HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-17 City Commission Packet Materials - A2. Resolution 4838, Adoption of the 2017 Water Facility Plan Update - ONLINE ONLY PLAN
Water Facility Plan
Update
PREPARED FOR:
AE2S Project No. P05097-2013-001
July 2017
REPORT
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
1050 East Main Street, Ste. 2
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: 406-219-2633
Web: www.AE2S.com
Water Facility Plan Update
Professional Certification
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page i
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
WATER FACILITY PLAN UPDATE
FOR
Bozeman, MT
JULY 2017
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Montana.
Name: __________________________________________________________________________
Date: ________________________________ Registration Number: __________________
Prepared By:
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
1050 East Main Street, Suite 2
Bozeman, MT 59715
Scott L. Buecker
July 5, 2017 40518PE
CL
N L NRO AIS
M O NTANA
PRO
FES E N G EESCOTT
BUECKER
I
No. 40518 PE
IDESNE
July 5, 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page ii
Water Facility Plan Update
Table of Contents
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Professional Certification ......................................................................................... i
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables........................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................... xi
List of Appendices ................................................................................................ xiv
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations .................................................................. xv
Chapter 1 Existing System ....................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overview of Existing Water Supply Facilities ................................................ 1
1.1.1 Hyalite/Sourdough Water Treatment Plant ................................................. 1
1.1.2 Lyman Spring Water System .......................................................................... 2
1.2 Overview of Existing Pressure Zones .............................................................. 2
1.3 Overview of Existing Water Distribution Network ........................................ 5
1.3.1 Pumping Facilities .......................................................................................... 5
1.3.2 Distribution Storage Facilities ........................................................................ 6
1.3.3 Water Main ..................................................................................................... 7
1.3.4 Hydrants and Valves ..................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2 Basis of Planning .................................................................................. 11
2.1 Project Objectives and Deliverables .......................................................... 11
2.2 Previous Studies .............................................................................................. 12
2.3 Planning Periods ............................................................................................. 12
2.4 Study Service Area ........................................................................................ 13
Chapter 3 Water Use Characterization ................................................................ 15
3.1 Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 15
Water Facility Plan Update
Table of Contents
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page iii
3.2 Source Data .................................................................................................... 16
3.2.1 Data Anomalies ............................................................................................16
3.3 Historical Water Use ....................................................................................... 18
3.3.1 Water Production..........................................................................................18
3.3.2 Water Consumption .....................................................................................19
3.3.3 Non-Revenue Water .....................................................................................25
3.3.4 Existing Water Demand Summary ...............................................................27
3.4 Environmental/Meteorological Conditions ............................................... 27
3.4.1 Summer Precipitation and Summer Water Demand .................................27
3.4.2 Evapotranspiration .......................................................................................27
3.4.3 Irrigation .........................................................................................................30
3.5 Water Demand Projections .......................................................................... 32
3.5.1 Future Land Use ............................................................................................33
3.5.2 Water Duty Factors .......................................................................................37
3.5.3 Future Water Demand Summary .................................................................44
Chapter 4 Water Distribution System Model Update .......................................... 45
4.1 Existing Model Conversion and Development .......................................... 45
4.2 Demand Allocation ....................................................................................... 46
4.2.1 Base Demand ...............................................................................................46
4.2.2 Diurnal Demand Pattern ..............................................................................46
4.3 Field Testing & Data Collection ................................................................... 49
4.3.1 Fire Hydrant Flow Tests ..................................................................................49
4.3.2 Extended Pressure Testing ............................................................................50
4.4 Model Calibration .......................................................................................... 54
4.4.1 Calibration Process .......................................................................................54
4.4.2 Calibration Results ........................................................................................55
4.4.3 Extended Period Simulation (EPS) Calibration Results................................60
Chapter 5 Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria ...................................... 63
5.1 Water System Pressure .................................................................................. 63
5.1.1 Maximum Pressure ........................................................................................64
Water Facility Plan Update
Table of Contents
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page iv
5.1.2 Minimum Pressure .........................................................................................66
5.2 Distribution System Storage .......................................................................... 67
5.2.1 Operational Storage ....................................................................................69
5.2.2 Fire Storage ...................................................................................................70
5.2.3 Emergency Storage ......................................................................................70
5.2.4 Total Storage .................................................................................................71
5.3 Pumping Facility Capacity ........................................................................... 72
5.4 Transmission and Distribution Main .............................................................. 72
5.4.1 Velocity and Headloss Criteria ....................................................................72
5.5 Fire Protection ................................................................................................. 76
5.5.1 Methods for Calculating Fire Flow Requirements for Structures................76
5.5.2 City of Bozeman Fire Flow Requirements ....................................................78
5.5.3 City of Bozeman Fire Flow Availability .........................................................80
5.5.4 Considerations for Fire Suppression Design .................................................81
Chapter 6 Existing System Evaluation .................................................................. 83
6.1 Existing System Demands .............................................................................. 83
6.1.1 Existing Average Day Demand ...................................................................83
6.1.2 Existing Summer Day Demand.....................................................................83
6.1.3 Existing Maximum Day Demand ..................................................................84
6.1.4 Existing Winter Day Demand ........................................................................84
6.1.5 Existing System Demand Summary ..............................................................84
6.2 Existing System Modeling Scenarios ............................................................ 85
6.3 Water System Pressure .................................................................................. 86
6.3.1 System Pressure during Average Day Demand .........................................86
6.3.2 System Pressure during Maximum Day Demand .......................................87
6.4 Distribution System Storage .......................................................................... 90
6.4.1 Reservoir Operations ....................................................................................92
6.4.2 Water Quality Considerations ......................................................................94
6.4.3 Multiple Fire Impact Evaluation ...................................................................95
6.5 Distribution System Pumping Capacity ...................................................... 96
Water Facility Plan Update
Table of Contents
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page v
6.5.1 Pear Street Booster Station Pumping...........................................................97
6.5.2 Knolls Booster Station Pumping ....................................................................98
6.6 Transmission and Distribution Main Capacity ............................................ 99
6.7 Fire Flow Analysis .......................................................................................... 102
6.8 Summary of Existing System Evaluation .................................................... 106
6.8.1 Pressure Evaluation Summary .................................................................... 106
6.8.2 Storage Evaluation Summary .................................................................... 106
6.8.3 Water Main Capacity Evaluation Summary ............................................. 107
6.8.4 Fire Flow Evaluation Summary ................................................................... 108
6.9 Additional System Considerations and Recommendations ................. 108
6.9.1 Pressure Regulating Facilities ..................................................................... 108
6.9.2 Existing PRV Facilities Abandonment ........................................................ 110
6.9.3 SCADA for Water Distribution Remote Facilities ....................................... 111
6.9.4 Lead Service Line Connections ................................................................. 111
Chapter 7 Pressure Zone and Pressure Reduction Evaluation ......................... 112
7.1 Existing System Pressure Reduction Concept .......................................... 112
7.2 Pressure Reduction Hydraulic Model Evaluation .................................... 113
7.2.1 Pressure Reduction Modeling Scenarios ................................................... 113
7.2.2 Reduced Pressure Modeling Results.......................................................... 113
7.3 Fire Suppression Systems ............................................................................. 115
7.4 Pressure Reduction Options and Recommendation ............................. 119
7.4.1 Option 1: Existing System Pressure Reduction
Concept ................................................................................................... 119
7.4.2 Option 2: Phased Development of Long-Term Pressure Management
................................................................................................................... 119
7.4.3 Recommended Pressure Reduction Approach for the City ................... 120
Chapter 8 Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation .................................................... 121
8.1 Non-Potable Specifications........................................................................ 121
8.1.1 Non-Potable Irrigation Background .......................................................... 121
8.1.2 Non-Potable Irrigation System Standard Specifications .......................... 122
Water Facility Plan Update
Table of Contents
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page vi
8.2 Non-Potable Study ...................................................................................... 123
8.2.1 Non-Potable Project Location ................................................................... 123
8.2.2 Non-Potable System Design ....................................................................... 123
8.2.3 Cost-Benefit Comparison ........................................................................... 128
8.2.4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 132
Chapter 9 Future System Evaluation .................................................................. 133
9.1 Future System Demands ............................................................................. 133
9.2 Future System Modeling Scenarios ........................................................... 135
9.3 Future Water Distribution System Pipelines ............................................... 136
9.4 Future Water System Pressure Evaluation ................................................. 139
9.4.1 Future Pressure Zone Overview .................................................................. 139
9.4.2 Average Demand Conditions ................................................................... 145
9.4.3 Maximum Day Demand Conditions ......................................................... 146
9.5 Future Distribution System Storage Evaluation ........................................ 150
9.5.1 Reservoir Operations .................................................................................. 153
9.6 Future Distribution System Pumping Capacity ........................................ 154
9.7 Future Transmission and Distribution Main Capacity .............................. 155
9.7.1 Future Transmission Main Overview ........................................................... 156
9.8 Future Fire Flow Analysis .............................................................................. 160
9.9 Additional Model Scenarios Evaluations .................................................. 162
9.10 Summary of Future System ....................................................................... 170
9.10.1 UBO Water Main Overview ...................................................................... 170
9.10.2 Transmission Main ...................................................................................... 171
9.10.3 System Pressure ......................................................................................... 171
9.10.4 System Storage ......................................................................................... 173
9.10.5 Pumping Capacity ................................................................................... 173
Chapter 10 Recommended Improvements ...................................................... 174
10.1 CIP Project Categories .............................................................................. 174
10.1.1 Condition Assessment .............................................................................. 174
Water Facility Plan Update
Table of Contents
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page vii
10.1.2 Growth and Development ...................................................................... 175
10.1.3 Optimization .............................................................................................. 176
10.1.4 Rehabilitation and Repair ........................................................................ 176
10.1.5 Storage ...................................................................................................... 176
10.1.6 Studies ........................................................................................................ 176
10.1.7 Supply ........................................................................................................ 176
10.1.8 Transmission ............................................................................................... 177
10.2 Opinion of Probable Project for CIP Development .............................. 177
10.2.1 Opinion of Probable Project Costs Basis ................................................. 177
10.2.2 Estimate Classification .............................................................................. 178
10.2.3 Estimating Exclusions ................................................................................. 178
10.2.4 Total Estimated Project Cost .................................................................... 179
10.3 CIP Prioritization and Implementation .................................................... 184
10.3.1 CIP Prioritization Criteria and Process ...................................................... 187
10.4 Recommended Capital Improvements ................................................ 188
10.4.1 Short-Term (0-5 year) CIP Projects ........................................................... 189
10.4.2 Near-Term (5-15 year) CIP Projects .......................................................... 191
10.4.3 Long-Term (Unscheduled) CIP Projects ................................................... 193
10.5 City of Bozeman Fiscal Years 2018-2022 Capital Improvements
Program .................................................................................................... 195
10.5.1 City of Bozeman Fiscal Years 2018-2022 Water Capital Improvements
................................................................................................................... 197
Water Facility Plan Update
List of Tables
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Existing Pressure Zone Summary ......................................................... 2
Table 1.2: Pear Street Booster Station Summary ................................................. 5
Table 1.3: Knolls Booster Station Summary .......................................................... 6
Table 1.4: Distribution Storage Information ......................................................... 7
Table 1.5: Water Main Information........................................................................ 8
Table 2.1: Planning Period Summary .................................................................. 12
Table 3.1: Existing System Demand Summary .................................................. 27
Table 3.2: Estimated Irrigation Water Use .......................................................... 31
Table 3.3: Future Infill Area Zoning Summary .................................................... 36
Table 3.4: Future Service Area Land Use Summary ......................................... 36
Table 3.5: Existing Land Use WDFs ....................................................................... 39
Table 3.6: Existing Infill Zoning District WDFs ...................................................... 40
Table 3.7: Future Infill Zoning District WDFs ........................................................ 41
Table 3.8: Future Service Area Land Use WDFs ................................................. 42
Table 3.9: Future Service Area Land Use WDFs with Water Conservation .... 43
Table 3.10: Future System Demands .................................................................. 44
Table 4.1: Fire Flow Test Model Calibration Results Summary ........................ 55
Table 4.2: Fire Flow Test Results ........................................................................... 57
Table 4.3: Observed versus Simulated Model Results for Water Storage Levels
and Extended Pressure Tests ......................................................... 61
Table 5.1: Hydraulic Criteria Pressure Recommendations.............................. 63
Table 5.2: Montana Pressure Evaluation ............................................................ 65
Table 5.3: Recommended Maximum Pressures ............................................... 66
Table 5.4: Recommended Minimum Pressures ................................................ 67
Table 5.5: Hydraulic Criteria Storage Recommendations .............................. 69
Water Facility Plan Update
List of Tables
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page ix
Table 5.6: 2017 IFC Minimum Require Fire Flow and Flow Duration for Buildings
........................................................................................................... 79
Table 5.7: Fire Flow Availability Guidelines ....................................................... 80
Table 6.1: Existing System Demands .................................................................. 84
Table 6.2: Existing System Modeling Scenarios ................................................ 85
Table 6.3: Existing System Pressure during Average Day and Maximum Day
Demand............................................................................................ 87
Table 6.4: Existing Distribution Reservoir-Pressure Zone Summary ................ 90
Table 6.5: Existing Distribution System Storage Evaluation ............................. 91
Table 6.6: Summary of Typical Water Quality Problems Associated with
Potable Storage Facilities .............................................................. 94
Table 6.7: Summary of Two-Fire Event................................................................ 96
Table 6.8: Pear Street Booster Station Capacity ............................................... 97
Table 6.9: Knolls Booster Station Capacity ........................................................ 98
Table 6.10: Available Flow at System Hydrants .............................................. 103
Table 7.1: Existing System Modeling Scenarios .............................................. 113
Table 7.2: Available Flow at System Hydrants with Reduced System Pressure
......................................................................................................... 114
Table 8.1: Cost-Benefit Summary ...................................................................... 129
Table 8.2: Capital Cost Summary ..................................................................... 130
Table 8.3: Overall Cost-Benefit Summary ........................................................ 131
Table 9.1: Future System Demands .................................................................. 133
Table 9.2: Future System Demands by Pressure Zones .................................. 135
Table 9.3: Future System Modeling Scenarios ................................................ 137
Table 9.4: Future System Pressure during Average Day and Maximum Day
Demand.......................................................................................... 145
Water Facility Plan Update
List of Tables
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page x
Table 9.5: Proposed Distribution Reservoir-Pressure Zone Summary ........... 151
Table 9.6: Proposed Distribution System Storage Evaluation ........................ 152
Table 9.7: Proposed Pump Station Capacity .................................................. 155
Table 9.8: Summary of Proposed System Improvements.............................. 170
Table 9.9: Summary of Pressure Zones ............................................................. 172
Table 10.1: Transmission Pipeline Cost per Linear Foot ................................. 180
Table 10.2: Existing Transmission Pipeline Cost per Linear Foot ................... 180
Table 10.3: Non-Potable Pipeline Cost per Linear Foot ................................. 181
Table 10.4: Total Estimate Project Markup Summary ..................................... 184
Table 10.5: Prioritization Factors ........................................................................ 187
Table 10.6: Short-term (0-5 Year) Capital Improvement Recommendations
......................................................................................................... 190
Table 10.7: Near-term (5-15 Year) Capital Improvement Recommendations
......................................................................................................... 192
Table 10.8: Long-term (15+ Year) Capital Improvement Recommendation
......................................................................................................... 193
Table 10.9: City of Bozeman Fiscal Years 2018-2022 Capital Improvements
......................................................................................................... 198
Water Facility Plan Update
List of Figures
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Existing Water Distribution System by Pressure Zone ..................... 3
Figure 1-2: Existing Water Distribution System by Water Main Diameter ........ 9
Figure 1-3: Existing Water Distribution System by Water Main Material ........ 10
Figure 2-1: Water Facility Plan Study Area Boundary ...................................... 14
Figure 3-1: Average Annual WTP vs. Metered Data ......................................... 17
Figure 3-2: Adjusted Average Annual WTP vs. Metered Values .................... 17
Figure 3-3: Historical Annual Water Production 2006 – 2015 .......................... 18
Figure 3-4: Water Production vs. Metered ......................................................... 19
Figure 3-5: Average Daily Water Usage per Month ......................................... 20
Figure 3-6: Summer (June – August) and Winter (November-March) Water
Usage per Month by Customer Type ........................................... 21
Figure 3-7: City of Bozeman Population Growth from 1950 to 2015 .............. 22
Figure 3-8: City of Bozeman Population Growth from 2005 to 2015 .............. 22
Figure 3-9: Per Capita Water Use ........................................................................ 23
Figure 3-10: Average Per Capita Water Use by Customer Class ................... 24
Figure 3-11: Seasonal Per Capita Water Use by Customer Class (2006-2015)
........................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3-12: Non-Revenue Water Volume (% of Total).................................... 26
Figure 3-13: Summer Precipitation vs. Water Demand .................................... 28
Figure 3-14: Evapotranspiration vs. Water Demand ........................................ 28
Figure 3-15: Summer Precipitation, Evapotranspiration, and Water Demand
........................................................................................................... 29
Figure 3-16: Overview of Future Water Demand Projection Methodology .. 32
Figure 3-17: Water Facility Plan Study Zoning Designations for Infill Area .... 34
Figure 3-18: Water Facility Plan Study UBO Land Use Designations .............. 35
Water Facility Plan Update
List of Figures
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page xii
Figure 3-19: Geographically Linked Water Meter Records to Land Use
Polygon Illustration.......................................................................... 38
Figure 4-1: Typical Summer/Maximum Day Diurnal Demand Pattern .......... 48
Figure 4-2: Typical Average/Winter Day Diurnal Demand Pattern................ 48
Figure 4-3: Fire Flow Test Locations ..................................................................... 51
Figure 4-4: Diffuser, HPR, and Data Collector.................................................... 52
Figure 4-5: Operation of a Flowed Hydrant ....................................................... 52
Figure 4-6: EPS Test Locations .............................................................................. 53
Figure 4-7: Water Storage Level Comparison – August 20, 2015 ................... 62
Figure 5-1: Storage Requirements Overview .................................................... 68
Figure 5-2: Fire Flow Availability Guideline Based on Land Use .................... 82
Figure 6-1: Diurnal Demand Curves ................................................................... 85
Figure 6-2: Existing Water Distribution System Minimum Pressure during
Average Day Demand (5.2 MGD)................................................ 88
Figure 6-3: Existing Water Distribution System Minimum Pressure during
Maximum Day Demand (11.7 MGD) ........................................... 89
Figure 6-4: Existing Water Distribution System Reservoir Levels during
Average Day Demand (5.2 MGD)................................................ 92
Figure 6-5: Existing Water Distribution System Reservoir Levels during
Maximum Day Demand (11.7 MGD) ........................................... 93
Figure 6-6: Existing Water Distribution System Reservoir Levels during Two-Fire
Event ................................................................................................. 96
Figure 6-7: Existing Water Distribution System Maximum Headloss during
Maximum Day Demand (11.7 MGD) ......................................... 101
Figure 6-8: Existing Water Distribution System Available Fire Flow during
Maximum Day Demand (11.7 MGD) ......................................... 105
Water Facility Plan Update
List of Figures
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page xiii
Figure 7-1: Existing System Operation and Pressure Zone Boundaries (System
Reconfiguration to operating working pressures 50-110 psi) 117
Figure 7-2: Water Distribution System Available Fire Flow during Maximum
Day Demand and Reduced Pressure (11.7 MGD) ................... 118
Figure 8-1: Non-Potable Project Location and Dual Pipe System Layout .. 124
Figure 9-1: Typical Future Diurnal Demand Curves ....................................... 134
Figure 9-2: Proposed Water Distribution System by Water Main Diameter 138
Figure 9-3: Proposed Water Distribution System by Pressure Zone .............. 144
Figure 9-4: Proposed Water Distribution System Minimum Pressure during
Average Day Demand (23.9 MGD) ........................................... 148
Figure 9-5: Proposed Water Distribution System Minimum Pressure during
Maximum Day Demand (53.6 MGD) ......................................... 149
Figure 9-6: Proposed Water Distribution System Reservoir Levels during
Average Day Demand (23.8 MGD) ........................................... 153
Figure 9-7: Proposed Water Distribution System Reservoir Levels during
Maximum Day Demand (53.6 MGD) ......................................... 154
Figure 9-8: Proposed Water Distribution System Maximum Headloss during
Maximum Day Demand (53.6 MGD) ......................................... 159
Figure 9-9: Proposed Water Distribution System Available Fire Flow during
Maximum Day Demand (53.6 MGD) ......................................... 161
Figure 9-10: Proposed Water Distribution System with Groundwater Well Field
......................................................................................................... 164
Figure 9-11: Proposed Water Distribution System Reservoir Levels with Phase
1 of the West Transmission Main ................................................. 166
Figure 9-12: Proposed Water Distribution System with Phase 1 of the
Transmission Main ......................................................................... 167
Water Facility Plan Update
List of Appendices
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page xiv
Figure 9-13: Proposed Water Distribution System Reservoir Levels with Phase
I Transmission Main and shutdown between WTP and Sourdough
Reservoir ......................................................................................... 168
Figure 10-1: Future Project Implementation Pathways .................................. 186
Figure 10-2: Recommend Capital Improvements Overview ....................... 194
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Existing System Hydraulic Profiles
Appendix B: FME Script for GIS export/Model Import
Appendix C: Fire Flow Tests
Appendix D: Extended Period Simulation (EPS) Tests
Appendix E: EPS Calibration Results
Appendix F: Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
Appendix G: Opinion of Probable Project Cost Methodology
Appendix H: Prioritization Matrix
Appendix I: Short-Term Project Narratives
Water Facility Plan Update
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page xv
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
__________________A__________________
AAD
ACP
ADD
Average Annual Demand
Asbestos Cement Pipe
Average Daily Demand
AE2S Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
AWWA American Water Works Association
__________________BC__________________
C-factor
CCP
Roughness Coefficient
Concrete Cylinder Pipe
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
CI Cast Iron Pipe
__________________D__________________
D/DBP Disinfectants/ Disinfection By-Products
DI Ductile Iron
DIP Ductile Iron Pipe
DIPRA Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association
__________________EF__________________
EPS Extended Period Simulation
ET Evapotranspiration
FPS Feet per Second
FT Feet
FT/1,000 FT Feet per 1,000 Feet
__________________G__________________
GIS
GPCD
Geographical Information System
Gallons Per Capita Per Day
GPM Gallons Per Minute
GSR Ground Storage Reservoir
__________________H__________________
HGL
HP
Hydraulic
Horsepower
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
_________________I__________________
IBC International Building Code
IFC International Fire Code
IITRI Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute
Water Facility Plan Update
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page xvi
ISO Insurance Service Organization
ISU Iowa State University
__________________JKLMN__________________
MDD Maximum Daily Demand
MG Million Gallon
MGD
MMD
Million Gallons per Day
Maximum Month Demand
MR&I
MSU
Municipal, Rural, and Industrial
Montana State University
NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum 1988
NFF Needed Fire Flow
NFPA
NRW
National Fire Protection Association
Non-Revenue Water
__________________OPQ__________________
PE Polyethylene
PHD
PPC
Peak Hour Demand
Public Protection Classification
PRV Pressure Reducing Valve
PSI Pounds per Square Inch
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
__________________RSTUV__________________
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDWA
STL
Safe Drinking Water Act
Steel
TDH Total Dynamic Head
UBO Ultimate Build-out
USGS United States Geological Survey
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
__________________WXYZ__________________
WDD Winter Day Demand
WTP Water Treatment Plant
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 1 – Existing System
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 1
CHAPTER 1 EXISTING SYSTEM
Major components of the water system include the following:
Two water production facilities
Six pressure zones
22 pressure regulating facilities
Two booster stations
Four finished water storage reservoirs
Approximately 271 miles of transmission and distribution piping
2,448 fire hydrants
There is a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) central site in place at the City
Shop Complex that focuses on the reservoir facilities and Lyman Spring production. The
Sourdough Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has SCADA locally, including Sourdough reservoir
elevation, and the soon to be completed ground storage reservoir at the WTP. None of the
twenty-two PRV facilities is on SCADA.
The components identified above provide water service to the City’s existing population of
approximately 43,405 people via 12,000 metered connections. The following sections provide
an overview of the existing major components of the Bozeman water distribution system.
1.1 Overview of Existing Water Supply Facilities
The City’s current water sources are Sourdough Creek and Hyalite Reservoir / Hyalite Creek
in the Gallatin Mountains, and Lyman Spring in the Bridger Mountains. The sources of water
are captured and utilized as described in Section 1.1.1.
Water production facilities include the Sourdough WTP, which treats water from the Hyalite
and Sourdough drainages, and the Lyman Spring chemical treatment facility.
1.1.1 Hyalite/Sourdough Water Treatment Plant
The Sourdough WTP is a 22 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) membrane microfiltration plant
constructed in 2014. It is located south of town at the mouth of Sourdough Canyon. The
membrane filtration plant utilizes grit removal, conventional coagulation-flocculation-
sedimentation and straining (300 microns) for membrane pre-treatment. Membrane feed water
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 1 – Existing System
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 2
is then pressurized to Pall Aria microfiltration skids and through 0.1 micron membrane pores.
Membrane filtrate is injected with sodium hypochlorite for disinfection, with contact time
provided by a serpentine 96-inch diameter HDPE pipeline. Sodium hydroxide is added for pH
adjustment and corrosion control, and fluoride is added for dental cavity prevention.
Current plant capacity is 22 MGD, with a future expansion capacity of up to 34 MGD.
1.1.2 Lyman Spring Water System
Lyman Creek originates as a spring, discharging from a Mission Canyon limestone formation
in Lyman Canyon. The City has constructed three spring collectors since 1999. A spring
collector junction box was added in 2008. The junction box feeds spring water into a 16-inch
Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) and 18-inch Asbestos Cement Pipe (ACP) transmission main, which
conveys the water down Lyman Canyon to a chemical treatment facility. There are two pressure
reducing vaults on the transmission main. The spring water is chlorinated and fluoridated before
being discharged into the 5.0 MG Lyman reservoir, an in-ground lined concrete basin that is
covered. Finished water is discharged from Lyman reservoir to the distribution system, by
gravity.
1.2 Overview of Existing Pressure Zones
The City’s water distribution system is comprised of six pressure zones that serve elevations
that range from 4,600 to 5,100 (ft) above mean sea level. The pressures zones include the
Gallatin Park, Northwest, West, Northeast, South, and Knolls.
Table 1.1 lists each pressure zone, operating Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL), elevation range,
and pressure range across the zone. Figure 1-1 shows the pressure zones described in this
section. Summary descriptions of each pressure zone are provided in the following pages.
Pressure Zone Operating HGL (ft) Elevation Range (ft) Pressure Range (psi)
Lowest Highest Lowest Highest
Gallatin Park 4885 4684 4701 77 85
Northwest 4940 4609 4788 59 144
West 4980 4735 4820 69 107
Northeast (Lyman) 5038 4680 4806 91 145
South (Sourdough) 5125 4740 5105 6 160
Knolls 5185 4992 5064 52 83
Table 1.1: Existing Pressure Zone Summary
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 1 – Existing System
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 4
Gallatin Park (HGL 4885)
The Gallatin Park Pressure Zone is a small sub-zone within the Northeast Zone. It operates at
an HGL of 4885 ft. Two Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) facilities provide water to this zone.
There is no water production, storage or pressure relief facilities within this zone.
Northwest (HGL 4940)
The Northwest Pressure Zone is a large zone and operates at an HGL of 4940 ft, and 14 PRV
facilities provide water to this zone. No water production or storage locations within this zone.
The Northwest Zone is a sub-zone to the South Zone and the Northeast Zone. There is one
pressure relief facility within this zone.
West (HGL 4980)
The West Pressure Zone is a small zone and operates at an HGL of 4980 ft. Three PRV facilities
provide water to this zone. There are no water production, storage or pressure relief facilities
within this zone. The West Zone is a sub-zone within the South Zone.
Northeast (Lyman) (HGL 5038)
The Northeast (Lyman) Pressure Zone is a large zone and operates at an HGL of 5038 ft. The
Lyman reservoir and spring boxes provide water to this zone. The Lyman Creek water source
generally produces between 600 and 2,600 Gallons per Minute (GPM), depending on the time
of the year. Finished water is stored in a 5.3 MG reservoir. Pear Street Booster Station lies
within this pressure zone and transfers water to the South Zone. One PRV actively provides
water from the South zone to the Northeast Zone. A second PRV located within the Pear Street
Booster Station can also transfer water from the South zone to the Northeast Zone, but it is not
actively used.
South (Sourdough) (HGL 5125)
The South (Sourdough) Pressure Zone is the City’s largest and is also referred to as the
Sourdough zone, as the pressure is established by the water surface elevation in the Sourdough
reservoir. It operates at HGL 5125 ft. Additional water may be pumped from the Northeast
Zone into the South Zone through the Pear Street Booster Station. There are two finished water
storage facilities within this zone. The Sourdough and Hilltop reservoirs, which hold 4 MG and
2 MG, respectively. Four pressure relief valves for this zone are located within PRV facilities
feeding adjacent zones, and one facility is dedicated to pressure relief only.
Knolls (HGL 5185)
The Knolls Pressure Zone is a small sub-zone of the South Zone. It operates at HGL 5185 ft.
The Knolls booster station provides water and pressure to this zone. This facility has multiple
pumps to meet both domestic and fire flow requirements. There is a PRV located within the
booster station. There are no water production or storage facilities within this zone.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 1 – Existing System
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 5
Water Treatment Plant (HGL 5221)
The Water Treatment Plant Pressure Zone will operate at an HGL of 5221 ft when the WTP
reservoir comes on line in 2017 and will have a storage volume of 5.3 MG. This zone does not
serve users directly and only consists of the transmission main between the WTP and the
Sourdough reservoir. An existing flow control valve controls the rate of flow from the WTP
reservoir to the Sourdough reservoir.
Hydraulic Grade Line Profiles
Hydraulic grade line profiles have been developed for each pressure zone to graphically depict
the water flow and pressure set points for all existing PRV facilities within the system. The
profiles are included in Appendix A.
1.3 Overview of Existing Water Distribution Network
1.3.1 Pumping Facilities
There are two pump stations in the City’s distribution system, Pear Street and the Knolls booster
stations. Key criteria are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Pear Street Booster Station
The Pear Street Booster Station lies within the Northeast Zone and is used to pump water from
the Northeast Zone to the South Zone. There are two large pumps and one small pump within
the station. Currently, a single large pump is operated to transfer water into the South zone
during the summer months when Lyman spring production is at its highest.
Lyman spring water does not require conventional treatment, so it is very inexpensive, but
production from the spring exceeds the demand within the Northeast Zone during limited
periods in the late spring and summer. The Pear Street Booster Station is utilized to increase
the availability of the spring water to areas of the distribution system. Table 1.2 provides a
summary of the Pear Street Booster Station.
Pump Manufacturer/ Model
VFD or
Constant
Speed
Horsepower
(Hp)
Design Head
(ft)
Design Flow
(gpm)
Pear Street No. 1 Fairbanks Morse constant 10 70 300
Pear Street No. 2 Fairbanks Morse constant 50 93 800
Pear Street No. 3 Fairbanks Morse constant 50 93 800
Total - Nominal Design Pump Capacity 1,900
Firm Pump Capacity (with the largest pump out of service) 1,100
Table 1.2: Pear Street Booster Station Summary
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 1 – Existing System
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 6
Knolls Booster Station
The Knolls booster station provides water to the Knolls Zone, which is situated on a bluff in
the eastern-central portion of the City. Four pumps are sized to meet domestic water demand
and provide constant pressure to the pressure zone through Variable Frequency Drives (VFD).
Two fire pumps are sized to meet the fire flow requirements of the pressure zone. Table 1.3
provides a summary of the Knolls booster station.
Domestic
Pump Manufacturer/ Model
VFD or
Constant
Speed
Horsepower
(Hp)
Design Head
(ft)
Design Flow
(gpm)
Knolls No. 1 Grundfos CR 32-2-1 VFD 7.5 139 128
Knolls No. 2 Grundfos CR 32-2-1 VFD 7.5 139 128
Knolls No. 3 Grundfos CR 32-2-1 VFD 7.5 139 128
Knolls No. 4 Grundfos CR 32-2-1 VFD 7.5 139 128
Total - Nominal Design Pump Capacity for Domestic Service 512
Firm Pump Capacity for Domestic Service (with the largest pump out of service) 384
Fire
Pump Manufacturer/ Model
VFD or
Constant
Speed
Horsepower
(Hp)
Design Head
(ft)
Design Flow
(gpm)
Knolls Fire
No. 1 Peerless 8AE12 constant 40 70 1,650
Knolls Fire
No. 2 Peerless 8AE12 constant 40 70 1,650
Total - Nominal Design Pump Capacity for Fire Service 3,300
Firm Pump Capacity for Fire Service (with the largest pump out of service) 1,650
Table 1.3: Knolls Booster Station Summary
1.3.2 Distribution Storage Facilities
The Bozeman water distribution system has three existing storage facilities that provide
operational storage to meet the system demands, emergency storage, and fire flow storage; as
well as maintain a uniform pressure in the distribution system during peak hourly demands.
Water storage facilities include the Sourdough reservoir (4.0 MG), the Hilltop reservoir
(2.0 MG), and the Lyman reservoir (5.3 MG). Water reservoir information including size, head
range, base elevation, and overflow elevation is included in Table 1.4.
A new 5.3 MG ground storage reservoir will be constructed in 2017 at the Sourdough WTP.
With the addition of this new reservoir, there will be four storage facilities with a combined
capacity of 16.6 MG.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 1 – Existing System
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 7
Water Storage
Facility Name
Volume
(MG)
Diameter
(ft)
Max
SWD
(ft)
Base
Elevation
(ft)
Overflow
Elevation
(ft)
Sourdough Reservoir 4.0 147 31.5 5094.2 5125.7
Hilltop Reservoir 2.0 93 41.1 5084.0 5125.2
Lyman Reservoir 5.3 30.0 5008.3 5038.3
WTP Reservoir 5.3 212 20.0 5201.4 5221.4
Total 16.6
Table 1.4: Distribution Storage Information
1.3.3 Water Main
The water distribution system network consists of approximately 271 miles of water main
varying in size from four-inches up to 30-inches in diameter, with around 70 percent ranging in
size from 6- to 8-inches. The water main in the distribution system consists primarily of ductile
iron (DI) pipe. However, there is a substantial amount of cast iron (CI) pipe in the older parts
of town. Also, there are approximately ten miles total of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe,
asbestos cement (AC) pipe, concrete cylinder pipe (CCP), and steel (STL) pipe within the
distribution system.
Water main information, including size and material, is included in Table 1.5. Refer to Figure
1-2 and Figure 1-3 for detailed overviews of the existing water distribution by water main sizes
and materials, respectively.
Note that this study does not include evaluation of private water mains located within the
distribution system. Water distribution main that provides water service to Montana State
University (MSU) is limited to the City’s GIS database. As a result, some components
maintained by MSU might not be captured in this analysis.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 1 – Existing System
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 8
Pipe Size Length of Pipe by Material (ft)
Total Pipe
Length
(ft)
Total Pipe
Length
(mi) (in) AC CCP CI DI PVC STL
4 - - 12,660 2,009 3,227 - 17,897 3.4
6 2,634 - 165,565 182,930 4,906 31 356,066 67.4
8 - - 38,665 617,279 138 42 656,124 124.3
10 - - 23,799 99,469 - - 123,268 23.3
12 - - 17,124 150,248 - - 167,373 31.7
14 - - 15,135 17,184 - 1,510 33,829 6.4
16 - - 3,091 8,447 - - 11,538 2.2
18 - 117 8,744 2,309 - 12,900 24,069 4.6
20 - - - 1,017 - - 1,017 0.2
24 - 7,812 673 12,662 - 6,115 27,262 5.2
30 - 13,346 - 208 - - 13,554 2.6
Total Pipe
Length (ft) 2,634 21,274 285,456 1,093,763 8,271 20,598 1,431,996 -
Total Pipe
Length (mi) 0.5 4.0 54.1 207.2 1.6 3.9 - 271.2
Table 1.5: Water Main Information
1.3.4 Hydrants and Valves
Isolation valves enable isolation of small segments of the water distribution system so that
repairs and maintenance can be accomplished while minimizing the number of customers
affected. Isolation valves in the Bozeman water distribution system are predominantly gate
valves with some butterfly valves located on the larger diameter water mains. GIS data
provided by the City indicates that there are approximately 5,200 isolation valves in the City’s
distribution system.
PRV stations are utilized in the City’s distribution system to maintain desired pressures
upstream and downstream of the PRVs, by controlling flow into and out of the zones based on
each zone’s individual pressure requirements. Figure 1-1 shows the locations of the 22 PRVs
in the City’s system.
There are approximately 2,448 fire hydrants used for fire protection in the Bozeman water
distribution system.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 11
CHAPTER 2 BASIS OF PLANNING
2.1 Project Objectives and Deliverables
The objectives of the Water Facility Plan Update are the following:
1) Provide an updated planning and service area map for the City’s potable water
distribution system.
2) Characterize current water use patterns, including water usage by user class and land
use classification,
3) Project future water demand by usage class and land use, which includes the potential
impacts of the ongoing water conservation program on future water demands.
4) Provide a comprehensive, calibrated, up-to-date water distribution system hydraulic
model utilizing InfoWater by Innovyze®. The model will be integrated with the City’s
Geographic Information System (GIS), facilitating continuous updates as the
distribution system is replaced, improved, and expanded. The model will utilize current
and future water demand by user class and land classification, to enable spatial analysis
of current and future demand.
5) Provide a thorough fire flow analysis utilizing the calibrated hydraulic model.
6) Identify and describe water system infrastructure improvements required to meet new
service and population growth over the planning horizon. The planning horizon for this
analysis is threefold: A short-term period to determine water system needs through
FY2018-2022 (0-5 years), a near-term period (5-15 years), and a long-term period 15+
years.
7) Evaluate the City’s existing pressure zone configuration and identify any feasible
measures (future operational or design changes) necessary to achieve pressure
reduction.
8) Provide a recommended capital improvement plan (CIP) packet that includes detailed
descriptions of recommended CIP projects, maps of the project, categorization of the
project (i.e. replacement or continued repair), and a proposed schedule and cost
estimate.
9) Evaluate non-potable irrigation system costs, and develop recommended construction
standards and specifications for non-potable irrigation infrastructure.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 12
2.2 Previous Studies
There have been two major water facility plans completed for the City in the past two decades
that were utilized in the preparation of this update:
In 1993, a water facility plan was prepared by HKM Associates (currently DOWL) for
the City’s water and wastewater system. The plan included the evaluation of both the
existing and future service areas along with water supply rights. A computer model of
the water system was developed to help identify existing deficiencies within the water
system and recommend improvements to meet future system requirements. Results from
the study were used in creating the City’s CIP.
In 2005, a water facility plan was prepared by Allied Engineering Services, Inc. in
conjunction with Robert Peccia and Associates and BETA Engineering. A primary
objective of the 2005 plan was to perform an assessment of the old conventional WTP
and evaluate options for its upgrade or replacement. In addition, both the existing and
anticipated future water systems were modeled and analyzed. Recommend
improvements identified in the analysis along with costs were used to create the City’s
CIP.
2.3 Planning Periods
The establishment of the planning periods is a critical component in the development of the
Water Facility Plan Update. A total of three planning periods were established, including short-
term, near-term, and long-term periods. The short-term planning period was established to
determine water system needs through FY2018-2022 (0-5 years). A near-term planning period
(5-15 years) was identified to complete CIP planning for the 5 to 15 year planning horizon and
utilized the 2040 Plan Area established in the City’s 2016 Transportation Master Plan. Finally,
a long-term planning period was identified to capture major infrastructure projects necessary to
accommodate ultimate build-out of the City.
For this report, ultimate build-out (UBO) was assumed as the Future Land Use Map published
with the City’s 2009 Community Plan. This map was modified slightly to include a northwest
area from the Transportation Master Plan map. Table 2.1 summarizes the three different
planning periods defined.
Planning Period Timeframe (years) Years
Short-Term 0-5 2017 - 2022
Near-Term 5-15 2022 - 2032
Long-Term 15+ 2033 and beyond
Table 2.1: Planning Period Summary
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 13
Capital improvement projects determined in this planning effort will be placed into the three
different planning periods based on different criteria and discussion with City staff. This is
further discussed in Chapter 10.
2.4 Study Service Area
For systems that are experiencing significant growth, such as the City of Bozeman, defining the
study service area is necessary to provide a framework to: 1) define system capacity milestones,
2) develop appropriate phasing of capital improvements, and 3) strategically integrate
improvements with existing infrastructure. The ultimate goal of this approach is to maximize
the economic benefit of the improvements.
The study area was developed by reviewing current planning documentation, considering
recently completed facility plans, evaluating geographical boundaries, and having discussions
with City staff. Ultimately, this resulted in using boundaries already established from two recent
planning efforts performed for the City, which include the following:
1) Bozeman Community Plan Future Land Use Map – Adopted by the Bozeman City
Commission by the City of Bozeman Resolution No. 4163, dated June 1, 2009.
2) Bozeman Transportation Master Plan (TMP) 2016 – Study Area Boundary
These boundaries establish the future growth areas and provide consistency between recent
planning efforts. The resulting study service area boundary for the Water Facility Plan Update
is presented in Figure 2-1. As noted previously, a small area located in the northwest region,
identified in the 2040 planning area map of the TMP, was added to the future buildout area
(2009 Future Land Use Map) based on recommendations from City staff. This results in a final
service area boundary of approximately 44,881 acres, of which 12,803 acres are located within
the current municipal boundaries of Bozeman. The Water Facility Plan study area is considered
the UBO service area. A more comprehensive review of the history, description, and
development of these boundaries can be found in the aforementioned planning documents.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 15
CHAPTER 3 WATER USE CHARACTERIZATION
This section provides a description of effort required to characterize the City’s historic water
use trends and define recent water production and demand trends. It also presents the City’s
projected future water demand up to the UBO. Water Use Characterization is necessary to
assess the capacity of the City’s existing facilities and ensure that the design and functionality
of future water system is sufficient. The Water Use Characterization includes the following
components:
Historical Water Use
Environmental Conditions
Water Demand Projections
Water demands discussed in this chapter were incorporated into the hydraulic model to evaluate
both existing and future system performance. Results from the modeling analysis will
ultimately guide future water system CIP recommendations.
3.1 Definition of Terms
Water demand is described in the following terms:
Average Annual Demand (AAD) - The total volume of water delivered to the system in
a full year expressed in gallons.
Average Daily Demand (ADD) - The total volume of water delivered to the system over
a year divided by 365 days. The average use in a single day expressed in gallons per
day.
• Averaged Daily Winter Demand (Winter Demand) - The gallons per day average
during the months of December, January, and February when system demands
are low.
• Average Daily Summer Demand (Summer Demand) - The gallons per day
average during the months of June, July, and August when system demands are
high.
Maximum Month Demand (MMD) - The gallons per day average during the month with
the highest water demand. The highest monthly usage typically occurs during a summer
month.
Maximum Day Demand (MDD) - The largest volume of water delivered to the system
in a single day expressed in gallons per day.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 16
Peak Hourly Demand (PHD) - The maximum volume of water delivered to the system
in a single hour expressed in gallons per minute.
3.2 Source Data
The primary sources of data used to characterize historical water usage, existing demand, and
future consumption includes the following items:
1) 2015 parcel information
2) 2009, 2012, and 2014 land use information
3) 2006 through 2015 monthly water meter readings
4) 2006 through 2015 water treatment plant production records
5) 2006 through 2014 census population estimates
6) 2009 Community Plan
7) 2015 Transportation Plan
8) 2015 Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan Update
9) Daily precipitation, temperature, and evapotranspiration (ET) records at Montana
State University from Utah State Climate Center
3.2.1 Data Anomalies
A comparison between average annual WTP production data and the monthly water meter
readings from 2006 through 2015 was completed to determine if there were any anomalies or
errors within the data set provided. Figure 3-1 shows the WTP production vs. metered water
usage.
There are two distinct periods in which metered information did not correlate with WTP
production. In 2008, there is a dip in water usage based on the metered information, but no
change at the WTP. From 2012 to 2013, the metered data shows a spike in water usage, but no
appreciable change in WTP production. These inconsistencies (labeled “Y Values” in the City’s
billing system) within the data set were presented to City staff. Staff indicated that there could
have been some issues with the metering equipment during these periods, potentially causing
errors with how the data was ultimately recorded. The City provided direction to remove the
data inconsistencies for both of the identified periods, 2008 and 2012-2013. The removal of
these data inconsistencies resulted in closer alignment between meter readings and WTP
production data.
Figure 3-2 shows the final adjusted metered values used in this analysis. The difference
between the water production and metered water, or water consumed, is non-revenue water
(NRW). Water production, consumption, and NRW are discussed in the following sections.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 17
Figure 3-1: Average Annual WTP vs. Metered Data
Figure 3-2: Adjusted Average Annual WTP vs. Metered Values
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015MGD
Year
Average Daily Production/Metered -Data Inconsistencies
Plant Production Metered With Y Values Metered Without Y Values
Period 1 Period 2
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015MGD
Year
Average Daily Production/Metered -Adjusted Metered Values
Plant Production Adjusted Metered Values
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 18
3.3 Historical Water Use
3.3.1 Water Production
The Sourdough WTP and Lyman spring currently provide the City with finished water. Both
sites have master meters that are monitored via the City’s SCADA system, which allows the
City to accurately track the amount of water supplied to the system. Historical production
records from 2006 through 2015 were evaluated to determine system demand and develop water
usage parameters (i.e. ADD, MDD).
Figure 3-3 shows the ADD, MMD, MDD, and Maximum Day peaking factors observed from
2006 through 2015. Maximum Day peaking factors were calculated as the ratio of MDD to
ADD.
Figure 3-3: Historical Annual Water Production 2006 – 2015
2.17 2.16 2.17 1.95 2.30 2.10 2.10 2.13 2.10 2.23
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Maximum Day Peaking FactorMillions of Gallons per DayHistorical Production
Average Day (ADD)Maximum Month (MMD)
Maxium Day (MDD)Maximum Day Peaking Factor
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 19
3.3.2 Water Consumption
3.3.2.1 Water Production vs. Metered Water
The City tracks water consumption through customer water meters. Historical water meter
records from 2006 through 2015 were evaluated to determine overall customer water
consumption, water demand by customer class, per capita usage, and seasonal variations in
demand. Figure 3-4 shows the City’s annual water production vs. metered water consumption.
Figure 3-4: Water Production vs. Metered
Over the last ten years, the ADD based on metered data is approximately 4.7 MGD, which is
slightly lower than the ADD of 5.2 MGD calculated from water production. The difference
between these two values is considered NRW, which is discussed in more detail in Section
3.3.3.
3.3.2.2 Seasonal Variations
Noting that water usage varies depending on the season, the average daily water usage per
month was evaluated to determine which months had the highest water demand.
Figure 3-5 shows the average daily water usage per month from 2006 to 2015.
0.0
1.4
2.7
4.1
5.5
6.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average Day Demand (MGD)Annual Water Demand (Billions of Gallons)Water Production vs. Metered
Total Production Total Metered
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 20
Figure 3-5: Average Daily Water Usage per Month
Average monthly water usage ranged from 3.1 MGD (January 2009) to 10.1 MGD (July 2011).
As expected, the City experiences the highest demand during the summer months (June, July,
August) when irrigation demand peaks. Demand during the summer months is approximately
double to triple compared to winter demand. There does not appear to be an upward trend in
overall water usage, which is notable given Bozeman’s growth rate and could be due in part to
the City’s efforts to promote water conservation (established 2008). Per capita water usage is
analyzed further in Section 3.3.2.3. Seasonal summer and winter demand separated by customer
type is shown in Figure 3-6.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Average Daily Water Usage (MGD)Average Daily Water Usage per Month
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 21
Figure 3-6: Summer (June – August) and Winter (November-March) Water Usage per
Month by Customer Type
Noteable results of the seasonal water usage analysis are the following:
Summer irrigation demand is heavily driven by single-unit residential;
MSU operates its own non-potable irrigation system;the decline in water usage is
attributable to reduced student enrollment during the summer semester;
The data indicates that NRW, as a percent of total water use, decreases during the
summer months, which is due to NRW being relatively constant throughout the year
and as a result constitutes a higher percentage of the breakdown during periods of lower
demand (i.e. winter). The phenomenon of experiencing a relatively constant rate of
NRW is rational given the operating pressure of most areas of the distribution system
does not increase during peak demand periods.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 22
3.3.2.3 Per Capita
Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8 show the population growth from 1950 to 20151 and then in finer
detail from 2005 to 2015, respectively. Historical population information was used to determine
per capita demands.
Figure 3-7: City of Bozeman Population Growth from 1950 to 2015
Figure 3-8: City of Bozeman Population Growth from 2005 to 2015
1 U.S. Census Bureau (2016). Cities and Towns Population Total Tables. Retrieved from
[https://www.census.gov/data/tables].
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020Population
Year
30,000
40,000
50,000
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016Population
Year
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 23
The total per capita water use for the City between 2006 and 2015 is shown in Figure 3-9. The
per capita use rate is not the amount that the average person uses as it takes into account all
water uses including residential, commercial, industrial, etc. NRW was not included in the per
capita use rate.
Figure 3-9: Per Capita Water Use
The 10-year annual daily per capita water use in the City ranges from 142 (2006) to 111 (2014)
GPCD, with a 10-year average at 123 GPCD. The graph shows that, as City’s population
continued to grow, the overall GPCD decreased. This decreasing water usage trend is most
likely due to the City’s robust water conservation program; although minor decreases are also
probably attributable to the increase in population that is driving multi-family development with
reduced summer water demands and newer developments that are constructed with high
efficiency fixtures.
As will be described in later sections, this Water Facility Plan Update utilizes water demand by
land usage classification to estimate future water demand. If the City wishes to utilize per-capita
average water demand by population, 123 GPCD is a reasonable estimate. However, 135 GPCD
includes NRW and should be used to account for total system production and master planning.
Per capita water use by customer class for the City between 2006 and 2015 is shown in Figure
3-10. Single-unit residential, commercial and multi-unit residential represent the bulk of water
usage in the City. Further analysis of the City’s per capita water use by customer class shows
that single-unit residential accounts for approximately 36 percent of water usage, followed by
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 PopulationAverage Day Demand (GPCD)Year
Per Capita Water Use
Total Population
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 24
commercial at 27 percent, then multi-unit residential at 23 percent. There is very little industrial
water usage in Bozeman.
Figure 3-10: Average Per Capita Water Use by Customer Class
Figure 3-11 presents demand by customer type across summer (June - August) and winter
(November - March). This illustrates that the increase in water demand in the summer months
is predominately driven by single-unit residential, as usage increases by a factor of 3.8. The
next highest increase in summer usage is caused by the commercial sector.
Customer class GPCD was calculated by segmenting the City's total GPCD into the different
customer classes based on seasonal uses for each class. The data was then averaged from 2006
to 2015. The total average GPCD is approximately 123.4 GPCD. The residential customer
classes (i.e. multi-unit and single-unit) account for approximately 60 percent of the total average
water use.
GPCD values used in the City’s wastewater facility plan, completed in June 2015 by HDR, Inc.,
are referenced for comparison purposes. The values in the HDR report were used to determine
average wastewater flows for the City. Both analyses show similar average GPCD water usage
by class
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 PopulationAverage Day Demand (GPCD)Year
Per Capita Water Use by Customer Class
Single-Unit Residential Commercial Multi-Unit Residential
MSU Government Industrial
Population
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 25
Figure 3-11: Seasonal Per Capita Water Use by Customer Class (2006-2015)
3.3.3 Non-Revenue Water
NRW is the difference between the volume of water produced and the volume of water that is
consumed or billed to customers. For the purposes of this report, NRW are identified as the
following components: real losses, apparent losses, unbilled authorized consumption, and
unbilled unauthorized consumption.
Real losses comprise leakage from all parts of the system and overflows at storage
reservoirs. Excessive rates of real losses are caused by inadequate operations and
Summer Winter Average
Waste
Water
Facility Plan
(HDR)
Total 203.9 87.9 123.4
Industrial 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.2
Government 8.8 1.2 3.4 2.8
MSU 13.4 12.1 12.6 10.3
Multi-Unit Residential 39.6 23.7 28.4
Commercial 50.3 26.0 33.7 23.9
Single-Unit Residential 90.8 24.1 44.3 45.6
0
50
100
150
200
Average Day Demand (GPCD)Seasonal Per Capita Water Demand Breakdown by Class
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 26
maintenance procedures, the lack of active leakage control, and poor quality of
underground assets.
Apparent losses are caused by customer meter inaccuracies, data-handling errors, or
potential theft of water.
Unbilled authorized consumption includes water used by the utility for operational
purposes (e.g., hydrant flushing), water used for firefighting, and water provided free to
certain consumer groups (if practiced).
Unbilled unauthorized consumption includes water used by unmetered connections,
such as illegal connections, open bypasses around meters, misuse of fire hydrants, and
meter tampering.
Figure 3-12 shows the yearly percentage of NRW the City has experienced from 2006-2015.
Figure 3-12: Non-Revenue Water Volume (% of Total)
Over the last ten years, the NRW ranged from 4.5 percent (2015) to 13.7 percent (2008, 2009),
with an average of 9 percent. Currently, there is no national standard for NRW, but the guidance
given by the U.S. EPA for maximum NRW is typically between 10-15 percent.2 There appears
to be a downward trend in NRW for Bozeman. The trend could be attributable to improved
customer metering accuracy, improved plant metering accuracy, and recent identification and
correction of significant sources of NRW via leak detection.
It is recommended that a NRW rate of 9 percent be utilized for future planning purposes.
2 Control and mitigation of drinking water losses in distribution systems. (2010). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Page 109
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Year
Non-Revenue Water Volume (% of Total)
Non-Revenue 2006-2015 Average
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 27
3.3.4 Existing Water Demand Summary
Table 3.1 summarizes water demands for the 2006 - 2015 analysis period utilized for the water
demand characterization. The values listed are the demands imposed on the production system,
or supply-side demands, and thus account for NRW. For the purpose of analyzing the existing
system, the demand values listed in Table 3.1 have been incorporated into the hydraulic model.
Demand Day Demand (MGD)
Average Day 5.2
Summer Day 8.6
Maximum Day 11.7
Winter Day 3.6
Table 3.1: Existing System Demand Summary
3.4 Environmental/Meteorological Conditions
Changes in environmental conditions can greatly influence water supply and demand. This
section evaluates historical data and presents the correlations identified between water demand
and meteorological parameters (i.e. precipitation and evapotranspiration).
3.4.1 Summer Precipitation and Summer Water Demand
Precipitation during the summer months (June, July, and August) was evaluated to determine
if water demands significantly decrease during periods of rainfall. Figure 3-13 shows the last
10 years of summertime precipitation vs. metered system water demand .
3.4.2 Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration is the process by which water is transferred from the land to the atmosphere
by evaporation from the soil and transpiration from plants. Evapotranspiration provides a
quantifiable measurement of the amount of water that is needed to sustain landscaping.
Evapotranspiration fluctuates throughout the year, primarily with changes in temperature and
relative humidity. Figure 3-14 shows the Monthly Evapotranspiration vs. metered water
demand over the last 10 years (2006-2015), and illustrates how water use trends coincide with
ET.3
3 2014-15 City of Bozeman Water Conservation Program Update – Annual Report to the City Commission.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 28
Figure 3-13: Summer Precipitation vs. Water Demand
Figure 3-14: Evapotranspiration vs. Water Demand
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
JuneJulyAugustJuneJulyAugustJuneJulyAugustJuneJulyAugustJuneJulyAugustJuneJulyAugustJuneJulyAugustJuneJulyAugustJuneJulyAugustJuneJulyAugust2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Precipitation (in.)Water Demand Metered (MGD)Summer Precipitation and Summer Water Demands
Precipitation Water Demand
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0Water Demand (MGD)Monthly Evapotranspiration (inches)
Winter Shoulder Summer
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 29
Figure 3-15 displays average summer water usage (metered and produced), maximum day
(produced), total summer precipitation, and total ET.
Figure 3-15: Summer Precipitation, Evapotranspiration, and Water Demand
The results from the analysis of the data presented above indicate the following:
As shown in Figure 3-13, precipitation, or the lack thereof, has a direct impact on the
seasonal use of water, whereas the demand for water increases as precipitation levels
decrease. Conversely, the demand for water decreases during periods of increased
precipitation levels.
There is a general correlation between the seasonal evapotranspiration and Water
Demand, in particular higher peak day demands correspond to years with higher
evapotranspiration as shown in Figure 3-14.
The trend between evapotranspiration and Water Demand is consistent but varies as
shown in Figure 3-14, where some monthly demand and evapotranspiration pairs fall
above or below the trend line. The variability is likely due to the intensity and duration
of individual precipitation events or the varied impact that evapotranspiration days may
have had on behavioral water demands.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Precipitation and ET (inches)Water Demand (MGD)Summer Precipitation, Evapotranspiration, and Water Demand
Average Summer Water Usage (Metered)Average Summer Water Usage (Produced)
Peak Day (Produced)Total Summer Precipitation
Total Evapotranspiration
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 30
Monitoring evapotranspiration and its corollary relationship with water demand as
shown in Figure 3-15 could be used to generally predict seasonal increases or decreases
in water demand trends.
The ability to predict water demands is of particular value to the City given the need to request
changes to the amount of water released from Hyalite Reservoir 48 hours in advance.
3.4.3 Irrigation
Potable water used for irrigation is a major focus of the City’s water conservation program. As
the City continues to grow, understanding potable irrigation demands specifically by land use
can help future conservation efforts and provide guidance for implementing best management
practices. To that end, a high-level analysis was performed to determine potable irrigation rates
by land use.
The information presented in this section is intended to provide a generalization of the City’s
potable irrigation usage by land use and does not reflect specific developments, landscaping,
site location, elevation, or other key factors that may influence irrigation demand. To determine
the potable irrigation demand, the following steps and corresponding assumptions were made:
Irrigation demand was calculated by subtracting the average winter demand in year 2014
from the peak summer month demand in year 2014 for each type of land use. The
difference was assumed to be the amount of potable water used for irrigation expressed
in units of Gal/Day.
To determine the amount of potable water being directly applied to the landscape, the
amount of pervious area per land use was estimated using the City’s impervious GIS
layer. Areas outside of the impervious layer per land use class was also estimated and
assumed to be 100 percent pervious. The 2014 impervious GIS Data was the most
current data available at the time of the analysis.
Irrigation demand per land use was then applied to the pervious land use layer. The new
layer represents the amount of potable water used per irrigated acre in (Gal/Acre/Day).
The results of the analysis used to identify the amount of potable water used for irrigation by
individual land use types is presented in Table 3.2.
General observations of the analysis include:
The top irrigators in terms of total water used (gal/day) are residential land uses (single-
household, multi-household, duplex/triplex).
The top irrigators in terms of water per acre are also the residential land uses with the
addition of hotel/motel, restaurant/bar and some additional commercial land users;
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 31
however, increases in summer water use could be due to increased services provided
(increased hotel occupancy, more people eating at establishments, etc.) during the
summer in addition to irrigation water use.
The remaining land use categories use less water from both a total and per acre
perspective.
Land Use Description
2014 Irrigation Usage
Gal/Day Gal/Acre/Day
SFR Single-Household Residential 3,334,509 2,734
MFR Multi-Household Residential 363,690 1,119
DTR Duplex/Triplex Residential 308,456 1,850
POS Parks or Open Space 271,935 203
CR Commercial Retail Sales, Services, Banks 235,501 1,377
AP Administrative Professional 148,909 1,493
HM Hotel/Motel 146,303 3,009
MIXED Mixed Use 105,853 843
CA Commercial Auto Sales, Rental, Parts, Storage, Gas, Service 104,487 2,021
RB Restaurant/Bar 53,892 4,180
PFP Public Facility 43,241 109
CHURCH Church 30,683 467
MHMP Mobile Home, Mobile Park, Manufactured Housing 27,754 516
SEF School/Educational Facility 23,676 37
LM Light Manufacturing 16,685 61
GOLF Golf Course 2,466 14
ROW Right-of-Way - -
UDV Undeveloped - -
VACANT Vacant - -
Table 3.2: Estimated Irrigation Water Use
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 32
3.5 Water Demand Projections
Historical water use data is frequently used to project future usage demands. These future
demand projections are crucial in developing capital improvement plans. For this analysis,
future water demand projections are based on a combination of the following items:
Historical water usage categorized by land use;
Anticipated future land use characteristics (anticipated land use type, and associated
area);
Development of water duty factors (WDFs), which are a measurement of water demands
in gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac). Adjustments to the WDFs can be made based on
changes in development plans, water conservation, climate change, or any additional
factors that affect the amount of water used. An overview of the demand projection
methodology is provided in Figure 3-16.
Figure 3-16: Overview of Future Water Demand Projection Methodology
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 33
3.5.1 Future Land Use
Future land use estimates were developed as follows:
1. The 2009 Bozeman Community Plan was used to identify future land use for the service
area outside of the existing municipal City boundary.
2. Areas located within the municipal City boundary that are currently vacant or
undeveloped are considered infill.
3. Land use designations for future infill were populated using existing City zoning
classifications.
4. Future land use information for this study was provided by the City in a GIS database
that contained mapped polygons and attributes. The City’s GIS information was used
as a starting point for the development of a new database that incorporated all future
land use within the UBO.
5. Communication with City staff confirmed land use designations for future development;
the City also provided information with respect to identified known land use changes
and the use of outside information that was previously missing from the GIS database
provided by the City. This resulted in the addition of Montana State University’s (MSU)
long-range growth plan, which includes MSU and MSU West4. In addition, a small area
located northwest of existing City limits, which was not included in the 2009 Bozeman
Community Plan, was classified as future urban.
Figure 3-17 and Figure 3-18 present the proposed land use for the City infill and areas outside
the existing municipal City boundary, respectively. The growth areas shown on these figures
are summarized in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4, respectively.
4 Montana State University Long Range Campus Development Plan. (2008, December). Retrieved July, 2016,
from http://www.montana.edu/lrcdp/documents/LRCDP_merge.pdf
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 36
Zoning District Infill Area (Acres)
Neighborhood Business District 47
Community Business District 206
Central Business District 1
Business Park District 141
Northeast Historic Mixed-Use District 2
Light Manufacturing District 210
Manufacturing and Industrial District 149
Public Lands and Institutions District 28
Residential Single-Household Low Density District 437
Residential Two-Household Medium Density District 206
Residential Medium Density District 674
Residential High Density District 190
Residential Mix Use 115
Residential Manufactured Home Community District 54
Residential Office District 596
Residential Suburban District 35
Urban Mixed Use 31
Total 3,120
Table 3.3: Future Infill Area Zoning Summary
Land Use Designations Future Service
Area (Acres)
Residential 5,790
Residential Emphasis Mixed Use 26
Suburban Residential 4,289
Regional Commercial and Services 15
Community Core 0
Community Commercial Mixed Use 259
Business Park Mixed Use (BP) 33
Industrial 50
Public Institutions 104
Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands 1,066
Other Public Lands 1,296
Golf Course 315
Future Urban 18,564
MSU 338
MSU West 560
Total 32,704
Table 3.4: Future Service Area Land Use Summary
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 37
The City’s current UBO boundary (2009 Community Plan plus the new northwest section from
the TMP) covers approximately 44,881 acres. Approximately 12,803 of these acres are located
within the current municipal boundaries of Bozeman. A total of 3,120 acres is within the current
boundary, but remain undeveloped. This area was designated as future infill, accounting for
approximately seven percent of the future UBO area.
Approximately 32,704 acres of the 44,881 UBO acres are outside of the current municipal
boundary, which is 71 percent of the total UBO land area. The predominant land use classes for
future land use are expected to be future urban, residential, and suburban residential.
Together, the undeveloped areas (infill and future development) represent 78 percent of the
total area within the UBO area.
3.5.2 Water Duty Factors
As presented in Figure 3-16, the demand projection methodology is based on land use and the
development of WDFs. A WDF is a unit of measurement of consumption, in gallons per day
per acre (gpd/ac). The five-step process used to develop WDFs is summarized below:
1. Analyze water meter consumption data provided by the City.
2. Geographically reference existing land use polygons to water meter locations.
3. Determine the average and maximum day demand for each land use polygon to identify
current WDFs for each land use classification.
4. Apply the current WDFs calculated for each land use to future development (including
infill) land use designations.
5. Adjust WDFs to reflect future water conservation estimates.
3.5.2.1 Water Duty Demand Factor Development
City staff provided customer water consumption data with spatially located water meter records
from 2006 through 2015 and City parcel data (in the form of polygons with City land use
designation attributes assigned) in GIS format. The water meter consumption data was analyzed
to determine water use trends, patterns, and seasonal variation. Water consumption data
remained relatively consistent over the 10-year time period.
Consumption data from 2009 (a wet year) and 2012 (a dry) were selected and georeferenced to
the City’s land use polygon layer. The City’s water consumption data based on metered records
were linked to their respective land parcels, which established a direct correlation to the amount
of water used with the acreage served. The geographical link provided the means to then
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 38
calculate the water use by area for each land use designation. Figure 3-19 illustrates the
methodology used to link the water meter records to the polygon layer.
Figure 3-19: Geographically Linked Water Meter Records to Land Use Polygon
Illustration
The water consumption records linked to the City’s land use polygons were then used to
calculate WDFs (gpd/ac) by taking the total annual water demand by land use designation and
dividing the resulting value by the associated total polygon acreage. Calculated WDFs are
presented in Table 3.5 for existing land use within the municipal City boundary for the 2009
and 2012 data sets.
The same process was used to calculate WDFs for infill areas within the City. The calculated
WDFs for infill are presented in Table 3.6.
Key takeaways from the analysis to calculate the 2009 and 2012 WDFs include the following:
Maximum day water usage increased for residential land uses (Duplex/Triplex
Residential, Multi-Household Residential, Mobile Home, and Single Family
Residential) during the 2012 dry year.
Average day water usage is similar during wet and dry years.
MDD is 9.8 MGD and 11.4 MGD for 2009 and 2012, respectively.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 39
2009 Wet Year 2012 Dry Year
Land Use Description Maximum Day
(gpd/ac)
Average Day
(gpd/ac)
Maximum Day
(gpd/ac)
Average Day
(gpd/ac)
AG/OUT Agriculture / Outside City 0 0 0 0
AP Administrative Professional 2,520 1,300 2,230 1,210
CA Commercial Auto Sales, Rental, Parts, Storage,
Gas, Service
1,870 1,050 1,860 1,070
CHURCH Church 700 310 680 250
CR Commercial Retail Sales, Services, Banks 1,540 750 1,460 770
DTR Duplex/Triplex Residential 2,890 1,510 3,110 1,500
GOLF Golf Course 40 20 20 10
HM Hotel/Motel 6,560 3,590 4,580 2,790
LM Light Manufacturing 610 400 430 320
MFR Multi-Household Residential 2,310 1,480 2,630 1,730
MHMP Mobile Home, Mobile Park, Manufactured
Housing
1,280 910 1,650 1,120
MIXED Mixed Use 1,300 810 1,340 800
PFP Public Facility 250 100 270 120
POS Parks or Open Space 220 80 330 110
RB Restaurant/Bar 4,270 2,630 3,920 2,430
ROW Rights-of-Way 0 0 0 0
SEF School/Educational Facility 810 480 520 310
SFR Single-Household Residential 2,680 1,180 3,440 1,330
UDV Undeveloped 0 0 0 0
VACANT Vacant 0 0 0 0
Table 3.5: Existing Land Use WDFs
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 40
2009 Wet Year 2012 Dry Year
Zoning
District Description Maximum
(gpd/ac)
Average Day
(gpd/ac)
Maximum
(gpd/ac)
Average Day
(gpd/ac)
B-1 Neighborhood Business District 1,660 940 1,840 940
B-2 Community Business District 1,420 780 1,100 640
B-3 Central Business District 5,000 2,890 3,300 1,920
BP Business Park District 620 380 580 380
HMU Northeast Historic Mixed-Use District 1,390 830 1,220 630
M-1 Light Manufacturing District 320 140 230 120
M-2 Manufacturing and Industrial District 220 150 60 30
PLI Public Lands and Institutions District 470 250 390 180
R-1 Residential Single-Household Low Density
District
1,520 650 1,590 600
R-2 Residential Two-Household Medium Density
District
1,700 880 1,720 780
R-3 Residential Medium Density District 1,160 580 1,170 540
R-4 Residential High Density District 960 600 920 540
REMU Residential Emphasis Mixed Use 0 0 0 0
R-MH Residential Manufactured Home Community
District
380 270 380 270
R-O Residential-Office District 730 410 680 370
R-S Residential Suburban District 160 70 190 70
UMU Urban Mixed Use 0 0 0 0
Table 3.6: Existing Infill Zoning District WDFs
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 41
3.5.2.2 Infill Water Duty Factors
The values calculated for the 2009 and 2012 WDFs were adjusted to match the calculated ADD
(5.2 MGD) and MDD (11.7 MGD) as shown in Table 3.1. The adjusted values were then
averaged to estimate infill demand and are assumed to represent future infill demand within the
City boundary. Table 3.7 shows maximum and average day WDFs used in the hydraulic
analysis.
Zoning
District Description Maximum Day
(gpd/ac)
Average Day
(gpd/ac)
Infill Area
(Acres)
B-1 Neighborhood Business District 1,925 935 47
B-2 Community Business District 1,405 705 206
B-3 Central Business District 4,650 2,400 1
BP Business Park District 665 380 141
HMU Northeast Historic Mixed-Use District 1,450 725 2
M-1 Light Manufacturing District 305 130 210
M-2 Manufacturing and Industrial District 160 95 149
PLI Public Lands and Institutions District 480 220 28
R-1 Residential Single-Household Low
Density District 1,720 620 437
R-2 Residential Two-Household Medium
Density District 1,885 820 206
R-3 Residential Medium Density District 1,290 555 674
R-4 Residential High Density District 1,040 570 190
REMU Residential Emphasis Mixed Use 1,823 873 115
R-MH Residential Manufactured Home
Community District 420 265 54
R-O Residential-Office District 780 385 596
R-S Residential Suburban District 190 70 35
UMU Urban Mixed Use 1,757 751 31
Total 3,120
Table 3.7: Future Infill Zoning District WDFs
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 42
3.5.2.3 Future Land Use Water Duty Factors
The values calculated for the 2009 and 2012 WDFs in both Table 3.5 and Table 3.6 were also
used to represent future service area demands. Existing demands by land use class were
assigned to consistent classes of future land use areas. However, there are discrepancies
between current land use classifications in the City’s GIS database and future land use
categories identified in the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan. The inconsistencies required some
minor adjustments and assumptions for cross-referencing. For example, existing single family
residential was included in the future land use residential category. In some cases, multiple land
use categories and their associated demands were assigned to a particular future land use, and
a weighted average (based on current ratios of these classes to one another) was utilized. The
initial data set was presented to the City and modified based on staff comments and reasonable
judgment. Table 3.8 shows the recommended WDF values for future land use areas.
Land Use Maximum Day
(Gal/Acre/Day)
Average Day
(Gal/Acre/Day)
Future Service
Area
(Acres)
Residential 1,757 751 5,790
Residential Emphasis Mixed Use 1,455 805 26
Suburban Residential 419 182 4,289
Regional Commercial and Services 1,740 815 15
Community Core 2,635 1,285 0
Community Commercial Mixed Use 2,635 1,285 259
Business Park Mixed Use (BP) 1,525 780 33
Industrial 580 355 50
Public Institutions 290 110 104
Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands 480 90 1,066
Other Public Lands 480 220 1,296
Golf Course 35 15 315
Future Urban 1757 751 18,564
MSU 3,058 2,780 338
MSU West 1,133 1,030 560
Total 32,704
Table 3.8: Future Service Area Land Use WDFs
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 43
3.5.2.4 Future Water Duty Factors with Water Conservation
Future land use WDFs developed previously and shown in Table 3.8 do not account for the
potential trends related to water conservation. Typically, newer construction incorporates better
technologies to decrease water usage, such as high efficiency fixtures. Increased water use
efficiency can reduce the overall system demand during peak periods, ideally saving water and
delaying the need for expanding infrastructure (i.e. increasing capacity of WTP, adding new
sources of supply, etc.).
To account for the results of future water conservation objectives established by the City,
specific WDFs previously calculated in Table 3.8 were reduced as follows:
MDD was reduced by 10 percent across all land use categories
ADD was reduced by 15 percent for all residential and future urban land uses.
The water use reduction targets were derived from estimates provided by Water Research
Foundation5 and in coordination with the City’s Water Conservation Division. Table 3.9 shows
the future area land use WDFs following the application of the demand reduction factors.
Land Use Maximum Day
(Gal/Acre/Day)
Average Day
(Gal/Acre/Day)
Future Service Area
(Acres)
Residential 1,582 638 5,790
Residential Emphasis Mixed Use 1,310 684 26
Suburban Residential 377 155 4,289
Regional Commercial and Services 1,566 815 15
Community Core 2,372 1,285 0
Community Commercial Mixed Use 2,372 1,285 259
Business Park Mixed Use (BP) 1,373 780 33
Industrial 522 355 50
Public Institutions 261 94 104
Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands 432 90 1,066
Other Public Lands 432 220 1,296
Golf Course 32 15 315
Future Urban 1,582 638 18,564
MSU 2,752 2,780 338
MSU West 1,020 1,030 560
Total 32,704
Table 3.9: Future Service Area Land Use WDFs with Water Conservation
5 DeOreo, W. B., Mayer, P. W., Dziegielewski, B., & Kiefer, J. (2016). Residential end uses of water, version 2.
Denver, CO: Water Research Foundation. Pages (211-233)
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 3 – Water Use Characterization
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 44
3.5.3 Future Water Demand Summary
The WDFs shown in Table 3.7, Table 3.8, and Table 3.9 were spatially distributed based on
their respective land use class within the hydraulic model. Table 3.10 shows the resulting future
system demands that represent the total overall system demand for the UBO system.
Demand Condition UBO Water Demand
(MGD)
Average Day Demand 23.8
Average Day Demand with Conservation 21.5
Maximum Day Demand 53.6
Maximum Day Demand with Conservation 49.8
Table 3.10: Future System Demands
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 45
CHAPTER 4 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODEL UPDATE
The following section provides an overview of the data sources used to create the hydraulic
model of Bozeman’s water distribution system.
InfoWater® (Version 10.5) hydraulic modeling software was used for development and
calibration of the model. InfoWater® is a fully GIS integrated water distribution modeling and
management software application. InfoWater®, which runs on the EPANET hydraulic engine,
integrates water network modeling with ArcGIS.
4.1 Existing Model Conversion and Development
The following information was provided by the City and incorporated into the hydraulic model:
GIS geodatabase of the water distribution system to develop the pipe network for the
hydraulic model. GIS information included water main, valves, and hydrants.
Finished water source locations and flows, booster station system pump curves, water
storage reservoir information (volumes and elevations).
Finished water flow rates, pressures, and water storage levels were collected from the
supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system in 5-minute increments
during the testing periods, including fire flow testing, extended period simulation, and
periods used for demand curve development.
A digital elevation model (LiDAR) provided by the City was used to extract elevations
for hydrants with unknown elevation. Elevation data was used to determine pressures
throughout the distribution system during field testing and calibration.
A comprehensive “all-pipes” hydraulic model was developed for the City. As the name
suggests, an all pipes model accounts for all water main, hydrants, and hydrant leads within the
system.
To create the water pipe network for the hydraulic model, Feature Manipulation Engine (FME)
data integration software was used to transform existing GIS feature class data into a format
that allowed quality auditing and input into the hydraulic model. The FME script created to
transform the data is explained in greater detail in Appendix B.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 46
4.2 Demand Allocation
A crucial element of water distribution modeling is determining accurate, representative water
demands. Equally important is the spatial distribution of these demands throughout the water
distribution system. Water demand allocation is the process of accurately distributing these
water demands to the correct points of consumption within the model.
4.2.1 Base Demand
Meter billing records from 2015 were analyzed and used to spatially distribute the base demand
within the existing water distribution system. The records from 2015 were used because the
data spatially represents all current users within the system with the most recent water use
information at the time of model calibration. The monthly usage data was converted to an
average consumption rate in units of gpm.
The consumption rates were spatially distributed using InfoWater Demand Allocator®. This
InfoWater module uses GIS technology to assign geocoded consumption data to a designated
location within the water distribution system. For each meter record, algorithms in the software
were used to distribute the water demands to the closest pipe. The water demands were then
allocated proportionally to the nodes at each end of the pipe. For each node within the model,
all of the contributing water demands were summed to represent the total demand imposed on
that particular node.
When comparing the total water usage from the meter billing records with the water production
records, there were discrepancies within the data that needed to be resolved. These
discrepancies are partially due to NRW loss. As discussed in Section 3.3.3, the NRW for the
City of Bozeman ranged from 4.5 to 13.7 percent from 2006 through 2015 with a recommended
value of 9 percent for planning purposes.
To resolve the inconsistency between water production records and computed customer usage,
the NRW factor of 9 percent was globally applied to the water demands. The goal of these
analyses is to balance water production and demands within the model and thereby create a
mass balance of the water production, storage, and demands within the model of the distribution
system.
4.2.2 Diurnal Demand Pattern
Water usage for any distribution system is highly variable over the course of a day, due to
fluctuations in water demand. In municipal systems, there will typically be a morning and an
evening peak in customer water use. The resulting daily demand pattern is referred to as the
diurnal demand curve. Diurnal patterns are impacted by seasonal and climatic conditions
(winter vs. summer, precipitation events, etc.). Large users such as industrial or commercial
businesses also have an impact on diurnal demand patterns.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 47
The diurnal demand curve for Bozeman’s water distribution system was constructed using the
flow balance technique. For a water distribution system, a flow balance simply indicates that
the water that enters the distribution system must be equal to the water that exits the distribution
system, plus or minus any changes to the volume contained in water storage facilities.
The following steps were taken to develop the diurnal demand pattern for Bozeman:
A flow balance was constructed from water meters at the WTP and Lyman reservoir,
and water storage reservoir level readings (Sourdough and Hilltop) from the SCADA
system collected in five-minute increments.
The data were then averaged into hourly increments to define the diurnal pattern over
the entire day for the entire distribution system.
o The summer diurnal demand curve was constructed using data from August 20th
through August 26th, 2015.
o Diurnal demand patterns were also prepared for each day during the fire flow
testing period and the extended pressure testing period from October 12th
through October 18th, 2015.
o An average diurnal demand curve was constructed using the weekday August
data. This data was assumed to represent average summer day and maximum
day scenarios developed within the model.
o An average diurnal demand curve was constructed from the weekday October
data and assumed to represent the average day and winter day scenarios
developed within the model.
Figure 4-1 shows the diurnal demand pattern for summer and maximum day demands. Figure
4-2 shows the diurnal demand pattern for average and winter day demands. An hourly demand
factor equal to 1.0 indicates that the system demand for the hour period is equal to the average
hourly demand. An hourly demand factor equal to 1.75 indicates that the system demand for
the hour period is 1.75 times higher than the average hourly demand. The diurnal demand
patterns are applied to system demands to develop diurnal curves used for calibration and
modeling.
The time step for the diurnal curve used in the model was one hour. Although a smaller time
step could be used, it is not recommended because small errors in reservoir water levels on time
steps shorter than one hour can lead to large errors in water use calculations. The diurnal
demand curves were incorporated into the model and used in conjunction with the field data to
assist in the calibration of the hydraulic model.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 48
Figure 4-1: Typical Summer/Maximum Day Diurnal Demand Pattern
Figure 4-2: Typical Average/Winter Day Diurnal Demand Pattern
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 49
4.3 Field Testing & Data Collection
The objective of creating a model is to generate a tool for predicting the distribution system
network’s behavior within an acceptable range of accuracy. To generate an accurate model, a
robust calibration process must be conducted.
Field data collected for calibration of the water distribution system model included water
storage levels, fire hydrant flow tests, and extended pressure tests. Data was collected by the
SCADA system during the period of field testing. Fire hydrant flow tests were conducted at 75
locations throughout the distribution system. Extended pressure tests were performed at 12 key
locations within the distribution system to assist in estimating distribution system pipe
roughness coefficients (C-factors). The tasks and protocol followed for performing these field
tests are described in further detail in the following sections.
To verify the calibration of the hydraulic model, pressures generated by the hydraulic model
were compared to actual observed system pressures. Once differences were known between
actual field data and hydraulic model output, adjustments were made within the hydraulic model
to better simulate the existing distribution system performance. The adjustments included
modifications to piping roughness coefficients and system demands. The final results were
compared with the observed field results to measure the calibration quality achieved.
Section 4.3 describes the field testing procedures performed, and Section 4.4 addresses the
calibration process performed in the model.
4.3.1 Fire Hydrant Flow Tests
Flow tests performed at fire hydrants provide valuable insight into the calibration of pipe
roughness and system demands. Fire hydrant flow tests were conducted at 75 locations
throughout the City. The hydrant flow testing was performed from September 28th through
October 1st, 2015. A map indicating the location of each fire hydrant test is shown in Figure
4-3. Refer to Appendix C for field data sheets showing detailed locations of each fire flow test
and data recorded during each test.
Two or more hydrants are involved in a fire hydrant flow test. One hydrant is identified as the
pressure hydrant where all pressure measurements are taken, and the other hydrant(s) are flow
hydrant(s), where water is discharged and flow measurements are taken. The pressure at the
hydrants prior to opening any hydrants is the static pressure. When one or more flowed hydrants
are open, the pressure at the pressure hydrant is called the residual pressure. If one hydrant
does not create a large enough drop in pressure (NFPA 291 recommends a goal of at least a 25
percent drop in pressure), additional hydrants should be opened to generate larger flows and
increased pressure drop.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 50
A Telog® Hydrant Pressure Recorder (HPR) was used to record the static and residual pressures
at the pressure hydrant. The flow was recorded at the flowed hydrants using a Pollard hydrant
diffuser and a HPR. The hydrant diffuser incorporates a pitot gauge connected to a threaded
fitting. A HPR is threaded onto the diffuser to record the pressure head. The pitot gauge
converts the velocity head associated with the discharge from the fire hydrant into pressure head
that is recorded by the HPR. The HPRs were set to sample and record pressure data at 1-second
intervals for the fire hydrant flow tests. The pressure head recorded by the HPR is converted
into a hydrant discharge rate through the use of an orifice relationship equation.
To properly calibrate the model, the following information was recorded at the time of the fire
hydrant flow test:
1. Time and date;
2. Hydrant location;
3. Flow rate of hydrant being flowed;
4. Duration of the hydrant flow test;
5. Static and residual pressures at the corresponding test hydrant location. The
results of the fire hydrant flow tests are discussed in Section 4.4; and
6. Simultaneous information from the SCADA system on water storage levels,
pump operation, and metered flow rates were also collected and used in the
calibration process.
4.3.2 Extended Pressure Testing
To assist in the determination of the roughness coefficient of water mains, extended pressure
testing was performed at 12 locations throughout Bozeman’s water distribution system. HPRs
were installed on fire hydrants for approximately two to three weeks to record changes in
pressures within the distribution system. Data from one week (from October 12th through
October 18th, 2015) was utilized during calibration. A map indicating the location of each
extended pressure test is shown in Figure 4-6.
Refer to Appendix D for field data sheets showing detailed locations of each extended pressure
test. The field pressures for the EPS tests were sampled at 1 second intervals and the minimum,
maximum, and average pressures were recorded at 5 minute intervals to allow for extended data
logging. This data was used to fine-tune pipe roughness coefficients of water mains in the
distribution system. The results of the extended pressure testing are discussed in Section 4.4.3.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 52
Figure 4-4 shows the diffuser, HPR, and data collector used during the fire hydrant flow tests.
Figure 4-5 shows the operation of a flowed hydrant.
Figure 4-4: Diffuser, HPR, and Data Collector
Figure 4-5: Operation of a Flowed Hydrant
Data
Collector
Collector
Diffuser
HPR
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 54
4.4 Model Calibration
The guidelines presented below by the authors of Water Distribution Modeling6give some
numerical guidelines for calibration accuracy:
“The model should accurately predict hydraulic grade line (HGL) to within five
to 10 feet at calibration data points during fire flow tests and to the accuracy
of the elevation and pressure data during normal demands. It should also
reproduce water storage level fluctuations to within three to six feet for EPS
runs and match treatment plant/pump station flows to within 10 to 20 percent.”
The above guideline is not definitive, but is a good gauge of a model’s accuracy. The more
accurate the model, the more confidence there can be in future model simulations.
4.4.1 Calibration Process
A robust effort was made to allocate demands by meter location throughout the water
distribution system, as described in Section 4.2. Therefore, the primary focus of the calibration
effort was on pipe roughness coefficients used in the model. The coefficients were adjusted to
more closely match field data collected during the fire hydrant flow tests.
The calibration process can be summarized in the following steps:
System operational data such as water storage levels, pump and control valve operation,
meter data, and estimated system demands were also entered into the model for each of
the flow tests.
After the background data was entered and the fire flow test was simulated, model
results were compared with field measurements.
When model results varied from the observed field measurements, the pipe roughness
coefficients were adjusted.
Adjustments were made to various pipe diameters and pipe materials until the model
results matched the field measurements within an acceptable tolerance. City of
Bozeman operations staff were consulted prior to making adjustments, and staff verified
general pipe conditions prior to making adjustments (i.e. confirming smooth clean pipe
for raising pipe roughness factors and confirming pipe diameter discrepancies where
known).
This adjustment process was also performed for the EPS tests
6 Walski, T. M., Chase, D. V., & Savic, D. (2001). Water distribution modeling. Waterbury, CT, U.S.A.: Haestad
Press.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 55
4.4.2 Calibration Results
Final simulated results from the hydraulic model were compared to the observed field results
to determine the calibration level achieved. The following sections provide an overview of the
model calibration results that indicate a high quality calibration was achieved for the Bozeman
water distribution model.
The results of testing for static and residual pressures during the fire flow tests are presented
below and summarized in Table 4.1.
4.4.2.1 Static Pressure Test Calibration Results
Static pressures were taken at the pressure hydrant before initiating the fire hydrant flow tests.
The observed static pressures along with the simulated pressure from the calibrated hydraulic
model are shown in Table 4.2. Comparison of static pressures from field test results with
simulated hydraulic model results showed that 73 of the 75 tests (97 percent) were within 5 feet
(≈2.2 psi) of the field measurement and all 75 tests (100 percent) were within 10 feet (≈4.3 psi)
of the field test measurement. This level of accuracy is acceptable according to established
criteria identified in Section 4.4.
4.4.2.2 Residual Pressure Test Calibration Results
During each fire hydrant flow test, residual pressures were recorded at a hydrant near the
flowing hydrants. The observed residual pressures along with the simulated pressure from the
hydraulic model are shown in Table 4.2. Comparison of the observed field pressures and the
simulated pressures obtained from the hydraulic model shows that 47 of the 75 tests
(63 percent) were within 5 feet (≈2.2 psi) of the observed field measurement and 63 of the
75 test (84 percent) were within 10 feet (≈4.3 psi).
Fire Flow Tests
Simulated
Pressure readings
within 10 ft
Simulated
Pressure readings
within 5 ft
Static Pressure 100% 97%
Residual Pressure 84% 63%
Table 4.1: Fire Flow Test Model Calibration Results Summary
City staff and hydraulic modelers completed additional database and field investigations in an
attempt to identify reasons for the residual pressure model results falling outside the
recommended guidelines. City staff investigated the GIS database and system maps for
possible missing water main loops or incorrect pipe diameters. The desktop investigation was
completed in the vicinity of Test No. 17, 19, 24, 25, 27, 34, 45, 49, 54, and 59. While some
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 56
minor inconsistencies were found and corrected, they did not correct all of the differences
between the modeled and measured results.
Possible reasons for the reduced accuracy of the residual pressure results include the following:
1. Inaccuracies in model parameters, such as pipe roughness coefficients or nodal demand
distribution.
2. Erroneous or inaccuracies in network data (pipe diameter, valve settings).
3. Incorrect network geometries (pipes connected to incorrect nodes).
4. Measurement equipment errors.
5. Demand variation. The diurnal curve created for the calibration days is used to
determine demand at each hour for the fire flow tests. However, customer demands
change within each hour which may not be recognized within the mass balance of the
system resulting in a difference between modeled and actual system demands.
6. Demand variance in different pressure zones. A lack of sufficient distribution system
flow meter data for each pressure zone of the system results in the use of a generalized
diurnal curve for the entire system. With individual pressure zone diurnal curves, a more
accurate demand can be captured as some zones have little to no irrigation demand and
others have high irrigation demand.
7. Inaccuracies in elevation data. Elevations used throughout the system for junctions and
valves are based on ground elevation from the DEM provided by the City. Elevations
for pump stations and the WTP are based on record drawings. Survey data for the
elevation of reservoirs was provided by the City.
8. Inaccuracies in pump flow between modeled and actual flow rates.
Every complex distribution network model will have some inaccuracy because of the ambiguity
in assumed conditions versus actual conditions and available modeling techniques. The
majority of the modeling results fall within the recommended calibration guidelines. Therefore,
the hydraulic model is considered well calibrated.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 57
Table 4.2: Fire Flow Test Results
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Residual
Pressure
(psi)
1 109.8 90.2 109.25 86.05 0.5 4.2 1,518 1,484 8 Northwest DI
2 75.7 60.4 76.08 61.08 -0.3 -0.7 1,230 1,167 8 Northwest DI
3 81.9 62.8 80.89 61.08 1.0 1.8 1,235 1,215 12 Northwest DI
4 125.4 106.6 124.68 106.01 0.7 0.6 1,615 1,418 12 Northwest DI
5 90.7 71.7 88.77 70.35 1.9 1.3 1,325 1,169 12 Northwest DI
6 88.4 61.0 87.76 62.02 0.6 -1.0 1,287 1,246 8 Northwest DI
7 61.7 46.0 62.09 47.62 -0.4 -1.6 1,083 1,049 8 Northwest DI
8 67.4 57.7 69.24 59.17 -1.9 -1.5 1,212 1,195 8 Northwest DI
9 112.5 97.7 114.92 94.70 -2.4 3.0 1,569 1,552 12 Northwest DI
10 66.1 60.2 66.59 62.15 -0.5 -2.0 1,201 1,233 8 West DI
11 84.6 72.8 85.21 71.67 -0.6 1.1 1,353 1,250 8 West DI
12 95.3 76.0 95.83 73.35 -0.5 2.6 1,350 1,335 10 West DI
13 90.2 85.1 90.14 84.40 0.1 0.7 1,435 1,340 8 West DI
14 73.7 72.5 75.02 72.19 -1.3 0.3 1,342 1,365 8 West DI
15 137.8 86.1 138.77 81.96 -0.9 4.1 1,441 1,426 8 Northeast DI
16 110.3 94.8 111.56 94.41 -1.2 0.4 1,528 1,524 8 Northeast DI
17 143.8 93.8 144.35 71.28 -0.6 22.5 1,571 1,540 8 Northeast DI
18 124.3 109.2 124.93 107.60 -0.6 1.6 1,674 1,693 12 Northeast DI
19 123.7 81.9 124.50 63.34 -0.8 18.5 1,483 1,448 8 Northeast DI
20 127.4 113.1 128.73 112.40 -1.4 0.7 1,596 1,682 8 Northeast DI
21 123.3 89.1 123.92 86.47 -0.6 2.6 1,508 1,419 12 Northeast DI
22 76.4 65.1 77.31 63.12 -0.9 2.0 1,228 1,250 8 Gallatin DI
23 129.9 119.9 131.73 121.47 -1.8 -1.6 1,720 1,610 8 South DI
24 144.5 130.4 144.31 123.97 0.2 6.5 1,845 1,834 8 South DI
25 128.9 115.7 130.05 110.14 -1.1 5.6 1,725 1,702 8 South DI
Test
No.
Measured
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Measured
Residual
Pressure
(psi)
Simulated
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Simulated
Residual
Pressure
(psi)
Pressure Difference
Flow
(gpm)
Watermain
Size
(in)Material
Flow
(gpm)
Pressure
Zone
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 58
Table 4.2 (cont.): Fire Flow Test Results
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Residual
Pressure
(psi)
26 122.2 110.0 121.72 109.34 0.4 0.6 1,681 1,719 10 South DI
27 139.3 104.1 139.96 89.28 -0.7 14.8 1,681 1,619 6 South DI
28 152.6 128.6 153.68 131.31 -1.1 -2.7 1,956 1,739 6 South DI
29 50.5 47.5 50.94 47.57 -0.4 -0.1 1,136 996 8 South DI
30 60.3 58.5 61.60 57.47 -1.3 1.0 1,198 6 South DI
31 52.5 50.2 53.46 50.33 -1.0 -0.1 1,096 8 South DI
32 43.2 40.4 42.65 40.30 0.5 0.1 1,060 12 South DI
33 48.3 41.4 49.08 36.50 -0.8 4.9 944 1,039 6 South CI
34 124.2 60.9 123.42 47.31 0.8 13.6 1,176 1,247 10 South DI
35 142.7 133.8 143.84 134.74 -1.1 -0.9 1,890 1,796 10 South CI
36 127.1 123.6 126.95 123.22 0.1 0.4 1,765 8 South CI
37 132.9 129.1 132.21 127.90 0.6 1.2 1,834 8 South CI
38 150.0 139.3 149.91 138.86 0.1 0.5 1,855 1,404 6 South CI
39 123.9 122.0 124.19 121.05 -0.3 1.0 1,673 10 South CI
40 128.6 126.8 128.85 125.74 -0.3 1.0 1,802 12 South CI
41 139.0 136.8 138.59 134.55 0.4 2.2 1,878 14 South CI
42 107.5 105.3 106.73 104.36 0.7 0.9 1,396 14 South CI
43 151.7 137.8 152.57 133.93 -0.8 3.9 1,989 1,866 8 South DI
44 137.7 112.9 139.10 116.41 -1.4 -3.5 1,601 1,744 6 South CI
45 145.0 128.9 145.38 121.59 -0.4 7.3 1,740 1,593 6 South CI
46 129.9 118.0 131.10 120.93 -1.2 -3.0 1,723 1,615 6 South CI
47 126.5 103.9 126.13 113.47 0.3 -9.6 1,595 6 South CI
48 137.6 126.3 138.66 123.89 -1.0 2.4 1,817 1,661 6 South CI
49 72.6 67.2 73.44 61.10 -0.8 6.1 1,237 6 South CI
50 101.2 87.8 101.32 88.92 -0.1 -1.1 1,358 6 South CI
Test
No.
Measured
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Measured
Residual
Pressure
(psi)
Simulated
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Simulated
Residual
Pressure
(psi)
Pressure Difference
Flow
(gpm)
Watermain
Size
(in)Material
Flow
(gpm)
Pressure
Zone
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 59
Table 4.2 (cont.): Fire Flow Test Results
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Residual
Pressure
(psi)
51 125.8 109.6 125.25 110.67 0.5 -1.0 1,578 6 South CI
52 88.4 64.7 87.87 62.66 0.5 2.0 1,206 6 South DI
53 93.9 83.0 93.98 81.96 -0.1 1.1 1,312 6 South CI
54 142.6 131.2 143.90 122.25 -1.3 8.9 1,869 1,822 8 South CI
55 115.2 109.5 114.73 110.54 0.5 -1.0 1,673 8 South DI
56 153.2 140.7 154.76 139.19 -1.6 1.5 1,998 1,725 14 South DI
57 82.4 74.0 82.18 74.83 0.2 -0.8 1,342 1,299 10 South DI
58 123.4 109.8 121.68 109.05 1.7 0.8 1,621 1,531 12 South DI
59 111.3 88.0 110.38 80.25 0.9 7.8 1,491 1,521 12 South DI
60 157.4 153.9 157.84 154.28 -0.4 -0.4 1,803 12 South DI
61 71.1 70.7 72.11 71.02 -1.0 -0.3 1,277 10 South DI
62 83.0 81.4 83.68 81.33 -0.7 0.1 1,362 24 South DI
63 130.6 118.3 129.74 117.79 0.9 0.5 1,689 1,746 10 South DI
64 131.5 128.3 131.90 126.69 -0.4 1.6 1,739 8 South DI
65 142.6 133.7 143.09 131.35 -0.5 2.4 1,964 1,814 10 South DI
66 120.3 116.7 119.80 116.32 0.5 0.4 1,732 8 South DI
67 112.5 109.0 114.15 109.57 -1.7 -0.6 1,660 8 South DI
68 100.8 98.7 102.90 97.50 -2.1 1.2 1,494 8 South DI
69 101.8 92.6 101.50 91.08 0.3 1.6 1,446 1,532 8 South DI
70 100.2 66.6 101.21 71.00 -1.0 -4.4 1,385 1,273 10 South DI
71 69.2 66.7 69.06 65.60 0.2 1.1 1,305 12 South DI
72 140.4 135.6 139.79 135.20 0.6 0.4 1,870 10 South DI
73 36.4 32.8 37.01 33.19 -0.6 -0.3 823 810 12 South DI
74 120.5 118.6 120.71 116.51 -0.2 2.1 1,748 8 South DI
75 61.3 42.1 62.76 42.91 -1.5 -0.8 1,047 1,101 8 Knoll DI
Test
No.
Measured
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Measured
Residual
Pressure
(psi)
Simulated
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Simulated
Residual
Pressure
(psi)
Pressure Difference
Flow
(gpm)
Watermain
Size
(in)Material
Flow
(gpm)
Pressure
Zone
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 60
4.4.3 Extended Period Simulation (EPS) Calibration Results
The hydraulic model was further refined to match water storage levels and extended pressure
testing results with the hydraulic model during extended period simulations. Fine-tuning was
accomplished through adjustment of both pipe roughness coefficient factors and global demand
adjustments. SCADA information from August 20th through August 26th, 2015 and from
October 12th through October 18th, 2015 was used to adjust and calibrate the hydraulic model
for extended period simulations.
Most EPS calibrations concern the examination of curves of observed versus modeled water
storage levels. Comparison of actual water storage levels and extended pressure testing was
performed for each of the above-mentioned EPS test days. Comparisons of observed and
modeled results for August 20th, 2015 are shown graphically in Figure 4-7 as a typical
calibration chart. The storage level curves and detailed calibration results for the calibration
period are presented in Appendix E. A comparison of the observed versus simulated model
results is presented in Table 4.3. These results indicate that the hydraulic model simulation
matches well with the observed water storage levels and pressure readings. The simulated water
storage level curves trend closely with the observed data from the SCADA system.
The simulated water storage levels were within 6 feet of the observed water storage levels for
100 percent of the time for the fourteen (14) calibration days. In a comparison of simulated
levels within 3 feet of the observed storage levels, results show that the model was within the
tolerance 100 percent of the time. Differences that were observed within the calibration of
storage levels could be caused by changes in demand or operations within the system that could
not be identified during the calibration. Based upon the criteria set forth above, these results
are within the acceptable level of tolerance for model calibration.
During the initial review of EPS field test data (October 12th through the 18th, 2015), it was
determined that there was an unaccounted for pressure loss for EPS Test No. 11 and 12:
Test No. 11 was located in the Northwest Zone near large multi-family housing
structures and a middle school. Model results for this location differed from field testing
data during the morning hours, suggesting that the demand pattern for this area might
be different from the rest of the distribution system. A specific diurnal demand pattern
for this area cannot be generated without significant field testing including additional
flow and pressure monitoring in the Northwest Zone. The model differences for this
area are not considered to have a significant impact on the existing system analysis or
future planning efforts.
Test No. 12 was located upstream of PRV 14 which feeds the Northwest Zone. Model
results for this location differed from field testing data during morning hours through
early afternoon. This difference in data for this test suggested that there was
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 61
unaccounted headloss within the transmission main feeding PRV 14. This loss could
not be attributed to typical C-factors. City staff exercised numerous system valves to
find partially or fully closed valves on the transmission main; however, none were
found. Because of the unknown source or magnitude of the headloss factor, the model
was constructed without the headloss factor for the pipe upstream of PRV 14.
Table 4.3 lists the EPS results. The simulated pressure readings were within 10 feet of the
observed pressure readings 99 percent of the time and within 5 feet of the observed readings
approximately 95 percent of the time. Based upon the criteria established in Section 4.4, these
results indicate an acceptable overall level of tolerance for model calibration. The majority of
the outlying data points are located at EPS Test No. 11 and 12, as discussed.
Detailed EPS calibration results for each test location are presented in Appendix E.
Date
Reservoir Levels Extended Pressure Tests*
Level readings
within 6 ft
Level readings
within 3 ft
Pressure readings
within 10 ft
Pressure readings
within 5 ft
August 20, 2015 100% 100% - -
August 21, 2015 100% 100% - -
August 22, 2015 100% 100% - -
August 23, 2015 100% 100% - -
August 24, 2015 100% 100% - -
August 25, 2015 100% 100% - -
August 26, 2015 100% 100% - -
October 12, 2015 100% 100% 99% 94%
October 13, 2015 100% 100% 99% 97%
October 14, 2015 100% 100% 99% 95%
October 15, 2015 100% 100% 100% 97%
October 16, 2015 100% 100% 100% 95%
October 17, 2015 100% 100% 98% 94%
October 18, 2015 100% 100% 98% 96%
Total 100% 100% 99% 95%
*Note: Nearly all data points that do not fall within parameters are at the following locations:
-Test No. 11 located within the NW pressure zone
-Test No. 12 located upstream of PRV 14 within the NE pressure zone
Table 4.3: Observed versus Simulated Model Results for Water Storage Levels and
Extended Pressure Tests
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 4 – Water Distribution System Model Update
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 62
Figure 4-7: Water Storage Level Comparison – August 20, 2015
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 63
CHAPTER 5 DESIGN PARAMETERS AND EVALUATION
CRITERIA
Design parameters identify the features and performance requirements of distribution system
infrastructure, and provide the standard against which system performance is assessed. The
design parameters and criteria presented within this section were used to evaluate the
performance of the existing Bozeman water distribution system, and to conceptualize system
improvements (water mains, storage, and pumping facilities) necessary to maintain system
reliability and accommodate future growth and development of the system.
Design parameters and evaluation criteria are established herein for water system pressures,
transmission and distribution piping, fire protection, and distribution system storage and
pumping facilities. The criteria were established based on industry standards, Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), existing City codes, and engineering
judgment.
5.1 Water System Pressure
When evaluating the adequacy of a water distribution system, it is paramount to ensure that
adequate pressure is supplied throughout the system. Generally, there are three design pressures
that should be defined by each utility:
1. Minimum pressure during peak hour;
2. Minimum pressure during a fire flow; and
3. Maximum pressure.
Table 5.1 presents the water distribution system pressure criteria used for master planning
purposes.
Distribution System Pressures Criteria (psi)
Maximum Pressure 110
Mountain Zone Maximum Pressure1 150
Minimum Pressure during Peak Hour demand2 50
Minimum Pressure during a Fire Flow 20
Notes:
1. Mountain Zones involve regions within the study area with extreme topographic change such as the
Bridger Foothills and Story Hills. 2. Areas near reservoirs and on the edge of pressure zones, a minimum pressure of 35 psi during PHD
operations is acceptable.
Table 5.1: Hydraulic Criteria Pressure Recommendations
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 64
5.1.1 Maximum Pressure
Maximum pressure refers to the maximum pressure that a customer will experience at their
residential or business service connection. High pressures within distribution systems can be
problematic, resulting in a number of issues such as increased wear on system components,
more frequent leaks and breaks, and extreme pressure variations. These issues have been
experienced by the City, as operators identified pressure transients and breaks in areas of the
system that are known to have high pressure. For example, during a PRV repair on Oak Street,
the distribution system experienced water hammer that caused fire sprinkler flow alarms to
trigger throughout North 19th Avenue. Furthermore, water main breaks quickly become
catastrophic, creating excessive damage to the surrounding area and creating a safety risk for
both the community and City operations staff.
The City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy Document, states the
following in Section V: Utility Design Criteria:
Pressure Reducing Valves: Pressure reducing valves shall be installed when the
anticipated average day line pressure exceeds 120 psi.
A pressure evaluation of other cities in Montana was completed to determine if the City’s
current recommended maximum pressure should be adjusted. Table 5.2 presents recommended
operating pressures from the MDEQ Circular No.17 and other cities in Montana.
The pressure evaluation showed that other cities across the state of Montana have operating
pressures that range from 35-150 psi. The establishment of 150 psi was based on engineering
judgment of the community’s specification. The City of Helena and City of Great Falls suggest
a normal operating range of 50-110 psi. Based on the terrain of Bozeman, existing system
pressures, and the operating ranges advised in Table 5.2, the recommended pressure ranges
listed in Table 5.3 are suggested to carry forward for master planning purposes.
7 Circular DEQ 1 Standards for Water Works. (August 8, 2014). Helena, MT: Montana Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 65
Source
Recommended
Operating
Range (psi)
Source Notes
Montana
DEQ8 35-80
“The minimum working pressure in the distribution system should be 35 psi
(240 kPa) and the maximum normal working pressure should be
approximately 60 to 80 psi (410-550 kPa).”
Great
Falls9 35-110
“Water pressure varies throughout the city and is affected by the elevation at
which the service is supplied and the reservoir or pumps which service your
location. Pressure range varies from approximately 35 to 110 psi. Daily and
seasonal usage may also cause pressure fluctuations. Pressure requirements
for service are based upon average calculated pressures.”
Helena10 50-110
“…The normal operating range of pressure allowed for water system design
is 50-110 psi or as approved by the Public Works Department without the use
of booster or fire pumps.”
Billings11 35-150
“…2.2.B.1 Revise Sentence to read: Furnish Special Thickness Class 52
wall thickness meeting AWWA C 151, American National Standard for
Ductile Iron Pipe 2.2.C.1 Add to the end of paragraph: Furnish PVC water
main pipe meeting AWWA C900 requirements, made to ductile iron O.D.’s
for “push-on” joints. Assure pipe joints are bell and spigot having an
elastomeric gasket. Use DR 14 Class 200 pipe.”
Based on engineering judgment the standard suggests that normal working
pressures should be less than 150 psi.
Missoula -- Not specified in Standard Specifications
Kalispell12 35-150
“Delete Subsections 3.4.A.1 & S of the Standard and Replace it with the
following: 1. Perform hydrostatic and leakage testing in accordance with
AWWA C600. Once the pipe is laid and backfilled, test for at least two
hours, all newly laid pipe, or any valved section, to a hydrostatic pressure of
either, 1.5 times the working pressure or 125 psi, whichever is greater.”
Based on engineering judgment the standard suggests that normal working
pressures should be less than 150 psi.
