HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 1987-002 CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. g 7-p 2
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A NEW WATER AND WASTE-
WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
GRAPEVINE, TEXA�; AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 85-13 BY
SUBSTITUTING THE PLAN MARKED EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED
HERETO FOR THE PLAN MARKED EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED TO
ORDINANCE NO. 85-13; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted a water and waste water
�' ` system development plan through the year 2000 for the City of Grapevine, Texas
(the "City") which plan was approved with the passage of Ordinance No. 85-13
on March 19, 1985; and
�..:.�
WHEREAS, subsequent to the passage of Ordinance l�To. 85-13 significant
amounts of land were rezoned which resulted in different demands being placed
on the City's water and waste water systems; and
WHEREAS, a new Waste Water Collection and Water Distribution Master
Plan as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein for all
purposes was prepared for the City by Freese and Nichols, Inc. dated December,
19�5 whic�h is based upon the rezonings of land and projections for ultimate
build-out of the City to the year 2027; and
�IHEREAS, the City staff has recommended the City Council approve the
new plan prepared by Freese and Nichols, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXA�:
Section l. That all of the above premises are found to be true and
correct and are incorporated into the body of this ordinance a� if copied in their
entirety.
Section 2. The City Council does hereby approve the new Waste Water
Collection and Water Distribution Master Plan dated December, 1985 for the
City as contained in Exhibit "A" that is attached hereto and incorporated herein
�s� for all purposes.
Section 3. That Ordinance No. 85-13 passed by the City Council on
March 19, 1985, is hereby amended by substituting, from the effective date of
this ordinance forward, the plan marked Exhibit "A" attached hereto for the plan
marked Exhibit "A" attached to Ordinance No. 85-13.
Section 4. If any section, article, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or
word in this ordinance, or application thereto any person or circum�tances is
held invalid or unconstitutional by a Court of competent jurisdiction, such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance;
and the City Council hereby declares it would have passed such remaining
portions of the ordinance despite such invalidity, which remaining portions shall
remain in full force and effect.
Section 5. The fact that no present ordinance of the City adequately
provides for the expansion of the water and waste ;rvater system development
plans for the City creates an urgency and an emerger��y and in the preservation
of the public health, safety, and welfare requires that this ordinance shall take
effect immediately from and after its passage as the law and Charter in such
cases provides.
�,,.�
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OUNCIL OF THE CI'?"t �f t:��
Y A �G Y G���u-�u'� 198 i.
Cit of Gra evine, Texas this �� da of
�
ayor, City of Grapevine, Texas
ATTEST:
City Secretary, ity of Grapevi Texas
[SEAL]
OVED AS TO FORM:
City ttorney, C y evi , as
EXHIBIT "A" TO
ORDINANCE N0. 87-02
: G RAPEVIN E, TE�CAS
; �..� .
�
�
,
M
��
i
A FUTURE WITH A PAST
;
;� .6
� .�� WATER DISTRIf3UTION SYSTEM
= MASTER PLAN
;
DECEMBER 1985
�
�
�
'�� FREESE AND NICHOLS,INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
�
i
,I
�
�
Table of Contents �
` I Section
= P�e ww�
'�
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1
� 2.0 POPULATION AND LAND USE 2. 1 `�
,
� 3.0 WATER REQUIREMENTS 3 1 i
�
4.0 SOURCE OF SUPPLY 4. 1
� i 5.0 PUMPING FACILITIES 5. 1
5.1 Existing Pumping Facilities 5. 1
� 5.2 Proposed Pumping Facilities 5.3
�
� 6.0 STORAGE FACILITIES 6. 1
6. 1 Existing Storage Facilities 6. 1
6.2 Proposed Storage Facilities 6. 1
7.0 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 7_ 1
7. 1 Existing Water Distribution System 7_ 1
7.2 Proposed Water Distribution System 7. 5
' 8.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM g. l �
�,�
APPENDIX A COST ESTIMATES
PLATE I 1985 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
PLATE II PROPOSED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
FOR ULTIMATE CONDITIONS
I
'i�
;
i;�
FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC. I I
List of Tables
� �"�� Tabl e Page
2.1 Estimates of Population and Land Use for
� � � Current and Ultimate Conditions 2. 3
2.2 Historical Population Estimates 2.7
� 2.3 Estimates of Population and Land Use by Year 2.9
3. 1 Historical Water Use 3.2
� 3.2 Projected Average-Day Water Use 3.7
- 3.3 Projected Water Use 3.9
4.1 Estimated Population and Land Use by Service Area 4.3
4.2 Projected Water Use by Service Area 4.4
5.1 High Service Pump Inventory 5. 2
6.1 Inventory of Storage Facilities 6. 2
6.2 Storage Requirements 6.3
"� �� 7.1 1985 Maximum-Hour Sources of Supply 7. 2
` ,�;,,� 7.2 Future Maximum-Hour Sources of Supply 7.6
;
8. 1 Proposed 1986 Through 1991 Improvements Program 8.2
8.2 Proposed 1992 Through 2027 Improvements Program 8.4
;
;
�
�
; �
FREESE AND NICMOLS�ING.
�
I
{
�
� List of Figures
� Fi ure "�
—l_ After Page
� 2. 1 Planning Areas 2,5 �
� 2.2 Historical and Projected Population 2.7
3. 1 Average-Day Water Requirements 3.5
�
3.2 Historical and Projected Water Use 3. 9
� 4.1 Grapevine/TRA Service Area Boundary 4. 1
�
�
3
1
a
. �
t q.-,�r
l
�
�
1
��
��F;:.,:�p
I
- FREESE FND NIGHOLS�INC. I
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to update the Master Plan for the City
��
� of Grapevine' s water distribution system. This plan will allow for the
- development of the system in an orderly and economical manner for pro-
jected ultimate conditions. Ultimate conditions are defined as the
development of all available land within the existing city limits based
_ on current zoning regulations. To accomplish this purpose, the report
will (a) inventory existing facilities, (b) review existing population
and land use and project future population and land use, (c) review
existing water consumption and project future water use, and (d) develop
;
a plan for meeting these requirements.
Data for developing the Master Plan were collected from all avail-
- able sources, including operating records, production reports, con-
sultants' reports, local and state governmental agencies, developers,
�'" and the City' s Staff. Grateful appreciation is expressed for data and
' � assistance received from several individuals and agencies, including the
City of Grapevine' s Engineering and Water Departments for their very
helpful advice and cooperation.
= Population and land use projections made in this study are based on
existing development and the City' s current zoning regulations. The
1985 population for the City of Grapevine is estimated to be 22,026.
The population for ultimate development is projected to increase to
approximately 62,873. Based on historical population growth rates, it
is estimated that Grapevine could reach this population by the year .
�
� 2000.
I � In 1985, approximately 326.43 acres within the City contained
��
: 1. 1
�
' FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC.
I
commercial/industrial and hotel/corporate office development. For
ultimate conditions, it is estimated that approximately 4,138.34 acres
� could contain commercial/industrial and hotel/corporate office develop-
' ment. Based on historical growth trends, it is projected that this type ,�
of land use could reach full development by the year 2027.
;
. Average-day water consumption for the City of Grapevine in 1984 was
3. 31 million gallons per day (MGD). 1985 average-day water use is
' estimated to be 3.49 MGD. It is expected to increase to 6. 53 MGD in
: 1990 and 16.34 MGD in the year 2027. Peak-day water requirements are �
�
projected to increase from 6.98 MGD in 1985 to 13.06 MGD in 1990 and i
' 32.68 MGD in 2027. Maximum-hour consumption is estimated to be 13.96
M6D in 1985, increasing to 26. 12 MGD in 1990 and 65.36 MGD in 2027.
� The combined water supply from Lake Grapevine and from the Trinity
� River Authority (TRA) should be adequate to meet the needs of Grapevine
;
through ultimte development. To meet the projected peak-day demands, it
s
is recommended that the Grapevine/TRA service area be relocated and that „,�
the City' s water treatment plant be expanded by 1990.
s
� The high service pumping capacity at the water treatment plant
� should be increased to a firm capacity of 16.5 MGD by 1995. This in-
3
crease in pumping capacity could be constructed as a part of the pro-
posed water treatment plant expansion or it could be constructed in
stages. If construction is staged, it is recommended that the firm
- capacity be equal to 10. 00 MGD by 1990 and 16.00 MGD by 1995.
� A 1. 5 MG elevated storage tank is proposed by 1995. This tank
1
should be located near the City' s wastewater treatment plant. An addi-
' tional 2.5 MG of ground storage is proposed at the water treatment
� 1.2
�
FREESE AND NICHOLS�ING. �
plant. Again, this construction could be a part of the proposed water
� treatment plant expansion or it could be constructed in stages. If
' � construction is staged, 1.0 MG should be constructed by 1990 and the
, remaining 1. 5 MG by 1995.
; �
A program to test and clean the major transmission lines in the
' distribution system also is recommended. As the cost of energy con-
;
tinues to increase, a program of cleaning all major transmission pipe- �
� lines becomes more cost effective.
; The recommended improvements to the water distribution network that I
�
i are required to satisfy the requirements for ultimate conditions are �
�
' illustrated on Plate II at the end of this Master Plan. The improve-
ments have been combined into two programs: improvements from 1986
through 1991, and improvements from 1992 through 2027. A summary of the
� estimated costs in terms of 1985 dollars is shown below.
a
� ' Year Estimated Cost
� �.�, 1986 $ 233,388
; 1987 1,882,945
1988 2,449,324
� 1989 465,015
1990 7,307,436
1991 273,405
1986-1991 $12,611,513
� 1992-2027 6,715,633
' 1986-2027 $19,327,146
3
,
r
's
��
1. 3
. �
FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC.
V
�
�
Improvements which have been proposed in this Master Plan are based
on the projections of population and land use and water use made in this
' report. It is recommended that the City of Grapevine continue to
monitor its population and land use development and water usage. If
actual conditions differ from the projections made in this study, it may
. be necessary to adjust the recqmmended completion date or revise some of
the proposed improvements.
��r►
��
�
;
�
3
a
1
I
1.4 �
� � FREESE AND NIGMOlS�ING.
� 2. 0 POPULATION AND LAND USE
In 1984, the City of Grapevine completed the process of zoning all
�.,..
of the land within its city limits. This update of the water distri-
� bution system Master Plan utilizes the current zoning regulations and
�
additional information available from the City to estimate current
; population and land use and to project future population and land use
- for ultimate conditions. Ultimate condition is defined as development
of all available land within the city limits based on current zoning
' regulations.
�
_
Using data available as of May 1985, current population, com-
- mercial/industrial acreage, and hotel/corporate office acreage were
estimated. These estimates were based on information obtained from the
• City's zoning maps, aerial photos, subdivision plats, building permits,
and U. S. Census Data. 1980 Census Data estimated the persons per owner
� -- occupied dwelling unit in Grapevine to be 2.85 and the persons per
, �,:;.,
renter occupied dwelling unit at 2. 34. These occupancy ratios are used
in this update of the Master Plan. After current population and land
7
use estimates were completed, projections of future population and land
use were made using the available undeveloped land and current zoning
regulations.
, The City of Grapevine has 24 zoning districts. These Districts
have been grouped into four categories. Eight of these districts are
� classified as single-family or owner occupied dwelling units, five are
� classified as multi-family or renter occupied dwelling units, ten are .
;
�
; classified as commercial and light industrial , and one is classified as
hotel/corporate office. The eight zoning districts classified as owner
,�:-.�
2. 1
�
- FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC.
I
occupied are: R-20, R-12.5, R-7. 5, and R-5.0 single-family districts;
R-MH mobile home district; R-TH townhouse district; R-MOD-H modular home
district; and PRD-6 planned residential district. Zoning districts
� classified as renter occupied are: R-3.5 two-family district; R-3. 75
i
§t
' o00000000000 � 0000000000
j a �
o a�
U S- tD
S U
a�..,,
¢
N O N n O O �-i a0 � � N d 00 O N � lD lD O I� N O cY
L!') a1t!") M 0 � � �' 000 � MOr-IOM � � � �'
in •
tn N I� N � lD O Q1 N O 00 r-� �f') r--� I� � '� r-1 cY O O tD
Cr-� S- Q1r� r-IrINNOOpf� rl QONMQ1a0 �' 00
' O U �-1 r-I r-1 N N N r�
•r- U Q
i�
•r
�
C C
UO •� OlDO00Q1f� � Mi� alcDr-i00 � ct' OOOOr-i �D i
+� 6� f� M t.C') N l0 M O lD � O et' I� r-� �
O1d' c0 (� lDaO �' � MIDID r-I � M MN
� I
(ti tl� � r-i r--I � r-1 '�h rl N
E N
•r- � O
+� G. I
r
� I
� I
�
C Q •r pI� MtS') NMOOMi� Or-IOOOOOQINQ1N00 ChcY d'
�C N cA +� N I� O t!') I� t� Ol N � lD I.C) 00 lD N 00 r-1 M ct M
_ � tA C O rtJ M M Q1 tS� r-I lD � 00 CO Q1 N O I� �' 1� N N 1�
d � O 1
•/- tn � ri �-i rl M N rl N N r1 M N N M rl
L "� +� O1
QJ C •r � O
� � � d
- N J C
�Cf O
N � 'OU
C G
•r- E Rf d
? N +�
r-i N i-� C r0
in O E
' (V (� •r r
L N +� +�
GJ C:J R1 r— tn O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r- C r- � O N
� 4- O � V L
� f0 O •r � = U
H +� O C �L
� d b
+-� .n
I flb •r•r4- a..� NN �--1O0001� t1) OOlDO00001.5) OOrlr-� 000
C,.) S- O C Vf N d' N 00 M Op r-I N � Ql 1�
t!) tn i- N ~ L N N Lf� O �' tl') M rl rl O �
. �,,� •� � L C U C� N N rl N
� +� � O cZ r�
�0 U •r
s- E +->
� •r L •r C
+� +� O 'Q O
�Lf � � C O •� OMOOOO� I� OOI� OOOOOOI� t.f') 000000
' 3 W O +-> I� f� M � Q1 � a0 N 1�
C.J �' t0 lD lD � � � 00 r-I �'
1 ^
+-� tn � r'I t-I
C N
N � O
L d
L
7
U C
O
O •r Of� lDQl1� dOMl.!) NOMOOOO � Mr--iLl7MOOON
+-> t[) � � Ql 00 N r--1 r1 00 � e-i rl N cD l0 C'1 Ql
O R7 �' NNMM0011') NMr� NlDI� OptD
� r
�n � N rl ri
N
�' O
G.
C7�
C
•r
� b
C �
tb L
r- cL rINMt7' � lDi� OpQlOr-INM � tnlDI� 00Q10rINM
d ri r-a r--1 r-� ri r--1 rl rl �--I rl N N N N
�,.::.�.
2.3
�
' FFEESE AND NICHOLS�INC
� a0000000 � � o � 000000000000000
o v
= Q � o��o rn o�o
1 �
O O O 01 M Q1 � O O O � O �' l0 O tD 00 O O O O O O O O O O
O tOQlO» OOOrl � ctrl NO (�
�
tn 4J Q1 N lD ch � Q1 tD N N �' 00 tD ri 01 N
� C �--i L d' M rl lD rl 1� � ri Q1 rl d' M
3 O U ¢U rl M M rl �--1 � rl �,�
_ r
� I
C C
O O
� U O •r OOOON r-� 000000000000000000000
� \ +� � � r--1
N � rt7 rl �c'7 O
i-� 1 r
R1 cn � N �-{
! E N
3 r- � O
� a
- r-
_ �
C
0
O •r- OOOOOlDQ1000000000000000000000
\ +� l.f� Lf� tS')
, O �II Q1 Q1 r-�
1
�/1 � r-I r-I
� � I
' �
vf O O O O O O O O O (`� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O L r-1
2 C.� Q1
- ¢ N
O O O O O c}' � O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O �
N OONt.[) M p
r-i 41
�n \ i t.C) I.() Ll� Ct N r-�1
i O U ¢U N M r--I r-1 #y*�
+�
•r C
� O
� O •r- OOOOOOr-i0000000000000000 00000
: O \ +� t.f) r�
U � �U tn O
1 r
� 111 � 1"{
C 41
N d.' O
L d
L
7
U C
O
O •r 0001� OdO000000000000000 000000
' \ +� ctrlM
> � O �C l0 a0 O
QJ 1 �
� � � �
C �
�� � O
+� d
� C
; O
C.)
,--i
{ N �
•r
41 C c0
C N rINM � t1') tDf� 00QlOrINMCf
� � s- ¢ 000000000 rlr-Irlr-Irl
� R7 r— Q M �' LS� tD 1� � Q1 O r1 N M d' ln 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1
f— n. N N N N N N N M M M M M M Q c C t C Q Q ¢ c[ Q ¢ q q Q ¢ Q
i
I�
2.4 !
�
�
i.r,:�
FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC. j
i
�
' o00o r� r�
�n o 0
ov
U L td') t,f')
S U Ql al
GC M M
` �� O O O O h 1�
N N
�
N N M M
C f-+ S. � �'
; �r •� U <C I� f�
3 +-� M M
.�
� �
O O
U O •'- O O O O M
� �
N � tLf N
i� I r
fd N 7 �
- E N N M
•r � O ^
� d �
�
. � N I
C lp
O
O •r 0000 O
+� cD
O rt1 lD
_ 1 r
N � �
N M
�' O
d
tn O O O O I� 1�
O N r1 rl
� U S-. . .
� Q N N
:
�"'"" O O O O l0 lD
tn N N
r--� O1 •
N L � �
C U U Ql Ql
�1�rwr O Q N N
•r-
�
•r C
"O O
CO •� 0000 �.f>
O +� 00
C.J � r0 M
� r
� N � �
� �
� � � �
' L a N
� L O
� �
PJ C N
O N
O`r 0000 �--I
+� ct'
- a o b �
v � r
� �A 7 M
C N ri
•r- � O
+� d
' C
O
U
r--I
� �
� N •r ,i-)
� C �C O r
r C � l!� tD 1� 00 +� Rf
� Rf L r-� r� r'i r-1 � +�
' F— a. ¢ Q ¢ Q �L c/') F-
�
2.5
i
i S
�
� FREESE ANO NICHOLS�INC.
�.
� CITY OF GRAPEVINE
� WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
� �
PLANNING AREAS
_ -���_.�_-�� �,}II�` � �,�, • �-� ..,;;. � �
��-:ti,�--��`� ��;� � � � 97°05� ���� 2499 ;;# �j
.::::.:.. . :.:. ..�
�r ,� .� , '��� ;� -'�' � '•
, , .
� . .:::::::::: `�` �. c�a� � ,�.
�: ' � s:,. ' `'ORMAI. :� �..: 4" ,.
`! �' �: � � Pfl �� � r{ .� �
.'.',:
� :� � �.� �.� . ���
. , - , �
�•%��.
. ... ` G�%
. . , :. ,f � _� �__-�, � ..:. ::
��v
•:. •• °, , _ � � � ��� •
�c
_ i ;✓���r—'-����� \ ! '�:F.
w �;�',4�i'" �� ��� 1� ;, '4,.
� f� :.� �.;' , G 1 ,� �'
�;. , � � 1 �
� • . d'• � :�����.� '1,l O t
,� ,`�;�` ii '
�'�'' �7 .�ir,��y.:,1�.. :, I �''i
:,�• �� ~. "+; ��"-��\ r ' :
� t�; j \�.
� � 4-+ ��`: JI�
�J�•
. . � � . . �+ 'L. �2� {� .
/
}F.t�
�
•� ....::.::. .......
2 .:�,- :::.;.:: 2 �� :
.:. ...... . .�
,. .;. . .... .::
: . . .... . .
. . .... � �:....
::� . .... . . :::.� .. : ::
. -:. .:.�:: :: �
:.:.
. ::: �
:::�:
.:.: �. �
;�:. �:; � �}
� , ".fi :;� � ,
AP•. � f:��:�:�::�'��5
_ ..:. . t:.::o :::l... ��F: :�3
::����:�:�:...... �:�:
� :::.� �.:.�:::#
:;i�: .E::
.-� �,�wr
_ �� � p.� 03 +�`:c j
�.Gr'' ao ` i�4
';�• �
:i, •e
�
::::::::
►
�i�
.0
:':'
� 4
�. :�:: �s
. . ' �.t 'l�'•.:.`
•.. , .T 42"
�-;
P
0
�
�.
.��:;�'.'�;�.
t
�:�::
��i�t .
, �:�1::��� ::��:::::::: � .�:::�:
>�1
5
1 _ �:��� :�.. .�:��;
.. :..t:..>
��:�: �:�T:�i i:TH::i
��.A���� R ���F#
\ ����p ��l.L 3'' 0
� iONAL 'AI.RFIEL �'��:; :::
.�
� �:i• '�'-'•:�:�•
ICE�': 157 � E' '
iii
I
ELD`.`• �
(
:::�:: ��.:.:��:16
, �. 1 � 21�� ;:��':�� ::��::::
v Y.t� .� , ;;f:::: ;;;�:::, _
�_ ,-
. .....
,. ��: �.,:<�:•:
:::::•: ....... � � .�:.: ........
.. ;:;::•::;
:f::
';
:��=t; '�ai�
:';.::►:
c�
's�
�
2
2
::�� ::�:
�17
:`ti` ..ti' :a►�:'I
�
... ... .. :�i:� ���'
.� �`;; .L
:;:;�.:;:;::.
,;t': .�.
�
•
'�i:
�
�-� ��� �:{18
...: ..........
...: :::::::.
:..::::.:. . .
::::�:: : � ��:�:..
/ILLE ... .:
isse , , _. ... _. ... ,� � � :;
�� /-` .. �.:/.�:. .. _. J 'r�':........�:�•�.....,,.... _...� . ..
FREESE AND NICMOLS�INC. �����
�_
FIGURE 2.1
'�'�
'�
- . ,�
e r r
�r w; �
.._. . . � ... ., . _ . , , , . � . . �� . .. .�.. ._ . � . .-. .. .4.:.�a�".'�.� $.;.-.�"'�e`�,,.'ea....�.k.- .Ya.S�<. «...,���
!
� renter occupied dwelling units. Commercial/industrial land usage will
climb to 3,743.27 acres and hotel/corporate office acreage will reach
� �,x..
395.07 acres.
� � Historical population estimates for the City of Grapevine are shown
in Table 2.2. The average annual growth rate from 1965 to 1985 was
� approximately 7.1 percent. Using this 25-year annual average growth
rate and the 1985 population of 22,026, Grapevine could reach the pro-
� jected ultimate population of 62,873 by the year 2000. The historical
r and projected population growth trends are shown graphically on Figure �-
�
2.2. Population projections used in the 1981 water distribution system
� study also are shown on Figure 2.2.
Commercial/industrial and hotel/corporate office land use has not
�� ;.�,. � . increased as rapidly as residential development in recent years. This
�;:
�
type of development tends to lag behind residential growth. The City of �;
�_
�
�
Gra evine s records of water billed to commercial industrial customers
� p /
were used to estimate historical rowth trends for this t e of land
! �_ 9 YP
use. The average annual increase in commercial/industrial water use was
� � approximately 3.2 percent from 1982 through 1984. However, during the
first half of 19$5 an increase in the rate of commercial/industrial and
�
- hotel cor orate office rowth a ears to be takin lace e
, / s eciall in
P 9 PP
9 P � P
Y
the northeast area of the City along State Highway 121. Based on this
�
information, a future annual average growth rate of 6.2 percent has been
I C adopted for use in this update of water distribution system Master Plan
�
� for commercial/industrial and hotel/corporate office land use. Using _
L the ado ted avera e annual rowth rate of 6.2 ercent commercial in-
P 9 9 P �
f dustrial and hotel/corporate office land use would reach ultimate
t_
�.��
' L 2.6
�
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
� _
�
�
�
.::��:
y3'.":
.. ' . � F,�,, z �.
A.
At
�� z��
z� i
�; w w
. . - . - . _ . . . _ . �.,+ 1� - �� ���'�.
� . � .- . ..,. _ _ . .. .. . , ., .. , e.� r.. , ..+.�;�-z.'�r 3�7.'"'_ _�L+:3 .a..,,.i>.. ..
�.._
fTable 2.2
City of Grapevine
� Water Distribution System Master Plan
Historical Population Estimates �'
� Year Estimated Average Annual Growth �_�"
Population Rate (%)
' 1965 5,606
2.4
1966 5,739
4.3
1967 5,988 -
_ 8.9
� 1968 6,519
3.8
1969 6,767
3.8
� 1970 7,023
2.2
1971 7,181
2.7
�, 1972 _ _ 7,376
.�
10.2
1973 8,126 ;
�. 14.7
1974 9,321
�. 7.4
1975 10,015
3.5 - �"
1976 10,369
{ 5.6
� 1977 10,954
5.4
� 1978 11,550
16.9
1979 13,500
� 3.7
� 1980 14,000
� 8.6
1981 15,200
� 12.2
1982 17,050
11.4
� 1983 19,000
10.5
1984 21,000
4.9
� 1985 . 22,026
� !
2.7 �
FREESE AND NICMOlS�INC. ��
�.
\
. . . . . ' . . . . . , i`.b
� 4
�.�„ � .�. r .� .._��, x _.... ... . . . . � .. .. . . -.,:..r.__.. �_ isr_'liL.�, ...r _R.e .. �
��
., � . . . .1. , -_ .. ,_�.. . .. , . . � . . .., .. .�- .a s�. x... .z.
, CITY OF GRAPEVINE
� ,..
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
���
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED POPULATION
90
80
70
60
50 �
i
� 40
0
z
can 3 0
�
O
2
� � Q
? 20
z �
�..�. p Cl
Q
J Q
�
� O
� �
10
9
� g • HISTORICAL
7 ' � ' PROJ�CTED
_ j O '
6 • 1981 PROJECTION
� 5
� 4
1965 1970 1980 1990 2000
'� �y YEAR
�
�
- FREESE AND NICHOLS�ING.
FIGURE 2.2
i
development in the year 2027.
Long-term growth trends were used to estimate the years when
;
' i Grapevine could reach ultimate development conditions. Short-term �
growth patterns are used to estimate population and land use development
for the foreseeable future. According to the City' s staff, 1,274
, residential building permits were issued in fiscal year 1985. Using
;
� this as the basis for current development trends, it is assumed that
3
= permits could be issued at the rate of approximately 1,300 per year for
the next five years. After reviewing the areas under construction,
! those which have had final plats approved and those which have submitted �
preliminary plats, it is estimated that most of this growth will occur
in the southern portion of the City.
Commercial/industrial and hotel/corporate office land use is pro-
jected to i ncrease from 326.43 acres i n 1985 to 679. 15 acres i n 1990.
;
� This increase in C/I and HCO land use will include scattered development ,;,;,,,�
as well as some concentrated development in the northeast area of
.K�
Grapevine. Population and land use estimates for the years 1985 through
: ! 2027 are shown in Table 2.3.
�
�
�
�
_ ;
. �
I
i
�
�
;
;
;
,
; ,
° �
�.
