Long term water supply summary report 20140919 by Gulf Coast Water Authority

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies (FN0907c) Prepared for:

September, 2014 Prepared by:

FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 10497 Town and Country Way, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77021 713-600-6800

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies (FN0907c) Prepared for:

Gulf Coast Water Authority

2014/09/19

Prepared by:

FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 10497 Town and Country Way, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77021 713-600-6800 GCW13494

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 1.1 1.2 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................... 2 Structure of this Document ............................................................................................... 9 Summary of Technical Analyses.......................................................................................... 11 Evaluation of Water Needs.............................................................................................. 11 GCWA Reservoir C ........................................................................................................... 14 Allens Creek Reservoir ..................................................................................................... 17 East Texas Supplies .......................................................................................................... 18 SEWPP Treated Water ..................................................................................................... 20 City of Houston Reuse ..................................................................................................... 22

3.0

Preliminary Strategy Selection ............................................................................................ 25

4.0

Estimates of Final Cost to GCWA ........................................................................................ 27

4.1 Methodology for Final Cost Estimation ........................................................................... 28 4.1.1 GCWA Baseline Costs ............................................................................................... 29 4.1.2 Allens Creek Reservoir Costs.................................................................................... 30 4.1.3 City of Houston Reuse Costs .................................................................................... 31 4.2 Final Cost Estimate Results .............................................................................................. 32 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.0

Coordination with City of Houston ..................................................................................... 35 October 28, 2013 – Southeast Water Purification Plant ................................................. 35 November 18, 2013 – 611 Walker ................................................................................... 35 June 25, 2014 – 611 Walker ............................................................................................ 35 Alternative Risk Analysis ..................................................................................................... 37

6.1 Risk Assessment Approach .............................................................................................. 37 6.1.1 Institutional and Legal Risks..................................................................................... 37 6.1.2 Regulatory and Environmental Risks ....................................................................... 38 6.1.3 Yield Reduction Risks ............................................................................................... 39 6.1.4 Cost Escalation Risks ................................................................................................ 40 6.2 Risk Analysis Results ........................................................................................................ 41 6.2.1 Institutional and Legal Risks..................................................................................... 42 6.2.2 Regulatory and Environmental Risks ....................................................................... 43

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

6.2.3 6.2.4 7.0

Yield Reduction Risks ............................................................................................... 44 Cost Escalation Risks ................................................................................................ 45

Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 47 FIGURES

Figure 1: Projected Water Demands by Type ............................................................................... 12 Figure 2: A and B System Needs Summary ................................................................................... 13 Figure 3: Potential East Texas Supply Routes ............................................................................... 20 Figure 4: Comprehensive Portfolio Cost Comparison .................................................................. 34 Figure 5: Institutional and Legal Risks Approach .......................................................................... 38 Figure 6: Regulatory and Environmental Risks Approach ............................................................ 39 Figure 7: Yield Reduction Risks Approach..................................................................................... 40 Figure 8: Cost Escalation Risks Approach ..................................................................................... 41 Figure 9: Institutional and Legal Risks Results .............................................................................. 43 Figure 10: Regulatory and Environmental Risks Results............................................................... 44 Figure 11: Yield Reduction Risks Results ....................................................................................... 45 Figure 12: Cost Escalation Risks Results ....................................................................................... 46 TABLES Table 1: Information Sources for Water Needs Analysis .............................................................. 11 Table 2: Alternatives for Development of GCWA Reservoir C ...................................................... 16 Table 3: Allens Creek Project Cost Estimate ................................................................................. 18 Table 4: Description of Potential East Texas Supply Routes......................................................... 20 Table 5: COH Reuse Alternatives .................................................................................................. 23 Table 6: Summary of Preliminary Strategy Selection ................................................................... 26 Table 7: Project Portfolios Considered in Cost Analysis ............................................................... 28 Table 8: Global Risk Factors for Project Scoring ........................................................................... 42 Table 9: Summary of Considered Strategies................................................................................. 47 APPENDICES Appendix A: Evaluation of Water Needs Appendix B: GCWA Reservoir C Appendix C: Allens Creek Reservoir Appendix D: East Texas Supplies Appendix E: SEWPP Treated Water Appendix F: City of Houston Reuse Appendix G: Strategy Portfolio Cost Analysis Appendix H: Risk Analysis Results

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Gulf Coast Water Authority (GCWA) originally engaged Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) in 2011 to begin the process of exploring long-range water supply solutions to meet the authority’s current and future needs. This study represents the most recent iteration of this exercise and examined the nature of GCWA’s demand condition as well as five specific strategies: •

GCWA Reservoir C

•

Allens Creek Reservoir

•

East Texas Supplies

•

SEWPP Treated Water

•

City of Houston (COH) Reuse

FNI provided technical analysis of each strategy included in memoranda attached to this summary report. Based on the results of these studies, two options, Allens Creek Reservoir and COH Reuse, were considered for further analysis and consideration. Of these options, both a direct and combined intake alternative were studied for the COH reuse strategy and both COH and BRA portions of Allens Creek Reservoir were considered for potential long term supply options. FNI developed portfolios of multiple projects and evaluated the impact on GCWA water rates compared against various baseline scenarios. A risk analysis was also performed to compare the alternatives on a qualitative basis. Coordination with COH was conducted in order to assess issues surrounding project implementation and the potential terms of agreements between COH and GCWA. Based on the comprehensive analysis, several recommendations and observations were made to guide GCWA’s long-range water supply pursuits: •

Pursue Allens Creek Reservoir and City of Houston Reuse in parallel tracks.

•

Utilize existing supplies to the greatest extent possible.

•

A direct reuse project from the SWWWTP generally represents a lower risk project than other options.

•

The identified need will most likely be met with a combination of projects.

•

Reuse projects represent the only near-term alternative of the options considered in this study.

•

Continue coordination with COH.

ES-1

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority â&#x20AC;˘

Based on the assumptions used in the analysis to date, BRA is a more cost-effective provider of water from Allens Creek Reservoir.

ES-2

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

1.0

INTRODUCTION

The Gulf Coast Water Authority (GCWA) serves water on a wholesale basis to customers in Galveston, Fort Bend, and Brazoria Counties. GCWA employs a combination of canal conveyance, raw water pipeline infrastructure, and treated water production and conveyance facilities to serve a combination of industrial, municipal, and agricultural demands across these counties. The majority of this water is sourced from the Brazos River (Certificates of Adjudication [COA] 5168, 5171, and 5377) with some additional supplies being diverted from Jones and Oyster Creeks (COA 5171) and Chocolate, Halls, and Mustang Bayous (COA 5357). In addition, GCWA also holds long-term contracts with the Brazos River Authority (BRA) for water backed up by reservoir storage in the Brazos River Basin that may be employed in order to supplement the water rights GCWA owns. In recent years, conditions in the Brazos River Basin have stressed water resources throughout the basin and particularly in the lower basin where run-of-the-river supplies do not have the benefit of reservoir storage to more effectively mitigate dry conditions. Most notably, priority calls were made by the Dow Chemical Company in Freeport in 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013. This call impacted water right holders junior to February 14, 1942. Although some of GCWA’s rights are senior to this date, a call at this priority has the potential to impact 165,000 ac-ft of the permitted yield of GCWA’s Brazos River rights or approximately 43 percent of the authority’s Brazos River rights, overall. This impact represents a risk to GCWA’s industrial and municipal customers who depend on a reliable supply of water, especially under dry climate conditions. GCWA engaged the services of Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) to address the issue of long-term water supply development for the authority. This effort has been separated into several phases of effort to address the issue through the consideration and analysis of various water management strategies (WMS): •

Long Range Water Supply Study (FN0907, April 2012): Prepared a list of and provided analysis of 23 broadly-defined strategies and worked with the GCWA Board of Directors to prioritize 10 strategies for further consideration.

•

Investigation of Potential Region H WMS Studies (FN0909, November, 2012): Provided detailed planning-level study of alternatives to incorporate reclaimed water from existing GCWA customers into the canal system and to deliver treated water to Galveston from the Lower Neches Valley Authority (LNVA) by way of a crossing from Bolivar Peninsula.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority •

Update to 2012 Long Range Water Supply Study (FN0907b, June 2013): Reviewed the list of 32 strategies that had evolved from the initial list considered by the 2012 Long Range Water Supply Study. Worked with GCWA Board of Directors in focusing efforts for continued study into water supply alternatives.

The effort described in this report is part of an evolving process initiated as a result of the studies described above in order to investigate the potential of five specific WMS alternatives for meeting current and future water needs of GCWA:

1.1

•

GCWA Reservoir C (SW 01.07)

•

Allens Creek Reservoir (SW 02.01)

•

East Texas Supplies (SE 06.02 and SW 12.01)

•

Southeast Water Purification Plant Treated Water (SW 13.01)

•

City of Houston Reuse (RW 01.01)

SCOPE OF WORK

The following Scope of Work was developed and approved for the investigation of the identified WMS. Effort show in light italics was proposed but not executed as part of this study. Items in bold blue represent effort that was conducted in conjunction with the development of the Region H 2016 Regional Water Plan (RWP). 1. Evaluation of Water Needs a. Utilize draft data from the 2016 Region H Regional Water Plan (RWP) and other information from GCWA to identify long-term needs for raw water (including raw water supplies to Thomas Mackey Water Treatment Plant [TMWTP]) 2020-2070. b. Use demand data and other information from GCWA to identify long-range treated water demands from the TMWTP. c. Develop a number of potential demand scenarios for consideration by GCWA, including: i. Baseline demands, assuming current municipal customers meet future needs using water from GCWA, ii. Potential growth of industrial demands, as outlined in 2016 RWP, iii. Potential expansion of Pearland surface water use over time, and

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority iv. Potential conversion of other portions of Brazoria County (Manvel area) and the GCWA service area to surface water. d. As available, utilize surface water availability data developed by GCWA and other consultants to determine the volume of raw water demand. e. Compile a comprehensive assessment of raw and treated water needs for the GCWA system and document relevant assumptions. Consider geographic location of demands and illustrate with an exhibit. 2. GCWA Reservoir C (SW 01.07) a. Geotechnical Analysis (Under separate authorization) i. Review the Geologic Atlas of Texas to study general subsurface conditions that are expected at the proposed terminal reservoir site. ii. Visit the proposed site before drilling to select locations for exploratory borings. Engineer will stake the specific locations after checking underground utilities, other existing construction, and accessibility. iii. Subcontract with a drilling contractor to drill a total of five (5) 40-foot borings at the site. iv. Provide an engineer or geologist to direct the drilling, log the borings, record field test data, and handle and transport the samples. v. Select samples for laboratory testing, assign tests, deliver samples to a subcontract laboratory selected by FNI, and review test results. Testing is expected to include classification tests (liquid and plastic limits and percent passing a #200 sieve or gradation), moisture content, unconfined compression strength tests and crumb dispersion tests. vi. Prepare a technical memorandum summary report of the geotechnical investigation to include: 1. Appendix with the boring locations, boring logs, laboratory test results, and a key to the symbols used. 2. Discussion of subsurface conditions and soil properties found by the field and laboratory work and implications for development of the site as a terminal reservoir site. These implications include potential constraints

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority such as lack of suitable soils for construction of embankments, high groundwater table, etc. 3. General discussion of expected construction related issues. 4. Submit the draft technical memorandum to GCWA for their review and comment. a. Receive

GCWA’s

comments

and

update

the

technical

memorandum for the final submittal (see task F for more information). b. Review existing (or new) boundary survey information and pipeline locations provided by GCWA as a shapefile or CAD drawing file pertaining to the approximate location of the new terminal reservoir. Also map location of geotechnical borings made as part of the reservoir investigation. Locate GCWA’s property limits, identify Rights of Way (ROWs), easements (existing and future), etc. based on survey information from GCWA. Provide for a utility search using GCWA available information or through the use of a desktop survey and discussions with pipeline owners as identified by GCWA. i. Evaluate the potential impacts of conflicts identified at the reservoir site including pipeline crossings and local drainage features. ii. Develop a high resolution map of GCWA’s ROW, property limits, easements, and utilities. Submit the map for GCWA review and comment. Receive GCWA comments and finalize the map for inclusion into the final report (see below). c. Provide for a one day environmental site inspection of the property to identify any areas that could be considered a wetland, contain endangered species, or encompass other environmentally sensitive issues. i. Provide for a preliminary technical memorandum documenting the site visit. Provide for an opinion of possible permitting requirements, graphics demarcating environmental sensitive areas, etc. ii. Submit the draft technical memorandum to GCWA for their review and comment. iii. Receive GCWA comments and update the technical memorandum for comprehensive submittal. d. Evaluate status of investigations to date and provide short, summary report to GCWA to discuss potential authorization to conduct Phase 3 investigation of GCWA Reservoir C.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority e. Determine potential volume of storage of the terminal reservoir based on the limits of the identified proposed property and the identified needs of GCWA. This information will be provided by GCWA or its third party water supply consultant. The potential volume will not include the determination of yield enhancements resulting from the inclusion of storage in the current GCWA system. It will be assumed that: i. Water can be made available for the reservoir (existing canal has capacity, existing pump station (Briscoe) can provide for the supply ii. Water will be pumped into the reservoir (not gravity fed) iii. Structure(s) necessary for customer take points will not be include iv. Terminal Reservoir C will operate independently of Reservoirs A and B f.

Develop preliminary concept for reservoir configuration. This will include: i. Geometry of terminal reservoir taking in consideration the potential storm surge, saltwater barrier, freeboard, wave action, etc. 1. Height of embankments (A detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis will not be completed to estimate the height of the embankments; rather a rule of thumb will be used) 2. Side slopes of embankments 3. Crest width 4. Maintenance drives ii. Identify potential spillway configurations and material makeup (assumes that discharges will outfall into Dickinson Bayou). iii. Based on the geotechnical information described above, consider the following technical parameters concerning the potential terminal reservoir: 1. Usability of existing onsite materials 2. Need to line portions of the reservoir bottom, inside slopes, etc. 3. Need for internal drainage 4. Need for toe drains 5. Need for relief well system 6. Slope protection (inside slopes and outside slopes) 7. Limits of vertical depth excavation for the terminal reservoir

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority g. Coordinate with pump station and pipeline engineers to discuss a transfer pump station location and potential outfall structure that may be considered to discharge canal water into the reservoir. h. Provide for a planning level Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the analyses described above. i.

