URS CDR Peer Rev RPT Final

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I:\CF_DIV\ENG\PROJECTS\CF 228 - ENMRWS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT\PEER REVIEW CDR DEC 2003\URS CDR PEER REV RPT FINAL.DOC\16-DEC-03\22236713.00001\ i
Section 1 ONE Introduction.................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Peer Review......................................................... 1-1
1.2 Information Reviewed ............................................................................. 1-1
Section 2 TWO Background.................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System.............................................. 2-1
2.1.1 Development History................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Demographics .............................................................................. 2-1
2.1.3 Proposed Water System............................................................... 2-1
Section 3 THREE Statement of Findings...............................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Validity of Cost Estimates and Funding.................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 Section 4....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Section 6....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.3 Appendix B.................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.4 Appendix C.................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Description and Design Assumptions.......................................... 3-2
3.2.1 Project Assumptions (Paragraph 2.1) .......................................... 3-2
3.2.2 System Sizing (Paragraph 2.2)..................................................... 3-2
3.2.3 Water System Alternatives (Paragraph 2.3)................................. 3-3
3.2.4 Water Treatment (Paragraph 2.7) ................................................ 3-3
3.2.5 Blending Existing Groundwater Supplies With Proposed
Surface Water Supplies (Paragraph 2.8)...................................... 3-3
3.2.6 Right-Of-Way and Easement (Paragraph 2.9)............................. 3-3
3.3 Water System Configuration and Engineering Considerations ............... 3-4
3.3.1 Raw Water Delivery: Water Pumping........................................ 3-4
3.3.2 Treated Water Storage ................................................................. 3-4
3.3.3 Piping, Valves, and Appurtenances ............................................. 3-4
3.3.4 Connections to Existing Water Systems ...................................... 3-4
3.3.5 Power Supply and Backup Power................................................ 3-4
3.3.6 Telemetry and System Control .................................................... 3-4
3.3.7 System Headquarters and Treatment Plant .................................. 3-4
3.3.8 System-Sizing Discussion and Recommendations ...................... 3-5
3.3.9 Water System Operations and Management ................................ 3-5
3.4 Alternatives to Be Considered ................................................................. 3-5
3.5 Project Development................................................................................ 3-5
3.6 Environmental, Regulatory, and Statutory Considerations...................... 3-5
3.7 Implementation Plan................................................................................ 3-5
Section 4 FOUR Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................................4-1
4.1 Validity of Cost Estimates and Funding.................................................. 4-1
4.1.1 General......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Section 4, 6 Appendix B and C.................................................... 4-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I:\CF_DIV\ENG\PROJECTS\CF 228 - ENMRWS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT\PEER REVIEW CDR DEC 2003\URS CDR PEER REV RPT FINAL.DOC\16-DEC-03\22236713.00001\ ii
4.2 Project Description and Design ............................................................... 4-4
4.2.1 General......................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.2 Peak Day Flow Rates................................................................... 4-4
4.2.3 System Sizing............................................................................... 4-4
4.2.4 Projected Populations................................................................... 4-5
4.2.5 Water System Alternatives .......................................................... 4-6
4.2.6 Water Treatment .......................................................................... 4-6
4.2.7 Water Treatment Plant Location.................................................. 4-7
4.2.8 Blending Existing Groundwater Supplies With Proposed
Surface Water Supplies................................................................ 4-7
4.2.9 Right-Of-Way and Easement....................................................... 4-8
4.3 Water System Configuration and Engineering Considerations ............... 4-8
4.3.1 Raw Water Delivery .................................................................... 4-8
4.3.2 Water Pumping ............................................................................ 4-8
4.3.3 Treated Water Storage ................................................................. 4-9
4.3.4 Piping, Valves and Appurtenances .............................................. 4-9
4.3.5 Connections to Existing Water Systems ...................................... 4-9
4.3.6 Power Supply and Backup Power.............................................. 4-10
4.3.7 Telemetry and System Control .................................................. 4-10
4.3.8 System Headquarters and Treatment Plant ................................ 4-10
4.3.9 Security Measures...................................................................... 4-10
4.3.10 System-Sizing Discussion and Recommendations .................... 4-10
4.3.11 Water System Operations and Management .............................. 4-10
4.4 Alternatives to Be Considered ............................................................... 4-11
4.5 Project Development.............................................................................. 4-11
4.6 Environmental, Regulatory, Statutory Considerations .......................... 4-11
4.7 Implementation Plan.............................................................................. 4-11
4.8 Summary of Impact of Validity of Cost Estimates................................ 4-12
Section 5 FIVE Limitations...................................................................................................................................5-1
Section 6 SIX References...................................................................................................................................6-1

Appendix A Findings and Analysis

SECTIONONE Introduction
I:\CF_DIV\ENG\PROJECTS\CF 228 - ENMRWS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT\PEER REVIEW CDR DEC 2003\URS CDR PEER REV RPT FINAL.DOC\16-DEC-03\22236713.00001\ 1-1
1. Sect i on 1 ONE I nt roduct i on
This report presents the results to the New Mexico Interstate Stream Water Commission (ISC) by
URS Corporation of an independent engineering, capital construction cost, and operations cost
peer review of the Conceptual Design Report (CDR) for the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water
System (Project).
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF PEER REVIEW
The purpose of the independent peer review was to evaluate the content and reliability of the
CDR.
The scope of the independent peer review included review of available information; evaluation
of conceptual design; review of quantities and analysis of pricing for the construction cost
estimates; evaluation of the operations cost estimates; and determine appropriateness of the
environmental, regulatory, and statutory considerations. The results of this peer review are
documented in this report. Specific challenges that were evaluated included:
Validity of Cost Estimates and Funding
Project Description and Design Assumptions
Water System Configuration
Engineering Considerations
Alternatives to be Considered
Project Development
Environmental, Regulatory, Statutory Considerations
Implementation Plan
1.2 INFORMATION REVIEWED
Final Report, dated August 2003, Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System, Conceptual Design
Report Project Document No. 2, Task 2. Analysis provided by the Authority, November 12,
2003.
Water Quality Monitoring and Testing Report, dated March 2003, provided by the Authority,
November 12, 2003.

SECTIONTWO Background
2. Sect i on 2 TWO Background
2.1 EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SYSTEM
2.1.1 Development History
Water supply and quality in east-central New Mexico, including Curry, Roosevelt, Quay
counties and Cannon Air Force Base, has been declining and deteriorating for several decades.
Groundwater reserves in east-central New Mexico consist of two groundwater basins, the
Entrada Acquifer and the Southern High Plains (Ogallala) Acquifer. Both acquifers are presently
being depleted and have water quality problems. Conservation and more efficient agriculture use
have temporarily extended the available supply of groundwater. However, it will be impossible
to sustain the necessary quantity and quality in the next 25 to 40 years for much of the area. The
construction and later improvements to the Ute Reservoir on the Canadian River near Logan,
New Mexico offer an alternative to the future municipal and industrial water supply
requirements in Curry, Roosevelt and Quay counties. It has been estimated that the reservoirs
annual yield is 24,000 acre-feet per year, except in drought years.
2.1.2 Demographics
Current population in the three county service area is estimated to be 73,000. Density associated
with the area ranges from 0.5 to 30 persons per square mile and averages less than 4.5 persons
per square mile. Agriculture, ranching, feedlots, and dairies account for 93 percent of the land
use in the area. It is estimated that 68% of the regions population live in the cities and the
remainder live in non-urban settings or on farms and ranches.
2.1.3 Proposed Water System
The water system for the members of the Ute Water Commission being proposed consists of raw
water pumping and storage, conventional water treatment followed by membrane filtration and
reverse osmosis, along with treated water pumping and storage. A pipeline system that extends
approximately 100 miles north-south and 40 miles east-west will connect the members of the Ute
Water Commission. The proposed pipeline system will connect into existing distribution
systems for each community.

SECTIONTHREE Statement of Findings
3. Sect i on 3 THREE St at ement of Fi ndi ngs
The following comments summarize the findings and analysis presented in Appendix A. Section
Three subheadings reference the corresponding CDR section.