Table 5.2: Montana Pressure Evaluation
8 Montana Department of Environmental Quality (2014 Edition ed., Vol. 1, Circular DEQ).
9 Retrieved February 03, 2016, from http://www.greatfallsmt.net/publicworks/water-pressure-and-flows 10 Engineering and Design Standards. (June 10, 2013). Helena, MT: City of Helena Public Works Department.pg
13 (Water System, Section 2.2)
11 City of Billings Standard Modifications to Montana Public Works Stand Specifications (Sixth Edition).
(February 2015). Billings, MT: City of Billings.
12 City of Kalispell Standard Modifications to Montana Public Works Stand Specifications (Sixth Edition).
(February 2015). Kalispell, MT: City of Kalispell. Special Provisions Section 02660 Water Distribution
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 66
Distribution System Pressures Current Range Recommended Range (psi)
Operating Maximum Pressure
Range 70 – 1651 50 – 110
Mountain Maximum Pressure
Range1 NA 50-150
Notes:
1. Pressures based on review of PRV vault settings provided by City of Bozeman.
2. Mountain Zones involve regions within the study area with extreme topographic change.
Table 5.3: Recommended Maximum Pressures
The recommended maximum operating pressure range is 50-110 psi. However, there are
regions located within the UBO that have extreme topographic change (e.g. Bridger Foothills
and the Story Hills). In order to satisfy the recommended pressure criteria, additional pressure
zones and PRV’s would be required. In some cases, a mountain pressure zone would need four
separate sub-zones. In an effort to reduce the overall amount of pressure reducing infrastructure
in these regions, the maximum pressure range was increased to 150 psi, which is similar to the
maximum pressure the existing system experiences.
A reduction in system operating pressures to a recommended maximum working pressure of
110 psi could potentially affect existing system hydraulic performance, since the City’s current
design standard establishes a maximum operating pressure of 120 psi. System pressure
reduction is further evaluated and discussed in Chapter 7.
5.1.2 Minimum Pressure
MDEQ recommends that the minimum working pressure in the distribution system should be
35 psi. The Computer Modeling of Water Distribution Systems, AWWA Manual M32 13,
recommends that minimum pressures of 40 to 50 psi be maintained during peak hour demand
(PHD) to help ensure that there is adequate pressure to the second story fixtures within a
property. The AWWA Manual M32 also notes that where residential fire sprinkler systems are
required by legislation, the minimum acceptable pressure is 50 psi for the fire sprinklers to
operate correctly. Additionally, backflow prevention devices are often required on many office,
commercial, and industrial buildings. Currently, the City requires backflow on all new
construction and renovations to existing buildings, with a goal to achieve 100-percent backflow
prevention for all structures over time. With respect to minimum operating pressures, the
pressure drop across backflow devices is often between 5 and 15 psi, which could further
increase customer complaints about low water pressure.
13 Computer modeling of water distribution systems (Manual M32). (2012). Denver, CO: American Water Works
Association.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 67
The minimum pressure during fire flows, as recommended by the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA), is 20 psi at any point in the distribution system. The value of 20 psi is
used to ensure an adequate supply of water to the pumper fire trucks, while overcoming any
friction losses within the pipeline branch, hydrant, and fire hoses.
Based on these guidelines, the minimum pressure performance criterion that was established
for the Bozeman system during PHD is 50 psi. However, the City of Bozeman agreed that in
areas in the vicinity of reservoirs and on the edge of pressure zones, a minimum pressure of 35
psi during PHD operations is acceptable. For fire flows, a minimum pressure of 20 psi was used
for assessing the performance of the distribution system. Table 5.4 summarizes the
recommended minimum pressures for master planning purposes.
Distribution System Pressures Recommended (psi)
Minimum Pressure during Peak Hour demand* 50*
Minimum Pressure during a Fire Flow 20
*Minimum 35 psi acceptable in the vicinity of reservoirs and on the edge of pressure zones.
Table 5.4: Recommended Minimum Pressures
5.2 Distribution System Storage
Water distribution system storage is provided to ensure reliability of supply, maintain pressure,
equalize pumping and treatment rates, reduce the size of transmission mains, and improve
operational flexibility and efficiency. Storage facilities should be sized to provide for the
following:
1. Operational Storage – Provide storage to meet peak hour demands and pressure
equalization;
2. Fire Protection Storage – supply storage for fire flow demands and emergencies
(e.g., Treatment works or bulk transmission facilities out-of-service); and
3. Emergency Storage – to provide water reserves for contingencies such as system
failures, power outages, emergencies, and operational flexibility/reliability (e.g.
flooding, earthquake, ability to remove reservoir for maintenance without adverse
consequence to customers etc.).
Figure 5-1 depicts storage requirements, inclusive of situations where sufficient capacity exists
for winter (low-use) adjustment:
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 68
Figure 5-1: Storage Requirements Overview
All recommended storage requirements were verified such that that they satisfy MDEQ Circular
No.1, which requires the following sizing criteria:
The minimum allowable storage must be equal to the average day demand plus fire
flow demand, as defined below, where fire protection is provided.
Where fire protection is provided, fire flow demand must satisfy the governing fire
protection agency recommendation.
Each pressure zone of systems with multiple pressure zones must be analyzed
separately and provided with sufficient storage to satisfy the above requirements.
Excessive storage capacity should be avoided to prevent water quality deterioration
and potential freezing problems.
Finished water storage designed to facilitate fire flow requirements and meet
average daily consumption should be designed to facilitate turnover of water in the
finished water storage to minimize stagnation and stored water age.
The variation between high and low levels in storage structures providing pressure
to a distribution system should not exceed 30 feet.
Table 5.5 presents the water distribution system storage criteria used for master planning
purposes.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 69
Storage Capacity Criteria
Operational Storage 40 percent of the maximum day demand
Fire Storage Fire storage to be provided is based on two fires
occurring within a 24-hr period
Emergency Storage Emergency storage equal to 2 days average day
demand
Total Water Storage Capacity1
Storage should be the greater of:
1. The sum of operational storage plus fire
flow; or
2. The sum of emergency storage plus
operational storage (which is equal to
approximately 3 days average day demand)
Note 1. If groundwater supplies exist, water rights are obtainable and wells are cost-effective options for the City, well
supplies can reduce the amount of above ground storage requirement up to 50 percent of the total requirement for zones
within the service area protected by such ground storage
Table 5.5: Hydraulic Criteria Storage Recommendations
The following subsections discuss the design parameters established for the evaluation of the
distribution system storage facilities and provide support for the development of improvement
concepts.
5.2.1 Operational Storage
Operational storage enables the source, treatment, and pumping facilities to operate at a
predetermined rate, depending on the utility’s preference. Additionally, operational storage is
generally less expensive than increased capacities of treatment and booster pump stations
beyond that required to meet the MDD. Consequently, it is desirable to size the source,
treatment, and pumping facilities to serve the water needs up to the MDD and provide
operational storage for meeting peak instantaneous water demands.
The amount of operational storage required is a function of the WTP and booster pumping
capacity, distribution piping capacity, and system demand characteristics. The fraction of water
production that must be stored during a maximum day as operational storage depends on the
individual utility, system configuration, and operational procedures.
An operational storage fraction of 40 percent of the MDD is recommended. This
recommendation is based on the following factors:
A relatively high peak hour/avg. day demand exists for Bozeman given its seasonal
irrigation demands. The 40 percent factor allows reservoirs to be more fully utilized for
peak demands while managing instantaneous pumping demands.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 70
Allows the filling/draining of reservoirs to promote circulation, which will increase the
mixing and turnover for maintenance of water quality (particularly during higher
demand periods of the year).
Delays the need for treatment capacity upgrades over the long-term.
Provides the City with increased operational flexibility.
Decreases system risk during emergency periods and drought.
It is recommended that the operational storage be provided within the upper 50 percent of the
storage reservoirs to allow the WTP operators with the ability to establish set points to maintain
adequate system pressures and adequate fire and emergency storage within the distribution
system. Ideally, storage should be situated to provide water by gravity to avoid the operation of
pump systems.
5.2.2 Fire Storage
Fire storage volume was determined by multiplying the required maximum fire flow rate by the
required duration of time. Section 5.5.3 discusses the development of fire storage volume
requirements in greater detail. In addition to fire storage volume requirements, the following
criteria are recommended for planning purposes:
Sufficient storage must exist for the worst case fire that could occur within a pressure
zone served by gravity storage. If more than one reservoir serves the pressure zone, total
storage reserved for fire flow demand among all reservoirs should be sufficient for the
worst case fire.
Total storage to be provided is based on two fires occurring within a 24-hr period.
However, the fires will not occur in the same pressure zone in a 24-hr period
Where a reservoir serves more than one pressure zone, the reservoir volume reserved
for fire flow demand must be adequate for two worst case fires occurring within the
pressure zones served by the reservoir.
5.2.3 Emergency Storage
Emergency storage provides water for domestic consumption during events such as
transmission or distribution main failures, raw water contamination events, extended power
outages, failure of raw water transmission facilities, failure of WTP facilities, or a natural
disaster.
No industry-standard formula exists for determining the amount of emergency storage required
by a utility. It is more of a policy decision that is based on an assessment of the perceived
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 71
vulnerability of the utility’s water supply, risk of failures, and the desired degree of system
reliability.
If a utility has redundant sources and treatment facilities with auxiliary power, or power
supplied from multiple sources, the need for emergency storage may be relatively small.
However, enough emergency storage should be available to handle a catastrophic pipe break
that cannot be isolated easily. If a utility has a single source without auxiliary power and a
relatively unreliable distribution system, a significant volume of emergency storage may be
prudent.
Based on a review of the reliability of the water supply, treatment, distribution system, and past
system failures the following storage criteria was recommended for the City.
Emergency storage shall be equal to 2 days of average day demand.
Storage equivalent to two days of average day demand is recommended so that sufficient time
exists to correct an emergency situation (e.g., bulk transmission facilities are out-of-service or
treatment works are unavailable). In addition, given the City’s relatively high design maximum
day:average day ratio (minimum 2.3:1), this amount of storage should also be sufficient for a
maximum day demand with reserve for fire flow. For emergency situations, it is recommended
that Bozeman would implement water use restrictions and rationing, reducing the system per
capita demand rate to 100 GPCD, or approximately 25 percent less than the average day per
capita demand.
5.2.4 Total Storage
The City’s recommended total water storage capacity should be the greater of the following:
1. The sum of operational storage plus fire flow; or
2. The sum of emergency storage plus operational storage, which is equal to approximately
three days of the average day demand.
The amount of total system storage and system demand capacity required to meet these criteria
will change over time as the City continues to grow and water usage increases. The
aforementioned criteria assume that all existing and future water supply is from surface water
sources (i.e. Sourdough and Lyman); however, if groundwater supplies exist, water rights are
obtainable and wells are cost-effective options for the City, well supplies could reduce the
amount of above ground storage requirement up to 50 percent of the total requirement for zones
within the service area protected by such ground storage.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 72
5.3 Pumping Facility Capacity
Appropriate pumping facility capacity should be provided to meet the following conditions
within the water system:
1. In pressure zones with storage – The station must have adequate firm capacity to
supply maximum day demand (MDD) for the zone service area.
2. In pressure zones without storage - Pump stations supplying constant pressure
service must have firm pumping capacity adequate to meet peak hour demand
(PHD) for the zone service area while simultaneously supplying the largest fire flow
demand in the zone.
Pump station capacity guidelines are based on firm capacity, which is defined as the capacity
of the system with the largest pump out of service. Pumping facilities identified as critical
(provides service to pressure zone(s) without sufficient fire or emergency storage) should be
equipped with an on-site, backup power generator. Less critical facilities should be equipped
with a receptacle to allow for a connection to a portable generator.
5.4 Transmission and Distribution Main
Guidelines for the design of transmission and distribution piping vary from state to state and
from utility to utility. Ten States Standards provide design guidance on the minimum and
maximum working pressures in a distribution system. The American Water Works Association
(AWWA) also provides some guidelines on design parameters such as pipe velocity, head loss,
and fire flows. The Insurance Service Organization (ISO) has established fire flow
requirements for individual structures within a service area. Other guidelines for design
parameters such as minimum and maximum pressures, head loss, and fire flows are established
within design handbooks specifically written for water distribution system analyses.
Ultimately, the majority of the design criteria used in evaluating transmission and distribution
piping remains at the discretion of the water utility and its utility engineer.
The following sections discuss the design parameters established for the evaluation of the
Bozeman transmission and distribution piping system, and provide the basis for the selection
of improvement concepts.
5.4.1 Velocity and Headloss Criteria
Pipelines are sized to meet maximum flow conditions, which generally occur during maximum
day plus fire flow or peak hour demand conditions. Pipelines are expected to carry water from
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 73
sources, including water towers, reservoirs, and pump stations, to the customer without
excessive pressure loss.
Piping within the water distribution system was generalized into two categories for this study:
1) transmission pipelines, and 2) distribution pipelines.
The transmission pipelines are the larger pipes that carry water longer distances and branch off
to feed the distribution pipelines. Distribution pipelines are generally referred to as those
pipelines in the street to which fire hydrants and customer service leads are connected.
Establishing a maximum permissible velocity in a pipe, however, cannot be evaluated without
consideration of headloss, as velocity is only indirectly the limiting factor in evaluating pipe
sizes for a distribution system. Essentially, the headloss caused by the velocity, not the velocity
itself, controls pipe sizing requirements. Pipeline velocities also have a direct effect on
hydraulic surges and water hammer created in pipelines. As a result, criteria for both maximum
permissible velocity and headloss were established for evaluating the performance of the
Bozeman distribution system.
5.4.1.1 Velocity Criteria
Insight into performance guidelines with respect to pipeline velocities was obtained from
Advanced Water Distribution Modeling and Management14. Because transmission pipelines
carry water over longer distances than the distribution pipelines, the headloss should be kept to
a minimum to avoid large pressure fluctuations. The authors acknowledge that in larger
pressure zones (several miles across), velocities as low as three feet per second (fps) may cause
excessive headloss within the distribution system. The authors also identify that at velocities
of ten fps, pressures within the distribution system decline quickly and problems associated
with water hammer become more pronounced.
AWWA Manual M32 states that a distribution system is considered to have deficient pipe
looping or sizing when velocities greater than four to six fps occur under normal operating
conditions. The recommended maximum velocity for this study is five fps.
Hydraulic surge, or transient pressure, is used to determine required pipe thickness under some
pipe manufacturer guidelines. Calculations to determine required pipe thickness are based on
internal pressure that includes a 100 psi allowance for surge pressure and a 2:1 safety factor.
The surge pressure allowance is based on a 50 psi pressure rise for each foot per second of
extinguished velocity, and the fact that most domestic water systems operate at approximately
14 Walski, Thomas M.; Chase, Donald V.; Savic, Dragan A.; Grayman, Walter; Beckwith, Stephen; and Koelle,
Edmundo, "Advanced Water Distribution Modeling and Management" (2003). Civil and Environmental
Engineering and Engineering Mechanics Faculty Publications. Paper 18
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 74
two fps. As stated previously, AWWA recommends that maximum velocities for pipelines be
five fps or less, and one of the reasons for this limit listed is to minimize hydraulic surge
pressures.
For small diameter pipe at the maximum recommended velocity of five fps, a pipeline would
need to be designed to accommodate a 250 psi pressure surge (five fps x 50 psi/fps), which
significantly encroaches on the safety factor for the typical municipal distribution system pipe.
Generally speaking, the class of ductile iron pipe used by the City can handle the high operating
pressure and pressure surge.
High velocities can also scour pipe lining materials of various pipes. For DI pipe with cement-
mortar lining, the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) recommends a maximum
flow velocity of 14 fps to minimize disbonding of the cement-mortar lining from the inside of
the pipe.
Based on the preceding information, the following design guidelines for acceptable pipeline
velocities were established for this evaluation under PHD conditions:
Transmission pipelines (12-inch and larger) = less than three fps
Distribution pipelines (10-inch and smaller) = less than five fps
Velocity guidelines will be used in subsequent sections for the analysis of the distribution
system for PHD under ADD and MDD conditions. Velocity guidelines assist in the indication
of potential problems associated with hydraulic surge pressures. Existing pipelines that exceed
these criteria will not necessarily be identified for replacement unless there are known existing
problems within the distribution system. However, if new pipelines are planned to replace old
deteriorated pipelines, then the new pipelines should be sized appropriately to meet these
guidelines.
Dedicated transmission pipelines (i.e., pipelines not interconnected with the distribution
system), can be designed for higher velocities than 3 fps without impacting distribution system
performance. Velocity guidelines for these pipelines should be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
5.4.1.2 Headloss Criteria
Headloss is a more important concern than velocity for determining pipe sizing requirements;
therefore, it is desirable to set a limit on the amount of headloss in a pipe. Headloss provides a
better indication of the capacity of pipelines in that this performance criterion takes into account
the roughness coefficient of the pipeline, also known as the C-factor, and the associated
velocities within the pipeline.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 75
When describing headloss, it is most commonly referred to in terms of feet of headloss per
1,000 feet of pipe length (ft/1,000 ft). AWWA recommends that headloss not exceed six feet
per 1,000 feet for pipes less than 16-inches in diameter and that headloss not exceed three feet
per 1,000 feet for pipes greater than or equal to 16-inches in diameter during normal operation
conditions. However, because higher headloss often contributes to inadequate distribution
system pressures, performance standards used to evaluate larger diameter transmission
pipelines and distribution pipelines are generally substantially lower than the AWWA
guideline.
According to Modeling, Analysis, and Design of Water Distribution Systems15, the author
recommends that transmission pipelines be sized to handle the maximum hour flow. In order
to maintain a reasonable headloss within transmission pipelines during maximum hour flow,
headloss should be limited to between one and two ft/1,000 ft.
According to AWWA?, transmission pipelines should be sized to handle the largest of the
following flows:
1) peak hour flow,
2) maximum day flow plus fire flow, or
3) replenishment flow rate.
Based on this consideration, the allowable headloss recommended for the Bozeman system
should be limited to between two and five ft/1,000 ft. Based on the preceding information, the
following design guidelines for acceptable pipeline headloss were established for this
evaluation under PHD conditions:
Transmission pipelines (12-inch and larger) = less than two ft/1,000 ft
Distribution pipelines (10-inch and smaller) = less than five ft/1,000 ft
Headloss guidelines will be used in subsequent sections for the analysis of the distribution
system PHD under ADD and MDD conditions. Headloss guidelines assist in the indication of
potential problems associated with the hydraulic capacity of water mains to move water from
the pumping facilities to water storage.
Existing pipelines that exceed these criteria will not necessarily be identified for replacement
unless they are contributing to known existing problems within the distribution system.
However, if new pipelines are planned to replace old deteriorated pipelines, then the new
pipelines should be sized appropriately to meet these guidelines. As with the velocity
15 Cesario, L. (1995). Modeling, analysis, and design of water distribution systems. Denver, CO: American Water
Works Association.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 76
guidelines for dedicated transmission pipelines, the rate of headloss experienced within
dedicated transmission pipelines may exceed the guidelines presented herein, but should be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
5.5 Fire Protection
There are no legal requirements that specify a water system must be sized adequately to provide
water for fire protection. Fire protection is considered a secondary purpose for a public water
system, and is an issue typically addressed at the policy level within each community.
The decision to provide water for fire protection requires careful consideration of fire flow
requirements when sizing pipelines, pumps, and storage reservoirs because it results in higher
capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Provisions for fire flows also provide a
valuable public service, however, by reducing the potential loss of human life and property, and
improving fire insurance ratings within the community, which can reduce insurance costs.
5.5.1 Methods for Calculating Fire Flow Requirements for Structures
This section summarizes the four commonly used methods of calculating fire flow requirements
for structures in the United States. Later sections describe the concepts of needed fire flows
(NFF), fire flow duration, and discuss the provisions that were established for evaluating the
system.
As described in the AWWA Manual M3116, there are three generally accepted methods for
calculating fire flow requirements:
1. Iowa State University (ISU);
2. Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute (IITRI); and
3. Insurance Services Organization (ISO).
Although not identified within the AWWA Manual M31, a fourth method of calculating fire
flow requirements is the International Fire Code (IFC).
Iowa State University Method
The ISU method is the oldest of the four methods. It addresses the quantity of water required
to extinguish a fire, and considers the effect of a range of application rates. The equation used
to calculate the fire flow under this method is relatively simple, equal to the volume of building
space in cubic feet divided by 100. The drawback to this method is the fact that for non-
16 Distribution system requirements for fire protection (Manual M31). (2008). Denver, CO: American Water
Works Association.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 77
compartmentalized buildings, such as warehouses, the calculated flow would be quite large, as
the equation assumes the entire structure is involved in the fire. This method assumes that water
is supplied in an ideal manner and that maximum effectiveness is achieved.
Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute (IITRI) Method
The IITRI method was developed based on statistics obtained from 134 actual fires of varying
magnitude. Water application rates were calculated using the documented length and diameter
of fire hose and the nozzle pressures. From this data, formulas for fire flows for residential and
nonresidential occupancies were developed through a curve fitting analysis. These equations
consider the actual area of the fire and, of the three methods described herein, this method
generally projects the highest fire flow requirement.
Insurance Services Organization
The ISO method is the most commonly used of the three methods described in AWWA Manual
M31, and develops or determines the rate of flow considered necessary to control a major fire
within a specific structure. This method was derived as a tool for use by the insurance industry
in establishing fire insurance rates for individual properties based on the community’s fire
defenses. The results calculated using this method are generally consistent with those
calculated using the ISU method, although slightly higher due in part to the fact that the ISO
method accounts for the need to protect the adjacent buildings as well.
The Needed Fire Flow (NFF) is described as the specific amount of water necessary to control
a major fire in a specific building. This value is based on the size of the burning structure,
construction materials, combustibility of the contents, and the proximity of nearby buildings.
The NFF is expressed in units of gpm at a pressure of 20 psi for a range of two to four hours.
The minimum NFF for a single building as identified by the ISO is 500 gpm. The City of
Bozeman uses the ISO minimum NFF of 1,500 gpm for one and two family dwellings.
According to ISO, fires requiring 3,500 gpm or less are referred to as receiving “Public Fire
Suppression”, while those requiring greater than 3,500 gpm are classified as receiving
“Individual Property Fire Suppression”. Therefore, the public classification applies to
properties with a needed fire flow of 3,500 gpm or less.
The Fire Suppression Rating Schedule is the manual ISO uses in reviewing the firefighting
capabilities of individual communities. The schedule measures the major elements of a
community’s fire-suppression system and develops a numerical grading called a Public
Protection Classification. ISO assigns a Public Protection Classification (PPC) from 1 to 10.
Class 1 represents the best protection, and Class 10 indicates no recognized protection. ISO
classification ratings are based on the three following areas:
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 78
• Fire Department - 50 percent of the score looks at your local fire department, including
staffing, training, geographic distribution of firehouses and adequacy of the fire
equipment.
• Water Supply System - 40 percent of the score takes into account the community’s water
supply, including the placement and condition of fire hydrants and the amount of water
that's available to put out fires
• Fire Alarm and Communication System - 10 percent of the score measures the
efficiency of emergency communications, such as the 911 system and the number of
emergency dispatchers.
To determine the rate of flow the water mains provide, ISO observes fire-flow tests at
representative locations in the community. The ISO Fire Suppression rating affects insurance
costs for properties with NFF of 3,500 gpm or less. The private and public protection at
properties with larger NFF is individually evaluated, and may vary from the City classification.
International Fire Code
The International Fire Code (IFC) is a model code that regulates minimum fire safety
requirements for new and existing buildings, facilities, and storage process. As stated in the
IFC, the minimum fire flow required for one- and two-family dwellings that do not exceed
3,600 square feet and do not have an automatic sprinkler system is 1,000 gpm. For one- and
two-family dwellings exceeding 3,600 square feet, and for all buildings other than one- and
two-family dwellings, the minimum fire flow, and flow durations, are presented in Table 5.6.
The minimum fire flow for these types of structures ranges from 1,500 gpm to 8,000 gpm, over
durations from two to four hours.
5.5.2 City of Bozeman Fire Flow Requirements
The City uses ISO to evaluate the structural fire suppression delivery system. Virtually all U.S.
insurers of homes and business property use ISO’s Public Protection Classifications in
calculating premiums. In general, the price of fire insurance in a community with a good PPC
is substantially lower than a community with a poor PPC, assuming all other factors are equal.
The City of Bozeman currently has a Class 3 Public Protection Classification rating which
affects insurance costs for properties with NFF of 3,500 gpm or less. The City’s most recent
ISO full survey was completed in October 2011 with the Class 3 rating applied on December
1, 2011. The private and public protection at properties with larger NFF is individually
evaluated, and may vary from the City classification. If a structure is located in the public
zoning area and is greater than the planned fire demand for that zone, the structure may be
required to have a sprinkler system, or the City may need to review means of providing
additional fire flow to the structure through either water main or storage improvements.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 79
Table 5.6: 2017 IFC Minimum Require Fire Flow and Flow Duration for Buildings
For structures, the City uses the International Building Code (IBC) and IFC requirements to
determine the various fire safety aspects (e.g. fire and smoke protection features, interior
finishes, fire protection systems, etc.). The City’s fire department provides inspection and
approval of these systems. Following these codes, automatic sprinklers systems are required for
one or more of the following reasons:
1. The proposed occupancy or use in the building or fire area represents a high life-safety
risk;
2. The occupant load of the building or fire area exceeds code-prescribed limits;
3. The building height or area warrants additional fire protection; and
4. The amount or hazards of materials stored or used inside the building.
A reduction of up to 75 percent of NFF is allowed when the building is provided with an
approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with the IBC and IFC requirements.
Between the structural delivery system (ISO) and building (IBC and IFC) requirements, the
City works towards achieving the NFF requirement. Each building has different NFF
requirements and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 80
5.5.3 City of Bozeman Fire Flow Availability
The evaluation completed for the Water Facility Plan Update determined available fire flows
(to assess the distribution system under current and future water demand conditions) by using
zoning districts that represent different types of development. Therefore, the fire flow
requirements set forth in this Water Facility Plan Update are intended only for general planning
purposes, and may not be reflective of actual fire flow requirements required by the size and
construction type of a specific development, and will not identify specific non-conforming
developments. These guidelines are intended to comply with requirements in the City’s Design
Standards and Specifications calling for fire flow demands to be calculated as determined by
ISO criteria.
Available fire flow is the flow rate of water supply available at the hydrants for firefighting
measured at a residual pressure of 20 psi. The residual pressure of 20 psi represents the
minimum pressure required to provide normal water pressure to a second story faucet while a
nearby fire event is in progress. Table 5.7 presents the recommended fire flow guidelines along
with the required fire flow volumes used in the analysis. Figure 5-2 shows fire flow guidelines
for existing and future land use.
Zoning
District Category Flow
(gpm)
Duration
(hrs)
No. of
Fires
Total Demand
(gal)
Residential Use
R-4 Residential High Density 3,000 3 1 540,000
R-3 Residential Medium
Density 3,000 3 1 540,000
R-2 Residential, Single-family
Medium Density 1,500 2 1 180,000
R-1 Residential, Single-family
Low Density 1,500 2 1 120,000
PU Public Lands and
Institutions 3,000 3 1 540,000
Commercial Use
B-1 Neighborhood Business 3,000 3 1 540,000
B-2 Community Business 3,000 3 1 540,000
B-3 Central Business 4,000 4 1 960,000
Industrial Use
M-1 Light Manufacturing 4,000 4 1 960,000
M-2 Manufacturing and
Industrial 5,000 4 1 1,200,000
Table 5.7: Fire Flow Availability Guidelines
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 5 – Design Parameters and Evaluation Criteria
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 81
5.5.4 Considerations for Fire Suppression Design
Engineers and fire system designers use fire flow test data to design a fire protection system.
Typically, the data, along with a minimum safety factor (i.e. 10 percent), is used to define the
system for the remainder of its useful life, unless different design standards and specifications
have been established.
Historically the City has allowed existing static pressure to be used for the design of fire
suppression systems; however, because of issues associated with high pressure (i.e. increased
breaks, transients, etc.), the City has expressed interest in lower existing pressure to reduce risk.
Chapter 7 presents the results of an evaluation regarding the potential to reduce existing
operating pressures in the City, identifies issues associated with reducing system pressure, and
provides recommendations on pressure management.
Results from the pressure zone and pressure reduction evaluation show that any significant
change to the City’s water distribution system can affect the performance capabilities of
existing fire protection systems and that long-term pressure reduction is the best option for the
City.
Any pressure reduction strategy would require the City to change its current policies and codes
for establishing available fire flow and pressure for fire protection systems, particularly in areas
that anticipate future pressure reduction. The following should be considered when establishing
new fire pressure system design standards:
Areas identified for future pressure reduction would utilize the calibrated hydraulic
model to assess future demands as well as estimate available pressure and flows within
the system. Engineers and fire system designers would use modeled data instead of
actual flow test data.
Areas that meet criteria set forth in this Chapter could use the calibrated model or actual
water flow test data.
Safety factors and adjustments should be established for both modeled and actual water
flow test data. For example, a 10-percent safety factor is required to account for potential
system changes or model errors.
A fire protection professional engineer should review the proposed system
modifications and assist with the development of new policies and codes to ensure the
City meets all industry standards.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 83
CHAPTER 6 EXISTING SYSTEM EVALUATION
This chapter presents the evaluation of the City’s existing water distribution system and its
ability to meet recommended water system service and performance criteria under various water
demand conditions. The chapter includes evaluations for both system capacity and hydraulic
performance. Key sections include the following:
Water System Pressure
Distribution System Storage;
Distribution System Pumping Capacity;
Transmission and Distribution Main Capacity; and
Fire Flow Analysis
Evaluations, findings, and recommendations for addressing any deficiencies identified in the
City’s existing water distribution system are summarized and included in this chapter. These
recommendations are used in the development of the CIP. The recommended CIP is described
in further detail in Chapter 10.
6.1 Existing System Demands
Different demand scenarios were developed for use within the hydraulic model for evaluation
of the existing system. The scenarios utilize different demand data sets that include average,
winter, summer, and maximum day demands. Demand development is described in Chapter
3, and the demand allocation process is described in Section 4.2. Demand data sets are
described below.
6.1.1 Existing Average Day Demand
The Average Day Demand (ADD) Scenario was developed to provide a modeling scenario
representative of typical day-to-day operation of the water distribution system. Water
consumption data from October 2015 metered data was used to spatially distribute water use
within the model. The spatially allocated metered data was adjusted to 5.2 MGD, which is the
ADD including NRW as determined by the water use characterization. The October diurnal
demand pattern was used to calculate the average day diurnal demand curve, which is presented
in Figure 6-1.
6.1.2 Existing Summer Day Demand
The Summer Day Scenario was developed to provide a modeling scenario representative of
typical operation of during the months of June, July, and August, when demands are high due
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 84
to irrigation. Water consumption data from August 2015 metered data was used to spatially
distribute water use within the model. The spatially allocated metered data was adjusted to
8.6 MGD, which is the average metered data for the summer months, including NRW as
determined by the water use characterization. The August diurnal demand pattern was used to
calculate the summer day diurnal curve, which is presented in Figure 6-1.
6.1.3 Existing Maximum Day Demand
The Maximum Day Demand (MDD) Scenario was developed to provide a modeling scenario
representative of the operation of the water distribution system during the historic maximum
day demand of 11.7 MGD. Water consumption data from August 2015 metered data was used
to spatially distribute water use within the model. The spatially allocated metered data was
adjusted to 11.7 MGD, which is the historic MDD based on water production records as
determined by the water use characterization. The August diurnal demand pattern was used to
calculate the maximum day diurnal demand curve and is presented in Figure 6-1.
6.1.4 Existing Winter Day Demand
The Winter Day Demand Scenario was developed to provide a modeling scenario representative
of typical operation during the months of December, January, and February, when demands are
low. Water meter data from January 2015 was used to spatially distribute water use within the
model. The spatially allocated metered data was adjusted to 3.6 MGD, which is the average
metered data for the winter, including NRW as determined by the water use characterization.
The October diurnal demand pattern was used to calculate the winter day diurnal demand curve
and is presented in Figure 6-1.
6.1.5 Existing System Demand Summary
The demands, including NRW, used within the hydraulic model for the existing system are
presented in Table 6.1. These demands can be used to evaluate the existing system because
they are representative of previous usage patterns experienced historically.
Demand Day Demand (MGD)
Average Day 5.2
Summer Day 8.6
Maximum Day 11.7
Winter Day 3.6
Table 6.1: Existing System Demands
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 85
Figure 6-1: Diurnal Demand Curves
6.2 Existing System Modeling Scenarios
Demands presented in the previous section were used in four modeling scenarios to evaluate
the existing system against the performance criteria documented in Chapter 5. Table 6.2 lists
the different modeling scenarios developed and used in the hydraulic analysis and evaluation
of the existing system.
Modeling
Scenario
Simulation
Type Description Demand
Condition
Demand
(MGD)
EXIST_1000 EPS
This scenario evaluates the City’s supply facilities and
transmission/distribution system capabilities during existing ADD
and day-to-day operations.
ADD 5.2
EXIST_3000 EPS
This scenario evaluates the City’s supply facilities and
transmission/distribution system capabilities during the peak
demands of the existing MDD.
MDD 11.7
EXIST_3000 Steady State This scenario calculates the available fire flow at a residual
pressure of 20 psi during MDD conditions.
Available
flow during
MDD
11.7
EXIST_3200 EPS
This scenario is used to evaluate the City’s storage facilities and
transmission system during an event simulating two simultaneous
fires in two separate pressure zones within the system.
MDD 11.7
Table 6.2: Existing System Modeling Scenarios
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 86
6.3 Water System Pressure
When determining the adequacy of a distribution system, a primary parameter to check is the
predicted pressure. The following are the pressure requirements that were established
previously in Chapter 5:
Maximum pressure, existing system = 110 psi
Maximum pressure, new growth areas = 110 psi
Minimum pressure during PHD = 50 psi
Minimum pressure during a fire flow = 20 psi
6.3.1 System Pressure during Average Day Demand
Minimum system pressures within the existing distribution system during average day demand
(ADD) conditions (5.2 MGD) are shown in Figure 6-2 and summarized by pressure zone in
Table 6.3. The majority of the system pressures range from 50 to 150 psi throughout the
system.
There are locations near the reservoirs that experience pressures below 50 psi, and some even
below 35 psi. This is because of the minimal elevation difference between these areas and their
respective reservoir overflow elevations. The lowest pressures in the South Zone (6 psi) are
located at the hydrants immediately adjacent to the Sourdough and Hilltop reservoirs.
The other locations that experience low pressures (less than 35 psi) during ADD include the
following:
A small area within the vicinity of the Hilltop reservoir and generally includes Kenyon
Dr south the reservoir and Oconnell Dr between Kenyon Dr and Highland Blvd.
The area along Blackwood Rd between 19th Ave and 31st Ave.
The area along 3rd Ave between Cambridge Dr and Goldenstein Ln.
Low pressures experienced in these areas are the result of a combination of elevation and system
headloss. Elevations in this area result in static pressures in the range of 35 to 45 psi. Additional
looping within this area or construction of another major transmission main (discussed further
Chapter 9) would increase minimum pressures from 5 to 10 psi.
A sizeable portion of the distribution system has pressure in excess of 110 psi, which exceeds
the established maximum pressure criteria. The area that experiences the highest pressures
(greater than 150 psi) are along Oak St between N 25th Ave and N Rouse Ave. Chapter 7
includes a discussion regarding implications for adjusting pressure zones to reduce the
maximum system pressures.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 87
Zone Pressures During ADD (psi) Pressures During MDD (psi)
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
Gallatin Park 77 82 82 77 85 82
Northwest 62 149 96 59 144 93
West 70 107 90 69 107 89
Northeast (Lyman) 95 152 128 91 148 124
South (Sourdough) 8 165 112 6 161 106
Knolls 52 68 83 52 68 83
Table 6.3: Existing System Pressure during Average Day and Maximum Day Demand
6.3.2 System Pressure during Maximum Day Demand
Minimum system pressures within the existing distribution system during maximum day
demand (MDD) conditions (11.7 MGD) are shown in Figure 6-3 and summarized by pressure
zone in Table 6.3. The system generally experiences similar pressures during MDD and ADD
(within 5 psi). The majority of the system’s low and high pressure issues occur during both
ADD and MDD conditions.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 90
6.4 Distribution System Storage
The existing distribution system storage was evaluated for adequacy with respect to operational
storage, fire protection storage, and emergency storage. The total system storage requirements
that were established previously in Chapter 5 indicate that the total system storage should be
the greater of the following:
1. The sum of operational storage (40 percent MDD) plus fire storage, or
2. The sum of emergency storage plus operational storage,which is equal to
approximately 3 days average day demand.
Table 6.4 provides an overview of the existing reservoirs in relation to the pressure zones
served. Although WTP Reservoir 1 was not completed at the time of this Water Facility Plan
Update, it has been included in the storage assessment as it will be brought online in 2017.
Zone with Storage Reservoir ID
Reservoir
Size
(MG)
Total Storage
Within Zone
(MG)
Additional Comments
South (Sourdough) Sourdough 4.0 6.0 Possible to feed Northeast Zone through
existing PRV facilities. Hilltop 2.0
Northeast (Lyman) Lyman Reservoir 5.3 5.3 Possible to feed South Zone through
Pear Street Booster Station.
WTP WTP Reservoir 1 5.3 5.3 Possible to feed South Zone through
existing control valve.
Total System Storage (Existing) 16.3
Table 6.4: Existing Distribution Reservoir-Pressure Zone Summary
Table 6.5 provides an overview of the analysis of distribution storage based on the established
storage requirement criteria. A comparison of the existing system to the storage criteria shows
that there is sufficient fire storage volume in both zones with storage. Note that the South Zone
requires more emergency storage than what is available within the zone. Emergency storage
can be met storage from the WTP and Northeast Zones. Emergency storage from the WTP
Zone is available through the existing flow control valve at the Sourdough reservoir and
emergency storage. Emergency storage from the Northeast Zone must be pumped to the South
Zone through the Pear Street Booster Station.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 91
Zone with
Storage
Zones
Served
Required
Operational
Storage1
(MG)
Required
Fire
Storage2
(MG)
Required
Emergency
Storage3
(MG)
Criteria 1
Required
Total
Storage4
(MG)
Criteria 2
Required
Total
Storage5
(MG)
Controlling
Criteria
Storage
within
Zone
(MG)
Storage
Capacity
Surplus
(Deficit)
(MG)
Surplus
Storage
Available
from Other
Zones
South
(Sourdough)
South
West
Northwest
Knolls 4.5 2.40 10.0 6.9 14.5 Criteria 2 6.0 (8.5)
Use surplus
from
WTP & NE
Zones
Northeast
(Lyman) Northeast
Gallatin Park 0.2 2.40 0.1 2.6 0.3 Criteria 1 5.3 5.0 -
WTP WTP - - - - - - 5.3 5.3 -
Overall Total Storage Required 14.8
Total Storage (Existing) 16.6
Notes:
1 Based on 40 of MDD
2 Based on zone and sub-zone fire flow requirements
3 Based on 2 x ADD
4 Operational Storage plus Fire Storage
5 Operational Storage plus Emergency Storage (approximately 3 x ADD)
Table 6.5: Existing Distribution System Storage Evaluation
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 92
6.4.1 Reservoir Operations
Water reservoir levels and volumes were analyzed to determine if the reservoirs could maintain
at least 60 percent of their volume throughout the entire day so that the volume of water
allocated towards fire protection and emergencies would not be impacted by routine operations.
The levels and volumes in the reservoirs were evaluated over a 24-hour period for both ADD
and MDD conditions.
The City currently operates the reservoir levels at or near full for the majority of the year. This
mode of operation is based on the current configuration of the distribution system and supply
sources. The primary supply source for the City is from the WTP, which has a single 30-inch
transmission pipeline that extends from the WTP to the Sourdough reservoir. The Lyman
Reservoir and water source supplements the Sourdough source and primarily feeds the
Northeast and Northwest pressures zones. Water from the Lyman reservoir and water source
must be pumped into the South Zone to supplement the WTP source. Although the City is not
completely reliant upon the WTP, a failure on the 30-inch transmission could cause a major
interruption in service. Due to the potential risk and significance of an interruption caused by
failure of the Sourdough transmission pipeline, water levels are maintained at a high level year-
round. Reservoir levels are normally kept within 6 ft of overflow elevation during the summer
demand period, and within 3 ft of overflow elevation during the winter. Graphs of reservoir
water level fluctuations (percent full) during existing ADD conditions are shown in Figure 6-4.
Figure 6-4: Existing Water Distribution System
Reservoir Levels during Average Day Demand (5.2 MGD)
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 93
Reservoir water level fluctuations (representing percent full) during existing MDD conditions
are shown in Figure 6-5. The Sourdough and Hilltop reservoirs show an increase in water
turnover due to the higher demands. The lowest volume within the Hilltop reservoir is
approximately 48 percent full. Water storage within the Sourdough reservoir is maintained
above 75 percent throughout the MDD.
The Hilltop reservoir HGL operates significantly lower than the Sourdough reservoir during
MDD conditions. This is indicative that the system experiences relatively high headloss while
transferring water from Sourdough northward into the City and to the Hilltop reservoir during
peak demand conditions.
The Lyman reservoir does not experience significant turnover even during MDD conditions.
The relatively constant level is attributable to the size of the reservoir and the relative constant
inflow/outflow due to the discharge of Lyman Spring and utilization of the water by the City.
Figure 6-5: Existing Water Distribution System
Reservoir Levels during Maximum Day Demand (11.7 MGD)
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 94
6.4.2 Water Quality Considerations
Water quality issues associated with storage facilities can be classified as microbiological,
chemical or physical. Increased water age can lead to water quality deterioration and can be
conducive to microbial growth and chemical changes. Increased water age is generally caused
by the following:
Underutilization (e.g. water sits in the reservoir and is not cycled through), or
Poor Mixing (including stratification).
Table 6.6 presents a summary of water quality problems associated with potable water storage
facilities17.
Chemical Issues Biological Issues Physical Issues
Taste and Odor Taste and Odor Sediment
Disinfectant Decay Nitrification Temperature/Stratification
Disinfectant By-product Formation Pathogen Contamination Corrosion
Chemical Contaminants Microbial Regrowth
Table 6.6: Summary of Typical Water Quality Problems Associated with Potable
Storage Facilities
A water quality analysis was not performed as part of this Water Facility Plan Update; however,
storage reservoir residence time (turnover) was evaluated with the hydraulic model.
Additionally, discussions with City staff regarding reservoir operations and any known water
quality issues were used to assess reservoir operations.
Typical recommended ranges for reservoir level operations include fluctuating levels by 20 to
50 percent, with 33 percent (1/3 total volume) being the recommended goal18. Fluctuating
levels by 20 to 50 percent equate to a turnover of 2 to 5 days, assuming complete mixing within
the reservoir. Water quality has not been a major concern for the City because of the high quality
sources of supply.
17 Finished Water Storage Facilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of
Ground and Drinking Water, 2002. Print. 18Computer modeling of water distribution systems (Manual M32). (2012). Denver, CO: American Water Works
Association
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 95
Reservoir level operations during ADD conditions typically result in 5 percent level fluctuation,
which are lower than the recommended 33 percent. Based on this observation the turnover
within the reservoir would be about 20 days, assuming complete mixing within the reservoir.
Reservoir level operations during MDD conditions typically result in 10 percent level
fluctuation within the Sourdough Reservoir, 33 percent level fluctuation within the Hilltop
Reservoir, and a near continuous inflow/outflow within the Lyman Reservoir. Based on these
observations, the turnover within the Sourdough Reservoir is about 10 days, and about 3 days
within the Hilltop Reservoir. The turnover within the Lyman Reservoir is unknown and will
depend on the level of mixing as the water passes through the Reservoir.
The City is aware of the minimum level fluctuation and long residence times during ADD
conditions, but has not observed any water quality issues within the system. However, the City
has noted icing issues and damage to the Hilltop Reservoir. Based on the City’s desire to
continue with current reservoir level operations (e.g. keeping reservoirs full for emergency
services), it is recommended that the City install mixing systems in the reservoirs that have
known stratification and icing issues (e.g. Hilltop reservoir) and monitor for the potential
occurrence of water quality issues.
6.4.3 Multiple Fire Impact Evaluation
A scenario was developed to simulate two simultaneous fires occurring in two separate pressure
zones during the MDD. Discussions with City staff led to the simulation of one of the fires
located on the campus of MSU (South Zone) and the second fire located in a high density
residential area within the Northwest Zone. Graphs of reservoir water level fluctuations
(representing percent full) during the two-fire event are shown in Figure 6-6. A summary of
the fire event is provided in Table 6.7.
The two fires were simulated to start at 7:00 am with a duration of four hours. Following the
fire event, the flow control valve at the Sourdough reservoir was set to replenish the storage
within the South Zone. The results indicate that the system has sufficient capacity to provide
adequate water supply for the simultaneous fire event. The fire event draws the reservoir levels
down below typical operation levels, however, adjustment to the flow control valve to draw
additional water from the WTP reservoir allows for quick storage level recovery. Additional
water is also available within the Lyman reservoir, which can be pumped into the South Zone
through the Pear Street Booster Station.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 96
Figure 6-6: Existing Water Distribution System
Reservoir Levels during Two-Fire Event
Fire
Event
Flow
(gpm)
Duration
(hrs) Volume (gal) Hydrant ID Location Zone
1 5,000 4 1,200,000 WHY_1309 MSU Campus - Garfield St South
(Sourdough)
2 5,000 4 1,200,000 WHY_2220 Fen Way - North of Catamount St Northwest
Table 6.7: Summary of Two-Fire Event
6.5 Distribution System Pumping Capacity
The existing system model was used to assess the pumping capacity of Pear Street and Knolls
booster stations. Pump performance is based on conditions and variables in the distribution
system:
Water main capacity
System demands
Water storage levels
For this analysis it was assumed that water storage levels in reservoirs influencing pump station
hydraulics were near full in order to determine the minimum capacity of the pumps. Pumps
typically experience the highest head and lowest flow condition when storage levels are full.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 97
6.5.1 Pear Street Booster Station Pumping
The Pear Street Booster Station has three pumps that transfer water from the Northeast Zone to
the South Zone. The booster station allows the City to supply the South Zone with water from
Lyman reservoir, in order to more fully utilize this high quality, inexpensive water source when
flows from the spring exceed the demand from just the Northeast Zone. There is no specific
design standard for determining the required capacity of a pump station that serves in a role
such as that of the Pear Street Booster Station. Rather the performance is based on the ability
of the pumps to operate at their design condition or their ability to transfer water at a rate
satisfactory to the City.
Table 6.8 provides an overview of the average pump station capacity with a comparison of
operating and design conditions. The pump station is not metered and the flow rates are
estimated based on field testing, model calibration, and the available pump curve information
provided by the City. Model calibration was performed with only one large pump operating to
simulate the most critical condition. Under MDD conditions, a single large pump will provide
between 1,180 gpm and 1,570 gpm depending on upstream and downstream pressure
conditions.
Design Pump Capacity (gpm) Modeled Capacity (gpm)*
Pump System Total Firm Total Firm
Pear Street 1,900 1,100 2,050 1,250
*Note: Analysis includes the two large pumps
Table 6.8: Pear Street Booster Station Capacity
The City will be replacing at least one of the large pumps in the near future. The model should
be utilized to determine the duty points for the pump system to optimize selection of the new
pump.
Modifications to Pear Street Booster Station
The Pear Street Booster Station is currently in need of significant repairs to provide the
continued level of service desired. When properly rebuilt or replaced, it will continue provide
an source of water supply to the South HGL 5125 zone, and provide a means for gravity flow
from the South to the Northeast Zone when needed.
In order to realize the full benefit of the Pear Street booster, station it should be set up for bi-
directional flow capabilities, with total pumping capacity equal to the maximum amount of
water ever needed to be transferred from the Northeast to the South Zone. The pumping capacity
requirement is approximately the maximum Lyman Spring production minus the average late
spring / summer demand from the Northeast Zone.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 98
A set of PRV’s will also be required at the Pear Street Booster Station location to reduce water
pressure approximately 40 psi from the South Zone. The PRVs will provide a redundant feed
into the Northeast Zone, allowing required maintenance activities to occur on the Lyman spring
system.
6.5.2 Knolls Booster Station Pumping
The Knolls booster station serves a small area of higher elevation southeast of downtown
Bozeman. The Knolls booster station is fed by the Hilltop reservoir, and boosts the pressure to
feed the Knolls Zone. The model simulation indicates that under MDD conditions, the domestic
pumps provide between 15 gpm and 32 gpm for low flow and peak hour demand, respectively.
The analysis shows there is ample domestic pump capacity. Table 6.9 presents an overview of
the Knolls booster station pump capacity.
The fire flow capacity for the booster station was evaluated at the pump discharge header and
at the hydrants located within the pressure zone. The fire flow capacity analysis completed on
the discharge header shows that there is sufficient capacity, and that the pumps supply more
flow than the intended design point. The fire flow capacity analysis completed on the hydrants
within the pressure zone indicates that the fire flow pumps do not produce the needed flow. The
8-inch distribution network causes significant headloss and only supplies available flow
between 2,100 and 2,900 gpm at a residual pressure of 20 psi. The required fire flow is 3,000
gpm based on land use requirements. In order to increase the available flow, the fire pumps
would require an additional 60 ft of head. However, this option is not feasible due to pressures
exceeding the head of the domestic pumps. Another option to increase the available fire flow
would be to increase a portion of the distribution network from 8-inch to 10-inch water main;
however, this endeavor is likely cost prohibitive. The size of the pressure zone and layout of
existing roads does not allow for cost effective system looping.
Pump System
Required
Pumping
Capacity
(gpm)
Design Pump Capacity (gpm) Modeled Capacity (gpm)
Total Firm Total Firm
Knolls Domestic1 32 512 384 790 600
Knolls Fire2
(analysis at pump discharge) 3,032 3,300 1,650 3,650 2,325
Knolls Fire3
(analysis at hydrants) 3,032 3,300 1,650 2,100 – 2,900 1,750 – 2,325
Note 1: Analysis based on maintaining a discharge pressure of 60 psi.
Note 2: Analysis includes fire flow and peak hour demand and based on a discharge pressure of 30 psi.
Note 3: Analysis based on residual pressure of 20 psi at the hydrants within the pressure zone.
Table 6.9: Knolls Booster Station Capacity
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 99
6.6 Transmission and Distribution Main Capacity
As established in Chapter 5, a distribution system is considered to have deficient water main
looping or sizing if the following conditions are experienced during PHD under MDD
conditions:
Velocities greater than 5 fps;
Small diameter pipes (10-inch or less) have headlosses greater than 5 ft/1,000 ft; or
Large diameter pipes (12-inch or greater) having headlosses greater than 2 ft/1,000 ft.
Although none of these thresholds are definitive, they pose a concern as they can indicate that
there is a potentially diminished capacity to convey water or excess wear and tear on pipes. It
is not recommended that existing pipelines that do not meet these performance criteria be
replaced unless there is a known problem within the water distribution system. However, if
these pipes are replaced due to street rehabilitation or other projects, the new pipelines should
be sized to meet these maximum velocity and headloss guidelines.
Figure 6-7 illustrates the results of headloss analysis (per 1,000 feet) for existing conditions
during PHD during MDD. Observations of headloss exceeding the established criteria for
MDD conditions included the following:
The 12-inch water main along Garfield St between Black Ave and 4th Ave has maximum
headloss between 5 and 7 ft/1000 ft, and between 2 and 5 ft/1000 ft between 4th Ave
and 8th Ave.
The 14-inch water main along College St between Black Ave and 3rd Ave has maximum
headloss between 5 and 7 ft/1000 ft, and between 2 and 5 ft/1000 ft between 3rd Ave
and 12th Ave.
The 14-inch water main along South Black Ave between College St and Story St has
maximum headloss between 6 and 8 ft/1000 ft, and between 2 and 5 ft/1000 ft between
Story St and Olive St.
The 14-inch water main along 19th Ave between Garfield St and College St has
maximum headloss between 2 and 4 ft/1000 ft.
The 12-inch water main along Highland Blvd between Cedar View Dr and Aspen Pointe
Dr has a maximum headloss between 2 and 5 ft/1000 ft.
The 12-inch water main on Oak St between Rouse Ave and 7th Ave has maximum
headloss between 2 and 5 ft/1000 ft.
The 18-inch and 24-inch transmission main between the Sourdough reservoir and Graf
St has maximum headloss between 2 and 2.25 ft/1000 ft.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 100
The 18-inch transmission main between the Lyman reservoir and Boylan Rd has
maximum headloss between 2 and 3 ft/1000 ft. This headloss is due to the C-Factor of
100 established during model calibration and a peak flow rate of 2,250 gpm. Over half
of the flow (> 1,200 gpm) is due to operation of the Pear Street Booster Station to
transfer water from the Lyman reservoir to the South Zone.
The 6-inch water main along Kagy Boulevard between South 3rd Avenue and South 11th
Avenue has maximum headloss between 5 and 8 ft/1000 ft under MDD conditions.
The remaining sections of pipe with higher headloss are spatially separated, in short
sections, and primarily in areas with 6-inch diameter cast iron pipe.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 102
6.7 Fire Flow Analysis
A fire flow analysis was performed on hydrants throughout the entire existing distribution
system to analyze the transmission and distribution system piping capacity. The results were
calculated using a steady state scenario based on the following system conditions:
Fire Flow availability is based on one hydrant flowing at a time.
Minimum residual pressure of 20 psi.
MDD conditions.
Fire Pumps and Booster Station Pumps were in operation.
Lag PRVs in operation. Lead (small diameter) PRVs were closed to improve model
stability and reduce simulation runtime.
Reservoir levels were set at 60 percent full (top 40 percent reserved for operational
storage).
The fire flow analysis was performed on approximately 2,448 existing fire hydrants throughout
the distribution system. A contour map was generated from the fire flow analysis to depict the
available fire flows (at 20 psi) throughout the distribution system, and is presented in Figure
6-8. The analysis shows that a vast majority of the system (over 90 percent) achieves an
available fire flow of greater than 3,000 gpm. There are only 10 locations within the system
that do not meet a fire flow of 1,000 gpm. These locations are generally located in the zone of
influence near the Hilltop reservoir and a few locations on South 5th Avenue south of Grant
Street at MSU.
As part of the fire flow analysis, the hydrant flow data was combined with fire flow availability
criteria in Table 5.7 to determine if the available fire flow could meet the needed fire flow
requirements of adjacent parcels. Analyses showed that 94 percent of the system meets the fire
flow requirements dictated by surrounding land use. Table 6.10 provides a breakdown of the
system hydrants and their ability to meet fire flow goal based on land use.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 103
Condition Number of
Hydrants
Percent of
System
Hydrants meeting >100% of fire flow goal 2,288 93.5
Hydrants meeting 90-100% of fire flow goal 46 1.9
Hydrants meeting 80-90% of fire flow goal 32 1.3
Hydrants meeting 70-80% of fire flow goal 31 1.3
Hydrants meeting 60-70% of fire flow goal 18 0.7
Hydrants meeting 50-60% of fire flow goal 15 0.6
Hydrants meeting 25-50% of fire flow goal 11 0.4
Hydrants meeting <25% of fire flow goal 7 0.3
Total System Hydrants (Active) 2,448 100
Table 6.10: Available Flow at System Hydrants
Figure 6-8 shows the locations of the hydrants that do not meet the fire flow goals of adjacent
parcel(s). The hydrants were reviewed with the City’s Water Distribution System
Superintendent and Fire Chief and the following areas of concern were identified for future
investigation:
Hydrants not meeting fire flow goals located near MSU and generally located between
Kagy Blvd and Garfield St and between 3rd Ave and 12th Ave.
Hydrants not meeting fire flow goals located near the hospital on Highland Blvd
between Ellis St and Knolls Dr.
Hydrants not meeting fire flow goals located on the I-90 Frontage Rd east of Haggerty
Ln.
Hydrants not meeting fire flow goals located in the trailer court located southeast of the
intersection of Black Powder Trail and 19th Ave. Note that these hydrants are outside
of Bozeman’s City limits, but are included here as an indication of the system’s ability
to deliver fire flow to this area.
As the City addresses the areas not achieving fire flow goals, the following steps are
recommended to determine if a hydrant is deficient:
1. Verify Hydrant Fire Flow: Perform fire flow tests at the hydrant to verify model results
before implementing any improvements.
2. Verify Land Use: Evaluate the actual development that has occurred and compare to
land use zoning. For example, if the development that actually occurred was different
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 104
than what was analyzed, it may require less NFF (i.e. If a single family residential home
was constructed in a multi-family land use zone, then it may require less fire flow than
a multifamily structure).
3. Verify Fire Suppression: Evaluate if the surrounding buildings that would utilize the
hydrant have fire suppression systems. A reduction of up to 75 percent of NFF is
allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system in
accordance with the IBC and IFC requirements.
4. Determine Contributing Hydrants: Evaluate the number of fire hydrants in the area.
Additional hydrants can contribute to the NFF. ISO states the following for fire hydrant
flow credits.
Credit is awarded up to 1,000 gpm from each hydrant within 300 feet of the fire-risk
building; 670 gpm from hydrants within 301 to 600 feet of the fire-risk building;
and 250 gpm from hydrants within 601 to 1,000 feet of the fire-risk building.
If the fire flow goal is still not achieved after following the prescriptive steps listed above, then
the following is recommended:
1. Evaluate system expansion: Review the potential for future looping by system growth
and expansion, which may show that fire flow can be increased by closing loops.
2. Evaluate water main replacement: Use the model to determine if the deficiencies are
large enough to warrant water main replacement with a larger size. In some locations
it may be feasible to use multiple adjacent hydrants to obtain the fire flow goal.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 106
6.8 Summary of Existing System Evaluation
An understanding of the limitations of the existing water distribution system is critical to the
development and expansion of the system for satisfactory system performance, longevity and
to accommodate future growth. The following represents a categorized summary of the key
findings identified based on the analysis of the existing system.
6.8.1 Pressure Evaluation Summary
System pressures were generally between 50 psi and 150 psi.
The following locations operate under the highest pressures:
o The area along Oak St between N 25th Ave and N Rouse Ave within the South
Zone experiences pressures greater than 150 psi.
The following locations operate under relatively low water pressures:
o The vicinity of Hilltop reservoir with higher elevations experiences pressures
less than 35 psi during ADD and MDD conditions.
o An area with higher relative elevations in the southwest edge of the City
experiences pressures less than 50 psi during ADD conditions and pressures less
than 35 psi during MDD conditions. Low pressure in this area can be raised by
5 to 10 psi with additional looping in the area and construction of the west
transmission main included in the CIP.
o The area along Blackwood Rd between 19th Ave and 31st Ave.
o The area along 3rd Ave between Cambridge Dr and Goldenstein Ln.
6.8.2 Storage Evaluation Summary
Operational storage was determined to be adequate for the existing MDD conditions.
Fire storage was determined to be adequate for the existing distribution system.
Emergency storage was determined to be adequate for the existing system.
Current operation of the reservoirs results in minimal water turnover. The City should
consider increasing the operation range of reservoir levels or implementing reservoir
mixing systems to improve water quality if it is determined that there are water age
concerns and declining disinfectant residuals in the system.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 107
6.8.3 Water Main Capacity Evaluation Summary
Observations of headloss exceeding the established criteria for PHD during MDD conditions
included the following:
The 12-inch water main along Garfield St between Black Ave and 4th Ave has maximum
headloss between 5 and 7 ft/1000 ft, and between 2 and 5 ft/1000 ft between 4th Ave
and 8th Ave.
The 14-inch water main along College St between Black Ave and 3rd Ave has maximum
headloss between 5 and 7 ft/1000 ft, and between 2 and 5 ft/1000 ft between 3rd Ave
and 12th Ave.
The 14-inch water main along South Black Ave between College St and Story St has
maximum headloss between 6 and 8 ft/1000 ft, and between 2 and 5 ft/1000 ft between
Story St and Olive St.
The 14-inch water main along 19th Ave between Garfield St and College St has
maximum headloss between 2 and 4 ft/1000 ft.
The 12-inch water main along Highland Blvd between Cedar View Dr and Aspen Pointe
Dr has maximum headloss between 2 and 5 ft/1000 ft.
The 12-inch water main on Oak St between Rouse Ave and 7th Ave has maximum
headloss between 2 and 5 ft/1000 ft.
The 18-inch and 24-inch transmission main between the Sourdough reservoir and Graf
St has maximum headloss between 2 and 2.25 ft/1000 ft.
The 18-inch transmission main between the Lyman reservoir and Boylan Rd has
maximum headloss between 2 and 3 ft/1000 ft. This headloss is due to the C-Factor of
100 established during model calibration and a peak flow rate of 2,250 gpm. Over half
of the flow (> 1,200 gpm) is due to operation of the Pear Street Booster Station to
transfer water from the Lyman reservoir to the South Zone.
The 6-inch water main along Kagy Boulevard between South 3rd Avenue and South 11th
Avenue has maximum headloss between 5 and 8 ft/1000 ft under MDD conditions.
The remaining sections of pipe with higher headloss are spatially separated, in short
sections, and primarily in areas with 6-inch diameter cast iron pipe.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 108
6.8.4 Fire Flow Evaluation Summary
The analysis shows that a vast majority of the system (over 90 percent) achieves an
available fire flow of greater than 3,000 gpm.
There are only 10 locations within the system that do not meet a fire flow of 1,000 gpm.
These locations are generally located in the zone of influence near the Hilltop reservoir
and a few locations on South 5th Avenue south of Grant Street at MSU.
Analyses showed that 94 percent of the system meets the fire flow requirements dictated
by surrounding land use. There are a number of isolated hydrants that do not meet the
fire flow goal based on the land use analysis. Along with these areas, four larger areas
were identified as the following:
o Hydrants located near MSU between Kagy Blvd and Garfield St and between
3rd Ave and 12th Ave.
o Hydrants located near the hospital on Highland Blvd between Ellis St and Knolls
Dr.
o Hydrants located on the I-90 Frontage Rd east of Haggerty Ln.
o Hydrants located in the trailer court located southeast of the intersection of Black
Powder Trl and 19th Ave.
It is recommended that the City further investigate the hydrants shown as not achieving
the fire flow goal based on the recommendations provided in Section 6.7.
6.9 Additional System Considerations and Recommendations
The recommendations included in this section augment the capital improvement projects found
in Chapter 10.
6.9.1 Pressure Regulating Facilities
Pressure regulating facilities (PRV’s) will be required at many new locations as development
occurs, both to reduce pressure in new portions of the distribution system and to isolate new
zones from high pressure zones in the City’s current system.
The City has developed design standards for future PRV stations that utilizes a dual PRV (lead-
lag) pressure reducing vault with pressure reducing and downstream pressure relief
functionality.
Additional functionality should be considered including downstream surge, upstream pressure
sustaining and upstream pressure relief to protect the upstream (high pressure) side of the
system. These functions provide additional levels of protection for the distribution system:
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 109
Downstream Surge Protection – Provides a stand-alone and quick response to close the
PRV when downstream pressure exceeds safe parameters. It also serves as a backup
control system to the normal reducing pilot should the closing function not operate as
intended.
Upstream Pressure Sustaining – Provides a mechanism to ensure upstream pressures do
not fall below safe operating pressure during periods of increased demand downstream
or limited supply upstream. This function is typically used where critical customers exist
upstream or the piping network has limited capacity. It is important that other water
sources exist to meet downstream demands when upstream sustaining requirements take
precedence.
Pressure Relief – Provides a means to quickly relieve elevated pressures within the
system. This function can be set to monitor and relieve upstream and/or downstream
pressures.
Ensuring pressure relief in individual pressure zones will remain a critical element of a multi-
faceted approach to pressure management. Proper design and location of PRVs will continue to
have heightened importance due to continued operation at elevated system pressures.
In addition to new PRV facilities, upgrades to the City’s existing PRVs are recommended. The
City should consider incorporating the following features at new and existing PRV facilities:
Pressure and flow modes of control;
Valve position monitoring;
Thermostats;
Chlorine residual analyzers;
Means to monitor water levels in the vault (i.e. flood and sump pump runs); and
Means to monitor/verify that good communications exist.
The City should survey all existing PRV vault and depth to the PRV to obtain the actual
elevation of the PRV. Once true elevations are obtained, the hydraulic profiles should be
updated and the operating HGLs reviewed for required updates or required changes in the field.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 110
Additionally, the City should consider enhanced controls and monitoring through:
Variable pilot settings on valves;
Remote selection of flow/pressure modes;
Remotely operated isolation valves; and
Means to remove a PRV from service remotely.
For alarms, the City should consider:
High/Low pressures;
High flow;
Pressure relief valves off seat;
Excessive sump pump runs or duration;
Intrusions;
High/low temperatures; and
Water quality parameters.
Ideally, the facilities will be retrofitted or designed to allow operators with convenient access
and compliance with confined space requirements. Currently, the process of accessing the
existing structures is difficult, and in some cases, not safe.
6.9.2 Existing PRV Facilities Abandonment
PRV Facility abandonment should be considered as a SCADA program is expanded to remote
facilities, and budgets are established to address deficiencies at existing PRV stations. Some
existing PRV stations could be abandoned without losing system function or performance.
A more in depth modeling effort would be needed to determine hydraulic capacity of each
corridor and PRV station. The additional modeling is necessary to determine the level of
redundancy needed to minimize risk and comply with the criteria within the Water Facility Plan
Update.
Accessibility improvements and the installation of SCADA will be costly, but there will be
incremental cost savings realized by eliminating redundant PRV stations. Future improvements
should be based on a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 6 – Existing System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 111
6.9.3 SCADA for Water Distribution Remote Facilities
As the system continues to evolve and additional remote facilities are added, the ability to
monitor the entire water system by expanding SCADA to ensure system anomalies are detected,
investigated and resolved when they occur will become increasingly important. This is
particularly true if the City takes a long-term approach to phasing in lower system operating
pressures, while continuing to operate infrastructure that continues to age at relatively high
system pressures for the foreseeable future.
Future SCADA provisions that should be considered include:
Electrical service and associated minimum clearances;
Appropriately located taps for pressure monitoring devices;
Provisions for flow monitoring;
Valve position indicators;
Sump pumps and intrusion alarms;
Water quality analyzers may also be situated within these facilities allowing for
continual system monitoring and data collection once a SCADA system is in place;
SCADA elements will also include a wide-area network that is built upon a reliable
infrastructure backbone;
An organizational shift to prioritize technical proficiency and capabilities to maintain a
much larger, more widespread SCADA system; and
Tools to incorporate SCADA data into regular operation protocols.
6.9.4 Lead Service Line Connections
In the spring of 2016, the City embarked on a 3-year program to remove approximately 170 lead
service lines. Each service lined is owned by the City in its entirety. To achieve its 3-year
removal goal, a combination of City staff as well as a private contractor will complete the work.
As of October 2016, a total of 50 lines have been removed and replaced. The average cost of
replacement of a lead service line is around $4,800.
The City should continue this effort and make adjustments to the removal timeframe if water
quality or regulatory drivers change.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Pressure Zone and Pressure Reduction Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 112
CHAPTER 7 PRESSURE ZONE AND PRESSURE REDUCTION
EVALUATION
The hydraulic analysis of the existing water distribution system identified areas of the network
that exceed the recommended operating pressures outlined in Chapter 5. Operating at high
pressures can result in increased water loss, create higher O&M costs due to more frequent
failures, present unnecessary risk to City employees, and increase the risk of catastrophic pipe
breaks. The goal of pressure management is to minimize unneeded excessive system pressure
while maintaining the required level of service to meet the standards of water quality and fire
protection.
This chapter presents the results of an evaluation of the potential to reduce existing operating
pressures, identifies issues associated with reducing system pressure, and provides
recommendations on pressure management.
7.1 Existing System Pressure Reduction Concept
The pressure reduction concept focuses on bringing the City into a more manageable pressure
regime by modifying existing pressure zone boundaries or creating new zones that would allow
the City to largely operate its system within the recommended pressure range of 50-110 psi,
which would reduce system pressure in the downtown region by approximately 40 psi. Pressure
reduction of this magnitude would particularly benefit the downtown business district by
reducing the stress on older pipelines that have experienced significant pipe failures over the
past decade. A strategy was developed to reduce system pressure and promote long-term
operational flexibility to the City, which includes the following system modifications:
Split the existing Northwest Zone into two pressure zones. A total of four new PRV
stations would be required. The new northern pressure zone would operate at an HGL
of 4840 ft. The new southern zone would operate at an HGL of 4940 ft, which is
currently the HGL for the existing Northwest Zone.
Combine the existing South and Northeast Zone and reduce the operating HGL to
5038 ft. A southern portion of the existing South Zone would be split from the new
zone. A total of six new PRV stations would be required. This new southern zone would
operate at an HGL of 5125 ft, which is currently the HGL of the existing South Zone
(downtown area).
Figure 7-1 shows the proposed system modifications. The proposed pressure modifications
were evaluated using the updated and calibrated hydraulic model to determine the resulting
impacts on hydraulic performance, specifically pressure and fire flow. Outside of the hydraulic
model, fire suppression systems were investigated to determine external system impacts.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Pressure Zone and Pressure Reduction Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 113
7.2 Pressure Reduction Hydraulic Model Evaluation
7.2.1 Pressure Reduction Modeling Scenarios
The pressure reduction analysis included two model scenarios, which used existing system
demands described in Chapter 6. Results from the existing system evaluation and hydraulic
performance criteria described in Chapter 5 were used to evaluate the model results. Table 7.1
shows the different model scenarios used in the pressure reduction hydraulic analysis.
Modeling Scenario Modeling Demand Condition Demand (MGD)
RED_PR_3300 Maximum Day 11.7
RED_PR_3310 Available flow calculated during
Maximum Day 11.7
Table 7.1: Existing System Modeling Scenarios
RED_PR_3300 is an EPS scenario using the maximum day demand. This scenario
simulates the City’s supply facilities and transmission/distribution system capabilities
during periods of high demand with pressure reduction.
RED_PR_3310 is a Steady State scenario using maximum day demand, and is used to
calculate the available fire flow to determine if both minimum residual system pressure
and flow can be maintained in the event of a fire with pressure reduction.
7.2.2 Reduced Pressure Modeling Results
System Pressure
Figure 7-1 shows the minimum system pressures during MDD with the proposed pressure zone
modifications. Notable results stemming from pressure reduction include the following:
By adjusting the new PRV locations to operate the downtown area at HGL 5038 ft, the
water pressure within the downtown corridor would be reduced by approximately
40 psi, from 165 psi to 125 psi.
The new northern pressure zone of HGL 4840 would also have an overall pressure
reduction of approximately 40 psi, from 150 psi to 110 psi.
A majority of the system would operate in the recommended pressure range of
50-110 psi. Higher pressures in the northeast section of town would remain similar to
existing conditions based on the future operational regime of the Lyman reservoir.
Operational considerations include the following:
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Pressure Zone and Pressure Reduction Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 114
o Operating the downtown region at an HGL of 5038 ft eliminates the need for the
Pear Street Booster Station, which would eliminate current pumping and O&M
costs and enable City staff to reconsider pump replacement in the near term.
o The Lyman spring water could be fed by gravity into the 5038 ft pressure zone.
o Although higher pressures in the northeast exceed recommended operating
pressures, providing the City with the ability to serve Lyman spring source water
to as much of the distribution system as possible would help mitigate potential
water shortages due to emergencies (forest fire, landslide, drought, etc.) that
could affect the Sourdough and Hyalite sources.
Pressures in the southern portion of the City and the Hilltop area would not experience
significant changes in service pressure.
Available Fire Flow
As part of the fire flow analysis, the hydrant flow data was combined with land use data to
determine if the available fire flow under reduced pressures could meet the needed fire flow
requirements of adjacent parcels. Figure 7-2 shows the available fire flow based on the
proposed reduced pressure zone layout.
Analyses showed that 92 percent of the system meets the fire flow goal. This is a slight
reduction (from 94 percent) in the percentage of the system that is currently estimated to achieve
minimum fire flow goals under existing conditions (see Section 6.7).
Table 7.2 provides a breakdown of the system hydrants and their ability to meet required fire
flow during reduced pressure conditions based on land use. Table 7.2 provides a breakdown
of the system hydrants and their ability to meet required fire flow during reduced pressure
conditions based on land use.
Condition Number of
Hydrants
Percent of
System (%)
Hydrants meeting >100% of fire flow goal 2,257 92.2
Hydrants meeting 90-100% of fire flow goal 49 2.0
Hydrants meeting 80-90% of fire flow goal 35 1.4
Hydrants meeting 70-80% of fire flow goal 24 1.0
Hydrants meeting 60-70% of fire flow goal 27 1.1
Hydrants meeting 50-60% of fire flow goal 21 0.9
Hydrants meeting 25-50% of fire flow goal 28 1.1
Hydrants meeting <25% of fire flow goal 7 0.3
Total System Hydrants (Active) 2,448 100
Table 7.2: Available Flow at System Hydrants with Reduced System Pressure
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Pressure Zone and Pressure Reduction Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 115
Fire Suppression Systems/Connections
A pressure reduction evaluation for each specific fire suppression system was not completed as
part of this hydraulic analysis. Preliminary data provided from the City’s GIS records suggest
there are approximately 200 fire suppression systems/connections within the existing service
area, the majority of which are located in the downtown and Oak Street areas. Further research
revealed that there are well over 700 systems across the City. Any reduction in system pressures
can impact a fire suppression system’s performance, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. The potential implications of pressure reduction, specifically in relation to fire
suppression systems, is discussed in the following section.
7.3 Fire Suppression Systems
The City’s current fire suppression design policy allows building owners to take advantage of
the entire available pressure at the connection point to the local main. The vast majority of the
existing fire suppression systems in the City have utilized all of the pressure available at the
point of connection, in order to minimize costs (by reducing the size of sprinkler system piping
and avoiding any fire pumps). Any reduction in pressure could change the performance of the
suppression system.
To better quantify the number of fire suppression systems located within the proposed pressure
reduction areas, Coffman Engineers, Inc. (Coffman) was contacted. Coffman specializes in fire
protection engineering and has designed a majority of the fire suppression systems in the City.
Coffman provided the following information:
The number of existing structures with sprinkler systems is much larger than what is
currently documented in the City’s GIS database (approximately 200). Coffman has
provided design and construction assistance on approximately 786 different fire
suppression projects in the service area. Some of these projects are likely for the same
building, but Coffman is also not the sole design engineer offering technical assistance
to building owners/operators. Therefore, this is probably a reasonable estimate of the
number of fire suppression systems in Bozeman.
Sprinkler system designs have typically utilized all of the available water pressure
available from the distribution system, without any pressure reduction or safety factor,
to minimize the expense of sprinkler system components.
A reduction of just 10 psi would likely result in many fire systems failing performance
standards.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Pressure Zone and Pressure Reduction Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 116
Fire suppression systems exist in numerous areas around the City, not just a few core
areas, including in newly developed commercial areas to the west and northwest of the
downtown core area. Installation of an otherwise-isolated, high pressure transmission
pipeline to serve these specific systems would be extremely inefficient and cost
prohibitive.
In lieu of a dual pipeline network, modifications to individual sprinkler systems would
be needed to compensate for lower water pressures. There are essentially two
approaches to accomplish the modifications:
1. Install a fire pump in a dedicated fire-rated enclosed room with a redundant
power supply for the pump. Fire pumps require regular testing, and installation
costs are likely to average approximately $100,000 per building.
2. Upsize sprinkler mains and laterals. A case-by-case evaluation would be
required to develop cost estimates for each system, but Coffman’s rough
estimate was anywhere from several thousand dollars to as much as $100,000
per building. Coffman also noted that such a program would be extremely
unpopular, as businesses would have to shut down for significant periods to
complete the work, and many would likely resist.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Pressure Zone and Pressure Reduction Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 119
7.4 Pressure Reduction Options and Recommendation
Recognizing the significant impact a broad water pressure reduction effort would have on
existing customers with fire suppression systems, three different alternatives were considered.
One initial alternative entailed the construction of a high-pressure backbone that would connect
to just the existing fire systems; however, this option was not considered feasible based on the
geographic spread of the suppression systems and cost. The two most practical options from
the pressure reduction analysis are described below, and followed with the recommended
approach for the City.
7.4.1 Option 1: Existing System Pressure Reduction Concept
Option 1 is referred to as Existing System Pressure Reduction Concept, and entails the short-
term creation of proposed pressure reduction zones consistent with that shown in Figure 7-1.
The City can employ this approach only if the fire suppression system issue described
previously is dealt with simultaneously. This would include the following:
The City would adopt new policies and codes that require new fire suppression systems
be designed to meet new pressure standards consistent with Section 5.5.4.
Existing and planned fire suppression systems would need to be modified to meet new
City codes and policies (i.e. fire pumps, piping, etc.).
7.4.2 Option 2: Phased Development of Long-Term Pressure
Management
The City can take a longer-term, phased approach to achieve pressure reduction in the
distribution system. This includes the following:
The existing pressure zones would not be altered for the short-term/near-term. This
maintains existing pressures needed to satisfy the present fire suppression system design
requirements.
As the City continues to expand into the UBO, all new pressure zones identified in the
future UBO will be designed to conform to the hydraulic criteria recommended in
Chapter 5. Future UBO pressure zones are identified and discussed in Chapter 9.
The City would adopt new policies and codes that require new fire suppression systems
be designed to meet new pressure standards as discussed in Section 5.5.4.
Fire suppression systems that have been designed to operate off existing high pressure
would be required to conform to new City codes and polices only when substantial
building modifications or renovations occur. The transition to lower pressure in the core
area would not occur until enough re-development of existing structures with fire
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 7 – Pressure Zone and Pressure Reduction Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 120
suppression systems has taken place to make retrofit of the remaining systems
economical.
7.4.3 Recommended Pressure Reduction Approach for the City
Both options reduce system pressure and provide certain advantages to the City, which include:
Lower pressures reduce operating stress on existing pipe infrastructure in key areas of
the City.
Lower pressures reduce the likelihood and magnitude of pressure spikes (transients) that
can cause catastrophic pipe failures.
Failures that do occur would likely result in less damage.
Lower pressures limit water loss from system leaks.
Reduced system pressures create a better environment for operators when making
repairs or conducting routine maintenance.
Option 1 could be implemented immediately; however, existing fire suppression systems that
would be affected by pressure reduction would need to be modified in conjunction to satisfy
pre-pressure reduction design requirements. The cost to upgrade the existing fire suppression
systems that have been designed for current system pressure is beyond the scope of this Facility
Plan, but is likely on the order of tens of millions of dollars.
Option 2 largely follows the same methodology as Option 1; however, the system would be
modified over a much longer period of time (decades) to achieve pressure reduction in the
existing system. New pressure zones that are identified in the UBO would be required to
conform to criteria set forth in Chapter 5, leaving existing pressure zones alone in the near-
term timeframe. Option 2 is recommended based on the following reasons:
Satisfies the City’s goal to reduce system pressure;
Provides the City time to develop and implement code and policies changes.
Avoids an extraordinary cost of a one-time upgrade to the vast majority of existing fire
suppression systems. Allows the development community time to retrofit existing
systems in a more cost-effective manner.
Because of the long-term nature associated with fire suppression modification and cost, the
UBO analysis in Chapter 9 is predicated on the following assumptions:
1. The existing system pressures shown for UBO are not reduced, to ensure that current
fire suppression systems remain within their design criteria.
2. New areas of the system were designed to conform with criteria set forth in Chapter 5.
The UBO analysis places PRV stations at strategic locations to isolate the new areas of
development from existing areas with high pressure.
Once the City ultimately reduces pressure, the pressure zone configuration presented in
Chapter 9 (primarily the existing system) would need to be modified to reflect a similar layout
shown in Figure 7-1.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 121
CHAPTER 8 NON-POTABLE IRRIGATION EVALUATION
Several states and local municipalities across the U.S. have developed and implemented rules
for the use and distribution of non-potable water and the design of these systems (sometimes
also referred to as recycled, reuse, or reclaimed water systems). Non-potable use is of particular
importance in areas where water sources are scarce and potable supplies are limited, especially
during warm, dry months when irrigation accounts for a substantial portion of potable water
use.
Potential benefits of using non-potable water for residential irrigation include: 1) decreased life
cycle cost to utilities and municipalities; 2) preservation of potable quality water for potable
use; 3) reduced peak water demands for potable systems (potentially reducing distribution pipe
sizes, treatment facilities, and storage reservoirs); and 4) more reliable, local sources of water
for irrigation and other non-potable applications.
This section of the Water Facility Plan Update provides standard specifications and details that
could be adopted by the City to implement non-potable irrigation systems. The section also
includes a study of a representative future development within the City and the associated cost
and feasibility of implementing a non-potable irrigation system.
8.1 Non-Potable Specifications
Currently, the State of Montana does not specifically regulate the design and construction of
non-potable water systems. Therefore, a goal of this report is to formulate a draft set of standard
specifications for the City to utilize when developing programs and policies to encourage non-
potable irrigation system development.
8.1.1 Non-Potable Irrigation Background
In principle, the non-potable water systems evaluated herein for the City are very similar to a
reclaimed water system; therefore, reclaimed water system design and operation guidelines will
be referenced extensively in this report. One of the most comprehensive general guidelines for
developing non-potable water systems is the American Water Works Association (AWWA)
M24 Manual for the Planning and Distribution of Reclaimed Water. Key elements of reclaimed
(non-potable) water systems that are discussed in the AWWA guidelines and are applicable to
all non-potable systems include:
Pipeline and valve design
Pipeline identification, testing, and placement
Public notification of non-potable water use
Valve boxes and covers
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 122
Meters and meter boxes
Backflow-prevention assemblies
Cross-connection control
Hose bibs
Irrigation system controls
Runoff control
General recommendations for any community planning a non-potable water system also include
developing a map of the study area to show the location of the proposed water source, the
location of existing and future customers, the location of right-of-ways, general elevations of
the study area, and any pertinent boundaries. The identification of specific design criteria such
as peaking factors, storage requirements, pump station sizing, minimum and maximum
delivered pressure, pipe velocity requirements, and water delivery reliability is critical.
8.1.2 Non-Potable Irrigation System Standard Specifications
The non-potable design criteria are provided in Appendix F of this report. The specifications
follow the same format as the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy,
which also specifies the design criteria for water distribution pipelines, sanitary sewers, and
storm sewers. The content for this project was specifically adapted from the AWWA M24
Manual guidelines with consideration of MDEQ regulations, Montana Public Works Standard
Specifications (MPWSS), and the City of Bozeman Design Standards. The sample
specifications provide guidance on the following factors:
Pipe material and sizing
Main extensions
Service lines
Valves, hydrants, air relief, and pressure reducing valves
Thrust restraint
Pressure and leakage testing
Pipe separation requirements
The specifications also detail the requirements for identifying system components as “Non-
Potable” and color-coding of pipe and appurtenances.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 123
8.2 Non-Potable Study
The installation of separate distribution systems for delivery of potable and non-potable water
to customers is commonly referred to as “dual pipe”, and that terminology will be used herein.
Because dual pipe systems require additional infrastructure, the cost and benefits associated
with these systems must be carefully evaluated. This section describes the conceptual design of
a dual pipe system that would deliver non-potable water for irrigation and potable water for
drinking water and fire flow in a representative developing area of Bozeman. The conceptual
design was subsequently used to provide the basis for a Class 5 construction estimate. Life cycle
cost comparisons are also presented to compare single and dual piped water systems.
8.2.1 Non-Potable Project Location
The study area that was selected for this project is located in the Northwest portion of the City
of Bozeman’s service area and is shown in Figure 8-1. The site is bounded on the north by
Baxter Road, on the south by Durston Road, on the east by Ferguson Street, and on the west by
Gooch Hill Road. An existing potable water system already exists in a portion of the study area.
It is assumed that the areas with existing piping would not be converted to the dual piped
system.
The total study area is about 750 acres, not including the areas that are already developed. The
topography is generally flat (slopes less than 0.01 foot/foot), with the higher elevations in the
south-southeast corner and lower elevations in the north-northwest corner. Multiple creeks run
through the area.
8.2.2 Non-Potable System Design
The conceptual water supply system for the undeveloped portion of the study area is designed
as a dual pipe system providing non-potable surface water for irrigation and potable water for
drinking, fire flow, and other uses. The proposed layout of the dual pipe system is shown in
Figure 8-1.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 125
8.2.2.1 Water Demand Calculations
Demand calculations for both potable and non-potable water were performed to provide
estimates of the volumes and rates that the systems must provide. For the purposes of this
study, it is assumed that:
Annual Average Non-Potable (Irrigation) Water Demand Volume is 771 acre feet (ac-
ft).
Maximum Day Non-Potable (Irrigation) Demand is 1,808 gallons per minute (gpm).
Annual Average Combined Potable and Non-Potable Water Demand Volume is
1,312 ac-ft.
Detailed descriptions of the calculations supporting each of these values is provided below.
8.2.2.1.1 Non-Potable (Irrigation) Water Demand
The projected irrigation water demand for non-potable water was calculated in two ways –
using metered water use data to estimate outdoor water uses and using AgriMet climate data to
estimate unit area turf irrigation water demands.
Within the study area, it was estimated that 40 percent of the total area, or 300 acres, is irrigated
either as residential lawns or as open spaces and parks. This was based on the Oak Springs and
Diamond Estates developments within the City, where the parks and open spaces occupy about
17 percent of the total developed area and other residential irrigation occupies about 23 percent
of the total developed area.
Non-Potable Demand Estimated with Metered Water Use Data
Metered water use data for single-family residential users averaged across the City of Bozeman
water service area was used to estimate the outdoor/irrigation demand for single-family homes.
The estimated outdoor demand was calculated as the difference between peak month demand
and winter month demands in 2012, which resulted in an estimated peak month outdoor demand
of 2,120 gallons per acre per day (gal/ac/day) for the evaluated area. However, since parks and
open spaces were not included in the metered water use data for single-family residential users,
this calculated rate probably significantly underestimates the outdoor demand for a
development with 40 percent of the total area under irrigation.
Non-Potable Demand Estimated with AgriMet Climate Data
Climate data collected from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Bozeman, MT AgriMet
meteorological station was analyzed to provide an estimate of the total irrigation demand within
the representative development. The initial calculation assumes that irrigation areas are 100
percent sprinkler irrigated turf with cool season grasses and includes all residential, parks and
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 126
open spaces. Based on the analysis of 10 years of AgriMet climate data, the estimated water
demand for irrigation is 2.57 ac-ft/ac annually, with a peak month daily demand of 8,677
gal/ac/day (6.0 gallons per minute per acre [gpm/ac]) for areas that are 100 percent irrigated.
40 percent of the total 750 acre development (300 acres) is projected to be under irrigation.
Therefore, the resulting peak month daily irrigation water demand that would have to be
delivered across the total development area (750 acres) is 3,471 gal/ac/day. Applying the
demands based on AgriMet climate data over just the estimated irrigated area of 300 acres
results in:
Peak Month Daily Demand: 2.6 MGD (8,677 gal/ac/day over 300 acres)
Annual Average Irrigation Demand Volume: 771 ac-ft/yr (2.57 ac-ft/ac over 300 acres)
Peak Instantaneous Irrigation Demand: 3,615 gpm (estimated peaking factor of 2)
The AgriMet based estimates result in a peak month demand that is about 64 percent higher
than demands estimated using the metered water use data for single-family residential users.
The AgriMet based estimates likely better represent the demands of the non-potable study area
and are used as the design basis for the remainder of this analysis.
8.2.2.1.2 Potable Water Demand
For cost comparison purposes, the annual water volume demands for both potable and non-
potable water are needed for the study area. The average daily demand for potable water,
including all indoor and outdoor (irrigation) use, was calculated assuming the 135 gallons per
day per capita water use rate documented in Chapter 3. With an estimated density of
5.5 dwellings per acre, and 2.14 people per dwelling, the average annual demand volume is
1,331 ac-ft/yr. With the outdoor non-potable water demand estimated at 771 ac-ft/yr as
presented above, the annual indoor demand for the 750-acre development is estimated at 560
ac-ft for cost comparison purposes.
8.2.2.2 Non-Potable System Infrastructure
The non-potable system for this development would generally consist of a surface water
diversion structure, a storage pond for equalization storage, an irrigation pump station, and the
piped distribution system across the developed area. Individual system components are
described below.
8.2.2.2.1 Non-Potable Water Sources
For small non-potable systems, it may be possible to utilize small existing exempt wells (limited
to 35 gpm and 10 acre-feet per year annual use) in their existing places of use. These wells
cannot be tied into an interconnected system and still maintain their exempt status. For larger
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 127
non-potable systems such as the study area evaluated herein, centralized storage and pumping
and the use of surface irrigation water rights will be necessary.
Within the study area, there are at least two existing surface irrigation water rights that partially
cover the planned development. The portions of these water rights inside the study area have a
combined irrigated area and diversion rate of 480 acres and 1,572 gpm, respectively. The rate
of water application for irrigation purposes from the water rights is equivalent to 3.27 gpm/ac.
Additional surface water rights would be needed to feasibly satisfy all irrigation water demands
within the study area. For the purposes of this evaluation, it is assumed that a sufficient quantity
of surface water rights is available to cover the entire area of use and to satisfy the entire future
non-potable system water demand. It is also assumed that the water for the non-potable system
will be provided by the developer and diverted at the existing irrigation diversion point shown
in Figure 8-1, which is used to deliver water to the existing surface irrigation water right areas.
When a new development is proposed within city limits, the City requires cash-in-lieu of water
rights, calculated based on the total volume of water required for the development that will be
served by the municipal potable water system. However, a development may propose the
installation of non-potable water systems for irrigation, which may reduce the payment or
amount of transferred water rights.
8.2.2.2.2 Water Storage
Water from the irrigation diversion point is assumed to flow via an existing gravity diversion
to a new central, non-potable water storage pond.
The pond will be used to equalize inflows from the water supplies and outflows to water users
and will be sized to hold 24-hours of maximum day water use (1,808 gpm). to provide adequate
equalization, the active storage volume of the pond is 8.0 ac-ft, equivalent to about 3.8 days of
supply at the annual average irrigation rate. It is assumed that the storage pond would occupy
2 acres of the study area, which would reduce the number of homes by 11 dwellings.
8.2.2.2.3 Pumping and Distribution
An irrigation pump station at the storage pond will be required to deliver the non-potable water
to users at system pressure. The pump station includes a hydropneumatic tank to regulate
system pressure and is sized to deliver peak instantaneous flows (3,615 gpm) to all users with
a pressure range of 40 to 55 psi at the delivery points. Multiple pumps will be required at the
pump station to cover a range of system flow demands.
The non-potable system is assumed to be conveyed through a total of 138,000 feet of 8-inch
AWWA C900 (C900) pipe that would be supplied from a pressurized distribution main. The
relatively low operating pressures and material costs associated C900 pipe make it a cost
effective option as compared to the ductile iron pipe used by the City for its distribution system
mains, which operate at considerably higher system pressures. No distribution system modeling
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 128
was performed at this stage of the project, but based on the elevations within the study area,
only one pressure zone is required.
For costing purposes, it is assumed that 10 feet of horizontal separation will be provided
between potable and non-potable pipelines, and the burial depth will be 6.5 feet to the top of
the pipe to avoid freezing if the pipe cannot be entirely drained while inactive during the winter
months. If suitable provisions are provided to completely drain the system, a shallower depth
of bury could be considered to reduce initial construction costs.
8.2.2.2.4 Potable System
The potable system is assumed to tie into the existing water mains for the areas that have already
been developed. A total of 146,000 feet of 8-inch DIP is required for the development.
8.2.3 Cost-Benefit Comparison
8.2.3.1 Complete Study Area (Residential Irrigation, Parks and Open
Spaces)
A cost-benefit analysis was developed to compare the dual piped system to a single-piped
system. For each of the options, estimated capital costs, life cycle operating costs, life cycle
income and other benefits were quantified.
The cost estimates are based on the following assumptions:
The system is completed in one construction contract (not phased), and all construction
costs are incurred at the beginning of the 30-year life cycle period.
Costs are only included for items that are significant, or that are different between the
potable and non-potable systems. For example, the potable pipelines included under the
non-potable and potable systems would be identically sized (because fire flows drive
pipe sizing), but are a significant cost and so are included in both estimates. The non-
potable system does not connect (tap) into the potable distribution system.
A discount rate of 3.375 percent.
Water rights will be provided by the development installing the non-potable system, not
by the City of Bozeman.
Water rights are acquired as an upfront cost. The following water rights acquisition costs
were assumed:
Non-Potable $600 per acre-ft
Potable $6,000 per acre-ft
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 129
Revenue generated from providing water is the same for both alternatives. However,
depending on how the non-potable system is developed and operated, the revenue could
be different.
One of the primary benefits of the dual pipe system is the deferment of expansion of the
City’s WTP.
The cost of the WTP expansion was estimated at $25 million, and the timing of
this investment would be when MDD exceeds 22 million gallons per day.
The expansion was estimated to be necessary in 2040 for the potable only
alternative. Implementation of non-potable irrigation for the study area would
defer the expansion by approximately 7 years.
Table 8.1 provides a summary of the cost-benefit analysis for the dual piped and potable only
alternatives. Detailed cost estimates are provided in Appendix F.
Dual Piped System and Potable Only System NPV Comparison
Option Capital Costs Annual O&M
Costs
O&M Costs Over
Project Life1 Benefits2 Net Costs3
Dual Piped
System $34,200,000 $531,323 $9,930,000 ($2,420,000) $41,710,000
Potable Only
System $29,650,000 $669,186 $12,500,000 $0 $42,150,000
Notes:
1. 30 year project life, 3.375% discount rate.
2. Deferred water treatment plant expansion.
3. Total Costs – Benefits.
Table 8.1: Cost-Benefit Summary
System Cost Difference Overview
Capital Costs
It is approximately $4.6 million more for a dual piped system for this particular development
(study area).
The capital cost to install a dual pipe system is higher than the cost of a potable water only
system. The increased cost is due to engineering and construction of additional infrastructure.
The magnitude of the construction cost difference between dual pipe and potable only system
is offset by a reduction in water rights acquisition. At the current estimated water right
acquisition cost of $6,000/ac-ft, the dual pipe system results in a water rights savings of $4.2
million. Table 8.2 provides a capital-only cost overview.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 130
Dual Pipe System and Potable Capital Cost Overview
Component Potable Only
System Dual Piped System Notes
Potable Water
Distribution Cost $8,906,000 $8,906,000 146,000 ft of 8-inch DIP
Non-Potable
Distribution Cost $0 $4,606,000 138,000 ft of 8-inch
C900
Water Rights
Required
(Acre-ft)
1,331 Potable 560 Potable
771 Non-Potable
$3,360,000 Potable
$462,600 Non-Potable
Water Rights
Acquisition Cost $7,986,000 $3,360,000 Potable
$462,600 Non-Potable
$6000/ac-ft Potable
$600/ac-ft Non-Potable
Notes: Appendix F provides detailed cost estimates
Table 8.2: Capital Cost Summary
Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be approximately $2.6 million less for the
dual pipe system.
The typical operation and maintenance costs (e.g., pipe and other infrastructure inspection and
repairs, pumping) are higher for the dual pipe infrastructure than for a potable water only
system, just due to the additional infrastructure that is included. For this study area, the cost to
operate and maintain the dual pipe system is estimated at $347,323 per year. The cost to operate
and maintain the potable only infrastructure is estimated at $231,186.
However, the reduced cost of water treatment with implementation of dual pipe more than
offsets the typical operation and maintenance cost difference between the two systems. 1,331
acre-ft of potable water is required for the potable only compared to 560 ac-ft for the dual piped
system. 771 acre-ft of water will not require potable-level treatment for the dual pipe alternative.
Based on the City’s current unit treatment costs of $0.00101 cents per gallon, this represents an
annual cost savings of $254,000. Approximately $2.5 million would be saved over a 30-year
period.
A dual-pipe system would not reduce distribution electricity costs, as the City of Bozeman
distribution system is predominantly gravity fed, including the entire area included in the study
area.
WTP Expansion Deferment
Deferring future expansion of the WTP is another cost savings provided by large-scale
implementation of a dual pipe system. Potable water demands for the current City population
is currently 11.7 MGD during MDD conditions. Based on the current MDD and anticipated
growth of the City it was estimated that the existing 22 MGD Sourdough WTP will need to be
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 131
expanded by 2040. At that time, an estimated $25 million dollar (in 2017 dollars) expansion of
the Sourdough WTP will be required. The monetary value of the delayed WTP expansion
benefit depends upon the rate of water demand growth and the rate of non-potable system
development to offset demands.
The 300 irrigated acres in the proposed development requires a total of 2.6 MGD of peak month
daily demand. At an assumed average annual demand growth rate of 2.0%, 2.6 MGD provides
approximately 7 years of demand growth. Delaying a $25 million project by 7 years results in
an approximately $2.4 million cost savings.
8.2.3.2 Dual Pipe for Parks and Open Spaces Only
A dual pipe system for parks and open spaces within the study area (excluding residential
irrigation) was evaluated to determine if a more targeted dual pipe system would significantly
alter the cost analysis. This alternative would provide non-potable water to parks and open
spaces within the study area, but residences would use potable water for all indoor and outdoor
applications. This alternative reduces the capital cost of the non-potable system by reducing the
size of the distribution system, storage pond and booster station. Parks and open spaces
represent approximately 17 percent of the total study area.
The estimated net cost for a non-potable system for the parks and open space areas is $39
million, $3.2 million less than the cost of a potable only system. The savings of eliminating
residential dual-pipe is offset by the lack of savings in water rights acquisition costs. The
deferment to the expansion of the Sourdough WTP would shorten from approximately 7 to 2
years. The results of the non-potable analysis for only parks and open spaces are summarized
in Table 8.3.
Dual Piped System for All Outdoor Uses, Dual Piped System for Parks and Open Spaces Only, and Potable Only
System
Option Capital Costs Annual O&M
Costs
O&M Costs
Over Project
Life1
Benefits2 Net Costs3
Dual Piped System $34,200,000 $531,323 $9,930,000 ($2,420,000) $41,710,000
Dual Piped System,
Parks and Open
Spaces
$29,250,000 $557,024 $10,410,000 ($750,000) $38,910,000
Potable Only System $29,650,000 $669,186 $12,500,000 $0 $42,150,000
Notes:
1. 30 year project life, 3.375% discount rate.
2. Deferred treatment plant expansion.
3. Total Costs - Benefits.
Table 8.3: Overall Cost-Benefit Summary
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 8 – Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 132
8.2.4 Summary
The construction of a dual pipe system requires a larger up-front capital investment than the
potable only system. These additional costs are due to the installation of a second set of piping
and other infrastructure such as a storage pond and booster system. For the study area, the dual
pipe system is approximately $4.6 million more than a potable only system.
The annual operations and maintenance costs are less for the dual piped system. The lower costs
are due to the savings realized in reduced treatment costs when compared to treating irrigation
water to potable standards. Over the life of the project, projected savings in operations and
maintenance costs for the dual pipe system is estimated at approximately $2.6 million.
Delaying the expansion of the Sourdough WTP provides an additional $2.4 million dollars in
savings for the dual pipe system.
1,331 acre-ft of potable water is required for the potable only compared to 560 ac-ft for the dual
piped system. 771 acre-ft of water will not require potable-level treatment for the dual pipe
alternative. At the current estimated water right acquisition cost of $6,000/ac-ft for potable and
$600/ac-ft for non-potable, the dual pipe system results in a water rights savings of $4.2 million.
After considering all cost and benefit differences, the overall costs of a dual pipe system for the
study area is estimated to be about $400,000 dollars less that a potable only system. This
difference is insignificant relative to the level of accuracy of conceptual cost estimation.
Targeting implementation of non-potable irrigation for parks and open spaces only within the
study area improves the comparison in favor of non-potable, but not to a great extent, due to
the reduction in savings in water rights acquisition.
There are some key drivers of economic viability for dual pipe that may alter the application of
this analysis:
Economies of scale – smaller dual pipe systems for entire developments will not fare
as well in a cost comparison against potable only systems. The cost to install the
additional infrastructure will likely outweigh the benefit of reducing water treatment
and water rights acquisition costs.
Water rights acquisition costs – should water rights acquisition costs increase over
time, the economics of dual pipe systems will benefit.
Potable water treatment and distribution costs – currently water treatment and
distribution costs are low in the City of Bozeman. If this changes with new sources
then the economics of dual pipe systems will benefit.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 133
CHAPTER 9 FUTURE SYSTEM EVALUATION
This chapter presents the plan for the City’s future water distribution system and the expansions
and improvements necessary to meet recommended water system service performance criteria
under UBO water demand conditions. The hydraulic model was used to evaluate and identify
future distribution system infrastructure needs and address deficiencies identified in the existing
system evaluation discussed in Chapter 6.
Anticipated growth in the near-term (5-15 year horizon) is expected in the South Zone, the
Northwest Zones, and the WTP Zone. The development of the CIP and scheduling of
improvements is based on the expected community growth. Growth and development in the
Mountain Zones is likely to occur in the long-term planning horizon, or beyond the 15-year
horizon of the near-term planning period. The mountain zone areas were evaluated to ascertain
UBO infrastructure improvements for transmission main, pumping stations, and reservoirs,
such that the short-term and near-term improvements could be coordinated with the long-term
vision of the water system. .
Additionally, three supplementary hydraulic modeling evaluations were completed to assess
specific issues for the City’s future growth. These evaluations include the following:
Moving the Lyman reservoir to a higher HGL in the system;
The addition of a groundwater source and water supply located west of the City; and
The effect of future water conservation on hydraulic capacity.
9.1 Future System Demands
Demand data sets were developed within the hydraulic model for use in evaluation of the future
system using the methodology described in Section 3.5. A summary of the future system
demands used within the hydraulic model are presented in Table 9.1. The current diurnal
demand curves (Average Day and Maximum Day) were applied to the future demand data to
develop the future diurnal demand curves to conduct extended period simulation model runs.
Demand Day Demand
(MGD)
Demand with Water
Conservation (MGD)
Average Day 23.8 21.5
Maximum Day 53.6 49.8
Table 9.1: Future System Demands
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 134
Figure 9-1: Typical Future Diurnal Demand Curves
The consumption rates in the UBO areas were spatially distributed using InfoWater Demand
Allocator®. The InfoWater Demand Allocator® module uses GIS technology to assign land
use consumption data (gpd/ac) to a designated node within the water distribution network. For
each junction in the UBO area, algorithms in the software determine the area of influence, or
area served by each node and adjacent pipe segments. The allocation tool then superimposes
the land use polygon and corresponding consumption data over the area of influence to
determine the total demand at each node. System demands for the UBO area are summarized
by pressure zone in Table 9.2.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 135
Zone HGL
(ft)
Modeled
ADD
(GPM)
Modeled
ADD
(MGD)
Modeled
MDD
(GPM)
Modeled
MDD
(MGD)
Modeled
Fire Flow
(gpm)
Northwest 3 4725 1,380 2.0 3,233 4.7 3,000
Northwest 2 4850 1,191 1.7 2,793 4.0 3,000
Gallatin Park 4885 34 0.0 94 0.1 4,000
Northwest 1 4975 2,128 3.1 5,419 7.8 3,000
Northeast (Lyman) 5038 435 0.6 1,109 1.6 5,000
South (Sourdough) 5125 6,755 9.7 13,648 19.7 5,000
Knolls 5185 6 0.0 28 0.0 3,000
Water Treatment Plant 5221 1,135 1.6 2,556 3.7 5,000
Southwest 5350 714 1.0 1,783 2.6 3,000
North Mountain (2 sub-zones) 5360 599 0.9 1,434 2.1 3,000
Southeast Mountain (2 sub-zones) 5560 857 1.2 2,108 3.0 3,000
East Mountain (3 sub-zones) 5630 1,327 1.9 3,105 4.5 3,000
Total - 16,561 23.8 37,312 53.6 -
Table 9.2: Future System Demands by Pressure Zones
9.2 Future System Modeling Scenarios
The existing system was expanded to serve the future growth areas of the UBO in accordance
with the projected demands presented in Table 9.2. Modeling scenarios were established to
evaluate and address future system requirements. The modeling scenarios also included
improvement concepts to address existing system issues highlighted in Chapter 6, which
included pressure, storage, transmission, and fire flow goals. In summary, the goals for the
future system modeling effort included the following:
Develop and provide conceptual design of future pressure zones;
Establish storage capacity and general locations;
Identify future pumping requirements;
Identity the size and location of distribution mains based on water demand allocation
and hydraulics;
Evaluate the potential impacts of water conservation; and
Optimize overall system functionality utilizing performance criteria established in
Chapter 5.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 136
Table 9.3 lists the modeling scenarios developed for the hydraulic analysis of the future
distribution system. The scenarios used in the base model hydraulic evaluation are designated
FUT_1000, 3000 and 3300, which assume that the sources of water system supply comes from
both the Lyman reservoir (3 MGD maximum) and the Sourdough WTP (50.6 MGD maximum).
The maximum demands are equivalent to the future maximum day demand determined in
Chapter 3. The remaining scenarios and system evaluations, which are specific to issues
associated with system redundancy, growth, and functionality, are presented and discussed in
Section 9.9.
9.3 Future Water Distribution System Pipelines
The distribution system model was expanded to serve the UBO by adding water mains to the
existing system model. In general, a framework of 16-inch and 12-inch water mains was used
to establish the backbone and grid of the future distribution network. The 16-inch transmission
mains were generally routed along section lines and in primary transportation corridors
identified in the TMP. The 12-inch water mains were generally routed along half-section lines.
Where required to meet specific hydraulic performance criteria, the water mains were upsized
to handle larger flows, minimize headloss, or to convey water to storage reservoirs and pump
stations within the planned distribution system. The resulting layout of transmission pipelines
provides the City with the functionality to accommodate future growth in an efficient manner.
Figure 9-2 provides an overview of the future distribution system and identifies the proposed
system by water main diameter.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 137
Modeling
Scenario
Simulation
Type Description Demand
Condition
Demand
(MGD)
Source Allocation in Model
(MGD)
FUT_1000 EPS
This scenario evaluates the City’s supply facilities and
transmission/distribution system capabilities during future day-to-day
operations during future ADD.
ADD 23.8 Lyman (3)
Sourdough WTP (20.8)
FUT_3000 EPS
This scenario evaluates the City’s supply facilities and
transmission/distribution system capabilities during the peak demands
of the future MDD.
MDD 53.6 Lyman (3)
Sourdough WTP (50.6)
FUT_3300 Steady
State
This scenario calculates the available fire flow at a residual pressure of
20 psi during MDD conditions.
Available
flow during
MDD
53.6 Lyman (3)
Sourdough WTP (50.6 )
FUT_3200 EPS This scenario is set up the same as FUT_3000, however assumes that
the Lyman reservoir is raised to meet the HGL of the South Zone. MDD 53.6 Lyman (3)
Sourdough WTP (50.6)
FUT_5000 EPS
This scenario is set up the same as FUT_3000, however assumes that a
substantial source of groundwater comes from the west (Four Corners
Area) and is supplied into the UBO via a new transmission main.
