1.48.
In addition to the existing demands and planned development demands for the Esperanza
Hills Estates and Sage developments, infrastructure has already been constructed for the
Shapell Development development, but the actual houses have not yet been built. Thus,
demands were added for this development based on the hydraulic analysis conducted for
sizing its infrastructure. The Shapell Development is served by three separate pressure
zones — Zone 780 -3, Zone 920, and Zone 1,000 -1. Resulting demands are shown in
Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, the Shapell Development is anticipated to add approximately 0.65
mgd of demand under MDD conditions. The total projected future demand for the entire
District's service area is summarized in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, the District's future system ADD with the developments listed above is
projected to increase from 21.7 mgd to 22.6 mgd. This equates to a 4 percent increase.
Although this demand increase is fairly minimal system wide, the demand increase is
substantial for a few pressure zones and the associated pump station and reservoir
facilities.
March 2013 - DRAFT 3
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /Client/CA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Table 2 Assumed Demands for Shapell Development Development
ADD AAD MDD
Pressure Zone (mgd) (afy) (mgd)
780 -3 0.27 306.3 0.40
920 0.16 175.1 0.23
1,000 -1 0.01 7.9 0.01
Total 0.44 489.2 0.65
Notes:
1. Demand distribution within hydraulic model was based on equal distribution to all nodes
within development, consistent with hydraulic analysis Shapell Development, Yorba
Linda Water System Calculations Addendum No. 1 (Hunsaker and Associates Irvine,
Inc., 2005). Demand to each zone was based on percentage of demand in each zone in
hydraulic junction report (since totals were slightly inconsistent).
2. Calculations within the study were completed for Peak Hour Demand conditions with a
total Peak Hour Demand of 773.4 gpm; a seasonal peaking factor of 1.48 and a peak
hour demand factor of 2.55 were assumed in order to calculate MDD and ADD based
on the 2005 WMP.
Table 3 Future Demand Summary
AAD
ADD
MDD
Component
(afy)
(mgd)
(mgd)
Existing
24,357
21.7
32.2
Esperanza Hills Estates / Sage
542
0.5
0.7
Shapell Development
489
0.4
0.7
Total
25,388
22.6
33.6
March 2013 - DRAFT
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienUCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
2.3 Projected Demands by Pressure Zone
As the capacity evaluation and sizing of pump stations and reservoir are dependent on the
demand of each pressure zone, demands are presented by pressure zone in Table 4.
Table 4
Projected Demands by Pressure Zone
Existing
Additional
Total
Demand
Development
Demand
o,
= N =
_ 14 =
0 =
L-
AAD
MDD
AAD MDD
AAD
MDD
` w E
0
L ~ E
N
Reservoir
(afy)
(mgd)
(afy) (mgd)
(afy) (mgd)
a o
a o 0
428
Highland
21486
3.3
2,486
3.3
12%
12%
430
149
0.2
149
0.2
< 1%
< 1 %
570
Lakeview
8,119
10.7
8,119
10.7
25%
24%
675
Valley View
1,413
1.9
1,413
1.9
6%
6%
675
Fairmont
3,119
4.1
3,119
4.1
18%
17%
680
Bryant Ranch
1,887
2.5
1,887
2.5
4%
4%
780 -1
Gardenia
454
0.6
454
0.6
4%
4%
780 -2
479
0.6
479
0.6
< 1 %
< 1 %
780 -3
Springview
1,418
1.9
306 0.4
1,724
2.3
10%
10%
718
62
0.1
62
0.1
< 1%
< 1%
780 -4
Elk Mountain
653
0.9
653
0.9
6%
6%
920
Quarterhorse
380
0.5
175 0.2
555
0.7
2%
2%
1,000 -1
Little Canyon
881
1.2
550 0.7
1,430
1.9
5%
7%
1,000 -2
Santiago
583
0.8
583
0.8
3%
3%
908
133
0.2
133
0.2
< 1 %
< 1 %
991
242
0.3
242
0.3
< 1 %
< 1 %
Camino de
1,165
Bryant
452
0.6
452
0.6
3%
3%
1,160
128
0.2
128
0.2
< 1%
< 1%
1,300
Chino Hills
298
0.4
298
0.4
2%
2%
1,390
Hidden Hills
197
0.3
197
0.3
< 1 %
< 1 %
1,133
78
0.1
78
0.1
< 1%
< 1%
706
748
1.0
748
1.0
< 1 %
< 1 %
Total
24,357
32.2
1,031 1.4
25,388
33.6
100%
100%
As shown in Table 4, the 1,000 Zone is divided into Zone 1,000 -1, served by Little Canyon
Reservoir, and Zone 1,000 -2, served by Santiago Reservoir. The zone is separated by an
March 2013 5
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /Client/CA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
isolation valve, labeled on Figure 2 as SV -3. This valve needs to be closed to ensure proper
cycling of Santiago Reservoir per discussions with the District's operations staff. If the
pressure zone is operated as a single pressure zone, Santiago Reservoir fills such that
cycling the reservoir becomes unfeasible.
While the demands shown in Table 4 are based on demands allocated in the hydraulic
model, the percentages of demands used in this analysis are based on input from District
operations staff, which was adjusted to account for the projected demands associated with
future development. This demand distribution is deemed more reliable, as it eliminates the
errors associated with geospatial allocation and scaling of billing data. As seen by
comparing the existing percentage of demands by pressure zone to the total projected
demand, Zone 1,000 -1 is projected to increase from five percent of the total demand to
seven percent, and increase for the pressure zone of about 40 percent. Note that the
District is planning to implement some rezoning, affecting the boundary between Zones 920
and 1,000 -1. By adjusting this boundary, the District will more fully utilize the excess
storage in Quarterhorse Reservoir. Storage capacity will be discussed in Section 3.0.
3.0 STORAGE CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS
As a part of this study, the existing water system storage criteria as outlined in the District's
2005 WMP were reviewed and recommended for revision. Storage criteria are used in
determining the required storage for the water system on a pressure zone basis and for the
system as a whole. The criteria are used to compare existing storage volumes with the
required volumes per the defined criteria to determine if the system has storage
deficiencies that need to be address by constructing additional storage reservoirs or by
sharing excess storage capacity between pressure zones. These criteria are also used to
determine the storage needs for future developments seeking to connect to the District's
distribution system.
3.1 Storage Components
Storage criteria are typically divided in to the following three components:
Operational Storage
Fire Flow Storage
Emergency Storage
The typical factors used to size operational, fire flow, and emergency storage are described
below.
Operational Storage
Operational storage is defined as the quantity of water that is required to balance daily
fluctuations in demand and water production. It is necessary to coordinate water source
production rates and available storage capacity in a water system to provide a continuous
6 March 2013 - DRAFT
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
treated water supply to the system. Water systems are often designed to supply the
average of the MDD and use reservoir storage to supply water for peak hour flows that
typically occur in mornings and late afternoons.
March 2013 7
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /Client/CA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Legend
OSeasonal Isolation
Valves
O Tanks
ED Service Area
El Parcels
E BIR ST r
Pipeline
El
TELEGRAPH CANYON R f -
< 7 inch
El 7 - 15 inch
> 15 inch
6
- ,
SV7 SV6 SV SV4 6G
_ SV1
SV3
R1
p
5
ti o c
1 �
2
y RD
r
to I i � — -- •
r
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Figure 2
Seasonal Isolation Valves
A February 2013
Northeast Area Planning Study
Yorba Linda Water District
',gineers... Working Wonders
This operational storage is replenished during off -peak hours that typically occur during
nighttime, when demand is less. The American Water Works Association (AWWA)
recommends that operational storage be at least 25 percent of MDD (AWWA 1989).
Fire Flow Storage
Storage for fire flows is typically sized to be at least the volume equal to the maximum fire
flow and its corresponding duration within each pressure zone (either directly or from a
higher zone). This maximum fire flow is defined by land use category. For each zone, the
land use category present with the highest fire flow requirement in each zone is selected
and then multiplied with the corresponding duration to determine the minimum amount of
designated fire flow storage in that particular zone. The District has historically assumed
one fire per major pressure zone of its distribution system. The means, that subzones that
are fed through pressure reducing valves (PRVs) from a major pressure zone will rely on
the fire flow storage in that major pressure zone. In other words, only one fire per major
pressure zone and associated subzones is assumed to take place at a particular time.
Emergency Storage
Storage is also required to meet system demands during emergencies. Emergencies cover
a wide range of rare but probable events, such as water contamination, failure at water
treatment plants (WTP), power outages, transmission pipeline ruptures, several
simultaneous fires, and earthquakes. The volume of water that is needed during an
emergency is usually based on the estimated amount of time expected to elapse before the
disruptions caused by the emergency are corrected or additional supplies can be brought
online. The occurrence and magnitude of emergencies is difficult to predict and therefore,
emergency storage is typically set as a percentage of ADD or MDD rather than specifying
an exact volume as a criteria.
3.2 Recommended Storage Criteria
The District has experienced water quality issues (i.e., loss of chlorine residual) related to
high water age. The water quality concerns are particularly present in some of the pressure
zones in the eastern part of the District's service area where the water demand is very
small compared to the available storage volume, resulting in high detention times.
To mitigate this issue, the District operates some of these reservoirs at lower levels and /or
only utilizes one of two storage compartments, where reservoirs are divided into separate
compartments. This strategy has resulted in a reduced usage of the reservoir capacity and
prompted the question whether the storage criteria are too conservative to meet water
quality objectives in the system.
March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /Client/CA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
For comparison, Carollo prepared a table of storage criteria used by other agencies and
used in water master plans prepared by Carollo Engineers for other water utilities in
Southern California. This comparison is summarized in Table 5.
Table 5 Storage Criteria for Various Southern California Purveyors
Total
Fireflow
Emergency
Storage
Supply Operational Storage (2)
Storage
Requirement
Agency Mix(') Storage (MG)
(MG)
for YLWD (3)
City of Orange GW + IW 30% MDD 3.7
100% MDD
49.5
City of Garden
Grove GW + IW 30% MDD 2.5
100% ADD
35.6
City of Upland GW 30% MDD 2.9
100% MDD
49.5
City of Hesperia GW 30% MDD 3.5
100% MDD
49.5
El Centro IW 30% MDD 1.0
100% MDD
49.5
City of Pasadena GW + IW 30% MDD 6.8
50% MDD
33.1
Victorville Water
District GW 25% MDD 8.0
50% MDD
31.4
YLWD GW + IW 100% MDD 6.75
300 -700% ADD
85.5
Existing Storage YLWD
58.7
Notes:
1. GW = Groundwater; IW = Imported Water
2. This is combined fire flow requirement for entire distribution system of the listed agency..
3. This is the total storage required if YLWD implements the
same criteria as the listed
agency using the operational and emergency storage criteria of the corresponding agency
and 6.75 MG of fire flow storage (per the 2005 WMP).
As shown in Table 5, storage criteria varies from agency to agency but in general is
substantially less than used by the District. Operational storage typically ranges from 25 %-
30% of MDD, compared to 100% of MDD used by the District. Emergency storage typically
ranges from 50% to 100% of MDD. It should be noted that 50% of MDD is nearly typically
(using a peaking factor of 1.7 -2.0) the same as 100% of ADD.
Since the 2005 WMP, the District increased redundancy of its system supplies through
upgrades to the distribution system and the purchase of three portable booster pumps and
one portable electrical generator unit. In addition, Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWDSC) increased reliability of the Diemer WTP. Further, the District's
groundwater supplies represent a point of redundancy to its water supply and storage
system.
Based on this, it is recommended that the District revise its storage criteria to the same as
the City of Orange, as the criteria are the most conservative of the listed agencies that has
10 March 2013 - DRAFT
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienUCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
a similar water distribution system configuration (with multiple gravity pressure zones) and
the same supply mix (both imported water and groundwater supplies). The ability to use
groundwater wells to serve demands provides another form of (aquifer) storage and is
therefore relevant for comparison. These recommended revised storage criteria compared
to the District's 2005 WMP are therefore as follows:
Operational Storage: 30 percent of MDD
Fire Flow Storage: Consistent with criteria used in 2005 WMP, which was based on
land use by pressure zone
Emergency Storage: 100 percent of MDD.
3.3 Storage Evaluation
When the recommended storage criteria are adopted and applied, the District's total
required storage volume would be approximately 49.5 MG, which is about 9.2 MG less than
the District's existing volume of 56.7 MG as shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Storage Criteria
Total
Fireflow
Emergency Storage
Supply Operational Storage (2)
Storage Requirement
Mix(') Storage (MG)
(MG) for YLWD(3)
Previous Criteria GW + IW 100% MDD 6.75
300 -700% ADD 85.5
Updated Criteria GW + IW 30% MDD 6.75
100% MDD 49.5
Existing Storage YLWD
58.7
Notes:
1. GW = Groundwater; IW = Imported Water
2. This is combined fire flow requirement for entire distribution system of the listed agency..
3. This is the total storage required if YLWD implements the
same criteria as the listed
agency using the operational and emergency storage criteria of the corresponding agency
and 6.75 MG of fire flow storage (per the 2005 WMP).
While the total required storage volume of 49.5 MG is sufficient when the District's storage
is considered a whole, storage capacity must be evaluated on a pressure zone by pressure
zone basis, since storage must be available where it is needed. Table 7 and Table 8
present such an analysis for the existing and future systems, with reservoirs and pressure
zones grouped based on whether storage would be available in an emergency. A figure
showing this storage grouping is included in Appendix C.
March 2013 11
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /Client/CA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Table 7
Existing Storage Analysis
Zone
Existing
Demand
AAD MDD
(afy) (mgd)
Operational
(MG)
Emergency
(MG)
Reservoir
Fire
(MG)
Size
Total
(MG)
Existing
(MG)
Balance
(MG)
428
2,486
3.3
0.99
2.22
1.20
4.40
6.0
+1.6
Subtotal
+1.6
570
430
8,119
149
10.7
0.2
3.22
0.06
7.25
0.13
1.20
11.67
0.19
8.0
-3.7
-0.2
Subtotal
-3.9
675
4,532
6.0
1.80
4.05
0.45
6.29
9.5
+3.2
Subtotal
+3.2
780 -1
780 -2
454
479
0.6
0.6
0.18
0.19
0.41
0.43
0.18
0.77
0.62
2.0
+1.2
-0.6
Subtotal
+0.6
480 -3
706
718
1,418
748
62
1.9
1.0
0.1
0.56
0.30
0.02
1.27
0.67
0.06
0.45
2.28
0.96
0.08
8.0
+5.7
-1.0
-0.1
Subtotal
+4.7
480 -4
680
653
1,887
0.9
2.5
0.26
0.75
0.58
1.68
1.20
0.84
3.63
6.0
2.3
+5.2
-1.3
Subtotal
+3.8
920
380
0.5
0.15
0.34
0.18
0.67
7.3
+6.6
Subtotal
+6.6
1,000 -1
908
1,463
133
1.9
0.2
0.58
0.05
1.31
0.12
0.18
2.07
0.17
2.0
-0.1
-0.2
Subtotal
-0.3
1,165
991
452
242
0.6
0.3
0.18
0.10
0.40
0.22
0.18
0.76
0.31
3.2
+2.4
-0.3
Subtotal
+2.1
1,300
1,160
298
128
0.4
0.2
0.12
0.05
0.27
0.11
0.18
0.56
0.16
0.5
-0.1
-0.2
Subtotal
-0.2
1,390
1,133
197
78
0.3
0.1
0.08
0.03
0.18
0.07
0.18
0.43
0.10
2.0
+1.6
-0.1
Subtotal
+1.5
Total
24,357
32.2
9.7
21.7
5.6
37.0
56.7
+19.8
Table 8 Future Storage Analysis
Zone
Existing
Demand
AAD MDD
afy mgd
Additional
Development Demand
AAD MDD
afy mgd
Total Demand
AAD MDD
afy mgd
Reservoir Size
Operational Emergency
MG MG
Fire
MG
Total
MG
Existing
MG
Balance
MG
1A
2,486
3.3
2,486
3.3
0.99
2.22
1.20
4.40
6.0
+1.6
Subtotal
+1.6
2
113
8,119
149
10.7
0.2
8,119
149
10.7
0.2
3.22
0.06
7.25
0.13
1.20
11.67
0.19
8.0
-3.7
-0.2
Subtotal
-3.9
3A
4,532
6.0
4,532
6.0
1.80
4.05
0.45
6.29
9.5
+3.2
Subtotal
+3.2
4A
413
454
479
0.6
0.6
454
479
0.6
0.6
0.18
0.19
0.41
0.43
0.18
0.77
0.62
2.0
+1.2
-0.6
Subtotal
+0.6
4C
706
4CR1
1,418
748
62
1.9
1.0
0.1
306.3
0.4
1,724
748
62
2.3
1.0
0.1
0.56
0.30
0.02
1.27
0.67
0.06
0.45
2.28
0.96
0.08
8.0
+5.7
-1.0
-0.1
Subtotal
+4.7
4D
313
653
1,887
0.9
2.5
653
1,887
0.9
2.5
0.26
0.75
0.58
1.68
1.20
0.84
3.63
6.0
2.3
+5.2
-1.3
Subtotal
+3.8
5A
380
0.5
175.1
0.2
555
0.7
0.15
0.34
0.18
0.67
7.3
+6.6
Subtotal
+6.6
5B
5BR1
1,463
133
1.9
0.2
549.6
0.7
2,013
133
2.7
0.2
0.80
0.05
1.80
0.12
0.18
2.78
0.17
2.0
-0.8
-0.2
Subtotal
-1.0
5U
5L
452
242
0.6
0.3
452
242
0.6
0.3
0.18
0.10
0.40
0.22
0.18
0.76
0.31
3.2
+2.4
-0.3
Subtotal
+2.1
613
6A
298
128
0.4
0.2
298
128
0.4
0.2
0.12
0.05
0.27
0.11
0.18
0.56
0.16
0.5
-0.1
-0.2
Subtotal
-0.2
6C
6D
197
78
0.3
0.1
197
78
0.3
0.1
0.08
0.03
0.18
0.07
0.18
0.43
0.10
2.0
+1.6
-0.1
Subtotal
+1.5
Total
24,357
32.2
1,031.0
1.41
25,388
33.51
9.9
22.2
5.6
37.7
56.7
+19.1
As shown in Table 7, the District's overall storage demand balance is positive with 19.8 MG
more storage available than required. However, on a zone -by -zone basis, the storage
balance shows a deficit for several pressure zone groups. This does not necessarily
represent a deficiency, as in several cases, the storage deficits in lower zones can be
accommodated through excess storage in upper zones. It should be noted that this storage
analysis assumes full utilization of capacity of the reservoirs, a condition that is generally
not present as most reservoirs are typically operated between 50 and 90 percent full.
For the future storage balance, the development demands for the Esperanza Hills Estates
and Sage developments are assumed to be served from Zone 1,000 -1. As shown in
Table 8, the storage deficits for the zones described above are similar, with the exception of
Zone 1,000 -1, due to the new development demand. The storage balance deficit in this
zone is predicted to be 1.0 MG, an increase of 0.8 MG over the existing 0.2 MG deficit.
There are three pressure zone groups that show a storage capacity deficit with the revised
storage evaluation criteria, prior to adjustment for water transfer opportunities between
pressure zone groups. These "deficiencies" can be resolved as follows:
570 Zone (with Subzone 430) — Lakeview Reservoir
While Lakeview Reservoir is only 8.0 MG, required storage for this pressure zone group is
11.86 MG based on the updated criteria. Excess storage in Springview, Fairmont, and
Gardenia Reservoirs totals 8.5 MG, and can count for storage in Zone 570 given the
number of pressure reducing stations connecting these zones. District operations staff have
noted that, due to the potential for supply interruptions associated with MWD supplies,
Springview Reservoir may need to be upgraded. Lakeview Reservoir is expandable, with
the site accommodating a total of 12.0 MG.
Zone 1,300 (with Subzone 1,160) — Chino Hills Reservoir
The storage balance for Zone 1,300 shows a deficit of 0.2 MG. The Timber Ridge BPS
does include an engine driven pump, which could allow use of water from Little Canyon
Reservoir during power outages. However, the storage balance for Zone 1,000 -1 also
shows a deficit, which can be addressed as described below.
Zone 1,000 -1 and Zone 1,000 -2 — Little Canyon and Santiago Reservoirs
When considered as a whole, the storage balance for Zone 1,000 -1 shows a deficit of
0.3 MG. The excess storage capacity in Hidden Hills Reservoir could be used for Zone
1,000 -2, but currently there is no pressure reducing station from Zone 1,390 to Zone 1,000-
2 to allow flow in this direction (such a pressure reducing station could be sited at Santiago
BPS). Currently, only one of the two bays of Hidden Hills Reservoir is used, with the other
bay being inactive. The District experiences water quality issues associated with the long
residence times when the full capacity of Hidden Hills Reservoir is used.
14 March 2013 - DRAFT
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
3.4 Storage Recommendations for Development
Given the elevation differences of the proposed development parcels, the appropriate
pressure zone hydraulic grade lines (HGLs) consistent with the YLWD zones are 1,200 ft-
msl and 1,390 ft -msl. For redundancy, each proposed pressure zone will need to include at
least a small storage tank to provide fire flow storage considering the risk of fires in the
area. Based on the revised storage criteria and the projected development demands, the
required storage for the new development is 1.3 MG as shown in Table 9.
Table 9 Required Storage for New Development
Operational Fireflow
Emergency
Total Storage
MDD Storage Storage (2)
Storage
Required
Zone (mgd) (MG) (MG)
(MG)
(MG)
1,200 - - 0.18
-
-
1,390 - - 0.18
-
-
Total 0.72 0.22 0.36
0.72
1.3
Notes:
1. Breakdown of demand between zones is not known at this time; however, it
is anticipated that
each zone will require fire flow storage of 0.18 MG, corresponding to an assumed
1,500 gpm fire
flow requirement over a 2 hour period.
Two potential configurations for storage were investigated
Construction of all new storage tanks for the development storage requirement; and
Utilization of some of the excess storage capacity in Hidden Hills Reservoir
Following the investigation of these two alternatives, it was concluded that the dedicated
storage for the new developments would be preferred due to reliability, water quality
concerns, and reduced energy usage.
3.4.1 Alternative 1: Dedicated Storage for New Development
The initial configuration of infrastructure associated with the new developments would
consist of entirely new storage and pumping facilities. Figure 3 depicts a hydraulic
schematic of this configuration.
March 2013 15
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /Client/CA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Hidden Hills
Reservoir
New Reservoirs (1.3 MG)
Little Canyon Min Upper HGL 1,276ft +400= 1,362ft Santiago
Reservoir Reservoir
1,390'
Esperanz
Hills + Santiago •
PS •1
Sage 1.200'
Fairmont t 0
PS Min Lower HGL 839 ft + 40 psi = 930 ft
Zone 1,000
Isolation Hidden Hills
Valve PS
(Seasonal
Valve)
Figure 3 On -Site Storage Siting
As shown in Figure 3, the development is anticipated to take supply from Zone 1,000 -1,
served by Little Canyon Reservoir and fed by Fairmont PS. This configuration would require
a pump station to supply the upper zone of the new development, while the lower zone
could be supplied by the HGL of Little Canyon Reservoir. The elevation of the lower
reservoir will need to account for headloss across the western portion of Zone 1,000 -1.
Infrastructure required for this alternative includes:
• Two pump stations within development, for each pressure zone
• Two tanks with a combined capacity of 1.3 MG (sizing depends on distribution of
demands between zones)
• Pressure reducing station (if upper tank is sized to meet some demands in lower
zone)
• In -tract development pipelines
• Increase to firm capacity of Fairmont PS (see Section 4.5.1)
• Additional offsite improvements including additional well capacity and pipeline
upgrades (including zone reconfiguration improvements), to be determined by District
staff.
3.4.2 Alternative 2: Utilization of Hidden Hills Reservoir Excess Storage
As previously discussed, this is not a viable option. While this alternative could potentially
reduce the amount of storage within the development, the pipeline from Zone 1,390
16 March 2013 - DRAFT
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
represents a single point of failure that could leave the development without water supplies.
However, since emergency storage is not cycled, placing additional emergency storage in
Hidden Hills will reduce cycling, exacerbating the existing water quality issues. In addition,
pumping water through Santiago PS to an HGL of 1,390 ft -msl, and serving the 1,200 zone
through a pressure reducing valve represents an ongoing energy loss. Based on these
reasons, it is recommended that all storage be placed at the development site
(Alternative 1).
3.4.3 Additional Esperanza Hills and Sage Requirements
In addition to new storage and conveyance infrastructure required to connect the new
developments with the District's distribution system, additional offsite improvements are
required. This includes additional groundwater well capacity and other distribution pipeline
upgrades that will be determined by District staff.
4.0 PUMP STATION CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS
Since the District operates its distribution system under varying supply conditions, it is
necessary that the District's distribution system can handle several different operational
scenarios. Based on discussions with District staff, several operational supply scenarios
were identified and the required capacity of the relevant pump stations were developed
under each scenario.
4.1 Pump Station Sizing Criteria
Pump stations serving zones with gravity storage are typically sized such that the station
can meet the zone MDD with the largest pump out of service. This allows the station to
meet the average hourly demands, while peak demands are supplied from storage.