3.1 VALIDITY OF COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING
3.1.1 Section 4
Section 4 provides cost per mile for various pipe sizes and electrical power cost per hour for
pumps. Section 4 also lists unit prices of $0.27 per Mgallon (Mgal) for raw water storage and
$0.75 to $1.10 per Mgal for elevated storage and states the basic assumption of adding a 20%
allowance for valves and appurtenances.
3.1.2 Section 6
Costs associated with operation and maintenance for all phases over 5 years, including 5.3%
inflation, equal $17.5 million. No allowance for contingency is indicated.
Costs associated with replacement of system components for all phases over 5 years, including
5.3% inflation, equals $998,000. No allowance for contingency is indicated.
Section 6 contains operations and maintenance costs for the four phases over a 5-year period,
including an allowance for inflation of 5.3%, in the amount of $17.5 million. There is also a cost
for replacing system components, covering a 5-year period and inflation of 5.3%, in amount of
$998,000. Lump sum costs include $430,000 for source water protection infrastructure,
$134,000 for Ute Reservoir operation and maintenance, $1,325,000 for application and permits,
and $432,000 for funding activities and public relations. Design engineering services (6% of the
construction cost) are also identified in Section 6.
3.1.3 Appendix B
Appendix B developed water pipeline cost for various pipeline materials using RS Means. This
table contains unit prices for material, labor, equipment, trenching and backfilling, overhead,
project location factor, and an allowance of 20% for appurtenances and valves. A comment is
also included that states, They are (pipeline costs) intended only for pipeline cost tradeoff
calculations and not for final project cost estimates. We are confused by this statement.
3.1.4 Appendix C
Additional cost-related information was provided in Appendix C. There were tables for both
CPI adjustment and Project Cost Factors, and for Rolled Up Pipeline Cost with a 25% allowance
for appurtenances and another allowance for escalation. The rolled up pipeline cost table
indicates a 2003 project cost for pipelines of $82 million, involving 954,000 lineal feet of
pipeline.
The ROW Damages table developed a cost of $849,000 for ROW damages.
The Steel Vaults table developed a cost of $946,000 for steel vaults.
The Roadway, Access and Site-Work table developed cost of $682,000 for roadway, access,
and site work.
The Blasting Rock Excavation table developed an adjusted unit price of $172 per lineal foot
for blasting.
The Traffic Control table developed a cost of $158,000 for traffic control.
The Crossing table developed a series of costs totaling $2,825,000 for crossings.
An analysis was made of four Construction Cost Estimate tables for Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4. It was
noted that the unit pricing in these tables does not match unit pricing in other tables throughout
the report. An error was also detected in the Phase 4 table involving the flow rate for the water
treatment plant. The flow rate indicated is 40.0 MGD. The correct rate is 12.3 MGD (the
difference of the total flow rate of 40.0 MGD, less the flow rate of 27.5 MGD for the water
treatment plant shown in the Phase 3 table). The table also noted a 20% allowance for
construction contingencies.
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
3.2.1 Project Assumptions (Paragraph 2.1)
Easements: It is assumed that all project easements will be donated. In addition, a penalty for
not providing a free easement will be assessed to that property owner.
Ratio of Average Day to Peak Day Flow Demand: The Average Day to Peak Day flow ratio
of 1.86 appears reasonable. Another ratio between Average Day to Peak Month flow of 1.53 is
provided.
3.2.2 System Sizing (Paragraph 2.2)
Peak Day Flow Rates: The first paragraph states that the system should be sized to deliver the
entire 24,000 acre-feet of water, which is an Average Day flow rate of 21.4 MGD. The report
also references that the system will be sized to handle the Peak Day flow. Peak Day flow rates
are estimated to be 40 MGD (Executive Summary, page vi).
Facility Sizing: For the years 1993 through 1998, the minimum, average and maximum
Average Daily flows for the Ute Water Commission members were 11.09 MGD, 12 MGD, and
14.57 MGD, respectively. In the year, 2000 Average Day flow rates were 13.8 MGD.
Therefore, based on historic data, the current Average Day flow might be somewhere around 15
MGD. Applying the ratio of 1.86, the Peak Day flow would be about 28 MGD. Yet the
assumption presented in this section is that the Average Day flow is 21.4 MGD and the projected
Peak Day flow rate is 40 MGD when applying the ratio.
Projected Populations: For the year 2000, the population is estimated to be 73,217. Another
table shows the 2000 population is shown as 59,469. The difference may be due to the city and
town populations vs. county populations. The projected growth for all three counties is shown at
17%.
Projections for Future Growth: Table 2.1-2 shows a combined growth rate of 17%. Table
2.1-3 projects growth at 15% and 30%.
Storage Requirements: We agree with the Peak Demand Based Delivery concept. This
reduces the amount of storage.
The text makes reference to 11.8 MG of new storage may be needed in addition to existing
storage. The text also references peak demand based delivery meets the demand curve
without the need for more than the existing storage. These two sentences seem to conflict with
one another.
Typical storage requirements are also based on the following:
1. Fire flow requirements
2. Storage for the difference between Peak Hour and Peak Day flow rates, for 8 hours
3. Emergency storage requirements
3.2.3 Water System Alternatives (Paragraph 2.3)
Raw Water Delivery: The proposed raw water system includes constructing a pump station at
the reservoir and pumping the raw water to storage tanks. The storage tanks would provide
water directly to the water treatment plant.
Booster Pumping Stations: The text references an underground vault booster pump station.
3.2.4 Water Treatment (Paragraph 2.7)
Option 1 water treatment process discussed in this section is not the same as the one discussed in
Section 4.3. The significant difference is that the option discussed in Section 2.7 will use
microfiltration without any pre-sedimentation or media filtration, while the option discussed in
Section 4.3 will use the high-rate sedimentation without microfiltration.
Based on the raw water quality, Option 1 would certainly accomplish the treatment goal, but at a
much higher cost. Option 2 would be less expensive, but would include adding a higher lime
softening. The bench-scale testing results indicated that this option could get Total Dissolved
Solids and hardness down to acceptable levels.
The treatment plant site evaluation was not addressed in the report. The plant waste handling
and disposal should be an important factor for the plant site selection. Option 1 (15 to 30% of
40 MGD) would generate much more wastewater than Option 2 (5 to 15% of 40 MGD).
3.2.5 Blending Existing Groundwater Supplies with Proposed Surface Water Supplies
(Paragraph 2.8)
It is assumed that the existing groundwater wells will be blended with the treated water from the
proposed water treatment plant. This blending would be done occasionally as the wells are
exercised and in time of drought conditions. The groundwater wells would also be utilized in an
emergency condition, such as the water treatment plant becoming non-operational.
3.2.6 Right-of-Way and Easement (Paragraph 2.9)
See Subsection 3.2.1.
3.3 WATER SYSTEM CONFIGURATION AND ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
3.3.1 Raw Water Delivery: Water Pumping
See comments in Subsection 3.2.3.
Total horsepower is estimated to be 13,175 Hp. Of this total, about 8,500 Hp will be required
near the Ute Reservoir at the location of the raw water pumping station and the treatment plant.
3.3.2 Treated Water Storage
The storage on top of Caprock is in addition to the recommended storage requirements for each
municipality. The storage on Caprock provides 1 hours of storage at the ultimate Peak Day
flow.
3.3.3 Piping, Valves, and Appurtenances
Trunk line and lateral pipe sizes are shown in Table 3.2.6-1 Pipeline Classes and Lengths for the
trunk lines and the laterals. Another table showing pipe sizing is Table 4.4-2, Optimum Pipe
Sizes and Horsepower Requirements. System isolation valves are estimated at 5-mile spacing.
3.3.4 Connections to Existing Water Systems
Underground metal vaults are included in the report for completing the connection between the
proposed water delivery system and the existing water systems in each community. The text also
states that these connection points may also be used to add disinfection chemicals, SCADA and
possible control functions.
3.3.5 Power Supply and Backup Power
The second paragraph states that it is assumed that backup power generators will not be provided
because the municipalities have adequate groundwater wells that could be activated in the event
of an emergency.
3.3.6 Telemetry and System Control
The text states that the raw water pumps are to be controlled by the plant process.
3.3.7 System Headquarters and Treatment Plant
The system headquarters and treatment plant components are listed in this section. The items
listed show the typical items for the major treatment facility. Included in the conclusion and
recommendation section are some other items listed for consideration, or these items may be
included under a more general heading.