MDD 53.6
Lyman (3)
Sourdough WTP (34)
Groundwater Wells (16.6)
FUT_1100 EPS This scenario is set up the same as FUT_1000, but with Water
Conservation. Assumes less water is supplied by the Sourdough WTP.
ADD with
Conservation 21.5 Lyman (3)
Sourdough WTP (18.5)
FUT_3100 EPS This scenario is set up the same as Same as FUT_3000, but with Water
Conservation. Assumes less water is supplied by the Sourdough WTP.
MDD with
Conservation 49.8 Lyman (3)
Sourdough WTP (46.8)
FUT_3110 Steady
State
This scenario calculates the available fire flow at a residual pressure of
20 psi during MDD conditions with water conservation.
Available
flow during
MDD
Conservation
49.8 Lyman (3)
Sourdough WTP (46.8)
EC_3400 EPS This scenario is set up the same as EXIST_3000 and assumes that the
Phase 1 of the West Transmission Main is in Service. MDD 11.7 Existing Conditions
EC_3410 EPS
This scenario is set up the same as EC_3400 and assumes that the
Sourdough transmission main between the WTP and the Sourdough
reservoir is offline.
MDD 11.7 Existing Conditions
Table 9.3: Future System Modeling Scenarios
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 139
9.4 Future Water System Pressure Evaluation
The future pressure zones were developed based on criteria established in Chapter 5. Specific
pressure requirements are summarized as follows:
Maximum pressure, existing system = 165 psi
Maximum pressure, new growth areas = 110 psi
Minimum pressure during PHD = 50 psi
Minimum pressure during a fire flow = 20 psi
Maximum pressure, mountain zones = 150 psi
9.4.1 Future Pressure Zone Overview
Based on the pressure zone evaluation, the future system will require new pressure zones. These
future zones are driven either by basic elevation changes across the distribution system, as well
as preservation of existing system pressures in the current core areas to continue to provide
sufficient pressure to existing fire suppression systems but not carry the high pressures into
future developments.
The future water distribution system is comprised of zone modification and new zones to serve
elevations that range from 4,500 ft in the northwest to approximately 5,600 ft in the southeast
and east growth areas. An overview of the future pressure zone layout is provided in Figure
9-3, and an overview of the system pressures by zone is provided in Table 9.4. The pressure
zone modifications are identified and described below.
Existing zones unchanged or expanded: South, Knolls, Northeast, and Gallatin Park.
Modified existing zones: The West and Northwest existing zones are combined into a
new zone identified as Northwest 1. The West and Northwest Zones can be combined
when system expansion and development results in these zones abutting one another.
Combining the zones will required a detailed review of PRV system settings and
adjustments to bring the two zones under the same HGL 4975 ft. PRV vaults should be
surveyed to confirm operating HGL, and the operating parameters should be adjusted
accordingly.
New pressure zones: Northwest 1, Northwest 2, Northwest 3, Southwest, Water
Treatment Plant, Southeast Mountain, East Mountain, and North Mountain.
New PRV facilities are recommended to have pressure relief, pressure sustaining, and
surge protection features as described in Section 6.9.1.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 140
Transmission and major distribution mains were arranged to allow zone feed
redundancy with two or more PRVs feeding the zone. However, the pressure zones
along the West Transmission Main are primarily fed from the main transmission
pipeline with additional connections to adjacent pressure zones serving as emergency
or redundant connections.
The City has historically provided redundancy through distribution sized connections
as developments were constructed within a pressure zone, which resulted in a relatively
large number of PRV facilities feeding the same zone. The City recognizes that a policy
is required to control the number of PRV facilities constructed during expansion of
existing and future pressure zones. The City should consider developing a policy that
provides guidance to developers and establishes requirements on how the City will plan
for expansion and UBO infrastructure that involves PRV facilities and the transfer of
water between pressure zones.
Northwest 3 (HGL 4725)
The Northwest 3 Pressure Zone is a large zone and operates at an HGL of 4725 ft. One main
PRV facility provides flow to this zone from the Northwest 2 Zone during day-to-day
operations. Additional PRV facilities are recommended for installation with a lower pressure
setting to provide fire flow and redundant supply from the Northwest 1 and Northwest 2 Zones.
There are no water production or storage facilities located within this zone.
Northwest 2 (HGL 4850)
The Northwest 2 Pressure Zone is a large zone and operates at an HGL of 4850 ft. One main
PRV facility provides flow to this zone from the Northwest 1 Zone during day-to-day
operations. Additional PRV facilities are recommended for installation with a lower pressure
setting to provide fire flow and redundant supply from the Northwest 1 and Northeast Zones.
There are no water production or storage facilities located within this zone.
Northwest 1 (HGL 4975)
The Northwest 1 Pressure Zone is a large zone and operates at an HGL of 4975 ft. This zone
will be fed from proposed northwest reservoirs 1 and 2 located on the west side of the City.
Existing PRVs can be set at a lower pressure to provide emergency (or fire flow) from the South
Zone. Recommended storage for this zone is two (2) reservoirs each sized at 5 MG.
Northeast (Lyman) (HGL 5038)
The Northeast (Lyman) Pressure Zone is an existing large zone and operates at an HGL of 5038
ft. Due to physical constraints that limit the extent of future development of the Northeast Zone,
the UBO of this zone is similar to that of the existing zone with the exception of minor growth
to the east of the existing zone. Demand by the North Mountain Zone will be served from the
Lyman reservoir. The additional growth within the Northeast Zone and the addition of the North
Mountain Zone increases the demand in the Northeast Zone to about 3.8 MGD during MDD.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 141
The increased demand in the future for this zone will exceed Lyman Spring production rates,
and that the Pear Street Booster Station will not be utilized under future MDD conditions.
Gallatin Park (HGL 4885)
The Gallatin Park Pressure Zone is an existing small zone and operates at an HGL of 4885 ft.
The expansion of this zone is limited north and eastward from the existing zone, which is bound
by the East Gallatin River and the Frontage Rd/railroad. Two existing pressure reducing valves
provide water to this zone. There are no water production or storage facilities within this zone.
The Gallatin Park Zone operating at an HGL of 4885 ft is similar to the proposed Northwest 2
Zone operating at an HGL of 4850 ft. Lowering the Gallatin Park Zone to an HGL of 4850 ft
will reduce pressure in the existing zone by about 15 psi. Further investigation regarding
impacts to any existing fire suppression systems should be completed prior to lowering the
operating HGL. Combining these two zones eliminates the need for a proposed PRV facility
on Manley Rd, which is currently shown to separate these zones.
South (Sourdough) (HGL 5125)
The South (Sourdough) Pressure Zone is the largest existing zone and operates at an HGL of
5125 ft. The UBO of this zone indicates expansion on the south side of the City in an east-west
direction. There are two existing finished water storage facilities within this zone: the
Sourdough and Hilltop reservoirs, with volumes of 4 MG and 2 MG, respectively. Additional
recommended storage for the UBO condition includes one new reservoir located on the site of
the existing Sourdough reservoir sized at 4 MG, and two reservoirs located in the southwest
portion of the zone sized at 5 MG each.
Knolls (HGL 5185)
The Knolls Pressure Zone is an existing small zone and operates at an HGL 5185 ft. The UBO
of this zone involves infill only with no expansion in area. The Knolls booster station will
continue to provide water and pressure to this zone. The existing pumps in the Knolls booster
station are capable of meeting the domestic and fire flow requirements of the UBO system.
There are no water production or storage facilities within this zone.
Water Treatment Plant (HGL 5221)
The Water Treatment Plant Pressure Zone will operate at an HGL of 5221 ft when the WTP
reservoir comes on line in 2017 with a storage volume of 5.3 MG. The WTP reservoir will
gravity feed this zone, which is roughly comprised of the area between Patterson Rd and
Blackwood Dr west of Sourdough Rd. Additional storage for this zone includes two reservoirs,
each sized at 5 MG. The total planned UBO storage volume in the WTP Zone is15.3 MG.
Southwest Mountain (HGL 5350)
A new pump station will be required to serve the new Southwest Mountain Pressure Zone with
an HGL of 5350 ft. The zone is generally located south of the existing City and west of
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 142
Sourdough Rd. The preliminary location for the proposed pump station is adjacent to the
existing Sourdough WTP. The Southwest Mountain Zone is projected to have a maximum day
demand of approximately 1,800 gpm. The proposed pump station would have a capacity of
about 1,800 gpm at UBO, with a TDH of approximately 130 feet. The pump station could be
located adjacent to a proposed storage reservoir in this area. There is no redundant supply
planned to serve the Southwest Mountain zone.
Southeast Mountain (HGL 5560)
A new pump station will be required to serve the new Southeast Mountain Pressure Zone with
an HGL of 5560 ft. The Southeast Mountain Zone is generally located southeast of the City.
The preliminary location for the proposed pump station is adjacent to the existing Sourdough
WTP. The Southeast Mountain Zone is projected to have a maximum day demand of about
2,100 gpm. The pump station should have a capacity of about 2,100 gpm with a TDH of
approximately 345 ft. A new storage reservoir with a volume of 4.0 MG is planned for this
zone. There is no redundant supply planned to serve the Southeast Mountain Zone.
The Southeast Mountain Zone will require sub-zones to manage system pressures due to the
extreme topographic relief across the zone. At a minimum, one sub-zone with a HGL of 5340 ft
should be developed to limit pressures to a maximum of 150 psi. Additional sub-zones will be
required to reduce pressures below 110 psi. Specific sub-zone pressures and system design
should be evaluated as planning for development and buildout progresses for the Southeast
Mountain Zone.
East Mountain (HGL 5630)
A new pump station will be required to serve the new East Mountain Pressure Zone with an
HGL of 5630 ft. The East Mountain Zone is located east of the City. The preliminary location
for the proposed pump station is along Story Hill Rd north of Kelly Canyon Rd. There are no
existing transportation corridors or roadways in this proposed pressure zone; therefore, the
layout of the proposed water system in this zone is conceptual.
The East Mountain Zone is projected to have a maximum day demand of approximately
2,715 gpm. The new pump station would have a capacity of approximately 2,715 gpm with a
TDH of approximately 530 ft. Detailed design of the pump station will depend on the location
of a proposed storage reservoir and pipeline configuration in this area.
None of the East Mountain Zone is within the 2040 TMP limits. The East Mountain Zone will
require additional sub zones to manage system pressures due to the extreme topographic relief
across the zone. At a minimum, two sub-zones should be created at an HGL of 5410 ft and an
HGL of 5190 ft to limit pressures below 150 psi. Additional sub-zones will be required to
reduce system pressures below 110 psi. Specific sub-zone pressures and system design should
be evaluated as planning for development and buildout progresses for the East Mountain Zone.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 143
North Mountain Zone (HGL 5360)
A new pump station will be required to serve the new North Mountain Pressure Zone with an
HGL of 5360 ft. The North Mountain Zone is generally located north of the city and northwest
of the Lyman Creek area. The preliminary location for the proposed pump station is near the
existing Lyman system reservoir. There are no existing transportation corridors or roadways in
the proposed pressure zone; therefore, the layout of the proposed water system in this zone is
conceptual. There is no redundant supply planned to serve the North Mountain Zone.
The North Mountain Zone is projected to have a maximum day demand of about 1,000 gpm.
The new pump station should have a capacity of about 1,450 gpm with a TDH of approximately
325 ft. Detailed design will depend on the location of a proposed storage reservoir and pipeline
configuration in this area.
None of the North Mountain Zone is within the 2040 TMP limits. The North Mountain Zone
may not develop for several decades, but when development occurs, additional sub-zones are
necessary due to the extreme topographic relief across the zone. At a minimum, one sub-zone
with an HGL of 5125 ft should be created to limit pressures below 150 psi. An additional zone
would be required to reduce system pressures below 110 psi. Specific sub-zone pressures and
system design should be evaluated as planning for development and buildout progresses for the
North Mountain Zone.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 145
9.4.2 Average Demand Conditions
Minimum system pressures within the proposed distribution system during future ADD
conditions (23.9 MGD) are presented in Figure 9-4 and are summarized by pressure zone in
Table 9.4. Pressures generally range from 50 to 150 psi throughout the distribution system.
Zone
Operating
HGL Pressures During ADD (psi) Pressures During MDD (psi)
(ft) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
Northwest 3 4725 44 99 73 38 99 71
Northwest 2 4850 56 109 89 54 109 88
Gallatin Park 4885 72 80 77 72 80 77
Northwest 1 4975 43 160 103 41 158 101
Northeast (Lyman) 5038 100 155 131 98 155 131
South (Sourdough) 5125 6 165 110 7 162 107
Knolls 5185 52 68 83 52 68 83
Water Treatment Plant 5221 42 102 69 40 96 65
Southwest Mountain 5350 38 118 79 35 116 78
North Mountain
(2 sub-zones) 5360 56 174 110 56 173 110
Southeast Mountain
(2 sub-zones) 5560 41 169 106 38 169 106
East Mountain
(3 sub-zones) 5630 28 160 103 26 159 102
Table 9.4: Future System Pressure during Average Day and Maximum Day Demand
There are locations near the reservoirs that experience pressures below 50 psi, and some even
below 35 psi. This is because of the minimal elevation difference between these areas and the
respective reservoir overflow elevations. The lowest pressures in the South Zone (6 psi) are
located at the hydrants immediately adjacent to the Sourdough and Hilltop reservoirs.
The other locations that experience low pressures between 35 and 50 psi during future ADD
include the following:
The area along Blackwood Rd between 19th Ave and 31st Ave
The area along 3rd Ave between Cambridge Dr and Goldenstein Ln.
These areas currently experience pressures less than 35 psi during present ADD conditions.
Low pressures experienced in these areas are the result of a combination of elevation and system
headloss challenges. Additional looping within this area and construction of the West
Transmission Main Phase 1 are required to raise the existing minimum system pressures above
35 psi. Information regarding the West Transmission Main is presented in Section 9.7.1.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 146
A small area within the vicinity of the Hilltop reservoir will continue to experience pressures
less than the established criteria of 35 psi during future ADD conditions. This area generally
includes Kenyon Dr south the reservoir and Oconnell Dr between Kenyon Dr and Highland
Blvd. Portions of this low pressure area could be connected to the Knolls Zone to increase
pressures; however, a detailed analysis should be completed to verify impacts to available fire
flow, locations for valve isolation and separation between the Knolls and South Zone, and costs
associated with pressure zone adjustment. Rehabilitation and Repair funds allotted in the CIP
could be used to mitigate this issue.
Some downtown areas will continue to experience pressures exceeding performance criteria to
maintain the designed functionality of existing fire suppression systems, as described in
Chapter 7. If the City ultimately chooses a reduced pressure zone configuration, additional
pressure reducing facilities will be required in the South Zone.
New pressure zones on the south, west, and northwest sides of the City are planned to maintain
pressures between 50 and 110 psi. The new pressure zones in mountainous areas (Southeast,
East, and North) were established to maintain pressures between 50 and 150 psi. The higher
pressure areas are permitted under the guideline established in Chapter 5 to minimize the
number of pressure zones and PRV facilities. Some connections along pressure zone
boundaries may vary slightly from the minimum and maximum pressure guidelines.
9.4.3 Maximum Day Demand Conditions
Minimum system pressures within the proposed distribution system during future MDD
conditions (52.9 MGD) are shown in Figure 9-5 and are summarized by pressure zone in Table
9.4. Pressures during MDD are generally within 2 to 6 psi of ADD conditions. The majority
of the system pressures range from 50 to 150 psi throughout the system.
Similar to ADD conditions, there are locations near the reservoirs that experience pressures
below 50 psi, and some even below 35 psi during MDD conditions. This is because of the
minimal elevation difference between these areas and the respective reservoir overflow
elevations. The lowest pressures in the South Zone (6 psi) are located at the hydrants
immediately adjacent to the Sourdough and Hilltop reservoirs.
The other locations that experience low pressures between 35 and 50 psi during future MDD
include the following:
The area along Blackwood Rd between 19th Ave and 31st Ave
The area along 3rd Ave between Cambridge Dr and Goldenstein Ln.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 147
These areas currently experience pressures less than 35 psi during present MDD conditions.
Low pressures experienced in these areas are the result of a combination of elevation and system
headloss challenges. Additional looping within this area and construction of the West
Transmission Main Phase 1 are required to raise the existing minimum system pressures above
35 psi. Information regarding the West Transmission Main is presented in Section 9.7.1.
A small area within the vicinity of the Hilltop reservoir will continue to experience pressures
less than the established criteria of 35 psi during future MDD conditions. This area generally
includes Kenyon Dr south the reservoir and Oconnell Dr between Kenyon Dr and Highland
Blvd. Portions of this low pressure area could be connected to the Knolls Zone to increase
pressures; however, a detailed analysis should be completed to verify impacts to available fire
flow, locations for valve isolation and separation between the Knolls and South Zone, and costs
associated with pressure zone adjustment. Rehabilitation and Repair funds allotted in the CIP
could be used to mitigate this issue.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 150
9.5 Future Distribution System Storage Evaluation
Future system storage was evaluated based on the criteria established in Chapter 5. Based on
the criteria developed, storage should be the greater of the following:
1. The sum of operational storage plus fire storage, or
2. The sum of emergency storage plus operational storage, which is equal to
approximately 3 days average day demand.
Table 9.5 provides an overview of the existing and proposed storage reservoirs in relation to
pressure zones. Table 9.6 provides an overview of the distribution storage analysis based on
the established criteria.
The storage analysis shows that the emergency plus operational storage (Criteria 2) is the
controlling criteria for all pressure zones. The future system has an ADD of 23.8 MGD and an
MDD of 53.6 MGD. Under Criteria 2, approximately 69.2 MG of overall system storage is
required. The calculation for the storage applies when the source of supply is all surface water.
If groundwater supplies are incorporated as another source of water, the amount of above
ground storage in connected zones served with groundwater could be reduced.
The existing system storage includes 4.0 MG in the Sourdough reservoir, 2.0 MG in the Hilltop
reservoir, 5.3 MG at the WTP (to be completed in 2017) and the existing Lyman reservoir is
5.3 MG.
The South Zone requires approximately 27 MG of storage at UBO; however, only 20 MG is
physically located within the South Zone. To satisfy the required storage criteria, surplus
storage located in ancillary zones can be used to augment the storage requirement if connections
to adjacent pressure zones are provided. The WTP and Northeast Zones both have surplus water
storage and can directly feed the South Zone via proposed PRVs, thereby eliminating the need
for the incremental storage volume requirement in the South Zone.
The same concept is valid for the Northwest 1, 2 and 3 zones, which require nearly 20 MG of
storage volume, but only 10 MG is physically proposed to be located in the zones. Ground
storage is not feasible within this zone without pumping from the reservoir into the distribution
system due to elevation and terrain limitations. Elevated storage was removed from
consideration due to the volume of water required and a desire to preserve the unobstructed
views of the mountains surrounding the community. Therefore, augmentation of supply from
surrounding zones with surplus storage, through existing PRVs, is considered an acceptable
way to comply with the storage volume criteria.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 151
Zone with Storage Reservoir ID
Overflow
Elevation
(ft)
Status
Reservoir
Size
(MG)
Total
Storage
Within Zone
(MG)
Additional Comments
South
(Sourdough)
Sourdough 5125.7 Existing 4.0
20.0
Can emergency feed to Northwest and
Northeast Zones through existing
PRV facilities.
Sourdough 2 5125 Proposed 4.0
Hilltop 5125.2 Existing 2.0
West Sourdough Reservoir 1 5125 Proposed 5.0
West Sourdough Reservoir 2 5125 Proposed 5.0
Southwest Mountain Southwest Reservoir 5350 Proposed 4.0 4.0 Can emergency feed to WTP Zone
with installation of PRV facilities.
WTP
WTP Reservoir 1 5221.4 Existing 5.3
15.3 Can emergency feed to South Zone
with installation of PRV facilities. WTP Reservoir 2 5221 Proposed 5.0
WPT Reservoir 3 5221 Proposed 5.0
Southeast Mountain Southeast Reservoir 5560 Proposed 4.0 4.0 Can emergency feed to South Zone
with installation of PRV facilities.
East Mountain East Mountain Reservoir 5630 Proposed 6.0 6.0
Northeast (Lyman) Lyman Reservoir 1
Lyman Reservoir 2 5038 Existing
Proposed
5.0
5.0 10.0 Can emergency feed Northwest Zone
through PRV facilities and South Zone
through Pear Street Booster Station.
North Mountain North Mountain Reservoir 5360 Proposed 3.0 3.0
Northwest Northwest Reservoir 1 4975 Proposed 5.0 10.0 Northwest Reservoir 2 4975 Proposed 5.0
Total System Storage (Existing and Proposed) 72.3
Table 9.5: Proposed Distribution Reservoir-Pressure Zone Summary
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 152
Zone with
Storage
Zones
Served
Required
Operational
Storage1
(MG)
Required
Fire
Storage2
(MG)
Required
Emergency
Storage3
(MG)
Criteria 1
Required
Total
Storage4
(MG)
Criteria 2
Required
Total
Storage5
(MG)
Controlling
Criteria
Storage
within
Zone
(MG)
Storage
Capacity
Surplus
(Deficit)
(MG)
Surplus Storage
Available from
Other Zones
South
(Sourdough) South
Knolls 7.9 2.40 19.5 10.3 27.3 Criteria 2 20.0 (7.3)
Use surplus from
WTP & NE
Zones
Southwest Southwest 1.0 0.54 2.1 1.6 3.1 Criteria 2 4.0 0.9 -
WTP WTP 1.5 1.74 3.3 3.2 4.7 Criteria 2 15.3 10.6 -
Southeast
Mountain Southeast 1
Southeast 2 1.2 1.08 2.5 2.3 3.7 Criteria 2 4.0 0.3 -
East
Mountain
East 1
East 2
East 3 1.8 1.08 3.8 2.9 5.6 Criteria 2 6.0 0.4 -
Northeast
(Lyman) Northeast
Gallatin Park 0.7 2.40 1.3 3.1 2.0 Criteria 2 10.0 8.0 -
North
Mountain North 1
North 2 0.8 1.08 1.7 1.9 2.6 Criteria 2 3.0 0.4 -
Northwest Northwest 1
Northwest 2
Northwest 3 6.6 2.40 13.5 9.0 20.1 Criteria 2 10.0 (10.1)
Use surplus from
WTP & NE
Zones
Overall Total Storage Required 69.2
Total Storage (Existing and Proposed) 72.4
Notes: 1 Based on 40 percent of MDD
2 Based on zone and sub-zone fire flow requirements
3 Based on 2 x ADD
4 Operational Storage plus Fire Storage
5 Operational Storage plus Emergency Storage (approximately 3 x ADD)
Table 9.6: Proposed Distribution System Storage Evaluation
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 153
9.5.1 Reservoir Operations
A review of reservoir levels during ADD and MDD conditions is provided in the following
discussion. Reservoirs were added to the model in appropriate locations and evaluated to ensure
appropriate water levels could be maintained for extended periods during average and
maximum day conditions. If necessary, portions of the proposed transmission pipeline network
supplying the reservoir were upsized, and/or the reservoir volume was increased to maintain
appropriate levels under all conditions.
9.5.1.1 Average Day Demand
Graphs of reservoir water level fluctuations, presented as percent full, during future ADD
conditions are shown in Figure 9-6. As shown, all proposed reservoirs operate above the
60 percent full mark, which indicates that the reservoirs are being filled at an acceptable rate
and have sufficient equalization storage volume. The remaining reservoir volume is available
for emergency conditions.
Figure 9-6: Proposed Water Distribution System
Reservoir Levels during Average Day Demand (23.8 MGD)
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 154
9.5.1.2 Maximum Day Demand
Graphs of water reservoir level fluctuations, presented as percent full, during future MDD
conditions are shown in Figure 9-7. The graph shows that all proposed reservoirs operate above
the 60 percent full mark, which indicates that the reservoirs are filled at an appropriate rate and
have sufficient equalization storage volume. The remaining reservoir volume is reserved for
emergency storage.
Figure 9-7: Proposed Water Distribution System
Reservoir Levels during Maximum Day Demand (53.6 MGD)
9.6 Future Distribution System Pumping Capacity
The City’s pumping facilities are used to deliver water to pressure zones that cannot maintain
adequate system pressure via gravity alone (Knolls booster station), or to transfer water to
higher pressure zones (Pear Street Booster Station). The future distribution system pumping
capacity was evaluated based on criteria established in Chapter 5. Specific pumping capacity
requirements are summarized as follows:
1. In pressure zones with storage – The station must have adequate firm capacity to supply
maximum day demand (MDD) for the zone service area.
2. In pressure zones without storage - Pump stations supplying constant pressure service
must have firm pumping capacity (largest unit out of service) adequate to meet peak
hour demand (PHD) for the zone service area plus the largest fire flow demand in the
zone.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 155
Pumping facilities identified as critical, those providing service to pressure zone(s) without
sufficient fire or emergency storage, should be equipped with an on-site, backup power
generator. Less critical facilities should be equipped with a receptacle to allow for a connection
to a portable generator
The evaluation of the future pumping facilities and their ability to meet projected water demand
conditions at UBO is summarized in Table 9.7.
Pump Station MDD
(gpm)
TDH
(ft)
Pump
Size
(gpm)
Number of
Pumps
(2 firm +1)
Motor
Horsepower
(Hp)
Installed
Horsepower
(Hp)
Southwest Mountain Zone 1,800 135 900 3 100 300
Southeast Mountain Zone 2,100 345 1,050 3 300 900
East Mountain Zone 3,100 530 1,550 3 700 2,100
North Mountain Zone 1,450 340 725 3 200 600
Table 9.7: Proposed Pump Station Capacity
New pump stations are required for the Southwest, Southeast Mountain, East Mountain, and
North Mountain Zones. The proposed pumping facilities will convey water to reservoirs
located in their respective pressure zones.
Existing pumping facilities (Pear Street and Knolls) will continue to operate to support the
future system. However, the hydraulic analysis showed that the Pear Street Booster Station is
not required during MDD because the demand in the Northeast Zone will eventually consume
all of the supply. At that point in time, there will be no need to transfer capacity into the South
Zone. The City should review pump operations periodically to assess the impact of any changes
in system demand and ensure hydraulic criteria continues to be satisfied.
9.7 Future Transmission and Distribution Main Capacity
As discussed in Chapter 5, the distribution system is considered to have deficient water main
looping or sizing if the following conditions are experienced:
velocities greater than five fps;
small diameter pipes (10-inch or less) have headlosses greater than five ft/1,000 ft;
large diameter pipes (12-inch or greater) have headlosses greater than two ft/1,000 ft.
All new water mains are sized appropriately to meet these guidelines, during PHD under both
ADD and MDD conditions. Figure 9-8 provides an overview of system headloss during PHD
and MDD conditions. The key results of this analysis are:
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 156
Proposed transmission and distribution mains meet the required velocity and headloss
criteria.
The existing system hydraulic analysis showed serval areas that exceeded the headloss
criteria outlined previously , as shown in Figure 6-7. These same areas were evaluated
under future conditions and showed an overall reduction in headloss. The headloss
reduction is accomplished by additional future system looping, and the addition of large
transmission mains. The system loops and transmission mains help convey water more
efficiently throughout the distribution system, effectively reducing headloss at
locations that previously had issues.
A small number of pipe segments within the existing system still exceed the headloss
criteria. The pipe segments are identified in Figure 9-8. To mitigate this issue, the
pipe segments need to be upsized; however, the cost associated with upsizing existing
infrastructure was deemed prohibitive based on the potential hydraulic gains, which
would only be during periods of PHD under MDD. The City should monitor these areas
and upsize these sections of water main only if a major road project is scheduled and
pipeline rehabilitation or replacement is under consideration.
9.7.1 Future Transmission Main Overview
The hydraulic analysis of the UBO showed the need for additional transmission infrastructure
to properly convey water throughout the distribution network.
Figure 10-2 provides a graphical depiction and overview of the following transmission mains
that are required to satisfy UBO demand requirements:
Sourdough Transmission Main: The Sourdough Transmission Main consists of two
phases.
o Phase I: Consists of constructing a 30-inch transmission main, connecting to a
new 48-inch from the WTP and extending to the Sourdough reservoir. Phase I
will parallel the existing 30-inch main and will provide a redundant connection
between the WTP and the Sourdough reservoir. The beneficial redundancy
provided by the Phase I Sourdough Transmission Pipeline will addresses the
lack of system redundancy between the Sourdough WTP and the distribution
system.
o Phase II: Consists of constructing a 36-inch parallel transmission main between
the Sourdough reservoir and Kagy Blvd. Phase II will supplement the capacity
and operate in parallel to the existing 18-inch and 24-inch transmission mains in
this area.
Lyman Transmission Main: The Lyman Transmission Main project includes either the
repair or replacement of existing 18-inch AC transmission main between the Lyman
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 157
reservoir and the Pear Street Booster Station. The replacement of the AC main will
allow for additional conveyance capacity and reduce future O&M costs.
West Transmission Main: The West Transmission Main is a large diameter pipeline
originating at the Sourdough WTP, ultimately extending north/northwest. The proposed
main helps satisfy UBO demand in the WTP Zone, the South Zone, and the Northwest
1, 2, and 3 zones of the future system. Additionally, Phase 1 of the West Transmission
Main, consisting of the southern portion of the segment, serves as a redundant main to
the existing 30-inch Sourdough transmission main.
A phased approach was developed for the West Transmission Main to meet system
expansion and budgetary needs:
o Phase 1: Construct a new 48-inch transmission main from the Sourdough WTP
to the southwestern edge of the existing distribution network at the location of
S. 19th and Graf St. to serve future anticipated growth and provide water
delivery redundancy. The proposed West Sourdough reservoirs will be located
in reasonable proximity to the transmission main. Construction of the Phase 1
West Transmission Main addresses the low pressure currently experienced at the
upper end of the South Zone in the vicinity of 3rd Ave between Cambridge Dr
and Goldenstein Ln. Failure of the Sourdough transmission main would have
significant consequences on providing adequate water system capacity to the
City; therefore, Phase 1 of the West Transmission Main offers a meaningful
near-term benefit.
o Phase 2: Extend the 48-inch West Transmission Main – Phase 1 westward and
north into the UBO to serve anticipated future growth and provide some
redundancy to the South Zone and subsequently the Northwest and Northeast
Zones. The proposed Northwest reservoirs will be positioned along this
transmission main, which includes the following segments:
Blackwood Dr from 19th Ave to Cottonwood Rd
Cottonwood Dr between Blackwood Rd and Stucky Rd
Stucky Rd between Cottonwood Rd and Gooch Hill Rd
Gooch Hill Rd between Stucky Rd and Baxter Ln
o Phase 3: Construct a branch off the West Transmission Main from the
intersection of Baxter Ln and Gooch Hill Rd to the northeast with a 36-inch
transmission main, to serve anticipated future growth and provide source
redundancy to more of the City (extending approximately from Baxter Ln to the
intersection of I-90 and Davis Ln).
o Phase 4: Extend the West Transmission Main from the intersection of Baxter
Ln and Gooch Hill Rd to the north with a 30-inch transmission main to serve
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 158
anticipated future growth and provide redundancy to the Northwest Zones
(extending from Baxter Ln to south of Valley Center Rd).
o Phase 5: Extend the West Transmission Main to the north, to serve anticipated
future growth and provide redundancy to Northwest Zones (extending from
south of Valley Center Rd to the north side of I-90).
East Transmission Main: The East Transmission Main project is a 24-inch main on
Kagy Blvd from east of Fairway Dr to Fort Ellis Rd and extending it northward,
ultimately to a pump station that feeds the East Mountain Zone. The East Transmission
Main is required to convey water to the east and southeast parts of the UBO distribution
network.
Southeast Mountain Zone Transmission Main: A 24-inch transmission main is required
to serve the Southeast Mountain Zone. The transmission main will extend from the new
booster station near the WTP to the reservoir storage located within the Southeast
Mountain Zone. The main will continue into the zone where it eventually will split into
16-inch mains feeding the eastern and western parts of the pressure zone. The 16-inch
transmission mains and proposed PRV facilities between the Southeast Mountain Zone
and the South Zone allow for emergency storage in the Southeast Mountain Zone to
benefit the South Zone. The PRV pilot settings would close the valve during normal
operation and allow water to flow to the South Zone when pressures force the valve to
open.
Southwest Transmission Main: A 24-inch transmission main is recommended to serve
the Southwest Mountain Zone. The transmission main will extend from the new booster
station near the WTP to the reservoir storage within the Southwest Mountain Zone, and
continue from the storage location prior to splitting into 16-inch mains feeding westward
into the pressure zone. The 16-inch transmission mains and proposed PRV facilities
between the Southwest Mountain Zone and the South Zone allow for emergency storage
in the Southwest Mountain Zone to benefit the South Zone. The PRV pilot settings
would close the valve during normal operation and allow water to flow to the South
Zone when pressures force the valve to open.
North Mountain Zone Transmission Main: A 16-inch transmission main is
recommended to serve the North Mountain Zone. The transmission main will extend
from the new booster station near the Lyman reservoir to the reservoir storage within
the zone.
East Mountain Zone Transmission Main: An 18-inch transmission main is
recommended to serve the North Mountain Zone. The transmission main will extend
from the new booster station to the reservoir storage within the zone. Once past the
storage reservoir, the transmission pipeline will be downsized to 16-inch as it extends
to the east.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 160
9.8 Future Fire Flow Analysis
The water mains in the UBO areas are sized to provide the fire flows identified for the various
land use classifications. A fire flow analysis was completed for the proposed distribution
system to analyze the transmission and distribution system piping capacity. The UBO model is
only a skeletonized network of the ultimate system, but the fire flow analysis can verify that
storage and transmission lines are appropriately sized for the intended land uses. A steady state
analysis was utilized based on MDD conditions.
A contour map was generated from the fire flow analysis to depict the available fire flows (at
20 psi) throughout the distribution system, and is presented in Figure 9-9. The contour map is
provided to illustrate the available fire flow throughout the City. As shown in the figure, some
areas that currently have less than optimal fire flows, as discussed in Section 6.7 and shown in
Figure 6-8, still have lower than optimal fire flow after build-out of the system. The areas of
lower fire flow are caused by small diameter distribution mains (generally 6-inch diameter or
less), or are local spots of high elevation.
The UBO system shows 102 existing hydrants not meeting the fire flow goals compared to 160
hydrants under existing conditions. The improvement is primarily due to the benefits provided
by proposed looping and transmission main projects. The recommended protocol for addressing
the remaining fire flow goal deficiencies is outlined below:
1. Verify system deficiency: Perform fire flow tests at the hydrants not meeting the fire
flow goal to verify model results prior to implementing improvement projects.
2. Evaluate system expansion: Review the potential for future looping by system growth
and expansion, which may show that fire flow can be increased by closing loops.
3. Evaluate water main replacement: Use the hydraulic model to determine if the
deficiencies are large enough to warrant water main replacement with a larger size. In
some locations, the use of multiple adjacent hydrants may be an appropriate strategy to
obtain the required fire flow.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 162
9.9 Additional Model Scenarios Evaluations
As part of the scope of Water Facility Plan Update, additional scenarios were developed to
assess possible changes to the system including: 1) replacement and relocation of the Lyman
reservoir; 2) adding wells to the water supply; 3) reduced demand due to increased water
conservation; and 4) assessing the initial phase of the West Transmission Main. These
scenarios and the key results are summarized below.
FUT_3200 (Lyman reservoir with raised HGL during future MDD)
The FUT_3200 scenario was simulated during future MDD conditions with the Lyman
reservoir relocated to an elevation of 5125 ft to match the HGL of the South Zone. Notes on
operation of the system are as follows:
The Pear Street Booster Station was bypassed and the existing 18-inch transmission
main was used to transfer water between zones.
System pressures increase in the Northeast Zone by 30 to 35 psi due to the higher HGL.
Operating pressures remain the same in the other pressure zones.
The Lyman reservoir requires an alternative approach to control flow from the reservoir
to account for the seasonal variability of water capacity captured by Lyman Spring.
The higher HGL will increase operating pressures across the Northeast Zone to between
130 and 190 psi. To reduce pressures within the system, the 18-inch transmission main should
be isolated as a high pressure transmission main all the way to its connection with the South
Zone. This will require installation of PRV facilities on the connections to the Northeast Zone
from the 18-inch transmission main. Despite the opportunity to bypass the Pear Street Booster
Station and increasing operating pressures, raising the HGL of the Lyman system to 5125 ft
was determined to be prohibitively expensive.
FUT_5000 (Western Well Field during future MDD)
The FUT_5000 scenario was simulated during future MDD conditions with the inclusion of a
new groundwater source located west of the City.
At the time of this analysis, the most likely location of significant groundwater supply was
thought to be several miles west of the City. The model should be modified to evaluate the
effect of connecting future sources of groundwater to the distribution system as projects evolve
and actual conditions are better known.
Notes on operation of the system are as follows:
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 163
Flow assumptions:
o Flow from Lyman Creek is limited to 3 MGD;
o Flow from Sourdough WTP is limited to 34 MGD;
o Remaining flow from the Groundwater Well Fields is 16.6 MGD.
Water from the western area of the City flows through a Groundwater Well Field
Transmission Main (GWFTM) to the Northwest reservoirs.
Water not used by the Northwest Zones, which are fed by the Northwest reservoirs, will
need to be pumped into the South Zone due to the higher elevations. The capacity of
the pump station is based on the desired system redundancy to feed water to the South
Zone.
System pressures and reservoir operations are similar to that of the FUT_3000 UBO
modeling scenario.
It is possible to reduce the size of the transmission main between the WTP and the West
Sourdough reservoirs from 48-inch to 36-inch.
Figure 9-10 shows the proposed system with the inclusion of the assumed alignment of the
GWFTM and highlights the Sourdough and Northwest transmission mains between the WTP
and West reservoirs.
FUT_1100 (Future ADD with water conservation)
The FUT_1100 scenario was simulated during future ADD conditions with adjustments for
water conservation. The scenario was simulated under the following conditions, which are
described in Section 3.5.2:
A global demand reduction factor was applied to the system to reduce the UBO ADD
of 23.8 MGD to 21.5 MGD.
The maximum source water capacity from Lyman Creek is 3 MGD and 18.5 MGD
from the Sourdough WTP.
Model results indicate that there is no significant change in comparison to results from the full
system demand under the FUT_1000 scenario. The system experiences similar pressures
(within 1 psi) and essentially equivalent rates of headloss as compared to the baseline scenario
without water conservation.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 165
FUT_3100 (Future MDD with water conservation)
The FUT_3100 scenario was simulated during future MDD conditions with water conservation.
This scenario was simulated under the following conditions, as described in Section 3.5.2:
A global demand reduction factor was applied to the system to reduce the UBO MDD
of 53.6 MGD to 49.8 MGD.
The maximum source water capacity from Lyman Creek is 3 MGD and 46.8 MGD from
the Sourdough WTP.
Model results indicate that there is no significant change in comparison to the model results for
MDD conditions under the FUT_3000 scenario. The following highlights are noted:
The system experiences similar pressures (within 3 psi), with some of the variability
due to increased reservoir water surface elevation fluctuations.
The system experiences similar maximum rates of headloss during peak hour
conditions.
Since water transmission and distribution mains are sized based on MDD and fire flows,
the impact of a 10 percent reduction in MDD attributable to water conservation is not
great enough to warrant a change in pipeline diameters associated with proposed
improvements.
FUT_3110 (AFF during future MDD with water conservation)
The FUT_3110 scenario was simulated to determine available fire flow during future MDD
with water conservation. The scenario was performed under the operating conditions
established for the FUT_3100 scenario.
The results of the analysis shows that there is no significant change in available fire flow
throughout the system. The average increase in available fire flow is approximately 0.3 percent.
The results indicate that the system is sized to meet fire flow and that the magnitude of the
MDD conditions with and without water conservation does not have a significant impact on
distribution system performance.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 166
EC_3400 (Existing system during MDD with implementation of Phase I of the West
Transmission Main
The EC_3400 scenario represents an interim analysis of existing MDD conditions with
construction of Phase 1 of the West Transmission Main from Nash Rd. to the intersection of
19th and Graf St. The scenario was developed in conjunction with EC_3410 to show how a
redundant transmission main between the WTP and the distribution system could potentially
benefit the City.
Figure 9-11 shows system reservoir operations with the transmission main installed. Figure
9-12 provides information on the extent of proposed transmission main infrastructure utilized
under this scenario. The following highlights are noted:
A flow control structure will be required to control flow into the system from the new
transmission main.
The existing flow control valve that controls flow into the Sourdough reservoir will
continue to operate.
Under normal operating conditions, the existing and proposed flow control valve
settings can be adjusted to provide flow from each control point into the distribution
system.
Figure 9-11: Proposed Water Distribution System Reservoir Levels
with Phase 1 of the West Transmission Main
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 168
EC_3410 (Existing system during MDD with implementation of Phase I of the West
Transmission Main; and transmission main break.
The EC_3410 scenario simulates operation of the new Phase I West Transmission Main, with
a transmission main break on the existing RCCP 30-inch main between the WTP and the
Sourdough reservoirs. Figure 9-12 provides information regarding the location of the
simulated transmission main break. The following highlights of the model results are noted:
The existing 30-inch transmission main between the WTP and the Sourdough reservoir
was removed from service.
No major operational issues were identified. The new flow control valve on the
proposed transmission main will require adjustment to account for no flow entering the
system at the Sourdough reservoir flow control valve.
Figure 9-13 shows reservoir level fluctuation with a transmission main break on the
existing 30-inch main. Reservoir levels showed a slight decrease when the existing
main was taken out of service; however, the decrease is considered insignificant.
Figure 9-13: Proposed Water Distribution System Reservoir Levels
with Phase I Transmission Main and shutdown between WTP and Sourdough Reservoir
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 169
Construction of Phase I of the West Transmission Main provides a redundant connection to the
source of the vast majority of the City’s water supply. Specifically, the redundant transmission
main provides the following benefits:
The West Transmission Main will allow the existing Sourdough Transmission
Main to be taken offline for inspection, maintenance and repair, if necessary.
The West Transmission Main provides system redundancy for the existing
18-inch and 24-inch transmission mains between the Sourdough reservoir and
Kagy Blvd. Two areas along the existing 18-inch and 24-inch transmission
mains were assessed for failure with the new Phase I West Transmission Main
installed:
o If a failure occurs on either of the existing 18-inch and 24-inch
transmission mains between the Sourdough reservoir and Graf St, the
model indicates that the water level in the Hilltop Reservoir will likely
drop to near empty within 24 hours of shutdown. The Phase I West
Transmission Main will allow the City to maintain minimum levels
within the Hilltop Reservoir and the Pear Street Booster Station would
still be needed to supply water and assist in maintaining pressure in the
South Zone.
o If a failure occurs on either of the existing 18-inch and 24-inch
transmission mains between Graf St and Kagy Blvd, the model indicates
that the water level in the Hilltop Reservoir will drop lower than typical
operations, but maintain a level of 30 to 60 percent full with the Phase I
West Transmission Main installed. Without the Phase West I
Transmission Main, the City would need to rely heavily on the Pear
Street Booster Station to supply water and maintain pressure in the South
Zone.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 170
9.10 Summary of Future System
A summary of improvements necessary to serve the UBO water distribution system is provided
in Table 9.8. The recommended improvements are further discussed in the following sections.
Facility Type Existing Additional Facility Improvements
Major Distribution Pipeline (miles)
(size 12-inches to 14-inches) 38 106 miles of 12-inch major distribution main
Transmission Main (miles)
(size 16-inches to 48-inches) 14 94 miles of transmission main ranging from 16-inches to
48-inches in diameter (47 miles included in the CIP)
Pressure Zones 6 8 new main pressure zones
(2 existing zones are combined to a single new zone)
Pressure Reducing Stations 22
25 new Pressure Reducing Stations to serve new zones and to
allow emergency flow between zones
(does not include mountain sub-zones)
Storage Reservoirs
(Volume)
4
(16.6 MG)
12 new reservoirs
(72 MG total system storage)
Table 9.8: Summary of Proposed System Improvements
9.10.1 UBO Water Main Overview
A total of 200 miles of distribution and transmission main, ranging from 12-inches to 48-inches
in diameter, is recommended to address future projected water demand requirements associated
with projected UBO conditions. The proposed distribution layout follows these general
concepts:
A framework of 12-inch and 16-inch water main was used to establish the backbone of
the future distribution network.
o 12-inch water mains were routed along half-section lines.
o 16-inch transmission mains were routed along section lines and large
transportation corridors identified in the TMP.
o .
At certain locations, the water mains were upsized to handle larger flows, minimize
headloss, or to convey adequate water to storage reservoirs or pump stations at planned
locations within the distribution system.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 171
9.10.2 Transmission Main
The proposed system is comprised of approximately 94 miles of new transmission main ranging
in size from 16-inches to 48-inches in diameter. Nine key transmission mains are identified to
serve the UBO and meet the hydraulic criteria established in Chapter 5. Three key
transmission mains identified as near-term projects consist of the following:
Sourdough Transmission Main (3.9 Miles of 30”-36” pipe)
o The Sourdough Transmission Main provides system redundancy between the
Sourdough WTP and the distribution system.
Lyman Transmission Main (1.6 Miles of 18” pipe)
o The Lyman Transmission Main replacing existing AC water main which will
allow for additional conveyance capacity for existing anticipated growth areas.
West Transmission Main (20.8 Miles of 16”-48” pipe)
o The West Transmission Main serves anticipated growth area on the west side of
the planning boundary and reduces head loss across the existing system.
There are six key transmission mains identified for implementation as long-term projects to
serve the mountain zones and additional areas within the UBO. The long-term transmission
main projects consist of the following:
East Transmission Main (3.8 Miles of 24” pipe)
Southeast Mountain Zone Transmission Main (5.6 Miles of 16”-24” pipe)
Southwest Mountain Zone Transmission Main (1.4 Miles of 24”-30” pipe)
North Mountain Zone Transmission Main (2.5 Miles of 16”-24” pipe)
East Mountain Zone Transmission Main (1.6 Miles of 18”-24” pipe)
Groundwater Well Field Transmission Main (5.7 Miles of 36” pipe)
9.10.3 System Pressure
The proposed UBO system is comprised of 12 pressure zones with a total of 44 new PRV
stations. Twenty-five of the proposed PRV facilities are intended delineate boundaries between
pressure zones or allow emergency flows from one zone to another. The remaining 19 PRV
facilities are intended to establish sub-zones in the mountain zones.
Pressures zones to serve the UBO are summarized in Table 9.9.
o Four existing zones are unchanged or expanded: South, Knolls, Northeast, and
Gallatin Park.
o The West Zone and the Northwest Zone are combined to create a new zone
called Northwest 1 Zone.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 172
o Eight new pressure zones include: Northwest 1, Northwest 2, Northwest 3,
Southwest Mountain, Water Treatment Plant, Southeast Mountain, East
Mountain, and North Mountain.
New pressure zones within the UBO are configured to maintain pressures between
50 psi and 110 psi.
Areas with extreme topographic relief (Mountain Zones) are maintained between 50 psi
and 150 psi. This larger pressure operating range was permitted in order to minimize
the need for additional pressure control systems.
Operating pressures within the South Zone, Northeast Zone, Knolls Zone, and Gallatin
Park Zone were unaltered from existing conditions, but the demand for water reflects
development of UBO areas. Maintaining existing system pressures is required to satisfy
present fire suppression design parameters. With a modification to the City’s code
requirements as discussed in Chapter 7, eventual pressure reduction in the South Zone
may become a possible strategy for future implementation.
Zone HGL (ft) Description
Northwest 3 4725 New zone to serve the growth area northwest
of the City.
Northwest 2 4850 New zone to serve the growth area northwest
of the City.
Northwest 1 4885 The existing West and Northwest Zones are
combined to form the new Northwest 1 Zone.
Gallatin Park 4975 Existing Zone that will expand northward.
Northeast (Lyman) 5038 Existing Zone that grows to the east.
South (Sourdough) 5125 Existing zone that expands to the southwest
and east at UBO.
Knolls 5185 Existing Zone that fills in at UBO and remains
a sub-zone to the South Zone.
Water Treatment Plant 5221 Existing Zone that expands to the west to
serve user directly from storage at the WTP.
Southwest Mountain 5350 New zone to serve an area southwest of the
City.
North Mountain
(2 sub-zones) 5360 New zone to serve the growth area north of
the City.
Southeast Mountain
(2 sub-zones) 5560 New zone to serve the growth area southeast
of the City.
East Mountain
(3 sub-zones) 5630 New zone to serve the growth area east of the
City.
Table 9.9: Summary of Pressure Zones
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 9 – Future System Evaluation
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 173
9.10.4 System Storage
A total of 12 new storage reservoirs, with a total storage capacity of approximately 57 MG, is
recommended to serve the future UBO projected demands and satisfy established hydraulic
criteria. With existing storage, the total system storage for the UBO would be 72.3 MG. New
storage locations include the following:
Storage for each new mountain zone: North, East, Southeast, and Southwest;
New storage at the Lyman reservoir;
Additional storage at the WTP;
Additional storage at the existing Sourdough reservoir site and at a location west of
the existing site; and
New storage in the southwest area of the City.
9.10.5 Pumping Capacity
The proposed mountain pressures zones in the UBO boundary will require new pump stations.
Reservoirs are recommended for each of the mountain zones and pump stations are generally
sized as follows to meet MDD at UBO for zones with storage. Pump stations required to serve
the mountain zones include the following:
Southwest Mountain Zone Pump Station: 1,800 gpm at 135 ft TDH
Southeast Mountain Zone Pump Station: 2,100 gpm at 345 ft TDH
East Mountain Zone Pump Station: 3,100 gpm at 530 ft TDH
North Mountain Zone Pump Station: 1,450 gpm at 340ft TDH
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 174
CHAPTER 10 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
This chapter presents recommended capital improvement projects identified in the course of
assessing the current water system and evaluating near and long-term needs. The recommended
water system improvement projects represent the results of: 1) the existing and future system
evaluations (Chapter 6 & Chapter 9); 2) the Pressure Zone and Pressure Reduction Evaluation
presented in Chapter 7; and 3) multiple workshops and meetings with City staff. A
comprehensive list of identified improvement projects was compiled. Cost estimates were
provide for each project, and then the projects were prioritized utilizing a ranking process
developed in collaboration with City staff.
This chapter includes descriptions of the project categories, cost estimates, prioritization
ranking, implementation considerations, and of each of the recommended improvements.
10.1 CIP Project Categories
Projects within the CIP were dived into eight categories:
Condition Assessment
Growth and Development
Optimization
Rehabilitation and Repair
Storage
Studies
Supply and Transmission
The development of these categories provided the conceptual framework of how the system
would ideally work at UBO, facilitated CIP prioritization and timeframe progressions, and
correlated projects to the City’s present fiscal resources (i.e. what type of project makes the best
use of the available capital improvement budget. Each category is described in the following
subsections.
10.1.1 Condition Assessment
Condition assessment is a process used to identify degradation of a pipeline before failure, or
to identify viable life remaining in a segment of pipeline to avoid spending money on
unnecessary replacement or rehabilitation. There is a wide range of utility investment in
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 175
condition assessment. The potential advantage of a robust condition assessment program is
more efficient use of capital.
Currently, the City performs low-resolution inspections on its water mains using acoustic leak
detection. Acoustic leak detection is an effective way to proactively identify leaks and attack
water loss. Higher resolution acoustic equipment can be used to assess the wall thickness and
therefore general condition of a pipe. To date the City has not performed, or contracted for,
higher resolution inspection / condition assessment of its water distribution system.
The condition assessment projects identified in the Water Facility Plan Update were based on
the City of Bozeman’s risk assessment19 of the existing distribution system and the tools and
processes presented in Water Research Foundation Project 465620. The research project tools
use the estimated consequence of failure, with generalized economies of scale, to identify when
different levels of condition assessment are cost-justified, based on the risk cost associated with
failure of the pipe. This assessment for the City of Bozeman identified several condition
assessment projects, which are cost-justified in order to prevent failure of the pipes.
10.1.2 Growth and Development
Areas of growth and development are shown in Figure 10-2. Projects identified for the growth
and development category provide the necessary infrastructure to serve both existing and future
customers. Growth and development projects meet three needs:
1. Service for future development.
2. Demand for water supply in already developed areas.
3. Infill and redevelopment.
These projects primarily consist of “backbone” water mains and PRV facilities to establish
proposed pressure zones.
The timing of the need for growth and development projects can be difficult to predict. For
this reason, the City treats this class as its own separate category, and the prioritization of
improvements is evaluated as growth occurs. Therefore, infrastructure projects that are driven
by growth and development are not included as specific capital improvement projects nor
included in the CIP tables herein. Estimated costs per linear foot of pipeline along with an
estimated cost per PRV facility were completed and provided to the City. Appendix G provides
the cost sheets for growth and development projects.
19 Water Distribution System Risk Assessment Response Plan. (April 2015). Bozeman, MT. 20 Development of Integrated Master Planning and Condition Assessment: A Road Map for Utilities - 4656
(Tech.). (n.d.). Water Research Foundation.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 176
10.1.3 Optimization
Projects identified for the optimization category improve system water quality, promote
network water efficiency and movement, help with pressure management, or eliminate facilities
to reduce operating cost and improve overall network performance. The projects include
SCADA upgrades, PRV improvements, decommissioning of unnecessary assets, information
management, and redundant (looped) mains.
10.1.4 Rehabilitation and Repair
Rehabilitation and repair projects are generally associated with pipe segments that experience
high break rates, water quality issues, are undersized (cannot attain fire flow goal), or require
maintenance. A risk assessment process utilizing these factors in a structured and systematic
process was used as a means of identifying pipe segments with highest risk, measured through
a consequence and likelihood of failure assessment, and then generating projects to mitigate the
risk. Depending on the risk scoring, some of the rehabilitation and repair projects would
undergo condition assessment first to better refine the scope of the risk mitigation project to be
completed.
In order to budget for possible replacement of pipes identified by condition assessment as
requiring replacement, projects were created for each CIP year as a placeholder for funds to
perform the identified improvements.
10.1.5 Storage
Projects identified for the storage category were based on the evaluation criteria described in
Chapter 5 in conjunction with the existing and future system hydraulic modeling analysis. The
projects increase the overall water storage capacity of the system, ensure adequate fire flow,
and supplement water supply during periods of planned maintenance or emergencies. All
recommended storage projects consist of ground storage reservoirs.
10.1.6 Studies
The objective of study projects is to perform additional analysis and develop better information
such that the City can make informed decisions regarding future projects. Recommended
studies include water supply investigations, water rights evaluations, SCADA master planning,
hydrologic evaluations, reservoir siting, and transmission main planning.
10.1.7 Supply
Projects identified for the supply category were determined through the hydraulic modeling
analysis. The intent of the projects is to increase the overall water supply available to the
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 177
distribution system, which ensures the City maintains its current level of service and can
adequately provide water to future customers.
Supply projects consist of groundwater well development, enhanced spring production,
watershed hydrology evaluations, and expanding the Sourdough WTP.
10.1.8 Transmission
Projects identified for the transmission category were determined through the hydraulic
modeling analysis. The identified projects consist of large diameter transmission main (16-inch
to 48-inch) that originate from sources of supply and convey large volumes of water throughout
the entire distribution system. The proposed transmission mains are critical to maintain both
the existing and future levels of service.
10.2 Opinion of Probable Project for CIP Development
This section describes the methodology used to develop the Opinion of Probable Project Cost
(OPPC) for the various types of projects outlined in the WFPU and contains the following
information:
Opinion of Probable Project Cost Basis
Estimate Classification
Estimating Exclusions
Total Estimated Project Cost
Total Opinion of Probable Project Cost
10.2.1 Opinion of Probable Project Costs Basis
The OPPC values were based on the total capital investment necessary to complete a project
from engineering design through construction. All estimates are based on engineering
experience and judgment, recent bid tabulations for projects of similar scope, and input from
area contractors and material suppliers. All costs are presented in 2016 dollars with respect to
cost index factors.
Total estimated project costs were categorized into five components, which include the
following:
Hard Costs – The actual physical construction of development (i.e. grading, excavation,
materials).
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 178
Soft Costs – Fees that are not directly related to labor and building materials (i.e.
architecture and engineering fees, permitting/environmental, contract administration,
legal).
Property Acquisitions Costs – The cost to obtain property, right-of-way, and easements.
Contingency - Amount added to the estimated cost to cover both identified and
unidentified risk events that occur on the project.
Inflation – The application of the cost index anticipated between the time an estimate is
prepared and when the project is bid or projected for construction.
The sum of these five components is the total OPPC. The OPPC values are based on the
preliminary concepts and layouts of the water system components developed as a result of the
hydraulic modeling of the system and corresponding recommendations. The estimate is to be
an indication of fair market value and is not necessarily a reflection of the lowest bid. Fair
market value is assumed to be mid-range tender considering four or more competitive bids.
10.2.2 Estimate Classification
The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) provides guidelines for
applying the general principles of estimate classification to project cost estimates (i.e., cost
estimates that are used to evaluate, approve, and/or fund projects). The purpose for following a
classification process it to align the level of estimating with the use of the information. The
estimates provided in the Water Facility Plan Update are classified in accordance with the
criteria established by AACE cost estimating classification system referred to as Standard
Practice 18R‐97.
In accordance with AACE criteria, the OPPC values are representative of Class 4 estimates. A
Class 4 estimate is defined as a Study or Feasibility Estimate. Typically, the engineering effort
is from 1 to 15 percent complete. Class 4 estimates are used to prepare planning-level effort
cost scopes or complete an evaluation of alternative schemes, technical feasibility, and
preliminary budget approval or approval to proceed to the next stage of implementation.
Expected accuracy for Class 4 estimates typically range from -30 to +50 percent, depending on
the technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference information, and the
inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceed those shown in
unusual circumstances.
10.2.3 Estimating Exclusions
Unless specifically identified, the following estimating exclusions were assumed in the
development of the cost estimates.
Water right acquisition or transfers.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 179
Environmental mitigation of hazardous materials and/or disposal.
O&M costs for the project components.
10.2.4 Total Estimated Project Cost
Hard Costs
Hard costs, or sometimes referred to as contractor construction costs, represents the actual
physical construction of a project. This section was broken down into component unit costs and
hard cost markups.
Component Unit Costs
Component Unit Costs - All estimates are based on engineering experience and judgment,
recent bid tabulations for projects of similar scope, and input from area contractors and material
suppliers. For specific equipment and materials, proposals were requested from vendors and
suppliers. The costs were increased by applying a multiplication factor to include the related
costs and expenses (such as labor, connections, and misc. materials) required to complete the
installation.
Transmission Pipelines
The pipe material assumed for new waterlines was DIP Class 51 ranging from 8-inches to
48-inches in pipe diameter. Table 10.1 presents the transmission pipeline construction costs.
The cost is based on the following assumptions:
Earthwork
o Trench depth of 6.5 ft to 10 ft to the top of pipe
o Utility bedding for pipe and conduit
o Compaction of bedding in the trench
o Structural backfill and compaction
Fittings and valves (additional 20 percent applied to pipeline cost).
Includes surface restoration of unpaved areas and county road impacts.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 180
Pipe Diameter (inch) Ductile Iron Pipe ($/lf)
8 $61
10 $74
12 $87
14 $101
16 $118
18 $136
20 $157
24 $192
30 $294
36 $369
42 $453
48 $632
Table 10.1: Transmission Pipeline Cost per Linear Foot
Existing Pipeline Replacement
The pipe material assumed for water main replacement was DIP Class 51 for 4-inch to 30-inch
diameter pipelines. Table 10.2 presents the transmission pipeline construction costs for water
main replacement. The cost is based on the following assumptions:
Review of the 2005 Facility Plan replacement costs
Review of historical bid prices for the City
Indexed 2005 costs to July 2016 dollars
Includes surface restoration (in town road repair and replacement)
Pipe Diameter (inch) Ductile Iron Pipe ($/lf)
4 $208
6 $220
8 $233
10 $258
12 $276
14 $315
16 $341
18 $388
20 $444
24 $524
30 $673
Table 10.2: Existing Transmission Pipeline Cost per Linear Foot
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 181
Non-Potable Pipelines
The pipe material assumed for new non-potable pipelines is AWWA C900 PVC ranging from
4-inches to 10-inches in pipe diameter. Table 10.3 presents the non-potable pipe construction
costs. The cost is based on the following assumptions:
Earthwork
o Trench depth of 6.5ft to top of pipe
o Utility bedding for pipe and conduit
o Compaction of bedding in the trench
o Structural backfill and compaction
Fittings and valves (accounts for 20 percent of the pipeline cost)
Includes surface restoration of unpaved areas
Pipe Diameter (inch) PVC ($/lf)
4 $16
6 $21
8 $28
10 $37
Table 10.3: Non-Potable Pipeline Cost per Linear Foot
Storage Facilities
Project costs for proposed water storage facilities were prepared for AWWA D110 – Type I
pre-stressed concrete tanks based on recent City construction estimates. The cost is based on
the following assumptions:
Circular structure at grade with a height ranging between 20 and 35 feet
Includes major components (i.e. fittings, valves, electrical, and telemetry)
Includes site access and landscaping
Project cost estimates for pre-stressed concrete construction were based on a planning level cost
of $1per gallon of storage volume provided by the structure.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 182
Pump Station
The costs for proposed pump stations are based on recent construction projects of similar scope,
vendor quotes, and engineering experience and judgement. The estimated cost reflect the
following assumptions:
Includes building, pumps, process piping, meters, valves, gauges, electrical, I&C,
HVAC, and telemetry
Site access and landscaping costs are included in ground storage tank cost estimate
Chemical feed systems are not required
Hard cost markups
Hard costs markups are applied to the hard costs and construction costs to calculate total
construction costs. The hard cost markups are reflected in the individual capital improvement
project cost estimates. Markups vary depending on the size and type of the project.
1. Mobilization – 0-10 percent
Mobilization costs include the administrative costs and expenses to mobilize
materials, equipment, and labor to the jobsite.
2. Traffic Control – 0-2 percent
Traffic control was assigned to projects that occur in the public right-of-way,
primarily transmission projects.
3. Erosion Control – 0-1 percent
Erosion control will likely be required for all construction projects to ensure
compliance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans.
4. Contractor Indirect Project Costs – 0-15 percent
Costs associated with contractor overhead variability including project
management, bonding, insurance, subcontractors, etc.
Soft Costs
To adequately complete the planning, design, and construction of projects listed in this WFPU,
there are significant soft costs that will be required. Soft costs are non-construction labor costs
consisting of architecture and engineering fees, permitting and environmental compliance,
contract administration, legal fees, etc.. Soft costs are applied to the hard costs plus the hard
cost markups. A breakdown and summary of the soft costs that were included in the cost
estimates are provided below.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 183
1. Engineering – 0-15 percent
Costs include preliminary engineering through final design, which involves the
development of final project plans and specifications that will be stamped by a
professional consulting engineer. Engineering costs include disciplines such as
process, civil, electrical, mechanical, architectural, and structural. Costs also include
surveying, testing, investigations, and inspection. Examples include surveys of
pipeline alignments and facility parcels, security and safety inspections, material
and geological testing, and inspection services.
2. Construction Administration and Management – 0-10 percent
Costs include services to provide quality control, quality assurance, and construction
management during the construction phase and services associated with the initial
operational including training of operations, maintenance, and supervisory staff.
3. Legal and Administrative – 0-5 percent
Costs associated with the local and State project approval process, and any legal
costs. Responsible tasks may include, but not limited to road crossing permits,
construction permits, county building permits, Inter-Disciplinary Team Meetings,
NEPA compliance, expenses incurred by the City, etc.
Property Acquisition Costs
Property acquisition costs are associated with purchasing property and acquiring right-of-way
or easements for the project. Costs generally consist of payments to landowners.
Contingency
A contingency is an amount added to the base cost to cover both identified and unidentified risk
events that occur on the project. Depending on the project type, the contingency values ranged
from 10 to 30 percent. The contingency values were added to the overall project base cost (i.e.
hard and soft costs) in anticipation of uncertainties inherent to the planning-level analysis
completed for the Water Facility Plan Update.
Inflation
Projects intended for construction several years in the future include a factor for inflationary
impacts to address the general trend of cost indices, which accounts for future labor, material,
and equipment cost increases beyond values at the time the estimate is prepared. For this
planning-level analysis and the unknown nature of construction/project implementation, costs
are reflective of 2016 dollars, and the adjustments for the inflation of construction costs is not
considered necessary.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 184
Summary of estimate markups
Table 10.4 provides a summary of the suggested hard costs markups, soft costs, and
contingency rate percentages.
Item Rate Range (%)
Hard Cost Markups
Mobilization 0-2
Traffic Control 0-2
Erosion Control 0-1
Contractor Overhead and Profit 0-15
Soft Costs
Engineering 0-15
Construction Administration and Management 0-10
Legal and Administrative 0-10
Project Unknowns
Contingency 10-30
Table 10.4: Total Estimate Project Markup Summary
Opinion of Probable Project Cost Sheets
Appendix G provides the OPPC cost sheets used to generate estimated cost information for
each proposed capital improvement project identified in this chapter.
10.3 CIP Prioritization and Implementation
As detailed in Chapter 3, projected future water demands will exceed both the Lyman Spring
and existing Sourdough WTP capacity at some point in the future, which will require the City
to evaluate a number of different options (e.g. Groundwater Well Field Development, natural
storage of Sourdough water, increased production from Lyman Spring).
The extent of each of these conceptual projects precludes them from simultaneous
implementation. Instead, the City will adjust future capital improvement projects as the
feasibility and cost-effectiveness of these projects is revealed, based on studies scheduled for
completion in the short-term. The study results may significantly alter the prioritization of these
CIP projects, or clarify how much investment in each is warranted. To provide the City with
the opportunity to select the most advantageous path forward to meet its future water system
needs based on the outcomes of near-term study efforts, a framework was developed to facilitate
decision-making at key milestones.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 185
Figure 10-1 illustrates the resulting decision making process and provides a basic overview of
the different planning options that would be evaluated. There are four, large competing project
pathways that require large capital investments:
Option 1 - If the groundwater wellfield assessment indicates good potential to develop
a substantial groundwater supply, the City should implement the work necessary to
capitalize on it in the near-term. Simultaneously, the near-term focus of the West
Transmission Main should be to optimize delivery of this redundant source of supply to
the Sourdough WTP.
Option 2 – If significant groundwater supply development does not appear feasible, but
natural storage on Sourdough Creek and/or additional Hyalite water is, then the City
should focus on implementation of projects to increase long-term supply through the
Sourdough WTP. The implementation of the West Transmission Main would be
adjusted (larger transmission main) to convey this additional source water from the
Sourdough WTP to the western side of the City.
Option 3 – If groundwater supply, the implementation natural storage in Sourdough and
additional source water from Hyalite do not prove viable in the short-term, the City
should consider increasing the available storage on the Lyman system. The Lyman
system is not capable of providing enough additional water to significantly contribute
to the City’s long-term water demands, but if other supplies or redundant sources are
not viable, maximization of Lyman supply will be critical for reliability and use during
potential emergencies.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 186
Figure 10-1: Future Project Implementation Pathways
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 187
10.3.1 CIP Prioritization Criteria and Process
A CIP prioritization methodology to facilitate spending limited capital in the most cost-effective
manner possible and to provide a consistent and transparent assessment of each project.
The methodology consisted of developing project narratives for each identified project, using
the City’s capital planning worksheets. The worksheets are typically used by City staff to
further describe a project, present anticipated costs and timeframes, and ultimately establish
prioritization for implementation. The project team then developed a prioritization process,
using a project scoring methodology with nine prioritization factors. The prioritization factors
were modifications of questions that the City uses in internal CIP worksheets. In addition, a few
additional, typical CIP factors were added. Table 10.5 lists the final nine prioritization factors
used in the matrix to develop the City’s CIP.
Table 10.5: Prioritization Factors
Each prioritization factor was given an importance factor, so that greater importance could be
given to factors most critical to the City. Six scoring levels were developed for each
prioritization factor ranging from no impact to extreme impact. The projects were then ranked
based on the aggregation of the categories’ weighting factor multiplied by the impact score.
The timing of the CIP projects was divided into short-term (0 to 5 year), near-term (5 to 15
year) and long-term (unscheduled) timeframes. The prioritization process resulted in a ranking
for every short-term project, with the highest scoring reflecting the highest priority for the City.
Appendix H shows the initial short-term project prioritization ranking list.
The complete worksheets prepared for the short-term projects are included in Appendix I.
Prioritization Factors
1 Are there other affected projects? Coordination, prerequisite, opportunistic, etc.
2 How is capacity affected by this project?
3 Describe the criticality (i.e., importance) of this project to the operation.
4 How is connectivity affected by this project? (Reliability/Redundancy)
5 What safety issues are mitigated with this project?
6 What regulations or standards are attained with this project?
7 Risk Assessment
8 How is efficiency improved by this project?
9 What is the impact of this equipment?
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 188
10.4 Recommended Capital Improvements
Draft capital improvement project descriptions, OPPC, and prioritization and planning
worksheets were provided to the City in late August 2016 for use in the internal CIP
development process. Tables 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 present the capital improvement projects
recommended for initial consideration by the City for the short-term, near-term, and long-term
planning periods, respectively.
Figure 10-2 provides an overview of the recommended capital improvements.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 189
10.4.1 Short-Term (0-5 year) CIP Projects
Capital Improvement Project Category Project Description Project
Rank Project ID OPPC
Risk-Based CA #5 - Sourdough
Transmission Main Condition
Assessment
Condition
Assessment Perform high resolution condition assessment of Sourdough Transmission in accordance with 2015 Condition assessment report 1 WFP_02a $719,785
Sourdough Transmission Main
CA Based Rehab
Rehabilitation
and Repair
The project consists of repairs/rehab work on the existing 30-inch bar wrapped concrete Sourdough transmission main, from the Sourdough water treatment plant
to the Sourdough reservoir, and the 16-in bar-wrapped concrete pipe from Sourdough Reservoir to Kagy. 2 WFP_02b $1,000,000
Sourdough Water Rights
Utilization Study Studies Study to develop recommended project(s) to enable long-term utilization of Sourdough water rights. 3 WFP_04 $400,000
West Transmission Main
Planning Study Studies Identify design parameters, right-of-way, route and permitting for the West Transmission Main, so that design and construction can proceed once funds are
available. 4 WFP_01a $400,000
Hilltop Reservoir Inspection and
Mixing System Optimization Inspect reservoir. Furnish and Install Mixer(s), Power and Control and update Reservoir SCADA to include remote monitoring capability of mixer(s). 5 WFP_05 $239,616
SCADA Master Plan Optimization Evaluate options and develop recommendations for Wide-area network implementation for planned remote water infrastructure. Develop SCADA design,
equipment and SCADA tagging and programming standards. Formulate data accessibility and SCADA integration with other City applications (e.g., CMMS) 6 WFP_12 $250,000
Risk Based CA # 4 - Lyman Creek
Water Transmission Main
Condition
Assessment
Prepare and evaluate condition assessment plan and execute condition assessment for the high consequence transmission main through the northeast Bozeman
corridor to confirm likelihood of failure. 7 WFP_19a $134,670
Groundwater Well Field
Development - Phase 1 Supply
This project consists of three components: 1) Purchase land for construction and operation of a municipal groundwater well field; 2) Obtaining mitigation water
necessary to implement a DNRC-approved mitigation plan; and 3) Water right permitting to obtain a beneficial water use permit, the legal water rights necessary to
operate a municipal groundwater well, 4) Well development
8 WFP_10a $8,612,400
Vertical Asset Risk Assessment
Phase 1 Studies
Expand the use of risk to vertical plant assets including reservoirs, groundwater sources, PRV’s, booster stations, and treatment plants. Create a generalized risk
policy for the city that will allow for the comparison of risk across various asset classes on a comparable scale, which then allows for better allocation of CIP funding
and effort to the highest risk assets across the entire utility. Develop implementation plan
9 WFP_13 $19,838
Sourdough Reservoir Inspection
and Improvements Optimization This project would entail taking the Sourdough Reservoir offline (once the West Transmission Main is online), inspecting it and repairing it as necessary. This project
may or may not include reconfiguration of the inlet/outlet configuration to provide flow-through hydraulics. 10 WFP_16 $500,000
Vertical Asset Risk Assessment
Phase 2 Studies Expand the use of risk to vertical plant assets including reservoirs, PRV’s, booster stations, and treatment plants. Perform risk assessment per Implementation plan. 11 WFP_14 $85,963
Risk Based R&R Rehabilitation
and Repair This bucket of funds could be used for both Risk-based CA and those which are only Fire-flow driven (or opportunistic upgrades) 12 WFP_15 $2,500,000
PRV Upgrades (approximately
16 sites) Optimization
Waterproof, Install above-ground weather proof enclosures (for PLC rack, PLC, I/O, Power supply, battery charger, battery, control transformer, switch, network
communication, HMI, and related equipment), single phase power source, wide area network communication connection, Electric Unit Heater, Vent fan, sump
pump and safety access (Bilco Hatch access) in non-traveled way sites. Install field instrumentation for remote indication of pressure, flow, temperature, and select
water quality parameters (as required). Standardize pressure controls, provide remote indication and control functionality, and improve upon confined space entry
limitations.
13 WFP_18 $7,637,760
Lyman Transmission Main CA
Based Rehab
Rehabilitation
and Repair
This project consists of repair and rehabilitation work on the lower Lyman transmission pipeline, approximately between Lyman Reservoir and Pear Street Pump
Station. 14 WFP_19b $500,000
Integrated Water Resources
Plan Update Studies Update to the 2013 Integrated Water Resources Plan 15 WFP_11 $150,000
Reservoir 1 - Siting Studies Location and land acquisition of the next major storage facility 16 WFP_09a $350,000
Pear Street Booster Station
Upgrade
Rehabilitation
and Repair
Rehabilitate station by adding 2 - 1000 gpm high service pumps, 1 - 400 gpm normal service pump, electrical and control (either VFD and discharge check valve or
Soft Starts with discharge control valves); verify condition or install new 5038 Zone PRVs (1 low range, 1 high range) to back feed Zone. Allows interim operation as
booster station into South 5125 Zone for South Zone reservoirs, as well as back feed when Lyman Reservoir to be taken out of service. Provide SCADA control logic
modifications as required.
17 WFP_38 $486,720
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 190
SCADA Phase 1 Optimization Install Wide Area Network infrastructure, connect PRV vaults, verify/ install Pressure relief per each pressure zone, central site improvements, update historian, and
implement pressure management regimes to improve system pressure protection 18 WFP_24 $2,239,050
Risk Based CA #2 - Downtown
Area
Condition
Assessment
Prepare and evaluate condition assessment plan and execute condition assessment for the high consequence distribution and backbone mains through the
downtown Bozeman corridor with moderate likelihood of failure to confirm or update likelihood of failure in order to more accurately identify pipes as candidates
for R&R.
19 WFP_32 $28,116
West Transmission Main - Phase
1 Design Transmission Design of the first phase of the West Transmission Main, the criteria for which would be developed in the West Transmission Main Planning Study. 20 WFP_01b $2,907,235
Redundant North 5038 Zone
Feed Optimization Evaluate, and upgrade as required, 2nd location of redundant feed of 5125 Zone water into North (5038) Zone. This will ensure alternative source of water exists
and is sufficient to feed North Mountain Zone in time when Lyman Creek source is unavailable. 21 WFP_26 $59,488
Risk Based CA # 1 - West
Bozeman Transmission
Condition
Assessment
Prepare and evaluate condition assessment plan and execute condition assessment for the high consequence transmission main through the southwest Bozeman
corridor to confirm likelihood of failure. 22 WFP_34 $47,826
Risk Based CA #3 - Baxter/Oak
south of Freeway
Condition
Assessment
Prepare and evaluate condition assessment plan and execute condition assessment for the high consequence distribution and backbone mains through this corridor
with moderate likelihood of failure to confirm or update likelihood of failure in order to more accurately identify pipes as candidates for R&R. 23 WFP_35 $23,775
Water Information
Management Solutions (WIMS) Optimization Data management and analytical tool development to enhance water system information use 24 WFP_36 $186,300
Notes:
NR = Not ranked Total $29,478,542
Table 10.6: Short-term (0-5 Year) Capital Improvement Recommendations
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 191
10.4.2 Near-Term (5-15 year) CIP Projects
Capital Improvement Project Category Project Description Project
Rank Project ID OPPC
Hyalite Watershed and
Reservoir Study
Studies Analyze long-term water supply provided by the Hyalite watershed and existing reservoir, assess current dam operation and feasibility of implementing control
tower improvements and/or raising the dam, and the potential to create a strategic water reserve for reduced drought vulnerability.
NR WFP_23 $350,000
Sourdough Canyon Natural
Storage and Wetland
Enhancement - Planning and
Design
Studies Evaluate the optimal project that will enable the City to utilize currently unused Sourdough water rights. NR WFP_53 $500,000
Hyalite Reservoir Infrastructure
and Control Improvements
Studies Armoring of the control tower (to enable some year-over-year storage capacity) and control upgrades to improve winter operation NR WFP_54 $3,858,300
Sourdough Transmission Main –
Phase 1
Transmission The project consists of constructing approximately 8,700 feet of 30-inch DIP transmission main, which would parallel the existing older 30-inch concrete main. The
proposed transmission main would connect to a new 48-inch DIP coming from the WTP and extend to the Sourdough reservoir.
NR WFP_03 $4,241,272
Groundwater Well Field
Transmission Main - Phase 1
Transmission The project consists of a constructing a new transmission 24-inch main that would connect the City’s existing distribution system to a potential future groundwater
well field system located west of the current City boundary. The precise location of the required main is dependent on groundwater yields and well locations, but
will likely convey water from the Four Corners region to the City along Huffine Road.
NR WFP_20 $8,974,969
Water Treatment Plant Master
Metering Optimization The project consists of installing a master meter (42-inch mag meter) on the finished water pipe from the Sourdough Water Treatment plant. NR WFP_17 $750,000
PRV Abandonments
(approximately 6 sites) Optimization Abandon (in place) existing PRV's serving Northwest Zone, at sites to be determined through detailed hydraulic modeling. Install looped mains to maintain
connectivity. Project done in conjunction with other transmission main improvements serving Northwest Zones NR WFP_22 $460,512
SCADA Phase 2 Optimization Same as SCADA Phase 1, less central site improvements. Use iHistorian data to enhance operations (e.g., reservoir cycling), maintenance (e.g., SCADA-CMMS
integration). Addition of additional remote sites to network and network expansion as required. NR WFP_25 $2,595,840
Remote Water Quality
Surveillance System Optimization Establish baseline Water Quality monitoring system using SCADA network. Refine/enhance flushing program, develop enhanced Lyman Creek Reservoir and any
water reuse system components surveillance. NR WFP_33 $56,925
5125 West Sourdough Reservoir
1 Storage The project consists of a constructing a new 5 MG gravity fed ground storage reservoir to the south/southwest of the City, which would tie into the West Water
Transmission Main – Phase 1 and serve the existing City water distribution system. NR WFP_09b $8,420,875
5560 Southeast Mountain
Reservoir and Pump Station Storage The project consists of a constructing a new 4 MG ground storage reservoir, pump station, and transmission main that would serve two new future pressure zones
located southeast of the existing City limits. NR WFP_30 $18,542,698
4975 Northwest Reservoir 1 Storage The project consists of a constructing a new 5 MG ground storage reservoir southwest of town, which would tie into the West Transmission Main – Phase 2 and
serve the City’s future western and northern water distribution system. NR WFP_31 $8,420,875
Water Facility Plan Update Studies Update the 2016 Water Facility Plan NR WFP_27 $500,000
Drought Management Plan
Update Studies Update the 2016 Drought Management Plan NR WFP_28 $20,000
Lyman Creek Water System
Improvements Supply
This project consists of 1) constructing new reservoirs on the Lyman spring source, located at a higher elevation, 2) replacement of existing 18-inch asbestos
concrete transmission pipe between the new reservoirs and the City, 3) installation of Micro Hydro on the Lyman transmission line, 4) relocation of existing chlorine
and fluoride chemical feeds, and 5) subsequent decommissioning of the existing Lyman Reservoir and Pear Street Booster Station and 6) installing pressure reducing
vaults or micro hydro facilities on the tie-ins of the Lyman source to the Northeast Zone.
NR WFP_07 $24,805,440
Groundwater Well Field
Development - Phase 2 Supply
The project consists of a constructing second transmission 24-inch main that would connect the City’s existing distribution system to a potential future groundwater
well field system located west of the current City boundary. The precise location of the required main is dependent on groundwater yields and well locations, but
will likely convey water from the Four Corners region to the City along Huffine Road.
NR WFP_10b $12,978,600
Lyman Spring Groundwater Well
Development Supply Exploratory and test well drilling, and construction of well infrastructure to increase the firm yield of the Lyman Creek water source, within the existing water right. NR WFP_21 $2,500,000
Sourdough Canyon Natural
Storage and Wetland
Enhancement
Supply Construction of Natural Storage and Wetland Enhancement NR WFP_51
$8,000,000
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 192
Table 10.7: Near-term (5-15 Year) Capital Improvement Recommendations
West Transmission Main –
Phase 1 Construction Transmission
The project consists of a constructing a new transmission main from the Sourdough water treatment plant to the southwestern edge of the existing distribution
network (S. 19th and Graf St.) to serve future anticipated growth and provide water delivery redundancy.
NR WFP_01c $23,689,082
Sourdough Transmission Main –
Phase 2 Transmission
The project will consist of constructing either a parallel transmission main or replacing and upsizing the existing transmission main between the existing Sourdough
Reservoir and the Hilltop Reservoir. This scope and phasing of this project will depend on a condition assessment of the existing Sourdough transmission main.
NR WFP_08 $5,785,788
East Transmission Main Transmission
The project consists of a constructing a new transmission main that would ensure adequate water supply capacity for future developments located both east and
northeast of the existing distribution system (extending approximately from East Kagy Blvd to Kelly Canyon Rd and Story Hill Rd).
NR WFP_29 $6,092,316
West Transmission Main - Phase
2 Transmission
The project consists of extending the West Transmission Main – Phase 1 further northwest, to serve anticipated future growth and provide redundancy (extending
approximately from South 19th to Baxter Lane).
NR WFP_39 $35,891,887
Groundwater Well Field
Transmission Main - Phase 2 Transmission NR WFP_52 $8,974,969
Notes:
NR = Not ranked Total $186,410,348
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 193
10.4.3 Long-Term (Unscheduled) CIP Projects
Table 10.8: Long-term (15+ Year) Capital Improvement Recommendation
Capital Improvement Project
Category Project Description Project
Rank Project ID OPPC
4975 Northwest Reservoir 2 Storage The project consists of expanding storage at the site of the Phase I reservoir by constructing a second 5 MG ground storage reservoir southwest of town, which
would tie into the West Transmission Main and serve the City’s future western and northern water distribution system. NR WFP_40 $8,420,875
5125 West Sourdough Reservoir 2 Storage The project consists of expanding storage at the site of the Phase I reservoir by constructing a second 5 MG ground storage reservoir to the south/southwest of the
City, which would tie into the West Water Transmission Main and serve the existing City water distribution system. NR WFP_41 $8,420,875
5350 Southwest Reservoir and
Pump Station Storage The project consists of a pump station located near the WTP, a transmission main to transfer water, and a new 4 MG reservoir to serve the new Southwest
Mountain Zone. NR WFP_42 $13,795,846
5360 North Mountain Reservoir
and Pump Station Storage The project consists of a pump station located near the Lyman reservoir, a transmission main to transfer water, and new 3 MG reservoir to serve the new North
Mountain Zone. NR WFP_43 $10,584,320
5630 East Mountain Zone
Reservoir and Pump Station Storage The project consists of a pump station located on the east end of the city, a transmission main to transfer water, and a new 6 MG reservoir to serve the new East
Mountain Zone. NR WFP_44 $16,589,604
Sourdough Reservoir 2 Storage The project consists of expanding storage at or near the existing Sourdough reservoir with a second 4 MG reservoir. NR WFP_45 $6,506,700
Water Treatment Plant Reservoir 2 Storage The project consists of expanding storage at the WTP with an additional 5 MG of storage. NR WFP_46 $7,779,750
Water Treatment Plant Reservoir 3 Storage The project consists of expanding storage at the WTP with an additional 5 MG of storage. NR WFP_47 $7,779,750
Sourdough Water Treatment Plant
Expansion Supply Expand the Sourdough WTP to be able to produce approximately 34 MGD NR WFP_55 $25,000,000
West Transmission Main - Phase 3 Transmission The project consists of extending the West Transmission Main from the intersection of Baxter Ln and Gooch Hill Rd to the northeast, to serve anticipated future
growth and provide redundancy (extending approximately from Baxter Ln to the intersection of I-90 and Davis Ln). NR WFP_48 $10,936,342
West Transmission Main - Phase 4 Transmission The project consists of extending the West Transmission Main from the intersection of Baxter Ln and Gooch Hill Rd to the north, to serve anticipated future growth
and provide redundancy (extending from Baxter Ln to south of Valley Center Rd). NR WFP_49 $3,755,221
West Transmission Main - Phase 5 Transmission The project consists of extending the West Transmission Main to the north, to serve anticipated future growth and provide redundancy (extending from south of
Valley Center Rd to the north side of I-90). NR WFP_50 $2,457,009
Notes:
NR = Not ranked Total $122,026,292
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 195 Page 195
10.5 City of Bozeman Fiscal Years 2018-2022 Capital
Improvements Program
As noted above, the recommended list of capital improvements presented in the previous
section were provided to the City to assist in the internal CIP development process. During the
development of the water CIP, City staff reviews it along with the capital improvement projects
for each department (e.g. Wastewater, Stormwater, Parks, Transportation, Water, etc.) and
make adjustments based on budgets, current overall City needs, and new information.
After reviewing the recommend list of capital improvements, City staff decided to move some
planning-level projects from the near-term planning period to the short-term planning period:
Sourdough Transmission Main – Phase 1
Sourdough Canyon Natural Storage and Wetland Enhancement – Planning and Design
Hyalite Watershed and Reservoir Study
Hyalite Reservoir Infrastructure and Control Improvements
Groundwater Well Field Transmission Main – Phase 1
The projects were moved into the short-term planning period for the following factors:
1) The primary focus of the short-term capital improvement projects was on transmission,
storage, and distribution systems. Raw water supply needs were not weighted as heavily
in the initial prioritization process. City staff recognized the need to place more
emphasis on bolstering or securing future water supplies, supported by the recently
completed Drought Management Plan.
a. This emphasis moved the Sourdough and Hyalite watershed and infrastructure
studies up in the CIP prioritization.
b. Results from the initial groundwater assessment study indicated that developing
a groundwater supply for the City is feasible.
c. Once these short-term projects are completed the City will know what is the
most cost-effective near-term path for water supply investments (as reflected in
Figure 10-1.
2) Sourdough Transmission Main - Recently completed design work for storage at the
Sourdough WTP identified a hydraulic bottleneck resulting from a local high spot in the
profile of the existing Sourdough Transmission Pipeline (near the corner of Sourdough
and Nash Rd). The high spot limits future peak capacity of the transmission line and
output from the Sourdough WTP. It was decided by the City to include new Sourdough
transmission main to the 5.3 MG water storage tank project slated for summer of 2017.
Construction of this new transmission section negates the need for two projects that
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 196 Page 196
were previously included in the short-term CIP (Risk-Based CA #5 and Sourdough
Transmission Main CA Based Rehab). With this change in plans, Sourdough
Transmission Main – Phases 1 and 2, were modified by City staff and split into 3 phases.
The brief description of the modified phases is discussed below:
Sourdough Transmission Main – Phase 1 (The project consists of constructing
approximately 3,000 feet of 48-inch DIP transmission main, starting at the Sourdough
WTP, cutting the corner at Nash and Sourdough, and tying into the existing transmission
main).
Sourdough Transmission Main – Phase 2 (The project consists of constructing
approximately 8,000 feet of 30-inch DIP transmission main, which will start at the end
of the Phase 1 connection point and go to the Sourdough Reservoir).
Sourdough Transmission Main – Phase 3 (The project will consist of constructing either
a parallel transmission main or replacing and upsizing the existing transmission main
between the existing Sourdough Reservoir and the Hilltop Reservoir).
The CIP prioritization was adjusted, and affected projects were revised where modifications to
the initial scope, cost, and timeframe were necessary. The final CIP was presented to the City
Commission for consideration and approval in December of 2017.
The adopted City of Bozeman CIP for fiscal years 2018 - 2022 is provided in Table 10.9. The
prioritization planning process created under the Water Facility Plan Update will be revisited
annually by City staff and utilized during subsequent CIP planning periods. City staff will be
able to reprioritize projects depending on outcomes of short-term studies and the direction of
short-term growth and development currently being experienced by the City of Bozeman.
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 197 Page 197Page 197Page 197
10.5.1 City of Bozeman Fiscal Years 2018-2022 Water Capital Improvements
Capital Improvement Project Description Year
Scheduled
OPPC
SCADA Master Plan Evaluate options and develop recommendations for Wide-area network implementation for planned remote water infrastructure. Develop SCADA design, equipment
and SCADA tagging and programming standards. Formulate data accessibility and SCADA integration with other City applications (e.g., CMMS)
FY18 $150,000
Pear Street Booster Station
Upgrade
Rehabilitate station by adding 2 - 1000 gpm high service pumps, 1 - 400 gpm normal service pump, electrical and control (either VFD and discharge check valve or Soft
Starts with discharge control valves); verify condition or install new 5038 Zone PRVs (1 low range, 1 high range) to backfeed Zone. Allows interim operation as booster
station into South 5130 Zone for South Zone reservoirs, as well as backfeed when Lyman Reservoir to be taken out of service. Provide SCADA control logic modifications
as required.
FY18 $547,000
Watershed & Reservoir
Optimization Study
Hydrologic and operations study of Sourdough, Hyalite and Lyman Creek municipal watersheds to determine water yields of each respective watershed supply source,
demonstrate the physical availability of needed water supplies for the City of Bozeman pursuant to the Montana Water Use Act, Optimize operations of hyalite
reservoir source and identify improvements needed for year round withdrawals of stored water. Study will also provide for additional data collection needs.
FY18 $150,000
Lyman Transmission Main
Condition Assessment
Prepare and evaluate condition assessment plan and execute condition assessment for the high consequence transmission main through the northeast bozeman
corridor to confirm likelihood of failure.
FY18 $150,000
Water System Condition
Assessment
Prepare and evaluate condition assessment plan and execute water main condition assessments in high risk portions of the city. FY18 $100,000
Groundwater Test Well Test well drilling, pumping and monitoring and water quality testing at one or more strategic well field sites identified in the 2016 Groundwater Investigation. Input
data into transient hydrogeologic model developed with Groundwater Investigation project.
FY18 $400,000
Sourdough Transmission Main –
Phase 1
The project consists of constructing approximately 3,000 feet of 48-inch DIP transmission main, starting at the WTP, cutting the corner at Nash and Sourdough, to tie
into the existing transmission main.
FY18 $3,100,000
5125 West Sourdough Reservoir 1
- Siting
Siting study and land acquisition for 5MG ground storage reservoir to serve the South Zone from West Transmission Main FY19 $350,000
Hilltop Tank Inspection and Mixing
System
Inspect reservoir. Furnish and Install Mixer(s), Power and Control and update Reservoir SCADA to include remote monitoring capability of mixer(s). FY19 $261,120
Sourdough Tank Inspection and
Improvements
This project would entail taking the Sourdough Tank offline (once the West Transmission Main is online), inspecting it and repairing it as necessary. This project may
or may not include reconfiguration of the inlet/outlet configuration to provide flow-through hydraulics.
FY19 $500,000
Lyman Tank and Transmission
Main Design
Design of new Lyman Storage (5MG), new transmission design, chlorination/fluoridation design and CA based repairs design to existing transmission main. FY19 $750,000
PRV Phase 1 - Mechanical and
Structural Upgrades
Upgrade hatch/entry, valving, piping, pressure settings, sump pumps and provide power FY19 $1,750,000
Groundwater Well Field and
Transmission Main Design
Design of groundwater well field and transmission main including necessary appurtenances, instrumentation and controls, and DEQ approvals. FY19 $500,000
S 11th 12" water main extension Extension of 12" diameter main per AE2S WFPU in S 11th avenue from current terminus to Graf Street. FY19 $136,010
Sourdough Canyon Natural
Storage - Planning and Design
Alternatives planning and design for sourdough natural storage enhancement project FY20 $500,000
Redundant North 5038 Zone Feed Evaluate, and upgrade as required, 2nd location of redundant feed of 5130 Zone water into North (5038) Zone. This will ensure alternative source of water exists and
is sufficient to feed North Mountain Zone in time when Lyman Creek source is unavailable.
FY20 $66,880
Water System Condition
Assessment
Prepare and evaluate condition assessment plan and execute water main condition assessments in high risk portions of the city. FY20 $100,000
Groundwater Well Field and
Transmission Construction
Water right permitting and mitigation plan; purchase of mitigation water rights; construction of aquifer recharge or other mitigation infrastructure; acquisition of land
for well field site; construction of wells, power, power backup, instrumentation and controls, SCADA, control bldg and site improvements; and transmission main
construction to tie GW supply into the existing system.
FY20 $8,000,000
Davis 12" Water Main & Valley
Center 16" Water Main Extension
Extension of 12" water main in Davis Ln from Catamount to Valley Center & Extension of 16" diameter water main in Valley Center from Davis to 27th. 16" main is
per AE2S WFPU. 12" main extends existing 12" main in Davis. These mains needed to support development south of East Valley Center between Davis and 27th.
FY20 $725,729
Water Facility Plan Update
Chapter 10 – Recommended Improvements
July 2017
P05097-2013-001 Page 198 Page 198Page 198Page 198
Table 10.9: City of Bozeman Fiscal Years 2018-2022 Capital Improvements
Sourdough Transmission Main –
Phase 2
The project consists of constructing approximately 8,000 feet of 30-inch DIP transmission main, which will start at the end of the Phase 1 connection point and go to
the Sourdough Reservoir.
FY20 $4,800,000
Hyalite Dam and Reservoir
Optimization Improvements
Armoring of the control tower (to enable some year-over-year storage capacity) and control upgrades to improve winter operation FY21 $4,000,000
Lyman Tank and Transmission
Main Construction
Construct a new 5MG storage tank at Lyman, decommission existing Lyman storage tank, CA-based repairs of the existing Lyman transmission main, new supply main
tie in to new storage tank, new transmission main tie in from new storage tank to existing transmission main, new chlorination/fluoridation feed facility.
Decommission Pear Street Booster Station if HGL of tank raised to meet Sourdough Tank.
FY21 $8,000,000
SCADA Upgrades & Improvements Install Wide Area Network infrastructure, connect PRV vaults, verify/ install pressure relief per each pressure zone, central site improvements, update historian, and
implement pressure management regimes to improve system pressure protection
FY22 $2,100,000
Water System Condition
Assessment
Prepare and evaluate condition assessment plan and execute water main condition assessments in high risk portions of the city. FY22 $100,000
PRV Phase 2 - Automation and
Instrumentation Upgrades
Upgrade pressure instrumentation, automate valve actuation, provide a LAN connection and SCADA programming for real-time monitoring and remote control of
PRV settings.
FY22 $6,710,000
Total $43,946,739
Water Facility Plan Update
Appendices
July 2017
Appendix A – Existing System Hydraulic Profiles
HGL 4885 Zone / Gallatin Park 828048659492489390884884868448747470684838666478764856607248476448297462480188868482807876482058564811545272706866504846626058565452PRV Vault # 2Pressure @FF Elev + 3'Hydraulic Gradient Line (static)PRV Vault # 1Pressure @ FF Elev + 3'PRV # 2 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 85 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 80 / ** / *** PSIPRVPRV Vault # 2Lead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 6"FF Elev: 4677.30HGL5038FF Elev+ 3' 4694.8LeadPRVLagPRVFF Elev + 3' 4680.3LeadPRVLag PRVPRV # 1 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 80 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 75 / ** / *** PSIPRVPRV Vault # 1Lead PRV 3"High Volume PRV 8"FF Elev: 4691.8HGL5038City of BozemanHGL 4885 Pressure Zone / 04/01/2017 Gallatin Park
HGL 4980 Zone / West6655644911536251604902494341684920577059786776493865804948697463724929844957738271618849667786759079988796498585948392497681797775102911004994898381737169676563615957555351494745PRV Vault # 10Pressure @FF Elev + 3'Hydraulic Gradient Line (static)PRV # 10 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 95 / *** / *** PSIHigh Volume 90 / *** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4760.2LeadPRVFF Elev+ 3' 4789.5FF Elev + 3' 4763.2LagPRVPRV Vault # 10Lead PRV 4"High Volume PRV 8"FF Elev: 4760.2HGL5125PRV Vault # 11Pressure @FF Elev + 3'PRV Vault # 11Lead PRV 4"High Volume PRV 8"FF Elev: 4786.5HGL5125PRV #11 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 82 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 77 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4786.5LeadPRVFF Elev + 3' 4806.5PRV Vault # 21Pressure @FF Elev + 3'PRV Vault # 21Lead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 6"Relief PRV 2"FF Elev: 4803.5HGL5125PRV # 21 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 70 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 65 / ** / *** PSIPRVRelief PRV 80 PSI (HGL 4992) FF Elev: 4803.5LagPRVLagPRVLeadPRVCity of BozemanHGL 4980 Pressure Zone / 04/01/2017West ReliefPRV
HGL 5125 Zone / South 13213050521361345061134132140138507014414250790'148146508915215050989'18.2'13.6'9'4.4'0'4.4'1721741761801781561545107160158511736.8'32.2'27.5'27.5'22.9'18.2'22.9'13.6'1641625126168166513541.5'32.2'1816141210864038363432302826244201701681661641621601581561541521501481461441421401381362220Pear StreetPressure @FF Elev + 3'Hydraulic Gradient Line (static)Pear Street Booster ParametersPump GPM @ Head Press.Lead Pump # 1 300 @ 70' *** PSILag Pump # 2 800 @ 93' *** PSILag Pump # 3 800 @ 93' *** PSIFF Elev: 4752'Note: Pumps are Operator controlled and sequence On and Off to maintain system reservoir levelsLagPump(s) OperatingPoint FF Elev: 4752LeadPumpOperating PointPear Street BoosterLead Pump # 1Lag Pump # 2Lag Pump # 3FF Elev: 4752'Note: Pump discharge pressures reflect 5030 suction at design headCity of BozemanHGL 5125 Pressure Zone / 04/01/2017 South Sourdough4.0 MG Reservoir OVERFLOW 31.5'(HGL 5125.7)WORKING LEVEL 29.5'(5124) FF Elev: 5094.2 FF Elev: 5084.0Lyman Creek5.3 MG Reservoir Working Level28'(HGL 5036)FF Elev. 5008.3'Hilltop2.0 MG Reservoir OVERFLOW 41.2'(HGL 5125.2)WORKING LEVEL 39.2'(5123) PRV Vault # 164" Relief PRVSetpoint 180 psiHGL ( 5154)FF Elev 4745FF Elev + 3': 5048Knolls Booster SupplyPressure @FF Elev + 3'FF Elev + 3': 4748PRV # 16 Relief4" Relief PRVSetpoint 180 psiPRV Vault # 16Pressure @FF Elev + 3'ReliefPRV
0'509450850'14.6'10'5.4'42.5'37.8'33.2'28.5'23.9'19.2'22.9'18.2'13.6'9'4.4'HGL 5185 Zone / Knolls Booster Station32.2'27510325315112293551213327.5'3951303743513941 47514945515849535155516751866751956551775761596369Hydraulic Gradient Line (static)FF Elev: 5045Knolls Booster Pressure @FF Elev Sourdough4.0 MG Reservoir OVERFLOW 31.5'(HGL 5125.7)WORKING LEVEL 29.5'(5124) FF Elev: 5094.2 FF Elev: 5084.0Hilltop2.0 MG Reservoir OVERFLOW 41.2'(HGL 5125.2)WORKING LEVEL 39.2'(5123) Knolls Street Booster ParametersPump GPM @ Head Press.Domestic Pump # 1 140 @ 130' *** PSIDomestic Pump # 2 140 @ 130' *** PSIDomestic Pump # 3 140 @ 130' *** PSIDomestic Pump # 4 140 @ 130' *** PSIH V Pump # 1 1650 @ 70' *** PSIH V Pump # 2 1650 @ 70' *** PSIFF Elev: 5045'Note: Pumps sequence On and Off (Cascade) to maintain system discharge pressure (HGL 5185)Fire PumpStartDomesticPumpsKnolls Street BoosterPump Start / Stop / Domestic Pump # 1Start: Up to 4 pumps operateDomestic Pump # 2 when pressure falls below 60 psi Domestic Pump # 3 Stop: pressure above 60 psi or flow above 800 GPMDomestic Pump # 4Fire Pump # 1 Start: 40 psi or 800 gpm demandStop: demand below 500 gpmFire Pump # 22" Pressure Relief Valve set @ 70 psi / HGL 5207FF Elev: 5045'Note: Domestic pumps (1 - 4) operate 0 - 800 GPMHigh Volume Pump (1) starts above 800 GPM or 40 psiCity of BozemanHGL 5185 Pressure Zone / 04/01/2017 Knolls Booster Station Hilltop2.0 MG Reservoir Working Level39.2'(HGL 5123)FF Elev. 5084.0'Sourdough4.0 MG Reservoir Working Level29.5'(HGL 5124)FF Elev. 5094.2'Knolls Booster Relief 2" Relief PRVSetpoint 70 psiRelief
HGL 5038 Zone / Pear Street PRV 1341325061145143128505118.5'124504227.7'30.0'13023.1'12612212050321149.2' 116502311813.9'12513111010850041211190'12311250144.6'106104499511711510049861131119492496898964977102135133105103129127141139137109107FF Elev: 5008.3Pear StreetPressure @FF Elev + 3'Hydraulic Gradient Line (static)FF Elev: 4752Lead PRVCity of BozemanHGL 5038 Pressure Zone / 04/01/2017 Pear Street PRV Lyman Creek5.3 MG Reservoir OVERFLOW @ 30'(HGL 5038)WORKING LEVEL 28.0'(5036) Pear Street PRVLead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 8"Relief PRV 6" (HGL 5038)FF Elev: 4752HGL5125Pear Street PRV ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 117 / *** / *** PSIHigh Volume 112 / *** / *** PSIPRVRelief PRV 132 psi / HGL 5061FF Elev: 4752Sourdough4.0 MG Reservoir Working Level29.5'(HGL 5124)FF Elev. 5094.2Hilltop2.0 MG Reservoir Working Level39.2'(HGL 5123)FF Elev. 5084.0'LagPRVPear Street Relief 6" Relief PRVSetpoint 132 psiFF Elev + 3' 4730.1PRV Vault # 3Pressure @FF Elev + 3'LeadPRVLagPRVPRV Vault # 3Lead PRV 4"High Volume PRV 8"Return Flow Check Valve(opens at 10 psi differential)HGL5125PRV # 3 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 125 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 120 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4727.15125 Zone(Actual HGL is less than 5015 to allow flow)
HGL 4940 Zone / Northwest Master page 141434549735153555761636567474543595755535149484668666462605883716967656361757369815567 5377 6344424059 4557 4355 4165 5163 4961 475654525097 8395 81934782 7590 83 85 71 707175 6173 5983 6981 677969487260 5362 55488164 5766 59489068 6170 63489972 6574 67490876 6978 7159491880 7371 5798 91492784 7786 79493688 817991 7789 7587 7365787674724964100 93102 95494692 8594 87495596 898583817977758280777995496449554946493649274918490848994890488148721371351331311291271251231211191171151131111091071051031019997PRV Vault # 4Pressure @FF Elev + 3'FF Elev+ 3' 4732.8Lead / PRVFF Elev+ 3' 4748.9PRV Vault # 6Pressure @FF Elev + 3'LeadPRVLagPRVHydraulic Gradient Line (static)Hydraulic Gradient Line (static)City of BozemanHGL 4940 Pressure Zone / 04/01/2017 Northwest Master Page 1PRV Vault # 7Pressure @FF Elev + 3'LagPRVFF Elev+ 3' 4745.1 LeadPRVFF Elev+ 3' 4776.4PRV Vault # 8Pressure @FF Elev + 3'LeadPRVLagPRVPRV Vault # 9Pressure @FF Elev + 3'LagPRVFF Elev+ 3' 4779.7 LeadPRVFF Elev+ 3' 4771.9PRV Vault # 12Pressure @FF Elev + 3'LeadPRVLagPRVPRV Vault # 13Pressure @FF Elev + 3'LagPRVFF Elev+ 3' 4775.4 LeadPRVLagPRV Vault # 5Pressure @FF Elev + 3'FF Elev+ 3' 4652.6ReliefPRV
HGL 4940 Zone / Northwest Master page 2 488190 44 48 47 44 62 46487286 40 44 43 40 58 424892 46 50 49 46 64504488 42 46 45 42 60489094 48 52 51 48 665296 50 54 53 50 6858489998 52 56 55 52 70 5457 54 724908102 56 60 59 56 74664927110 64 68 67 64 824918106 60 64 63 60 7880 64108 62 66 65 626284 68112 66 70 69 664936114 68 72 71 68 86 7072116 70 74 73 70 8890 7494 784955122 76 80 79 764946118 72 76 75 72120 74 78 77 74 92 76124 78 82 81 78 96 8080 98 824964126 80 84 83128 82 86 85 82 100 844964137135495549464936492749184908489948904881133131129127125123121119117979511511311110910710510310199487260104 58 62 61 58 7656100 54 58PRV Vault # 14Pressure @FF Elev + 3'Lead /LagPRVFF Elev+ 3' 4673.1 FF Elev+ 3' 4778.2PRV Vault # 15Pressure @FF Elev + 3'LeadPRVLagPRVHydraulic Gradient Line (static)City of BozemanHGL 4940 Pressure Zone / 04/01/2017 Northwest Master Page 2PRV Vault # 17Pressure @FF Elev + 3'LagPRVFF Elev+ 3' 4769.0 LeadPRVFF Elev+ 3' 4771.0PRV Vault # 18Pressure @FF Elev + 3'LeadPRVLagPRVPRV Vault # 19Pressure @FF Elev + 3'LagPRVFF Elev+ 3' 4779.1 LeadPRVFF Elev+ 3' 4736.8PRV Vault # 20Pressure @FF Elev + 3'Lead PRVPRV Vault # 22Pressure @FF Elev + 3'LagPRVFF Elev+ 3' 4774.0 LeadPRVReliefReliefPRVReliefPRVLagPRVHydraulic Gradient Line (static)PRV Vault # 5Pressure @FF Elev + 3'FF Elev+ 3' 4652.6 ReliefPRV
HGL 4940 Zone / Northwest4588 4243487286 404992 4647488190 445396 5051489094 4857100 5455489998 5261104 58594908102 5665108 62634918106 6069112 66674927110 6473116 70714936114 6877120 74754946118 7281124 78794955122 7685128 82834964126 80PRV Vault # 12Pressure @FF Elev + 3'Hydraulic Gradient Line (static)PRV # 12 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 69 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 64 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4768.9LagPRVFF Elev + 3' 4673.1FF Elev + 3' 4771.9 LeadPRVPRV Vault # 12Lead PRV 3"High Volume PRV 8"FF Elev: 4768.9HGL5125PRV Vault # 14Pressure @FF Elev + 3'PRV Vault # 14Lead PRV 3"High Volume PRV 10"FF Elev: 4670.1HGL5038PRV #14 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 117 / *** / *** PSIHigh Volume 117 / *** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4670.1FF Elev + 3' 4779.1PRV Vault # 19Pressure @FF Elev + 3'PRV Vault # 19Lead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 6"Relief PRV 2"FF Elev: 4776.1HGL5125LeadPRVPRV # 19 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 63 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 58 / ** / *** PSIPRVRelief PRV 77 PSI (HGL 4957)FF Elev: 4776.1Lead / LagPRVLagPRVCity of BozemanHGL 4940 Pressure Zone / 04/01/2017Northwest PRV Vault # 54" Relief PRVSetpoint 130 psiFF Elev: 4649.6ReliefPRV
HGL 4940 Zone / Northwest6257 4260487255 406661 4664488159 447065 5068489063 487469 5472489967 527873 5876490871 568277 6280491875 608681 6684492779 649085 7088493683 689489 7492494687 729893 7896495591 7610297 82100496495 80PRV Vault # 4Pressure @FF Elev + 3'Hydraulic Gradient Line (static)PRV # 4 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 80 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 75 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4729.8FF Elev + 3' 4745.1FF Elev + 3' 4732.8Lead/PRVPRV Vault # 4Lead PRV 4"High Volume PRV 8"FF Elev: 4729.8HGL5038PRV Vault # 7Pressure @FF Elev + 3'PRV Vault # 7Lead PRV 4"High Volume PRV 8"FF Elev: 4742.1HGL5125PRV #7 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 76 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 71 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4742.1LeadPRVFF Elev + 3' 4779.7PRV Vault # 9Pressure @FF Elev + 3'PRV Vault # 9Lead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 6"FF Elev: 4776.7HGL5125LeadPRVPRV # 9 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 65 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 60 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4776.7LagPRVLagPRVCity of BozemanHGL 4940 Pressure Zone / 04/01/2017 Northwest PRV Vault # 54" Relief PRVSetpoint 130 psiFF Elev: 4649.6Relief
HGL 4940 Zone / Northwest9583 8393496481 819179 7989495577 778775 7585494673 738371 7181493669 697967 6777492765 657563 6373491861 617159 5969490857 576755 5565489953 536351 5161489049 495947 4757488145 455543 4353487241 41PRV Vault # 6Pressure @FF Elev + 3'Hydraulic Gradient Line (static)PRV # 6 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 79 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 74 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4745.9LagPRVFF Elev + 3' 4776.4FF Elev + 3' 4748.9 LeadPRVPRV Vault # 6Lead PRV 4"High Volume PRV 8"FF Elev: 4745.9HGL5125PRV Vault # 8Pressure @FF Elev + 3'PRV Vault # 8Lead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 6"FF Elev: 4773.4HGL5125PRV # 8 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 67 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 62 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4773.4LeadPRVFF Elev + 3' 4775.4PRV Vault # 13Pressure @FF Elev + 3'PRV Vault # 13Lead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 6"FF Elev: 4772.4HGL5125LeadPRVPRV # 13 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 65 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 60 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4772.4LagPRVLagPRVCity of BozemanHGL 4940 Pressure Zone / 04/01/2017 Northwest PRV Vault # 54" Relief PRVSetpoint 130 psiFF Elev: 4649.6
HGL 4940 Zone / Northwest8286 8580496484 837882 8176495580 797478 7772494676 757074 7368493672 716670 6964492768 676266 6560491864 635862 6156490860 595458 5752489956 555054 5348489052 514650 4944488148 474246 4540487244 43PRV Vault # 15Pressure @FF Elev + 3'Hydraulic Gradient Line (static)PRV # 15 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 62 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 57 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4775.2LagPRVFF Elev + 3' 4769.0FF Elev + 3' 4778.2 LeadPRVPRV Vault # 15Lead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 6"FF Elev: 4775.2HGL5125PRV Vault # 17Pressure @FF Elev + 3'PRV Vault # 17Lead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 6"FF Elev: 4766.0HGL5125PRV # 17 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 67 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 62 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4766.0LeadPRVFF Elev + 3' 4771.0PRV Vault # 18Pressure @FF Elev + 3'PRV Vault # 18Lead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 6"FF Elev: 4768.0HGL5125LeadPRVPRV # 18 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 67 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 62 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4768.0LagPRVLagPRVCity of BozemanHGL 4940 Pressure Zone / 04/01/2017 Northwest PRV Vault # 54" Relief PRVSetpoint 130 psiFF Elev: 4649.6
HGL 4940 Zone / Northwest10084 8298496482 809680 7894495578 769276 7490494674 728872 7086493670 688468 6682492766 648064 6278491862 607660 5874490858 567256 5470489954 526852 5066489050 486448 4662488146 446044 4258487242 40PRV Vault # 20Pressure @FF Elev + 3'Hydraulic Gradient Line (static)PRV # 20 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 80 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 75 / ** / *** PSIPRVRelief PRV 90 PSI (HGL 4945)FF Elev: 4733.8FF Elev + 3' 4774.0FF Elev + 3' 4736.8 Lead/PRVPRV Vault # 20Lead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 6"Relief PRV 2"FF Elev: 4733.8HGL5125PRV Vault # 22Pressure @FF Elev + 3'PRV Vault # 22Lead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 6"Relief PRV 2"FF Elev: 4771.0HGL5125PRV # 22 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 64 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 59 / ** / *** PSIPRVRelief PRV 74 PSI (HGL 4945)FF Elev: 4771.0LeadPRVFF Elev + 3' 4778.2PRV Vault # 15Pressure @FF Elev + 3'PRV Vault # 15Lead PRV 2"High Volume PRV 6"FF Elev: 4775.2HGL5125LeadPRVPRV # 15 ParametersPRV Red. / Surge / Sust.Lead PRV 62 / ** / *** PSIHigh Volume 57 / ** / *** PSIPRVFF Elev: 4775.2LagPRVLagPRVCity of BozemanHGL 4940 Pressure Zone / 04/01/2017 Northwest PRV Vault # 54" Relief PRVSetpoint 130 psiFF Elev: 4652.9ReliefPRVReliefPRVLagPRV
Water Facility Plan Update
Appendices
July 2017
Appendix B – FME Script for GIS export/Model Import
B-1
Introduction
To create the water pipe network for the hydraulic model, a FME script was developed by
StreamlineAM to transform the existing GIS feature classes into a working format to input into
the hydraulic model. FME is a software that allows the ability to develop and implement
workflows to alter the data into a working format.