Reservoir storage is then replenished in low demand hours. However, when a pump station
operates on a time -of -use (TOU) schedule, the pump station needs to meet the zone MDD
and replenish storage in less than 24 hours. TOU operations therefore also affect pump
station capacity requirements.
The District currently has the following pump stations on TOU rate schedules:
• Hidden Hills PS
• Elk Mountain PS
• Springview PS
• Box Canyon PS
Time of use electricity rates incentivize reduced electricity usage during peak demand
periods by slightly decreasing the rate of electricity during non -peak hours in exchange for a
March 2013 17
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /Client/CA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
higher rate of electricity during peak hours. For this analysis, it is assumed the District's
time of use peak hours are noon to 5 pm (SCE rate schedule TOU- PA -B), and that the
District targets utilization of pump units during off -peak or super- off -peak hours where
possible (11 pm to 8 am for SCE rate schedules TOU -PA -S, TOU -PA -B, TOU -PA -A, and 12
am to 6 am for TOU -PA -SOP).
Assuming that a pump station on this TOU schedule could not operate 6 hours a day
(5 hours of peak rates with a 1 -hour buffer), the pump station would need to be able to
pump the entire MDD in 18 hours. Pump stations on a TOU schedule therefore need to be
sized for 133% of MDD (24/18).
As a detailed cost energy cost analysis was beyond the scope of this study, it was assumed
that PS sizing for operating under only off -peak hours (9 hours per day) or super- off -peak
hours (6 hours per day) was not cost effective as this would result in significant stranded
capacity during non - summer months while only providing marginal energy rate cost savings
during a few summer months per year.
4.2 Pipeline Sizing Criteria
Where necessary, a pipeline velocity criteria of 7 fps was used to evaluate the capacity of
existing pipelines and transmission mains per input from District staff. Where exceeded,
headloss for the relevant pump station will be discussed.
4.3 Existing Pump Station Capacities
Each of the District's existing pump stations are listed in Table 10 with estimated total and
firm capacities. The total capacity is based on the District's operations staff estimates of the
amount of flow the pump station is able to handle, while the firm capacity is based on the
sum of individual design capacities of the pump units (excluding the largest unit).
It should be noted that the Yorba Linda Pump Station, listed in Table 10, is currently under
construction, and anticipated to be online in mid to late 2013.
18 March 2013 - DRAFT
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Table 10
Existing Pump Station Capacity
Upstream
Total
Firm
Pump
Pressure
Downstream
Number
Capacity(')
Capacity (2)
Station
Zone
Pressure Zone
of Units
(gpm)
(gpm)
Highland
428
570
5
18,000
13,500
Lakeview
570
675
4
5,000
3,400
Elk Mountain
780 -4
1,165
3
2,500
1,200
Valley View
675
780 -1
3
2,400
1,800
Yorba Linda
570
675
3
4,500
3,950
Springview
780 -3
1,000 -1
3
1,000
685
Hidden Hills
780 -3
1,000 -2
4
2,100
1,400
Paso Fino
OC89 / 780 -2
920
3
2,400
1,700
Timber Ridge
1,000 -1
1,300
4
1,700
645
Box Canyon
780 -3
780 -4
2
4,000
2,000
Santiago
1,000 -2
1,390
3
1,300
800
Fairmont
675/780 -3
780 - 3/1,000 -1
2
2,100
1,500
Notes:
1. Total capacity
(based on operations spreadsheet
and hydraulic
model)
2. With largest unit out of service.
4.4 Operating Conditions Based on Supply Mix Percentages
As the District adjusts its supply source mix (groundwater and imported water) seasonally,
the District's transmission system must provide sufficient capability to accommodate a wide
range of different supply conditions. Because of the water quality issues related to
breakpoint chlorination, the District maintains supply separation between groundwater and
imported water. Thus, the District adjusts to supply percentages by converting pressure
zones from imported water to groundwater and vise - versa.
Based on discussions with District staff, target percentages of groundwater versus imported
water were developed to determine the likely conditions for which the pump stations should
be sized. Table 11 presents an overview of twelve different supply conditions, while a
detailed list of the supply source mix by each pressure zone is listed in and graphically
presented in Appendix B. It should be noted that the extreme supply mix conditions, such
as 100 percent imported water or groundwater, should be considered emergency conditions
because these are uncommon.
Table 11 Operating Conditions based on Supply Mix Percentages
March 2013 19
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /Client/CA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Operating Condition
Fully Imported Water
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fully Groundwater
Percentage Imported Water
100%
88%
64%
59%
55%
52%
48%
30%
26%
16%
7%
0%
Percentage Groundwater
0%
12%
36%
41%
45%
48%
52%
70%
74%
84%
93%
100%
As shown in Table 11, when moving down the table to conditions of greater supply from
groundwater, less precision is available in selecting operating conditions (e.g., increasing to
a groundwater condition above 74% requires moving all the way to 84 %).
Historically, the District has worked around this difficulty by drastically changing supplies
seasonally to higher percentages, and maintaining lower percentages of groundwater to
make up the difference during the balance of the year. Figure 4 illustrates the District's
supply percentage of groundwater over the past four years.
100%
90%
w
° 80%
m
a�
2 70%
c
60%
CL a 50%
Cn
40%
3
30%
20%
C7
10%
0%
2008
20
2009 2010 2011 2012
Figure 4
Percentage Groundwater of Total Supply
March 2013 - DRAFT
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Table 12 Pressure Zone Supply by Operating Condition
Percentage of
Zone MDD Reservoir
Fully IW
Condition 0
Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 3
Condition 4
Condition 5
Condition 6
Condition 7
Condition 8
Condition 9
Fully GW
System Demand
mgd
428 3.3 Highland
IW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
12%
430 0.2
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
< 1%
570 10.7 Lakeview
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
24%
675 1.9 Valley View
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
6%
675 4.1 Fairmont
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
17%
680 2.5 Bryant Ranch
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
4%
780 -1 0.6 Gardenia
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
IW
IW
GW
IW
IW
GW
4%
780 -2 0.6
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
IW
GW
< 1%
780 -3 2.3 Springview
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
10%
718 0.1
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
< 1 %
780 -4 0.9 Elk Mountain
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
6%
920 0.7 Quarterhorse
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
IW
GW
GW
IW
IW
GW
2%
1,000 -1 1.9 Little Canyon
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
IW
GW
GW
7%
1,000 -2 0.8 Santiago
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
3%
908 0.2
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
<11%
991 0.3
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
<11%
1,165 0.6 Camino de Bryant
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
3%
1,160 0.2
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
IW
GW
GW
<11%
1,300 0.4 Chino Hills
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
IW
GW
GW
2%
1,390 0.3 Hidden Hills
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
<11%
1,133 0.1
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
<1%
706 1.0
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
IW
GW
GW
GW
<11%
Total 33.5
100%
Percentage Imported Water
100%
88%
64%
59%
55%
52%
42%
30%
26%
16%
7%
0%
Percentage Groundwater
0%
12%
36%
41%
45%
48%
58%
70%
74%
84%
93%
100%
Notes:
IW = Imported Water
GW = Groundwater
It is anticipated that this problem will become worse in the future given the increased
percentage of groundwater the District will be able to pump after annexation. In addition,
several of the zones for which supply is being changed in the higher percentage
groundwater conditions will be increasing in size given the developments discussed in
Section 2.2. Recommendations to reduce the loss of residual decay will be discussed in
Section 6.4.
4.5 Pump Station Sizing
Based on the locations of the developments identified in Section 2.2, the Hidden Hills and
Fairmont Pump Stations were identified for this project's scope of work as the primary pump
stations that will be affected by the new development. Sizing of these pump stations under
future demand conditions for various supply mix operating conditions are discussed in detail
below. For this analysis, pump station capacity of upstream pump stations (located in lower
pressure zones) were not evaluated, but increasing capacity of those pump stations may be
necessary to achieve the targeted supply mix percentages.
4.5.1 Fairmont Pump Station
Currently, the FPS supplies Zone 1,000 -1 from Zone 780 -3. Figure 6 shows the layout of
the Fairmont Reservoir and Pump Station site.
With manual reconfiguration of some isolation valves, the pump station can instead supply
Zone 780 -3 from Zone 675. The large demand associated with Zone 780 -3 and the limited
capacity of the FPS limit the usefulness of this operating scenario. The District does
maintain a portable engine driven pump at FPS to increase capacity under this operating
scenario.
As described earlier, being able to switch supply sources for Zone 1,000 -1 would be useful
to District operating staff for adjusting supply percentages. FPS is uniquely located within
the District's distribution system to maximize this operational flexibility. Table 13 identifies
the various pump station sizing required for FPS under the various operating conditions. It
should be noted that the demands on the pump station were increased by 33 percent to
account for the additional capacity requirements under TOU operations as discussed in
Section 4.1.
22 March 2013 - DRAFT
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Cb
8„
Legend
-
10"
10"
• System Valves
TRENTINO LN
CO
! Pump Stations
j
Pipelines
/
U
by Pressure Zone
Q
675
/
BPS
Fairmont Reservoir
780 -1
12" o
= 0
24" 24" 24"
920
CO
N
O
�A'
��
1,000 -1
N
20„
N
e
Fairmont Reservoir
M
30" 30" 30"
30" 30"
L Parcels
27"
20" �,
•
0
12"
I
D
J
m
8„ 8„
Z
�
N
�
���ORNO�N
0 50 100
Feet
N
Cb
•
Figure 6
Fairmont BPS Site Layout
March 2013
8" 12"
Northeast Area Planning Stud
12"
CO
Yorba Linda Water District
18"
N BASTANCHURY RD
12
5
v
n
N
O
w
N
Table 13
Fairmont Pump Station Sizing
Supply
Mix
FPS Configuration
Demand on
FPS
Recommended
Total
Sizing w/ PS
Dynamic
Imported
From
ADD
MDD
MinDD
Sizing Factor(')
Head
Condition
Groundwater
Water
Zone
To Zone
(gpm)
(gpm)
(gpm)
(gpm)
(ft)
1
36%
64%
780 -3
1,000 -1
1,420
2,102
653
2,795
330
2
41%
59%
780 -3
1,000 -1
1,420
2,102
653
2,795
330
3
45%
55%
780 -3
1,000 -1
1,420
2,102
653
2,795
330
4
48%
52%
780 -3
1,000 -1
1,420
2,102
653
2,795
330
5
52%
48%
780 -3
1,000 -1
1,420
2,102
653
2,795
330
6
70%
30%
675
92011,000 -1
1,810
2,679
833
675
920
390
577
179
768
237
675
1,000 -1
1,420
2,102
653
2,795
388
7
74%
26%
675
92011,000 -1
1,810
2,679
833
675
920
390
577
179
768
237
675
1,000 -1
1,420
2,102
653
2,795
388
8
84%
16%
675
780 -3
4,131
6,114
1,900
5,495
120
9
93%
7%
675
780 - 311,000 -1
5,551
8,216
2,554
675
780 -3
4,131
6,114
1,900
5,495
120
675
1,000 -1
1,420
2,102
653
1,889
388
Note:
1. Includes factor to account for time -of -use operation (assuming
18 hours per day).
Sized for
MDD for Conditions
1 through
7 and ADD for Conditions 8 and 9.
As shown in Table 13, FPS would be operated similarly under Conditions 1 through 5,
supplying imported water from Zone 780 -3 to the west portion of Zone 1,000 -1.
Conditions 6 and 7 are also identical for FPS, with the pump station supplying groundwater
from Zone 675 to both Zone 1,000 -1 and Zone 920.
Conditions 8 and 9 supply Zone 780 -3 and the eastern portion of the District's service area
with groundwater from Zone 675. In Condition 9, FPS also must supply the west half of
Zone 1,000 -1 with groundwater from Zone 675. (For FPS, Condition 9 is identical to
operating fully with groundwater).
The governing flow and head conditions for the various operating conditions for FPS are
depicted on Figure 6.
400
350
300
$ 250
x 200
0
~ 150
100
50
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Flow (gpm)
Figure 6 Fairmont PS Sizing
Based on the design points in Figure 6, it is recommended that the pump station include
seven (7) pumps:
• A single pump unit to serve Zone 920 from Zone 675
• Two pump units to serve Zone 1,000 -1 from Zone 675 or Zone 780 -3 (1 +1 PS
configuration)
• Three pump units to serve Zone 780 -3 from Zone 675 (2 +1 PS configuration)
• A single pump unit to serve Zone 1,000 -1 from Zone 920 (not included in operating
conditions, but could be used to supply imported water from Zone 920 to Zone
1,000 -1)
As listed, the pump station design points for serving Zone 1,000 -1 from Zone 675 (under
Conditions 6 and 7) and the design point for serving Zone 1,000 -1 from Zone 780 -3 (under
March 2013 25
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Conditions 1 through 5) are close enough to use the same set of pumps designed for the
higher point, with a VFD reducing the head for the lower operating point. Given the range of
flows needed for demand conditions other than MDD, it is recommended to use VFDs for all
pump units for maximum operating flexibility.
Based on discussions with District operations staff, it is noted that the District does not
currently utilize VFDs in the pump stations (to reduce operational complexity). The pump
station could also be implemented without VFDs, with the addition of one unit (eight units
instead of seven units). Separate units would need to be included for supplying Zone 1,000-
1 under Conditions 0 through 5 and Condition 6.
Given the ability of Zone 920 to take imported water as a supply, it is recommended to only
place a single unit (no standby) for the pump serving Zone 920. This backup supply would
allow the District to serve all demands in Zone 920 with imported water in case of a pump
failure or power outage, rather than providing additional backup capacity for this emergency
at the FPS. It is not suggested to blend the two sources under typical operating conditions if
possible, to avoid mixing of different disinfectant agents that can aversely affect water
quality. Given the design head and flow, it may be possible to design the pump station to
operate the standby unit for the second set of pumps as an emergency backup to the first
unit.
Similarly, a single pump unit is included for supply of Zone 1,000 -1 from Zone 920. While
not addressed by any of the identified operating conditions, supply the MDD + TOU
demand for Zone 1,000 -1 of 2,795 gpm from Zone 920 is predicted to require a design
head of 211 feet. If the pipeline downstream of this pump unit is increased in size (as will be
discussed later), design head of 167 feet is predicted to be sufficient. It should be noted that
the upstream Zone 920 pipeline is predicted to flow at a velocity of about 8 fps under this
condition. If this configuration was used on a regular basis, increasing the diameter of the
upstream pipeline could result in energy savings to the District over the long term.
It is recommended that the District include a natural gas powered backup generator at FPS.
The existing pump station includes engine- driven pumps, which could operate during an
electricity outage; the new pump station should also include this capability.
In addition, District operations staff indicated that capability for supplying lower pressure
zones from upper pressure zones would increase operational flexibility. Thus, it is
recommended that the pump station include pressure reducing valves to supply Zone 675
from Zone 780 -3 and supply Zone 920 from Zone 1,000 -1. These improvements should be
coordinated with existing and planned off -site pressure reducing stations to most efficiently
provide these flows given existing pipeline capacities.
The operation of the pump station for the various operating conditions are depicted in the
following figures, with the active components of the pump station for the given operating
conditions indicated in red (Figures 8 through 11).
26 March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
2,795 gpm @ 211'
920
1,000 -1
CO
00
M
o
M
O
N
v
@ ^
Co N
N
�-
O 0
Q
>
; ;
E
CL
cc
L
+ u
Q >
O
O
ti
fl
mN
)
675
`V
O
IT
N
780 -3
Figure 7 Fairmont PS Conditions 1 through 5 (Zone 780 -3 to 1,000 -1)
2,795 gpm ez 211'
W
920 1,000 -1 Ors 780 -3
ro
C)
® E °
+Y- CL _
CL > M > EN
LL
ap
c --
-`� CO
67.5 ni �
ni
780 -3
Figure 8 Fairmont PS Conditions 6 and 7 (Zone 675 to 920/1,000 -1)
March 2013 27
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
2,795 gpm @ 211'
Figure 9 Fairmont PS Condition 8 (Zone 675 to 780 -3)
2,795 gpm @ 211'
Figure 10 Fairmont PS Condition 9 (Zone 675 to 780 - 3/1,000 -1)
Operation under Conditions 1, 6, and 9 were verified in the hydraulic model to check that
tank cycling would occur regularly. Pipeline sizes of 16- inches diameter were assumed for
the Zone 1,000 -1 pump units, with roughness coefficients of 130. Development demands
were assumed to use a unit diurnal pattern.
28 March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
...►�.- � bo
788 -3
co
m
cv
r
Q ❑
E_
_^
+
+ U-
_
❑
vai��
,�--
°+3
tm
�
�.
co
675
`�
r
ni
Figure 10 Fairmont PS Condition 9 (Zone 675 to 780 - 3/1,000 -1)
Operation under Conditions 1, 6, and 9 were verified in the hydraulic model to check that
tank cycling would occur regularly. Pipeline sizes of 16- inches diameter were assumed for
the Zone 1,000 -1 pump units, with roughness coefficients of 130. Development demands
were assumed to use a unit diurnal pattern.
28 March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
In addition to the identified pump station improvements, pipelines in the vicinity of FPS with
velocities exceeding the sizing criteria of 7 fps were identified as potential hydraulic
bottlenecks. These pipelines are as follows and shown on Figure 11:
• The existing 12 -inch diameter Zone 1,000 -1 pipeline installed in 1986 extending 3,500
feet along Fairmont Boulevard between FPS and Forest Avenue is predicted to
experience velocities of about 7.6 fps under future system conditions (Conditions 1 — 5,
6, 7, and 9). If this segment of pipeline is upgraded to a 16 -inch diameter pipeline, the
pump station head could be reduced from approximately 388 feet to 364 feet. In
addition, it is predicted that the design head of the seventh pump unit could be reduced
in head from 211 feet to 167 feet. Based on discussions with District staff, given the age
of the pipeline, paralleling with a 16 -inch diameter pipeline and abandoning in the future
may be a preferred phasing approach.
• The 12 -inch diameter Zone 780 -3 pipeline extending 670 feet along Fairmont Boulevard
from Lariat Drive onto the District's FPS site is predicted to experience velocities of
about 8.2 fps under future system conditions (Conditions 1 — 5). Adding a dedicated
pipeline to the Bryant Cross Feeder south of Lariat Drive would require about 800 feet
of 24 -inch diameter pipeline.
4.5.2 Hidden Hills and Santiago Pump Stations
If the new Esperanza Hills /Sage development is supplied from Zone 1,000 -1, Hidden Hills
and Santiago pump stations would not experience any increased demands. Both pump
stations would operate under existing conditions for all operating conditions. However, if the
Esperanza Hills Estates development connects to Zone 1,390 to utilize storage capacity in
Hidden Hills Reservoir as described in Section 3.4.2, the capacity of each pump station
needs to be increased. However, the demands would be consistent under all operating
conditions. shows the capacity analysis with the development demands.
Table 14
Hidden Hills and Santiago PS Sizing
Additional
Additional
Existing
Firm
Existing
Development
TOU
Total
Firm
Capacity
Pump
Pressure
MDD
MDD
Demand
Demand
Capacity
Needed
Station
Zone
(gpm)
(gpm)
(gpm)
(gpm)
(gpm)
(gpm)
Hidden
1,000 -2
909
500
465
1,874
1,400
474
Hills PS
(Santiago),
908, 1,390,
1,133
Santiago
1,390,
252
500
417
1,169
800
369
PS
1,133
March 2013 29
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
16" Quarter 6„
$" Legend
12" Morse Pump Stations
Reservoir Reservoirs
Pipeline
12" by Diameter
„
Replace 12" Wi 16" 8 inches and less
1 (Zone 513; 3,500 ft) 12 10 to 14 inches
12" 0 16 to 20 inches
24 inches and larger
Fairmont Blvd
Zone 780 -3 Pipeline
Fairmont Blvd
10 " 10" Zone 1,000 -1 Pipeline
C �
8" 0
Fairmont Reservoir
Parcels
b
r-
0
M
Fy . INS
05 0 200 400
mimilimmimm== Feet
Figure 11
Fairmont BPS Site Layout
March 2013
Yorba Linda Water District
!I
naineers...Workino Wonders With
As shown in Table 14, the firm capacity of the existing pump stations would be insufficient
to meet MDD and the additional TOU demand after connection of the new development.
The Hidden Hills PS would require a 500 -gpm increase in firm capacity, while the Santiago
PS would require a 400 -gpm increase in firm capacity.
The current sizing of each pump station and the recommended additional units (shown in
bold) are shown in Table 15.
Table 15 Existing Pump Station Hydraulics
Size
Design Flow Design Head
Pump Station Unit Type (hp)
(gpm) (ft)
Hidden Hills PS
1(') Electric 20
600 200
2 Electric 40
650 290
3 Electric 40
650 290
4(') Electric 40
650 290
new Electric 40
650 290
Santiago PS
1 Electric 75
300 450
2 Electric 25
100 425
3 Electric 100
500 430
4 Engine 240
1,520 385
new Electric 100
500 430
Note:
1. Manufacturer pump curves note that Units 2, 3,
and 4 have a design point of 650 gpm
at 290 feet of head. 2005 WMP describes Unit 4 as 20 hp, with 200 gpm capacity, with
Units 1, 2, and 3 having a capacity of 400 gpm.
Within hydraulic model, curves for Units
1, 2, and 3 are similar, with Unit 4 providing a much lower head. To maintain
consistency with the manufacturer curve sheets, Units 2, 3, and 4 are assumed identical
here, with Unit 1 being the lower flow pump.
As shown, it is recommended that an additional unit be added to both pump stations
(identical to Unit 3 in each case).
5.0 HYDRAULIC MODELING
As a part of this study, the District's hydraulic model was updated and calibrated for fireflow,
extended period simulation (EPS) capabilities, and water quality conditions. A screenshot of
the updated hydraulic model is shown on Figure 12. Details on the hydraulic model user's
manual and calibration process are included in Appendix D and E, respectively.
March 2013 31
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /Client/CA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Water quality analysis was conducted using the multi- species extension (MSX) capabilities
included in InfoWater MSX, as described in Appendix E.
In addition, the various operating conditions discussed in Section 4.4 were modeled within
the hydraulic model. In addition, the improvement pipelines discussed in Section 4.2, were
sized using the updated hydraulic model.
iJlc.d90:. .. b +�:•- ! ®':J_M�.:- V,�n.....•R v•A•.:��r
-MA
I I=mo J J
�• .: c �s plo
•� `u. >: ! rim, M1_< 1 tJ,
Lei '' �J N 4J �, Q { l>• �"
0
Figure 12 Hydraulic Model Screenshot
5.1 Updates to Hydraulic Model
Prior to the calibration process, the hydraulic model was updated to reflect existing
conditions of the District's distribution system. This included interpolating elevations to all
model junctions, closing pipe segments or inserting closed valves to enforce pressure zone
boundaries, updating pump units, revising groundwater wells to utilize pump elements
rather than flow control valves, incorporating seasonal valves based on operating condition,
and more fully modeling pressure regulating stations.
Pipelines constructed since the development of the previous hydraulic model were added to
the hydraulic model from the District's GIS layers, provided on 9 August 2012. In addition,
the following projects were added to the hydraulic model based on record drawings or
construction plans provided by District staff:
• Lakeview Grade Separation Project, which included an 18 -inch diameter transmission
main relocation (dated June 2011)
32 March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
2010 Waterline Replacement Project, including replacement of two PRS and five
pipeline segments (July 2012)
Pressure Reducing Station Upgrades, including replacement of four PRS (dated
August 2011)
Well 20
During the calibration process, controls and pressure reducing station settings were added
to the hydraulic model based on discussions with District staff.
5.2 Near -Term Facilities Included in Hydraulic Model
In addition to the model updates discussed previously, several facilities that are currently in
planning or design stages were incorporated into the hydraulic model as near -term facilities.
These near -term facilities are:
• Yorba Linda Boulevard Pipeline, including installation of a 20 -inch diameter pipeline
(dated January 2012)
• Yorba Linda Boulevard Booster Pumping Station (dated August 2012)
• Yorba Linda High School Bryant Cross Feeder Replacement — 90 percent drawings
(dated December 2012)
• Well 21
While model management practices are discussed in greater detail in Appendix D, these
facilities are identified separately from existing facilities in the hydraulic model by use of the
Status field. Prior to changing these facilities from near -term (Status of "NRT ") to existing
(Status of "ACT "), the facility details should be reviewed as they may have changed during
the design and construction process.
6.0 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
6.1 Nitrification Action Plan and Current Operating Practices
In 2002, the District conducted a nitrification study, which concluded nitrification was
occurring in some of the District's reservoirs during certain operating conditions (YLWD,
2002). Nitrification refers to the biological conversion of free ammonia (from chloramines
decay or interaction with free chlorine) to nitrite and sometimes nitrate, leading to high
microbial counts and further degradation of chloramines residual by the nitrite.
The study recommended a Nitrification Action Plan, consisting of the following steps:
March 2013 33
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Alert Level — increased sampling frequency, dependent upon the severity of water
quality degradation
Action Level 1 — cycling the reservoir or reducing the reservoir operating level
Action Level 2 — super - chlorination, reservoir flushing, or sediment cleaning
The steps are triggered based on sampled levels of chlorine, nitrite, heterotrophic plate
counts (HPC), and ammonia. The plan also recommended some possible capital
improvements to increase mixing in some reservoirs.