Also listed in the Conclusion and Recommendations Section are some additional items for
considerations relative to the Bioterrorism Act of 2002.
3.3.8 System-Sizing Discussion and Recommendations
3.3.9 Water System Operations and Management
The text states that the Operations and Management Center (OMC) will be located at the
treatment plant.
3.4 ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED
See Section Four.
3.5 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
No comment.
3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL, REGULATORY, AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
The only section of the report in the Environmental, Regulatory, and Statutory Considerations
that was reviewed was the subsection regarding Water Quality and Treatment. Those
considerations have been referred to in the Project Development and Engineering Considerations
mentioned earlier in this report.
3.7 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Design and construction are, for the most part, lineal, starting in January 2005 and completing in
April 2014. Four phases are involved in both design and construction, each phase of design is
followed by a construction phase.

SECTIONFOUR Conclusions and Recommendations
4. Sect i on 4 FOUR Concl usi ons and Recommendat i ons
Upon completing the review of the CDR, Section 3 was prepared, including the CDR findings.
Section Four presents the conclusions of the findings and associated recommendations.
4.1 VALIDITY OF COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING
4.1.1 General
Focus in this section will be on the validity of construction and operations cost estimates. The
CDR sections on project funding have been read and no comments will be offered in this report.
Assumptions forming the basis of estimate have been identified involving hard cost and soft cost.
For the purposes of the URS report, hard cost is described as capital cost that is part of the design
of permanent improvements and the construction of permanent improvements, such as
construction and operation of permanent features, design engineering, and construction
management. Soft cost would include other costs in the development of the project, such as land
and right-of-way acquisition, legal permits, and funding.
Information about the assumptions forming the basis of construction and operation cost estimates
is found throughout the CDR. Cost and operating summaries, pricing calculations, and tables are
also located throughout the CDR.
Recommendation:
The CDR contains information about design assumptions, design criteria, engineering,
capital construction, operations and maintenance that is mixed with land acquisition, legal
permits, allocation of cost funding, public relations, and other soft costs not directly involved
with engineering, construction, and operations. These project components should be
separated into individual reports with an emphasis on engineering, construction, and
operations.
The CDR identifies the project as being at the conceptual level. Applying a standard of care
for project development dictates the use of levels for accuracy and contingencies for cost.
This project would be a level 4 in project development and, therefore, indicates an expected
accuracy range of low 15% to 30% to high +20% to +50% added to construction costs.
This is supported by AACE International, June 1998, Cost Estimate Classification System
As Applied in Engineering Procurement and Construction for the Process Industries. A
contingency factor of 30% to 35% is recommended for the level of project development for
the CDR. The same contingency would be recommended in developing operations and
maintenance costs.
Focus should be on the major features and quantities of the project, such as pipelines,
pumping, water treatment, water storage, available electric power, and operations. Minor
activities and quantities, such as pipeline crossing, vaults, pressure and air control, small
piping, road restoration reclamation, administrative facilities and fencing, should be
accommodated with an unidentified feature and quantity allowance.
A consistent approach and method should be used as the estimate basis. Direct and indirect
construction cost and operations should be used throughout the project development process.
Risk analysis for constructability, production, site conditions, available resources, and
weather impact should be used in optimizing cost for major features.
More detailed information and support, including backup references and documentation of
pricing, are needed for unit pricing.
4.1.2 Section 4, 6 Appendix B and C
4.1.2.1 A unit price of $0.27 per Mgal for construction of surface water storage tanks is
used in the estimated construction cost.
4.1.2.2 A unit price of $0.75 to $1.10 per Mgal for construction of elevated water storage
tanks in used in the estimated construction cost.
Recommendation:
Provide data and support for the unit prices. In both cases, pricing is not accurate based on
current construction cost for surface and elevated water storage tanks. Current typical unit
prices for surface water storage tanks are in the range of $1.00 to $1.50 per Mgal. For
elevated water storage tanks, unit prices range from $2.50 to $4.30 per Mgal.
4.1.2.3 An allowance of 20% for procuring and constructing pipeline appurtenances and
valves is used in the estimated construction cost.
Recommendation:
Provide data and support for using this percentage contingency. This approach may support
cost for bends, fittings, and small valves. A preferred method to ensure these costs are
included is the unidentified item and quantity allowance, which is in the 10% to 15% range
depending on level of detail developed. Recommend obtaining pricing for large valves from
vendors.
4.1.2.4 Operations, maintenance and replacement cost are developed. The table
presented on page 6-3 assumes that electrical consumption and insurance is
included. There is very little data or support for the pricing used.
Recommendation:
Electrical consumption costs should be calculated and identified in the cost breakdown, along
with the cost for insurance. A common check for operations, maintenance, and replacement
is a percentage of capital construction cost. Therefore, the accuracy of capital construction
cost is very important. A contingency should also be added to operations, maintenance, and
replacement estimated costs. This contingency should be consistent with the level of capital
construction cost development, 30% to 35% is recommended.
4.1.2.5 Several lump sum numbers are identified in the report for source water protection,
Ute Reservoir O&M, application and permits funding, and public relations. It is
difficult to follow the cost estimate because of the way the estimated costs are
presented, and where these cost are included, in the CDR, if at all.
Recommendation:
Provide data and support for these estimated costs. Recommend these costs be clearly
separated from estimated construction costs. Recommend a reconciliation of all cost
categories.
4.1.2.6 Six percent is added to construction cost for design engineering services.
Recommendation:
Engineering services are typically estimated using a percentage of the construction cost
which can vary, depending on size, complexity, and location of the project. Qualified
engineering firms typically use between 6% to 8%. Recommend using 8% of construction
cost for design engineering services.
4.1.2.7 Pipeline construction costs have been developed using a table and cost data from
RS Means. Unit prices have evolved from these tables and include material, labor,
equipment, trenching and backfill, overhead and profit, and a contingency of 20%
for appurtenances and valves.
Recommendation:
If RS Means is a resource for prices, then the latest version should be used. Prices should be
obtained from vendors for various pipes and valves and documented in the report.
Contractors in the pipeline construction industry should also be consulted as a resource.
Trenching and backfill are included, but it is unclear where these prices came from. It also
appears that no cost is included for rock excavation and pipe bedding. Recommend that
minimal design be initiated for various pipeline material and installation. Rock excavation
and bedding for large diameter pipe is a very significant cost, particularly in the quantities
involved in this project. Recommend using an unidentified items and quantity contingency.
4.1.2.8 Appendix C contains several lump sum costs for ROW damages, steel vaults,
roadway and access, blasting, traffic control, and crossings.
Recommendation:
Identify where these costs are included, if included, in a reconciliation of construction cost.
Provide data and support for development of these costs.
4.1.2.9 Four spreadsheets, located in Appendix C and identified as Phase 1 Trenchline,
Phase II South Laterals, Phase III Partial Delivery, and Phase IV Fuel Delivery (one
for each phase), break the work down into features with quantities and unit prices.
These spreadsheets contain errors in numbering and identification of the facilities.
It is also difficult to tell where unit prices came from for treatment, storage, pipe,
and pumping.
Recommendation:
Provide data and support for quantities and unit prices. Use vendors and contractors as
resources for materials and construction costs. Fine tune the design criteria for the pumps
and treatment plants to allow for accurate pricing of the facilities. Apply a contingency for
unidentified items and quantities and a contingency for the level of project development.
4.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN
4.2.1 General
Property for easements is assumed to donated by the property owner. In the event that a property
owner does not comply with the free easement concept, all costs associated with re-routing the
pipeline will be added to that property owners tap fee or hook-up charge.
Recommendation:
Revisit the easement assumption and provide some easement acquisition costs. Review land
acquisition for the treatment plant site, sludge handling, pumping station, and storage tanks.
4.2.2 Peak Day Flow Rates
The first paragraph states that the system should be sized to deliver the entire 24,000 acre-feet of
water, which is an Average Day flow rate of 21.4 MGD. The system will actually be sized to
handle the Peak Day flow. Peak Day flow rates are estimated to be 40 MGD (Executive
Summary, page vi).
Recommendation:
Size the water delivery system to provide Peak Day flow rates.