Include (abandoned) gravity water main with exception of inactive (abandoned)
mains.
Include hydrant leads from the lateral lines that are connected to hydrants.
Include hydrants.
Incorporate junctions and fill in elevations based on City’s DEM.
Fill in roughness coefficients based on corresponding table values for size and
material.
Fix connectivity by connecting junctions within an allowable distance.
Fix connectivity by creating breaks and junctions within water main where water main
intersect and are of the same pressure zone.
Script Development
The existing feature classes for water pipe network were evaluated for export and use for
updating the water hydraulic model in InfoWater. Because of the complexity of the distribution
facility integration, as well as the small number of facilities, the integration is recommended
for only the horizontal plant (pipes and junctions). The data was evaluated and inputs were
defined for two export feature classes to the hydraulic model: pipes and junctions. Only
“Active” pipes were included in the exports. In addition, only hydrants were prepared as
junctions with a link to the original GIS features – the remainder of the junctions were created
by automated endpoint creation for the pipes that were included. Below is a summary of the
inputs, calculated fields and outputs prepared for the model.
The scripts are based on “snapshots” of data received from the City of Bozeman. For this export
to become a sustainable process, the source datasets should be reconnected to the City of
Bozeman enterprise datasets where such datasets exist. In addition, one field change to two
feature classes in the enterprise database is recommended.
B-2
Instructions to Run
The following instructions provide steps to run the FME script.
1. Rename HydraulicModelGISImportAudit.xls to
HydraulicModelGISImportAudit_DATE.xls.
2. Copy HydraulicModelGISImportAudit_Template.xls to
HydraulicModelGISImportAudit.xls.
3. Run 1_GISAudit_WaterModel.fmw.
4. Address any Audit issues Identified in Step 3.
5. Repeat Steps 1 through 3 until satisfied with Audit.
6. Run 2_GISExport_WaterModel.fmw.
7. Use InfoWater GIS Gateway and provided field maps to import all pipes and Junctions
into model.
8. Facilities are maintained in the model.
Datasets Included, Excluded and Created
GIS Datasets Used:
Wgravity_mains
Wlateral_lines
Whydrants
DEM_Bozeman.gdb (converted to a file geodatabase from tiles)
GIS Feature Classes Not Used:
Wcurb_boxes
Wfittings
wSystem_Valves
wControl_Valves
wStations
Additional Data Created/Mapped:
AssigningData.gdb (non-spatial tables with FACILITYID)
wGravity_mains_Zone
wlateral_lines_Zone
tbl_Roughness
disconnectedWhy_Audit_Override
B-3
Export to “Pipes” and “Junctions” for Water Hydraulic Model
There are two scripts that were produced for the export. The first script
(1_GISAudit_WaterModel.fmw) should be run first as a data validation for the model. Data
issues identified in that script would need to be fixed prior to running the second script
(2_GISExport_WaterModel.fmw). The second script creates the two feature classes which are
used in the import module of InfoWater.
Scripts
1_GISAudit_WaterModel.fmw
2_GISExport_WaterModel.fmw
Source Data
Wgravity_mains_20151007 (LIFE = “Active”)
Wlateral_lines_20151007 (Only those with an endpoint coincident with a feature
from wHydrants)
WHydrants_20151007
disconnectedWhy_Audit_Override
tbl_Roughness
Output Data
HydraulicModelGISImportAudit.xlsx (Worksheet Tabs)
o Audit 1: Attribute_Wgravity_mains
o Audit 2: Attribute_Wlateral_lines
o Audit 3: Attribute_Whydrants
o Audit 4: Connectivity_Wgravity_mains
o Audit 5: Connectivity_Wlateral_lines
o Audit 6: Connectivity_Whydrants
GIS_Output.gdb
o WHYD_Junction
o WHYD_Pipe
B-4
Automated Audit Exports
These are lists generated by feature class and issue that will require manual cleanup in GIS
prior to running the export/translation from GIS to the format required by the hydraulic
model. The audits contain lists that match one of the criteria below and are separated into
separate tabs by source feature class and whether it is an attribute issue or a
geometry/connectivity issue.
Wgravity main – material “Unk” or “Unknown” or size = “0” or 8” CU
Wlaterals connected to hydrants – material “Unk” or “Unknown” or size = “0” or
8” CU
wHydrants – without a lateral line connecting
wGravity main and wlaterials with junctions on them from other pipes that aren’t
at endpoints and for which both are in the same zone.
Inputs: wGravity_main, wlateral_lines, wHydrants, DEM
Endpoints of applicable wGravity_mains and wlateral_lines – generated from the
geometry information of the segments
wHydrants – if not connected to a wGravity_main or a wLateral_line, flagged as
“Reference” for the model)
DEM – the elevation is assigned each feature generated
Inputs: WHYD_PIPE
wGravity_Mains (Only Life = “Active”)
wLateral_lines (Only those features with a hydrant as an endpoint and Life =
“Active”)
WHYD_JUNCTION
B-5
Table G.1: Creation of WHYD_Junction and WHYD_Pipe
Source DataSet Data
Fields Data Calculations MODEL Data
Fields Notes
Outputs: WHYD_JUNCTION, WHYD_PIPE
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines,
wHydrants
FACILITYID
FME: Calculated from Prefix
+ FacilityID + split number if
multiples
ID
Prefix is "wg_" or "wl_" or
“why_” dependent on source
feature class; use “wnode_” for
generated endpoints. The auto
generated numbers for
“wnode_” will not be consistent
between runs.
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines
wHydrants
INSTALL_D
ATE Straight data port YR_INST
If doesn’t exist, use “0” as
default. Should we use B_Year
for wHydrants as a possible source?
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines,
wHydrants,
wGravity_Mains_Zone, wLateral_lines_Zone
ZONE
Join on the new zone data to
the source feature classes by
FACILITYID attribute for the
pipes; zone for the junctions are spatially generated
ZONE
Recommendation is for this field
to be added to the core GIS
Datasets. If a Junction exists at
a section where the Zone Changes, the first Zone is used.
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines LIFE Straight data port STATUS
Hydrants which are not
connected are flagged as
“Inactive”. “Active” used for all
features.
FME "PIPES" or “JUNCTIONS” MODEL_TYPE Default values
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines,
wHydrants
FACILITYID Straight data port GIS_FACILITYID Is Null for the Auto generated
endpoints
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines
None: Source
Feature Class
Calculated from source
feature class SOURCE_GISFC
Name of source feature classes
where the feature comes from or
“FME_Automated_Junction” for
the generated endpoints.
Outputs: WHYD_JUNCTION
WHYD_Junction
DEM Adding Elevation data from
DEM to points ELEVATION_M
WHYD_Junction
DEM Adding Elevation data from
DEM to points DEM_ELEVATION_M
WHYD_Junction
DEM Adding Elevation data from
DEM to points ELEVATION_FT
WHYD_Junction
DEM Adding Elevation data from
DEM to points DEM_ELEVATION_FT
wHydrants HYD Straight data port HYD_ID
WHYD_Junction
FME Generated from spatial
location X Used projection as source
feature classes
WHYD_Junction
FME Generated from spatial
location Y Used projection as source
feature classes
B-6
Outputs: WHYD_PIPE
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines MATERIAL Straight data port MATERIAL
Straight data port for first load;
not included in updates to
existing features in model
(Model Override Field)
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines MATERIAL Straight data port GIS_MATERIAL
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines FME Calculated from FME
Geometry Info GIS_LENGTH_M Unchanged Length in Meters
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines FME Calculated from FME
Geometry Info GIS_LENGTH_FT Unchanged Length in Feet
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines DIAMETER Straight data port GIS_DIAMETER
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines SUBTYPE Straight data port GIS_SUBTYPE
FME Calculated from FME
Geometry Info for first load. LENGTH_M
Length that may be adjusted in
model for calibration - may be
removed from script for long
term maintenance. In meters.
FME Calculated from FME
Geometry Info for first load. LENGTH_FT
Length that may be adjusted in
model for calibration - may be
removed from script for long
term maintenance. In Feet
DIAMETER
Straight data port for first
load; not included in updates
to existing features in model
(Model Override Field)
DIAMETER
Diameter that may be adjusted in
model for calibration - may be
removed from script for long
term maintenance
WHYD_Junction ID Generated by spatial
relationship FROM
WHYD_Junction ID Generated by spatial
relationship TO
wGravity_Mains,
wLateral_lines,
tbl_Roughness
MATERIAL,
DIAMETER,
Roughness,
Source
Feature Class
From tbl_Roughness by
material and
material/diameter and source
feature class
ROUGHNESS Roughness table needs to be
maintained
Water Facility Plan Update
Appendices
July 2017
Appendix C – Fire Flow Tests
Fire Flow TestingField BookNorthwest Pressure Zone
Flow Testing ProtocolNorthwest Pressure Zone•14 existing PRV Vaults (4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22) – Request to reduce number of PRV Vaults supplying zone to 6 PRV Vaults (4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 19) by disabling the PRVs within 8 of the PRV vaults (6, 8, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22).•Operation of the selected 6 PRV Vaults would be set to only operate the large (lag) PRV to just able to flow when demand requires based on fire flow test. Disable the lead PRV in each of the 6 selected PRV vaults. Set the lag PRV in each of the 6 selected PRV vaults to flow at approximately the same hydraulic grade line.•Disable PRV 3 that feeds from South Zone to Northeast (Lyman) Zone near PRV 4 during the flow testing.•Install pressure recorder on a hydrant downstream side at each of the 6 PRV Vaults (4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 19).•Install pressure recorders on the upstream hydrant of 3 selected PRV Vaults (4, 7, 12).•Perform 9 fire flow tests within the pressure zone.•Return PRVs in all 14 PRV Vaults back to original operation state (4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22).•Return PRV 3 back to original operation state or leave in this state till after completing flow testing for Northeast Pressure Zone.
RED
W
I
N
G
D
RWATTS LNMAIN STVALLEY DR21ST AVEFLANDERS MILL RDTHOMAS DR18TH AVE20TH AVE16TH AVE15TH AVE23RD AVESACCO DRWILDA LNDAVIS LNVALLE
Y
C
E
N
T
E
R
R
D
LILY DR
BURKE ST
10TH AVECHU
R
N
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
LAREDO DR
INT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
ROSE ST
RIATA
R
D
PATRICK ST
FALLON ST YERGER DROLD FARM RD
HUNT
E
R
S
WA
Y
SWEETGRASS AVECOVER ST FEN WAYESTES LNBOGART DRANNIE STARABIAN AVETETON AVEBENEPE ST HANSON STSIMMENTAL WAYALEXANDER ST
PERRY ST SUNNY SIDE TRLDAISY DRHIDDEN VALLEY RDRAWHIDE RDG
BRENDEN ST
FOWLER AVEDAWS DR
PONDERA AVEGALE CT11TH AVEBRISBIN ST HARMON WAYCARSON PL24TH AVECATALYST ST
CATKIN LN
MINERAL AVESANDERS AVEFERGUSON AVEFRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
WHEAT DR
MONIDA ST
9TH AVEVIRGINIA WAY
DAFFODIL ST
FLATHEAD AVESTUBBS LNCATTAIL ST
JESSIE WAYMAX AVE13TH AVE19TH AVE
POND ROW14TH AVEWHISPER LNRUTH THIEBAULT WAY
TSCHACHE LN
MOUNTAIN
ASH
AVE
WINTER PARK ST KEAN DRJOHN DEERE ST
QUINN DAVID L
N
GREENWAY AVEFOXTAIL STPOTOSI ST
GALLATIN DR
WHEELER DR
CHOUTEAU AVEBLACKBIRD DRPIONEER DR25TH AVESPRINGBROOK AVEBRISK CTBUR AVECARBON ST PIN AVEDONNA AVE
CATRON ST
BLACK POWDER TRL
GIBSON DR
MANZANITA DR
CHARLOTTE STORVILLE WAY
PRAIRIE AVESANTA ANA CTCAMPBELL RDBABCOCK STYELLOWSTONE AVECOMMERCE WAY
SNAPDRAGON ST
FORBES AVEOLIVINE ST
BOOT HILL CT
LASSO AVEDIAMOND ST
OPAL ST
FIELD ST
CAHILL ST MATHESON WAYTEMPEST CTGOLDENROD LN
EQUESTRIAN LN
BEALL ST
LOLO WAY
MEAGHER AVESHERIDAN PLSLOUGH CREEK DRHEDGEROW CT
CORWIN ST
TRAKKER TRL
CRAB TREE ST BLACKMORE PLLEEWARD CTTILTON ST
OLIVE ST
PINE
CREEK
DROAK PARK DRMARIAS LNWESTERN DRPALM ST
SUNLIGHT AVEDROULLIARD AVEHARRIS ST
BOSAL ST
OLIVER ST 27TH AVECASE ST
POWDER RIVER AVEBEMBRICK ST
VILLARD ST
CHRISTOPHER WAYPIPESTONE ST
RENOVA LN
MEGHANS WAYALLISON CT
AUTUMN GROVE ST
BREEZE LN
WESTLAKE RD
ASTER AVEWILLOWBROOK 17TH AVEWESTWIND WAY
LADUKE ST
MCCAFFERTY ST
TOOLE ST
EDELWEISS DRBEAVERHEAD ST
BANNOCK STAGE CT
ST ESTEPHE DRKOCH ST
RAVALLI STEAGLE CREEK
DR
MOSS BRIDGE RD
BELGIAN CT SARTAIN ST SPRINGHILL RD12TH AVE
RENEE WAY
FJORD CT
CAMEAHWAIT STDURHAM AVE
DOVE CT
LILLIAN WAY
SAVANNAH ST
GALLOWAY ST
TERRACE AVE
KIMBALL AVERE
E
V
E
S
R
D
STORY STTYPHA CTMICHAEL GROVE AVECASCADE ST
MAPLEWOOD ST
DURSTON RDBRENTWOOD AVEHOOVER WAYE
M
I
L
Y
D
R
LA
A
G
E
R
L
O
O
PWARBLER WAYKIMBERWICKE ST
CLIFDEN DRSTILLWATER CREEK DRCOTTAGE PARK LNHANLEY AVETANZANITE DR
DANUBE LN
WOODLAND DRSHERIDAN AVEGRANITE AVENEW HOLLAND DRR
E
D
TW
I
G
LN
ROGERS WAYCASPIAN AVECATAMOUNT ST
VAQUERO PKWYJUNIPER ST
B
U
C
K
R
A
K
E
A
V
E
SUNSTONE ST
MOONSTONE DRTHOROUGHBRED LNTROUT
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
R
D
22ND AVE
OAK ST
BAXTER LN
WATERS ST
STEVENS STSTONERIDGE DR11TH AVEBEALL ST
MAIN ST25TH AVEMEAGHER AVETSCHACHE LN
HUNTERS WAYBABCOCK STDAVIS LNBAXTER LN
FLANDERS MILL RDANNIE ST 27TH AVEROSE ST
GRANITE AVE20TH AVEOAK ST
MAIN STCATTAIL ST
19TH AVEOAK STOAK STSTUBBS LN9TH AVEINTERS
TATE
90
HWY11TH AVESTORY ST 11TH AVE23RD AVECL
I
F
D
E
N
D
R
ANNIE ST BUCKRAKE AVESWEETGRASS AVEINTE
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
DAVIS LN19TH AVECATRON ST
BAXTER LNDAVIS LNFERGUSON AVEDURSTON RD 11TH AVE11TH AVELILY DR
INTER
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
ROSE ST 19TH AVEDAVIS LN19T
H
A
V
E
19TH AVE19
T
H
A
V
E
VALLE
Y
C
E
N
T
E
R
R
D
OAK ST
BABCOCK ST
INTE
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
BLACKBIRD
DRFERGUSON AVE15TH AVEDURSTON RD 11TH AVEWARBLER WAY
OAK ST
9TH AVE15TH AVEFLATHEAD AVE27TH AVEKOCH ST
DURSTON RD
ANNIE ST
OAK ST
FOWLER AVEIN
T
E
R
S
TA
T
E
9
0
HW
Y
HIDDEN VALLEY RD
10TH AVEHANLEY AVEBAXTE
R
L
N
19TH AVEWILLOWBROOK 16TH AVEVA
L
L
E
Y
C
EN
TER
RD
BOOT H
I
LL
CT
CASCADE ST
CATRON ST
DAVIS LN15TH AVEDAVIS LN17TH AVEYELLOWSTONE AVEBABCOCK ST
STORY ST19TH AVEPIN AVEOAK ST
MINERAL AVEMAIN ST
CATRON ST
27TH AVEFRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
27TH AVE12TH AVEKIMBERWICKE ST
THOMAS DRKOCH ST19TH AVEDAVIS LN15TH AVEOAK ST
9TH AVE19TH AVE25TH AVEOAK ST
OLIVER ST
BAXTER LN HIDDEN VALLEY RD12TH AVEFEN WAYFEN WAYDURSTON RDFLANDERS MILL RDREE
V
E
S
R
D
DAVIS LN12TH AVE15TH AVEOAK ST
TSCHACHE LN
14TH AVECATRON ST
10TH AVEDAVIS LNTSCHACHE LN
15TH AVE19TH AVESPRINGHILL RD17TH AVE19TH AVE10TH AVEANN
I
E
S
T
BAXTER LN
23RD AVEKOCH STHIDDEN VALLEY RDLILY DR
BABCOCK ST
TSCHACHE LN
BAXTER LN
9TH AVEBAXTER LN
LILY DR
OAK ST
19TH AVE19TH AVEFRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
25TH AVEOAK ST OAK ST
27TH AVE19TH AVEMAIN ST
GRANITE AVEOAK ST
FOWLER AVE22ND AVE15TH AVE19TH AVECASCADE ST
CATTAIL ST
9TH AVEDAVIS LNROSE ST
ANNIE ST
OAK ST
BABCOCK ST
VILLARD ST 19TH AVEANNIE ST
WESTERN DRVALLEY DRBAXTER LN
OLD
F
A
R
M
R
D
CATTAIL STROSE ST 27TH AVEFRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
BAXTER
L
N
BABCOCK ST DAVIS LN17TH AVEBLACKBIRD DRANNIE ST
24TH AVEBEALL ST
GALLOWAY ST
DURSTON RD
INTERS
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
FRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
WESTERN DR14TH AVELOLO WAY
GRANITE AVEHANLEY AVEPONDERA AVEDAVIS LNMEAGHER AVEMAIN STCATTAIL STANNIE ST
EQUESTRIAN LN
DURSTON RD
20TH AVE19TH AVETETON AVE19TH AVE19
T
H
A
V
E
SANDERS AVEDURSTON RD
INTERSTATE
90
HWY
WESTLAKE RD
BAXTER LN
TETON AVEDAVIS LNKOCH ST19TH AVE20TH AVEVALL
E
Y
C
E
N
T
E
R
R
D
FERGUSON AVE5
7
8
34
6
922
20
1918
17
16
151210
14
4
6
2
3
9
5
7
13
8
1
Water Distribution System
G!!Test Hydrant
GFFlow Hydrant
Fire Flow Test LocationsWithin the Northwest Pressure Zone
¯0 2,0005001,000 1,500
Feet³Ú Pear St Pump Station
³Ú Knoll Pump Station
UT Clearwell
UT Hilltop Tank
UT Lyman Tank
UT Sourdough Tank
#I Existing PRVPressure Zones
GALLATIN
KNOLL
NORTHEAST
NORTHWEST
SOUTH
WEST
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
PRV OfflineDuring TestingPRV OfflineDuring Testing
PRV OfflineDuring TestingPRV OfflineDuring TestingPRV OfflineDuring Testing
PRV OfflineDuring TestingPRV OfflineDuring TestingPRV OfflineDuring Testing
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
#I
#I
#I
(987)
(1335)(1247)
(1400)
(1265)
(1444)
(1023)
(1750)2347
12" DI
8" CI8" DI 12" CI12" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI12" DI 12" DI 12" DI8" CI12" DI12" DI12" DI8" DI8" CI8" CI8" CI8" DI
8" DI11TH AVEBAXTER
L
N
PATRICK ST
INTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
Y
INTERSTAT
E
9
0
H
W
Y
PRV 3
PRV 4
PRV 16
PRV Location 4
PRV Setup Prior to Flow Testing
Northwest Pressure Zone Flow Testing
PRV Location: ___________
Hydrant Upstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Hydrant Downstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
2347
None
4
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
#I
(2460)
(2491)(2471)
(2460)
(2411)
(2402)(2490)
(2471)(2451)
(2453)
(2301)
(2287)(2275)
(2263)
(2259)
(2247)
(2235)
(1287)
(1279)
(2431)(2451)
(2490)(2480)(2440)
(2411)
(2420)
(2431)(2401)
(2402)(2420)
(2401)
(2491)
(2480)(2440)(2402)
(1123)
(1129)
(1203)
(1209)
(1215)
(1225)
(1301)(1304)
(1218)
(1214)
(1208)
(1204)
(1128)
(1124)
1023
1267
8" DI10" DI
8" DI10" DI 10" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI10" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
10" DI
8" DI
10" DI
8" DI10" DI
OAK ST
25TH AVEDAWS DR
WHEELER DR WOODLAND DRPRV 7
PRV Location 7
PRV Setup Prior to Flow Testing
Northwest Pressure Zone Flow Testing
PRV Location: ___________
Hydrant Upstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Hydrant Downstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1267
1023
7
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
#I
(506)
(520)
(707)
(702)
(706)
(606)
(709)
(708)
(514)
(517)
(521)(525)
(513)
(505)
(509)
(610)
(2934)(2920)
(2931)(2917)
(2902)
(2901)
(2906)
(2905)
1518
10" DI8" DI
8" PVC
10" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI
10" DI
8" DI
DURSTON RDHUNTERS WAYOLIVER ST
DOVE CTMICHAEL GROVE AVEPRV 9
PRV Location 9
PRV Setup Prior to Flow Testing
Northwest Pressure Zone Flow Testing
PRV Location: ___________
Hydrant Upstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Hydrant Downstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1518
None
9
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
#I
(508)
(509)
(512)
(4073)
(4058)
(4195)
(4087)(4061)
(4084)
(4092)(4086)
1523
1125
10" DI
12" DI
6" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI10" DI10" DI12" DI 10" DI6" DI12" DI12" DI 10" DI6" DI8" DIDURSTON RD FERGUSON AVECARBON ST
MINERAL AVEPRV 12
PRV Location 12
PRV Setup Prior to Flow Testing
Northwest Pressure Zone Flow Testing
PRV Location: ___________
Hydrant Upstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Hydrant Downstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1523
1125
12
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFGF
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
#I
(1425)
1344
1770
12" DI12" D
I
12" D
I
12" DIRED
W
I
N
G
D
R
FRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
PRV 14
PRV Location 14
PRV Setup Prior to Flow Testing
Northwest Pressure Zone Flow Testing
PRV Location: ___________
Hydrant Upstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Hydrant Downstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1344
1770
14
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGF GFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
#I#I
(675)
(506)
(511)
(515)
(512)
(508)
(3452)(3464)
(3477)(3465)(3453)
23358" DI6" DI
10" DI6" DI 8" DI10" DI6" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI
6" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI
6" DIDURSTON RDHANSON STBEAVERHEAD STSHERIDAN AVESWEETGRASS AVEPRV 22 PRV 19
PRV Location 19
PRV Setup Prior to Flow Testing
Northwest Pressure Zone Flow Testing
PRV Location: ___________
Hydrant Upstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Hydrant Downstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
2335
None
19
Fire Flow TestingField BookWest Pressure Zone
Flow Testing ProtocolWest Pressure Zone•3 existing PRV Vaults (11, 12, 21)•Operation of the PRV Vaults would be set to only operate the large (lag) PRV to just able to flow when demand requires based on fire flow test. Disable the lead PRV in each of the 3 PRV vaults. Set the lag PRV in each of the 3 PRV vaults to flow at approximately the same hydraulic grade line.•Install pressure recorder on a downstream hydrant at each of the 3 PRV Vaults (11, 12, 21)•Install pressure recorders on a upstream hydrant of each of 3 of the PRV Vaults (11, 12, 21)•Perform 5 fire flow tests within the pressure zone.•Return PRVs in all 3 PRV Vaults back to original operation state (11, 12, 21).
FLANDERS MILL RDOAK ST
FALLON ST
COVER ST
AUTOMOTIVE AVECOTTONWOOD RDCLASSICAL WAY
BENEPE ST
ALEXANDER ST
PERRY ST
BRENDEN STROSA WAYHUFFINE LN
BRISBIN ST
FERGUSON AVESHADOWGLEN DRLOXLEY DRPOND LILY DRBULL FROG DRMAYFLY STSAXON WAYFORBES AVEGOLDEN GATE A
V
E
ELMWO
O
D
D
R
FIELD ST
BROOKSIDE LNLONGBOW LNRESORT DRBOARDWALK AVESLOUGH CREEK DRSTONE FLY DRFORESTGLEN DRTILTON STBAXTER CREEK
WAYPINE CREEK DRBEMBRICK ST
GLENWOOD DR
BABCOCK ST
RAVALLI STWATERS ST
TOOLE STTWIN LAKES AVEJONI ST
WINNOW CIRTEAKWOOD DRMINERAL AVEFLANDERS CREEK AVEEAGLE CREEK
DRADVANCE DRWESTGATE AVEKIMBALL AVECOMPE
T
I
T
I
O
N
D
R
PALISADE DR
CASCADE ST
REDWOOD DRANNIE ST
AU
T
O
P
L
A
Z
A
D
R
MONROE ST
CLIFDEN DRSTILLWATER CREEK DRHANLEY AVEENEBOE AVEWATER LILY DRLAUREL PKWYMAY FLY ST
VALLEY COMMONS DRSTAFFORD AVEGLENELLEN DR
MILL CREEK
DRBROADWATER STDURSTON RD
OAK ST
ROSA WAYBABCOCK STLAUREL PKWY
DURSTON RD
BABCOCK ST
BEMBRICK ST
FIELD ST FERGUSON AVESTAFFORD AVEHUFFINE LN
DURSTON RD
KIMBALL AVESTAFFORD AVEFORESTGLEN DRWATER LILY DRFERGUSON AVEFERGUSON AVECOTTONWOOD RDSAXON WAY
CLI
F
D
E
N
D
RLOXLEY DRBABCOCK ST
FALL
O
N
S
THANLEY
AVERESORT DRHANLEY AVEHANLEY AVELAUREL PKWYBABCOCK ST COTTONWOOD RDCLI
F
D
E
N
D
R MINERAL AVEFALLON ST COTTONWOOD RDLAUREL PKWYMAY FLY ST FERGUSON AVEGLENELLEN DR
DURSTON RD
GLENWOOD DR
SAXON WAY
FERGUSON AVEFERGUSON AVELAUREL PKWYDURSTON RD
COTTONWOOD RDWATER LILY DRKIMBALL AVEANNIE STSAXON WAYCASCADE ST
HUFFINE LNFLANDERS MILL RDFERGUSON AVESAXON WAY
RESORT DROAK ST
TILTON ST FERGUSON AVEFERGUSON AVEDURSTON RD DURSTON RD
BABCOCK ST KIMBALL AVESLOUGH CREEK DRMINERAL AVECOTTONWOOD RDCLIFDEN DRFALLON ST
CASCADE ST
WATERS ST
COTTONWOOD RDLONGBOW LNHUFFINE LNHUFFINE LN HUFFINE LN
CASCADE ST
BABCOCK ST BABCOCK ST
RESORT DRTWIN LAKES AVEMONROE ST
DURSTON RDLONGBOW LNANNIE ST FLANDERS MILL RDLAUREL PKWYBABCOCK STCOTTONWOOD RDFORESTGLEN DRPOND LILY DRKIMBALL AVEHANLEY AVE
21
1210
11
11
13
12
10
14
Water Distribution System
G!!Test Hydrant
GFFlow Hydrant
Fire Flow Test LocationsWithin the West Pressure Zone
¯0 2,0005001,000 1,500
Feet³Ú Pear St Pump Station
³Ú Knoll Pump Station
UT Clearwell
UT Hilltop Tank
UT Lyman Tank
UT Sourdough Tank
#I Existing PRVPressure Zones
GALLATIN
KNOLL
NORTHEAST
NORTHWEST
SOUTH
WEST
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
#I
#I
#I
(518)
(407)
(445)
(509)
(417)
(481)
(854)
(374)(371)
(388)
(496)
(482)
(467)(464)
(451)(450)
(444)(439)(426)(419)(418)
(468)
(452)
(438)
(420)
(383)
(701)
(409)
(508)
(504)
(505)
(319)
(413)
(501)
(405)
(416)
(412)
(408)
(420)
(404)
(421)
(417)
(318)
(326)
(509)(512)
(323)
(500)
(4225)
(4030)(4074)
(4076)
(4037)(4045)(4067)
(4046)(4088)
(4199)
(4205)(4217)(4219)(4225)
(4204)(4208)(4216)(4226)
(4206)(4212)(4218)(4222)
(4203)(4209)
(4215)(4223)
(4227)
(4045)(4073)
(4058)(4195)(4383)
(4087)(4061)
(4084)
(4092)
(4062)
(4033)(4049)
(4086)(4038)
(4046)
(4071)(4091)
(4310)
1126 112512" DI
8" DI6" DI10" DI
8" DI8" DI
12" DI12" DI 10" DI10" DI
8" DI
10" DI10" DI8" DI10" DI8" DI
12" DI
8" DI8" DI 6" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI
12" DI 10" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI 10" DI8" DI8" DIDURSTON RD
FERGUSON AVETOOLE ST KIMBALL AVEMINERAL AVETILTON STFLANDERS MILL RDFORBES AVECARBON ST
DIAMOND ST
SUNSTONE ST
PRV 10 PRV 12
PRV Location 10
PRV Setup Prior to Flow Testing
West Pressure Zone Flow Testing
PRV Location: ___________
Hydrant Upstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Hydrant Downstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1126
1125
10
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
#I
(84)
(76)
(93)
(87)
(79)
(98)
(86)
(20)
(52)
(80)
(76)
(44)
(32)
(26)
(102)
(236)
(150)
(137)(140)
(4717)
(4675)
(4591)(4617)
(4610)(4598)
(4605)(4587)
2396
1131
8" DI
12" DI12" DI12" DI 12" DI
8" DI
12" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI8" DI
12" DI 12" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
12" DI 8" DI12" DIBABCOCK STCOTTONWOOD RDSTAFFORD AVEAUTOMOTIVE AVEALEXANDER ST
PRV 11
PRV Location 11
PRV Setup Prior to Flow Testing
West Pressure Zone Flow Testing
PRV Location: ___________
Hydrant Upstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Hydrant Downstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1131
2396
11
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!G!!#I
(90)
(75)
(25)(80)
(210)
(370)
(335)
(260)
(175)
(244)
(228)
(279)
(236)(243)
(232)
(195)(444)(201)
(202)
(536)
(450)
(301)
2424 17548" DI
6" DI
12" DI
10" DI8" DI
12" DI8" DI
8" DI6" DI8" DI8"
D
I
8" DI8" DI6" DI
12" DI
6" DI12" DI12" DI8" D
I
8" DI 12" DI12" DI8" DI12" DI12" DI8" DI
8" DI 8" DI12" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI8
"
D
I
8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI8" DI8" DI8"
D
I 12" DIFALLON ST
COTTONWOOD RDAUTOMOTIVE AVEAUTO PLAZA DR
FIELD ST
PRV 21
PRV Location 21
PRV Setup Prior to Flow Testing
West Pressure Zone Flow Testing
PRV Location: ___________
Hydrant Upstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Hydrant Downstream of PRV: __________ Recorder ID: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
2424
1754
21
Fire Flow TestingField BookNortheast Pressure Zone
Flow Testing ProtocolNortheast Pressure Zone and Gallatin Pressure Zone•Request pumps at the Pear Street Pump Station remain offline during testing.•Disable Bypass from South Zone to Northeast Zone within Pear Street Pump Station.•Request PRV Vault 3 be placed offline during testing (request current PRV settings).•Request PRV Vaults 4 and 14 feeding the Northeast pressure zone be disabled to limit flow between the Northeast Zone and Northwest Zone during flow testing.•Perform 8 fire flow tests within the pressure zone.•Verify settings for PRV Vault 1 and PRV Vault 2 and perform 1 fire flow test within Gallatin Zone.•Return Pear Street Pump Station and PRV Vault 3 back to original operation.•Return PRV Vaults 4 and 14 back to original operational state.
GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!³Ú
UT
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I#I
G!!
CED
A
R
S
T
RED
W
I
N
G
D
R
FRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
BOH
A
R
T
L
N
BAXTER
L
N
15TH AVEPERKINS PLBEAR
P
A
W
T
R
L
BIG GULCH DR
EVERGREEN
DR
WHEAT DR
HA
G
G
E
R
T
Y
L
NSTORY MILL RD10TH AVEBIRDIE DRVALLEY RIDGE RDNIKLE
S
D
R
PEA
R
S
T
BUTTONWOOD AVELEA AVEAUG
U
S
T
A
D
R
STONEG
A
T
E
D
R
MIDFIELD ST
WHITETAIL RD
PATRICK ST
OLD FARM RD JEANA LE
I
CTLINDLEY PLINDUSTRIAL DRDELL PLPA
R
C
T
ST ANDREWS DR
BRYANT ST
L STINTERSTATE 9
0
H
W
Y
11TH AVECARSON PLGO
L
F
W
A
Y
FARM VIEW LN
LONGHORN RD
9TH AVELOOKFAR WAY
JESSIE WAY13TH AVE14TH AVERUTH THIEBAULT WAY
PEACH ST
QUINN DAVID L
N
BOGERT PL PARADISE VISTA RDGALLATIN PARK DR
GOLD AVE6TH AVEDAVIS ST
KOCH ST BRIDGER CANYON RDMAUS LN
HIGHLAND BLVDCURTISS STBRADY AVEBIRCH ST
MATHESON WAYBOYLAN RD
JUNIPER ST
MAIDEN SPIRIT ST
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
AVO
C
A
D
O
S
T
FRIDLEY STTRACY AVEMAIN ST
8TH AVE EDGERLEY LNDEER CREEK DR
T
W
I
N
P
O
N
D
L
N
CYPRESS AVEFR
O
N
T
S
T
GRAND AVEBABCOCK ST OAK PARK DRIDA AVEWILLSON AVEVALHALLA CTWALLACE AVEIVAN AVE
TURNBERRY CT
MENDENHALL ST
BO
N
N
E
R
L
N
TURTLE WAY
ORANGE ST4TH AVEGRIFFIN DR
OLIVE ST MAIDEN STAR LN5TH AVEBLACK AVEASPEN ST
HEADLANDS DR
CADDIE CT
12TH AVEMONTANA AVE7TH AVESTORY ST
BOND ST
SHORT ST
CHU
R
N
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
HILLSIDE LN
TAMARACK ST
VILLARD ST
MANDEVILLE LN
LAMME STROUSE AVECHURCH AVE3RD AVEPINNA
C
L
E
S
T
A
R
S
T
MANLEY RDDICKERSON ST
R
E
D
TW
I
G
LN
BRIDGER DR
BEALL ST
DURSTON RD BOZEMAN AVEOAK ST
ROCKY CREEK
R
D9TH AVEOAK ST
6TH AVEH
I
G
H
L
A
N
D
B
L
V
D7TH AVEBEALL ST
CHURCH AVEMAIN ST10TH AVEMAIN ST
8TH AVESTORY STWILLSON AVE7TH AVEROUSE AVESTORY MILL
RD
BUTTONWOOD AVE
BABCOCK ST
8TH AVE8TH AVEBLACK AVE7TH AVEM
A
I
N
S
T INTERSTATE 90 HWY8TH AVEFRONTAGE RD
BOYLAN RD
BOHART L
N
FRONTAGE RD
LAMME ST7TH AVE3RD AVEOLIVE ST
AUG
U
S
T
A
D
R
GRAND AVE10TH AVETRACY AVE11TH AVEBABCOCK ST
CURTISS ST MANLEY RD12TH AVE5TH AVEASPEN ST
4TH AVE11TH AVESTORY ST
MAIN ST14TH AVEINT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
7TH AVE11TH AVEOLIVE ST7TH AVE15TH AVE7TH AVEWILLSON AVEBEALL ST
ROCKY CREEK RDSTORY MILL RDBRIDGER DR
BOYLAN RD
GRAND AVEL ST15TH AVEOLIVE ST
14TH AVEMENDENHALL ST6TH AVEGRAND AVE11TH AVE7TH AVES
TO
R
Y
M
I
L
L
R
D
INTERSTATE 9
0
H
W
Y
VALLEY RIDGE RD
KOCH ST
BOYLAN RD
DAVIS ST
OAK ST
GRIFFIN DR
BIG GULCH DR
4TH AVEPEACH ST
EVERGREEN D
R
FRONTAGE RDIDA AVELAMME STBEALL ST9TH AVEINTE
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
GRIFFIN DR
BABCOCK ST
ROCKY CREEK RDDEER CREEK DRLAMME ST7TH AVEMAIN ST
BLACK AVEBEALL ST7TH AVEMAIN ST8TH AVEFR
O
N
T
S
T
BEALL STQUINN DAVID LN15TH AVE5TH AVEGRIFFIN DR
TRACY AVE9TH AVE11TH AVE7TH AVEMONTANA AVE7TH AVE3RD AVE9TH AVEROUSE AVEJUNIPER ST
ROUSE AVEINTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
Y
INTERSTAT
E
9
0
H
W
Y L STGRAND AVE15TH AVEOAK ST OAK ST
PEACH ST
BABCOCK ST
MAIN ST MAIN ST
STORY ST
STONEGATE DR
BOYLAN RDOAK ST
GRAND AVEBRIDGER DRLOOKFAR WAY14TH AVEBRIDGER DR
OLD FARM RD
BRIDGER DR
5TH AVEBAXTER
L
N
SHORT ST
GRIFFIN DR DEER CREEK DRMAIN STOLD FARM RD12TH AVELON
G
H
O
R
N
R
D
DURSTON RD
10TH AVE10TH AVEMAIN ST
BO
Y
L
A
N
R
D
OLIVE ST
MAIN ST
OAK ST
11TH AVE15TH AVEMANLEY RD7TH AVEBIG GULCH DR5TH AVELOOKFAR WAY15TH AVEROCKY CREEK RDLAMME ST
MC
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
ROUSE AVEL STL ST
OLD FA
R
M
R
D
L ST12TH AVE5TH AVE6TH AVE4TH AVEQUINN DAVID LNMAIN ST
OAK ST
KOCH ST15TH AVE14TH AVELAMME ST
MCI
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
MCILHATTA
N
R
D
FRO
N
T
S
TROUSE AVEGOLD AVEMANLEY RDL STMCI
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
12
1
34
20 16
14
18
161517
21
19
22
20
Water Distribution System
G!!Test Hydrant
GFFlow Hydrant
Fire Flow Test LocationsWithin the Northeast Pressure Zone
¯0 2,0005001,000 1,500
Feet³Ú Pear St Pump Station
³Ú Knoll Pump Station
UT Clearwell
UT Hilltop Tank
UT Lyman Tank
UT Sourdough Tank
#I Existing PRVPressure Zones
GALLATIN
KNOLL
NORTHEAST
NORTHWEST
SOUTH
WEST
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
PressureMonitoringLocation
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
(1783)
(1771)
(1798)
(1790)
(1782)
(1778)
(1762)(1748)(1736)(1722)(1710)
(1700)
(1791)
(1769)
(1735)(1705)
(2497)
(1589)(1593)
(1611)
(1691)
(1596)(1580)
(1674)
(1620)(1588)(1566)
2172 18" CI8" DI
18" DI8" DI
8" DI
18" DI18" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI18" DI8" DI
18" DI18" DI8" DI
18" DIBOYLAN RD
NORTHVIEW STMEDICINE WHEEL LNMAIDEN SPIRIT ST
1
Pressure Monitoring Setup Prior to Flow TestingNortheast Pressure Zone Flow Testing
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: __________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
2172
1
Fire Flow TestingField BookSouth Pressure Zone
Flow Testing ProtocolSouth Pressure Zone•Request pumps at the Pear Street Pump Station remain offline during flow testing.•Install 9 pressure recorders at key locations along trunk watermain (10‐in and larger).•Perform 52 fire flow tests within the pressure zone.•Return Pear Street Pump Station to original operation state.Knoll Pressure Zone•Verify operation of Knoll Pump Station for fire flow testing.•Perform 1 fire flow test within the pressure zone.
GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!³Ú
UT
UT
UT³Ú
#I #I
#I
#I#I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I #I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I #I
#I
#I
#I
FOWLER LNRED
W
I
N
G
D
R
CED
A
R
S
T
BLACKWOOD RD
BOH
A
R
T
L
NWATTS LNARNICA DRJOHNSON RD RAINBOW RD
ABAGAIL RANCH RD
PARK VIEW PL
RED TAIL RANCH RDDRIFTWOOD DR
HORSETAIL RDVALLEY DRELLIS ST21ST AVEWILDFLOWER WAYFLANDERS MILL RDTHOMAS DR18TH AVE20TH AVE16TH AVE15TH AVEHALEY RD
HEATHER LN23RD AVESACCO DRKAGY BLVD
HOLLY DRWILDA LNWINTE
R
G
R
E
E
N
L
N
ASH DR
LUCI
L
L
E
L
N
HYALITE VIEW DR BENNETT DRDAVIS LNE
V
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
D
R
WHEAT DR
HA
G
G
E
R
T
Y
L
NSTORY MILL RDFALLON ST
MCGEE DRHOFER LNRIDGE TRLWILLOW WAYLILY DR
BURKE ST
10TH AVEBIRDIE DRBLUEBIRD LN
28TH AVE30TH AVE26TH AVEMAYA WAYHARPER PUCKETT RDPARK PL VALLEY RIDGE RDGOLDENSTEIN LN
INTE
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
ROSE ST
BUTTONWOOD AVELEA AVEAU
G
U
S
T
A
D
R
ARROWLEAF HILLS DRMIDFIELD ST
SHADOW CIRRI
A
T
A
R
D
NASH RANCH
RD
TERRENCE LOOP RD PALETTE CTK
N
A
A
B
D
REASTWOOD DRJACK LEG LNYERGER DRPAINTED
H
IL
LS
RD
OLD FARM RD
HUNTERS WAYGREEK WAYHAYRAKE LN
JE
A
N
A
L
E
I
C
T
LEXINGTON DR
COVER ST
SUNDANCE DRBOYD RDPROFESSIONAL DRFEN WAYVALLE
Y
C
E
N
T
E
R
R
D
INDUSTRIAL DRCHERRY DRSPRUCE DRBOGART DRANNIE ST
DELL PLARABIAN AVETETON AVETRIUMPH ST
LANCE DRCOTTONWOOD RDCLASSICAL WAY
COOK CT
BENEPE ST
KAGY RD URSA STSOLAR WAYPA
R
C
T
ST ANDREWS DR
PATTERSON RD SIMMENTAL WAYTAYABESHOCKUP RDALEXANDER ST
PERRY ST
BRYANT ST
PARKWAY AVEL STGRAF ST
DAISY DR
LINDVIG DRRAWHIDE RDG
GEBHARDT TRL
M
Y
E
R
S
L
NCANDY LNFRANKLIN HILLS DRFOWLER AVEFARRIER LNANNETTE PARK DRDAWS DR
PONDERA AVETRIPLE TREE RDTAI LNVIRGINIA DRERIK DRGALE CTROSA WAYHITCHING POST RD11TH AVEHUFFINE LN CARSON PL24TH AVEGO
L
F
W
A
Y
CATALYST ST
RYAN DR
CATKIN LN
SANDERS AVEPEACE PIPE DRFERGUSON AVEFARM VIEW LN
POST DR
MONIDA ST
9TH AVEVIRGINIA WAYSTUBBS LNALDER COURT LNCATTAIL ST
LLOYD STJAMES AVEJESSIE WAYMAX AVE13TH AVE19TH AVE
BRAJENKA LNWHISPER LNS
O
U
T
H
V
I
EW
R
I
D
G
E
LN
ACCOLA DR
TROOP
E
R
T
R
L
TSCHACHE LNWINTER PARK ST
MASON ST
QUINN DAVID L
N
ALPINE WAY
POTOSI ST
DISCOVERY DRHILLCREST DRHIDDEN VALLEY RDCHOUTEAU AVEBLACKBIRD DR25TH AVEDENNISON LN
G
O
L
D
A
V
E
BUR AVESPRING MEADOWS DRDULOHERY LN
CATRON ST
STOCKMAN WAYGIBSON DR
6TH AVESHO
E
F
E
L
T
T
R
LSUMMER VIEW LNDAVIS ST
CAYUSE SPUR TRL ENTERPRISE BLVDBABCOCK ST COMMERCE WAYHUFFMAN LN
CUTTING ST BRIDGER CANYO
N R
D
MAUS LNS
T
AR
R
IDG
E
R
D
LIM
E
S
TO
N
E
R
DSTAFFANSON RDCOBBLE CREEK RDWILDROSE LN
BO
O
T
H
I
L
L
C
T
CANARY LNHIGHLAND BLVDFIELD ST
BOYLAN RD
BEALL ST
LOLO WAY
MCI
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
RESORT DRICE POND RDTRACY AVEMAIN ST
GARDNER PARK DRFRO
N
T
S
T
WILLSON AVEWALLACE AVESUNLIGHT AVEOLIVER ST
HILL ST27TH AVEVILLARD ST
SADDLE CREEK RD4TH AVEGRIFFIN DR
17TH AVESHADOW DROLIVE ST
STUCKY RD 5TH AVETWIN LAKES AVEROCKY CREE
K
R
D BIG GULCH DRKOCH ST
29TH AVECOLLEGE ST
12
T
H
A
V
E 7TH AVEREE
V
E
S
R
D
STORY ST
BOND ST
GRANT ST
ARNOLD ST
DURSTON RD
HILLSIDE LN
FRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
TAMARACK ST
SOURDOUGH RDMENDENHALL STROUSE AVECHURCH AVESHERIDAN AVE3RD AVEMANLEY RDDICKERSON STCASPIAN AVEBRIDGER DRNASH RDBIGELOW RDREDWOOD DRGARFIELD STBOZEMAN AVE22ND AVE
OAK ST
BAXTER LN
FAIRWAY DRDAVIS LN11TH AVETRIPLE TREE RD
JOHNSON RD
SHADOW DR15TH AVECATRON ST
KAGY BLVD19TH AVEFERGUSON AVE7TH AVECOTTONWOOD RDGRAF ST
INTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
Y
BAXTER LN
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
FRO
N
T
S
T
6TH AVEDAVIS LNFRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
3RD AVE7TH AVE7TH AVETRIPLE TREE RD29TH AVEBOYLAN RDMANLEY RD19TH AVEOAK ST
NASH RD HITCHING POST RDCOTTONWOOD RDSTUCKY RD
GOLDENSTEIN LN
OAK ST
7TH AVE9TH AVEHUFFINE LN
A
B
A
G
A
I
L
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
KAGY BLVD15TH AVE5TH AVEL STJOHNSON RD 19TH AVE3RD AVE3RD AVECOTTONWOOD RD4TH AVEL ST
3RD AVEOAK STOAK ST
19TH AVE4TH AVEMCGEE DR3RD AVEMAIN ST
GRAF ST
FOWLER LNGRAF ST19TH AVE5TH AVESO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
R
D
BRIDGER DR
KAGY BLVD
19TH AVEGRAF ST
PATTERSON RD
COTTONWOOD RDSOURDOUGH RD19TH AVE27TH AVE19TH AVEMANLEY RDHAGGERTY LN
5TH AVEBIG GULCH DR27TH AVEMAIN ST
VALLEY DR6TH AVEBIG GULC
H
D
R
FLANDERS MILL RDSTORY MILL RDINTERSTATE
90
HWYJACK LEG LNLIMESTONE RDCOTTONWOOD RDFOWLER LNL STINTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
Y
3RD AVE3RD AVE22ND AVEOAK ST
NASH RD23RD AVE6TH AVEMAIN STBIG GULCH DRDAVIS LN19TH AVEBAXTER LN
ROUSE AVEPATTERSON RD
OAK ST
TAYABESHOCKUP RDBAXTER LN BOYLAN RDSIMMENTAL WAY3RD AVEDAVIS LNTRIPLE TREE RD
NASH RD TRACY AVEMC
G
E
E
D
R11TH AVECOTTONWOOD RDGRAF
S
T CHURCH AVESOURDOUGH RDTR
O
O
P
E
R
T
R
L
STORY ST
GRAF ST
NASH RDFOWLER LNPATTERSON RD
ELLIS ST
FOWLER LNPAINTED HILLS RD19TH AVE19TH AVEMAIN ST
FALLON ST
7TH AVEMAIN ST
NASH RDL ST20TH AVEFOWLER LNANNIE ST
SOURDOUGH RDTROO
P
E
R
T
R
L
3RD AVE5
7
8
2
1
34
6
922
21
20
18
16
1210
11
14
56
67 57
70
40
59
31
62
71
68
58
47
6941
65
2642
73
51
341917 1513
60
39
75
32
52
25
43
37
36
3854
74
55
66
53
45
48
2364
35
46
44
72
28
63
2724
50
61
30
29
49
33
Water Distribution System
G!!Test Hydrant
GFFlow Hydrant
Fire Flow Test LocationsWithin the South Pressure Zone
¯0 2,0005001,0001,500
Feet³Ú Pear St Pump Station
³Ú Knoll Pump Station
UT Clearwell
UT Hilltop Tank
UT Lyman Tank
UT Sourdough Tank
#I Existing PRVPressure Zones
GALLATIN
KNOLL
NORTHEAST
NORTHWEST
SOUTH
WEST
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
#I #I
#I
#I#I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I #I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I #I
#I
#I
#I
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!FOWLER LNRED
W
I
N
G
D
R
CED
A
R
S
T
BLACKWOOD RD
BOH
A
R
T
L
NWATTS LNARNICA DRJOHNSON RD RAINBOW RD
ABAGAIL RANCH RD
PARK VIEW PL
RED TAIL RANCH RDDRIFTWOOD DR
HORSETAIL RDVALLEY DRELLIS ST21ST AVEWILDFLOWER WAYFLANDERS MILL RDTHOMAS DR18TH AVE20TH AVE16TH AVE15TH AVEHALEY RD PERKINS PLHEATHER LN23RD AVESACCO DRKAGY BLVD
HOLLY DRWILDA LNWINTE
R
G
R
E
E
N
L
N
ASH DR
LUCI
L
L
E
L
N
HYALITE VIEW DR BENNETT DRDAVIS LNE
V
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
D
R
WHEAT DR
HA
G
G
E
R
T
Y
L
NSTORY MILL RDFALLON ST
MCGEE DRHOFER LNRIDGE TRLWILLOW WAYLILY DR
BURKE ST
10TH AVEBIRDIE DRBLUEBIRD LN
28TH AVE30TH AVE26TH AVEMAYA WAYHARPER PUCKETT RDPARK PL VALLEY RIDGE RDLAREDO DR
GOLDENSTEIN LN
PEA
R
S
T
OLD HIGHLAND BLVDINTE
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
ROSE ST
BUTTONWOOD AVELEA AVEAU
G
U
S
T
A
D
R
ARROWLEAF HILLS DRVICTORY ST
MIDFIELD ST
SHADOW CIRRI
A
T
A
R
D
NASH RANCH
RD
CONCORD DR
TERRENCE LOOP RD PALETTE CTK
N
A
A
B
D
REASTWOOD DRJACK LEG LNYERGER DRPAINTED
H
IL
LS
RD
OLD FARM RD
HUNTERS WAYGREEK WAYHAYRAKE LN
CIRCLE DR
JE
A
N
A
L
E
I
C
T
LEXINGTON DRSWEETGRASS AVECOVER ST
SUNDANCE DRBOYD RDPROFESSIONAL DRFEN WAYLINDLEY PLVALLE
Y
C
E
N
T
E
R
R
D
INDUSTRIAL DRCHERRY DRSPRUCE DRBOGART DRANNIE ST
DELL PLARABIAN AVETETON AVETRIUMPH ST
LANCE DRCOTTONWOOD RDCLASSICAL WAY
COOK CT
BENEPE ST
KAGY RD URSA STSOLAR WAYPA
R
C
T
ST ANDREWS DR
PATTERSON RD SIMMENTAL WAYTAYABESHOCKUP RDALEXANDER ST
PERRY ST
BRYANT ST
PARKWAY AVEL STGRAF ST
DAISY DR
LINDVIG DRRAWHIDE RDG
GEBHARDT TRL
M
Y
E
R
S
L
NCANDY LNFRANKLIN HILLS DRFOWLER AVEFARRIER LNSECOR AVEANNETTE PARK DR
DAWS DR
PONDERA AVETRIPLE TREE RDTAI LNVIRGINIA DRERIK DRGALE CTROSA WAYHITCHING POST RD11TH AVEHUFFINE LN
LARIAT LOOPCARSON PL24TH AVEGO
L
F
W
A
Y
CATALYST ST
RYAN DR
CATKIN LN
SANDERS AVEPEACE PIPE DRFERGUSON AVEFARM VIEW LN
MONIDA ST
MADRONA LN9TH AVEVIRGINIA WAYSTUBBS LNALDER COURT LNCATTAIL ST
LLOYD STJAMES AVEJESSIE WAYMAX AVE13TH AVE19TH AVE
14TH AVEBRAJENKA LNWHISPER LNS
O
U
T
H
V
I
EW
R
I
D
G
E
L
N
ACCOLA DR
PEACH ST
TROOP
E
R
T
R
L
TSCHACHE LNWINTER PARK ST
MASON ST
QUINN DAVID L
N
ALPINE WAY
POTOSI ST
DISCOVERY DRHILLCREST DRHIDDEN VALLEY RDCHOUTEAU AVEBLACKBIRD DR25TH AVEDENNISON LN
G
O
L
D
A
V
E
DUDLEY DRBUR AVEDULOHERY LN
CATRON ST
STOCKMAN WAYGIBSON DR
6TH AVESHO
E
F
E
L
T
T
R
LCHARLOTTE STSUMMER VIEW LNDAVIS ST
CAYUSE SPUR TRL ENTERPRISE BLVDBABCOCK STCOMMERCE WAYBRIDGER CANYO
N R
D
MAUS LNS
T
AR
R
IDG
E
R
D
LIM
E
S
TO
N
E
R
DSTAFFANSON RDCOBBLE CREEK RDWILDROSE LN
BO
O
T
H
I
L
L
C
T
CANARY LNHIGHLAND BLVDBOYLAN RD
BEALL ST
LOLO WAY
MCI
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
RESORT DRICE POND RDTRACY AVEMAIN ST8TH AVEGARDNER PARK DRFRO
N
T
S
T
GRAND AVESUNLIGHT AVEOLIVER ST
HILL ST27TH AVEVILLARD ST
KENYON DRSADDLE CREEK RD4TH AVEGRIFFIN DR
17TH AVESHADOW DROLIVE ST
STUCKY RD 5TH AVETWIN LAKES AVELARAMIE DR
ROCKY CREE
K
R
D BIG GULCH DRKOCH ST
29TH AVECOLLEGE ST
LOYAL DR
12
T
H
A
V
E MONTANA AVE7TH AVEREE
V
E
S
R
D
STORY ST
BOND ST
GRANT ST
ARNOLD ST
DURSTON RD
HILLSIDE LN
FRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
TAMARACK ST
HANLEY
AVESOURDOUGH RDMENDENHALL ST
HARRISON ST
ROUSE AVECHURCH AVEWOODLAND
DRSHERIDAN AVE3RD AVEMANLEY RDDICKERSON STCASPIAN AVEBRIDGER DRNASH RDBIGELOW RDREDWOOD DRGARFIELD ST
22ND AVEOAK ST
BAXTER LN
PATTERSON RD 5TH AVEINTERSTATE 9
0
H
W
Y
KOCH ST
STUCKY RD
3RD AVE27TH AVECOTTONWOOD RDMAIN STMCGEE DR3RD AVECOTTONWOOD RDFLANDERS MILL RDOAK ST
TROO
P
E
R
T
R
L
BAXTE
R
L
N
3RD AVEANNIE ST
GRAF STDAVIS LN9TH AVE7TH AVETR
O
O
P
E
R
T
R
L3RD AVEBIG GULCH DR
3RD AVE19TH AVE3RD AVEL ST27TH AVEFALLON ST
FOWLER LN19TH AVEMANLEY RD20TH AVE3RD AVENASH RD29TH AVEBAXTER LN
MAIN ST
5TH AVE19TH AVECOTTONWOOD RD15TH AVEKAGY BLVD
BAXTE
R
L
N
7TH AVEFOWLER LNSO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
R
D
TRIPLE TREE RD
NASH RD
BOYLAN RD
TRIPLE TREE RD24TH AVE8TH AVEBRIDGER DRDAVIS LN7TH AVEFRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
19TH AVEBAXTER LN
4TH AVE27TH AVECATRON ST
HITCHING POST RDTRIPLE TREE RDKOCH ST
OAK ST
INTE
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
GOLDENSTEIN LN
19TH AVE3RD AVEHUFFINE LN
15TH AVE7TH AVEVALLEY DR3RD AVE
BOHA
R
T
L
N
LIMESTONE RDMANLEY RDELLIS ST
FOWLER LNBAXTER LN
PATTERSON RD
FOWLER LNNASH RD L ST11TH AVEMCGEE DRMCGEE DRFRONTAGE RD
OAK ST
FRO
N
T
S
T
COTTONWOOD RDKAGY BLVD
SOURDOUGH RDSHADOW DRBRIDGER DR
9TH AVEMAIN ST
SOURDOUGH RDGRAF S
TDAVIS LN5TH AVEL STHAGGERTY LN
GRAF ST
OAK ST
11TH AVEL ST7TH AVEBOYLAN RDOAK ST
GRAF ST19TH AVEBIG GULC
H
D
R
VALLEY RIDGE RD
6TH AVE19TH AVE3RD AVETAYABESHOCKUP RDGRAF STNASH RD
MAIN ST
JOHNSON RD
A
B
A
G
A
I
L
R
A
N
CH
R
D6TH AVESTORY MILL RDPAINTED HILLS RDCOTTONWOOD RDCHURCH AVE11TH AVEPATTERSON RD
COTTONWOOD RDOAK ST
TETON AVE19TH AVEKAGY BLVD
BABCOCK ST
GRAF STDAVIS LNFERGUSON AVENASH RD19TH AVETRACY AVEJACK LEG LN
BIG GULCH DR
19TH AVE19TH AVECOTTONWOOD RDINTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
YSIMMENTAL WAYOAK ST
15TH AVEHUFFINE LN
TRACY AVE5
1
9
2
7
4
6
8
3
Water Distribution System
G!!Pressure Monitoring Location
Pressure Monitoring Setup Prior to Flow TestingSouth Pressure Zone Flow Testing
¯0 5,0001,250 2,500 3,750
Feet³Ú Pear St Pump Station
³Ú Knoll Pump Station
UT Clearwell
UT Hilltop Tank
UT Lyman Tank
UT Sourdough Tank
#I Existing PRVPressure Zones
GALLATIN
KNOLL
NORTHEAST
NORTHWEST
SOUTH
WEST
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFG!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
(4330)
(4310)
2525 18" STL16" DI
24
"
S
T
L
30" DI24
"
S
T
L
18"
S
T
L
24
"
S
T
L
SOURDOUGH RDTR
O
O
P
E
R
T
R
L
GOLDENSTEIN LN
1
Pressure Monitoring Setup Prior to Flow TestingSouth Pressure Zone Flow Testing
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: __________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
2525
1
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
(3494)
(3090)(3004)(2964)(2948)(2926)(2918)
(6029) (6045)(6061)(6075)(6089)(6101)
2107
12" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI
MEAH LN
31ST AVEBLACKWOOD RD
2
Pressure Monitoring Setup Prior to Flow TestingSouth Pressure Zone Flow Testing
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: __________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
2107
2
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
(911)
(1704)
(1630)
(1621)
(1619)
(1640)
(1620)
(1614)
(1602)
(1727)
(1625)
(1721)
(1715)
(1701)
(1716)
(1722)
(1804)
(1810)
564
6" DI
20" DI12" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI20" DI 8" DI2
0
"
D
I12" DI6
"
D
I
8" DI8" DI8" DIKENYON DR3
Pressure Monitoring Setup Prior to Flow TestingSouth Pressure Zone Flow Testing
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: __________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
564
3
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
(17)(19)
(20)
(309)(309)(205)
(1008)
(1207)
(1030)
(1114)
(1220)
(1108)
(1304)
(1228)
(1224)
(1216)
(1210)
(1202)
(1104)
(1201)
(1209)
(1215)
(1221)
(1227)
(1303)(1304)
(1220)
(1216)
(1212)
(1208)
(1204)
(1114)
(1110)
(1023)
(1107)
(1111)
(1117)
(1201)
(1207)
(1211)
(1215)
(1219)
(1305)(1308)
(1216)
(1212)
(1208)
(1204)
(1116)
(1100)
(1109)
(1203)
(1215)
(1207)
(1211)(1219)
(1220)
(1217)
(1221)
(1305)
(1021)
290
6" CI24" CCP14" STL14" CI
18" STL8" CI
12" CI
6" CI12" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI14" CI 14" CI14" CI
18" STL14" CI24" CCP14" CI
BLACK AVEGARFIELD STBOZEMAN AVEMONTANA AVETRACY AVE
4
Pressure Monitoring Setup Prior to Flow TestingSouth Pressure Zone Flow Testing
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: __________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
290
4
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
49010" DI8" DI
24" DI12" CI12" DI14" DI12" CI
8" DI
12" CI12" CI19TH AVEGARFIELD ST BRANEGAN CTPAISLEY CT
5
Pressure Monitoring Setup Prior to Flow TestingSouth Pressure Zone Flow Testing
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: __________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
490
5
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
(8)
(6)
(7)
(15)(15)
(36)(37)
(15)
(27)
(29)
(10)
(11)
(20)
(10)
(16)
(210)
(202)
(202)
(106)
(120)
(120)
(226)
(121)
(225)
(211)
(220)
(132)
(121)
(117)
(113)
(137)
(111)
(221)
(217)
(209)
(108)
(110)
(301)
(116)
(120)(120)
(210)
(214)
(218)
(226)
(206)
(210)
(214)
(224)
(226)
(302)(301)
(227)
(221)
(219)
(215)
(209)
(205)
(120)
(222)
(304)
(204)
(303)
121
8" CI 8" DI6" CI
12" CI
14" CI10" CI
4" CI8" CI8" CI14" CI8" CI8" CI8" DI6" CI8" CI6" CI6" CI 6" CI
8" DI6" CI
12" CI8" CI8" DI6" CI
12" CI
6" CI
8" DI8" CI14" CIOLIVE ST
BLACK AVETRACY AVEBABCOCK ST
BOZEMAN AVECURTISS ST
6
Pressure Monitoring Setup Prior to Flow TestingSouth Pressure Zone Flow Testing
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: __________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
121
6
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
#I
(210)
(244)
(228)(228)
(232)
(444)
(450)
1754
12" DI
8" DI
6" DI
12" DI12" DI8" DI12" DI12" DI
12" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI12" DI8" DI
8" DI 8" DI12" DI12" DI8" DI6" DI
FALLON STCOTTONWOOD RDFIELD ST
AUTO PLAZA DR
FIELD ST
7
Pressure Monitoring Setup Prior to Flow TestingSouth Pressure Zone Flow Testing
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: __________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1754
7
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
#I
(1289)
(1351)
(1281)
(2051)(2047)
(1459)
(1433)(2063)
(1281)
(1336)
(1262)(2104)(2108)(2112)
(2109)(2105)(2115)
1025
8" DI12" DI10" DI
14" DI
8
"
D
I
8" DI
10" DI
8" DI
10" DI8" DI14" DI8" DI12" DI8" D
I 8" DI10" DI
14" DI
OAK ST 19TH AVESTONERIDGE DRMAPLEWOOD ST SUNNY SIDE TRL19TH AVEPRV 6
8
Pressure Monitoring Setup Prior to Flow TestingSouth Pressure Zone Flow Testing
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: __________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1025
8
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFGF
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
(411)
(415)
(1224)
(1203)
(1227)
(1251)
(1214)
(1104)
1887
16" CI
8" DI
12" DI10" CI0" CI6" CI
16" CI6" CI12" DI
12" DI 16" CI
16" CI16" CIROUSE AVEOAK ST
BIRCH STMONTANA AVE9
Pressure Monitoring Setup Prior to Flow TestingSouth Pressure Zone Flow Testing
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: __________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Removed - Date: __________ Time: __________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1887
9
GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!³Ú
UT
UT
UT³Ú
#I #I
#I
#I#I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I#I #I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I#I #I
#I
#I
#I
FOWLER LNRED
W
I
N
G
D
R
CED
A
R
S
T
BLACKWOOD RD
BOH
A
R
T
L
NWATTS LNLAKE RDARNICA DRJAGAR LN
JOHNSON RD RAINBOW RD
ABAGAIL RANCH RD
PARK VIEW PL
RED TAIL RANCH RD
LAKE
D
RARETE DRDRIFTWOOD DR
HORSETAIL RDROCKY RDVALLEY DRSPRINGHILL RDELLIS ST21ST AVEWILDFLOWER WAYFLANDERS MILL RDOVERLOOK LNTHOMAS DR18TH AVE20TH AVE16TH AVE15TH AVEHEATHER LN23RD AVEBE
A
R
P
A
W
T
R
L
KAGY BLVD
HOLLY DRWILDA LNWINT
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
L
NASH DR
HARPER PUCKETT RD
LUCI
L
L
E
L
N
STONEGATE DR
BENNETT DRDAVIS LNMARY RDE
V
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
D
R
HA
G
G
E
R
T
Y
L
NSTORY MILL RDFALLON ST
MCGEE DRHOFER LNDOANE RDRIDGE TRLWILLOW WAYLILY DR
BURKE ST
10TH AVEBIRDIE DRBLUEBIRD LN
28TH AVE30TH AVE26TH AVEMAYA WAYGALLATIN DRBORDER LNPARK PL VALLEY RIDGE RDGOLDENSTEIN LN
NIKLES
D
R
INTE
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
VA
N
D
Y
K
E
R
D BUTTONWOOD AVEFRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
LEA AVEARROWLEAF HILLS DRHIDDEN VALLEY RDMIDFIELD ST
WHITETAIL RD
RIATA RDPALETTE CTK
N
A
A
B
D
R VISTA LNEASTWOOD DRJACK LEG LNYERGER DRPAINTED HILLS RDKERMODI STOLD FARM RD
HUNTERS WAYGREEK WAYJE
A
N
A
L
E
I
C
T
COVER ST
SUNDANCE DRBOYD RDFEN WAYCLONINGER LNINDUSTRIAL DRVIRGINIA DRCHERRY DRSIMMONS LNNELSON RD
BOGART DRANNIE ST
DELL PLARABIAN AVETETON AVETRIUMPH ST
LANCE DRCOTTONWOOD RDBENEPE ST SANDY CREEK LNBIG GULCH DR
KAGY RD URSA STS
O
L
A
R
W
A
Y
ST ANDREWS DR
PATTERSON RD SIMMENTAL WAYTAYABESHOCKUP RDBRYANT ST
PARKWAY AVEL STGRAF ST
DAISY DR GOLD DUST
TRL
L
AU
N
F
A
L
LN
LINDVIG DRRAWHIDE RDGCIRQUE DRSYPES CANYON RD
M
Y
E
R
S
L
NCANDY LNFRANKLIN HILLS DR
LITTLE GULLY RUN
FOWLER AVEA
N
N
E
T
T
E
P
A
R
K
D
RCOULEE DRPONDERA AVETRIPLE TREE RD
ERIK DRGALE CTROSA WAYHI
TCH
ING
POST
RD11TH AVEHUFFINE LN HARMON WAYCARSON PL24TH AVEGO
L
F
W
A
Y
RED FOX LN
CATALYST ST
CATKIN LN
FERGUSON AVEBRIGGS RDFARM VIEW LN
LON
G
H
O
R
N
R
D
MONIDA ST
9TH AVEVIRGINIA WAYSTUBBS LNCREST DRCATTAIL ST
LLOYD STJAMES AVE
LOOKFA
R
W
A
Y
13TH AVE1
9
TH
AV
E
SPRINGHILL LN
BRAJENKA LN
ACCOLA DR
TR
O
O
P
E
R
T
R
L
TSCHACHE LNWINTER PARK ST
PANORAMA DR
QUINN DAVID
L
N
ALPINE WAYBULL FROG DRDISCOVERY DRHILLCREST DRCHOUTEAU AVEBUR AVE
CATRON ST
6TH AVEDAVIS ST
ENTERPRISE BLVDCA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
BABCOCK STSAXON WAYS
T
AR
R
IDG
E
RDSTAFFANSON RDWILDROSE LNRAIN ROPER DRBOOT H
ILL
CTCANARY LNHIGHLAND BLVDBOYLAN RD
BEALL ST
LOLO WAY
MCI
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
RESORT DRICE POND RDTRACY AVEROBIN LN
MAIN ST
GARDNER PARK DRFRO
N
T
S
T
WESTERN DRHILL ST27TH AVESADDLE CREEK RD4TH AVEGRIFFIN DR
OLIVE ST
STUCKY RD
VALLEY CENTER RD
5TH AVEBLACK AVEROCKY CREEK
R
D
RUSTY DUCK LN
KOCH ST
29TH AVEKNOLLS DR
1
2
TH
AV
E
MONTANA AVEAAJKER CREEK RD 7TH AVER
E
E
V
E
S
R
D
B
A
X
T
E
R
D
R
RIVERSIDE
D
R
BRIDGER CANYON RDCHURN CR
EEK
DR
ARNOLD ST
HILLSIDE LNSACAJAWEA PEAK DRSOURDOUGH RDLAUREL PKWYROUSE AVECHURCH AVEDANUBE LN
SHERIDAN AVE3RD AVEAUTUMN RIDGE RD
MANLEY RDCASPIAN AVEBRIDGER DR
BIGELOW RDREDWOOD DR22ND AVEOAK ST
BAXTER LN
FAIRWAY DRDURSTON RD
RUSTY NAIL RD
19
T
H
A
V
E
BIG GULCH DR
7TH AVEDAVIS LNINTER
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
10TH AVEGRAF
ST
MAIN ST
SOURDOUGH RDROUSE AVEMC
G
E
E
D
R
FRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
INTERSTAT
E
9
0
H
W
Y
3RD AVE19TH AVE27TH AVEINTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
Y23RD AVEL ST19TH AVEMCGEE DRCOTTONWOOD RD19TH AVEFRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
20TH AVEL ST19TH AVEKAGY BLVD15TH AVE19TH AVEGRAF STCOTTONWOOD RDNELSON RDL ST7TH AVE27TH AVESTAR RIDGE RD
KAGY BLVD15TH AVEELLIS ST
3RD AVESPRINGHILL RDVALLEY RIDGE RDMARY RDNELSON RDDAVIS LNOAK ST
19TH AVE19TH AVEA
B
AG
A
I
L
R
A
N
C
H
RD
BLACKWOOD RD L STGRAF ST
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
R
D
PATTERSON RD
JOHNSON RD
3RD AVE
MAIN STHIDDEN VALLEY RD6TH AVEMCI
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
KAGY BLVD
INTER
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
TRACY AVESTUBBS LN19TH AVEJACK LEG LN
MC
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
FOWLER LNIN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
YNELSON RDSTUCKY RD
3RD AVEFOWLER LNHARPER PUCKETT RDTRIPLE TREE RD
OAK ST
BLACKWOOD RD
HAGGERTY LNNELSON RDBOYL
A
N
R
D
FERGUSON AVE15TH AVELAKE DRGOLDENSTEIN LN TAYABESHOCKUP RDMAIN ST
BAXTER LN
TRIPLE TREE RDOAK ST
7TH AVEHUFFINE LN MANLEY RD19TH AVEOAK ST
LAKE
D
R
VALL
E
Y
C
E
N
T
E
R
R
D
3RD AVEPATTERSON RDDAVIS LNBOYLAN RD
FOWLER LN15TH AVEMANLEY RDSTUCKY RD
PATTERSON RD 24TH AVEBAXTER LN
HUFFINE LN
MAIN ST
BAXTER LN
FRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
COTTONWOOD RDSTORY MILL RD19TH AVE19TH AVECHURCH AVE19TH AVEJOHNSON RD
FRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
STORY MILL RDSYPES CANYON RD
3
1
9
5
7
52
18
38
557111
16
5657
704039
1059
31621312
68
17
1941 44
266373 344
6
2
8
66
54
4267
60
75
14
32
20
15
25
43
58
37
47 36
69
74
53
45
21
22
48
2364
35
46
72 65
28
2724
50
61
30
29
49
51
33
Water Distribution System
G!!Test Hydrant
GFFlow Hydrant
Fire Flow Test LocationsShown with Pressure Zones
¯0 10.25 0.5 0.75
Miles³Ú Pear St Pump Station
³Ú Knoll Pump Station
UT Clearwell
UT Hilltop Tank
UT Lyman Tank
UT Sourdough Tank
#I Existing PRVPressure Zones
GALLATIN
KNOLL
NORTHEAST
NORTHWEST
SOUTH
WEST
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
1
1897 1896 1898RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
1 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!1897
(3241)
(3225)
(3329)
(3263)
(3366)
(3091)
(3020)
(3191) (3177)
(3153)
(3131)(3105) (3097)(3085)
(3067)
(3043)(3025)
(3449)
(3401)
(3412)
(3403)
(3198)
(3117)(3139)
(3153)(3175)
(3389)
(3371)
(3365)
(3359)
(3347)
(3331)
(3321)
(3313)
(3388)
(3372)
(3340)
(3332)
(3326)
(3314)
(3303)
(3317)
(3321)
(3337)
(3345)
(3357)
(3383)
(3395)(3398)
(3376)
(3370)
(3352)
(3336)
(3330)
(3318)
(3306)
(3172) (3150)(3138)(3116)(3086)(3062)
(3044)
(3385)
(3361)
(3351)
(3325)
(3263)
(3241)
(3114)
(3150)(3131)
(3109)(3095)
(3139)
(3153)
(3171)
(3167)(3143) (3129)(3083)(3065)(3037)
(3196)
(3158)
(3124)
(3072)
(3173)
(3141)
(3123)
(3081)
(3182)
(3168)
(3136)
(3076)
(3168)
(3144)
(3126)
(3072)
1898
1896 8" DI12" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
12" DI8" DI
FEN WAYDAVIS LNCATAMOUNT ST
BLACKBIRD DRSORA WAYSUNDEW LN
CATRON ST
FOXTAIL STCATRON ST
BLACKBIRD DRG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
12:44 PM
12:53 PM
JDH
1240
109.8 psi
90.2 psi
1241
1,518 gpm 1,484 gpm
201250
NORTHWEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
2
2358 2368 2359RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
2GFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!2358
(2912)(2928)(2954)(2976)(2990)
(2913)(2925)(2963)(2987)
(2988) (2964)(2932)(2908)(1744)
(1720)
(1704)
(1698)
(1690)
(1664)
(3270)
(3275)
(3120)
(1641)
(1680)
(1662)
(1648)
(1622)
(1604)
(1636)
(1631)
(1553)
(1296)
(1345)
(1425)(1479)
(1485)
(1473)
(1467)(1461)(1449)(1443)(1437)
(1431)
(1419)
(1547)
(1455)
(1594)
(1578)
(1552)
(1544)
(1520)
(1482)
(1464)
(1456)
(1438)
(1293)(1235)(1234)
2368
23598" DI
12" DI 10" DI
8
"
D
I8"
D
I
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI12" DI
8" DI
12" DI8" D
I
10" DI 8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" D
I
12" DI 8" DI12" DI
8
"
D
I
8" DI8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" D
I
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI8
"
D
I
8" DI12" DI OAK ST
H
U
N
T
E
R
S
W
A
Y
WINDWARD AVEBREEZE LN
WINTER PARK ST
WESTWIND WAY
MEDIAN G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
10:52 AM
11:02 AM
JDH
1240
75.7 psi
60.4 psi
1241
1,230 gpm 1,167 gpm
201250
NORTHWEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
3
2064 2058 2063RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
3GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFG!!
G!!