Within chloraminated systems, nitrification occurs under high water age or conditions of
mixing free chlorine with combined chlorine, which leads to loss of residual, release of free
ammonia, and microbial growth.
Low chlorine residuals are particularly a concern to the District in the District's upper
pressure zones, where large storage volumes and low demands lead to long retention
times. District operations staff operate some of the reservoirs in the upper pressure zones
at reduced levels or reduced capacity to reduce retention times and aid in cycling.
Based on discussions with District staff, the District follows the procedures in its Nitrification
Action Plan when nitrification is occurring as indicated by the key water quality parameters
levels (e.g. total chlorine, nitrite, HPC, and total and free ammonia). Based on review of
SCADA data of reservoir levels (as a part of the hydraulic model calibration), District
operations staff are diligent about cycling reservoirs on a consistent schedule and
maintaining separation of source waters (i.e., free chlorine groundwater and combined
chlorine imported water) where possible.
6.2 Sampled Chlorine Levels in Distribution System
As a part of this project, the District provided water quality sampling data from its Total
Chlorine Residual (TCR) sampling sites. These data were analyzed to determine what
typical fluctuations in chlorine residual occur in the distribution system, and whether
breakpoint chlorination is generally occurring. Table 16 presents a summary of these data
by sampling site and hydraulic zone, with sampling sites including some low residual levels
in both free and combined chlorine (Total chlorine < 0.1 mg /L) highlighted in green.
As discussed in Section 4.4, the District changes supply sources for pressure zones to
achieve targeted supply balances (related to BPP and groundwater percentage of overall
supply). Since this analysis is covering samples taken over an entire year, some of the
identified breakpoint chlorination could be occurring during the periodic cycling of water
sources. Several sample sites are served with combined chlorine between May and
October, and free chlorine during the balance of the year.
34 March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
However, within Zone 2 breakpoint chlorination is occurring due to physical mixing of the
groundwater and imported water. This is due to the hydraulics of the east side of Zone 2
requiring additional pressure from Zone 3 via several PRS. The District's operations staff is
aware of this situation.
Table 16
Chlorine Residual by Sample Site and Zone
Average
Minimum
Average
Minimum
Combined
Combined
Free
Free
Sample
Source
Chlorine (2)
Chlorine (2)
Chlorine (2)
Chlorine (2)
Site
Zone
Water(')
(mg /L)
(mg /L)
(mg /L)
(mg /L)
13
1A
GW
1.09
0.65
31
1A
GW
1.09
0.77
35
1A
GW
1.23
0.76
34
1A
GW
0.94
0.61
32
1A
GW
1.13
0.76
24
2
VAR
1.86
0.02
0.78
0.02
27
2
VAR
1.67
0.02
0.47
0.02
22
2
VAR
1.69
0.01
0.51
0.02
25
2
VAR
1.69
0.05
0.66
0.05
14
2
GW
1.09
0.76
28
2
GW
1.11
0.75
30
2
GW
1.11
0.72
23
2
VAR
1.82
0.08
0.80
0.00
21
2
GW
1.11
0.71
29
2
GW
1.08
0.72
19
3A
VAR
1.55
0.07
0.93
0.28
26
3A
VAR
1.61
0.05
0.83
0.02
20
3A
VAR
1.53
0.09
0.75
0.03
16
3B
IW
1.89
1.39
17
3B
IW
2.00
1.32
36
3A
VAR
1.20
0.05
1.01
0.02
11
3A
VAR
1.19
0.05
1.06
0.06
33
3A
VAR
1.23
0.05
1.01
0.02
8
3A
VAR
1.27
0.06
1.01
0.79
6
4C
IW
2.07
1.23
March 2013 35
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /Client/CA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Table 16
Chlorine Residual by Sample Site and Zone
Average Minimum Average
Minimum
Combined Combined Free
Free
Sample
Source Chlorine (2) Chlorine (2) Chlorine (2)
Chlorine (2)
Site
Zone Water(') (mg /L) (mg /L) (mg /L)
(mg /L)
9
4C IW 2.24 1.14
7
4C IW 2.02 1.17
10
4C IW 2.24 1.40
12
4D IW 2.00 1.63
37
4A VAR 1.29 0.08 0.91
0.05
2
5B IW 2.02 0.30
5
5B VAR 1.97 0.08 0.03
0.02
18
5U IW 1.64 0.78
15
5A VAR 1.35 0.03 0.37
0.03
3
6B IW 1.80 0.03
4
6D IW 1.23 0.25
1
6A IW 1.80 0.06
Notes:
1. IW = Imported Water; GW = Groundwater; VAR = Varies, depending on operating condition or
mixing is occurring (likely through pressure reducing stations). Several sites covert
to imported
water between May and October, such as those located within Zones 3, 4, and 5.
2. Water quality sampled weekly from January through October of 2012.
3. Since free and total chlorine are not sampled at each sampling site, judgment was used based
on source water to determine the likely state of the total chlorine.
As shown in Table 16, chlorination type is generally separated by pressure zone. As
discussed previously, supply sources to some pressure zones are adjusted seasonally to
achieve production targets. Some water quality sampling sites show signs that mixing is
occurring of free chlorinated water and water disinfected with chloramines (specifically in
Zone 2). At some sites, breakpoint chlorination is likely occurring under certain operating
conditions.
Figure 13 shows the sampled chlorine residual at each of the District's sampling sites over
the course of the year. This chart illustrates the difference in total chlorine residual for the
chloraminated and free chlorine disinfected supply water by sampling site. Free chlorine
disinfected sampling sites are shown in orange, with chloraminated sites shown in green.
Sites which appear to switch sources from groundwater during January through May to
imported water from May through October are shown in blue. Note that only a few sites are
shown to simplify the graphic.
36 March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
3.0
2.5
J
01
2.0
to
W 1.5
L) 1.0
M
0
MOSTLY Wili
COMBINED
CHLORINE
� �1� ,�,�i►
fit;; .a
� �,
I
I
fil ' �►�_ , 111 _ I
��1/,►�
WY �
GROUNDWATER
.- ►
CHLORINE
RESIDUAL
TARGET
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
-x--37 —11 —7 —22 -x-35 17 21 29 —12
Figure 13 Sampled Chlorine Residuals by Sampling Site
The District also provided sampling data for each of the District's reservoirs. A summary of
this data is shown in Table 17 along with the calculated total chlorine to ammonia (as N)
ratios, which are used to determine whether free chlorine is present within the reservoir.
Notes are included to describe some of the analysis of the data shown.
March 2013 37
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Table 17 Sampled Water Quality Data at Reservoirs
Total Chlorine
Chlorine:Ammonia (as N)
(mg
/L)
Ratio
Reservoir
Average
Range
Average
Range
Notes
Bryant Ranch
1.74
1.34-2.05
4.9
1.3
- 19.1
Almost entirely combined, some dichloramine
Camino de Bryant
0.84
0.25-2.03
3.1
0.3-29.7
Low residual in July, likely due to breakpoint
Chino Hills
1.34
0.07-2.17
4.2
0.8
- 11.7
Low residuals in February and November
Elk Mountain
1.51
0.06-2.04
4.6
0.3
- 11.6
Low residuals in October and November
Fairmont
0.89
0.13-2.08
6.5
0.1 -136.0
Supply switched to IW in May through October
Gardenia
1.79
0.88-2.44
12.7
0.9-126.0
Supply switched to IW in May through October
Hidden Hills
1.35
0.07-2.14
4.4
0.1
-20.5
Low residual in July, likely due to breakpoint
Lakeview
0.87
0.76-0.98
38.6
0.8-93.0
Groundwater supply
Low residual on occasion, excess ammonia in
Little Canyon
1.73
0.17-2.37
5.0
0.2-21.3
October
Low residual on occasion, periods of free
Quarter Horse
0.99
0.05-2.21
7.0
0.1
-70.0
chlorine
Santiago
1.83
1.08-2.14
4.6
1.1
-18.7
Entirely combined
Low residual in March, potentially due to
Spring View
1.85
0.47-2.28
5.2
0.5-23.5
breakpoint
Valley View
1.67
0.45-2.42
11.9
0.5-60.5
Supply switched to IW in May through October
38 March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documentsl ClienUCAIYLWD 19047AOOIDeliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
6.3 Impact of Proposed Improvements on Water Quality
Since the proposed developments are anticipated to increase demand in the upper
pressure zones, connecting the developments would likely lead to decreased retention
times and simpler cycling practices.
Following water quality calibration, the hydraulic model was used to predict the effect of
connecting the developments on chlorine levels in the distribution system. Figure 15
presents predicted total chlorine residuals across the distribution system along with
sampled total chlorine residuals at the District's water quality sampling sites. It should be
noted that a comparison of the sampled residuals and predicted residuals is included in
Appendix E along with a discussion of the calibration and results. Figure 16 presents
predicted total chlorine levels under near -term conditions, assuming operating Condition 1
and summer demand conditions. Each of these maps shows the predicted residual levels at
12:00 noon. It should be noted that the simulation run time for the existing system was
longer (5 days), thus the lower residual levels in portions of the free chlorine area of the
distribution system.
As is discussed in Appendix E, a number of assumptions are made in preparing the water
quality analysis shown here; as the conditions affecting these assumptions may vary, the
District should use the results as an anticipated range rather than counting on the specific
levels shown in this analysis.
In addition, the predicted total chlorine residual within the Little Canyon reservoir is shown
under existing conditions and with the development demand connected to the distribution
system Figure 14.
March 2013 39
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
25
= 20
J
'p 15
N
E
v
5
L
a
6:00 AM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM
2.0
1.8
1.60
3
1.40
3 �
1.2 cD Q
X F
1.0 y p
0-
0.8 0 O
0.62
cc
0.41—
0.2
Time of Day
Near -Term Reservoir Level (ft) — Existing Reservoir Level (ft)
Near -Term Total Chlorine (mg /L) Existing Total Chlorine Residual (mg /L)
Figure 14 Predicted Effect of Development on Little Canyon Reservoir
As shown in Figure 14, the cycling is predicted to be slightly improved after the
development has been connected, with the added demands increasing the pull of demands
during the take portion of the reservoir cycling and the increased capacity of the Fairmont
PS filling the reservoir more rapidly. As shown, chlorine levels are not predicted to change
substantially.
It should be noted that, within the hydraulic model, reservoirs are treated as fully mixed at
all times, a condition that is not realistic for most reservoirs. Thus, this prediction assumes
fully mixed reservoirs. The key steps the District can implement to limit nitrification from
occurring are reducing water age and improving mixing within the District's reservoirs.
Thus, implementing measures to more fully replicate the fully mixed condition should
reduce the loss of residual from decay and microbial reactions.
40 March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
BIRCH ST
" m � � �
�37 3]\ ❑
I .I II •
T M
•
I i I
30
-
- -
29 -
21
i
•.
_ III
. I -
-ii
�, 1� � 35 _ •
J
M1 ill•
0
'a
TELEGRAPH CANYON
N
z
W
0
1.% J
?_7
0
II.ti 1
Legend
TCR Sampling Sites
O [Weekly Sampling Data]
Predicted Total Chlorine Residual
mg /L
• 0.000000 - 0.200000
0.200001 - 1.000000
1.000001 - 1.500000
1.500001 - 2.000000
• 2.000001 - 2.500000
QService Area
Pipeline
by Diameter (inches)
less than 8
-8to12
16 and larger
Parcels
0 0.75 1.
Miles
Figure 15
Sampled and Predicted
Existing Residuals
March 2013
Northeast Area Planning Study
Yorba Linda Water District
wineers...Working Wonders With
d
y -
\
18
*Tw
f;
?12
Legend
TCR Sampling Sites
O [Weekly Sampling Data]
Predicted Total Chlorine Residual
mg /L
• 0.000000 - 0.200000
0.200001 - 1.000000
1.000001 - 1.500000
1.500001 - 2.000000
• 2.000001 - 2.500000
QService Area
Pipeline
by Diameter (inches)
less than 8
-8to12
16 and larger
Parcels
0 0.75 1.
Miles
Figure 15
Sampled and Predicted
Existing Residuals
March 2013
Northeast Area Planning Study
Yorba Linda Water District
wineers...Working Wonders With
- 1
TELEGRAPH GANYON Rd
� • \•ter
Ltj
o
I -
I ,
II art
_
4.
do
14- tj
1 , _
_ � I
I
j
Lf
h
_j��.
0
,
'a
I'
Legend
Model Nodes
Predicted Total Cl (mg /L)
< 0.2
0.2 - 1.0
1.0 - 1.5
1.5 - 2.0
• > 2.0
QService Area
Pipeline
by Diameter (inches)
less than 8
8 to 12
16 and larger
Parcels
-J
',gineers... Working Wonders With
0 0.75 1.5
Miles
Figure 16
Predicted Near -Term
Residuals
Operating Condition 1
MDD Conditions
March 2013
Northeast Area Planning Study
Yorba Linda Water District
oft im Pw //A-
',gineers... Working Wonders With
6.4 Recommendations
Based on the modeling predictions, the District may anticipate similar residual levels in the
future as currently experienced. It is anticipated that the connection of the developments
will improve cycling of the Little Canyon reservoir as shown in Figure 14. As noted
previously, the key steps the District can implement to limit nitrification from occurring are
reducing water age and improving mixing within the District's reservoirs. Increased cycling
will help to improve mixing, but new reservoirs in the upper pressure zones will also
increase water age.
In order to limit chlorine residual loss from decay and microbial reactions, it is
recommended that the District decrease water age and improve mixing in reservoirs, induce
breakpoint chlorination to eliminate microbial populations under a free chlorine residual
shock dose when nitrification occurs, and implement a system providing real -time
automated monitoring of disinfection residual to improve reaction time to nitrification
episodes. Several of these steps are included in the District's existing nitrification action
plan; it is recommended that the District continue to follow its reservoir cycling practices,
following the guidelines recommended in the nitrification study.
Based on this study, additional recommendations are included for future new reservoirs,
chlorine residual booster stations, and to improve future water quality analyses.
6.4.1 New Reservoirs
For future new reservoirs, it is recommended that the District include the following elements
in the design phase:
• separate inlet and outlets
• mixing device within the reservoir
• samplers to provide real -time automated monitoring of disinfection residual
Reviewing record drawings of recently completed reservoirs, the District has implemented
separate inlet and outlets at several of its most recently completed reservoirs, and has
added SCADA connected total chlorine residual monitors at reservoirs where loss of
chlorine residual is of particular concern, including Hidden Hills and Camino de Bryant
reservoirs. Including multiple diffused inlets should further improve mixing with the
reservoirs.
Reservoir management systems currently on the market incorporate real -time automated
monitoring of disinfection residual and a mixing device. Models are also available with
disinfection capabilities through free chlorine injection or an automated booster
chloramination system. The District should consider the implementation of such a device in
March 2013 45
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
the design of new reservoirs. Such a system could also benefit existing reservoirs, such as
Camino de Byrant reservoir.
6.4.2 Chlorine Booster Station
In addition to efforts associated with reductions in water age and increasing reservoir
mixing, addition of a disinfection point at a strategic location in the distribution system to
increase chlorine residual would be beneficial. The benefit would be maximized where a
switch of disinfection type is in place seasonally or where mixing of residual types physically
occur within the distribution system, under which conditions chlorine residual loss is more
likely to take place.
As discussed in Section 4.5.1, Fairmont PS would be a centralized location for the future
distribution system. Incorporating a disinfection point at Fairmont PS would allow the ability
of increasing the chlorine residual for the following zones:
• Zones 1,000 -1, 1,160, and 1,300 under Operating Conditions 1 through 7 as wells
as Operating Condition 9
• Zone 920 under Operating Conditions 6 and 7
• Zones 680, 718, 780 -3, 780 -4, 908, 991, 1,000 -2, 1,133, 1,165, and 1,390 under
Operating Conditions 8 and 9. (As discussed previously, supplying this Operating
Condition is only feasible under lower demand conditions given the District's current
pump station capacities and groundwater supplies. This condition is also not
anticipated to occur frequently in the future when the District intends to achieve a
more consistent BPP target throughout the year.)
The District currently only disinfects with free chlorine. Disinfection generally occurs at
disinfection stations near the wellfield. In addition, the District maintains a disinfection
station at Lakeview PS, which is run when breakpoint chlorination is required when
supplying Zone 675 from 570.
Since Fairmont PS would convey both free - chlorine disinfected water and chloraminated
water, ideally a disinfection station that could inject both free chlorine and chloramines
would provide the most operational flexibility. However, this would be the District's first
chloramination facility, requiring the District's operational staff to begin handling
chloramines.
If a free - chlorine disinfection station is incorporated into Fairmont PS, the intended
operation would change based on the supply water (thus based on the Operating
Condition). When supplying groundwater (Operating Conditions 6, 8, and 9), the
disinfection station would simply increase free chlorine residual to the targeted residual
level. When supplying imported water, the disinfection station would need to induce
breakpoint chlorination, under an as- needed basis (e.g., when nitrification or residual loss is
46 March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
occurring). Based on the District's water quality sampling records discussed in Section 6.2,
residual loss has occurred at the Little Canyon reservoir. Disinfection with free chlorine
would result in the formation of disinfection byproducts.
It should be noted that boosting disinfectant residuals for Zones 680, 718, 780 -3, 780 -4,
908, 991, 1,000 -2, 1,133, 1,165, and 1,390 under Operating Conditions 1 through 7 (the
District's typical operating conditions), would not be possible at Fairmont PS. Boosting
chlorine in the at a facility along the Bryant Cross Feeder would increase the chlorine
residual to some of these pressure zones.
Based on these advantages and disadvantages, it is recommended that the District installs
disinfection station into the design of the Fairmont PS that can inject free chlorine during
emergencies. It should be noted that this would not allow boosting disinfectant residuals in
the eastern pressure zones during Operating Conditions 1 -7, but avoids the needs of
operating staff to work with chloramines. If the District continues to experience loss of
residual in the future in the eastern pressure zones, or if this emergency approach is not
sufficient, the next recommended step would be to install reservoir management systems
(mixers, analyzers, and potentially injection of chloramines).
6.4.3 Improving Water Quality Analysis
Some recommendations that could increase the potential accuracy of future water quality
modeling include sampling for TOC at reservoir sites, sampling for both free and total
chlorine at TCR sites, sampling for pH in the reservoirs as wells as distribution system sites,
and conducting jar testing on samples of the groundwater to approximate a bulk coefficient
of decay for the free chlorine component. The nitrification study recommended increased
sampling of some of these constituents, specifically free chlorine, pH, and free ammonia.
7.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis completed as a part of this study, the estimated storage
requirements for the new potential developments is 1.3 MG, including fire flow storage.
Based on the identified operating conditions for supplies, the recommended configuration
and sizing of pumps for the FPS is detailed in Table 18. All pump units are recommended to
be controlled by variable frequency drives (VFDs).
March 2013 47
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Table 18
Fairmont PS Sizing
To
From
TDH
Design Capacity(')
Units
Zone
Zone
(ft)
(gpm)
Notes
1
920
675
237
800
No standby unit included
since OC89 provides
reliability.
2 - 3
1,000 -1
675/780 -3
388
2,800
1 +1 configuration
4 - 6
780 -3
675
120
5,500
2 +1 configuration
7
1,000 -1
920
211
2,800
No standby unit included
since not assumed to be a
typical operating condition.
Notes:
1. Rounded up to nearest 100
gpm.
If the development connects to Zone 1,000 -2 or Zone 1,390, Hidden Hills PS and Santiago
PS would need to be increased in size. This is discussed in Section 4.5.2.
Based on hydraulic model analysis, the following two pipelines were also identified as
deficient (as hydraulic bottlenecks):
The 12 -inch diameter Zone 1,000 -1 pipeline extending 3,500 feet along Fairmont
Boulevard between FPS and Forest Avenue. This pipeline should be replaced by a
16 -inch diameter pipeline or paralleled with a 12 -inch diameter pipeline.
The 12 -inch diameter Zone 780 -3 pipeline extending 670 feet along Fairmont
Boulevard from Bastanchury Road onto the District's FPS. Adding a dedicated
pipeline to the Bryant Cross Feeder south of Bastanchury Road would require about
800 feet of 24 -inch diameter pipeline.
These pipelines are recommended for increased diameter replacement or additional
parallel pipelines to be constructed as a part of upgrading the FPS.
For water quality, the key steps the District can implement to limit nitrification and residual
loss from occurring are reducing water age and improving mixing within the District's
reservoirs. It is recommended that the District continue to follow its reservoir cycling
practices, following the guidelines recommended in the nitrification study.
For new reservoirs, it is recommended that the District include within the design systems to
increase cycling within the reservoirs, consisting of separate inlet and outlets (using multiple
diffused inlets where possible), samplers to provide real -time automated monitoring of
disinfection residual, and a mixing device within the reservoir. A reservoir management
system could provide this functionality in a single system along with boosting disinfection
residual.
48 March 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAIYLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
For the Fairmont PS, it is recommended that the District incorporate a disinfection station
into the design that can inject free chlorine during emergencies. If this emergency approach
is not sufficient, the next recommended step would be to install reservoir management
systems (mixers, analyzers, and potentially injection of chloramines).
To improve future water quality analyses, it is recommended that the District include
sampling for TOC at reservoir sites, sampling for both free and total chlorine at TCR sites,
sampling for pH in the reservoirs as wells as distribution system sites, and conducting jar
testing on samples of the groundwater to approximate a bulk coefficient of decay for the
free chlorine component.
March 2013 49
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00 /Deliverables /Northeast Area Planning Study Report.docx
Appendix A
REFERENCES
(KWC, 2012) KWC Engineers, Yorba Linda Estates Conceptual Layout, March
2012.
(SMP, 2012) Summers /Murphy and Partners, Inc., "Esperanza Hills Conceptual
Trails Plan Stonehaven Drive Option 1 ", 30 October 2012.
(YLWD, 2002) Water Reservoir Nitrification Prevention and Control Study,
September 2002.
(YLWD, 2005) Domestic Water System Master Plan, May 2005.