4.2.3 System Sizing
4.2.3.1 Facility Sizing
Current Average Day flow is estimated to be 15 MGD. Applying the ratio of 1.86, the Peak Day
flow is estimated to be about 28 MGD. Yet, the assumption is that the Average Day flow is 21.4
MGD, but by applying the ratio the projected Peak Day flow rate would be 40 MGD. Therefore,
initially the treatment plant and all piping will be oversized to handle the Peak Day flow.
Recommendation:
Consider developing treatment plant concepts that can be expanded in the future. Additional
information regarding plant phasing is provided in Section 4.3 of the CDR.
The pipelines should be sized to handle the future Peak Day flow due to the cost of upsizing
at a later time. Check the following:
- Check the sizing on the main trunk line for both the 42-inch and the 30-inch pipe. A
standard for pipe design is to maintain 2-feet/sec velocity (minimum) as a self-scouring
velocity. Typically the design criteria includes maximum head loss of 2.0 feet/1000 feet
during a Peak Hour flow demand. Using one smaller pipe size for this reach should be
considered.
- A similar analysis was conducted for the 42-inch pipe south of Grady, north of Clovis Air
Force Base and Clovis. The proposed 42-inch pipe has a velocity of 1.5 feet/sec and a
smaller 36-inch pipe would have a velocity of 2.5 feet/sec.
- Similarly, check the pipe size selected for Tucumcari. This is projected to be a 36-inch
pipe with a flow rate of 6,915 gallons per minute (gpm). For comparison, the same size
of pipe is projected for Clovis with a flow rate of 11,685 gpm. Therefore, the 36-inch
pipeline to Tucumcari might be oversized.
- The lateral to Portales is projected at 18-inches. The standard pipe sizes of ductile iron
pipe in this range are 16-inch and 20-inch. One of these standard sizes should be
considered.
In summary, it appears that initially the water supply and treatment rate will exceed the
demand.
4.2.3.2 Irrigation
Are domestic irrigation demands (i.e., lawn, garden irrigation) included in the estimates?
Recommendation:
Make sure domestic irrigation demands are included in the flow estimates. Irrigation for
industrial or agricultural demands should not be included.
4.2.4 Projected Populations
The projected growth for all three counties is shown at 17%. Yet Table 2.1-3 projects growth at
15% and 30%.
Recommendation:
Use consistent population projections and use those projections to estimate future water
demands.
4.2.4.1 Storage Requirements
The text makes reference to 11.8 MG of new storage may be needed in addition to existing
storage. The text also references peak demand based delivery meets the demand curve
without the need for more than the existing storage. These two sentences seem to conflict with
one another.
Typical storage requirements are also based on fire flow requirements, storage for the difference
between Peak Hour and Peak Day flow rates for 8 hours, and emergency storage requirements.
Recommendation:
Revise the text to eliminate the conflict regarding storage. Have the above three components
of storage been considered?
4.2.5 Water System Alternatives
4.2.5.1 Raw Water Delivery
Is there another method to deliver the raw water to the treatment plant and reduce the pumping
and/or storage concepts.
Recommendation:
Review the possibility of a tying into the existing Ute Dam outlet works and providing a
gravity connection to the treatment plant, thus eliminating the pump station and the raw
water storage.
Also consider using variable frequency drives on the pump motors, which could eliminate the
raw water storage.
4.2.5.2 Booster Pumping Stations
The text references an underground vault booster pump station. The booster at the base of
Caprock should be an aboveground facility, as this is a major pumping station and should not be
placed in an underground vault.
Recommendation:
Revise the text to include an aboveground facility and the components of that pumping
facility.
4.2.6 Water Treatment
The quality of the untreated water should be reviewed further to support the water treatment
process train selection. The work would include: (1) identifying the Ute Lake South East as the
best intake location, (2) identifying the high total dissolved solids closely follow the high
hardness and high alkalinity, and (3) confirming that iron and manganese are low, on average.
This work will further support the water treatment process recommendation.
Option 1 water treatment process is different because it uses microfiltration without pre-
sedimentation or media filtration, whereas the same Option 1 discusses using a high-rate
sedimentation without microfiltration. Based on untreated water quality, Option 1 will
accomplish treatment goals but at a much higher estimated cost. Option 2 water treatment
process would be less expensive, but would require higher lime softening addition. Bench scale
testing indicates that Option 2 could get total dissolved solids and hardness down to acceptable
levels. The CDR did not evaluate treatment plant site.
A treatment plant site evaluation was not included in the CDR. Plant waste handling and
disposal will be an important factor for the plant site selection. Option 1 would generate much
more wastewater than Option 2.
Recommendation:
Clarify the process train used for the water treatment process in developing estimated
construction cost.
Explore further the viability and selection of Option 2.
If Option 2 is not feasible, Option 1 should be modified to blend the reverse osmosis treated
water with microfiltration treated water to reduce R/O cost.
Modify water treatment process diagram to show that part of microfiltration-treated water
goes to reverse osmosis unit and the remaining part of microfiltration-treated water mixes
with the reverse osmosis treated water. The flow ratio should be determined based on total
dissolved solids concentration in the water.
Initiate an engineering studies for plant site location, handling of decant water, and handling
of sludge from sludge drying beds. Estimate the size of required property and facilities to
house the entire treatment plant and all processing.
Initiate an investigation of decant water disposal and sludge permits.
4.2.7 Water Treatment Plant Location
Regarding the construction of a single WTP versus multiple WTP, one at each municipality.
Recommendation:
The use of a single WTP appears to be more cost effective. If multiple WTP are used,
consider the following additional costs:
- Land Acquisition
- Staffing
- O&M
- Security
- Electrical Considerations for each treatment plant.
4.2.8 Blending Existing Groundwater Supplies with Proposed Surface Water Supplies
Although this may seem like a good idea, a great deal of caution must be used. Some procedure
must be made, and some interlock provided so that the wells can be completely flushed before
adding well water to the treated water system. The well water must be thoroughly sampled and
tested before an isolation valve is opened and the groundwater is allowed to flow into the
distribution system. Hydraulics must also be reviewed when mixing the surface water and
groundwater well systems.
Recommendation:
Identify procedures to demonstrate that this could be accomplished without contaminating
the treated water source. A line item might be added to the cost analysis to provide
emergency generators.
4.2.9 Right-of-Way and Easement
4.3 WATER SYSTEM CONFIGURATION AND ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
4.3.1 Raw Water Delivery
4.3.2 Water Pumping
The total power required was estimated to be 13,175 horsepower (Hp). Of this total, about 8,500
Hp will be required near Ute Reservoir at the location of the raw water pumping station and the
treatment plant. Does the existing electrical grid have adequate power to supply the different
pumping facilities?
Similarly, is there enough power near Caprock to supply the 4,660 Hp electric power
requirements of the booster pump station?
Clarify and discuss further:
1. Ability to supply power. Can the existing grid meet demand?
2. Identify costs to upgrade the grid.
3. Identify who is responsible for capital cost to improve the grid.
Recommendation:
Have the electrical provider review the overall electrical grid to see if any major
improvements will be required at both locations. The electrical grid providing service to the
communities of Logan and San Jon might be the most likely source for obtaining electrical
power. The power requirements will be needed for the raw water pump station and treatment
plant (Logan electrical grid), and the pump station at Caprock (San Jon electrical grid).
Therefore, electrical items that need to be considered are:
- Can the existing power grid meet the electrical demand?
- Cost to upgrade grid and cost required to bring electrical infrastructure to the raw
water/treatment plant and the Caprock pump station.
- Have these additional capital costs been included in the overall project capital costs?
4.3.3 Treated Water Storage
The storage on top of Caprock is in addition to the recommended storage requirements for each
municipality. The storage on Caprock provides 1 hours of storage at the ultimate Peak Day
flow. Using current Peak Day flows, does it make sense to purchase enough property and
complete the site grading for both tanks, and then only construct a single tank at this time?
Recommendation:
Review the concept of a staged construction at this site. There is one note of caution. Future
blasting immediately adjacent to an existing water tank can damage the existing facility,
necessitating expensive repairs to maintain a water-tight facility. The treated water storage
facility sits on top of Caprock, so if the geotechnical analysis indicates that blasting is
required to construct the initial tank, damages and expensive repairs could occur.