,�
2.8
FREESE ANO NICHOLS,INC. I��H�
i
i
i
�
Table 2.3
i
� City of Grapevine
Water Distribution System Master Plan
i �"`' Estimates of Population and Land Use by Year
3 � Year Population Land Use
Total RES-0 0 RES-R 0 C I Acres HCO Acres
�
�
1985 22,026 13,641 8,385 297.26 29. 17
1986 25,484 15,763 9,721 315.69 31.04
1987 28,942 17,902 11,040 366.84 33.02
� 1988 32,400 20,041 12,359 429. 75 35. 14
; 1989 35,858 22,180 13,678 523.21 37. 39
1990 39,316 24,289 15,027 622.26 56.89
j 1991 41,206 25,445 15,761 694. 58 59.44
� 1992 43,186 26,655 16,531 791.31 62. 15
� 1993 45,262 27,923 17,339 854.77 65. 03
I 1994 47,438 29,252 18,186 884. 59 68. 10
1995 49,718 30,643 19,075 916.26 71.36
1996 52,108 32,101 20,007 949.89 74.83
1997 54,613 33,628 20,985 985.61 78. 53
1998 57,238 35,228 22,010 1,023.54 82.46
_ 1999 59,989 36,904 23,085 1,063.83 86.64
2000 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,106.61 91.09
2001 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,204.46 102. 35
2002 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,302.32 113. 61
2003 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,400.17 124.86
"""` 2004 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,498.03 136.12
' ; 2005 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,595.88 147.38
,�� 2006 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,693. 33 158.64
2007 62,863 38,660 24,213 1,790. 79 169.90
2008 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,888.24 181. 16
2009 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,985.70 192.42
2010 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,083.15 203.68
2011 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,180.80 214.94
2012 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,278.46 226. 20
- 2013 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,376.11 237.45
2014 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,473.77 248.71
i 2015 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,571.42 259. 97
2016 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,669.07 271.23
2017 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,766. 73 282.49
2018 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,864. 38 293.74
2019 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,962.04 305.00
' 2020 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,059.69 316. 26
2021 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,157. 34 327.52
2022 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,255.00 338.78
2023 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,352.65 350.04
2024 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,450. 31 361. 29
± 2025 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,547.96 372.55
2026 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,645.62 383.81
,�:,.,�
2027 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,743. 27 395. 07
2. 9 �
� FREESE AND NICHOlS�INC.
, 3.0 WATER REQUIREMENTS
_ Estimates of the amounts of water that the distribution system will
� be required to supply in the future are necessary to analyze the system �
� for ultimate conditions. Future water demands have been developed by
� �
combining the projected populations and land use and projected per
1
capita water requirements. The actual operating and billing records for
- the Grapevine water distribution system have been used as a basis for
i
developing future water requirements. li
� The rate of demand for water varies according to the living habits �
;
of the populace, seasonal changes and the character of the community. A �
i
�
� detailed evaluation of the existing pattern and the extent of these �
3
variations is helpful in predicting future requirements. The rates of
• use considered in this study are average-day, peak-day, maximum-hour and
= tank filling (nighttime) demands. Facilities required or available for
raw water transmission and treatment are normally analyzed for average- �
; day and peak-day requirements. Maximum-hour and tank filling water
' iafi%�
consumption rates are used to evaluate the water distribution system
network. A distribution system capable of ineeting the maximum-hour and
tank filling requirements with reasonable pressures across the service
area normally is adequate for all other conditions. A fire flow
= analysis was performed separately to evaluate the system' s adequacy in
this regard.
; �
; The City of Grapevine' s water use for the years 1965 through 1984
' � i s shown i n Tabl e 3. 1. Total water use has i ncreased from 123 mi 11 i on
_
gallons (MG) in 1965 to 1,211 MG in 1984. Average-day water use for
� this same period has increased from 0. 34 million gallons per day (MGD)
�
�
3. 1
��,.:�
. FREESE AND NICHOlS�INC. 'I
i
ro
; �,- >, o �c �c �c
i O R1 1 MOO � I� OOMQ1rIctf� NlDtD1� Q1M0 �-i0
� � N c+') O O r-� Cf' O rl lD 40 O lD � 40 lD 00 Ql d� N O 00
O I O
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•r .Y .{.� fq M N N L.C) I.f) N N rl rl N r-I r-I r-I �--I rl rl N N N r--I
+� �0 L v�
� �0 41 N 'O
3 � a. > S-
; �� ¢ CJ
v
a
�
} ro rd �C �C �C �
� 0 +-> OO � ct' �-IOOI� r-i00NOd' OOt� IDI� nCDd� +�
I p L •r I� OMOINtf) OOQ1tDQOd' IDOOQIIDI� � M00 •r
. Yd 41 rlrlriNChr-� r-ir-� rirlrlr--INNr1NNNNN U
rti („7 Q t0
N C.� � i
d O
4 �
I �-
� N
+� r-INMMI� � I� ctOOt.f) MOOCDch � 1� 1� 00 O1
�� L •� cDI.C) IDtDI� � 000Q1Q100a'1 �-iNOMrlrlrl � L ,
_ b ¢ � a ro � � r-+ � �-+ ,-� � � ,-+ � �
� U •r
� d �
L �K �C �C �
N �L � 000000000000 Q1r-� tDNNQ10010 �0
+� �0 � al � OtD00Q1Q1r-IM �' MI� crl� riMtD1� NMCtC1 U
a � N �0 N C.7 • • • . . . . . . •r
�0 N d � � � rI00rINr� rir-Irlr� rlr--INNNM � � � � L
; N L � � p
C � .�.�
•r � �
> Cl L .�
r-1 N +� G1 • � C} OOOrINMM (� Mcf L� IDrIQ1MI� crOMri t
cn +� � � OJ � MMMer � t.C) IDf� I� OpOpQ1NM � 0pf� ONM
M t0 rC > R7 cn C7 L
: L N 3 Q � � � O O O O O O O O O O O O r1 r� r-I rl rl N N M N
CJ �S' � t
r C r }�
� �F- O r0 p
� R1 O •r U
� F-- +� •� 00000000000001� O � ctt� tDN L
� 7 L r L /� OONIOI.C) MI� MQIf� r-� M �' OONOOQII� lDO +�
+� � o ro a a� c�
•,- •,- +� +.� +� cnE rirn � o �-i �.riaiai �sir� oor+ � ori � aiuir-+ 3
U � t!f O �0 � � NOM � d101NI� lDOrl � c}' ON00 MNr-i �
+� •� F- 3 r-� r-1 r� r-� r-� ri N N N M M M ct t.C) t1� lD tD 1� dp N C
N = ^ O
i �� �"'{ '�'
� �..t
� �
L N OOOOOOOOOlDO00000tl� I� tD r-IlD r-
� � � ^ O10000000MOMQ1alMf� Na1a0 � 0plD L
i rt1 +.� L C,'J MOOOOOO � I� tDMMOQIOlI� Q1tD00
' � 3 L � � �-+ � o � � Nm o
�
a �
�
3 0
i '� OOOOOO � OOOOOOOlO � 1� Ql1.nlD 41
' S- QJ � rINNID � MI� OQ1MN � r11� OQ1ON00M .a
N Q a (.7
+� E F- � Ol 00 I� o r-1 t c") Q1 t.f') Ql rl,lD lD ri 00 r-1 � �c") m �t O O
�C 7 � � f� Q1Mt.C) 01Q1Nf'� � OO � �t010 � Q1N � C0 +�
z Tr � r-� r-Ir-ir-� NNNMMM �t' ctt.f) tf) � I.C) LS� Op
_ E
N
N
� N
N N 1 1DQ100011� Mr--IIDIDr� � 01ct0000000
+� � �0 O MOOr�IIDNQOf� NNr--IID �.f) � 000 � 00 N
� (0 �Or- C IDI� Ql6!') 1� Or-IMrIMOMQ1t.C) t.t) ONO00 N
EL 7 O •, •• •• •• L
•r aJ O.•r tS� tn Lf� lD lD 1� I� 1� 00 Ql O O O r-� M d' l!� I� Ql t-I 7
+> > O +-� rl r-I r--1 r-� rl rl rl rl r-I N CT
11) Q d •r
W �
�
! �
� � �!") 1D1� 00010rINM V � lD1� dpQ10 �--INM � N
(0 tD CD lD l0 lD I� 1� I� I� 1� 1� i� I� I� n 0� O� O� Op Op L
4J Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql �-
:
� r--I r-1 r-1 r-i r-1 r�-1 r-� r-� r-I r-I r� r-1 r--1 r--I r-'I r-� r-I r-i r-� ri �C
i
�
3.2
� I
FREESE AND NICHOlS,ING. ,I
; construction.
For ultimate conditions, water requirements for residential owner
�
" occupied and renter occupied dwelling units will remain the same. The
_ 161 and 92 GPCD
_ compare favorably w�th the same types of dwelling units
in the North Central Texas area and there are no indications that these �I
: consumption rates will change. Also, the 1,200 GPAD for commercial/
' industrial development will remain the same for ultimate conditions.
- ' Hotel water consumption is anticipated to increase to 8,600 GPAD. The
; current estimate of 5,500 GPAD is based on the Hilton Hotel ' s water �
consumption on its current site. It is estimated that the Hilton could
' double its room capacity on the present site and continue to conform
_ with the City' s zoning requirements. For this reason, the estimated �
= water requirement for hotel consumption has been increased for ultimate I
; conditions. Water use for major corporate office buildings in the North
Texas area was reviewed. Based on Grapevine' s zoning requirements, it
- I, � is estimated that major corporate office building average-day water
consumption in Grapevine could reach approximately 3,500 GPAD.
Historical and projected average-day water requirements are shown
graphically on Figure 3.1. Projected water requirements are based on
the projections of residential and commercial/industrial growth trends
', discussed in the previous section. The 1985 estimated average-day
residential water consumption is estimated to be 2.97 MGD. In the year
�
- 2000, when population is projected to reach ultimate development, resi-
', � dential consumption is estimated to be approximately 8.45 MGD.
� Two projections of commercial/industrial and hotel/corporate office
I � average-day water consumption are shown on Figure 3. 1. One projection
i
'�
�
3. 5
� FREESE AND NICHOLS�ING.
ij
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
�..�
� WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
�
AVERAGE-DAY WATER REQUIREMENTS
20
� OTAL (ALL HOTE ) -
� 10 ' TO AL (HOTEL AND
9 F ICE) I
S
7
g RESIDENTIAL
-, 5 �
0
� 4 � C/I A D HC �
'" (ALL HOTEL .
3 . �
� O 3
J /
�
,� � � 2 • � C/I �ND H�O
Q OT L AND OFFI
o .
w � �
`""�' c� .
Q •
� • i
W
> 1
Q .
.9
.8 •
•
.7 •
.6 •
� .5
.4
, .3 HISTORICAL � PROJECTED
1970 75 80 85 90 95 2000 05 10 15 20 2027
� YEAR
�
�
FREESE AN�NICHOLS�ING.
FIGURE 3.1
assumes that all of the land which is zoned for hotel/corporate office �
�
use will be developed for hotel use. The second projection assumes that �
�
only one additional hotel will be developed. This hotel would be com-
parabl e to the Hi 1 ton and 1 ocated on 30 acres of 1 and i n the northeast �y
area of Grapevine. The remaining acreage in the HCO zoning classifi- j'
cation would be developed as corporate office buildings. Using the
projection that all of the HCO district will be developed as hotels, C/I
�
and HCO average-day water use would increase from 0.52 MGD in 1985 to �
i
7.89 MGD at ultimate development. Assuming that most of the HCO dis- I�!
a
� trict will develop as corporate office buildings, the average-day water
- use at ultimate development for the C/I and HCO customers would be 5. 93
i
MGD. Development of the HCO district primarily as office buildings i
would result in average-day water consumption being approximately 1. 96
MGD less than development for hotels. Because current zoning regu-
lations allow for all of the acreage designated for HCO to be developed �
as hotels, water use projections for ultimate conditions will be based
. �
on full development as hotels. It is estimated that the City of
. Grapevine will reach ultimate development in the year 2027 and average-
_ day water use will be approximately 16.34 MGD based on the projections
�
made in this Master Plan.
Table 3. 2 shows the projected average-day water use requirements
for selected years from 1985 through 2027. Population estimates are
' based on the projections made in Section 2.0. Average-day water use was
; obtained from Figure 3. 1. The average-day per capita water use was
derived by dividing the estimated average daily water use by the esti-
' mated population. Increases or decreases in average daily per capita
'�
3. 6
,:�;
. FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
Ij
Table 3.2
City of Grapevine
��� Water Distribution System Master Plan
Projected Average-Day Water Use
��
, Year Estimated Estimated Average-Day I
Population Water Use �
MGD GPCD
' 1985 22,026 3.49 158
1990 39,316 6.53 166
1995 49,718 8.39 169
2000 62,873 10.56 168
2005 62,873 11.64 185 �
2010 62,873 12.70 202
2015 62,873 13. 78 219
2020 62,873 14.84 236
� �,
2027 62,873 16.34 260
���
;
�
�::��
�
3. 7
, FREESE AND NICHOLS,iNG.
consumption are influenced mainly by commercial and industrial users.
Currently, most of the water consumed in Grapevine is by residential
� customers, but as commercial/industrial land is developed per capita �
; usage for the di stri buti on system wi 11 i ncrease as shown i n Tabl e 3. 2.
, �
Other cities in the North Texas area with more of a commercial/
industrial base than Grapevine experience average-day per capita
consumption in excess of 200 GPCD.
� Projected water requirements for the City of Grapevine are set
forth in Table 3. 3 and illustrated on Figure 3.2. Peak-day water use
I
was based on a peak-day to average-day ratio of 2.0 and maximum-hour
- usage is projected to be 2.0 times the peak-day usage. Tank filling
,
consumption is based on a nighttime to peak-day ratio of 0.6.
Water use projections for three areas outside of the existing city
limits have been estimated to determine what effect annexation of these
areas would have on the water distribution system network. The first �
,
area is northwest of the City and is bounded by Dove Road on the south,
m�
Lonesome Dove Avenue on the west, and Lake Grapevine on the north and
east. This area would be developed as residential owner occupied
dwelling units with an estimated population when fully developed of
1,254. Average-day water use for this area using 161 GPCD would be 0.20
= MGD.
' �
The second area is on the western edge of the City, west of
_ Grapevine Industrial Park and north of State Highway 26. There are
� approximately 60. 53 acres in this area which would be developed for
�
light industrial usage. Using 1,200 GPAD, the estimated average-day
water requirements would be 0.07 MGD. The last area is located along
!'�
3.8
Ii�
' FREESE AND NICMOLS�INC
i �
�
I � O O"t M N N N M M N I
C U I Ql a'1 O O N ct lD 0p rl
• d rl rl N N N N N N M I
` r �'
r
�....
L.L
` o� � I� � I� � d' rl r-�
�L p I r-i 00 O l0 01 N �f) CO lD
CL7 . . . . . . . .
r0 � d- I� O N M � t.0 (� pl I
F-- r--i r--I r-� rl r-1 r-1 � I
tiY�w�w
I
I
= L p ct � �'S N rl 61 I� d' O �
� C..) M l0 i� 1� �' O I� Ch �'
O d lD tD tD l0 I� 00 00 61 O
S C7' I r�
i
E
� �
E CD N tD � tD O N lD CD
• � 61 rl � N t.C) 00 r1 M M
XC7 • • • • • • • .
�0 � M lD M N CD O � 01 �
C � � N M cf' �Y � � � lD
b
r
' d
� I
� I
f �
�
� N � 1� N i� lfl O ct' 00 N O
� � N U I r� M M M f� O M t� N
� E � � � M M M M M � � � �
> N S.. p
M N +� 4J 1
tn � �G � lD 00 N OO O ta 00 O�
. M rt3 td r0 � d'� O I� rl N �' � tD tD
iN3 41C7 •
� C.7 d � l0 M CD r-� M tn 1� Q1 N
�— C � r-i r-I N N N N N M
- .� w O GJ
(Lf O r +�
►— i-� U �
. � � i
, ��,:�. � � .
•r •r �
V L �
tn � � 00 tD Q1 00 �f) N � lD O
'll�s� •r � C..) lt') lD lD CD 00 O rl M lD
� � d. r-� r�i rl r--1 r--I N N N N
I C�(
L N
�
+-� rtJ O'� M Ql lD � O 00 � �'
R3 S-. � cf' t!') M �f) lD I� � CO M I
� > � M cD 00 O r-� N M d- lD
Q r--1 r-� r-1 r-I ri r--I
�
- �
I C
TJ O
� •r tD l,fl � M M M M M M
+� i� N r� rl 1� I� 1� f� 1� I�
r0 t� O M i� CO 00 00 00 � 00
� � �
•r 7 N Ql Ql N N N N N N
+� N M �' l0 lD l0 lD �O lD
cn O
3 W a.
�
�
i
� � O � O � O � O I�
. Rf 00 Ql Ql O O ri rl N N
a/ O1 Q1 Ql O O O O O O
� r-1 r--1 r1 N N N N N N
���
3.9 �
� FREESE AND NICHO�S�INC. I
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
�
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED WATER USE
80
7 C�
60 HISTORICAL PROJECTED
50 '
40
I
30
- 20
I
10
; 9
t Q
7 ,�
�
; , c� 6
' � �
' S ���
3
_ O q �CQ
J
�
�
3
i
's �
�� � �
2
� � '� O AVERAGE�DAY
' ' 0 PEAK—DAY
p . �O
� � O I � MAX�IMUM IHOUR
1
� .8
,7 I
i •� O
�
!
.5
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2027!�
YEAR '
i�
�' FREESE AND NIGh10L5�ING I I
FIGURE 3.2
Denton Creek northeast of Grapevine in Denton County. There are ap-
proximately 127.45 acres in this area. It is estimated that 117.44
�._�
acres would be developed for Light Industrial Usage and 10.01 acres for
� ��
Community Commercial Usage. Using 1,200 GPAD average-day water use for
,
this area is estimated to be 0.15 MGD when fully developed.
The estimated total average-day water requirements for these three
;
areas is 0.42 MGD for ultimate development and would increase the City' s
' I
� estimated total average-day water consumption for Grapevine from 16. 34
� MGD for ultimate conditions to 16.85 MGD if these areas are annexed.
;
� The ratio of 2.0 from peak-day to average-day and maximum-hour to
;
- eak-da and 0.6 from tank fillin to eak-da also would a 1 to these
- P Y 9 P Y PP Y
additional water requirements.
;
;
�,,:��
;
. �
;
�
i
�.��
3. 10
FREESE AND NICMOLS,ING.
4. 0 SOURCE OF SUPPLY
There are currently two sources of water supply for Grapevine' s
Water Distribution System. The first source is Grapevine' s Water Treat-
ment Pl ant (WTP) whi ch has a rated capaci ty of 4.0 MGD. Water for thi s ;�,.;�,
plant is obtained from Lake Grapevine where the City has a water rights �
� permit. It is estimated that Grapevine' s share of the "safe yield" from
= the lake is approximately 3.5 MGD. The second source of supply is a
�
' connection to a Trinity River Authority (TRA) pipeline on the west side
�
of State Highway 121 south of Glade Road. Grapevine has a water pur-
i
chase contract with TRA to supply a portion of the City' s water re-
� quirements. Terms of this water purchase contract designate a portion
of the City of Grapevine as a service area for the TRA water supply.
- This area is defined as "all of the area within the city limits of the
j City of Grapevine south of the St. Louis - Southwestern Railroad (except
�
the area within the Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport). " The existing """�'
boundary i s i 11 ustrated on Fi gure 4.1. Accordi ng to TRA, water treat- ;�,�,
ment, high service pumping, and water storage facilities will be con-
• structed to supply the needs of the five customer cities as long as all
j of the cities agree to the facilities. This study assumes that the TRA
facilities will be modified to meet Grapevine' s future water require-
,
- ments above the "safe yield" limits from Lake Grapevine.
Based on the projections of average-day water use made in this
i
� study and the current Grapevine/TRA service area boundary, it is esti-
{ mated that by ultimate development, average-day water use in the TRA
service area will be 6.89 MGD and 9.45 MGD in the Grapevine WTP service
j area. In order for the distribution system to operate within the "safe
�
4. 1 �
� fREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC
��
�
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
�
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
� �_ .
GRAPEVINE/TRA SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
:�
� ���`� \;,--�.:r � � , =�,'l\ c �� :.a
�.,, �-�-'�---�� �7��� o ~ ?49 '
,
,
�r� � L ` 9T 03 �: .: C
� -
'.
. fl j `,: , ��� �'_'��� 'MOund ���
.: '. .�-- -..
.��\ � i
t:,. , . . � ....
� . .. owaer
......
, ��
•'• • Nd ..
r
�t�wr s t r �e . �► �
,--� �� RMAL .....��S,S�� ' ., '� j„ � .. P��
1 ,� :::: Poo� �� `": -�, � . .�Gie ..�.:
- {�i!lG'.�-�"--��,,. E�E v �o.-��\`\, .�
. . .
;:;..
r •. •
� �::�•: � • � ` � 3� � i
. ..,.
::::::� :
�•••:•. • ::
��<<{�r � 5 � �, ���:�'�
.
.:
ii,, - .,,�c.:.
'}`�`���.�''� ��,���" �:,� .
a �( `�``;�� ���`�1 '���'�'
j�� ��. , �:� Ry,� �' � �
- ,'�; <�� ��`�: � ' t�`��� �;
d;-� �� �� `�',;, 1 1 •:�
• . .;,s l\,�� � � �. �
� e1: � � ��,`< <��
,
.� 1���'; i t �
:; � � ��� �:
�• �4 �'-',� 'r'� ��....�'�� : ;.�
:��' •�� ' � c� ,�f""�• !2: � �:t
` � .1:: ��, �J•
....... 4
�
..... . ;
.�.
�.
i .
'-� �, � ... .
� - � � � .. . 4�f ••�, :����. ,.,.
.G� �2�
i a'�
�,- 'd .`•;::.'�
�;;.;::�::;i;::;:;:i
. .+ti.•:��.. �:��:.
- .;�.':::�:....
I ! 382
.;;
- ,�0 `:•i+i''3�': ;,' I
�� ;Fqp,
r;; :' c�ft�:'=:c�:; ���
., d :��
�.h :.�:' rp :�r' :�1
ti.;` tjfr;� ,'Y,:
�;'� ;�:
� �,�
���r
:���♦�.
�� •lL,-.�w ".. • d 2.' •'' ��•
�::i;c�,-�p ` ,,:�.�.,� ' �
�� �::� ',•:x�::. �. 03 ''.�• i 14:
•'�.�it0�
P.
:�f�.�.�. •* .�
:�;���;�
'ii:�:':�:::�i:.
r
.o
�, . �::
,.
`� o.s
� . ;C�; .
::i �s�r�:c::��� �:�f:���::��
�.: �
::,,
�
e
�
:;:��
P.�'T 02"
C� ,
i;�.'•:;:;:'
���:::::::�:::::;=
�.
\ i�r:�s�i:�`::�`:�i:::;.
,�'
f
::�;:::.:.;::
�::�::•::�::::•::::•:
::.i%:..
t
.�:
:r::
... �•l:
��N:':
.�T
:;��. ..T.��.W..�1#
�R 0
J�� ���:::A��.�l1.s� 0
�: .`'`�, .o � ;:�=::::�
.'+:;::::::::;-^
( � � A �AIRFIEL�:::�i�:=::�'
�' ��/�_' T��GION l.�
"'� � �I��t'�f.l�� F rr.f+ /,yr�, J^^.•:;�� '.V
� � �'!'��::RI��.T.'• �
ICE:•'?: :'; _ 157 :.;.::•:
�IELO;:. �=:�
L--, l ��:x'"i.:�:�:x��:���. .���#��� :;1.
�vY�:: . ......... .. _ ::
, �: :y::�::�:��:�::-:: =:J
� � c'. ;�:: ,
::::: � Esteile� �e�f �:f3�.;,."�_.�#�;':' :f��. #��
�' 1 .. ::i:;:�:�:::: '_�:_=>
.. � '•.:.. .f�
ii/::i r�: �'`•:.�:::>i: :;4"' :}ti
N��
=`'---
�� LV.i
{ :'`�::•.•.�� .
( •�•.:�!
F 'Sl'� �
Z
-� _
:1..
1
J ':•
�•
:�:
���
::�
'ti"
:S��
�-
':;; ;.
y s
:�ti s =::�::-s_.
:+�•' i:t}S.� �.��
�1S' .�
.1:
ti... ... r •• '•'•••••'•'•�:`•• 1�:.`1L.: �'y"w`'.`�: .
••�1��1.<�.�i�L� ...:.:t� �ti....� �
. .i`• .{. i{�.'.�:`�ti� i�`�.`��:h:'. 5::�:Latwt iS�� .
. �" •.t :�.`�'�'�•:�. ��1.`_ -
n
�.
:14
'��
�'�:. ".1�...,.
�_ .��'+•'
�� ��� '.•:•.�•.`.`.. ...... �. .
'i�'i i�"i .����\Z��� '.��� •�� ,�+ �� �
.#�'• , � '�'��iti�ti'�'�'� 1.��l•�\�`1���\\�• �+y �='
nL �::�::;;;::��� ,.. ... ... _ ti.�4� ''� �. -:�
� fs��� � .ri1i:, rf.'.., .. . ... �.LA\�� ••i
Ndr�:+rr
FREESE AND NICHOLS�ING.
� FIGURE 4.1
.. � . . � . , 3€:
.. . . � . . y.:;;"
5 s
� . . . . : ` ��� ��.
- . �,-=• "�� . „'""-._ . . . . � .._ � . ._ <. .:"�..;_�- � _'.:.�:,,X&��.�_ . _ . '�`� ;:�.w ,s�,�.�r,.:. . ... . , . .. ..w
� ``y r
. yield" limits from Lake Grapevine, it is recommended that TRA service
area be expanded to include the area east of Fairway Drive, south of
Northwest Highway, west of Park Boulevard, and south of Dove Road to
� Jones Branch Creek. This proposed service area boundary also is shown
� �
on Figure 4. 1. With the boundary at this location for ultimate con-
t ditions, it is estimated that the average-day water consumption in the
Grapevine WTP service area will be approximately 3. 55 MGD and 12.79 MGD
in the TRA service area. Table 4.1 shows the estimates of population
= and land use for the Grapevine Water Treatment Plant and the TRA service
� area with the boundary at the proposed location. Projected water use
for each revised service area is set forth in Table 4.2.
The existing rated capacity of Grapevine' s water treatment plant is
_
= 4. 00 MGD. Water treatment facilities are usually sized for peak-day
; demand conditions. Using the peak-day to average-day ratio of 2.0, as
3
� discussed in the previous section, the water treatment plant would be
; capable of supplying average-day water requirements of 2.0 MGD. with
; �
the Grapevine WTP/TRA service area boundary at its present location, the
. 1985 average-day water use in the Grapevine WTP service area is esti-
mated to be 2.20 MGQ and 1.29 i n the TRA servi ce area. The esti mated
i
1985 average-day demands for the Grapevine WTP service area are ap-
; proximately 0. 20 MGD greater than the recommended demand of 2.0. Re-
� location of the service area boundary as recommended would reduce the
i
' 1985 estimated usage in the Grapevine WTP service area to approximately
�
f 1. 56 MGD. Based on the water use projections made in this study and the
i
' relocation of the Grapevine WTP/TRA service area boundary, it is esti-
' mated that the water .treatment plant will reach an average-day water
�
i
4. 2
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC. �
t
1� Q1 l0 O 00 00 (� tD t�
tn rl � M Ql M tD 01 N O
O 41
U S- Ql tD rt rl 1� M Ql tD �.C')
I 2 U N � I� Q1 � O �f) rl O'1
Q ri N N M M
- �_:.:.». r0 d' O �D tD Ql N tf) 00 O
• d � Lf) d' i� Ql N tt l0 lD
L Vf
Q i--� N Q1 I.C) O ri r-� O Q1 00 rl
� L � � rl I� M Ql �' O i.1')
N U U N � 00 d'1 Cr � M 00 �t-
U c[
� '��-,�* •r- r--I rl N N M
�
S-.
