HomeMy WebLinkAboutDNRC (5)`e/ 1.ed to
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ?r
AND CONSERVATION
4L4?t7
` BRIAN SCHWEITZER, GOVERNOR 1625 ELEVENTH AVENUE
- STATE OF MONTANA
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE (406) 444-2074
TELEFAX NUMBER (406) 444-2684
PO BOX 201601
59620-1601
D ECE
JAN - 2 2A09
CITY OF LAUREL
December 30, 2008
Kenneth Olson Jr.
Laurel, City of
Laurel, MT 59044
Dear Kenneth:
The DNRC Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program (RRGL) received 92 applications for grant funding
this grant cycle. After an extensive review and ranking process, 89 projects were recommended for funding.
Currently, the department estimates that the funding line is at project number 52. 1 have attached the report that
describes how your project was ranked and the ranking list. The full report of the ranking can be found on
DNRC/CARDD website at htto://www.dnrc.mt.oov/cardd/default.asp .
The Legislature ultimately decides the ranking and funding of projects. This year, because of the large number
of projects and the Long Range Planning Committee's time constraints, Legislative Staff has determined there
will be a different format for legislative hearings. This year, only those projects below our funding line and 5
above the funding line will be asked to provide testimony. Although time is limited, testimony an excellent venue
for you to present your project to the committee and state why you believe your project should be funded.
Projects ranked above our estimated funding line have not been scheduled for a hearing but have an
opportunity to provide testimony at the end of Tuesday, January 15 and Friday, January 16 hearings, beginning
at about 11:15 a.m. There is only about a half an hour available, so it is recommended that testimony be brief.
If your project is scheduled, please arrive at least % hour early. Sometimes hearings are moved up on the
schedule if other projects do not take as long as planned. Only 10 minutes are allotted for testimony and
questions for each project, so please try to be brief.
I have enclosed the current RRGL schedule of the legislative hearings. The hearings on the 15th and 16th will be
for projects that applied to both the RRGL and TSEP programs and will be held jointly.
The joint hearings will begin on January 15 and the RRGL program will finish up their hearings on January 20.
Hearings will be held in Room 350 of the Capitol.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to call (406) 444-6839.
Respectfully
CiL
Pam Smith
Program Specialist, DNRC/CARDD
Enc.
Cc: File
Patrick Murtagh
CENTRALIZED SERVICES CONSERVATION & RESOURCE RESERVED WATER RIGHTS OIL & GAS TRUST LAND MANAGEMENT
DIVISION DIVISION COMPACT COMMISSION DIVISION DIVISION
(406) 444-2074 (406)444.6667 (406) 444-6841 (406) 444-6675 (406) 444-2074
Project No. 61
Applicant Name
Project Name
Amount Requested
Other Funding Sources
Total Project Cost
Amount Recommended
Project Abstract
Laurel, City of
Laurel Water System Improvements
$ 100,000 Grant
$ 500,000 Applicant
$ 625,000 TSEP Grant
$ 1,942,710 DWSRF Loan
$ 3,167, 710
$ 100,000 Grant
(Prepared and submitted by applicant)
The city's current filters and two high-service pumps are 52 years old. Throughout the system
frequent surges have damaged the rigid AC pipe and 100-year old corroded cast iron pipe.
The city recently replaced the failing intake system ($2 million).
The city's treatment system barely meets peak demand and cannot meet peak day demand if
either of the following occurs:
• Loss of either of two low-lift pumps; and
• Loss of either of two filters.
The one-ton cylinders, which are actually "dropped" onto the holding cells, are difficult to handle.
Also, no chemical mixing occurs.
A booster station exists with no storage and no back-up power.
The city proposes to provide a flash mixer, completely rebuild the two filters and repair the
pipeline from the sedimentation basins to the filters, provide a third low-lift pump, provide a dual-
speed hoist and minor improvements to the chlorination room, and provide variable frequency
drives (VFDs) for the high-service pumps. In addition, the city has begun a leak detection
program to establish pipe replacement priorities, with two years of replacement included in the
proposed project.
The city will conserve water by replacing the most severely leaking pipes, and make the
Yellowstone River water usable by achieving a firm peak day demand. The project will sharply
reduce water wasted through the daily "fluffing" and backwashing required because of failed
underdrains and old filters.