Coordinate with TCEQ regarding operation of the new reservoir within the existing GCWA water rights.

Develop a final technical report with appropriate figures and summaries related to the analysis described above.

3. Allens Creek Reservoir (SW 02.01) a. Update project costs based on current project information. b. Prepare short summary memorandum of critical information regarding the suitability of Allens Creek Reservoir to meet GCWA demands. 4. East Texas Supplies (SW 06.02 and SW 12.01) a. Develop planning-level concept and costs for raw water transmission from Neches River Basin to Lynchburg Reservoir. This approach assumes conveyance to Lynchburg Reservoir is accomplished by canal, as discussed with LNVA. b. Develop planning-level concept and costs for raw water transmission from Lynchburg Reservoir to GCWA Reservoir. c. Prepare short summary memorandum of critical information regarding the suitability of East Texas Supplies to meet GCWA demands. 5. Southeast Water Purification Plant Treated Water (SW 13.01) a. Evaluate existing information as available and coordinate with COH regarding the potential to contract water (20 MGD) from the SEWPP in excess of current appropriations with intent to expand the facility in the future as necessary. Estimate the time frame of necessary plant expansion. b. Coordinate with COH regarding the potential to implement a 20 MGD expansion of the SEWPP. c. Coordinate with COH and Coastal Water Authority (CWA) regarding potential capacity of current raw water conveyance from Lynchburg Reservoir to Southeast Water Purification

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Plant (SEWPP). Additional effort to evaluate additional infrastructure to be accomplished under separate work order if required. d. Evaluate status of investigations to date and provide short, summary report to GCWA to discuss potential authorization to conduct Phase 2 investigation of SEWPP supplies. e. Estimate GCWA future treated water needs in excess of Thomas Mackey Water Treatment Plant (TMWTP) capacity through planning horizon (2070). Focus on first 20 MGD potentially available from an expanded SEWPP. f.

Consider potential for up-sizing of treated water conveyance infrastructure from SEWPP to GCWA customers (20 MGD alternative). i. Prepare an HGL for the proposed COH system upgrades and develop a new HGL for up-sized transmission facilities using model available from COH, and ii. Determine required pump station, storage, and pipeline facilities required.

g. Estimate timing and costs for conveyance and treatment improvements in order to allow for delivery of water from SEWPP. h. Perform a desktop analysis of environmental factors impacting project development. i.

Prepare short summary memorandum of critical information regarding the suitability of SEWPP Supplies to meet GCWA demands.

6. City of Houston Reuse (RW 01.01) a. Develop costs for identified alternatives. b. Coordinate with COH regarding data on water quality and flow at the Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant (SWWWTP) and the Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant (ASWWTP). Determine availability of water over time from the plants and Brays Bayou. c. Obtain readily available information on Brays and Sims Bayous water quality, particularly related to bacteriological components. d. Coordinate with COH to attend a site visit of the plant facilities. e. Coordinate with CenterPoint Energy and Texas Brine regarding the cost and availability of easements within their existing north-south rights-of-way. Determine a cost per linear foot of access. f.

Consider how the available supply would be incorporated into the GCWA system (throughout the year, drought conditions, supplies for new or existing customers, etc.).

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Consider a potential option scenario for GCWA to present to COH that may include a baseline level of supply to be supplemented when needed. g. Prepare a summary memorandum of critical information regarding the suitability of COH Reuse to meet GCWA demands. 7. Estimate Final Costs to GCWA a. Coordinate with COH as necessary to determine reasonable terms for project costs. b. Use project costs described above along with information from the COH regarding the terms of raw and treated water contracts for other parties to estimate actual costs to GCWA for COH-sponsored projects. c. As necessary, account for costs of finished water above the project costs already developed to provide a consistent basis for cost comparison. d. As appropriate, develop draft terms sheet for use in discussions with the COH. Terms sheet to include, but not limited to, options for purchased volumes of water, proposed pricing, facilities ownership, and operation and maintenance. 8. Risk Analysis a. Prepare a risk analysis based on the likelihood of outcomes impacting successful project implementation regarding the following factors: i. Institutional and legal ii. Regulatory and environmental iii. Variability of project configuration b. Consider each potential project and its own risks associated with development and present in a matrix format to assist in selection of final strategy recommendation. 9. Summary Report a. Prepare comprehensive summary report and comparison of alternatives considered in Tasks 2 through 6, above. b. Evaluate potential for developing strategies to meet the demands identified in Task 1 above. c. Where appropriate, identify any fatal flaws identified through the course of analysis. d. Present preliminary costs as developed. e. Prepare a summary go/no-go decision matrix based on input to be received from other stakeholders regarding preliminary analysis.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority f.

Prepare a separate summary of COH projects for sharing with the stakeholder in discussion of potential alternatives.

g. Incorporate comment to draft report from GCWA staff and prepare final draft for Board review. h. Prepare and deliver summary presentation to a GCWA Board committee. i.

Prepare and deliver summary presentation to GCWA customers.

Prepare and deliver summary presentation for GCWA Board.

k. Incorporate minor comments from GCWA Board and prepare and deliver final report, including summary memoranda. 10. Preliminary Meetings with City of Houston a. Participate in as many as three preliminary meeting with COH and GCWA to present findings of COH-related project studies. Consult with COH Public Works and Engineering regarding data collection and technical issues and correspond with the Office of the Mayor regarding potential project development opportunities. b. Gather information from COH regarding impressions of the project concepts and potential terms of agreements between COH and GCWA to develop the identified projects. c. Prepare materials in addition to COH summary described above. 11. Project Management a. Provide monthly status updates to GCWA. b. Provide minutes of meetings between FNI and GCWA. c. Provide monthly invoicing to GCWA. d. Provide quality control and quality assurance for duration of the project.

1.2

STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT

Due to the nature of the described study, technical analysis of each alternative has been conducted on an independent basis and, likewise, separate technical memoranda have been generated to capture the specific details of how each WMS may be implemented along with associated capital costs. These documents have been provided in the appendices of this summary report. The contents of Section 2.0 include summaries of each strategy and references to the comprehensive documents attached to this report. Following a preliminary selection of potential strategies for further study Section 3.0, Section 4.0

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority contains a detailed analysis of costs to GCWA customers related to the potential portfolios of strategies for meeting identified needs. Of the five WMS considered, four require some facet of coordination with the City of Houston (COH) in order for the strategy to be successfully implemented. Preliminary coordination conducted with COH is documented in Section 5.0. Section 6.0 considers the potential risks associated with project development that cannon be captured through the mere consideration of estimated construction and operational costs. Finally, Section 7.0 proposes recommended courses of action for GCWA in pursuing long-term water strategies.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

2.0

SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL ANALYSES

The detailed technical studies associated with this effort are provided in Appendices 1 through 6 of this document. Below are summaries for each analysis in order to provide an overview of the detailed, technical work.

2.1

EVALUATION OF WATER NEEDS

The identification and selection of any WMS to serve GCWA’s needs is contingent upon an adequate presentation of the demands the authority is currently obligated to meet or may experience in its service area over the foreseeable future. Information was compiled from a number of sources based on the type of demand and the information available. These are illustrated below in Table 1. Table 1: Information Sources for Water Needs Analysis Demand Type Sources of Information Treated • GCWA Water Conservation Plan survey • Region H 2016 RWP per-capita data Municipal Raw • GCWA Water Conservation Plan survey • Region H 2016 RWP per-capita data • Projections provided by City of Manvel Industrial Raw • GCWA 2011 usage • Region H long-term trends Irrigation • Not considered in firm yield analysis Losses • Analysis of GCWA 2010 and 2011 operations based on study by INTERA, Inc.

Based on an analysis of current and projected future needs, it was recognized that, over time, GCWA’s customer water usage would approach and eventually grow beyond the current annual volume of water contracted to customers. Primarily, this growth occurs in the sale of raw water for municipal purposes, although industrial growth in Galveston County is also a contributing factor. Sales of treated water in Galveston County for mostly municipal use represents the least demand growth in the system. These results are summarized in Figure 1.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Figure 1: Projected Water Demands by Type

300,000

Demand (ac-ft)

250,000

300.00

Losses Raw Water - Municipalities Raw Water - Industrial Treated Water - Municipalities

250.00

Contracts

200.00

200,000 150.00

150,000

100.00

100,000

Demand (MGD)

350,000

50.00

50,000 0

2010

2020

2030 2040 2050 Planning Decade

2060

2070

Water availability for the GCWA A and B Canal Systems was studied by INTERA, Inc. in an August 2013 report titled Gulf Coast Water Authority Water Reliability Assessment Canal A, B, & AB Contracts. In it, INTERA estimated two concepts of availability for the system following the elimination of leakage at the Amil Gates that are located on Oyster Creek in Sugar Land. One scenario described shortages utilizing only the GCWA rights and contracts permitted for diversion at the Shannon and Briscoe pump stations while another considered the opportunity to divert unutilized water from COA 5322 to be utilized in the A and B Systems. For the purpose of this study, FNI assumed a level of supply consistent with no use of COA 5322 water in the A and B System which results in an availability of 214,460. Additional availability based on the use of COA 5322 at the upstream diversion points will be considered separately, elsewhere in the analysis. As a result of the identified demands and the supplies from the INTERA study, it was determined that there are two varieties of shortage that GCWA could consider in planning long-term water strategy. One type of need pertains to the authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contractual obligations to meet the contracts it currently has engaged. The second need is associated with demands from either new customers or existing customers

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority who are expected to exceed their current contracts in upcoming years. Both of these needs are shown below in Figure 2. The portion of the identified need associated with current contracts is equal to 64,748 ac-ft annually. Figure 2: A and B System Needs Summary

Required Strategy Supply (Ac-Ft/Yr)

120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 To Meet Contracts w/ Losses

To Meet New Demands w/ losses

For the remainder of this documented analysis, focus will be placed on first making existing contracts firm which will require an additional 64,748 ac-ft of supply. It is noteworthy to recognize that this shortage is not one that is experienced every year. Instead, this need only exists when conditions dictate a worst case scenario for supply from the Brazos River in conjunction with GCWA customers utilizing the maximum water volumes from their contracts. However, under these conditions some strategy, in addition to currently available water supplies, would be required in order to fulfill the contractual obligations to all GCWA customers. Additional information regarding this task can be found in Appendix A.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

2.2

GCWA RESERVOIR C

GCWA owns approximately 520 acres west of GCWA’s A and B Reservoirs. FNI was asked to provide a fatal flaw analysis of this site as a potential reservoir location to enhance storage in the A and B Systems. This included a review of conflicts in the area, geotechnical details of the site, and potential environmental obstacles to development. A geotechnical investigation was conducted on the site utilizing five, 40-ft deep borings. The results of this analysis produced the following observations: •

Groundwater at the site appears to be pressurized and is influenced by neighboring Dickinson Bayou.

•

The upper 25- to 30-feet of the soil profile generally consists of plastic clays. Soils between 25and 32-feet of depth are considered plastic silts and silty clays. Between 32- and 40- feet below grade, soils are categorized as fat clays with slickensides.

•

There is strong evidence of dispersive soil properties in the existing soil stratum.

A preliminary environmental survey of the site identified a number of considerations for project development: •

A total of eight bird and reptile species that are considered endangered, threatened, or monitored for potential listing.

•

Two tidally influenced streams are identified at the site. One of these is likely to be incapable of development and provides a northern limit to potential reservoir development just south of Dickinson Bayou. The other stream may be impacted but will require mitigation to be developed.

•

Eight ponds are also identified on the property.

•

A considerable area of forested and herbaceous wetlands was identified on the property. Given the proximity of these to Dickinson Bayou, they would likely be considered jurisdictional and require mitigation.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority â&#x20AC;˘

Two pressurized product pipelines were identified on the site at the time of inspection. Since that time, it is understood from GCWA that an additional, third pipeline has been developed on portions of the property.

FNI developed four potential reservoir configurations for consideration based on different design objectives. Alternatives were considered to minimize impacts to environmental features and integrate with the existing hydraulic grade line (HGL) of the canal system and existing reservoirs. Table 2 contains a summary of the considered alternatives. No yield analysis was performed for the proposed reservoir alternatives as no model of the GCWA system was readily available for this purpose. Yield analysis of the proposed projects may be considered at some future time under separate analysis. However, assuming one fill and draw-down cycle annually and full utilization of the potential stored volume in the reservoir, it is conceivable that the project could yield 5,000 ac-ft/yr. This level of supply would require either pumping or the use of water in the existing GCWA Reservoirs A and B as well as the canal in order to make use of the total reservoir volume. Additional information regarding this task can be found in Appendix B.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Alternative Maximum Storage Estimated Cost Concept/ Operation

Table 2: Alternatives for Development of GCWA Reservoir C RC-1 RC-2 3,462 – 4,305 4,724 – 5,866 $20,253,937

$22,095,689

Current HGL, avoid pond features

Current HGL, Integrate with canal structure

RC-3 5,046 – 6,274

RC-4 5,078

$23,014,407

$19,082,368

Current HGL, maximize storage

Pump in and out, minimize excavation cost

Overview

Alternative Maximum Storage Estimated Cost Concept/ Operation

Overview

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

2.3

ALLENS CREEK RESERVOIR

The Allens Creek Reservoir site is located on Allens Creek, a tributary to the Brazos River in Austin County, one mile north of the City of Wallis. The project is jointly owned by COH and the Brazos River Authority (BRA) with COH owning 70 percent of the project. The project yield is specified by permit as 99,650 acft/yr and the produced water is shared jointly by the two partners based on their division in project ownership. The timeline for project development is estimated to be as long as 15 years to achieve the necessary permits in addition to the water right permit for the project which is already held. GCWA’s participation in Allens Creek Reservoir would be through a long-term contractual relationship with COH or BRA. While BRA has proposed rates for water from Allens Creek based on the projected system rate for all of their customers, COH has not yet provided an estimate of the cost of water from the project making the potential to secure a contract form COH uncertain at this time. However, as part of this study in conjunction with development of the 2016 Region H RWP, FNI updated the opinion of probably construction cost for both the reservoir impoundment and the pump station and pipeline used to fill the reservoir from excess Brazos River flows. These costs are summarized below in Table 3. Ongoing environmental efforts on the project drive the timeline for development and may significantly reduce the time required for development based on favorable outcomes from the various processes. The following activities are anticipated prior to commencement of construction: •

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit and mitigation plan

•

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

•

Cultural Resources Survey and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) testing

•

Ancillary studies as directed by Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Table 3: Allens Creek Project Cost Estimate Item

Pump Station Approach Channel Discharge Conveyance Off-Channel Reservoir Erosion Protection Relocations Total Construction Cost Engineering, Financial, and Legal Services and Contingencies Land and Easements Environmental â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Studies and Mitigation Interest During Construction Total Project Cost

Cost $54,532,000 $5,703,900 $5,395,000 $62,331,900 $28,230,900 $18,517,710 $174,711,410 $61,148,994 $952,794 $60,458,394 $18,955,303 $316,226,894

Additional information regarding this task can be found in Appendix C.