� Q'1 1� N � d" � � � d'
N �' rl Q1 lD lD l0 �O CD lD
N O N O r-1 O O O O O O
` � � � d' O M I� I`� f� I� I� i�
1--- r-1 r--I r-1 r-i r-1 r{ r-i r-1
�0 LS') 00 r-1 r-I r"1 rl r-� rl rl
s' �1 O � N O O O O O O
� cn O 1� d' O Ql � O'� O't � Q1
¢ w\
�' O �D N tD N N N N N N
d rl r-I N N N N N N
C V
([j•r
r ]
� � L
, N
S- N
N
� �
s v� �
f �
� � N
' C tA
•� E �
> N
- r-1 G1 +-� 'a
' tn C
� f0 !0
. L N J
N C:�
r C � lA
� 4- O C � O N
� �C O •r (O N U L O O O O O O O O O
- ~ � C Q Q
� +� � O
•r •r •r �
�"" "' U L +.� U N lD O � Q1 M I� ri I�
+� �0 •r ln 1� f� 00 00 00 Ql Ql O lD
� - V) r > r-� 41 . . . . . . . .
•r � L i. I� lD 1.[) c7' M N r1 t-I r-1
� al U U �t' i� O M tD d1 N �f) Ql
+p;,� O cn ¢ rl rl rl �--I N N N
� a
41 d
� +-� � � l� O M Ql Q1 Q� O'1 Q1 Ql
tt7 N 3 t/� O M rl � ct' d' ct d' � �t
� +� W\ rl O 00 rl rl r--1 r--I r-� rl
r0 N � � .. ., ., .. .. ..
' E c d� �n �n t� I� r� I� I� I�
•r •r
� �
V� 41 CD ri N Q1 01 01 Ql Ql Q1
� W M M N t.t') t.f) � � t.f) t.t')
� S- W\ Ql 00 l0 I� I� I� I� I� I�
L3 � O lD rl d' � �.!') �.I� � �c") �
r1 ,--i r-I r-1 r-i r-1 r-i r--I
i
i
�
S- t.C) O � O � O t.f) O I�
rt1 00 Q1 O'1 O O rl r--1 N N
� � � Q1 Q1 Ql O O O O O O
�- r--I r-I r� N N N N N N
i
.�-:<.,s..
4.3
� FREESE ANO NICMOLS�INC.
III
�
i
2 N QO OD N O N 00 O �O
� ' I N O 1� N st OO O r1 N � r1
�
• X�� 1� �L' r1 CO M 1� r-i � ri
�� 10 r--� N N f7 M � � tn
�
T
�O
� N O � r-�-1 n d' � � �D � �A
�d�� �+f 00 O � tD 00 O N � �
.' �O d rl '-1 r� ri N N N ..
61 a
L
Q
�
U 0 M i� I� N ttI 00 N �A 01
�' � I CJ 0 01 O fh N N N M tq I� �#�
� i Of�f r� R � 1� W O� O r-1 N
y > ri ra r1
N Q
� T I
� �
� '' � tn C7 1� OO � 00 O C7 �I1 00 N
O1�f rl r�l �i r--� N N N N M .
>
Q
I
: ro � � .`�-� � � � � � �
,. r C G1 at N C1 O� O� Q1 O� Q�
7 O
p.•.- O N 01 O� Q� O� Q� O� O�
O� ri N N M M M C'1 M M �
G.
L
' S et O GO a O N 00 O O
- I Q7 O N a0 O � t0 f� 00 O N
i m . . . . . .
X� �D 01 N M �''1 M f'�1 C ct
� 1O r--1 r-i r-i r--1 r-/ r-1 r-1
C f
- �O �O
� N
a t- T
i¢ d C N O d' M O �D ct O O
61 G! G. i G7 O r-1 01 O f� GO OJ 01 O r-1
N U QY Yf(7
' uf � R7�� M �' lD tD �D �D �O 1� 1�
I 6/f L UG.
� C d
E V1 >
� > a� L T
N 6!a� GJ /0
M� N G tD t!'f N tD O c'n n O �f'f
t � f0 1 61 G N a* O M � � � 1A �A
L N GJ G. • tn�7
y (, uf � Of�S r--1 N M M M f�7 M /h t'�1
C� >
� M- O Q
� �O O•� i d
H a� 61 C
� � T �
' +�am �> ro
i 3 ao 0
U L- 1 Gl U � U'f f� 1� 00 O r--1 M �J'f
' i�'a '0 . �n d K �t � a d' � Lff �A �
{ vf 6! L Q»C7 rl rl rl r1 rl r1 rl rl rl
�a� C7 >
C u Q
- � 'H�.:AYNY'
L
Ol O I N r--� � N 00 O� 00 � W
+> i 'O 1� ct O O O O O O O
�0 d � C O N � Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 01 Q1
� 3 a•� r� tD O N N N N N N
O� r--� r� N N N N N N N
i I n'
i
L
� N� O� rl ln N ul OJ rl M f'7
�n(7
� � . A � r-�-1 N c�7 d' �Y � ��'1 � tD
: � E
� T
�
_ � N �D 00 N 00 O tD CO 07
1 Q�O 01 O I� ri N C u'7 t0 tD . �
�0�E lD t+7 lD .--1 M u7 I� 01 N
- d r-1 ri N N N N N f'7
li 2
i � io T
� A
O� O� M 01 tD � O 00 � '7
� 1- 1 Ol� � �('7 lh � lD 1� 1� 00 M
. N
. 01�� ('� 1D 00 O r--1 N M � tD
) a�+ > r� rl ri r1 ri rl
•�Q
U
� T
� �O
� I� 0!�U 00 tD Q1 N � N Q1 lD O
. v�a u� �D �D �D OO O r� c+� �D
�f�(,7 rl ri ri r--1 rl N N N N
>
Q
; . I �D �O (ID �'�1 M M �'7 M M
� , �O N r--1 r--1 I� I� 1� 1� f� 1�
� C O th 1� OD 00 OJ W 00 00
' 7 O
d•r N 01 O� N N N N N N
O+-� N M sr lD lD lD lD lD �D i
a �
i L ,� o �, o ,� o ,� o � 4.4
t0 Op T Q1 O O � r-I N N
{. � } I ri r--1 r-�i N N �N N N N
��, ���.�..„�
� FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC. _ I I
i I
1
production rate of 2.0 MGD by 1988. It is recommended that the water
treatment plant be expanded to a rated capacity of 8.0 MGD and be in
� �� ' service by 1990. This expansion will fully utilize Grapevine' s "safe
yield" limits from Lake Grapevine and supply the water use requirements
��
in the water treatment plant' s service area for projected ultimate
conditions.
t
I
,�. ,
��
�,�.�
4. 5
�
� FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
5. 0 PUMPING FACILITIES
�
i
� 5. 1 Existinq Pumpinq Facilities
7 �
The City of Grapevine' s water distribution system is served by two
t
high service pump stations. The main high service pump station is �
. located at the water treatment plant. There are six pumps at this
;
station with a total installed rated capacity of 9. 54 MGD. The firm i
� rated capacity of the water treatment plant high service pump station is I
i
6. 07 MGD. The firm capacity is defined as the total capacity with the
i
; largest pump out of service. Using rated capacities can often be mis-
, �
leading because the characteristics of the pumping units and the water
! distribution system frequently prevent operation at rated conditions.
Operating data at the water treatment plant indicate that the current
maximum amount that can be pumped from the high service pumps is ap-
' proximately 4.70 MGD.
A second pump station is located on Minters Chapel Road south of �
3
; State Hi ghway 114. Thi s pump stati on and i s used only as an emergency =�-.�
3 supply. This station is connected to the D/FW Airport System and can
;
� obtain water from the Airport, or the ground storage tanks at this
= station can be filled from the City' s system during low demand periods
and repumped back into the system during high demand periods. An
- inventory of the high service pumping units is summarized in Table 5. 1. �
; The Trinity River Authority also supplies water to the City of
3
;
' Grapevine. This delivery point is located south of Glade Road west of
i State Highway 121.
5. 1
� �
. FREESE AND NICMOLS�INC. I�h
�0 O O O M O O � �
+� � I � tf) � � O O �C SD
� �' N M M M � � r-�-1
L
O
' +-� O t.C) �.5� O O O O
� '�� � = I Ch I� ~ �-i r-1 N �C tD
; ��
� •� N +� lND lN0 N N N N �C r-�i
� � LL
" ��
L
N
�
� � � N N Q� M M c*
j i p tD N N rl 1'� t.C) �C d'
L � O � r--i rl r-1 M r-I
c� 3
c o
rts -a r-
' ; a � � �I � o's'o o'no o`�o � N �c o
a� �
j a �
b c
? v � a�
c >
•r � C
> N i""� N
r� N +� �-{ (V �
' �n �0 � E � N O r� r1 r--1
j L. N � •r � Ol Ql Ql lD
N C.7 d L E tD tD lD �C �C �C �1C r-1
r" C 41 � O O O I
, � 4-- O 4J N Z r-I r-I r-i Q�
� � O� � r-� r-I � ^
> >
� +� .n L
�.HI..,,.,:... •r•r �
U S- tn
i �
� N L
'r"' � Gt' Gt' f"� S 2 ¢
' �:q� p 'r S- J _1 J r--1
S r- N M d' cF d' N � a.
L N .B rl I'� LL
+� O � �""� iC J
": � � Z -N-{
�
� C C L
S- O O Q1
a1 vf tn >
S- .Y �G t0
� U U N
+� +� Rf �U �
U C 7 7 �
R� rd t0 vf
� r- L C C �
� � O O O � +-�
� S- S-. i. C •r
- � +� � A a o � 'b
� � ¢ m m m f-- a�
a i-� r
'{") .1-� r0
� Cn r�-
i � •r
b
� � F- � >
C]. N L ro
d
� E � ri N M d' t.t) lD � r-1 N o
a � � �
' Z 3 p Z
�.�
5.2
� FREESE AND NICMOLS�INC.
I
� 5. 2 Proposed Pumping Facilities
In the daily water use cycle, the duration of the period of the
i
;
highest use rate is relatively short. The use of elevated storage tanks "'"'�"
; in a water distribution system eliminates the need for high service
3
ti""�
pumping capability that is equal to the maximum-hour demand. The �
, �
� elevated tanks provide stored water within the system that can supply
the difference between the maximum-hour demands and the high service
;
` pump capacity.
; In the design of water distribution systems, the most desirable
' high service pumping rate is approximately 70 to 80 percent of the
` maximum-hour use rate. In any case, not less than 60 percent of the
i
maximum-hour requirements should be supplied by pumping, or not more
;
; than 40 percent should be obtained from elevated storage tanks. Using a
� greater amount from elevated storage results in the requirement for
' fairly high refill rates of flow during the nighttime. To refill the
; tanks at such high rates requires pipelines from the pump station to the
�
� .:��
tanks with larger diameters than would otherwise be required to satisfy
�
; the maximum-hour demand condition.
Pumping at rates significantly greater than 80 percent of the
3
' maximum-hour rate also results in the need to increase the pipe dia-
meters to maintain the pump discharge operating heads within acceptable
' limits. Pumping at higher rates also does not permit the full utili-
zation of the elevated storage capability.
, In the design of Grapevine' s water distribution system it was
� considered desirable to supply 75 percent of the projected maximum-hour
demands from pumping, with the remaining 25 percent supplied from
5. 3 ;
,
����
' FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC. I
= elevated storage. This serves to reduce the severity of peak pumping
; requirements. Since severe peak loads occur only during a small per-
i ��>
' centage of the system' s operation, it is more economical to provide
� these peak water supplies from storage.
: �_..�
The State Board of Insurance and the Texas Department of Health
�
�
� have adopted the following design criteria for high service pumping.
- The State Board of Insurance requires the pumping capacity to be equal
;
a
' to 130 GPCD for 24 hours, and the Texas Department of Health (TDH) re-
� quires the pumping capacity to be equal to the peak-day demand with the
i
largest pump out of service.
Grapevine has enough existing high service pumping capacity at the
;
Water Treatment Plant to satisfy the State Board of Insurance' s require-
ments through ultimate development conditions. Using the TDH require-
ments, the high service pumps at the plant and the DFW Pump Station will
� ,� � meet the requirements for 1985 but will not meet the requirements for
i
1990 and beyond. Conversations with the TDH indicate that Grapevine may
�a�
be able to consider a portion of TRA' s high service pump capacity as
belonging to Grapevine. This arrangement must be worked out between the
TDH, TRA, and the other customer cities served by TRA. For the purpose
;
of this study, it has been assumed that an agreement can be reached and
that Grapevine' s share of the firm TRA high service pumping capacity
will equal the projected peak-day water usage in Grapevine' s TRA service
area and that the Grapevine Water Treatment Plant will have firm high
service pumping capacity to meet the projected peak-day requirements in
+ the Grapevine WTP service area. Using this assumption, the firm
capacity at the City' s WTP for ultimate conditions would be 7. 10 MGD and
,�.,�.
5.4
�
F(iEESE ANO NIGMOLS�INC.
_
75 percent of the maximum hour demand in the Grapevine WTP service area
;' would be 10.65 MGD.
. �
Based on the analysis of the distribution system, it is recommended
;
; that the firm high service pumping capacity at the City' s Water Treat-
; �
ment Plant be increased to 16. 00 MGD to provide for effective operation
; of the water distribution system for future conditions. This would
increase the pumping capacity at the WTP Plant by approximately 10.00
' MGD over the existing capacity. The installation of this additional
; 10. 00 MGD could be concurrent with the 4.0 MGD expansion of the Water
Treatment Plant which is recommended by 1990. If the City elects to
stage the construction of the high service pumping facilities, it is
recommended that the firm high service pumping capacity at the water
�
;
treatment plant be increased to 10. 00 MGD by 1990 and 16.00 MGD by 1995.
�
�
�
;
;
i
2
��
� 5. 5 !�
,�.s;�
. FREESE ANO NIGMOLS�ING. I I
i
6.0 STORAGE FACILITIES
�«,_.
6. 1 Existing Storage Facilities
Table 6. 1 shows an inventory of the existing storage facilities for
�
; �' Grapevine' s Water Distribution System. There are three steel ground
;
storage tanks located at the water treatment plant with a total combined �
7
capacity of 1.42 MG. Two steel ground storage tanks are located at the
� D/FW Pump Station. Their combined capacity is 0.30 MG. The total
ground storage capacity of the City' s system is 1. 72 MG. The WTP
3
� Clearwell No. 3 is the relocated Southwest Booster Pump Station Tank.
3
The City of Grapevine is served by three elevated storage tanks. A
$
' 250,000 gallon elevated tank is located west of the central business
district on Barton Street. Located near the intersection of Dove Road
i
and Park Boulevard is a 750,000 gallon elevated tank. The third ele-
;
; vated tank has a capacity of 1,000,000 gallons and was completed in the
,�;::.,
fall of 1985. This tank is located near the intersection of Mustang
5
" � Drive and Timberline Drive. Total elevated storage capacity for Grape-
; vine is 2.0 MG. The total combined capability of Grapevine' s storage
;
facilities is 3.72 MG.
3
6.2 Proposed Storage Facilities
Required ground and elevated storage capacities for the City of
Grapevine, based on the design criteria set forth by the State Board of
�
� Insurance and the Texas Department of Health, are summarized in Table
i
6. 2. The State Board of Insurance requires that ground storage capacity
` be equal to 130 gallons per capita (GPC) and elevated storage capacity
be equivalent to 54 GPC. The requirements for a Texas Department of
� -�
6. 1 I
� �
- FREESE ANO NICHOLS�INC.
a -a -a -a �
c c c c c � � a
� � � � � m v �
0 0 0 0 0 +� +� +�
v, � L �. s. L ro � b
+� a� a� v� � v> > > >
c � � �
-' a1 C C C C C r r �
� O O O O O N N 4J
- � r � r r- r r r
U 4J OJ N N N QJ N N
N N 4J � N 41 4J N
+� +> +� +� +� +� � +� �,,;�
' N N tn N N N N Cl)
'� �^ O O tD lD � � O
�0 C +-� �3C
N rt3 L.i d' � M �K M O 01 O
_ �� N N N N M M �
�
C
�
r
d N
41
S-. •r
N +� C r�'�
+� '� 3 O J jC
l!I r O•r Cn O O 1�
rp •� r- � � I.() I� rl O L27 O
N � U � t0 jC �3C
C t0 L > N N N �C �C r-I Ql r-i
•� E LL � QJ +� I� I� I� t� l0 1�
> 41 > r- LL Lf� t.C) tS') 1� I� f�
r-1 N +-> N O W�
�
lD r0 b
L t� L
� C7 O
r C +•>
� � O cn
� O •r
F- +� 4�-
� O ,
+-> � � O O O O O O O O �
U •L S.. cd � � O O O O O O O O
+� O C •r O �
tn +� •r tJ � O O O O O O O O
: •r C E Rf r- O O N O O Lf� tt') p �.,�,
� N O C1 r0 M I� �t ,--� N N t� O
> Z RS (.7
L C U� r-{
N r--�
�
ro
3
;
- �c �t
c �
r-� N F- ►�
�
_ 'Q C 'p
O O � tti �
' r� N M Z Z � ~ ro
! N N > � >
C O� Q� � 4J N
O O O O tC t� r- �
'r- Z Z Z L L W t0 W Q)
- � O O >
' fd r-- r- r- +� +� +-� 4J N �
U � r r CI) (n 41 �l �C
O N N N 41 W •r r
-� 3 3 3 � 'o s-. � � .�
i s- s. s- c C +� 'Q � a! �o
Rt r0 � 7 � c/7 R5 +> >
? N a1 a! O O O � RS rti
�- L L c � c E
U U U C7 U' O �0 •r �
a a o- 3 3 L > � � z
; 3 3 3 0 o m o g ��
'�
6.2
��.,�
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC. I
; Table 6.2
City of Grapevine
�. � Water Distribution System Master Plan
Storage Requirements
` �"�� Year Type State Board of Texas Department of
Insurance Health Approved System
(Gallons) (Gallons)
� 1985 Ground 2,863,400 2,278,600
Elevated 1,193,100 1,211,400
Total 4,056,500 3,490,000
1990 Ground 5,111,100 4,367,600
Elevated 2,129,600 2,162,400
, Total 7,240,700 6,530,000
1995 Ground 6,463,300 5,655,500
Elevated 2,693,100 2,734,500
Total 9,156,400 8,390,000
2000 Ground 8,173,500 7,102,000
� Elevated 3,405,600 3,458,000
Total 11,579,100 10,560,000
� 2005 Ground 8,173,500 8,172,000
� � Elevated 3,405,600 3,458,000
Total 11,579,100 11,630,000
��
�
�,�
6. 3
�
FREESE AND NICHOLS�ING.
= Health "Approved" system state that the total storage capacity of the
system must be equal to 185 GPC or the average-day requirement, which-
� ever is less. The elevated storage capacity, which is included in the "�"
= total storage requirements, must be equal to 50 percent of the average-
i �
day requirement or 55 GPC, whichever is less. The maximum requirement
for elevated storage is 5.0 million gallons.
The City' s existing storage facilities will meet the TDH criteria
;
', for 1985 conditions, but when comparing the existing facilities to the
Insurance Board' s requirements the ground storage will be deficient by
approximately 1,143,400 gallons. Conversations with the State Board of
; I nsurance and the TDH i ndi cate that a porti on of TRA' s storage faci 1 i-
�
ties also could be considered Grapevine' s. This type of arrangement
: must be worked out between the TDH, State Board of Insurance, TRA, and
the remaining customers served by TRA.
s
It i s recommended that the Ci ty construct an addi ti onal 2.5 MG of ,,�
ground storage at the Water Treatment Plant at the time of the proposed
, ���
' plant expansion in 1990. The construction of the proposed ground stor-
age faci 1 i ti es at the WTP al so coul d be done i n stages. It i s recom-
mended that if staged construction of these facilities is adopted a 1.0
MG tank be constructed by 1990 and a 1.5 MG tank be completed by 1995.
�, Also, by 1995 it is recommended that a 1. 5 MG elevated storage tank be
' constructed near the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant. These im-
- provements will meet the Insurance and TDH requirements for elevated
� storage through ultimate development but ground storage will be defi-
` cient by approximately 3.88 MG unless an agreement can be reached to
allow Grapevine to include a portion of TRA' s ground storage in their
requirements.
'a�
6.4
,��.�
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC. I I
7.0 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
; �.x,;g 7.1 Existing Water Distribution System
The City of Grapevine' s existing water distribution system is
� �` illustrated on Plate I at the end of this report. Facilities construc-
ted since the 1981 Water Distribution Study have been shown as well as
incorporated into the computer model of the City' s distribution system.
The Mustang Drive 1.0 MG Elevated Tank and the 12-inch water lines in
Dove Road, Austin Street, Minters Chapel Road, Mustang Drive and Hall-
Johnson Road were under construction during the summer of 1985 and were
not included in the analysis of the water distribution system for 1985
conditions. They have been included in the analysis of the distribution
system for future conditions. Grapevine' s existing water distribution
system was analyzed for a 1985 maximum-hour demand of 13.96 MGD. The
, supplies from the high service pumping facilities and the elevated
�,.�
storage tanks are shown in Table 7. 1. Water distribution system
'� pressure contours for this condition are shown on Plate I.
There are four areas in the City where the computer analysis indi-
cated that the pressures were less than 40 pounds per square inch (psi)
� during maximum-hour conditions. Normally, it is desirable to maintain
operating pressures of at least 50 psi in residential areas and somewhat
more in industrial areas. During peak hours of heaviest summertime
demand, pressures of 40 psi are normally considered satisfactory but
lower pressures generally will not be acceptable. In two sections of
the City, tfie Northwest area along Kimball Road and the Northern area '
along Redbud Drive, low pressures are caused by excessive head loss in
the distribution pipelines supplying the areas. Both of these areas
�
7. 1
FREESE ANO NICHOLS,INC.
Tabl e 7. 1
City of Grapevine
' Water Distribution System Master Plan
� 1985 Maximum-Hour Sources of Supply I"'"�
��
Source Model Amount
Flow Pressure
_ (MGD) (PSI)
Grapevine Water Treatment Plant 4. 70 103
DFW Pump Station -0- 45
Trinity River Authority 2. 20 69
Sub-Total Pumping 6.90 �
i
Dove Road Elevated Tank 5.28
Barton Road Elevated Tank 1.78
Mustang Drive Elevated Tank (1) -0-
Sub-Total Elevated Storage 7.06
: Total 13.96
are experiencing rapid growth and in order to alleviate the low pres-
sures in these areas, additional pipelines should be constructed to ,,�
provide service to these areas.
�,,�
The remaining two areas of low pressure are located on the western
edge and in the southwest area of the City. Again, rapid growth is
occurring in these areas. This, along with the high ground elevation in
these areas, accounts for the low pressures. When the Mustang Drive
Elevated Tank is placed into service, pressures should increase.
The recommended balance of water supplied to the distribution
system during peak-hour conditions is 75 percent from pumping and 25
;
percent from storage. The balance of water supplied to the distribution
system during the analysis of the 1985 maximum-hour condition shown in
� Table 7. 1 was 49 percent from pumping and 51 percent from elevated
'�
, 7. 2
��
FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC. I I
i
storage. There are two reasons the supply to the system from pumping
during peak-hour conditions was less than the recommended 75 percent.
,�..,�
` The first is restrictions in the distribution system. The firm in-
; ,�,,,.� stal 1 ed rated capaci ty of the Water Treatment Pl ant i s 6.07 MGD. Re-
strictions in the water distribution system through the center of town
caused the pumps at the Water Treatment Plant to pump at higher operat-
ing heads which reduced the flow from the pumps. The two 16-inch pipe-
;
� lines from the Water Treatment Plant connect to 12-inch lines northeast
of the downtown area and this reduction in pipe diameter greatly reduces
the carrying capacity of the distribution system. In order to increase
the supply from the Water Treatment Plant, a major transmission line
. will be required to move the water across town.
Additional losses can be caused by accumulation of deposits on the
: interior of the pipe, even when the deposits are very thin and cause no
;
`' ' significant decrease in the area. The physical , chemical and biological
� �,� characteristics of water, and the choice of pipe materials are among the
factors that influence the nature and degree of deposition in pipelines.
To maintain the primary distribution network pipelines in reason-
ably good condition they can be cleaned. Several chemical and physical
�
techniques now exist for cleaning pipelines, and undoubtedly better
techniques will be developed in the future. The power consumed in the
operation of pumping units is directly proportional to the head, and the
;
head is directly proportional to the pipe size and internal condition of
' ; the pipelines. As the cost of energy continues to increase, a program
of cleaning all major transmission pipelines becomes more cost ef-
fective. The need to clean a pipeline can be determined by field tests.
� 7. 3
�
FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC.
This type of cleaning program should maintain most of the major trans-
mission pipelines with an adequate conveyance capability ("C" factor of
�
110 or higher). All transmission pipelines installed in the future
should include the construction of facilities required to permit the
insertion of pipe cleaning equipment.
- Most of the 10-inch and 12-inch pipelines through the downtown area
have been in service for many years and, as is the case with most pipe-
�; lines, have had their carrying capacities reduced by a build-up of
deposits on the interior of the pipe. One of the two 16-inch pipelines
from the Water Treatment Plant was placed into service in the early
1960' s and the other was placed into service in the early 1980' s.
Because these are the two major supply lines from the Water Treatment
Plant to the distribution system, it is recommended that the City begin
a program of testing and cleaning these lines to maintain a "C" factor
of 110 or higher in thse 16-inch lines as well as other major transmis- '�
� sion lines in the distribution system.
The second reason that the maximum-hour supply from pumping was
only 49 percent of the demand was that TRA did not have the facilities
- to furnish more than the 2.20 MGD shown in Table 7. 1. TRA currently is
expanding its Water Treatment Plant to a capacity of 27.0 MGD. This
expansion would be completed by the summer of 1986 and will increase the
supply into the City' s distribution system from TRA. In addition to
this plant expansion, the TRA currently is working on a second expansion
I of the same plant which would increase the capacity to 42.0 MGD. TRA
proposes to have this expansion completed by 1988.
� Because of the restrictions limiting the amount of water to the
,I
�.
7.4
��
- FREESE AND NIGHOLS�ING. I I
i
I
distribution system from pumping during peak periods, the remaining
supplies must come from elevated storage. Increasing the supply from
,�...�
elevated storage causes the tanks to empty in a very short period. This
�<.�
not only causes additional isolated areas of low pressures, bu* also
reduces the amount of stored water available for fire protection during
� peak use periods. The 1.0 MG Mustang Drive Elevated Tank under con-
; struction will provide additional stored water in the system for peak
;
usage and fire protection.
7.2 Proposed Water Distribution System
Improvements proposed for Grapevine' s Water Distribution System for
Ultimate Development are shown on Plate II. Maximum-hour sources of
supply to the distribution system for future conditions are shown in
Table 7.2. The pressure contours shown on Plate II represent maximum-
' ± hour pressures for ultimate conditions. The numbers by the recommended
� .