Technical Assessment
Project Background
The Laurel water system serves approximately 6,800 people and one industry (which use
approximately 20% of the treated water capacity). The WTP was constructed in the 1950s and
has been through a number of rehabilitations since. The processes include flocculation,
sedimentation, filtration, and chlorination. Portions of the pretreatment processes are located
outdoors, and the concrete basins are in very poor condition. The filters must be backwashed
frequently to maintain turbidity standards. There is operational evidence of a crushed underdrain
system and worn media. With only two filters, the frequent backwashing (multiple times a day)
leads to water shortages, particularly evident during high water demands and poor source water
quality conditions. The WTP has been well operated and, to date, has not had violations of the
SWTR. However, this is primarily the result of diligent efforts by system operators. Arguably the
city has reached a point where it has a probable chance of catastrophic failure at its WTP that
could present a public health risk and/or result in serious water shortages.
In the distribution system, challenges include pressure problems, surges, a lack of storage for fire
protection to portions of the service area, and the potential for back siphonage. Frequent leaks
and relatively high rates of water loss also occur.
Technical Aoproach
The preferred alternative primarily involves comprehensive rehabilitation of the two filters, with
other minor improvements, including limited pretreatment optimization, miscellaneous process
piping improvements, improvements in the chlorine room to reduce safety hazards, the addition of
a third low-lift pump that transfers water to the clearwell, and installation of VFDs at the high-
service pumps. Subsequent project phases would be necessary to thoroughly rehabilitate the
water treatment plant for long-term sustainable operations. Repair of the filters will result in less
frequent backwashing, more reliable and consistent water quality and quantity, increased
treatment capacity (more than double the current capacity), and elimination of sand particles in
the effluent, which appear to be the reason for operational difficulties with the low-head pumps.
Adding VFDs to the high-service pumps will decrease the potential for surges in the distribution
system that could contribute to the high number of pipeline breaks.
The PER focuses on rehabilitation of the existing WTP only, and does not consider other
alternatives for serving Laurel. Given the age and condition of the Laurel WTP, considering a
new water treatment plant would not have been unreasonable. Furthermore, given the proximity
of Laurel to Billings, teaming with Billings on water treatment improvements for both entities
should have been evaluated. The proposed rehabilitation project does not consider the possibility
that Laurel would have to meet increased disinfection requirements under the Long-Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2), Proposed work in this current project phase
would not preclude the city from reconsidering these options later. The filter rehabilitation is a
critical and immediate need for the community.
For the distribution system, the project recommends addition of an on-site generator at the
booster station, which will reduce the potential for back siphoning and loss of pressure during a
power outage. The project also includes two years of a capital program for proactively replacing
leaking distribution system piping. A leak detection project is currently under way to help identify
the worst areas in the system and develop a prioritized replacement program. By eliminating
causes of surges and pressure variations, the city will likely reduce the number of leaks in the
distribution system.
Construction is slated to begin in the fourth quarter of 2009 and end in the second quarter of
2010. Distribution system pipeline replacement will span two years (2009 and 2010) of capital
improvements.
Specific tasks to be accomplished:
• Rehabilitation of the filters;
• Installation of a flash mixer;
• Investigation and repair of the pipeline from the sedimentation basin to the filters;
• Installation of a third low-head pump;
• Installation of VFDs on the high-service pumps;
• Installation of an on-site generator at a booster station; and
• Rehabilitation of leaking pipeline within the distribution system.
Project Management
The project engineer has been selected and has considerable experience in designing and
constructing water system projects. The city has hired a project engineer to complete project
administration related to grant and loan program coordination, overall project budget
management, and communication of all related project management issues to city staff.
Public interfacing will be accomplished in the form of notification to MBEs of project bidding
opportunities; a project overview and updates will accompany community water bills.