2.4

EAST TEXAS SUPPLIES

In addition to the opportunity to develop new water supplies in the Brazos River Basin and GCWA service area, there is also potential to utilize supplies that are already developed in other basins and develop conveyance infrastructure to make it accessible to GCWA through permitting of the interbasin transfer. In the Trinity River Basin, COH, the Trinity River Authority (TRA) and Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District (CLCND) hold substantial water rights. Moving farther east, the Neches and Sabine River Basins contain significant supplies owned by LNVA and the Sabine River Authority of Texas (SRA-TX). FNI reviewed existing alternatives for transfer of water from East Texas and proposed potential pathways as part of the 2016 Region H RWP. This information was adapted for this study as a generic, 100,000 acft/yr transfer to the GCWA service area. These potential conveyances are shown below in Figure 3 and described in Table 4. The projects described may be connected in a number of configurations in order to divert water from the source system of choice and deliver to the preferred take point. The options presented would allow for the delivery of water directly to the GCWA service area or provide for pickup from the Brazos River utilizing existing infrastructure. The Trinity to Brazos River segment has the advantage of potentially providing water to additional stakeholders beyond those that could be served by the southern routes.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority A critical issue in successfully implementing a conveyance of this magnitude is the inclusion of other stakeholders that may be able to simplify the implementation of the project and share in costs of the overall system. The southern routes may provide additional water to COH as water is conveyed through the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conveyances. The northern route will require the exchange of water delivered from the LNVA system to the Trinity River Pump Station in exchange for water from Lake Livingston for movement west. As COH is the only water right holder who owns water rights in Lake Livingston and who also diverts water from the Trinity River Pump Station, they are an integral part of making this strategy work. Additionally, other stakeholders in the Brazos River Basin such as Dow Chemical or others along the route such as the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) may seek to participate in the project and reduce costs to GCWA. There are several obstacles to such a project at this time. This is partly due to the lack of interest by other critical stakeholders. However, this attitude will change over time as other supplies of water are exhausted. Additional information regarding this task can be found in Appendix D.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Figure 3: Potential East Texas Supply Routes

Indicator

2.5

Table 4: Description of Potential East Texas Supply Routes Description Newly developed canal conveyance form the Sabine to Neches River Basins. Conveyance from Neches to Trinity River Basins utilizing a combination of existing and newly developed canal segments. Conveyance through an improved Coastal Water Authority (CWA) Main Canal to Lynchburg Reservoir. Conveyance by pipeline from Lynchburg Reservoir to GCWA Reservoir in Texas City. Conveyance by pipeline from Lynchburg Reservoir to GCWA Canal A Extension. Conveyance of Water from Lake Livingston through Conroe and to a discharge point in the Brazos River Basin.

Capital Cost $102,000,000 $48,000,000 $63,663,000 $323,075,600 $260,529,500 $391,000,000

SEWPP TREATED WATER

GCWA currently receives water through a participant agreement at the Southeast Water Purification Plant (SEWPP) which is used to meet the needs of Pearland and League City. However, the potential also exists for water from the SEWPP to be introduced into the GCWA service area. FNI investigated the potential

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority for SEWPP water to be acquired in excess of the current terms of GCWA’s agreement. Three criteria must be met in order to make this option a possible alternative for supplying treated water to GCWA’s customers. •

Availability to contract additional water from the SEWPP without physical expansion of the plant,

•

Ability to expand the plant in a modest-sized module (20 MGD), and

•

Ability to provide adequate raw water supply to the SEWPP to allow for the additional treatment capacity at some point in the future.

FNI investigated the potential to utilize an additional 20 MGD from current plant participants. The 200 MGD facility currently averages an annual use of approximately 100 MGD with peak use of approximately 150 MGD. This record implies adequate capacity for GCWA to receive additional supply from the plant without an immediate need for expansion. Of the various participants in the 200 MGD of overall plant capacity, only COH and the City of Pasadena have adequate allocations that may allow for the temporary purchase of some excess capacity. The City of Pasadena had previously made their terms for additional water known and these were found to be unacceptable to GCWA. Upon discussion with COH, it was determined that they have limited excess capacity in their share of the contract to provide to others. Upon further inspection of the participant contracts, however, FNI identified terms that would allow for GCWA or another participant to take additional water from the plant as needed. Specifically, the language allows “a Participant to use (take) additional water from the system, as long as it does not inhibit another Participant from obtaining its rightful share of the water…” In effect, this clause would allow GCWA to take additional water above their appropriation if the additional capacity is not required to fulfill the needs of other participants. Furthermore, this arrangement provides benefit to all participants as it allows for a larger share of the fixed plant costs to be absorbed by a participant such as GCWA who wishes to acquire additional water from the facility. The second issue of plant expansion was reconciled through communication with COH. It was determined that, as part of the last 80-MGD expansion of the SEWPP, the new facility was configured in a way in which expansion could be made in the form of two, 20-MGD modules without other significant improvements. This opportunity effectively fulfils the second criteria to make this alternative viable.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Finally, the capacity of the SEWPP is potentially limited by the availability of raw water to the plant. The SEWPP’s sole supply of water is through a pipeline originating at Lynchburg Reservoir north of the Houston Ship Channel. Through coordination with CWA it was learned that there is no known, existing model of the pipeline system. FNI conducted a preliminary HGL analysis of the CWA system to determine system performance for various capacities in the segment leading to the SEWPP. The results of this analysis provided favorable support for the potential of the system to convey the additional raw water capacity to feed an expanded SEWPP of 220 MGD. Based on the analysis and review, the potential to develop additional treated water supply from the SEWPP appears to be a viable option for GCWA to pursue if it is desired to expand treated water capacity. Additionally, it may also prove to be a viable option for GCWA SEWPP customer cities such as Pearland and League City without the introduction of SEWPP treated water into the GCWA treated water service area. Additional information regarding this task can be found in Appendix E.

2.6

CITY OF HOUSTON REUSE

In 2004, COH applied for a water right permit to utilize the effluent from 32 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the greater-Houston area. This permit, number 5827, allows for the use of 580,923 ac-ft of water at various locations around Houston assuming several criteria are met: •

50% of the permitted volume is to be dedicated to bay and estuary inflows and is to be retained in the channels for discharge to Galveston Bay,

•

Permitted discharge and diversion rates at WWTP outfall locations and diversion points are maintained, and

•

Instream flow targets are met for the diversion of any water from the bayous.

As part of the development of the 2016 Region H RWP, FNI reviewed the potential for COH to make use of permit 5827 in serving its long-term demands. The Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant (SWWWTP) stood out from the other permitted diversion points as a unique site in that it was not easily connected into projected demands in the COH service area but did have access to the GCWA A Canal by way of an identified CenterPoint corridor that runs south from the plant. FNI presented this as a potential water supply alternative to GCWA. As part of this discussion, the Almeda Sims WWTP was introduced as another 22

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority source of supply. While the Almeda Sims WWTP is part of water right 5827 as a discharging WWTP, it is not listed as a diversion location. Therefore, wastewater flows from the plant may be diverted directly from the plant or downstream at MacGregor Park along with effluent from other plants. FNI developed five alternatives for supply of effluent to the GCWA service area including three options for taking water from the site or vicinity of the SWWWTP, one option to provide water to GCWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s customer, Texas Brine, from the Almeda Sims WWTP, and one to augment the flow from the SWWWTP with additional supply from the Almeda Sims WWTP. A summary of these alternatives is shown below in Table 5. These costs do not include the purchase cost of water from COH which is unknown at this point in time. Additionally, costs have been included in this analysis to provide for 4-log removal should it be required although this determination is pending additional water quality information and clarification of the rules that will dictate how the water will be introduced to the canal system. The proposed Almeda Sims to Texas Brine alternative is absent adequate demand from Texas Brine to justify the project. However, another alternative from Almeda Sims is proposed to work conjunctively with one of the SWWWTP alternatives. Table 5: COH Reuse Alternatives

Pump Station Capacity (MGD) Average Flow (MGD)1 Pipeline Diameter (in.) Pump Station Cost Pipeline Cost Additional 4-log Removal Cost2 Total Cost Annual Cost3 Cost per AcreFoot

Southwest WWTP Direct Reuse

Brays Bayou Diversion

Combined Southwest and Brays Diversion

Almeda Sims to Texas Brine

Almeda Sims to Southwest Pipeline

30.1

35.1

50.8

7.0

$4,980,000

$8,012,000

$11,805,000

$2,275,000

$31,194,000

$34,882,000

$2,795,000

$5,579,000

$3,700,000

$4,524,000

$5,700,000

$1,136,000

$39,875,000 $4,296,000

$43,730,000 $4,876,000

$52,382,000 $5,688,000

$6,206,000 $703,000

$8,990,000 $916,000

$126

$123

$99

$90

$117

7.0 MGD ADF for Texas Brine alternative assumes a Texas Brine demand of at least 7.0 MGD. Currently, the facility does not have this level of demand. Additional 4-log removal cost included for reference. Actual treatment requirement to be determined through further study which may result in no need for additional treatment. Annual and unit costs do not include cost to COH for purchase of effluent.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority In addition to the cost of infrastructure and operation of the facilities, GCWA will also have a cost for water to be paid to COH. Currently, COH does not have a rate for reclaimed water sales. However, COH does specify a rate for contract, untreated water in Ordinance 2010-035 at a cost of $0.56/1,000 gallons or approximately $184 per acre-foot. This rate is representative of raw water costs from COH and is, therefore, a reasonable approximation of cost until a reclaimed water rate is developed as part of an ongoing study by the city. This rate would more than double the cost of water from any of the reclaimed water projects proposed. Applying this rate on a take-or-pay basis would make this a regular, annual cost to be borne by GCWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s customers. However, applying this rate on an as-delivered basis would reduce the impact to the overall project cost as the project may not be required to deliver water in years of sufficient flow in the Brazos River when GCWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing supplies may be fully utilized. Additional information regarding this task can be found in Appendix F.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

3.0

PRELIMINARY STRATEGY SELECTION

A preliminary screening approach was used to eliminate some of the proposed WMS options prior to more advanced analysis and cost development. This effort was conducted by GCWA and FNI staff after reviewing the detailed, technical documents prepared for each option. The focus for this process was identifying projects that could be escalated in order to provide water to increase the reliability of existing GCWA contracts over the next 20 years. GCWA Reservoir C was dismissed as a solution to firming up existing contracts for a number of reasons. First, the limited yield generating potential was deemed insufficient to the issue of closing GCWA’s contract supply deficit. Additionally the cost of the project represented a large expenditure for the volume of yield provided. Finally, although the introduction of reservoir storage in the system provides some benefit throughout the system, the greatest benefits would only be enjoyed by users in the Texas City area. This is made even more significant by the fact that the variations of the alternative that utilize the existing HGL of the canal system could only be fully utilized once supplies from the upper reaches of the canal system were depleted and the reservoir level was allowed to drop. Allens Creek Reservoir was recognized as a medium-term alternative as project development may take as long as 15 years to complete. This option would require GCWA to contract water from COH or BRA in order to secure supply. Prior to project completion, shortages in the GCWA system would have to be mitigated through other measures as they occur. The development of infrastructure to utilize supplies from East Texas was recognized as a high-cost alternative that will require a long timeline for development. The need for inclusion of multiple partners to make the project both feasible and cost-effective are another detractor from this project being a priority in the near-term for GCWA. It was recognized that GCWA should follow the status of this WMS as a potential long-term supply but it does not rate highly as a strategy to be pursued in the near-term. Preliminary analysis demonstrated the potential for use of supplies from the SEWPP as a strategy to provide treated water to the GCWA service area. However, based on the results of the needs analysis performed as part of this study, it was recognized that treated municipal demands are not the highest growth sector of GCWA’s needs. Although the use of treated water originating from a supply other than GCWA’s water rights would reduce reliance on supplies from the Brazos River, this offset would be relatively small and would also result in the reduced usage of the existing Thomas Mackey Water

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Treatment Plant (TMWTP) without reducing the fixed costs for this facility which would disadvantageous from a financial standpoint. Furthermore, the movement of treated water from the SEWPP site to the GCWA service area would require some significant cost in infrastructure. For these reasons, this strategy was identified as a potential solution for some of the customers GCWA serves through its SEWPP arrangement such as League City and Pearland but not a primary solution for the core of GCWA’s service area. Reclaimed water from the COH reuse permit was identified as one of the preferred solutions for a number of reasons. The cost of the project is potentially competitive when compared to other alternatives such as Allens Creek. However, this cost may only be fully ascertained once more is understood regarding the COH contract terms and rate for reclaimed water. Based on the alternatives presented, the Direct Reuse and Combined Southwest and Brays Diversions were selected. The former of these was selected as the most simplified alternative for delivering reclaimed water while the combined intake option provided the largest capacity project from this strategy. An overview of this selection is shown below in Table 6.

Alternative

GCWA Reservoir C

Allens Creek Reservoir East Texas Supplies SEWPP Treated Water City of Houston Reuse

Table 6: Summary of Preliminary Strategy Selection Options for Further Reasons to Dismiss Consideration • Limited Yield Potential • Relatively high project cost • Majority of benefits isolated to lower canal system • COH share (70%) • BRA share (30%) • Costly • Long-term development • Need for additional partners • Limited demand for additional • On an as-needed basis treated water • SWWWTP direct intake • SWWWTP combined intake

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

4.0

ESTIMATES OF FINAL COST TO GCWA

Once the prime strategies were selected, consideration was given to the overall cost of these projects and the impact to GCWA rates. In order to achieve this goal, several elements were considered in constructing the cost estimating approach: •

Focus on making contracts whole. For the sake of this analysis, the goal was to identify critical strategies that would be capable of making GCWA’s current customer contracts firm. Based on the evaluation of water needs performed as part of this study, this requires 64,748 ac-ft of additional supply to make AB System contracts firm.