'I ; improvements correspond with the proposed program of improvements recom-
s �"s��°# mended i n Tabl es 8. 1 and 8. 2, and the detai 1 ed cost esti mates i n Ap-
pendix A.
For future conditions, 75 percent of the maximum-hour demand is
supplied from pumping and 25 percent from elevated storage. It is
recommended that the firm hi h service um in ca acit at the Water
9
P P 9 P Y
Treatment Plant be increased to 16. 00 MGD and that TRA supply the
;
balance of the high service pumping. By 1990, it is proposed that the
Water Treatment Plant' s rated capacity be increased to 8.00 MGD and an
addi ti onal 2. 5 MG of cl earwel 1 storage be constructed at the pl ant. A
1.5 MG elevated tank also is proposed by 1995. This tank should be
constructed near the City' s existing Wastewater Treatment Plant.
��
7. 5
, FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
I
I
Table 7. 2
City of Grapevine .�,
� Water Distribution System Master Plan
Future Maximum-Hour Sources of Supply
�
; Source 1990 2000 2027 I
; Flow Pres. Flow Pres. Flow Pres.
(MGD) (PSI) (MGD) (PSI) (MGD) (PSI)
= , Grapevine WTP 10.00 109 16.00 105 16. 00 90
' ', DFW Pump Station -0- 54 -0- 53 -0- 50
' TRA 9. 50 94 15. 66 94 33.00 97
i
= Sub-Total Pumping 19. 50 31. 66 49.00
Dove Rd. Elev. Tank 5. 28 3.61 5. 75
Barton Rd. Elev. Tank .50 1. 16 2. 56
Mustang Dr. Elev. Tank .84 2. 22 1. 52
Shadybrook Elev. Tank
(Proposed) -0- 3. 59 6. 53
Sub-Total Elev. Storage 6. 62 10. 58 16. 36
;
� TOTAL 26. 12 42. 24 65. 36
�
The treatment, storage and high service pumping improvements de- ��
scribed above, and the proposed pipelines shown on Plate II have been
i
sized to meet the projected peak-demand conditions for ultimate de-
- velopment. The scheduling of improvments is based on the projections of
population and land development growth rates r�ade in this study. In-
_ ' creases or decreases in these growth rates could change the estimated
; j
' times when projects have been proposed for construction. It is
� recommended that the City continue to monitor the population and land
I development growth rates to determine if recommended construction dates
made in this study should be revised.
� Recommended pipelines on Plate II have been proposed for three
,�
7. 6
��
�. FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC. I I
periods: 1987 through 1991, 1992 through 2000, and 2001 through 2027 or
ultimate development. There are three major pipelines recommended by
� �'� 1991. The first is a major 20/16/12-inch pipeline across the northern
; portion of the City. This pipeline is proposed by 1988 and would con-
; �
�
nect to the two existing 16-inch pipeiines from the Water Treatment
; Plant at the intersection of Northwest Highway and Ruth Wall Street and
travel in a northwesternly direction along the proposed future route of
1
�
� Dove Road. At Dove Loop Road this pipeline would reduce to a 16-inch
_ line and continue west along Dove Road reducing again to a 12-inch line
3
�
i near Park Boulevard where it would continue west to Snakey Lane.
� The second major line, which also is proposed by 1988, is the
;
completion of the 20-inch and 16-inch pipeline along the east side of
�
; State Highway 121. This pipeline was proposed in the 1981 study. The
;
third major line is a 24/20-inch transmission line from the Water Treat-
;
' ment Plant to the northeast part of the City. Based on construction
� �
� schedules provided by developers, this line would be required by 1987.
� ���
In addition to construction of these major transmission mains, it
is recommended that the City begin a program of testing and cleaning all
�
of its major transmission mains. By constructing the 20/16/12-inch
�
�
= pipeline and cleaning the existing 16-inch pipelines (C=120) from the
' Water Treatment Plant, it is estimated that carrying capacity of the two
3
16-inch pipelines can be increased from 4. 70 MGD to approximately 7.25
MGD while maintaining acceptable operating conditions at the Plant.
, � Additional lines proposed by 1991 are a 12-inch pipeline in Ball
i
'= Street, 16-inch and 12-inch pipelines in Dallas Road, and a 12-inch
; pipeline in Snakey Lane. These streets are proposed for reconstruction
�
,�:=J:�
7. 7
�
. FREESE AND NICHOLS�ING.
i
i'
and it is recommended that the water lines be included as a part of the
construction. The remaining lines recommended from 1986 through 1991
�
are to provide service in new growth areas or reinforce existing
. I portions of the distribution system.
�
There are two major pipelines proposed from 1992 through 2000. As
�
the supply of water from TRA increases, it will be necessary to move
this water from the southern to the northern portion of the City. The
first major pipeline is a 30/24-inch pipeline along State Highway 121
a from Timberline Drive northward across State Highway 114. The second
i pipeline is a combination 20-inch and 16-inch pipeline along William D.
= Tate Avenue and Ball Street to the proposed furture Dove Road extension.
�
The remaining lines proposed from 1992 through 2000 are to serve new
= growth areas.
Only two pipelines are proposed from 2001 through ultimate develop-
�
ment. The first is a 20-inch pipeline along Northwest Highway from �
� Fairway Drive northeastward to International Parkway. The second is a
; �
36/30-inch pipeline along State Highway 121 from the TRA delivery point
to Timberline Drive. These pipelines will be required to move large
quantities of water from one section of town to another as demands
increase in the future.
� In addition to analyzing the system for projected peak demands
�� I
based on the ultimate development of land within the existing City
. limits, three additional areas within Grapevine' s extraterritorial
l
s jurisdiction were included to determine if annexation of any or all of
±
the areas would change any of the improvements or necessitate additional
" � improvments. These tt�ree areas and their water use requirements are
�
' 7.8
�
FREESE AND NICHOLS,ING. I I�f
I
I
I
I �
i
�
�
� discussed in Section 3.0. The results of this additional analysis
�
i' indicate that the improvements proposed for ultimate development of the
: ,�.,,,
- land within the existing city limits also will be adequate if any or all
of the areas are annexed. No additional improvements will be required.
; ��
The proposed water distribution system also was evaluated based on
the fire flow requirements for various agencies. The TDH requires a �
minimum residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch under any and all
conditions of demands that can be placed on the system. The State Board
of Insurance states that a residual pressure of 20 PSI be maintained for
the following fire flow conditions: principal mercantile and industrial
I
� � areas, 3,000 GPM; light mercantile areas, 1,500 GPM; congested residen-
tial areas, 750 GPM; scattered residential areas, 500 GPM. The Fire
Prevention and Engineerin Bureau of Texas bases its fire flow re uire-
9
q
ments on an actual physical survey of the types of structures that must
,�. � be protected: The Bureau' s survey estimates that the fire flow in
� Grapevine should generally be equal to 2,000 GPM with the following ex-
I � �` � .
� ceptions: Hilton Hotel , 1,000 GPM; Lumber Yard at Dallas Road and
Business 114, 3,000 GPM; Middle School , 3,000 GPM; Main Street and
- Railroad Tracks, 3,000 GPM; Apartments at Dove Road and Park Blvd. ,
:
I 3,000 GPM; and the High School , 5,000 GPM. They suggest that the dis-
tribution system be capable of supplying these demands during peak-day
I conditions with a minimum residual pressure of 20 PSI.
�
� i
� ; Tank filling conditions also were imposed on the future water
distribution system to determine its ability to re-fill two-thirds of
' the volume of the elevated storage tanks in an eight-hour period. The
first tank to fill was the 1.0 MG Mustang Drive Tank followed by the
��.�
7. 9
�►
� FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC
i
0.25 MG Barton Road Tank and then the proposed 1. 5 MG Shadybrook Tank.
The 0.75 MG Dove Road Tank, because of its distance from the Water
I
' � Treatment Plant and the TRA source, was the last to fill . Favorable �
results were obtained when the future water distribution system was
. �
analyzed for fire flow and tank filling conditions. I�
In the 1981 Water Distribution System Study, a 20-inch pipeline was I
proposed from the Water Treatment Plant south to Northwest Highway then
� � southwesterly along the Highway to Ruth Wall Street. Because of the
I �
II major growth and development projections made in this study for the
northeast portion of the City, most of the water produced at the Water I
Treatment Plant will be used in this area. Based on the assumptions of
� population growth and land use development, this 20-inch pipeline will
not be required. However, if development occurs at a much slower rate
in the northeast portion of the City than projected in this study,
�
additional water would be available at the plant after the proposed
�
iplant expansion in 1990. Moving this water from the plant back to town
'�, ��
, would require the construction of a third pipeline. It is recommended
that Grapevine review the development and water consumption in the
northeast portion of the City at the time of the proposed water treat-
ment plant expansion to determine if a third pipeline to town is neces-
- sary. This third pipeline will allow the City to fully utilize the
� I plant' s treatment capacity and high service pumping facilities if growth �
` I does not occur in the northeast portion of the City.
i
1
{
�
�. 10
��
FREESE AND NIGHOlS�INC I
�
�
8.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
The proposed program of improvements for the period 1986 through
��
' 1991 is outlined in Table 8. 1. The improvements are divided into years
. �
and should be completed by the year indicated. The proposed location
for most of the pipelines and the elevated storage tank shown on Plate
II can be modified slightly without materially effecting the hydraulic
operation of the distribution system. Only those improvements that are
considered necessary for satisfactory operation of the system have been
included. Some of the pipelines have been oversized to allow for
anticipated ultimate development within the City. This study has
considered only the principal transmission lines in the system. In new
service areas, additional smaller lines also will be required.
The overall estimated total costs are intended to reflect the
complete cost of placing a line in service, including contingencies and
.�-x engineering and administration. These estimates are based on recent
construction costs. Right-of-way costs have not been included in these
�:�
costs. The cost on individual projects can be expected to vary above
and below the indicated cost, depending on actual costs at the time of
� construction. Unit costs and detailed estimates for each project have
, been included in Appendix A. The number associated with each project is
used to identify the project on Plate II.
The scheduling of improvements in Table 8. 1 was based on the needs
of the distribution system and foreseeable short term growth. It is
recommended that Grapevine continue to monitor its growth and water
' consumption to determine if the estimated completion dates for these
' projects should be adjusted.
;
�
8. 1
', �
� - FREESE AND NICHOLS�iNC.
Tab l e 8. 1
City of Grapevine
Water Distribution System Master Plan �
Proposed 1986 Throuqh 1991 Improvements Program
Year Description 1985 Total
Estimated Cost �"'
1986 1) 12-inch Ball Street Distribution Pipeline $ 175,313
2) Clean Water Treatment Plant Transmission
Pipelines 58,075
1986 Total $ 233,388
I 1987 3) 10-inch Glade Road Distribution Pipeline $ 98,175
' 4) 16-inch and 12-inch Dallas Road Distribu-
' tion Pipelines 243,375 �
5) 16/20-inch Northeast Transmission I
Pipeline 517,294
6) 12-inch Northeast Distribution Pipelines 762,I63 �
� 7) 12-inch Mustang Drive Distribution
' Pipeline 123,338
8) 8-inch State Highway 26 Distribution
Pipelines 138,600
- 1987 Total $ 1,882,945
1988 9) 10/16/12-inch Dove Road Transmission
Pipeline $ 1,018,861
10) 12-inch Snakey Lane Distribution Pipeline 218,213 ,�„
, 11) 20-inch and 16-inch State Highway 121
Distribution Pipelines 1,212,250
1988 Total $ 2,449,324 ��►
;
1989 12) 12-inch and 8-inch Parr Lane Distribution
, Piplines $ 310,052
13) St. Louis Southwestern R. R.
Distribution Pipelines 154,963
1989 Total $ 465,015
_ 1990 14) Water Treatment Plant Improvements $ 6,492,992
15) 12-inch State Highway 360 Distribution
Pipeline 259,325
16) 8-inch Northwest Distribution Pipelines 341,141
17) 8-inch Ruth Wall-Bushong Distribution
{ Pipelines 213,978
1990 Total $ 7,307,436
� 1991 18) Kimball Road Distribution Line 273,405
�
1986 THROUGH 1991 TOTAL $12,611,513
��
8. 2
FREESE AND NICHOLS�iNC. I'I}��
Estimated total cost for the 1986 through 1991 program is
$12,611,513. The largest expenditure is $6,492,992 in 1990 when the
; �...�
water treatment plant capacity is increased from 4.0 MGD to 8.0 MGD and
=. �.,.
additional storage and high service pumping facilities are constructed.
Improvements recommended from 1992 through 2027 (ultimate develop-
ment) are shown in Table 8.2. The total 1985 estimated cost of these !
i improvements is $6,715,633. The largest single expenditure during this �
period is $1,650,825 for a 1. 5 MG elevated tank.
i�
I
P
I
� ' i
� �._...:�
I
�.:.�.fla. I
8. 3 �I
�
FREESE AND NICHOLS,ING. I
i
Table 8. 2
City of Grapevine
Water Distribution S stem Master Plan �
Proposed 1992 Throu h 2027 Improvements
, Description 1985 Total �+►
Estimated Cost
19) 30/24-inch State Highway 121 Transmission Pipeline $1,158,882
20) 20-inch and 16-inch Ball Street Transmission
Pipeline 677 963
�
21) 1.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank 1,650,825 �
: �
22) 12-inch Business 114 Distribution Pipeline 154,963
23) 12-inch Parr Road Development Pipeline 168,438 I
24) 12-inch State Highway 114 Distribution Pipeline 183,425
25) 12-inch State Highway 360 Development Pipelines 919,655
�
26) 16-inch and 12-inch Northeast Development
Pipelines 265,650
27) 20-inch Northeast Supply Pipeline 479,931 �
28) 36/30-inch State Highway 121 Supply Pipeline 1,055,901
1992 THROUGH 2O00 TOTAL $6,715,633
�
i
3
i
I�
8.4 �
�
i�-�
� FREESE AN�NICHOLS�INC.
i'
, ,� _.
.�,.�
�
:
APPENDIX A
COST ESTIMATES
� ,.,
�,.�
;
��
' FREESE ANO NIGMOlS,INC.
i
�
� � Appendix A
Table of Contents
i
Description page
�
� Table A-1 Water Distribution System Pipeline Construction Cost A-1
1
�,
Table A-2 Miscellaneous Water Distribution System Unit Costs A-2
1) Ball Street Distribution Lines q-3 ,
2) Clean Water Treatment Plant Transmission Lines A-4
3) Glade Road Distribution Line A-5
i 4) Dallas Road Distribution Lines A-6
�
� 5) Northeast Transmission Lines q-7
�
6) Northeast Distribution Lines q-g
7) Mustang Drive Distribution Line q-g
8) State Highway 26 Distribution Line A-10
9) Dove Road Transmission Line A-11 �
10) Snakey Lane Distribution Line A-12
11) State Highway 121 Distribution Line A-13
12) Parr Lane Distribution Lines A-14
�
i
i 13) St. Louis Southwestern RR Distribution Line A-15
;
' 14) Water Treatment Plant Improvements A-16
i
15) State Highway 360 Distribution Line A-17
I� 16) Northwest Distribution Lines A-18
17) Ruth Wall-Bushong Distribution Lines A-19
�, 18) Kimball Road Distribution Line A-20
�, 19) State Highway 121 Transmission Line A-21
� I, 20) Ball Street Transr�ission Line q-22
i
.,:�:
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
I
�
�
1
1
�
Appendix A
�.=,
Table of Contents, Continued
21) 1.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank A-23
' � 22) Business 114 Distribution Line A-24
23) Parr Road Development Lie A-25
' 24) State Highway 114 Distribution Line A-26
25) State Highway 360 Development Line A-27
26) Northeast Development Lines A-28
27) Northeast Supply Line A-29
28) State Highway 121 Supply Line A-30
�.�.
�:�
;
s
e� n»
FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC.
Table A-1
City of Grapevine
' Water Distribution S stem Master Plan
Water Distribution System Pipeline Construction Cost „�
Diameter Base Unit Cost Unit Cost of Pipeline
. for Pipeline Installed with Related Items Installed
(Inches) ($/L. F. ) ($/L. F. )
6 15.00 18. 75
8 18.00 22. 50
= 10 21.00 26.25
12 25. 00 31.25
16 30.00 37. 50
. 7-8 34.00 44.20
2� 38.00 49.40
= 24 46.00 59.80
� 30 57.00 74. 10
;
33 63.00 gl, 9p ,,,�,
36 68.00 88.40
���
42 78.00 101.40
48 92.00 119. 60
54 114.00 148.20
60 120. 00 156.00
3
�
I�.
A-1 I
,,�
' FREESE AND NIGMOLS�ING.
Table A-2
City of Grapevine
Water Distribution System Master Plan
�, :,. Miscellaneous Water Distribution System Unit Costs
�,:..
SORINGS
Casing Size Unit Cost
(in) ($/L. F. )
18 200.00
24 250.00
27 280.00
33 330.00
36 350.00
42 400.00
48 450.00
54 500.00
60 550.00
�: ._
' 66 600.00
' ��� 72 650. 00
PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT $20.00 S.Y.
ELEVATED STORAGE TANKS 0.50 MG = $ 585,000
1.00 MG = $1,131,000
1.50 MG = $1,696,500
2.00 MG = $2,262,000
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION $1.00 per gallon
�...�
A-2
�
FREESE AND NIGNOlS�ING.
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line I
�
Description: 1) Ball Street Distribution Lines �
Estimated Construction Date: 1986
�
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
12-inch Pipeline 4,080 LF $31.25 $127,500
Subtotal $127,500 j
" Contingencies 25% 31,875
Estimated Construction Cost $159,375
- i
Engineering and Administration 10% 15,938 �
� TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $175,313
�
i
: ��
�
3
A-3 i
'�,,:�
� FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC. I I
i
,
�
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line ,I
i
I
,�. ,
Description: 2) Clean Water Treatment Plant Transmission Lines �
Estimated Construction Date: 1986 �;
i I I
�r��
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost I,
!i
Clean 16 Pipelines 19,200 LF L. S. $50,500 I
�
Subtotal $50,500 ;
I
Contingencies 15% 7,575 �
i
Estimated Construction Cost $58,075 '�
;�
Engineering and Administration 10% 0
�
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $58,075 �
i
�
��
�I
� �
�,.,.
I
" �� I
�
I
�
�
�� �
�;
A-4 �
t
, � � ( FREESE AND NIGHOLS,INC
II
1
�
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
i
' �
'! Description: 3) Glade Road Distribution Line ,,,;�,
Estimated Construction Date: 1987
�
i
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost i
10-inch Pipeline 2,720 LF $26.25 $71,400 j�
' I
Subtotal $71,400 I
;
�I� Contingencies 25% 17,850
Estimated Construction Cost $gg,25p �I
� Engineering and Administration 10% 8,925 I
I'
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $98,175 !
�
i
�
���
- �
I
' i
� I
A-5 '
r,,�»
�. FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC. I�
il il
I
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line �
I
��-� Description: 4) Dallas Road Distribution Lines
Estimated Construction Date: 1987 �
��
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost ;
i
12-inch Pipeline 3,360 LF $ 31.25 $105,000 (
16-inch Pipeline 1,920 LF 37.50 72,000
i
Subtotal $177,000 i
Contingencies 25% 44,250
�I
; Estimated Construction Cost $221,250 i
� Engineering and Administration 10% 22,125
�
� TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 243 375 II
$ ,
I
� I
�
I
I
�,� ii
� i
��
I
I
• I
�
�,.::�, i
I�
A-6 i
� I
FREESE AND NICHOLS,INC .
i
�
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
�
! Description: 5) Northeast Transmission Lines
Estimated Construction Date: 1987
�
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
20-inch Pipeline 5,760 LF $49.40 $284,544
24-inch Pipeline 2,080 LF 59.80 124,384
�
Subtotal $408,928
Contingencies 15% 61,339 �
Estimated Construction Cost $470,267
Engineering and Administration 10% 47,027
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $517,294
' ��
�
�
;
a �
A-7 ,,�,�,�
� FREESE AND NIGHOLS�iNC
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line I
; �` " Description: 6) Northeast Distribution Lines
Estimated Construction Date: 1987
�n�� �
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
12-inch Pipeline 19,280 LF $31.25 $602,500
I
Subtotal $602,500
� Contingencies 15% 90,375
,
Estimated Construction Cost $692,875 !
_ �
Engineering and Administration 10% 69,288
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $762,163
�
� �
j I
, �, .. �
,
�
�
�'I
i
�
�,I'
�
�
I ��
A-8 j
� ,
FREESE AND NIGHOLS,INC. I
I
1
I
I
�
I
II
�
i
�i Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line ,
'' � I I
� �
Description: 7) Mustang Drive Distribution Line
Estimated Construction Date: 1987 �,,,�
,
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
12-inch Pipeline 3,120 LF $31.25 $ 97,500
�
�, Subtotal $ 97,500
` ��� I
'�, Contingencies 15% 14,625 �
�
Estimated Construction Cost $112,125
' Engineering and Administration 10% 11,213
� TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $123,338 !
�
. i�
�
I
I
I
j �
I �
i
i
�
� ,
�
I
�
i
�
,i
A-9 ��
FREESE AND NICHOLS�iNC
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
� �� 4 Description: 8) State Highway 26 Distribution Line
Estimated Construction Date: 1987
� �,.;�
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
8-inch Pipeline 4,480 LF $22.50 $100,800
Subtotal $100,800
� Contingencies 25% 25,200
Estimated Construction Cost $126,000
Engineering and Administration 10% 12,600
' TOTAL ESTIMATED CQST $138,600
3
� �, �
: .�.,,�
;
� �� �
I
A-10 j
i
' FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC
I
I
� Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line I
� Description: 9) Dove Road Transmission Line �
Estimated Construction Date: 1988
�
�
Item uantit llnit Cost Cost I�
i 12-inch Pipeline 3,200 LF $31.25 $ 100,000
16-inch Pipeline 2,640 LF 37.50 99,000 �'
20-inch Pipeline 10,560 LF 49.40 521,664
_ Pavement Replacement 2,560 SY 20.00 51,200
I Subtotal �
$ 771,864 I,
�
; Contingencies 20% 154,373 �
� i
� Estimated Construction Cost
; $ 926,237
z ��
� Engineering and Administration 10% 92,624
' ' TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ��
i $1,018,861 I
I
�
�
�
,�
�
I
, I
�
�
i
_ ,
� i
s
,
�
'�
�
A-11 ��,
' FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC. ___
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
i ��-M Description: 10) Snakey Lane Distribution Line
Estimated Construction Date: 1988
; ���
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
12-inch Pipeline 5,520 LF $31.25 $172,500
Subtotal $172,500
;
Contingencies 15% 25,875
Estimated Construction Cost $198,375
, i
Engineering and Administration 10% 19,838
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $218,213
�w ,
, �,,�
;
�
�,.�
. A-12
' FREESE AND NICMOLS�iNC
i
i
I
� Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line I
��
�
: Description: 11) State Highway 121 Distribution Line
Estimated Construction Date: 1988 ��
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
� 16-inch Pipeline 2,720 LF $ 37.50 $ 102,000 ,
20-inch Pipeline 6,000 LF 49.40 296,400 �
Highway Crossing 24-inch 550 LF 250.00 137,500 ;
_ Highway Crossing 33-inch 1,280 LF 330.00 422,400 �
� Subtotal �
� $ 958,300 �
i
' Contingencies 15% 143,745 I�
� �
�
Estimated Construction Cost $1,102,045 �
�
i
� Engineering and Administration 10% 110,205 �
�
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,212,250 i
- � I
�
' (
�
»
i
I
I
�
�
i
� ,
'; ' I
I
i�
� �
�
' I
�
� A-13 ��
� I�,
I FREESE AND NICHOLS,iNC I I
i
I
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line �
.�: �
- Description: 12) Parr Lane Distribution Lines
�°�" Estimated Construction Date: 1989
�
,
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost �
�
I
8-inch Pipeline 2,560 LF $22.50 $ 57,600
12-inch Pipeline 6,000 LF 31.25 187,500 ,
Subtotal $245,100
Contingencies 15% 36,765
,
Estimated Construction Cost $281,865
Engineering and Administration 10% 28,187
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $310,052
�
�
�
i
�- .
��
: �
,
' �`�"" A-14
� � FREESE ANO NICHOLS�ING.
i
��
�
' Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
�w
Description: 13) St. Louis Southwestern RR Distribution Line
� ,
I Estimated Construction Date: 1989
, i �
�
' Item uantit Unit Cost Cost ;
� ' �
, 12-inch Pipeline 3,920 LF $31.25 $122,500 ;
; ' Subtotal $122,500
� i
II Contingencies 15% 18,375 j
�
� ', Estimated Construction Cost $140,875 I
-. , . . . �
, I Engineering and Administration 10% 14,088
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $154,963 �
, I
;
_ �I �..�
i ��
,
I
I
_ I
�
I �
�
�
9
�
A-15 ;..,�
; ', FREESE AN�NICHOLS�iNG I
j
I
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
; �,�� Description: 14) Water Treatment Plant Improvements
Estimated Construction Date: 1989
��
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
�
4.0 MGD Plant Expansion 1 EA LS $4,000,000
2.5 MG Ground Storage Capacity 1 EA LS 447,200
10 MGD High Service Pump Station 1 EA LS 685,600
Subtotal $5,132,800
j Contingencies 15% 769,920
_ 'I
Estimated Construction Cost � $5,902,720
Engineering and Administration 10% 590,272
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $6,492,992
�E>�,
;
�
s
_
i
�
;
, .
,�;.:�
- A-16
�
� FREESE AN�NICMOL.S�INC.
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
I �
Description: 15) State Highway 360 Distribution Line
Estimated Construction Date: 1990
�
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
12-inch Pipeline 6,560 LF $31.25 $205,000 �
Subtotal $205,000 i
Contingencies 15% 30,750
Estimated Construction Cost $235,750 �
,
Engineering and Administration 10% 23,575
: TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $259,325
, I
�
.�
i
�
��
A-17
i I�
FREESE ANO NICHOLS�INC.
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
� .r
Description: 16) Northwest Distribution Lines
� �,,,�, Estimated Construction Date: 1990
i
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
8-inch Pipeline 7,600 LF $22.50 $171,000
Pavement Replacement 3,378 SY 20.00 67,560
Subtotal $238,560
Contingencies 30% 71,568
Estimated Construction Cost $310,128
Engineering and Administration 10% 31,013
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $341,141
; �. ,,
�:„�
;
�
�rt� I
�,,,,, A-18
� � FREESE ANO NICMOLS�ING.
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line �
' I
�
Description: 17) Ruth Wall - Bushong Distribution Lines
Estimated Construction Date: 1990 ��,,;
�
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost i
�
8-inch Pipeline 6,000 LF $22.50 $135,000 i
Pavement Replacement 1,031 SY 20.00 20,620 �
' I
! Subtotal $155,620
Contingencies 25% 38,905
Estimated Construction Cost $194,525 ��
I
Engineering and Administration 10% 19,453
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $213,978
,�
', ;.�.
��
;
i
q-19 �.,:�
FREESE AND NIGMO�S�INC.
� Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line ,
, �,.,� Description: 18) Kimball Road Distribution Line I
Estimated Construction Date: 1991 i
�.� I
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
12-inch Pipeline 5,680 LF $31.25 $177,500
Pavement Replacement 1,067 SY 20.00 21,340 i
Subtotal $198,840 i
Contingencies 25% 49,710
_ �
Estimated Construction Cost $248,550
�
Engineering and Administration 10% 24,855
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $273,405
i
� ,�
���
�.,�
A-20
�
� FREESE AND NICHOLS�iNC.
. —�
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
Description: 19) State Highway 121 Transmission Line
, Estimated Construction Cost: 1992-2000 .3,�r
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost I
24-inch Pipeline 2,960 LF $ 59.80 $ 177,008
30-inch Pipeline 5,440 LF 74. 10 403,104
Highway Crossing 36-inch 960 LF 350. 00 336,000
Subtotal $ 916,112
Contingencies 15% 137,417
Estimated Construction Cost $1,053,529 �
Engineering and Administration 10% 105,353
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST � $1,158,882
i
: �
s,�
,
�
� A-21 �. ..�
- FREESE AND NICFIO�S,INC �
� Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
,�.-,
Description: 20) Ball Street Transmission Line
�4� Estimated Construction Date: 1992-2000
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
16-inch Pipeline 2,960 LF $37.50 $111,000
20-inch Pipeline 6,400 LF 49.40 316,160
Pavement Replacement 2,347 SY 20.00 46,940
Subtotal $474,100
Contingencies 30°6 142,230
Estimated Construction Cost $616,330
Engineering and Administration 10% 61,633
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $677,963
� �
�,:� I
�
,�-A�,
'�' A-22
� FREESE ANO NICHOlS�iNC. I
I Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
�
Description: 21) 1. 5 MG Elevated Storage Tank
Estimated Construction Date: 1992-2000 ��,�
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
1.5 MG Elevated Tank 1 EA L.S. $1,305,000
� Subtotal $1,305,000 �
Contingencies 15% 195,750
Estimated Construction Cost $1,500,750
i
� Engineering and Administration 10% 150,075
, T07AL ESTIMATED COST $1,650,825
. ,
�
�
.�:�.
3
I
i
f
�
i
�
q-23 I.. �
. FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC. I
i
I
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line I
,�:::.q
Description: 22) Business 114 Distribution Line
�,�
Estimated Construction Qate: 1992-2000
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
i
12-inch Pipeline 2,960 LF $ 31.25 $ 92,500
Railroad Crossing 18-inch 150 LF 200.00 30,000 I,
i
Subtotal $122,500 i
I
Contingencies 15% 18,375 i
Estimated Construction Cost $140,875 j
Engineering and Administration 10% 14,088
I
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $154,963 �
��- M �
��
�=� �
' �
A-24
� FREESE AND NIGHOLS�ING.
I
I
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
Description: 23) Parr Road Development Line
Estimated Construction Date: 1992-2000
�
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
12-inch Pipeline 3,920 LF $ 31. 25 $122,500
_ Subtotal $122,500 �
Contingencies 25% 30,625
Estimated Construction Cost $153,125
Engineering and Administration 10% 15,313
2 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $168,438
�
.,.>;.�
i
;
i
�
i
A-25 �
,.�.�
FREESE AND NICHOLS�ING. I
i '
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line
�. ..
Description: 24) State Highway 114 Distribution Line
�n�� Estimated Construction Oate: 1992-2000 �
�
i
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost ''�'
i
12-inch Pipeline 2,720 LF $ 31.25 $ 85,000 �
Highway Crossing 18-inch 150 LF 200.00 30,000 !
Railroad Crossing 18-inch 150 LF 200.00 30,000
I
Subtotal $145,000 �
Contingencies 15% 21,750
Estimated Construction Cost $166,750 i
Engineering and Administration 10% 16,675
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $183,425 !
�
I
I
I
,�<,,� i�
�� '
�
`� �� I
I
` `"�` A-26
� �REESE AND NiGHOlS,INC. I
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line i
��
�
Description: 25) State Highway 360 Development Lines
Estimated Construction Date: 1992-2000 �r
. I
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost �
; 12-inch Pipeline 17,120 LF $ 31.25 $535,000
Highway Crossing 18-inch 960 LF 200.00 192,000
Subtotal $727,000 �
�
Contingencies 15% 109,050 (I
Estimated Construction Cost $836,050 Ii
Engineering and Administration 10% 83,605 �
�
�
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $919,655
; i
t �
�P��.
�
I
I
�
j�
. A-27 �.�.,�.
FREESE AND NIGHOLS INC �
i
, Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line �
� ,� �
;
Description: 26) Northeast Development Lines I
`�""� Estimated Construction Date: 1992-2000
�
�
;
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
's
� 12-inch Pipeline 2,880 LF $31.25 $ 90,000 �,
16-inch Pipeline 3,200 LF 37.50 120,000 I
�
i
- Subtotal $210,000 �
Contingencies 15% 31,500
3
�
. Estimated Construction Cost $241,500 �
° Engineering and Administration 10% 24,150 i
�
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $265,650
I
3 I
i
� �y:.:...,.:...�.
)
�ir�
�
�
{
3
�� I
A-28
� I FREESE AND NICHOLS�iNG
I
I
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line ,;
�•w
Description: 27) Northeast Supply Line
���
Estimated Construction Date: 2001-2027 II
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
12-inch Pipeline 7,680 LF $49.40 $379,392
Subtotal $379,392 �
�
' Contingencies 15% 56,909 I
I
� Estimated Construction Cost $436,301 I
�
Engineering and Administration 10% 43,630 ,
� I
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $479,931 i
I
- �
�
- ;
�
�
I
'�
».,,�,
A-29 I�
�
FREESE ANO NICHOLS�iNC I
i
Estimated Construction Cost - Water Line I
�. ,
Description: 28) State Highway 121 Supply Line
'�V-� Estimated Construction Date: 2001-2027
i
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
30-inch Pipeline 5,920 LF $74.10 $ 438,672 !
36-inch Pipeline 4,480 LF 88.40 396,032
Subtotal $ 834,704
Contingencies 15% 125,206
Estimated Construction Cost $ 959,910
Engineering and Administration 10% 95,991
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,055,901
, ,�..., I I I
�
I
i
' ��.
�"` A-30
I
� FREESE AND NICHOLS� iNC I �
EXHIBIT "A" TO
ORDINANCE NO. 87-02
,�.�.
G RAPEVIN E, TE�CAS
��
M
.v`
A FUTURE WITH A PAST
�„,:..
`� WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
MASTE R PLAN
DECEMBER 1985
' �. L INC.
FR N I H S
EESE A D N C O
� �
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
�
i
Table of Contents �
�
Section page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY l. l ��'�
�
2.0 POPULATION AND LAND USE 2, 1
3.0 WASTEWATER FLOWS 3.1
3. 1 Historical Wastewater Flows 3. 1
3.2 Infiltration and Inflow 3, 5 �
3.3 Projected Wastewater Flows 3,g
4.0 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM 4. 1
4.1 Design Criteria 4.1
4.2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 4,2
= 4.3 Lift Stations 4,3 i
4.4 Analysis of Wastewater Collection System 4.5
5.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 5. 1
APPENDIX A COST ESTIMATES
�
PLATE I DRAINAGE AREAS
PLATE II OVERLOADED WASTEWATER FACILITIES
PLATE III PROPOSED WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR '"��'
ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT
�
'�
,�
FREESE AND NIGHOLS�ING.
List of Tables (
�...
Table page
2.1 Estimates of Population and Land Use for
�'"�" Current and Ultimate Conditions 2.2
2. 2 Estimates of Population and Land Use by Year 2.5
" 2.3 Estimated Population and Land Use by Service Area 2.7
2.4 Population and Land Use by Drainage Area 2.8
- 3.1 Historical Average-Day Wastewater Flow 3.2
3.2 Average-Day Wastewater Flow Compared to
: Average-Day Water Use 3.3 �
I
3.3 Lift Station Run Times 3.7 �
3.4 Projected Average-Day Wastewater Flows 3.11
= 3.5 Projected Average-Day Wastewater Flows by
Service Area 3. 12
3.6 Comparison of Projected Average-Day Water Use
' �= and Projected Average-Day wastewater Flow 3. 13
' �
3.7 Projected Wastewater Flows by Service Area 3. 17
4. 1 Existing Lift Station Characteristics 4.4
5.1 Proposed 1986 Through 1991 Improvements Program 5.2
5.2 Proposed 1992 Through 2027 Improvements Program 5.4
;
� ��
'I
, FREESE AND NiCH0�5�iNC.
List of Figures �
��
�
�
Fi ure After Page
2.1 Planning Areas 2,4 �
3.1 Historical Water and Wastewater Flows 3.2
3.2 1983 Monthly Water and Wastewater Flow 3.4
3. 3 1984 Monthly Water and Wastewater Flow 3.4
j ', 3.4 Peach Street Wastewater Treatment Plant
' October 1, 1984 3,4 I
3. 5 Peach Street Wastewater Treatment Plant
October 24, 1985 3.5 i
3. 6 Projected Water and Wastewater Flows 3.13
�
,.�
,�
���
FREESE AND NICHOLS�iNC
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
,� ,
The purpose of this study is to update the Master Plan for the City
' ,�,,� of Grapevine' s wastewater collection system. This plan allows for the
development of the system in an orderly and economical manner for pro- �
jected ultimate conditions. Ultimate conditions are defined as the
a
development of all available land within the existing city limits based �
�
on current zoning regulations. To accomplish this purpose, the report �
' will : (a) inventory existing facilities, (b) review existing population
�
and land use and project future population and land use, {c) review
� existing wastewater flows and project future wastewater flows, and (d)
I
develop a plan for meeting these requirements.
Data for developing the Master Plan were collected from all avail-
able sources, including operating records, production reports, con-
�'� sultant' s reports, local and state governmental agencies, developers,
` � and the City' s Staff. Grateful appreciation is expressed for data and
' assistance received from several individuals and agencies, including the
City of Grapevine' s Engineering and Wastewater Departments for their
very helpful advice and cooperation.
Population and land use projections made in this study are based on
existing development and the City' s current zoning regulations. The
' 1985 population for the City of Grapevine is estimated to be 22,026.
The population for ultimate development is projected to increase to
approximately 62,873. Based on historical population growth rates, it
: is projected that Grapevine could reach this population by the year
;
I� 2000. In 1985 approximately 326.43 acres within the City contained
� Q7�'"" commercial/industrial and hotel/corporate office development. For ulti-
II�
I
I �
� 1. 1
iFREESE AND NICHOLS�ING. I
�
I
IF
mate conditions, it is estimated that approximately 4,138.34 acres will
contain commercial/industrial and hotel/corporate office development. �
Based on historical growth trends, it is projected that this type of
�
land use could reach full development by the year 2027.
Grapevine is served by two separate wastewater collection systems.
. The area generally north of the St. Louis Southwestern Railroad is in
the Peach Street service area and wastewater flows from this area are
� treated at the City' s Peach Street wastewater treatment plant. The
remainder of the City is in the Trinity River Authority' s (TRA) service
area and these wastewater flows are treated at the TRA plant in Irving.
Plans are being completed which will increase the Peach Street
Plant' s capacity from 1.75 MGD to 3.75 MGD. Based on the projections
- made in this study, this increase in capacity will be adequate through
the year 2000. After the year 2000, it is recommended that the plant be ,�,
expanded to 7.00 MGD. This expansion will meet the needs for ultimate
���
development in the Peach Street Service Area.
Average-day wastewater flow for Grapevine in 1984 was 1.84 million
', gallons per day (MGD). The 1985 average-day flow is estimated to be
. 2.20 MGD. It wi 11 i ncrease to 4. 18 MGD i n 1990, 6.77 MGD i n 2000, and
11.39 MGD in the year 2027. When evaluating the capacity of the
existing wastewater collection system peak two-hour flow rates are used.
The 1985 estimated peak two-hour flow in the Peach Street Service Area
�I i s 6.80 MGD, pro jected to i ncrease to 22. 15 MGD i n the year 2027. The
peak two-hour flow in the TRA Service Area is estimated to be 3.36 MGD
in 1985 and will increase to 17. 01 MGD in the year 2027.
Infiltration and inflow (I/I) associated with a peak two-hour flow �r,
1.2 ;�
FREESE AND NICHOlS�INC.
for Grapevine' s wastewater collection system is estimated to be ap-
�` y roximatel 183
p y gallons per capita per day. This quantity of water
entering the system is considered excessive. The City has started
��
studies which will determine the locations and quantities of the I/I.
It is recommended that the City follow up these studies with the
: necessary improvements which will reduce the extraneous water entering
the system. Not only will this reduce the capacities required for
future improvements to the system, it also will reduce operation and
maintenance costs for the lift stations and the Peach Street Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
Several improvements have been proposed which will allow the
wastewater collection system to be developed in an orderly and economi-
cal manner. These improvements are shown on Plate III at the end of
�s..,
this report. Major improvements from 1986 through 1991 include pro-
viding wastewater collection system facilities to serve northeast
���
Grapevine and the construction of a parallel 30-inch East Side Outfall
sewer. The major improvement recommended from 1992 through ultimate
conditions is a 3.25 MGD expansion of the Peach Street Wastewater
Treatment Plant. A summary of the estimated cost of the improvements
proposed for the wastewater collection system in terms of 1985 dollars
is shown below.
Improvements which have been proposed in this Master Plan are based
on the projections of population and land use and wastewater flows made
in this report. It is recommended that the City of Grapevine continue
to monitor its population and land use development and wastewater flows.
; �
If actual conditions differ from the projections made in this study, it
''�' 1. 3
FREESE ANO NIGFIOLS�ING.
Year Estimated Cost
I
�
1986 $ 0
1987 1,171,881 ""�"
19$$ 246,641
1989 397,760
1990 402,191
I 1991 145,151
1986-1991 $ 2,363,624
= 1992-2027 8,140,103
1986-2027 $10,503,727
may be necessary to adjust the recommended completion date or revise
� some of the proposed improvements.
�
�.
i
�
. i
1.4 ',�
� FREESE AND NIGMOLS,ING.
i �
� I
i
I 2. 0 POPULATION AND LAND USE
I�
� Population and Land Use estimates used in this update of the
�:_�. I
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan are the same as those used in �
�
�,� the accompanying report updating the Water Distribution System Master
Plan. The methodology used to arrive at future population and land use I
� i
� is described in detail in the water system report. The results of the �
i
� population and land use analysis are discussed below. !
��
' Table 2. 1 shows the estimates of population and land use for
I
current and ultimate conditions. Current conditions are defined as !
development as of May 1985 and ultimate conditions are defined as �
;
I
development of all available land within the city limits based on cur-
rent zoning regulations. The planning areas are illustrated on Figure
2.1 and correspond to the City' s 1 inch equals 200 feet base maps.
Population and land use projections were made for four categories:
'I "" 1 residential population in owner occupied dwelling units (RES 0/0) ,
; ,,��, residential population in renter occupied dwelling units (RES R/0) ,
� commercial and industrial (C/I) acreage, and Hotel/Corporate Office
'�
(HCO) acreage.
iTable 2.2 shows population and land use estimates from 1985 through
I
ultimate development. Assuming future population and land use growth
occurs at historical rates, ultimate development could be reached in the
year 2027. Grapevine' s total population is projected to increase from
i 22,026 in 1985 to 62,873 at ultimate development.
�
The City of Grapevine currently is served by two wastewater col-
lection system service areas. The Peach Street service area generally
includes all of the area north of the St. Louis Southwestern Railroad
���.
' ` I 2. 1
; � i�
` _ FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC I
I
000000000000 � 0000000000
N � �
= u `D �w
¢
N O N 1� O O �-i 00 ct tn N � 00 O N ct tD cD O !� N O �t
�.['IQIt.C') M O �F' OOCt000 � MO �-10Mr-i �' t� �
N tgc�f
�n OJ I`� Nt.C) lD OQlNO00ri � rif� ►1') �' r--1 �' OOtD
C t-1 L O1 r1 rl r--I N N O 00 I`� ri 00 N M Q1 QO �t' 00
O U r-� r-i rl N N N �--I
.� G..) Q
�
�r
�
C C
O O
UO•r' OCOOOOQII`� d' Mf� QllDrlOOl� ctO000r-IlD
+� O'1 I� M � NIDMOID 000 � t� r�
N � R7 f� tD CO d- �' M lD lD r-1 �!'f M M N
+-� I �
rd tn � r-� rl � r-I �' r--1 N
' E aJ
•r � 0
� �
r
�
C
C O
�0 O •�- OI'� Mt.f) NMOOMtl� Or-� OOOOOQINQ1NOOcYct �'
r- N N +� N 1� O L.f) n 1� O'1 N t.C) lD t.C) 00 lD N 00 rl M d' M
a- � C O �U MMQ1 � �-1lD �I") 001001 NOf� cfl�• NN �
� O I r--
� L •r tn � ri r-I r--I M N r-I N N rl M N N M r--1
i t�n r17 '0 � a
tC -! C
� O
I C E C U
' •r N �0 d
> +� +�
' �I N w c ro
' O E
: N �0 (n •r •r
I S- +� +-�
' N C.7 C c0 '- t!� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r- O r- � O N
� � •r � U L
�6 O +� "a 2 U �
1- U O C ¢
� d d �
�..) r
•rr- �. +•� NNr100001� � OO1000000tt) QO r-� �--1000
U O O C tn N �t N Qp M QO rl 00 t.f) Ql I� ,�,
U N r-� N
�n L tn L N N � O �' I.f) M rl rl O I.f)
: S.. N i C U U N N r-i N
N +� � O <L r-�
+� R3 C.) •r
� E +�
3 •r L. •r- C
41 +� O 'Lf O
I }� � � CQ •r OM000011� 00f� OOOOOOI� t.C) 000000
I M W O -I� I� nM � 01Q1 � NI�
' � U � � c,0 W 00 � t.C') a0 r-1 �'
'. +� �A 7 r� r�
c v
a� � o
L a.
�
�
U C
O
O •r OnlDQlf� 00MLl� NOM0000 �' Mr-IL!') MOOON
+� � 00 �' Q1 00 N r-I ri 00 1� rl r-i N l0 CD Q1 Q1
O � �t N N M M Op � N M rl N lD � 00 tD
I r-'
�n � N r--I r�
N
� O
n.
�
c
•r
� �
C �
[p L
r- Q r--1NMCt' t.f') lDI� 00010r� NMd' l.f) IDI� OpQIOr--INM
d e--{ +-1 r-i r-� ri +-1 r-� r--I �--I r-1 N N N N
�!
2.2 �.�
FIiEESE AND NIGMOLS�INC I
i
N O O O O O O O O � N� O � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O II
O OJ
�,;..., 2 ¢ r�-I 0�0 Ql 00 I
O O O Q1 M Q1 cr' O O O �F' O � tD O lD a0 O O O O O O O O O O
O lD Ql Ol d' O O O r-� � cf' �--I N O 1�
�,� tA . . . . . . . . . . .
N d Ql NIOd' I� Q1lDNNd' OOID rIQ1 N
Gr-+ S.. d' Mrll� rlf� Ct' r� d1r1 �' M
O \ U rl M M r-� e--I cr r�
•r C> Q
�
•r
�
C C
O O
UO •r OOOONr-1000000000000000000000
\ +� 00 � r-1
N � �U r-I � O I
�1-� I r
t0 �n � N r-I
E v
•r � O
+� a
r
�
�
0
Q •r OOOOOlDQl000000000000000000000
O Rf rn al r� �
( r
VI 7 1"'� I"�
N
a.' O
d
VI O O O O O O O O O I� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O 41 rl
U S-
�..,� ¢ N
OOOOOd' �' OOOOOONO000000000000
, �� tn OONtn M O
f--� N
V1 \ L t.C) tf) � � N rl
" C U U N M r-� r-�
O Q
•r
�
•r C
'Q O
C O •� 000000 r-� 000000000000000000000
O \ +� tn rl
U � �d t.C) O
I r
d-> t!I 7 ri
C N
N d' O
L 0.
S..
�
I U C
O
O •r OOOI� OdO000000000000000000000
\ +� �f' r-I M
� O R7 lD 00 O
� 1 r- ^
7 lA 7 r-�
C N
•r � �
� d
C
0
U
�--I
�
N C
•r
N C t0
r� C N r--iNM �t � tDt� � d'10r-INM �
� t0 L Q OOOOOOOOOrIr-ie-�Ir-Ir-1
f0 � Q M '� LC) lD 1� 0� Ql O r-� N M �' Lf') I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1
- � a. NNNNNNNMMMMMMcLQQQQQQQQQQQc[ Q
���
�
,� 2.3
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC
0000 � �
� o 0
o �
U i- tX) tl�
�C M M �
O O O O I� I�
N N
� ��
N � M M
C t--� L �t �t'
O U f� I�
•r- U Q
+-� M M
•r
. �
C C
0 �
UO •r 0000 M
+� r-i
� � � N
rt� in � d' I
'� a.' O N 1�
+� a- 00
r
= N
C �
O
O•r- 0000 O
+-� lD
O R3 �D
1 r
N � QQ
N M
� O
� I
cn 0000 f� 1�
O N ri �-1
U L
Q N N �
0000 lD lD
� � N N �;
N L n n
C U U Ql p1
O ¢[ N N
•r
�
•r C
� O
C ••r- 0000 t.f)
O +-� ap
C.) � Rf M
i r--
� N � �
C 41
v � o �
L- � N
L- O
�
U C (V
O •� 0000 ri N
+� cY
� O RI tD
N I r
� N � M
C N r-I
•r � Q
� d
C
O
� U
�
� r-
N C b
•r }.7
N C tU O �
C � lS') lfl 1� 00 +� b
� !fl L r-� r-i r-1 r-1 � }1
�C) r- Q 1 1 1 I � O
I-- a Q <C Q Q N !-
��
;
: 2.4 ',je�+
. FqEESE AND NIGMOLS,INC I
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
�-� WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MAST�R PLAN
: �
PLANNING AREAS
�� � - . _ _ � � �
,�9 a`e'""''u3: .
- ...e��S..d -5•.x �+ ��N•p<xy.., v+`s�,�TM'`s�.$' }�... u� �� a ....:�,nbb:+s�s+tamia _ ...,ie; w 2' ... .
_�� �.�� � � �� ��, < 14 . i24 30 33
���:�..
�.
�:�
� � a �
.�� § r�
� . �- _ � �
_ � F �.�
.� ..., . 3 .. ' .. . .. ..'.
: ".,-�,,. ?:#
° j ..
. . _
__ , �
. � -5 *>§ '^.-s. ..�...� � � � .. .
� � � ��6 �1�� �25 ���31��� 34
.:<»�, �-�.-�
� �� .
:;� ..,��
_ '' ; `^�` ; : '�`" "� : y
.- . y,. ,
i ,
F
� � � �7��� � �16 26 �32 35
-- , �� � .� �. � _� �
L� ..,� �: . � �.�`. �'� �.��
- ��, ,: , q
"�+�� ��f �` �.� `� � - '`; �
; .
�� �;. ; � $ {1��.�� A�
� .
:��2a� --1i �2
. : �
_ . ,�
. :_ l,A���� �.' . � , • *�„r-+ 3 $ �s ;
i i 3 «'"�`g� : s. `L '-' .� � �
� �.
's' a>x+a� �r <a ' ^�.,-^'
-. � ' � - .�,"�`�r,c�£a.� �,D� � � ; r ...-». �. o..--^- _ ,
, � � y�
c,�3 "---d � �. �� �..
� � "`^+b^� ^�+-�'*a'ka . • v.,d � �.:�' � . �r ,
� ���� � � .�..1� .����� � �2.� ; .w� A��-10. A—�13
_ �� � r� :� � t�.� �.vu�. :
�� a . ,
. �
. e
.
: __e.
��. �F
, �
� � �=t �� _
, _ .� � ��
e �� ���� � ._.��
.� �, ,� , r ` �, ., _ ,e _ ;�
�` �'',�'"�' �`;� ��s .��`�2 � � , � "
//�{, N /��J '/'J� /']�\ (/'��l/�,
'.•���. ����, r.:�, r \°"��Y �����s �. �wi�..�,.4��:�� ..��/ • �„s�•,.,..il V � /� .� . ���
[ . }` ` .
g d.'..' � .�.� ..�_� „1 %`���= t ,
. . • a,
,�. ..,� � } m . � , ',rp`'.
�
'I ' „�„� i "7" 3vi '� i ,ew- �.,,+,..»� �@'$�
�
.
. . . , .� , .�• ' ..
�r . ,. ..e- s ..� -. . _�. �,
..
. . �_..,_ -� . � �. _ � �S .. „> . .
.
'. ; -.. ...�__e... � _ _
' �, -�:. .{ y,upar. ""� "�. .< �w 2 y:s ..
- � ✓r�;;'�,kX�.. .. � tx+ .
ti, �4.2 . . � 11 :.2C� A=�01 A-08 A 15
�- _
u. F�
, . .
�.
�� � �� �
_ � Y
-
� __ - w
-�:�
� ��
^ � �.�
: .
;
: ��A-02 A�07 A-16
,
� � 21
. t �
. � �a � �
12_.
: ,�.. ; �-
�
_ - �--�. x
�l _ _
_�.�.� �� � � - —
22
— 17
1 A
A A
�
3 03 06
4 a� �
.. .
_ _ _ _-�_ _ ._E _
.
� ;
� ; � _
; _ _
a .:, _
�� = ,�� _._ ��� �_.T� . w 2 3A � � �_� -2 3 ���. A—�4 A-a 5 A-18
:
� ..� �.
. , _ � �
_
, _ � _______,__ _���
.
�. :
- FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC �
I :
FIGURE 2.1
Table 2.2
City of Grapevine �.�
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Estimates of Population and Land Use by Year
��
� Year Po ulation Land Use
Total RES-0 0 RES-R 0 C I Acres HCO Acres
1985 22,026 13,641 8,385 297.26 29.17
1986 25,484 15,763 9,721 315.69 31.04
1987 28,942 17,902 11,040 366.84 33.02
1988 32,400 20,041 12,359 429. 75 35.14
1989 35,858 22,180 13,678 523.21 37.39
1990 39,316 24,289 15,027 622.26 56.89
1991 41,206 25,445 15,761 694.58 59.44
1992 43,186 26,655 16,531 791.31 62. 15
1993 45,262 27,923 17,339 854.77 65.03
1994 47,438 29,252 18,186 884.59 68.10
1995 49,718 30,643 19,075 916.26 71.36
1996 52,108 32,101 20,007 949.89 74.83
1997 54,613 33,628 20,985 985.61 78.53
- 1998 57,238 35,228 22,010 1,023.54 82.46
1999 59,989 36,904 23,085 1,063.83 86.64
2000 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,106.61 91.09
� 2001 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,204.46 102.35
2002 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,302.32 113.61 �
2003 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,400.17 124.86
2004 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,498.03 136.12 ��;
2005 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,595.88 147. 38
2006 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,693.33 158.64
2007 62,863 38,660 24,213 1,790.79 169.90
� 2008 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,888.24 ?81. 16
, 2009 62,873 38,660 24,213 1,985.70 192.42
2010 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,083.15 203. 68
2011 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,180.80 214.94
2012 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,278.46 226. 20
2013 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,376. 11 237.45
2014 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,473.77 248.71
' 2015 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,571.42 259.97
2016 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,669.07 271.23
2017 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,766.73 282.49
: 2018 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,864.38 293.74
', 2019 62,873 38,660 24,213 2,962.04 305. 00
', 2020 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,059.69 316.26
2021 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,157.34 327.52
- 2022 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,255.00 338.78
2023 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,352.65 350.04
2024 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,450.31 361.29
2025 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,547.96 372.55
2026 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,645.62 383.81 ',''�""
2027 62,873 38,660 24,213 3,743.27 395.07 i
�
�
2. 5 �:,m_.�
� FREESE AND NICMOLS�iNC. _
and the area just south of the railroad between State Highway 114 and
�w'"' William D. Tate Avenue. The remainder of the City is in the TRA service
area. Shown in Table 2. 3 are the estimates of population and land use
by service area from 1985 through the year 2027.