G!!2064
(1760)(1840)
(1976)
(1880)
(1750)
(1731)
(1805)
(1640)
(1540)
(1620)(1600)
20632058
12" DI
10" DI
8" DI
12" DI 12" DI12" DI10" DI
12" DI10" DI8" DI12" DI
10" DI
10" DI8" DI 12" DI12" DI10" DI12" DI12" DI 12" DI10" DI
BAXTER LN
SACCO DRTSCHACHE LN
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
11:14 AM
11:25 AM
JDH
1240
81.9 psi
62.8 psi
1241
1,235 gpm 1,215 gpm
201250
NORTHWEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
4
1726 1745 1727RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
4GFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!1726(11)
(195)
(255)
(2255)
(2245)
1745 17278" DI
12" DI6" DI 12" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI
12" DI
12" DI
8" DI8" DI SPRINGHILL RD19TH AVE
BOGART DRESTES LNCAMPBELL RD
MOSS BRIDGE RD
FRON
T
A
G
E
R
D VENTURE WAYREEVES RD
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
1:23 PM
1:33 PM
JDH
1240
125.4 psi
106.6 psi
1241
1,615 gpm 1,418 gpm
201250
NORTHWEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
5
1604 1601 1609RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
5GFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!G!!1604
(4200)
(4102)
(2316)
(2310)
(2162)
(3876)(3910)(3930)
(3944)(3924)
(2224)(2212)
(2200)
(2180)
(2156)
(2272)(2250)
(2236)
(3882)
(3810)
(2146)(2124)
(2331)
(2317)(2326)(2321)
(2310)
(2302)
(2311)(2322)(2314)(2308)(2315)
(2309)
(3943)(3921)(3915)(3813)(3825)(3847)(3885)
(2286)
(3686)
(3900)
(3864)
(2283)
(2257)
(2235)
(2205)
(2175)
(2143)
(2115)(2122)
(2168)
(2214)
(2246)
(2274)
(2292)(2287)
(2263)
(2239)
(2215)
(4002)
(2129)
(2286)
(2274)
(2266)
(2252)
(2244)
(2232)
(2214)
(2202)
(3965)
(3971)
(3977)
(3957)(3945)(3929)
(3992)
(3984)
(3974)
(3968) (3962)(3958)(3934)
(3876)(3880)
(3886)(3892)(3908)
(3911)(3897)
(3883)
(3879)
(3896)(3906)(3922)(3938)(3950)(3984)(3988)(3996)
(3987)(3959)(3947) (3929)(3921)(3905)(3891)
(2282)
(4182)
(4121)(4173)
(4166)(4106)(2281)
(2275)
(2259)
(2247)
(2241)
(2229)
(2211)
(2123)
(2297)
(2167)
(2141)
1609 16018" DI10" DI
12" DI
10" DI12" DI8" DI
12" DI
10" DI 10" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
12" DI 8" DI12" DI 12" DI8" DI12" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI 12" DI12" DI12" DI8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI 8" DI
10" DI
8" DI10" DI
12" DI12" DI
EQUESTRIAN LN
BOSAL ST
BAXTER LNLASSO AVEFERGUSON AVERIATA
R
D
GALLATIN GREEN BLVDBAXTER LN
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
12:05 PM
12:14 PM
JDH
1240
90.7 psi
71.7 psi
1241
1,325 gpm 1,169 gpm
201250
NORTHWEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
6
2515 2514 2516RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
6 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!2515(2447)
(2532)
(2453)
(4693)(4649)(4611)(4601)(4579)(4555)(4527)(4519)(4505)
(2538)
(2522)
(2489)
(2483)
(2479)
(2482)
(2472)
(2462)(2461)
(2445)
(2427)(2422)
(2407)(2400)
(2390)
(2360)
(2320)
(2492)
(2480)
(2491)
(2479)
(2470)(2469)
(2452)(2451)
(2439)(2438)
(2418)(2423)
(2402)
(4365)
(2481)
(2467)
(2455)
(2441)
(2429)
(2415)
(2387)
(2359)
(2329)(4509)
(4508)
(4525)
(4524)(4544)
(4545)(4557)
(4554)(4576)
(4577)(4589)
(4590)
(4609)
(4610)
(4615)
(4626)
(4669)
(4665)
(4659)
(2310)
(2284)
(2268)
(2401)
(4624)(4608)(4584)(4570)(4552)(4546)(4526)(4508)
(2490)
(2488)
(2476)
(2458)
(2444)
(2426)
(2404)
(2497)
(2493)
(2481)
(2463)
(2447)
(2421)
(2405)
(2389)
(2363)
(2319)25162514
8" DI12" DI
8" DI
8" DI12" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI 8" D
I8" D
I8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DIEQUESTRIAN LN
KIMBERWICKE ST
ANDALUSIAN AVEHARPER PUCKETT RDFARRIER LNTHOROUGHBRED LNARABIAN AVEDANUBE LNG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
12:22 PM
12:30 PM
JDH
1240
88.4 psi
61.0 psi
1241
1,287 gpm 1,246 gpm
201250
NORTHWEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
7
1510 1822 1513RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
7GFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
#I 1510(983)
(965)
(941)
(923)
(972)
(954)
(936)
(985)
(963)
(945)
(970)
(958)
(934)
(983)
(965)
(949)
(709)
(713)
(708)
(3198)
(1008) (1009)(1014) (1013)
(2923)
(2936)(3016)(3024)(3032)(3048)(3056)(3074)(3086)(3116)(3102)(3124)(3138)(3154)(3176)(3190)(3260) (3242) (3226)
(3263) (3241) (3225)
(3250) (3232) (3214) (3186) (3164) (3148) (3138) (3134) (3122) (3114)(3106)
(3193) (3173)(3155)(3143) (3127)(3119)(3103)(3097)(3063)(3045)(3021)(3007)(2991)(2959)(2927)
(3088)(3072)(3056)(3030)(3018)(2976)(2934)(2912)
(2988)(2960)(2942)(2926)
(2931)(2953)(2975)(2991)
(2996)(3014)(3038)(3056)(3072)(3092)
(3011)(3021)(3045)(3067)(3081)
(3104)(3116)(3120)(3132)(3146)(3158)(3172)(3194)
(3113)(3119)(3125)(3137)(3151)(3163)(3189)(3199)
(3202)(3214)(3252)
(3209)(3221)(3243)
(3108)
(3155) (3143)
(3251)
(3260) (3242)(3226)
(3235)(3213)
(3190) (3176)(3162) (3150) (3144) (3132)(3124)
(3197) (3185)(3169)(3155) (3147)(3139)(3127) (3119)
(3098)(3086)(3064)(3040)(3022)
(3006)
(3093)(3071)(3053)(3037)(3015)
(2984)
(2987)
(3067)(3083)(3131)(3165)(3117) (3107)
(1012)
(2905)
(2903)
(2907)(2903)
(2906)
(2902)
(3250)(3228)(3210)(3194)(3182)(3168) (3156)(3144) (3130) (3118) (3108) (3080) (3064) (3046) (3032)(3016)(3000)(2976)(2962)(2948)(2934)(2920)
(3253)(3233)(3213)(3191)(3179)(3051)(3035)(3019)(3003)(2973)(2959)(2945)(2931)
(1008)
(2917)
(2908)
(2907)
(2904)
(2901)
(2900)
(2918)
(2910)
(2921)(2917)(2913)(2909)
(2922)
1822
1513
8" DI
10" DI
6" DI
1
2
"
D
I
8" DI8" DI10" DI
8
"
D
I
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI10" DI 8" DI6" DI
8
"
D
I
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" D
I
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI8
"
D
I
10" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI
10" DI10" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI10" DI
LILY DR
ROSE ST
ANNIE ST
OLIVER ST
FARMALL ST
DURSTON RDNEW HOLLAND DRSPRINGBROOK AVEHARMON WAYPRV 15
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
10:37 AM
10:47 AM
JDH
1240
61.7 psi
46.0 psi
1241
1,083 gpm 1,049 gpm
201250
NORTHWEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
8
2290 2355 2289RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
8 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!G!!2290
(890)
(894)
(888)
(884)
(878)
(872)
(1160)
(4067)(4049)(4039)(4027)
(4068)(4050)(4038) (4026)
(4065)(4057)(4043)(4025)(4013)
(4070)(4052)(4038)(4024)(4016)
(4002)
(4063)(4055)(4041)(4027)(4013)(4001)
(1186)
(1158)
(1136)
(1100)
(1090)
(1086)
(1072)
(1030)
(1284)
(1232)
(1188)
(1164)
(1136)
(1108)
(1098)
(1076)
(1032)
(4064)(4040)
(4020)
(4061)(4041)(4019)
(4060)(4052)(4038)(4026)(4016)
(4018)
(3890)(3888)(3874)
(3893)(3887)(3879)
(3888)(3872)
(1146)
(1122)
(1187)
(1175)
(1163)
(1151)
(1133)
(1115)
(1107)
(1101)
(3821)(3815)(3811)
(3814) (3810)
(1110)
(3814)
(3841)
(3837)(3833)(3825)
(1298)
(1171)23552289 8" DI
10" DI8" DI10" DI8" DI8" DI10" DI8" DI8" DI
8"
D
I
8" DI
10" DI8"
D
I
8" DI8" DI
8" DI
10" DI8" DI
8" DI10" DI8" DI
8" DI8" D
I
8" DI
8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI
10" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI10" DI8" DI
8" DI
OAK ST
ANNIE ST
RENOVA LNAGATE AVEFERGUSON AVEBUR AVE
TANZANITE DR
OPAL ST
JARDINE AVEMOONSTONE DR
LADUKE ST
FERGUSON AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
10:20 AM
10:27 AM
JDH
1240
67.4 psi
57.7 psi
1241
1,212 gpm 1,195 gpm
201250
NORTHWEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
9
1167 1772 2181RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
9 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!#I 1167
(5889)
(3204)
(6195)
(2305)
(6059)
(6139)
(2055)
(2515)
(4500)
(2505)
177
2
21
8
1
12" DI
10" DI8" DI4" DI
12" DI 8" DI
12" DI
8
"
D
I
8" DI 12" D
I
12" DI12" DI12"
D
I
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI
12" DI
8" DI
12" DI 8" D
I
8" DI
8" DI
12" DI12" D
I 12" DI12
"
D
I12
"
D
I
12" DI
12" DI
8" DI12"
D
I
12" DI8" D
I
8" DI
8" DI
12" DI
VA
L
L
E
Y
C
E
N
T
E
R
R
D
CATRON ST 19TH AVEINT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
CATAMOUNT ST
FRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
INT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
PRV 5
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
1:03 PM
1:11 PM
JDH
1240
112.5 psi
97.7 psi
1241
1,569 gpm 1,552 gpm
201250
NORTHWEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
10
2411 2410 2412RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
10 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!2411
(48)
(395)(390)
(383)(382)(374)(375)(368)(361)
(357)(350)
(349)(342)
(335)(326)
(321)(318)
(309)(302)
(288)
(242)(243)
(209)(200)
(175)
(158)(153)
(142)(145)
(130)(133)
(114)(111)
(106)(105)
(176)
(289)
(271)(270)
(286)
(276)
(244)
(204)
(170)
(148)
(136)
(128)
(110)
(102)
(287)
(285)
(269)
(247)
(205)
(246)
(210)
(180)(177)
(159)
(152)(147)
(140)(135)
(118)(113)
(104)(101)
(393)(381)(377)
(369)
(355)(347)(333)
(325)(303)
(350)
(230)
(235)
(203)
(181)
(163)
(151)
(143)
(120)(115)
(107)
(5349)
(5025)(5057)(5079)(5095)(5119)(5163)(5191)(5350)(5002)
(5151)
(5151)
2412
2410
8" DI12" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI12" DI
8" DI 8" DI12" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
12" DI12" DI12" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI 8" DI
8" DI8" DI12" DI
WATER LILY DRMAY FLY ST
FALLON STSTONE FLY DRDRAGON FLY ST
BABCOCK ST
BULL FROG DRMAYFLY ST
BABCOCK ST
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
4:23 PM
4:32 PM
JDH
1240
66.1 psi
60.2 psi
1241
1,201 gpm 1,233 gpm
201250
WEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
11
1701 1700 1703RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
11GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
170
1
(815)
(789)
(836)
(692)
(867)
(659)
(677)
(637)
(774)
(646)
(870)
(763)
(825)
(835)
(877)(859)
(852)
(712)
(756)
(711)
(738)
(725)
(623)
(769)
(883)
(843)(856)
(872)
(836)
(824)
(885)
(861)
(847)
(823)
(787)
(765)
(743)
(727)
(719)
(776)
(758)
(734)
(718)
(706)
(747)
(818)
(726)
(618)
(611)
(4525)
(4817)
(4721)
(4662)(4684)
(4563)(4541)
(4716)
(4841)
(4833)
(4825)
(4809)
(4659)
(4511)
(4657)(4675)
(4556)(4532)(4518)
(4535)(4529)
(4726)(4714)(4688)(4662)(4646)(4634)(4626)(4618)(4612)(4582)(4558)
(4727)(4709)(4691)(4633)
(4648)(4626)
(4615)(4603)(4579)(4555)
(4520)(4526)
(4523)(4511)
(4608)(4582)(4568)(4546) (4534)
1700
1703
8" DI
12" DI10" DI
6" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI
12" DI 8" DI8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI12" DI8" DI12" DI
8" DI
12" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DIDURSTON RD
GLENWOOD DR LOXLEY DRLAUREL PKWYSHADOWGLEN DR LONGBOW LNFORESTGLEN DRWESTGATE AVEETHAN WAY
LAUREL PKWYG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
5:16 PM
5:29 PM
JDH
1240
84.6 psi
72.8 psi
1241
1,353 gpm 1,250 gpm
201250
WEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
12
1979 1980 1978RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
12GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFG!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
197
9
(963)
(993)(996)
(970)(979)
(993)
(971)
(989)(984)
(966)(5426)(5438)(5496)(5482)
(1193)
(5454)
(5625)
(1037)
(1096)(1094)
(1112)(1120)(1124)
(1141)
(1118)
(1132)
(5673)
(1169)(1168)
(1098)
(5521)
(5653)
(1191)
(1113)
(1087)
(1188)
(1148)
(1084)
(1026)
(1123)
(1081)
(1017)
(1190)
(1070)
(1038)
(1012)
(5713)(5739)(5757)(5785)(1235)
(1205)
(1197)
(1167)
(1133)
(1121)
(1093)
(1067)
(1033)
(1009)(1015)
(5463)(5435)(5411)
(5423)(5447)(5459)(5471)
(5485)
(5519)
1980
19788" DI10" DI 10" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI10" DI
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
10" DI
OAK ST
SAXON WAY
GLENELLEN DRFORESTGLEN DRLAUREL PKWYLONGBOW LNLAUREL PKWYG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
5:38 PM
5:47 PM
JDH
1240
95.3 psi
76.0 psi
1241
1,350 gpm 1,335 gpm
201250
WEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
13
2013 2004 2014RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
13GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
2013
(897)
(881)
(859)
(896)
(890)(882)
(876)(862)
(903)
(899)
(885)
(879)
(855)
(837)
(996)(982)(974)(968)(952)(944)(932)(924)(912)
(908)
(993)(985)
(979)
(959)(947)(933)(927)(919)(907)
(998)(986)
(972)(960)
(948)(930)
(918)(904)
(890)
(886)
(872)
(858)
(993)(981)(969)
(959)(945)
(929)(917)(900)
(1067)
(1024)
(1098)(1090)(1086)(1078)(1066)(1052)(1046)
(1018)(1006)
(4879)(1107)(4785) (4737)
(4865)
(1153)
(1093)(1089)
(1085)
(1043)(1025)(1017)(1005)
(1268)
(1210)
(1096)(1080)
(1076)(1068)(1052)(1036)
(1020)(1008)
(1095)(1087)
(1079)(1065)(1043)
(1027)(1019)(1007)20048" DI12" DI10" DI
6" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI
12" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI10" DI
8" DI 8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI
10" DI 10" DI
8" DI
10" DI
8" DI8" DI12" DI8" DI COTTONWOOD RDTWIN LAKES AVEOAK ST
ANNIE ST
2014
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
4:58 PM
5:08 PM
JDH
1240
90.2 psi
85.1 psi
1241
1,435 gpm 1,340 gpm
201250
WEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
14
2140 2137 2141RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
14GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
2140
(294)
(490)
(482)
(466)(452)
(440)
(430)
(420)(414)(410)
(390)
(374)
(358)
(274)
(266)
(450)
(332)
(480)
(496)
(502)
(510)
(518)
(536)
(542)
(550)
(560)
(564)
(578)
(598)(593)
(577)
(561)
(549)
(529)
(503)
(497)
(475)
(451)
(433)(434)
(490)
(510)
(530)(531)
(523)
(501)
(495)
(483)
(471)
(463)
(457)
(449)
(437)
(425)
(419)
(407)
(498)
(474)
(448)
(426)
(402)
(419)
(405)
(357)
(335)
(277)
(247)
(397)
(375)
(353)
(337)
(315)
(416)
(386)
(364)
(348)
(322)
(274)
(258)
(283)
(265)
(247)
(368)
(254)
(225)
(213)
(601)(4415)
(4673)
(4615)
(4635)
(4645)
(4643)
(4659)
(4665)
(4689)(4418)(4444)
(4411)
(4421)(4435)
(4412)(4422)(4464)(4516)(4562)
(4413)(4467)(4521)(4567)
(4560)(4518)(4468)(4426)(4414)(4570)
(4575)
(4559)(4517)(4461)(4423)
(4572)(4534)
(4486)(4448)
(4569)(4547)(4525)(4445)(4421)
(4574)(4558)(4534)(4450)(4436)
(4579)
(4313)(4307)
(4651)
(4383)
2141 2137
12" DI
8" DI8" CI 8" DI12" DI
8" DI8"
D
I
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI 8" DI8"
D
I8" DI12" DI8" DI12" DI8" DI8" DI
12" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI
12" DI12" D
I
8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI12" DI12" DI12" DI
8" DI12" DI8" DI8"
D
I
8" DI8" DI8" D
I
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" D
I
8" DI
8" DI 8" DICLIFDEN DRDURSTON RD
COTTONWOOD RDSTAFFORD AVEWATERS ST
BEMBRICK ST
PERRY ST
BRISBIN ST
CASCADE STENEBOE AVECLASSICAL WAY
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/28/2015
4:40 PM
4:48 PM
JDH
1240
73.7 psi
72.5 psi
1241
1,342 gpm 1,365 gpm
201250
WEST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
15
1861 1863 1862RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
15GFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
186
1
(9)
(99)
(680)
(705)(107)
(851)
(104)
(108)(707)
(100)
(630)
(123)
(107)(101)
(503)
(103)
(115)
(705)
(103)
(112)(109)
(105)
(621)
(707)
(2325)
(2413)(2415)
(2313)
(2417)
(2411)
(2409)
(2407)
(2403)
(1045)
(2317)
(2324)
(2401)
(1054)(1058)
(1063)(1059)(1053)
(2108)
(2405)
(1050)(1050)(1050)
(1064)
(1050)(1050)(1050)
(2104)
(2124)
(1050)
(1050)(1050)
(1050)
(1050)
(1055)
(1050)(1050)
(1050)(1050)
(2112)
(1056)(1050)(1050)
(1050)
(2125)
(1062)
(1057)(1061)
(2124)
1863
1862 8" DI12" DI6" DI8" DI
8" DI
12" DI8" DI6"
D
I8" DI6" DI8" DI12" DI12" DI8" DI6" DI12" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" D
I
8" DI
6" DI
8
"
D
I
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8
"
D
I
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI 8" DIBRIDGER DRBIRDIE DRBOYLAN RD
ROUSE AVEBRIDGER CENTER DREDGERLEY LNBRIDGER VIEW TR
AILE
R C
O
URT TRPK
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
9:52 AM
10:08 AM
JDH
1240
137.8 psi
86.1 psi
1241
1,441 gpm 1,426 gpm
201250
NORTHEAST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
16
2150 2151 2149RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
16GFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
2150
(1788)
(1780)
(1772)
(1795)
(1789)
(1783)
(1771)
(1763)
(1762)
(1759)
(1758)(1752)
(1751)(1743)
(1740)
(2210)
(2106)
(1798)
(1790)
(1782)(1778)(1762)
(1791)
(1769)
(2563)
(2525)
(2485)
(2457)
(2449)
(2200)
(2212)
(2226)(2234)(2251)
(2277)
(2283)(2278)
(2262)(2230)
(2245)
(2271)
(2260)
2151 2149
8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8"
D
I
8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DIBRIDGER DR
HEADLANDS DRMIDFIELD STBOYLAN RD
BRIDGER CANYON RD
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
10:54 AM
11:08 AM
JDH
1240
110.3 psi
94.8 psi
1241
1,528 gpm 1,524 gpm
201250
NORTHEAST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
17
1061 1062 1060RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
17 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
1061
(998)(938)
(902)
(578)(556)
(523)(557)(579)(645)
(903)(939)(973)
(972)
(611)(485)
(522)(644)(610)
(3101)
(3203)
(3201)
(3129)
(3123)
(3107)
(3105)
(3207)
(3223)
(3122)
(3106)
(3131)
(3128)
(3209)
(3111)
(3116)
(3215)
(3210)
(3110)
(3119)
(3213)
(3115)
(3104)
(3219)
(3217)
(3227)
(3124)
(3103)
(3205)
(3114)
(3133)
(3121)
(3117)
(3214)(3211)
(3221)
(3208)
(3126)
(3125)
(3216)
(3225)
(3118)
(3120)
(3204)
(3212)
(3127)
(3109)
(3133)
(3112)106210608"
D
I
8"
D
I
8"
D
I8" DI8" DI8" DI8"
D
I8" DI8" DI
8" D
I
8"
D
I
8" DI
8" DI
8" D
I
8" DI
8" DI8" DI
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
AUG
U
S
T
A
D
R
ST ANDREWS DR
ST ANDREWS DR
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
10:16 AM
10:27 AM
JDH
1240
143.8 psi
93.8 psi
1241
1,571 gpm 1,540 gpm
201250
NORTHEAST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
18
622 2497 624RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
18GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!622
(507)(505)
(404)
(416)(400)(418)
(408)
(509)
(605)
(610)
(700)
(516)
(412)
(604)
(701)
(517)
(516)
(414)
(411)
(602)
(701)
(1800)
(1404)
(1190)
(1606)
(1628)
(1401)
(1416)
(1602)
(1612)
(1606)
(1525)(1520)(1515)(1502)
(1408)
(1403)
(1407)
(1413)
(1410)62424974" CI8" DI
18" CI12" DI10" DI
6" DI4" DI6" CI12" DI 6" DI10" DI
18" CI12" DI4" CI12" DI8" DI12" DI8" DI12" DI
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI
12" DI6" DI
18" CI8" DI12" DI12" DI18" CI8" DIROUSE AVEGOLD AVE
BOND ST
INTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
Y
BRYANT ST
INTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
Y
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
9:29 AM
9:42 AM
JDH
1240
124.3 psi
109.2 psi
1241
1,674 gpm 1,693 gpm
201250
NORTHEAST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
19
645 646 644RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
19 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
645
(133)
(811)
(421)
(467)
(443)
(619)
(737)(725)(319)
(100)
(805)
(2304)
(2308)
(2304)
(2314)
(2105)
(2239)
(2104)
(2222)
(2201)
(2217)
(2430)(2430)
(2320)
(2203)
(2777)
(2511)
(2323)
(2311)
(2306)(2310)
(2308)
(2312)
(2105)
(2107)
(2275)
(2400)
(2360)
(2215)
644
646
6" DI8" DI12" DI8" DI6" DI6" DI 6" DI6" DI 8" DI6" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI8" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI8" DI6" DI
8" DI8" DI6" DI7TH AVEMAUS LNFLORA LNOLD BUFFALO TRLRED WING DRFRONTAGE RD7TH AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
9:05 AM
9:18 AM
JDH
1240
123.7 psi
81.9 psi
1241
1,483 gpm 1,448 gpm
201250
NORTHEAST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
20
1939 1940 919RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
20GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
193
9
(2413)
(1625)
(2565)
(1220)
(1353)(1337)(1317)
(1374)(1362)(1348)(2494)(1268)(1244)(1226)
(1362)
(1334)(1318)(1306)
(1253)(1225)(1179)(1163)(1145)(1131)(1115)(1107)
(2563)
(2545)
(2527)
(2584)
(2558)
(2526)
(2512)
(2595)
(2571)(2563)(2547)(2535)(2523)(2517)(2505)
(2592)(2586)
(2574)(2562)
(2556)(2542)(2530)(2516)
(2512)(2508)
(2599)
(2579)
(2567)
(2549)
(2537)
(2525)
(2511)
(2503)
(2500)(2501)
(2404)
(2412)
(2420)
(2403)
(1002)
(1002)
(1002)(1002)
(1002)
(1002)
(1002)
(2520)(2519)(2518)
(2516)
(2517)
(2515)
(2513)
(2507)
(2503)
(2513)
(2511)
(2416)
(2510)
(2407)
(2514)
(2401)
(1075)
(2408)
(2410)
(2506)
(2509)
(2505)
(2411)
(1233)
(1069)
(2506)(2504)
(2502)
(2514)
(2512)
(2510)
(2508)9191940
8" DI
10" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
6" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8"
D
I 8" DI8" DI
8" DI
10" DI8" DI
6" DI8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8"
D
I
8" DI
8" DI
8
"
D
I
8" DI8
"
D
I
8" DI 8" DI8" DI
STORY MILL RDBOYLAN RD
PINNACLE STAR ST
PA
R
C
T WEEPING ROCK LNPUTTER CTBOYLAN RD
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
10:37 AM
10:48 AM
JDH
1240
127.4 psi
113.1 psi
1241
1,596 gpm 1,682 gpm
201250
NORTHEAST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
21
651 650 652RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
21GFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
651
(811)
(619)
(800)
(618)
(737)(725)
(817)
(620)
(711)
(828)(822)
(623)
(810)
(712)(800)
(805)
(805)
(2304)
(2308)
(2314)
(2239)
(2104)
(2886)
(2007)
(2201)
(2217)
(2000)
(2320)
(1225)
(2020)
(2010)
(2311)
(2015)(2020)
(2107)
(2275)
650
652
64612"
D
I
8" DI6" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI 12" DI
12" DI12" DI6" DI8" DI
12" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI6" DI8" DI12" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI7TH AVEWHEAT DR
MANDEVILLE LN FLORA LNINTERSTATE 9
0
H
W
Y
BAXTER
L
N
NIKLES DR
OLD BUFFALO TRL
MEDIAN 7TH AVEINTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
Y
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
8:16 AM
8:24 AM
JDH
1240
123.3 psi
89.1 psi
1241
1,508 gpm 1,419 gpm
201250
NORTHEAST
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
22
1212 1213 1211RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
22GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
#I
#I 1212
(392)(384)
(791)
(920)
(800)
(279)
(257)(235)(213)(780)
(555)
(815)
(395)(387)(381)(375)(369)(365)(359)
(350)
(338)
(332)
(322)
(316)
(310)
(304)
(301)
(376)(370)
(366)
(362)
(341)
(333)
(325)
(309)
(317)
(342)
(346)
(2485)
(2430)(2430)
(2430)
(2400)
121
1
12138" DI10" DI10" DI8" DI
8"
D
I
8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
10" DI8" DI8" DI1
0
"
D
I
8"
D
I8" DI10" DI8" DI
10" DIMANLEY RDFRONTAGE RDRED WING
DR
GALLATIN PARK DR
7TH AVETURTLE WAY
PRV 2
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
8:38 AM
8:56 AM
JDH
1240
76.4 psi
65.1 psi
1241
1,228 gpm 1,250 gpm
201250
GALLATIN
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
23
216 217 114RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
23GFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
216
(5)
(8)
(21)
(16)
(23)(22)
(16)
(18)(15)
(19)
(22)
(213)
(209)
(606)
(611)
(628)
(216)
(211)
(801)
(200)
(108)
(220)
(209)
(122)
(920)
(612)
(620)
(109)(109)
(901)
(710)
(119)
(613)
(120)
(901)
(821)
(718)
(821)
(616)
(213)
(707)
(904)
(119)
(107)
(911)
(701)(711)
(703)
(203)
(216)
(719)(717)(715)
(122)
(116)
(110)
(719)
(611)
(610)(614)
(613)
(612)
(118)
(622)
(621)
(810)
(809)(805)
(205)
(209)
(213)(214)(210)
(823)(815)
(816)(122)
(116)
(102)
(116)
(112)
(120)
(817)
(815)
(208)
(811)
(915)
(105)(101)
(105)
(115)
(119)
(214)
(208)
(204)
(109)
(116)(115)
(119)
(205)
(904)(910)
(909)(901)(203)
(211)
(207)
(908)
(101)
(105)
(109)
(115)
(119)
(123)
(151)(123)
(115)
(115)
(107)
(920)
(921)(917)
(916)
(924)
(116)
(120)
(126)
(207)
(201)(201)
(915)
(914)(204)
(208)
(123)
(212)
(113)
(902)
(819)(815)
(812)(818)
(114)
(120)
(126)
(204)
(212)
(910)(914)
(907)
(901)
(908)
(209)
(205)
(201)(816)
(809)(123)
(119)
(113)
(109)
(103)(808)
(811)(807)(803)
(824)
(209)
(205)
(203)(202)
(206)
(210)
(615)
(619)
(209)
(113)
(123)(715)(126)
(122)
(116)
(720)(716)(622)(618)(612)(608) (101)(708)
(922)
(210)
(206)
(919)
(918)(120)
(116)
(112)
(921)
(714)(202)
(206)
(210)
(603)(607)(617)(619)
(113)
(703)
(720)
(712)(708)
(119)
(702)(620)(612)
(125)
(1104)(1110)
(1007)
(1015)
(1016)
(1016)
(1102)(1002)
(1120)
(1120)
(1120)
(1006)
(1120)
(1120)
(1120)
(1120)
114217
6" CI4" CI
8" CI8" DI4" DI
6" CI6" CI8" DI
6" CI6" CI6" CI8" DI6" CI4" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI
8" DI6" CI
6" CI
6" CI
6" CI
6" CI
8" DI
6" CI8" DI6" CI
6" CI6" CI
6" CI
8" CI6" CI
6" CI8" DI6" CI 6" CI6" CI
8" CI6" CI
8" DI8" CI8" CI6" CI
8" DI 6" CI6" CI
8" DI 6" CI6" CI
6" CI4" CI8" DI6" CI6" CI
6" CI
MAIN ST11TH AVEOLIVE ST
BEALL ST
LAMME ST
BABCOCK ST9TH AVE7TH AVE8TH AVE10TH AVEMENDENHALL ST
8TH AVE8TH AVE10TH AVE9TH AVE7TH AVE7TH AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
7:32 AM
7:47 AM
JDH
1240
129.9 psi
119.9 psi
1241
1,720 gpm 1,610 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
24
1242 1249 737RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
24GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
#I
#I
#I #I
1242
(880) (876)(870)(866)
(860)
(856)
(518)
(407)
(445)
(509)
(417)
(481)
(368)
(850)
(769)
(755)
(743)
(731)
(810)
(822)
(772)
(760)
(742)
(738)
(719)
(721)
(739)
(757)
(763)
(771)
(789)
(811)
(821)
(740)
(374)(371)
(388)
(496)
(482)
(464)
(450)
(444)
(426)
(418)
(383)
(837)
(853)
(861)
(840)
(868)
(365)
(726)
(640)
(668)
(774)
(798)
(816)
(701)
(834)
(325)
(511)
(315)(316)
(320)
(510)
(409)
(507)
(414)
(406)
(508)
(504)(506)(505)
(514)
(324)
(319)
(502)
(413)
(317)
(415)
(503)
(425)
(501)
(400)
(515)
(418)
(424)
(401)
(321)
(314)
(407)
(419)
(405)
(416)
(412)
(408)
(420)
(404)
(421)
(417)
(507)
(315)
(321)
(407)
(411)
(415)
(507)
(511)
(515)
(315)
(407)
(411)
(415)
(505)
(507)
(511)
(515)(514)
(510)
(506)
(504)
(416)
(410)
(406)
(404)
(314)
(402)
(314)(315)
(407)
(411)
(415)
(503)
(511)
(515)(514)
(510)
(506)
(502)
(414)
(410)
(406)
(402)
(314)
(503)
(318)
(326)
(509)(512)
(323)
(500)
(4030)
(4030)(4074)
(4076)
(3898)(3890)(3878)(3864)(3838)(3822)(3804)
(4022)(4046)(4088)
(3889)(3879)(3855)(3821)
(3874)(3862)
(3865)(3875)
(4199)
(4204)
(4203)
(3883) (3857) (3813)
(3888)(3874)(3852)(3816)
(4045)
(4028)
(4073)
(4058)(4195)
(4087)(4061)
(4084)
(4092)
(4062)
(4033)(4049)
(4086)(4038)
(4033)
(4046)
(4025)(4071)(4091)
(3805)
(3930)
(3935)
(3920)(3722)(3910)
(3905)
(3820)
7371249
8" DI6" DI4" DI10" DI
12" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI
8" DI
8" DI6" DI8" DI
6" DI10" DI6" DI8" DI12" DI12" DI 10" DI8" DI8" DI
6" DI
10" DI 8" DI6" DI6" DI10" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI10" DI8" DI6" DI
12" DI
8" DI8" DI12" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI8" DI 10" DI8" DI8" DI6" DITOOLE ST
DURSTON RD
SANDERS AVEFERGUSON AVEYELLOWSTONE AVETETON AVEKIMBALL AVEMINERAL AVEFLATHEAD AVEJARDINE AVEPOTOSI ST
CARBON ST
DIAMOND ST
TILTON ST
CORWIN ST
SUNSTONE ST
PIPESTONE ST
PRV 18PRV 12 PRV 13
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
4:00 PM
4:12 PM
JDH
1240
144.5 psi
130.4 psi
1251
1,845 gpm 1,834 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
25
1850 2508 1849RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
25GFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
185
0
(8)
(5)
(21)(25)
(35)
(41)
(43)(56)
(46)
(25)
(55)
(87)
(29)
(19)
(46)
(24)(24)
(30)
(47)
(31)(30)
(46)
(261)(258)
(225)
(357)
(311)(282)
(251) (240)
(216)(275)
(253) (262)
(224)(215)
(321)
(308)(301)
(347)
(451)
(407)
(389)
(360)
(397)
(339)
(332)(332)
(312)
(284)
(246)
(210)
(369)
(323)
(303)
(251)
(205)
(272)
(308)
(236)
(204)
(317)
(265)
(223)
(209)
(423)(413)(403)
(387)
(354)(343)
(475)
(433)
(462)
(438)
(386)
(176)
(214)
(246)
(266)
(207)
(233)
(275)
(322)
(194)
(156)
(118)
(101)
(125)
(169)
(4493)(4239)
(4204)
(4351)
(4221)(4209)(4175)(4297)(4283)(4263)(4247)
(4277)(4281)
(4533)(4517)(4479)(4463)(4447)(4431)
(4307)(4301)25081849
8" D
I
12" DI 12" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" D
I
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI
8" DI12" DI
8" DI
12" DI
8" DI12"
D
I8" DI
12" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
12" DI12" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI
12" DI
8" DI12" D
I8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI
BABCOCK ST
RESORT DRPALISADE DR
RAVALLI STFALLON ST HANLEY AVESLOUGH CREEK DRCLIFDEN DRKIMBALL AVEHANLEY AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
2:42 PM
2:55 PM
JDH
1240
128.9 psi
115.7 psi
1251
1,725 gpm 1,702 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
26
704 701 708RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
26GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
704
(209)
(305)
(211)
(213)
(625)
(670)
(662)
(650)
(605)
(208)
(204)
(212)(217)
(205)
(601)
(213)
(205)
(209)
(513)(514)
(413)
(415)
(305)
(503)
(515)
(411)
(409)
(205)(204)
(302)
(520)(524)
(302)
(304)
(306)
(402)
(410)
(504)
(508)
(512)(516)
(505)
(413)
(407)
(403)
(307)
(303)
(219)
(215)
(205)
(210)
(302)
(304)
(306)
(402)
(406)
(502)
(506)
(510)(509)
(505)
(501)
(409)
(405)
(309)
(305)
(303)
(210)
(304)
(306)
(404)
(406)
(410)
(502)
(411)
(512)(514)
(407)
(516)
(403)
(602)
(513)
(307)
(511)
(305)
(509)
(303)
(606)(604)
(507)
(505)
(503)
(501)
(303)
(307)
(315)
(311)
(403)
(406)
(402)
(314)
(310)
(306)
(302)
(407)
(302)
(306)
(310)
(314)
(400)
(404)(405)
(401)
(313)
(309)
(305)
(301)
(304)
(308)
(312)
(402)
(406)(407)
(405)
(403)
(401)
(311)
(309)
(303)
(301)
(406)
(300)
(3811)
(3805)(3805)
(3991)
(3825)
(3985)
(4040)
(4040)
(3501)
(3514) (3510)
(4040)
(3903)(3805)
(3825)
(4040)
(4040)
(4040)
(4040)
(3909)
(4040)
(3505)
(4050)
(3505)(3505)(3505)
(3705)
(4050)
(4050)
(4050)
(3604)(3602)(3608)(3510)(3418)(3416)
(3507)(3505)(3501)(3509)(3601)(3603)
(3815)
(3710)
(4005)
(3805)
(3508)(3504)
(3415)(3607)
(3506)(3504) (3420)
(3417)(3501)(3505)(3509)
(3602)
(3513)(3601)(3605)
(3606)(3608)
(3609)(3701)
701
708
6" DI10" DI12" DI
8" D
I
6" DI
6" DI
12" DI 12" DI6" DI6" DI6" DI6" DI
8" DI6" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI
6" DI
10" DI10" DI12" DI
6" DI
6" DI
6" D
I
8" DI
6" DI
6" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI
6" DI
6" DI6" DI
6" DI 6" DI6" DI8" DI
6" DI6" DI
12" DI6" DI8" DI6" DI8" DI6" DI 6" DI
12" DI
6" DI
6" DI6" DI
6" DI10" DIFALLON ST
RAVALLI ST YELLOWSTONE AVEGRANITE AVEPRAIRIE AVEPONDERA AVELAREDO DR
VALLEY COMMONS DR TREASURE AVEGOLDEN VALLEY DRPONDERA AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
3:02 PM
3:15 PM
JDH
1240
122.2 psi
110.0 psi
1251
1,681 gpm 1,719 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
27
991 992 990RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
27GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
#I
#I
#I #I#I
991
(675)
(560)
(554)(548)(544)(540)
(530)
(364)
(308)
(320)
(334)
(348)
(368)
(386)
(406)
(428)
(450)
(466)
(482)
(494)
(504)
(516)
(522)
(309)
(319)
(329)
(339)
(353)
(363)
(379)
(387)
(407)
(433)
(455)
(469)
(483)
(489)
(505)
(515)
(525)
(536)
(524)
(512)
(496)
(486)
(478)
(458)
(436)
(416)
(402)
(390)
(382)
(364)
(342)
(330)
(316)
(306)
(708)
(538)
(702)
(736)(735)
(724)(723)
(711)
(695)
(321)
(310)
(306)
(302)
(210)
(206)
(202)
(207)
(211)
(303)
(307)
(311)
(317)
(325)
(403)
(407)
(411)
(415)
(503)
(506)
(502)
(414)
(410)
(406)
(402)
(340)
(316)
(310)
(306)
(302)
(210)
(206)
(203)
(207)
(211)
(303)
(307)
(311)
(315)
(321)
(403)
(407)
(411)
(415)
(503)
(507)
(511)
(515)(514)
(510)
(512)
(506)
(508)
(504)
(416)
(502)
(412)
(408)
(414)
(402)
(340)
(410)
(316)
(310)
(406)
(306)
(302)
(210)
(206)
(202)
(314)
(207)
(211)
(303)
(309)
(311)
(315)
(407)
(411)
(415)
(503)
(507)
(511)
(515)
(402)
(3180)
(3745)
(3737)
(3740)(3730)
(3725)
(3696)(3198)
(3165)
(3270)(3250)(3228)(3210)(3194)(3182)(3168)
(3273)(3253)(3233)(3213)(3191)(3179)
(3611)(3455)(3427)
(3452)(3464)
(3471)
(3477) (3465)(3453)
(3601)
990992 8" DI6" DI4" DI10" DI6" DI
8" DI
8" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI6" DI 8" DI8" DI10" DI
6" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI 10" DI 10" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI
6" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI10" DI
8" DI
6" DI 10" DI
8" DI8" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI8" DI6" DI6" DI6" DI
6" DI
6" DI6" DI8" DIVALLEY DRDURSTON RD
MEAGHER AVESHERIDAN AVEFOWLER AVESWEETGRASS AVEOLIVER ST
TOOLE ST HANSON STJENNIFER ST
BEAVERHEAD ST
PRV 22 PRV 19 PRV 15
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
3:42 PM
3:52 PM
JDH
1240
139.3 psi
104.1 psi
1251
1,681 gpm 1,619 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
28
747 748 744RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
28GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
#I
#I
747
(962)
(988)
(928)(929)
(917)
(923)
(918)
(912)
(902)
(926)
(920)
(2411)
(2402)
(1924)
(1226)
(1039)
(1087)
(1289)
(1351)
(1281)
(1239)
(1092)
(2051)(2047)
(1459)
(1433)(2063)
(1281)
(1043)
(2301)
(2287)(2275)
(2263)
(2259)
(2247)
(2235)(2223)
(2219)
(1931)
(1336)
(1262)
(1174)
(1247)
(1143)
(1122)(1091)
(1014)
(2431)
(2440)
(2411)
(2420)
(2431)(2401)
(2402)(2420)
(2401)
(2440)(2402)
(1103)
(1101)
(1105)
(1109)
(1115)
(1119)
(1123)
(1129)
(1203)
(1209)
(1215)
(1225)
(1301)(1304)
(1218)
(1214)
(1208)
(1204)
(1128)
(1124)
(1118)
(1114)
(1106)
(1100)
(1024)
(1018)
(1116)
(1115)
(1109)
(1105)
(1101)
(1027)
(1021)
(1015)
(1009)
(1003)
(2104)
(2105)
(2108)(2112)
(2109)
(1002)
(1008)
(1010)
(1020)
(1026)
(1100)
(1104)
(1108)
(1112)
(1001)
(1006)
(1005)
(1000)(1009)
(1217)
(1013)
(1001)
(1017)
(1023)
(1013)
(1017)
(1023)
(1029)
(1107)
(1113)
(1121)
(1125)
(1201)
(1205)
(1213)
(2105)(2205) (2201)(2127)(2121)(2115)
(1212)
(1206)
(2113)
(1120)
(1116)
(1108)
(1102)
(1030)
(1022)
(1016)
(1012)
(1002)
(1006)744748
6" DI
8" DI10" DI 12" DI14" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8
"
D
I 12" DI8" DI
10" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI
6" D
I8" D
I
8" D
I
8" DI
10" DI
6"
D
I
10" DI
6" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI 6" DI8" DI
8" DI
10" DI
6" DI
10" DI
8" DI8
"
D
I
10" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI10" DI
OAK ST
19TH AVEWOODLAND DRSTONERIDGE DRBRENTWOOD AVEMAPLEWOOD ST
DAWS DR
STEVENS ST
ANNIE ST
WHEELER DR 19TH AVEPRV 7
PRV 6
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
11:20 AM
11:31 AM
JDH
1240
152.6 psi
128.6 psi
1241
1,956 gpm 1,739 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
29
1084 1190 1085RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
29GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
1084
(115)
(125)
(144)(156)(202)(180)
(140)
(103)(127)
(120)
(132)
(135)(115)
(128)
(168)
(108)
(105)
(4431)
(4220)
(4143)
(4131)
(4116)
(4107)
(4069)(4054)
(4038)
(4160)
(4144)
(4112)
(4040)
(4035)(4020)
(4015)(4010)
(4510)
(4404)
(4344)
(4332)
(4322)
(4302)
(4345)
(4325)
(4522)
(4502)
(4501)
(4304)
(4122)
(4423)(4426)(4512)
(4057)
(4416)
(4140)
(4104)
(4022)(4045)
(4128)
(4055)
(4233)
(4309)(4321)
(4336)
(4339)
(4214)
(4314)
(4230)
(4211)
(4408)
(4428)
(4324)
(4333)
(4235)
(4210)
(4119)
(4418)
1085
119
08" DI10" DI
8" DI10" DI10" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI
8" DI
10" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI10" DI10" DI
8" DI10" DI10" DI 8" DIGR
A
F
S
T
PEACE PIPE DR
MORNING SUN DRRAIN ROPER DRROCKING BEAR CIR
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
5:06 PM
5:15 PM
JDH
1240
50.5 psi
47.5 psi
1241
1,136 gpm 996 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
30
591 590 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
30 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!591(841)(823)(789)(765)(743)(721)
(417)
(605)
(305)(311)(407)(413)(419)(427)(505)(511)(519)(525)(605)
(609)
(615)
(610)(524)(512)(504)(424)(418)(410)(404)(318)(312)(304)
(325)(355)(385)(427)
(455)(475)(501)(525)(551)(575)(601)(635)
(640)(602)(578)(552)(530)(500)(480)(450)(410)(390)(360)(330)
(315)(323)(331)(401)(435)(503)
(409)
(515)(523)(531)(607)(615)
(614)(606)(522)(514)(502)(416)(400)(330)(322)(314)
(408)(504)(510)
(517)(511)(507)(503)(421)(417)(411)(405)
(434)(530)
(3042)
(3018)
(3044)
(3036) (3035)
(3038)
(3021)
(3113)
(3111)
(3205)
(3211)(3216)
(3124)
(3118)
(3106)
(3129)
(3171)
(3133)
(3159)
(3195)
(3145)
(3138)
(3152)
(3166)
(3184)(3188)
(3172)
(3156)
(3144)
(3132)
(3120)
(3108)
(3196)
(3202)
(3214)
(3013)
(3022)
(3007)
(3017)(3016)
(3009)
(3039)(3040)
(3012)
(3259)
(3115)
(3135)
(3155)
(3175)
(3191)
(3203)
(3215)
(3227)
(3239)
(3251)
(3004)
(3010)
(3016)
(3020)
(3025)(3021)
(3017)
(3009)
(3001)
(3010)
(3016)
(3020)(3025)
(3023)
(3017)
(3009)
(3003)
(3010)
(3016)
(3020)
(3019)
(3015)
(3009)
(3002)
(3006)
(3010)
(3016)
(3018)(3020)
(3019)
(3017)
(3009)
(3005)
(3001)
(2915)(2916)
(2910)(2910)(2909)
(2907)
(2911)
(2915)
(3001)
(3009)
(3017)
(3021)
(3025)(3024)
(3018)
(3014)
(3010)
(3006)
(3002)
(2916)
(2912)
(3005)
(3014)
(3034)
(3020)(3023)
590
8" DI6" DI10" DI24" DI8" DI10" DI8" DI
6" DI
8" DI 6" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI
6" DI
8" DI6" DI
6" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI 10" DI8" DI8" DI24" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI
24" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI
8" DI
6" DI
8" DI8" DI6" DI
8" DI24" DI
8" DI10" DI
6" DI
8" DI
24" DI 6" DI6" DI6" DI6" DI
6" DI
10" DI8" DI6" DI6" DI6" DI8" DI6" DI8" DI24" DI
GRAF ST
3RD AVEFIELDSTONE DR
CONCORD DR
LEXINGTON DR WAGONWHEEL RDSTAUDAHER ST
SECOR AVEWESTRIDGE DRERWIN AVEGARDENBROOK LNRITTER DRLANGOHR AVETESLOW DRBROOKDALE DR 3RD AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
11:16 AM
11:28 AM
JDH
1240
60.3 psi
58.5 psi
201250
1,198 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
31
2194 1938 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
31 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!2194
(3250)
(1415)
(3141)
(3139)
(3131)
(3127)
(3123)
(3119)
(3115)
(3109)
(3103)(3104)
(3110)
(3118)
(3126)
(3132)
(3158)
(3166)
(3172)
(3188)(3193)
(3187)
(3175)(3169)(3165)
(3159)(3157)
(3153)
(3149)(3145)
(3196)
(3184)
(3172)
(3166)
(3162)
(3154)
(3150)
(3146)
(3140)
(3134)
(3128)
(3122)
(3114)
(3110)
(3102)
(3141)(3137)
(3133)
(3129)(3123)
(3119)(3115)(3107)
(3101)
(3198)(3192)
(3186)(3172)
(3164)(3160)(3156)
(3152)
(3148)
(3146)(3142)
(3136)(3132)
(3130)(3124)(3120)
(3114)(3108)
(3106)
(1420)(1406)(1374)(1340)(1308)(1220)(1210)(1476)(1488)
(1391)(1377)(1355)(1309)(1215)(1205)
(3187)
(3179)
(3171)
(3167)
(3163)
(3157)
(3191)
(3179)
(3167)
(3155)
(3141)
(3133)
(3125)
(3117)
(3111)
(3105)
(3198)
(3186)
(3174)
(3160)
(3146)
(3138)
(3128)
(3120)
(3114)
(3102)
(1137)(1125)(1119)(1107)
(1088)(1060) (1048)
(1026)
(1071)(1057)(1033) (1019)
(1132)(1124) (1116)(1108)(1096)
(3293)
(3273)
(3251)
(3237)
(3229)
(3217)
(3101)8" DI16" DI8" DI 8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI 11TH AVE15TH AVEBROOKDALE DR
ALDER CREEK DR 11TH AVE1938
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
10:56 AM
11:08 AM
JDH
1240
52.5 psi
50.2 psi
201250
1,096 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
32
2089 2090 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
32GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
2089
(2680)(2602)
(3381)
(3373)(3372)
(3368)(3365)
(3356)(3359)
(3348)(3343)
(3334)(3335)
(3323)(3320)
(3319)(3312)
(3311)
(3302)(3305)
(3362)(3402)
(3487)(3487)
(3400)
(3315)
(3301)
(3497)
(3487)
(3473)
(3431)
(3389)
(3361)
(3335)
(3303)
(3496)
(3480)
(3470)
(3432)
(3406)
(3398)
(3386)
(3372)
(3360)
(3322)
(3306)
(3497)
(3481)
(3469)
(3435)
(3405)
(3399)
(3389)
(3373)
(3361)
(3323)
(3311)
(3494)
(3478)(3466)
(3450)
(3442)
(3422)
(3410)
(3388)
(3376)
(3370)
(3352)
(3348)
(3332)
(3314)
(3306)
(2926)(2918)(2906)(2888)(2864)(2836)(2808)(2786)(2762)
(6101)(6115)(6157)(6169) (6181)(6193)(6205)(6219)(6237)
(3581)
(3543)
(3511)
(3475)
(3461)
(3435)
(3409)
(3393)
(3381)
(3373)
(3333)
(2690) (2682) (2654)
(3370)
(3450)
(3530)
(3589)
(3575)
(3533)
(3495)
(3461)
(3443)
(3429)
(3411)
(3383)
(3365)
(3323)
(3303)
(3596)
(3578)
(3534)
(3502)
(3482)
(3460)
(3442)
(3428)
(3414)
(3390)
(3358)
(3328)
(3308)20908" DI12" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI8" D
I
12" DI 12" DI12" DI8" DI
12" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI
8" DI8" DI 8" DI
12" DI
8" DI 27TH AVE29TH AVEBLACKWOOD RD
MEAH LN28TH AVEPARKWAY AVE26TH AVELAST LOOP DR
29TH AVEMEAH LN
27TH AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
10:34 AM
10:42 AM
JDH
1240
43.2 psi
40.4 psi
201250
1,060 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
33
602 516 601RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
33GFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!602
(1028)
(1905)
(1004)
(1217)
(2015)
(2025)
(1121)
(1203)
(1127)
(1902)
(1736)
(1770)
(1781)
(1773)
(1751)
(1731)
(1715)
(1701)
(1010)
(1908)
(2020)
(2010)
(1409)
(1218)
(1311)
(1208)
(1401)
(1127)
(1910)
(1202)
(1139)
(1007)
(1336)
(1212)
(1103)(1109)(1115)(1121)(1133)(1139) (1145)
(1203)(1207)(1211)(1304)
(1405)
(1410)
(1310)
(1312)
(1320)
(1409)(1413)
(1410)(1408)(1328)
(1332)
(1307)(1303)(1218)(1214)(1210)(1206)(1202)(1146)(1140)(1134)(1128)(1124)(1116)(1110)(1104)
(1103)(1109)(1115)(1121)(1127)(1133) (1139)(1145)(1203)(1207)(1211)
(1214)(1206)(1202)(1146)(1140)(1134)(1128)(1122)(1116)(1110)(1104)
(1103)(1109) (1115)
(1121)(1127)(1133)(1139)(1145)(1151)(1207)(1211)
(1213)
(1215)
(1212)(1210)(1206)(1202)(1140)(1134)(1128)
(1914)
(1116)
(2030)
(1110)
(2035)
(1915)
(1104)
(1909)
(1901)
(1103)(1109) (1115)(1127)(1133)(1139)(1145)(1203) (1207)
(1211)
(1208)(1206)
(1011)(1031)
(1146)(1140)(1134)(1128)(1122)(1116)(1110)(1104)
(1103)(1109)(1121)(1133)(1139) (1145)
(1209)(1211)
(1213)(1215)
(1017)
(1021)
(1217)
(1219)
(1216)
(1214)
(1210)(1206)(1202)(1146)(1140)(1134)(1128)(1122)(1116)(1110)(1104)
(1103)(1109) (1115) (1121)
(1127)(1133)(1145)(1207)
(1206)(1146)(1140)(1134)(1128)(1122)(1110)(1104)
(1103) (1109) (1115)
(1121)(1127) (1133) (1139) (1145)
(1203)
(1209)
(1311)
(1315)
(1319)
(1321)
(1327)
(1331)
(1335)
(1339)
(1405)
(1403)
(1402)
(1402)
(1340)
(1336)
(1332)
(1328)
(1324)
(1320)
(1316)
(1210)
(1024)
(1014)
(1146)
(1116)
516
8" CI
6" CI
12" DI12" CI8" DI6" DI20" DI 6" CI8"
C
I
12" DI6" CI
6" CI12" CI8" CI6" CI
6" CI6" CI
6" CI
8" CI
8" CI
6" DI6" CI6" DI
6" CI
6" CI
8" DI6" CI
6" CI
8" CI12" CI8" CI
12" CI6" CI 8" CI6" CI8" CI
12" DI12" CI8" CI
8" CI6" DI6" CI 8" CI6" CI
8" CI
6" CI6" DI
6" CI
6" CI
6" CI
6" CI6" CI
8" DI
HOLLY DR
CHERRY DRSPRUCE DR
PINECREST DR
CEDARVIEW DR
CHAMBERS DRASH DR
MAPLE DROCONNELL DRBERTHOT DR
601
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
4:40 PM
4:50 PM
JDH
1240
48.3 psi
41.4 psi
1241
944 gpm 1,039 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
34
851 779 850RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
34GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!851(32)(30)
(28)(26)
(22)
(10)
(30)
(22)
(32410)
(32550)
(32408)
(32300)
(32404)
(32550)
77985010" DI
6" DI8" DI6" DI
8" DI 6" DI8" DI6" DI
10" DI
10" DI
10" DI
10" DI
6" DI8" DI
6" DI6" DI10" DI FRONTAGE RD
INTERSTAT
E
9
0
H
W
Y
ROCKY CREEK
R
D
INTERSTAT
E
9
0
H
W
Y
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
3:16 PM
3:27 PM
JDH
1240
124.2 psi
60.9 psi
1241
1,176 gpm 1,247 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
35
79 80 75RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
35GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!79
(8)(6)
(9)(7)
(7)
(8)
(3)
(5)
(4)
(2)
(5)
(9)
(16)(20)
(18)
(19)(13)
(17)
(16)
(24)
(21)
(16)
(20)
(15)
(10)
(17)
(17)
(11)
(724)
(316)
(209)
(413)
(721)
(517)
(411)
(210)
(521)
(405)
(612)
(426)
(620)
(814)
(810)
(600)
(716)
(520)
(329)
(618)
(300)
(626)
(507)
(410)
(300)
(611)
(708)
(205)
(125)
(204)
(512)
(820)
(434)
(901)
(420)
(304)
(700)
(409)
(720)
(620)
(708)(706)
(518)(619)
(512)
(530)(526)(518)(510)(506)
(307)
(219)
(307)(305)(303)
(423)
(524)
(612)
(109)
(801)
(625)
(517)(501)(609)(629)
(805)
(523)
(320)
(117)(113)
(622)
(501)
(713)
(519)
(515)
(511)
(601)
(714)
(205)
(323)
(905)
(708)
(304)
(416)
(211)
(535)(503)
(626)
(533)
(621)
(321)
(903)
(215)
(410)(501)
(205)
(612)
(815)
(307)
(423)
(714)
(901)(901)
(807)(907)
(922)
(206)
(534)
(719)
(528)(526)
(520)(516)
(629)
(512)
(222)
(506)
(619)
(621)
(428)
(302)
(310)
(424)
(507)
(314)
(418)
(318)
(324)(414)(330)(616)(414)(624)
(402)(406)(410)(414)(413)
(625)
(409)
(621)(617)
(618)
(408)
(428)
(504)(508)(512)(516)(520)(524)
(618)(624)
(802)
(820)
(622)
(902)
(511)
(615)
(516)
(611)(204)(208)
(803)
(210)(216)
(525)(521)
(520)
(615)
(524)
(211)(205)(203)(519)
(405)(401)(404)(408)(412)(416)(418)
(424)
(401)
(616)
(707)(701)(517)
(517)(511)
(425)
(419)
(413)(411)
(519)
(520)(524)(325)(321)(317)(313)
(305)(301)
(212)
(216)
(224)(514)
(304)(308)(312)(316)(320)(324)
(509)(402)
(416)
(424)
(428)(428)(504)(510)(514)
(513)(509)
(717)
(425)
(603)(421)
(523)
(517)
(509)
(505)(501)
(423)(419)(415)
(407)(405)
(401)
(327)
(323)(319)(315)(311)(307)(305)(231)(227)
(221)(215)(211)
(205)(415)(419)
(213)
(309)(311)(315)
(327)
(421)(425)
(219)
(404)(330)
(322)
(707)
(318)
(701)
(314)
(625)
(214)
(401)
(617)(613)(605)(603)
(621)
(615)
(601)
(611)(607)
(614)
(603)
(618)
(117)
(624)
(544)(540)
(105)
(534)
(702)
(530)
(606)
(712)(716)
(610)
(526)
(720)
(614)
(512)
(724)
(618)
(721)
(506)
(624)
(717)
(414)
(110)
(715)
(420)
(105)
(711)
(425)(415)
(705)(701)
(411)
(708)(712)
(808)(810)
(702)
(410)
(706)
(710)
(718)
(816)
(620)
(714)
(412)
(417)
(722)
(215)
(411)
(305)
(722)
(906)
(410)
(808)(801)
(311)
(812)
(717)
(816)
(623)
(711)
(315)
(619)
(820)
(707)
(722)
(615)
(701)
(609)
(321)
(621)
(603)
(802)
(623)
(604)
(617)
(325)
(608)
(613)(612)
(405)
(616)
(611)
(620)(626)
(605)
(702)
(601)
(808)
(718)
(807)
(120)
(602)(606)
(803)
(819)(822)
(415)
(610)
(815)
(719)
(811)
(715)
(721)
(711)
(717)
(701)
(421)
(711)
(623)
(425)
(617)
(509)
(615)
(611)(605)
(313)
(401)(409)
(413)
(419)(423)
(429)(433)
(439)
(503)
(513)
(519)
(518)
(542)(538)
(534)(528)(524)(520)
(514)(510)
(322)
(314)
(310)(308)
(103)
(115)
(114)(108)
(406)
(544)
(536)
(530)(526)
(520)(518)(514)
(506)
(502)
(422)(416)
(414)
(414)
(404)
(402)
(324)
(320)(316)
(310)
(310)
(315)
(321)
(327)
(421)
(501)(503)(507)
(513)(515)(517)(521)(525)(529)
(539)
(518)(514)
(506)(502)
(440)(434)
(430)(426)
(422)(416)(414)
(402)
(322)
(316)
(403)(405)
(415)
(423)
(427)
(433)
(439)
(501)(505)(511)(515)
(517)(519)(522)
(516)(508)
(504)
(436)(432)(428)
(511)
(424)
(515)
(420)
(519)(523)(527)
(414)
(531)
(541)
(410)
(604)
(608)
(614)
(620)(624)
(616)(620)(624)(619)
(611)
(206)
(317)(316)
(301)
(309)(315)(317)
(503)
(507)
(517)(523)
(402)
(525)(527)(531)
(326)
(318)
(535)
(312)
(541)(126)
(308)(302)
(424)
(416)
(412)
(204)(509)(202)(210)
(822)
(724)
(1010)806" CI8" CI
4" CI16" CI10" CI6" DI8" DI 10" DI14" CI6" DI10" CI 16" CI8" CI10" CI8" CI
10" CI 6" CI4" CI
6" CI
10" CI
6" CI10" CI
6" CI8" DI6" CI4" CI6" CI
6" CI
10" CI
10" CI6" CI6" CI8" CI
6" DI
6" CI4" CI
6" CIBLACK AVETAMARACK ST
BEALL ST
PEACH ST
VILLARD ST
SHORT ST
ASPEN ST
JUNIPER ST
ASPEN ST
75
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
8:37 AM
8:46 AM
JDH
1240
142.7 psi
133.8 psi
1241
1,890 gpm 1,796 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
36
137 144 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
36GFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!137
(7)
(5)
(8)
(9)
(6)
(7)
(5)
(42)
(23)
(21)
(24)(15)(33)
(15)(18)
(14)(19)
(36)
(36)(11)(37)
(25)(20)
(26)
(17)
(15)
(22)
(26)
(27)
(32)
(13)
(15)
(16)
(10)
(11)
(20)(10)
(16)
(210)
(202)
(401)
(111)
(100)
(214)
(202)
(106)
(408)
(314)
(310)
(412)
(120)(207)
(415)
(120)
(113)
(226)
(121)
(316)
(210)
(309)
(205)
(134)(122)
(412)
(110)
(225)
(208)
(211)
(417)
(324)
(216)
(220)
(439)
(123)
(319)
(311)
(307)
(301)
(215)
(209)
(201)
(131)
(132)
(120)
(210)
(216)
(511)
(501)
(419)
(409)
(401)
(302)
(310)
(314)
(320)
(402)
(410)
(414)
(420)(115)
(117)(121)
(419)
(413)
(409)
(405)
(401)
(333)
(331)
(327)
(323)
(321)
(121)
(117)
(113)
(137)
(511)
(503)
(417)
(401)
(319)
(311)
(307)
(301)
(219)
(213)
(209)
(201)
(121)
(114)
(122)
(202)
(218)
(222)
(302)
(320)
(404)
(408)
(412)
(420)
(504)
(111)
(509)
(505)
(501)
(423)
(419)
(415)
(407)
(405)
(221)
(217)
(209)
(108)
(110)
(301)
(116)
(120)(120)
(210)
(212)
(402)
(408)
(412)
(418)
(424)
(214)
(218)
(226)
(308)
(312)
(316)
(320)
(326)
(402)
(206)
(210)
(214)
(224)
(226)
(302)
(306)
(308)
(320)
(328)
(428)
(330)
(502)
(510)
(317)
(315)
(307)
(301)
(227)
(221)
(219)
(215)
(209)
(205)
(120)
(304)
(308)
(310)
(318)
(328)
(404)
(408)
(412)
(416)
(420)(424)
(430)
(436)
(418)
(422)
(430)
(434)(113)
(210)(204)
(433)(429)
(425)
(421)
(415)
(411)
(407)
(315)
(401)
(327)
(319)
(311)(307)(307)
(303)
(219)
144 14" CI8" CI6" CI8" DI10" CI12" CI
4" DI
4" CI6" CI
10" CI
8" CI8" DI6" CI8" DI4" CI8" CI6" CI8" CI8" CI10" CI
6" CI
8" CI12" CI
8" CI6" CI
6" CI6" CI 8" CI8" CI6" CI8" CI
14" CI6" CI10" CI6" CI
8" CI6" CI6" CI
6" CI
10" CI6" CI6" CI
6" CI
8" CI8" DI
12" CI
OLIVE ST
BLACK AVETRACY AVEGRAND AVEBABCOCK ST
WILLSON AVEBOZEMAN AVECURTISS ST
KOCH ST
STORY ST
STORY ST
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
7:59 AM
8:11 AM
JDH
1240
127.1 psi
123.6 psi
201250
1,765 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
37
464 249 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
37GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!464(24)
(16)
(308)
(206)
(115)
(305)
(110)
(111)
(408)
(120)
(119)
(217)
(119)
(311)
(175)
(316)
(304)
(407)
(309)(311)
(318)
(406)
(402)
(322)
(318)
(316)
(310)
(306)
(219)
(307)
(313)(315)
(317)(319)
(321)
(403)
(120)
(114)
(108)
(102)
(220)
(214)
(208)
(202)
(402)
(322)
(314)
(310)
(307)
(311)
(315)
(319)
(323)
(403)
(303)
(307)
(311)
(315)
(321)
(325)
(403)(404)
(326)
(322)
(318)
(314)
(402)
(310)
(322)
(318)
(303)
(308)(305)
(310)
(307)
(304)
(315)
(323)
(405)(402)
(322)
(320)
(314)
(310)(304)
(302)(301)
(309)
(319)
(323)
(403)
(1706)
(1512)
(1911)
(1425)
(1806)
(1716)(1800)
(1735)
(1518)
(1826)
(1810)
(1605)
(1612)
(1735)(1625)
(1511)
(1607)
(1919)
(1923) (1915)
(1503)
(1422)
(1632)
(1800)(1910)
(1821)
(1702)
(1807)(1615)
(1624)(1608)(1602)
(1605)
(1520)
(1408)
(1531)
(1527)
(1601)
249
14" CI6" CI8" CI
6" DI
10" DI8" DI12" CI
14" DI10" DI14" CI8" CI8" DI8" DI12" CI
10" DI14" CI12" CI 6" CI6" DI12" CI 6" CI6" CI6" DI14" CI10" DI 6" CI6" CI6" CI10" DI12" CI6" CI10" DI10" DI
12" CI
10" DI8" DI6" CIMAIN ST
BEALL ST19TH AVE15TH AVE16TH AVE17TH AVE18TH AVE20TH AVE19TH AVE19TH AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
3:56 PM
4:25 PM
JDH
1240
132.9 psi
129.1 psi
201250
1,834 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
38
13 537 95RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
38GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!13(5)
(4)
(17)
(16)
(20)
(814)
(618)
(125)
(820)
(901)
(720)
(708)
(706)
(710)
(219)
(713)(714)
(708)
(612)
(815)
(714)
(901)(901)
(802)
(807)
(121)
(707)
(701)
(625)
(621)
(615)
(611)
(614)
(618)
(624)
(702)
(712)
(716)
(610)
(720)
(614)
(724)
(618)
(721)
(624)
(717)
(110)
(715)
(105)
(711)
(705)
(701)(708)
(712)
(702)
(706)
(710)
(718)(714)
(722)
(808)
(812)
(816)
(623)
(619)
(820)
(722)
(615)
(609)
(802)
(623)
(617)
(613)(612)
(616)
(611)
(620)
(626)
(702)
(808)
(718)
(807)
(120)
(803)
(819)(822)
(610)
(815)
(719)
(811)
(715)
(721)
(711)
(717)
(701)
(711)
(623)
(617)
(615)
(611)
(614)
(620)
(624)
(616)
(620)
(624)(623)
(619)
(617)
(611)
(724)
95
537
6" CI4" CI8" CI
10" CI
6" DI
6" CI10" CI4" CI4" CI10" CI
4" CI8" CI6" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI10" CI
4" CI
4" CI8" CI
4" CI4" CI6" CITAMARACK ST
ASPEN ST
BLACK AVECOTTONWOOD ST TRACY AVEBOZEMAN AVEMONTANA AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
9:20 AM
9:31 AM
JDH
1240
150.0 psi
139.3 psi
1241
1,855 gpm 1,404 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
39
2438 130 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
39 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
2438
(5)
(16)(18)(15)(22)
(815)
(411)
(903)
(606)
(209)
(400)
(122)(901)
(613)
(416)
(401)
(913)
(507)
(302)
(119)
(911)
(102)
(116)
(120)
(208)
(212)
(216)
(419)
(306)
(310)
(314)
(404)
(412)
(418)
(510)
(514)
(123)
(115)
(107)
(921)(917)
(916)
(924)
(116)
(120)
(126)
(507)
(501)
(421)
(417)
(411)
(407)
(403)
(321)
(317)
(315)
(309)
(305)
(301)
(221)
(217)
(907)
(922)
(211)
(207)
(901)(316)
(201)
(319)
(921)
(311)
(919)
(916)
(305)
(303)
(922)
(909)
(414)
(221)
(213)
(502)
(508)
(201)
(915)
(914)(204)
(208)
(123)
(212)
(216)
(921)
(113)
(915)
(902)
(918)
(819)(815)
(509)
(812)(818)
(505)
(114)
(501)
(120)
(423)
(126)
(204)
(212)
(415)
(214)
(220)
(304)
(310)
(910)
(411)
(914)
(318)
(403)
(907)
(910)
(817)
(814)(816)
(410)
(422)
(901)
(817)
(504)
(507)
(503)
(423)
(419)
(415)
(409)
(401)
(321)
(317)
(311)
(307)
(806)
(807)
(217)
(209)
(205)
(201)(816)
(221)
(809)(123)
(119)
(113)
(109)
(103)(808)
(811)(807)(803)
(824)
(715)(709)(703)
(309)
(305)
(704)
(221)
(213)
(209)
(205)
(203)(202)
(206)
(210)
(214)
(218)
(222)
(618)
(306)
(310)
(314)
(322)
(710)(502)
(508)
(503)(616)
(510)
(516)(522)
(214)
(218)
(224)
(612)
(308)
(312)
(602)
(316)
(615)(320)(321)(517)
(317)
(404)
(313)
(309)
(408)
(303)
(412)
(221)
(416)
(422)
(615)
(502)
(619)
(217)
(510)
(215)
(209)
(113)
(123)(715)(126)
(122)
(116)
(720)(716)(622)(618)(612)(608) (101)(522)(516)(708)
(515)
(714)(202)
(206)
(210)
(214)
(220)
(714)(302)
(306)
(310)
(721)
(513)
(515)(521)
(519)(523)(527)(603)(607)
(114)
(617)(619)
(113)
(703)
(720)
(119)
(125)
(1016)
(1017)
(1016)
(1017)
(1017)
(1020)
(1002)
(1012)
(1011)1306" CI4" CI8" DI10" CI
6" CI
6" CI6" CI
8" DI6" CI6" CI6" CI8" DI4" CI
6" CI 8" DI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI10" CI6" CI10" CI 6" CI6" CI 6" CI
6" CI6" CI
6" CI4" CI
4" CI8" DI6" CI
10" CI
8TH AVE9TH AVEKOCH ST
OLIVE ST
STORY ST10TH AVE6TH AVECURTISS ST7TH AVEBABCOCK ST
8TH AVE7TH AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
7:42 AM
7:53 AM
JDH
1240
123.9 psi
122.0 psi
201250
1,673 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
40
120 121 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
40 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!120
(7)
(7)
(3)(3)
(9)
(5)
(9)
(7)
(5)
(8)(6)
(7)(1)(9)
(1)
(2)
(8)
(9)
(6)
(7)
(5)
(42)
(21)
(15)
(15)
(20)
(15)
(31)(33)
(18)(26)
(27)
(36)
(28)
(34)
(11)
(16)(12)(12)
(37)
(17)
(25)(20)
(24)
(15)
(23)
(23)
(15)
(27)
(32)
(15)
(16)
(10)
(11)
(20)(10)
(16)
(18)
(32)
(321)
(210)
(202)
(401)
(133)(101)
(104)(312)
(316)(400)(234)
(202)
(106)
(408)
(314)
(310)
(132)
(315)
(314)
(406)
(113)(133)
(120)
(424)
(120)
(239)
(226)
(402)
(121)
(430)
(133)(411)
(309)
(232)(238)
(134)(136)
(439)
(224)
(235)
(437)(431)
(233)
(412)
(303)
(120)
(316)
(222)
(225)
(223)(215)(441)
(211)
(216)
(220)
(307)(443)
(132)
(405)
(401)
(333)
(331)
(327)
(323)
(321)
(121)
(117)
(113)
(137)
(111)
(407)
(405)
(221)
(217)
(213)
(211)(209)(208)
(208)
(207)
(212)
(216)
(218)
(226)
(302)
(108)
(306)
(316)
(110)
(301)
(116)
(322)
(326)
(120)
(330)
(120)
(210)
(213)
(402)
(219)(223)(227)
(301)
(214)
(303)
(218)
(307)(123)
(226)
(308)
(312)
(316)
(320)
(326)
(402)
(206)
(210)
(214)
(224)
(226)
(302)
(306)
(308)
(320)
(328)
(330)(329)
(323)
(317)
(309)
(305)(301)
(225)
(221)
(217)
(412)
(421)
(211)(201)
(317)
(315)
(307)
(301)
(227)
(221)
(219)
(215)
(209)
(205)
(120)
(222)
(304)
(308)
(310)
(318)
(328)
(404)
(408)
(412)
(414)(110)
(116)
(403)(409)(415)
(218)(210)(314)(202)(204)(201)
(411)
(407)
(315)
(401)
(327)
(319)
(311)(307)(307)
(303)
121
6" CI
14" CI8" DI8" CI
12" CI 10" CI12" DI4" CI8" DI12" CI
6" CI
6" CI6" CI 6" CI
4" CI12" CI 12" CI6" CI
8" CI12" DI
8" CI8" CI6" CI
12" CI8" DI8" DI8" DI12" CI 8" CI14" CI8" DI8" CI8" CI8" DI8" DI6" CI
8" CI6" CI
6" CI
8" DI12" DI10" CI
6" CI6" CI 8" DI6" CI8" DIMAIN ST
OLIVE ST
BLACK AVETRACY AVEBABCOCK ST
BOZEMAN AVEROUSE AVELINDLEY PLCURTISS ST
KOCH ST
KOCH ST
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
8:14 AM
8:26 AM
JDH
1240
128.6 psi
126.8 psi
201250
1,802 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
41
251 1773 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
41GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
251
(630)
(408)
(718)
(710)
(714)
(710)
(702)
(680)
(668)
(636)(655)
(649)(621)(613)
(311)
(406)
(723)(715)
(703)
(691)
(675)
(653)
(639)
(611)
(806)
(316)
(304)
(621)
(705)(704)
(618)
(220)
(303)
(307)
(311)
(315)
(321)
(325)
(403)
(407)
(411)
(415)
(421)
(501)
(505)
(511)
(517)(518)
(514)
(510)
(518)
(506)
(512)
(506)
(502)
(422)
(416)
(418)
(412)
(414)
(408)
(404)
(326)
(322)
(410)
(318)
(314)
(402)
(310)
(322)
(318)
(303)(305)
(310)
(307)
(315)
(323)
(405)
(411)
(415)
(419)
(501)
(505)
(509)
(517)(514)
(510)
(506)
(502)
(418)
(414)
(412)
(406)
(402)
(322)
(320)
(314)
(310)(304)
(302)(301)
(309)
(319)
(323)
(403)
(409)
(411)
(415)
(421)
(503)
(507)
(511)
(515)
(519)
(508)
(502)
(418)
(414)
(410)
(706)
(502)
(1706)
(1445)(1437)
(1492)(1474)(1450)(1434)(1418)
(1412)
(1518)
(1605)
(1604)
(1409)
(1705)(1621)(1617)
(1613)
(1519)(1503)
(1319)
(1306)
(1221)
(1218)(1214)
(1702)(1722)
(1406)
(1616)
(1615)
(1624)(1608)(1602)
(1605)
(1526)
(1520)
(1412)17736" CI8" DI10" DI14" CI12" CI
10" CI8" CI8" CI10" CI
6" CI14" CI10" DI
6" CI14" CI6" CI8
"
D
I
12" CI
10" CI8" CI10" DI8" DI8" DI6" CI10" DI
6" CI6" CI10" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
14" CI10" DI
12" CI 15TH AVE17TH AVEDURSTON RD
16TH AVEBEALL ST
RUTH THIEBAULT WAY
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
4:30 PM
4:46 PM
JDH
1240
139.0 psi
136.8 psi
201250
1,878 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
42
245 157 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
42GFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!245(816)
(812)
(609)
(980)
(850)
(721)(717)
(815)
(726)(714)
(601)
(702)
(708)
(617)
(720)
(811)
(611)
(723)
(516)
(604)
(608)
(612)
(708)
(712)
(715)
(711)
(707)
(703)
(621)
(617)
(613)
(609)
(605)
(603)
(521)
(513)
(727)
(710)
(703)
(615)
(611)
(607)
(515)(514)
(522)
(711)
(915)
(908)
(621)
(602)
(608)
(610)
(601)
(612)
(919)
(909)
(920)
(521)
(706)
(517)
(712)
(513)
(919)(903)
(702)(706)
(719)(720)
(809)
(719)
(715)
(522)
(709)
(806)
(521)
(515)
(618)
(622)
(714)
(717)
(802)
(808)
(812)
(818)
(824)(707)
(819)
(815)
(809)
(803)
(725)
(719)
(715)
(709)
(705)
(701)
(621)
(516)
(520)
(602)
(606)
(615)
(611)
(607)
(603)
(523)
(519)
(515)(516)
(518)
(619)
(614)
(608)
(610)
(614)
(618)
(624)
(702)
(708)
(712)
(714)
(718)
(722)
(613)
(804)
(619)(617)
(801)
(725)
(721)
(719)
(715)
(709)
(705)
(701)
(621)
(617)
(613)
(609)
(605)
(601)
(521)
(515)
(610)
(616)
(823)
(819)
(815)
(811)
(807)
(613)
(1101)
(1104)
(1110)
(1009)
(1007)(1011)
(1015)
(1013)
(1020)
(1013)
(1003)
(1014)
(1107)(1103)
157
6" CI8" CI 8" DI14" CI14" DI
6" CI8" DI8" CI6" CI8" DI8" DI14" CI
8" CI6" CI14" CI
6" CI14" CI
6" CI6" CI8" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI
8" CI6" CI6" CI14" CI
6" CI
8" CI6" CI8" CI6" CI7TH AVE8TH AVE11TH AVECOLLEGE ST
ALDERSON ST
DICKERSON ST
HARRISON ST9TH AVE10TH AVECLEVELAND ST CLEVELAND ST8TH AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
9:12 AM
9:25 AM
JDH
1240
107.5 psi
105.3 psi
201250
1,396 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
43
1792 1793 1791RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
43GFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
179
2
(986)
(920)(914)
(880)
(926)(912)
(892)(880)
(893)
(997)
(973)
(951)(935)(917)(903)
(999)(975)
(953)
(931)
(907)
(877)
(859)(871)(816)
(912)
(1303)
(1276)(1283)
(1175)
(1171)
(1179)
(1173)
(1185)
(1165)
(1188)
(1184)
(1363)
(1028)
(1455)
(1236)
(1288)
(1096)
(1082)
(1078)(1064)
(1058)
(1036)(1022)
(1008)
(1097)
(1083)
(1077)(1065)
(1059)
(1041)
(1019)
(1007)
(1395)(1387)(1345)(1333)(1305)(1297)(1283)(1251)(1231)(1207)
(1386)(1350)(1342)(1310)(1290)(1282)(1248)(1226)(1204)
(1375)(1323)(1233)(1271)
(1241)
(1293)
(1189)
(1091)
(1079)(1057)
(1033)
(1427)(1471)(1483)
(1286)
(1095)
(1133)
(1227)(1232)
(1126)
(1098)
(1086)
(1036)
(1024)
(1016)
(1488)(1446)(1406)
(1450)
(1245)
(1193)
(1095)
(1325)17931791
8" DI
14" DI
4" PVC6" PVC8" DI6" PVC8" DI8" DI8" DI4" PVC 8" DI8" DI 8" DI
8
"
D
I
8"
D
I
14" DI
8" DI14" DI
4" PVC8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8
"
D
I
8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
6" PVC
8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI14" DI 14" DI
8" DI8" DI
4" PV
C
4" PVC8" DI14" DI
8" DI8" DI
14" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI14" DI
OAK ST
15TH AVE14TH AVE12TH AVEJUNIPER ST17TH AVECRABAPPLE DR
MANZANITA DR
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
10:05 AM
10:30 AM
JDH
1240
151.7 psi
137.8 psi
1241
1,989 gpm 1,866 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
44
92 93 374RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
44GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
92
(8)(6)
(9)(7)(5)
(7)
(8)
(3)
(2)
(5)
(5)(5)
(16)(20)
(19)(17)(13)
(40)
(16)
(24)
(21)
(25)
(15)
(10)
(17)
(15)
(17)
(18)(22)(26)
(11)
(15)
(14)
(209)
(152)
(517)
(411)
(210)(210)
(300)
(507)
(220)
(211)
(300)
(200)
(104)
(518)
(204)
(214)
(434)
(304)
(409)
(101)
(307)(305)
(303)
(301)
(109)
(103)
(124)(125)
(320)
(103)
(117)(113)
(315)
(323)(110)
(122)
(112)
(205)
(307)
(311)
(309)
(323)
(108)
(121)
(205)
(120)
(301)
(115)
(105)
(319)
(206)
(534)
(528)
(526)
(520)
(516)
(512)
(506)
(428)
(424)
(418)
(414)
(408)
(111)(109)(101)
(313)
(401)
(409)
(413)
(419)
(423)
(429)
(433)
(439)
(503)
(513)
(519)
(518)
(542)(538)
(534)
(528)
(524)
(520)
(514)
(510)
(322)
(314)
(310)(308)
(103)
(115)
(114)(108)(210)
(202)(109)
(406)
(116)
(518)
(514)
(506)
(502)
(440)
(434)
(430)
(426)
(422)
(416)
(414)
(402)
(322)
(316)
(112)
(106)
(111)
(119)(121)
(403)
(405)
(415)
(423)
(427)
(433)
(439)
(501)
(505)
(511)(515)
(517)
(519)(522)
(516)(508)
(504)
(436)
(432)
(428)
(424)
(420)
(414)
(410)
(121)
(109)
(405)
(409)
(417)
(107)
(505)
(515)
(517)
(521)(520)
(516)
(512)
(506)
(502)
(440)
(434)
(426)
(420)(418)
(414)
(410)(402) (113)
(324)
(320)
(314)
(312)
(308)
(304)
(206)
(112)(122)
(114)
(133)(103)
(121)
(209)(205)(203)
(301)
(305)
(311)
(313)
(323)
(401)
(405)
(409)
(415)(419)
(421)
(425)
(431)
(210)
(501)
(505)
(509)
(513)
(519)
(521)(208)
(215)
(215)
(317)(316)
(120)
(114)
(201)
(118)
(301)
(309)
(315)
(317)
(503)
(507)
(517)
(523)
(402)
(525)(527)
(531)
(326)
(318)
(535)
(312)
(541)(126)
(308)
(302)
(204)(209)
(122)
(116)933746" CI8" DI10" CI
4" CI12" CI
8" DI6" CI6" CI10" CI
8" DI 6" CI8" DI
6" CI
6" CI6" CI10" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI8" DI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI10" CI 6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI8" DI8" DI6" CI8" DI 6" CI
BEALL ST
PEACH ST
BLACK AVEGRAND AVEVILLARD ST
WILLSON AVESHORT ST
BOZEMAN AVELAMME ST
SHORT ST
LAMME ST
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
8:15 AM
8:25 AM
JDH
1240
137.7 psi
112.9 psi
1241
1,601 gpm 1,744 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
45
9 757 964RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
45GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!9
(724)(721)
(515)
(612)(620)
(600)
(716)
(626)
(611)
(528)(420)
(700)
(620)
(518)
(705)
(512)
(530)(526)(522)(518)(514)(510)(506)
(423)(419)
(524)
(801)
(720)
(517)(501)(609)
(629)
(805)
(612)
(540)
(511)
(615)
(725)
(723)
(502)(421)
(704)
(412)
(601)
(800)
(504)
(410)
(426)
(422)
(919)
(318)
(428)
(503)
(621)(610)
(410)
(326)(710)
(323)
(703)
(416)
(421)
(415)
(424)
(411)
(711)
(407)
(514)
(403)
(329)
(702)
(325)
(706)
(319)
(707)
(317)
(717)(713)
(707)(705)
(710)
(720)
(712)(719)
(630)
(627)(619)
(626)
(316)
(630)
(320)
(507)
(326)
(431)
(809)
(318)
(414)
(324)
(425)
(330)
(712)
(413)
(616)
(716)
(411)
(624)
(407)
(628)
(405)
(724)
(401)(402)
(406)
(410)
(513)
(414)
(717)
(632)
(413)
(720)
(409)
(417)
(709)
(428)
(504)
(508)
(512)
(516)
(520)
(524)
(618)
(624)
(802)
(820)
(516)
(803)
(405)(401)(404)
(408)
(412)
(416)
(418)
(424)
(707)
(701)(517)
(517)
(511)
(425)
(419)
(413)
(411)
(519)
(520)(524)(327)
(325)
(321)(317)(320)
(324)
(509)(402)
(416)
(424)
(428)(428)
(504)
(510)
(514)
(513)(509)(704)
(408)7579646"
C
I
10" CI12" DI8" CI
4" DI
8" DI
4" CI6" CI6" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI
6" CI6" CI10" CI12
"
D
I
6" CI 6" CI10" CI
6" CI6" CI
6" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI 6" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI
6" CI
6"
C
I
6"
C
I
IDA AVEPLUM AVEWALLACE AVEPEACH ST
FRO
N
T
S
TCHURCH AVEBROADWAY AVEASPEN ST
FRIDLEY STBRADY AVEAV
O
C
A
D
O
S
T
FRIDLEY ST
ASPEN ST
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
8:56 AM
9:08 AM
JDH
1240
145.0 psi
128.9 psi
1241
1,740 gpm 1,593 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
46
73 88 607RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
46 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!G!!73
(8)(6)
(9)(7)(5)
(7)
(3)(3)
(9)
(5)
(9)
(7)
(5)
(8)(6)
(7)
(3)
(1)
(5)(5)
(9)
(1)
(2)
(8)
(9)
(6)
(16)(20)
(42)
(19)(17)(13)
(26)
(21)
(30)
(15)
(15)
(20)
(15)
(31)(33)
(38)
(32)
(14)(34)
(40)
(39)
(26)
(30)(34)
(27)
(36)
(28)
(34)
(16)(12)(12)
(37)
(19)
(25)(20)
(24)
(25)
(23)
(35)
(15)
(23)
(27)
(32)
(10)
(20)
(25)
(10)
(16)
(18)
(32)
(209)
(321)
(210)
(202)
(405)
(109)
(133)(101)
(321)
(232)
(104)(312)
(316)(400)(234)
(202)
(109)
(106)
(132)
(315)
(204)
(314)
(406)
(442)
(113)
(101)
(133)
(120)
(424)
(120)
(124)(125)
(224)
(302)
(239)
(402)
(303)(235)
(302)(314)
(121)
(430)(438)
(117)(113)
(240)
(238)
(133)
(218)
(411)
(440)
(232)
(122)
(112)
(238)
(134)(136)
(439)
(205)
(224)
(108)
(235)
(437)(431)
(233)
(214)
(303)
(120)
(316)
(121)
(222)
(201)
(223)(215)
(121)
(438)
(205)
(120)
(106)
(114)
(441)
(326)
(115)
(216)
(205)
(415)(419)
(307)
(219)
(101)
(225)
(401)(409)
(422)
(443)(437)
(111)(109)(101)
(114)(108)(210)
(202)(109)
(310)
(112)
(106)
(111)
(119)(121)
(206)
(132)
(121)
(117)
(113)
(137)
(111)
(211)(209)(208)
(208)
(207)
(212)
(108)
(110)
(116)
(120)(120)
(210)
(213)(219)(223)(227)
(301)
(303)(307)(123)
(206)
(210)
(205)(412)
(421)
(107)
(211)(201)
(221)
(120)
(114)
(201)
(118)
(204)(209)
(122)
(116)(214)
(209)
(205)
(120)
(414)(110)
(116)
(403)(409)(415)
(218)(210)(314)(202)(204)(201)
88 607
6" CI
8" DI
10" CI8" CI12" CI 12" DI14" CI4" CI8" DI8" DI
6" CI
6" CI
14" CI8" DI6" CI6" CI
12" CI8" DI8" DI
8" CI6" CI
8" DI6" CI
12" CI
6" CI
8" DI8" DI
8" CI6" CI
6" CI
8" CI6" CI
12" CI 8" DI6" CI
6" CI12" CI6" CI8" DI8" DI4" CI12" DI6" CI 12" CI12" CI 12" CI8" DI8" DI
10" CI 8" DI6" CI
8" DI8" CI8" DI
12" DI
MAIN ST
OLIVE STBLACK AVETRACY AVELAMME ST
ROUSE AVEBABCOCK ST BOZEMAN AVEBEALL ST
MENDENHALL ST
LINDLEY PLG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
7:15 AM
7:25 AM
JDH
1240
129.9 psi
118.0 psi
1241
1,723 gpm 1,615 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
47
26 27 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
47GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!26(23)
(25)
(33)
(12)
(19)
(31)
(25)
(16)
(35)
(22)
(26)
(13)
(17)
(15)
(121)
(313) (314)
(411)(313)
(111)(111)
(109)
(103)
(606)
(100)
(611)(129)(101)
(200)
(203)
(414)
(207)
(103)
(113)
(105)
(612)
(103)
(210)
(220)
(311)
(419)
(613)
(108)
(205)
(406)
(120)
(218)
(517)
(122)
(520)
(616)
(507)
(110)
(314)(318)
(104)
(201)
(302)
(202)
(131)
(208)
(212)
(216)
(222)
(304)
(310)
(114)
(125)
(133)
(138)
(211)
(103)
(403)(407)
(322)
(321)(303)(215)(421)(417)(407)(403)
(404)(408)(416)(420)
(411)
(421)
(507)(601)(607)(611)
(317)(309)(605)(601)
(511)
(502)
(503)(609)
(621)
(123)
(309)
(303)
(217)
(221)
(213)
(220)
(307)
(301)(214)
(215)
(209)
(201)
(136)
(131)
(120)
(210)
(216)
(422)(418)(426)(428)(502)(506)
(509)(505)(503)(429)(425)(421)(417)(411)(405)(401)
(404)(412)(416)(422)(204)
(212)
(216)
(423)(419)(415)(411)(407)(401)
(404)(410)(414)(418)(420)(302)
(308)
(314)
(209)
(201)
(302)
(310)
(516)(522)
(214)
(218)
(224)
(308)
(312)(309)
(303)
(221)
(217)
(215)
(209)
(612)(608)(101)(522)(516)(510)
(515)
(307)
(301)
(219)
(213)
(209)
(201)
(121)
(209)(237)
(311)(315)
(323)
(309)
(305)
(301)
(513) (221)
(219)
(215)
(209)
(205)
(201)(510)
(515)(521)
(519)(523)(527)(603)(607)
(114)(113)
(119)
(620)(612)(606)(522)(520)
(125)
(516)(512)(508)(504)
(219)
27
6" CI
10" CI
4" CI 8" DI8" CI
6" CI
6" CI6" CI
6" CI
6" CI8" DI6" CI6" CI
6" CI6" CI 6" CI
6" CI6" CI
6" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI
10" CI
10" CI4" CI6" CI10" CI 4" CI6" CI 6" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI
6" CI
6" CI10" CI
MAIN ST
OLIVE ST
CURTISS ST GRAND AVEBABCOCK ST
MENDENHALL ST5TH AVE3RD AVE6TH AVE4TH AVE3RD AVE5TH AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
7:24 AM
7:34 AM
JDH
1240
126.5 psi
103.9 psi
201250
1,595 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
48
316 18 210RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
48GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!316(213)
(420)
(304)(505)
(209)
(825)
(216)
(211)
(805)
(200)
(108)
(220)
(620)
(109)(109)
(783)
(710)(506)
(903)
(120)(821)
(311)
(517)
(717)
(904)
(213)
(317)(316)
(511)
(502)
(431)
(323)
(316)
(518)
(107)
(415)
(703)
(203)
(216)
(719)(717)(715)
(122)
(116)
(110)
(719)
(211)(522)(608)
(303)
(321)
(601)
(411)
(417)
(423)
(427)(424)
(414)
(408)
(515)(401)
(407)
(415)
(419)
(423)
(511)
(605)(601)
(511)(503)
(512)(516)(520)(602)(606)(610)(614)
(613)(607)(603)(521)(517)(513)
(510)
(506)
(438)
(428)
(426)
(420)
(416)
(404)
(517)(302)
(612)
(310)
(609)
(810)
(809)(805)
(205)
(209)
(213)
(303)
(307)
(303)
(311)
(715)
(713)(403)
(411)
(431)
(509)
(425)
(813)
(809)
(811)
(526)
(520)
(514)
(508)
(502)
(442)
(438)
(432)
(426)
(420)
(414)
(408)
(801)
(807)
(808)(820)
(318)
(302)
(214)(210)
(823)(815)
(816)(122)
(116)
(112)
(817)
(811)
(440)
(434)
(428)
(422)
(416)
(410)
(105)(101)
(105)
(115)
(312)
(302)
(119)
(214)
(208)
(204)
(109)
(116)(115)
(119)(904)(910)
(909)(901)(203)
(211)
(207)
(303)
(309)
(317)
(908)
(303)
(409)
(421)
(427)
(433)
(439)
(503)
(509)
(515)
(521)
(526)
(520)
(514)
(508)
(502)
(420)
(414)
(408)
(919)
(916)
(316)
(101)
(105)
(109)
(315)
(415)
(319)
(115)
(119)
(123)
(407)
(411)
(419)
(425)
(431)
(437)
(441)
(503)
(509)
(515)
(521)
(906)(526)
(520)
(514)
(508)
(502)
(442)
(432)
(426)
(509)
(507)
(501)
(308)
(922)
(210)
(206)
(919)
(918)(120)
(116)
(112)
(921)
(1020)
(1003)(1015)
(1016)
(1002)
18
2106" CI8" CI6" DI8" DI10" CI
4" CI4" DI8" DI
6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI 6" CI
10" CI 10" CI6" CI6" CI
6" CI6" CI8" DI6" CI6" CI8" DI
6" CI6" CI
8" DI6" CI6" CI6" CI
10" CI
8" DI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI8" CI10" CI 6" CI6" CI
6" CI
8" CI
6" CI6" CI8" DI8" CI
6" CI
10" CI
7TH AVE9TH AVEBEALL ST10TH AVELAMME ST
VILLARD ST 6TH AVE8TH AVEPEACH ST
SHORT ST
7TH AVE8TH AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
7:50 AM
8:07 AM
JDH
1240
137.6 psi
126.3 psi
1241
1,817 gpm 1,661 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
49
423 299 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
49 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
423
(8)
(9)
(10)
(15)(105)
(105)
(111)
(410)
(410)
(409)(405)
(404)(412)
(303)
(222)(216)(212)(208)(204) (116)(112)
(108)
(216)
(210)
(206)(202)(108)
(109)(115)(201)
(109)
(205)
(207)
(209)
(211)
(215)
(219)
(205)(207)
(223)
(210)
(209)(215)
(204)
(221)
(120) (114)
(101)(115)(121)(205)(211)(411)
(410)
(411)
(411)(405)
(308)(410)
(401)
(2212)
(2615)
(2505)
(2525)
(2555)
(2401)
(2605)
(2221)
(2302)
(2475)
(2725)(2715)
(2705)
(2625)
(2321)(2319)
(2307)
(2775)
(2805)(2804)
(2435)
(2415)
(2615)(2616)
(2610)
(2604)
(2603)
(2516)
(2508)
(2504)
(2409)
(2419)
(2503)
(2507)
(2515)(2603)(2607)(2611)
(2201)
(2205)
(2207)
(2303)
(2311)(2310)
(2302)(2303)
(2311)
(2205)
(2207)
(2209)(2210)
(2206)
(2208)
(2717)
(2602)(2520)
(2718)
(2516)
(2512)
(2508)
(2504)
(2422)
(2712)
(2412)
(2404)
(2310)
(2708)
(2206)
(2702)
(2118)
(2709)(2622)(2618)(2614)(2610)(2606)
(2318)
(2416)
(2410)
(2403)
(2803)
299 6" CI8" DI10" CI10" DI6" DI12" DI
6" CI
6" CI
8" DI10" DI10" DI6" CI 6" CI10" DI
6" CI6" CI6" CI 6" CI6" DI 10" CI6" CI6" CI 6" CI6" DI
6" CI
6" CI6" DI6" CI6" C
I
6" CI
6" CI
6" CI 6" CI6" CI6" CI
6" CI10" CI6" CI 10" DI6" DI 3RD AVESPRING CREEK DRWESTRIDGE DR
LANGOHR AVEARNOLD ST
CIRCLE DRHIGHLAND CTFAIRWAY DRCUTTING ST
MORROW ST
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
11:55 AM
12:06 PM
JDH
1240
72.6 psi
67.2 psi
201250
1,237 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
50
178 180 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
50GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
178
(502)
(111)
(515)
(823)(515)
(424)
(724)
(523)
(405)
(815)(525)
(921)
(801)
(720)
(726)(209)(725)
(721)
(715)
(522)
(806)
(808)
(814)
(818)
(902)(906)
(910)
(521)
(520)
(411)(401)
(426)
(822)(419)(415)
(418)(422)(426)
(910)
(425)(421)(419)
(426)
(418)
(504)
(716)
(809)
(803)(408)(412)(416)(420)
(410)
(411)
(404)(410)
(411) (403)
(402)(408)(412)
(415)(411)(405)
(404)(408)
(412)
(823)
(901)
(905)
(909)
(915)
(304)
(120)
(117)
(120)
(115)(119)
(914)
(908)
(904)
(811)
(901)
(911)
(921)
(102)
(104)
(903)
(905)
(909)
(913)
(205)
(720)
(726)(503)
(723)
(719)(725)(722)
(426)
(504)
(722)
(516)
(119)
(515)(509)(503)
(911)
(905)(512)
(509) (825)
(815)
(813)
(725)
(719)
(411)(409)(407)(309)
(817)
(811)
(404)(805)
(809)
(811)
(817)(819)
(912)
(902)
(826)
(820)
(818)
(812)
(808)
(800)
(807)
(218)
(811)
(219)
(825)
(922)
(916)
(912)
(908)
(902)
(822)
(814)
(804)
(810)
(916)
(1206)(1201)
(1211)
(1010)
(1014)(1016)
(1022)
(1104)
(1110)
(1116)
(1102)
(1122)
(1113)
(1107)
(1017)
(1015)
(1212)
(1206)
(1118)
(1114)
(1110)
(1106)
(1102)
(1020)
(1014)
(1010)(1005)
(1015)
(1017)
(1021)
(1103)
(1109)
(1111)
(1115)
(1119)
(1205)
(1211)
(1101)
(1011)
(1019)
(1107)
(1111)
(1119)
(1121)
(1201)
(1209)
(1001)
(1007)
(1011)
(1015)
(1212)
(1206)
(1202)
(1124)
(1120)
(1112)
(1110)
(1106)
(1102)
(1024)
(1022)
(1209)
(1119)
(1106)
(1110)
(1114)
(1120)
(1212)
(1206)
(1122)
(1120)
(1114)
(1110)
(1106)
(1102)
(1020)
(1014)
(1010)
(1002)
(1021)
(1101)
(1121)
(1201)
(1205)
(1211)
(1016)
(1012)
(1008)
(1004)
(1105)
(1109)
(1115)
(1117)
1804" CI6" CI8" CI
14" CI
12" CI
6" DI6" CI6" CI6" CI4" CI
12" CI
4" CI
14" CI 12" CI
12" CI 6" CI6" CI4" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI12" CI
14" CI
12" CI 6" CI6" C
I
6" CI6" CI4" CI
6" CI6" CI12" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI14" CI
6" CI5TH AVE4TH AVE3RD AVECOLLEGE STGRAND AVE6TH AVEARTHUR ST
GARFIELD ST WILLSON AVEHARRISON ST
CLEVELAND ST
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
8:52 AM
9:07 AM
JDH
1240
101.2 psi
87.8 psi
201250
1,358 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
51
364 36 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
51GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
364
(312)
(315)
(318)
(122)
(211)
(215)
(316)(400)(234)
(428)
(309)
(406)(220)
(300)
(430)
(201)
(211)
(200)
(222)
(325)
(406)
(419)
(213)
(211)
(208)(207)
(212)
(216)
(218)
(226)
(302)
(108)
(306)
(316)
(322)
(326)
(330)
(304)(226)(222)(216)(212)
(213)
(402)
(219)
(408)
(223)
(412)
(227)
(418)
(301)
(424)
(303)
(310)
(307)(123)
(313)
(305)
(301)
(223)(219)
(208)(214)(306)(314)
(402) (410)(414)
(413)(409)(405)
(429)(425)(421)(417)(413)
(112)
(409)
(320)
(116)
(213)(405)(428)
(118)
(406)
(122)
(330)
(511)
(132)
(202)
(412)
(206)
(329)
(323)
(317)
(418)
(309)
(305)
(411)
(415)
(210)
(214)
(410)
(220)
(406)
(301)
(404)
(225)
(336)
(224)
(332)
(326)
(221)
(322)
(318)
(512)(520)(530)
(217)
(516)
(308)
(323)
(302)
(512)
(325)
(205)
(202)
(203)
(412)
(514)
(421)(119)(521)
(115)
(121)
(117)
(111)(115)
(107)(113)
(107)
(404)(410) (416)
(414)
(420)
(110)
(601)
(116)
(403)(409)(415)
(218)(210)(314)(202)(201)
36
6" CI8" CI
8" DI10" CI
4" CI12" CI
6" CI
6" CI6" CI12" CI
6" CI6" CI
4" CI8" DI4" CI
6" CI 8" DI8" DI12" CI6" CI8" DI12" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI
8" DI
6" CI6" CI6" CI
6" CI
6" CI6" CI8" DI6" CIOLIVE ST CHURCH AVESTORY STLINDLEY PLWALLACE AVEBOGERT PL
DELL PLKOCH ST
CURTISS ST
BUTTONWOOD AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
8:32 AM
8:45 AM
JDH
1240
125.8 psi
109.6 psi
201250
1,578 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
52
843 658 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
52GF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
843
(5)
(3)
(7)(9)
(15)
(25)
(19)
(22)
(20)
(1505)
(1125)
(1609)
(1711)
(1110)
(1225)
(1725)
(1501)
(1611)6586" CI12" DI 12" CI6" DI8" DI
4" CI
8" DI 6" CI 6" CI12" CI12" CI6" DI4" CI6" DI12" DI
6" DI 12" CI6" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI6" DI8" DI
12" CI
8" DI 11TH AVEKAGY BLVD
LINCOLN ST
GRANT ST
TAI LNBOBCAT CIRG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
9:55 AM
10:07 AM
JDH
1240
88.4 psi
64.7 psi
201250
1,206 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
53
206 242 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
53GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
206
(5)(3)
(12)
(14)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(23)(21)(19)
(418)
(113)
(411)
(422)(404)(412)
(411)(405)
(412)
(409)
(116)
(115)
(119)
(106)
(210)
(201)(209)
(216)(208)
(417)
(221)
(216)
(221)
(1423)
(1433)
(1727)
(1721)
(1719)
(1717)
(1632)
(1423)
(1602)
(1416)
(1415)
(1707)
(1432)
(1430)
(1315)
(1414)(1411)
(1618)(1614)
(1610)
(1606)(1604)
(1602)
(1600)
(1316)
(1404)
(1412)
(1414)
(1424)
(1430)
(1309)
(1303)
(1501)
(1431)
(1221)
(1425)
(1419)
(1407)
(1710)(1624)
(1620)
(1616)
(1612)
(1548)(1542)
(1536)
(1530)
(1524)
(1516)
(1510)
(1504)
(1424)
(1420)
(1414)
(1404)
(1322)
(1314)
(1310)
(1302)
(1218)(1217)
(1221)
(1301)
(1305)
(1309)
(1313)
(1319)
(1321)
(1405)
(1419)
(1505)
(1603)
(1611)
(1615)
(1621)
(1705)
(1711)
(1717)
(1721)
(1221)
(1301)
(1309)
(1317)
(1217)
(1223)
(1303)
(1311)
(1317)
(1405)
(1411)
(1419)
(1222)
(1216)
(1716)
(1429)
(1608)
(1216)
(1222)
(1304)
(1503)
(1513)
(1523)
(1533)
(1545)
(1403)
(1407)
(1431)
(1524)
(1520)
(1504)
(1428)
(1420)
(1512)
(1404)
(1314)
(1310)
(1302)
(1710)
(1704)
(1620)
(1616)
(1610)
(1508)
(1504)
(1430)
(1422)
(1408)
(1402)
(1316)
(1322)
(1312)
(1308)
(1304)6" CI8" CI6" DI4" CI8" DI 6" CI6" CI6" DI6" CI6" DI4"
C
I 6" CI6" CI6" DI
6" CI6" CI4" CI6" CI4" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" DI6" CI3RD AVEHAYES ST
WILLSON AVEGRANT ST 4TH AVEGRAND AVETRACY AVEMASON ST
GREEK WAYLINCOLN ST
242
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
9:35 AM
9:45 AM
JDH
1240
93.9 psi
83.0 psi
201250
1,312 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
54
448 2170 254RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
54GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
448
(910)
(962)
(630)
(808)
(702)
(906)
(720)
(907)
(714)
(915)
(822)(798)
(786)(762)
(750)
(738)
(726)
(718)
(710)
(718)
(710)
(820)
(818)
(818)
(910)
(509)
(804)
(715)
(893)
(997)
(973)
(951)(935)(917)
(903)
(999)(975)
(953)
(931)
(907)
(877)
(859)
(845)
(837)
(833)
(871)
(855)
(843)
(831)
(825)
(813)
(803)
(771)
(759)
(745)
(731)
(723)
(715)
(703)
(691)
(675)
(653)
(639)
(611)
(816)
(806)
(816)
(710)
(988)
(950)
(521)
(722)
(523)
(517)
(522)
(518)
(514)
(510)
(506)
(621)
(705)
(917)
(705)
(912)
(707)
(816)
(711)
(715)
(718)(805)
(714)
(704)
(809)
(618)
(815)
(827)
(907)(906)
(826)
(818)
(808)
(803)
(811)
(821)
(829)
(901)
(511)
(515)
(519)(520)
(514)
(510)
(506)(507)(505)
(511)(511)(515)
(517)(519)(518)
(514)
(510)
(518)
(506)
(512)
(506)(505)
(509)
(517)(514)
(510)
(506)(507)
(511)
(515)
(519)
(508)
(706)
(1925)
(1924)
(1933)
(1492)
(1779)(1801)
(1705)
(1412)
(1825)
(1910)(1928)
(1933)
(1605)
(1604)
(1951)
(1811)
(1705)
(1706)(1710)
(1621)(1617)
(1613)
(1519)(1503)
(1711)
(1826)(1702)(1806)(1722)(1616)(1526)
(1412)
25421706" CI8" CI8" DI6" DI10" CI
14" CI4" PVC
10" DI6" PVC10" CI
8" DI
10" CI6" CI6" CI
8"
D
I
6" CI6" CI8" DI6" CI10" CI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI6" CI8" DI8" CI 8" DI6" CI6" CI8" CI4" PVC
10" CI 6" CI8" CI8" DI8" CI6" CI8" CI8" CI8" DI6" CI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8"
D
I
10" CI 15TH AVE19TH AVE17TH AVEDURSTON RDBLACKMORE PLTERRACE AVE
20TH AVE18TH AVE16TH AVE22ND AVE
JUNIPER ST
NELSON TRAILER COURT TRPK
MAE ST
NELSON TRAILER COURT TRPK19TH AVENELSON TRAILER COURT TRPKG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
10:40 AM
10:53 AM
JDH
1240
142.6 psi
131.2 psi
1241
1,869 gpm 1,822 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
55
676 678 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
55GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
676 (610)(875)
(524)
(509)
(689)
(607)
(650)
(220)
(773)
(518)
(225)
(523)
(502)
(524)(525)
(865)
(751)
(766)
(732)
(2651)
(2405)
(2220)
(2630)
(2622)
(2607)
(2621)
(2740)
(2555)
(2707)(2715)(2723)
(2724)
(2716)(2712)
(2731)
(2704)
(2608)
(2400)
(2514)
(2612)
(2711)
(2619)
(2220)
(2320)
(2630)
(2820)
(2707)
(2631)(2609)
(2421)
678
6" CI8" DI6" DI14" DI
10" DI
4" PVC 8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI14" DI14" DI
6" DI
6" DI8" DI
8" DI
6" DI6" CI
8" DI14" DI 6" DI8" DI
6" DI8" DI8" DI14" DI4" PVC14" DI 6" DI8" DI10" DI8" DI6" CI8" DI6" CI10" DI6" CI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI14" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI
14" DI 8" DI8" DI10" DIMAIN ST23RD AVECOLLEGE STPROFESSIONAL DRWAGON WHEEL TRAILER COURT TRPKDITEMAN WAYYERGER DRWEST COLLEGE TRAILER PARK TRPKG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
JDH
1240
115.2 psi
109.5 psi
201250
1,673 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
56
1026 1027 1028RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
56 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!#I 1026
(1733)
(1500)
(1226)
(1289)
(1707)
(1351)
(1281)
(1239)
(2051)
(1475)
(2047)
(1553)
(1459)
(1433)(2063)
(2226)
(2220)
(1281)
(1805)
(1715)
(1336)
(1262)
(1174)
(1247)
(1143)
(1122)(1091)
(1320)
(1400)
(1460)
(1550)
(1510)
(1116)
(1115)
(1109)
(1105)
(1101)
(2104)(2108)(2112)
(2109)
(1100)
(1104)
(1108)
(1112)
(2105)(2115)
(1212)
(1206)
(2113)
1027 10286" DI 8" DI6" PVC14" DI12" DI10" DI
4" PVC
14" DI 14" DI8" DI8" DI14" DI
6" PVC6" PVC6" PVC6" PVC 8" DI1
2
"
D
I
8
"
D
I
14" DI8" DI8
"
D
I 8" DI10" DI
6" PVC
14" DI
4" PVC8" DI
8" DI 8" DI4" PV
C4" PVC8" DI8" DI
8" DI
12
"
D
I
8" DI
8" DI8"
D
I
12" DI8" DI 6" PVC
10" DI
8"
D
I
8" D
I
8"
D
I
6" PVC
6" PVC8" DI8" DI12" DI4" PVC
OAK ST
19TH AVESTONERIDGE DRSUNNY SIDE TRLBLACK POWDER TRL
TWO TRACK WAYMAPLEWOOD ST
CARAVAN WAY19TH AVEPRV 6
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
11:00 AM
11:12 AM
JDH
1240
153.2 psi
140.7 psi
1241
1,998 gpm 1,725 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
57
1040 2510 1041RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
57GFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
104
0
(905)
(931)
(931)
2510
1041
10" DI
12" DI6"
C
I
8" DI
6"
D
I
10" DI10
"
D
I10" DI10
"
D
I 12" DI10" DI10
"
D
I10" DI10" DI10" DI10
"
D
I10" DI10" DI12" DIELLIS ST
OLD HIGHLAND BLVDHIGHLAND BLVDG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
3:58 PM
4:07 PM
JDH
1240
82.4 psi
74.0 psi
1241
1,342 gpm 1,299 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
58
1747 1746 1748RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
58GFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!1747
(347)
(682)
(614)
(451)
(407)
(389)
(360)
(397)
(339)
(332)(332)
(369)
(423)(413)
(475)
(433)
(462)
(438)
(386)
(676)(670)
(662)
(650)(638)(626)
(602)
(4265)
(4255)
(4351)
(4040)
(4040)
(4040)
(4040)
(4181)
(4251)
(4135)(4055)
(4040)
(4040)
(4040)
(4040)
(4040)
(4040)
(4040)(4040)(4040)
(4040)(4040)
(4020)
(4040)
(4040)
(4150)1748174
6 10" DI8" DI6" DI12" DI
10" DI6" DI8" DI12" DI8" DI10" DI8" DI
6" DI
12" DI
10" DI
12"
D
I
6" DI8" DI12" D
I
8" DI
6" DI8" DI12" DI
10" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8"
D
I
12"
D
I8" DI8" DI
8" DI
6" DI8" DIFALL
O
N
S
T
HUFFINE LN FERGUSON AVERAVALLI STVALLEY COMMONS DR
REDWOOD DREASTWOOD DRTEAKWOOD DRG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
2:25 PM
2:37 PM
JDH
1240
123.4 psi
109.8 psi
1251
1,621 gpm 1,531 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
59
2208 2209 2207RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
59GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!2208
(4810)
(1385)(4769)(4775)(4797)(4803)(4811)(4837)(4855)(4861)(4883)(4891)(4899)
(1197)
(1165)
(1139)
(1123)
(1063)
(1049)
(4897)(4887)(4877)(4857)(4845)(4831)(4813)(4801)(4791)(4783)(4773)(4767)
(4752)(4768)(4778)(4786)
(4796)(4810)(4830)(4844)(4858)(4878)(4888)(4898)
(4895)(4885)(4875)(4853)(4839)(4829)
(4803)(4791)(4781)(4777)(4765)
(4754)(4760)(4768)(4778)(4786)(4796)
(4828)(4830)(4840)(4854)(4876)(4886)(4896)
(4894)(4884) (4874)
(4868)(4858)(4848)(4838)(4798)(4792)(4788)
(4789)(4791)(4837)(4843)(4851)
(4859)(4869)(4873)(4883)(4893)
(4806)(4816)(4828)(4840)(4850)
(4860)(4872)
(4871)
(4882)
(4881)(4891)(1029)
(1015)22092207
8" DI 12" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
1
2
"
D
I
12" DI
1
2
"
D
I
12" DI8" DI
8" DI
12" DI8" DI
LOYAL DR
VINE ST
COTTONWOOD RDVICTORY ST GOLDEN GATE AVETRIUMPH ST
ALPHA DR
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
2:04 PM
2:16 PM
JDH
1240
111.3 psi
88.0 psi
1251
1,491 gpm 1,521 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
60
961 620 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
60GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!961
(5)
(4)
(17)
(98)
(25)
(10)
(51)(61)
(16)
(20)
(724)
(413)
(721)
(507)
(521)
(814)
(810)
(716)
(520)
(151)
(505)
(708)
(404)(416)
(125)
(512)
(820)
(901)
(700)
(201)
(720)
(708)
(408)
(219)
(524)
(801)
(625)
(509)(605)
(805)
(610)
(351)
(560)
(700)
(516)
(615)
(622)
(713)(714)
(412)
(800)
(101)
(411)
(604)
(810)(808)
(301)
(903)
(815)
(711)
(423)
(714)
(901)
(802)
(807)
(121)
(907)
(251)(201)(101)
(517)
(516)(414)
(411)
(415)
(922)
(719)
(802)
(820)
(622)
(902)
(511)
(516)(803)
(707)
(717)
(707)(712)(716)(720)(724)(721)(717)
(414)(721)
(711)
(425)(415)
(719)
(411)
(712)(715)
(810)
(410)
(710)
(718)
(816)(412)
(417)
(722)
(411)
(722)
(906)
(808)(801)
(812)
(717)
(816)
(711)(707)
(722)
(802)
(710)(716)
(808)
(724)(718)
(807)
(120)
(812)
(819)(822)
(815)
(719)
(811)
(715)(721)
(711)
(717)
(818)
(711)
(824)(819)(815)(809)
(803)
(502)(507)(503)(822)
(724)
(814)
(1224)
(1800)
(1203)
(1404)
(1227)
(1753)
(1190)
(1101)
(1606)
(1811)
(1725)
(1010)
(1750)
(1628)(1705)
(1803)
(1401)
(1416)
(1602)
(1701)
(1804)
(1715)
(1612)
(1606)
(1623)
(1525)(1520)(1515)(1502)
(1408)
(1403)
(1407)
(1413)(1410)
(1214)
(1104)
(1010)
620 4" CI12" DI
8" DI
10" CI6" CI10" D
I
8" CI16" CI
6" DI18" CI4" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI6"
C
I
10" DI
10" CI
10" DI8" DI4" CI
8
"
D
I
16" CI4" CI8" CI
10" CI
8" CI 12" DI18" CI8" CI
10" DI
8" DI
4" CI16" CI10" CI6" CI8" DI10" CI
4" CI
12" DI 12" DI
12" DI12" DI
8" DI
6" CI10" DI
10" DI
10" CI16" CI12" DI
12" DI
8" D
I
10" CI8" CIROUSE AVEOAK ST
TAMARACK ST
INTERSTAT
E
9
0
H
W
Y
L ST
GOLD AV
E
BOND ST
EVERGREEN
D
R
PEA
R
S
T
ASPEN ST
3RD AVEBIRCH ST
INTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
Y
G
O
L
D
A
V
E
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
9:42 AM
9:56 AM
JDH
1240
157.4 psi
153.9 psi
201250
1,803 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
61
415 1182 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
61 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
415(845)(815) (735)
(725)
(408)(504)(510)
(517)(511)(507)(503)(421)(417)(411)(405)
(410)(416)(422)(504)(510)
(514)
(515)
(511)(507)(421)(415)(411)
(410)(416)(420)(504)(508)(510)(516)(604)
(611)(607)(601)(521)(517)(703)
(830)
(610)
(410)(416)(424)(504)(510)
(514)
(515)(511)(503)(421)(415)(409)(405)
(404)(412)(422)
(515)(511) (505)(501)(419)(415)(411)
(410)(416)(424)(504)(510)
(514)
(515)
(511)(505) (423)(417)(411)
(704)
(418)(504)(512)(514)
(515)(509)(505)(421) (415)(411)(405)
(2601)
(2701)
(3013)
(3007)
(3015)
(3009)
(3012)
(3009)
(3001)
(3010)
(3016)
(3009)
(3003)
(3010)
(3015)
(3009)
(3002)
(3006)
(3010)(3017)
(3009)
(3005)
(3001)
(2915)
(2907)
(2811)
(2802)
(2810)
(2814)
(2900)
(2904)
(2910)(2909)
(2907)
(2903)
(2815)
(2809)
(2805)(2807)
(2811)
(2817)
(2903)
(2907)
(2911)
(2915)
(3001)
(3009)
(3014)
(3010)
(3006)
(3002)
(2916)
(2912)
(2908)
(2902)
(2818)
(2814)
(2810)
(2514)
(2512)
(2510)
(2508)
(2410)
(2615)
(2603)
(2717)
(2709)
(3005)
(3014)
(2413)
(2501)
(2509)
(2511)
(2515)
(2605)
(2611)
(2703)
(2705)
(2711)
(2612)
(2604)
(2516)
(2512)
(2506)
(2511)
(2517)
(2521)
(2525)(2526)
(2522)
(2518)
(2803)
118
2
10" DI6" DI8" DI12" DI6" CI6" DI
10" DI
6" DI
10" DI6" DI
10" DI6" DI6" DI8" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI
10" DI
8" DI10" DI6" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI10" DI10" DI
6" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI6" DI
6" DI6" DI
6" DI
6" DI
6" DI
6" DI
ARNOLD ST
WESTRIDGE DRSECOR AVESTAUDAHER ST
CUTTING ST
HENDERSON ST
HEALY AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
11:38 AM
11:50 AM
JDH
1240
71.1 psi
70.7 psi
201250
1,277 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
62
2065 2066 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
62GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!2065
(1909)
(1735)
(1745)
(1765)
(2233)
(1781)(1779)
(1777)(1775)(1773)(1771)
(1769)(1767)(1765)(1763)(1761)(1759)(1757)(1749)(1747)
(1743)(1741)(1739)(1737)(1735)(1733)(1731)(1729)(1727)(1725)(1723)(1721)(1719)(1717)(1715)
(1745)
(1825)
(2101)
(1945)
(2104)(1815)
(2211)(1820)(1751)
(1816)
(1825)
(1818)
(1724)
(1714)
(1706)(1954)
(1705)
20668" DI24" DI12" DI
6" CI6" DI8" CI
8" DI12" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI
8" DI
24" DI 8" DI8" DI
8" DI
24" DI8" DI 8" DI
8" DI8" DI 8" DI 8" DI24" DI12" DI24" DI8" DI19TH AVEKAGY BLVD22ND AVEREMINGTON WAY
STOCKMAN WAYALDER COURT LNG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
JDH
1240
83.0 psi
81.4 psi
201250
1,362 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
63
986 2018 716RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
63GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!986
(5)
(6)
(2)(2)
(4)
(1)
(4)
(8)(9)
(7)(6)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)(50)
(30)
(10)
(25)
(45)
(27)
(51)(50)
(26)
(28)
(52)
(76)(77)
(53)
(29)
(27)
(51)
(50)
(26)
(12)
(52)
(32)
(10)(11)
(11)
(31)
(51)
(104)
(418)
(131)(204)
(108)
(104)(104)(104)
(108)
(110)
(208)
(210)
(102)
(303) (302) (301) (300) (303)(300)
(120)
(100)
(302)
(105)
(125)
(142)
(122)
(102)(103)
(127)
(151)(150)
(126)
(102)(103)
(127)
(151)(150)
(126)
(102)
(101)
(121)
(3600)
(3502)
(3424)
(3410)(3402)
(3719)(3308)(3310)
(3314)
(3328)
(3334)(3410)
(3324)
(3906)
(3316)
(3308)
(3304)
(3316)
(3705)(3309)(3401)(3405)(3409)(3413)(3417)(3501)(3505)(3509)
(3605)
(3424)
(3425)(3451)
(3464)(3610)
(3610)
(3610)(3610)
(3610)(3610)
(3610)(3610)(3610)(3610)
(3610)(3610)
(3513)(3601)(3605)(3609)(3701)
(3681)708716
201
8
6" DI12" DI 10" DI
8" D
I 6" CI6" DI8" DI
12" D
I
6" DI6" DI8" DI
6" DI 6" DI6" DI 6" DI
6" DI12" DI6" DI6" DI
6" DI
10" DI
8" DI
6" DI
6" DI8" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI8" DI6" DI 6" DI6" DI
6" DI
6" DI
12" DI6" DI12" DI6" DI10" DI
8" DI8" DI6" D
I
6" DI
6" DI 6" DI
8" DI 6" DI6" DI
6" DI6" DI
BABCOCK ST
RAVALLI STYELLOWSTONE AVEFOWLER AVEMEAGHER AVESWEETGRASS AVESHERIDAN AVECHOUTEAU AVESHERIDAN PLVALLEY DRG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
3:21 PM
3:34 PM
JDH
1240
130.6 psi
118.3 psi
1251
1,689 gpm 1,746 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
64
858 1009 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
64GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!858
(8)
(2)(3)
(4)(8)(7)
(4)
(8)
(1)
(9)
(9)
(8)
(2)
(26)
(20)
(30)(44)
(42)
(59)
(37)
(84)
(97)
(91)
(85)
(73)
(51)
(21)
(47)
(33)
(88)(82)(80)(74)(70)(64)(58)(52)(48)(40)(38)
(32)
(91)
(72)
(64)
(56)
(42)
(34)
(28)
(26)(22)
(18)(12)(27)(26)
(20)
(14)
(28)
(32)
(48)(49)
(43)
(37)
(17)
(31)
(25)
(13)
(49)(51)(53)(55)(50)
(40)
(32)
(24)
(16)
(320)
(129)
(211)
(163)
(144)
(132)
(112)(111)
(200)(201)
(311)(305)
(184)
(104)
(188)
(164)(156)(140)(136)
(128)
(124)(110)
(173)
(151)
(135)
(162)
(314)
(329)
(213)
(301)
(328)
(307)
(302)
(123) (122)
(308)
(137)
(304)
(119)
(316)
(330)
(320)
(325)
(325)
(140)(142)(150)
(152)
(155)(157)
(357)
(305)(309)
(313)
(317)
(321)
(328)(332)(336) (340)(344)(348)
(352)
(356)
(360)
(364)
(368)
(322)(323)
(317)
(313)
(207)
(139)
(133)
(101)(103)(105)(107)
(109)(111)(113)(115)
(117)(119)(121)(123)
(240)
(232)(226)
(206)(204)(202)(200)(124)(122)(120)(118)(116)
(112)(110)(108)(106)(104)
(102)
(301)
(361)
(114)
(2813)
(3063)
(3056)
(3040)
(3087)(3075)
(2700)(3000)
(2701)
(2962)
(3016)
(3014)
(3014)
(3024)
(3020)
(3020)
(3018)
(3026)
(2727)
(3157)(3133)
(2722)(2726)(2720)
(2715)
(2835)
(2721)
(2820)
(2821)
10098" DI6" DI10" DI 10" DI 10" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI
8" DI8" DI6" DI
6" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI10" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI10" DI 10" DI
8"
D
I
6" DI8" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI6" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI
10" DI 8" DI6" DI
10" DI8" DI10" DI 6" DI8" DI
8" DI6" DI8" DI
6" DI
6" DI
8" DI
10" DIHUNTERS WAYSUNLIGHT AVEMENDENHALL ST
MEGHANS WAYMICHAEL GROVE AVEDROULLIARD AVEYORK ST
GREENWAY CT
MERIWETHER AVEGENA CIR
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
5:25 PM
5:40 PM
JDH
1240
131.5 psi
128.3 psi
201250
1,739 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
65
738 739 452RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
65GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
738
(417)
(924)
(808)
(671)(827)
(844)
(720)(714)
(822)
(818)
(509)
(603)
(796)
(760)
(710)
(950)
(515)
(801)
(819)
(841)
(853)(865)
(768)
(782)
(812)
(824)
(830)
(836)
(848)
(856)(860)(868)(872)
(521)
(523)
(517)(513)(510)
(503)
(802)
(414)
(677)
(661)
(651)
(657)
(627)
(621)
(617) (611)
(603)
(631)
(637)
(667)
(687)(681)
(691)
(697)
(901)(905)
(911)
(906)
(724)
(712)
(704)
(415)
(419)
(503)
(507)
(511)
(515)
(519)
(523)(522)
(518)
(514)
(510)
(506)
(502)
(418)
(414)
(521)(522)
(518)
(512)
(508)
(504)
(420)
(416)
(412)
(417)
(423)
(505)
(509)
(515)
(519)
(521)(522)
(520)
(516)
(512)
(506)
(502)
(420)(420)
(416)(416)
(412)(415)
(419)
(423)
(505)
(509)
(515)
(517)
(413)
(417)
(421)
(505)
(509)(506)
(415)
(419)
(505)
(511)
(515)
(519)
(514)
(2055)
(2011)
(1925)
(2135)
(2305)
(2408)(2418)(2430)
(2137)(2123)
(2115)(2101)
(2149)
(2137)
(1933)
(2308)
(2075)
(2015)
(2040)
(2400)
(2400)
(2400)
(2400)
(2400)
(2002)
(1910)(1928)
(1933)
(2412)(2424)
(2419)(2427)
(2448)
(2020)
(2400)
(2400)
(2400)
(1951)
(2020)
(2106)(2104)(2102)
(2165)
452739
6" CI6" DI8" DI 10"
C
I
10" DI
6" DI6" DI 8" DI10" DI6" DI6" DI10" DI10" DI
6" CI6" D
I
8" DI10" DI10" DI6" DI10" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI10" DI6" DI10" DI10" DI
8" DI
6" DI
6" DI10" CI
6" DI
8"
D
I 6" DI6" CI8" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
10" DI 8" DI6" DI8"
D
I
10" CI10" DI6" DI6" DI8" DI
8" DI
6" DI19TH AVE22ND AVEDURSTON RD
ANNIE ST
EMILY DR21ST AVE20TH AVE23RD AVESTONERIDGE DRROGERS WAYCHARLOTTE ST
WINDSOR ST
19TH AVEG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
11:40 AM
11:51 AM
JDH
1240
142.6 psi
133.7 psi
1241
1,964 gpm 1,814 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
66
1402 357 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
66GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!1402
(125)
(201)
(500)
(210)
(301)
(301)
(113)
(220)
(605)
(215)
(615)
(201)
(307)
(407)
(303)
(226)
(227)
(306)
(108)
(115)
(511)
(308)
(214)(214)(220)(220)
(317)
(300)
(220)
(220)
(210)
(607)
(601)
(220)
(311)
(501)
(600)
(509)
(505)
(501)
(413)
(410)
(502)
(315)
(301)
(215)
(209)
(205)
(113)
(109)
(112)
(204)
(212)
(302)
(406)
(410)
(504)
(510)
(305)
(223)
(217)
(210)
(228)
(227)
(223)
(217)
(215)
(302)
(308)
(316)
(519)
(515)
(505)
(315)
(215)
(211)
(414)
(209)
(418)
(424)
(203)
(119)
(508)
(512)
(520)
(608)
(405)
(117)
(1804)
(1420)
(1902)
(1805)(1807)
(1601)
(1700)
(1612)
(1940)
(1608)
(1907)
(1801)
(1800)
(1800)
(1624)
(1890)
(1712)
(1725)
(1703)
(1516)
(1607)
(1611)
(1711)
(1711)
(1711)
(1703)
(1703)
(1711)
(1611)
(1712)
(1712)(1712)
(1611)
(1611)
(1725)
(1902)
(1921)
(1920)(1526)(1602)(1608)(1800)
(1811)(1807)
(1720)(1810)(1810)(1810)(1810)
(1810)(1810)
(1801)(1801)(1801)
(1801)(1801)
(1527) (1519)
(1520)
(1522)
(1611)(1607)
(1508)
(1515)
(1420)
(1418)
(1811)
(1916)35710" DI6" DI8" DI
14" CI14" DI2" CU4" CI8" DI6" DI
6" DI 6" DI10" DI6" DI
6" DI10" DI6" DI14" CI8" DI
6" DI8" DI
6" DI
8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI
6" DI
8" DI
8" DI
2" CU
8" DI
14" CI6" DI8" DI
14" CI14" CI14" CI6" DI6" DI 6" DI6" DI6" DI
6" DI6" DI6" DI14" CIKOCH ST
15TH AVE19TH AVEOLIVE ST
16TH AVEDICKERSON ST 18TH AVE17TH AVE16TH A
V
E
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
3:36 PM
3:50 PM
JDH
1240
120.3 psi
116.7 psi
201250
1,732 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
67
980 979 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
67GFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!980(875)
(888)
(985)(993)
(867)
(873)
(870)(868)(862)
(895)
(670)
(2825)
(2820)
(3275)
(3225)
(3265)
(3245)
(3255)
(3100)
(2817)
(2905)(8645)
(2901)(2911)
979
12" DI 8" DI8" CI
8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI 8" DI
8" CI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8"
D
I
8" DI
12" DI
8" DI
8" CI
12" DI
8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI
8
"
D
I
8"
D
I8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI 8" DI
HUFFINE LN
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
2:45 PM
2:55 PM
JDH
1240
112.5 psi
109.0 psi
201250
1,660 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
68
1913 1914 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
68GFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
191
3
(895)
(3220)
(3225)(3245)
(3240)
(1140)
(1120)
(1060)
(1040)
(3255)19148" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" D
I
8
"
D
I
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI
GARFIELD ST
F
OW
L
E
R
A
V
E
HARMON STREAM BLVDF
OW
L
E
R
A
V
E
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
2:28 PM
2:38 PM
JDH
1240
100.8 psi
98.7 psi
201250
1,494 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
69
664 1264 663RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
69GF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!G!!G!!664
(895)
(960)
(945)
(985)
(901)
(2155)
(1100)
(2150)
(1111)
(1123)
(1160)663126
4
8" DI 6" DI10" DI6" DI
8" DI
8" DI
10" DI8" DI8" DI8" D
I
8" DI8" DI
8" D
I
8" DI
8" DI8" DI
6" DI
8" DI6" DI
GARFIELD ST 19TH AVERES
E
A
R
C
H
D
R
ANALYSIS DR
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
2:08 PM
2:24 PM
JDH
1240
101.8 psi
92.6 psi
201247
1,446 gpm 1,532 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
70
2314 2312 2315RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
70GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
231
4
(760)
(784)
(776)
(710)
(707)
(699)
(705)(701)
(820)(819)
(790)
(780)
(770)
(740)
(730)
(789)
(777)
(750)
(1971)
(1969)
(1967)
(1965)
(1961)
(1996)
(1994)
(1992)
(1976)(1970)
(1968)(1964)(1960)
(1940)
(1930)
(8456)
2315
2312
10" DI
8" DI
10"
D
I
10" DI
8" DI
10"
D
I
8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI10" D
I
8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI
HAGG
E
R
T
Y
L
N
HUFF
M
A
N
L
N
INTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
Y
DUDLEY DRINTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
Y
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
3:34 PM
3:44 PM
JDH
1240
100.2 psi
66.6 psi
1241
1,385 gpm 1,273 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
71
1920 1921 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
71 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
1920
(2011)
(2131)(2125)
(2159)(2157)
(2137)(2123)
(2119)
(2175)
(2111)
(2171)
(2327)(2308)19218" DI
12" DI
6" CI8" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI6" CI12" DI8" DI
8" DI12" DI6" CI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI
12" DI8" DI12" DI11TH AVECAMPUS BLVD
OPPORTUNITY WAY
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
10/1/2015
12:17 PM
12:28 PM
JDH
1240
69.2 psi
66.7 psi
201250
1,305 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
72
944 943 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
72GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
#I
#I
944(506)
(412)
(520)
(416)
(325)
(393)(380)
(379)(362)
(517)(510)
(714)
(707)
(702)
(718)
(802)
(429)
(710)
(413)
(706)
(806)
(711)
(329)
(425)
(606)
(328)
(722)
(741)
(709)
(725)
(701)
(805)
(712)
(511)
(802)
(729)
(713)
(801)
(709)
(713)
(737)
(742)
(717)
(708)
(721)
(715)
(733)
(738)
(710)
(330)
(417)
(413)
(409)
(509)(507)
(418)(410)
(422)
(425)(429)(433)
(502)(506)(510)
(305)(309)
(313)
(368)
(372)
(402)(406)
(410)
(414)
(418)
(422)
(322)
(430)
(434)
(438)
(502)
(506)
(514)(518)
(522)
(431)
(427)
(417)
(423)
(419)
(415)
(411)(409)
(407)
(403)
(405)(401)
(335)
(323)
(506)
(440)
(428)
(514)
(517)(521)(525)
(513)
(505)
(509)
(501)
(437)
(433)
(421)(426)
(414)
(301)
(705)
(702)
(745)
(610)(2495)
(2942)(2926)
(2904)
(2496)
(2714)
(2948)(2934)(2920)
(2945)(2931)(2917)
(2812)
(2400)
(2752)
(2908)
(2902)
(2918)
(2910)
(2706)
(2702)
(2704)
(2905)
(2906)
(2701)
(2710)
(2703)
(2708)
(2917)
(2901)
(2706)
(2913)
(2705)
(2707)
(2909)
(2902)
(2901)
(2906)
(2801)
(2614)(2602)
(2622)
(2510)(2622)(2502)
(2510)(2514)(2610)
(2611)
(2502)
(2511)
(2618)(2606)
(2813)
(2507)(2619)
(2606)
(2602)
(2905)
(2902)
(2515)
(2602)
(2518)
(2503)(2515)(2523)(2603)
(2622)
(2618)(2610)(2518)
(2506)
(2623)(2611)
(2502)
(2619)(2623)
(2503)(2511)(2519)(2603)
(2514)(2510)
(2503)(2507)(2511)(2515)(2519)(2603)(2611)
(2618)(2614)(2610)(2502)(2518)(2514)
(2806)(2722)(2716)
(2510)
(2710)
(2717)(2723)(2807)
(2622)
(2710)
(2905)
(2615)
943
6" CI6" DI
8" DI
10" DI
8" CI4" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI
6" DI
8
"
D
I
8" DI
8" DI8" DI8"
D
I 8" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" D
I
6" DI8" DI6" DI
8" DI
6" DI
6" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI10" DI
8" DI6" DI
8" DI8" D
I
6" DI
8
"
D
I 8" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI 8" DI8" CI6" DI10" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI
10" DI10" DI 10" DI10" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI
6" DI
6" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI
ROSE ST
25TH AVEVILLARD ST
DURSTON RDHUNTERS WAY27TH AVEWESTERN DRSNAPDRAGON ST
DAFFODIL ST
GREENWAY AVEMICHAEL GROVE AVEOLIVER ST
DOVE CT
GROUSE CT
PRV 8
PRV 9
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
5:04 PM
5:17 PM
JDH
1240
140.4 psi
135.6 psi
201250
1,870 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
73
1076 1077 1075RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
73GFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!1076
(675)
(640)
(425)
(467)
(437)
(505)
(449)
(454)
(478)
(528)(504)
(466)
(3736)
(3816)
(3783)
(3780)
(3775)
(3772)
(3760)
(3754)
(3748)(3727)
(3722)
(3715)
(3800)
(4446)
(4437)
(4434)
(4459)
(4458)
(4422)
(4405)
(4421)
(4470)
(4449)
10771075 10" DI8" DI
12" DI12" DI 10" DI10" DI10" DI12" DI10" DI
10" DI8" DI12" DI12
"
D
I
12" DI8"
D
I
1
0
"
D
I10" DI3RD AVE GOLDENSTEIN LN
PEACE PIPE DRELLIS VIEW LOOPG
O
O
D
M
E
D
I
C
I
N
E
W
A
Y
G!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
5:22 PM
5:33 PM
JDH
1240
36.4 psi
32.8 psi
1241
823 gpm 810 gpm
201250
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
74
478 341 RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
74GF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!G!!G!!