•

Need for multiple strategies. It was identified that, of the four strategies considered only one option, the COH share of Allens Creek, was capable of meeting this need in its entirety. This issue of scale and the timeline required to develop Allens Creek suggest a need for more than one strategy assembled into a project portfolio of solutions.

•

Potential to use Juliff supplies. As discussed in the evaluation of water needs section, GCWA is pursuing an amendment to utilize a portion of certificate of adjudication 5322, which is diverted at the Juliff pump station, through a diversion at the Briscoe pump station which would make an additional 12,930 ac-ft of water available to the AB System. This analysis considers alternatives where this supply may be utilized as a means of reducing the need for new strategies.

•

Unconventional funding mechanisms. As part of the analysis, FNI considered the potential to use alternative methods of funding such as loan programs through the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and state participation funding which allows for incremental ownership of projects by the State of Texas.

•

Assess costs to canal fund customers. Costs associated with projects were applied to canal fund customers based on their contract amounts. As the GCWA Canal Fund includes all GCWA customers, regardless of the finished project they receive, this presented an equitable place for the application of costs associated with increasing the reliability of the overall system.

A total of six project portfolios were assembled using a combination of the strategies discussed above as well as the use of water from COA 5322. These six portfolios are described below in Table 7.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Table 7: Project Portfolios Considered in Cost Analysis Project

Portfolio 1

Juliff (5322) COH Allens Creek

31,013

7,852

12,930

51,818

21,923

18,083

BRA Allens Creek COH Direct Reuse

29,895 33,734

COH Combined Reuse Total

33,734

56,896 64,748

51,818

64,748

Project costs were first assessed at the individual project level before being incorporated into an overall portfolio analysis. For all strategies considered in this study, the following assumptions apply: •

Base year was set at 2013 with project initiation beginning in 2014.

•

Inflation occurs at a steady rate of 2% annually.

•

Costs for engineering, financial, legal services, land acquisition, and environmental are all incurred in a first phase that is financed separate from other costs.

•

Costs for construction are incurred in a second phase that is financed separate from other costs.

•

Existing costs for GCWA customers were taken from FY2013-2014 budgets for Funds 08 (Canal A&B) and 21 (Chocolate Bayou).

4.1

METHODOLOGY FOR FINAL COST ESTIMATION

Project costs were first assessed at the individual project level before being incorporated into an overall portfolio analysis. For all strategies considered in this study including the baseline, no-strategy condition, the following assumptions apply:

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority •

Base year was set at 2013 with project initiation beginning in 2014.

•

Inflation occurs at a steady rate of 2% annually.

•

Costs for engineering, financial, legal services, land acquisition, and environmental are all incurred in a first phase that is financed separate from other costs.

•

Costs for construction are incurred in a second phase that is financed separate from other costs.

•

Existing costs for GCWA customers were taken from FY2013-2014 budgets for Funds 08 (Canal A&B) and 21 (Chocolate Bayou).

•

Water from COA 5322 that was redirected to meet needs of the AB System were applied at no cost.

4.1.1

GCWA Baseline Costs

In order to establish a baseline condition, the current GCWA system costs were escalated over time to provide a reference with which to compare project portfolios. In addition to the base, 2013-2014 canal system costs and baseline inflation as described above, the following assumptions were made: •

Rates increase annually by approximately 1.5% to fund the overall GCWA Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

•

Additional cost would be incurred over time related to GCWA’s contract for water from BRA. This cost would increase over time in relation to BRA’s increasing system rate as identified in the Five Year Outlook and Long Range Financial Plan.

•

Three different scenarios were considered regarding the purchase of water from other sources to meet near-term shortages: o

Baseline without additional water – Canal rate assuming GCWA does not purchase additional water to meet demands in dry years.

Baseline with current additional water – Canal rate with adjustment to cover the cost borne by GCWA in recent, dry years to meet contractual obligations.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority o

Baseline with current additional water – Canal rate with adjustment to cover the cost that would be borne by GCWA if it were possible to make short-term purchases at the current rate in order to meet the entirety of its contract deficit. This scenario assumes water is available which has not been the case and will become a less and less likely scenario over time. However, it provides a baseline by which to compare the project portfolio costs.

4.1.2

Allens Creek Reservoir Costs

Costs for the BRA portion of Allens Creek were already specified in information provided from BRA in the Five Year Outlook and Long Range Financial Plan documents as this water is to be sold at the going system rate. Costs for the COH portion of the project were developed based on a separate analysis intended to consider a number of factors. The following assumptions were made in order to prepare an estimate of final cost to GCWA: •

Phase 1 efforts were assumed to continue for 9 years prior to the onset of construction which is consistent with the schedule presented for the project.

•

Phase 2 efforts were assumed to continue for 3 years prior to the onset of construction which is consistent with the schedule presented for the project.

•

Seventy percent of the Phase 1 and 2 project costs were assumed to be borne by COH according to the ownership arrangement with BRA.

•

Various funding vehicles were assumed for different phases of the project: o

Phase 1: Water Infrastructure Fund (WIF) at a subsidized rate of 3.29 percent for 20 years,

Phase 2: Eighty percent applied to State Participation Fund (SPF) at a rate of 4.52 percent over 35 years with a 0.77 percent administrative fee and the remaining 20 percent applied to WIF at a subsidized rate of 3.29 percent for 20 years.

•

SPF interest and principal were paid based on the schedule suggested by TWDB literature.

•

Participation by regional partners (regional water authorities) is required for development of new raw water projects under contracts with COH. Known water reservations by the authorities were combined with projections of long-term demand for comparison against the total COH raw water

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority projected to be supplied to determine the share to be paid by the regional partners. This fee was deducted by the resulting cost paid by COH to develop the project. •

In order to determine rate, the total annual debt service was combined with O&M and Energy costs to determine a total cost. A rate was then developed that, when adjusted for inflation on a regular basis, produced an adequate fund level to pay for total project costs without additional payments by COH.

•

For the basis of this exercise, it was assumed that the rate paid to COH was adjusted on a fiveyear basis to account for inflation and debt service and operational costs on the project.

•

The rate was assumed to be comprehensive of costs to GCWA and no additional costs were assumed, such as the existing COH raw water rate or buy-in to other COH raw water infrastructure.

•

It was assumed that the entirety of the COH supply from the project would be contracted out by GCWA and other, unidentified parties.

•

Payments for the project were assumed to begin in the first year of project development (2014) and continue on a take-or-pay basis after project delivery.

4.1.3

City of Houston Reuse Costs

Costs for both reuse projects from COH were compiled using a similar approach. Specifically, the following assumptions were made in applying costs of the project to each portfolio: •

Phase 1 efforts were assumed to continue for 3 years prior to the onset of construction which is consistent with the schedule presented for the project.

•

Phase 2 efforts were assumed to continue for 1 years prior to the onset of construction which is consistent with the schedule presented for the project.

•

Various funding vehicles were assumed for different phases of the project: o

Phase 1: WIF at a subsidized rate of 3.29 percent for 20 years,

Phase 2: WIF at a subsidized rate of 3.29 percent for 20 years.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority •

In addition to GCWA costs for debt service, O&M, and energy, a cost of water was applied for the purchase of water from COH. This rate was assumed to be the COH contract raw water rate of $0.5647 per 1,000 gallons (approximately $184 per acre-foot).

•

Energy costs for the project developed for a maximum rate of production were adjusted according to the actual water purchased.

•

The purchase rate for water was assumed to adjust annually with inflation.

•

It was assumed that GCWA would pay a rate related to the volume of water taken according to each portfolio.

4.2

FINAL COST ESTIMATE RESULTS

Following the development of individual project costs, the portfolios represented in Table 7 were used to assign the fixed and variable project cost accordingly for each scenario. The results of the cost analysis are shown in Figure 4, below. There are several points that may be made based on the information presented form the cost analysis as well as some additional items that are worthy of note but not directly addressed by the methodology, itself: •

The application of water associated with certificate 5322 consistently results in a reduction of cost impact to the overall system.

•

Costs for portfolios that are highly dependent upon the COH reuse projects are driven by the cost of purchased water. The costs of these options are lower in early years while the only costs incurred are associated with debt service. Once the cost of water is applied, the cost of these projects appears to climb considerably. However, assuming the COH rate is not applied on a takeor-pay basis, this cost is reduced considerably over time if the project is only utilized when necessary to meet demands under extreme conditions. Further consideration is dependent upon a determination of rate and terms by COH.

•

Additional financial study would be required in conjunction with a long-term analysis of water availability to determine the long-term cost of the reuse projects when used on an as-needed basis.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority â&#x20AC;˘

When assuming the volume of water specified in the portfolio is taken every year, the portfolios that are significantly invested in Allens Creek water fare better due to the estimated lower cost of that project. In particular, options that utilize the greatest degree of water from the BRA share are the lowest cost.

â&#x20AC;˘

Although costs are incurred immediately for both projects, water is not made available from the reuse projects until 2018. For Allens Creek, it is assumed that water is not available until 2026. The timing of supply is critical as these supplies are needed to meet current contracts in the event of extreme drought.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Figure 4: Comprehensive Portfolio Cost Comparison

$1,400

Baseline w/o Additional Water Baseline w/ Current Additional Water

$1,200

$1,000

$800

Baseline w/ Total Additional Water Portfolio 1 COH Reuse (Direct Intake) and Allens Creek Portfolio 2 COH Reuse (Combined Intake) and Allens Creek Portfolio 3 5322 Diversion, COH Reuse (Direct Intake), and Allens Creek Portfolio 4 5322 Diversion and COH Reuse (Combined Intake) Portfolio 5 5322 Diversion and COH Allens Creek Portfolio 6 5322 Diversion, BRA Allens, and COH Allens

$600

$400

$200

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

5.0

COORDINATION WITH CITY OF HOUSTON

Three meetings were held with COH during the course of this study to assess the opportunity to implement the proposed projects to serve GCWA. Summaries of these meetings are included below.

5.1

OCTOBER 28, 2013 – SOUTHEAST WATER PURIFICATION PLANT

Alan Hutson, Leo Weinberg, and Jason Afinowicz of FNI met with Lisa Lattu of COH at the site of the SEWPP to discuss the potential for GCWA to utilize additional supplies from the facility. From this conversation it was learned that COH was not interested in leasing any portion of its share of water without the commencement of construction to expand the facility to accommodate the additional use. Furthermore, COH is not interested in serving as a broker among the coparticipants in order to reach deals for water. The most recent expansion of the SEWPP was developed in four, 20-MGD treatment trains. The design allows for the construction of two additional trains at that capacity. However, there is no master plan for the further expansion of the plant at this point.

5.2

NOVEMBER 18, 2013 – 611 WALKER

Mike Reedy and Jason Afinowicz of FNI met with Mark Loethen and Lisa Lattu of COH to discuss the terms of the city’s contracts with its wholesale customers. Typically, these contracts vary for different projects and depend on timing and location of the water take point. Right now, the regional water authorities have been paying for capital improvements to raw water infrastructure up front. The prospect of Allens Creek was discussed and the COH representatives indicated that contracts of 20 percent of the City’s share of the project supply would be required in order to move forward. This is tied to requirements to secure State funding programs. Currently, COH has various rates for reclaimed water based on some legacy agreement with customers. It has been considered that the raw water rate may be the appropriate rate to use for sale of this water, although a rate study will be conducted and this cost may increase.

5.3

JUNE 25, 2014 – 611 WALKER

Ivan Langford of GCWA and Mike Reedy and Jason Afinowicz of FNI met with Mark Loethen of COH to discuss the results of the long range supply study and gather information regarding how to proceed with projects involving COH. It was indicated to COH that the reclaimed water alternative represents the only 35

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority near-term project for GCWA although Allens Creek is more than likely a component in the overall, longrange strategy for the authority. COH indicated an interest in beginning the Allens Creek permitting process with BRA. Regarding reclaimed water supplies, COH recognizes a need to adequately value its reclaimed water and has recently initiated a rate study for all water types. Given the urgency of GCWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s timeline which aims to have a project implemented within three years, COH may push the reclaimed water aspects of this study ahead sooner in order to facilitate these discussion. GCWA indicated that take-or-pay terms for the supply would make the project unfeasible from a cost standpoint. Some alternatives may be a pay for use alternative or a reservation fee on the overall contract. GCWA also indicated an interest in a first right of refusal if other customers should emerge in the future. The end of 2014 was targeted as an adequate timeline to work through the price structure between the two parties and COH indicated the pursuit of that goal in the specified timeline.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

6.0

ALTERNATIVE RISK ANALYSIS

Risk is an inherent component to the development of any project. Although the comprehensive analysis involved in this study aims to assign the most appropriate cost to dealing with the identified conflicts in each project, there are certain known factors that may vary in ways that could impact the viability of a project. The approach contained in this section is intended to account for these factors and provide quantification to project risk that is outside the realm of conventional metrics.

6.1

RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH

Projects considered by GCWA may have several risks associated with their successful implementation. Although all of these risks will inevitably result in some project cost, their specific magnitudes are not know at this point and, therefore, cannot be incorporated into the cost analysis in this study. However, professional judgment and comparison to similar projects being implemented throughout the state may provide an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for these factors. The categories of impacts identified for the long range water supply projects are as follows: •

Institutional and Legal – potential opposition to the project,

•

Regulatory and Environmental – evaluation of uncertainties in the process that may add additional time and expense to development,

•

Yield Reduction – risk of reduction in available supply from regulatory factors or climatic impacts, and

•

Cost Escalation – increased costs (capital and operational) in the future due to various factors.

Each of these factors is described in greater detail below, including the methodology by which they were assessed. The potential for each impact was assigned a percentage chance of occurrence, including subcategories of potential outcomes that may be experienced. In the end, scores were assigned based on the potential for impacts from each of the identified factors. 6.1.1

Institutional and Legal Risks

Projects considered by GCWA may have several risks associated with institutional and legal obstacles in project development.