References: GIS Layers
Date
Layer Name Description Modified
[Original Filename] (or
Received) Source
YLWD _GIS _082012.mdb Water System GIS 20 August YLWD
2012
Elevation Contours [breakline.shp,
bridge.shp, Depression Index
Contour Hidden Segment.shp,
Depression Index Contour.shp, September
Depression Intermediate Elevation Contours 2012 YLWD
Contour.shp, Index Contour
Hidden Segment.shp, Index
Contour.shp, Intermediate
Contour.shp]
References: Water Distribution System Data
File Name
[Original Filename]
Demands - Daily Consumption and
Production - 2008 to June 2012.x1sm
Demands - Monthly Demand - 2001 to
2012.xlsx
Supply Data - Production Zone
Percentages from Operations.xlsx
Pump Tests - SCE - Valley View and
Lakeview BPS (June 2011).pdf
Pump Tests - SCE - Groundwater Wells
(2011).pdf
Pump Curve - Well 19 VFD Affinity Curve
Operating Zone.pdf
Pump Curve — Well 19 Email
Correction.pdf
Pump Curve - Well 20 (December
2011).pdf
Pump Curve — BPS (June 2011).pdf
Format Date Range, Modified
(or Received) Resolution
January 2008 —
XLS June 2012 Daily
XLS January 2001 — Monthly
July 2012
XLS
December 2012
Not
Applicable
PDF
June 2011
Not
Applicable
PDF
2011
Not
Applicable
PDF
June 2007
Not
Applicable
PDF
January 2007
Not
Applicable
PDF
June 2011
Not
Applicable
PDF
June 2011
Not
Applicable
Appendix B
SUPPLY OPERATING CONDITIONS
March 2013 - DRAFT B -1
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents / Client /CA /YLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_B- Operating_Conditions.doc
Figure B.1 - Condition 1
Quarterhorse
Reservoir
Gardenia
Reservoir
Valley
View
Reservoir
From
428
0051
Fairmont
Reservoir
• :•
Paso Fino
BPS
Springview
Reservoir
Trentino PRS
C
Del Rey
PRS
Little Canyon
Reservoir
To
1,300,
4 4 fl n
Santiago
Reservoir
To 1,390,
908
Bryant
Cross
Feeder
1'
Fairmont
BPS
1 II'.A'U ',,I I 1 IIIIJ
BPS
To BCB, Zones
680,780-4,
1,165, 991, and
718
(14 %)
Suppler
Imported Water: 64%
Groundwater: 36%
Figure B.2 - Condition 2
Quarterhorse
Reservoir
Gardenia
Reservoir
Valley
View
Reservoir
0051
Lakeview
BPS
From
428
Fairmont
Reservoir
1 :•
Paso Fino
BPS
Springview
Reservoir
Trentino PRS
C
Del Rey
PRS
Little Canyon
Reservoir
To
1,300,
.1 4 fl n
Santiago
Reservoir
To 1,390,
908
Bryant
Cross
Feeder
1'
Fairmont
BPS
BPS
To BCB, Zones
680,780-4,
1,165, 991, and
718
(14 %)
Suppler
Imported Water: 59%
Groundwater: 41 %
Figure B.3 - Condition 3
Quarterhorse
Reservoir
1 :•
Paso Fino
BPS
Gardenia
Reservoir
Springview
Reservoir
Trentino PRS
C
Fairmont
Reservoir
Valley View
BPS
Lakeview
BPS
Del Rey
PRS
Little Canyon
Reservoir
To
1,300,
.1 4 fl n
Santiago
Reservoir
To 1,390,
908
Bryant
Cross
Feeder
1'
Fairmont
BPS
BPS
To BCB, Zones
680,780-4,
1,165, 991, and
718
(14 %)
Suppler
From Imported Water: 55%
428 Groundwater: 45%
Figure B.4 - Condition 4
Quarterhorse
Reservoir
Gardenia
Reservoir
Paso Fino
Valley v •
View Fairmon
Reservoir Reservoir
Valley View
BPS
Lakeview
BPS
From
428
OC66
Springview
Reservoir
Del Rey
PRS
Little Canyon
Reservoir
To
1,300,
1,160
Bryant
Cross
Feeder
Fairmont
BPS
Santiago
Reservoir
To 1,390,
1,133, 908
Hidden Hills
BPS
To BCB, Zones
680,780-4,
1,165, 991, and
718
(14 %)
Suppler
Imported Water: 52%
Groundwater: 48%
Figure B.5 - Condition 5
Quarterhorse
Reservoir
Gardenia
Reservoir
0051
Valley
View
Reservoir
Lakeview
BPS
Yorba Linda
BPS
From
428
Fairmont
Reservoir
Paso Fino
BPS
Little Canyon Santiago
Reservoir Reservoir
OC89 To
1,300,
.1 4 fl n
Trent
UM MIA
a$:
Suppler
Imported Water: 42%
Groundwater: 58%
Figure B.6 - Condition 6
Quarterhorse
Reservoir
Gardenia
Reservoir
Valley
View
Reservoir
0051
Lakeview
BPS
Yorba Linda
BPS
From
428
INUZon
Fairmont
Reservoir
�pringview
Reservoir
Little Canyon
Reservoir
11
1 000
Bryant
Cross
Feeder
Fairmont
BPS
Santiago
Reservoir
To
1,300, To 1,390,
1,160 1,133, 908
Hidden Hills
BPS
To BCB, Zones
680,780-4,
1,165, 991, and
718
(14 %)
Suppler
Imported Water: 30%
Groundwater: 70%
Figure B.7 - Condition 7
Quarterhorse
Reservoir
Gardenia
Reservoir
Valley
View
Reservoir
Valley View
BPS
Lakeview
BPS
MI
Yorba Lind
BPS
From
428
Fairmont
Reservoir
konA
E ,�l
�pringview
Reservoir
r
Zone 570
jok=J24%)
Little Canyon
Reservoir
To
1,300,
.1 4 fl n
Santiago
Reservoir
To 1,390,
908
Bryant
Cross
Feeder
Fairmont
BPS
Hidden Hills
BPS
To BCB, Zones
680,780-4,
1,165, 991, and
718
(14 %)
Suppler
Imported Water: 26%
Groundwater: 74%
Figure B.8 - Condition 8
Gardenia
Reservoir
Valley
View
Reservoir
0051
Lakeview
BPS
Yorba Linda
BPS
From
428
Quarterhorse OC89
Reservoir
Paso Fin
o
BPS
Springview
Reservoir
OC66
vv i
Fairmont
Reservoir
Little Canyon Santiago
Reservoir Reservoir
To
1,300,
1,1F^
To 1,390,
908
Bryant
Cross
Feeder
Fairmont
BPS
F1
Hidden Hills
BPS
r68To CB , Zones
0, 780 -4,
,1,165, 991, and
718
(14 %)
Suppler
Imported Water: 16%
Groundwater: 84%
Figure B.9 - Condition 9
Quarterhorse
Reservoir
Gardenia
Reservoir
0051
Valley
View
Reservoir
Lakeview
BPS
Yorba Linda
BPS
From
428
Fairmont
Reservoir
Paso Fino
BPS
Little Canyon Santiago
Reservoir Reservoir
OC89 TO, To 1,390,
1,160 1,133, 908
Springview
Reservoir
IR111 111
OC66
Hidden Hills
i
BPS
xBryant
Cross To BCB, Zones
Feeder 680,780-4,
1,165, 991, and
718
Fairmont (14 %)
BPS
Suppler
Imported Water: 7%
Groundwater: 93%
Appendix C
RESERVOIR STORAGE GROUPS
N
0
N
d
3
IL
LEGEND
1.o Mc
RESERVOIR
GROUNDWATER WELL
OMWD
BOOSTER PUMPING
HWL =920' HWL =920'
STATION
GARDENIA
RESERVOIR
OC -51
0 HGL = 780'
= HWL =780'
1.98 MG �J
VALLEY VIEW ^
RES & BPS
680' HWL =675'
L MG
ZONE
780 -1(4A)
575'
545' ZONE
675 (3A)
PRV
42,50
434'
QUARTERHORSE QUARTERHORSE II
PRESSURE REGULATING
STATION
OMWD
IMPORT WATER
HWL =920' HWL =920'
CONNECTION
68"
3.75 MG 3.50 MG
PRESSURE ZONE
+6.6
(HIGH & LOW ELEVATIONS
581'
SERVED)
GARDENIA
RESERVOIR
OC -51
0 HGL = 780'
= HWL =780'
1.98 MG �J
VALLEY VIEW ^
RES & BPS
680' HWL =675'
L MG
ZONE
780 -1(4A)
575'
545' ZONE
675 (3A)
PRV
42,50
434'
QUARTERHORSE QUARTERHORSE II
RESERVOIR
RESERVIOIR RESERVOIR
HWL�1000'
TIM ER
HWL =920' HWL =920'
RIDGE
0.88 MG
3.75 MG 3.50 MG
900'
+6.6
RESERVOIR
820
OC -89
OC -66
MG
PASO FIND
10HGL =780'
HG1 =780'0
BPS
8.0 MG g S
-1.0
ZONO 1 FAIRMONT
920 (�A) RESERVOIR
PRV RV' 48
//—
680'
FIR 7.5 MG
633' 1 LAKEVIEW ZONE HWL
HIGHLAND
RESERVOIR
HWL = 428'
s00 I 6.0 MG
PRV
51
320' IG PLS ND 321'
300' ZONE
428 (1A)
L4 250' PRV'S
1 -4
?oo' +1.6
MG
WELL WELL WELL WELL WELL WELL WELL WELL WELL WELL
1 5 7 10 11 12 15 18 19 20
10U RICHFIELD PLANT
780 -2 (4B
RES & BPS )
PRV
HWL =570' _ 581' 43
8.0 MG
450'
ZONE
570 (2)
PRV'S
8-17,19,20,40,52
Notes: See attachment for PRV Assigned ID
Y'vrba Linda
Water District
PRV
22
'I 580'
AIRMONT
BPS
+ ZQNE
675 (3A)
451' PRV
18,23
LITTLE CANYON
RESERVOIR
HWL�1000'
TIM ER
RIDGE
0.88 MG
6 S
900'
SPRINGVIEW
RESERVOIR
ZONE
1000 (�B)
_ HWL =780'
SPRINGVIEW
8.0 MG g S
-1.0
680'
681' MG
ZONE
:FjI
780 -3 (4C)
VORBA LINDA 330'
BLVD. BPS ZONE
430 (1 B)
-3.9 PRV 271'
MG 5
45 - Proposed
CHINO HILLS
RESERVOIR
1jrWI-=1101)'_0.2
MG
581' Z580'
ZONE
PRV'S 706
24
+4.7 503'
MG
130'
ZONE
1300 (613)
PRV
32
860'
31
HIDDEN HILLS
RESERVOIR
HWL = 1390'
2.0 MG
+1.5
1275' MG
ZONE
1390(6C)
PRV
—
SANTIAGO
1045' RESERVOIR 1045' 36
HWL= 1000'
ZONE 1.1 MG
1160 (6A) BPS
9 0'
890'
Q
PRV
ZO E 33 81
1000 ( B) ZONE
908 (5BR1)
56
HIDDEN HILLS
BOOSTER
STATION 681,
PRV- BOX CANYON
25 BOOSTER
STATION
BRYANT CROSS FEEDER
1045'
ZONE
1133 (6D)
7—
+3.8
781' MG
BRYANT RANCH
RESERVOIR
HWL =680'
2.3 MG
580'
544'
PRV 26 ZONE PRV'S
718 (4CR1) 27 -29
424' ZONE
PRV 680 (38)
21
0'
CAMINO DE
BRYANT
RESERVOIR
HWL = 1165'
3.2 MG
1000'
1500'
14Q0'
1300'
1200'
1065'
+2.1
ZONE MG
1165(5U)
X00
871' 870'
ELK MTN.
RESERVOIR
PRV'S MY
34-35
= HWL =780' ZONE
6.0 MG ELK MTN. 991 (5L)
BPS
700'
680' 681' 14
ZONE
780 4 (4D)
PRV 600'
581' 30
500
FIGURE CA
HYDRAULIC PROFILE
SCHEMATIC
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
February 2013
Appendix D
HYDRAULIC MODEL MANUAL
This manual is intended as a reference for the District in utilization of the hydraulic model
prepared as a part of the Northeast Area Planning Study. For further details on the
calibration efforts, refer to Appendix E of the Northeast Area Planning Study report. An
electronic copy of the facilities model data will be included with this report.
D.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL OVERVIEW
Rapid innovations in personal computing and the large selection of software have made
network analysis modeling efficient and practical for virtually any water system. Hydraulic
modeling is an important tool for analyzing a water system. Hydraulic models can simulate
existing and future water systems, identify system deficiencies, analyze impacts from
increased demands, and evaluate the effectiveness of proposed system improvements,
including those within capital improvement plans. In addition, a hydraulic model provides
both the engineer and water system operator with a better understanding of the water
system. Hydraulic models are typically composed of three main parts:
The data file that stores the geographic location of facilities. The geographic data file
provides water system facility locations and is typically represented as an AutoCAD or
geographic information systems (GIS) file. Elements used in this file to model system
facilities include pipes, junction nodes (connection points for pipes and location of
demands), control valves, pumps, tanks, and reservoirs.
A database that defines the physical system. The database for the District's model is
linked to the geographic data file. The database includes water system facility
information such as facility size and geometry, operational characteristics, and
production /consumption data.
A computer program "calculator ". This calculator solves a series of hydraulic
equations based on information in the database file to define and generate the
performance of the water system in terms of pressure, flow and operation status.
The key to maximizing benefits from the hydraulic model is correctly interpreting the results
so the user understands how the water distribution system is affected by the various
components of the model. This understanding enables the engineer to be proactive in
developing solutions to existing and future water system goals and objectives. With this
approach, the hydraulic model is not only used to identify the adequacy of system
performance, but is also used to find solutions for operating the water system according to
established performance criteria.
Developing an accurate and reliable hydraulic model begins with entering the best available
information into the database and calibrating the model to match existing conditions in the
field. Once the model has been calibrated, it becomes a valuable tool to evaluate
operational problems and to plan distribution system improvement projects.
February 2013 D -1
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
D.2 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT
D.2.1 Hydraulic Model Selection
Several software programs are widely used to model distribution systems. The variety of
program capabilities and features makes the selection of a particular software program
generally dependent upon three factors: user preference, the requirements of the particular
water distribution system, and the cost associated with the software.
The District has selected InfoWatero, developed by Innovyze, Inc., for the hydraulic
modeling of its water distribution system.
D.2.2 Previous Hydraulic Model
The District provided its previous model, also developed in InfoWater®, converted as a part
of a previous hydraulic model development and calibration effort. The previous hydraulic
model was based on the District's GIS layers. As provided, the hydraulic model did not
include junction elevations, zone delineations (through initial status set on pipeline
segments or valve elements). Groundwater wells were modeled as fixed -head reservoir
elements with flow control valves.
The District previously completed a hydraulic model update in 2005 as a part of the Water
Master Plan Update. The hydraulic model at that time was developed in H2ONETO and was
not based on the District's GIS layers. Where possible, initial controls and facility
information was adapted from the 2005 hydraulic model to provide the basis for discussions
with District operations staff in support of updating the controls.
D.2.3 Model Pipelines
Hydraulic models consist of links and nodes to model representations of physical system
components of a distribution system. Links are used to represent pipes, pumps, and control
valves. Pipeline segments represent the actual transmission or distribution water pipelines.
In the attribute table for each pipe, data typically includes diameter, length, roughness
coefficient, and pressure zone. The model calculator uses the attribute data to determine
increases or decreases in energy levels across the link. Some of the reported output data
that the model calculates for links include flows, velocities, head loss, and changes in
hydraulic grade line.
As the previous hydraulic model was based on the District's GIS layers, only pipelines
constructed since the completion of the District's previous hydraulic model were imported
from the District's GIS layers. As will be discussed later, pipeline improvements planned for
near -term implementation were also imported into the hydraulic model in a separate near -
term scenario.
D -2 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
D.2.4 Model Nodes
Nodes represent the connections between links and may act as either a supply source,
such as a reservoir or tank, or a customer demand. Nodes also define the boundaries of
each link and separate links that may contain different attributes. Each node also has an
elevation. Attribute data associated with each node typically includes elevation, water
demand, and pressure zone. The model calculates system pressures, hydraulic grade lines,
demands, and water quality parameters at each node.
For pipelines added to the hydraulic model, junctions were automatically generated.
Elevations were interpolated for all junctions within the hydraulic model from elevation
contours provided by the District, except where more detailed information was available for
individual facilities (e.g., reservoir floor elevation was provided by District staff in a separate
spreadsheet).
D.2.5 Demand Allocation
The previous hydraulic model included demands allocated based on historical billing
records. The total model demands were compared with updated consumption data provided
by the District's operations staff and judged sufficiently consistent for use in the hydraulic
model through global adjustment to updated demand levels on a District -wide basis.
Where boundary conditions allowed for direct calculation of demands by pressure zone,
demands by pressure zone were adjusted slightly as a part of the calibration efforts.
Since the model demands were adjusted globally based on consumption levels calculated
from production data, unaccounted for water is implicitly accounted for and was not
incorporated separately.
Near -term and future demands (developed as discussed in Section 2.2 of the report) were
allocated based on the parcel areas and allocated to the Demand2 field within applicable
future scenarios.
D.3 HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE
The primary source for the development of the hydraulic model was the District's GIS layers
and former hydraulic model. The District provided details on the District's water distribution
system facilities as well as updated pump tests and utilization data.
D.3.1 Pipes
Pipe segment information consists of length, location, connectivity, diameter, and where
possible, material and installation year. Pipeline connectivity in the model needs to be
correct so that flow through the distribution system can be represented correctly. An
February 2013 D -3
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAfYLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
estimate of initial pipe roughness or friction factor can be derived from the parameters such
as material, age, and diameter.
Pipe segment data for the District's hydraulic model was imported from the District's
previous model, including information on the material, diameter, connectivity, and location.
This information previously had been added to the model based on the District's GIS layers.
Length was calculated based on the digitized spatial alignment. The roughness coefficients
in the hydraulic model were estimated for various pipeline materials and pressure zones.
Pipelines constructed since the development of the previous hydraulic model were added to
the hydraulic model from the District's GIS layers, provided on 9 August 2012. In addition,
the following projects were added to the hydraulic model based on record drawings or
construction plans provided by District staff:
Lakeview Grade Separation Project, which included an 18 -inch diameter transmission
main relocation (dated June 2011)
2010 Waterline Replacement Project, including replacement of two PRS and five
pipeline segments (July 2012)
Additional pipelines were imported from the District's GIS database based on a spatial
overlay and attribute information. It was assumed that pipelines not represented in the
previous model, as well as accompanied by a status of "ACT" and owned by "YLWD,"
should be imported from the GIS database.
A total of 16,983 pipe segments are included in the model (compared with 16,551 pipe
segments in the previous hydraulic model; note that many of these are related to future pipe
segments and inserted nodes).
In addition to the existing pipelines, several pipelines that are currently in planning or design
stages were incorporated into the hydraulic model as near -term facilities. These near -term
facilities are:
Yorba Linda Boulevard Pipeline, including installation of a 20 -inch diameter pipeline
(dated January 2012)
Yorba Linda High School Bryant Cross Feeder Replacement — 90 percent drawings
(dated December 2012)
As will be discussed later, these pipelines are identified separately from existing facilities in
the hydraulic model by use of the Status field. Prior to changing these facilities from near -
term (Status of "NRT ") to existing (Status of "ACT "), the facility details should be reviewed
as they may have changed during the design and construction process.
D -4 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
D.3.2 Elevations
Elevations were interpolated from 3 -foot contours provided by District GIS staff. This
contour information was used to determine junction and facility elevations throughout the
system. Where more detailed information was available (such as the previous hydraulic
model for reservoirs or facility details from District staff), these elevations were used instead
of interpolating from the contour layer.
D.3.3 Groundwater Wells
Well data includes well production capacity, pump total dynamic head, elevation,
groundwater levels, and control scheme to determine the conditions under which the wells
operate.
The District's well locations were included in the previous version of the hydraulic model
and verified with the District's GIS layers where discrepancies were identified. All
groundwater wells were converted from fixed -grade reservoir elements (with head
representing maximum head capacity of the pump station) and a flow - control valve to pump
elements with the aquifer modeled as a fixed -grade reservoir element representing the
groundwater level. As the groundwater level changes, it will need to be updated within the
hydraulic model. The description field of the reservoir elements was used to indicate the
date of the groundwater level used in the modeling.
Where possible, full pump curves were used (to increase model flexibility). Well number 19
was modeled using the variable -speed pump capabilities of InfoWater. After discussions
with District operations staff regarding the control of engine- driven pumps, the engine -
driven pumps were modeled using pump settings rather than variable -speed pump
capabilities.
District staff provided hydraulic details, including groundwater levels and pump test data
from Southern California Edison (SCE) pump tests conducted in 2011.
Two additional wells were added to the model, listed as follows:
Well 20 (added to active scenario, with controls disabling the well)
Well 21 (added to near term scenario)
D.3.4 Reservoirs
Reservoir data includes base elevation, overflow elevation, effective diameter and height.
The locations of the system's storage facilities were obtained from the previous hydraulic
model. Reservoir volumes were reconciled with volume -depth curves provided by District
staff.
February 2013 D -5
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
During the calibration process, it was noted that Quarterhorse and Hidden Hills reservoirs
were currently operated with only one bay active. For Quarterhorse, the previous hydraulic
model had modeled the reservoir as two separate tank elements, one with a volume
equivalent to about half of the total operating capacity and one with a volume equivalent to
the full operating capacity. The volume -depth curves were updated so that each tank
element corresponds to the volume of an individual bay (i.e., the North Bay with a volume of
3.7 MG and the South Bay with a volume of 3.5 MG). The North Bay was inactivated by
setting the status of the relevant model elements to "INA ". To reactivate the elements
temporarily, the facility manager can be used. To reactivate the elements within the existing
scenario, the status should be set to "ACT ".
For Hidden Hills, a volume -depth curve was added to the model representing the volume of
a single bay. This volume -depth curve is named "RESVOL_HH_INDBAY ". To change the
tank to use the full reservoir volume, change the curve to "RESVOL_HH_TOTAL ".
D.3.5 Pressure Reducing Stations
Pressure Reducing Station (PRS) information includes number of valves, valve type, valve
diameter, location, elevation, and pressure set points. District staff provided two lists of
updated hydraulic details and pressure setpoints for the District's PRSs. Previous versions
of the hydraulic model included only the larger pressure reducing valve for each PRS (40
valves in 40 PRS). This is generally sufficient for fire flow analysis, but given the water
quality modeling capabilities associated with this project, all pressure reducing valves
should be modeled within each PRS. Carollo included 48 additional valves in the model
accordingly for a total of 88 valves in 44 PRS. Pressure relief valves, which operate only
under emergency or atypical conditions, were not modeled.
PRS constructed as a part of the following projects were added since the development of
the previous hydraulic model were added to the hydraulic model from the District's GIS
layers, provided on 9 August 2012. In addition, the following projects were added to the
hydraulic model based on record drawings or construction plans provided by District staff:
2010 Waterline Replacement Project, including replacement of two PRS and five
pipeline segments (July 2012)
Pressure Reducing Station Upgrades, including replacement of four PRS (dated
August 2011)
D.3.6 Booster Pumping Stations
Data for booster pumping stations includes pump capacity, hydraulic performance curve,
number of pumps, and pump control scheme.
District staff provided updated pump test information and manufacturer pump curves, as
available. Where applicable, the individual pump units were updated within the hydraulic
D -6 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
model. In addition, the Yorba Linda Boulevard Booster Pumping Station (dated August
2012) project was added to the hydraulic model in the near -term scenario.
D.3.7 Operational Information
Operational information includes pump and well control schemes, PRV and PSV setpoints,
and general operating strategy. The general operating strategy includes items such as
managing blending of supplies to meet water quality objectives, water turnover in
reservoirs, and determining which water sources to use run based on water resources or
other constraints.
The District's control schemes and operating strategy is adjusted to respond to changing
demands and operational conditions. The District's control strategy relies on human
operators with detailed knowledge of the distribution system making the key decisions
about the overall control of the system. Typically, the operator adjusts controls of wells,
booster pumping stations, and imported water connections based on several priorities:
• Reservoir cycling to reduce water quality issues
• Sufficient reservoir volume in case of emergency
• Annual supply ratios /percentages of imported water versus groundwater supply
• Time of use electricity rates, only for the following sites:
— Springview BPS
— Hidden Hills BPS
— Box Canyon BPS
— Elk Mountain BPS
Based on discussions with District operations staff, most operators control the booster
pump stations to achieve cycling of each tank based on the levels shown in Table D.1.
District staff noted that the operational controls include a low -level cutoff point, generally
between 6 and 8 feet, in which an escalating series of alarms are provided to the operator
and, if not responded to, the applicable BPS units are shutoff.
It should be noted that operational controls are adjusted periodically, and thus are intended
to represent typical behavior of the water distribution system. During the calibration,
adjustments were made based on the recorded SCADA data.
D.3.8 SCADA Data
Based on discussions with District staff and initial review of the SCADA data, it was decided
to use a 7 -day period for the EPS calibration, selected between August 9th through 16th,
February 2013 D -7
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAfYLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
2012. During the selected EPS calibration period, District operations staff were targeting a
supply mix of 60 percent imported water and 40 percent groundwater.
Table D.1
Operational Controls
Cycled Between
Contributing
Lower
Upper
Name
BPS / Facility
(ft)
(ft)
Notes
Reservoirs
Camino de
Elk Mountain
6/8
10/12
Bryant
Elk Mountain
Box Canyon
10
16/20
Increased level when additional
storage needed.
Fairmont
Palm Avenue
12
20
Gardenia
Valley View
18
28
Hidden Hills
Santiago
3
8
Highland
wellfield
12
20
Lakeview
Highland
13
28
Little Canyon
Springview
8
18
Quarter
Paso Fino
7/8
15/16
Horse
Santiago
Hidden Hills
10
18
Springview
Fairmont
10
20
Requires call to MWDSC in order
to adjust.
Chino Hills
Timber Ridge
8
18
Valley View
Lakeview
12
20
Floats based on hydraulics in the
system.
Pressure Reducing Stations
0051
Gardenia
OC66
Springview
OC89
Paso Fino PS
Paso Fino PS boosts pressure
of OC89, so control for the two
are intertied; within the
hydraulic model, this is
accomplished using a clearwell
Pressure Reducing Stations
Copper
Bryant Ranch
10
20
Canyon
Del Rey
Fairmont
14
20
D -8 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
The SCADA data was used to develop the diurnal patterns and establish controls for model
facilities. Further details on the calibration process are discussed in Appendix E.
D.3.1 Seasonal Valves
The District adjusts supplies to some of its pressure zones through the operation of
seasonal valves. Based on discussions with District staff seasonal valves were identified
along with the general reasons that the valves may be adjusted. The state of the seasonal
valves in August 2012 along with the details regarding their purpose are described in
Table D.2. Locations for each of the seasonal valves are included in Figure 2 of the report.
February 2013 D -9
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAfYLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
Table D.2 Assumed Status of Seasonal Valves
ID Zone Number
Location
Status
Use
Description
(August 2012)
SV1 3A 0 -13/
Fairmont BI. & Lariat
Open
isolates Fairmont Reservoir
Zone 3 Fairmont Reservoir
147
Dr.
from Distribution System
isolation on
Bastanchury /Fairmont
SV2 3A 0 -12/30
Bastanchury Rd. &
Open
separates Valley View and
Valley View /Fairmont
Clydesdale Dr. (on
Fairmont Portions of Zone 3A
Clydesdale isolation west
18 ")
Clydesdale
SV3 5B/5B M -16/12
Stonehaven Dr. &
Closed
separates Santiago and Little
San Antonio /Little Canyon
R1
Rockhampton Ct./
Canyon portions of Zone 5B
Heatheridge Dr.
SV4 4B 0 -12/65
Lariat Dr. /Bastanchury
Open
separates Gardenia and
Gardenia /SV zone 4
Rd., 1,200' e/o
middle portions of Zone 4B
Gardenia /SV after school
Clydesdale Dr. (on
(alternatively could also be
36 ")
looked at as moving some of
Zone 4B into 4C)
SV5 4B /3A 0 -12/58
Maple Leaf Ln. 300'
Closed
Mapleleaf
w/o Cedar Creek Dr.