G!!
G!!478(20)
(201)
(205)
(500)
(210)(220)
(113)
(517)(509)(509)
(215)
(407)
(303)
(517)
(506)
(306)
(108)
(411)(504)
(300)
(231)
(509)
(505)
(501)
(413)
(409)
(510)
(315)
(301)
(215)
(209)
(205)
(113)
(303)
(211)
(119)
(115)
(111)(112)
(204)
(212)
(302)
(406)
(410)
(504)
(510)
(509)
(504)
(501)
(409)
(405)
(504)
(315)
(309)
(405)
(117)
(200)
(200)
(514)
(2405)
(2220)
(1902)(2050)
(1940)
(1907)
(2220)
(2222)
(2304)
(2245)
(2245)
(2200)
(2200)
(2200)(2200)
(2200)(2200)
(2320)
(1902)
(2275)
(2401)
(1921)
(1920)(2002)(2010)
(1916)
341
8" DI6" DI6" CI10" DI4" DI
6" DI8" DI8" DI
8" DI 6" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
6" DI
8" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI6" DI6" DI
6" DI
8" DI6" DI10" D
I8" D
I
6" CI
8" DI
6" DI
8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI6" DI8" DI
20TH AVE23RD AVEKOCH STMAIN ST22ND AVEDICKERSON ST
OLIVE ST
ST ESTEPHE DRWAGON WHEEL TRAILER COURT TRPKWEST COLLEGE TRAILER PARK TRPKG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/30/2015
3:20 PM
3:31 PM
JDH
1240
120.5 psi
118.6 psi
201250
1,748 gpm
SOUTH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet
Test Number: __________
Test Date: ______________
Start Time: ___________
End Time: ___________
Test By: _________
Zone: ___________________
75
2233 2230 2234RESIDUAL HYDRANT
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Static: __________
Residual: ________
FLOW HYDRANT #1
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
FLOW HYDRANT #2
Hydrant No. ______
HPR No. ________
Flow: ______________
75 GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
G!!G!!G!!2233
(994)(980)(950)(932)(914)(902)
(991)(977)(955)(937)(921)(893)
(870)
(869)(853)
(854)(834)
(835)
(818)
(815)
(901)
(952)
(958)
(964)
(946)(938)(920)(906)(890)(882)
(876)
(870)
(866)
(860)
(972)
(986)
(1704)
(1428)
(1630)
(1431)
(1461)
(1445)
(1028)(1012)
(1023)(1001)(1484)
(1470)
(1456)
(1442)
(1386)
(1372)
(1358)
(1344)
(1332)
(1320)
(1308)
(1375)
(1333)
(1460)
(1446)
(1432)
(1416)
(1489)
(1477)
(1463)
(1449)
(1435)
(1421)
(1407)
(1393)
(1381)
(1369)
(1357)
(1345)
(1331)
(1319)
(1309)
(1412)(1415)
(1757)
(1575)
(1007)
(1621)
(1619)
(1640)
(1620)
(1614)
(1602)
(1015)
(1625)
(1103)
(1104)
(1103)
(1104)
(1103)
(1104)
(1103)
(1715)
(1701)
(1716)
(1722)
(1017)
(1021)
(1024)
(1014)
22
3
4
223
0
8" DI
12" CI20" DI12" DI6" DI6" CI
8" CI
10" DI12" C
I
6" CI8" DI12" CI8" DI 8" DI8" DI 12" CI8" DI
8" DI6" DI12" CI20" DI
8" DI
8" DI12" CI20" DI
8" CI
8" DI8" DI8" DI
6" DI
8" DI
8" DI
8" DI8" DI
6"
D
I
8"
D
I
8" DI
12" CI8" DIKENYON DRHIGHLAND BLVDPOST DRKNOLLS DR
JOSEPHINE DRASPEN POINTE DROCONNELL DRG!!Flow Hydrants GFOther HydrantsG!!Test Hydrants
9/29/2015
4:16 PM
4:30 PM
JDH
1240
61.3 psi
42.1 psi
1241
1,047 gpm 1,101 gpm
201250
KNOLL
Water Facility Plan Update
Appendices
July 2017
Appendix D - Extended Period Simulation (EPS) Tests
Field BookExtended Pressure Testing
Extended Pressure Testing Protocol•Install 12 hydrant pressure recorders at key locations throughout the distribution system•Hydrants will remain live during the 2 week period of collecting flow data•In case of emergency, cut lock and remove hydrant pressure recorder and return to AE2S
³Ú
UT
UT
UT³Ú
#I #I
#I
#I#I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I #I
#I
#I
#I
#I
#I#I #I
#I
#I
#I
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!
G!!FOWLER LNRED
W
I
N
G
D
R
CED
A
R
S
T
BLACKWOOD RD
BOH
A
R
T
L
NWATTS LNLAKE RDARNICA DRJAGAR LN
JOHNSON RD RAINBOW RD
ABAGAIL RANCH RD
PARK VIEW PL
RED TAIL RANCH RD
LAKE
D
RARETE DRDRIFTWOOD DR
HORSETAIL RDROCKY RDVALLEY DRELLIS ST21ST AVEWILDFLOWER WAYFLANDERS MILL RDVANDYKE RDOVERLOOK LNTHOMAS DR18TH AVE20TH AVE16TH AVE15TH AVEPERKINS PLHEATHER LN23RD AVESACCO DRBE
A
R
P
A
W
T
R
L
KAGY BLVD
HOLLY DRWILDA LNWINT
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
L
N
ASH DR
HARPER PUCKETT RD
LUCI
L
L
E
L
N
STONEGATE DR
BENNETT DRDAVIS LNMARY RDE
V
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
D
R
WHEAT DR
HA
G
G
E
R
T
Y
L
NSTORY MILL RDFALLON ST
MCGEE DRHOFER LNRIDGE TRLWILLOW WAYLILY DR
BURKE ST
10TH AVEBIRDIE DRBLUEBIRD LN
28TH AVE26TH AVEMAYA WAYGALLATIN DRBORDER LNPARK PL VALLEY RIDGE RDLAREDO DR
GOLDENSTEIN LN OLD HIGHLAND BLVDINT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
ROSE ST
BUTTONWOOD AVEFRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
LEA AVEAU
G
U
S
T
A
D
R
ARROWLEAF HILLS DRVICTORY ST HIDDEN VALLEY RDMIDFIELD ST
WHITETAIL RD
SYPES CANYON RD
RI
A
T
A
R
D
CONCORD DR PALETTE CTK
N
A
A
B
D
R VISTA LNEASTWOOD DRJACK LEG LNYERGER DRPAINTED HILLS RDBIG GULCH DR
KERMODI STOLD FARM RD
HUNTERS WAYGREEK WAYSIMMONS LNCIRCLE DR
JE
A
N
A
L
E
I
C
T
COVER ST
SUNDANCE DRBOYD RDPROFESSIONAL DRFEN WAYLINDLEY PLCLONINGER LNINDUSTRIAL DRVIRGINIA DRCHERRY DRBOGART DRANNIE ST
TETON AVETRIUMPH ST
LANCE DRCOTTONWOOD RDCLASSICAL WAY
BENEPE ST
KAGY RD URSA STSO
L
A
R
W
A
Y
PATTERSON RD SIMMENTAL WAYTAYABESHOCKUP RDBRYANT ST
PARKWAY AVEL STGRAF ST
DAISY DR GOLD DUST
TRL
L
A
U
N
FA
L
L
N
LINDVIG DRRAWHIDE RDG
M
Y
E
R
S
L
NCANDY LNFRANKLIN HILLS DR
LITTLE GULLY RUN
FOWLER AVEFARRIER LNSECOR AVEA
N
N
E
T
T
E
P
A
R
K
D
RPONDERA AVETRIPLE TREE RDTAI LNERIK DRGALE CTROSA WAYHITCH
ING
POS
T
RD11TH AVEHUFFINE LN CARSON PL24TH AVEGO
L
F
W
A
Y
CATALYST ST
CATKIN LN
SANDERS AVEPEACE PIPE DRFERGUSON AVEBRIGGS RDFARM VIEW LN
LONG
H
O
R
N
R
D
MONIDA ST
MADRONA LN9TH AVEVIRGINIA WAYLOXLEY DRSTUBBS LNCATTAIL ST
LLOYD STJAMES AVE
LOOKFA
R
W
A
Y
JE
S
S
I
E
WAY13TH AVE19TH AVE
SPRINGHILL LN
BRAJENKA LNPOND LILY DRACCOLA DR
PEACH ST
TR
O
O
P
E
R
T
R
L
TSCHACHE LNWINTER PARK ST
PANORAMA DR
MASON ST
QUINN DAVID L
N
ALPINE WAY
POTOSI ST
DISCOVERY DRHILLCREST DRCHOUTEAU AVEBLACKBIRD DRGOLD AVE
DUDLEY DRBUR AVE
CATRON ST
6TH AVEDAVIS ST
ENTERPRISE BLVDCA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
BABCOCK STSAXON WAYS
TA
R
R
IDG
E
R
DSTAFFANSON RDWILDROSE LN CANARY LNHIGHLAND BLVDBOYLAN RD
BEALL ST
LOLO WAY
MCI
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
RESORT DRICE POND RDTRACY AVEROBIN LN
MAIN ST
8TH AVEGARDNER PARK DRFRO
N
T
S
T
WESTERN DRCAYUSE TRLHILL ST27TH AVELIM
E
S
TON
E
R
DSADDLE CREEK RD4TH AVEGRIFFIN DRSPRINGHILL RDOLIVE ST
STUCKY RD
BRIDGER CANYON RD
5TH AVELARAMIE DR
ROCKY CREE
K
R
D
RUSTY DUCK LN
KOCH ST
29TH AVE1
2
TH
A
V
E MONTANA AVEAAJKER CREEK RD 7TH AVEREE
V
E
S
R
D
BOND ST
B
A
X
T
E
R
D
R
RIVERSIDE
D
R CHURN CREEK
DR
ARNOLD ST
HILLSIDE LN
VALLEY CENTER RD
TAMARACK ST
SOURDOUGH RDLAUREL PKWYROUSE AVECHURCH AVEWOODL
AND
DRSHERIDAN AVE3RD AVEMANLEY RDCASPIAN AVEBRIDGER DRNELSON RDNASH RDBIGELOW RDREDWOOD DRGARFIELD ST
22ND AVEOAK ST
BAXTER LN
DURSTON RD19TH AVEKAGY BL
V
D
KAGY BLVD
NASH RDTRACY AVEGRAF ST7TH AVE3RD AVESTORY MILL RDBIG GULCH DR
19TH AVETRIPLE TREE RDSTAR RIDGE RD
OAK ST
16TH
A
V
E
MC
G
E
E
D
R
OAK ST
SOURDOUGH RD
IN
T
E
R
STA
T
E
9
0
HW
Y
INTER
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
HAGGERTY LN19TH AVECOTTONWOOD RDBAXTER LN
GRAF S
T27TH AVENASH RDDAVIS LN3RD AVE
VALLE
Y
C
E
N
T
E
R
R
D
15TH AVESTUCKY RD
3RD AVE11TH AVEOAK ST
19TH AVEFRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
FRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
BLACKWOOD RD
PATTERSON RD 20TH AVEMCI
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
19TH AVEFRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
6TH AVEMAIN ST
BAXTE
R
L
N
24TH AVEIN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
COTTONWOOD RDCOTTONWOOD RDFRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
GRAF ST19TH AVETRACY AVENASH RD
OAK ST
JOHNSON RD
BLACKWOOD RD L ST19TH AVEHARPER PUCKETT RDFOWLER LNBOYL
A
N
R
D
7TH AVENASH RDFOWLER LN19TH AVESOURDOUGH RDBAXTER LN
INTERSTATE
9
0
H
W
Y
PATTERSON RD
KAGY BLVD
MCI
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
11TH AVEL ST11TH AVEM
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
DLAKE DRHUFFINE LN MANLEY RDL ST27TH AVEBAXTE
R
L
NDAVIS LNFOWLER LNSTORY MILL RDJACK LEG LN15TH AVEPATTERSON RD
BAXTER LN
MCGEE DRBAXTER LN
19TH AVEOAK ST
BOYLAN RD
FOWLER LNMAIN ST
19TH AVE19
T
H
A
V
E
3RD AVEL ST19TH AVEELLIS ST23RD AVEBABCOCK ST
A
B
A
G
A
I
L
R
AN
C
H
R
D
BAXTER LN
CHURCH AVEHIDDEN VALLEY RDOAK ST
NASH RD NASH RD19TH AVEHUFFINE LN
7TH AVE7TH AVELAKE
D
R
STUBBS LNMARY RDSTUCKY RD
OLIVE ST
3RD AVETRIPLE TREE RD
OAK ST
GRAF ST MANLEY RD19TH AVEDURSTON RD
GOLDENSTEIN LN TAYABESHOCKUP RDNELSON RDNASH RD
3
6
1
7
4
5
9
8
2
10
11
12
Water Distribution System
G!!Pressure Monitoring Location
Extended Pressure MonitoringLocations
¯0 5,0001,250 2,500 3,750
Feet³Ú Pear St Pump Station
³Ú Knoll Pump Station
UT Clearwell
UT Hilltop Tank
UT Lyman Tank
UT Sourdough Tank
#I Existing PRV
30" Water Main
24" Water Main
20" Water Main
18" Water Main
16" Water Main
14" Water Main
12" Water Main
10" Water Main
8" Water Main
6" Water Main
4" Water Main
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
(3494)
(3090)(3004)(2964)(2948)(2926)(2918)
(6029) (6045)(6061)(6075)(6089)(6101)
2107
12" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI
MEAH LN
31ST AVEBLACKWOOD RD
1
Extended PressureMonitoring
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: ____________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Removed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Installed/Removed By: _________
2107
1
1242 38 psi
10/1/2015
10/20/2015
5:47 PM
2:30 PM
JDH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
(202)
(305)
(311)(407)
(408)
(411)(405)
(211)(205)(121)(115)
(105)
(102)(110)(114)(202)(210)
(3100)
(3004)
(3010)
(3016)
(3020)
(3025)
(3021)
(3017)
(3009)
(3001)
(3010)
(3016)
(3020)
(2916)
(2910)
(2916)
(3002)
(2915)
433
24" DI
6" DI 10" DI8" DI24" DI
10" DI6" DI6" DI
10" DI6" DI6" DI10" DI
6" DI 10" DI24" DI
6" DI
10" DI8" DI3RD AVEGRAF STLANGOHR AVESTAUDAHER ST
FIELDSTONE DR WAGONWHEEL RDGRAF ST
2
Extended PressureMonitoring
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: ____________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Removed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Installed/Removed By: _________
433
2
1240 64 psi
10/1/2015
10/20/2015
6:00 PM
2:45 PM
JDH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
49010" DI8" DI
24" DI12" CI12" DI14" DI12" CI
8" DI
12" CI12" CI19TH AVEGARFIELD ST BRANEGAN CTPAISLEY CT
3
Extended PressureMonitoring
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: ____________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Removed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Installed/Removed By: _________
490
3
1251 102 psi
10/1/2015
10/20/2015
5:30 PM
2:15 PM
JDH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
(17)(19)
(20)
(309)(309)(205)
(1008)
(1207)
(1030)
(1114)
(1220)
(1108)
(1304)
(1228)
(1224)
(1216)
(1210)
(1202)
(1104)
(1201)
(1209)
(1215)
(1221)
(1227)
(1303)(1304)
(1220)
(1216)
(1212)
(1208)
(1204)
(1114)
(1110)
(1023)
(1107)
(1111)
(1117)
(1201)
(1207)
(1211)
(1215)
(1219)
(1305)(1308)
(1216)
(1212)
(1208)
(1204)
(1116)
(1100)
(1109)
(1203)
(1215)
(1207)
(1211)(1219)
(1220)
(1217)
(1221)
(1305)
(1021)278
6" CI24" CCP14" STL14" CI
18" STL8" CI
12" CI
6" CI12" CI
6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI6" CI14" CI 14" CI14" CI
18" STL14" CI24" CCP14" CI
BLACK AVEGARFIELD STBOZEMAN AVEMONTANA AVETRACY AVE
4
Extended PressureMonitoring
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: ____________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Removed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Installed/Removed By: _________
278
4
1249 110 psi
10/1/2015
10/20/2015
6:25 PM
2:55 PM
JDH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
(8)
(6)
(7)
(15)(15)
(36)(37)
(15)
(27)
(29)
(10)
(11)
(20)
(10)
(16)
(210)
(202)
(202)
(106)
(120)
(120)
(226)
(121)
(225)
(211)
(220)
(132)
(121)
(117)
(113)
(137)
(111)
(221)
(217)
(209)
(108)
(110)
(301)
(116)
(120)(120)
(210)
(214)
(218)
(226)
(206)
(210)
(214)
(224)
(226)
(302)(301)
(227)
(221)
(219)
(215)
(209)
(205)
(120)
(222)
(304)
(204)
(303)
121
8" CI 8" DI6" CI
12" CI
14" CI10" CI
4" CI8" CI8" CI14" CI8" CI8" CI8" DI6" CI8" CI6" CI6" CI 6" CI
8" DI6" CI
12" CI8" CI8" DI6" CI
12" CI
6" CI
8" DI8" CI14" CIOLIVE ST
BLACK AVETRACY AVEBABCOCK ST
BOZEMAN AVECURTISS ST
5
Extended PressureMonitoring
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: ____________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Removed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Installed/Removed By: _________
121
5
341298 128 psi
10/1/2015
10/20/2015
6:40 PM
3:10 PM
JDH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFGFG!!(411)
(415)
(1224)
(1203)
(1227)
(1251)
(1214)
(1104)
1887
16" CI
8" DI
12" DI10" CI0" CI6" CI
16" CI6" CI12" DI
12" DI 16" CI
16" CI16" CIROUSE AVEOAK ST
BIRCH STMONTANA AVE6
Extended PressureMonitoring
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: ____________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Removed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1887
6
1245 152 psi
10/1/2015
10/20/2015
6:50 PM
3:25 PM
JDH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFG!!#I
(210)
(244)
(228)(228)
(232)
(444)
(450)
1754
12" DI
8" DI
6" DI
12" DI12" DI8" DI12" DI12" DI
12" DI8" DI
8" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI12" DI8" DI
8" DI 8" DI12" DI12" DI8" DI6" DI
FALLON STCOTTONWOOD RDFIELD ST
AUTO PLAZA DR
FIELD ST
7
Extended PressureMonitoring
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: ____________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Removed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1754
7
341289 128 psi
10/1/2015
10/20/2015
4:47 PM
1:40 PM
JDH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
#I
#I
#I
(518)
(509)
(481)
(496)
(482)
(701)
(511)
(507)
(508)
(504)
(505)
(503)
(425)
(501)
(515)
(420)
(421)
(509)
(512)
(500)
(4030)
(4076)
(4045)
(4028)
(4073)
(4058)(4195)
(4087)(4061)
(4084)(4088)
(4092)
(4062)
(4086)(4038)
(4033)
(4046)
1125
8" DI6" DI10" DI
12" DI12" DI
10" DI10" DI8" DI8" DI12" DI
8" DI6" DI8" DI8" DI 8" DI8" DI 10" DI6" DI10" DI10" DI10" DI8" DI12" DI
DURSTON RD
SANDERS AVEFERGUSON AVECARBON ST
DIAMOND ST
TILTON STKIMBALL AVEMINERAL AVEPRV 12 PRV 13
8
Extended PressureMonitoring
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: ____________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Removed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1125
8
201250 143 psi
10/1/2015
10/20/2015
4:35 PM
1:50 PM
JDH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFGFGFGFGF GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
#I
(1289)
(1351)
(1281)
(2051)(2047)
(1459)
(1433)(2063)
(1281)
(1336)
(1262)(2104)(2108)(2112)
(2109)(2105)(2115)
1025
8" DI12" DI10" DI
14" DI
8
"
D
I
8" DI
10" DI
8" DI
10" DI8" DI14" DI8" DI12" DI8" D
I 8" DI10" DI
14" DI
OAK ST 19TH AVESTONERIDGE DRMAPLEWOOD ST SUNNY SIDE TRL19TH AVEPRV 6
9
Extended PressureMonitoring
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: ____________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Removed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1025
9
1243 156 psi
10/1/2015
10/20/2015
5:16 PM
1:05 PM
JDH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFGFGFG!!
(692)
(659)
(677)
(637)
(646)
(623)
(618)
(611)(4716)
(4726)(4714)(4688)
(4727)(4709)
1725
8" DI
12" DI10" DI 10" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI8" DI
DURSTON RDWESTGATE AVESHADOWGLEN DR
10
Extended PressureMonitoring
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: ____________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Removed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1725
10
1241 NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
JDH
Note:No data was recorded at this location due to equipment error.
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data Sheet GFGFGFGFGFG!!
2712
8" DI12" DI12" DI
12" DI8" DI
12" DI
8" DI 8" DI
8" DI12" DIFERGUSON AVE11
Extended PressureMonitoring
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: ____________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Removed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Installed/Removed By: _________
2712
11
1246 99 psi
10/5/2015
10/20/2015
2:45 PM
1:20 PM
JDH
Bozeman Water DistributionSystem Model CalibrationField Test Data SheetGFGFG!!
#I
1770
12" DI12" D
I
12" DI12" DIRED
W
I
N
G
D
R
FRON
T
A
G
E
R
D
PRV 14
12
Extended PressureMonitoring
Pressure Monitoring Location: ___________
Hydrant ID: __________
Recorder ID: ____________ Pressure at Setup: __________
Installed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Removed - Date: ____________ Time: ____________
Installed/Removed By: _________
1770
12
1244 138 psi
10/1/2016
10/20/2015
7:00 PM
3:35 PM
JDH
Water Facility Plan Update
Appendices
July 2017
Appendix E – EPS Calibration Results
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DayThursday, August 20, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference8/20/2015 0:00 0:00 27.40 27.400.0020.9720.970.0032.5832.550.038/20/2015 1:00 1:0027.8028.13-0.3320.8420.830.0133.3333.54-0.218/20/2015 2:00 2:0028.7028.81-0.1120.7220.680.0434.0634.36-0.308/20/2015 3:00 3:0029.4029.390.0120.5920.530.0634.6934.95-0.268/20/2015 4:00 4:0029.7029.79-0.0920.4220.370.0535.0235.08-0.068/20/2015 5:00 5:0029.7029.83-0.1320.1720.170.0034.4934.400.098/20/2015 6:00 6:0029.2029.43-0.2319.8419.91-0.0733.2332.940.298/20/2015 7:00 7:0028.5028.77-0.2719.5719.69-0.1231.7431.320.428/20/2015 8:00 8:0027.8028.07-0.2719.5719.79-0.2230.8330.140.698/20/2015 9:00 9:0027.4027.58-0.1819.6419.93-0.2930.5930.220.378/20/2015 10:00 10:0027.4027.250.1519.7920.08-0.2930.9330.460.478/20/2015 11:00 11:0027.1027.020.0819.9720.23-0.2631.4031.010.398/20/2015 12:00 12:0027.1026.940.1620.1720.40-0.2331.8931.680.218/20/2015 13:00 13:0026.9026.850.0520.3920.56-0.1732.2531.990.268/20/2015 14:00 14:0027.1026.840.2620.5920.72-0.1332.5732.270.308/20/2015 15:00 15:0027.1026.950.1520.8220.89-0.0732.9432.720.228/20/2015 16:00 16:0027.4027.100.3021.0421.05-0.0133.2433.090.158/20/2015 17:00 17:0027.4027.240.1621.2421.210.0333.4133.300.118/20/2015 18:00 18:0027.4027.290.1121.4521.370.0833.4633.450.018/20/2015 19:00 19:0027.1027.28-0.1821.6221.530.0933.3333.42-0.098/20/2015 20:00 20:0027.6027.460.1421.5221.400.1233.7733.91-0.148/20/2015 21:00 21:0027.6027.64-0.0421.3721.250.1234.1334.19-0.068/20/2015 22:00 22:0027.8027.88-0.0821.2221.090.1334.3934.340.058/20/2015 23:00 23:0028.0028.07-0.0721.0520.930.1234.6634.430.23Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorThursday, August 20, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,00011,00012,00013,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Thursday, August 20, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD8.34
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DayFriday, August 21, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference8/21/2015 0:00 0:00 28.70 28.700.0020.9220.920.0035.1535.150.008/21/2015 1:00 1:0029.0028.930.0720.7520.76-0.0135.4735.340.138/21/2015 2:00 2:0029.2029.200.0020.5920.61-0.0235.5335.68-0.158/21/2015 3:00 3:0029.2029.33-0.1320.4220.45-0.0335.4135.62-0.218/21/2015 4:00 4:0029.0029.11-0.1120.1420.24-0.1034.6934.72-0.038/21/2015 5:00 5:0027.8028.31-0.5119.8219.98-0.1633.0232.960.068/21/2015 6:00 6:0026.4026.99-0.5919.3719.65-0.2830.7830.630.158/21/2015 7:00 7:0024.6025.54-0.9418.9719.38-0.4128.6328.320.318/21/2015 8:00 8:0023.9024.51-0.6118.8719.46-0.5927.2526.600.658/21/2015 9:00 9:0023.7024.06-0.3618.8719.57-0.7026.8226.250.578/21/2015 10:00 10:0023.4023.80-0.4018.9719.71-0.7427.0426.550.498/21/2015 11:00 11:0023.4023.74-0.3419.1219.86-0.7427.3427.140.208/21/2015 12:00 12:0023.7023.75-0.0519.3220.01-0.6927.7527.620.138/21/2015 13:00 13:0023.7023.90-0.2019.5220.16-0.6428.1828.080.108/21/2015 14:00 14:0023.9024.17-0.2719.7520.32-0.5728.7128.640.078/21/2015 15:00 15:0024.4024.48-0.0819.9720.47-0.5029.2829.170.118/21/2015 16:00 16:0024.8024.93-0.1320.2020.63-0.4329.8629.850.018/21/2015 17:00 17:0025.5025.55-0.0520.4020.80-0.4030.3630.60-0.248/21/2015 18:00 18:0026.0026.15-0.1520.6020.96-0.3630.7931.17-0.388/21/2015 19:00 19:0026.2026.65-0.4520.8021.11-0.3131.1931.52-0.338/21/2015 20:00 20:0026.7027.01-0.3120.9721.24-0.2731.6231.580.048/21/2015 21:00 21:0027.6027.570.0320.8721.10-0.2332.5132.300.218/21/2015 22:00 22:0028.0028.04-0.0420.6820.94-0.2633.1733.080.098/21/2015 23:00 23:0028.7028.410.2920.5020.76-0.2633.7533.600.15Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorFriday, August 21, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,00011,00012,00013,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Friday, August 21, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD9.26
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DaySaturday, August 22, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference8/22/2015 0:00 0:00 29.20 29.200.0020.3520.350.0034.3034.300.008/22/2015 1:00 1:0029.7029.670.0320.2020.200.0034.7935.09-0.308/22/2015 2:00 2:0029.0029.67-0.6720.0720.040.0335.0835.30-0.228/22/2015 3:00 3:0028.7028.86-0.1619.8919.890.0035.0735.73-0.668/22/2015 4:00 4:0028.7028.86-0.1619.6719.69-0.0234.8434.720.128/22/2015 5:00 5:0028.5028.400.1019.3919.43-0.0434.0033.200.808/22/2015 6:00 6:0027.8027.710.0919.0719.16-0.0932.6631.611.058/22/2015 7:00 7:0027.4027.42-0.0218.7218.94-0.2231.7831.450.338/22/2015 8:00 8:0027.4027.140.2618.7219.02-0.3031.4631.200.268/22/2015 9:00 9:0026.9027.08-0.1818.8219.17-0.3531.4231.52-0.108/22/2015 10:00 10:0027.1027.080.0218.9619.33-0.3731.6231.80-0.188/22/2015 11:00 11:0027.1027.20-0.1019.1219.49-0.3731.9232.27-0.358/22/2015 12:00 12:0026.9027.26-0.3619.3219.64-0.3232.3532.37-0.028/22/2015 13:00 13:0027.4027.47-0.0719.5419.82-0.2832.7832.86-0.088/22/2015 14:00 14:0027.6027.63-0.0319.7419.99-0.2533.1833.060.128/22/2015 15:00 15:0028.0027.880.1219.9620.16-0.2033.6133.500.118/22/2015 16:00 16:0028.3028.200.1020.2220.34-0.1234.0333.980.058/22/2015 17:00 17:0028.5028.500.0020.4420.51-0.0734.3534.36-0.018/22/2015 18:00 18:0028.5028.71-0.2120.6720.68-0.0134.6234.520.108/22/2015 19:00 19:0029.0028.890.1120.9020.850.0534.8434.750.098/22/2015 20:00 20:0029.2029.140.0621.1221.020.1035.0535.15-0.108/22/2015 21:00 21:0029.4029.320.0821.0420.900.1435.7135.340.378/22/2015 22:00 22:0029.9029.490.4120.8920.750.1436.2235.480.748/22/2015 23:00 23:0029.2029.65-0.4520.7720.600.1736.5835.590.99Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorSaturday, August 22, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,00011,00012,00013,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Saturday, August 22, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD8.14
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DaySunday, August 23, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference8/23/2015 0:00 0:00 28.50 28.500.0020.6420.640.0036.5436.540.008/23/2015 1:00 1:0029.0028.830.1720.5220.500.0236.4536.320.138/23/2015 2:00 2:0029.0029.08-0.0820.4020.370.0336.2736.270.008/23/2015 3:00 3:0029.2029.170.0320.2520.220.0336.0536.000.058/23/2015 4:00 4:0029.2028.880.3220.0420.040.0035.5934.960.638/23/2015 5:00 5:0028.5028.110.3919.7719.79-0.0234.2633.330.938/23/2015 6:00 6:0027.4027.080.3219.4219.52-0.1032.5331.511.028/23/2015 7:00 7:0026.4026.390.0119.0419.29-0.2531.2630.710.558/23/2015 8:00 8:0025.5025.67-0.1718.9919.38-0.3930.6230.250.378/23/2015 9:00 9:0024.8025.14-0.3419.0619.54-0.4830.2530.230.028/23/2015 10:00 10:0024.6024.93-0.3319.2119.72-0.5130.0730.39-0.328/23/2015 11:00 11:0024.4024.66-0.2619.3719.87-0.5029.9629.960.008/23/2015 12:00 12:0023.9024.45-0.5519.5620.03-0.4729.9529.860.098/23/2015 13:00 13:0023.9024.33-0.4319.7920.20-0.4129.9129.830.088/23/2015 14:00 14:0023.9024.23-0.3319.9920.35-0.3629.9729.540.438/23/2015 15:00 15:0022.7023.38-0.6820.2220.53-0.3129.8730.14-0.278/23/2015 16:00 16:0023.7023.71-0.0120.4220.70-0.2829.7329.84-0.118/23/2015 17:00 17:0024.1024.43-0.3320.6420.86-0.2229.7529.99-0.248/23/2015 18:00 18:0024.6024.90-0.3020.8421.02-0.1829.7929.80-0.018/23/2015 19:00 19:0025.0025.36-0.3621.0421.17-0.1329.6929.82-0.138/23/2015 20:00 20:0025.3025.57-0.2721.2221.31-0.0929.7929.540.258/23/2015 21:00 21:0026.0025.970.0321.0921.16-0.0730.3730.110.268/23/2015 22:00 22:0026.2026.53-0.3320.9221.00-0.0830.9830.950.038/23/2015 23:00 23:0027.1027.39-0.2920.7720.86-0.0931.7232.14-0.42Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorSunday, August 23, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,00011,00012,00013,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Sunday, August 23, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD8.90
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DayMonday, August 24, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference8/24/2015 0:00 0:00 27.80 27.800.0020.6520.650.0032.6932.690.008/24/2015 1:00 1:0028.5028.460.0420.5220.510.0133.4733.66-0.198/24/2015 2:00 2:0029.2028.990.2120.4020.370.0333.9634.32-0.368/24/2015 3:00 3:0029.4029.42-0.0220.2220.220.0034.3334.69-0.368/24/2015 4:00 4:0029.4029.52-0.1219.9920.03-0.0434.1634.23-0.078/24/2015 5:00 5:0029.0029.12-0.1219.6919.78-0.0932.7432.75-0.018/24/2015 6:00 6:0027.6028.23-0.6319.2719.47-0.2030.7230.700.028/24/2015 7:00 7:0026.4027.12-0.7218.8419.15-0.3128.7428.570.178/24/2015 8:00 8:0025.3026.06-0.7618.7919.17-0.3827.3426.790.558/24/2015 9:00 9:0025.0025.36-0.3618.8219.29-0.4726.8826.260.618/24/2015 10:00 10:0024.6025.04-0.4418.9619.43-0.4727.1026.710.398/24/2015 11:00 11:0024.8024.99-0.1919.1419.60-0.4627.5827.500.088/24/2015 12:00 12:0024.8025.12-0.3219.3719.77-0.4028.0928.36-0.278/24/2015 13:00 13:0025.0025.28-0.2819.5919.94-0.3528.5529.01-0.468/24/2015 14:00 14:0025.0025.44-0.4419.7920.10-0.3129.0429.43-0.398/24/2015 15:00 15:0025.5025.73-0.2320.0420.27-0.2329.7029.98-0.288/24/2015 16:00 16:0025.7026.08-0.3820.2720.44-0.1730.3230.53-0.218/24/2015 17:00 17:0026.0026.33-0.3320.5020.60-0.1030.8031.00-0.208/24/2015 18:00 18:0026.2026.47-0.2720.7020.76-0.0631.0831.21-0.138/24/2015 19:00 19:0026.2026.57-0.3720.9020.92-0.0231.1431.29-0.158/24/2015 20:00 20:0026.4026.67-0.2721.0821.070.0130.9831.14-0.168/24/2015 21:00 21:0026.7026.85-0.1520.9520.920.0331.4231.320.108/24/2015 22:00 22:0026.9027.08-0.1820.7520.740.0131.8731.660.218/24/2015 23:00 23:0027.4027.50-0.1020.5720.58-0.0132.4332.370.06Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorMonday, August 24, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,00011,00012,00013,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Monday, August 24, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD9.54
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DayTuesday, August 25, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference8/25/2015 0:00 0:00 28.00 28.000.0020.4520.450.0033.1333.130.008/25/2015 1:00 1:0028.7028.510.1920.3320.310.0233.8333.85-0.028/25/2015 2:00 2:0029.2029.020.1820.2220.160.0634.3634.39-0.038/25/2015 3:00 3:0029.7029.410.2920.1020.010.0934.8834.620.268/25/2015 4:00 4:0028.5027.800.7019.9319.830.1035.0034.300.708/25/2015 5:00 5:0028.5027.980.5219.6719.630.0434.1333.340.798/25/2015 6:00 6:0027.8027.640.1619.3219.38-0.0632.5431.830.718/25/2015 7:00 7:0026.9026.93-0.0319.2219.42-0.2030.5029.980.528/25/2015 8:00 8:0026.2026.31-0.1119.2219.52-0.3029.2528.560.698/25/2015 9:00 9:0026.2025.830.3719.2919.65-0.3628.7027.950.758/25/2015 10:00 10:0026.0025.570.4319.4719.79-0.3228.9228.000.928/25/2015 11:00 11:0026.2025.480.7219.6419.94-0.3029.2728.370.908/25/2015 12:00 12:0026.0025.560.4419.8420.08-0.2429.7528.990.768/25/2015 13:00 13:0026.4025.870.5320.0720.23-0.1630.3529.850.508/25/2015 14:00 14:0026.7026.250.4520.2720.37-0.1031.0130.650.368/25/2015 15:00 15:0027.1026.640.4620.4720.52-0.0531.6231.320.308/25/2015 16:00 16:0027.6027.070.5320.7020.670.0332.2032.030.178/25/2015 17:00 17:0027.6027.380.2220.9020.820.0832.6232.540.088/25/2015 18:00 18:0027.6027.450.1521.1020.960.1432.8732.870.008/25/2015 19:00 19:0027.4027.270.1321.2721.100.1732.8232.90-0.088/25/2015 20:00 20:0027.1027.050.0521.4321.230.2032.5432.68-0.148/25/2015 21:00 21:0027.1027.32-0.2221.2721.080.1932.8633.12-0.268/25/2015 22:00 22:0027.4027.66-0.2621.1020.900.2033.1933.60-0.418/25/2015 23:00 23:0028.0028.04-0.0420.9020.730.1733.5934.09-0.50Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorTuesday, August 25, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,00011,00012,00013,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Tuesday, August 25, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD8.99
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DayWednesday, August 26, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference8/26/2015 0:00 0:00 28.30 28.300.0020.7520.750.0034.2434.240.008/26/2015 1:00 1:0028.7028.580.1220.5720.58-0.0134.6734.550.128/26/2015 2:00 2:0029.0028.820.1820.4020.400.0034.9134.710.208/26/2015 3:00 3:0029.2028.930.2720.2320.210.0234.8934.610.288/26/2015 4:00 4:0029.0028.790.2119.9520.00-0.0534.3933.910.488/26/2015 5:00 5:0028.0028.09-0.0919.6119.71-0.1032.8232.230.598/26/2015 6:00 6:0026.7026.87-0.1719.1819.37-0.1930.6629.960.708/26/2015 7:00 7:0024.8025.33-0.5318.9719.34-0.3728.1927.430.768/26/2015 8:00 8:0024.1024.20-0.1018.8919.41-0.5226.7725.810.968/26/2015 9:00 9:0023.2023.51-0.3118.8919.52-0.6326.0925.490.608/26/2015 10:00 10:0023.2023.29-0.0919.0219.64-0.6226.1425.760.388/26/2015 11:00 11:0023.0023.17-0.1719.1719.77-0.6026.4126.080.338/26/2015 12:00 12:0022.7023.23-0.5319.3819.91-0.5326.6526.440.218/26/2015 13:00 13:0023.4023.59-0.1919.5720.05-0.4827.2227.220.008/26/2015 14:00 14:0023.7024.08-0.3819.8020.20-0.4027.8428.08-0.248/26/2015 15:00 15:0024.4024.48-0.0820.0020.34-0.3428.5928.62-0.038/26/2015 16:00 16:0024.8024.97-0.1720.2220.49-0.2729.3829.300.088/26/2015 17:00 17:0025.3025.46-0.1620.4220.64-0.2229.8629.90-0.048/26/2015 18:00 18:0025.7025.82-0.1220.6220.77-0.1530.3130.130.188/26/2015 19:00 19:0026.2026.080.1220.8020.90-0.1030.5430.130.418/26/2015 20:00 20:0026.4026.300.1020.9721.03-0.0630.6830.190.498/26/2015 21:00 21:0026.7026.80-0.1020.8220.87-0.0531.3730.990.388/26/2015 22:00 22:0027.6027.340.2620.6520.68-0.0332.0131.800.218/26/2015 23:00 23:0027.8027.88-0.0820.4520.49-0.0432.6332.470.16Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorWednesday, August 26, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,00011,00012,00013,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Wednesday, August 26, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD9.55
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DayMonday, October 12, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference10/12/2015 0:00 0:00 27.80 27.80 0.00 23.37 23.37 0.00 36.62 36.620.0010/12/2015 1:00 1:0028.0027.930.0723.5223.470.0536.9736.850.1210/12/2015 2:00 2:0028.3028.120.1823.6623.590.0737.3537.140.2110/12/2015 3:00 3:0028.7028.380.3223.8123.720.0937.7637.470.2910/12/2015 4:00 4:0029.0028.610.3923.9623.850.1138.0637.720.3410/12/2015 5:00 5:0029.2028.810.3924.0623.960.1038.2437.870.3710/12/2015 6:00 6:0029.4028.950.4524.1424.050.0938.2437.940.3010/12/2015 7:00 7:0029.2028.980.2224.1524.130.0237.7537.81-0.0610/12/2015 8:00 8:0028.7028.700.0024.1324.18-0.0537.0837.10-0.0210/12/2015 9:00 9:0028.5028.290.2124.1624.23-0.0736.6036.370.2310/12/2015 10:00 10:0028.3028.200.1023.9324.02-0.0936.7636.690.0710/12/2015 11:00 11:0028.3028.220.0823.7223.79-0.0736.9136.97-0.0610/12/2015 12:00 12:0028.3028.31-0.0123.5123.57-0.0637.1237.19-0.0710/12/2015 13:00 13:0028.5028.420.0823.2923.34-0.0537.2637.39-0.1310/12/2015 14:00 14:0028.5028.56-0.0623.0923.12-0.0337.4537.58-0.1310/12/2015 15:00 15:0028.7028.73-0.0322.9122.900.0137.6937.78-0.0910/12/2015 16:00 16:0029.0028.940.0622.7222.680.0437.9138.05-0.1410/12/2015 17:00 17:0028.7028.89-0.1922.7422.710.0337.5737.68-0.1110/12/2015 18:00 18:0028.7028.660.0422.8122.760.0537.1637.24-0.0810/12/2015 19:00 19:0028.3028.39-0.0922.8622.820.0436.7436.88-0.1410/12/2015 20:00 20:0028.0028.10-0.1022.9222.870.0536.3936.55-0.1610/12/2015 21:00 21:0027.6027.85-0.2523.0022.920.0836.2036.35-0.1510/12/2015 22:00 22:0027.6027.63-0.0323.0422.980.0636.0636.20-0.1410/12/2015 23:00 23:0027.4027.47-0.0723.1423.040.1036.0536.12-0.07Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorMonday, October 12, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Monday, October 12, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD4.91
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)Node =Hydrant #2107Node =Hydrant #433Elevation =5024.74Elevation =4969.52ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference10/12/2015 0:00 5,120.525,120.61(0.09)5,120.475,121.26(0.79)10/12/2015 1:00 5,120.985,120.960.025,120.815,121.50(0.69)10/12/2015 2:00 5,121.435,121.320.115,121.265,121.78(0.52)10/12/2015 3:00 5,121.995,121.520.475,121.605,122.02(0.42)10/12/2015 4:00 5,121.885,121.630.255,121.835,122.20(0.37)10/12/2015 5:00 5,121.775,121.650.125,121.835,122.32(0.49)10/12/2015 6:00 5,120.755,121.38(0.63)5,121.605,122.29(0.69)10/12/2015 7:00 5,118.955,119.89(0.94)5,120.815,121.74(0.93)10/12/2015 8:00 5,117.935,118.96(1.03)5,120.255,121.15(0.90)10/12/2015 9:00 5,118.615,119.15(0.54)5,120.145,120.87(0.73)10/12/2015 10:00 5,118.955,120.50(1.55)5,120.365,121.45(1.09)10/12/2015 11:00 5,118.955,120.71(1.76)5,120.595,121.59(1.00)10/12/2015 12:00 5,118.275,120.91(2.64)5,120.705,121.74(1.04)10/12/2015 13:00 5,118.385,121.11(2.73)5,120.935,121.91(0.98)10/12/2015 14:00 5,118.165,121.33(3.17)5,121.045,122.08(1.04)10/12/2015 15:00 5,118.165,121.67(3.51)5,121.385,122.32(0.94)10/12/2015 16:00 5,118.165,121.88(3.72)5,121.605,122.54(0.94)10/12/2015 17:00 5,116.805,120.51(3.71)5,121.045,121.91(0.87)10/12/2015 18:00 5,116.355,120.15(3.80)5,120.595,121.58(0.99)10/12/2015 19:00 5,116.465,119.81(3.35)5,120.255,121.26(1.01)10/12/2015 20:00 5,116.585,119.72(3.14)5,119.805,121.03(1.23)10/12/2015 21:00 5,117.375,119.64(2.27)5,119.685,120.85(1.17)10/12/2015 22:00 5,117.595,119.63(2.04)5,119.575,120.73(1.16)10/12/2015 23:00 5,118.385,119.96(1.58)5,119.685,120.77(1.09)Date/TimeRecorder #1242Test No. 1Test No. 2Recorder #1240Page 1 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/12/2015 0:0010/12/2015 1:0010/12/2015 2:0010/12/2015 3:0010/12/2015 4:0010/12/2015 5:0010/12/2015 6:0010/12/2015 7:0010/12/2015 8:0010/12/2015 9:0010/12/2015 10:0010/12/2015 11:0010/12/2015 12:0010/12/2015 13:0010/12/2015 14:0010/12/2015 15:0010/12/2015 16:0010/12/2015 17:0010/12/2015 18:0010/12/2015 19:0010/12/2015 20:0010/12/2015 21:0010/12/2015 22:0010/12/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #490Node =Hydrant #278Elevation =4880.25Elevation =4861.19ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,119.325,120.33(1.01)5,121.135,120.830.305,119.775,120.73(0.96)5,121.355,121.120.235,120.225,121.13(0.91)5,121.815,121.440.375,120.675,121.31(0.64)5,122.265,121.680.585,120.565,121.38(0.82)5,122.485,121.850.635,120.225,121.37(1.15)5,122.485,121.940.545,118.985,121.00(2.02)5,122.035,121.830.205,116.835,119.11(2.28)5,121.025,120.990.035,115.715,118.04(2.33)5,120.345,120.240.105,116.835,118.41(1.58)5,120.685,120.040.645,117.855,120.14(2.29)5,120.795,121.01(0.22)5,118.535,120.39(1.86)5,120.795,121.21(0.42)5,118.415,120.61(2.20)5,120.685,121.40(0.72)5,118.875,120.83(1.96)5,121.135,121.58(0.45)5,119.205,121.05(1.85)5,121.245,121.78(0.54)5,119.545,121.43(1.89)5,121.815,122.04(0.23)5,119.545,121.64(2.10)5,122.375,122.270.105,117.855,119.93(2.08)5,121.695,121.290.405,116.955,119.54(2.59)5,121.245,120.920.325,116.275,119.20(2.93)5,120.795,120.580.215,116.165,119.17(3.01)5,120.685,120.370.315,116.835,119.12(2.29)5,120.455,120.230.225,116.725,119.17(2.45)5,120.235,120.150.085,117.745,119.61(1.87)5,120.455,120.270.18Test No. 3Recorder #1251Test No. 4Recorder #1249Page 2 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/12/2015 0:0010/12/2015 1:0010/12/2015 2:0010/12/2015 3:0010/12/2015 4:0010/12/2015 5:0010/12/2015 6:0010/12/2015 7:0010/12/2015 8:0010/12/2015 9:0010/12/2015 10:0010/12/2015 11:0010/12/2015 12:0010/12/2015 13:0010/12/2015 14:0010/12/2015 15:0010/12/2015 16:0010/12/2015 17:0010/12/2015 18:0010/12/2015 19:0010/12/2015 20:0010/12/2015 21:0010/12/2015 22:0010/12/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #121Node =Hydrant #1887Elevation =4817.61Elevation =4754.53ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,119.525,120.44(0.92)5,118.715,120.31(1.60)5,120.125,120.80(0.68)5,119.175,120.70(1.53)5,120.495,121.19(0.70)5,119.735,121.10(1.37)5,121.095,121.38(0.29)5,120.415,121.29(0.88)5,120.975,121.48(0.51)5,120.185,121.36(1.18)5,120.735,121.49(0.76)5,119.845,121.35(1.51)5,119.645,121.19(1.55)5,118.715,120.98(2.27)5,117.825,119.57(1.75)5,116.465,119.12(2.66)5,116.855,118.58(1.73)5,115.445,118.05(2.61)5,117.945,118.80(0.86)5,116.915,118.40(1.49)5,119.285,120.87(1.59)5,118.715,121.44(2.73)5,119.645,121.09(1.45)5,118.265,121.66(3.40)5,119.645,121.29(1.65)5,118.045,121.85(3.81)5,119.885,121.48(1.60)5,118.265,122.04(3.78)5,120.005,121.69(1.69)5,118.265,122.24(3.98)5,120.375,121.99(1.62)5,118.265,122.56(4.30)5,120.375,122.21(1.84)5,117.925,122.76(4.84)5,118.185,120.26(2.08)5,114.775,119.93(5.16)5,117.465,119.87(2.41)5,114.435,119.54(5.11)5,116.615,119.52(2.91)5,114.095,119.19(5.10)5,116.735,119.45(2.72)5,114.315,119.15(4.84)5,117.335,119.38(2.05)5,115.105,119.11(4.01)5,117.215,119.39(2.18)5,115.335,119.16(3.83)5,118.065,119.75(1.69)5,116.575,119.59(3.02)Test No. 6Recorder #1245Test No. 5Recorder #341298Page 3 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/12/2015 0:0010/12/2015 1:0010/12/2015 2:0010/12/2015 3:0010/12/2015 4:0010/12/2015 5:0010/12/2015 6:0010/12/2015 7:0010/12/2015 8:0010/12/2015 9:0010/12/2015 10:0010/12/2015 11:0010/12/2015 12:0010/12/2015 13:0010/12/2015 14:0010/12/2015 15:0010/12/2015 16:0010/12/2015 17:0010/12/2015 18:0010/12/2015 19:0010/12/2015 20:0010/12/2015 21:0010/12/2015 22:0010/12/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1754Node =Hydrant #1125Elevation =4820.11Elevation =4779.50ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,119.115,120.03(0.92)5,120.445,120.030.415,119.715,120.48(0.77)5,121.015,120.490.525,119.965,120.92(0.96)5,121.465,120.920.545,120.445,121.08(0.64)5,122.025,121.080.945,120.205,121.10(0.90)5,121.575,121.110.465,119.475,121.04(1.57)5,121.125,121.040.085,118.025,120.53(2.51)5,119.435,120.54(1.11)5,115.235,118.01(2.78)5,116.615,118.02(1.41)5,114.385,116.74(2.36)5,115.825,116.74(0.92)5,115.835,117.44(1.61)5,117.285,117.44(0.16)5,117.055,119.41(2.36)5,117.965,119.42(1.46)5,117.415,119.71(2.30)5,118.195,119.72(1.53)5,117.535,119.95(2.42)5,118.075,119.96(1.89)5,117.775,120.20(2.43)5,118.305,120.21(1.91)5,118.145,120.46(2.32)5,118.195,120.46(2.27)5,118.265,120.91(2.65)5,118.195,120.92(2.73)5,118.145,121.11(2.97)5,117.745,121.11(3.37)5,116.205,119.13(2.93)5,115.825,119.14(3.32)5,115.105,118.74(3.64)5,114.695,118.74(4.05)5,114.625,118.38(3.76)5,114.465,118.39(3.93)5,114.625,118.44(3.82)5,114.805,118.45(3.65)5,115.715,118.46(2.75)5,115.935,118.47(2.54)5,115.835,118.58(2.75)5,116.275,118.59(2.32)5,116.925,119.22(2.30)5,117.515,119.23(1.72)Test No. 7Test No. 8Recorder #341289Recorder #201250Page 4 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/12/2015 0:0010/12/2015 1:0010/12/2015 2:0010/12/2015 3:0010/12/2015 4:0010/12/2015 5:0010/12/2015 6:0010/12/2015 7:0010/12/2015 8:0010/12/2015 9:0010/12/2015 10:0010/12/2015 11:0010/12/2015 12:0010/12/2015 13:0010/12/2015 14:0010/12/2015 15:0010/12/2015 16:0010/12/2015 17:0010/12/2015 18:0010/12/2015 19:0010/12/2015 20:0010/12/2015 21:0010/12/2015 22:0010/12/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1025Node =Hydrant #Elevation =4755.67Elevation =0.00ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,120.195,120.180.010.000.000.005,120.765,120.600.160.000.000.005,121.105,121.020.080.000.000.005,121.555,121.190.360.000.000.005,121.435,121.240.190.000.000.005,120.985,121.20(0.22)0.000.000.005,119.745,120.77(1.03)0.000.000.005,117.155,118.56(1.41)0.000.000.005,116.245,117.38(1.14)0.000.000.005,117.375,117.92(0.55)0.000.000.005,118.395,120.02(1.63)0.000.000.005,118.735,120.29(1.56)0.000.000.005,118.615,120.52(1.91)0.000.000.005,118.845,120.75(1.91)0.000.000.005,118.845,120.99(2.15)0.000.000.005,118.845,121.41(2.57)0.000.000.005,118.505,121.61(3.11)0.000.000.005,116.475,119.55(3.08)0.000.000.005,115.685,119.15(3.47)0.000.000.005,115.455,118.80(3.35)0.000.000.005,115.685,118.82(3.14)0.000.000.005,116.475,118.82(2.35)0.000.000.005,116.815,118.90(2.09)0.000.000.005,117.715,119.42(1.71)0.000.000.00Recorder #1243Recorder #1241Test No. 9Test No. 10Page 5 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/12/2015 0:0010/12/2015 1:0010/12/2015 2:0010/12/2015 3:0010/12/2015 4:0010/12/2015 5:0010/12/2015 6:0010/12/2015 7:0010/12/2015 8:0010/12/2015 9:0010/12/2015 10:0010/12/2015 11:0010/12/2015 12:0010/12/2015 13:0010/12/2015 14:0010/12/2015 15:0010/12/2015 16:0010/12/2015 17:0010/12/2015 18:0010/12/2015 19:0010/12/2015 20:0010/12/2015 21:0010/12/2015 22:0010/12/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #2712Node =Hydrant #1770Elevation =4692.64Elevation =4679.91ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference4,924.944,925.06(0.12)5,027.855,028.21(0.36)4,925.284,926.19(0.91)5,028.195,029.00(0.81)4,926.524,926.96(0.44)5,029.205,029.60(0.40)4,927.084,926.460.625,029.325,029.41(0.09)4,925.054,925.50(0.45)5,027.855,028.95(1.10)4,922.344,924.47(2.13)5,025.935,028.41(2.48)4,918.284,921.79(3.51)5,021.535,026.84(5.31)4,912.084,921.57(9.49)5,015.665,026.36(10.70)4,914.454,921.51(7.06)5,018.155,026.27(8.12)4,917.604,921.61(4.01)5,011.385,026.57(15.19)4,916.144,921.63(5.49)5,009.575,018.47(8.90)4,921.554,921.64(0.09)5,009.355,018.40(9.05)4,920.424,921.65(1.23)5,011.945,018.30(6.36)4,921.784,921.660.125,011.385,018.21(6.83)4,922.464,921.660.805,012.735,018.12(5.39)4,921.784,921.680.105,013.185,018.12(4.94)4,921.214,921.68(0.47)5,015.895,017.98(2.09)4,921.674,921.650.025,020.975,025.19(4.22)4,921.214,921.65(0.44)5,021.425,025.23(3.81)4,919.524,921.65(2.13)5,020.975,025.28(4.31)4,916.934,921.67(4.74)5,020.745,025.41(4.67)4,920.204,921.68(1.48)5,022.665,025.52(2.86)4,922.004,921.720.285,023.905,025.65(1.75)4,925.054,923.361.695,027.625,026.790.83Recorder #1246Recorder #1244Test No. 11Test No. 12Page 6 of 6
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DayTuesday, October 13, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference10/13/2015 0:00 0:00 27.40 27.40 0.00 23.29 23.29 0.00 36.28 36.280.0010/13/2015 1:00 1:0027.6027.460.1423.4423.390.0536.5736.480.0910/13/2015 2:00 2:0027.6027.590.0123.5923.500.0936.8836.720.1610/13/2015 3:00 3:0027.8027.780.0223.7423.620.1237.1937.000.1910/13/2015 4:00 4:0028.3027.950.3523.8723.740.1337.4937.180.3110/13/2015 5:00 5:0028.5028.090.4123.9723.840.1337.7137.270.4410/13/2015 6:00 6:0028.5028.170.3324.0623.940.1237.7237.280.4410/13/2015 7:00 7:0028.3028.140.1624.0424.000.0437.1737.100.0710/13/2015 8:00 8:0027.8027.81-0.0124.0424.05-0.0136.4336.370.0610/13/2015 9:00 9:0027.8027.590.2123.8123.84-0.0336.4736.240.2310/13/2015 10:00 10:0027.8027.540.2623.5923.61-0.0236.6036.400.2010/13/2015 11:00 11:0027.6027.540.0623.3923.380.0136.6836.540.1410/13/2015 12:00 12:0027.8027.590.2123.1923.160.0336.8036.670.1310/13/2015 13:00 13:0027.8027.670.1322.9922.940.0536.8936.790.1010/13/2015 14:00 14:0028.0027.770.2322.7922.710.0837.0436.920.1210/13/2015 15:00 15:0028.0027.880.1222.6222.490.1337.1837.070.1110/13/2015 16:00 16:0027.8027.81-0.0122.6722.530.1436.8736.700.1710/13/2015 17:00 17:0027.8027.650.1522.7422.590.1536.5336.390.1410/13/2015 18:00 18:0027.6027.420.1822.8222.650.1736.1936.010.1810/13/2015 19:00 19:0027.4027.150.2522.8722.710.1635.8035.670.1310/13/2015 20:00 20:0026.9026.870.0322.9222.770.1535.4735.360.1110/13/2015 21:00 21:0026.7026.630.0723.0022.830.1735.3035.170.1310/13/2015 22:00 22:0026.4026.42-0.0223.0422.890.1535.1835.030.1510/13/2015 23:00 23:0026.2026.27-0.0723.1422.950.1935.2234.960.26Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorTuesday, October 13, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Tuesday, October 13, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD4.69
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)Node =Hydrant #2107Node =Hydrant #433Elevation =5024.74Elevation =4969.52ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference10/13/2015 0:00 5,119.065,120.26(1.20)5,119.915,120.89(0.98)10/13/2015 1:00 5,119.625,120.55(0.93)5,120.255,121.06(0.81)10/13/2015 2:00 5,120.305,120.85(0.55)5,120.595,121.28(0.69)10/13/2015 3:00 5,120.525,120.99(0.47)5,120.935,121.47(0.54)10/13/2015 4:00 5,120.645,121.04(0.40)5,121.155,121.60(0.45)10/13/2015 5:00 5,120.865,121.01(0.15)5,121.265,121.66(0.40)10/13/2015 6:00 5,120.305,120.70(0.40)5,121.045,121.58(0.54)10/13/2015 7:00 5,117.935,119.19(1.26)5,120.025,120.98(0.96)10/13/2015 8:00 5,117.825,118.23(0.41)5,119.685,120.34(0.66)10/13/2015 9:00 5,119.065,119.89(0.83)5,120.025,120.87(0.85)10/13/2015 10:00 5,118.275,120.05(1.78)5,119.915,120.94(1.03)10/13/2015 11:00 5,118.165,120.20(2.04)5,120.255,121.02(0.77)10/13/2015 12:00 5,117.595,120.34(2.75)5,120.145,121.12(0.98)10/13/2015 13:00 5,117.595,120.48(2.89)5,120.365,121.23(0.87)10/13/2015 14:00 5,117.825,120.64(2.82)5,120.595,121.35(0.76)10/13/2015 15:00 5,117.825,120.92(3.10)5,120.815,121.54(0.73)10/13/2015 16:00 5,116.245,119.83(3.59)5,120.145,120.99(0.85)10/13/2015 17:00 5,115.565,119.32(3.76)5,119.915,120.68(0.77)10/13/2015 18:00 5,115.675,118.97(3.30)5,119.685,120.36(0.68)10/13/2015 19:00 5,115.675,118.65(2.98)5,119.125,120.06(0.94)10/13/2015 20:00 5,116.125,118.57(2.45)5,119.015,119.84(0.83)10/13/2015 21:00 5,116.465,118.49(2.03)5,118.785,119.67(0.89)10/13/2015 22:00 5,116.915,118.51(1.60)5,118.675,119.56(0.89)10/13/2015 23:00 5,117.825,118.80(0.98)5,118.895,119.59(0.70)Date/TimeRecorder #1242Test No. 1Test No. 2Recorder #1240Page 1 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/13/2015 0:0010/13/2015 1:0010/13/2015 2:0010/13/2015 3:0010/13/2015 4:0010/13/2015 5:0010/13/2015 6:0010/13/2015 7:0010/13/2015 8:0010/13/2015 9:0010/13/2015 10:0010/13/2015 11:0010/13/2015 12:0010/13/2015 13:0010/13/2015 14:0010/13/2015 15:0010/13/2015 16:0010/13/2015 17:0010/13/2015 18:0010/13/2015 19:0010/13/2015 20:0010/13/2015 21:0010/13/2015 22:0010/13/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #490Node =Hydrant #278Elevation =4880.25Elevation =4861.19ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,118.415,119.99(1.58)5,120.685,120.480.205,119.095,120.33(1.24)5,121.025,120.710.315,119.545,120.66(1.12)5,121.355,120.970.385,119.995,120.79(0.80)5,121.695,121.160.535,119.995,120.81(0.82)5,121.815,121.280.535,119.995,120.74(0.75)5,121.925,121.300.625,118.875,120.33(1.46)5,121.695,121.150.545,115.825,118.44(2.62)5,120.345,120.260.085,115.935,117.34(1.41)5,120.115,119.480.635,117.965,119.53(1.57)5,120.685,120.450.235,117.855,119.73(1.88)5,120.455,120.58(0.13)5,118.195,119.90(1.71)5,120.565,120.70(0.14)5,118.195,120.06(1.87)5,120.345,120.82(0.48)5,118.535,120.22(1.69)5,120.565,120.95(0.39)5,118.755,120.39(1.64)5,121.025,121.08(0.06)5,119.205,120.70(1.50)5,121.135,121.29(0.16)5,117.175,119.35(2.18)5,120.795,120.450.345,116.505,118.75(2.25)5,120.565,120.060.505,116.165,118.38(2.22)5,120.345,119.710.635,115.485,118.06(2.58)5,120.005,119.390.615,115.715,118.03(2.32)5,119.895,119.200.695,115.715,117.99(2.28)5,119.555,119.060.495,116.165,118.07(1.91)5,119.325,119.000.325,116.955,118.47(1.52)5,119.555,119.110.44Test No. 3Recorder #1251Test No. 4Recorder #1249Page 2 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/13/2015 0:0010/13/2015 1:0010/13/2015 2:0010/13/2015 3:0010/13/2015 4:0010/13/2015 5:0010/13/2015 6:0010/13/2015 7:0010/13/2015 8:0010/13/2015 9:0010/13/2015 10:0010/13/2015 11:0010/13/2015 12:0010/13/2015 13:0010/13/2015 14:0010/13/2015 15:0010/13/2015 16:0010/13/2015 17:0010/13/2015 18:0010/13/2015 19:0010/13/2015 20:0010/13/2015 21:0010/13/2015 22:0010/13/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #121Node =Hydrant #1887Elevation =4817.61Elevation =4754.53ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,118.795,120.09(1.30)5,117.475,119.97(2.50)5,119.405,120.40(1.00)5,118.265,120.30(2.04)5,119.885,120.72(0.84)5,118.715,120.64(1.93)5,120.255,120.87(0.62)5,119.285,120.77(1.49)5,120.375,120.91(0.54)5,119.395,120.80(1.41)5,120.375,120.87(0.50)5,119.395,120.73(1.34)5,119.525,120.52(1.00)5,118.385,120.32(1.94)5,116.855,118.89(2.04)5,115.445,118.45(3.01)5,117.465,117.87(0.41)5,116.235,117.35(1.12)5,119.405,120.29(0.89)5,119.285,120.86(1.58)5,119.285,120.45(1.17)5,118.385,121.02(2.64)5,119.285,120.59(1.31)5,118.495,121.17(2.68)5,119.155,120.72(1.57)5,118.045,121.30(3.26)5,119.525,120.86(1.34)5,117.475,121.43(3.96)5,119.765,121.01(1.25)5,117.925,121.58(3.66)5,119.885,121.25(1.37)5,118.385,121.83(3.45)5,117.585,119.61(2.03)5,114.095,119.34(5.25)5,116.735,119.06(2.33)5,113.525,118.74(5.22)5,116.495,118.70(2.21)5,113.865,118.37(4.51)5,116.005,118.37(2.37)5,113.415,118.05(4.64)5,116.245,118.31(2.07)5,113.985,118.02(4.04)5,116.245,118.23(1.99)5,114.435,117.97(3.54)5,116.615,118.28(1.67)5,115.105,118.05(2.95)5,117.335,118.60(1.27)5,116.015,118.44(2.43)Test No. 5Recorder #341298Test No. 6Recorder #1245Page 3 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/13/2015 0:0010/13/2015 1:0010/13/2015 2:0010/13/2015 3:0010/13/2015 4:0010/13/2015 5:0010/13/2015 6:0010/13/2015 7:0010/13/2015 8:0010/13/2015 9:0010/13/2015 10:0010/13/2015 11:0010/13/2015 12:0010/13/2015 13:0010/13/2015 14:0010/13/2015 15:0010/13/2015 16:0010/13/2015 17:0010/13/2015 18:0010/13/2015 19:0010/13/2015 20:0010/13/2015 21:0010/13/2015 22:0010/13/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1754Node =Hydrant #1125Elevation =4820.11Elevation =4779.50ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,117.895,119.70(1.81)5,118.755,119.70(0.95)5,118.745,120.08(1.34)5,119.775,120.09(0.32)5,119.115,120.46(1.35)5,120.115,120.46(0.35)5,119.595,120.57(0.98)5,120.785,120.570.215,119.595,120.54(0.95)5,120.675,120.550.125,119.475,120.42(0.95)5,120.675,120.430.245,117.775,119.88(2.11)5,118.985,119.89(0.91)5,114.015,117.38(3.37)5,115.375,117.39(2.02)5,114.625,116.09(1.47)5,115.935,116.09(0.16)5,117.415,118.77(1.36)5,118.415,118.78(0.37)5,117.055,119.03(1.98)5,117.855,119.04(1.19)5,117.295,119.25(1.96)5,117.965,119.26(1.30)5,117.055,119.43(2.38)5,117.285,119.44(2.16)5,117.295,119.62(2.33)5,117.175,119.62(2.45)5,117.535,119.82(2.29)5,117.405,119.82(2.42)5,118.145,120.19(2.05)5,117.965,120.20(2.24)5,115.835,118.71(2.88)5,115.375,118.71(3.34)5,114.865,117.98(3.12)5,114.585,117.99(3.41)5,114.625,117.60(2.98)5,114.465,117.61(3.15)5,114.015,117.27(3.26)5,113.905,117.28(3.38)5,114.505,117.34(2.84)5,114.695,117.34(2.65)5,114.625,117.34(2.72)5,115.145,117.35(2.21)5,115.235,117.52(2.29)5,115.935,117.53(1.60)5,116.445,118.09(1.65)5,117.175,118.09(0.92)Test No. 7Test No. 8Recorder #341289Recorder #201250Page 4 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/13/2015 0:0010/13/2015 1:0010/13/2015 2:0010/13/2015 3:0010/13/2015 4:0010/13/2015 5:0010/13/2015 6:0010/13/2015 7:0010/13/2015 8:0010/13/2015 9:0010/13/2015 10:0010/13/2015 11:0010/13/2015 12:0010/13/2015 13:0010/13/2015 14:0010/13/2015 15:0010/13/2015 16:0010/13/2015 17:0010/13/2015 18:0010/13/2015 19:0010/13/2015 20:0010/13/2015 21:0010/13/2015 22:0010/13/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1025Node =Hydrant #Elevation =4755.67Elevation =0.00ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,118.845,119.84(1.00)0.000.000.005,119.635,120.20(0.57)0.000.000.005,119.975,120.55(0.58)0.000.000.005,120.535,120.68(0.15)0.000.000.005,120.645,120.68(0.04)0.000.000.005,120.645,120.580.060.000.000.005,119.295,120.11(0.82)0.000.000.005,116.025,117.91(1.89)0.000.000.005,116.365,116.71(0.35)0.000.000.005,118.735,119.39(0.66)0.000.000.005,118.285,119.62(1.34)0.000.000.005,118.395,119.82(1.43)0.000.000.005,117.945,119.98(2.04)0.000.000.005,118.055,120.16(2.11)0.000.000.005,118.395,120.34(1.95)0.000.000.005,118.735,120.68(1.95)0.000.000.005,116.025,119.06(3.04)0.000.000.005,115.235,118.38(3.15)0.000.000.005,115.345,118.01(2.67)0.000.000.005,114.895,117.68(2.79)0.000.000.005,115.345,117.71(2.37)0.000.000.005,115.685,117.69(2.01)0.000.000.005,116.245,117.81(1.57)0.000.000.005,117.265,118.28(1.02)0.000.000.00Recorder #1243Recorder #1241Test No. 9Test No. 10Page 5 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/13/2015 0:0010/13/2015 1:0010/13/2015 2:0010/13/2015 3:0010/13/2015 4:0010/13/2015 5:0010/13/2015 6:0010/13/2015 7:0010/13/2015 8:0010/13/2015 9:0010/13/2015 10:0010/13/2015 11:0010/13/2015 12:0010/13/2015 13:0010/13/2015 14:0010/13/2015 15:0010/13/2015 16:0010/13/2015 17:0010/13/2015 18:0010/13/2015 19:0010/13/2015 20:0010/13/2015 21:0010/13/2015 22:0010/13/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #2712Node =Hydrant #1770Elevation =4692.64Elevation =4679.91ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference4,926.524,925.221.305,028.865,028.230.634,926.634,926.320.315,028.985,029.00(0.02)4,926.864,927.07(0.21)5,029.325,029.58(0.26)4,926.864,926.580.285,029.325,029.39(0.07)4,925.394,925.66(0.27)5,028.535,028.93(0.40)4,923.704,924.65(0.95)5,026.495,028.41(1.92)4,918.854,922.04(3.19)5,021.535,026.88(5.35)4,910.614,921.58(10.97)5,014.425,026.27(11.85)4,915.234,921.52(6.29)5,007.995,026.17(18.18)4,920.544,921.62(1.08)5,011.725,018.16(6.44)4,921.784,921.630.155,012.395,018.09(5.70)4,922.574,921.650.925,013.635,018.00(4.37)4,922.344,921.650.695,013.415,017.89(4.48)4,921.104,921.66(0.56)5,012.965,017.79(4.83)4,922.234,921.670.565,013.415,017.68(4.27)4,922.794,921.691.105,019.955,017.672.284,922.914,921.681.235,022.775,025.14(2.37)4,922.344,921.660.685,022.665,025.09(2.43)4,921.334,921.65(0.32)5,020.745,025.14(4.40)4,919.414,921.65(2.24)5,020.295,025.20(4.91)4,919.634,921.67(2.04)5,021.425,025.33(3.91)4,920.764,921.69(0.93)5,022.885,025.44(2.56)4,920.204,921.73(1.53)5,023.005,025.59(2.59)4,923.584,923.560.025,026.835,026.84(0.01)Recorder #1246Recorder #1244Test No. 11Test No. 12Page 6 of 6
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DayWednesday, October 14, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference10/14/2015 0:00 0:00 26.40 26.40 0.00 23.27 23.27 0.00 35.49 35.490.0010/14/2015 1:00 1:0026.7026.500.2023.4223.370.0535.8235.630.1910/14/2015 2:00 2:0026.9026.660.2423.5423.480.0636.1635.870.2910/14/2015 3:00 3:0027.1026.880.2223.6923.600.0936.4936.140.3510/14/2015 4:00 4:0027.4027.070.3323.8423.720.1236.8036.340.4610/14/2015 5:00 5:0027.6027.230.3723.9623.820.1437.0136.450.5610/14/2015 6:00 6:0027.8027.330.4724.0423.910.1337.0336.480.5510/14/2015 7:00 7:0027.6027.330.2724.0423.980.0636.4936.340.1510/14/2015 8:00 8:0027.1027.040.0624.0124.03-0.0235.7235.660.0610/14/2015 9:00 9:0026.9026.870.0323.8123.810.0035.7335.610.1210/14/2015 10:00 10:0026.9026.860.0423.5923.580.0135.8335.820.0110/14/2015 11:00 11:0026.9026.92-0.0223.3823.350.0335.9636.01-0.0510/14/2015 12:00 12:0026.9027.02-0.1223.1623.120.0436.0636.18-0.1210/14/2015 13:00 13:0027.1027.14-0.0422.9922.890.1036.2236.35-0.1310/14/2015 14:00 14:0027.1027.28-0.1822.7922.660.1336.3936.52-0.1310/14/2015 15:00 15:0027.4027.44-0.0422.5922.440.1536.6236.71-0.0910/14/2015 16:00 16:0027.4027.41-0.0122.6722.480.1936.3236.37-0.0510/14/2015 17:00 17:0027.1027.29-0.1922.7422.540.2035.9936.11-0.1210/14/2015 18:00 18:0026.9027.10-0.2022.8222.590.2335.6835.78-0.1010/14/2015 19:00 19:0026.7026.87-0.1722.9022.650.2535.3635.49-0.1310/14/2015 20:00 20:0026.4026.63-0.2322.9522.700.2535.0835.22-0.1410/14/2015 21:00 21:0026.2026.43-0.2323.0222.760.2634.9435.07-0.1310/14/2015 22:00 22:0026.0026.26-0.2623.0722.820.2534.8334.96-0.1310/14/2015 23:00 23:0026.0026.15-0.1523.1722.880.2934.8334.92-0.09Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorWednesday, October 14, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Wednesday, October 14, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD4.55
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)Node =Hydrant #2107Node =Hydrant #433Elevation =5024.74Elevation =4969.52ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference10/14/2015 0:00 5,118.725,119.42(0.70)5,119.235,119.99(0.76)10/14/2015 1:00 5,119.175,119.69(0.52)5,119.465,120.17(0.71)10/14/2015 2:00 5,119.625,120.00(0.38)5,119.805,120.40(0.60)10/14/2015 3:00 5,120.075,120.16(0.09)5,120.255,120.60(0.35)10/14/2015 4:00 5,120.195,120.24(0.05)5,120.365,120.75(0.39)10/14/2015 5:00 5,120.305,120.240.065,120.475,120.83(0.36)10/14/2015 6:00 5,119.285,119.97(0.69)5,120.255,120.78(0.53)10/14/2015 7:00 5,117.145,118.63(1.49)5,119.235,120.27(1.04)10/14/2015 8:00 5,116.915,117.76(0.85)5,118.895,119.70(0.81)10/14/2015 9:00 5,118.495,119.37(0.88)5,119.235,120.24(1.01)10/14/2015 10:00 5,117.935,119.57(1.64)5,119.235,120.35(1.12)10/14/2015 11:00 5,117.485,119.75(2.27)5,119.355,120.48(1.13)10/14/2015 12:00 5,117.375,119.93(2.56)5,119.465,120.62(1.16)10/14/2015 13:00 5,117.485,120.12(2.64)5,119.685,120.78(1.10)10/14/2015 14:00 5,117.485,120.32(2.84)5,119.915,120.95(1.04)10/14/2015 15:00 5,117.485,120.61(3.13)5,120.255,121.17(0.92)10/14/2015 16:00 5,115.905,119.60(3.70)5,119.575,120.67(1.10)10/14/2015 17:00 5,115.565,119.16(3.60)5,119.355,120.41(1.06)10/14/2015 18:00 5,115.225,118.86(3.64)5,119.125,120.13(1.01)10/14/2015 19:00 5,115.905,118.59(2.69)5,118.675,119.87(1.20)10/14/2015 20:00 5,116.245,118.53(2.29)5,118.445,119.69(1.25)10/14/2015 21:00 5,116.805,118.48(1.68)5,118.445,119.56(1.12)10/14/2015 22:00 5,117.035,118.52(1.49)5,118.225,119.48(1.26)10/14/2015 23:00 5,117.705,118.80(1.10)5,118.335,119.53(1.20)Date/TimeRecorder #1242Test No. 1Test No. 2Recorder #1240Page 1 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/14/2015 0:0010/14/2015 1:0010/14/2015 2:0010/14/2015 3:0010/14/2015 4:0010/14/2015 5:0010/14/2015 6:0010/14/2015 7:0010/14/2015 8:0010/14/2015 9:0010/14/2015 10:0010/14/2015 11:0010/14/2015 12:0010/14/2015 13:0010/14/2015 14:0010/14/2015 15:0010/14/2015 16:0010/14/2015 17:0010/14/2015 18:0010/14/2015 19:0010/14/2015 20:0010/14/2015 21:0010/14/2015 22:0010/14/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #490Node =Hydrant #278Elevation =4880.25Elevation =4861.19ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,117.855,119.18(1.33)5,119.895,119.640.255,118.305,119.49(1.19)5,120.235,119.850.385,118.875,119.82(0.95)5,120.565,120.110.455,119.325,119.97(0.65)5,120.905,120.310.595,119.205,120.02(0.82)5,121.135,120.450.685,119.095,119.98(0.89)5,121.135,120.500.635,117.855,119.63(1.78)5,120.795,120.380.415,115.035,117.94(2.91)5,119.555,119.61(0.06)5,114.925,116.95(2.03)5,119.325,118.900.425,117.405,119.05(1.65)5,120.005,119.870.135,117.295,119.29(2.00)5,119.775,120.03(0.26)5,117.175,119.50(2.33)5,119.555,120.20(0.65)5,117.625,119.69(2.07)5,119.665,120.36(0.70)5,117.855,119.89(2.04)5,119.895,120.53(0.64)5,118.085,120.10(2.02)5,120.235,120.71(0.48)5,118.535,120.42(1.89)5,120.565,120.95(0.39)5,116.615,119.16(2.55)5,120.345,120.170.175,116.385,118.64(2.26)5,120.115,119.830.285,115.595,118.32(2.73)5,119.775,119.530.245,115.145,118.05(2.91)5,119.445,119.250.195,115.265,118.03(2.77)5,119.215,119.100.115,115.715,118.03(2.32)5,118.985,119.00(0.02)5,115.825,118.12(2.30)5,118.875,118.96(0.09)5,116.505,118.49(1.99)5,118.985,119.08(0.10)Test No. 3Recorder #1251Test No. 4Recorder #1249Page 2 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/14/2015 0:0010/14/2015 1:0010/14/2015 2:0010/14/2015 3:0010/14/2015 4:0010/14/2015 5:0010/14/2015 6:0010/14/2015 7:0010/14/2015 8:0010/14/2015 9:0010/14/2015 10:0010/14/2015 11:0010/14/2015 12:0010/14/2015 13:0010/14/2015 14:0010/14/2015 15:0010/14/2015 16:0010/14/2015 17:0010/14/2015 18:0010/14/2015 19:0010/14/2015 20:0010/14/2015 21:0010/14/2015 22:0010/14/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #121Node =Hydrant #1887Elevation =4817.61Elevation =4754.53ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,118.065,119.27(1.21)5,117.145,119.16(2.02)5,118.675,119.56(0.89)5,117.475,119.47(2.00)5,119.155,119.88(0.73)5,118.155,119.80(1.65)5,119.645,120.04(0.40)5,118.715,119.96(1.25)5,119.645,120.11(0.47)5,118.605,120.01(1.41)5,119.525,120.10(0.58)5,118.605,119.97(1.37)5,118.555,119.80(1.25)5,117.365,119.62(2.26)5,116.125,118.35(2.23)5,114.655,117.95(3.30)5,116.365,117.43(1.07)5,115.335,116.96(1.63)5,118.675,119.76(1.09)5,118.835,120.36(1.53)5,118.435,119.95(1.52)5,117.925,120.56(2.64)5,118.435,120.13(1.70)5,117.145,120.74(3.60)5,118.795,120.30(1.51)5,117.145,120.91(3.77)5,118.675,120.47(1.80)5,116.915,121.08(4.17)5,119.035,120.66(1.63)5,117.255,121.27(4.02)5,119.155,120.93(1.78)5,117.365,121.54(4.18)5,116.975,119.40(2.43)5,113.755,119.15(5.40)5,116.615,118.92(2.31)5,113.525,118.64(5.12)5,116.125,118.61(2.49)5,113.525,118.31(4.79)5,115.645,118.33(2.69)5,113.305,118.04(4.74)5,115.885,118.28(2.40)5,113.755,118.02(4.27)5,116.125,118.25(2.13)5,114.545,118.01(3.47)5,116.365,118.31(1.95)5,114.995,118.10(3.11)5,116.855,118.61(1.76)5,115.785,118.46(2.68)Test No. 5Recorder #341298Test No. 6Recorder #1245Page 3 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/14/2015 0:0010/14/2015 1:0010/14/2015 2:0010/14/2015 3:0010/14/2015 4:0010/14/2015 5:0010/14/2015 6:0010/14/2015 7:0010/14/2015 8:0010/14/2015 9:0010/14/2015 10:0010/14/2015 11:0010/14/2015 12:0010/14/2015 13:0010/14/2015 14:0010/14/2015 15:0010/14/2015 16:0010/14/2015 17:0010/14/2015 18:0010/14/2015 19:0010/14/2015 20:0010/14/2015 21:0010/14/2015 22:0010/14/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1754Node =Hydrant #1125Elevation =4820.11Elevation =4779.50ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,117.535,118.91(1.38)5,118.645,118.91(0.27)5,117.895,119.27(1.38)5,119.095,119.27(0.18)5,118.625,119.64(1.02)5,119.775,119.640.135,118.995,119.76(0.77)5,120.225,119.770.455,118.995,119.77(0.78)5,120.115,119.780.335,118.625,119.69(1.07)5,119.995,119.690.305,116.805,119.21(2.41)5,118.195,119.22(1.03)5,113.535,116.98(3.45)5,114.925,116.99(2.07)5,113.775,115.81(2.04)5,115.255,115.81(0.56)5,116.805,118.37(1.57)5,118.075,118.38(0.31)5,116.325,118.66(2.34)5,117.405,118.67(1.27)5,116.565,118.91(2.35)5,117.175,118.92(1.75)5,116.565,119.12(2.56)5,117.175,119.13(1.96)5,116.805,119.35(2.55)5,117.285,119.35(2.07)5,117.055,119.58(2.53)5,117.285,119.59(2.31)5,117.775,119.96(2.19)5,117.855,119.97(2.12)5,115.355,118.58(3.23)5,115.255,118.59(3.34)5,114.745,117.94(3.20)5,114.695,117.95(3.26)5,114.265,117.61(3.35)5,113.905,117.62(3.72)5,113.775,117.33(3.56)5,113.795,117.34(3.55)5,113.895,117.39(3.50)5,114.585,117.40(2.82)5,114.745,117.46(2.72)5,115.595,117.47(1.88)5,115.105,117.63(2.53)5,116.045,117.64(1.60)5,115.955,118.13(2.18)5,117.065,118.14(1.08)Test No. 7Test No. 8Recorder #341289Recorder #201250Page 4 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/14/2015 0:0010/14/2015 1:0010/14/2015 2:0010/14/2015 3:0010/14/2015 4:0010/14/2015 5:0010/14/2015 6:0010/14/2015 7:0010/14/2015 8:0010/14/2015 9:0010/14/2015 10:0010/14/2015 11:0010/14/2015 12:0010/14/2015 13:0010/14/2015 14:0010/14/2015 15:0010/14/2015 16:0010/14/2015 17:0010/14/2015 18:0010/14/2015 19:0010/14/2015 20:0010/14/2015 21:0010/14/2015 22:0010/14/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1025Node =Hydrant #Elevation =4755.67Elevation =0.00ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,118.505,119.04(0.54)0.000.000.005,118.735,119.38(0.65)0.000.000.005,119.525,119.73(0.21)0.000.000.005,119.975,119.870.100.000.000.005,119.855,119.90(0.05)0.000.000.005,119.745,119.84(0.10)0.000.000.005,118.395,119.42(1.03)0.000.000.005,115.345,117.48(2.14)0.000.000.005,115.455,116.38(0.93)0.000.000.005,118.285,118.95(0.67)0.000.000.005,117.715,119.21(1.50)0.000.000.005,117.715,119.45(1.74)0.000.000.005,117.605,119.65(2.05)0.000.000.005,117.495,119.86(2.37)0.000.000.005,117.825,120.08(2.26)0.000.000.005,118.285,120.42(2.14)0.000.000.005,115.685,118.89(3.21)0.000.000.005,115.235,118.32(3.09)0.000.000.005,114.895,117.99(3.10)0.000.000.005,114.555,117.71(3.16)0.000.000.005,115.005,117.74(2.74)0.000.000.005,115.915,117.76(1.85)0.000.000.005,116.245,117.88(1.64)0.000.000.005,117.035,118.31(1.28)0.000.000.00Recorder #1243Recorder #1241Test No. 9Test No. 10Page 5 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/14/2015 0:0010/14/2015 1:0010/14/2015 2:0010/14/2015 3:0010/14/2015 4:0010/14/2015 5:0010/14/2015 6:0010/14/2015 7:0010/14/2015 8:0010/14/2015 9:0010/14/2015 10:0010/14/2015 11:0010/14/2015 12:0010/14/2015 13:0010/14/2015 14:0010/14/2015 15:0010/14/2015 16:0010/14/2015 17:0010/14/2015 18:0010/14/2015 19:0010/14/2015 20:0010/14/2015 21:0010/14/2015 22:0010/14/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #2712Node =Hydrant #1770Elevation =4692.64Elevation =4679.91ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference4,925.504,925.64(0.14)5,028.075,028.47(0.40)4,925.614,926.66(1.05)5,028.305,029.19(0.89)4,926.974,927.35(0.38)5,029.095,029.73(0.64)4,927.314,926.900.415,029.435,029.56(0.13)4,925.504,926.05(0.55)5,028.415,029.15(0.74)4,923.704,925.11(1.41)5,026.955,028.68(1.73)4,916.594,922.70(6.11)5,019.845,027.27(7.43)4,910.384,921.61(11.23)5,014.205,026.33(12.13)4,916.364,921.56(5.20)5,008.895,026.24(17.35)4,920.994,921.64(0.65)5,012.735,018.15(5.42)4,921.214,921.65(0.44)5,011.495,018.07(6.58)4,922.344,921.660.685,012.395,017.96(5.57)4,922.234,921.670.565,012.175,017.86(5.69)4,921.444,921.67(0.23)5,012.735,017.75(5.02)4,922.234,921.680.555,013.185,017.65(4.47)4,922.234,921.720.515,020.635,017.633.004,923.364,921.711.655,021.425,025.14(3.72)4,920.204,921.67(1.47)5,020.975,025.10(4.13)4,920.424,921.67(1.25)5,021.765,025.14(3.38)4,920.884,921.67(0.79)5,022.555,025.20(2.65)4,919.414,921.69(2.28)5,021.645,025.32(3.68)4,918.964,921.72(2.76)5,020.855,025.44(4.59)4,921.894,921.760.135,024.695,025.58(0.89)4,924.264,924.110.155,027.625,027.110.51Recorder #1246Recorder #1244Test No. 11Test No. 12Page 6 of 6
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DayThursday, October 15, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference10/15/2015 0:00 0:00 26.00 26.00 0.00 23.29 23.29 0.00 35.04 35.040.0010/15/2015 1:00 1:0026.2026.090.1123.4523.390.0635.3335.200.1310/15/2015 2:00 2:0026.4026.240.1623.5923.500.0935.6535.430.2210/15/2015 3:00 3:0026.7026.440.2623.7423.620.1235.9935.700.2910/15/2015 4:00 4:0026.9026.630.2723.8623.740.1236.2935.890.4010/15/2015 5:00 5:0027.1026.780.3223.9923.840.1536.5435.990.5510/15/2015 6:00 6:0027.4026.870.5324.0623.930.1336.5936.020.5710/15/2015 7:00 7:0027.4026.860.5424.0824.000.0836.2335.860.3710/15/2015 8:00 8:0026.9026.560.3424.0624.040.0235.6035.170.4310/15/2015 9:00 9:0026.9026.440.4623.8623.830.0335.5935.110.4810/15/2015 10:00 10:0026.9026.470.4323.6123.590.0235.7435.350.3910/15/2015 11:00 11:0026.9026.570.3323.3823.360.0235.7935.560.2310/15/2015 12:00 12:0026.9026.700.2023.1823.130.0535.9435.780.1610/15/2015 13:00 13:0027.1026.870.2322.9922.900.0936.1035.980.1210/15/2015 14:00 14:0027.4027.050.3522.7922.660.1336.3236.190.1310/15/2015 15:00 15:0027.6027.250.3522.5922.440.1536.5536.420.1310/15/2015 16:00 16:0027.6027.250.3522.6722.470.2036.3136.120.1910/15/2015 17:00 17:0027.4027.170.2322.7122.530.1836.0435.900.1410/15/2015 18:00 18:0027.1027.010.0922.7822.590.1935.7535.600.1510/15/2015 19:00 19:0026.9026.820.0822.8622.640.2235.4735.340.1310/15/2015 20:00 20:0026.7026.620.0822.9122.700.2135.2135.110.1010/15/2015 21:00 21:0026.4026.46-0.0622.9922.760.2335.0934.980.1110/15/2015 22:00 22:0026.2026.33-0.1323.0622.810.2535.0234.910.1110/15/2015 23:00 23:0026.2026.25-0.0523.1322.880.2535.0934.920.17Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorThursday, October 15, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Thursday, October 15, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD4.75
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)Node =Hydrant #2107Node =Hydrant #433Elevation =5024.74Elevation =4969.52ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference10/15/2015 0:00 5,118.385,118.98(0.60)5,118.675,119.56(0.89)10/15/2015 1:00 5,118.955,119.25(0.30)5,118.895,119.74(0.85)10/15/2015 2:00 5,119.515,119.55(0.04)5,119.355,119.97(0.62)10/15/2015 3:00 5,119.855,119.710.145,119.575,120.16(0.59)10/15/2015 4:00 5,120.195,119.780.415,119.915,120.30(0.39)10/15/2015 5:00 5,120.305,119.770.535,120.025,120.38(0.36)10/15/2015 6:00 5,119.965,119.480.485,119.915,120.31(0.40)10/15/2015 7:00 5,118.165,118.090.075,119.235,119.77(0.54)10/15/2015 8:00 5,117.705,117.200.505,118.895,119.18(0.29)10/15/2015 9:00 5,118.385,118.87(0.49)5,119.125,119.77(0.65)10/15/2015 10:00 5,118.385,119.11(0.73)5,119.355,119.92(0.57)10/15/2015 11:00 5,118.275,119.33(1.06)5,119.355,120.09(0.74)10/15/2015 12:00 5,118.165,119.55(1.39)5,119.355,120.27(0.92)10/15/2015 13:00 5,118.275,119.78(1.51)5,119.575,120.46(0.89)10/15/2015 14:00 5,118.495,120.02(1.53)5,120.025,120.67(0.65)10/15/2015 15:00 5,118.495,120.36(1.87)5,120.255,120.94(0.69)10/15/2015 16:00 5,116.915,119.36(2.45)5,119.685,120.46(0.78)10/15/2015 17:00 5,116.805,118.94(2.14)5,119.575,120.23(0.66)10/15/2015 18:00 5,116.695,118.68(1.99)5,119.125,119.99(0.87)10/15/2015 19:00 5,117.035,118.44(1.41)5,118.785,119.77(0.99)10/15/2015 20:00 5,117.145,118.43(1.29)5,118.675,119.63(0.96)10/15/2015 21:00 5,117.375,118.42(1.05)5,118.565,119.53(0.97)10/15/2015 22:00 5,117.485,118.50(1.02)5,118.565,119.50(0.94)10/15/2015 23:00 5,118.275,118.83(0.56)5,118.785,119.59(0.81)Date/TimeRecorder #1242Test No. 1Test No. 2Recorder #1240Page 1 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/15/2015 0:0010/15/2015 1:0010/15/2015 2:0010/15/2015 3:0010/15/2015 4:0010/15/2015 5:0010/15/2015 6:0010/15/2015 7:0010/15/2015 8:0010/15/2015 9:0010/15/2015 10:0010/15/2015 11:0010/15/2015 12:0010/15/2015 13:0010/15/2015 14:0010/15/2015 15:0010/15/2015 16:0010/15/2015 17:0010/15/2015 18:0010/15/2015 19:0010/15/2015 20:0010/15/2015 21:0010/15/2015 22:0010/15/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #490Node =Hydrant #278Elevation =4880.25Elevation =4861.19ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,117.405,118.73(1.33)5,119.325,119.200.125,117.855,119.05(1.20)5,119.665,119.410.255,118.415,119.38(0.97)5,120.005,119.670.335,118.645,119.52(0.88)5,120.345,119.870.475,118.755,119.56(0.81)5,120.565,120.000.565,118.875,119.51(0.64)5,120.795,120.040.755,118.195,119.13(0.94)5,120.565,119.910.655,115.935,117.39(1.46)5,119.775,119.100.675,115.485,116.36(0.88)5,119.325,118.360.965,116.835,118.54(1.71)5,119.665,119.380.285,117.175,118.81(1.64)5,119.775,119.580.195,117.065,119.06(2.00)5,119.895,119.780.115,117.405,119.30(1.90)5,120.005,119.980.025,117.745,119.54(1.80)5,120.235,120.190.045,118.415,119.79(1.38)5,120.565,120.410.155,118.535,120.16(1.63)5,120.795,120.700.095,116.615,118.91(2.30)5,120.345,119.930.415,116.385,118.40(2.02)5,120.115,119.630.485,115.715,118.12(2.41)5,119.665,119.360.305,115.485,117.88(2.40)5,119.325,119.120.205,115.485,117.92(2.44)5,119.105,119.010.095,115.715,117.95(2.24)5,118.985,118.940.045,115.935,118.09(2.16)5,118.875,118.94(0.07)5,116.835,118.51(1.68)5,119.215,119.100.11Test No. 3Recorder #1251Test No. 4Recorder #1249Page 2 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/15/2015 0:0010/15/2015 1:0010/15/2015 2:0010/15/2015 3:0010/15/2015 4:0010/15/2015 5:0010/15/2015 6:0010/15/2015 7:0010/15/2015 8:0010/15/2015 9:0010/15/2015 10:0010/15/2015 11:0010/15/2015 12:0010/15/2015 13:0010/15/2015 14:0010/15/2015 15:0010/15/2015 16:0010/15/2015 17:0010/15/2015 18:0010/15/2015 19:0010/15/2015 20:0010/15/2015 21:0010/15/2015 22:0010/15/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #121Node =Hydrant #1887Elevation =4817.61Elevation =4754.53ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,117.705,118.83(1.13)5,116.805,118.71(1.91)5,118.065,119.12(1.06)5,117.365,119.02(1.66)5,118.555,119.43(0.88)5,117.925,119.35(1.43)5,118.915,119.59(0.68)5,118.265,119.50(1.24)5,119.155,119.65(0.50)5,118.385,119.54(1.16)5,119.155,119.63(0.48)5,118.605,119.49(0.89)5,118.675,119.31(0.64)5,118.045,119.12(1.08)5,116.735,117.81(1.08)5,115.785,117.40(1.62)5,116.735,116.86(0.13)5,115.895,116.37(0.48)5,118.185,119.26(1.08)5,118.495,119.87(1.38)5,118.435,119.49(1.06)5,118.495,120.10(1.61)5,118.435,119.71(1.28)5,118.045,120.32(2.28)5,118.675,119.92(1.25)5,117.925,120.53(2.61)5,118.915,120.13(1.22)5,118.265,120.75(2.49)5,119.285,120.36(1.08)5,118.715,120.97(2.26)5,119.405,120.67(1.27)5,118.715,121.29(2.58)5,117.095,119.14(2.05)5,115.105,118.90(3.80)5,116.735,118.69(1.96)5,115.105,118.40(3.30)5,116.495,118.41(1.92)5,114.885,118.11(3.23)5,116.125,118.17(2.05)5,114.885,117.87(2.99)5,116.245,118.17(1.93)5,114.995,117.91(2.92)5,116.365,118.18(1.82)5,115.335,117.94(2.61)5,116.495,118.27(1.78)5,115.565,118.06(2.50)5,117.215,118.63(1.42)5,116.575,118.48(1.91)Test No. 6Recorder #1245Test No. 5Recorder #341298Page 3 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/15/2015 0:0010/15/2015 1:0010/15/2015 2:0010/15/2015 3:0010/15/2015 4:0010/15/2015 5:0010/15/2015 6:0010/15/2015 7:0010/15/2015 8:0010/15/2015 9:0010/15/2015 10:0010/15/2015 11:0010/15/2015 12:0010/15/2015 13:0010/15/2015 14:0010/15/2015 15:0010/15/2015 16:0010/15/2015 17:0010/15/2015 18:0010/15/2015 19:0010/15/2015 20:0010/15/2015 21:0010/15/2015 22:0010/15/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1754Node =Hydrant #1125Elevation =4820.11Elevation =4779.50ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,117.055,118.45(1.40)5,118.195,118.46(0.27)5,117.535,118.82(1.29)5,118.755,118.82(0.07)5,118.145,119.18(1.04)5,119.545,119.190.355,118.505,119.31(0.81)5,119.775,119.310.465,118.385,119.30(0.92)5,119.885,119.310.575,118.505,119.20(0.70)5,119.995,119.210.785,117.535,118.71(1.18)5,119.095,118.710.385,114.745,116.40(1.66)5,116.385,116.41(0.03)5,114.265,115.20(0.94)5,115.935,115.200.735,116.445,117.84(1.40)5,117.855,117.85(0.00)5,116.685,118.17(1.49)5,117.855,118.17(0.32)5,116.325,118.46(2.14)5,117.285,118.46(1.18)5,116.445,118.71(2.27)5,117.405,118.72(1.32)5,116.685,118.98(2.30)5,117.625,118.99(1.37)5,117.415,119.25(1.84)5,118.075,119.26(1.19)5,117.415,119.69(2.28)5,118.075,119.69(1.62)5,115.715,118.32(2.61)5,115.935,118.32(2.39)5,115.355,117.69(2.34)5,115.715,117.69(1.98)5,114.265,117.40(3.14)5,114.925,117.40(2.48)5,114.135,117.15(3.02)5,115.145,117.15(2.01)5,114.265,117.27(3.01)5,115.485,117.27(1.79)5,114.745,117.37(2.63)5,116.045,117.38(1.34)5,115.235,117.58(2.35)5,116.495,117.59(1.10)5,116.325,118.14(1.82)5,117.745,118.15(0.41)Test No. 7Test No. 8Recorder #341289Recorder #201250Page 4 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/15/2015 0:0010/15/2015 1:0010/15/2015 2:0010/15/2015 3:0010/15/2015 4:0010/15/2015 5:0010/15/2015 6:0010/15/2015 7:0010/15/2015 8:0010/15/2015 9:0010/15/2015 10:0010/15/2015 11:0010/15/2015 12:0010/15/2015 13:0010/15/2015 14:0010/15/2015 15:0010/15/2015 16:0010/15/2015 17:0010/15/2015 18:0010/15/2015 19:0010/15/2015 20:0010/15/2015 21:0010/15/2015 22:0010/15/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1025Node =Hydrant #Elevation =4755.67Elevation =0.00ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,118.055,118.59(0.54)0.000.000.005,118.505,118.93(0.43)0.000.000.005,119.185,119.28(0.10)0.000.000.005,119.405,119.41(0.01)0.000.000.005,119.525,119.430.090.000.000.005,119.745,119.360.380.000.000.005,118.955,118.930.020.000.000.005,116.585,116.91(0.33)0.000.000.005,116.135,115.780.350.000.000.005,118.055,118.44(0.39)0.000.000.005,118.285,118.73(0.45)0.000.000.005,117.945,119.00(1.06)0.000.000.005,118.055,119.25(1.20)0.000.000.005,118.165,119.50(1.34)0.000.000.005,118.505,119.76(1.26)0.000.000.005,118.615,120.15(1.54)0.000.000.005,116.475,118.63(2.16)0.000.000.005,116.245,118.07(1.83)0.000.000.005,115.685,117.78(2.10)0.000.000.005,115.795,117.53(1.74)0.000.000.005,115.915,117.62(1.71)0.000.000.005,116.245,117.68(1.44)0.000.000.005,116.705,117.84(1.14)0.000.000.005,117.605,118.32(0.72)0.000.000.00Recorder #1243Recorder #1241Test No. 9Test No. 10Page 5 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/15/2015 0:0010/15/2015 1:0010/15/2015 2:0010/15/2015 3:0010/15/2015 4:0010/15/2015 5:0010/15/2015 6:0010/15/2015 7:0010/15/2015 8:0010/15/2015 9:0010/15/2015 10:0010/15/2015 11:0010/15/2015 12:0010/15/2015 13:0010/15/2015 14:0010/15/2015 15:0010/15/2015 16:0010/15/2015 17:0010/15/2015 18:0010/15/2015 19:0010/15/2015 20:0010/15/2015 21:0010/15/2015 22:0010/15/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #2712Node =Hydrant #1770Elevation =4692.64Elevation =4679.91ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference4,925.284,925.52(0.24)5,027.855,028.42(0.57)4,926.294,926.57(0.28)5,028.865,029.15(0.29)4,926.864,927.27(0.41)5,029.655,029.70(0.05)4,926.294,926.81(0.52)5,029.435,029.53(0.10)4,925.504,925.94(0.44)5,028.755,029.10(0.35)4,924.604,924.99(0.39)5,028.075,028.62(0.55)4,919.864,922.52(2.66)5,022.665,027.18(4.52)4,915.124,921.60(6.48)5,016.905,026.33(9.43)4,914.454,921.55(7.10)5,006.075,026.23(20.16)4,917.944,921.63(3.69)5,012.395,018.05(5.66)4,920.314,921.65(1.34)5,012.395,017.97(5.58)4,920.764,921.66(0.90)5,012.625,017.87(5.25)4,922.914,921.671.245,012.735,017.75(5.02)4,921.674,921.67(0.00)5,011.945,017.66(5.72)4,922.684,921.681.005,013.295,017.56(4.27)4,923.134,921.711.425,021.425,017.563.864,922.794,921.711.085,023.455,025.13(1.68)4,921.444,921.67(0.23)5,022.095,025.08(2.99)4,920.994,921.67(0.68)5,021.875,025.12(3.25)4,920.764,921.67(0.91)5,022.885,025.17(2.29)4,921.894,921.680.215,024.355,025.30(0.95)4,922.234,921.710.525,024.355,025.42(1.07)4,922.004,921.750.255,025.035,025.56(0.53)4,924.714,923.950.765,027.175,027.010.16Recorder #1246Recorder #1244Test No. 11Test No. 12Page 6 of 6
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DayFriday, October 16, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference10/16/2015 0:00 0:00 26.40 26.40 0.00 23.27 23.27 0.00 35.35 35.350.0010/16/2015 1:00 1:0026.7026.530.1723.4123.360.0535.6735.560.1110/16/2015 2:00 2:0026.9026.730.1723.5623.470.0936.0235.840.1810/16/2015 3:00 3:0027.1026.980.1223.7323.590.1436.3836.160.2210/16/2015 4:00 4:0027.6027.220.3823.8823.700.1836.7136.410.3010/16/2015 5:00 5:0027.8027.410.3923.9923.800.1936.9836.560.4210/16/2015 6:00 6:0027.8027.550.2524.0823.890.1937.0836.630.4510/16/2015 7:00 7:0027.8027.590.2124.0823.950.1336.7536.520.2310/16/2015 8:00 8:0027.6027.340.2624.0824.000.0836.1935.870.3210/16/2015 9:00 9:0027.6027.210.3923.8623.780.0836.2235.840.3810/16/2015 10:00 10:0027.6027.230.3723.6123.540.0736.3036.090.2110/16/2015 11:00 11:0027.6027.320.2823.3923.310.0836.3436.310.0310/16/2015 12:00 12:0027.6027.450.1523.1623.080.0836.4636.52-0.0610/16/2015 13:00 13:0027.6027.600.0022.9222.850.0736.5836.72-0.1410/16/2015 14:00 14:0027.8027.780.0222.6922.620.0736.7436.93-0.1910/16/2015 15:00 15:0027.8027.97-0.1722.4922.400.0936.9137.14-0.2310/16/2015 16:00 16:0028.0028.13-0.1322.3922.270.1236.9237.19-0.2710/16/2015 17:00 17:0027.8028.08-0.2822.4722.320.1536.6036.89-0.2910/16/2015 18:00 18:0027.6027.93-0.3322.5422.380.1636.3536.56-0.2110/16/2015 19:00 19:0027.6027.75-0.1522.5922.430.1636.1236.29-0.1710/16/2015 20:00 20:0027.4027.55-0.1522.6622.480.1835.9936.05-0.0610/16/2015 21:00 21:0027.4027.390.0122.7422.540.2035.9935.930.0610/16/2015 22:00 22:0027.4027.260.1422.8122.590.2236.0335.850.1810/16/2015 23:00 23:0027.1027.18-0.0822.9222.650.2736.1235.850.27Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorFriday, October 16, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Friday, October 16, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD4.63
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)Node =Hydrant #2107Node =Hydrant #433Elevation =5024.74Elevation =4969.52ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference10/16/2015 0:00 5,118.835,119.34(0.51)5,119.015,119.94(0.93)10/16/2015 1:00 5,119.625,119.67(0.05)5,119.355,120.17(0.82)10/16/2015 2:00 5,120.075,120.020.055,119.685,120.44(0.76)10/16/2015 3:00 5,120.645,120.220.425,120.145,120.68(0.54)10/16/2015 4:00 5,120.865,120.330.535,120.365,120.86(0.50)10/16/2015 5:00 5,120.985,120.370.615,120.595,120.99(0.40)10/16/2015 6:00 5,120.525,120.130.395,120.475,120.97(0.50)10/16/2015 7:00 5,119.175,118.820.355,119.915,120.49(0.58)10/16/2015 8:00 5,118.165,117.980.185,119.575,119.95(0.38)10/16/2015 9:00 5,119.175,119.63(0.46)5,119.685,120.53(0.85)10/16/2015 10:00 5,118.385,119.86(1.48)5,119.805,120.67(0.87)10/16/2015 11:00 5,118.275,120.08(1.81)5,119.805,120.84(1.04)10/16/2015 12:00 5,118.165,120.29(2.13)5,119.915,121.01(1.10)10/16/2015 13:00 5,118.045,120.51(2.47)5,120.025,121.20(1.18)10/16/2015 14:00 5,117.935,120.74(2.81)5,120.365,121.40(1.04)10/16/2015 15:00 5,118.165,121.08(2.92)5,120.475,121.66(1.19)10/16/2015 16:00 5,116.585,120.36(3.78)5,120.255,121.43(1.18)10/16/2015 17:00 5,116.015,119.91(3.90)5,119.915,121.18(1.27)10/16/2015 18:00 5,116.015,119.63(3.62)5,119.805,120.94(1.14)10/16/2015 19:00 5,117.145,119.39(2.25)5,119.685,120.71(1.03)10/16/2015 20:00 5,117.825,119.37(1.55)5,119.575,120.57(1.00)10/16/2015 21:00 5,118.385,119.37(0.99)5,119.575,120.47(0.90)10/16/2015 22:00 5,118.725,119.45(0.73)5,119.575,120.43(0.86)10/16/2015 23:00 5,119.175,119.77(0.60)5,119.805,120.52(0.72)Date/TimeRecorder #1242Test No. 1Test No. 2Recorder #1240Page 1 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/16/2015 0:0010/16/2015 1:0010/16/2015 2:0010/16/2015 3:0010/16/2015 4:0010/16/2015 5:0010/16/2015 6:0010/16/2015 7:0010/16/2015 8:0010/16/2015 9:0010/16/2015 10:0010/16/2015 11:0010/16/2015 12:0010/16/2015 13:0010/16/2015 14:0010/16/2015 15:0010/16/2015 16:0010/16/2015 17:0010/16/2015 18:0010/16/2015 19:0010/16/2015 20:0010/16/2015 21:0010/16/2015 22:0010/16/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #490Node =Hydrant #278Elevation =4880.25Elevation =4861.19ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,117.515,119.09(1.58)5,119.555,119.55(0.00)5,118.305,119.46(1.16)5,120.005,119.820.185,118.645,119.84(1.20)5,120.345,120.130.215,119.205,120.03(0.83)5,120.795,120.370.425,119.325,120.11(0.79)5,121.025,120.540.485,119.325,120.11(0.79)5,121.245,120.640.605,118.645,119.79(1.15)5,121.135,120.550.585,116.615,118.12(1.51)5,120.345,119.810.535,115.595,117.14(1.55)5,119.895,119.120.775,117.405,119.30(1.90)5,120.345,120.130.215,117.295,119.57(2.28)5,120.235,120.33(0.10)5,117.515,119.81(2.30)5,120.455,120.53(0.08)5,117.745,120.04(2.30)5,120.235,120.72(0.49)5,117.965,120.27(2.31)5,120.345,120.93(0.59)5,118.415,120.51(2.10)5,120.685,121.14(0.46)5,118.875,120.88(2.01)5,121.135,121.42(0.29)5,117.295,119.92(2.63)5,120.905,120.95(0.05)5,116.725,119.38(2.66)5,120.685,120.600.085,116.505,119.08(2.58)5,120.565,120.310.255,116.615,118.84(2.23)5,120.455,120.070.385,116.725,118.87(2.15)5,120.115,119.950.165,117.065,118.90(1.84)5,120.115,119.880.235,117.405,119.03(1.63)5,120.235,119.880.355,118.085,119.44(1.36)5,120.455,120.040.41Test No. 3Recorder #1251Test No. 4Recorder #1249Page 2 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/16/2015 0:0010/16/2015 1:0010/16/2015 2:0010/16/2015 3:0010/16/2015 4:0010/16/2015 5:0010/16/2015 6:0010/16/2015 7:0010/16/2015 8:0010/16/2015 9:0010/16/2015 10:0010/16/2015 11:0010/16/2015 12:0010/16/2015 13:0010/16/2015 14:0010/16/2015 15:0010/16/2015 16:0010/16/2015 17:0010/16/2015 18:0010/16/2015 19:0010/16/2015 20:0010/16/2015 21:0010/16/2015 22:0010/16/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #121Node =Hydrant #1887Elevation =4817.61Elevation =4754.53ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,117.945,119.18(1.24)5,117.145,119.07(1.93)5,118.675,119.53(0.86)5,117.925,119.44(1.52)5,119.035,119.90(0.87)5,118.385,119.82(1.44)5,119.525,120.10(0.58)5,118.945,120.01(1.07)5,119.765,120.20(0.44)5,118.945,120.09(1.15)5,119.765,120.23(0.47)5,118.945,120.10(1.16)5,119.405,119.96(0.56)5,118.385,119.77(1.39)5,117.465,118.53(1.07)5,116.465,118.13(1.67)5,117.095,117.63(0.54)5,116.355,117.15(0.80)5,119.155,120.01(0.86)5,119.175,120.60(1.43)5,118.915,120.24(1.33)5,118.605,120.83(2.23)5,119.035,120.45(1.42)5,117.815,121.05(3.24)5,119.155,120.65(1.50)5,117.705,121.25(3.55)5,119.035,120.86(1.83)5,117.475,121.45(3.98)5,119.405,121.08(1.68)5,117.815,121.67(3.86)5,119.765,121.39(1.63)5,117.925,121.98(4.06)5,117.585,120.16(2.58)5,114.435,119.92(5.49)5,117.335,119.67(2.34)5,114.095,119.38(5.29)5,117.095,119.37(2.28)5,114.545,119.08(4.54)5,117.095,119.13(2.04)5,114.995,118.83(3.84)5,117.215,119.12(1.91)5,115.335,118.86(3.53)5,117.585,119.12(1.54)5,116.015,118.88(2.87)5,117.705,119.22(1.52)5,116.355,119.01(2.66)5,118.435,119.57(1.14)5,117.145,119.42(2.28)Test No. 6Recorder #1245Test No. 5Recorder #341298Page 3 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/16/2015 0:0010/16/2015 1:0010/16/2015 2:0010/16/2015 3:0010/16/2015 4:0010/16/2015 5:0010/16/2015 6:0010/16/2015 7:0010/16/2015 8:0010/16/2015 9:0010/16/2015 10:0010/16/2015 11:0010/16/2015 12:0010/16/2015 13:0010/16/2015 14:0010/16/2015 15:0010/16/2015 16:0010/16/2015 17:0010/16/2015 18:0010/16/2015 19:0010/16/2015 20:0010/16/2015 21:0010/16/2015 22:0010/16/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1754Node =Hydrant #1125Elevation =4820.11Elevation =4779.50ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,117.055,118.81(1.76)5,118.415,118.82(0.41)5,117.895,119.24(1.35)5,119.205,119.24(0.04)5,118.265,119.65(1.39)5,119.655,119.650.005,118.995,119.81(0.82)5,120.445,119.820.625,118.995,119.85(0.86)5,120.445,119.860.585,118.995,119.81(0.82)5,120.445,119.820.625,117.895,119.36(1.47)5,119.325,119.37(0.05)5,115.475,117.13(1.66)5,116.955,117.14(0.19)5,114.505,115.98(1.48)5,116.045,115.980.065,116.565,118.60(2.04)5,117.965,118.61(0.65)5,116.565,118.92(2.36)5,117.625,118.93(1.31)5,116.685,119.21(2.53)5,117.515,119.22(1.71)5,116.565,119.46(2.90)5,117.515,119.47(1.96)5,116.805,119.72(2.92)5,117.405,119.72(2.32)5,117.415,119.98(2.57)5,117.745,119.99(2.25)5,117.415,120.41(3.00)5,117.625,120.41(2.79)5,115.955,119.34(3.39)5,115.825,119.35(3.53)5,115.105,118.67(3.57)5,114.805,118.68(3.88)5,115.105,118.36(3.26)5,114.805,118.37(3.57)5,115.235,118.11(2.88)5,115.375,118.11(2.74)5,115.835,118.22(2.39)5,116.275,118.23(1.96)5,116.325,118.32(2.00)5,116.955,118.33(1.38)5,116.685,118.54(1.86)5,117.515,118.54(1.03)5,117.415,119.08(1.67)5,118.415,119.09(0.68)Test No. 7Test No. 8Recorder #341289Recorder #201250Page 4 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/16/2015 0:0010/16/2015 1:0010/16/2015 2:0010/16/2015 3:0010/16/2015 4:0010/16/2015 5:0010/16/2015 6:0010/16/2015 7:0010/16/2015 8:0010/16/2015 9:0010/16/2015 10:0010/16/2015 11:0010/16/2015 12:0010/16/2015 13:0010/16/2015 14:0010/16/2015 15:0010/16/2015 16:0010/16/2015 17:0010/16/2015 18:0010/16/2015 19:0010/16/2015 20:0010/16/2015 21:0010/16/2015 22:0010/16/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1025Node =Hydrant #Elevation =4755.67Elevation =0.00ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,118.285,118.95(0.67)0.000.000.005,119.065,119.35(0.29)0.000.000.005,119.525,119.74(0.22)0.000.000.005,120.195,119.920.270.000.000.005,120.195,119.980.210.000.000.005,120.315,119.960.350.000.000.005,119.295,119.58(0.29)0.000.000.005,117.265,117.64(0.38)0.000.000.005,116.585,116.550.030.000.000.005,118.395,119.19(0.80)0.000.000.005,118.395,119.48(1.09)0.000.000.005,118.165,119.75(1.59)0.000.000.005,118.055,119.99(1.94)0.000.000.005,117.945,120.23(2.29)0.000.000.005,118.285,120.49(2.21)0.000.000.005,118.165,120.87(2.71)0.000.000.005,116.245,119.65(3.41)0.000.000.005,115.455,119.05(3.60)0.000.000.005,115.795,118.74(2.95)0.000.000.005,116.135,118.49(2.36)0.000.000.005,116.585,118.57(1.99)0.000.000.005,117.155,118.63(1.48)0.000.000.005,117.605,118.79(1.19)0.000.000.005,118.285,119.26(0.98)0.000.000.00Recorder #1243Recorder #1241Test No. 9Test No. 10Page 5 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/16/2015 0:0010/16/2015 1:0010/16/2015 2:0010/16/2015 3:0010/16/2015 4:0010/16/2015 5:0010/16/2015 6:0010/16/2015 7:0010/16/2015 8:0010/16/2015 9:0010/16/2015 10:0010/16/2015 11:0010/16/2015 12:0010/16/2015 13:0010/16/2015 14:0010/16/2015 15:0010/16/2015 16:0010/16/2015 17:0010/16/2015 18:0010/16/2015 19:0010/16/2015 20:0010/16/2015 21:0010/16/2015 22:0010/16/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #2712Node =Hydrant #1770Elevation =4692.64Elevation =4679.91ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference4,926.184,925.550.635,028.535,028.410.124,926.404,926.59(0.19)5,029.095,029.14(0.05)4,927.314,927.300.015,029.655,029.68(0.03)4,927.654,926.830.825,030.105,029.510.594,926.074,925.970.105,028.865,029.09(0.23)4,924.604,925.02(0.42)5,027.515,028.60(1.09)4,920.314,922.57(2.26)5,023.115,027.16(4.05)4,915.354,921.60(6.25)5,018.035,026.29(8.26)4,914.674,921.55(6.88)5,004.385,026.19(21.81)4,916.704,921.63(4.93)5,009.015,018.15(9.14)4,919.864,921.65(1.79)5,010.595,018.07(7.48)4,920.764,921.66(0.90)5,011.835,017.98(6.15)4,921.214,921.67(0.46)5,011.045,017.89(6.85)4,920.094,921.67(1.58)5,010.145,017.79(7.65)4,920.544,921.68(1.14)5,011.385,017.69(6.31)4,921.784,921.720.065,012.285,017.69(5.41)4,920.204,921.71(1.51)5,019.955,024.92(4.97)4,919.634,921.67(2.04)5,019.505,024.87(5.37)4,920.204,921.67(1.47)5,021.875,024.92(3.05)4,920.764,921.67(0.91)5,023.005,024.96(1.96)4,921.554,921.69(0.14)5,023.115,025.09(1.98)4,922.464,921.710.755,023.455,025.20(1.75)4,922.124,921.750.375,023.675,025.34(1.67)4,924.944,924.000.945,026.165,026.81(0.65)Recorder #1246Recorder #1244Test No. 11Test No. 12Page 6 of 6
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DaySaturday, October 17, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference10/17/2015 0:00 0:00 27.40 27.40 0.00 23.04 23.04 0.00 36.36 36.360.0010/17/2015 1:00 1:0027.6027.450.1523.1623.120.0436.6536.360.2910/17/2015 2:00 2:0027.8027.590.2123.3123.220.0936.9836.620.3610/17/2015 3:00 3:0028.3027.770.5323.4723.320.1537.3536.860.4910/17/2015 4:00 4:0028.5028.020.4823.5923.440.1537.7237.190.5310/17/2015 5:00 5:0029.0028.290.7123.7423.560.1838.0837.500.5810/17/2015 6:00 6:0029.2028.560.6423.8423.680.1638.3837.790.5910/17/2015 7:00 7:0029.4028.770.6323.9123.780.1338.5037.950.5510/17/2015 8:00 8:0029.4028.800.6023.9623.860.1038.3537.910.4410/17/2015 9:00 9:0029.4028.970.4323.7423.670.0738.3838.240.1410/17/2015 10:00 10:0029.4028.960.4423.4923.440.0538.2738.080.1910/17/2015 11:00 11:0029.2028.830.3723.2423.210.0338.1537.760.3910/17/2015 12:00 12:0029.2028.850.3523.0122.990.0238.1137.950.1610/17/2015 13:00 13:0029.2028.910.2922.7822.770.0138.1138.100.0110/17/2015 14:00 14:0029.2028.910.2922.5622.540.0238.1738.040.1310/17/2015 15:00 15:0029.2029.020.1822.3422.320.0238.3138.250.0610/17/2015 16:00 16:0029.2029.080.1222.2422.200.0438.1838.23-0.0510/17/2015 17:00 17:0029.0028.920.0822.2922.250.0437.7837.780.0010/17/2015 18:00 18:0028.7028.76-0.0622.3422.310.0337.4837.58-0.1010/17/2015 19:00 19:0028.5028.59-0.0922.4222.370.0537.2237.39-0.1710/17/2015 20:00 20:0028.3028.43-0.1322.4722.420.0537.0737.24-0.1710/17/2015 21:00 21:0028.3028.33-0.0322.5722.490.0837.0537.22-0.1710/17/2015 22:00 22:0028.0028.26-0.2622.6422.560.0837.0437.20-0.1610/17/2015 23:00 23:0028.3028.160.1422.7422.630.1137.1537.090.06Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorSaturday, October 17, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Saturday, October 17, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD4.45
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)Node =Hydrant #2107Node =Hydrant #433Elevation =5024.74Elevation =4969.52ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference10/17/2015 0:00 5,119.965,120.03(0.07)5,120.145,120.81(0.67)10/17/2015 1:00 5,120.525,120.430.095,120.365,120.99(0.63)10/17/2015 2:00 5,120.985,120.660.325,120.815,121.19(0.38)10/17/2015 3:00 5,121.315,121.060.255,121.155,121.48(0.33)10/17/2015 4:00 5,121.885,121.350.535,121.605,121.76(0.16)10/17/2015 5:00 5,122.225,121.630.595,121.945,122.03(0.09)10/17/2015 6:00 5,122.225,121.740.485,122.055,122.24(0.19)10/17/2015 7:00 5,121.995,121.630.365,122.055,122.32(0.27)10/17/2015 8:00 5,121.205,121.27(0.07)5,121.945,122.19(0.25)10/17/2015 9:00 5,120.865,121.51(0.65)5,121.715,122.47(0.76)10/17/2015 10:00 5,120.195,121.00(0.81)5,121.605,122.26(0.66)10/17/2015 11:00 5,119.625,121.55(1.93)5,121.605,122.31(0.71)10/17/2015 12:00 5,119.065,121.69(2.63)5,121.495,122.41(0.92)10/17/2015 13:00 5,119.175,121.52(2.35)5,121.605,122.41(0.81)10/17/2015 14:00 5,118.955,121.90(2.95)5,121.835,122.54(0.71)10/17/2015 15:00 5,118.615,122.12(3.51)5,121.945,122.70(0.76)10/17/2015 16:00 5,117.595,121.18(3.59)5,121.605,122.35(0.75)10/17/2015 17:00 5,117.145,121.08(3.94)5,121.265,122.14(0.88)10/17/2015 18:00 5,117.485,120.91(3.43)5,121.045,121.96(0.92)10/17/2015 19:00 5,118.045,120.80(2.76)5,120.815,121.81(1.00)10/17/2015 20:00 5,118.725,120.88(2.16)5,120.705,121.74(1.04)10/17/2015 21:00 5,119.065,120.88(1.82)5,120.705,121.70(1.00)10/17/2015 22:00 5,119.515,120.70(1.19)5,120.705,121.59(0.89)10/17/2015 23:00 5,119.855,120.90(1.05)5,120.815,121.61(0.80)Date/TimeRecorder #1242Test No. 1Test No. 2Recorder #1240Page 1 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/17/2015 0:0010/17/2015 1:0010/17/2015 2:0010/17/2015 3:0010/17/2015 4:0010/17/2015 5:0010/17/2015 6:0010/17/2015 7:0010/17/2015 8:0010/17/2015 9:0010/17/2015 10:0010/17/2015 11:0010/17/2015 12:0010/17/2015 13:0010/17/2015 14:0010/17/2015 15:0010/17/2015 16:0010/17/2015 17:0010/17/2015 18:0010/17/2015 19:0010/17/2015 20:0010/17/2015 21:0010/17/2015 22:0010/17/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #490Node =Hydrant #278Elevation =4880.25Elevation =4861.19ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,118.875,119.71(0.84)5,120.795,120.390.405,119.325,120.19(0.87)5,121.135,120.610.525,119.775,120.43(0.66)5,121.475,120.830.645,120.225,120.89(0.67)5,121.815,121.170.645,120.675,121.17(0.50)5,122.265,121.460.805,121.015,121.45(0.44)5,122.605,121.740.865,120.785,121.52(0.74)5,122.715,121.930.785,120.445,121.35(0.91)5,122.715,121.950.765,119.545,120.89(1.35)5,122.485,121.750.735,119.545,121.16(1.62)5,122.485,122.170.315,119.325,120.54(1.22)5,122.145,121.880.265,119.095,121.27(2.18)5,122.035,121.990.045,118.985,121.43(2.45)5,121.815,122.13(0.32)5,119.545,121.20(1.66)5,121.925,122.12(0.20)5,119.775,121.67(1.90)5,122.035,122.27(0.24)5,119.995,121.91(1.92)5,122.265,122.47(0.21)5,118.875,120.69(1.82)5,122.265,121.850.415,118.415,120.64(2.23)5,122.145,121.620.525,117.855,120.46(2.61)5,121.815,121.440.375,117.745,120.38(2.64)5,121.695,121.290.405,118.085,120.51(2.43)5,121.585,121.270.315,118.415,120.54(2.13)5,121.355,121.250.105,118.755,120.33(1.58)5,121.355,121.140.215,119.205,120.60(1.40)5,121.475,121.190.28Test No. 3Recorder #1251Test No. 4Recorder #1249Page 2 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/17/2015 0:0010/17/2015 1:0010/17/2015 2:0010/17/2015 3:0010/17/2015 4:0010/17/2015 5:0010/17/2015 6:0010/17/2015 7:0010/17/2015 8:0010/17/2015 9:0010/17/2015 10:0010/17/2015 11:0010/17/2015 12:0010/17/2015 13:0010/17/2015 14:0010/17/2015 15:0010/17/2015 16:0010/17/2015 17:0010/17/2015 18:0010/17/2015 19:0010/17/2015 20:0010/17/2015 21:0010/17/2015 22:0010/17/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #121Node =Hydrant #1887Elevation =4817.61Elevation =4754.53ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,119.155,119.86(0.71)5,117.925,119.69(1.77)5,119.525,120.27(0.75)5,118.385,120.16(1.78)5,120.005,120.51(0.51)5,118.945,120.41(1.47)5,120.495,120.94(0.45)5,119.505,120.86(1.36)5,120.975,121.23(0.26)5,119.965,121.15(1.19)5,121.345,121.51(0.17)5,120.295,121.43(1.14)5,121.345,121.61(0.27)5,120.295,121.51(1.22)5,120.975,121.48(0.51)5,119.845,121.33(1.49)5,120.615,121.08(0.47)5,119.735,120.88(1.15)5,121.095,121.98(0.89)5,120.975,122.48(1.51)5,120.855,121.53(0.68)5,120.185,121.97(1.79)5,120.615,121.90(1.29)5,119.285,122.45(3.17)5,120.615,122.04(1.43)5,118.605,122.59(3.99)5,120.615,121.95(1.34)5,118.605,122.45(3.85)5,120.735,122.22(1.49)5,118.945,122.78(3.84)5,121.095,122.43(1.34)5,118.605,122.98(4.38)5,119.155,120.97(1.82)5,115.565,120.69(5.13)5,118.675,120.87(2.20)5,115.335,120.63(5.30)5,118.185,120.69(2.51)5,115.445,120.45(5.01)5,118.305,120.59(2.29)5,115.785,120.36(4.58)5,118.555,120.68(2.13)5,116.465,120.49(4.03)5,118.915,120.69(1.78)5,117.025,120.52(3.50)5,119.155,120.51(1.36)5,117.365,120.31(2.95)5,119.405,120.72(1.32)5,118.045,120.58(2.54)Test No. 6Recorder #1245Test No. 5Recorder #341298Page 3 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/17/2015 0:0010/17/2015 1:0010/17/2015 2:0010/17/2015 3:0010/17/2015 4:0010/17/2015 5:0010/17/2015 6:0010/17/2015 7:0010/17/2015 8:0010/17/2015 9:0010/17/2015 10:0010/17/2015 11:0010/17/2015 12:0010/17/2015 13:0010/17/2015 14:0010/17/2015 15:0010/17/2015 16:0010/17/2015 17:0010/17/2015 18:0010/17/2015 19:0010/17/2015 20:0010/17/2015 21:0010/17/2015 22:0010/17/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1754Node =Hydrant #1125Elevation =4820.11Elevation =4779.50ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,118.505,119.32(0.82)5,119.435,119.320.115,118.865,119.93(1.07)5,119.885,119.93(0.05)5,119.475,120.18(0.71)5,120.565,120.190.375,120.085,120.70(0.62)5,121.235,120.700.535,120.565,120.99(0.43)5,121.685,120.990.695,120.685,121.27(0.59)5,121.915,121.270.645,120.685,121.28(0.60)5,121.805,121.290.515,119.965,121.00(1.04)5,121.125,121.010.115,118.745,120.41(1.67)5,119.995,120.42(0.43)5,118.745,120.38(1.64)5,119.995,120.39(0.40)5,118.265,119.54(1.28)5,119.205,119.54(0.34)5,118.025,120.67(2.65)5,118.645,120.68(2.04)5,117.655,120.86(3.21)5,118.075,120.86(2.79)5,118.265,120.49(2.23)5,118.645,120.50(1.86)5,118.385,121.16(2.78)5,118.535,121.17(2.64)5,118.865,121.44(2.58)5,118.535,121.45(2.92)5,117.295,120.02(2.73)5,116.835,120.03(3.20)5,116.565,120.06(3.50)5,116.165,120.06(3.90)5,116.325,119.90(3.58)5,115.825,119.91(4.09)5,116.565,119.85(3.29)5,116.385,119.86(3.48)5,117.175,120.08(2.91)5,117.285,120.09(2.81)5,117.775,120.13(2.36)5,118.075,120.14(2.07)5,118.025,119.88(1.86)5,118.535,119.89(1.36)5,118.745,120.25(1.51)5,119.325,120.25(0.93)Test No. 7Test No. 8Recorder #341289Recorder #201250Page 4 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/17/2015 0:0010/17/2015 1:0010/17/2015 2:0010/17/2015 3:0010/17/2015 4:0010/17/2015 5:0010/17/2015 6:0010/17/2015 7:0010/17/2015 8:0010/17/2015 9:0010/17/2015 10:0010/17/2015 11:0010/17/2015 12:0010/17/2015 13:0010/17/2015 14:0010/17/2015 15:0010/17/2015 16:0010/17/2015 17:0010/17/2015 18:0010/17/2015 19:0010/17/2015 20:0010/17/2015 21:0010/17/2015 22:0010/17/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1025Node =Hydrant #Elevation =4755.67Elevation =0.00ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,119.295,119.51(0.22)0.000.000.005,119.745,120.05(0.31)0.000.000.005,120.315,120.300.010.000.000.005,120.985,120.790.190.000.000.005,121.325,121.080.240.000.000.005,121.555,121.360.190.000.000.005,121.435,121.400.030.000.000.005,120.875,121.18(0.31)0.000.000.005,120.085,120.65(0.57)0.000.000.005,120.425,121.02(0.60)0.000.000.005,119.745,120.30(0.56)0.000.000.005,119.405,121.20(1.80)0.000.000.005,118.735,121.38(2.65)0.000.000.005,119.065,121.09(2.03)0.000.000.005,119.185,121.65(2.47)0.000.000.005,119.185,121.90(2.72)0.000.000.005,117.265,120.39(3.13)0.000.000.005,116.585,120.37(3.79)0.000.000.005,116.705,120.20(3.50)0.000.000.005,117.155,120.13(2.98)0.000.000.005,117.715,120.30(2.59)0.000.000.005,118.285,120.34(2.06)0.000.000.005,118.615,120.11(1.50)0.000.000.005,119.185,120.42(1.24)0.000.000.00Recorder #1243Recorder #1241Test No. 9Test No. 10Page 5 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/17/2015 0:0010/17/2015 1:0010/17/2015 2:0010/17/2015 3:0010/17/2015 4:0010/17/2015 5:0010/17/2015 6:0010/17/2015 7:0010/17/2015 8:0010/17/2015 9:0010/17/2015 10:0010/17/2015 11:0010/17/2015 12:0010/17/2015 13:0010/17/2015 14:0010/17/2015 15:0010/17/2015 16:0010/17/2015 17:0010/17/2015 18:0010/17/2015 19:0010/17/2015 20:0010/17/2015 21:0010/17/2015 22:0010/17/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #2712Node =Hydrant #1770Elevation =4692.64Elevation =4679.91ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference4,925.614,923.342.275,027.745,026.770.974,925.844,925.91(0.07)5,027.625,028.45(0.83)4,926.974,926.140.835,028.755,028.710.044,926.864,927.37(0.51)5,029.095,029.58(0.49)4,925.734,927.37(1.64)5,028.305,029.70(1.40)4,925.164,927.37(2.21)5,028.305,029.81(1.51)4,924.374,926.26(1.89)5,027.285,029.24(1.96)4,922.464,924.19(1.73)5,024.695,028.06(3.37)4,916.704,921.75(5.05)5,008.445,026.61(18.17)4,916.934,921.61(4.68)5,006.535,018.37(11.84)4,915.354,921.53(6.18)5,006.535,017.81(11.28)4,917.834,921.66(3.83)5,008.675,018.23(9.56)4,917.274,921.67(4.40)5,006.985,018.13(11.15)4,917.274,921.63(4.36)5,009.125,017.75(8.63)4,919.304,921.69(2.39)5,009.235,017.91(8.68)4,919.634,921.71(2.08)5,009.915,017.85(7.94)4,919.304,921.68(2.38)5,019.275,024.78(5.51)4,919.974,921.73(1.76)5,018.945,024.92(5.98)4,918.854,921.72(2.87)5,020.525,024.99(4.47)4,920.764,921.73(0.97)5,021.085,025.08(4.00)4,922.004,921.840.165,023.455,025.25(1.80)4,922.684,923.02(0.34)5,023.795,026.05(2.26)4,922.004,922.08(0.08)5,023.675,025.53(1.86)4,924.264,924.190.075,026.275,026.90(0.63)Recorder #1246Recorder #1244Test No. 11Test No. 12Page 6 of 6
1517192123252729313335373941434512 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM
Level (ft)Time of DaySunday, October 18, 2015Sourdough Reservoir - ObservedLyman Creek Reservoir - ObservedHilltop Reservoir - ObservedSourdough Reservoir - SimulatedLyman Creek Reservoir - SimulatedHilltop Reservoir - SimulatedReservoir Level Comparison
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanReservoir Level Calibration(Tower Level in ft)Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference Observed Simulated Difference10/18/2015 0:00 0:00 28.30 28.30 0.00 22.87 22.87 0.00 37.39 37.390.0010/18/2015 1:00 1:0028.5028.420.0823.0222.980.0437.6337.630.0010/18/2015 2:00 2:0028.5028.57-0.0723.1723.100.0737.8937.850.0410/18/2015 3:00 3:0029.0028.740.2623.3123.210.1038.1838.060.1210/18/2015 4:00 4:0029.2028.940.2623.4723.330.1438.4838.290.1910/18/2015 5:00 5:0029.4029.190.2123.5923.460.1338.7438.580.1610/18/2015 6:00 6:0029.2028.960.2423.7123.560.1538.8738.540.3310/18/2015 7:00 7:0028.5028.230.2723.8123.640.1738.5338.070.4610/18/2015 8:00 8:0028.3028.000.3023.8823.740.1437.9737.660.3110/18/2015 9:00 9:0028.5028.330.1723.6723.560.1137.8237.86-0.0410/18/2015 10:00 10:0028.5028.490.0123.4123.330.0837.6137.84-0.2310/18/2015 11:00 11:0028.3028.45-0.1523.1423.100.0437.3737.53-0.1610/18/2015 12:00 12:0028.3028.38-0.0822.9222.860.0637.2337.41-0.1810/18/2015 13:00 13:0028.3028.41-0.1122.6622.620.0437.1837.52-0.3410/18/2015 14:00 14:0028.0028.46-0.4622.4422.390.0537.1837.64-0.4610/18/2015 15:00 15:0028.3028.240.0622.2222.140.0837.2737.060.2110/18/2015 16:00 16:0028.0027.990.0122.1221.990.1337.1436.690.4510/18/2015 17:00 17:0027.8027.730.0722.1522.040.1136.6936.360.3310/18/2015 18:00 18:0027.6027.460.1422.2122.080.1336.3136.080.2310/18/2015 19:00 19:0027.4027.170.2322.2622.130.1335.8835.750.1310/18/2015 20:00 20:0026.9026.92-0.0222.3122.180.1335.5635.57-0.0110/18/2015 21:00 21:0026.7026.680.0222.3922.230.1635.3535.330.0210/18/2015 22:00 22:0026.4026.59-0.1922.4722.300.1735.3235.45-0.1310/18/2015 23:00 23:0026.4026.350.0522.5722.340.2335.3935.030.36Lyman Reservoir LevelSourdough Reservoir LevelTimeDate/TimeHilltop Reservoir LevelPage 1 of 1
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand FactorSunday, October 18, 2015Diurnal Demand Pattern - Overall
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,00012:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)Sunday, October 18, 2015Diurnal Demand Curve - OverallAverage Demand = MGD4.52