Some projects may receive higher levels of challenge to their successful 37

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority implementation based on social acceptance and this can result in additional costs or, potentially, make the project entirely unfeasible. Figure 5, below, demonstrates how institutional and legal risks are evaluated in this methodology. Projects were assigned a percentage denoting probability of each outcome, such that the totals in each column add to 100%. Risk Factors assigned for various outcomes ranged from 0 (no risk) to 100 (extremely high risk or fatal flaw). Figure 5: Institutional and Legal Risks Approach

No Challenge

Likely Successful

Potential Challenge

Potentially Unsuccessful

Fatal Flaw

Likely Unsuccessful

Institutional and Legal Risk

6.1.2

Regulatory and Environmental Risks

Projects considered by GCWA may have several risks associated with regulatory and environmental factors. Although these considerations are evaluated to their fullest extent during the planning process, there may be further risks associated with some projects that may be experienced to a lesser extent with others. Figure 6, below, demonstrates how regulatory and environmental risks were evaluated in this methodology. Projects were assigned a percentage denoting probability of each outcome, such that the totals in each column add to 100%. Risk Factors assigned for various outcomes ranged from 0 (no risk) to 100 (extremely high risk or fatal flaw).

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Figure 6: Regulatory and Environmental Risks Approach

Minor Process

Environmental and Regulatory Risk

Successful with Significant Effort Significant Process

6.1.3

Successful, Limited Effort

Likely Unsuccessful

Yield Reduction Risks

Any project may be at risk of diminished value over time due to reduced yield. Some projects may be more susceptible to factors such as climate change or regulatory impacts than others. Figure 7, below, demonstrates how yield reduction risks are evaluated in this methodology. Projects were assigned a percentage denoting probability of each outcome, such that the totals in each column add to 100%. Risk Factors assigned for various outcomes will range from 0 (no risk) to 100 (extremely high risk or fatal flaw).

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Figure 7: Yield Reduction Risks Approach

No Probability of Occurrence

Yield Reduction Risk

Some Impacts to Yield Likely Occurrence

6.1.4

Limited or No Impact

Significant Impacts

Cost Escalation Risks

Costs developed for each project are intended, to the greatest extent possible, to identify likely actual project costs for development. Unforeseen circumstances may result in varying levels of cost increased in project construction or operation and maintenance costs. Identifying this risk of variability may provide insight into the selection of reliable long-term strategies. This methodology specifically considered the components of capital, energy, treatment, and administrative (contract) costs associated with each project and applies the percentages to the total annual cost comprised of each of these components. Figure 8, below, demonstrates how cost escalation risks were evaluated in this methodology. Projects were assigned a percentage denoting probability of each outcome, such that the totals in each column add to 100%.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Figure 8: Cost Escalation Risks Approach

Component Risk Factor

Resulting Risk

Capital, Energy, and Treatment Cost Escalation % Potential Impact to

6.2

% Annual Cost from Component

RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

The described risk analysis was performed through a collective process of discussion including a number of professionals of various backgrounds and expertise from FNI. The individuals who participated in this process included the following: •

Mike Reedy, P.E. – Vice President and Group Manager

•

Alan Hutson, P.E. – Vice President and Group Manager

•

Dan Gise – Associate and Project Manager

•

Cody Cockroft, P.E. – Associate and Project Manager

•

Jason Afinowicz, P.E. – Associate and Project Manager

•

Philip Taucer, P.E. – Project Manager

•

Spandana Tummuri, Ph.D., P.E. – Project Manager

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Throughout the exercise, the participants provided input to the overall scoring of each project. Notes were recorded during the scoring process to provide context to the numerical scores applied. Detailed information related to the final risk scoring for all projects may be found in Appendix H of this report. Global risk factors were assigned to the various outcomes and generally ranged from a low risk score of 0 or 10 points to a maximum score of 90 or 100. These scoring factor are shown below in Table 8. Note that, as cost escalation risk is applied on a sliding scale within each category, the maximum risk assigned to each category is simply 100 percent.

Institutional and Legal Risk

Environmental and Regulatory Risk

Yield Reduction Risk

Cost Escalation Risk

6.2.1

Table 8: Global Risk Factors for Project Scoring Evaluation Criteria Risk Factor No Challenge Likely Successful Potentially Potential Unsuccessful Challenge Likely Unsuccessful Fatal Flaw Minor Process Likely Successful Potentially Significant Unsuccessful Process Likely Unsuccessful No Probability Limited to No Impact Some Impacts to Likely Occurrence Yield Significant Impacts Capital Energy Administrative

0 20 50 80 100 10 20 50 90 0 20 50 90 100 100 100

Institutional and Legal Risks

The risks assigned based on institutional and legal aspects of each project are illustrated below in Figure 9. It was recognized that there were generally lower risks associated with the direct intake option for the COH reuse strategy compared to the combined option as there was no need for diversions to be made

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority from the bayou. This increase in risk was deemed to be more significant than the reduced risk brought about from the use of reclaimed water that was blended with Waters of the State as in the combined alternative. Risks for the Allens Creek project were found to be somewhat higher for the BRA alternative. Although it was recognized that the BRA option was more straightforward, it also depended on the implementation of the COH portion of the project which introduced risk and uncertainty to the project. The level of risk associated with either of the Allens Creek options was found to be within the range of the reuse projects. Figure 9: Institutional and Legal Risks Results 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 COH Reuse (Direct)

6.2.2

COH Reuse (Combined)

Allens Creek (COH)

Allens Creek (BRA)

Regulatory and Environmental Risks

The risks assigned based on regulatory and environmental aspects of each project are illustrated below in Figure 10. These risks were found to be lower for the reuse projects and lowest for the direct reuse alternative due to its lack of permitted intake from Brays Bayou. The risks in this category for Allens Creek Reservoir was found to be identical for either alternative. Although the project faces far fewer obstacles than other reservoir projects from a regulatory and environmental standpoint, the magnitude of the strategy makes some level of risk inherent to its development.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Figure 10: Regulatory and Environmental Risks Results 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 COH Reuse (Direct)

6.2.3

COH Reuse (Combined)

Allens Creek (COH)

Allens Creek (BRA)

Yield Reduction Risks

The risks assigned based on yield reduction aspects of each project are illustrated below in Figure 11. The

risk of reduced yield related to the COH reuse alternatives is due to the potential for reduced wastewater availability at the SWWWTP or upstream in the case of the combined intake alternative. As population continues to increase in the SWWWTP service area over time, it is likely that these flows will increase, although conservation efforts potentially pose a risk to the continued increase in these flows. As a portion of the combined intake alternative relies on flows form upstream plants, the potential that these plants may be regionalized into other basins or reduced through local direct reuse projects is greater. Although it is fairly likely that the yield from the Allens Creek Reservoir alternatives may be reduced as a result of environmental flows, the limit of this reduction is specified and would result in a minor change to availability. Greater risk for this project may come from the potential for other potential customers to contract large sums of water from the reservoir and reduce the amount made available to GCWA.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Figure 11: Yield Reduction Risks Results 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 COH Reuse (Direct)

6.2.4

COH Reuse (Combined)

Allens Creek (COH)

Allens Creek (BRA)

Cost Escalation Risks

The risks assigned based on the potential for cost escalation for each project are illustrated below in Figure 12. The risk associated with the COH reuse projects are tied primarily to the unknown cost of water from COH. Although the cost of pipeline construction is expected to climb in the Houston area over the upcoming years, the majority of this risk is associated with contract costs. Construction costs for Allens Creek drive the level of risk for this project although the COH project does have a higher level of risk related to the cost of water as this is less certain than in the BRA alternative where this cost is already planned for in the authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Long Range Financial Plan.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority Figure 12: Cost Escalation Risks Results 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 COH Reuse (Direct)

COH Reuse (Combined)

Allens Creek (COH)

Allens Creek (BRA)

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

7.0

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study examined the potential water needs on the horizon for GCWA as well as five potential alternatives for addressing those. These alternative portfolios were developed as combinations of four concepts on two major strategies: City of Houston Reuse and Allens Creek Reservoir. The specifics of these four basic strategies is shown below in Table 9. Table 9: Summary of Considered Strategies City of Houston Reuse Direct Intake Potential Yield (Ac-Ft) Assumed Yield Available Date Annual Unit Cost of Water Prior to Delivery First 5 Years After Delivery Cost of Project w/ Water First 10 Years After Delivery Delivery First 20 Years After Delivery First 5 Years After Delivery Cost of Project First 10 Years After Delivery w/o Water Delivery First 20 Years After Delivery Risk Factor

33,734 2018 $49.71 $332.23 $327.71 $312.82 $131.75 $127.24 $112.34 38.00 27.10 17.80 67.25

Institutional and Legal Environmental and Regulatory Yield Reduction Cost Escalation

Combined Intake 56,896 2018 $29.47 $196.98 $194.30 $185.47 $78.12 $75.44 $66.61 56.66 28.92 29.00 68.50

Allens Creek Reservoir Brazos City of River Houston Authority 69,755 29,895 2026 2026 $114.61 $79.74 $114.42 $115.03 $114.42 $115.49 $114.42 $115.72 $114.42 $115.03 $114.42 $115.49 $114.42 $115.72 40.80 45.25 35.74 35.74 21.50 21.50 66.30 58.05

Based on the analysis presented, several observations and recommendations can be made regarding GCWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pursuit of an overall, long-range water supply study. â&#x20AC;˘

Pursue Allens Creek Reservoir and City of Houston Reuse in parallel tracks. Both of these strategies emerged from the preliminary selection process and were analyzed more thoroughly as part of this study. The assumptions applied during the detailed cost analysis significantly impact the overall preference of one strategy over another and there are compelling reasons to argue that the selection of one option over the other on a cost basis alone is not possible at this point in time.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority •

Utilize existing supplies to the greatest extent possible. The application of COA 5322 to meeting the contract needs in the AB System was found to be a significant factor in reducing overall cost of new strategy water. This effort should be continued to the greatest extent possible and implemented when the opportunity arises in the future.

•

A direct reuse project from the SWWWTP generally represents a lower risk project than other options. Although no projects considered stood out as significantly high risk, the risks associated with this project were generally considered lower in most categories than the combined intake reuse alternative as well as either the COH or BRA Allens Creek options. However, this project alone is not capable of meeting all of GCWA’s identified needs even with the use of COA 5322.

•

The identified need will most likely be met with a combination of projects. Based on the portfolio development, it was recognized that GCWA’s long-term solution would most likely come from a combination of strategies. Of the portfolios considered, only the combined intake reuse and COH portion of Allens Creek were capable of meeting the entirety of the identified need after application of additional supply from COA 5322.

•

Reuse projects represent the only near-term alternative of the options considered in this study. A development timeline of three to four years is far shorter than the approximately 15 years required for development of Allens Creek Reservoir. Although this timeline for Allens Creek may be reduced, delivery of water from the project would still require substantially more time than either reuse option.

•

Continue coordination with COH.

Four of the five strategies considered require some

arrangement with COH in order to be accomplished. Both COH Reuse and Allens Creek Reservoir will involve COH cooperation even if that coordination is accomplished through BRA. The negotiation of terms involving contract water form either the reclaimed source or the reservoir have the potential to significantly shift the preference of one strategy over another so coordination in arriving at these terms is vital. •

Based on the assumptions used in the analysis to date, BRA is a more cost-effective provider of water from Allens Creek Reservoir. BRA has provided rate information to its customers based on the development of Allens Creek Reservoir. However, COH has not provided an indication of how water from this supply would be priced. This study provided a preliminary observation of a

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority methodology based on past water contracts with regional supply entities using assumptions that were generally favorable to customers, yet the result was a near-term water rate that was greater than the one presented by BRA. Nevertheless, it is important to appreciate that the project may not be implemented without demonstration of financial commitment to the COH for a reasonable share of the project. Therefore, although BRA may provide a more cost-effective provider of water, their interest alone is likely not adequate to progress the project on its own.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

APPENDIX A EVALUATION OF WATER NEEDS

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Gulf Coast Water Authority

GCWA Project:

FN0907c

FROM:

Jason D. Afinowicz, PE

SUBJECT:

Long Range Water Supply Study – Evaluation of Water Needs

DATE:

August 12, 2014

INTRODUCTION Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) conducted a comprehensive evaluation of potential future water supply strategies for the Gulf Coast Water Authority in a report entitled Long Range Water Supply Study which was submitted to GCWA in April 2012. Subsequently, the GCWA Board of Directors (Board) and staff worked with FNI to refine these strategies and identify those needing additional technical analysis. This memorandum supports the additional technical analysis by identifying potential long‐term raw and treated water needs as well as currently‐available supplies. The needs analysis presented below relies primarily on data from the 2011 Region H Regional Water Plan (RWP) and ongoing 2016 Region H RWP studies as well as the GWCA Water Conservation Plan (WCP), with additional information from GCWA customers and other studies.