Financial Assessment
Budget Item RRGL Grant RRGL Loan Match Total
Administration $0 $0 $195,830 $195,830
Professional & Technical $0 $0 $478,820 $478,820
Construction $100,000 $0 $2,393,060 $2,493,060
Total $100,000 $0 $3,067,710 $3,167,710
The proposed funding strategy included RRGL and TSEP grant funding, along with a loan from
the DWSRF program, and a significant commitment of local funds. Given the emergency nature
of the filter rehabilitation project and the need to proactively rectify probable causes of distribution
piping failures, the proposed funding strategy shows Laurel's commitment to completing this
project immediately. If grant funding were not awarded, the city would move forward with nearly
all proposed improvements, with some delayed or included in future project phases. The city
would either commit additional local funds (currently reserved for future phases of water system
improvements discussed in the PER) or borrow additional DWSRF loans. Rate increases would
range from $4.42 to $5.71, depending on the level of grant funding.
With completion of this project, combined utility rates will be 140% of the community's target rate.
Given the additional water system work discussed in the PER, both at the water treatment plant
and in the distribution system, the already very high rates will continue to rise significantly in the
future.
Benefit Assessment
The major resource benefits associated with this project include resource preservation and
conservation. The project will significantly reduce the amount of water necessary for
backwashing filters and also reduce the amount of water treatment residuals discharged into the
Yellowstone River. By eliminating factors contributing to pipeline breakage and replacing the
most critically deteriorated sections of the distribution system, this project will also likely result in
conservation of water by reducing the rate of water loss.
The proposed project has considerable economic impact since the water treatment plant provides
water to an industrial user; halting operations due to a failure at the water treatment plant would
likely mean temporary layoff.
Finally, although this project does not include development of renewable energy infrastructure,
proposed improvements will reduce energy needs at the water treatment plant by including VFDs
on the pumping systems and reducing backwash pumping needs.
Environmental Evaluation
The environmental checklist, a required form for consideration for grant funding, was submitted
for the wrong project as part of this application. The applicant's representatives were contacted
and a revised form was requested, but not received. It appears this was an inadvertent oversight;
however, it impacted this project's ranking considerably as the review team was unable to
consider possible environmental impacts. Despite this deficiency, all project activities will take
place within the existing WTP or in areas of the distribution system impacted by past efforts.
Therefore, environmental impacts are not anticipated. Letters received during the environmental
comment period by various agencies confirm this is likely the case. These letters reference the
appropriate project.
Short-term, negative environmental concerns associated with construction, e.g., noise and dust,
could be averted by using best management practices.
Funding Recommendation
The DNRC recommends grant funding of $100,000 upon development and approval of the final
scope of work, administration, budget, and funding package.
Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program
2009 LEGISLATIVE HEARING SCHEDULE
Hearing Time Applicant/Project Type RRGL TSEP Page = ommended
Rank
Rank
Number Request Funding
Janua 15, 2009
10:15 Pam Smith
Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program - Introductions
10:25 Greater Woods Bay Sewer District
1
Wastewater Improvements 47 62 143 $100,000 $100,000
10:35 Em-Kayan Co. W&S District
Water Improvements 38 63 119 $100.000 $1001000
10:45 Granite County _
Solid Waste and Wastewater Improvements 65 28 190 $100,000 100 000
10:55 Valier, Town of
Water Improvements 52 33 156 1001000 $100,000
11:05 Ronan, City of
Water Improvements 89 38 254 $100,000 1 $100,000
11:15 Harlowton, Town of
Water Improvements 66 43 193 $100,000 $100,000
11:25 Open time for testimony