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)Node =Hydrant #2107Node =Hydrant #433Elevation =5024.74Elevation =4969.52ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference10/18/2015 0:00 5,120.415,121.47(1.06)5,121.045,121.95(0.91)10/18/2015 1:00 5,120.755,121.70(0.95)5,121.385,122.13(0.75)10/18/2015 2:00 5,120.985,121.90(0.92)5,121.605,122.32(0.72)10/18/2015 3:00 5,121.435,122.14(0.71)5,121.945,122.52(0.58)10/18/2015 4:00 5,121.655,122.47(0.82)5,122.175,122.79(0.62)10/18/2015 5:00 5,121.995,122.38(0.39)5,122.505,122.90(0.40)10/18/2015 6:00 5,121.435,122.01(0.58)5,122.175,122.64(0.47)10/18/2015 7:00 5,120.525,121.63(1.11)5,121.495,122.10(0.61)10/18/2015 8:00 5,119.625,120.91(1.29)5,121.045,121.66(0.62)10/18/2015 9:00 5,119.965,121.43(1.47)5,121.155,122.08(0.93)10/18/2015 10:00 5,119.065,120.87(1.81)5,120.815,121.96(1.15)10/18/2015 11:00 5,118.495,120.80(2.31)5,120.595,121.83(1.24)10/18/2015 12:00 5,118.165,121.08(2.92)5,120.705,121.88(1.18)10/18/2015 13:00 5,118.275,121.22(2.95)5,120.705,121.96(1.26)10/18/2015 14:00 5,118.275,120.00(1.73)5,120.595,121.59(1.00)10/18/2015 15:00 5,118.275,120.21(1.94)5,120.705,121.43(0.73)10/18/2015 16:00 5,117.255,119.72(2.47)5,120.365,121.03(0.67)10/18/2015 17:00 5,116.805,119.44(2.64)5,119.915,120.74(0.83)10/18/2015 18:00 5,116.695,119.08(2.39)5,119.685,120.43(0.75)10/18/2015 19:00 5,116.245,119.02(2.78)5,119.125,120.21(1.09)10/18/2015 20:00 5,116.465,118.75(2.29)5,118.895,119.97(1.08)10/18/2015 21:00 5,116.915,119.19(2.28)5,118.785,119.99(1.21)10/18/2015 22:00 5,117.375,118.37(1.00)5,118.785,119.69(0.91)10/18/2015 23:00 5,117.825,119.23(1.41)5,118.895,119.82(0.93)Date/TimeRecorder #1242Test No. 1Test No. 2Recorder #1240Page 1 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/18/2015 0:0010/18/2015 1:0010/18/2015 2:0010/18/2015 3:0010/18/2015 4:0010/18/2015 5:0010/18/2015 6:0010/18/2015 7:0010/18/2015 8:0010/18/2015 9:0010/18/2015 10:0010/18/2015 11:0010/18/2015 12:0010/18/2015 13:0010/18/2015 14:0010/18/2015 15:0010/18/2015 16:0010/18/2015 17:0010/18/2015 18:0010/18/2015 19:0010/18/2015 20:0010/18/2015 21:0010/18/2015 22:0010/18/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #490Node =Hydrant #278Elevation =4880.25Elevation =4861.19ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,119.775,121.27(1.50)5,121.815,121.620.195,120.225,121.51(1.29)5,122.145,121.830.315,120.445,121.72(1.28)5,122.375,122.040.335,121.015,121.97(0.96)5,122.715,122.260.455,121.235,122.33(1.10)5,122.935,122.550.385,121.465,122.16(0.70)5,123.275,122.620.655,121.015,121.75(0.74)5,123.055,122.370.685,119.995,121.44(1.45)5,122.375,121.910.465,118.875,120.61(1.74)5,121.925,121.360.565,119.325,121.21(1.89)5,122.035,121.900.135,118.305,120.48(2.18)5,121.585,121.65(0.07)5,118.305,120.43(2.13)5,121.245,121.49(0.25)5,118.305,120.79(2.49)5,121.245,121.57(0.33)5,118.415,120.95(2.54)5,121.355,121.68(0.33)5,118.535,119.40(0.87)5,121.355,121.130.225,118.645,119.76(1.12)5,121.475,121.000.475,117.405,119.17(1.77)5,121.025,120.420.605,116.725,118.90(2.18)5,120.565,120.120.445,116.385,118.50(2.12)5,120.235,119.790.445,115.375,118.52(3.15)5,119.775,119.610.165,115.485,118.23(2.75)5,119.445,119.370.075,116.045,118.85(2.81)5,119.325,119.49(0.17)5,116.385,117.83(1.45)5,119.445,119.100.345,116.835,118.97(2.14)5,119.445,119.380.06Test No. 3Recorder #1251Test No. 4Recorder #1249Page 2 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/18/2015 0:0010/18/2015 1:0010/18/2015 2:0010/18/2015 3:0010/18/2015 4:0010/18/2015 5:0010/18/2015 6:0010/18/2015 7:0010/18/2015 8:0010/18/2015 9:0010/18/2015 10:0010/18/2015 11:0010/18/2015 12:0010/18/2015 13:0010/18/2015 14:0010/18/2015 15:0010/18/2015 16:0010/18/2015 17:0010/18/2015 18:0010/18/2015 19:0010/18/2015 20:0010/18/2015 21:0010/18/2015 22:0010/18/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #121Node =Hydrant #1887Elevation =4817.61Elevation =4754.53ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,120.005,121.33(1.33)5,118.605,121.24(2.64)5,120.495,121.58(1.09)5,119.175,121.49(2.32)5,120.855,121.78(0.93)5,119.285,121.70(2.42)5,121.225,122.03(0.81)5,119.735,121.96(2.23)5,121.465,122.37(0.91)5,120.075,122.31(2.24)5,121.705,122.26(0.56)5,120.415,122.15(1.74)5,121.345,121.90(0.56)5,119.965,121.75(1.79)5,120.495,121.56(1.07)5,118.835,121.44(2.61)5,119.885,120.78(0.90)5,118.495,120.60(2.11)5,120.495,121.82(1.33)5,120.075,122.40(2.33)5,119.765,121.39(1.63)5,119.055,121.86(2.81)5,119.765,121.27(1.51)5,118.385,121.76(3.38)5,119.525,121.46(1.94)5,117.595,122.00(4.41)5,119.645,121.58(1.94)5,118.265,122.13(3.87)5,119.645,120.59(0.95)5,118.265,120.96(2.70)5,119.765,120.69(0.93)5,118.385,121.14(2.76)5,117.945,119.47(1.53)5,115.335,119.17(3.84)5,117.215,119.18(1.97)5,114.775,118.89(4.12)5,116.855,118.81(1.96)5,114.655,118.50(3.85)5,116.125,118.77(2.65)5,113.985,118.51(4.53)5,116.245,118.50(2.26)5,114.095,118.22(4.13)5,116.615,118.99(2.38)5,114.655,118.83(4.18)5,116.975,118.13(1.16)5,115.225,117.82(2.60)5,117.335,119.05(1.72)5,115.675,118.94(3.27)Test No. 5Recorder #341298Test No. 6Recorder #1245Page 3 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/18/2015 0:0010/18/2015 1:0010/18/2015 2:0010/18/2015 3:0010/18/2015 4:0010/18/2015 5:0010/18/2015 6:0010/18/2015 7:0010/18/2015 8:0010/18/2015 9:0010/18/2015 10:0010/18/2015 11:0010/18/2015 12:0010/18/2015 13:0010/18/2015 14:0010/18/2015 15:0010/18/2015 16:0010/18/2015 17:0010/18/2015 18:0010/18/2015 19:0010/18/2015 20:0010/18/2015 21:0010/18/2015 22:0010/18/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1754Node =Hydrant #1125Elevation =4820.11Elevation =4779.50ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,119.475,121.04(1.57)5,120.115,121.05(0.94)5,119.965,121.31(1.35)5,120.565,121.31(0.75)5,120.205,121.52(1.32)5,120.675,121.52(0.85)5,120.685,121.79(1.11)5,121.235,121.80(0.57)5,120.805,122.19(1.39)5,121.465,122.19(0.73)5,121.055,121.90(0.85)5,121.685,121.91(0.23)5,120.565,121.42(0.86)5,121.235,121.43(0.20)5,119.355,121.19(1.84)5,120.115,121.20(1.09)5,118.025,120.20(2.18)5,118.865,120.21(1.35)5,118.385,120.64(2.26)5,119.205,120.65(1.45)5,117.055,119.60(2.55)5,117.745,119.61(1.87)5,116.925,119.60(2.68)5,117.405,119.61(2.21)5,117.055,120.16(3.11)5,117.065,120.17(3.11)5,117.295,120.36(3.07)5,117.285,120.37(3.09)5,117.295,118.14(0.85)5,117.285,118.14(0.86)5,117.535,118.80(1.27)5,117.405,118.81(1.41)5,115.835,118.44(2.61)5,115.935,118.45(2.52)5,115.105,118.17(3.07)5,115.145,118.18(3.04)5,114.865,117.74(2.88)5,114.925,117.75(2.83)5,113.895,117.87(3.98)5,114.135,117.87(3.74)5,114.265,117.55(3.29)5,114.585,117.56(2.98)5,114.985,118.47(3.49)5,115.375,118.48(3.11)5,115.475,117.09(1.62)5,116.165,117.09(0.93)5,116.445,118.70(2.26)5,117.065,118.70(1.64)Test No. 7Test No. 8Recorder #341289Recorder #201250Page 4 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/18/2015 0:0010/18/2015 1:0010/18/2015 2:0010/18/2015 3:0010/18/2015 4:0010/18/2015 5:0010/18/2015 6:0010/18/2015 7:0010/18/2015 8:0010/18/2015 9:0010/18/2015 10:0010/18/2015 11:0010/18/2015 12:0010/18/2015 13:0010/18/2015 14:0010/18/2015 15:0010/18/2015 16:0010/18/2015 17:0010/18/2015 18:0010/18/2015 19:0010/18/2015 20:0010/18/2015 21:0010/18/2015 22:0010/18/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #1025Node =Hydrant #Elevation =4755.67Elevation =0.00ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference5,119.975,121.15(1.18)0.000.000.005,120.425,121.41(0.99)0.000.000.005,120.535,121.62(1.09)0.000.000.005,121.105,121.88(0.78)0.000.000.005,121.325,122.25(0.93)0.000.000.005,121.555,122.03(0.48)0.000.000.005,121.215,121.59(0.38)0.000.000.005,120.085,121.33(1.25)0.000.000.005,119.065,120.41(1.35)0.000.000.005,119.635,121.19(1.56)0.000.000.005,118.505,120.29(1.79)0.000.000.005,118.165,120.26(2.10)0.000.000.005,118.055,120.71(2.66)0.000.000.005,118.165,120.89(2.73)0.000.000.005,118.165,119.04(0.88)0.000.000.005,118.395,119.53(1.14)0.000.000.005,116.585,118.83(2.25)0.000.000.005,115.915,118.56(2.65)0.000.000.005,115.685,118.14(2.46)0.000.000.005,114.895,118.22(3.33)0.000.000.005,115.125,117.92(2.80)0.000.000.005,115.915,118.66(2.75)0.000.000.005,116.365,117.47(1.11)0.000.000.005,116.925,118.83(1.91)0.000.000.00Recorder #1243Recorder #1241Test No. 9Test No. 10Page 5 of 6
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model CalibrationCity of BozemanExtended Pressure Testing Calibration(Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation in ft)10/18/2015 0:0010/18/2015 1:0010/18/2015 2:0010/18/2015 3:0010/18/2015 4:0010/18/2015 5:0010/18/2015 6:0010/18/2015 7:0010/18/2015 8:0010/18/2015 9:0010/18/2015 10:0010/18/2015 11:0010/18/2015 12:0010/18/2015 13:0010/18/2015 14:0010/18/2015 15:0010/18/2015 16:0010/18/2015 17:0010/18/2015 18:0010/18/2015 19:0010/18/2015 20:0010/18/2015 21:0010/18/2015 22:0010/18/2015 23:00Date/TimeNode =Hydrant #2712Node =Hydrant #1770Elevation =4692.64Elevation =4679.91ObservedSimulatedDifferenceObservedSimulatedDifference4,925.394,926.65(1.26)5,027.175,028.69(1.52)4,925.844,927.02(1.18)5,027.745,029.01(1.27)4,926.974,927.12(0.15)5,028.535,029.20(0.67)4,927.314,927.46(0.15)5,028.755,029.52(0.77)4,925.844,928.17(2.33)5,028.075,030.08(2.01)4,925.844,925.810.035,027.855,028.74(0.89)4,924.494,924.300.195,026.495,027.91(1.42)4,922.574,925.93(3.36)5,026.045,029.00(2.96)4,916.814,922.93(6.12)5,008.675,027.24(18.57)4,917.154,921.67(4.52)5,008.675,018.54(9.87)4,913.434,921.57(8.14)5,003.375,017.84(14.47)4,917.044,921.59(4.55)5,007.205,017.71(10.51)4,915.804,921.65(5.85)5,004.495,017.82(13.33)4,917.384,921.66(4.28)5,008.445,017.71(9.27)4,920.654,921.44(0.79)5,010.705,016.49(5.79)4,917.834,921.55(3.72)5,010.025,016.68(6.66)4,918.734,921.67(2.94)5,020.295,024.52(4.23)4,918.734,921.67(2.94)5,021.195,024.58(3.39)4,920.884,921.66(0.78)5,021.305,024.60(3.30)4,920.314,921.68(1.37)5,020.975,024.73(3.76)4,919.864,921.68(1.82)5,020.855,024.75(3.90)4,919.974,923.56(3.59)5,022.095,026.11(4.02)4,922.914,921.661.255,024.805,024.82(0.02)4,924.824,925.81(0.99)5,026.275,027.63(1.36)Recorder #1246Recorder #1244Test No. 11Test No. 12Page 6 of 6
Water Facility Plan Update
Appendices
July 2017
Appendix F – Non-Potable Irrigation Evaluation
NON-POTABLE WATER IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA
1. Any proposed non-potable water system shall meet the requirements specified in section V,
sub-sections A.2. and A.3. of the COB Design Standards and Specifications Policy for Water
Distribution Lines Design Criteria for Master Plans and Engineering Design Reports. A separate
non-potable water system master plan shall be submitted for each subdivision or major
development prior to the approval and commissioning of the system. The engineering design
report shall be prepared in accordance with this document by a professional engineer licensed
in the state of Montana prior to submitting plans and specifications for regulatory review. All
design criteria and critical conditions shall be shown on the overall plan for the study area.
2. The non-potable water systems designed and constructed under authority of this document
shall be used for the sole purpose of irrigation and shall in no way be designated as “public
water supply”, “potable water”, or “fire service”. All manholes, valve boxes, air relief valves,
blow-offs, hydrants, or other appurtenances associated with the non-potable water system shall
be marked as “Non-Potable, Do Not Drink” and color coded purple.
3. Non-Potable Water Main Design: The non-potable water distribution system shall be designed
to meet the peak hour demand as determined in the engineering design report listed in section
E.1. of these specifications. The design report for each development shall include a detailed
analysis of the estimated demands for all new customers and base the distribution pipe sizing on
this demand plus an adequate factor of safety.
a. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe shall be used exclusively unless special approval, in writing, of
alternative materials is given by the City Engineer. PVC shall be manufactured from class
1245A or 1245B compounds conforming to ASTM D1784 and have a minimum hydrostatic
test basis (HDB) of 4,000 psi. All PVC pipe shall conform to AWWA C900 and shall be Class
150 psi (DR 18).
b. A “C” factor of 150 should be used when modeling non-potable water systems with PVC
pipe.
c. The non-potable water system shall be designed to maintain a working pressure 5 – 10 psi
less than adjacent potable water lines, with a maximum pressure of 55 psi and minimum
pressure of 30 psi.
d. All non-potable water system piping shall be manufactured, painted, or wrapped in
polyethylene with purple coloring. The pipe may also be stenciled or marked with tape.
4. Main Extensions: All main extensions shall be looped, where possible. All permanent and
temporary dead end mains shall end with a flushing hydrant or a 2” blow-off. Permanent dead-
end mains shall not exceed 500-feet long.
5. Services: Non-potable water lines are designated as either a “service line” or “water main”
based on its use, not its size. In general, a single irrigation line serving a residential or
commercial property is considered a service line; a line serving more than one building, or
intended to provide service to an entire development, is considered a non-potable water main.
Service lines can range from ¾” to 2”; mains shall be 24” diameter or smaller.
a. Service pipes shall be either PVC Schedule 40 or polyethylene (PE) piping rated at 200 psi,
colored purple. The COB will provide service stubs to each property. Each property owner
will be responsible for installation of the irrigation system components downstream of the
meter. A master control valve, shut-off valve, and wye strainer are required at each service
connection.
b. All service stubs shall be installed in accordance with the COB Standard Drawings for water
distribution service lines. The service lines shall be installed at the center of each lot, with a
minimum horizontal distance of 3-feet from any potable water or gravity sewer line, unless
otherwise approved by the Water Superintendent. The service line connections shall be
uniform in size and shall be sized to adequately serve the maximum anticipated demand for
the property being served.
c. No service line shall be extended into a building or home until a “Non-Potable Water New
Customer Service Connection” application has been completed and a permit has been
obtained from the COB.
d. No backflow prevention devices are required for non-potable water irrigation systems,
however, a cross connection inspection performed by a certified COB technician is required
prior to placing the new connection in service. Annual cross-connection inspections shall be
required for each non-potable water customers. Refer to the Quick Check List for Non-
Potable Water Connections. Backflow prevention devices are required for all potable water
systems to protect the public water supply from any contamination or possible cross
connections with the non-potable water system. Refer to the COB Design Standards and
Specifications Policy Section V, Subsection A.6.e. for water system backflow prevention
requirements.
e. Meters shall be installed inside the building by the Water Department for all service lines.
Meter pits shall not be used unless specifically approved by the Water Superintendent.
Where allowed, any meters or appurtenances installed in an outdoor pit, shall be designed
to withstand freezing.
6. Valves: Valves shall be installed in accordance with the following unless otherwise approved or
required by the Water Superintendent:
a. All connections to an existing non-potable water main shall begin with a new shut-off valve.
b. Valves shall not be located at more than 500-foot intervals
c. Every leg of a main intersection shall have a valve.
d. All valves shall open counterclockwise, opposite of potable water systems.
e. Valve boxes and all above-grade appurtenances shall be color coded purple and clearly
labeled “Non-Potable”.
f. Valves and controllers shall be keyed to limit access to authorized personnel only.
7. Hydrants: Flushing hydrants shall be placed at each street intersection, dead-end, and
intermediate points at least every 500-feet.
8. Air Relief: Air relief valves shall be provided at all high points in the line where air can
accumulate.
a. Automatic air relief valves may not be used in situations where flooding of the manhole or
chamber can occur, use of manual air relief valves is recommended wherever possible.
b. The open end of a relief pipe must be extended to at least one foot above grade and
provided screened, facing downward.
c. All relief pipes that extend above grade shall be purple and marked as “Non-Potable”.
9. Pressure Reducing Valves: Pressure reducing valves should be placed where anticipated
pressures exceed 50 psi. The Engineering Design Report should detail the hydraulic modeling or
analysis for determination of high pressure zones.
10. Thrust Restraint: All thrust restraint shall be designed to withstand the test pressure or working
pressure plus surge allowance, whichever is larger. Adequate factors of safety shall be employed
in the design.
a. The use of thrust blocks should be minimized to prevent leaking.
b. Mechanically restrained joints should be used for restraining movement on PVC piping.
11. Pressure and Leakage Testing: The minimum required hydrostatic pressure for any non-potable
water main is 200 psi.
a. The testing gauge shall be marked in increments no greater than 10 psi.
b. Conduct leakage testing concurrently with hydrostatic pressure testing for a minimum of 2
hours.
c. Do not perform pressure or leakage testing until backfill over the pipe is complete.
d. Visually inspect mains that cannot be hydrostatically tested.
e. If there is leakage, repair defective pipe section and repeat hydrostatic test.
12. Pipe Separation: All non-potable water system mains shall have a minimum horizontal
separation of 10-feet from any parallel water mains, sanitary sewers, or storm sewers. Any
pipeline crossings shall be perpendicular and arranged such that non-potable water main
pipeline joints are equidistant, and as far as possible from water or sewer main joints.
a. All crossings shall have a minimum 18-inch vertical separation
b. Where 18-inch vertical separation cannot be met, then 6-inch separation is required and the
water or sewer main musts be encased in a watertight carrier pipe or 6-inches of flowable
fill that extends 10 feet on both sides of the crossing.
c. Non-potable water mains must be located inside COB right-of-way in accordance with
Section V, Subsection D of the COB Design Standards and Specifications Policy.
d. Non-potable water mains shall be located on the opposite side of the street from water
mains.
13. Pumping and Storage Facility: Where the source of non-potable water is to be stored prior to
distribution, a storage pond shall be constructed. A pumping and filtration system shall be used
prior to discharging the water into the distribution system.
a. Non-Potable Water Storage Pond
(1) Pond shall not be located in the floodway
(2) Design of pond shall conform to Montana DEQ Pond Guideline (latest version)
(3) Usable volume of water storage shall be a minimum of peak daily demand.
(4) Pond shall have screen on inlet capable of being cleaned/maintained and minimize
debris from reaching pump station.
(5) Pond Liners:
(a) The ponds, whether constructed of earthen or other impervious materials, shall be
designed and constructed so as to minimize losses through seepage;
(b) Soils used for pond lining shall be free from foreign material such as paper, brush,
trees, and large rocks;
(c) All soil liners must be of compacted material having a permeability less than or
equal to 1 x 10-4 cm/sec, at least 18 inches thick, compacted in lifts no greater than
6 inches each;
(d) Synthetic membrane linings shall have a minimum thickness of 40 mils.
b. Pump Station/Filtration System
(1) Pump station shall be designed to provide two times the peak day demand with one
large pump off-line;
(2) Pump station shall consist of at least three pumps, with the largest pump having a
standby pump. Minimum pump station flow will be provided by hydropneumatics tank,
with the station’s smallest pump being sized to provide the minimum day demand with
no more than two start-stop cycles per hour.
(3) Pump station shall include flow meter and check valve.
(4) Pumps, filters, and hydropneumatic tank shall be located within a weather-tight building
that is adequately ventilated in non-freezing weather and heating to maintain an above-
freezing temperature during freezing weather.
(5) Pumps shall be sized to provide two times the peak daily demand.
(6) Sequence of Operation: Station shall utilize three (3) pumps to maintain system
pressure by sequencing pumps on and off, as required, to maintain smooth and efficient
operation. Pumps start and stop on level of water in hydropneumatic tank. Tank is
equipped with probes on a still well that starts and stops the pumps. Air compressor
starts and stops based on air/water level in tank. Operating point shall be adjustable in
the field. Pumps shall be sequenced off at user selectable intervals to reduce possibility
of water hammer within the piping system. Lead pump shall rotate among operating
pumps to equalize operating time of individual pumps.
(7) Main switch gear controls must be located above grade, in areas not subject to
flooding. All electric work must conform to the requirements of the National Electrical
Code or to relevant state and local codes.
(8) Filtration system shall be designed to remove solids equal to or greater than one-tenth
the emitter opening diameter for irrigation system being served. Backwash time shall
not exceed 10% of the operating time. Backwash shall be discharged to sanitary water
system.
(9) Hydropneumatic tank shall be sized to minimize pump start/stop cycles and shall be
sized at a minimum volume equal to 20 minutes of peak demand.
Quick Checklist for NonQuick Checklist for NonQuick Checklist for NonQuick Checklist for Non----Potable Water ConnectionsPotable Water ConnectionsPotable Water ConnectionsPotable Water Connections
This checklist establishes the application and permitting process for new customer service connections
for the City of Bozeman Non-Potable Irrigation System. Each new customer musts adhere to the
application procedure prior to bringing their system online.
1. City or Bozeman provides an application form that specifies the following:
a. A description of the property to be served
b. The applicants relationship to the property (owner or tenant)
c. The purpose for which the property is to be used
d. The estimated non-potable water demand
e. Delivery requirements for pressure and time of day
f. Specific purpose for the use of the non-potable water
2. Home owner to complete and sign the application.
3. Return the application to the City of Bozeman.
4. Once the application has been received and processed, a confirmation will be sent to the home
owner.
5. Once the irrigation system is complete and operable, except for final connection to the non-
potable water system, the home owner shall call to schedule the irrigation system and cross
connection inspection.
6. The inspection will check for the following requirements:
a. A complete and operable system.
b. A master control valve
c. A wye strainer (may be optional)
d. Piping and appurtenances identified as non-potable with purple coloring and warning
signs.
e. Irrigation valve box with a lid indicating non-potable system.
f. The new connection has met requirements for minimum separation from the potable
water service line (typically 3 feet).
g. If a soaker hose (semi-permeable) is part of the system, the supply pipe and terminal
end must be painted purple and the hose must be permanently secured to the supply
pipe.
Once the system passes inspection a permit will be issued, setting forth the conditions of the connection
with regards to interruptions in service, public health and safety, liability, and maintenance
responsibilities. The permit will also detail the requirements for the annual irrigation system and cross-
connection inspections.
678995 DD04.DGN 8"2'-8"8"5'-0"
6"
#4 @ 12" OCEW, TYP
FOR NON-POTABLE
TOP COAT, SAFETY PURPLE
PAINT WITH POLYURETHANE
WELDED CAP, HIGH BUILD EPOXY
3" SCH 40 STEEL PIPE WITH
AND COVER DETAIL
SEE MANHOLE RING
NTS
NON-POTABLE AIR RELIEF DETAIL
FINISH GRADE
CORPORATION STOP
NON-POTABLE WATER MAIN
1
2
3
4
CURB STOP
1'
PL
CURB BOX
TOP SECTION
VALVE BOX
8' MIN
MIN
6.5'
COUPLING
COMPRESSION
1/4 BEND
1/8" DIA.
DRAIN HOLE
DIAMETER
PROVIDE 1/8"
FLUSHING HYDRANT DETAIL
NTS
OR BRASS CAP
GALVANIZED
WITH
COUPLING
STRAIGHT
H-15428
MUELLER
2" COPPER SERVICE LINE
672582_DD05
678995 DD03.DGN
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
10'-0"
REQUIREMENT
NO VERTICAL
SEWER LINE
10'-0"
REQUIREMENT
NO VERTICAL
WATER LINE
NON-POTABLE
WATER LINE
POTABLE
BEDDING ZONE
TYPICAL PIPE
ADEQUATE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT FOR PIPES AT CROSSINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
"L" IS A STANDARD LENGTH OF PIPE AS SUPPLIED BY A PIPE MANUFACTURER.
SANITARY SEWER.
REQUIRED FOR A VERTICAL SEPARATION OF LESS THAN 18 INCHES(0.5m) BETWEEN WATER MAIN AND
IS MADE FROM A SINGLE 20 FOOT(6.1m) LENGTH OF AWWA PRESSURE PIPE. SPECIFIC APPROVAL IS
LESS THAN 18 INCHES(0.5m) OF SEPARATION IS PERMITTED WHEN THE GRAVITY SEWER AT THE CROSSING
LOCATED SO THAT BOTH JOINTS WILL BE AS FAR FROM THE FORCE MAIN AS POSSIBLE.
IS A FORCE MAIN. AT CROSSINGS, ONE FULL LENGTH OF WATER MAIN OR NON-POTABLE PIPE SHALL BE
NO EXCEPTION TO THE MIN. SEPARATION REQUIREMENT IS PERMITTED WHEN THE SEWAGE CARRYING PIPE
NON-POTABLE WATER LINE, AND/OR GRAVITY SEWERS.
SPECIFIC APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR A DISTANCE LESS THAN 10 FEET(3m) BETWEEN MAIN,
NOTES:
SEPARATION DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARALLEL AND CROSSING PIPES
NTS
672582_DD06.DGN
NON-POTABLE WATER STORAGE, PUMPING AND FILTRATION SYSTEM
FILTER(s)
TANK
HYDROPNEUMATIC
WET WELL
PUMPS
TURBINE
VERTICAL
MULTIPLE
VALVE
GATE
1' MIN
SYSTEM
DISTRIBUTION
WATER
NON-POTABLE
TO
FREEBOARD 1' MIN
SCREEN
BUILDING
LINER
POND
VOLUME
USABLE
VALVE BOX DETAIL
NTS
678995 DD01.DGN
NON-POTABLE
NTS
678995 DD02.DGN
MANHOLE RING AND COVER DETAIL
RETAW ELBATOP-NON
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Storage Pond 8.0 ac-ft 26,000$ 208,000$
Distribution Main, 8-inch C900 8,000 lf 28$ 224,000$
Distribution Pipe, 8-inch C900 138,000 lf 28$ 3,864,000$
Stream Crossings 0 ea -$ -$
Booster System 1 ea 150,000$ 150,000$
Filters 5 ea 4,000$ 20,000$
Building 1 ls 25,000$ 25,000$
Hydropneumatic Tank, 10,000 gal 10,000 gal 7.50$ 75,000$
Disinfection System 1 ls 40,000$ 40,000$
Distribution Pipe, 8-inch DI 146,000 lf 61$ 8,906,000$
Subtotal Potable and Non-Potable Materials 13,512,000$
Mobilization 1 ls 0.1 1,351,000$
Traffic Control 1 ls 0.02 270,000$
Erosion Control 1 ls 0.01 135,000$
Contractor Overhead and Profit 1 ls 0.15 2,027,000$
Subtotal Hard Cost Markups 3,783,000$
Engineering 1 ls 0.15 2,594,000$
Construction Admin and Mgmt 1 ls 0.05 865,000$
Legal and Administrative 1 ls 0.1 1,730,000$
Subtotal Soft Cost Markups 5,189,000$
Water Rights
Potable Water Rights to be Purchased 560 ac-ft 6,000$ 3,360,000$
Non-Potable Water Rights to be Purchased 771 ac-ft 600$ 462,600$
Contingency 1 ls 0.3 7,892,000$
Total Capital Costs 34,200,000$
Table F1. Capital Costs for Dual Piped System
Table Notes
Non-Potable Water System
Potable Water System
Hard Cost Markups
Soft Cost Markups
Project Contingency (Includes Water Rights)
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Distribution Pipe, 8-inch DI 146,000 lf 61$ 8,906,000$
Stream crossings 0 ea -$ -$
Subtotal Potable Materials 8,906,000$
Mobilization 1 ls 0.1 891,000$
Traffic Control 1 ls 0.02 178,000$
Erosion Control 1 ls 0.01 89,000$
Contractor Overhead and Profit 1 ls 0.15 1,336,000$
Subtotal Hard Cost Markups 2,494,000$
Engineering 1 ls 0.15 1,710,000$
Construction Admin and Mgmt 1 ls 0.05 570,000$
Legal and Administrative 1 ls 0.1 1,140,000$
Subtotal Soft Cost Markups 3,420,000$
Water Rights
Potable Water Rights to be Purchased 1,331 ac-ft 6,000.00$ 7,988,523$
Contingency 1 ls 0.3 6,842,556.82$
Total Capital Costs 29,650,000$
Table Notes
Table F2. Capital Costs for Potable Only System
Potable Water System
Hard Cost Markups
Soft Cost Markups
Project Contingency (Includes Water Rights)
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Pond (1.5% of Storage Pond Capital Costs)1 ls 0.015 3,000$
Disinfection System (20% of Disinfection Capital Costs)1 ls 0.2 8,000$
Pipeline (1% of Non-Potable Pipeline Capital Costs, excludes water right cost)1 ls 0.01 99,637$
Pumping Energy Costs 99,681 kW-hr 0.055$ 5,500$
Subtotal 116,137$
Annual Treatment 182,601,124 gal 0.00101$ 184,000$
Pipeline (1.2% of Capital Costs)1 ls 0.012 231,186$
Subtotal 415,186$
Total annual operations and maintenance costs 531,323$
Total Cost Over Life of Project 30 years 0.03375 9,930,000$
Table F3. Operations and Maintenance Costs for Dual Piped System
Table Caption
Non-Potable Water System Operations Costs
Potable Water System Operations Costs
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Annual Treatment 433,815,129 gal 0.00101$ 438,000$
Pipeline (1.2% of Potable Pipeline Capital Costs, excludes water right cost) 1 ls 0.012 231,186$
Subtotal 669,186$
Total annual operations and maintenance costs 669,186$
Total Cost Over Life of Project 30 years 0.03375 12,500,000$
Table F4. Operations and Maintenance Costs for Potable Only System
Table Caption
Potable Water System Operations Costs
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Water Rights to be Purchased 771 ac-ft 600$ 462,600$
Table F5. Water Rights Acquisition Cost Dual Piped System
Table Caption
Non-Potable Water System
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Water Rights to be Purchased 771 ac-ft 6,000$ 4,626,000$
Table F6. Water Rights Acquisition Cost Potable Only System
Table Caption
Non-Potable Water System
Description
Treatment Plant Expansion
Cost in 2017 dollars Years
Present Value
Calculation
Treatment Plant Expansion Cost - Year 2040 25,000,000$ 23 11,350,073$
Treatment Plant Expansion Cost - Year 2047 25,000,000$ 30 8,925,349$
Difference 2,420,000$
Table F7. Benefit of Delayed Water Treatment Plant Expansion
Table Caption
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Storage Pond 3.5 ac-ft 26,000$ 91,000$
Distribution Main, 8-inch C900 8,000 lf 28$ 224,000$
Distribution Pipe, 8-inch C900 2,000 lf 28$ 56,000$
Stream Crossings 3 ea -$ -$
Booster System 1 ea 150,000$ 150,000$
Filters 5 ea 4,000$ 20,000$
Building 1 ls 25,000$ 25,000$
Hydropneumatic Tank, 10,000 gal 10,000 gal 7.50$ 75,000$
Disinfection System 1 ls 40,000$ 40,000$
Non-Potable Water Rights to be Purchased 327 ac-ft 600$ 196,081$
Distribution Pipe, 8-inch DI 146,000 lf 61$ 8,906,000$
Subtotal Potable and Non-Potable Materials 9,783,081$
Mobilization 1 ls 0.1 978,000$
Traffic Control 1 ls 0.02 196,000$
Erosion Control 1 ls 0.01 98,000$
Contractor Overhead and Profit 1 ls 0.15 1,467,000$
Subtotal Hard Cost Markups 2,739,000$
Engineering 1 ls 0.15 1,878,000$
Construction Admin and Mgmt 1 ls 0.05 626,000$
Legal and Administrative 1 ls 0.1 1,252,000$
Subtotal Soft Cost Markups 3,756,000$
Water Rights
Non-Potable Water Rights to be Purchased 327 ac-ft 600.00$ 196,081$
Potable Water Rights to be Purchased 1,005 ac-ft 6,000.00$ 6,027,716$
Contingency 1 ls 0.3 6,751,000$
Total Capital Costs 29,250,000$
Table F8. Dual Piped System for Parks and Open Spaces Only
Table Notes
Non-Potable Water System
Potable Water System
Hard Cost Markups
Soft Cost Markups
Project Contingency (Includes Water Rights)
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Pond (1.5% of Storage Pond Capital Costs) 1 ls 0.015 1,000$
Disinfection System (20% of Disinfection Capital Costs) 1 ls 0.2 8,000$
Pipeline (1% of Non-Potable Pipeline Capital Costs) 1 ls 0.01 14,731$
Pumping Energy Costs 175,182 kW-hr 0.055$ 9,600$
Subtotal 33,331$
Annual Treatment 327,333,886 gal 0.00101$ 331,000$
Pipeline (1.2% of Capital Costs)1 ls 0.012 192,693$
Subtotal 523,693$
Total annual operations and maintenance costs 557,024$
Total Cost Over Life of Project 30 years 0.03375 10,410,000$
Potable Water System Operations Costs
Table F9. Dual Piped System for Parks and Open Spaces Only
Table Caption
Non-Potable Water System Operations Costs
Table F10. Water Rights Acquisition Cost Dual Piped System for Parks and Open Spaces Only
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Water Rights to be Purchased 327 ac-ft 600$ 196,081$
Table Caption
Non-Potable Water System
Table F11. Benefit of Delayed Water Treatment Plant Expansion
Description
Treatment Plant
Expansion Cost
in 2017 dollars Years
Present Value
Calculation
Treatment Plant Expansion Cost - Year 2040 25,000,000$ 23 11,350,073$
Treatment Plant Expansion Cost - Year 2042 25,000,000$ 25 10,596,872$
Difference 750,000$
Dual Piped System for Parks and Open Spaces Only
Water Facility Plan Update
Appendices
July 2017
Appendix G – Opinion of Probable Project Cost
Methodology
Capital Improvement Project Category Planning Phase CIP Type Project Rank Project ID OPPC Cost ReferenceRisk-Based CA #5 - Sourdough Transmission Main Condition Assessment Condition Assessment Short-term Non-Construction 1 WFP_02a$719,785OPPC Non-Construction Sourdough Transmission Main CA Based RehabRehabilitation and RepairShort-term Construction 2 WFP_02b $1,000,000Engineers Estimate Sourdough Water Rights Utilization StudyStudiesShort-term Non-Construction 3 WFP_04 $400,000Engineers Estimate West Transmission Main Planning StudyStudiesShort-term Non-Construction 4 WFP_01a $400,000Engineers Estimate Hilltop Reservoir Inspection and Mixing System Optimization Short-term Construction 5 WFP_05$239,616OPPC Non-Construction SCADA Master PlanOptimization Short-term Non-Construction 6 WFP_12 $250,000Engineers Estimate Risk Based CA # 4 - Lyman Creek Water Transmission Main Condition Assessment Short-term Non-Construction 7 WFP_19a$134,670OPPC Non-Construction Groundwater Well Field Development - Phase 1SupplyShort-term Construction 8 WFP_10a$8,612,400OPPC Construction Vertical Asset Risk Assessment Phase 1StudiesShort-term Non-Construction 9 WFP_13$19,838OPPC Non-Construction Sourdough Tank Inspection and ImprovementsOptimization Short-term Non-Construction 10 WFP_16 $500,000Engineers Estimate Vertical Asset Risk Assessment Phase 2StudiesShort-term Non-Construction 11 WFP_14$85,963Engineers Estimate Risk Based R&RRehabilitation and RepairShort-term Construction 12 WFP_15 $2,500,000City Provided PRV Upgrades (approximately 16 sites)Optimization Short-term Construction 13 WFP_18$7,637,760OPPC Construction Lyman Transmission Main CA Based RehabRehabilitation and RepairShort-term Construction 14 WFP_19b $500,000Engineers Estimate Integrated Water Resources Plan UpdateStudiesShort-term Non-Construction 15 WFP_11 $150,000Engineers Estimate Reservoir 1 - SitingStudiesShort-term Non-Construction 16 WFP_09a $350,000Engineers Estimate Pear St. Booster Station UpgradeRehabilitation and RepairShort-term Construction 17 WFP_38$486,720OPPC Construction SCADA Phase 1 Optimization Short-term Construction 18 WFP_24$2,239,050OPPC Construction Risk Based CA #2 - Downtown AreaCondition Assessment Short-term Non-Construction 19 WFP_32$28,116OPPC Non-Construction West Transmission Main - Phase 1 DesignTransmission Short-term Non-Construction 20 WFP_01b $2,907,235OPPC - Legal and Engineering Redundant North 5038 Zone Feed Optimization Short-term Construction 21 WFP_26$59,488OPPC Construction Risk Based CA # 1 - West Bozeman Transmission Condition Assessment Short-term Non-Construction 22 WFP_34$47,826OPPC Non-Construction Risk Based CA #3 - Baxter/Oak south of Freeway Condition Assessment Short-term Non-Construction 23 WFP_35$23,775OPPC Non-Construction Water Information Management Solutions (WIMS) Optimization Short-term Non-Construction 24 WFP_36$186,300OPPC Non-Construction Hyalite Watershed and Reservoir Study StudiesNear-term Non-Construction NR WFP_23 $350,000Engineers Estimate Sourdough Canyon Natural Storage and Wetland Enhancement - Planning and Design StudiesNear-term Non-Construction NR WFP_53 $500,000Engineers Estimate Hyalite Reservoir Infrastructure and Control Improvements Optimization Near-term Construction NR WFP_54$3,858,300OPPC Construction Sourdough Transmission Main – Phase 1Transmission Near-term Construction NR WFP_03$4,241,272OPPC Construction Groundwater Well Field Transmission Main - Phase 1 Transmission Near-term Construction NR WFP_20$8,974,969OPPC Construction Water Treatment Plant Master MeteringOptimization Near-term Construction NR WFP_17 $750,000City Provided PRV Abandonments (approximately 6 sites)Optimization Near-term Construction NR WFP_22$460,512OPPC Construction SCADA Phase 2Optimization Near-term Construction NR WFP_25$2,595,840OPPC Construction Remote Water Quality Surveillance System Optimization Near-term Non-Construction NR WFP_33$56,925OPPC Non-Construction 5125 West Sourdough Reservoir 1StorageNear-term Construction NR WFP_09b$8,420,875OPPC Construction 5560 Southeast Mountain Reservoir and Pump Station StorageNear-term Construction NR WFP_30$18,542,698OPPC Construction 4975 Northwest Reservoir 1StorageNear-term Construction NR WFP_31$8,420,875OPPC Construction Water Facility Plan UpdateStudiesNear-term Non-Construction NR WFP_27 $500,000Engineers Estimate Drought Management Plan UpdateStudiesNear-term Non-Construction NR WFP_28 $20,000Engineers Estimate Lyman Creek Water System ImprovementsSupplyNear-term Construction NR WFP_07$24,805,440OPPC Construction Groundwater Well Field Development - Phase 2SupplyNear-term Construction NR WFP_10b$12,978,600OPPC Construction Lyman Spring Groundwater Well DevelopmentSupplyNear-term Construction NR WFP_21 $2,500,000Engineers Estimate Sourdough Canyon Natural Storage and Wetland Enhancement SupplyNear-term Construction NR WFP_51 $8,000,000Engineers Estimate West Transmission Main – Phase 1 Construction Transmission Near-term Construction NR WFP_01c$23,689,082OPPC Construction - WFP_01bSourdough Transmission Main – Phase 2Transmission Near-term Construction NR WFP_08$5,785,788OPPC Construction East Transmission Main Transmission Near-term Construction NR WFP_29$6,092,316OPPC Construction West Transmission Main - Phase 2Transmission Near-term Construction NR WFP_39$35,891,887OPPC Construction Groundwater Well Field Transmission Main - Phase 2 Transmission Near-term Construction NR WFP_52$8,974,969OPPC Construction 4975 Northwest Reservoir 2StorageLong-term Construction NR WFP_40$8,420,875OPPC Construction 5125 West Sourdough Reservoir 2StorageLong-term Construction NR WFP_41$8,420,875OPPC Construction 5350 Southwest Reservoir and Pump StationStorageLong-term Construction NR WFP_42$13,795,846OPPC Construction 5360 North Mountain Reservoir and Pump Station StorageLong-term Construction NR WFP_43$10,584,320OPPC Construction 5630 East Mountain Zone Reservoir and Pump Station StorageLong-term Construction NR WFP_44$16,589,604OPPC Construction Sourdough Reservoir 2StorageLong-term Construction NR WFP_45$6,506,700OPPC Construction Water Treatment Plant Reservoir 2StorageLong-term Construction NR WFP_46$7,779,750OPPC Construction Water Treatment Plant Reservoir 3StorageLong-term Construction NR WFP_47$7,779,750OPPC Construction Sourdough Water Treatment Plant Expansion SupplyLong-term Construction NR WFP_55 $25,000,000Engineers Estimate West Transmission Main - Phase 3Transmission Long-term Construction NR WFP_48$10,936,342OPPC Construction West Transmission Main - Phase 4Transmission Long-term Construction NR WFP_49$3,755,221OPPC Construction West Transmission Main - Phase 5Transmission Long-term Construction NR WFP_50$2,457,009OPPC Construction $ 29,478,542 $337,915,182 $ 186,410,348 $ 122,026,292 Total $ 337,915,182 Does not include Growth and Development Does not include Growth and Development Costs
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTProject ID: CIP Name:WFP_02aRisk-Based CA #5 - Sourdough Transmission Main Condition Assessment Hard Cost 1.0a.Scope - Inspection and Assessment1. High Resolution Assessment 1 LS $500,000.00 $500,0002. Transient Pressure Monitoring1 LS $10,000.00 $10,0003. Field Modifications for Inspection1 LS $10,000.00 $10,0004. Engr Analysis/Field Forensics1 LS $49,000.00 $49,000Subtotal $569,000Hard Cost - Markups2.0a.Mobilization (0%)1 l.s.$0.00b.Traffic Control (0%)1 l.s.$0.00c.Erosion Control (0%)1 l.s.$0.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (0%)1 l.s.$0.00Subtotal $0.00$569,000.00Estimated Hard CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (0%)1 l.s.$0b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s.$56,900c.Legal and Administrative (0%)1 l.s.$0Subtotal $56,900$56,900Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency5.0a.Contingency (15%)1 l.s.$142,250Subtotal$142,250$142,250Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$768,150.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTProject ID: CIP Name:WFP_05Hilltop Tank Inspection and Mixing SystemHard Cost 1.0a.Mixers, Electrical, Control, SCADA, Reservoir Cleaning1. Reservoir Cleaning1 LS $5,000.00 $5,0002. Reservoir Inspection1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.002. F & I Mixers2 LS $25,000.00 $50,0003. Elecrtrical and Local Controls2 LS $15,000.00 $30,0004. SCADA 2 LS $7,500.00 $15,000Subtotal $120,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (10%)1 l.s. $12,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $2,400.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $1,200.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s. $18,000.00Subtotal $33,600.00$153,600.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (5%)1 l.s. $7,680b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s. $15,360c.Legal and Administrative (5%) 1 l.s. $7,680Subtotal $30,720$30,720Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (30%) 1 l.s. $55,296Subtotal$55,296$55,296Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$239,616.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COSTCOMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_19aRisk Based CA # 4 - Lyman Creek Water Transmission MainHard Cost 1.0a.Scope - Inspection and Assessment1. MedResolution Assessment6,500 lf $6.67 $43,3552. Field Modifications for Inspection3 EA $5,000.00 $15,0003. External Inspection1 EA $15,000.00 $15,0004. Engr Analysis/Field Forensics/Report1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 $93,355Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (10%)1 l.s. $9,335.50b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $1,867.10c.Erosion Control (0%)1 l.s.$0.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (0%)1 l.s.$0.00Subtotal $11,202.6010$104,557.60Estimated Hard CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (0%)1 l.s.$2,091b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s.$10,456c.Legal and Administrative (0%)1 l.s.$0Subtotal $12,547$12,547Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Contingency (15%)1 l.s.$17,566Subtotal$17,566$17,566Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$134,670.19 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_10aGroundwater Well Field - Design & Construction Phase 1Hard Cost 1.0a.New Lyman Creek Water Reservoir1. Site Development3 LS $250,000.00 $750,0002. Wells, Power and Control3 EA $400,000.00 $1,200,0003. Connect to Transmission Main(s)3 LS $100,000.00 $300,0004. Junction and Booster Station1 EA $2,250,000.00 $2,250,0005. Disinfection (Residual) Facilities1 EA $100,000.00 $100,000Subtotal $4,600,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization and Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $92,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $92,000.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $46,000.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (10%)1 l.s. $460,000.00Subtotal $690,000.00$5,290,000.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $529,000b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s. $529,000c.Legal and Administrative (10%) 1 l.s. $529,000Subtotal $1,587,000$1,587,000Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed 3 Acres 3 Acre $100,000.00 $300,000Subtotal $300,000$300,000Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (20%) 1 l.s. $1,435,400Subtotal$1,435,400$1,435,400Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$8,612,400.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
CIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_13 Vertical Asset Risk Assessment Phase 1Hard Cost 1.0a.Scope - Phase I1. Overall Risk Policy Framework- 1 LS $0.00 $02. Implementation plan across COB1 LS $0.00 $03. Policy and Implementation Report1 LS $0.00 $04. Outreach1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000Subtotal $15,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (0%)1 l.s.$0.00b.Traffic Control (0%)1 l.s.$0.00c.Erosion Control (0%)1 l.s.$0.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (0%)1 l.s.$0.00Subtotal $0.00$15,000.00Estimated Hard CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (15%)1 l.s.$2,250b.Construction Administration and Management (15%) 1 l.s.$0c.Legal and Administrative (0%)1 l.s.$0Subtotal $2,250$2,250Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Contingency (15%)1 l.s.$2,588Subtotal$2,588$2,588Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$19,837.50 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALCOST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST
CIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_14 Vertical Asset Risk Assessment Phase 2Hard Cost 1.0a.Scope - Phase I1. Overall Risk Policy Framework- 1 LS $0.00 $02. Implementation plan across COB1 LS $0.00 $03. Policy and Implementation Report1 LS $0.00 $04. Outreach1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000Subtotal $65,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (0%)1 l.s. $0.00b.Traffic Control (0%)1 l.s. $0.00c.Erosion Control (0%)1 l.s. $0.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (0%)1 l.s. $0.00Subtotal $0.00$65,000.00Estimated Hard CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (15%)1 l.s. $9,750b.Construction Administration and Management (15%) 1 l.s. $0c.Legal and Administrative (0%) 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $9,750$9,750Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Contingency (15%)1 l.s. $11,213Subtotal$11,213$11,213Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$85,962.50 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALCOST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT UNIT COST
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_18PRV Upgrades (approximately 16 sites)Hard Cost 1.0a.Pumps, Electrical, Control, SCADA, PRV's1. Waterproofing&sump pump16 LS $15,000.00 $240,0002. Above grade SCADA/Control weather enclosure16 LS $90,000.00 $1,440,0003. PRV's harnessing16 LS $7,500.00 $120,0004. Electrical & Controls16 LS $80,000.00 $1,280,0005. Heating& Ventilation/Dehumidification16 LS $2,000.00 $32,0006. Bilco Hatch (Safety access - eliminate confined space entry)16 LS $5,000.00 $80,0007. Power to site16 LS $20,000.00 $320,0008. SCADA programming16 LS $10,000.00 $160,000Subtotal $3,672,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (10%)1 l.s. $367,200.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $73,440.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $36,720.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s. $550,800.00Subtotal $1,028,160.00$4,700,160.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $470,016b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s. $470,016c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $235,008Subtotal $1,175,040$1,175,040Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (30%) 1 l.s. $1,762,560Subtotal$1,762,560$1,762,560Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$7,637,760.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COSTCOMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_38Pear St. Booster Station UpgradeHard Cost 1.0a.Pumps, Electrical, Control, SCADA, PRV's1. Pump Mech3 EA $30,000.00 $90,0002. Mechanical1 LS $10,000.00 $10,0003. PRV's2 EA $7,500.00 $15,0004. Electrical & Controls1 LS $90,000.00 $100,0005. Connect to existing SCADA1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000Subtotal $225,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (10%)1 l.s. $22,500.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $4,500.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $2,250.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s. $33,750.00Subtotal $63,000.00$288,000.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (15%)1 l.s. $43,200b.Construction Administration and Management (5%) 1 l.s. $14,400c.Legal and Administrative (10%)1 l.s. $28,800Subtotal $86,400$86,400Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Contingency (30%)1 l.s. $112,320Subtotal$112,320$112,320Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$486,720.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITC:\Users\llehigh\Desktop\AE2S\Projects and Proposals\05097-2013-001 Bozeman\Deliverables\November Draft\Bozeman OPPC Sheets_Non-Const_Projects (Draft_Nov).xlsx
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_24SCADA Phase 1 Hard Cost 1.0a.Implement System-wide SCADA1. SCADA Network 1 LS $950,000.00 $950,0002. SCADA Historian1 LS $150,000.00 $150,0003. Central Site Improvements2 LS $150,000.00 $300,0004. SCADA Configuration1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000Subtotal $1,475,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (10%)1 l.s. $29,500.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $29,500.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $14,750.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s. $147,500.00Subtotal $221,250.00$1,696,250.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (5%)1 l.s. $84,813b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s. $169,625c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $84,813Subtotal $339,250$339,250Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (10%)1 l.s. $203,550Subtotal$203,550$203,550Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$2,239,050.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID CIP Name:WFP_32Risk Based CA #2 - Downtown AreaHard Cost 1.0a.Scope - Inspection and Assessment1. Medium Resolution Assessment 1,018 lf $6.67 $6,7903. Spot digs to validate low res assessment1 LS $5,000.00 $5,0004. Engr Analysis/Field Forensics/Report1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000Subtotal $21,790Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (0%)1 l.s. $0.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $435.80c.Erosion Control (0%)1 l.s. $0.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (0%)1 l.s. $0.00Subtotal $435.80$22,225.86Estimated Hard CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (0%)1 l.s.$0b.Construction Administration and Management (10%)1 l.s. $2,223c.Legal and Administrative (0%) 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $2,223$2,223Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Contingency (15%)1 l.s. $3,667Subtotal$3,667$3,667Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$28,115.71 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP Name: CIP Name:WFP_26Redundant North 5038 Zone Feed Hard Cost 1.0a. Electrical, Control, SCADA, PRV's1. Verify PRV sizing, install new as reqd2 EA $7,500.00 $15,0002. Mechanical1 LS $5,000.00 $5,0003. Site miscellaneous1 EA $7,500.00 $7,500Subtotal $27,500Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (10%)1 l.s. $2,750.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $550.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $275.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s. $4,125.00Subtotal $7,700.00$35,200.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (15%)1 l.s. $5,280b.Construction Administration and Management (5%) 1 l.s. $1,760c.Legal and Administrative (10%)1 l.s. $3,520Subtotal $10,560$10,560Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (30%)1 l.s. $13,728Subtotal$13,728$13,728Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$59,488.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COSTTOTAL COSTCOMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_34Risk Based CA # 1 - West Bozeman TransmissionHard Cost 1.0a.Scope - Inspection and Assessment1. Medium Resolution Assessment 1,809 lf $6.67 $12,0663. Field Modifications for Inspection1 LS $10,000.00 $10,0004. Engr Analysis/Field Forensics/Report1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000Subtotal $37,066Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (0%)1 l.s. $0.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $741.32c.Erosion Control (0%)1 l.s. $0.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (0%)1 l.s. $0.00Subtotal $741.32$37,807.35Estimated Hard CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (0%)1 l.s.$0b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s. $3,781c.Legal and Administrative (0%)1 l.s.$0Subtotal $3,781$3,781Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Contingency (15%)1 l.s. $6,238Subtotal$6,238$6,238Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$47,826.30 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_35Risk Based CA #3 - Baxter/Oak south of FreewayHard Cost 1.0a.Scope - Inspection and Assessment1. Medium Resolution Assessment 267 lf $6.67 $1,7813. Spot digs to validate low res assessment1 LS $5,000.00 $5,0003. Engr Analysis/Field Forensics/Report1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000Subtotal $16,781Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (10%)1 l.s. $1,678.09b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $335.62c.Erosion Control (0%)1 l.s. $0.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (0%)1 l.s. $0.00Subtotal $2,013.7110$18,794.60Estimated Hard CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (0%)1 l.s. $0b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s. $1,879c.Legal and Administrative (0%) 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $1,879$1,879Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Contingency (15%)1 l.s. $3,101Subtotal$3,101$3,101Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$23,775.16 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID:CIP Name:WFP_36Water Information Management SolutionHard Cost 1.0a. Scope - Study report1. Goals/objectives development1 LS $0.00$02. Existing System Analysis1 LS $0.003. System Integration Design1 LS $0.004. Vendor procurement1 LS $0.005. Solution Development & Testing1 LS $0.007. Data integration with other PWD systems1 LS $0.00$08. Rollout & Tech Support1 LS $0.00$09. 3 yr. maintenance agreement 1 LS $120,000.00$120,000Subtotal $120,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (10%)1 l.s.$0.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s.$0.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s.$0.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s.$0.00Subtotal $0.00$120,000.00Estimated Hard CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (20%)1 l.s.$24,000b.IT Administration and Management (15%)1 l.s.$18,000c.Legal and Administrative (0%)1 l.s.$0Subtotal $42,000$42,000Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Contingency (15%)1 l.s.$24,300Subtotal$24,300$24,300Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$186,300.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM #ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_54Hyalite Reservoir Infrastructure Improvements Hard Cost 1.0a.Hyalite Reservoir Infrastructure Improvements 1. Control Tower Armoring3 LS $250,000.00 $750,0002. Controls Upgrades 3 EA $400,000.00 $1,200,000Subtotal $1,950,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization and Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $39,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $39,000.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $19,500.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (10%)1 l.s. $195,000.00Subtotal $292,500.00$2,242,500.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $224,250b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s. $224,250c.Legal and Administrative (10%) 1 l.s. $224,250Subtotal $672,750$672,750Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed 3 Acres 3 Acre $100,000.00 $300,000Subtotal $300,000$300,000Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (20%) 1 l.s. $643,050Subtotal$643,050$643,050Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$3,858,300.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_03Sourdough Transmission Main – Phase 1Hard Cost 1.0 Water Transmission System a.Water Main 1. 30" DIP - Class 51 8,678 l.f $294.00 $2,551,332Subtotal $2,551,332Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $51,026.64b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $51,026.64c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $25,513.32d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (5%)1 l.s. $127,566.60Subtotal $255,133.20$2,806,465Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $280,647b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $224,517c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $140,323Subtotal $645,487$645,487Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Right-of-way8,678 l.f. $9.50 $82,441Subtotal $82,441$82,441Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (20%)1 l.s. $706,879Subtotal$706,879$706,879Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$4,241,272 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_20Groundwater Well Field Transmission Main - Phase 1Hard Cost 1.0 Water Transmission System a.Water Main 1. 24" DIP - Class 51 30,300l.f $192.00 $5,817,600Subtotal $5,817,600Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $116,352.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $116,352.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $58,176.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (5%)1 l.s. $290,880.00Subtotal $581,760.00$6,399,360.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $639,936b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $511,949c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $319,968Subtotal $1,471,853$1,471,853Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Right-of-way30,300 l.f. $9.50 $287,850Subtotal $287,850$287,850Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (10%) 1 l.s. $815,906Subtotal$815,906$815,906Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$8,974,969.08 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_25 PRV AbandonmentHard Cost 1.0a.Pumps, Electrical, Control, SCADA, PRV's1. Excavation and Backfill6 LS $2,500.00 $15,0002. Salvage mechanical6 LS $4,000.00 $24,0003. Vault Lid removal and capping6 LS $2,500.00 $15,0004. Furnish & Install Valve Riser6 LS $2,000.00 $12,0005. Import for vault6 LS $600.00 $3,6006. Interconnection Pipe600 LF $233.00 $139,8007. Site restoration6 LS $2,000.00 $12,000Subtotal $221,400Hard Cost - Markups2.0a.Mobilization (10%)1 l.s. $22,140.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $4,428.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $2,214.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s. $33,210.00Subtotal $61,992.00$283,392.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $28,339b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s. $28,339c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $14,170Subtotal $70,848$70,848Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency5.0a.Total Project Contingency (30%)1 l.s. $106,272Subtotal$106,272$106,272Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$460,512.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID CIP Name:WFP_25SCADA Phase 2Hard Cost 1.0a.Implement System-wide SCADA1. SCADA Equipment Additions1 LS $1,000,000.00 $1,000,0002. SCADA Equipment Replacements1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000Subtotal $1,300,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (10%)1 l.s. $130,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $26,000.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $13,000.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s. $195,000.00Subtotal $364,000.00$1,664,000.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (5%)1 l.s. $83,200b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s. $166,400c.Legal and Administrative (5%) 1 l.s. $83,200Subtotal $332,800$332,800Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (30%) 1 l.s. $599,040Subtotal$599,040$599,040Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$2,595,840.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID:CIP Name:WFP_33Remote WQ Surveillance SystemHard Cost 1.0a. Scope - Study report1. Goals/objectives development1 LS $0.00$02. Evaluate exist/future WQ reporting reqts 1 LS $0.00$03. Hardware, programming, interface with SCADA 1 LS $0.00$04. Final Report and Implementation Plan1 LS $45,000.00$45,000Subtotal $45,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (10%)1 l.s.$0.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s.$0.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s.$0.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s.$0.00Subtotal $0.00$45,000.00Estimated Hard CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s.$4,500b.Construction Administration and Management (0%) 1 l.s.$0c.Legal and Administrative (0%)1 l.s.$0Subtotal $4,500$4,500Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Contingency (30%)1 l.s.$7,425Subtotal$7,425$7,425Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$56,925.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_09b5125 West Sourdough Reservoir 1Hard Cost 1.0a.5125 West Sourdough Reservoir 11. West Sourdough Reservoir 1 (5 MG) 5,000,000MG $1.00 $5,000,000Subtotal $5,000,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization and Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $100,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $100,000.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $50,000.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (10%)1 l.s. $500,000.00Subtotal $750,000.00$5,750,000.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $575,000b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $460,000c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $287,500Subtotal $1,322,500$1,322,500Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed 2.5 Acres2.5 Acre $100,000.00 $250,000Subtotal $250,000$250,000Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (15%)1 l.s. $1,098,375Subtotal$1,098,375$1,098,375Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$8,420,875.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_305560 Southeast Mountain Reservoir and Pump StationHard Cost 1.0a.Southeast Reservoir and Pump Station1. Southeast Reservoir Pump Station 1l.s$1,477,002$1,477,0022.Southeast Reservoir (4 MG) 4,000,000MG $1.00 $4,000,0003. 16" DIP Class 5114,895l.f $118.00 $1,757,6104. 24" DIP Class 5114,792l.f. $192.00 $2,840,064Subtotal $10,074,676Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization and Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $201,493.52b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $201,493.52c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $100,746.76d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s. $1,511,201.38Subtotal $2,014,935.17$12,089,611.04Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $1,208,961b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $967,169c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $604,481Subtotal $2,780,611$2,780,611Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed 3 Acre Property Requirement 3 Acre $100,000.00 $300,000b.Right-of-way29,687 l.f. $9.50 $282,027Subtotal $582,027$582,027Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (20%) 1 l.s. $3,090,450Subtotal$3,090,450$3,090,450Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$18,542,697.69 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP Name: CIP Name:WFP_314975 Northwest Reservoir 1Hard Cost 1.0a.4975 Northwest Reservoir 11. Northwest Reservoir 1 (5 MG) 5,000,000MG $1.00 $5,000,000Subtotal $5,000,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization and Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $100,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $100,000.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $50,000.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (10%)1 l.s. $500,000.00Subtotal $750,000.00$5,750,000.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $575,000b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $460,000c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $287,500Subtotal $1,322,500$1,322,500Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed 2.5 Acre Property Requirement 2.5 Acre $100,000.00 $250,000Subtotal $250,000$250,000Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (15%) 1 l.s. $1,098,375Subtotal$1,098,375$1,098,375Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$8,420,875.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_07Lyman Creek Water System ImprovementsHard Cost 1.0a.Water Main 1. 18" DIP - Class 51 (Outside-City) 7,120l.f $136.00 $968,3202. 18" DIP - Class 51 (In-City) 3,800l.f $388.00 $1,474,400b.New Lyman Creek Water Reservoirs1. Site Development1 EA $1,000,000.00 $1,000,0002. Pressure Regulating Facilities1 LS $250,000.00 $250,0003. Connect to existing Transmission Main(s)1 EA $100,000.00 $100,0004. Reservoirs (2, 5 MG)10,000,000 gal $1.00 $10,000,0005. Chlorination/Fluoridation Facilities1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000c.Micro Hydro1 LS $400,000.00 $400,000d.Lyman Reservoir Decommissiong1 LS $500,000.00 $500,000.00c.Pear Street Pump Station Decommissioning1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000.00d.New PRV/Micro Hydro NE of City1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000Subtotal $13,050,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (2%)1 l.s. $261,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $261,000.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $130,500.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s. $1,957,500.00Subtotal $2,610,000.00$15,660,000.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (12%)1 l.s. $1,879,200b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s. $1,566,000c.Legal and Administrative (10%) 1 l.s. $1,566,000Subtotal $5,011,200$5,011,200Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed existing ROW and Land 0 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (20%) 1 l.s. $4,134,240Subtotal$4,134,240$4,134,240Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$24,805,440.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_10bGroundwater Well Field - Design & Construction Phase 2 Hard Cost 1.0a.New Lyman Creek Water Reservoir1. Site Development5 LS $250,000.00 $1,250,0002. Wells, Power and Control5 EA $400,000.00 $2,000,0003. Connect to Transmission Main(s)5 LS $100,000.00 $500,0004. Junction and Booster Station1 EA $3,000,000.00 $3,000,0005. Disinfection (Residual) Facilities Upgrade1 EA $150,000.00 $150,000Subtotal $6,900,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization and Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $138,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $138,000.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $69,000.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (10%)1 l.s. $690,000.00Subtotal $1,035,000.00$7,935,000.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $793,500b.Construction Administration and Management (10%) 1 l.s. $793,500c.Legal and Administrative (10%) 1 l.s. $793,500Subtotal $2,380,500$2,380,500Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed 5 Acres5 Acre $100,000.00 $500,000Subtotal $500,000$500,000Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (20%) 1 l.s. $2,163,100Subtotal$2,163,100$2,163,100Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s.$0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$12,978,600.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_01b,cWest Transmission Main – Phase 1Hard Cost 1.0 Water Transmission System a.Water Main 1. 48" DIP - Class 51 25,227 l.f $632.00 $15,943,4642. 24" DIP - Class 51 5,952 l.f. $192.00 $1,142,7843. 16" DIP - Class 51 4,520 l.f. $118.00 $533,360Subtotal $17,619,608Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $352,392.16b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $352,392.16c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $176,196.08d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (5%)1 l.s. $880,980.40Subtotal $1,761,960.80$19,381,569Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $1,938,157b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $1,550,526c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $969,078Subtotal $4,457,761$4,457,761Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Right-of-way35,699 l.f. $9.50 $339,141Subtotal $339,141$339,141Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (10%) 1 l.s. $2,417,847Subtotal$2,417,847$2,417,847Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$26,596,317 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID CIP Name:WFP_08Sourdough Transmission Main – Phase 2Hard Cost 1.0 Water Transmission System a.Water Main 1. 36" DIP - Class 51 9,477 l.f $369.00 $3,497,013Subtotal $3,497,013Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $69,940.26b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $69,940.26c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $34,970.13d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (5%)1 l.s. $174,850.65Subtotal $349,701.30$3,846,714Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $384,671b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $307,737c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $192,336Subtotal $884,744$884,744Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Right-of-way9,477 l.f. $9.50 $90,032Subtotal $90,032$90,032Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (20%) 1 l.s. $964,298Subtotal$964,298$964,298Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$5,785,788 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_29East Transmission MainHard Cost 1.0 Water Transmission System a.Water Main 1. 24" DIP - Class 51 20,568 l.f $192.00 $3,949,056Subtotal $3,949,056Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $78,981b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $78,981c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $39,491d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (5%)1 l.s. $197,453Subtotal $394,905.60$4,343,962Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $434,396b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $347,517c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $217,198Subtotal $999,111$999,111Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Right-of-way20,568 l.f. $9.50 $195,396Subtotal $195,396$195,396Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (10%) 1 l.s. $553,847Subtotal$553,847$553,847Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$6,092,316 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_39West Transmission Main – Phase 2Hard Cost 1.0 Water Transmission System a.Water Main 1. 48" DIP - Class 51 37,739 l.f $632.00 $23,851,048Subtotal $23,851,048Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $477,020.96b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $477,020.96c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $238,510.48d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (5%)1 l.s. $1,192,552.40Subtotal $2,385,104.80$26,236,153Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $2,623,615b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $2,098,892c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $1,311,808Subtotal $6,034,315$6,034,315Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Right-of-way37,739 l.f. $9.50 $358,521Subtotal $358,521$358,521Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (10%)1 l.s. $3,262,899Subtotal$3,262,899$3,262,899Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$35,891,887 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_52Groundwater Well Field Transmission Main - Phase 2Hard Cost 1.0 Water Transmission System a.Water Main 1. 24" DIP - Class 51 30,300l.f $192.00 $5,817,600Subtotal $5,817,600Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $116,352.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $116,352.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $58,176.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (5%)1 l.s. $290,880.00Subtotal $581,760.00$6,399,360.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $639,936b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $511,949c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $319,968Subtotal $1,471,853$1,471,853Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Right-of-way30,300 l.f. $9.50 $287,850Subtotal $287,850$287,850Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (10%) 1 l.s. $815,906Subtotal$815,906$815,906Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$8,974,969.08 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID CIP Name:WFP_404975 Northwest Reservoir 2Hard Cost 1.0a.4975 Northwest Reservoir 21. Northwest Reservoir 2 (5 MG) 5,000,000MG $1.00 $5,000,000Subtotal $5,000,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization (10%)1 l.s. $100,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $100,000.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $50,000.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (10%)1 l.s. $500,000.00Subtotal $750,000.00$5,750,000.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $575,000b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $460,000c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $287,500Subtotal $1,322,500$1,322,500Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed 2.5 Acre Property Requirement 2.5 Acre $100,000.00 $250,000Subtotal $250,000$250,000Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (15%) 1 l.s. $1,098,375Subtotal$1,098,375$1,098,375Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$8,420,875.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_415125 West Sourdough Reservoir 2Hard Cost 1.0a.5125 West Sourdough Reservoir 21. West Sourdough Reservoir 2 (5 MG) 5,000,000MG $1.00 $5,000,000Subtotal $5,000,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization and Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $100,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $100,000.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $50,000.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (10%)1 l.s. $500,000.00Subtotal $750,000.00$5,750,000.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $575,000b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $460,000c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $287,500Subtotal $1,322,500$1,322,500Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed 2.5 Acre Property Requirement 2.5 l.s. $100,000.00 $250,000Subtotal $250,000$250,000Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (15%)1 l.s. $1,098,375Subtotal$1,098,375$1,098,375Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$8,420,875.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_425350 Southwest Reservoir and Pump StationHard Cost 1.0a.Southwest Reservoir and Pump Station1. Southwest Reservoir Pump Station 1l.s$1,354,181$1,354,1812. Southwest Reservoir (4 MG) 4,000,000MG $1.00 $4,000,0003. 24" DIP Class 51100l.f $192.00 $19,2004. 30" DIP Class 517,525l.f $294.00 $2,212,350Subtotal $7,585,731Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization and Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $151,714.61b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $151,714.61c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $75,857.31d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s. $1,137,859.60Subtotal $1,517,146.14$9,102,876.81Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $910,288b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $728,230c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $455,144Subtotal $2,093,662$2,093,662Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed 3 Acre Property Requirement 3 Acre $100,000.00 $300,000Subtotal $300,000$300,000Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (20%) 1 l.s. $2,299,308Subtotal$2,299,308$2,299,308Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$13,795,846.17 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_435360 North Mountain Reservoir and Pump Station Hard Cost 1.0a. North Reservoir and Pump Station 1.North Reservoir Pump Station1l.s$1,198,918$1,198,9182.North Reservoir (3 MG) 3,000,000MG $1.00 $3,000,0003. 16" DIP Class 5113,230l.f $118.00 $1,561,1404. 24" DIP Class 5165l.f $192.00 $12,480Subtotal $5,772,538Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization and Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $115,450.77b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $115,450.77c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $57,725.38d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s. $865,880.75Subtotal $1,154,507.66$6,927,046Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $692,705b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $554,164c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $346,352Subtotal $1,593,221$1,593,221Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed 3 Acre Property Requirement 3 Acre $100,000.00 $300,000Subtotal $300,000$300,000Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (20%) 1 l.s. $1,764,053Subtotal$1,764,053$1,764,053Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$10,584,320 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_445630 East Mountain Zone Reservoir and Pump Station Hard Cost 1.0a.East Mountain Zone1. East Mountain Pump Station1l.s$1,839,255$1,839,2552. East Mountain Reservoir (6 MG) 6,000,000MG $1.00 $6,000,0003. 18" DIP Class 515,555l.f $136.00 $755,4804. 24" DIP Class 512,960l.f $192.00 $568,320Subtotal $9,163,055Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $183,261b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $183,261c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $91,631d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (15%)1 l.s. $1,374,458Subtotal $1,832,611$10,995,666Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $1,099,567b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $879,653c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $549,783Subtotal $2,529,003$2,529,003Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed 3 Acre Property Requirement 3 Acre $100,000.00 $300,000Subtotal $300,000$300,000Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (20%) 1 l.s. $2,764,934Subtotal$2,764,934$2,764,934Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$16,589,604 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_45Sourdough Reservoir 2Hard Cost 1.0a.Sourdough Reservoir 21. Sourdough Reservoir 2 (4 MG) 4,000,000MG $1.00 $4,000,000Subtotal $4,000,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization and Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $80,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $80,000.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $40,000.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (10%)1 l.s. $400,000.00Subtotal $600,000.00$4,600,000.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $460,000b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $368,000c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $230,000Subtotal $1,058,000$1,058,000Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed City owned Land at Sourdough Site 0 Acre $0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (15%) 1 l.s. $848,700Subtotal$848,700$848,700Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$6,506,700.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_46Water Treatment Plant Reservoir 2Hard Cost 1.0a.Water Treatment Plant Reservoir 21. WTP Reservoir 2 (5 MG) 5,000,000MG $1.00 $5,000,000Subtotal $5,000,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $100,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $100,000.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $50,000.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (10%)1 l.s. $500,000.00Subtotal $750,000.00$5,750,000.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $575,000b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $460,000c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $287,500Subtotal $1,322,500$1,322,500Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed City owned Land at WTP 0 Acre $0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (10%)1 l.s. $707,250Subtotal$707,250$707,250Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$7,779,750.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_47Water Treatment Plant Reservoir 3Hard Cost 1.0a.Water Treatment Plant Reservoir 31. WTP Reservoir 3 (5 MG) 5,000,000MG $1.00 $5,000,000Subtotal $5,000,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $100,000.00b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $100,000.00c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $50,000.00d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (10%)1 l.s. $500,000.00Subtotal $750,000.00$5,750,000.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $575,000b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $460,000c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $287,500Subtotal $1,322,500$1,322,500Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Assumed City owned Land at WTP 0 Acre $0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (10%)1 l.s. $707,250Subtotal$707,250$707,250Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$7,779,750.00 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_47West Transmission Main – Phase 3Hard Cost 1.0 Water Transmission System a.Water Main 1. 36" DIP - Class 51 19,542 l.f $369.00 $7,210,998Subtotal $7,210,998Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $144,219.96b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $144,219.96c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $72,109.98d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (5%)1 l.s. $360,549.90Subtotal $721,099.80$7,932,097.80Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $793,210b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $634,568c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $396,605Subtotal $1,824,382$1,824,382Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Right-of-way19,542 l.f. $9.50 $185,649Subtotal $185,649$185,649Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (10%) 1 l.s. $994,213Subtotal$994,213$994,213Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$10,936,342 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_49West Transmission Main – Phase 4Hard Cost 1.0 Water Transmission System a.Water Main 1. 30" DIP - Class 51 8,382 l.f $294.00 $2,464,308Subtotal $2,464,308Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $49,286.16b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $49,286.16c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $24,643.08d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (5%)1 l.s. $123,215.40Subtotal $246,430.80$2,710,739Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $271,074b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $216,859c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $135,537Subtotal $623,470$623,470Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Right-of-way8,382 l.f. $9.50 $79,629Subtotal $79,629$79,629Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (10%) 1 l.s. $341,384Subtotal$341,384$341,384Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$3,755,221 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP ID: CIP Name:WFP_50West Transmission Main – Phase 5Hard Cost 1.0 Water Transmission System a.Water Main 1. 24" DIP - Class 51 8,295 l.f $192.00 $1,592,640Subtotal $1,592,640Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a.Mobilization/Demobilization (2%)1 l.s. $31,852.80b.Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $31,852.80c.Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $15,926.40d.Contractor Overhead and Profit (5%)1 l.s. $79,632.00Subtotal $159,264.00$1,751,904Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (10%)1 l.s. $175,190b.Construction Administration and Management (8%) 1 l.s. $140,152c.Legal and Administrative (5%)1 l.s. $87,595Subtotal $402,938$402,938Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Right-of-way8,295 l.f. $9.50 $78,803Subtotal $78,803$78,803Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (10%) 1 l.s. $223,364Subtotal$223,364$223,364Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Inflation$2,457,009 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
Bozeman Water Facility Plan UpdateOPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COSTCIP Name:G&D PRVs (approximately 42 sites)Hard Cost 1.0a.Pumps, Electrical, Control, SCADA, PRV's1l.s.$235,0001. Precast or cast in-place concrete vault (water tight)2. Valving & piping3. Above grade SCADA/Control weather enclosure5. Electrical & Controls6. Heating& Ventilation/Dehumidification7. Hatch (Safety access - eliminate confined space entry)8. Power to site9. PRV's harnessing10. SCADA programmingSubtotal $235,000Hard Cost - Markups 2.0a. Mobilization (5%)1 l.s. $11,750.00b. Traffic Control (2%)1 l.s. $4,700.00c. Erosion Control (1%)1 l.s. $2,350.00d. Contractor Overhead and Profit (10%) 1 l.s. $23,500.00Subtotal $42,300.00$277,300.00Estimated Hard/Construction CostsSoft Costs 3.0a.Engineering (5%)1 l.s. $13,865b.Construction Administration and Management (5%) 1 l.s. $13,865c.Legal and Administrative (2%)1 l.s. $5,546Subtotal $33,276$33,276Estimated Soft CostsProperty Acquisition 4.0a.Not Included 0 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0Estimated Property Acquisition CostsProject Contingency 5.0a.Total Project Contingency (30%) 1 l.s. $93,173Subtotal$93,173$93,173Project Contingency Inflation 6.0a.Not Included 1 l.s. $0Subtotal $0$0InflationCost Per PRV SITE $403,749 Total Probable Project Cost (2016)UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMPONENT SUBTOTALAugust, 2016COST COMPONENT ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTIONQUANTITYUNIT
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS Cost
V8040 PRV - Flow for SE Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8042 PRV - Flow for SE Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8062 PRV - Emergency Flow from SD Zone to NW1 Zone G&D 403,749$
V8072 PRV - Emergency Flow from WTP Zone to SD Zone G&D 403,749$
V8074 PRV - Emergency Flow from SW Zone to WTP Zone G&D 403,749$
V8076 PRV - Emergency Flow from WTP Zone to SD Zone G&D 403,749$
V8080 PRV - Emergency Flow from WTP Zone to SD Zone G&D 403,749$
V8086 PRV - Emergency Flow from WTP Zone to SD Zone G&D 403,749$
V8092 PRV - Emergency Flow from WTP Zone to SD Zone G&D 403,749$
V8098 PRV - Emergency Flow from WTP Zone to SD Zone G&D 403,749$
V8104 PRV - Flow for SE Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8106 PRV - Emergency Flow from SE Mountain Zone to Sourdough Zone G&D 403,749$
V8108 PRV - Emergency Flow from SE Mountain Zone to Sourdough Zone G&D 403,749$
V8110 PRV - Emergency Flow from SE Mountain Zone to Sourdough Zone G&D 403,749$
V8112 PRV - Emergency Flow from SE Mountain Zone to Sourdough Zone G&D 403,749$
V8128 PRV - Emergency Flow from NW1 Zone to NW2 Zone G&D 403,749$
V8130 PRV - Emergency Flow from NW1 Zone to NW2 Zone G&D 403,749$
V8134 PRV - Emergency Flow from NW1 Zone to NW3 Zone G&D 403,749$
V8142 PRV - Emergency Flow from NW1 Zone to NW3 Zone G&D 403,749$
V8152 PRV - Emergency Flow from NW1 Zone to NW3 Zone G&D 403,749$
V8162 PRV - Emergency Flow from NW2 Zone to NW3 Zone G&D 403,749$
V8164 PRV - Flow from NW1 Zone to NW2 Zone G&D 403,749$
V8166 PRV - Flow from NW1 Zone to NW2 Zone G&D 403,749$
V8168 PRV - Flow from NW1 Zone to NW2 Zone G&D 403,749$
V8178 PRV - Flow from for North Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8180 PRV - Flow from for North Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8182 PRV - Flow from for North Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8184 PRV - Flow from for North Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8186 PRV - Flow for SE Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8188 PRV - Flow for East Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8190 PRV - Flow for East Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8192 PRV - Flow for East Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8194 PRV - Flow for East Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8200 PRV - Flow for East Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8202 PRV - Flow for East Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8204 PRV - Flow for East Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8206 PRV - Flow for East Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8208 PRV - Flow for East Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8210 PRV - Flow for East Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8216 PRV - Flow for East Mountain Zone G&D 403,749$
V8226 PRV - Emergency Flow Gallatin Park Zone to NW2 Zone G&D 403,749$
V8228 PRV - Emergency Flow from Northeast Zone to NW2 Zone G&D 403,749$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_1610 Future Pipe G&D 190.94 8 HGL 5360 (N)61 11,647$
FP_1613 Future Pipe G&D 1167.48 8 HGL 5360 (N)61 71,216$
FP_1652 Future Pipe G&D 1696.58 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 103,492$
FP_1612 Future Pipe G&D 2111.68 8 HGL 5360 (N)61 128,812$
FP_1609 Future Pipe G&D 3205.30 8 HGL 5360 (N)61 195,523$
FP_1608 Future Pipe G&D 857.33 8 HGL 5360 (N)61 52,297$
FP_1611 Future Pipe G&D 1272.90 8 HGL 5360 (N)61 77,647$
FP_1648 Future Pipe G&D 462.89 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 28,236$
FP_1651 Future Pipe G&D 2375.01 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 144,876$
FP_1615 Future Pipe G&D 810.53 8 HGL 5360 (N)61 49,442$
FP_1650 Future Pipe G&D 1167.09 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 71,192$
FP_1649 Future Pipe G&D 1229.17 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 74,979$
FP_1578 Future Pipe G&D 1041.45 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 63,528$
FP_1581 Future Pipe G&D 927.47 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 56,576$
FP_1579 Future Pipe G&D 837.71 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 51,100$
FP_1592 Future Pipe G&D 1018.06 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 62,102$
FP_1576 Future Pipe G&D 250.05 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 15,253$
FP_1572 Future Pipe G&D 1795.61 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 109,532$
FP_1571 Future Pipe G&D 1537.50 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 93,787$
FP_1591 Future Pipe G&D 1553.51 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 94,764$
FP_1589 Future Pipe G&D 1253.85 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 76,485$
FP_1582 Future Pipe G&D 1264.08 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 77,109$
FP_1583 Future Pipe G&D 2798.73 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 170,723$
FP_1584 Future Pipe G&D 2663.16 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 162,453$
FP_1707 Future Pipe G&D 928.98 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 56,668$
FP_1718 Future Pipe G&D 1927.51 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 117,578$
FP_1717 Future Pipe G&D 3154.81 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 192,443$
FP_1713 Future Pipe G&D 343.35 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 20,944$
FP_1712 Future Pipe G&D 418.92 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 25,554$
FP_1711 Future Pipe G&D 1200.84 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 73,251$
FP_1710 Future Pipe G&D 958.46 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 58,466$
FP_1708 Future Pipe G&D 1008.02 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 61,489$
FP_1723 Future Pipe G&D 2586.15 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 157,755$
FP_1706 Future Pipe G&D 365.51 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 22,296$
FP_1705 Future Pipe G&D 304.96 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 18,603$
FP_1704 Future Pipe G&D 286.98 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 17,506$
FP_1702 Future Pipe G&D 1562.36 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 95,304$
FP_1701 Future Pipe G&D 1380.32 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 84,200$
FP_1709 Future Pipe G&D 349.39 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 21,313$
FP_1719 Future Pipe G&D 860.25 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 52,475$
FP_1722 Future Pipe G&D 2552.39 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 155,696$
FP_1728 Future Pipe G&D 986.11 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 60,153$
FP_1727 Future Pipe G&D 1940.28 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 118,357$
FP_1671 Future Pipe G&D 693.62 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 42,311$
FP_1670 Future Pipe G&D 1137.95 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 69,415$
FP_1669 Future Pipe G&D 899.89 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 54,893$
FP_1668 Future Pipe G&D 553.54 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 33,766$
FP_1667 Future Pipe G&D 2599.58 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 158,574$
FP_1666 Future Pipe G&D 1363.27 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 83,160$
FP_1659 Future Pipe G&D 1543.98 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 94,183$
FP_1658 Future Pipe G&D 575.17 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 35,085$
FP_1684 Future Pipe G&D 1298.63 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 79,217$
FP_1693 Future Pipe G&D 1083.54 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 66,096$
FP_1692 Future Pipe G&D 1048.71 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 63,971$
FP_1691 Future Pipe G&D 1304.18 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 79,555$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_1690 Future Pipe G&D 1048.91 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 63,983$
FP_1689 Future Pipe G&D 1222.54 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 74,575$
FP_1688 Future Pipe G&D 1083.54 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 66,096$
FP_1672 Future Pipe G&D 1507.77 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 91,974$
FP_1685 Future Pipe G&D 1222.54 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 74,575$
FP_1533 Future Pipe G&D 1400.69 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 85,442$
FP_1530 Future Pipe G&D 1760.65 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 107,400$
FP_1532 Future Pipe G&D 994.32 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 60,654$
FP_1531 Future Pipe G&D 2510.93 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 153,167$
FP_1528 Future Pipe G&D 2132.67 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 130,093$
FP_1492 Future Pipe G&D 2075.58 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 126,611$
FP_1491 Future Pipe G&D 1198.01 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 73,078$
FP_1490 Future Pipe G&D 383.18 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 23,374$
FP_1505 Future Pipe G&D 454.86 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 27,747$
FP_1501 Future Pipe G&D 499.05 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 30,442$
FP_1504 Future Pipe G&D 1663.78 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 101,491$
FP_1502 Future Pipe G&D 702.90 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 42,877$
FP_2192 Future Pipe G&D 969.28 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 59,126$
FP_2226 Future Pipe G&D 668.06 8 HGL 4850 (NW2)61 40,752$
FP_2430 Future Pipe G&D 411.88 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 25,125$
FP_2428 Future Pipe G&D 639.26 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 38,995$
FP_2427 Future Pipe G&D 34.60 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 2,111$
FP_2419 Future Pipe G&D 2011.60 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 122,708$
FP_2409 Future Pipe G&D 495.22 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 30,208$
FP_2408 Future Pipe G&D 55.84 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 3,406$
FP_2407 Future Pipe G&D 414.10 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 25,260$
FP_2406 Future Pipe G&D 58.66 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 3,578$
FP_2460 Future Pipe G&D 3541.08 8 HGL 5038 (L)61 216,006$
FP_2459 Future Pipe G&D 507.99 8 HGL 5038 (L)61 30,987$
FP_2454 Future Pipe G&D 1012.40 8 HGL 5038 (L)61 61,756$
FP_2451 Future Pipe G&D 42.50 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 2,592$
FP_2450 Future Pipe G&D 75.42 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 4,601$
FP_2449 Future Pipe G&D 28.67 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 1,749$
FP_2446 Future Pipe G&D 67.16 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 4,097$
FP_2365 Future Pipe G&D 1258.32 8 HGL 5038 (L)61 76,757$
FP_2369 Future Pipe G&D 603.64 8 HGL 5038 (L)61 36,822$
FP_2351 Future Pipe G&D 955.85 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 58,307$
FP_2350 Future Pipe G&D 1104.52 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 67,376$
FP_2348 Future Pipe G&D 1827.74 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 111,492$
FP_2347 Future Pipe G&D 1569.91 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 95,765$
FP_2346 Future Pipe G&D 1100.25 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 67,115$
FP_2345 Future Pipe G&D 190.15 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 11,599$
FP_2383 Future Pipe G&D 966.59 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 58,962$
FP_2402 Future Pipe G&D 151.23 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 9,225$
FP_2401 Future Pipe G&D 58.04 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 3,540$
FP_2396 Future Pipe G&D 666.67 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 40,667$
FP_2391 Future Pipe G&D 1715.64 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 104,654$
FP_2390 Future Pipe G&D 734.33 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 44,794$
FP_2388 Future Pipe G&D 853.16 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 52,043$
FP_2386 Future Pipe G&D 1320.38 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 80,543$
FP_2367 Future Pipe G&D 621.84 8 HGL 5038 (L)61 37,932$
FP_2382 Future Pipe G&D 1105.74 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 67,450$
FP_2381 Future Pipe G&D 1295.61 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 79,032$
FP_2378 Future Pipe G&D 3752.55 8 HGL 5038 (L)61 228,905$
FP_2376 Future Pipe G&D 1354.52 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 82,626$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_2373 Future Pipe G&D 1065.10 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 64,971$
FP_2385 Future Pipe G&D 1627.62 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 99,285$
FP_1903 Future Pipe G&D 243.06 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 14,826$
FP_1842 Future Pipe G&D 1709.03 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 104,251$
FP_1841 Future Pipe G&D 717.28 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 43,754$
FP_1840 Future Pipe G&D 1024.22 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 62,478$
FP_1902 Future Pipe G&D 145.87 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 8,898$
FP_1898 Future Pipe G&D 2568.05 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 156,651$
FP_1897 Future Pipe G&D 1895.29 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 115,613$
FP_1896 Future Pipe G&D 781.25 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 47,656$
FP_1895 Future Pipe G&D 1242.48 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 75,791$
FP_1894 Future Pipe G&D 1675.37 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 102,198$
FP_1893 Future Pipe G&D 798.61 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 48,715$
FP_1833 Future Pipe G&D 2375.44 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 144,902$
FP_1836 Future Pipe G&D 1154.45 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 70,421$
FP_1821 Future Pipe G&D 1544.71 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 94,227$
FP_1837 Future Pipe G&D 794.77 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 48,481$
FP_1832 Future Pipe G&D 1106.21 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 67,479$
FP_1831 Future Pipe G&D 2662.07 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 162,387$
FP_1830 Future Pipe G&D 1710.77 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 104,357$
FP_1829 Future Pipe G&D 564.50 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 34,435$
FP_1828 Future Pipe G&D 846.40 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 51,631$
FP_1827 Future Pipe G&D 609.39 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 37,173$
FP_1826 Future Pipe G&D 782.87 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 47,755$
FP_1825 Future Pipe G&D 1493.39 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 91,097$
FP_1824 Future Pipe G&D 425.44 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 25,952$
FP_1822 Future Pipe G&D 667.52 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 40,719$
FP_1820 Future Pipe G&D 687.81 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 41,956$
FP_1819 Future Pipe G&D 1171.91 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 71,486$
FP_1818 Future Pipe G&D 1293.43 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 78,900$
FP_1817 Future Pipe G&D 399.31 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 24,358$
FP_1816 Future Pipe G&D 1478.79 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 90,206$
FP_1815 Future Pipe G&D 851.78 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 51,959$
FP_1834 Future Pipe G&D 1425.07 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 86,929$
FP_1823 Future Pipe G&D 1284.84 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 78,375$
FP_1835 Future Pipe G&D 278.32 8 HGL 5126 (S)61 16,978$
FP_1904 Future Pipe G&D 328.15 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 20,017$
FP_2094 Future Pipe G&D 1629.54 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 99,402$
FP_2092 Future Pipe G&D 2175.44 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 132,702$
FP_1911 Future Pipe G&D 229.17 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 13,979$
FP_1920 Future Pipe G&D 185.63 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 11,323$
FP_1919 Future Pipe G&D 871.54 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 53,164$
FP_1918 Future Pipe G&D 672.80 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 41,041$
FP_1917 Future Pipe G&D 735.33 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 44,855$
FP_1916 Future Pipe G&D 770.58 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 47,005$
FP_1914 Future Pipe G&D 619.21 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 37,772$
FP_1912 Future Pipe G&D 684.06 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 41,728$
FP_1915 Future Pipe G&D 396.21 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 24,169$
FP_1910 Future Pipe G&D 593.79 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 36,221$
FP_1909 Future Pipe G&D 787.92 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 48,063$
FP_1908 Future Pipe G&D 442.19 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 26,973$
FP_1907 Future Pipe G&D 423.67 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 25,844$
FP_1906 Future Pipe G&D 521.12 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 31,789$
FP_1905 Future Pipe G&D 128.52 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 7,840$
FP_1913 Future Pipe G&D 187.53 8 HGL 4975 (NW1)61 11,439$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_2317 Future Pipe G&D 1894.14 8 HGL 4725 (NW3)61 115,543$
FP_2334 Future Pipe G&D 2895.44 8 HGL 5560 (SE)61 176,622$
FP_2338 Future Pipe G&D 1589.05 8 HGL 5630 (MT)61 96,932$
FP_1755 Future Pipe G&D 628.94 10 HGL 5126 (S)74 46,542$
FP_1590 Future Pipe G&D 1190.90 10 HGL 4850 (NW2)74 88,126$
FP_1756 Future Pipe G&D 369.63 10 HGL 5126 (S)74 27,352$
FP_1588 Future Pipe G&D 767.63 10 HGL 4850 (NW2)74 56,805$
FP_1754 Future Pipe G&D 577.53 10 HGL 5126 (S)74 42,737$
FP_1751 Future Pipe G&D 1802.89 10 HGL 5126 (S)74 133,414$
FP_1752 Future Pipe G&D 2054.01 10 HGL 5126 (S)74 151,997$
FP_1499 Future Pipe G&D 994.80 10 HGL 5560 (SE)74 73,615$
FP_1498 Future Pipe G&D 834.55 10 HGL 5560 (SE)74 61,757$
FP_1508 Future Pipe G&D 1177.87 10 HGL 5126 (S)74 87,162$
FP_1506 Future Pipe G&D 545.17 10 HGL 5126 (S)74 40,343$
FP_1503 Future Pipe G&D 1402.65 10 HGL 5560 (SE)74 103,796$
FP_1507 Future Pipe G&D 1419.76 10 HGL 5126 (S)74 105,062$
FP_2429 Future Pipe G&D 2827.76 10 HGL 5630 (MT)74 209,254$
FP_2439 Future Pipe G&D 50.86 10 HGL 5630 (MT)74 3,764$
FP_2413 Future Pipe G&D 56.99 10 HGL 5630 (MT)74 4,217$
FP_2412 Future Pipe G&D 522.61 10 HGL 5630 (MT)74 38,673$
FP_2411 Future Pipe G&D 3596.53 10 HGL 5630 (MT)74 266,143$
FP_2410 Future Pipe G&D 70.12 10 HGL 5630 (MT)74 5,189$
FP_2456 Future Pipe G&D 73.29 10 HGL 5038 (L)74 5,423$
FP_2440 Future Pipe G&D 54.88 10 HGL 5630 (MT)74 4,061$
FP_2455 Future Pipe G&D 1740.43 10 HGL 5038 (L)74 128,792$
FP_2380 Future Pipe G&D 524.43 10 HGL 5630 (MT)74 38,808$
FP_2371 Future Pipe G&D 1729.58 10 HGL 5038 (L)74 127,989$
FP_2370 Future Pipe G&D 3336.18 10 HGL 5038 (L)74 246,877$
FP_2071 Future Pipe G&D 251.09 10 HGL 5126 (S)74 18,581$
FP_2332 Future Pipe G&D 1675.39 10 HGL 5560 (SE)74 123,979$
FP_2480 Future Pipe G&D 1050.44 10 HGL 4850 (NW2)74 77,733$
FP_2479 Future Pipe G&D 1975.10 10 HGL 4885 (G)74 146,158$
FP_1616 Future Pipe G&D 1190.87 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 103,605$
FP_1606 Future Pipe G&D 3732.42 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 324,720$
FP_1605 Future Pipe G&D 1902.98 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 165,560$
FP_1603 Future Pipe G&D 778.92 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 67,766$
FP_1600 Future Pipe G&D 1178.88 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 102,563$
FP_1599 Future Pipe G&D 1895.18 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 164,881$
FP_1598 Future Pipe G&D 1438.40 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 125,141$
FP_1623 Future Pipe G&D 1501.40 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 130,622$
FP_1646 Future Pipe G&D 3385.32 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 294,523$
FP_1645 Future Pipe G&D 4013.79 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 349,200$
FP_1641 Future Pipe G&D 3085.78 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 268,463$
FP_1621 Future Pipe G&D 1882.08 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 163,741$