SV6 3A 0 -10/67
Lakeview Av. 600' n/o
Closed
w/ SV7, separates Valley
Lakeview zone 3 Valley
Bastanchury Rd. (on
View and Fairmont Portions
View /Fairmont Shutoff
16 ")
of Zone 3A
Lakeview
SV7 3A 0 -10/95
Bastanchury Rd. 900'
Closed
w/ SV6, separates Valley
Plumosa Between airvacs
w/o Lakeview Av. (on
View and Fairmont Portions
zone 3
16 ")
of Zone 3A (Lakeview BPS
can supply Valley View)
Notes:
1.For all valves except SV3, state is assumed based on SCADA data and effect on
model.
D -10 February 2013
pw: / /CaroIIo /Documents /Cl ienUCAIYLWD /9047AOO/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
D.4 SCENARIOS
Scenarios were setup in the hydraulic model to simulate different demand conditions,
operating conditions, and active facilities. To simplify organization, hierarchical scenarios
were used, as shown in the list of scenarios in Table D.3, along with a description of the
intended operating condition the scenario simulates.
Table D.3 Scenarios
Scenario Name
BASE
CALIB
CALIB_EPS_10DY
CALIB_EPS_ALLWELLS
CALIB_EPS_WATERQUAL
CALIB_EPS_AGE
CALIB_EPS_MSX
CALIB_FF_2011
CAL I B_F F_2011 _ ##
CAL I B_F F_2011 —ST—##
EXISTING
EXIST—ADD
EXIST_MDD
EXIST_MINDD
FUTURE
FUTURE_NEARTERM
FUR_NRT_MDD
Description
Base Data Scenario
Calibration Scenarios
EPS Calibration
(168 hour simulation)
All Groundwater Wells
Active
Water Quality
Scenarios
Water Age Analysis
Multi- Species Water
Quality Analysis
Fireflow Test ##
Dynamic Condition
Fireflow Test ##
Static Condition
Existing System
Scenarios
Existing System ADD
Conditions
Existing System MDD
Conditions
Existing System
MinDD Conditions
Future System
Scenarios
Future System
Scenarios
Future System MDD
Conditions
Intent
Not for Use (Folder)
Not for Use (Folder)
Validates Controls
Validates Roughness
Coefficients Between
Wellfield and
Highland Reservoir
Not for Use (Folder)
Establish Hydraulic
Retention Time
Model Chlorine
Residuals
Not for Use (Folder)
Validates Roughness
Coefficients
Validates HGL
Not for Use (Folder)
Typical Operation of
System
Peak Demand
Conditions
Minimum Demand
Conditions
Not for Use (Folder)
Not for Use (Folder)
Not for Use (Folder)
February 2013 D -11
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
Table D.3
Scenarios
Scenario Name
Description
Intent
FUR_NRT_MDD_CND1
Future System MDD —
Near -term System
Supply Operating
Maximizing Imported
Condition 1
Water
FUR_NRT_MDD_CND6
Future System MDD —
Near -term System
Supply Operating
Zones 5A and 5B
Condition 6
Groundwater
FUR_NRT_MDD_CND9
Future System MDD —
Near -term System
Supply Operating
Maximizing
Condition 9
Groundwater
Notes:
## refers to each specific calibration test, numbered 01 through 21, and represents several
scenarios.
Note that each fireflow test is
setup as a steady -state analysis using a start clock -time to
establish the time of the test.
D.5 DEMANDS
D.5.1 Demand Conditions and Demand Sets
Demand sets are used to model different scenarios for the distribution system. Within
InfoWatero, scenarios are assigned a Demand Set, corresponding to a specific demand
condition. For example, showing the system under average day demand conditions by
selecting the "EXIST—ADD" demand set.
The model is set up to utilize the demand sets to represent average day demand
conditions. For demand conditions other than ADD, the seasonal peaking factor can be
adjusted using the global multiplier in simulation options. This is intended to reduce the
complexity of adding demands to the model, as when adding a new demand to the existing
system it will not need to be manually included in the demand sets for Maximum Day
Demands, Average Day Demands, etc.
The main demand sets to be used are EXIST —ADD, representing existing demand
conditions, and NRT_ADD, representing near -term demand conditions with development
demands incorporated. The model demand sets, are shown in Table DA.
D -12 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
Table D.4 Demand Sets
Demand Set ID
Description
Intended Use
BASE
Base Demand Set
Not for Use
CALIB FF 2011
-
Not for Use
CAL IB_FF_2011_ ##
Demand for Fireflow Test ##
Verifying Calibration
Dynamic Condition
EXIST_PREVMODEL
Demand Table from Previous
Backup
Hydraulic Model
EXIST—ADD
Existing Average Day Demand
Analysis of Existing
System
NRT ADD
Near -Term Future Demand
Analysis of Future System
Notes:
## refers to each specific calibration test, numbered 01 through 21, and represents several
scenarios.
The above demand sets are assigned to the appropriate scenarios, such that when a
scenario is selected, the demand set will become active.
D.5.2 Demand Tables
Within InfoWatere, each Demand Set consists of a demand table containing ten fields of
demands assigned to each junction, named Demand1 through Demand10. Each field can
represent a component of demand. For this model, the demand tables use only the
Demand1 and Demand2 fields.
Table D.5 Demand Table Fields
Field Name Scenarios Demand Source
Demand1 All Existing System Demands
Demand2 Calibration Fireflow Demand (based on Fireflow Test)
Demand2 Future Development Demadns
It is recommended that when testing alternatives in the existing system Demand3 through
Demand 10 are used to avoid unintentionally adding demands into the existing system
database.
February 2013 D -13
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
D.6 DATABASE FIELDS
D.6.1 Attribute Data Information
For junction elements, attribute data was added for the fields DEMAND, FACILITY, and
STATUS. Descriptions for the junction fields added to the model as well as sources are
shown in Table D.6.
Table D.6
Junction Attribute Data Fields
Field Name
Description
Valid Entries
Source
YR_INST
Indicates year facility was
Integer, blank
Added, where
installed.
used for
facilities were added
unknown
as a part of this
years.
project
YR_RETIRE
Indicates year facility is
Integer, 9999
Fully populated
anticipated to be retired.
used for
(used in facility
unknown
management to
years.
indicate an element
to be retired in future
scenarios)
ZONE
Pressure zone which junction is a
Zone name
Fully populated from
part of.
(uses number-
pipelines
letter
designation)
ELEVATION
Elevation (for pressure
Elevation, in ft-
Interpolated from
calculations)
msl
ground elevation
contours provided by
District
FAC_NODE
Indicates if the junction is a part of
Boolean
Generated by
a facility (use for output relates
(Yes or No)
Consultant
with pressure criteria)
DMD_NODE
Indicates if the junction has
Boolean
Generated by
demands allocated (use for output
(Yes or No)
Consultant, based on
relates with pressure criteria)
previous
DemandType field
STATUS
Indicates whether a facility is
ACT, INA,
Generated by
active in the existing system.
RET, NRT,
Consultant
OTH, ABN
The Junction Description field was also populated where relevant. The Junction Zone field
was fully populated and made consistent for use in Database Queries.
The DEMAND and FACILITY fields can be useful in restricting analysis to specific
conditions (e.g., does this improvement cause pressure at any demand nodes to fall below
D -14 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
40 psi or are velocities in any pipe segments over 10 fps). Database queries using output
relates were generated and included in the domain manager for this purpose.
For pipeline elements, attribute data was used from the previous hydraulic model and
imported from the District's GIS layers for facilities that were updated. Descriptions for all
the fields added to the pipeline elements in the model as well as sources are shown in
Table D.7.
Table D.7
Pipeline Attribute Data Fields
Field Name
Description
Valid Entries
Source
YR —INST
Year pipeline installed. Adapted
Integer (1925
Previous model or GIS
from year of "ASBUILT" field. For
— 2013), 9999
database
pipelines with unknown "ASBUILT"
used for
field, used "SIGNDATE" field.
unknown
years.
YR— RETIRE
Indicates year facility is anticipated
Integer, 9999
Fully populated (used in
to be retired.
used for
facility management to
unknown
indicate an element to
years.
be retired in future
scenarios)
ZONE
Pressure zone which pipeline is a
Zone name
Previous model or GIS
part of.
(uses number-
database (fully
letter
populated and made
designation)
consistent)
MATERIAL
Pipeline material
ACP, CIL, CIN,
Previous model or GIS
CIP, CIVIL,
database
CMLCS, CO,
DIP, DW,
PVC, STL,
WS, blank for
unknown
ATLAS
Number corresponding to atlas
X-#
Previous model or GIS
map on which pipe segment
database, populated for
appears.
all added elements
OWNER
Indicates pipeline owner
YLWD,
Previous model or GIS
ANAHEIM,
database
MWDSC
DWGNO
Drawing number
Alpha numeric
Previous model or GIS
ID
database
ASBUILTNO
As build number
Alpha numeric
Previous model or GIS
ID
database
STATUS
Indicates whether a facility is
ACT, INA,
Previous model or GIS
active in the existing system.
RET, NRT,
database
OTH, ABN
February 2013 D -15
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAfYLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
The Pipe Description field was also populated where relevant. The STATUS fields are used
as part of facility management in switching between scenarios. For example, using the
value NRT (meaning Near Term) for a pipe segment being evaluated will prevent the
segment from being active in the Existing Scenarios.
D.7 DATA SETS
D.7.1 Pipe Sets
Pipe sets are not used in the hydraulic model; care should be taken when using pipe sets to
prevent unintended inconsistencies between hydraulic model scenarios.
D.7.2 Control Sets
32 control sets are used in the hydraulic model, listed as follows:
• EXIST_TYP_ADDExisting System Typical Controls Average Day Demand
• EXIST_TYP_MDDExisting System Typical Controls Maximum Day Demand
• EXIST_TYP_MINDDExisting System Typical Controls Minimum Day Demand
• CALIB 10D EPSCalibration Controls
• CALIB_MISC_ALLWELLSInitial Status Set for 11 July 2012 Test of All Wells
• CALIB_WQ_EPSStable Convergence Controls (for longer duration simulations)
• CALIB_FF_01 through CALIB_FF_21
• EXIST_CND06_MDDExisting System MDD - Supply Condition 6 (Zone 5A/5B GW)
• EXIST_CND01_MDDExisting System MDD - Supply Condition 1 (Zone 3A IW)
• EXIST CND09 MDD
The CALIB_ control sets are used to establish the specific and detailed controls from the
calibration period. These control sets should only be used to replicate calibration conditions.
The CALIB_FF_01 through CALIB_FF_21 control sets are static representations of the
state of the distribution system, intended for steady state runs only.
The EXIST_TYP_MDD control set represents the typical operations of the system as
determined from discussions with District operations staff. Changes to the District's typical
control strategies should be made in this control set.
If more specific controls are needed to evaluate system performance under different
conditions (e.g., proposed new level setpoints), it is recommended to copy the
EXIST_TYP_MDD control set and assign it to the specific scenario. Alternatively, when
modeling entirely new facilities, adding controls to the EXIST_TYP_MDD control set will not
D -16 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
impact existing facilities once the new facilities have been inactivated (i.e., using control
sets across scenarios can be a good idea).
D.8 WATER QUALITY CAPABILITIES
Two sets of Simulation Options were setup for water quality analysis, a traditional water age
simulation and a multi- species chlorine residual analysis simulation.
D.8.1 Age Analysis
Age analysis is used for predicting hydraulic retention times and water age. The Scenario
CALIB_EPS_AGE is setup to perform age analysis. Age analysis can be performed in other
scenarios by changing the simulation options to MDD_SPF_AGE.
Age analysis requires significant simulation times so that times within the reservoirs
converge. Age analysis should be used with some of the longer duration Simulation Time
options for this reason. Computational performance can be increased by disabling reporting
of the bulk of the long simulation times; this is included in the EPS_30DY time options (the
EPS_30DY_DEBUG includes the full reporting for troubleshooting). It is recommended to
utilize more stable control settings for this type of analysis (as used in CALIB_WQ_EPS).
Initial values are included in the EXIST—AGE quality set that simplify this process.
D.8.2 Chlorine Residual Analysis
As discussed in detail in Appendix E, InfoWater's Multi- Species Extension (MSX) was used
to model chlorine residuals. A first -order decay equation was adapted into the built -in
chloramine decomposition model to model free chlorine decay for the groundwater supplied
zones within the District's distribution system.
To utilize the MSX capabilities, use the simulation options MDD_SPF_MSXCR. Calculated
concentrations for chlorine residual will be output in the following fields in units of mg /L:
• CCOMBCL — Combined Chlorine from the chloramines decay model, representing
the summation of monochloramine and dichloramine
• CFREECL — Free Chlorine from the first -order decay model
• CTOTALCL — Total Chlorine, the summation of the combined chlorine from the
chloramine decay model and the free chlorine from the first -order decay model
To adjust initial chlorine concentrations, select the relevant element in the Model Explorer
and click the Multi- Species Water Quality button and adjust the relevant parameters
(although injection occurs downstream of the pump units, the Reservoir elements were
used to establish initial conditions for simplicity). Global initial values can be adjusted in the
February 2013 D -17
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
Run Manager > Simulation Options > Quality tab > MSX Model (ChlorChl) > Species tab >
Global Init. (Note that some species are in units of mols per liter).
Note that the MSX extension dramatically increases the computational load, with a 7 -day
simulation requiring about 20 hours to simulate (on an Intel Core 2 Duo processor).
D.9 MODEL MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
The hydraulic model is setup to use Query Sets for switching the active facility set within
each scenario. If new elements are added to the model, they will behave as active until the
model scenario is changed unless the STATUS field is properly populated. If the STATUS
field is not populated, the new element will become inactive after switching scenarios.
Ordinarily, this should cause the model to be resilient towards unintended modifications due
to temporary analysis or "what if' scenarios, but this may create some unexpected errors if,
for instance, junctions are inserted into an existing pipeline segment without the STATUS
field of the junction set to match the pipeline.
To maintain consistency with the District's GIS layers, the values in the status field of the
District's GIS layer (LIFECYCLES) was used as the STATUS field.
Two query sets are included for switching between scenarios:
FAC_EXIST: Existing system and Calibration scenarios. Includes elements with the
STATUS field of "ACT"
FAC_FUT_NEARTERM: Facilities planned in the near -term. Includes elements with
the STATUS field of "NRT" and elements with a STATUS field of "ACT" that also have
a retirement year greater than 2013.
To create elements within the existing system scenario (that are intended to remain in the
existing system scenario), populate the STATUS field of all the elements with "ACT"
(without quotes) and the YR_RETIRE field of 9999. It would be of benefit to the District to
ensure that the installation year, pressure zone, DMD_NODE, FAC_NODE, elevation, and
hydraulic data are fully populated when adding elements to the model.
No retirement year is incorporated for the existing scenario, to avoid retiring facilities
unintentionally. Instead, the STATUS field of facilities that are to be retired should be set to
RET, INA, OTH, or ABN (all values currently in the model used for this purpose).
Since the calibration scenarios are based on the existing facility set at the time of delivery of
this model, changes to the existing facilities will change the functionality of the calibration
scenarios in the future. It is recommended that checking of the original calibration be
conducted based on the delivered hydraulic model (thus, the calibration scenarios and
datasets could be deleted from other updated versions of the hydraulic model).
D -18 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
Appendix E
HYDRAULIC MODEL CALIBRATION
This appendix provides an overview of the hydraulic model calibration efforts undertaken as
a part of the Northeast Area Planning Study.
E.1 INTRODUCTION
Calibration is a necessary element in developing an accurate hydraulic model. Calibration is
attained by comparing model results with field measurements and adjusting the model
components, such as pipe roughness coefficients and model controls, until the model
produces results that agree with the field measurements.
Following the update of the District's hydraulic model, it was calibrated so that a level of
confidence in the simulation of pressures and flows could be achieved. Calibration is
complicated by the fact that some data are static and known, some data are variable, and
others are estimated.
Data related to pipe diameter, length, roughness coefficient, and locations are known with a
great deal of certainty. Data related to the District's SCADA systems vary with time, day,
season, and the number of customers. Pump rates and discharge pressures vary
accordingly based on the demands and controls.
Hydraulic models are calibrated by comparing field data with model results to accomplish
the following purposes:
• Establish a degree of confidence in the model, allowing for use in system planning
and /or facility sizing
Identify data errors or identify missing data parameters
• Discover anomalies in the field
This chapter discusses the field- testing used to gather data for the model calibration, the
calibration methodology, and the calibration results.
E.2 CALIBRATION METHODOLOGY
The model calibration consists of four parts:
• Macro calibration
• Fire flow test calibration
• Extended period simulation (EPS) calibration
• Water quality calibration
This section discusses the methodology for each part of the calibration.
February 2013 E -1
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
It should be noted that the model is a simulation of the behavior of the water distribution
system. The actual water distribution system is affected by many more detailed events than
can be simulated in the model and the intention of the calibration of the hydraulic model is
to predict the general behavior of the water distribution system. Thus, the focus of the
calibration was on preparing the model to predict general behavior of the system in a
variety of conditions rather than explicitly replicating the field conditions observed during the
calibration.
The methodology and results of each of these four calibration steps is described below.
E.3 MACRO CALIBRATION
This initial calibration process is a macro calibration. The purpose of macro calibration is to
make the model run under calibration day demand conditions and produce reasonable
system pressures and cycling reservoirs. Adjustments to the model made in this first step
included modifications of pipeline connectivity, operational controls, ground elevations, and
facility characteristics, as well as the facility control schemes.
The macro calibration process involved three specific focus areas to improve the accuracy
of model results. These are connectivity, system pressures, and pump stations.
The connectivity features of the hydraulic modeling software were used to verify the
connectivity of the transmission mains within the distribution system. Problems found using
the connectivity checking tools were reviewed on a case -by -case basis to determine
whether adjustments needed to be made to the connectivity. Very few pipelines needed
modifications of network connectivity.
Typical pressures were compared with the model output. This process was used to find
errors in the model, such as elevations, or pipe connectivity, as well as changes required in
how operational controls were to be implemented in the model.
Pressures and flows predicted by the model for each pump station in the system were
compared to pump tests provided by the District to verify that the pump attributes entered
into the model, such as pump power, groundwater depth and the pump curves, produce
results comparable to collected data.
EA FIRE FLOW CALIBRATION
Fire flow calibration is intended to stress the City's distribution system by creating a
differential between the hydraulic grade line (HGL) at the point of hydrant flow and the
system HGL at neighboring hydrants. In general, fire flow tests consist of using flowing
hydrants and test or pressure residual hydrants. The field tests are then simulated within
the hydraulic model to calibrate the model under steady state conditions.
E -2 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
Hazen - Williams roughness coefficients, or C- factors, have industry accepted value ranges
based on pipeline material, diameter, and age. Characteristics specific to the District's
distribution system such as water quality (e.g. Langelier index, pH, TDS, etc.), temperature,
construction methodologies, material suppliers, and other factors may result in roughness
coefficients that differ from the typical coefficients used the industry.
Fire flow calibration refines the initial estimation of the value of roughness coefficients that
best indicate the conditions of the District's distribution system. During average day
demand conditions, roughness coefficients have a relatively small effect on the operation of
the distribution system. As the demands increase in the system during warm weather days,
velocity within pipelines increase and roughness coefficients contribute more to overall
system head loss. The hydraulic grade line (HGL) differential caused by the fire flow test
increased the effect of the roughness coefficients on system losses. Fire flow tests
artificially create high demand events to generate more head loss, allowing a better
estimation of the pipeline roughness coefficients.
Roughness coefficients were adjusted only within a tolerance of industry accepted
roughness coefficient ranges to match measured system pressures. When the model was
unable to match the calibration results without leaving the acceptable range of roughness
coefficient values for a given pipeline material and age, further investigation of was
conducted to identify to cause of the difference between model and field results. This
investigation included the identification of closed pipelines, partially closed or
malfunctioning valves, extreme corrosion within pipelines, connectivity and diameter errors
in GIS /as- builds, and /or diurnal patterns of large water users.
The calibration of fire flow tests is intended to develop a steady state (single time step)
calibrated hydraulic model by closely matching its water model pressures to field pressures
under similar demand and system boundary conditions. The primary varied parameter for
this calibration was the pipeline roughness coefficient, although some other parameters
were adjusted during the calibration process as appropriate.
EA1 Field Testing
Fire flow calibration was completed using historical fire flow tests. Field testing for those
tests was conducted in September 2011, prior to this study.
Boundary conditions for the hydraulic model were developed based on production data
provided by District staff. For calibration purposes, the hydraulic model demands were
adjusted to match the demands experienced during the fire flow testing.
February 2013 E -3
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
Table E.1
Demands During Calibration
Demand
Peaking
Production
Consumption
Factor('
General
( m gd )
( m gd )
(Compared to
Date
Day
Temperature
ADD)
September
Thursday
85° F
20.5
22.2
1.02
22, 2011
September
Monday
79° F
19.5
23.1
1.06
26, 2011
September
Tuesday
90° F
23.3
21.2
0.98
27, 2011
Notes:
(1) Based on
ADD for 2011.
As shown in Table E.1, the demand during the calibration testing was fairly even with
average annual demand for the District's water distribution system. It is desirable to have
higher than average demands during the fire flow calibration, so that system is tested in a
stressed state, where roughness coefficients have a greater impact on the measured
pressures in the distribution system. However, the segmented nature of the District's water
distribution system (given the number of pressure zones) limits this effect on the locations of
individual fire flow tests. Sites for each of the 21 tests are presented on Figure E.1.
E.4.2 Fire Flow Calibration Methodology
Simulation options were developed for each calibration day (listed in Table E.1) to establish
global multipliers for the demands. Flow and static scenarios were then setup for each fire
flow test, with time settings developed to create a steady state scenario at the approximate
time of the test (rounded to the nearest 5- minute increment).
For each test, the nearest junction to the flowing and residual hydrants was identified. If
necessary, pipelines were split to add a new junction for each hydrant. The fire flow demand
was established on the junction representing the flowing hydrant for the flow scenario. These
demands were scaled to account for the demand multiplier and added to the Demand2 field.
Predicted pressure at the junction representing the residual hydrant was then recorded for the
static and flowing scenarios. Initial calibration results were presented to District staff and
further investigation was conducted to identify potential unknown field issues associated with
the predicted residual pressures that did not correlate well with field test results.
E -4 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
E 4STd
®iil ��•
I ips
M;im
■I
kI
TELEGRAPH CANYON
11
Legend
O Test Site
D Tanks
QService Area
u Parcels
Pipeline
f - < 7 inch
7 - 15 inch
> 15 inch
14 66
2
MIMMIN, �u'�OSI
Figure E.1
�0 0.5 1
j Miles
Fire Flow Test Sites
February 2013
North East Planning Study
Yorba Linda Water District
',gineers... Working Wonders
Table E.2 Fire Flow Test Calibration Results
Field
Model
Field
Model
Static
Static
Residual
Residual
Static
Residual
Model
Flow
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Difference
Difference
Static
Residual
Test
ID
(gpm)
Date
Time
(psi)
(psi)
(psi)
(psi)
(psi)
(psi)
Difference
Difference
1
J4254
1,301
9/27
13:00
78
77
70
71
+1
-1
-1%
+1%
2
J9816
1,632
9/22
10:40
74
72
56
58
+2
-2
-3%
+3%
3
J9356
1,698
9/22
9:00
85
85
73
74
+0
-1
-1%
+2%
4
J27980
1,447
9/27
14:15
60
58
48
49
+2
-1
-4%
+2%
5
J494
1,632
9/22
11:20
65
63
55
55
+2
-0
-4%
+0%
6
J15756
1,662
9/22
13:15
95
92
85
85
+3
-0
-3%
+0%
7
J22598
1,496
9/22
13:40
95
91
65
64
+4
+1
-4%
-2%
8
J19200
1,870
9/22
14:50
96
97
87
90
-1
-3
+1%
+3%
9
J22318
1,585
9/27
11:20
84
82
74
77
+2
-3
-2%
+4%
10
J24512
1,571
9/26
8:40
58
72
48
68
-14
-20
+25%
+42%
11
J22738
1,294
9/26
9:25
70
67
40
42
+3
-2
-5%
+4%
12
J20000
1,578
9/26
10:00
95
94
70
70
+1
+0
-1%
-1%
13
J22426
1,763
9/26
10:25
123
121
90
90
+2
+0
-1%
-0%
14
J26146
1,161
9/26
10:55
97
97
60
74
-0
-14
+0%
+24%
15
J15388
2,334
9/26
13:10
111
112
105
106
-1
-1
+1%
+1%
16
J16148
630
9/26
13:45
70
71
55
57
-1
-2
+1%
+4%
17
J15610
1,264
9/26
15:05
125
125
100
101
-0
-1
+0%
+1%
18
J 13356
1,883
9/27
9:05
125
125
98
97
+0
+1
-0%
-1%
19
J19468
1,675
9/27
9:40
102
100
82
84
+2
-2
-2%
+3%
20
J15220
1,739
9/27
10:00
88
88
65
65
-0
+0
+0%
-0%
21
J18204
1,611
9/27
10:27
74
72
64
64
+2
+0
-2%
-0%
Average
0
-2
-0%
+4%
Notes:
1. Colors based on percentage difference, with green indicating correlation
between model
prediction and field testing of 5% or less,
yellow
indication 5% to 10 %, and red indicating greater than 10 %.