TREATED WATER DEMANDS Projected demands for treated water customers served by GCWA’s Thomas Mackey Water Treatment Plant (TMWTP) are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. For this analysis it was assumed that areas currently served by the TMWTP would continue to rely on GCWA to meet the growth in treated water needs. The demand estimates in the table were calculated using GCWA service area populations for each customer from the GCWA WCP multiplied by decadal per‐capita water demands from the 2016 Region H RWP. RWP estimates of per‐capita water demands are based on dry year conditions and are therefore expected to be conservative for the anticipated population served. Please note that the demands shown for year 2010 do not reflect actual recorded customer use for 2010 but rather represent hypothetical dry‐year demands for the estimated population served at that time. Demands listed for NRG Texas LP were calculated using an alternate methodology. While the NRG site served by the TMWTP is largely deactivated and currently uses little water, there is a possibility that water currently contracted to NRG could be used to support municipal growth near the plant site. Per GCWA guidance,

August 12, 2014 Page 2 of 14 this growth is reflected as requiring half of the NRG contract by 2018 and the remainder by 2023, after which demands are shown as level. Total projected average daily customer demands for GCWA treated water vary from approximately 33 MGD for recent conditions to nearly 55 MGD by year 2070 after applying a 10 percent factor for treatment. A “Total with Losses” row is included in Table 1 and subsequent tables in this memorandum to reflect potential losses due to any treatment, canal losses, and other unaccounted‐for water. Based on a study conducted by INTERA, Inc. of the A and B Canal Systems, the GCWA‐wide loss rate is approximately 24.4 percent. This row, therefore, reflects the potential source supply needed to meet customer demands. Demands (before accounting for losses) in the GCWA service area for Galveston County WCIDs #8 and #12, the City of La Marque, and the City of League City are projected to exceed current GCWA contracts prior to year 2040, necessitating either expansion of these contracts or increased utilization of non‐GCWA supplies. This comparison is based on customer demand projected at the entity locations; if consideration is given to estimated losses, total municipal treated water demand will exceed total current contracts prior to year 2050. Please note that the current contracted amount is close to the 50 MGD capacity of the TMWTP. The table also includes two supplemental rows below the total demands reflecting the source supply needed under peak day conditions. Customer peaking factors were calculated from year 2011‐2013 peak day demand records and annual use records provided by GCWA. Peak demands shown at the bottom of the table reflect a composite peaking factor of 1.40 estimated across all TMWTP customers. FIGURE 1: TREATED WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS 60

Demand (MGD)

50 40 30 20 Trated Water Demand Trated Water Demand + Losses Treated Water Contracts

10 0 2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

Planning Decade

August 12, 2014 Page 3 of 14 TABLE 1: TREATED WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS Demand Projections (MGD) Customer

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

Contract (MGD)

System

Bacliff MUD

0.59

0.60

0.65

0.67

0.74

0.82

0.88

1.19

A or B

Bayview MUD

0.17

0.16

0.17

0.18

0.19

0.24

A or B

City of Galveston

14.28

14.79

15.50

16.26

17.11

17.92

18.79

20.99

A or B

City of Texas City

6.00

5.98

6.62

6.88

7.15

7.44

7.72

10.42

A or B

GC FWSD #6 (Tiki Island)

0.22

0.23

0.25

0.27

0.30

0.32

0.36

A or B

GC WCID #1 (Dickinson)

2.61

2.97

3.07

3.10

3.15

3.23

3.32

4.17

A or B

GC WCID #12a

0.67

1.16

1.36

1.38

1.40

1.42

1.43

0.89

A or B

San Leon MUD

0.31

0.34

0.37

0.39

0.42

0.44

0.47

1.79

A or B

City of Hitchcock

0.73

0.82

0.93

1.00

1.06

1.11

1.16

1.50

A or B

City of La Marque

2.17

2.76

2.94

2.95

2.97

3.01

3.04

2.78

A or B

City of League Cityb

0.99

1.29

1.76

2.11

2.19

2.24

2.28

2.00

A or B

GC MUD #12 (Bayou Vista)

0.42

0.40

0.39

0.38

0.45

A or B

GC WCID #8 (Santa Fe)

0.84

0.89

1.11

1.09

1.08

1.09

1.00

A or B

NRG Texas LPc

0.00

0.97

1.93

A or B

Total

30.01

33.36

37.05

38.60

40.06

41.54

43.00

49.70

N/A

Total + 10% for Treatment

33.01

36.70

40.75

42.46

44.06

45.69

47.30

54.67

N/A

Total with Lossesd

37.89

42.12

46.77

48.73

50.57

52.44

54.29

62.74

N/A

Peaking Factor

1.40

N/A

Peak Demand

53.07

59.00

65.52

68.26

70.83

73.45

76.04

N/A

aDemands shown are based on the average demand per capita of Kemah and Clear Lake Shores. bNote that projected demands for League City reflect only the estimated portion of demands within GCWA’s TMWTP service area.

League City also receives substantial supplies from the City of Houston Southeast Water Purification Plant (SEWPP). cEstimated as requiring half of the NRG contract in 2018 and the remainder by 2023. dIncludes treatment losses from the preceding row.

MUNICIPAL RAW WATER DEMANDS The values in Figure 2 and Table 2 represent projected demands for raw water from GCWA for municipal users. GCWA is currently contracted to provide raw water to all of the municipalities shown in the table except for the City of Manvel, although as of the present none of these customers is actively using GCWA raw water. Manvel is included as a potential demand on GCWA supplies due to its growth potential and location relative to GCWA canals. The water demands in Table 2 were primarily calculated using GCWA service area populations for each customer from the GCWA WCP multiplied by decadal per‐ capita water demands from the 2016 Region H RWP. The City of Manvel provided an estimated water demand for future (≈ year 2070) conditions, which was used in conjunction with demand growth rates from the 2016 Region H RWP to calculate demands for years 2020 through 2060. Note that the values listed in the table assume that GCWA would supply up to half of Manvel’s total water demand.

August 12, 2014 Page 4 of 14 FIGURE 2: RAW WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS FOR MUNICIPAL CUSTOMERS 90 80

Demand (MGD)

70 60 50 40 30 20

Municipal Raw Water Demand Municipal Raw Water Demand + Losses Municipal Raw Water Contracts

10 0 2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

Planning Decade

TABLE 2: RAW WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS FOR MUNICIPAL CUSTOMERS Customer

Demand Projections (MGD) 2030 2040 2050 13.42 14.30 15.16

Contract (MGD)

System

20.00

Upper A

2.97 1.44

10.50 2.35

Upper A Upper A

15.99

15.00

Upper B

14.17

14.36

15.47

10.00

Middle B

5.65

7.15

9.00

0.00

A or B

52.97

55.19

57.70

61.25

57.85

N/A

61.74

66.87

69.68

72.84

77.33

73.03

N/A

1.40

N/A

47.25

86.49

93.67

97.60

102.03

108.32

N/A

City of Sugar Land

2010 0.00

2020 6.12

2060 15.90

2070 16.38

FB WCID #2 Pecan Grove MUD

0.00 0.00

2.32 0.76

2.46 1.47

2.63 1.44

2.75 1.44

2.86 1.44

City of Missouri City

0.00

7.13

13.93

15.97

16.02

City of Pearland

0.00

8.36

City of Manvela

0.00

2.05

14.36

14.24

3.27

4.38

Total

0.00

26.72

48.91

Total with Losses

0.00

33.73

Peaking Factor

0.00

Peak Demand

0.00

aDemands shown for the City of Manvel reflect half of Manvel’s total projected water demand. It is assumed that non‐GCWA sources

would be used to meet the other half. Manvel currently relies exclusively on groundwater.

Total projected average daily customer demands for GCWA raw water more than double during the next 50 years. Demands in the GCWA service area for the City of Missouri City and the City of Pearland are projected to exceed current GCWA contracts prior to year 2040, necessitating either expansion of these contracts or increased utilization of non‐GCWA supplies. This comparison is based on demand projected at the entity locations; if consideration is given to estimated losses, total municipal raw water demand will exceed total current contracts prior to year 2030.

August 12, 2014 Page 5 of 14 The customers listed in Table 2 will only be meeting a portion of their overall demand with GCWA supplies and will utilize groundwater and potentially other sources to meet the remainder. The portion of demand met by GCWA will change over time. Municipal raw water demands shown in Table 2 are largely driven by groundwater reduction requirements mandated by the Harris‐Galveston Subsidence District (HGSD) and the Fort Bend Subsidence District (FBSD). In order to limit additional land surface subsidence in the greater Houston area, the Subsidence Districts have established requirements that entities in a large portion of Harris, Galveston, and Fort Bend Counties must limit their groundwater use to a certain percentage of their total water demand, with the remainder of the demand met by alternative water supplies. All of the customers in Table 2 except Manvel are located in FBSD Regulatory Area A and must limit groundwater use to no more than 70 percent of their demand by January 2014 and to no more than 40 percent of their demand by January 2025. The City of Pearland is also located in HGSD Regulatory Area Two, for which groundwater use must be limited to 20 percent of total demand. The City of Missouri City is partially located within HGSD Regulatory Area Three, which limits groundwater to 70 percent of demand, with additional reduction to 40 percent by 2025 and 20 percent by 2035. As such, projected municipal raw water demand for GCWA will increase rapidly between the present and approximately year 2035, after which demand growth will likely slow. Peak day demands are shown at the bottom of the table. Because the GCWA supply to these users is not yet utilized, peak demands reflect an estimated peaking factor of 1.40, matching the composite factor calculated for GCWA’s treated water customers; however, the users shown in Table 2 will receive raw water and will have some volume of storage capacity in their treatment and distribution infrastructure. This peaking factor is likely a conservative estimate, as many of these customers are utilizing surface water as an alternative to groundwater throughout the year and their peak demands will be met with groundwater pumpage.

INDUSTRIAL RAW WATER DEMANDS GCWA provides raw water to several industrial users within its service area, including Texas Brine, Ascend, INEOS, IPS (representing the industrial users supplied by the Industrial Pump Station), and Ashland. Projected industrial demands (see Figure 3 and Table 3) were calculated using GCWA records of customer usage for year 2011 as a baseline and increasing demands over time using manufacturing demand growth rate data from the 2011 RWP and 2016 Region H RWP datasets. Demands for Ascend were additionally increased to reflect transfer of the former Lyondell‐Basell raw water contract to Ascend to support planned facility expansion. As this expansion is expected to occur in the near future, the full volume of the transferred contract was added to Ascend’s demand projection beginning with the year 2020 value. Please note that values shown under year 2010 do not reflect actual recorded

August 12, 2014 Page 6 of 14 customer use for 2010 but rather represent hypothetical dry‐year demands for that time period based on usage during the 2011 drought. The industrial demands shown in Table 3 are anticipated to exceed current contract amounts by approximately year 2060. Demands for all industrial customers except those served through the Industrial Pump Station are expected to exceed current GCWA contracts prior to year 2040, necessitating either expansion of these contracts or increased utilization of non‐GCWA supplies. This comparison is based on demand projected at the entity locations; if consideration is given to estimated losses, total industrial raw water demand will exceed total current contracts prior to year 2020. Peak demand rates shown in the table reflect a peaking factor of 1.15, determined from GCWA industrial usage data for year 2011. Please note that these values represent monthly rather than daily peaking. FIGURE 3: RAW WATER DEMAND FOR INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS 140 120

Demand (MGD)

100 80 60 40 Industrial Raw Water Demand Industrial Raw Water Demand + Losses Industrial Raw Water Contracts

20 0 2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

Planning Decade

August 12, 2014 Page 7 of 14 TABLE 3: RAW WATER DEMAND FOR INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS County

Customer

Demand Projections (MGD) 2010

2020

53.48

2060

2070

54.57

55.68

Contract (MGD)

System

Ashland

1.00

1.03

1.05

1.07

1.09

1.11

1.14

1.00

A or B

Ascend

8.29

16.99

17.73

18.48

19.14

19.94

20.67

17.87

Lower B

INEOS

14.62

16.09

17.40

18.72

19.89

21.30

22.58

15.53 Juliff / CB

Texas Brine

0.90

0.83

Upper A

Total

73.83

85.34

88.44

91.58

94.50

97.83

100.97

95.29

N/A

Total with Losses

93.20

107.74

111.64

115.62

119.30

123.50

127.47

120.29

N/A

Peaking Factor

1.15

N/A

Peak Demand

107.18

123.90

128.39

132.96

137.20

142.03

146.59

N/A

Fort Bend

52.41

2050

49.02

Brazoria

51.35

2040

IPS

Galveston

50.33

2030

60.06

A or B

IRRIGATION WATER DEMANDS GCWA irrigation customers are located primarily in Brazoria County with smaller demands in Fort Bend and Galveston Counties. GCWA diversions for irrigation averaged approximately 113,000 ac‐ft/yr (101 MGD) for years 2010 through 2012. Irrigation demands were not examined in detail for this analysis for two reasons. The first is that the GCWA supplies for irrigation are contracted from year to year and thus irrigation is not covered by a long term supply agreement. The other reason is that the portion of GCWA’s water rights used for irrigation is subject to curtailment by senior water right call (which has occurred in recent years) and thus must be considered interruptible.

TOTAL WATER DEMAND Total water demands discussed in the preceding sections are summarized in Table 4 in units of MGD, with Table 5 presenting the same data in units of acre‐feet (ac‐ft). Projections are also illustrated in Figure 4. Total demands are anticipated to nearly double by year 2070, with growth across all user categories. The rate of increase in demands is highest between the present and year 2030 with an increase of approximately 67 percent (1.7 to 3.9 percent rate per year). The rapid elevation of demand levels is driven largely by near‐term development of raw water to meet the alternative source conversion requirements of the FBSD and HGSD. Planned expansion of Ascend’s Brazoria County facility contributes to this near‐term increase as well. Subsequent to approximately year 2030, demands are expected to grow at a lower rate of approximately 0.35 to 0.50 percent per year.

August 12, 2014 Page 8 of 14 TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMANDS Supply Type ‐ Customer Treated Water ‐ Municipalities Raw Water ‐ Municipalities Raw Water ‐ Industrial Total Total with Losses

2010

2020

Demand Projections (MGD) 2030 2040 2050

2060

2070

Contract (MGD)

33.01

36.70

40.75

42.46

44.06

45.69

47.30

49.70

0.00

26.72

48.91

52.97

55.19

57.70

61.25

57.85

73.83

85.34

88.44

91.58

94.50

97.83

100.97

95.29

106.84

148.76

178.10

187.01

193.76

201.22

209.53

202.84

131.09

183.59

220.16

231.21

239.55

248.78

259.08

256.07

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMANDS IN ACRE‐FEET Supply Type ‐ Customer Treated Water ‐ Municipalities Raw Water ‐ Municipalities Raw Water ‐ Industrial Total Total with Losses

2010

2020

Demand Projections (ac‐ft) 2030 2040 2050

37,003

41,136

45,682

47,592

49,389

51,216

53,022

55,709

29,954

54,821

59,376

61,867

64,675

68,660

64,847

82,755

95,661

99,130 102,657 105,932 109,659 113,183

106,809

119,758 166,751 199,634 209,625 217,187 225,550 234,864

227,366

146,936 205,786 246,776 259,170 268,510 278,857 290,409

287,028

2060

2070

Contract (ac‐ft)

FIGURE 4: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMANDS BY TYPE 350,000

300

300,000 250,000 200 200,000 150 150,000 100

100,000

Demand (MGD)

Demand (ac‐ft/yr)

250

50,000

‐

0 2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

Planning Decade Treated Water ‐ Municipalities

Raw Water ‐ Industrial

Losses

Contracts

Raw Water ‐ Municipalities

August 12, 2014 Page 9 of 14

DEMAND BY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Potential GCWA customer demands were also examined based on conveyance infrastructure. Table 6 classifies customers into different segments of the GCWA canal system. Total demand projected for each of these segments is shown in Table 7 in units of MGD, with Table 8 presenting the same data in units of ac‐ft. The values in both tables are already adjusted to include estimated losses. Note that this study assumes loss rates are consistent for all portions of GCWA’s service area. The majority of demands are projected to continue to originate in the lower A, B, and AB System. However, the development of municipal raw water supplies is expected to greatly increase demands in the upper and middle segments of the A, B, and AB System. Demand growth is also projected in the Juliff / Chocolate Bayou Systems for INEOS. TABLE 6. GCWA CUSTOMER LOCATION Location