4.3.4 Piping, Valves and Appurtenances
Some of the trunk lines might be oversized and it was estimated that one isolation valve will be
needed for every 5 miles of pipe.
Recommendation:
Check the sizing on the main trunk line for both the 42-inch and the 30-inch pipe. A
standard for pipe design is to maintain 2-feet/sec velocity (minimum) as a self-scouring
velocity. Typically the design criteria includes maximum head loss of 2.0 feet/1000 feet
during a Peak Hour flow demand. Using one smaller pipe size for this reach should be
considered.
A similar analysis was conducted for the 42-inch pipe south of Grady, north of Clovis Air
Force Base and Clovis. The proposed 42-inch pipe has a velocity of 1.5 feet/sec and a
smaller 36-inch pipe would have a velocity of 2.5 feet/sec.
Similarly, check the pipe size selected for Tucumcari. This is projected to be a 36-inch pipe
with a flow rate of 6,915 gpm. For comparison, the same size of pipe is projected for Clovis
with a flow rate of 11,685 gpm. Therefore, the 36-inch pipeline to Tucumcari might be
oversized.
The lateral to Portales is projected at 18-inches. The standard pipe sizes of ductile iron pipe
in this range are 16-inch and 20-inch. One of these standard sizes should be considered.
4.3.5 Connections to Existing Water Systems
Using metal underground vaults is not the industry standard.
Recommendation:
Recommend installing concrete underground vaults instead of metal underground vaults. If
chemical metering were required, the chemicals and chemical feed equipment would be
housed in an above ground building, such as a small metal building. For an aboveground
building, include the costs associated with site grading, perimeter fencing, ventilation, SCBA
safety, lighting, electrical SCADA service, and security systems.
4.3.6 Power Supply and Backup Power
The assumption is that backup power generators will not be provided because the municipalities
have adequate groundwater wells that could be activated in the event of an emergency. System
flushing, water sampling, laboratory analysis, and hydraulic analysis should be done before the
wells are activated. Considering that groundwater wells may be not readily available, generators
for backup power requirements may be prudent.
Recommendation:
Include a listing of system requirements and backflow considerations so that the public water
system is not accidentally contaminated with non-potable well water.
4.3.7 Telemetry and System Control
It would be more effective to control the raw water pumps by the level in the raw water tanks,
not the plant process.
Recommendation:
Review the control system for the raw water pumping.
4.3.8 System Headquarters and Treatment Plant
Recommendation:
Add electrical room, clear well, chemical storage and receiving, a facility for chlorine
handling, and a water quality laboratory to the System Headquarters and Treatment Plant
facilities.
4.3.9 Security Measures
Refer to the Bio Terrorism Act of 2002.
Recommendation:
Consider perimeter fence, card activated automatic opening and closing gate access, adequate
door locks, light pole a Pan Tilt Zoom (PTZ) camera at the front gate and other locations, and
alarm doors and windows.
4.3.10 System-Sizing Discussion and Recommendations
4.3.11 Water System Operations and Management
Agree with the Operations and Management Center (OMC) being located at the treatment plant.
4.4 ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED
A listing of alternatives to be considered includes the following:
Easement acquisitions and property purchase
Raw water delivery system:
- Using the existing Ute Dam outlet works
- Variable Frequency Drives (VFD)
Expansion design for the water treatment facility
Pipe sizing in Curry and Roosevelt counties, and pipe sizing to Tucumcari
Reconsider the use of groundwater wells in an emergency situation. Use emergency
generator for power failure.
Is there adequate power available from the existing electrical grid in Logan and San Jon,
NM?
Concrete underground vaults vs. metal vaults
Consider alternative treatment process
4.5 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
No comment.
4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL, REGULATORY, STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
The subsections regarding Water Quality and Treatment in the Project Development and
Engineering Considerations sections briefly discuss environmental, regulatory, and statutory
issues. An assumption, as far as cost is concerned, is located in Section 6 that states the
environmental and infrastructure enhancement programs are to be funded by the federal
government.
Recommendation:
The chances of environmental mitigation and permitting causing delay in design and
construction is a very real concern. Cost, as well, could be impacted significantly. There
needs to be more emphasis on recognizing these issues and effort in resolving what will be
required. Total payment for environmental mitigation by the federal government should not
be assumed. A reasonable attempt to identify cost is also recommended.
4.7 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Assuming, as the CDR indicates, that there is insignificant impact from environmental studies
and permitting, Phase One design and construction is planned for January 2005. The remaining
three phases are then planned to follow one after the other as design is completed, with final
completion estimated to be in April 2014, nine years later. The result of this linear progression is
that large amounts of money will be spent on completing facilities that will be idle for months, if
not years. Planning and constructing this way lends to contracting problems, warranty issues and
protection of idle facilities. In addition, the cost of money and the impact of escalation has not
been included in the project costs. The plan, as presented, is to generate revenue from customers
after the entire system is complete. Design and construction, as planned, is the longest period for
generation of revenue.
Recommendation:
Recognize and understand the impact of environmental studies and permitting, and
accommodate for these issues in planning for design and construction.
Move away from a lineal approach for design and construction.
Consider alternative ways of combining the design and construction to allow for construction
of concurrent facilities or engage a broad base of engineering resources to design
concurrently to allow for contracting several construction contracts at once, to be constructed
concurrently.
Understand and allow for the cost impact of environmental mitigation and escalation.
Look at prioritizing the design effort involving major features such as pipelines and water
treatment. Coordinate these priorities with construction implementation.
Work toward a goal of accomplishing a 4 to 5 year design and construct project.
4.8 SUMMARY OF IMPACT OF VALIDITY OF COST ESTIMATES
Table 4-1 presented in this report is offered to assist in determining the reliability of the
estimated construction and operations cost.
Table 4-1
Potential for Cost Decrease Best Estimate Potential for Cost Increase
Engineering, Capital Construction and Operation
Cost, Environmental Mitigation and
Implementation identified in the CDR that have a
reasonable degree of certainty for cost decrease
during project development and implementation.
Engineering, Capital Construction and
Operation Cost, Environmental Mitigation
and Implementation developed in the CDR.
Engineering, Capital Construction and
Operation Cost, Environmental Mitigation and
Implementation identified in the CDR that
have a reasonable degree of certainty for cost
increase during project development and
implementation.
1. Pipe Line Design and Sizing 1. Estimated Capital Construction Cost:
$ 216 million
1. Definition of Design Criteria and
Assumptions
2. Water Treatment Design and Applied
Technology
2. Estimated Non-Capital
Construction Cost: $ 28 million
2. Engineering Development Before
Definition of Design Criteria and
Assumptions
3. Pumping Design and Applied Technology 3. Estimated Total:
$ 244 million
3. Need for Site Reconnaissance and
Identification of Conditions
4. Accommodating for Pipe Line
Excavations and Bedding
5. Absence of Water Treatment Plant
Site
6. Absence of Construction Quantity
Development Data and Backup
7. Method and Approach to Pricing and
Cost Development
8. Absence of Pricing Sources and
Backup
9. Insufficient Allowance for Cost
Contingencies
10. Inadequate Water Storage Tank
Pricing
11. Cost Impact of Environmental
Mitigation
12. Reliability of Available Electric Power
13. Cost Impact of Developing Electric
Power
14. Extended Implementation Plan
15. Cost Impact of Delay
16. Cost Impact of Escalation
17. Emergency Power Generators
18. Use of existing groundwater wells
19. Land Acquistion, and Easements

Table 4-1 demonstrates that there in evidence identified as a result of the peer review of the CDR that the
estimated capital construction and operations cost should be further reviewed and there appears to be a
medium to high probability to expect that these cost could increase during development of the project.

SECTIONFIVE Limitations
5. Sect i on 5 FI VE Li mi t at i ons
This report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the peer review for
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System of the Conceptual Design Report for the Eastern New
Mexico Rural Water System Project. The peer review was conducted by examining information
identified on the project. The peer review has identified and analyzed engineering assumptions,
design criteria and design, estimated capital construction and operations and maintenance costs.
Additional information that was not available during the review, or currently under development,
may resolve some of the issues and concerns presented in this report.