February 2013 E -7
pw: / /CaroIIo /Documents /CI ienUCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
E.4.3 Fire Flow Calibration Results
Calibration results are presented in Table E.2, showing both the field test results and model
predictions for static and residual pressures. As shown, model predictions were within five
percent of field- testing results for 19 of the 21 tests.
For Test 10, model predictions of both static and residual pressures are higher than that
observed in the field.
For Test 14, model predictions of static pressures correspond to the field results. However,
after applying the fire flow demand of 1,161 gpm, the model predicts less headloss than
observed in the field results, with the model prediction for residual pressure about 14 psi
above that observed in the field.
In summary, the calibration results indicate the model generally predicts conditions similar
to those observed in the field. Within a few areas of the model, there may be unknown local
conditions, but the overall distribution system is adequately represented by the model.
Based on the results of the calibration and discussions with District staff, it was concluded
that the fireflow calibration was satisfactory.
E.5 EXTENDED PERIOD SIMULATION CALIBRATION
The EPS calibration is intended to calibrate the EPS capabilities of the hydraulic model by
closely matching the model pressures, flows, and tank levels to field conditions over a 24-
hour period of similar demand and system boundary conditions. The primary parameters
varied for this calibration were operational controls and operational control strategies;
although other parameters may also be adjusted as calibration results are generated. The
EPS calibration is considered the most important part of the model calibration, as it allows
comparison of the overall behavior of the model to the behavior of the water distribution
system during a prolonged period of time, and therefore also allows simulation of reservoir
levels which cannot be evaluated in steady state model runs.
As a part of the EPS calibration, model predictions for parameters such as tank levels and
booster pump station flows were compared against recorded SCADA data. The week of
August 9th through 16th, 2012, was selected for the EPS calibration due to the higher
demands on the system during that period.
As discussed in the Hydraulic Model Manual included in Appendix D, controls for the
hydraulic model were developed based on discussions with District operations staff based
on the operators typical operating philosophy. Because control of the District's distribution
system relies on human decision making rather than computer - controlled hydraulic
parameters, several simulation time controls or pattern -based controls were used for the
E -8 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
EPS calibration. For instances where simulation time controls were used, equivalent
hydraulic parameter -based controls were developed and added to the model as disabled
controls for use in scenarios evaluating alternate demand conditions.
A comparison of model predictions to observed field conditions following calibration for tank
levels, booster pump station flows, imported water connection flows, and groundwater well
flows, and discharge pressures is included at the end of this appendix. The SCADA data is
shown as a point cloud on each chart with one - minute intervals, while model results are
represented by a solid line with a five - minute report time step. In summary, the calibration
results indicate the model generally predicts conditions similar to those observed in the
field. Within a few areas of the model, there may be unknown local conditions, but the
overall distribution system is adequately represented by the model.
Based on the results of the calibration, it can be concluded that the model is calibrated to
steady state and extended period conditions. The model provides an accurate
representation of the District's distribution system and system operations to a level suitable
for the purposes of identifying system deficiencies and evaluating capital improvements to
the District's water distribution system.
E.6 WATER QUALITY CALIBRATION
The water quality calibration is intended to calibrate the water quality results of the hydraulic
model by matching its predicted total chlorine residuals to laboratory- measured chlorine
residuals taken from sampling sites in the distribution system.
Predicting total chlorine residuals in the distribution system requires the model to accurately
calculate flows and velocities, since the model calculates residual decay and interaction of
various water quality constituents by predicting water age from transit time. Once the
hydraulic conditions have been adequately established, the parameters that will be adjusted
for this calibration are the wall and bulk reaction coefficients. Due to the many variables that
affect the decay of chlorine residuals, water quality calibration is not an exact science, and
there is greater variability in a water quality calibration than a hydraulic calibration.
The key challenge is the fact that the District obtains chloraminated water from MWDOC
and uses sodium hypochlorite (free chlorine) to disinfect supplies from groundwater wells.
The chemical reactions between these two different types of disinfectants (i.e. free versus
combined chlorine) cannot be modeled. However, in the field, the reaction of free chlorine
with combined chlorine can result under certain conditions in localized break -point
chlorination. During break -point chlorination, excess free chlorine in chloraminated water
consumes the available ammonia so that the remaining disinfectant residual exists as free
chlorine. As the free chlorine to ammonia - nitrogen ratio increases, the combined chlorine
breaks down to nitrogen gas, resulting in loss of residual, unless excess free chlorine is
applied. Break -point chlorination will impact and complicate the free chlorine residual
February 2013 E -9
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
measurements during sampling. The chloraminated water is not detectable as free chlorine,
but can be measured as part of the total chlorine samples (i.e. total chlorine residual minus
free chlorine residual= chloramines residual).
In addition, the total chlorine samples were collected at different times during the day, under
different hydraulic conditions, thus "following the water" in the distribution system from the
source is challenging. The EPS calibration of the model must give a good representation of
flows through the distribution system. With only one sample at each location per day, the
temporal variation in chlorine level at each location is not well captured. The District
maintains four chlorine analyzers and provided total chlorine samples from SCADA data at
these sites to capture some chlorine variation in the system.
The water distribution model is not designed to predict the hydraulics of mixing within the
reservoirs. A computational fluid dynamic (CFD) model would need to be created for each
reservoir in order to determine how water quality (e.g. water age, temperature gradient,
chlorine residuals) changes within each reservoir.
Due to these and other unknown conditions, the water quality calibration results are
typically not as accurate as hydraulic calibration, and can be used only to estimate general
trends of chlorine decay within the distribution system.
E.6.1 Chlorine Sampling
The sampling sites for the calibration consist of the 37 total chlorine residual (TCR)
sampling sites and the 13 sampled reservoir sites. Locations of the 37 TCR sampling sites
are presented on Figure E.2 along with five SCADA analyzer locations. The sampling sites
are representative of several hydraulic zones and subzones in the distribution system
(Zones 1A through 6D), and include both free chlorinated and chloraminated sites, and
some mixed disinfectant sites. As the District normally collects its TCR samples every
Monday or Tuesday and reservoir samples on Wednesday and Thursday, the water quality
calibration date was selected to be Monday, August 13, 2012, and reservoir sampling data
from August 8th and 9th, as well as August 15th, was used for the reservoir boundary
conditions. This day (August 13, 2012) was selected to fall within the EPS calibration, thus
all hydraulic boundary conditions were recorded as part of that effort.
Table E.3 presents reservoir sampling data for August 8 and 15, 2012. The total chlorine to
ammonia ratio is included for each sample to give an indication on what reservoirs are
under free or combined chlorine conditions. It should be noted that demands were at their
highest this week; sampling data for other months of the year include samples of total
chlorine residuals at much lower levels. The presented data is for calibration purposes
rather than analysis.
E -10 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienVCANLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
Table E.3
Water Quality Reservoir Sampling Data
August 8th and 9th, 2012
August 15th, 2012
Total
Total
Total
Ammonia
Cl2:
Total
Ammonia
Nitrite
Cl2:
Temp
Chlorine
as N
Nitrite as N
NH3 -N
Temp
Chlorine
as N
as N
NH3 -N
Primary
Reservoir
( °F)
(mg /L)
(mg /L)
(mg /L)
Ratio
( °F)
(mg /L)
(mg /L)
(mg /L)
Ratio
Supply(2)
Bryant
79.1
2.04
0.28
0.011
7.3
80.4
1.98
0.43
0.016
4.6
IW
Ranch
Elk
81.3
1.95
0.46
0.022
4.2
81.5
2.01
0.45
0.017
4.5
IW
Mountain
Camino de
IW
Bryant(')
Santiago
80.0
1.88
0.44
0.017
4.3
81.1
2.08
0.42
0.023
5.0
IW
Hidden Hills
79.8
2.14
0.48
0.013
4.5
80.4
1.58
0.26
0.025
6.1
IW
Chino Hills
81.1
1.87
0.44
0.014
4.3
82.5
2.05
0.46
0.014
IW
Little
80.2
1.48
0.39
0.031
3.8
81.6
2.04
0.45
0.014
4.5
IW
Canyon
Quarter
81.3
1.81
0.44
0.014
4.1
80.9
2.28
0.47
0.015
4.5
IW
Horse
Spring
81.3
1.95
0.45
0.013
4.9
IW
View('
Fairmont
80.7
1.93
0.46
0.008
4.2
81.1
2.33
0.46
0.015
4.3
IW
Lakeview
71.6
0.93
0.01
0.011
93.0
80.9
2.07
0.47
0.018
GW
Gardenia
79.3
2.35
0.38
0.014
6.2
80.4
1.98
0.43
0.016
5.1
IW
Valley View
82.5
2.13
0.35
0.010
6.1
81.5
2.01
0.45
0.017
4.4
IW
Notes:
1. Sample not conducted
due to low water level.
2. The District does not
separately sample free chlorine
residual; thus, for pressure zones /reservoirs supplied by Imported
Water (IW), total
chlorine
residual is assumed to
be entirely combined chlorine, while for pressure zones /reservoirs supplied by Groundwater
(GW), total chlorine residual is
assumed to be entirely
free chlorine.
February 2013 E -11
pw: //C a ro I I o/ Documents /C I ie nUCA /YL W D/9047A00 /Del i ve ra bl es /Ap p_E -M ode I_M a n u a I. doc
Table EA Water Quality Analyzer SCADA Data
Total Chlorine Residual
(mg /L)
Initial Average Minimum
Maximum
Site Condition (8/9 — 8/15) (8/9-8/15)
(8/9-8/15)
Camino de Bryant 2.26 1.87 1.56
2.31
Reservoir
Hidden Hills 1.79 1.73 1.44
2.22
Reservoir — Outlet
Highland BPS 1.24 1.09 0.72
1.33
Paso Fino BPS 2.10 2.00 1.75
2.25
Lakeview Reservoir 1.24 1.04 0.77
1.35
Inlet
(Zone 2)
Lakeview BPS 1.27 1.00 0.65
1.41
(Zone 3; after
Chlorine Injector)
Notes:
1. In addition, Valley View has an analyzer connected to SCADA, but it
reported 1.15
mg /L for the entire calibration period with no variation. Reservoir sampling data will
be used instead to establish boundary conditions within the hydraulic model.
E -12 February 2013
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCAfYLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
Table E.5
Water Quality TCR Sampling Data
August 7th, 2012
August 13th, 2012
Total
Total
Sample
Temp
Chlorine
Assumed
Temp
Chlorine
Assumed
Site
Zone
Time
( °F)
(mg /L)
Supply
pH
Time
( °F)
(mg /L)
Supply
pH
1
6
11:01
82.9
2.06
IW
7.93
2.08
IW
2
5
11:07
81.3
2.22
IW
7.99
2.24
IW
3
6
11:40
83.3
1.89
IW
7.98
1.92
IW
4
6
12:26
83.1
1.80
IW
8.02
1.40
IW
5
5
11:49
82.0
2.00
IW
7.99
2.20
IW
6
4
12:12
83.6
2.09
IW
7.94
2.19
IW
7
4
12:36
80.6
2.29
IW
8.06
2.24
IW
8
3W
10:45
80.7
2.34
IW
8.08
2.44
IW
9
4
10:32
80.9
2.36
IW
8.08
2.23
IW
10
4
2.39
IW
12:07
81.1
2.51
IW
7.89
11
3W
1.95
IW
10:01
82.0
1.81
IW
7.94
12
4
1.97
IW
13:28
83.6
1.90
IW
7.98
13
1
1.14
GW
08:30
74.1
0.92
GW
7.44
14
2
1.12
GW
09:10
74.1
0.89
GW
7.43
15
5
1.99
IW
10:45
82.0
1.87
IW
8.00
16
3
2.25
IW
13:52
83.1
1.95
IW
7.93
17
3
2.18
IW
13:15
84.2
1.87
IW
7.94
18
5
1.34
IW
13:36
81.3
1.91
IW
7.91
19
301
2.36
IW
2.40
IW
20
301
2.29
IW
2.27
IW
21
2W
1.11
GW
0.92
GW
22
201
2.16
GW
2.11
GW
February 2013 E -13
pw: //C a ro I I o/ Documents /C I ie nUCA /YL W D/9047A00 /Del i ve ra bl es /Ap p_E -M ode I_M a n u a I. doc
Table E.5
Water Quality TCR Sampling Data
August 7th, 2012
August 13th, 2012
Total
Total
Sample
Temp Chlorine
Assumed
Temp Chlorine
Assumed
Site
Zone
Time ( °F) (mg /L)
Supply pH
Time
( °F) (mg /L)
Supply pH
23
2W
2.07
IW
2.15
IW
24
21D1
2.27
GW
2.31
GW
25
21D2
2.06
GW
2.10
GW
26
31D1
2.47
IW
2.48
IW
27
21D1
2.22
GW
2.24
GW
28
2W
0.99
GW
0.95
GW
29
2W
1.00
GW
0.87
GW
30
2W
1.12
GW
0.95
GW
31
1
1.14
GW
0.86
GW
32
1
1.28
GW
0.92
GW
33
3W
1.88
IW
1.90
IW
34
1
0.86
GW
0.72
GW
35
1
1.27
GW
1.22
GW
36
3W
2.03
IW
1.90
IW
37
4W
2.17
IW
1.92
IW
Notes:
1. The District does not separately sample free chlorine residual; thus, for pressure zones
supplied by Imported Water (IW), total chlorine
residual is assumed to be entirely combined chlorine, while for pressure zones supplied by Groundwater (GW), total chlorine residual is
assumed to be entirely free chlorine.
E -14 February 2013
pw: / /Carol to /Documents/ CIienVCAtYLWD/ 9047AOO/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
E.6.2 Establish Boundary Conditions
To establish boundary conditions for the water quality model, the chlorine dosage at each
point of entry into the distribution system was input into the hydraulic model. The boundary
conditions assumed are listed in Table E.6. It should be noted that this is a targeted dosage
rather than sampled data.
Table E.6 Assumed Supply Water Quality
Total Organic
Total Chlorine Carbon
Source (mg /L) (mg /L) pH
Imported Water 2.5 0.93 8.00
Connections
Groundwater Wells 1.4 2.4 7.76
(after injection)
For the groundwater wells, the chlorine residual was assumed at the reservoir model
elements for simplicity even though the chlorine injectors are actually located further
downstream for some of the groundwater wells. Note that the TOC and pH are not required
for the single -order decay model used for water in the free chlorine zones, but were
included for consistency.
In addition, the District maintains a chlorine injection station at the Lakeview BPS site.
Within the model, this is assumed to be located at Junction J5358. During the calibration
this site was not operating as the Lakeview BPS did not flow since upper /downstream
zones were being supplied with imported water.
For the imported water connections, all water quality parameters listed in Table E.6 were
assigned to the reservoir elements. Based on MWDSC's standard operations, it was
assumed that the chlorine residual was entirely monochloramine and that no dichloramine
is present in the source water. For reference, MWDSC's target total chlorine to ammonia
(as N) ratio is 5 to 1.
The District does not collect samples of TOC at its reservoirs during routine sampling. To
approximate initial TOC conditions within each reservoir, the TOC concentrations at the
sources were used based on whether a reservoir was primarily supplied by groundwater or
imported water. However, based on analysis of some of the sampling site data, moving
further into the distribution system TOC levels decrease slightly through reaction with
chlorine to form disinfection byproducts; thus, TOC levels should be slightly lower at the
reservoir sites than in the source water. With TOC data unavailable, the effect of reduced
TOC concentration on the decay rate was assumed to be negligible within the hydraulic
model.
February 2013 E -15
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
Legend
Chlorine Analyzers (SCADA)
O [Hourly Sampling Data]
TCR Sampling Sites
O [Weekly Sampling Data]
I] Sampled Reservoirs
�T o [Weekly Sampling Data]
37' -
El TELEGRAPH CANYON Rd � � Service Area
Parcels
- - ^- ❑ � Pipeline
36 p by Diameter (inches)
p
s _ 4 15 - 3 less than 8
8 to 12
U 33 2 g
� 8 � � 16 and lar er
I RE � O MA
M 1V
• -a
--
I JIM
MA
. � �■r � � r - _ -- - 1 � ��,� vim'
0 I I 11.
i
MEMO
ME
z■ �. ��
— •.■ ■ �� cnioanu
A ■1 ■� ���- % - I
Miles
a
♦ 1 6f� Quality
Sampling Sites
NortheastArea Planning Study
• •. Linda Water District
',gineers... Working Wonders
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
February 2013 E -17
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
E.6.3 Establish Initial Conditions
To determine the initial chlorine residual across the distribution system (for the start, or hour
0, of the modeling scenario), the residual levels shown in Table E.7 were used for an initial
global residual. Initial water quality at reservoirs were taken from sampling data shown in
Table E.3.
Table E.7 Assumed Initial Water Quality
Total Chlorine
Source (mg /L)
Imported Water Supplied Zones 2.2
Groundwater Supplied Zones
1.4
The hydraulic model was then run under an EPS until the water quality levels throughout
the distribution system stabilized. Since the chlorine residuals at each reservoir were known
(via the sampling), this stabilization occurs fairly quickly within the hydraulic model, during
the period of the calibration.
E.6.4 Decay Rates
While the reaction rates are included in the chloramine decay model based on published
literature, the decay of free chlorine and chloramines in the District's distribution system is
dependent upon a large number of factors, including but not limited to temperature, pH,
Total Chlorine: Ammonia -N ratio, TOC concentration, source water quality makeup,
interactions with pipe wall materials, hydraulic retention time, and interactions within the
Districts reservoirs.
For the chloramine model used in this analysis, decay in chlorine residual is included in four
components of the chloramines model — autodecom position of monochloramine,
monochloramine interaction with organic matter, monochloramine decay through
conversion to hypochlorous acid and interaction with organic matter, and dichloramine
decay through interaction with a reactive intermediate. The interactions with organic matter
assume dual -phase kinetics of NOM oxidation by chloramines - an initial rapid loss of
chloramines residual followed by a slow decrease in residual. In order to adapt this
chloramines decay model to the District's specific water quality, the fast reactive fraction of
the direct monochloramine interaction with TOC was adjusted iteratively based on SCADA
results.
Following the calibration process, the resultant reactive fractions used for the model were:
February 2013 E -19
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/YLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doc
• Fast Reactive Fraction: 0.0025 (decay through monochloramine -TOC interaction)
• Slow Reactive Fraction: 0.3 (decay through HOCI -TOC Interaction)
For free chlorine, the assumed first order decay includes two components, a bulk rate of
decay and a wall rate of decay. In absence of jar test data, these rates were iteratively
adjusted based on available SCADA data for known groundwater supplied portions of the
model. Following the calibration process, the resultant decay coefficients used for the
model were:
• Bulk Decay Coefficient: 0.02
• Wall Decay Coefficient: 0.05
For reference, a 1996 AWWARF study evaluating several water distribution systems
reported a range of bulk first -order decay coefficients between 0.01 and 0.74 ( AWWARF,
1996). It should be noted that first -order decay will vary with TOC concentrations, which
were assumed from average annual TOC levels within the source water from the District's
2012 annual water quality report.
E.6.5 Water Quality Calibration
Calibration is conducted by comparing the actual chlorine residual levels recorded at the
sampling sites to the predicted values in the hydraulic model. This comparison is shown in
Table E.B. As listed in Table E.5, sampling times were only available for a few of the sites;
for sites without sampling time data available, residuals for the entire 24 -hour period of the
sampling day were averaged for this comparison.
Table E.8 Comparison of Sampled Residuals to Model Predictions
Difference
Sampled
Model
[Sample -
Assumed
Residua 1(2)
Prediction
Prediction]
Sample Site
Zone
Supply(')
(mg /L)
(mg /L)
(mg /L)
1
6
1W
2.1
1.4
+0.7
2
5
IW
2.2
2.1
+0.1
3
6
1W
1.9
1.4
+0.6
4
6
1W
1.4
1.0
+0.4
5
5
IW
2.2
2.0
+0.2
6
4
IW
2.2
2.1
+0.1
7
4
IW
2.2
1.8
+0.5
8
3W
IW
2.4
2.0
+0.5
9
4
IW
2.2
2.4
-0.2
10
4
1W
2.5
1.9
+0.6
11
3W
IW
1.8
2.4
-0.6
12
4
IW
1.9
1.4
+0.5
E -20 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienUCAIYLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doe
Table E.8 Comparison of Sampled Residuals to Model Predictions
Difference
Sampled
Model
[Sample -
Assumed
Residua 1(2) Prediction
Prediction]
Sample Site
Zone
Supply(')
(mg /L)
(mg /L)
(mg /L)
13
1
GW
0.9
0.7
+0.2
14
2
GW
0.9
0.4
+0.5
15
5
IW
1.9
1.1
+0.7
16
3
IW
2.0
1.3
+0.6
17
3
1W
1.9
1.0
+0.9
18
5
IW
1.9
1.4
+0.6
19
31D1
IW
2.4
2.2
+0.2
20
31D1
IW
2.3
2.1
+0.1
21
2W
GW
0.9
1.1
-0.1
22
21D1
GW
2.1
2.1
-0.0
23
2W
IW
2.2
2.0
+0.1
24
201
GW
2.3
2.1
+0.2
25
202
GW
2.1
2.0
+0.1
26
31D1
IW
2.5
2.3
+0.2
27
201
GW
2.2
2.2
+0.1
28
2W
GW
1.0
0.3
+0.6
29
2W
GW
0.9
0.6
+0.3
30
2W
GW
1.0
0.6
+0.3
31
1
GW
0.9
0.5
+0.4
32
1
GW
0.9
0.5
+0.4
33
3W
IW
1.9
2.0
-0.1
34
1
GW
0.7
0.6
+0.1
35
1
GW
1.2
0.9
+0.4
36
3W
IW
1.9
1.7
+0.2
37
4W
IW
1.9
1.6
+0.3
Notes:
1. Based on hydraulic
model
prediction of supply water.
2. Sampling times
were only
available for sites at which physical constituents
were
also sampled
(which are adjusted biweekly). For unknown sampling times, average water quality
levels for the
24 -hr period on
the sampling day were used for model predictions.
As seen in Table E.8, overall the model is predicting residuals slightly below or equivalent
to the sampled residuals, indicating the model is conservative. Overall, the calibration
results show that the model predicts lower residuals in areas where lower residuals were
sampled, and higher residuals in areas where higher residuals were sampled. However, the
District should not expect that the model predictions to accurately predict exact chlorine
February 2013 E -21
pw: / /Ca ro I I o/D ocu men is /C I i enVCAN LW D /9047A00 /De I i ve ra bl es /Ap p_E -M ode I_M a n u al. doc
residuals, likely due to the number of assumptions made in setting the boundary conditions
for this model, and the theoretical nature of the modeled reactions and limitations thereof.
The differences between sampled and predicted residual are shown by location in
Figure E.3. As shown on Figure E.3, the hydraulic model predicts results consistent with the
District's sampling results in much of Zones 1, 2, and 3. The model predicts lower residuals
than seen in the sampling results in several of the upper pressure zones.
Based on the results of the calibration, water quality results should be used for general
trends, but not detailed analysis. The model provides an accurate representation of the
District's distribution system and system operations to a level suitable for the purposes of
identifying system deficiencies and evaluating capital improvements to the District's water
distribution system.
E -22 February 2013
pw: l/ Carollo / Documents /ClienUCAIYLWD /9047A00/ Deliverables /App_E- Model_Manual.doe
Legend
by Difference (mg/L)
< 0.25
EBIR ST 0.25-0.50
+0.3
❑ TELEGRAPH CANYON R 0.50-0.75
AA
0.75-1.0
> 1.0
+0.7
-0.6
Predicted Residual
Total Cl (mg/L)
X41 1
+0.5 --0.6
<0 .2 C Vii;
Uj
+0.3::�
ck —1.0
0.2
1.! +0 6 1 IN
U.3
1.0-1.5
27.
4 ✓ +0.6 - 1.5-2.0
11' 1
+0.4
+0.4
+U.0
A�
X 5)
4-
Tanks
.51
ED Service Area
IL
Parcels
+06
Pipeline
6 inch and less
0/1/616 8 to 12 inch
1
Fj 0 VI-0 16 inch and larger
0 0.5 1
Miles
Predicted Water Quality
Correlation with Field Results
Northeast Area Planning Study
Yorba Linda Water District
wineem Workinq Wonders With
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Presented By:
Prepared By:
Subject:
SUMMARY:
AGENDA REPORT
March 7, 2013
Planning- Engineering-
Operations Committee
Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Status Report on Northeast Area Planning Study
ITEM NO. 4.2
The subject Study is in the process of being finalized for presentation to the Board on March 14. A
near -final draft version has been completed. Due to the size of the document, we are unable to
attach it to this agenda report. Please contact the District's Executive Secretary, Annie Alexander,
for a copy of the Study. The findings and recommendations of the Study will be reviewed and
discussed with the Planning- Engineering- Operations Committee on March 7, 2013.