Customer

Upper A Canal Upper B Canal Middle B Canal Lower A or B Canal Juliff / Chocolate Bayou

City of Sugarland FB WCID #2 Pecan Grove MUD Texas Brine City of Missouri City City of Pearland TMWTP Customers Industrial (Ascend, IPS, and Ashland) Manvel INEOS

Supply Type Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Treated Raw Raw Raw

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMANDS BY LOCATION

Upper A Canal

2010 1.14

2020 12.74

Demand Projections (MGD) 2030 2040 2050 23.05 24.34 25.57

Upper B Canal Middle B Canal Lower A or B Canal Juliff / Chocolate Bayou

0.00 0.00 111.49 18.45

9.00 10.55 130.98 20.32

17.59 18.13 139.43 21.97

20.16 17.98 145.10 23.63

20.22 17.89 150.76 25.11

20.19 18.13 156.93 26.89

20.18 19.53 163.47 28.51

Subtotal – A, B, AB System Subtotal ‐ Juliff / Chocolate Bayou Systems Total

112.63

163.27

198.19

207.58

214.44

221.89

230.58

18.45

20.32

21.97

23.63

25.11

26.89

28.51

131.09

183.59

220.16

231.21

239.55

248.78

259.08

Location

2060 26.63

2070 27.39

August 12, 2014 Page 10 of 14 TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMANDS BY LOCATION IN ACRE‐FEET Location Upper A Canal Upper B Canal Middle B Canal Lower A or B Canal Juliff / Chocolate Bayou Subtotal – A, B, AB System Subtotal ‐ Juliff / Chocolate Bayou Systems Total

2010 1,280

2020 14,283

Demand Projections (ac‐ft) 2030 2040 2050 25,832 27,286 28,666

2060 29,854

2070 30,701

0 10,083 19,712 22,600 22,669 22,633 22,624 0 11,830 20,319 20,149 20,050 20,326 21,896 124,973 146,817 156,288 162,643 168,984 175,905 183,236 20,683 22,774 24,625 26,492 28,141 30,140 31,952 126,254 183,013 222,151 232,677 240,369 248,718 258,457 20,683

22,774

24,625

26,492

28,141

30,140

31,952

146,936 205,786 246,776 259,170 268,510 278,857 290,409

SUPPLY AVAILABILITY GCWA’s water rights and contracts are summarized in Table 9. Also included in the table are contracts for BRA stored water held by the City of Sugar Land and Pecan Grove MUD; while these supplies are not owned by GCWA, they will likely require conveyance through the GCWA canal system and would be applied to municipal raw water demands that would otherwise require GCWA supplies. In addition to surface water rights and long‐term BRA stored water contracts, GCWA’s supplies include purchase contracts for interruptible supplies as well as “credit water” allocated by BRA to certain downstream rightholders as part of their accounting procedure. However, because the availability of interruptible and credit water supplies cannot be projected for future years and could be completely curtailed during drought conditions, they are not included in this analysis. Water right availabilities listed below were derived from draft supply availability for rights senior to 1942 based on modeling results developed as part of ongoing 2016 Region H RWP effort. Experience from recent severe drought periods has demonstrated that diversions junior to the downstream year 1942 water right held by Dow cannot be considered reliable under severe drought conditions. The availabilities shown reflect anticipated year 2020 conditions and could show some variation over time due to changes in upstream return flows or other conditions. Modeled availabilities are similar to those developed for the 2011 Region H RWP. Please note that Table 9 excludes approximately 11,700 ac‐ft/yr of modeled firm yield from right 12‐5171 due to its year 1950 priority. The six contracts listed in the table are supplied from stored water in BRA’s lake/reservoir system and are assumed to be fully reliable.

August 12, 2014 Page 11 of 14 TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE SUPPLIES FOR GCWA CANAL SYSTEMS Right / Contract ID

Priority Year

12‐5168

1926

Brazos River diversion

11‐5169

1948

Jones/Oyster Creek diversion

12‐5171

1939 1950

Description

System

TWDB Use Code

Permitted Diversion (ac‐ft/yr)

Firm Avail. (ac‐ft/yr)

A, B, AB

1,2,3

99,932

98,047

1,2,3,7

12,000

1,2,4

75,000

52,960

50,000

40,000

31,587

1,2,3

40,000

20,460

75,000

16,484

B (Middle)

Brazos River diversion

A, B, AB

1929 12‐5322

1955

Juliff Plant

Juliff / Chocolate Bayou

1983

11‐5357

1937

Chocolate Bayou

6,500

5,162

1940

Halls Bayou

4,000

2,252

1941

Chocolate Bayou

2,000

1,092

1942

Mustang Bayou

2,000

1,627

1966

Chocolate Bayou

17,000

4,181

Chocolate Bayou

1,2,3,7

1976

Chocolate and Mustang

26,000

1,617

GCWA 07

N/A

BRA – GCWA Contract

N/A

31,820

GCWA98

N/A

BRA – GCWA Contract

A, B, AB

N/A

9,335

STWC PECAN GROVE 10 PECAN GROVE MUD SUGAR LAND 10

N/A

BRA – GCWA Contract

Juliff / Chocolate Bayou

N/A

5,625

N/A

BRA – Pecan Grove Contract

A (Upper)

N/A

700

N/A

BRA – Pecan Grove Contract

A (Upper)

N/A

3,100

N/A

BRA – Sugar Land Contract

A (Upper)

N/A

6,388

288,275

202,350

Subtotal – A, B, AB System

TWDB Use Codes: 1 ‐ Municipal

Subtotal ‐ Juliff / Chocolate Bayou System

218,125

90,087

Total

506,400

292,437

2 ‐ Industrial

3 ‐ Irrigation

4 ‐ Mining

7 ‐ Recreation

The availability of water in the GCWA system and estimation of the existing level of shortage within the A, B, and AB Canal Systems has previously been investigated in a study performed by INTERA, Inc. for GCWA (Gulf Coast Water Authority Water Reliability Assessment Canal A, B, & AB Contracts, 2013). Drawing on the results of the INTERA study, the effective availability of water to meet the demands identified in the study could be considered equal to the target diversions, less identified shortages. Based on the demand and shortage values presented in the INTERA study, availability for the A, B, and AB system would be equal to 213,460 acre‐feet per year without the use of the Juliff water right (Right 12‐5322) at the Briscoe diversion point.

August 12, 2014 Page 12 of 14 Comparing the values from Table 9 against demands from Table 8, the projected availability of the Juliff and Chocolate Bayou Systems greatly exceeds the projected demand (see Figure 5). Assuming that right 11‐5357 and contract STWC are first used to the greatest extent possible to meet this demand, followed by right 12‐5322, remaining yield from right 12‐5322 would vary from 68,529 ac‐ft (approximate current conditions) to 58,132 ac‐ft (year 2070). In contrast, demands in the A, B, and AB System are projected to exceed available supplies by 19,801 ac‐ft/yr in year 2030 and 56,107 ac‐ft in year 2070. If the pending amendment to allow diversion of right 12‐5322 at the Canal B diversion point is approved by TCEQ, remaining right 12‐5322 yield could meet some or all of the projected shortages for the A, B, and AB System (Figure 6). While right 12‐5322 supplies would not meet needs in the upper and middle Canal A segments directly, they would be able to meet a portion of demands from canal B or from the lower A or B Canals, which represents the area of greatest demand for GCWA supplies. This would additionally allow greater flexibility in the use of other GCWA rights and contracts. Please note that this analysis is limited to assessment of projected demand and supply; conveyance or treatment infrastructure may need to be expanded over time to facilitate utilization of available water. FIGURE 5. JULIFF AND CHOCOLATE BAYOU SYSTEMS AND DEMAND 100,000 90,000

80,000

70 60

60,000 50 50,000 40 40,000 30

30,000

Demand (MGD)

Demand (ac‐ft/yr)

70,000

20,000

10,000

0 2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

Planning Decade Juliff / Chocolate Bayou

Juliff / Chocolate Bayou System Reliable Availability

*Demands shown in figure include adjustment for estimated leakage and other losses.

Contracts

August 12, 2014 Page 13 of 14 FIGURE 6. A, B, AND AB SYSTEM SUPPLY AND DEMAND 350,000

300.00

300,000 250.00

200.00 Demand (ac‐ft/yr)

200,000 150.00 150,000

Demansd (MGD)

250,000

100.00

100,000

50.00

50,000

‐

0 2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

Planning Decade Lower A or B Canal Upper B Canal A, B, and AB System Reliable Availability Contracts

Middle B Canal Upper A Canal Potential Availability with Permit 12‐5322

*Demands shown in figure include adjustment for estimated leakage and other losses. The results of this analysis indicate that while water demands on GCWA are anticipated to grow considerably in the near future, existing GCWA supplies should be able to address much or all of this non‐irrigation demand provided that contract water from BRA is fully reliable, that Canal B use of right 12‐5322 is granted by TCEQ, and that any losses are occurring uniformly throughout GCWA system. Development of additional supply sources and/or loss mitigation efforts would enhance operational flexibility and provide an increased factor of safety in the event of extreme drought, greater than anticipated population growth, or temporary infrastructure limitations.

August 12, 2014 Page 14 of 14

REFERENCES Afinowicz, Jason. Long Range Water Supply Study (Prepared for Gulf Coast Water Authority). Freese and Nichols, Inc. Houston, Texas. 2012. Fort Bend Subsidence District. FBSD 2003 District Regulatory Plan: August 28, 2013 Amendment. FBSD. Richmond, Texas. 2013. Fuhrans, Jordan. Gulf Coast Water Authority Water Reliability Assessment: Canal A, B, and AB Contracts. INTERA, Inc. Austin, Texas. 2013. Gulf Coast Water Authority. Water Conservation Plan for Gulf Coast Water Authority. GCWA. Texas City, Texas. 2012. Harris‐Galveston Subsidence District. 2013 District Regulatory Plan. HGSD. Friendswood, Texas. 2013. Region H Water Planning Group. 2016 Region H RWP (in progress). Region H Water Planning Group. 2014. Texas Water Development Board. Water for Texas (2012 State Water Plan). TWDB. Austin, Texas. 2012.

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

APPENDIX B GCWA RESERVOIR C

GCWA Reservoir C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Report Prepared for:

Gulf Coast Water Authority

Prepared by:

FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 10497 Town and Country Way, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 600-6800 GCW13494

GCWA Reservoir C – Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 1

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: RC-1 Excavation Volume Versus Potential Volume of Raw Water Supply .................... 5 Table 2: RC-1 Embankment Slopes Versus Fill Volumes ....................................................................... 5 Table 3: Opinion of Probable Costs for RC-1 .............................................................................................. 6 Table 4: RC-2 Excavation Volume Versus Potential Volume of Raw Water Supply .................... 7 Table 5: RC-2 Embankment Slopes Versus Fill Volumes ....................................................................... 7 Table 6: Opinion of Probable Costs for RC-2 .............................................................................................. 8 Table 7: RC-3 Excavation Volume Versus Potential Volume of Raw Water Supply .................... 9 Table 8: RC-3 Embankment Slopes Versus Fill Volumes ....................................................................... 9 Table 9: Opinion of Probable Costs for RC-3 ........................................................................................... 10 Table 10: RC-4 Excavation Volume Versus Potential Volume of Raw Water Supply .............. 11 Table 11: RC-4 Embankment Slopes Versus Fill Volumes ................................................................. 11 Table 12: Opinion of Probable Costs for RC-4 ........................................................................................ 12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 RC-1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2 RC-2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 3 RC-3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4 RC-4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 5 XSECS .................................................................................................................................................... 19 Survey –Figure 6................................................................................................................................................. 20 Survey –Figure 7................................................................................................................................................. 21 APPENDICES Appendix A: Geotechnical Summary and Data Report Appendix B: Environmental Summary

GCWA Reservoir C – Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report constitutes the contract submittal with respect to Phase I and Phase II of the “SW 01.07 – GCWA Reservoir C Long Range Water Supply and Additional Storage Initiative”. This specific strategy is in association with Work Authorization FN0907c, by and between, the Gulf Coast Water Authority (GCWA) and Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI). This work order was authorized by GCWA on September 25, 2013. This report provides an executive level summary of the geotechnical work and environmental work conducted by FNI. More importantly, this document provides FNI’s opinion on the feasibility of constructing a new terminal reservoir for potential additional water storage capabilities in the GCWA system. Located immediately west of Reservoir A and B, GCWA owns approximately 520 acres of unimproved land that has been considered an opportunity for additional storage considerations. GCWA is interested understanding if the site provides for any “fatal flaws” that may prohibit the site from providing for additional storage. Examples of flaws could be: unable to hold water, domestic (on-site) soils unacceptable for floor or embankment construction, permitting due to wetlands and threatened or endangered species. Geotechnical Summary FNI sited and instructed the drilling of five, each, 40-ft deep geotechnical borings. B-01 was drilled north of the confluence of the two existing streams (located closest to Dickinson Bayou). B-02 and B-03 were drilled to the southwest of the stream confluence and B-04 and B-05 were drilled southeast of the stream confluence. A location map of these borings and location coordinates can be found on Figure 1 of the geotechnical technical memorandum contained in Appendix A of this report. Based on the preliminary laboratory analysis performed by Aviles, and in review of the boring logs and crumb test analysis, the following can be inferred: 

The groundwater appears to be pressurized. The groundwater appears to be influenced by Dickinson Bayou. The groundwater has a positive seepage gradient that tends to deepen away from (south) of Dickinson Bayou;



The upper 25- to 30-feet (Stratum I) are generally classified as plastic clays (CH and CL) with 1

GCWA Reservoir C – Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority Liquid Limits ranging from 33 to 99. The soils encountered between 25- and 32-feet below grade (stratum II) are considered plastic silts and silty clays. Between 32- and 40-feet below grade (Stratum III) the soils are considered fat clay with slickenslides; 

Strong evidence suggests that portions of the existing soil stratum (6- to 10-feet below grade or elevation ~2 ft-msl- to -2-ft-msl) have dispersive properties; and



Actual elevation of this area is not currently known. GCWA’s third party surveyor has not currently shot in and located the geotechnical boring locations. For purposes of this report, FNI assumed that the general grade elevation is 8 ft-msl.