SECTIONSIX References
6. Sect i on 6 SI X Ref erences
Final Report, dated August 2003, Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System, Conceptual Design
Report Project Document No. 2, Task 2. Analysis provided by the Authority, November 12,
2003.
Water Quality Monitoring and Testing Report, dated March 2003, provided by the Authority,
November 12, 2003.

Appendix A
Findings and Analysis
Appendix A
I:\CF_DIV\ENG\PROJECTS\CF 228 - ENMRWS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT\PEER REVIEW CDR DEC 2003\URS CDR PEER REV RPT FINAL.DOC\16-DEC-03\22236713.00001\ A-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page viii, 2003 Cost Estimate (full operation) table contains the following: Fixed Costs and
Recurring Costs (Annualized)
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
Paragraph 1.5 Project Water Demographics: Per the Scope of Work, portions of the
Introduction were to be reviewed with no comments. However, there are a couple of comments
on Paragraph 1.5, Project Water Demographics.
Comment Note that the Current Average Day groundwater pumped is 13.8 MGD. The
population is 59,469 for 2000. These numbers do not include water use adjustments for the three
counties. Different Average Day flow demand projections are shown later in Section 2 and have
different values.
SECTION 2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Paragraph 2.1 Project Assumptions:
Third bullet Easements. Caution should be used with the assumption that easement will be
donated. Paragraph 2.5.3 (Page 2-18) states that if a property owner does not grant an easement
through his property, the cost of pipeline relocation will be added onto that property owners
water connection fee. That seems like a penalty for not providing a free easement. Caution
should be used regarding this.
Seventh bullet Average Day to Peak Day ratios. The Average Day to Peak Day flow ratio of
1.86 seems reasonable. Typically, another ratio between Peak Hour to Average Day is provided,
not the Peak Month to Average Day.
Paragraph 2.2 System Sizing: The first paragraph states that the system should be sized to
deliver the entire 24,000 acre-feet of water, which equals a flow rate of 21.46 MGD. The system
is actually sized to handle the Peak Day flow. Peak Day flow rates are estimated to be 40 MGD
(Executive Summary, page vi).
Table 2.1-1 (Page 2-2). For the years 1993 through 1998, this table shows the minimum,
average and maximum Average Daily flows for the Ute Water Commission members. These
flow rates are 11.09 MGD, 12 MGD, and 14.57 MGD, respectively. From the comment in the
first paragraph of this summary, the Average Day flow for the municipalities is 13.8 MGD.
From historic data, the current Average Day flow might be somewhere around 15 MGD,
considering growth between 2000 and 2003. Applying the ratio of 1.86, the Peak Day flow
would be about 28 MGD.
Yet the assumption is that the Average Day flow is 21.4 MGD (Table 2.1-4, Page 2-5) and using
the ratio gives the Peak Day flow rate of 39.8 MGD. Therefore, initially the treatment plant and
all piping will be oversized. The treatment plant will be rated at 40 MGD; however, the
treatment plant will only be processing about 28 MGD of water.
Appendix A
Question Would it make sense to look at a treatment plant that can be expanded in the future.
The pipelines should be sized to handle for future Peak Day flow due to the cost of upsizing at a
later time.
Also for Table 2.1-1 (Page 2-2), assume this includes irrigation.
Table 2.1-2 (Page 2-3) Projected Populations. For the year 2000, the population is 73,217.
Refer to Table 1.5-1 ( Page 1-6). The population for 2000 is shown as 59,469. I think the
difference is due to city and town populations vs. county populations. The projected growth for
all three counties is shown at 17%.
Table 2.1-3 Monthly Water Use and Projections for Future Growth. The area feet
numbers are based on the 1993 to 1998 information provided in Table 2.1-1. Projecting the
previous year out to year 2040, growth rates of 15% and 30% are used. The maximum monthly
flow rates are near the 24,000 acre-foot number. However, why use the projection rate of 30%,
when Table 2.1-2 shows a projected growth rate of 17% for the three counties?
In summary, it appears that the water supply and treatment rate will exceed the demand.
Paragraphs 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3 Agree with the Peak Demand Based Delivery concept. This
reduces the amount of storage.
Paragraph 2.2.3 First paragraph, second to last sentence states 11.8 MG of new storage
may be needed in addition to existing storage.. In the last paragraph on Page 2-7, last sentence
states peak demand based delivery meets the demand curve without the need for more than
the existing storage. These two sentences seem to conflict with one another.
Typical storage requirements are also based on the following:
1. Fire flow requirements based on fire flow rates and duration from local fire marshals or
agencies (for example, a fire flow rate of 2000 gpm for a 3 hour duration).
2. Storage for the difference between Peak hour and Peak Day flow rates, for 8 hours.
3. Emergency storage requirements for an emergency, such as a pump failure, and the
estimated time to provide repairs.
Have these storage requirements been considered?
Paragraph 2.3 Water System Alternatives:
Option A Lakeside intake structure and raw water pumping station and raw water storage tanks
Is it not feasible to bore a pipeline through the dam and provide a gravity connection to the
treatment plant, thus eliminating the pump station of raw water storage? Using variable
frequency drives on the pump motors could eliminate the raw water storage. These are some
value engineering issues. The proposed system requires pumping into the treatment plant and
pumping out.
2.3.2 Groundwater Storage and Recovery, 2.3.2.1 Well Recharge and Recovery, 2.3.2.2
Irrigation Ponds No comments.
2.5.9 Cost-Saving Measures states, underground vaults for booster stations Not sure
where this is proposed. The booster at the base on Caprock should be an aboveground facility.
This is a major pumping station and should not be placed in an underground vault.
Appendix A
Installing fiber optic cables along with the pipeline trench. This not recommended per page
3-14. The SCADA system will be via radio and not fiber optic lines.
Paragraph 2.7 Water Treatment. Option 1 treatment process discussed in this section is not
the same as the one discussed in Section 4.3. The big difference is that the option discussed in
Section 2.7 will use microfiltration without any pre-sedimentation or media filtration, while the
option discussed in Section 4.3 will use the high-rate sedimentation without microfiltration.
Which one is right?
Option 2 should be a good process train based on the bench-scale testing results. TDS and
hardness can be reduced to the required level. The only drawback is the chemical dosing that
might require high annual operation cost. In the final conceptual report, why it is not
recommended?
Paragraph 2.8 Blending Existing Groundwater Supplies with Proposed Surface Water
Supplies. Although this may seem like a good idea, a great deal of caution must be used. The
existing groundwater wells would only be used in times of drought or emergency. This means
that those groundwater wells will be inactive for long periods of time. Yet the flip of a switch
could activate the groundwater wells and pump water directly into the distribution system. This
could be done accidentally and contaminate the distribution system. Some procedure must be
made and some interlock provided, so that the wells can be completely flushed. The water must
be thoroughly sampled and tested before an isolation valve is opened and the groundwater is
allowed to flow into the distribution system.
Hydraulics must also be reviewed when mixing the surface water and groundwater well systems.
Paragraph 2.9 Right of Way and Easement. As stated before, caution should be used
regarding the assumption that all easements will be provided at no cost. Also, can a property
owner be penalized and charged with the costs to relocate the pipeline, and then add that cost to
their connection costs. Why not go through condemnation proceedings?
SECTION 3 WATER SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
Paragraph 3.1 Water System. Similar comment regarding the use of raw water pumping and
raw water storage tanks. Is there a gravity alternative or an option to use a variable frequency
drive if the raw water has to be pumped? Variable frequency drives would eliminate the raw
water storage.
3.2.2 Raw Water Storage. If raw water storage is used, is the one-hour storage enough?
Should the pump station have an additional pump to provide additional time in the event of an
emergency? The last sentence is this section mentions the use of variable frequency drives in
lieu of the raw water storage. Use of variable frequency drives should be considered.
3.2.3 Finished Water Pumping. Table 3.2.3-1 indicates the total horsepower required for the
entire water system pumping is 13,175 Hp. Of the total, about 8,500 Hp will be required near
Ute Reservoir at the location of the raw water pumping station and the treatment plant where the
finished water pumping facility will be located. Does the existing electrical grid have adequate
power to supply the different pumping facilities?
Similarly, is there enough power near Caprock to supply the 4,660 power requirements of the
booster pump station?