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Presented By:
Prepared By:
Subject:
DISCUSSION:
AGENDA REPORT
March 7, 2013
Planning- Engineering-
Operations Committee
Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Delia Lugo, Senior Accountant
Draft FY 13/14 Engineering Department Budget
ITEM NO. 4.3
The Engineering Department has proposed to increase it Supplies and Services budget to
$143,003, a 25% increase from FY 2012/13. Most of this increase is in the area for Professional
Services, specifically for consulting services.
The Engineering Department consists of four sections, Administration, Planning & Design,
Construction, and Water Quality. Of the total Department budget, 64% relates to the Water Quality
Section, which includes microbiological examination, distribution system disinfection, and State
Department of Public Health fee accounting for most all of the section's budget. The Planning &
Design Section accounts for 29% of the budget, most of which relates to consulting for cathodic
protection and underground service alerts. The Construction Section has 6% of the budget, most of
which relates to non - capital equipment. Lastly, the Administration Section accounts for
approximately 1 % of the total Department budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description: Type:
Eng Supplies- Services Budget.xlsx Draft Budget Engineering Backup Material
4010 FY 2014 Budget.xlsx Engineering Administration Backup Material
4020 FY 2014 Budget.xlsx Engineering Planning Backup Material
4030 FY 2014 Budget.xlsx Engineering Construction Backup Material
4040 FY 2014 Budget.xlsx Engineering Water Quality Backup Material
Engineering Budget Summary
Proposed For Fiscal Year 2013/2014
FY 2012/13 proposed FY
Amended 2013/14 Budget
Expenses (Operating) Budget
Supplies & Services
Communications
Contractual Services
Data Processing
Dues & Memberships
Fees & Permits
Materials
Non - Capital Equipment
Office Expense
Professional Services
Professional Development
Travel & Conferences
Supplies & Services Sub -Total
$
61,040
$
63,040
$
2,600
$
3,063
$
24,000
$
24,000
$
2,000
$
2,000
$
-
$
5,200
$
2,150
$
2,450
$
15,000
$
35,000
$
4,000
$
3,450
$
3,650
$
4,800
$
114,440
$
143,003
Section Detail Expense Budget
Dept /Section: Eng (Admin) (4010) FY 2014
Sub Acct
Total
Detail Amt
1- 4010 - 0640 -00
$300
1- 4010 - 0640 -00
300
Dues, Memberships & Subscriptions
300
1- 4010 - 0810 -00
$200
1- 4010 - 0810 -00
200
Training
200
1- 4010 - 0830 -00
$80011-4010-0830-00
800
Travel & Conferences
800
Section Total
1 $1,300
Section Detail Expense Budget
Dept /Section: Eng (Planning & FY 2014
Design) (4020)
-GL Category
1- 4020- 0645 -00
ategory lot Sub Acct No./Sub Category
$2,000 1- 4020 - 0645 -20
Sub Acct
2,000
Detail Item Description
USA Underground Service Alerts
D-
2,000
1- 4020- 0640 -00
DUES,MEMBERSHIPS,SUBSCRIPT
$750
1- 4020 - 0640 -00
DUES,MEMBERSHIPS,SUBSCRIPTIO
750
AWWA
500
ACEE
250
1- 4020- 0760 -00
Office Expense
$1,300
1- 4020 - 0760 -00
1,000
Office Expense
1,000
1- 4020 - 0760 -30
300
Library Reference Books
300
1- 4020- 0780 -00
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (E)
$35,000
1- 4020 - 0780 -00
20,000
Cathodic Protection Study
20,000
1- 4020 - 0780 -36
10,000
Water Consulting Services
10,000
1- 4020 - 0780 -39
5,000
Sewer Consulting Services
5,000
1- 4020- 0810 -00
Professional Development
$1,200
1- 4020 - 0810 -00
Professional Development
1,200
Certification Courses
400
Cathodic Protection Courses
500
AW WA
300
1- 4020- 0830 -00
TRAVEL & CONFERENCES (E)
$1,000
1- 4020 - 0830 -00
TRAVEL & CONFERENCES (E)
1,000
AWWA
500
Cathodic Protection
500
Section Total
$41,250
Section Detail Expense Budget
Dept /Section
LCategory
Eng (Construction) FY 2014
(4030)
Sub Acct
Total
Detail Amt
1- 4030 - 0600 -00
$220
1- 4030 - 0600 -50
220
Uniforms
220
1- 4030 - 0640 -00
$350
1- 4030 - 0640 -00
350
Construction Management Association of America
350
1- 4030 - 0750 -00
NON - CAPITAL EQUIPMENT (E)
$5,200
1- 4030 - 0750 -00
NON - CAPITAL EQUIPMENT (E)
5,200
Locator
3,800
Inspection Related Tools & Equipment
1,400
1- 4030 - 0760 -00
Office Expense
$850
1- 4030 - 0760 -00
350
Office Supplies
350
1- 4030 - 0760 -30
500
Code Books
500
1- 4030 - 0810 -00
Professional Development
$1,200
1- 4030 - 0810 -00
Professional Development
1,200
Training
400
Inspector Certification
800
1- 4030 - 0830 -00
TRAVEL & CONFERENCES (E)
$1,000
1- 4030 - 0830 -00
TRAVEL & CONFERENCES (E)
1,000
AWWA
500
CMAA Confrence
500
Section Total
1 $8,820
Section Detail Expense Budget
Dept /Section
LCategory
Eng (Water Quality) FY 2014
(4040)
Sub Acct
Total
Detail Amt
1- 4040 - 0600 -00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES (E)
$62,820
1- 4040 - 0600 -00
3,000
System Disinfection /Blending
3,000
1- 4040 - 0600 -12
350
Backflow Device Repair
350
1- 4040 - 0600 -25
7,250
Distribution System Disinfection
7,250
1- 4040 - 0600 -50
220
220
1- 4040 - 0600 -60
52,000
Microbiological Examination
52,000
1- 4040 - 0645 -00
$22,000
1- 4040 - 0645 -10
22,000
Dept. of Health Services
22,000
1- 4040 - 0640 -00
DUES,MEMBERSHIPS,SUBSCRIPT
IONS (E)
$1,663
1- 4040 - 0640 -00
DUES,MEMBERSHIPS,SUBSCRIPTIO
NS (E)
1,663
Water Purveyor Membership (Nguyen)
1,000
American Society of Civil Engineers (Nguyen)
225
AWWA (Nguyen)
238
American Academy of Environmental Engineers (Nguye
100
ABPA (Maldonado)
100
1- 4040 - 0710 -00
$2,000
1- 4040 - 0710 -20
2,000
Wtr Quality Test Reagents
2,000
1- 4040 - 0760 -00
$300
1- 4040 - 0760 -30
300
AWWA Books
300
1- 4040 - 0810 -00
$850
1- 4040 - 0810 -00
850
Training
850
1- 4040 - 0830 -00
$2,000
1- 4040 - 0830 -00
2,000
Travel and Conferences
2,000
Section Total
1 $91,633
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Presented By:
Prepared By:
Subject:
DISCUSSION:
AGENDA REPORT
March 7, 2013
Planning- Engineering- Operations
Committee
Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
John DeCriscio, Acting Operations Dept:
Manager
Stephen Parker, Finance Manager
Draft FY 13/14 Operations Department Budget
ITEM NO. 4.4
Operations
The major areas of change in the Draft FY 13/14 Operations Department Budget are described below-
. Fees & Permits: The budget increase is due to higher fees related to AQMD, CARB & OCSD Fog
Inspection costs. Those increases amount to $4,000 of the change from the current year's budget.
• Materials: The proposed materials budget will rise from $460,750 to $575,500, an increase of 25 %.
The increase is 2% over this year's projected cost. A large portion of the increase is due to meter
replacements. Meter cost have gone up by approximately 9% and we have been replacing more
meters than budgeted the last few years. We expect to replace even more meters this coming year.
Hydrant and valve replacement costs have also increased. Both the number of replacements and the
cost of the parts have increased over the last few years.
• Maintenance: The proposed budget will rise from $305,400 to $425,900, an increase of 39 %. The
increase is 16% over this year's projected cost. Work includes planned maintenance related to
equipment servicing, electric motor control centers, and Well #15 performance and a water quality
study. Further cost increases relate to the City of Yorba Linda charging the District for raising
manholes and valve cans, as per the sewer transfer agreement.
• Vehicle Equipment: The proposed budget will rise from $333,900 to $397,150, an increase of 19 %.
The majority of the cost increase in this area relates to the cost of rebuilding the stationary engine at
Well #18 and some modifications to the exhaust system at Highland Booster, which need to be
performed in the upcoming fiscal year.
ATTACHMENTS:
5010 FY 2014 Budget.xlsx
5020 FY 2014 Budaet.xlsx
5030 FY 2014 Budget.xls
5040 FY 2014 BUdget.xlsx
5050 FY 2014 Budaet.xlsx
5060 FY 2014 Budget.xls
2013 Budget for Novus 3 4 2013 Final.pdf
Description:
Type:
OPS Administration Budget
Backup Material
OPS Water Operations Budget
Backup Material
OPS Sewer Operations Budget
Backup Material
OPS Water Production Budget
Backup Material
OPS Mechanical Services Budget
Backup Material
OPS Facilities Maintenance Budget
Backup Material
Draft Operations Budget 2013 -14
Backup Material
Section Detail Expense Budget
Dept /Section: Ops (Admin) (5010) FY 2014
Sub Acct
Total
Detail Amt
1 -5010- 0710 -00
$9,000
1 -5010- 0710 -65
9,000
PPE Equipment
9,000
1 -5010- 0715 -00
$1,500
1 -5010- 0715 -50
1,500
Meeting Supplies
1,500
1 -5010- 0760 -00
OFFICE EXPENSE (E)
$9,500
1 -5010- 0760 -00
3,500
Misc Supplies
3,500
1 -5010- 0760 -10
400
Paper Supplies
400
1 -5010- 0760 -20
1,500
Printer Ink
1,500
1 -5010- 0760 -30
100
Manuals /Books /Magazines
100
1 -5010- 0760 -40
4,000
Breakroom Supplies
4,000
1 -5010- 0810 -00
Professional Development
$800
1 -5010- 0810 -00
500
Training
500
1 -5010- 0810 -40
300
Certificate Reimbursement
300
1 -5010- 0830 -00
TRAVEL & CONFERENCES (E)
$900
1 -5010- 0830 -10
100
Travel
100
1 -5010- 0830 -30
1 3001
Meals
1 300
1 -5010- 0830 -40
5001
Registration
500
Section Total
1 $21,7001
1
Section Detail Expense Budget
Dept /Section: Ops (Water Ops & FY 2014
Maintenance) (5020)
Sub Acct
m. Total i
Detail Amt
1 -5020- 0600 -00
$9,700
1 -5020- 0600 -50
9,700
Uniforms
9,700
1 -5020- 0645 -00
FEES & PERMITS (E)
$19,500
1 -5020- 0645 -25
2,000
NPDES Deminimus (RWQCB)
2,000
1 -5020- 0645 -45
12,000
Landfill (Orange County & Dan Coop)
12,000
1 -5020- 0645 -55
5,500
Encroachment Permits
5,500
1 -5020- 0710 -00
MATERIALS (E)
$481,000
1 -5020- 0710 -05
27,500
Road Material
27,500
1 -5020- 0710 -13
15,000
Air -Vac parts
15,000
1 -5020- 0710 -15
3,000
Cla Valve Parts
3,000
1 -5020- 0710 -25
60,000
Hydrant Repair Parts
60,000
1 -5020- 0710 -30
90,000
Valve Repair Parts
90,000
1 -5020- 0710 -40
150,000
Replacement Meters
150,000
1 -5020- 0710 -50
10,000
MXU's
10,000
1 -5020- 0710 -55
7,000
Meter Boxes /Lids /Vaults
7,000
1 -5020- 0710 -60
8,000
Hardware Supplies
8,000
1 -5020- 0710 -81
1,500
Welding Supplies
1,500
1 -5020- 0710 -85
3,000
Cleaning /Painting Supplies
3,000
1 -5020- 0710 -90
85,000
Water Service Repair Parts
85,000
1 -5020- 0710 -94
14,500
Miscellaneous Warehouse Parts
14,500
1 -5020- 0710 -96
3,500
Ready Mix Concrete
3,500
1 -5020- 0710 -98
3,000
Landscape Supplies
3,000
1 -5020- 0730 -00
MAINTENANCE (E)
$205,700
1 -5020- 0730 -00
5,000
Maintenance
5,000
1 -5020- 0730 -66
165,000
Asphalt Paving
165,000
1 -5020- 0730 -67
35,000
Concrete Repair
35,000
1 -5020- 0730 -72
700
Safety Equipment Repairs
700
1 -5020- 0750 -00
NON - CAPITAL EQUIPMENT (E)
$11,500
1 -5020- 0750 -15
500
Equipment Rental
500
1 -5020- 0750 -30
10,000
Tool & Equipment
10,000
1 -5020- 0750 -50
1,000
Traffic Cones, Barricades, and Signs
1,000
1 -5020- 0810 -00
Professional Development
$5,500
1 -5020- 0810 -00
4,500
Training
4,500
1 -5020- 0810 -40
1,000
Certificate Reimbursement
1,000
1 -5020- 0830 -00
TRAVEL & CONFERENCES (E)
$1,000
1 -5020- 0830 -10
300
Travel
300
1 -5020- 0830 -30
200
Meals
200
1 -5020- 0830 -40
5001
Registration
500
Section Total
1 $733,900
Section Detail Expense Budget
Dept /Section: Ops (Sewer Ops & FY 2014
Maintenance) (5030)
Sub Acct No. /Sub Category Sub Acct Detail Item Description Detail Amt
Total
2 -5030- 0580 -00
$500
2 -5030- 0580 -00
500
FOG Materials
500
2 -5030- 0600 -00
$1,900
2 -5030- 0600 -50
1,900
Uniforms
1,900
2 -5030- 0645 -00
FEES & PERMITS (E)
$5,900
2 -5030- 0645 -20
3,000
3,000
2 -5030- 0645 -30
1,900
WDR - SSO(SWRCB)
1,900
2 -5030- 0645 -55
1,000
Encroachment Permits
1,000
2 -5030- 0640 -00
$300
2 -5030- 0640 -00
300
CWEA Memberships
300
2 -5030- 0710 -00
MATERIALS (E)
$16,000
2 -5030- 0710 -60
1,000
Hardware Supplies
1,000
2 -5030- 0710 -92
15,000
Sewer Main Repair Parts
15,000
2 -5030- 0730 -00
MAINTENANCE (E)
$113,700
2 -5030- 0730 -59
60,000
Sewer Line Repairs
60,000
2 -5030- 0730 -65
8,000
Vector Control in Manholes
8,000
2 -5030- 0730 -66
30,000
Asphalt Paving
30,000
2 -5030- 0730 -67
5,000
Concrete Repair
5,000
2 -5030- 0730 -71
10,000
CCTV Repairs
10,000
2 -5030- 0730 -72
700
Safety Equipment Repairs
700
2 -5030- 0750 -00
NON - CAPITAL EQUIPMENT (E)
$9,000
2 -5030- 0750 -30
8,000
Tools & Equipment
8,000
2 -5030- 0750 -50
1,000
Traffic Cones, Barricades, and Signs
1,000
2 -5030- 0810 -00
Professional Development
$2,500
2 -5030- 0810 -00
2,200
2,200
2 -5030- 0810 -40
300
Certificate Reimbursement
300
2 -5030- 0830 -00
TRAVEL & CONFERENCES (E)
$600
2 -5030- 0830 -10
200
Travel
200
2 -5030- 0830 -30
100
Meals
100
2 -5030- 0830 -40
300
Registration
300
2 -5030- 0870 -00
$800
2 -5030- 0870 -10
800
800
2 -5030- 0890 -00
VEHICLE EXPENSES (E)
$48,000
2 -5030- 0890 -46
25,000
OPS -Sewer Vehicle Maint
25,000
2 -5030- 0890 -47
1,000
OPS - Sewer - Equipment Maintenance
1,000
2 -5030- 0890 -48
8,000
OPS - Sewer - Gas
8,000
2 -5030- 0890 -49
14,000
OPS- Sewer- Diesel
14,000
Section Total
$199,200
Section Detail Expense Budget
Dept /Section
�GL Category
Ops (Water FY 2014
Production) (5040)
Sub Acct
Total
Detail Amt
1 -5040- 0600 -00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES (E)
$3,300
1 -5040- 0600 -25
2,500
Distribution System Disinfection
2,500
1 -5040- 0600 -50
800
Uniforms
800
1 -5040- 0640 -00
Dues, Memberships,
$400
1 -5040- 0640 -00
Dues, Memberships, Subscriptions
400
AWWA Memberships
350
OCWA Memberships
50
1 -5040- 0710 -00
MATERIALS (E)
$54,000
1 -5040- 0710 -17
4,000
Pump Parts
4,000
1 -5040- 0710 -35
12,000
CL2 Parts
12,000
1 -5040- 0710 -60
2,500
Hardware Supplies
2,500
1 -5040- 0710 -75
30,000
Salt
30,000
1 -5040- 0710 -84
5,000
Valves, Gauges, AV, etc.
5,000
1 -5040- 0710 -85
500
Cleaning /Painting Supplies
500
1 -5040- 0730 -00
MAINTENANCE (E)
$57,500
1 -5040- 0730 -05
4,500
CL2 System Service
4,500
1 -5040- 0730 -10
15,000
Electrical Motor Repairs /Services
15,000
1 -5040- 0730 -20
10,000
Electric General Maintenance
10,000
1 -5040- 0730 -24
2,000
Reservoir Repairs
2,000
1 -5040- 0730 -25
6,000
Reservoir Inspections & Cleaning
6,000
1 -5040- 0730 -29
15,000
Wells: Calibration, Maint, Repairs
15,000
1 -5040- 0730 -75
5,000
Pump Station Repairs
5,000
1 -5040- 0750 -00
NON - CAPITAL EQUIPMENT (E)
$6,000
1 -5040- 0750 -30
1,000
Tools & Equipment
1,000
1 -5040- 0750 -90
5,000
Hoses /Fittings /Cabling for Pumps /Generators
5,000
1 -5040- 0810 -00
Professional Development
$2,600
1 -5040- 0810 -00
1,500
Training
1,500
1 -5040- 0810 -30
500
Emergency Response
500
1 -5040- 0810 -40
600
Certificate Reimbursment
600
1 -5040- 0830 -00
TRAVEL & CONFERENCES (E)
$2,400
1 -5040- 0830 -10
Travel
700
Travel
200
City Works User Conference
500
1 -5040- 0830 -20
500
City Works User Conference
500
1 -5040- 0830 -30
2001
Meals
200
1 -5040- 0830 -40
Registration
1,000
City Works User Conference
500
Registration
500
Section Total
$126,200
Section Detail Expense Budget
Dept /Section: Ops (Mechanical FY 2014
Services) (5050)
GIL Category tegory lot
____A16,
1 -5050- 0600 -00 $1,500
Sub Acct No./Sub Category
T
1 -5050- 0600 -50
Sub Acct Detail Item Description
Total
1,500 Uniforms
Detail Amt
1,500
1 -5050- 0645 -00
FEES & PERMITS (E)
$9,950
1 -5050- 0645 -05
8,000
AQMD Permits
8,000
1 -5050- 0645 -15
350
E.P.A. Fees
350
1 -5050- 0645 -35
100
HAZ Mat Fees (OCFA)
100
1 -5050- 0645 -60
1,500
C.A.R.13 Fee
1,500
1 -5050- 0710 -00
MATERIALS (E)
$4,500
1 -5050- 0710 -60
2,500
Hardware Supplies
2,500
1 -5050- 0710 -80
1,500
Mech. Shop Supplies
1,500
1 -5050- 0710 -81
500
Welding Supplies
500
1 -5050- 0750 -00
NON - CAPITAL EQUIPMENT (E)
$10,000
1 -5050- 0750 -40
Mech Shop Equipment
10,000
Misc Mech Shop Equipment /Tools
5,000
Power Train Lift
5,000
1 -5050- 0810 -00
$250
1 -5050- 0810 -40
250
Certificate Reimbursment
250
1 -5050- 0890 -00
VEHICLE EXPENSES
$349,150
1 -5050- 0890 -10
500
Admin - Gas
500
1 -5050- 0890 -11
750
Admin - Vehicle Maint
750
1 -5050- 0890 -20
13,200
Finance- Gas
13,200
1 -5050- 0890 -21
4,000
Finance - Vehicle Maint
4,000
1 -5050- 0890 -30
9,300
Engineering - Gas
9,300
1 -5050- 0890 -31
3,000
Engineering - Vehicle Maint
3,000
1 -5050- 0890 -42
50,000
OPS Water Vehicle Maintenance
50,000
1 -5050- 0890 -43
5,000
OPS - Water Equipment Maintenance
5,000
1 -5050- 0890 -44
63,000
OPS - Water - Gas
63,000
1 -5050- 0890 -45
24,000
OPS- Water- Diesel
24,000
1 -5050- 0890 -50
3,000
OPS - Production Vehicle Maint
3,000
1 -5050- 0890 -51
500
OPS - Production Equipment Maint
500
1 -5050- 0890 -52
13,000
OPS - Production - Gas
13,000
1 -5050- 0890 -53
2,000
OPS Mech Svcs - Vehicle Maint
2,000
1 -5050- 0890 -54
3,800
OPS - Mech Svcs - Gas
3,800
1 -5050- 0890 -55
1,000
OPS - Facilities - Vehicle Maint
1,000
1 -5050- 0890 -56
1,900
OPS - Facilities - Gas
1,900
1 -5050- 0890 -57
1,000
OPS -Tool Repair
1,000
1 -5050- 0890 -70
1,000
IT -Vehicle Maintenance
1,000
1 -5050- 0890 -71
2,700
IT - Gas
2,700
1 -5050- 0890 -80
135,000
Stationary Engine Maint
135,000
1 -5050- 0890 -81
9,000
Stationary Engine Emissions Testing
9,000
1 -5050- 0890 -90
2,500
Haz Mat Disposal
2,500
Section Total
$375,350
Section Detail Expense Budget
Dept /Section: Ops (Facilities FY
2014
Maintenance) (5060)
Detail Item Description Detail Amt
L
1 -5060- 0600 -00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES (E)
$157,500
1 -5060- 0600 -05
25,000
AC & Heating
25,000
1 -5060- 0600 -29
5,500
Disposal Service
5,500
1 -5060- 0600 -35
80,000
Janitorial Service
80,000
1 -5060- 0600 -40
40,000
Landscape Service
40,000
1 -5060- 0600 -45
3,500
Pest Control Service
3,500
1 -5060- 0600 -50
3,500
Uniforms & Mats
3,500
1 -5060- 0645 -00
FEES & PERMITS (E)
$2,550
1 -5060- 0645 -00
1,050
Alarm Fees
1,050
1 -5060- 0645 -35
1,500
Haz Mat Fees (OCFA), Permits
1,500
1 -5060- 0710 -00
MATERIALS (E)
$11,000
1 -5060- 0710 -00
2,000
2,000
1 -5060- 0710 -10
4,500
Building Repair Parts
4,500
1 -5060- 0710 -60
3,000
Hardware Supplies
3,000
1 -5060- 0710 -85
1,000
1,000
1 -5060- 0710 -98
500
Landscape Supplies
500
1 -5060- 0730 -00
MAINTENANCE (E)
$49,000
1 -5060- 0730 -00
17,000
Misc Facility Maint (Doors, fences, etc.)