Grapevine' s estimated population and land use for current and ulti-
mate conditions has been subdivided into drainage areas. Each drainage
area was defined using the natural topography of the ground and/or the
limits of service of smaller segments of the existing wastewater
collection system. The drainage areas are illustrated on Plate I at the
end of this report. Estimates of population and land use for current
and ultimate conditions for each drainage area are shown in Table 2.4.
I
�,:. _
� ���
�
3
�°:�'
2. 6
� FREESE AND NICMOLS�ING.
tn O M � � d' � � � �h
O N O lD lD l0 lD tD lD tD lD
U L
S U O �--I 00 t1� is') � � � t!')
Q rl �--I N N N N N N
t!7 l0 lD O r-I Ql N 1`� 1�
(0 � d' O rl 01 f� N lD 01
N N �,��
;-. �--� Gl 'ct N � r-I Q1 (� tD � N I
G \ S- M 01 M t� rl lD e-i l0 rl
U C.7 r-� N d' � 00 O M tt� Ql
Q1 Q
C) r� �-i t-1 r�
.�
>
S- CO rl O O O O O O O
N tD 1� 00 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 01
tn N O r� N 1� l0 lD lD lD lD tD
W\
Q � � M a0 O M M M M M M
d' r-i r� r-I r-1 r-i r-i r-1 i
H
i
RJ lD 00 M Ql Ol Ql Q1 Q1 Q1 '
- 4J �' M d' Q1 Ql Q1 01 Q1 Q1
= S- tn Q O Q1 Q1 tl) Ln t.C) t.3") Ln tt')
Q W \
� � � O d- 00 � 0�0 0�0 0�0 0�0 � � I
�0 U
r� •r
d �
�
� �
N N
�
N
t0 �
�
C1 C1
c E u�
•r � �
M � N "�
C
i N R3 C1) f0
� s- -� 1� lD N t.f) �h d' M N M
N CJ C tn ri N 1� � I� O M tD �
�-- O 'Q O G1
� � �F •r C U S- Ql lt') N t.C) t--I 00 cF' O Ql �
R1 O +� Rf �0 2 t..) N d' � lD N 1� M Q1 lD
I-- U N Q rl �-i N N M
� C L
.F� r O �C
•'- r— •r r-I O O ri I� lD O N O
C,� O +� � 1� 00 N � Ol M N O M ��;,�y
C.� �0 U tn
� •r r-� � N Ol ri 1� I.f) ln I.f) ln O
L- � > \ S- lD N CO M 1� ri �.!') Ql M
N L C.7 U ri M � t.[) I� O N d' 00
+� O N Q
�0 G. N rl ri e� r�
3
a� -a +�
+� N G1 f� l0 � M M M th M M
N +� Cl e-i t!� Ql N N N N N N
� b �0 S- cn O N (� N t.t) t,f') �c") � t1") tn
' 3 E +� w\
•� cn � � �n � o� o 0 0 0 0 0
� � � � � � �
tJ� L
W U
rd t17 ri O rl r-i r-i rl �--I r-I
n- N O �S") M f� O O O O O O
W \
� O Ql � 00 O O O O O O
ri r-� N N N N N N
� I 00 Q1 Q1 O O � ri �N N
>- r--1 �-1 rl N N N N N N
�
i
� 2.�
� � FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC
�
00000 000000 0000000
�. .., o �
2 U
Q
O O O O O O O O rl O O rl O O O O O O N N
w�„,,..,� O O M M
V1
�/� i-+ N O O rl �-1
� C � r1 r--i ri �
O D U
•r ¢
�
•r
�
C �
� � 0
C.) • 0000C� L!") OOOQIOCt' 0000 �' 1� 01-'�
Q1 � �0 I� N (O"t 00 N ri
•i-� r
�0 lA � r�i
E N
•r � �
� �
�
C
� �
•r � I� QId' � Ln I� r-1Lt� Nrltl� ri d' Old' Q100 � ntC)
C r0 • +� lD � � 00 00 N QO ri 1� O O 1� l.f') r--I Gt 00 00 00 00 I� 00
R7 N t0 Ncf �' MN00 Q1rl OQ1M �' rlril� Q1NNlD
r � . r
d GC tn � rl r-I M r-I M
N
L N � O
41 d
� t0
t/� C
ttf��
� � i
C E �
•r QJ
� �
�' � N �
N r0 N N tn O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
L v� O �
4J C9 C � U L
r O 2 U
= .a 4-•r � ¢
` �0 O +� C
F- c� �
�y N J O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O o O O
}� r ln
, •rr -Q H QJ
c.� O C N i-
C.� t0 C U U
O Q
S- C •r
� O +�
}� •r •r C
t0 +� � • O
3 �0 C •r� 00000 L� 0000'10I� OOOOctl� O rl
+� � U � �C I� N 61 00 N r-i
�
RS O +� M 7 �--I
3 a.. c a�
a� � o
L d.
L
�
C� C
� •� Ol � OQ1N � 1� r-IlDOr--1 � 0 cf' Q1t� QlOI� 00 �
O +� N O 00 0p M M 00 r-I d' O tt") I� I� ri � r-I 00 tt') cT I�
RJ rl M M N N M Ql rl tD Lf� N Lf') r--i r-I M lD rl �
�
tn � r--1 N rl
N
� O
a
N
m
rU r� f-1NMcT � r1NMct � tD r--INMd' �f7tD1�
' ���''�. C � 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I
•r L N N N N N M M M M M M �' c t' �' G�' C r' d' d'
�d Q
L
�
Z.V
. � FREESE AND NICHOLS,iNC
il
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O
� �' �
O 4J
U S- d'�
S U CD
Q M
� OtDtDN000 MOOM 1DO00MQ1 r-� I�
O � tD Q� r-I lD O O lD 00 I� 'ch 00 n r-I Ql :w�y
�
tn H � r-� I� O � � � O M O� U) cD � � 00 O r-I
C \ S- N �-�I �--I � M M N 00 � N 00 t.c") iD O
O D U rl lD M
•r-' Q
+�
•r
�
C C
U \•� O O O O � 00 N I� ri � N O O � O O � O O
O i-� O N d' f� d' � t.f) � lD tD
N rt� d' M i� �' Q1 01 N rl d' ch
+� • r- ^
rG V) � rl N N N N
E N
•r � O
+� d
r-
. �
� � I
\•r O �-�Id> Ot.C) f� N I� r-� 000 OOM � QlO O O
O +� O O r-i � I� � � M cD h t.C) � Ql r--i
Rf lD I� O O M N r-1 M (� N M d- 1� Ql
cn � �--i r-1 M N N �--I
v
� o
n.
�n o00000 000 00000 � o (
o v �-+
2 U Q1 �
Q N
001� 0001� Q1lDOt.f) 000000 O O
tn 00 N O l0 f� O O O � !��
r� N
� tA \ S- r--I rl tt� 00 M rl � tn ct
C U U �-1 �--I M
; O Q
•r
�
•r C
C \•� O O O O O 0 0 0 0 � r I (� M O O O O O O O O
O d' i� � r� l0 � �' r-i O O� 00
J �0 ct' lD(O M rl � � d'
+-� tn 7 r-1
C N
N � O
L d
- L
�
U C
\•� O M I� O O �f) � O Q l O O 1 O O 0 0 N 1� I� O O
O +> tD00 I� N ctCOIN O � N �Y � I
c 0 M N M O N M N r I � l D �'
r
lA � r"'� f"�
41
� � �
� d
�
i C
�
C
O
- U
�
4J
N �
rt3 tL1 ri N M �F' � lD r� N M r-1 N M � t.C) r--I ri
- � C N 1 I I 1 I � 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I
r- •r L Lt� LC) L!') � L!') Ln lD lD lD 1� 1� 1� f� � � Ql
� (0 Q
R3 L
F-- �
r�;�1r
2.�
- FREESE AND NICHOLS,iNC
�, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
�
O �
v s-
s v
¢
�'"� OOMOM NON 00 QIOOOOQI r-1 O NON
O O ri I.f) lD cF'tl') 61 M M O N O t.C) �' N � O cf'
�
N F-r y O N Q1 Gl O Q1 f� lD �.f') Q1 00 I� Lf") Q1 Q1 e-i r-I 00 Ol
C i. r--I M M Ql M r-I �f') N 00 N r-i t!� 00 N r-i t.!') ►S') O
O U t� r-i r-� r-i ri N r� r-i M
•r Q
�..1
•r
�
C =
. �..� O .O 0 � � �IQ7 7"'� �IP'� � � � � P'� � 1� 0 � � � I
N � n3 � N N M M �tu") O �
t0 tn 7 r-i
E N
•r � 0
� �
r-�
�
�
O O O Q 1 � O M Q 1 r-i O r l O O M O l D 01 O M Q l O Q 1
3 O +� 1� 00 d' O O N r. O O �""� � �I� � � I�
R7 Q1 r� N �}' M tD(O N r--I N r-1 �f') I� � Ct
. r
N � rl r-I
N
�' O
d
�n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
` O �
U L
S U
Q
' ���
OOt.f) Ot.[') ONN 00 OOOOOO lD r--I IDOID
tn O O M O M O 00 00 M O O O O O r-1 � i� I�
r.-r N
tn S- Ol lD � rl O O r� rl � r-I t.C) N �' N tD M lD lD
C C� (� e--I M rl r-I N N N M r-I �' r-i i-1
O ¢
•r
�
�r C
� O O
_ C •r- OOOOIO 00 O OOOr-iOrl O O 00
O � +� 1� 1� CD � rl
' U �G d' � O
r
}.� lA 7 P"�
C �
� � �
� �
�
�
U C
O O O Q1 O O Q1 Q1 O O'1 Q1 O O M O I� O O O Q1 O Ql
� RS N M I�t M �IM ri N N �Id n �' Id'
. r
- N 7
N
� �' O
N d
7
C
•r
�
�
O
U
d
N
N r0 rt7 ri N M � ri N r-1 r-I N M d- � r-i r-� r-� N
- � C � 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I
� •r L O O O O r I r I N M M M M M �' 1.f) l D l D
� �0 Q rl r--I r--I rl r1 r-I rl ri ri rl t--1 r-1 r-� rl ri r-i
� k
F- �
2.��
FREESE AND NICMOLS�ING.
00 0000 00 000 tt0 � f�
U� tD lD O
� S-. t.C) �.!') �!'f �
2 U N N Ql
Q M
: O 01 al lD O O Q1 Ql O Q1 O � O 1`� M 00 r--1 f�
1� r-i 00 t.f) M f� lD N O N r-I M M 1� lD �' rl N `"�,�
N
�n �--� N O h I� N O t.C') a0 N t.c') i� N lD t� �.n u) O tD M
C L t.f') Op M O O Ql Ql M N t.f') lD rl 00 I`� Ql lD ch
O C.) U rl N r-1 r--1 N N N Ch rl N 1�
•r- �.2
+� M
.r..
�
C C .
U � •� O O ct' 00 N ��Q1 O O O O O O f� O II� M
O +� �i' CD M �f') O'1 (� t'� tD l0 r-i
41 � rl I� 00�1� O O I� 1� N
+� • �— ^
r0 in � M N lD tD tD �
E N N
•r � O
� a
r-
�
�
� �
•r- 00 nQ1 � Qla1 000 r-� MQ1M Il'f 1� N O
. O +-� OOCrl� ri NN tf) tl') Md' 00 � cD
� t.f) N � Ql N rl r-1 � � 00 I� I� Ln N lD
. e—
Vf � ri rl rl t.f) r-1 M r-i lD N N t� 00
N M
� O
d
S
tn 00 0000 00 000 00 f� �
O � ri ��
2 U Q1
cL N
f� O I� O O N lD 00 O O O O rl r-1 O O lD "�+*+�
in N N M � � r-i t� I� N
`--r 4J
tn L i� 1� • N N t.[) M M 1�
C U V N N M M Q1
- O cL N
•r
�
•r C
ao 0
C •r 00 OJOMI� 00 00 000 00 l2')
O � +� t.C) I� M cD �
' U R7 lD lD QO r-I M
r ^
�i-� tn � r-I M �
C N
aJ �'' O
� d
L
�
U C
O O 00 � tD � � Q1 00 r-1MOd' ID �DN r--I
• +� �.f) OI� t� O O � OI� d' �101 cY
�U r-1 t.C) � lD Ol N M M d0 lD
. r
� 7 ri M
, N r-I
I � �' O
4J a
7
C
i •r
I �
�
�
�..�
�'
�
N �
r0 b r--I N r-i N M C}' r--1 N ri N M r--1 N M
N C N 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I � i �
r •r S- I� I� 00 00 QO Cn Ql Ol O O O rl r"1 (U
� R1 <L r-1 r-1 rl �--I ri rl r-I �--1 N N N N N +�
RJ L p
F-- � F-
",.:;.:+�
2.��
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
3.0 WASTEWATER FLOWS
�
3. 1 Historical Wastewater Flows
w�.�
Historical average-day wastewater flows for the City of Grapevine
are summarized in Table 3.1. There are two wastewater collection system
service areas in the City. These are the Peach Street and TRA service
areas. The Peach Street flows in Table 3. 1 include all of the area
: north of the D/FW International Airport, and the TRA flows include the
southwest area of the City. In August 1985, the Minters Chapel Lift
Station was diverted to the TRA service area. This diversion relocated
the service area boundary northward and now the Peach Street service
area generally includes all of the City north of the St. Louis South-
western Railroad and the area south of the Railroad, west of William D.
,�_ .
Tate Avenue and north of State Highway 114. The remainder of the City
is in the TRA service area. Wastewater in the Peach Street service area
'
���.
is treated at the City' s wastewater treatment plant. Flow in the TRA
service area is treated at the Trinity River Authority' s plant in
:
3 Irving.
Average-day wastewater flow has increased from 0.545 millions of
gallons per day (MGD) ir� 1971 to 1.843 MGD in 1984, as shown in Table
, 3. 1. Average-day per capita flows for the City during this fourteen-
year period ranged from a low of 52 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) in
;
1975 to a high of 88 GPCD in 1984. Average-day wastewater flow, water
use, and rainfall from 1971 through 1984 is shown graphically on Figure
3. 1.
- Table 3.2 shows a comparison of average-day wastewater flow and
�.�,�
average-day water use for the period 1971 through 1984. The percentage
: �
3. 1
� FREESE AN�NICHOLS�INC.
� ..
v � o
+� �0 U tD � (� IDNOtD0pMQ11� 61NC0 '�
�' O � I� lD f� lD � lD lD lD lD �D CD lD I� 00
H- �
tG
+�
•r
� /�
U �
�L U 'ch 00 I� cD rl QO O N ri M �
L � a �-1 i.[) 'ct d' tD N �!) lD lD tD CO
N H- L7 r�
a �
�
G1
�
�0 +� �
E r �1 � ¢
•r U NU COOMN � IDI� QId' I� M �
i +� �l1 � d � tC) lD f� I� f� f� tD 1� f`� Ql F-
' �n 41 +� C7
Wdcn � p
�
'a
4J
�
C tA i.
rv 3 c �
r o o ,-+ cD � � �nrn � 0000000 >
d '-�' '� r OO I� N N r-I lD I.I� 1.C) O O O 1.t7 0 0 •r
L.t- +� rt r-IMrIMOMQ1Lf� lnON000 �
S., rtf .N
4J t- � O 1� I� dpQ1OOOr-IMd� � f� Q1ri �
+� N � H- ri rl rl rl rl ri rl rl ri N �0
'n +' 3
�o ro 0
� 3 a. c
� � o
C E i-> Ql •r
•r N tA CJ M � Ql I� N lD Lf� O QO lD �' +�
9 +� RT •r ¢ MMOIDf� MOQI �' OlD (C
r� N tA3 L � t!') � r� �' OOOONtnQ1MlD N
M r0cn O1 r-ir-� NNNM �t � � tt) �
S- �0 N �
CJ L7 C � �. i
r O 1 � •r �
� �F- •r N 4! J ..
b O +� +�
F- U �'tl �0 +� 40 r1 O I� 00 �' tS') O Ql f� lD r
N s. E s N 00 0� tD o0 I� tD rn r-� tn O �n N
+� � N •r U N 1� rlN � lDlD1� lDQlMID a ��
•r r � �..> fd $.. �
U OQ tn N +� f� 00000000Q1Q1Or-IM �' L
C.J W d cn r--I r--1 ri �-i U
r
L- � lA
C1 U �
� '� 41
3 o c
� '�'� •r
I +� ln Nr n L.C) rIMLi7Q1NG}' OM1� t!') OIOM �
�n •� 3 R) � ct00NrIrINNQI �ttDr--II� tD �
� 2 O o � tC) ct' lfl lD � CD 1� f� 00 Q1 O rl M 00 L
t.t_. 1- � 0000000000 rlr-� rl r-1 +�
a/
b �
� O
t � t,f') 010plDlDOd� ct' 01NM0 MO w
NQ � n00 � 1� 00r1I� OrI000M00 N
_ � � � OOrlrlr-� rlr-Irlr--INNMM �' �
s- � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N
� i.
> ro
Q
N
� +� ON � Q1MNOlD � I.C') NQl1� M
I �d L d /� 1� 61 ^ Mr-� Nrir-IMi_f) MI� NID O
� U N � cfM �' �' V' �.s') CDtDi` � t� O� OM �
C R� i C7 �
C � +� � O O O O O O O O O O O O r-i r�
Q a c./) � �
i �
N
L
H
t- I rINM �' 11� 1D1� OQQ10rINM � �I
r0 (� f� I� f� 1� I� i� f� I� 00 00 00 00 00 +� ��An
QJ Q1 Q1 Q1 Ql Ql Q1 Ql Ql Q1 Q1 Ql Q1 Ql Q1 O �
, }- r-i r--1 rl �--I r1 rl rl r-i r-1 rl rl r-1 r-i rl Z
I
i:
r.�
3.2
. FqEESE AND NICMOLS�INC.
�. r
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
��� HISTORICAL WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOWS
3.6
I
3.0
p 2.5
C7
�
,�.. ., �
O
J
lL
� �n,� } 2.�
Q
�
- W
C7
a WATER
�
W 1.5
>
Q
�
- Q
- U
�
O
� 1.0
�
= WASTEWATER
- in
� w
- 50 =
U
0.5 40 Z
3 0 .�
J
2� Q
�,�.,� u.
10 Z
¢
�
1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR
� FiiEESE AND NICMOLS�ING.
� FIGURE 3.1
Table 3.2
�
�
City of Grapevine
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Average-Day Wastewater Flow Compared to
Average-Day Water Use �"�"
Year Average Day Wastewater Flow Average Day Percent Return
Peach St. TRA Total Water Use Flow
(MGD) (MGD) (MGO) (MGD) (%)
1971 0.470 0. 075 0. 545 0.63 87
1972 0.392 0.089 0.481 0.77 62
1973 0.475 0. 148 0.623 0.73 85
1974 0.439 0.176 0.615 0.84 73
1975 0.413 0.106 0.519 0.85 61
1976 0.522 0.100 0.622 0.96 65
1977 0.610 0. 114 0.724 1.21 60
1978 0.616 0.174 0.790 1.39 57 �
1979 0.734 0.109 0.843 1.43 59
�
; 1980 0.755 0.212 0.967 1.87 52
1981 0.732 0.283 1.015 1.74 58
1982 0.879 0.300 1.179 2.00 59
1983 1. 027 0.333 1.360 2.23 61
1984 1. 363 0.480 1.843 3.31 56
Average 61
= I��
�
�
�
''�.��
3. 3
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
of treated water returned to the wastewater collection system ranged
�.,.,..
from a low of 52 percent in 1980, which was a very dry year, to a high
��
of 87 percent in 1971, when the total yearly rainfall was above normal .
The average percentage of return flow from 1971 through 1984 was 61
percent. The percentage of return flow has decreased in the past few
years primarily due to the increase in lawn watering associated with new
development. A review of the 1983 and 1984 water billing records for
the City show that more than 80 percent of the water was used by resi-
�
i
dential customers.
�
Monthly water use, wastewater flow, and rainfall for the years 1983
and 1984 for the City of Grapevine are illustrated on Figures 3.2 and
3. 3, respectively. While water use has fluctuated from below average
usage in the winter months to above average usage in the summer months,
_ � t� wastewater flows remained relatively constant throughout the year.
�:�
Figure 3.4 shows the 24-hour wastewater flow pattern for October 1, �
1984, at the Peach Street Wastewater Plant. Flows are shown to be
lowest during the nighttime hours and higher during the daytime hours.
There was no rainfall recorded on October l, 1984, or on the preceding
days. This flow pattern could be considered typical for the City of
Grapevine during a dry weather period. The total flow for this 24-hour
peri od was 1.49 MG at the Peach Street pl ant. A peak dry-weather f 1 ow
rate of approximately 3.00 MGD occurred from approximately 10: 30 to
• 11: 15 P.M. The rati o from thi s peak dry-weather f 1 ow rate of 3. 00 MGD
and the 1984 average-day flow of 1.36 MGD at the wastewater plant is
2. 21.
; �
3.4
FREESE AND NICHOlS�INC.
� CITY OF GRAPEVINE
�
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLA�
�
1983 MONTHLY WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW
�
�
i
I
s �
5
�
�
�
: -- 4
3 """w�
0
J
� ��
y� WATER
� 3
Q
O
W AVG
c7
Q
� 2 �
w w
Q VG. WASTEWATER 6 U
=f�===�_�' ��_=_=__ ?
�==t'—= 5 V
1 4 �
3 J
<
2 �
� Q
0 ct
J F M A M J J A S O N D
a
� MONTH
�
�,�.�
�
FREESE ANO NICMOLS�iNC.
FIGURE 3.2
� _
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
���
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
1984 MONTHLY WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW
s
5 WATER
0
c7
- �-_ � �
" 4
�
� AV
� �•
� 3
a WASTEWATER �
= o
w �--s' I
� I I
Q r--
� 2 r__J L__1 in
j V�'��r---L—1—1_-Z--� ------------ s w
Q - U
5 ?
1 4 v
J
3 �
2 �
= 1 Z
0 �
J F M A M J J A S O N D
MONTH
; �
. � FREESE AND NICHOLS,ING.
FIGURE 3.3
i
CITY OF GRAPEVINE '
�
�
�
� WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
��,�
PEACH STREET WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ,
i
: OCTOBER 1, 1984
i
RAINFALL = 0.00 iNCHES
PEAK FLOW RATE = 3.00 MGD
3.0
0
c7
��
w
� �
- �2.0 a'"�
3 �
O � �«,.�«+
. J
�
w AVG. = 1.49 M GD
F—
Q
= 3
w
�
�
. Q
� 1.0
w•
c�
a
�
w
>
. Q
0
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12.�w
HO UR
;�
FREESE ANO NIGHOLS�INC.
FIGURE 3.4
' `�� '" 3.2 Infiltration and Inflow
Wastewater flows deviate from their normal dry-weather fluctuations
� ��
� when extraneous waters caused by precipitation enter the collection
system. During a precipitation event, a portion of the runoff flows
into storm sewers or drains. Some of this water will likely pass over
sanitary sewer manholes or breaks in the wastewater collection system
pipelines resulting in direct inflow into the wastewater collection
system. Groundwater that results from the precipitation may seep into
the wastewater collection system as infiltration. The amount of inflow �
encountered during and immediately following a precipitation event
` substantially increases the flow rate above the average-day flow.
In October of 1983, the flow meter at the Peach Street Wastewater
� v.
Treatment Plant was replaced. Before this, peak wet-weather flow rates
exceeded the range of the flow recorder and peak infiltration and inflow
: �
(I/I) rates could not accurately be determined.
= Figure 3. 5 illustrates the 24-hour flow pattern for October 24,
1984. One inch of rain occurred on this date and in the four preceding
= days, an additional 2.46 inches of rainfall was recorded at D/FW
International Airport. This flow pattern represents a wet-weather
period in the Peach Street Plant' s service area. The total flow for
this 24-hour period was 2.45 MG. It is estimated that the peak two-hour
flow rate for this period was 5.80 MGD. Even though the flow meter was
` replaced in October of 1983, flows have increased enough that peak wet
flow rates are now exceeding the recording capacity of the meter which
�„:�
is 5.0 MGD. Rather than replace the meter it could be recalibrated to
increase the recording range.
3. 5
� FREESE AND NICMOLS�ING.
CITY OF GRAPEVINE �
�
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLA(�
�
PEACH STREET WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
= OCTOBER 24, 1984
. 7.0
RAINFALL=1.00 INCHES �
I �
I (
� I
- s.o �
ESTIMATED PEAK 2 HR. RATE }-I---�-�
I �
i 1
� I
Q 5.0
C7
�
W �
H
�4.0 „.�
�
O
J
LL
�
, �3-0
Q
w AVG.= 2.45 MGD
� �
�
Q
�2.0
1.0
*ESTIMATED-FLOW FROM 6-7PM. OFF CFiART
0 �
- � ,
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
,�
� HOUR
' FREESE AND NIGMOLS�INC.
� FIGURE 3.5
�. �
The infiltration and inflow component of the peak two-hour flow can
be expressed as a per capita rate. The difference between the 1984 peak
' �°� two-hour wet weather flow rate of 5.80 MGD and the maximum dry-day flow
" rate of 3. 00 MGD is 2.80 MGD. Dividing this by the estimated 1984
population of 15,259 in the Peach Street service area, results in an I/I
component of 183 GPCD.
The 183 GPCD for I/I is based on flows at the wastewater treatment
plant and is the average peak I/I rate for the Peach Street service
area. Infiltration and inflow rates are not uniform throughout waste-
water collections, but are dependent upon the physical condition of
various sections of the collection system as can be seen in Table 3.3.
In January of 1985, the City installed timers on the pumps of nine
lift stations in the Peach Street service area. Table 3.3 shows the
,�, .
combined run time of the pumps at each lift station for a typical dry-
� weather day and a typical wet-weather day. Wet-weather/dry-weather run
time ratios range from a low of 1.0 at the Hilton Lift Station to a high
of 2.37 at the Ball Street Lift Station. The lift stations with the
a
lower ratios have less infiltration and inflow than those with the
higher ratios.
The two highest ratios are at the Ball Street and Minters Chapel
lift stations. The ratios at these two lift stations are 2. 37 and 2. 19,
respectively. Both of these stations serve older sections of the City
where it appears that the integrity of the collection lines has deter-
iorated based on the wet-weather/dry-weather pump run time ratios. It
can be seen in Table 3.3 that the highest ratios are found in the older
'� sections of the Peach Street service area and the lower ratios are in
3. 6
FREESE ANO NIGMOLS,ING.