Appendix A
3.2.4 Treated Water Storage. The storage on top of Caprock is in addition to the recommended
storage requirements for each municipality. The individual storage for each town is provided for
in Table 4.5.4-1. The storage on Caprock provides 1 hours of storage at the ultimate Peak Day
flow. The 1 hours is based on ultimate peak day flow and the use of two tanks, each at 1.2
MG, for a total of 2.4 MG. Using current Peak Day flows, does it make sense to purchase
enough property and complete the site grading for both tanks, then only construct a single tank at
this time.
Comments on Appendix F, Discussion of Water Treatment Process Issues:
The sampling and laboratory analytical methods should be specified, especially to TOC, iron and
manganese. The average number is very close to the minimum range; for example, manganese is
tested at the range of non-detect to 0.24, with an average of 0.05 mg/L. Please identify the
parameters that were not tested, per EPA method.
A table or graphical presentation is needed to show the ULSE is the best location for the intake.
The turbidity data should be considered in the Field Parameters and included on Table 3.1
Summary of Water Quality Data.
3.2.6 Piping, Valves and Appurtenances. Refer to Table 3.2.6-1 and Figure 3.1-2 Phase 1
Trunk line Check the sizing on the main trunk line for both the 42-inch and the 30-inch pipe.
We understand that the 30-inch pipe is the extension to Portales and Elida. The 30-inch pipe will
carry the Peak Day flow of 4,016 gpm. For a 30-inch pipe, this equates to a velocity of 1.82
ft/sec and a head loss of 0.3 feet/1000 feet of pipe. A standard for pipe design is to maintain 2-
feet/sec velocity as a self-scouring velocity. The projected flow rate in the 30-inch pipe does not
meet that requirement. A 24-inch pipe could provide the flow rate at a velocity of 2.84 feet/sec
with a head loss of 0.97 feet/1000 feet. Using one smaller pipe size for this reach should be
considered.
A similar analysis was conducted for the 42-inch pipe south of Grady, north of Clovis Air Force
Base and Clovis. The proposed 42-inch pipe has a velocity of 1.5 feet/sec and a smaller 36-inch
pipe would have a velocity of 2.5 feet/sec.
Similarly, check the pipe size projected for Tucumcari. This is projected to be a 36-inch pipe
and the Peak Day flow projected to Tucumcari is about 6,915 gpm. For comparison, the same
size 36-inch pipe is projected for Clovis and the projected Peak Day flow for Clovis is 11,685
gpm. (Projected Peak Day flow rates are from Table 2.1-4.
The lateral to Portales is projected at 18 inches. The standard pipe sizes of ductile iron pipe in
this range are 16-inch and 20-inch. One of the standard sizes should be reviewed.
3.2.7 Metering. No comment.
3.2.8 Connections to Existing Water Systems. We would recommend installing concrete
underground vaults instead of metal underground vaults. Add to the list of vault features that a
gravity or pumping sump should be considered for each vault to prevent submergence in the
event of a leak. Also, if chemical metering were required, the chemicals and chemical feed
equipment would be housed in an aboveground building, such as a small metal building. This
would provide for easier operator access to the chemical feed equipment. If chlorine gas is used
as the disinfecting equipment, provide all safety requirements associated with chlorine gas.
Appendix A
For an aboveground building, include the costs associated with site grading, perimeter fencing,
ventilation, SCBA safety, lighting, electrical service, and security systems.
3.2.9 Power Supply and Backup Power. The overall comment addresses whether the Farmers
Electric Coop existing electrical grid has enough capacity to provide power for the pumps. The
Coop should assume that all pumps could be on at the same time.
The second paragraph assumes that backup power generators will not be provided because the
municipalities have adequate groundwater wells that could be activated in the event of an
emergency. The groundwater wells could be idle for some time after the system is operational
and the water stagnating. The more time the new source of water and delivery is in operation,
the longer the groundwater wells will not be exercised and communities may stop maintaining
the groundwater well systems. System flushing, water sampling, laboratory analysis, and
hydraulic analysis should be done before the wells are activated. Considering that groundwater
wells may be not readily available, generators for backup power requirements may be prudent.
3.2.10 Roadway, Railway, and Stream crossing. It is assumed that these crossings will be a
pipe jacking or boring, and the pipe will not be installed by open cut methods.
3.2.11 Telemetry and System Control. Third paragraph, last sentences: The raw water pumps
are to be controlled by the plant process. Would it not be more effective to control the raw water
pumps by the level in the raw water tanks?
3.2.12 Building and Sitework. For simple metal building consider remote locations and
vandalism.
Add the following to the list for the System headquarters and treatment plant:
1. Electrical room A facility this size will require its own electrical room
2. Clear well between the water treatment process and the finished water pumping
3. Chemical storage and chemical receiving facility
4. If chlorination is used for disaffection, add in a facility for chlorine handling of one ton
containers (safety equipment)
5. Water quality laboratory
Considering the Bio Terrorism Act of 2002, consider security for the water facilities including
raw water intake through treatment to tap. Items to consider include the following:
1. Perimeter fence
2. Card-activated automatic opening and closing gate access
3. Adequate door locks
4. Light pole a Pan Tilt Zoom (PTZ) camera at the front gate and other locations.
5. Alarmed doors and windows.
3.2.13 Roadway and Railway Access. No comment.
3.3 Project Phases. No comment.
3.4 Peak Demand-Based Delivery. No comment.
Appendix A
3.5 System-Sizing Discussion and Recommendations. Based on Table 2.1-3, the maximum
month at the 30% growth rate is estimated to be 24,398 acre-feet. Current maximum month is
about 16,320 acre-feet. Does it make sense to construct the treatment in stages? See 4.3, Water
Treatment Facility.
We agree that sizing the pipeline at this time to handle the Peak Day flow rate is acceptable.
3.9 Water System Operations and Management. We agree with the Operations and
Management Center (OMC) being located at the treatment plant.
For all SCADA and IT systems, have the computer controls with a high level of security
including firewalls and good administrative operational controls.
Paragraph 3.10 Impact on Existing Water Rights. No comment.
SECTION 4 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Reservoir Intake/Raw Water Pumping Facility. Consider the use of variable frequency
drives on the raw water intake pumps. This would eliminate the need for the raw water storage.
4.2 Selection and Justification of Preferred Water Treatment Process.
Appendix H: Ute Lake South East & Lake Locations Field Data of Report on Water Quality
Monitoring and Testing, March 2003:
The validity of the untreated water quality should be addressed. Based on Figure D.1 TDS Data
and Figure D.7 Hardness Data, it sounds like Ute Lake South East is not the best intake location.
The trend of TDS spike is closely following the hardness spike.
TDS can be easily reduced when the hardness is reduced because the other metals like iron and
manganese do not create any treatment difficulties.
The untreated water and treated water quality goals should be shown in the format provided to
better identify the water treatment process:
PARAMETERS UNTREATED WATER CONCENTRATION GOAL
TDS Range: 650 739 mg/L 500 mg/L
Sulfate Range: 228 345 mg/L 250 mg/L
Manganese Range: ND 0.24 0.05 mg/L
TOC Range: 4.0 7.5 mg/L At least 25% removal rate
Hardness Range: 260 310 mg/L 150 mg/L
Arsenic Range: ND 10 g/L 10 g/L
Algae high potential for filter/screen clogging
Turbidity Range: Unknown, but should specify in the report
4.3 Water Treatment Facility. A phased construction approach of the treatment plant is
described.
Option 1 treatment process discussed in this section is not the same as the one discussed in
Section 2.7. The major difference is that the option discussed in Section 2.7 will use
Appendix A
microfiltration without any pre-sedimentation or media filtration, while the option discussed in
this section will use the high-rate sedimentation without microfiltration. Which one is right?
The fouling of membrane processes (NF/RO) caused by the oxidation of manganese and T/O
should be addressed and considered in the future pilot testing.