January 18 2009
S:aD
Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program - Overview
9:00 Shelby, City of
Wastewater Im rovements 82 47 235 $100,00 0 $100,000
9:10. Eureka, Town of
Water Improvements 73 49 211 $100,000 $100,000
9:20 Troy, City of
Water Improvements 63 49 186 $100,000 $100.000
9:30 Fallon Co. North Baker W&S District
Wastewater Im ro vements 51 51 153 $100,0001 $100,000
9:40 Gore Hill Co. Water District
1
Water Improvements 85 54 244 $100,000 $100,000
9:50 South Chester County Water District
Water Improvements 69 55 201 $100,000 $100,000
BREAK
10:15 Livingston, City of
Solid Waste Improvements 72 56 209 $100.000 $100,000
10:25 Fort Smith W&S District
Water Improvements 62 60 182 $100,000 $100,000
10:35 Jette Meadows W&S District
Water Improvements 67 61 196 $100,000 $100,000
10:45 Stevensville, Town of
Water Improvements 75 64 216 $100,000 $100.000
10:55 Bridger Pines Co. W&S District
Wastewater Improvements 59 65 174 $100,000 $100,000
11:15 Open time for testimony
January 19, 2009
8:00 Flathead Joint Board of Control
FJBC Jocko K Canal Lining 53 158 $100,00 0 $100,000
8:10 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe
Upper Jocko S Canal Lining 56 166 $100,00 0 $100,000
820 St Ignatius, Town of
Water System Imp rovements 57 169 $1001000 $1001000
8:30 Flathead Basin Commission
Mapping the Impacts of Septic Systems 77 222 100.000 $100.000
8:40 Missoula County- Lewis and Clark Subdivision RSID
Water System Improvements 58 171 $11001000 100,000
8:50 Blgfork W&S District
Wastewater Improvements 70 204 $100.00 0 100,000
9:00 Whitefish, County W&S District
Stud of Septic Leachate to Littoral Areas Whitefish Lake 86 247 $70,000 $70.000
9:10 MSU Montana Watercourse
Watershed Education for Real Estate Agents 81 233 $19,333 $19,333
920 MSU Montana Water Center
Decislonmakees Guide to Montana's Water 88 251 $99,46 2 $99,462
9:30 City of Missoula
Fort Missoula/Bltterroot River Bank Stabilization Design 0 258 79,310 $79.310
9:40 Flathead County
Flathead Regional Wastewater Management Group 50 150 $89,993 $89 993
9:50 ONRC Water Resources Division
Nevada Creek Canal Design and Constriction 64 188 $100,000 $100 000
Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program
2009 LEGISLATIVE HEARING SCHEDULE
Hearing Time Applicant/Project Type RRGL TSEP Page Funding Recommended
Rank Rank Number Request Funding
BREAK
10:15 Ennis, Town of
Water S stem Improvements 60 177 100,000 $100
000
10:25 Sweet Grass County ,
Yellowstone Grecliff Stud 54 161 $80,000 $80.000
10:35 Homestead Acres County W&S District
Water S stem Im rovements 68 198 $100,00 0 $100
000
10:45 Greenacres County Water & Sewer Distict ,
WaterSystem Im rovements 71 208 100,000 $100,000
10:55 Sweet Grass County W&S District
Water S stem Improvements 84 241 $100,000 100,000
11:05 Laurel, City of
Water System Improvements 61 179 $100,000 $100,000
11:15 Open time for testimony
January 20, 2009
8:00 Buffalo Rapids Project District II
Increasing Pump Discharge Line Efficient Phase II 83 $100,000 100,000
8:10 Buffalo Rapids Project District I
Conversion of laterals 2.9/7.6 to Pipeline 78 $100 000 $100,000
8:20 Richland County CD
Lower Yellowstone GW Reservation 87 $100,000 $100,000
8:30 Daly Ditches Irrigation District
Hedge Canal Diversion Dam Replacement 78 $100,0001 $100,000
8:40 Fort Shaw Irrigation District
water quali and Quanti 79 $100,00 0 100,000
8:50 East Bench Irrigation District
EBID Sweetwater Seepage Area Canal Lining 80 $100,000 $100,000
9:00 Virginia City, Town of
Wastewater Im rovements 48 $100,000 100,000
9:10 Manhattan, Town of
Water System Improvements 74 $100,000 $122M
8:20 Helena Valley Irrigation District
HVID Canal Lining Project 49 $100.000 1001000
9:30 Cut Bank, City of
WaterSystem Improvements 55 $100,000 $100,000
9:40 Greenflelds Irrigation District
Plshkun Enla ement Stud 0 $100,000 $100,00
0
9:50 Garfield County CD
Mosb Musselshell Water Store a Pro'ect 0 $100,000 1001000
10:00 Malta Irrigation District
Prosal to change sco a from 2007 ro ect $100,000 100,000
BREAK
10:15 HBO Irrigation Funding Programs
10:30 H136 Irrigation Study Results
10:45 HB8 Intro
10:55 HBO Mill Creek Irrigation District
11:05 HBO DNRC/WRD Ruby Dam
11:15 Open time for testimony - HB 6 and H88
1=9/2008 2008 Ranked Grant Applications by Order of Ranking
Recommedation