Table 3. 3
Ci ty of Grapevi ne ,�„�,
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Lift Station Pump Run Times
Lift Station Dry-�iJeather Wet-Weather Wet-Weather/
Run Time Run Time Dry-Weather
Minutes Minutes Ratio
Lakeview 510 678 1.33 �
, Kimball Road 132 246 1.86
Dove No. 2 486 864 1.78 I
Hood Lane 330 462 1.40
Dove No. 1 264 456 1. 73
Ball Street 660 1,563 2. 37
Minters Chapel 672 1,470 2. 19
Hilton 60 60 1.00
: Dooley Street 744 1,248 1,5g �
�r��
�
3. 7 �w
FREESE AND NIGMOLS�ING.
�I li
the newer areas.
�..: .h
The data in Table 3.3 shows generally where the areas of excessive
��
I/I are located in the Peach Street service area. At this time, actual
� quantities of I/I cannot be determined from this data. Additional
information, such as actual pump operating characteristics and whether
, more than one pump was running at one time, would be needed. It is
recommended that the City begin studies to determine the location and
quantity of infiltration and inflow into the system. Excessive I/I in-
� creases pumping and treatment costs. Initial areas of study should be
3
those served by the Ball Street and Minters Chapel lift stations and the
older portions of collection from the St. Louis Southwestern Railroad to
the Peach Street Wastewater Treatment Plant.
3.3 Projected Wastewater Flows
: ,�-.n
The City of Grapevine' s wastewater collection system has been
"�` analyzed for projected two-hour peak flow rates. These flow rates
i
include residential owner occupied and renter occupted contributions
; with allowances for peaking during high flow periods of the day, com-
mercial/industrial and hotel/corporate office contributions with their
' associated peaking factors, and allowances for infiltration and inflow
during wet weather periods. The projected wastewater flows used in this
study are based on the analysis of historical wastewater flows and the
;
analysis of historical water use and projected water use made in the
accompanying report updating the water distribution system master plan.
' The report on the water distribution system estimates that water
�
consumption rates for current 1985 conditions are: 161 GPCD for resi-
� ��
dential owner occupied dwelling units; 92 GPCD for renter occupied
3.8
� FREESE AND NIGMOLS�INC
i
dwelling units; 1,200 GPCD for commercial/industrial development; and I
5,500 GPCD for hotel/corporate office development with hotel construc- '""�"
tion. For future conditions, residential owner occupied dwelling units,
��
renter occupied dwelling units, and commercial/industrial development i
consumption rates will remain the same. Hotel/corporate office consump-
tion for hotel construction will increase to 8,600 GPAD and HCO consump-
' tion for corporate office construction will be 3,500 GPAD.
Analysis of water billing records for 1983 and 1984 show that more
than 80 percent of Grapevine' s water consumption was by residential I
customers. For 1983 and 1984, approximately 59 percent of the City' s
total water consumption was returned to the wastewater collection system
and from 1971 through 1984 Grapevine' s return rate for water consumption
was approximately 61 percent. Based on this data, it is estimated that
approximately 60 percent of Grapevine' s current and projected resi-
�
dential water use will be returned to the wastewater collection system.
���
Using this percentage and the projected water consumption rates, it is
estimated that average-day wastewater flow for residential owner oc-
cupied dwelling units will be 97 GPCD and 55 GPCD for residential renter
occupied dwelling units for both current and future conditions.
Wastewater flows from commercial/industrial and hotel/corporate
office developments will generally have a higher percentage of return i
flow than the 60 percent projected for residential consumption unless a
significant amount of water is used in major manufacturing or processing
operations. For this analysis of Grapevine' s wastewater collection
� system, it is assumed that average-day wastewater flows are 80 percent
of commercial/industrial and hotel/corporate office water consumption. ��
3. 9
FREESE ANO NICHOLS�INC.
�,.. This assumption is based on the Hilton Hotel ' s water use and a review of
water use by various commercial and industrial users in the North Texas
`��� area. Based on this criteria, current average-day flow rates for
� commercial/industrial development would be 960 GPAD and 4,400 GPAD for
HCO development with hotel construction. For future conditions, waste-
water flows for C/I development will remain the same. Flows for HCO de-
velopment with hotel construction will increase to 6,880 GPAD and flow
rates for development with corporate office construction will be 2,800
GPAD.
Table 3.4 shows the projected average day wastewater flows for the
City of Grapevine using the estimates of population and land use
described in Section 2.0 and the estimated flow rates set forth above.
Average-day flow for 1985 is estimated at 2.20 MGD and projected to
�, .,
increase to 11.39 MGD in the year 2027 (ultimate development con-
ditions). Average-day per capita flows, which include C/I and HCO
- contributions, would increase from 100 GPCD in 1985 to 108 GPCD in the
year 2000 and 181 GPCD for ultimate development conditions. Table 3. 5
" shows the projected average-day flows by service area.
Table 3. 6 compares the projected average-day water consumption to
the projected average-day wastewater flows for the City. The percentage
of average-day water use returned to the wastewater collection system is
shown to increase from 63 percent in 1985 to 70 percent in the year
2027. The increase in return flow is related to the increase in
_ commercial/industrial and HCO land use development. Figure 3.6 illus-
trates historical and projected average-day water use and wastewater
��
flows.
�
3. 10
. . FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC
� 0 O cD 00 00 rl � Q1 N r-� I
�U 3 U O O O O N M � lD Op �
O O d r-i r� rl r-i rl rl r--I �--I rl
I r— �
NL.Lu
�
fU �
t- �0 � O 00 Q1 I� N 00 d' O Q1
N +-� d N rl M f� lD cf M N M +�9i
> O �7
Q I— v N d' �(") lD 1� CO Ql � � I
1
j I
O O � r-1 M � cD O � 1� � � I
S � v O O O O r--� r-1 rl N N i
I
�
C I
Rf V� � O't O 00 lD C'7 O 1� Ct' 01
r' 3 h--� 3 � N lD 00 O � O d' Q1 t.f) �
d O \ O C:3
r (.� r � O O O ri ri N N N M
L- L.L l.L �✓
N
� � I
tn N i
a� � 3
�
C E N
•r- 4J +� r-
� � � �
� i Ct' 41 N f0 •r 3
3 +� O � lD M �f') M M M M M M
• M RJ N C � � �' 00 O M M M M f+') M
S- QJ LL U'
N C.7 C �0 TS � O O rl r--I rl ri ri �-1 e--I
r O 0 •r Q �/
� 4- •r 1 (n\ �
�0 O i-� N � d'
t F- U �
' 4J Rf
}) r L-
� •� r N �,_..�i
U O >
; C.� Q
�
i 'p
N � r-
+� +� �d
fU U •� `j
_ 3 a� +� o � N � r� �.n �n �n �n �,c� ,�
� +� •O N tL C.J M M Ol I� f� I� I� I� I�
� V� t- 'a � rl N N M M M C'7 M M
fLS n. •r- p �./
3 N �
vo
�
c
-o 0
GJ '� tD lD 00 M M M M M M
+� +� N ri r-� f� 1� I� 1� I� f�
�G �0 O M f� 00 00 00 a0 a0 00
E �
•� 7 N Q1 Q1 N N N N N N
i +� d N M � tD t0 tD lD lD t0
. in O
W d
$
�
tC 00 Q1 Ql O O � �--I �N N I
41 Ql Ol Ol O O O O C� O �
�- r-� r-1 rl N N N N N N
3.11 `��
� FREESE ANO NICHOLS,ING I
►-� � Ql Q1 O 00 N tD Q1 M 1�
� ... R7 3 � lD lD M N � h Q� N �
+-� O C7
O r- � O ri N M M M M �' cr
�- LL �/
� O a0 M 00 00 00 00 a0 00
0 3 0 0 0 � � ,-i r-+ ,-i ,-i ,�
c� o c�
= r � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� �
� M Ql N tn Q1 M lD O �
\ O C� � N � � � O N �f) �
�C U �--� � O O O O O r-i r-i r� rl
N LL. �
�
1 ¢
O
� U1 \ � 1� t.C') Q1 t.f) t.f) � � � �
- U Q' 3 � rl cY � 1� 1� 1� 1� I� I�
, •� � �
> tn � � O O O O O O O O O
L- W I.L �
N �
�U N
; �
s- Q O
Q � \ � Q1 I� lD O O O O O O
� !- O 3O � M 00 r-� 00 oJ 00 00 00 00
C •r W LL �.�i O O r-1 r-i r1 r-I rl r-i �-I
rC > R'
r S�
� �
N C
L O
� N •� Gt' Q1 M Ql Ql Ql Q1 Ql Ql
+� � +� ri O N 00 00 CO C� 00 QO
t11 (0 N N I� N N N N N N
RS tff r-
� 3 � 1� 1� N N N N N N N
N O Q. rl N M M M M M M
� C E r O
•r- � LL d
� t.f) N tA L
s�:..�,.. y
M b N +�
S.. t0 e- � e--1 Ql Q1 01 O N ln 1� N
v c7 c 3 ro 3 0 �n �t o � � � r� rn ao
- .— o v +� o c�
� ��� �0 O +� Vf f- L�. v r-I N M M �h d' t.f) t,!") cD
F- U �
N 3
_ +� r- � M �--i lD t1') M N N O M
_ •r r O � � � M M Gt 00 N tD O Lt7
s U CC� � S � � O O O O O r--I rl N N
1 L.L e-/
L N t�
N N
; r0 L Q H � lD N lD rl d' I� O �t' lD
3 O1 \ O C.7 r--I M d' I.!") I� Q1 N � 1�
QJ > N U r- � O O O O O O �-�I rl rl
+� Q U LL. �
lJ) •r
� � �
3 a� s- O
+� � \ � O1 f� tD � � OJ a0 a0 00
� U N �' 3 0 N M � � i.f') tf) t,f) �c) t.t)
N O C7
r
+� N � O O O
O O O O O O
•O 4J W LL �
L N �
d L
�
� N O
\ � M � r-1 t.f) � t.[) t.c") t.f') �
s O 3 o rn �t o0 rn rn rn rn rn rn
U O C7
�0 cn � g O r-I �--I rl �-i �--� r1 rl t—i
� N W L.L �
n. �
c
' •� N h t.t) � Ct ch Ct � a'
� c�0 a0 r-I Ql � t!� � tl� L�f') �
I
r .. ..
7 � N lD O O O O O O
°�'`�` �.. r-� N N M M M M M M
d
I i
, '�` L � O � O �!'f O t.f) O I�
�C 00 Q1 Ql O O rl r-� N N
4J 61 Q1 Ol O O O O O O
�I
�- r-a rl r-1 N N N N N N �.1,Z
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
I
I
7able 3.6 ,;;�
City of Grapevine
� Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Comparison of Projected Average-Day Water Use and "�
Projected Average-Day Wastewater Flow �
Year Projected Average-Day Projected Average-Day Return
- Water Use Wastewater Flow Flow
(MGD) (MGD) (%)
�
1985 3.49 2. 20 63
1990 6. 53 4.18 64
1995 8.39 5. 39 64
2000 10. 56 6.77 64
� 2005 11. 64 7.62 65
�
2010 12.70 8.48 67
.
2015 13.78 9. 34 68 �
�
' 2020 14.84 10. 20 69
2027 16. 36 11. 39 70 '"'�"`
3
1 'I
�
7
i�
N.�
3. 13
� FREESE AND NICHOLS��NG.
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
�� � WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
PROJECTED WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOWS
�
17
16
/
/
15 �
14
/
/
13 .WATER USE
�2 �
/.
- p 11 �
�
�
3 �o
,�.� o /
LL 9 �
- � } �
Q
�
w 8
= C7 �
Q /
�
w � /
� .
Q WASTEWATER FLOW
6 �
/
° /
5
. /
/
4 �
--- HISTORICAL ,
3
: Z
� •
PROJECTED
1
�
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2027
YEAR
� " FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC.
��
• FIGURE 3.6
i
Wastewater flow, much like water usage, will vary in rates
�
throughout the day. There will be peak flow periods when large quan-
" tities of wastewater will be released into the system in a relatively
short time; in a like manner, there will be periods of much less intense
flow through the system.
' Determination of these periods of maximum and minimum flow and
I I their relationship with the average daily wastewater flow is an es-
= I sential part of projecting wastewater flows. A review of the Peach
Street Plant' s operating records for 1984 revealed that the ratio of the
maximum dry-day flow rate to average daily flow was approximately 2.21.
However, studies have shown that the ratio of average flow to peak flow
will vary throughout the wastewater collection system. The larger the
�
service population and the further downstream in the collection system,
the more stable the flows will become, thus having a smaller peaking """"�"
factor. These studies show that the peaking factor at any point in the :g�„
collection system is a function of the contributing population at that
, point. Thus a sewer line at the upper reaches of the collection system
_ '
, ', will have a larger peaking factor than that experienced at the treatment
plant.
Several papers by well-known authorities have been published on
� this subject. The 1970 edition of ASCE Manual of Practice No. 37 pre-
� sents several of these authorities' works. The work which is considered
i to be most applicable for peaking the City of Grapevine' s residential
Iwastewater flows is the Harmon curve. This curve was developed by W.G.
Harmon and is widely used by consultants in the sanitary engineering
field. Expressed mathematically, this curve states that:
;W�
3. 14
FREESE AND NICMOLS�INC.
�, ,. M = 1 + 14
4 +�
' '�� Where: M = the ratio of maximum to average dry-weather flow rate
P = the population of the contributing area in thousands
Commercial/industrial and hotel/corporate office flows will have a
different peaking factor. During the daytime hours, wastewater flow
rates are above the average-day flow. One reason for this higher rate
of f 1 ow i s the contri buti on from C/I and HCO devel opment. A peak f 1 ow
, rate ratio of 2.40 times the average daily C/I and HCO flow will be used
in this study. This ratio assumes that all of the daily commercial/
industrial , and hotel/corporate office wastewater flows will be gen-
erated in a ten-hour period.
�I,` ` The final com onent in determinin the
P g peak two-hour flow is in-
,,..: .,
filtration and inflow. Infiltration and inflow associated with peak wet
��� weather flow rates in the Peach Street service area is shown to be 183
GPCD. Records are not available to determine this rate in the TRA
service area. It also was shown that this rate could vary through the
' service area but without additional studies exact quantities and
location could not be determined. The City's staff is aware of in-
filtration and inflow problems in some areas of the City and is be-
ginning the process to locate and eliminate these extraneous flows into
the system. Without additional studies it would not be practical to
#
predict where or how much the infiltration and inflow rate could be
reduced. Therefore, for the purposes of this update the I/I component
` for peak two-hour flows will remain at 183 GPCD throughout the study
; ���
period.
�
3. 15
FREESE AND N�CHOLS,ING.
Table 3. 7 shows the projected flow rates for the Peach Street and
TRA service areas for various years from 1985 through 2027. These
projected flows are based on the estimates of population and land use
��w
presented in Section 2.0 and the projections of the wastewater flow
components made in this section.
; Wastewater flow projections for three areas outside of the existing
city limits have been estimated to determine what affect annexation of
these areas would have on the wastewater collection system. The first
area is northwest of the City and is bounded by Dove Road on the south,
Lonesome Dove Avenue on the west and Lake Grapevine on the north and
east. This area would be developed as residential owner occupied
dwelling units with an estimated population when fully developed of
- 1,254. Average-day wastewater flow for this area using 97 GPCD would be
0.12 MGD.
The second area is on the western edge of the City, west of
K,.�
Grapevine Industrial Park and north of State Highway 26. There are
approximately 60. 53 acres in this area which would be developed for
light industrial usage. The estimated average-day wastewater flows for
: this area, using 960 GPAD, would be 0.06 MGD. The last area is located
' along Denton Creek northeast of Grapevine in Denton County. There are
approximately 127.45 acres in this area. It is estimated that 117.44
acres would be developed for light industrial usage and 10.01 acres for
community commercial usage. Again, using 960 GPAD for the average-day
wastewater flow, the estimated flow for this area would be 0. 12 MGD when
� fully developed.
These three areas are located in the Peach Street service area.
3. 16 t:�
. FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC.
� � 41 � M l0 O 01 � O cD � O
ro o +� o
a� _ �o c� c+�i t� o ri �r �.ri ui � r�
�..: a � � � � � �--i r+ �--i r-+ �
N �
E �
� R7 � �' � t`� O t.f) � rl 00 O
E � N � O Ct 0p O in r-1 I`� N r--I
�,ar �0 •r I +� C7
41 X � R7 � N � t.C') 00 00 Q1 Q1 O rl
S- c0 L � � � ri
Q � �
4J
U I
•r �
> � 3 � Q1 01 O OJ N CD 01 M f�
� L r� � O C,7 lD �p M N � I� Q� N �
s N � RJr— � . . . . . .
tn a1 � l.L �/ O rl N M M M M � d'
>
�t Q
�
I--
C
0
� +� i-�-I O N 00 00 00 OJ 40 00
C 41 �C N N I� N N N N N N
f� S- r .. w .. w .. w w .. ..
� �C � I'� I� N N N N N N N
d Ll r--I N M M M M M M
4J O
° L U d
N •r-
lA i.
r0 41
� N
C1
c E
•r- O1 �
> +�
n N tA �
M (0 tn O
' L- r— L O rl M � N rl N ri t!')
N C7 C ti �C � N � 00 a' lD rl l0 ri lD ri rl
r O tG 0 +� �
.f] 4- •r S.. N 2 f0 C.7 lD O N Ch I.f) 1� 00' O N
; � , H � U +� � N � u ri e� rl r� r-I r-I N N
; N �0 f0
- +� r 3 N
•r r � L � �
U O +� ¢L � �0 � Q1 tD Ql tn N rl N rl �
+�:,;� C.3 tn E O d � O M lD u") O � O t.[) �
- �0 N •r I +� C7
s- 3 c� X �, ro � � � r� o0 o r-i m � cn
� TJ > � � � � r� ri ri rl r�
�d N S-
3 +� N
N U N I
+� Q1 N
= V1 ' +� � 3 � r"� Q1 Q1 Q1 O N tf) h N
- R1 O N fC � O C.7 It) � O �' rl I� M Q1 a0
� d i- G1 � 11.. � r-I N M M ct �' t.C) tn lD
+> >
N Q
t
t� C
�0 O
aJ •� N I� t[) �t �h � cF' � �
� b � � rn � � � � � �
r
� ch N lD O O O O O O
Cl rl N N M M M M M M
O
n.
L �n o �n o �n o �n o �
�d QO Q� Q1 O O r� r-� N N
C1 O� O1 Q1 O O O O O O
' i �,,;.<,>
� r-� r-� r--I N N N N N N
�
3.17
� FREESE AN�NIGHOLS�INC.
The combined estimated total average-day wastewater flow for these three
areas is 0. 30 MGD for ultimate development. Annexation of these three �
areas would increase the City' s estimated total average-day wastewater
flow in the Peach Street service area from 6.82 MGD for ultimate
conditions to 7.12 MGD. Peaking factors for the maximum dry-day flow
rate and infiltration and inflow also would apply to these additional
wastewater flows.
�
� �
; ;
' I
�
i
. �
�
i
� 3. 1 O ���w:",::id
� FREESE AND NICMOLS�INC.
4.0 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
��-�
4. 1 Design Criteria
,;�,,,� The purpose of thi s secti on i s to summari ze the cri teri a used i n
this study to analyze the City of Grapevine' s wastewater collection
system. Two periods were analyzed: projected 1985 flows for current
conditions and projected 2027 flows for ultimate conditions. The pro-
= jected peak two-hour design flow rates for these periods were compared
to the existing maximum carrying capacities of the wastewater collection
system pipelines to determine if any improvements will be required.
Freese and Nichols has developed a computer program for the
analysis and planning of wastewater co7lection systems. This program
was used in the update of the Master Plan for Grapevine' s Wastewater
Collection System. The model of Grapevine' s collection system will
_�` `"'"' remain a part of Freese and Nichols' permanent files, should the City
.�>��
require additional studies.
° Construction drawings of the major collection lines in the waste-
water system were reviewed and the data was input into the computer
program to determine maximum carrying capacities of the line segments
_ between manholes. In most instances, invert elevations of the upstream
and downstream manholes, pipe length, slope, and diameter were obtained
� from the drawings. In cases where this information was not available, a
field survey was performed to obtain the necessary information. A
tabulation of this information including the results of the computer
: analysis for 1985 and 2027 conditions is provided under separate cover.
The maximum capacity of the sanitary sewer segments were calculated
�`�°" by use of Manni ng' s Equati on:
+�► 4. 1
FREESE ANO NIGHOLS�ING.
; Q = 1.49 AR2/3 S1/2
n
�
Where: Q = Flow (ft.3/sec. ) 2
A = Area of pipe (ft. )
n = Coefficient of friction «�
� S = Slope or grade of sewers (ft./ft. )
. R = Hydraulic radius (ft. )
Additional sanitary sewer design criteria used in the analysis are:
�
l. Minimum velocity flowing full at 2 ft/sec.
, 2. Maximum velocity flowing full at 10 ft/sec.
3. Minimum acceptable slopes.
Sewer Size Minimum
Slope in Feet
Cin) Per 100 Feet
8 0.33
10 0.25
12 0.20
15 0. 15
18 0.11
21 0. 09
, 24 0.08 �""�"
27 0.06
30 0.06 .�:.�
33 0. 05
36 0.05
39 0.04
42 0. 04
This design criteria conforms to that which has been adopted by the
, Texas Department of Health (TDH) and the Texas Department of Water
Resources {TDWR).
4.2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The Peach Street Wastewater Treatment Plant is classified as a
contact-stabilization activated sludge process. The plant was origi-
nally designed to produce an effluent quality of 20 mg/1 of biochemical
= oxygen demand (BOD) and 20 mg/1 of total suspended solids (TSS) at a �
i
� 4. 2 ������
.. FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
flow rate of 1.5 million gallons per day.
�
The State discharge permit has since been revised to a more
, � �
�
� stringent effluent requirement of 10 mg/1 BOD and 15 mg/1 TSS. In order
+ for the plant to meet these more stringent effluent requirements
� �..�
I
tertiary filters were added to remove suspended biological floc material
� in the secondary clarifier effluent. Addition of these filters has
_ allowed the plant to meet the 10 mg/1 BOQ and 15 mg/1 TSS and also
�
� increase the rated capacity to 1.75 MGD.
! j Plans which would increase the rated capacity of the Peach Street
�
� Plant by 2.0 MGD are almost complete and construction should begin in
� the next few months. This expansion will increase the plant' s rated
capacity to 3.75 MGD. Based on the projections of average-day waste-
�
5
, � water flow made in this study, this plant expansion will meet the needs
II � of the Peach Street Service Area through the year 2000. There is suffi-
,
I ; �" cient room at the existing site for an additional 2.0 MGD expansion and
' ' possibly another 1.25 MGD.
1 �;�
Wastewater flows in the TRA service area are collected and trans-
;
�� ! ported to the TRA Plant in Irving. Any expansion at this plant will be
; , made by the TRA and Grapevine's share of the cost of any expansion would
�
i
� ° most likely be passed along as a rate increase by TRA to the City.
�
i 4.3 Lift Stations
� The existing lift stations in Grapevine' s wastewater collection
;
i i
; system are described in Table 4.1. Included in this table are the
I s
I i number of pumps at each station and the rated characteristics of each
pump. The capacity of each lift station with the largest pump out-of-
service is based on the design criteria adopted by the TDH and the TDWR.
.�-.�
i
! � 4.3
�; �
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
Tabl e 4. 1
City of Grapevine
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
� Existing Lift Station Characteristics
Li ft Stati on Pump Data Capaci ty wi th �'"�""`
Number Rated Rated Largest Pump
of Capacity Head Out-of-Service
�
Pumps (GPM) (Ft) (MGD)
Lakeview 2 120 60 0.17
� Kimball Road 2 360 95 0. 52
- Dove #2 (2) 2 500 105 0.72
: 800(1) 115(1) 1.15(1)
�
Russwood
' Dove #1 3 1,600 7.49
Peach Street WWTP 2 350 0.50
t
Ball Street 2 80 40 0. 12
� Minters Chapel 2 600 80 0.86
�
Golf Course 2 50 80 0.07
Water Treatment Plant 2 225 0.32 ��"'
; Highway 121 2 100 62 0.14
;
' Hilton 2 850 140 1.22
1,400(1) 198(1) 2.02(1)
}
Dooley Street 3 275 43 0. 79
= Hood Lane 2 180 0.26
(1) With impeller change
; (2) Space for one additional pump
�
ill
�
�,�.,�
��.
4.4 �I
,���
FiiEESE AND NICNO�S�INC. I I
All of these lift stations, with the exception of the Ball Street and
3 �. _
Minters Chapel Lift Stations, are in the Peach Street service area.
The total pumping time for the Minters Chapel pumps when pumping to
_ �-� the Peach Street service area for dry-weather and wet-weather periods
3
was shown in Table 3.4. Reviewing the same pump run time records after
this lift station was diverted show that the total run time for the
pumps for dry-weather conditions has increased from 672 minutes per day
- to 1,900 minutes per day. This is an increase of 183 percent. The
' � 1 onger run ti me i s due to an i ncrease i n head at whi ch the pumps must
" operate against and results in lower flows from the pumps. Operating
the pumps at these high heads not only increases power cost but during
wet-weather flow periods, the flows into the lift station could exceed
; the capacity of the pumps operating at the higher head.
The 1983 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan recommended the
,w
' 3 diversion of the Minters Chapel Lift Station flow from the Peach Street
� �:� to the TRA service area. This diversion included making improvements to
the lift station itself. The City has completed the first phase of this
` by constructing the necessary force main and gravity lines and is in the
, process of replacing the pumps at this lift station which will reduce
�
the pump run time and lower the pump operating heads.
4.4 Analysis of Wastewater Collection System
i
Grapevine' s existing wastewater collection system has been analyzed
;
' for projected peak two-hour flow rates for current and ultimate develop-
' ; ment conditions. The results of the computer analysis for these condi-
�
tions have been furnished under separate cover. A map of the major
�
�' �,�* interceptions in the collection system and the segments of the system
4. 5
' �
FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC.
' which are projected to be overloaded during peak flow conditions for
current and ultimate conditions are shown on Plate II at the end of this
�
� report.
' Plate III illustrates are the improvements recommended for the ,��
�
wastewater collection system. These improvements have been developed
; into two programs. The first group of improvements is proposed from
�
1986 through 1991 an the second group is proposed from 1992 through
� 2000. Only one improvement is proposed after the year 2000. This is
� the expansion of the Peach Street Wastewater Treatment Plant to an
� ultimate capacity of 7.00 MGD.
:; The number shown by each improvement corresponds to the proposed
program of improvements presented in Section 7.0 and the detailed cost
' estimate for each project which is included in Appendix A. This study
assumes that improvements proposed for overloaded segments of the
� existing system will be accomplished by using parallel lines. During �
the planning for each individual project to reinforce existing lines, it ���,,
is recommended that the City use its video equipment to inspect the
existing lines. If existing lines are determined to be in need of
; ', repair, the City should consider replacing the lines. Replacement line
;
sizes are included in the results of the computer analysis which are
furnished under separate cover.