FP_1620 Future Pipe G&D 608.47 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 52,937$
FP_1619 Future Pipe G&D 1728.35 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 150,366$
FP_1618 Future Pipe G&D 1217.51 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 105,924$
FP_1597 Future Pipe G&D 808.82 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 70,367$
FP_1640 Future Pipe G&D 3338.81 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 290,476$
FP_1763 Future Pipe G&D 2682.42 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 233,371$
FP_1764 Future Pipe G&D 2682.42 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 233,371$
FP_1580 Future Pipe G&D 473.07 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 41,158$
FP_1765 Future Pipe G&D 2578.13 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 224,297$
FP_1766 Future Pipe G&D 2660.57 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 231,470$
FP_1577 Future Pipe G&D 1223.97 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 106,486$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_1575 Future Pipe G&D 843.76 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 73,407$
FP_1574 Future Pipe G&D 786.53 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 68,428$
FP_1573 Future Pipe G&D 1917.01 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 166,780$
FP_1586 Future Pipe G&D 288.15 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 25,069$
FP_1594 Future Pipe G&D 2775.83 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 241,497$
FP_1593 Future Pipe G&D 2167.85 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 188,603$
FP_1587 Future Pipe G&D 992.74 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 86,368$
FP_1585 Future Pipe G&D 1363.06 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 118,586$
FP_1757 Future Pipe G&D 1316.36 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 114,524$
FP_1758 Future Pipe G&D 2708.46 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 235,636$
FP_1759 Future Pipe G&D 2968.87 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 258,292$
FP_1595 Future Pipe G&D 1136.12 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 98,843$
FP_1715 Future Pipe G&D 1431.28 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 124,522$
FP_1714 Future Pipe G&D 2040.01 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 177,481$
FP_1703 Future Pipe G&D 2018.56 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 175,615$
FP_1700 Future Pipe G&D 1111.25 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 96,679$
FP_1699 Future Pipe G&D 2552.10 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 222,033$
FP_1737 Future Pipe G&D 1275.69 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 110,985$
FP_1750 Future Pipe G&D 959.10 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 83,442$
FP_1749 Future Pipe G&D 838.91 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 72,986$
FP_1748 Future Pipe G&D 741.84 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 64,540$
FP_1747 Future Pipe G&D 677.73 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 58,962$
FP_1746 Future Pipe G&D 1149.66 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 100,021$
FP_1744 Future Pipe G&D 563.37 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 49,013$
FP_1743 Future Pipe G&D 1099.27 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 95,636$
FP_1740 Future Pipe G&D 687.87 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 59,844$
FP_1738 Future Pipe G&D 1333.82 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 116,042$
FP_1735 Future Pipe G&D 1324.49 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 115,231$
FP_1734 Future Pipe G&D 1319.56 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 114,802$
FP_1733 Future Pipe G&D 2006.40 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 174,557$
FP_1732 Future Pipe G&D 1339.26 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 116,515$
FP_1725 Future Pipe G&D 1301.46 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 113,227$
FP_1724 Future Pipe G&D 1271.81 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 110,648$
FP_1695 Future Pipe G&D 299.16 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 26,027$
FP_1739 Future Pipe G&D 1322.48 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 115,056$
FP_1570 Future Pipe G&D 1820.76 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 158,406$
FP_1665 Future Pipe G&D 737.84 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 64,192$
FP_1674 Future Pipe G&D 1341.40 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 116,702$
FP_1662 Future Pipe G&D 515.61 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 44,858$
FP_1664 Future Pipe G&D 2238.04 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 194,710$
FP_1694 Future Pipe G&D 407.81 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 35,480$
FP_1683 Future Pipe G&D 1891.68 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 164,576$
FP_1682 Future Pipe G&D 1315.36 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 114,437$
FP_1681 Future Pipe G&D 1394.95 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 121,360$
FP_1680 Future Pipe G&D 1615.90 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 140,583$
FP_1679 Future Pipe G&D 859.48 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 74,774$
FP_1678 Future Pipe G&D 1302.15 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 113,287$
FP_1676 Future Pipe G&D 1341.15 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 116,680$
FP_1675 Future Pipe G&D 1744.99 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 151,814$
FP_1357 Future Pipe G&D 1201.57 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 104,537$
FP_1445 Future Pipe G&D 2812.72 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 244,707$
FP_1444 Future Pipe G&D 1413.84 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 123,004$
FP_1442 Future Pipe G&D 1407.16 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 122,423$
FP_1353 Future Pipe G&D 1148.79 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 99,944$
FP_1354 Future Pipe G&D 1367.19 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 118,946$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_1355 Future Pipe G&D 1013.82 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 88,203$
FP_1422 Future Pipe G&D 1372.98 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 119,449$
FP_1356 Future Pipe G&D 1519.10 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 132,162$
FP_1448 Future Pipe G&D 1902.99 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 165,560$
FP_1358 Future Pipe G&D 1393.23 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 121,211$
FP_1359 Future Pipe G&D 1243.50 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 108,185$
FP_1360 Future Pipe G&D 1432.46 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 124,624$
FP_1426 Future Pipe G&D 691.35 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 60,147$
FP_1468 Future Pipe G&D 607.39 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 52,843$
FP_1460 Future Pipe G&D 708.47 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 61,637$
FP_1447 Future Pipe G&D 2295.93 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 199,745$
FP_1456 Future Pipe G&D 1753.84 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 152,584$
FP_1455 Future Pipe G&D 2547.03 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 221,592$
FP_1350 Future Pipe G&D 1343.86 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 116,916$
FP_1453 Future Pipe G&D 463.51 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 40,325$
FP_1452 Future Pipe G&D 2265.95 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 197,137$
FP_1386 Future Pipe G&D 1328.19 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 115,553$
FP_1385 Future Pipe G&D 1274.65 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 110,895$
FP_1384 Future Pipe G&D 1328.13 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 115,547$
FP_1383 Future Pipe G&D 1328.13 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 115,547$
FP_1382 Future Pipe G&D 1263.02 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 109,883$
FP_1381 Future Pipe G&D 1406.25 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 122,344$
FP_1423 Future Pipe G&D 2534.73 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 220,521$
FP_1379 Future Pipe G&D 1266.09 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 110,150$
FP_1391 Future Pipe G&D 1317.46 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 114,619$
FP_1370 Future Pipe G&D 1432.29 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 124,610$
FP_1369 Future Pipe G&D 1193.78 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 103,859$
FP_1380 Future Pipe G&D 1354.23 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 117,818$
FP_1401 Future Pipe G&D 1322.11 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 115,023$
FP_1363 Future Pipe G&D 1519.26 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 132,175$
FP_1408 Future Pipe G&D 2624.35 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 228,319$
FP_1364 Future Pipe G&D 1128.68 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 98,195$
FP_1406 Future Pipe G&D 1337.90 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 116,397$
FP_1402 Future Pipe G&D 2759.73 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 240,096$
FP_1399 Future Pipe G&D 1348.92 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 117,356$
FP_1365 Future Pipe G&D 1410.76 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 122,736$
FP_1366 Future Pipe G&D 1258.87 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 109,522$
FP_1367 Future Pipe G&D 1237.17 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 107,634$
FP_1394 Future Pipe G&D 1320.61 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 114,893$
FP_1393 Future Pipe G&D 1302.09 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 113,281$
FP_1392 Future Pipe G&D 1341.21 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 116,685$
FP_1471 Future Pipe G&D 1131.58 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 98,447$
FP_1403 Future Pipe G&D 2652.54 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 230,771$
FP_1539 Future Pipe G&D 464.43 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 40,405$
FP_1538 Future Pipe G&D 154.87 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 13,474$
FP_1537 Future Pipe G&D 470.93 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 40,971$
FP_1536 Future Pipe G&D 659.72 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 57,396$
FP_1535 Future Pipe G&D 276.30 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 24,038$
FP_1534 Future Pipe G&D 1022.62 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 88,968$
FP_1349 Future Pipe G&D 776.68 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 67,571$
FP_1542 Future Pipe G&D 1618.93 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 140,847$
FP_1551 Future Pipe G&D 734.93 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 63,939$
FP_1568 Future Pipe G&D 611.36 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 53,189$
FP_1566 Future Pipe G&D 1287.34 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 111,999$
FP_1565 Future Pipe G&D 4125.95 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 358,957$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_1556 Future Pipe G&D 1919.69 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 167,013$
FP_1368 Future Pipe G&D 1410.76 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 122,736$
FP_1555 Future Pipe G&D 182.88 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 15,910$
FP_1554 Future Pipe G&D 931.41 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 81,033$
FP_1540 Future Pipe G&D 597.79 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 52,008$
FP_1552 Future Pipe G&D 1502.72 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 130,736$
FP_1541 Future Pipe G&D 1648.66 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 143,433$
FP_1550 Future Pipe G&D 1111.51 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 96,701$
FP_1549 Future Pipe G&D 1305.02 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 113,537$
FP_1548 Future Pipe G&D 1294.31 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 112,605$
FP_1547 Future Pipe G&D 516.75 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 44,958$
FP_1546 Future Pipe G&D 1475.17 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 128,339$
FP_1545 Future Pipe G&D 602.77 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 52,441$
FP_1544 Future Pipe G&D 1108.27 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 96,419$
FP_1543 Future Pipe G&D 2090.85 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 181,904$
FP_1553 Future Pipe G&D 661.09 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 57,515$
FP_1486 Future Pipe G&D 865.67 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 75,313$
FP_1346 Future Pipe G&D 1404.03 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 122,150$
FP_1345 Future Pipe G&D 853.20 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 74,229$
FP_1480 Future Pipe G&D 1377.91 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 119,878$
FP_1478 Future Pipe G&D 1275.39 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 110,959$
FP_1475 Future Pipe G&D 964.08 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 83,875$
FP_1347 Future Pipe G&D 683.87 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 59,497$
FP_1348 Future Pipe G&D 1454.16 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 126,512$
FP_1569 Future Pipe G&D 507.38 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 44,142$
FP_1483 Future Pipe G&D 789.89 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 68,720$
FP_1470 Future Pipe G&D 3679.17 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 320,088$
FP_1519 Future Pipe G&D 2201.47 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 191,528$
FP_1516 Future Pipe G&D 1791.20 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 155,835$
FP_1513 Future Pipe G&D 2124.53 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 184,834$
FP_1512 Future Pipe G&D 517.25 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 45,001$
FP_1340 Future Pipe G&D 1349.35 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 117,393$
FP_2269 Future Pipe G&D 3198.15 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 278,239$
FP_2281 Future Pipe G&D 2652.33 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 230,752$
FP_2280 Future Pipe G&D 2050.05 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 178,355$
FP_2279 Future Pipe G&D 2683.09 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 233,429$
FP_2278 Future Pipe G&D 2667.79 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 232,097$
FP_2276 Future Pipe G&D 2602.59 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 226,425$
FP_2275 Future Pipe G&D 2657.69 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 231,219$
FP_2274 Future Pipe G&D 2484.71 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 216,170$
FP_2273 Future Pipe G&D 2364.13 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 205,679$
FP_2272 Future Pipe G&D 2491.08 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 216,724$
FP_2241 Future Pipe G&D 1720.58 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 149,691$
FP_2270 Future Pipe G&D 2114.31 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 183,945$
FP_2268 Future Pipe G&D 3111.72 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 270,720$
FP_2267 Future Pipe G&D 1164.77 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 101,335$
FP_2266 Future Pipe G&D 1328.58 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 115,587$
FP_2265 Future Pipe G&D 3075.87 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 267,600$
FP_2259 Future Pipe G&D 5425.44 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 472,013$
FP_2247 Future Pipe G&D 1238.00 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 107,706$
FP_2246 Future Pipe G&D 511.23 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 44,477$
FP_2245 Future Pipe G&D 2709.04 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 235,687$
FP_2244 Future Pipe G&D 1356.87 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 118,048$
FP_2340 Future Pipe G&D 187.05 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 16,273$
FP_2271 Future Pipe G&D 2764.10 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 240,476$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_2152 Future Pipe G&D 2087.65 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 181,625$
FP_2308 Future Pipe G&D 118.52 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 10,311$
FP_2307 Future Pipe G&D 982.30 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 85,460$
FP_2306 Future Pipe G&D 1023.39 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 89,035$
FP_2305 Future Pipe G&D 1592.79 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 138,573$
FP_2303 Future Pipe G&D 2880.34 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 250,589$
FP_2302 Future Pipe G&D 1083.03 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 94,224$
FP_2300 Future Pipe G&D 1297.12 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 112,850$
FP_2299 Future Pipe G&D 1989.55 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 173,091$
FP_2298 Future Pipe G&D 4616.83 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 401,664$
FP_2282 Future Pipe G&D 1618.74 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 140,831$
FP_2296 Future Pipe G&D 423.67 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 36,859$
FP_2283 Future Pipe G&D 2676.32 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 232,840$
FP_2294 Future Pipe G&D 3059.68 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 266,192$
FP_2293 Future Pipe G&D 2188.96 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 190,440$
FP_2292 Future Pipe G&D 2192.74 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 190,768$
FP_2291 Future Pipe G&D 2658.68 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 231,305$
FP_2290 Future Pipe G&D 2132.82 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 185,556$
FP_2289 Future Pipe G&D 2597.17 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 225,954$
FP_2288 Future Pipe G&D 2743.94 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 238,723$
FP_2287 Future Pipe G&D 2586.16 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 224,996$
FP_2286 Future Pipe G&D 2461.03 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 214,109$
FP_2240 Future Pipe G&D 1196.31 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 104,079$
FP_2297 Future Pipe G&D 510.42 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 44,406$
FP_2190 Future Pipe G&D 65.35 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 5,685$
FP_2201 Future Pipe G&D 674.53 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 58,684$
FP_2198 Future Pipe G&D 1214.42 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 105,655$
FP_2197 Future Pipe G&D 813.88 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 70,807$
FP_2243 Future Pipe G&D 896.12 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 77,962$
FP_2211 Future Pipe G&D 1514.47 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 131,758$
FP_2187 Future Pipe G&D 599.16 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 52,127$
FP_2179 Future Pipe G&D 82.58 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 7,184$
FP_2173 Future Pipe G&D 2624.40 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 228,323$
FP_2171 Future Pipe G&D 30.69 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 2,670$
FP_2224 Future Pipe G&D 4222.89 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 367,392$
FP_2235 Future Pipe G&D 105.88 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 9,211$
FP_2229 Future Pipe G&D 2711.51 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 235,902$
FP_2228 Future Pipe G&D 1778.12 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 154,696$
FP_2227 Future Pipe G&D 1259.58 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 109,584$
FP_2203 Future Pipe G&D 2597.54 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 225,986$
FP_2225 Future Pipe G&D 1833.53 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 159,517$
FP_2222 Future Pipe G&D 2683.39 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 233,455$
FP_2221 Future Pipe G&D 2757.14 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 239,871$
FP_2219 Future Pipe G&D 1112.47 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 96,785$
FP_2213 Future Pipe G&D 333.45 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 29,010$
FP_2212 Future Pipe G&D 1916.61 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 166,745$
FP_2342 Future Pipe G&D 258.28 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 22,470$
FP_2433 Future Pipe G&D 1015.12 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 88,315$
FP_2431 Future Pipe G&D 1096.01 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 95,353$
FP_2426 Future Pipe G&D 52.92 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 4,604$
FP_2425 Future Pipe G&D 2032.47 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 176,825$
FP_2404 Future Pipe G&D 1826.99 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 158,948$
FP_2309 Future Pipe G&D 610.77 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 53,137$
FP_2424 Future Pipe G&D 1597.69 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 138,999$
FP_2453 Future Pipe G&D 206.50 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 17,966$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_2434 Future Pipe G&D 608.33 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 52,925$
FP_2452 Future Pipe G&D 174.04 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 15,141$
FP_2445 Future Pipe G&D 36.47 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 3,173$
FP_2442 Future Pipe G&D 48.42 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 4,212$
FP_2441 Future Pipe G&D 90.54 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 7,877$
FP_2403 Future Pipe G&D 68.70 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 5,977$
FP_2353 Future Pipe G&D 1950.46 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 169,690$
FP_2364 Future Pipe G&D 167.43 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 14,566$
FP_2363 Future Pipe G&D 2175.61 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 189,278$
FP_2362 Future Pipe G&D 1415.82 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 123,177$
FP_2361 Future Pipe G&D 2527.17 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 219,864$
FP_2359 Future Pipe G&D 613.12 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 53,342$
FP_2358 Future Pipe G&D 2191.32 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 190,645$
FP_2356 Future Pipe G&D 2167.04 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 188,533$
FP_2405 Future Pipe G&D 49.79 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 4,332$
FP_2354 Future Pipe G&D 1926.82 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 167,633$
FP_2352 Future Pipe G&D 4062.47 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 353,435$
FP_2349 Future Pipe G&D 2723.24 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 236,922$
FP_2344 Future Pipe G&D 350.08 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 30,457$
FP_2343 Future Pipe G&D 1121.44 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 97,565$
FP_2355 Future Pipe G&D 3091.24 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 268,938$
FP_2392 Future Pipe G&D 1014.43 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 88,256$
FP_2387 Future Pipe G&D 799.11 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 69,522$
FP_2366 Future Pipe G&D 839.23 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 73,013$
FP_2372 Future Pipe G&D 1277.58 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 111,150$
FP_2310 Future Pipe G&D 2586.86 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 225,057$
FP_1852 Future Pipe G&D 1119.35 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 97,383$
FP_1864 Future Pipe G&D 887.50 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 77,213$
FP_1863 Future Pipe G&D 2611.38 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 227,190$
FP_1862 Future Pipe G&D 2258.55 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 196,494$
FP_1860 Future Pipe G&D 2371.12 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 206,288$
FP_1859 Future Pipe G&D 200.59 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 17,451$
FP_1858 Future Pipe G&D 753.63 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 65,565$
FP_1857 Future Pipe G&D 818.62 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 71,220$
FP_1866 Future Pipe G&D 1203.36 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 104,692$
FP_1853 Future Pipe G&D 1353.15 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 117,724$
FP_1867 Future Pipe G&D 818.86 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 71,241$
FP_1851 Future Pipe G&D 1789.11 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 155,653$
FP_1850 Future Pipe G&D 1041.76 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 90,633$
FP_1849 Future Pipe G&D 1697.55 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 147,687$
FP_1845 Future Pipe G&D 3637.96 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 316,502$
FP_1844 Future Pipe G&D 2773.78 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 241,319$
FP_1899 Future Pipe G&D 892.39 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 77,638$
FP_1865 Future Pipe G&D 2042.86 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 177,729$
FP_1886 Future Pipe G&D 1216.06 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 105,797$
FP_1873 Future Pipe G&D 2695.30 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 234,491$
FP_1872 Future Pipe G&D 1669.67 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 145,262$
FP_1871 Future Pipe G&D 1490.86 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 129,705$
FP_1870 Future Pipe G&D 284.49 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 24,750$
FP_1869 Future Pipe G&D 1008.45 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 87,735$
FP_1868 Future Pipe G&D 848.07 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 73,782$
FP_1783 Future Pipe G&D 2682.45 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 233,373$
FP_1800 Future Pipe G&D 2552.09 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 222,032$
FP_1799 Future Pipe G&D 1302.35 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 113,304$
FP_1798 Future Pipe G&D 1255.58 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 109,236$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_1797 Future Pipe G&D 2635.00 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 229,245$
FP_1796 Future Pipe G&D 2778.20 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 241,703$
FP_1792 Future Pipe G&D 2630.21 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 228,829$
FP_1791 Future Pipe G&D 2630.73 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 228,873$
FP_1788 Future Pipe G&D 4557.97 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 396,543$
FP_1786 Future Pipe G&D 4636.13 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 403,344$
FP_1784 Future Pipe G&D 2634.87 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 229,233$
FP_1780 Future Pipe G&D 2616.96 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 227,675$
FP_2341 Future Pipe G&D 3040.26 12 HGL 5630 (MT)87 264,503$
FP_1779 Future Pipe G&D 2620.71 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 228,002$
FP_1778 Future Pipe G&D 2574.54 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 223,985$
FP_1776 Future Pipe G&D 2373.84 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 206,524$
FP_1777 Future Pipe G&D 399.68 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 34,772$
FP_1785 Future Pipe G&D 2630.34 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 228,840$
FP_1801 Future Pipe G&D 1313.68 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 114,290$
FP_2025 Future Pipe G&D 17.83 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 1,552$
FP_2070 Future Pipe G&D 1054.89 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 91,775$
FP_2069 Future Pipe G&D 331.04 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 28,800$
FP_2058 Future Pipe G&D 2171.74 12 HGL 5360 (N)87 188,942$
FP_2033 Future Pipe G&D 653.00 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 56,811$
FP_2032 Future Pipe G&D 2630.34 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 228,840$
FP_2030 Future Pipe G&D 74.96 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 6,521$
FP_2027 Future Pipe G&D 902.39 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 78,508$
FP_2026 Future Pipe G&D 12.33 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 1,073$
FP_2111 Future Pipe G&D 3031.58 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 263,748$
FP_2147 Future Pipe G&D 2953.04 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 256,915$
FP_2140 Future Pipe G&D 1888.13 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 164,267$
FP_2118 Future Pipe G&D 65.78 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 5,723$
FP_2112 Future Pipe G&D 2972.53 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 258,610$
FP_2120 Future Pipe G&D 135.62 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 11,799$
FP_2097 Future Pipe G&D 2048.62 12 HGL 5350 (SW)87 178,230$
FP_2096 Future Pipe G&D 2544.20 12 HGL 5221 (WTP)87 221,346$
FP_2091 Future Pipe G&D 2637.39 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 229,453$
FP_1995 Future Pipe G&D 447.71 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 38,951$
FP_2012 Future Pipe G&D 1371.65 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 119,334$
FP_2014 Future Pipe G&D 1313.52 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 114,276$
FP_1994 Future Pipe G&D 169.78 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 14,771$
FP_2327 Future Pipe G&D 2616.46 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 227,632$
FP_2316 Future Pipe G&D 2615.62 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 227,559$
FP_2321 Future Pipe G&D 2342.63 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 203,809$
FP_2322 Future Pipe G&D 2605.08 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 226,642$
FP_2311 Future Pipe G&D 2632.48 12 HGL 4975 (NW1)87 229,025$
FP_2319 Future Pipe G&D 936.90 12 HGL 4725 (NW3)87 81,510$
FP_2324 Future Pipe G&D 2605.52 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 226,680$
FP_2326 Future Pipe G&D 1884.32 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 163,936$
FP_2328 Future Pipe G&D 2389.31 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 207,870$
FP_2330 Future Pipe G&D 1020.89 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 88,817$
FP_2331 Future Pipe G&D 2272.19 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 197,680$
FP_2333 Future Pipe G&D 1836.00 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 159,732$
FP_2325 Future Pipe G&D 1364.21 12 HGL 5560 (SE)87 118,686$
FP_2312 Future Pipe G&D 2571.98 12 HGL 5126 (S)87 223,762$
FP_2482 Future Pipe G&D 315.73 12 HGL 4850 (NW2)87 27,468$
FP_2481 Future Pipe G&D 1395.98 12 HGL 5038 (L)87 121,450$
FP_1614 Future Pipe G&D 1816.69 16 HGL 5360 (N)118 214,370$
FP_1653 Future Pipe G&D 957.49 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 112,984$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_1647 Future Pipe G&D 937.60 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 110,637$
FP_1644 Future Pipe G&D 463.49 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 54,691$
FP_1642 Future Pipe G&D 1445.45 16 HGL 5360 (N)118 170,563$
FP_1625 Future Pipe G&D 1755.90 16 HGL 5360 (N)118 207,196$
FP_1617 Future Pipe G&D 4176.27 16 HGL 5360 (N)118 492,800$
FP_1771 Future Pipe G&D 2214.16 16 HGL 5350 (SW)118 261,271$
FP_1762 Future Pipe G&D 313.58 16 HGL 5350 (SW)118 37,003$
FP_1772 Future Pipe G&D 2630.21 16 HGL 5350 (SW)118 310,365$
FP_1770 Future Pipe G&D 2395.98 16 HGL 5350 (SW)118 282,726$
FP_1657 Future Pipe G&D 1663.17 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 196,254$
FP_1760 Future Pipe G&D 2578.26 16 HGL 5350 (SW)118 304,235$
FP_1761 Future Pipe G&D 2370.37 16 HGL 5350 (SW)118 279,704$
FP_1655 Future Pipe G&D 1534.28 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 181,045$
FP_1698 Future Pipe G&D 928.98 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 109,620$
FP_1673 Future Pipe G&D 2224.04 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 262,437$
FP_1663 Future Pipe G&D 1210.11 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 142,793$
FP_1661 Future Pipe G&D 2652.30 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 312,971$
FP_1660 Future Pipe G&D 430.68 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 50,820$
FP_1656 Future Pipe G&D 323.12 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 38,128$
FP_1654 Future Pipe G&D 1408.28 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 166,177$
FP_1697 Future Pipe G&D 587.82 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 69,363$
FP_1677 Future Pipe G&D 2852.13 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 336,551$
FP_1687 Future Pipe G&D 1102.09 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 130,047$
FP_1443 Future Pipe G&D 2256.95 16 HGL 4850 (NW2)118 266,320$
FP_1440 Future Pipe G&D 259.02 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 30,564$
FP_1430 Future Pipe G&D 2465.97 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 290,984$
FP_1361 Future Pipe G&D 1367.36 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 161,349$
FP_1425 Future Pipe G&D 1365.95 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 161,182$
FP_1362 Future Pipe G&D 1302.27 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 153,667$
FP_1561 Future Pipe G&D 676.83 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 79,866$
FP_1436 Future Pipe G&D 2637.30 16 HGL 4850 (NW2)118 311,201$
FP_1457 Future Pipe G&D 3113.72 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 367,418$
FP_1469 Future Pipe G&D 2452.33 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 289,375$
FP_1466 Future Pipe G&D 1359.34 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 160,403$
FP_1465 Future Pipe G&D 1897.91 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 223,954$
FP_1464 Future Pipe G&D 1571.19 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 185,401$
FP_1463 Future Pipe G&D 1666.91 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 196,696$
FP_1462 Future Pipe G&D 1255.95 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 148,202$
FP_1461 Future Pipe G&D 195.36 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 23,053$
FP_1446 Future Pipe G&D 2606.23 16 HGL 4850 (NW2)118 307,535$
FP_1458 Future Pipe G&D 1160.06 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 136,887$
FP_1451 Future Pipe G&D 2601.66 16 HGL 4850 (NW2)118 306,996$
FP_1450 Future Pipe G&D 2548.20 16 HGL 4850 (NW2)118 300,687$
FP_1352 Future Pipe G&D 1302.27 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 153,667$
FP_1419 Future Pipe G&D 1363.64 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 160,909$
FP_1459 Future Pipe G&D 1087.71 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 128,350$
FP_1388 Future Pipe G&D 1263.02 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 149,037$
FP_1387 Future Pipe G&D 1439.06 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 169,810$
FP_1376 Future Pipe G&D 1157.14 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 136,543$
FP_1375 Future Pipe G&D 1484.61 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 175,184$
FP_1374 Future Pipe G&D 1341.40 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 158,285$
FP_1373 Future Pipe G&D 1354.17 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 159,792$
FP_1372 Future Pipe G&D 1146.13 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 135,244$
FP_1371 Future Pipe G&D 1450.32 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 171,138$
FP_1413 Future Pipe G&D 2195.38 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 259,055$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_1412 Future Pipe G&D 2583.28 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 304,827$
FP_1411 Future Pipe G&D 50.91 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 6,008$
FP_1405 Future Pipe G&D 2630.21 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 310,365$
FP_1404 Future Pipe G&D 2672.96 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 315,409$
FP_1389 Future Pipe G&D 1354.23 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 159,799$
FP_1390 Future Pipe G&D 1263.09 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 149,045$
FP_1773 Future Pipe G&D 2708.46 16 HGL 5350 (SW)118 319,599$
FP_1332 Future Pipe G&D 1389.06 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 163,909$
FP_1333 Future Pipe G&D 1251.64 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 147,694$
FP_1526 Future Pipe G&D 776.30 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 91,604$
FP_1525 Future Pipe G&D 937.13 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 110,581$
FP_1524 Future Pipe G&D 1948.27 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 229,896$
FP_1334 Future Pipe G&D 1287.53 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 151,929$
FP_1564 Future Pipe G&D 1284.83 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 151,610$
FP_1562 Future Pipe G&D 2151.74 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 253,906$
FP_1521 Future Pipe G&D 2446.52 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 288,690$
FP_1481 Future Pipe G&D 1338.05 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 157,890$
FP_1523 Future Pipe G&D 1837.60 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 216,837$
FP_1485 Future Pipe G&D 1263.51 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 149,094$
FP_1484 Future Pipe G&D 1375.96 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 162,364$
FP_1482 Future Pipe G&D 1267.94 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 149,616$
FP_1479 Future Pipe G&D 1293.67 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 152,653$
FP_1477 Future Pipe G&D 1741.67 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 205,517$
FP_1474 Future Pipe G&D 1582.05 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 186,682$
FP_1517 Future Pipe G&D 1974.46 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 232,986$
FP_1515 Future Pipe G&D 1757.82 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 207,422$
FP_1514 Future Pipe G&D 1685.38 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 198,875$
FP_1522 Future Pipe G&D 1014.28 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 119,685$
FP_1335 Future Pipe G&D 1367.36 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 161,349$
FP_1336 Future Pipe G&D 1367.36 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 161,349$
FP_1337 Future Pipe G&D 1280.38 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 151,085$
FP_1338 Future Pipe G&D 1323.79 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 156,207$
FP_1339 Future Pipe G&D 1367.36 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 161,349$
FP_2284 Future Pipe G&D 247.31 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 29,183$
FP_2295 Future Pipe G&D 2315.11 16 HGL 4850 (NW2)118 273,183$
FP_2202 Future Pipe G&D 1226.13 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 144,683$
FP_2200 Future Pipe G&D 941.25 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 111,068$
FP_2199 Future Pipe G&D 1315.73 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 155,257$
FP_2196 Future Pipe G&D 2677.36 16 HGL 4850 (NW2)118 315,928$
FP_2195 Future Pipe G&D 616.32 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 72,726$
FP_2194 Future Pipe G&D 560.47 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 66,135$
FP_2186 Future Pipe G&D 1918.96 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 226,437$
FP_2185 Future Pipe G&D 238.79 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 28,177$
FP_2184 Future Pipe G&D 763.97 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 90,149$
FP_2183 Future Pipe G&D 2237.69 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 264,048$
FP_2181 Future Pipe G&D 51.88 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 6,122$
FP_2193 Future Pipe G&D 326.20 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 38,492$
FP_2239 Future Pipe G&D 2520.66 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 297,437$
FP_2237 Future Pipe G&D 2629.42 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 310,272$
FP_2236 Future Pipe G&D 1638.16 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 193,303$
FP_2234 Future Pipe G&D 2563.11 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 302,446$
FP_2231 Future Pipe G&D 2655.70 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 313,373$
FP_2230 Future Pipe G&D 47.24 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 5,574$
FP_2223 Future Pipe G&D 3055.56 16 HGL 4850 (NW2)118 360,556$
FP_2220 Future Pipe G&D 1893.39 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 223,420$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_2464 Future Pipe G&D 1260.55 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 148,745$
FP_1774 Future Pipe G&D 2548.61 16 HGL 5350 (SW)118 300,736$
FP_2458 Future Pipe G&D 2590.52 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 305,682$
FP_2457 Future Pipe G&D 1316.54 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 155,352$
FP_1856 Future Pipe G&D 1837.23 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 216,793$
FP_1855 Future Pipe G&D 3663.92 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 432,342$
FP_1846 Future Pipe G&D 2982.01 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 351,877$
FP_1843 Future Pipe G&D 973.50 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 114,873$
FP_1854 Future Pipe G&D 1436.90 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 169,554$
FP_1888 Future Pipe G&D 2712.21 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 320,041$
FP_1892 Future Pipe G&D 1241.44 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 146,490$
FP_1891 Future Pipe G&D 1024.45 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 120,886$
FP_1889 Future Pipe G&D 2655.31 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 313,327$
FP_1887 Future Pipe G&D 2441.41 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 288,087$
FP_1885 Future Pipe G&D 2646.41 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 312,277$
FP_1884 Future Pipe G&D 442.79 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 52,250$
FP_1890 Future Pipe G&D 2680.15 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 316,258$
FP_1790 Future Pipe G&D 2685.92 16 HGL 5350 (SW)118 316,939$
FP_1806 Future Pipe G&D 2626.37 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 309,911$
FP_1775 Future Pipe G&D 2552.22 16 HGL 5350 (SW)118 301,162$
FP_1805 Future Pipe G&D 1317.72 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 155,491$
FP_1811 Future Pipe G&D 2604.69 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 307,354$
FP_1810 Future Pipe G&D 1277.11 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 150,699$
FP_1809 Future Pipe G&D 2509.86 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 296,164$
FP_1807 Future Pipe G&D 51.20 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 6,042$
FP_2037 Future Pipe G&D 466.46 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 55,043$
FP_2068 Future Pipe G&D 2589.69 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 305,583$
FP_2059 Future Pipe G&D 1211.20 16 HGL 5360 (N)118 142,921$
FP_2057 Future Pipe G&D 742.07 16 HGL 5360 (N)118 87,564$
FP_2073 Future Pipe G&D 140.71 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 16,604$
FP_2040 Future Pipe G&D 139.45 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 16,455$
FP_2074 Future Pipe G&D 149.28 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 17,615$
FP_2036 Future Pipe G&D 879.23 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 103,749$
FP_2028 Future Pipe G&D 139.28 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 16,435$
FP_2121 Future Pipe G&D 1241.35 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 146,480$
FP_2117 Future Pipe G&D 99.51 16 HGL 4850 (NW2)118 11,742$
FP_2076 Future Pipe G&D 1449.51 16 HGL 5360 (N)118 171,042$
FP_2114 Future Pipe G&D 2531.91 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 298,765$
FP_1921 Future Pipe G&D 2644.02 16 HGL 5221 (WTP)118 311,994$
FP_1969 Future Pipe G&D 2534.73 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 299,098$
FP_2015 Future Pipe G&D 91.18 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 10,760$
FP_2124 Future Pipe G&D 872.71 16 HGL 4975 (NW1)118 102,980$
FP_2003 Future Pipe G&D 633.89 16 HGL 5360 (N)118 74,800$
FP_2008 Future Pipe G&D 1346.16 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 158,846$
FP_2013 Future Pipe G&D 1361.44 16 HGL 5126 (S)118 160,650$
FP_2315 Future Pipe G&D 1285.31 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 151,666$
FP_2320 Future Pipe G&D 1291.71 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 152,422$
FP_2314 Future Pipe G&D 1426.13 16 HGL 4725 (NW3)118 168,283$
FP_2323 Future Pipe G&D 2625.97 16 HGL 5560 (SE)118 309,864$
FP_2336 Future Pipe G&D 2951.42 16 HGL 5630 (MT)118 348,267$
FP_2337 Future Pipe G&D 1094.03 16 HGL 5630 (MT)118 129,096$
FP_2422 Future Pipe G&D 207.32 18 HGL 5630 (MT)136 28,196$
FP_2432 Future Pipe G&D 780.02 18 HGL 5630 (MT)136 106,082$
FP_2423 Future Pipe G&D 585.48 18 HGL 5630 (MT)136 79,625$
FP_2461 Future Pipe G&D 19.53 18 136 2,656$
ID DESCRIPTION CIP_ITEMS LENGTH_FT DIAMETER ZONE_NEW Unit Cost $/FT Cost
FP_2462 Future Pipe G&D 46.96 18 136 6,386$
FP_2435 Future Pipe G&D 1427.21 18 HGL 5630 (MT)136 194,101$
FP_2360 Future Pipe G&D 237.40 18 HGL 5630 (MT)136 32,287$
FP_2389 Future Pipe G&D 517.69 18 HGL 5630 (MT)136 70,406$
FP_2384 Future Pipe G&D 526.07 18 HGL 5630 (MT)136 71,545$
FP_2335 Future Pipe G&D 1351.15 18 HGL 5630 (MT)136 183,757$
FP_2339 Future Pipe G&D 1272.03 18 HGL 5630 (MT)136 172,996$
FP_1378 Future Pipe G&D 1393.29 24 HGL 5126 (S)192 267,512$
FP_1377 Future Pipe G&D 24.57 24 HGL 5126 (S)192 4,717$
FP_1398 Future Pipe G&D 1315.11 24 HGL 5126 (S)192 252,501$
FP_1331 Future Pipe G&D 1193.78 24 HGL 5221 (WTP)192 229,205$
FP_1330 Future Pipe G&D 1410.76 24 HGL 5221 (WTP)192 270,866$
FP_2174 Future Pipe G&D 66.03 24 HGL 5221 (WTP)192 12,678$
FP_2204 Future Pipe G&D 646.58 24 HGL 5126 (S)192 124,144$
FP_2466 Future Pipe G&D 70.14 24 192 13,468$
FP_1782 Future Pipe G&D 994.02 24 HGL 5221 (WTP)192 190,851$
FP_1781 Future Pipe G&D 2644.26 24 HGL 5221 (WTP)192 507,698$
FP_2148 Future Pipe G&D 63.73 24 HGL 5360 (N)192 12,237$
FP_2090 Future Pipe G&D 2961.69 24 HGL 5126 (S)192 568,644$
FP_2009 Future Pipe G&D 1270.14 24 HGL 5126 (S)192 243,868$
FP_2218 Future Pipe G&D 17.35 30 HGL 5221 (WTP)294 5,102$
FP_2217 Future Pipe G&D 20.13 30 HGL 5221 (WTP)294 5,919$
FP_2056 Future Pipe G&D 50.25 30 HGL 5221 (WTP)294 14,774$
Water Facility Plan Update
Appendices
July 2017
Appendix H – Prioritization Matrix
Project IDProject Name Are there other affected projects? Coordination, prerequisite, opportunistic, etc.How is capacity affected by this project?Describe the criticality (i.e., importance) of this project to the operation?How is connectivity affected by this project? (Reliability/Redundancy)What safety measures are mitigated with this projectWhat regulations or standards are attained with this projectRisk Assessment How is effieciency improved by this project?What is the impact for this equipment?Additional Factor 1 Prioitization ScoreProject RankingFY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Est Cost WFP_02a Risk-Based CA #5 - Sourdough Transmission Main Condition Assessment Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Major asset whose failure would affect a large population of end-users. There is no possibility of a work-around without asset.Current system/asset is aging and/or exhibits problems and no immediate correction or workaround is available.Low risk of minor injury Impacts do not apply. High risk of major system failure that would cause interruption of service, or damage to property or equipment.impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply 35.6 1 $ 719,785 $ 719,785 WFP_02bSourdough Transmission Main CA Based RehabImpacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Major asset whose failure would affect a large population of end-users. There is no possibility of a work-around without asset.Current system/asset is aging and/or exhibits problems and no immediate correction or workaround is available.Low risk of minor injury Impacts do not apply. High risk of major system failure that would cause interruption of service, or damage to property or equipment.impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply 35.6 2 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 WFP_04 Sourdough Water Rights Utilization Study Window of opportunity for project is limited and project timeline is driven by an outside entity and there is immediate demonstrated need. Project is a prequisite for additional project stages and delay will delay multiple significant Impacts do not apply. Major asset whose failure would affect a large population of end-users. There is no possibility of a work-around without asset.Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Regulation that requires compliance in near future 1-5 years OR Anticipated regulation with major implications for COB OperationsImpacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Has system-wide application and affects critical asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply 35.0 3 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 WFP_01aWest Transmission Main Planning StudyWindow of opportunity for project is limited and project timeline is driven by an outside entity and there is immediate demonstrated need. Project is a prequisite for additional project stages and delay will delay multiple significant Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Current system/asset is aging and/or exhibits problems and no immediate correction or workaround is available.Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Project's implementation will result in demonstrable enhanced revenues/cost reductions > $500,000 above the cost of the project. Alternatively, failure of un-maintained system would cost > $500,00 in higher costs.Has system-wide application and affects critical asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply 30.0 4 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 WFP_05 Hilltop Tank Inspection and Mixing System Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Major asset whose failure would affect a large population of end-users. There is no possibility of a work-around without asset.Current system/asset is aging and/or exhibits problems and no immediate correction or workaround is available.Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Risk of subsystem failure and the potential for interruption of service, damage to property or equipment in a limited area.Impacts do not apply. Has subsystem application or affects major asset(s) and produces quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply 26.3 5 $ 239,616 $ 239,616 WFP_12 SCADA Master Plan Window of opportunity for project is limited and project timeline is driven by an outside entity and there is immediate demonstrated need. Project is a prequisite for additional project stages and delay will delay multiple significant projects. Impacts do not apply. Major asset whose failure would possibly affect a large population of end-users. Work-around possible with heavy burden on Utility resources. Asset is at or exceeds service capacity and does not allow for growthImpacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Risk of subsystem failure and the potential for interruption of service, damage to property or equipment in a limited area.Between 50% and 100% of project's costs will be repaid through either enhanced revenues or lower costs. Alternatively, failure of un-maintained system would cost up to 50% and 100% of project's cost.Has system-wide application and affects critical asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply. 23.1 6 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 WFP_19a Risk Based CA # 4 - Lyman Creek Water Transmission MainWindow of opportunity for project is limited and project timeline is driven by an outside entity and there is immediate demonstrated need. Project is a prequisite for additional project stages and delay will delay multiple significant projects. Impacts do not apply. Major asset whose failure would possibly affect a large population of end-users. Work-around possible with heavy burden on Utility resources. Asset is at or exceeds service capacity and does not allow for growthCurrent system/asset is aging and/or exhibits problems and no immediate correction or workaround is available.Low risk of minor injury Impacts do not apply. High risk of system failure and the potential for interruption of service, or damage to property or equipment.impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. 21.9 7 $ 134,670 $ 134,670 . WFP_10a Groundwater Well Field Development - Phase 1 Window of opportunity for project is limited and project timeline is driven by an outside entity and there is immediate demonstrated need. Project is a prequisite for additional project stages and delay will delay multiple significant Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Current system is aging but does not exhibit problems - a work around is available.Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Project's implementation will result in demonstrable enhanced revenues/cost reductions > $250,000 above the cost of the project. Alternatively, failure of un-maintained system would cost < $500,000 or > $250,000 in higher Has system-wide application and affects critical asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply 20.6 8 $ 8,612,400 $ 8,612,400 WFP_13 Vertical Asset Risk Assessment Phase 1 An outside entity has a like-project which requires coordination and there is an immediate and demonstrated need for the project. Project is a prerequisite for additional project(s). Impacts do not apply. Major asset whose failure would possibly affect a large population of end-users. Work-around possible with heavy burden on Utility resources. Asset is at or exceeds service capacity and does not allow for growthImpacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Risk of subsystem failure and the potential for interruption of service, damage to property or equipment in a limited area.Impacts do not apply. Has system-wide application and affects critical asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply 20.0 9 $ 19,838 $ 19,838 WFP_16 Sourdough Tank Inspection and Potential ImprovementsThere is a demonstrated long-term need for the project and an outside entity has a like-project. Intangible benefits can be realized by coordinating schedules to coincide.Impacts do not apply. Major asset whose failure would possibly affect a large population of end-users. Work-around possible with heavy burden on Utility resources. Asset is at or exceeds service capacity and does not allow for growthCurrent system exhibits problems - a work around is available but is difficult to establish and is prone to error.Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. High risk of system failure and the potential for interruption of service, or damage to property or equipment.Impacts do not apply. Has subsystem application or affects major asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply. 20.0 10 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 WFP_14 Vertical Asset Risk Assessment Phase 2 Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Major asset whose failure would possibly affect a large population of end-users. Work-around possible with heavy burden on Utility resources. Asset is at or exceeds service capacity and does not allow for growthImpacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Risk of subsystem failure and the potential for interruption of service, damage to property or equipment in a limited area.Impacts do not apply. Has system-wide application and affects critical asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply. 17.5 11 $ 85,963 $ 85,963 WFP_15 R&R (Risk, Fire flow, Age, Condition, Size, etc) Impacts do not apply. Capacity is increased from deficient status to meet minimum acceptable service levels.Moderate asset whose failure would affect a population of end-users where work-around is possible, however it is inconvenient and limits functionality.Current system exhibits problems - a work around is available but is difficult to establish and is prone to error.Low risk of minor injury Anticipated regulation (regulation in the current legislative/regulator process)Risk of subsystem failure and the potential for interruption of service, damage to property or equipment in a limited area.Project's costs are repaid (through lower costs or enhanced revenues) within 5 years of completion: "Year 5 break even". Alternatively, failure of un-maintained system would cost what the proposed project costs in Year 5.Has subsystem application or affects major asset(s) and produces quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply. 17.5 12 $ 2,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 WFP_18 PRV Upgrades (approximately 16 sites) The project may be needed. An outside entity has a like-project.Impacts do not apply. Moderate asset whose failure would affect a population of end-users where work-around is possible, however it is inconvenient and limits functionality.Current system exhibits problems - a work around is available but is difficult to establish and is prone to error.Low risk of a serious injury Impacts do not apply. Risk of subsystem failure and the potential for interruption of service, damage to property or equipment in a limited area.Project's costs are repaid (through lower costs or enhanced revenues) within 5 years of completion: "Year 5 break even". Alternatively, failure of un-maintained system would cost what the proposed project costs in Year 5.Has subsystem application or affects major asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply. 17.5 13 $ 7,637,760 $ 3,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 637,760 WFP_19bLyman Transmission Main CA Based RehabImpacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Major asset whose failure would possibly affect a large population of end-users. Work-around possible with heavy burden on Utility resources. Asset is at or exceeds service capacity and does not allow for growthCurrent system/asset is aging and/or exhibits problems and no immediate correction or workaround is available.Low risk of minor injury Impacts do not apply. High risk of system failure and the potential for interruption of service, or damage to property or equipment.impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. 16.9 14 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 WFP_11 Integrated Water Resources Plan Update An outside entity has a like-project which requires coordination and there is an immediate and demonstrated need for the project. Project is a prerequisite for additional project(s). Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Risk of subsystem failure and the potential for interruption of service, damage to property or equipment in a limited area.Impacts do not apply. Has system-wide application and affects critical asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply 16.3 15 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 WFP_09a Reservoir 1 - Siting Window of opportunity for project is limited and project timeline is driven by an outside entity and there is immediate demonstrated need. Project is a prequisite for additional project stages and delay will delay multiple significant Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Project's implementation will result in demonstrable enhanced revenues/cost reductions > $250,000 above the cost of the project. Alternatively, failure of un-maintained system would cost < $500,000 or > $250,000 in higher Has subsystem application or affects major asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply 15.0 16 $ 350,000 $ 350,000
WFP_38 Pear Street Booster Station Upgrade Impacts do not apply. Capacity is increased from a severely deficient status to meet minimum acceptable service levels.Moderate asset whose failure would affect a population of end-users where work-around is possible, however it is inconvenient and limits functionality.Current system exhibits problems - a work around is available but is difficult to establish and is prone to error.Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Risk of subsystem failure and the potential for interruption of service, damage to property or equipment in a limited area.Between 50% and 100% of project's costs will be repaid through either enhanced revenues or lower costs. Alternatively, failure of un-maintained system would cost up to 50% and 100% of project's cost.Has limited application and produces quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, process, or adoption of best industry practices.Impacts do not apply 15 17 $ 486,720 $ 486,720 WFP_24 SCADA Phase 1 There is a demonstrated long-term need for the project and an outside entity has a like-project. Intangible benefits can be realized by coordinating schedules to coincide.Impacts do not apply. Moderate asset whose failure would affect a population of end-users where work-around is possible, however it is inconvenient and limits functionality.Current system exhibits problems - a work around is available.Risk can affect quality of public service, employee stressImpacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Between 50% and 100% of project's costs will be repaid through either enhanced revenues or lower costs. Alternatively, failure of un-maintained system would cost up to 50% and 100% of project's cost.Has subsystem application or affects major asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply. 10.3 18 $ 2,239,050 $ 559,763 $ 839,644 $ 839,644 WFP_32 Risk Based CA #2 - Downtown Area Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Major asset whose failure would possibly affect a large population of end-users. Work-around possible with heavy burden on Utility resources. Asset is at or exceeds service capacity and does not allow for growthCurrent system exhibits problems - a work around is available but is difficult to establish and is prone to error.Risk can affect quality of public service, employee stressImpacts do not apply. Risk of subsystem failure and the potential for interruption of service, damage to property or equipment in a limited area.Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. 10.3 19 $ 28,116 $ 28,116 WFP_01bWest Transmission Main - Phase 1 DesignWindow of opportunity for project is limited and project timeline is driven by an outside entity and there is immediate demonstrated need. Project is a prequisite for additional project stages and delay will delay multiple significant Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Current system/asset is aging and/or exhibits problems and no immediate correction or workaround is available.Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply 10.0 20 $ 2,907,235 $ 2,907,235 WFP_26 Redundant North 5038 Zone Feed Impacts do not apply. Capacity is increased from deficient status to meet minimum acceptable service levels.Minor asset whose failure would affect a small population of end-users. Annoying, however, no significant adverse impact. A long-term work-around may be possible.Current system exhibits problems - a work around is available.Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Risk of subsystem failure and the potential for interruption of service, damage to property or equipment in a limited area.Impacts do not apply. Has subsystem application or affects major asset(s) and produces quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts do not apply 9.7 21 $ 59,488 $ 59,488 WFP_34 Risk Based CA # 1 - West Bozeman TransmissionImpacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Major asset whose failure would possibly affect a large population of end-users. Work-around possible with heavy burden on Utility resources. Asset is at or exceeds service capacity and does not allow for growthCurrent system is aging but does not exhibit problems - a work around is available.Risk can affect quality of public service, employee stressImpacts do not apply. Risk of subsystem failure and the potential for interruption of service, damage to property or equipment in a limited area.Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. 8.4 22 $ 47,826 $ 47,826 WFP_35 Risk Based CA #3 - Baxter/Oak south of FreewayImpacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Moderate asset whose failure would affect a population of end-users where work-around is possible, however it is inconvenient and limits functionality.Current system exhibits problems - a work around is available.Risk can affect quality of public service, employee stressImpacts do not apply. Risk of subsystem failure and the potential for interruption of service, damage to property or equipment in a limited area.Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. 7.2 23 $ 23,775 $ 23,775 WFP_36 Water Information Management Solutions (WIMS)Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Minor asset whose failure would affect a small population of end-users. Annoying, however, no significant adverse impact. A long-term work-around may be possible.Impacts do not apply. Impacts do not apply. Potential regulation anticipated in next 5-10 years.Impacts do not apply. Between 50% and 100% of project's costs will be repaid through either enhanced revenues or lower costs. Alternatively, failure of un-maintained system would cost up to 50% and 100% of project's cost.Has limited application and produces quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, process, or adoption of best industry practices.Impacts do not apply 4.1 24 $ 186,300 $ 186,300
Water Facility Plan Update
Appendices
July 2017
Appendix I – Short-Term Project Narratives
City of BozemanWater CIP - ProjectsRecommended Short-Term CIP-ProjectsEnter a project nameSourdough Transmission Main – CA Based Rehab Lyman Transmission Main CA Based Rehab Groundwater Well Field Development - Phase 1 PRV Upgrades (approximately 16 sites)CIP Project Number (leave blank if this is a new project)WFP_02bWFP_19bWFP_10aWFP_18DepartmentEngineeringEngineeringWater Impact FeesEngineeringCategoryInfrastructureInfrastructureInfrastructureInfrastructureEnter a Brief Project Description (one sentence)The project consists of repairs/rehab work on the existing 30-inch bar wrapped concrete Sourdough transmission main, from the Sourdough water treatment plant to the Sourdough reservoir, and the 16-in bar-wrapped concrete pipe from Sourdough Reservoir to Kagy. Project scope is dependent on condition assessment of the existing Sourdough transmission main (WFP_02a). This project consists of repair and rehabilitation work on the lower Lyman transmission pipeline, approximately between Lyman Reservoir and Pear Street Pump Station. Scope will depend on the results of WFP_19a, condition assessment of the pipeline.This project consists of three components: 1) Purchase land for construction and operation of a municipal groundwater well field; 2) Obtaining mitigation water necessary to implement a DNRC-approved mitigation plan; and 3) Water right permitting to obtain a beneficial water use permit, the legal water rights necessary to operate a municipal groundwater well, 4) Well developmentWaterproof, Install above-ground weather proof enclosures (for PLC rack, PLC, I/O, Power supply, batter charger, battery, control transformer, switch, network communication,HMI,and related equipment), single phase power source, wide area network communication connection, Electric Unit Heater, Vent fan, sump pump and safety access (Bilco Hatch access) in non-traveled way sites. Install field instrumentation for remote indication of pressure, flow, temperature, and select water quality parameters (as required). Standardize pressure controls, provide remote indication and control functionality, and improve upon confined space entry limitations. Contact NameBrian HeastonBrian Heaston Brian HeastonBrian HeastonContact Emailbheaston@bozeman.netbheaston@bozeman.netbheaston@bozeman.net bheaston@bozeman.netContact Phone Number582-2280582-2280582-2282582-2280Cost of the Project$1,000,000$500,000$8,612,400$7,637,760Year ScheduledFY19FY19FY18FY20Select a Project FundWater Impact FeeWhat are the Alternatives Considered?Replacement or paralleling of Sourdough Transmission Main, or construction of the West Transmission Main from WTP to Goldenstein and 19th. Continue to operate Lyman transmission main as-is. Slower development of potential groundwater supply Status quo operation What are the Advantages of Approval?Repair of identified problems such that operation of the main can continue for the next several years.Adds new source of water supply to the City of Bozeman, pursuant to the Integrated Water Resources Plan, to meet the City’s future water supply needs.Improve water distribution operations through increased understanding of system operating characteristics. Improve responsiveness to dynamic operating conditions. Facilitate improved access to existing sites now requiring confined space entry procedures. Standardize and improve surge control features throughout system. What are the additional operating costs in the future (if applicable- provide cost and a description)?Currently UnknownCurrently UnknownCurrently unknownDebt service (if any) to construct, power costs, SCADA maintenance, vault maintenance, instrument maintenance, programming libraries Are there any additional funding sources?100% Water Impact FeesAre there other affected projects?Currently UnknownCurrently UnknownPressure Management, PRV AbandonmentsIs this a project or a piece of equipment?ProjectProjectProjectProjectCURRENT PROJECT RANKING:1382141
How is capacity affected by this project?No changeNo changeA groundwater wellfield would substantially increase the City's water supply capacityN/ADescribe the criticality (i.e., importance) of this project to the operation?This main is currently a single-point of failure and is in unknown condition.Lyman transmission into Pear Street PS is critical to provide some water from the Lyman system in the event of a failure in the Sourdough systems.The City is facing a long-term water supply gap. Acquiring additional new sources of water is critical to the City being able to close this gap. Groundwater procurement is also critical to provide a backup source to the southern watersheds, in case of fire or other catastrophe. Finally, groundwater is the most drought resilient source of water, and procurement of groundwater would significantly reduce the City's vulnerability to drought. Without project, system operators are without vital data on system operating conditions. Limited real time data limits capability to anticipate, diagnose, or correct abnormal operating conditions. How is connectivity affected by this projectThis project improves connectivity of the distribution system to the City's WTP.Improved connectivity from the Lyman source to the City.Currently the majority of the City's supply comes from the Hyalite and Sourdough watersheds, connected through the Sourdough WTP to the City's south side. Connecting a major new source of water from the west will greatly improve the connectivity of the City's supply and distribution systems. Maintains existing connectivityWhat safety or risk measures are mitigated with this projectReduced risk of failure of the Sourdough Transmission Main. If this main fails the Sourdough and Hilltop reservoirs would provide 1 to 2 days of supply, depending on the season. Reduced risk of a critical failure along the Lyman transmission main.Risks to water supply from the City's southern watersheds. Lyman spring provides some risk reduction to major failures (wildfire, dam failure, contamination) in the southern watersheds, but is not sufficient to provide substantial redundancy. A groundwater wellfield would contribute to this redundancy, reducing these risks. Standardized pressure controls offers improved protections from surge conditions which are likely cause of pipe failure. Improves service levels to existing customers where pressure transients cause leaks in sprinkler systems or within customer premisesWhat regulations or standards are attained with this projectReliable water delivery infrastructure and sufficient fire flow.Redundant water delivery infrastructure and sufficient fire flow to downtown.Water supply redundancy N/AHow is this project/equipment leveraged with other stakeholders/projects/funds?Scope of the project will be dictated by the results of WFP_02aUnknownA groundwater wellfield project is inherently tied to construction of a transmission main from the wellfield to town, and other infrastructure (potentially a storage reservoir and booster station) necessary to distribute this water across the City. Unknown2
City of BozemanWater CIP - ProjectsRecommended Short-Term CIP-ProjectsEnter a project nameCIP Project Number (leave blank if this is a new project)DepartmentCategoryEnter a Brief Project Description (one sentence)Contact NameContact EmailContact Phone NumberCost of the ProjectYear ScheduledSelect a Project FundWhat are the Alternatives Considered?What are the Advantages of Approval?What are the additional operating costs in the future (if applicable- provide cost and a description)?Are there any additional funding sources?Are there other affected projects?Is this a project or a piece of equipment?CURRENT PROJECT RANKING:SCADA Phase 1 Hilltop Tank Inspection and Mixing System Redundant North 5038 Zone Feed Risk Based R&RWFP_24WFP_05WFP_26WFP_15EngineeringWater OperationsWater OperationsInfrastructureEquipmentEquipmentInfrastructureInstall Wide Area Network infrastructure, connect PRV vaults, verify/ install Pressure relief per each Pressure Zone, central site improvements, update historian, and implement pressure management regimes to improve system pressure protectionInspect reservoir. Furnish and Install Mixer(s), Power and Control and update Reservoir SCADA to include remote monitoring capability of mixer(s). Evaluate, and upgrade as required, 2nd location of redundant feed of 5130 Zone water into North (5038) Zone. This will ensure alternative source of water exists and is sufficient to feed North Zone in time when Lyman Creek source is unavailable. This bucket of funds could be used for both Risk-based CA and those which are only Fire-flow driven (or opportunistic upgrades)Brian HeastonJohn AlstonJohn Alstonbheaston@bozeman.net jalston@bozeman.netjalston@bozeman.net582-2280582-2250582-2250$2,239,050$239,616$59,488$2,500,000FY20FY18FY19FY20Status Quo Installation of separate inlet and outlet configurations per each ReservoirContinue with single connection between pressure zonesimproved surveillance of system operation, increased control and understanding of real-time system conditions, ability to implement tighter pressure management controls.Least expensive way to effect reservoir mixing and added freeze protectionUse existing facilities and connectivity to provide redundant back up source of waterFund for repair and rehabilitation of items the department considers most urgent, based on WFPU and experience, over the next 5 years.SCADA WAN maintenance expenses, server and hardware maintenance, software maintenance and programming librariesEnergy costs for mixing; SCADA maintenance, scheduled mixer maintenance, NonePRV vault upgrades, Reservoir mixing upgrades, new storage reservoir, Pear St. Booster Station upgrade, remote water quality surveillance system Pear St. Booster Station UpgradeProjectEquipmentProjectProject12185213
How is capacity affected by this project?Describe the criticality (i.e., importance) of this project to the operation?How is connectivity affected by this projectWhat safety or risk measures are mitigated with this projectWhat regulations or standards are attained with this projectHow is this project/equipment leveraged with other stakeholders/projects/funds?N/AN/AN/AModerate improvements in fire flow capacity at some hydrants in the systemImproved surveillance of system operation, increased control and understanding of real-time system conditions, ability to implement tighter pressure management controls.Without mixing of tank contents, Water Quality can be impacted, cold weather operation can create damage to reservoir contentsThis provides a second path for water to move from South Zone to North Zone in event that Lyman source is unavailable. Multiple hydrants were identified in the WFPU modeling work that have less than optimal fire flow for the surrounding land use. However, the deficiencies were slight and can be mitigated by other means. Improves connectivity of remote sites to one another, enhancing overall system operationN/AN/AImproved understanding of cause/effect allows improved overall system operation including more precise pressure control, real-time statusing during abnormal events, Freeze protection reduces risk of ice damage to cathodic protection system, tank interior.Second source from outside the Pressure Zone. Adds amount of redundancy to system needed in event Lyman source is unavailableReduced risk of lower fire flows in some fire hydrantsCompliance with applicable SCADA and security standards.N/AMeets City Hydraulic criteria Fire flow maintenanceUnknownUnknownCould be performed in conjunction with Pear St. Booster Upgrade to facilitate testing and commissioning4
City of BozemanWater CIP - ProjectsRecommended Short-Term CIP-ProjectsEnter a project nameCIP Project Number (leave blank if this is a new project)DepartmentCategoryEnter a Brief Project Description (one sentence)Contact NameContact EmailContact Phone NumberCost of the ProjectYear ScheduledSelect a Project FundWhat are the Alternatives Considered?What are the Advantages of Approval?What are the additional operating costs in the future (if applicable- provide cost and a description)?Are there any additional funding sources?Are there other affected projects?Is this a project or a piece of equipment?CURRENT PROJECT RANKING:Pear St. Booster Station UpgradeHyalite Reservoir Infrastructure and Control Improvements Groundwater Well Field Transmission Main - Phase 1 Sourdough Transmission Main – Phase 1WFP_38WFP_54WFP_20WFP_03EngineeringEngineeringInfrastructureInfrastructureInfrastructureInfrastructureRehabilitate station by adding 2 - 1000 gpm high service pumps, 1 - 400 gpm normal service pump, electrical and control (either VFD and discharge check valve or Soft Starts with discharge control valves); verify condition or install new 5038 Zone PRVs (1 low range, 1 high range) to backfeed Zone. Allows interim operation as booster station into South 5130 Zone for South Zone reservoirs, as well as backfeed when Lyman Reservoir to be taken out of service. Provide SCADA control logic modifications as required.Armoring of the control tower (to enable some year-over-year storage capacity) and control upgrades to improve winter operationThe project consists of a constructing a new transmission 24" main that would connect the City’s existing distribution system to a potential future groundwater well field system located west of the current City boundary. The precise location of the required main is dependent on groundwater yields and well locations, but will likely convey water from the Four Corners region to the City along Huffine Road.The project consists of constructing approximately 8,700 feet of 30-inch DIP transmission main, which would parallel the existing older 30-inch concrete main. The proposed transmission main would connect to a new 48-inch DIP coming from the WTP and extend to the Sourdough reservoir. John AlstonLain LeoniakBrian Heaston Brian Heastonjalston@bozeman.netlleoniak@bozeman.netbheaston@bozeman.netbheaston@bozeman.net582-3200582-3220582-2280582-2280$486,720$3,858,300$8,974,969$4,241,272FY18FY22FY20FY18Abandonment of Site as booster station. Status quo for backfeed from 5130 South Zone to 5038 North ZoneContinue to deal with current Hyalite dam operationAlternatives are dependent on groundwater yield and location.Conduct a condition assesment of the existing 30-inch concrete pipe and repair/rehabilitate as necessary.Maintain capability during high demand period to fill/maintain reservoir levels in Sourdough and Hilltop Reservoirs. Augment Sourdough supply during peak demand period. Provide capabability to backfeed North Zone in event Lyman Creek supply is insufficient or Lyman Reservoir is out of service. Drought mitigation, improved water use and cost efficienciesConstruction of this main would provide a significant, redundant supply of water from a watershed other than the Sourdough/Hyalite systems, reducing the City's risk of dependency on the Sourdough Water Treatment Plant and providing a drought-resistant supply of water. In addition, this supply will contribute to adequate water supply capacity for the City's overall future development. The condition of the existing transmission main from the WTP to the Sourdough reservoir is currently unknown. Approval of this project will provide redundancy for this main, and mitigate the risk and consequence of its failure.NoAnnual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be spent on annual operations and maintenance costs. The Water Utility will see incremental increases in general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate of $12,500 per water-main mile maintained annually.Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be spent on annual operations and maintenance costs. The Water Utility will see incremental increases in general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate of $12,500 per water-main mile maintained annually.The ability to utilize some year-over-year storage in Hyalite to mitigate against a dry year reduces the criticality of obtainnig groundwater, or adding major storage to Lyman.Currently UnknownCurrently UnknownProjectProjectProjectProject17 Not Previously Ranked Not Previously Ranked Not Previously Ranked5
How is capacity affected by this project?Describe the criticality (i.e., importance) of this project to the operation?How is connectivity affected by this projectWhat safety or risk measures are mitigated with this projectWhat regulations or standards are attained with this projectHow is this project/equipment leveraged with other stakeholders/projects/funds?Enables Lyman supply at approximately 2-3MGD to be fully utilizedCapacity could be improved in a major drought condition.This project would increase Bozeman's long-term water supply capacity to potentially match growth projections. It is necessary to close the long-term water supply gap documented in the City's 2013 Integrated Water Resources Plan. This transmission main will provide additional capacity from the WTP to the Sourdough reservoir.In absence of pumping capacity, Lyman source can not be fully exploited to fill reservoirs in South Zone. With limited storage, can affect capability to maintain storage for equalization, fire protection and emergency storage. Current vulnerability of Bozeman to drought is very high, due to the lack of sources that are robust in drought (large raw water reservoirs with year-over-year storage capacity, large rivers, or groundwater). Hyalite Reservoir is capable of providing year-over-year storage, but is not operated in that manner due to concerns of ice damage to the control tower. Development of a Groundwater Well Field is crucial to the City's long-term water supply, from capacity, redundancy and drought resiliency perspectives.This project is critical to overcome vulnerabilities presented by the aging and unknown condition of the existing transmission main between the City's WTP and Sourdough Tank.Maintains existing connectivityDevelopment of a ground water supply and transmission main will improve Bozeman's long-term water supply portfolio, drought resiliency and improve circulation and water age in the City's system. This project improves connectivity between the WTP and the City.N/AThe risk of an extremely dry year resulting in the inability to fill the Hyalite reservoir with enough water for the City and irrigation uses. Without a groundwater supply, the City's has substantial long-term risk to water supply insufficiency and water shortages due to drought or other disasters in the southern watersheds. Developing and connecting a groundwater supply will greatly reduce these risks. The risk of not having adequate potable water and fire flow supplies to the City in the event of a failure to the existing bar-wrapped 30" main.N/ADrought resiliiency Water supply security, drought resiliency Water supply securityUnknownProject could potentially remove the 20% surcharge the City pays for Hyalite releases.This project is tied to the development of a wellfield supply, which is dependent on ongoing hydrogeologic studies, water rights assessments, and environmental review.This project's cost and administration could be improved if combined with the new 3,000 feet of 48" bypass pipe.6
City of BozemanWater CIP - EquipmentRecommended Short-Term CIP ProjectsEnter a project nameWest Transmission Main Planning Study Risk-Based CA #5 - Sourdough Transmission Main Sourdough Water Rights Utilization Study Integrated Water Resources Plan Update SCADA Master Plan Vertical Asset Risk Assessment - Ph 1CIP Project Number (leave blank if this is a new project)WFP_01aWFP_02aWFP_04WFP_11WFP_12WFP_13DepartmentEngineeringEngineeringEngineeringSCADAGISCategoryPlanning Document Planning Document Planning Document Planning Document Planning Document Engineering ServiceEnter a Brief Project DescriptionWater Facility Plan UpdatePerform high resolution condition assessment of Sourdough Transmission in accordance with 2015 Condition assessment reportStudy to develop recommended project(s) to enable long-term utilization of Sourdough water rights.Update to the 2013 Integrated Water Resources PlanEvaluate options and develop recommendations for Wide-area network implementation for planned remote water infrastructure. Develop SCADA design, equipment and SCADA tagging and programming standards. Formulate data accessibility and SCADA integration with other City applications (e.g., CMMS)Expand the use of risk to vertical plant assets including reservoirs, groundwater sources, PRV’s, booster stations, and treatment plants. Create a generalized risk policy for the city that will allow for the comparison of risk across various asset classes on a comparable scale, which then allows for better allocation of CIP funding and effort to the highest risk assets across the entire utility. Develop implementation planContact NameBrian HeastonBrian HeastonLain LeoniakBrian HeastonUnknownJon HendersonContact Emailbheaston@bozeman.netbheaston@bozeman.netlleoniak@bozeman.netbheaston@bozeman.net Unknownjhenderson@bozeman.netContact Phone Number582-2281582-2280582-3220582-2282582-2250Cost of the Project$400,000$719,785$400,000$150,000$250,000$19,838Year ScheduledFY18FY18FY18FY19FY18FY19Select a Project FundWhat are the Alternatives Considered?Defer the study further out, deferring eventual construction of the West Transmission Main.No inspectionStatus quo operation of limited SCADA within distribution system and plantMaintenance of existing policy and non-data driven decision makingWhat are the Advantages of Approval?Identify key design parameters, right-of-way, route and permitting for the West Transmission Main, so that design and construction can proceed once funds are available.reduce range of uncertainty of major pipeline integrity; identify areas in need of repair and/or rehabilitationUpdating this project will enable the City to hone in on the best approaches to closing the City's future water supply gap.Leverage technology to improve understanding and real time remote control of infrastructure. Improved pressure management of high-pressure operation. Inform maintenance decisions with performance data. Implement consistent treatment of business risk in CIP planning, Operational budget reviews and adjustment, and system repairs across all City asset classes. What are the additional operating costs in the future (if applicable- provide cost and a description)?Assuming project is capitalized, operating costs to be less than $35,000 for in-house labor Are there any additional funding sources?Are there other affected projects?All subsequent phases of West Transmission Main design and constructionSCADA Phase 1, SCADA Phase 2, PRV Vault upgrades, Well field development, reservoir mixers, new booster stations, new reservoir sitesIs this a project or a piece of equipment?ProjectprojectprojectProjectprojectprojectWhich infrastructure assets are maintained by this equipment?Sourdough Transmission MainN/AN/ADescribe the criticality (i.e., importance) of this equipment to the operation?Eventual construction of the West Transmission Main is necessary to provide redundancy for the Sourdough Transmission Main as well as adequate potable water and fire flow for the City's west, northwest and north areas.Criticality is dependent on completion of other risk reduction measures. At this time, item is highly critical. However, criticality is reduced if other structural improvements are completed as scheduled. This project is critical for the City to maintain its water rights on Sourdough Creek.Should be implemented in current fiscal year to adopt for planning processes for FY 18Should be implemented in current fiscal year to adopt for planning processes for FY 18How is efficiency improved with this equipment?Conveyance of water to the City's western, northwestern and northern areas will be more efficient that moving water through downtown and existing PRVsfocus resources to where any defect is found, and eliminate unnecessary capital expense of rehabilitation and/or replacementData-driven decision making Data-driven decision making 9PROJECT RANKING:1315641
What is the impact (i.e., scope-of-use) for this equipment?Address risk from pipeline failure and establish need for additional R&R expenses to maintain service. Establish baseline condition for future use in scheduling additional inspection/repairsCritical securitization of water rights on Sourdough watershedWhat are the implications of deferring the purchase of this equipment?Delay of eventual design and construction of the West Transmission Main, continued reliance on the single-point-of-failure Sourdough Transmission Main to convey water to the City from the WTP.Opportunistic pipeline assessment can be done when factors limit expenses associated with inspection Loss of some Sourdough water rights Failure to monitor and avoid long-term water supply gapthis project is precursor to construction projects at critical facilitiesHow is this project/equipment leveraged with other stakeholders/projects/funds?UnknownRecommended by IWRP, DMP older/projects precursor to construction projects w critical facilitiesUse funds allocated to FY 17 budget?2
City of BozemanWater CIP - EquipmentRecommended Short-Term CIP ProjectsEnter a project nameCIP Project Number (leave blank if this is a new project)DepartmentCategoryEnter a Brief Project DescriptionContact NameContact EmailContact Phone NumberCost of the ProjectYear ScheduledSelect a Project FundWhat are the Alternatives Considered?What are the Advantages of Approval?What are the additional operating costs in the future (if applicable- provide cost and a description)?Are there any additional funding sources?Are there other affected projects?Is this a project or a piece of equipment?Which infrastructure assets are maintained by this equipment?Describe the criticality (i.e., importance) of this equipment to the operation?How is efficiency improved with this equipment?PROJECT RANKING:Vertical Asset Risk Assessment - Ph 2 Sourdough Tank Inspection and ImprovementsRisk Based CA # 4 - Lyman Creek Water Transmission MainRisk Based CA #2 - Downtown Area Risk Based CA # 1 - West Bozeman Transmission Risk Based CA #3 - Baxter/Oak south of FreewayWFP_14WFP_16WFP_19aWFP_32WFP_34WFP_35GISWater Operations EngineeringEngineeringEngineeringEngineeringEngineering Service Planning Document Planning Document Planning Document Planning Document Planning DocumentExpand the use of risk to vertical plant assets including reservoirs, PRV’s, booster stations, and treatment plants. Perform risk assessment per Implementation plan.This project would entail taking the Sourdough Tank offline (once the West Transmission Main is online), inspecting it and repairing it as necessary. This project may or may not include reconfiguration of the inlet/outlet configuration to provide flow-through hydraulics.Prepare and evaluate condition assessment plan and execute condition assessment for the high consequence transmission main through the northeast bozeman corridor to confirm likelihood of failure. Prepare and evaluate condition assessment plan and execute condition assessment for the high consequence distribution and backbone mains through the downtown bozeman corridor with moderate likelihood of failure to confirm or update likelihood of failure in order to more accurately identify pipes as candidates for R&R.Prepare and evaluate condition assessment plan and execute condition assessment for the high consequence transmission main through the southwest bozeman corridor to confirm likelihood of failure. Prepare and evaluate condition assessment plan and execute condition assessment for the high consequence distribution and backbone mains through this corridor with moderate likelihood of failure to confirm or update likelihood of failure in order to more accurately identify pipes as candidates for R&R.Jon HendersonJohn AlstonBrian HeastonBrian HeastonBrian HeastonBrian Heastonjhenderson@bozeman.netjalston@bozeman.netbheaston@bozeman.netbheaston@bozeman.netbheaston@bozeman.netbheaston@bozeman.net582-2250582-2249582-2280582-2280582-2280582-2280$85,963$500,000$134,670$28,116$47,826$23,775FY19FY19FY19FY18FY18FY18Maintenance of existing policy and non-data driven decision makingWait for critical failure No inspectionNo inspectionNo inspectionNo inspectionImplement consistent treatment of business risk in CIP planning, Operational budget reviews and adjustment, and system repairs across all City asset classes. Rehabilitation of critical storage infrastructure for several decades to come.Doing planned condition assessment can provide a cost effective mechanism of identifying likely asset failures and thereby offering the opportunity of repairing the deficiency or the whole asset if needed prior to failure. Additionally, CA often can identify assets in good working condition, so only required repairs are completed thereby saving significant money in replacing assets in good working order.Doing planned condition assessment can provide a cost effective mechanism of identifying likely asset failures and thereby offering the opportunity of repairing the deficiency or the whole asset if needed prior to failure. Additionally, CA often can identify assets in good working condition, so only required repairs are completed thereby saving significant money in replacing assets in good working order.Doing planned condition assessment can provide a cost effective mechanism of identifying likely asset failures and thereby offering the opportunity of repairing the deficiency or the whole asset if needed prior to failure. Additionally, CA often can identify assets in good working condition, so only required repairs are completed thereby saving significant money in replacing assets in good working order.Doing planned condition assessment can provide a cost effective mechanism of identifying likely asset failures and thereby offering the opportunity of repairing the deficiency or the whole asset if needed prior to failure. Additionally, CA often can identify assets in good working condition, so only required repairs are completed thereby saving significant money in replacing assets in good working order.NoneAssuming project is capitalized, operating costs to be less than $35,000 for in-house labor NoNoNoprojectProjectProjectProjectProjectProjectN/AN/AShould be implemented in current fiscal year to adopt for planning processes for FY 18The condition of the Sourdough Tank is unknown. The hydraulics to and from the tank are suspected to be suboptimal. This project is critical to ensure that the Sourdough tank is reliable and operating well. Major asset whose failure would possibly affect a large population of end-users. Work-around possible with heavy burden on Utility resources. Asset is at or exceeds service capacity and does not allow for growthHigh risk assets whose failure would cause significant disruption of service and adverse social impacts. Assets are aging and may be nearly failure.Major asset whose failure would possibly affect a large population of end-users. Work-around may be possible with heavy burden on Utility resources. High risk assets whose failure would cause significant disruption of service and adverse social impacts. Assets are aging and may be nearly failure.Data-driven decision making N/A1922231110143
What is the impact (i.e., scope-of-use) for this equipment?What are the implications of deferring the purchase of this equipment?How is this project/equipment leveraged with other stakeholders/projects/funds?Risk of critical failure of Sourdough Tank due to corrosion. Risk of long water age and reduced water quality due to poor hydraulics.Has subsystem application or affects major asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesHas subsystem application or affects major asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesHas subsystem application or affects major asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesHas subsystem application or affects major asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesN/AUse funds allocated to FY 17 budget?PossiblyPossiblyPossiblyPossibly4
City of BozemanWater CIP - EquipmentRecommended Short-Term CIP ProjectsEnter a project nameCIP Project Number (leave blank if this is a new project)DepartmentCategoryEnter a Brief Project DescriptionContact NameContact EmailContact Phone NumberCost of the ProjectYear ScheduledSelect a Project FundWhat are the Alternatives Considered?What are the Advantages of Approval?What are the additional operating costs in the future (if applicable- provide cost and a description)?Are there any additional funding sources?Are there other affected projects?Is this a project or a piece of equipment?Which infrastructure assets are maintained by this equipment?Describe the criticality (i.e., importance) of this equipment to the operation?How is efficiency improved with this equipment?PROJECT RANKING:Water Information Management Solution (WIMS) West Transmission Main - Phase 1 Design Reservoir 1 - Siting Hyalite Watershed and Reservoir Hydrologic StudySourdough Canyon Natural Storage and Wetland Enhancement - Planning and Design WFP_36WFP_01bWFP_09aWFP_23WFP_53Water OperationsEngineeringEngineeringEngineering Service Planning DocumentPlanning Document Planning DocumentData management and analytical tool development to enhance water system information useDesign of the first phase of the West Transmission Main, the criteria for which would be developed in the West Transmission Main Planning Study (WFP_01b)Analyze long-term water supply provided by the Hyalite watershed and existing reservoir, assess current dam operation and feasibility of implementing control tower improvements and/or raising the dam, and the potential to create a strategic water reserve for reduced drought vulnerability.Evaluate the optimal project that will enable the City to utilize currently unused Sourdough water rights. John AlstonBrian HeastonLain LeoniakLain Leoniakjalston@bozeman.netbheaston@bozeman.netlleoniak@bozeman.netlleoniak@bozeman.net582-2250582-2280582-2280582-3220582-3220$186,300$2,907,235$350,000$350,000$500,000FY22FY22FY19FY19FY18Status QuoDefer design and construction of West Transmission MainWait until the need for the reservoir is more imminent PostponePostponeautomated compliance reporting; data analysis and reporting; SCADA-WIMS integration; Potential to install the transmission main before significant growth and development occur along the route, reduced consequence of failure to Sourdough Transmission MainProcurement of land while it is available, and less expensive Develop understanding of long-term water availability in the Hyalite watershed and the necessary improvements to the reservoir to optimize its utilizationDemonstrate continued long-term attempt to utilize Sourdough water rightsN/ASubsequent phases of West Transmission Main design and construction, construction of storage reservoirs on the City's west side.Groundwater planning, engineering and construction West Transmission Main study, design, construction; reservoir design, construction projectsLong-term design of the West Transmission Main, Sourdough WTP expansion, quantification of groundwater needsFinal sizing of West Transmission Main, also informs long-term groundwater needs.ProjectProjectProject, Land Acquisition ProjectEquipmentN/AReduces the consequence of a failure on the Sourdough Transmission Main, by providing a second pipeline to convey water to the City from the WTPThe West Sourdough Reservoir will be the next necessary reservoir for the City to continue to provide adequate potable water and fire flow. Proper siting of this reservoir will provide redundant supply to Sourdough and Hilltop Reservoirs. Understanding the Hyalite watershed's long-term supply capacity affects the sizing of the West Transmission Main and eventual WTP expansion, as well as the criticality of securing Sourdough rights and groundwater supply. In addition, this project will assess the feasibility of armoring the control tower, decreasing the City's drought vulnerability by enabling retention of water from wet years until the following year's water supply is assured. If the City does not demonstrate intent to use Sourdough rights, it risks having them reduced. Facilitates mandatory compliance reporting; improved understanding of system behavior allows more efficient measures to be developed in operationWater delivery to the City's western side will become more efficientGreater efficiency in providing potable water and fire flows to the City's western areas. Better ability to take Sourdough or Hilltop reservoirs offline and still provide sufficient storage.24Not Previously Ranked2520165
What is the impact (i.e., scope-of-use) for this equipment?What are the implications of deferring the purchase of this equipment?How is this project/equipment leveraged with other stakeholders/projects/funds?Improved analysis of system behavior; cost savings, efficiency gains, water use optimization, water quality improvementSystem wide improvement in water storage capacityHas system wide application or affects major asset(s) and produces substantial & quantifiable benefits that improves product quality, processes, or adoption of best industry practicesImpacts the City's long-term water rights and helps close the approaching water supply gapContinued reliance on existing manual systemsContinued reliance on Sourdough Transmission Main, a single point of failure for conveyance of water from the Sourdough WTPPotential acquisition of the land by others, less optimal siting of the reservoirUncertainty in planning and designing Sourdough WTP supply, West Transmission Main and Groundwater systems. Continued high vulnerability to drought. Risk of loss of some water rightsUnknownSchedule and need should be correlated with Sourdough water rights securitization and potential wellfield developmentPotential FEMA involvement for flood control 6