If microfiltration without any pre-treatment such as sedimentation or media filtration is
considered in the Option 1, we suggest a pilot study or technical investigation be conducted to
fully understand the treatment limits. Based on our previous experience, we understand that
microfiltration cannot perform well when the untreated water quality is:
Turbidity is over 5 to 10 NTU
Manganese is over 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L
TOC is over 4 mg/L
Polymer is added
Figure 4.3-1, Water Treatment Process Flow Diagram (Option 1) & 4.3.1.7 Solids
Handling. An engineering solution for treatment residual and waste handling and disposal
system should be addressed in detail, such as:
1. Where does the sludge from the drying beds go?
2. Where does the decant water from the drying beds go?
3. What would the solids concentration and flow rate of the decant water be?
Disinfection: Other disinfectant alternatives, such as chloramines and sodium hypochlorite,
should be considered in the Option 2 - High-Lime Clarification/Filtration. Both alternatives
would be more economical than UV at the 40-MGD capacity.
4.4 Piping and Transmission. First paragraph, page 4-10, there is a statement that pipe vendors
provide cost estimates for pipe. Did not find any quotations in text for any permanent materials,
which this would be helpful. Same paragraph talks about using RS Means for costs. Did not
find any calculations in the report for cost build, using RS Mean.
First paragraph page 4-11 talks about cost per mile for various pipe sizes.
First paragraph page 4-12 talks about cost for pumps in terms of cost per horsepower.
Second paragraph. The system flows by gravity; however, it is a pressurized system and the
system head is established from the tank elevation at Caprock. Flowing by gravity does not
mean that the system will be partially filled pipelines, such as a sewer pipe.
See Section 3.2.6 Piping, Valves and Appurtenances. Refer to Table 3.2.6-1.
4.5 Storage. See previous comments regarding Raw Water Storage.
4.5.1 Raw Water Storage. Table at top of page 4-14 uses 0.27/gallon for surface storage tank
construction. Where does this number come from and where is the supporting reference?
4.5.2 Elevated Storage. Page 4-14 recommends elevated storage for a cost of $0.75 Mgal to
$1.10 Mgal. Where is the backup for these costs and how were they developed?
4.5.3 Ground Storage tanks at Caprock. Table page 4-14 uses 0.27/gallon for surface storage
tank construction. Where does this number come from and where is the supporting reference?
Appendix A
4.5.4 Delivery-point Storage. No comment.
4.6 Pump Stations. No comment.
4.7 Valves and Appurtenances. Page 4-17, first paragraph assumes a 20% allowance for valves
and appurtenances. What is support for this percentage? How is the 20% allocated?
4.7.1 Butterfly and Surge Anticipator Valves. Industry standard is to use a hydraulically-
operated pump control valve on the pump discharge instead of an automatically operated
butterfly valve to control pipeline surges. We would recommend a hydraulically-operated pump
control valve.
4.7.2 Line Valves. With some of the high operational pressures, may want to consider a valve
vault where the operators can equalize pressure on the valve to aid in opening the valve.
4.7.3 Pressure Reducing Valves. No comment.
4.7.4 Pressure Relief/Air Release/Vacuum Breaker Valves. Refer to the plan and profile
drawing 11 x 17 titled Main Trunkline Profile located in Appendix B Optimum Pipeline Size
Calculations. At station 2875+00 () the ground profile is close to the hydraulic profile of the
system. Caution should be taken not to cavitate the pipeline.
4.7.5 Blowoffs and Flush Hydrants. No comment.
4.8 Routing Analysis. No comment.
4.9 Right of Ways and Easements. Comments regarding easements and the assumption of
donation of property have already been made. See paragraph 2.9.
4.10 Sitting and Location of Facilities. No comment.
4.11 System Water Losses. No comment.
Question Will the municipalities be required to inspect their water metering program?
4.12 Control Systems. No comment.
4.12.1 Control Philosophy. No comment
4.12.2 SCADA System Configuration. Assumes Radio Repeater license and cost is included?
No comment
4.12.3 Field Input/Output Points. No comment.
4.12.4 Telemetry. No comment.
4.13 Power Requirements and Supply. No comment. See previous comment in 3.2.3
Finished Water Pumping Table 3.2.3-1.
SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL, REGULATORY, STATUTORY, CONSIDERATIONS
5.10 Water Quality and Treatment. Need more descriptions to the newest rules, especially
Filter Backwash Recycle Rule, the enhanced coagulation requirements, and log removal rates for
Giardia and Cryptosporidium. All rules discussed are not meaningful to interpret.
Appendix A
SECTION 6 COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING
6.1 Cost Elements. Table on page 6-1, Cost Elements breaking down 12 primary elements of
cost, identified the following:
Costs associated with operation and maintenance for all phases over 5 years, including 5.3%
inflation, equal $17.5 million. No allowance for contingency indicated.
Costs associated with replacement of system components for all phases over 5 years,
including 5.3% inflation, equal $998,000. No allowance for contingency indicated.
Cost for raw water, Ute Reservoir is $ 25.00 per acre-foot
Cost of new debt repayment
Operations and maintenance, four phases
Replacement, four phases
Source water protection infrastructure = $430.000
ISC Ute Reservoir Operation and Maintenance = $134,000
Detailed design services = 6% of construction cost
Permit applications and permits = $1,325,000
Funding activities and public education = $432,000
Easements and right-of-way = $12.00 to $92.00 per rod
Water conservation programs, funded with water rates
Environmental enhancement programs and infrastructure, funded by federal government
COST ESTIMATES
Table, page 6-7, Cost Estimates matches table, page viii
Page 6-8, Distribution of Recurring Cost - No comment
Page 6-9, Willingness and Ability to Pay - No comment
Page 6-11, Potential Economic Benefits - No comment
Page 6-13, Cost Prorations - No comment
Table, Page 6-14, Member Cost and Rates Summary - No comment
Appendix A
SECTION 7 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
7.4 Water Quality and Pilot Testing Needs.
Add 1 more bullet to Option 1 pilot-testing:
5. What is the maximum untreated water quality for microfiltration in terms of turbidity,
manganese, TOC, and any bad performance due to polymer addition?
Add 1 more bullet to Option 2 pilot-testing.
5. What is the TOC removal rate to meet Enhanced Coagulation requirements?
7.6 Phasing. Page 7-5, noted that design and construction will in four phases. Design and
construction schedule ENMRWS Implementation Plan and Project Schedule is lineal, for the
most part. Construction of phase estimated to be 8 years.
APPENDIX B
Page B-1, Table RS Means Water Transmission Pipeline-Various Pipeline Materials
Pipe material prices included
T&B assumes trenching and backfill
Overhead and Profit included
Equipment assumes for handling and laying pipe
No equipment included for small diameter pipe
Includes 20% for appurtenances and valves
Comment identified They are intended only for pipeline cost tradeoff calculations and not
for final project cost estimates.
Comment Should not the tables look a Peak Day instead of Average Day flow rates?
Refer to the plan and profile drawing 11 x 17 titled Main Trunk line Profile located in
Appendix B Optimum Pipeline Size Calculations At station 2875+00 (+/-) the ground profile is
close to the hydraulic profile of the system. Caution should be taken not to create cavitations in
the pipeline.
APPENDIX C SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR ESTIMATING PROJECT COSTS
Table CPI Adjustment and Project Cost Factors No comment.
Table ENMRWS Pipeline Cost Noted cost is a roll up of various pipe size cost. Twenty-five
percent added for appurtenances and escalation added to 2003. Checked to see if this table
reconciles with estimated cost spread sheets.
Looked at ROW Damages, Tie In, Roadway Access and Sitework, Rock Excavation, Traffic
Control Crossings, Participation, Common Phasing and Staffing tables noted estimated and
checked to see if cost included in estimated cost spreadsheets.
Appendix A
Analyzed four Construction Cost Estimate tables for Phases 1,2,3,4 Noted that unit pricing
does not match unit pricing in other tables throughout the report. Noted an error in estimated
treatment plant MGD Table 4. Also noted an allowance for construction contingencies of 20%.
Page 15 contains Table II Construction and Operation & Maintenance Cost Estimates. This
appears to be a reconciliation of cost presented in a different form than the spreadsheets.
Common types of cost and sector are identified for each phase of construction including
operation and maintenance. An allowance for construction contingency is included but is not
indicated as a percentage. There is no contingency allowance for operation and maintenance.
APPENDIX J SUPPORTING MAPS
Can the 6 connection to San Jon be made further south to eliminate the parallel piping with the
54-inch, similar to the Grady connection?

URS CDR Peer Rev RPT Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

URS CDR Peer Rev RPT Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABLE OF CONTENTS

You might also like