Sewer lines shown in undeveloped or newly developing areas have
'- , been sized for the projected peak two-hour flow for ultimate conditions
,
�I based on the projections of population, land use development, and
� �
� wastewater flows made in this study. Estimated construction dates are
� based on the projections of short-term and long-term growth. It is
�
. 4.6 I
,�.,x�
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
recommended that the City of Grapevine continue to monitor its growth
� �.,,.M
rate and wastewater flow. If changes are noted which differ from the
�
'' projections made in this study, it may be necessary to adjust the
� �' estimated construction date for some projects.
i
Improvements proposed to reinforce the existing system from 1986
4
� through 1991 include replacement of the pumps at the Minters Chapel Lift
Station. The recommended firm capacity of this lift station is I.91
- MGD. The City is currently in the process of making these improvements
: at the Minters Chapel lift station. Modifications to the Dove No. 2
s
Lift Station are also proposed. The firm pumping capacity should be
�
� increased to 4.49 MGD.
i
The existing 12-inch pipeline in Dove Road from Park Boulevard to
� Dove Loop Road is projected to be overloaded under 1985 peak flow con-
', ; ditions. A 10-inch diversion line is recommended along Park Boulevard.
,�,,.b
This diversion sewer will connect to an existing 12-inch line which
' ' flows to the 18-inch interceptor along Hudgens Branch Creek. It also is
;
recommended that the wastewater flow to Ball Street Lift Station be
I �
diverted through a new 10-inch gravity line to the two existing sewer
I ; lines under State Highway 114 and connect to the recently constructed
Minters Chapel Lift Station Diversion Sewer. From the information
available, it appears that the Ball Street lift station could be
abandoned.
i
' A parallel 27-inch and 30-inch gravity sewer is proposed from
I ; Wildwood Lane south along Boyd Drive, west to Dooley Street, then south
�
' to the existing east side outfall sewer line. It also is recommended
I, i
j E that the existing east side outfall sewer be paralleled with a 30-inch
�
'� ;
4.7
�I
. - FREESE AND NIGNOLS�ING.
� line. A 12-inch parallel sewer line is proposed along Snakey Lane from
� Kimball Road to Dove Road, and from this point to the Dove Road No. 2 �
� Lift Station it is proposed that a 15-inch parallel sewer line be con-
� structed. The last project recommended to reinforce the existing system "�"�
by 1991 is the paralleling of the Timberline Drive Sewer at three
� locations.
� The remaining improvements proposed from 1986 through 1991 are
recommended to serve newly devloping areas. One project to note is the
� proposed extension of the 12-inch line along Heritage Avenue. It is
recommended that this line be extended to serve the area north and south
of Mustang Drive and east of Tanglewood. Diversion of wastewater flows
in this area eliminates the projected overflow conditions in the
� existing sewer line in Mustang Drive and allows the proposed parallel
' line segments for the Timberline Drive sewer to be reduced to the
3
£ �
10-inch and 15-inch segments as shown on Plate III.
,
� From 1992 through 2000 i t i s pro j ected that modi f i cati ons wi 11 be IN'�
�
required at the Hilton Lift Station. It is recommended that the firm
' capacity of the lift station be increased to 8. 32 MGD and a parallel
, 16-inch force main be constructed. It also is recommended that the area
;
- south of the St. Louis Southwestern Railroad between William D. Tate
Avenue and State Highway 114 be diverted to the TRA service area. As
;
growth occurs in the western portion of the City, it is projected that
�
} the west side outfall will become overloaded during peak flow con-
�
ditions. Diverting this area to the TRA service will eliminate the need '
�
to parallel the west side outfall line.
; There are four areas in the existing collection system which will
�
'r
4.8
',�.;�
FqEESE AND NICNOLS�ING. I
, require reinforcement during this period. Parallel 6-inch sewers will
- � .,,
be required along College Street and Northwest Highway and 8-inch
° parallel sewers will be required along the Faris Branch Interceptor and
_
: �x, the Little Bear Creek Interceptor. One line is proposed to serve a
�
potential growth area. This is a 12-inch line along the north side of
the proposed State Highway 360.
In addition to analyzing the system for projected peak flows based
�
� on the ultimate development of land within the existing City limits,
three additional areas within Grapevine' s extraterritorial jurisdiction
were also included in the analysis to determine if annexation of any or
= all of the areas would change any of the improvements or necessitate
additional improvements. The location of these three areas and their
z projected wastewater flows are discussed in Section 3.0.
Each of the areas which could be annexed is served by a distinct
� `� ` area of the wastewater collection system making changes to the recom-
; �,,u� mended improvements or additional improvements easily identifiable with
each area.
: Annexation of the northwest area would require increasing the
capacity of the Kimball Road Lift Station to 1.39 MGD and the construc-
tion of a 6-inch parallel force main. A parallel 6-inch gravity line
along Kimball Road from Mercury Drive to Lakeview Drive also will be
required. The proposed 12-inch and 15-inch Snakey Lane parallel sewer
3
= would increase to a 15-inch and 18-inch parallel sewer and the firm
; capacity of the Dove No. 2 Lift Station should be increased to 5.00 MGD
�
instead of the 4.49 MGD recommended in this study. Also the proposed
� 10-inch Park Boulevard-Hudgens Branch Diversion Sewer should be in-
- �,...,
� 4. 9
FREESE AND NIGHOLS�INC
, creased to a 12-inch gravity line. Estimated total costs of the pro-
posed improvements for this area without annexation is $463,016. The �
total cost of additional improvements and the oversizing of the proposed
, improvement is required for the annexation is estimated to be $239,982.
If the area west of the Ci ty i s annexed, i t woul d be di verted to
the 10-inch Heritage Avenue sewer extension and no additional improve-
ments would be required.
_ I�I Annexation of the area northeast of the City will require the
Denton Creek Lift Station to have a firm capacity of 3.12 MGD instead of
the 2.82 MGD recommended in this study, and the Hilton Lift Station' s
= firm capacity should be 8.61 MGD instead of the recommended 8. 32 MGD.
', It is estimated that annexation of this area will increase the total
: ' costs of these lift stations by $16,988.
' There are three subdivisions in Grapevine which are served by
�
septic tanks instead of the wastewater collection system. These sub-
- divisions are Druid Hills, 0'Dell Court, and Los Robles, all of which '"'�"
are located in the TRA service area. When these subdivisions were
� I
developed, the most practical way to serve them was with septic tanks.
Because of the new development taking place in the southwest area of the
� City, the wastewater collection system has been extended to the area
where these subdivisions are located and they could now be connected to
the wastewater collection system. It is recommended that the City
' I provide wastewater collection lines in these subdivisions to eliminate
_ i septic tank usage.
; '
�
�
4. 10
. ��
� � FREESE AND NICHOlS�INC
5.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
� ° The proposed program of improvements for the period 1986 through
1991 is outlined in Table 5.1. The improvements are divided into years
�
, and improvements should be completed by the year indicated. Only those
improvements that are considered necessary for satisfactory operation of
the system have been included. Some of the collection lines have been
oversized to allow for anticipated ultimate development within the City.
,I ' This study has only considered the principal collector lines in the
system. In new service areas, additional smaller lines will also be
� required.
' The overall estimated total costs are intended to reflect the
complete cost of placing a line in service, including contingencies and
� engineering and administration. These estimates are based on recent
�, �
construction costs. Right-of-way costs have not been included in these
� costs. The cost on individual projects can be expected to vary above
or below the indicated cost, depending on actual costs at the time of
construction. Unit costs and detaild estimates for each project have
: been included in Appendix A. The number associated with each project is
used to identify the project on Plate III.
' The scheduling of improvements in Table 5.1 was based on the needs
; of the collection system, foreseeable short term growth, and economics.
It is recommended that Grapevine continue to monitor its growth and
;
- water consumption to determine if the estimated completion dates for
$
these projects should be adjusted.
,�„a�
5. 1
� . FREESE AND NICHOLS�ING.
�
Table 5.1
Ci ty of Grapevi ne ,,,�,
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Proposed 1986 Through 1991 Improvements Program
�
� Year Description 1985 Total i
Estimated Cost �
I
3 1986 None Proposed $ 0 �I
1987 1) 10-inch and 12-inch Heritage Avenue
_ ', Sewer Extension $ 303,302
� ', 2) Dove No. 2 Lift Station Modifications 156,013
�
' 3) Denton Creek Lift Station and Sewer Lines 712,566 I
� 1987 Total $1,171,881 '
1988 4) 10-inch Ball Street Lift Station Diversion $ 66,484
- 5) 27-inch and 30-inch Boyd and Dooley
Parallel Sewer 180,157
E 1988 Total $ 246,641
�
1989 6) 10-inch Park Boulevard-Hudgens Branch
- Diversion $ 43,486
_ 7) 12-inch and 15-inch Snakey Lane Parallel �
Sewer 263,517
8) 10-inch Glade Road Sewer Extension 90,757
� ��
- 1989 Total $ 397,760
� 1990 9) 30-inch East Side Outfall Parallel Sewer $ 402,191
1991 10) 10-inch and 15-inch Timberline Drive Parallel
Sewer $ 145,151
3 I
', 1986 THROUGH 1991 TOTAL $2,363,624
: I
;
�
5.2 „�
FREESE AND NICHOLS,INC I
Estimated total cost for the 1986 through 1991 program is
�..,.,,
$2,363,624. The largest expenditure is $712,566 in 1987 when the Denton
Creek Lift Station is constructed.
= �_-� Improvements recommended from 1992 through 2027 (ultimate develop-
ment) are shown in Table 5.2. The total 1985 estimated cost of these
' improvements is $8,140,103. The largest single expenditure during this
period is $6,166,875 for a increase of 3.25 MGD in treatment capacity at
= the Peach Street Plant.
�..,..
�
;
�-•.,
5. 3
�
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
5
Table 5.2
City of Grapevine
; Wastewater Collection System Master Plan "�'
Proposed 1992 Through 2027 Improvements
�a�
� Description 1985 Total
Estimated Cost
;
11) Hilton Lift Station Modifications $1,579,575
12) 8-inch William D. Tate - Dallas Road Diversion
= Sewer 75,407
�
13) 6-inch College Street Parallel Sewer 101,776
' 14) 6-inch Northwest Highway Parallel Sewer 56,159
15) 8-inch Farris Branch Parallel Sewer 8,995
' 16) 8-inch Little Bear Creek Parallel Sewer 33,502
_ 17) 12-inch State Highway 360 Sewer Extension 117,814
18) 3.25 MGD Peach Street WWTP Expansion 6,166,875
= 1992 THROUGH 2O27 TOTAL $8,140,103
; ��
_
:
F
.���
i
�
,�
5.4
��
� FREESE AND NIGHOLS�ING.
"..._
��
�
APPENDIX A
�...,
COST ESTIMATES
�,�
i
�
i
,�,_.
,�
�
FREESE AND NIGHOLS,ING
Appendix A
Table of Contents �,
Description page ,�
Table A.1 Cost Estimating Guide for V. C. Sewer Pipe A-1
Table A.2 Cost Estimating Guide for Force Mains and
' Road/Railroad Borings A-2
1) Heritage Avenue Sewer Extension A-3
2) Dove No. 2 Lift Station Modifications A-4
3) Denton Creek Lift Station A-5
4) Ball Street Lift Station Diversion A-6
5) Boyd and Dooley Parallel Sewer A-7
6) Park Boulevard-Hudgens Branch Diversion A-8
;
s 7) Snakey Lane Parallel Sewer q-g
8) Glade Road Sewer Extension A-10
� �
� 9) East Side Outfall Parallel Sewer A-11
= 10) Timberline Drive Parallel Sewer A-12 ���
11) Hilton Lift Station Modifications A-13
= ' 12) William D. Tate - Dallas Road Diversion Sewer A-14
�� 13) College Street Parallel Sewer A-15
14) Northwest Highway Parallel Sewer A-16
15) Farris Branch Parallel Sewer A-17
, 16) Little Bear Creek Parallel Sewer A-18
' 17) State Highway 360 Sewer Extension A-19
', 18) Peach Street WWTP Expansion A-20
�
ro��
FREESE AND NICMOLS�INC
b t.[') O O tn O O O O O O O O
O N rl d' r-� M QO 00 QO 00 O O O
�� .,, O tD00ri �' aONlDril� d' NOO
M t,C) t.['1 tD tD C� I� h� 00 00 � O r--I N
r-1 r-� �--I
H}
�..,� OOOt1') Ot.C) Lf') 000000
O rl 00 00 N O M Cf' N � O O O
1� 40 O N �.1') O� c'7 I� r--1 tn 01 d 01 t1�
N � t.f') u") i1") t1� lD lD f� 1� i� 00 00 61
�
O O O O t1� � � 0 0 0 0 0 0
OOtS') NNI� I� dON0000
� ON � I� OMI`� OOON � OOrI
N d' � d' ct' � t.f) � L.t� lD101DtDI�
�
- a
o �n o u� o �n o �n o 0 0 0 0
•� 000 � �n � rncoc� � �n000
a -
r-1 NMl� 00r-� d' OOONd' 1'� Od
'C L N MMMM �F' � ctLC'It.C) � �!") IDtD
� N
+� 3 �4
c/') N
N
Ol O �f') t!') OOOOI.f) 0 � 000
+� U l0 �' � I� MtDMOr1 � 000
= N tn -
C 00 f,I') I� Ol r-1 �' f� r-1 M t.f') I� O � o
•rCn � r-i NNNMMMd' �' CF' d' t.C) lnlD
>
C1 C i.. �{}
" rl O O •
�d •'- � r
� - ¢ i .i-> f0
(,7 U N •r OOOOOOt.f) 000000
GJ N 'i3 i OOctM � I� I� Mc}' tDr1000
r 4-- r� •r Q1 �
; � � � O � � +� t.t) O N � tD 40 rl tn (� Q1 N tt') 00 ri
RI OC,7 � �--1 NNNNNMMMMct � �t �
1— � U E � C
•r L C O� L O
�v,�, C.� GJ •r C U . t r-
+-> +� •� �OLL U } r-
rts rt� � o �no �n �n �n �n �n00000 w . ro • b
3 E "6 COOf� t.f) tD � Orld' Q1000 J WNC,7
� •r � - O
+� +� � N f� Q10Nchl� i--IMt.C) I� OMCO 00000
tn tn �--i rirINNNNMMMMd' �t' ct • 000 �
Rf W � O
3 b �r �n000r-+
- .}� � 01 O 11� N
- N i. 64 ri N
O O tf}b4 ef}y�}
U C OO � Ot.f) 00000000
N d' I� M O lD Q1 r-� d' O O O O
"v - II
c o �.ri � � oi T--+ ri � ai r-+ d� r� o �ri II II II II
RS rl �--Irlr-Ir-INNNNc+') MM � �'
� Ef}
r- la
•r- \
�
�L Ot.f) OtC) OOOtn � 0000 O
U tD �f) f� Q1 �1") 00 rl N +.t) rl O O O
�C - V7
� 00 Md' LC) tD000d' 1D00r--1 �' � N N
r-� rir-irlriNNNNMMM � � +�
O s C
� � t � �
C C O. E
- •i- R1 � al
- L f 0 U
U 000 �.!') � �1') Otl') 00 �d C
C O 00 0.7 U1 tl') 01 O ct' Q1 lt7 lg Cl r-- O
Q) - r- GL•r
S- lD NNMd' tDaONctlDQ1 O O1 V1
+� r� rlr-Irlr-Ir-� NNNN �i' .� tna' C
� N � � � � 7 +-> a
41 L E O C X
7 ONd' 1O000N � 1D000 � rt7 C E W
r- +� W 0p r-I r-1 r-� r-i ri N N N N N M C L (0 G! a.
� e�+^�'�� U � \\\\\\\\\\\\\ Rf +� N 7 f-
C U OlDC00NcF1D000Ntt1000 +� X � R73
f-+ r� rlr-Irir-iNNNNN NWUd3
A-1
FREESE AND NIGHOLS,INC.
Table A.2
; City of Grapevine �
' Wastewater Collection S stem Stud
Cost Estimatinq Guide for Force Mains and Road Railroad Borinqs
�
�
. Force Mains Borings
Diameter Unit Casing Size Unit
(in. ) Cost (in. ) Cost
i
� 10 $ 16.69 18 $200.00
12 21.56 24 250.00
; 16 32.37 27 280.00
' ' 20 57.78 33 330.00
24 39. 18 36 350.00
; 27 55.87 42 400.00
i 30 63.81 48 450.00
36 82.64 54 500.00
42 96.25 60 550.00
' 48 124.82 66 600.00
• 54 145.11 72 650.00
60 174. 15
3 �
<
� .,:,�
� �
, ��
; �'�
�
�
�
A-2
F(iEESE AND NIGHOLS�ING.
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
.�-,-..
a Description: 1) Heritage Avenue Sewer Extension
a
��
Estimated Construction Date: 1987
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
; 10-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 5,680 LF $ 19.30 $109,624
° 12-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 800 LF 22.55 18,040
Standard Manholes 18 EA 950.00 17,100
Extra Manhole Depth 90 VF 100.00 9,000
- Road Crossing 24-inch 300 LF 250.00 75,000
Pavement Replacement 550 SY 20.00 11,000
'• Subtotal $239,764
Contingencies 15% 35,965
Estimated Construction Cost $275,729
Engineering and Administration 10% 27,573
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $303,302
$
�. ,_
��
;
I �
, j
" ,A="'.;.,,-.+.s.
i
' �, A-3
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC
I
�
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
i
�
Description: 2) Dove No. 2 Lift Station Modifications
Estimated Construction Date: 1987 ��'
;
�
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
� 4.49 MGD Lift Station 1 EA L. S. $109,100
Subtotal $109,100
� Contingencies 30% 32,730
;
Estimated Construction Cost $141,830
;
Engineering and Administration 10% 14,183
� TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $156,013
i
4
�
�
;
{�
1
i
3
8
i
i
�
4
�
�I��
A-4
. FREESE ANO NICMOLS�INC.
. Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
�
; Description: 3) Denton Creek Lift Station
:
�-� Estimated Construction Date: 1987
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
_ 2.82 MGD Lift Station 1 EA L. S. $138,600
12-inch Force Main 6,320 LF $ 21.56 136,259
18-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 1,040 LF 31.70 32,968
; 27-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 2,960 LF 55.85 165,316
- Standard Manholes 7 EA 950.00 6,650
Extra Manhole Depth 35 VF 100.00 3,500
Highway Crossing 42-inch 200 LF 400.00 80,000
l
Subtotal $563,293
Contingencies 159� 84,494
Estimated Construction Cost $647,787
� Engineering and Administration 10% 64,779
i TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $712,566
; ,� .
;
��
$
�
;
, �
t
�g
i
�"`.rv"
+
A-5
�, FREESE AND NICHOLS�ING.
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line �
�
Description: 4) Ball Street Lift Station Diversion
Estimated Construction Date: 1988
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost j
10-incfi Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 1,440 LF $ 19.30 $27,792
Standard Manholes 6 EA 950.00 5,700
Extra Manhole Depth 30 VF 100.00 3,000 I
Mustang Qrive Connection 1 EA L.S. 5,000
' Pavement Replacement 250 SY 20.00 5,000
} Subtotal $46,492
Contingencies 30% 13 948 �
, �
Estimated Construction Cost $60,440
- Engineering and Administration 10% 6,044
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $66,484
; �
*�
; II
�
�
'3,>,�
A-6
' FREESE AND NICFIOLS�ING
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
� ..
Description: 5) Boyd and Dooley Parallel Sewer
'�� � Estimated Construction Date: 1988
�
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
; 27-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 1,680 LF $ 55.85 $ 93,828
30-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 240 LF 64.40 15,456
Standard Manholes 6 EA 950.00 5,700
' � Extra Manhole Depth 30 VF 100.00 3,000
' � Pavement Replacement 400 SY 20.00 8,000
Subtotal $125,984
i
Contingencies 30% 37,795
Estimated Construction Cost $163,779
�
Engineering and Administration 10% 16,378
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $180,157
� :...
.�.
��a� -
;
;
1
;
.
�
i
�I �Ea�::A.
A-7
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
�
Description: 6) Park Boulevard - Hudgens Branch Diversion
Estimated Construction Date: 1989
�
�
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
10-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 1,200 LF $ 19.30 $23,160
Standard Manholes 5 EA 950.00 4,750
Extra Manhole Depth 25 VF 100.00 2,500
� Subtotal $30,410
; Contingencies 30% 9,123
� Estimated Construction Cost $39,533
' Engineering and Administration 10% 3,953
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $43,486
�,�
i
;
i
'
�
5
i
f I
A-$ , �
FREESE AND NIGMOLS�INC
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
�. ,
Description: 7) Snakey Lane Parallel Sewer
�,..� Estimated Construction Date: 1989
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
12-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' S,920 LF $ 22. 55 $133,496
� 15-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 880 LF 26.40 23,232
Standard Manholes 19 EA 950.00 18,050
Extra Manhole Depth 95 VF 100.00 9,500
Subtotal $184,278
z
Contingencies 30% 55,283
Estimated Construction Cost $239,561
� Engineering and Administration 10% 23,956
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $263,517
F
�,..,
i�viN
i
f
�
{
.�,
; w� A-9
. FREESE AND NIGHOLS�ING.
' Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
Description: 8) Glade Road Sewer Extension
Estimated Construction Date: 1989
�
��r
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
10-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 2,080 LF $ 19. 30 $40,144
Standard Manholes 8 EA 950.00 7,600
Extra Manhole Depth 40 VF 100.00 4,000
; Road Crossing 18-inch 100 LF 200.00 20,000
Subtotal $71,744
i
s Contingencies 15% 10,762
; Estimated Construction Cost $82,506
� Engineering and Administration 10% 8,251
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $90,757
: �
,�,
; i �,
,I' I
�
3
I�
A-10 tw,:�
. FREESE ANO NICHOLS�INC.
' �. . Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
�.,,.�
Description: 9) East Side Outfall Parallel Sewer
Estimated Construction Date: 1990
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
� 30-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 4,080 LF $ 64.40 $262,752
Standard Manholes 10 EA 950. 00 9,500
Extra Manhole flepth 50 LF 100.00 5,000
- Pavement Replacement 200 SY 20.00 4,000
Subtotal $281,252
Contingencies 30X 84,376
Estimated Construction Cost $365,628
Engineering and Administration 10% 36,563
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $402,191
fi,, ..
' ��
;
3
;
3
�`.uy
A-11
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC
I
; Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line �
�
Description: 10) Timberline Drive Parallel Sewer
Estimated Construction Date: 1991 �
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost ,
�
; 10-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 1,680 LF $ 19.30 $ 32,424 I
15-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 1,200 LF 26.40 31,680
Standard Manholes 12 EA 950.00 11,400
- Extra Manhole Depth 60 VF 100.00 6,000
� Rod Crossing 18-inch 100 LF 200.00 20,000
� Subtotal $101,504
Contingencies 30% 30,451
: Estimated Construction Cost $131,955
Engineering and Administration 10% 13,196
;
• TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $145,151
�
���
i
� I�,
,� �
;�
� A-12 ,;�...�
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
�. .
; Description: 11) Hilton Lift Station Modifications
�
�,�..� Estimated Construction Date: 1992-2000
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
r
- 8.32 MGD Lift Station 1 EA L. S. $ 453,000
16-inch Force Main 18,480 LF $ 32.37 598,198
Highway Crossng 24-inch 200 LF 250.00 50,000
' ' Pavement Replacement 170 SY 20.00 3,400
Subtotal $1,104,598
: Contingencies 30% 331,379
Estimated Construction Cost $1,435,977
' Engineering and Administration 10% 143,598
- TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,579,575
�. _
, ���
_
:
�
° �.-�
A-13
FFEESE AND NICHOLS�INC.
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
�
Description: 12) William D. Tate - Dallas Road Diversion Sewer
Estimated Construction Date: 1991-2000 �'"
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
' 8-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 1,760 LF $ 16.95 $29,832
Standard Manholes 6 EA 950.00 5,700
Extra Manhole Depth 30 VF 100.00 3,000
Pavement Replacement 710 SY 20. 00 14,200
Subtotal $52,732
_ Contingencies 30% 15 820 I
, ,
I
Estimated Construction Cost $68,552
Engineering and Administration 10% 6,855
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $75,407
� �
;,,,.�w
�
i
�
A-14 ��"
FREESE ANO NIGMOLS�ING.
�,.,...
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
Description: 13) College Street Parallel Sewer
�� Estimated Construction Date: 1992-2000
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
;
6-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 2,560 LF $ 14.95 $ 38,272
i Standard Manholes 18 EA 950.00 17,100
Extra Manhole Depth 90 VF 100.00 9,000
Pavement Replacement 340 SY 20. 00 6,800
Subtotal $ 71,172
Contingencies 30% 21,352
Estimated Construction Cost $ 92,524
Engineering and Administration 10% 9,252
} TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $101,776
�,:,:,
�
�
�
�
,�v„�
A-15
FfiEESE AND NICHOLS�INC
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
�
; Description: 14) Northwest Highway Parallel Sewer
Estimated Construction Date: 1992-2000 �m�
�
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
, 6-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 1,560 LF � 14.95 $23,322
Standard Manholes 7 EA 950.00 6,650
Extra Manhole Depth 35 VF 100.00 3,500 �
I
, Pavement Replacement 290 SY 20. 00 5,800
.
Subtotal $39,272
; Contingencies 30% 11,782
Estimated Construction Cost $51,054
� Engineering and Administration 10% 5,105
- TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $56,159
�
- ,._,�
;
�
$
�
�
A-16 ,,. „�
FREESE AND NICHOLS�ING
�. .:
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
� Description: 15) Farris Branch Parallel Sewer
�,,,��
Estimated Construction Cost: 1992-2000
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
8-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/122' 200 LF $ 16.95 $3,390
Standard Manholes 2 EA 950.00 1,900
_ Extra Manhole Depth 10 VF 100.00 1,000
b Subtotal $6,290
Contingencies 30% 1,887
�
Estimated Construction Cost $8,177
' Engineering and Administration 10% 818
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $8,995
; ,� ,.
�
��
�
�
P
�
�
!
' A�`"""�
A-17
FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
�
Description: 16) Little Bear Creek Parallel Sewer
Estimated Construction Date: 1991-2000 ��"`
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
8-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 1,040 LF $ 16. 95 $17,628
Standard Manholes 4 EA 950.00 3,800
Extra Manhole Depth 20 VF 100.00 2,000
Subtotal $23,428
Contingencies 30% 7,028
Estimated Construction Cost $30,456
- Engineering and Administration 10% 3,046
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $33,502
�
�
�,k�
3
ii
�
�1IIhl�
,�,��SIr
A-18
� FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC
Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
,,�.<�
Description: 17) State Highway 360 Sewer Extension
�� Estimated Construction Date: 1992-2000
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
12-inch Gravity Sewer 10'/12' 3,680 LF $ 22.55 $ 82,984
Standard Manholes 7 EA 950.00 6,650
Extra Manhole Depth 35 VF 100.00 3,500
' ' Subtotal $ 93,134
� Contingencies 15% 13,970
7
Estimated Construction Cost $107,104
Engineering and Administration 10% 10,710
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $117,814
; �.
- �
;
:
�
�
�
I
�
''� R-19
� FREESE ANO NIGHOLS�INC.
I�
I
�
� Estimated Construction Cost - Sewer Line
�
Description: 18) Peach Street WWTP Expansion
�
Estimated Construction Date: 2001-2027
Item uantit Unit Cost Cost
3.25 MGD Plant Expansion 1 EA L. S. $4,875,000
Subtotal $4,875,000
� Contingencies 15% 731,250
Estimated Construction Cost $5,606,250
Engineering and Administration 10% 560,625
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $6,166,815
�
,,.,�
;
;
;
+�w
�
A-20
: FREESE AND NICHOLS�INC. I