17,000
1 -5060- 0730 -20
10,000
Electrical Repair Work
10,000
1 -5060- 0730 -35
2,000
Fire Extinguisher Maint /Calibration
2,000
1 -5060- 0730 -50
10,000
Painting
10,000
1 -5060- 0730 -66
5,000
Asphalt Paving
5,000
1 -5060- 0730 -67
5,000
Concrete Repair
5,000
1 -5060- 0750 -00
NON - CAPITAL EQUIPMENT (E)
$2,100
1 -5060- 0750 -00
100
100
1 -5060- 0750 -30
2,000
Tools & Equipment
2,000
1 -5060- 0870 -00
$90,00011-5060-0870-10
90,0001
Electric
90,000
Section Total
$312,1501
1
M
rl
O
N
00
rl
rl
O
N
M
rl
O
N
W
m
O
W
N
a
a
O
O
O
Ln
Ln
Z
O a�
Q
W Q
a W
�i
ILn
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
++
N
4+
gm
C
N
Ln
O
cn
ri
gD
O
I-
O
n
cn
O
N
OA
O
OA
00
a
N
N
N
O
M
'
Ln
N
O
O
N
O
4
N
ri
N
N
m
rr,
m
'
Q
O
N
N
N
r•I
'
rl
NLr
rl
O
M
m
ri
C
m
001
�
Q
N
U
'
CQ
>
C
M
Z
O
N
Q
L~u
R
O
�
a
J
ri
D
m
ri
m
V
O
1 H
0
rM1
rNi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
O
Ln
N
ri
wt
n
M
wt
gm
Ql
0
M
�
cn
ri
m
a
en
M
ri
ri
0
rM1
rN1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ln
O
O
Ln
O
O
M
m
I-
m
M
M
m
w
M
gD
011
00
ri
M
O
M
I-
M
ri
M
00
011
r•I
wt
C^
00
Z
0
M
r-I
Ql
M
N ^
r-I
Ln
wt
cm
I�
N
CL
M
0
O
O
d
N
0
0
0
0
NO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
lD
M
N
O
N
I-
O
gD
O
wt
O
ri
00
O
O
bA
_
O
00
ri
ri
M
N
m
N
M
M
cn
ri
ri
m
a
'
M
M
ri
ri
T-1
+O+
rNi
O
ri
O
ri
wt
M
N
wt
O
I-
M
M
N
wD
O
N
p
O
ri
w
00
M
00
m
I-
m
I-
M
w
00
m
N
W
M
M
w
N
M
n
wt
O
wt
011
M
ri
wt
M
I
O
O
N
V
T-1
O
O
rm�
rq
cm
M
C4
N
wt
wt
to
to
wt
ri
M
M
rl
rl
LLI
N
ri
M
M
M
lD
a
N
O
O
In
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ln
0
p
M
O
O
I-
O
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
M
w
ri
ri
I-
M
ri
O
O
O
m
O
m
Q
O
I
r
M
O
N
M
O
r-I
L
N
M
to
O
M
rq
ri
00
M
(W �
N
D
O
m
N
ri
N
M
ri
ri
M
n
00
w
O
M
-e
M
M
N
M
w
I-
N
00
M
011
M
00
w
w
I-
M
N
M
w
w
Ql
O
M-*
00
w
M
N
-e
O
H
O
N
O
N
ri
ri
a
r%
00
N
M
N
O
M
W
N
M
M
ri
ri
I�
M
00
N
�
C7
rOi
Ln
M
Q
m
N
J_
Q
W
Cp
C
�
W
F-
O
W
Q-
z
J
z
vii
O
F-
W
F-
M
C7
a
O
F-
m
W
p
u
>
ar
Q.
E
v
y
++
u
i
m
O
Q
H
W
O
V
O
V
t
i
v�
O/
3
>
N
O/
.~
O/
y
H
z
N
of
3
.>
O/
ar
±'
•>
a
�
O
Q.
of
>.
W
L
V
V
•♦3
t0
O
H
vOi
O/
u
R
,
Q-
O
'a
a
o~C
Q
a
u
u
a
�n
Q
ar
X
O/
�n
r
Q
z
z
W
_
.Q
u
R
vj
�t
Y
'i
O/
U
i
++
!_
u
O/
V)
O
0)
a
w
a
a
ar
ai
y
m
n
m
v
O
s
D
O
w
vii
a
v
0
0
z
O
a
>>
vii
v
ILn
O
O
O
0
00
n
z
N
Ln
0
Q
N
M
r-I
nj
d
N
O
N
NO
a)
41
cm
'I
O
M
�
N
r•1
M
M
N
N
w
w
N
0
O
a
N
M
Ln
N
O
O
O
Ln
N
O
4
N
^
N
O
rr,
ri
N
Q
O
N
N
N
rl
NLr
rl
O
M
3
V
ri
C
ri
001
�
Q
N
U
CQ
>
C
Z
O
N
Q
L~u
R
O
�
a
J
O
D
m
3
m
V
O
1 H
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:
March 7, 2013
To:
Planning- Engineering-
Operations Committee
From:
Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Presented By:
Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Prepared By:
Stephen Parker, Finance
Manager
Dept:
Subject: Vehicle Equipment & Capital Outlay Budget
DISCUSSION:
ITEM NO. 4.5
Administration
Attached is the initial draft of items budgeted in Vehicle Equipment & Capital Outlay for the District's
FY 13/14 Budget. These items would pull their funding from the Reserve for Capital Projects, just as
Capital Improvement Projects do.
FY 13/14's proposed Vehicle Equipment & Capital Outlay budget amounts to $660,000, down from
the prior year's $830,300. The breakdown for FY 13/14's costs between water and sewer is
$582,000 for the Water Fund (up from the current years' $318,300) and $78,000 for the Sewer Fund
(down from the current years' $512,000). The major items in this year's proposed budget include
$196,000 for five vehicle replacements, including a replacement Leak Truck; $80,000 for a portable
generator that can be used at facilities throughout the District (along with $12,000 to allow the
Administration Building to be able to be supported by the generator during brown outs); $63,000 to
replace water meter registers and MXU's installed a decade ago in two routes that are failing at a
fast pace; and $60,000 for continued integration of CMMS into different areas at the District.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name: Description: Type:
Vehicle Equipment Capital Outlay.xlsx Vehicle Equipment & Capital Outlay - FY 13/14 Backup Material
Vehicle Equipment Capital Outlay
FY 13/14 Budget
Department/ Item Amount
Board of Directors
None
Administration
None
Engineering
Construction
F150 4X4 Truck Replacement $ 26,000
F150 Super Cab Truck Replacement $ 26,000
Total Vehicle Equipment & Capital Outlay- Engineering $ 52,000
Finance
Meter Reading
(2) Handheld Meter Reading Units $ 12,000
MXU and Register Replacement Program $ 63,000
Total Vehicle Equipment & Capital Outlay- Finance $ 75,000
Human Resources
None
IT
GIS
GIS - Phase ll (Asbuilt Lining, Red Lining & USA's) - Water $ 12,000
GIS - Phase ll (Asbuilt Lining, Red Lining & USA's) - Sewer $ 8,000
Information Systems
Switch & Network Improvements & Replacements $ 22,000
Archiving Hardware Solution $ 19,000
Replacement DC Server $ 6,500
CMMS $ 60,000
SCA DA
Ford F250 with Service Body Truck Replacement
$
39,000
Ford Explorer Replacement
$
29,000
Timber Ridge PLC (Control System) Upgrade
$
16,000
Paso Fino PLC (Control System) Upgrade
$
12,000
Well -5 PLC (Control System) Upgrade
$
10,000
SCADA Server Historian for Remote Data Access
$
13,500
Total Vehicle Equipment & Capital Outlay- IT
$
247,000
Vehicle Equipment Capital Outlay
FY 13/14 Budget
Department/ Item Amount
Operations
Water Operations & Maint.
F450 Utility Truck $ 76,000
Sewer Operations & Maint.
Slip Lines for Sewer Pipe Repair $ 60,000
Green Crest Lift Station Motor Replacement $ 10,000
Sewer Camera Cable $ 8,000
Water Production
185kw Generator $ 80,000
Facilities Maintenance
Building 1 A/C Replacement $ 10,000
Admin Building Electrical Plug $ 12,000
Bryant Ranch Reservoir - Facility Repairs $ 30,000
Total Vehicle Equipment & Capital Outlay- Operations $ 286,000
TOTAL VEHICLE EQUIPMENT & CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 660,000
Reconciliation by Fund
Water Fund $ 582,000
Sewer Fund $ 78,000
TOTAL $ 660,000
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: March 7, 2013
ITEM NO. 4.6
Subject: Monthly Groundwater Production and Purchased Import Water Report
ATTACHMENTS:
Description:
Import 2012 -13 Feb.pdf Backup Material
Type:
Backup Material
YLWD SOURCE WATER SUMMARY
FY 2012 -13
Red denotes In -Lieu month
Allowable GW (YTD) 7,105.6 (AF)
Underpumped 507.7 (AF)
IN -LIEU
GW
(AF)
ACTUAL
GW
(AF)
ADJUSTED
IMPORT
(AF)
TOTAL
DEMAND
(AF)
MONTHLY
GW
( %)
YTD
GW
( %)
BUDGET
(Demand Est.)
(AF)
DELTA
( %)
MONTH
Jul -12
Aug -12
Sep -12
Oct -12
Nov -12
Dec -12
Jan -13
Feb -13
Mar -13
Apr -13
May -13
Jun -13
-
785.3
1,622.6
2,407.8
32.6%
32.6%
2,354.0
2.3%
-
793.7
1,706.4
2,500.1
31.7%
32.2%
2,316.0
7.9%
-
730.6
1,590.0
2,320.6
31.5%
32.0%
2,032.0
14.2%
-
940.4
1,126.7
2,067.1
45.5%
35.0%
1,714.0
20.6%
-
1,078.3
533.2
1,611.5
66.9%
39.7%
1,354.0
19.0%
-
594.2
264.5
858.8
69.2%
41.8%
1,218.0
- 29.5%
-
896.5
272.1
1,168.6
76.7%
45.0%
1,062.0
10.0%
-
778.9
407.5
1,186.4
65.7%
46.7%
1,016.0
16.8%
Month
1,204.0
1,506.0
1,992.0
2,232.0
FYTD
-
6,598.0
7,522.9
14,120.9
46.7%
13,066.0
8.1%
Red denotes In -Lieu month
Allowable GW (YTD) 7,105.6 (AF)
Underpumped 507.7 (AF)
GROUNDWATER PERCENTAGE
80.0%
MONTHLY GW (%)
75.0%
YTD GW ( %)
70.0% -BPP GOAL 50.3%
65.0%
60.0%
55.0%
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
Jul -12 Aug -12 Sep -12
Oct -12 Nov -12 Dec -12 Jan -13 Feb -13 Mar -13 Apr -13 May -13 Jun -13
Month
WATER SUPPLY
FY 2012 -13
February 2013 Water Supply
IMPORT
23.3%
GW
76.7%
2012 -13 YTD Water Supply
GW
46.7%
IMPORT
53.3%
GW BPP GOAL
50.3%
LU
D
w M
W
IN
Q LL
O
H
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD
CD CD c° c° o °� ° C= cc: c°o °� °c° C=
N N N N
(=Id) ownlon
0 0 0 o c
co (D of o CN
T
`yb
`, 9y
9
a
y
< <�n r
o
�J
a0
o1-70,y
o�
'Z�
°O
Z"-,D '
°a
Y.oS
aS
Z' nb
o
6
�b
i
I
I
No
MENEM
I
I
I
MEN
MENNEN
mm
OEM
mm
mm
m
mmm
mm
m
m
m
m
WE
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD
CD CD c° c° o °� ° C= cc: c°o °� °c° C=
N N N N
(=Id) ownlon
0 0 0 o c
co (D of o CN
T
`yb
`, 9y
9
a
y
< <�n r
o
�J
a0
o1-70,y
o�
'Z�
°O
Z"-,D '
°a
Y.oS
aS
Z' nb
o
6
�b
i
CL
AL
W
`V
0
F-
M
r
N
O
N
LL
c�
c�
I
c6
c�
I
L
Q
r
I
L
Cm
G
r
I
U-
r
I
M y
Y
0
N �
I
U
N
N
I
0
z
N
I
U
O
N
Q
N
I
Q
N
- - D
O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
N O 00 CD � N O 00 co � N
N N
( =IV) ownlon
N
�
O
Q
N
E
O
O
-
Q
O
Q
E
o
O
E
M
U
O
0
O
O 0
H
5
70
c�
c�
I
c6
c�
I
L
Q
r
I
L
Cm
G
r
I
U-
r
I
M y
Y
0
N �
I
U
N
N
I
0
z
N
I
U
O
N
Q
N
I
Q
N
- - D
O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
N O 00 CD � N O 00 co � N
N N
( =IV) ownlon
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: March 7, 2013
Subject: Monthly Production Summary Report
ATTACHMENTS:
Description:
Monthly Production Division Status Report February 2013 Final.pdf Backup Material
ITEM NO. 4.7
Type:
Backup Material
L
Q
G1
L
E
E
U
O
L
a
s
0
.:
M
r-I
O
N
lD
N
N
LL
E
Q
.5
a
W
N
U
i
N
N
4—
O
3
A
O
O
CL
E
m
O
O
V
G1
fC
ai
O
O
O
110
I"
N
l0
Ln
O
a
N
l0
a
-i
0
M
-i
c-I
O
N
(t6
(6
.°
ca
4
s0A
L L.
>,
O
O
�
C:
O
O
OC
acr
tin
�
>
N
O
f6
a�
m
u
ut
f6
L
C7
(6
N
i
(6
C:
L
N
0
s
Q
Q
W
a�
C7
C
C
N
M
Li
=
Q
R
Z
0
0
L
E
i
N
N
cI
3
W i
E
O
cI
O
O
O
O
110
I"
N
l0
Ln
O
I-
N
l0
a
-i
110
M
-i
c-I
N
N
(t6
(6
CL
E
ca
4
s0A
L L.
>,
N
O
O
x
L
>
N
O
CL
u
ut
f6
L
C7
E
C
i
(6
C:
L
N
0
0
Q
Q
a,
U
N
O
a,
O
3
N
N
O
O
0
V
s
N
w
Ol
Ol
O
-i
M
E
4:1-
O
�
a
z
ate+
LL
(t6
(6
CL
E
E
E
s0A
L L.
o
N
O
O
x
a
�3
L
u
ut
-S�
CNC
E
4-
a
U_
Q
W
C
C
U
M
Li
=
Q
O
0
0
L
E
Q
N
cI
3
E
E
O
cI
cI
O
cI
cI
2
2
O
U
a
O
m
-O
O
N
(6
*k
N
s
=
2
N
a
R
0
M
M
M
-i
-i
L
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
co
co
-i
-i
L
CL
CL
N
N
N
N
Ln
r4
Ol
Ol
O
-i
M
00
4:1-
O
�
a
�
ate+
LL
(t6
(6
CL
E
E
E
s0A
L L.
o
N
O
O
x
a
L
u
ut
-S�
E
0
i
a,
a
CN
C
a
O
N
E
3
ni
C
►�
O
O
CL
N
a,
N
i
O
2
N
al
O
ON
2 E
N O
Q cn
E N o a�
a U
Ln
O
-i
N
N
�
�
LL
O
LL
-
Ln
N
O
E
a
L
J
CNC
E
4-
U_
Q
N
C
C
U
U
Li
=
Q
O
0
0
L
E
Q
M
cI
3
E
E
O
cI
cI
cI
cI
cI
2
2
0_
U
a
O
(1)
Ln
O
a
(1)
N
U
M
c-I
J
rj
N
N
00
M
cI
cI
cI
cI
O
cI
cI
cI
cI
cI
bb
O
R
N
a
N
M
L
O
N
N
C
C
L
CL
CL
N
N
O
{n
N
O
O
i
O
O
O
N
N
�
4-
4-
(J)
V)
O
N
L
7
O
O
O
c0
0
O
O'
Z
vOi
m
m
O
�_
�_
3
3
Ln
oN
�
°'
°c
l
U-
C:
O
E
V
U
U
>
NN
CA
f6
f6
-a
_
f6
CL
CL
0
ar
M
3
3
M
M
0o
r_
.5
M
3
i
U
O
O
C7
m
M
M
t
�D
M
U
O
r_
O
3
t
ITEM NO. 4.8
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: March 7, 2013
Subject: Monthly Preventative Maintenance Report
ATTACHMENTS:
Description: Type:
PM for FY 2012- 13.xls Backup Material Backup Material
W 07
r
F-
L)
c
W N
J
p U
z D
QLL
Z
o
O
O
Q
o
0
o
a
Q
DMo
a
o
fR
ao
o
o
N
r
o
o
o
n
ao
00
r
0
0
v
O
o
N
V
N
N
N
ao
N
r
r
N
00
r
0
w
w
LL
r
(R
W
OO
0
W
N
M
o
O
w
o
r o
N
v
N
r
N
IR
o
M
r
00
O
O
O
N
Z
o
o,
00
T
�
O
00
M
O
N
IV
O
O
o
O
N
N
V
N
N
0
f0
N
(R
00
N
Q
7
00
00
N
V
O
w
O
N
co
o
R
o
O
R
N
r
O
CO
00
00
V
V
V
00
N
O
—
O
N
U
o
M
N
I
V
M
w
o
N N
o
r
.
0
A
W
0
N
co
W
O
w
M
co
w
N
O
V
O
V
p
N
N
M
R
r
N
0 o
N
N
00
o
O
w
N
o
r
w o
j
co
h
N
o
N
0
r
O
co
O
w
H
o
(R
O
o
00
O
N
w
N
00
O
r
�
o
N
N N
N
V
O
Cl)
w
N
M
O
N
ff N
O
O
v
0
(R
V
N
0
O
O
co
O
N
w
N
rl
N
Co
O
Z
V
Y
V
co
O
3
M
N
N o
r
fR
N
o
fR
N
N
N
N
o
N
M
N o
N
N
N
o
C
N
w
ao
w
A
N
N
N
co
o
co
v
o
0-0000
M
V
o
00 O
N N
`
O
Cj
r
M
O
N
O
O
V
r
O
C
N
0
N
`
N
N
O
N
O
Cl)
R
O
R
—
CL
O
d
R
d
M
N
N
7
C
o
C
R
O
o
R
—
R
R
O
M
M
(R
R
O
N
—
w
y
r
m
o
—0—m
o
M
N
o
O
M
o
M
o
00
0
0
0
0
R
d
d
N
co
00
=
co
C
M
7
O
•R
N
C�
N
co
�
LO
M
r
Cl)
W
o
N
N
N
y
t
O
'RO
n
R
ao
R
R
•O
N
fro
00
'Do
Cl)
N
N
U
.�
L
d
R
N
N
V
L
U
`
w
d
N
R
N
N
N
>
N
W
u
r
w
ao o
d
y
d
'`
y
N
Co
E
O
Y
N
d
U
y
R
O
ao
�
00
o
co
00
O
N
N
N
00
N
O
co
V
N
m
V
0
00
0
N
N V
r
N
O
R
N
v
00
v
r
Do
M
r
m
o
Ri
o
Ri
fo
Q
U
3
f`6
O
y
?
D
R
R
`
N
N
Y
r
N
d
t
R
N
�
R
d
d
�
V
�
(R
�
N
N
o
o
N
N
o
O
O
o
O
O o
V
V
o
N
V
N
N
o
O
O
O
N
�
N
co
R
co
co co
�
—
R
00
—
R
O
O
—
R
O
O
—
R
(R
N
—
R
R
—
R
r
N
r
N
V
fA
—
ca
r
M
r
M
r
N
J
o
00
.'
N
._
N
._
N
._
N
._
N
._
N
y
d
C)
d
ca
F
ca
F
ca
F
ca
F
ca
F
ca
F
ca
~
ca
F
ca
F
O
N
r
O
fII
2
M
Q
Z
O
W
p
Q
11
N
K
Z
O
W
Z
O
W
K
W
J
`
a}
W
XO
Q
W
o
Q
w
O
U
co
w
N
IL
N
N
co
co
N
N
N
N
N
p
K
Q
p
Z
^2
)-
N
co
co
fn
J
F
Q
m
U
aS
F
F
J
r
F
F
J
N
2
N
2
J
N
F
F
J
F
F
J
co
w
d
W
W
d
W
W
(wj
J
J
a
V)
V)
J
W
F
F
J
w�
w
O
J
J
Q
K
F
K
O
W
In
N
p
W
p Q
W
p
p
Q
N
13
F
F
Q
N
p
W
p Q
W
p
W
p
W
Q
W
Q
J
Q
W==
J
F
F
Q
J
W
p
p
Q
W
LL
U
F
Z
O
O
Q
LL'
W
LL'
W
ILL
F
Z
F
F
F O
y
w
F
w
F
F
0
Z
Z
p
W
p
W
F
O
y
U
F
F
F O
O
N
F
F
F
O
J
d
W
w
w
a
N
F
N
N
U
W
W
O
F
W
N
W
N
F
O
fA
W
W
0
LL
d
W
J
J
w
w LL
W
LL
p
V1
V)
LL
w
(L
w LL
(L
N
w
ILL
w
ILL
LL
w
Z»
N
w
Z
U
w
Q
Q
LL
w
W
W
LL
w
O
F
Q
Z
Z
2
Z
2
Z
p
N
N O
J
W
IL
W
IL
O
Q
7
7
O
K
O
O
Q
Q
K
K
W�
7
�
W
W
O
�
J
J
O
2
N
K
0
2
2??
o
>
O
O
o
p
LL
LL
o
Q??
o
d??
o
^2
U)
U)
Q
^2
Z
U)
U)
U
U
o
U)
F
F
o
O
fA
U)
K
K
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: March 7, 2013
ITEM NO. 4.9
Subject: Groundwater Producers Meeting Report
ATTACHMENTS:
Description: Type:
GWP Mtq Notes 13Feb 2013.docx Groundwater Producers Meeting Notes Backup Material
IMYorba Linda
Water District
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 21, 2013
TO: Steve Conklin, Acting General Manager
FROM: John DeCriscio, Acting Operations Manager
SUBJECT: Groundwater Producers Meeting, February 13, 2013
Steve Conklin and I attended the Groundwater Producers (GWP) meeting on February
13, 2013 at OCWD. A summary of each item discussed is as follows:
1. Water Quality. Nira from OCWD reported on the progress of the annual
Consumer Confidence Report. This report is required by California DPH and the
Federal EPA and must be delivered to the customers by July 1 of each year. She
also indicated the EPA is considering allowing electronic delivery of this report in
the future, but at this time they have not established any guidelines.
2. Possible OCWD Act Change. At the GWP meeting last month, OCWD
indicated that it is proposing to have revisions made to the District Act through
the State Legislature relating to basin clean up. Due to concerns expressed by
the GWPs at that meeting about the potential for the District Act being "high-
jacked" and drastic changes made to its current language, OCWD asked a
representative from Townsend Public Affairs (TPA), to come to this meeting and
address these concerns and answer questions. TPA stated they are looking at
two Authors for the proposed bill, Lou Correa (Santa Ana) and Sharon Quirk
(Fullerton). TPA indicated that both are very familiar with the end goal and are of
the opinion that the bill would be allowed to die rather than be used for contrary
changes in the language.
3. Costal Pumping Transfer. Huntington Beach and Mesa Water have identified
rising TDS in some wells and have concerns with seawater intrusion. OCWD
has monitored the TDS changes in the area and, depending on the severity of
the seawater movement; OCWD may institute a pumping- transfer program this
July. In order to do so, OCWD is required to hold a public hearing. The public
hearing will be scheduled for sometime this spring.
4. Annexation Update. As previously reported, the Annexation EIR is scheduled
to be released for public review in mid -March with a 45 -day comment period.
Recent comments from the GWPs and OCWD are consistent with what has been
reported in the past. There appears to be a realization from the group that this is
moving forward and has the support of OCWD staff.
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: March 7, 2013
Subject: Status Report on Capital Projects in Progress
ATTACHMENTS:
Description:
CIP Rept Mar2013.pdf Status Report on Capital Projects in Progress
ITEM NO. 4.10
Type:
Backup Material
H
H
W
a
a
H
W
W
O
H
H
H
U
O
O p
N CL
�a
A c
H
TAI
O
H
O
U
z
0
U U
� O �
N r--
� � U
T. •� N
C � �
U U �
CA
C
O
C p
O �
O O
� p .
Z C O
U �
U 5
N N
N w C�j
x.
U c') CJ �.
U M
N ~' O "O
C�j
CIJ
� � N
N �
� v O
CI.
a
� o
a a o Q
�609,UU
H
H
W
H
W
W
a
H
H
U
a
O
O p
N CL
A C
TAI
H
W
A
z
FBI
N
Q
O
U
.C�j
O
a
p
O
C�j
U
N
0
CA
O
•�
U
O
cd
o
N
CA
M
O
_CG
--
v�
O
>
N
C O
Q
N
O
O
�'
�
4j
cd
4
O
N
V
O
s.
j
CA
N
�'
' �
v'
N
141
ACA
CA
O
cam.
wC�j
w Q
o
UCl)
O
U
U
N
4
N
U
N
61
Q
O N
1
O
C�j
O
cam, U
�
44-
O
00
U
N
N
ice.
s
bJJ
O
C4� bA
N
4
O
O
'
N
'= �
Q bJJ
'q
U
C�j �.
O
C�j
D
H
U
O
H
O ;
O7:;
O '�
O
O.
U
C'J
N
O
U
O
0
^'
O
O
N
O
cd M
pM� cd
a
N
O N
C�j
N
v 0 C�j
N
O
C�j
F-
N F�
N
M
C�j U
CL O
�
U
X 0
0
cd
+C�
�Q
a
+C�
a
+C�
O
ID
Cli
669
U
6N9
U
69
U
669
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
_C�j
_C�j
N
H
H
w
W
0
a
H
H
H
V
a
0
O p
N CL
CC �
CC �
A C
H
T
z
z
a
a
z
FBI
M
�
C�j
o
o
ap
Cj �+
1M�
cd cd
-- M
U
O
C�j
u ° U
C�j �. y..
U U
'.
v
C
�."
O
'C�-Jo
Q
O
CA
CA
C
N CG
U
Q
C�j
U
�
�
O
°' >o
z
M�
w N C°
W°
W CA
o
CA
o
r"
�
Zs C/1
O.
U
n
r
CA
N
Cj
C�j
C�j O
•2
CA
bJJ
�.
O
N
W • V
C�j
V
C�j
° W
_N
C�j
�o
•�~�
z
�
N
O
O C,J
~O
�p
ID
�O.
�
�
N
.0 N CJ
N
�
O
N
N
cd
N
C
N
bA ° O
UD
°
O
�,
Q
ti�
j
°xti'
0
tm
CJ
00
0�0
0
M 00
Cj
�aaa
�aaa
�aaa
M