For the complete Geotechnical Summary and Data Report, please refer to Appendix A. Environmental Summary FNI provided for an environmental site visit to the proposed Reservoir C location to identify potential waters of the U.S., wetlands, potential threatened and endangered species habitat, and other potential environmentally sensitive issues. The following bullets generally summarizes the findings of the preliminary environmental review: 

Three (3) species of birds considered endangered, threatened, or being monitored have the potential of being present at the reservoir site (see Table 1 of Appendix B);



Five (5) reptile species considered endangered or threatened have the potential of being present at the site (see Table 1 of Appendix B);



There are two (2) tidally infuenced streams, eight (8) ponds, and numerous potential forested and herbaceous wetlands identifed and likely considered jurisdictional waters of the U.S. o

The ponds appear to be man made and are located generally south and east of the property;

The majority of the forested wetlands are located southwest of the confluence of Stream 1 and Stream 2;

The majority of the herbaceous wetlands are located southwest of the confluence of Stream 1 and Stream 2;

GCWA Reservoir C – Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority 

Two (2) high-pressure underground gas lines were observed during a desktop survey running from Northwest to Southeast across the property. FNI does not know who owns these pipes, nor how deep these pipes are buried. FNI recommends that GCWA’s third party surveyor identify the pipeline owners and provide for dig tests to ascertain the depth of burial for each pipe.

It is FNI’s opinion that the potential reservoir project would likely require an Individual Permit (IP) from the Uinted States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any work located north of the confluence of Stream 1 and 2 would likely not be permittable. In order to obtain an IP, GCWA would likely need to mitigate for all stream, pond, and wetland impacts. There are various avenues by which this could be completed including the construction of on-site or near-site mitigation projects. The total time required for the IP process including completing the IP application and review, coordination and approval of the project by the USACE is approximately 36 months. Should the Reservoir C project be considered a viable alternative, FNI recommends a preapplication meeting with the Galveston District USACE as soon as practically possible. For the complete Environmental Site Visit Memorandum, please refer to Appendix B of this report. Proposed Layouts for Reservoir C Based on the preliminary geotechnical and environmental reviews of the potential reservoir site, FNI believes that the Reservoir C alternative is a viable solution that GCWA should consider moving forward with in additional studies as part of their long range strategic initiative. Further considering the results of the preliminary geotechnical and environmental studies, FNI has provided for four preliminary geometric alternatives (RC-1, RC-2, RC-3, and RC-4); each with a respective volumetric potential based on GCWA’s determined need. Each of the alternatives assumed the following points: 

No portion of the reservoir shall be considered north of the confluence of Stream 1 and 2;



Maximum excavation depth (for borrow material) is limited to 5- to 7-feet;



It is likely that the embankment would need to be initially constructed higher than any proposed final elevation (21.5 or 26 ft-msl) in anticipation of settlement (surcharge). Actual amount of settlement would need to be studied;



Slopes of embankments should not be any less than 4H : 1V due to the type of material available 3

GCWA Reservoir C – Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority for construction. With specialized soil mixing the slopes could be reduced to 3.5H : 1V; but no less than 3H : 1V. CL material should be used along the exterior slope; while the fatter CH material should be used for the interior cross section of the embankments; 

The final design of the reservoir will need to take in account seepage control features;



Normal water surface elevation of the new reservoir was assumed to vary between 16- to 17.5ft-msl;



Existing high pressure gas lines will likely need to be removed from beneath the footprint of the new reservoir;



An all weather road would be constructed along the crest of the embankment and along the base of the embankment for maintenance and access;



Soil cement will likely be the material of choice for erosion protection of the interior slope;

RC-1 The most basic layout for Reservoir C is as shown in Figure RC-1. This layout would be the less intrusive layout of the four options due to its siting to the most southwest portion of the tract. The geometry of the reservoir and its associated embankment would avoid the existing eight (8) ponds that have been identified along the eastern portions of the tract and would be located south of the confluence of Streams 1 and 2. This option is the only option of the four that would require embankment construction (approximately 12,000 linear feet) soley on excavated soils. This option would be a self contained alternative, likely requiring a complex infrastructure to access the water supply (directly or via Reservoir A or Reservoir B).

GCWA Reservoir C – Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority Table 1: RC-1 Excavation Volume Versus Potential Volume of Raw Water Supply

TERMINAL RESERVOIR C-1

1,041,070 1,385,360 1,728,300

Maximum Impoundment Volume at Elevation 21.5 ft-msl [Acre-feet] 3,462 3,675 3,886

Impoundment Volume at Normal Pool (Elevation 17 ft-msl) [Acre-feet] 2,546 2,758 2,969

2,069,860 2,410,060

4,096 4,305

3,180 3,389

Excavated Depth [feet]

Excavated Volume [Cubic Yard]

3 4 5 6 7

As you can see in Table 1, above, GCWA could yield approximately 3,500 – 4,300 acre-feet of storage if the bottom of the reservoir was excavated down between five (5) and seven (7) feet (or elevation 3 – 1 ft-msl). Table 2: RC-1 Embankment Slopes Versus Fill Volumes TERMINAL RESERVOIR C-1 Total Fill Volume [CY] Outer Embankment Slope [H:V]

Embankment Fill of Full Perimeter

Embankment Fill Using GCWA Levee West of Inlet Canal

3.5:1

343,073

N/A

4:1

363,795

N/A

In Table 2, above, the required fill could range between 343,000- to 364,000-cubic yards. In comparing Tables 1 and 2, it can be observed that there would be a sizeable excess of spoil material ranging from approximately 700,000- to 2,050,000-cubic yards. Most of this spoil would likely need to be hauled off site. The estimated cost for the RC-1 alternative is as shown in Table 3, below. It should be understood that these estimates are very conservative due to the many unkowns with the opportunities that yet to be discovered and discussed (specifically the amount of additional storage desired by GCWA). If storage requirements are far less than 3,000 acre-ft, the earthwork costs can likely be reduced significantly. This is true for the RC-1, RC-2, RC-3, and RC-4 alternatives. 5

GCWA Reservoir C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority Table 3: Opinion of Probable Costs for RC-1

RC-1 Description Care of Water Clearing and Grubbing Compacted Fill (4:1) Spoil (average) Soil Cement Crushed Stone Roadway Relocation of Pipelines Inlet/outlet Structures, Conduits, Misc

Quantity Unit 1 LS 300 acre 364,000 CY 1,375,000 CY 40,000 CY 378,000 SF 13,000 LF 1 LS

Mobilization (@3.5%) Engineering, Surveying, Geotech, Env. (6.5%)

Unit Price Total $500,000 $500,000.00 $820 $246,000.00 $4 $1,456,000.00 $3 $4,125,000.00 $68 $2,710,800.00 $1 $196,560.00 $300 $3,900,000.00 $1,500,000 $1,500,000.00 Sub-total 1 = $14,134,360.00 $494,702.60 Sub-total 2 = $14,629,062.60 $950,889.07 Sub-total 3 = $15,579,951.67

Contingency (accounting for mitigation, other @ 30%)

$4,673,985.50 Total = $20,253,937.17

Note: Excavation (spoils) could be reduced significantly based on the volume of water desired by GCWA. Earthwork assumes that there will be a mixing/treatment of the soils prior to or during construction activities as well as water treatment.

RC-2 The second alternative for GCWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consideration is RC-2 (see Figure RC-2 in the figures section of the report). This alternative would set the southern embankment just north of an existing drill site and would require approximately 14,400 linear feet of embankment construction. This alternative would; however, compromise some of the existing ponds. A benefit of this alternative is that the eastern most embankment could be constructed as part of the western most levee of the existing GCWA inlet canal. This would allow the construction of an equalizer system to the inlet canal rather economically. In this regard the inlet canal, RC-2, and the existing Reservoir A and B would work in unison.

GCWA Reservoir C – Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority Table 4: RC-2 Excavation Volume Versus Potential Volume of Raw Water Supply

TERMINAL RESERVOIR C-2

1,341,979 1,786,140 2,228,710

Maximum Impoundment Volume at Elevation 21.5 ft-msl [Acre-feet] 4,724 5,008 5,292

Impoundment Volume at Normal Pool (Elevation 17 ft-msl) [Acre-feet] 3,298 3,581 3,866

2,669,700 3,109,110

5,578 5,866

4,152 4,439

Excavated Depth [feet]

Excavated Volume [Cubic Yard]

3 4 5 6 7

As you can see in Table 4, above, GCWA could yield approximately 4,700- to 5,900-acre-feet of storage if the bottom of the reservoir was excavated down between five (5) and seven (7) feet (or elevation 3 – 1 ft-msl). Table 5: RC-2 Embankment Slopes Versus Fill Volumes TERMINAL RESERVOIR C-2 Total Fill Volume [CY] Outer Embankment Slope [H:V]

3.5:1

398,445

Embankment Fill Using GCWA Levee West of Inlet Canal 319,940

4:1

422,512

339,266

Embankment Fill of Full Perimeter

In Table 5, above, the required fill could range between 398,000- to 423,000-cubic yards. In comparing Tables 4 and 5, it can be observed that there would be a sizeable excess of spoil material ranging from approximately 1,000,000- to 2,700,000-cubic yards. Most of this spoil would likely need to be hauled off site.

GCWA Reservoir C – Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority Table 6: Opinion of Probable Costs for RC-2

RC-2 Description Care of Water Clearing and Grubbing Compacted Fill (4:1) Spoil (average) Soil Cement Crushed Stone Roadway Relocation of Pipelines Inlet/outlet Structures, Conduits, Misc

Quantity Unit 1 LS 300 acre 422,500 CY 1,850,000 CY 44,000 CY 388,000 SF 13,000 LF 1 LS

Mobilization (@3.5%) Engineering, Surveying, Geotech, Env. (6.5%)

Unit Price Total $500,000 $500,000.00 $820 $246,000.00 $4 $1,690,000.00 $3 $5,550,000.00 $68 $2,981,880.00 $1 $201,760.00 $300 $3,900,000.00 $850,000 $850,000.00 Sub-total 1 = $15,419,640.00 $539,687.40 Sub-total 2 = $15,959,327.40 $1,037,356.28 Sub-total 3 = $16,996,683.68

Contingency (accounting for mitigation, other @ 30%)

$5,099,005.10 Total = $22,095,688.79

RC-3 The RC-3 alternative (see Figure RC-3 in the figure section of the report) is the alternative that would yield the largest volume of stored water supplies for GCWA. Similar to alternative RC-2, the eastern embankment would be constructed as part of the western inlet canal levee; however, the northeast portion of the resrvoir would extend north to the “dog-leg” of Reservoir B. This extension would still allow the reservoir to be constructed south of the confluence of Streams 1 and 2.

GCWA Reservoir C – Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority Table 7: RC-3 Excavation Volume Versus Potential Volume of Raw Water Supply

TERMINAL RESERVOIR C-3

1,514,490 2,015,640 2,514,950

Maximum Impoundment Volume at Elevation 21.5 ft-msl [Acre-feet] 5,046 5,355 5,663

Impoundment Volume at Normal Pool (Elevation 17 ft-msl) [Acre-feet] 3,707 4,016 4,324

3,012,406 3,508,030

5,969 6,274

4,630 4,935

Excavated Depth [feet]

Excavated Volume [Cubic Yard]

3 4 5 6 7

As you can see in Table 7, above, GCWA could yield approximately 5,000 – 6,300 acre-feet of storage if the bottom of the reservoir was excavated down between five (5) and seven (7) feet (or elevation 3 – 1 ft-msl). Table 8: RC-3 Embankment Slopes Versus Fill Volumes TERMINAL RESERVOIR C-3 Total Fill Volume [CY] Outer Embankment Slope [H:V]

3.5:1

463,120

Embankment Fill Using GCWA Levee West of Inlet Canal 338,409

4:1

491,094

358,848

Embankment Fill of Full Perimeter

In Table 8, above, the required fill could range between 463,000- to 491,000-cubic yards. In comparing Tables 7 and 8, it can be observed that there would be a sizeable excess of spoil material ranging from approximately 1,000,000- to 3,000,000-cubic yards. Most of this spoil would likely need to be hauled off site.

GCWA Reservoir C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority Table 9: Opinion of Probable Costs for RC-3

RC-3 Description Care of Water Clearing and Grubbing Compacted Fill (4:1) Spoil (average) Soil Cement Crushed Stone Roadway Relocation of Pipelines Inlet/outlet Structures, Conduits, Misc

Quantity Unit 1 LS 300 acre 364,000 CY 2,000,000 CY 50,000 CY 423,600 SF 13,000 LF 1 LS

Mobilization (@3.5%) Engineering, Surveying, Geotech, Env. (6.5%)

Unit Price Total $500,000 $500,000.00 $820 $246,000.00 $4 $1,456,000.00 $3 $6,000,000.00 $68 $3,388,500.00 $1 $220,272.00 $300 $3,900,000.00 $850,000 $850,000.00 Sub-total 1 = $16,060,772.00 $562,127.02 Sub-total 2 = $16,622,899.02 $1,080,488.44 Sub-total 3 = $17,703,387.46

Contingency (accounting for mitigation, other @ 30%)

$5,311,016.24 Total = $23,014,403.69

RC-4 The fourth alternative for GCWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consideration is RC-4 (see Figure RC-4 in the figures section of the report). The objective of this alternative is to minimize excavation costs by utilizing the spoils to construct a raised embankment. This alternative would share the same bounds as RC-2. Alternatively to the other three alternatives, RC-4 would provide for storage through the raising of the embankment from elevation 21.5 to 26 ft-msl as opposed to obtaining the majority of the volume through excavation. The embankment would require approximately 14,400 linear feet of embankment construction. This could include approximately 2,900 linear feet of the raising of the existing west embankment of the inlet canal approximately 4.5 feet. This alternative would minimize excess spoil material while still providing for volumes equivalent to the volumetric potential of RC-2. Excavation spoils can be reduced by cutting a pilot channel within the bounds of the reservoir instead of excavating a certain depth across the entire area. Due to the hydraulics involved with raising the embankments, it would be necessary to also 10

GCWA Reservoir C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority construct a pump station in order to fill the reservoir above the normal pool WSE of 17 ft-msl. The pilot channel is designed to be approximately 12,000 linear feet long, 5 feet deep, and 350 feet wide with an offset approximately 30 feet from the toe of the inside of the embankment. Using the spoils from this channel, an embankment will be constructed up to elevation 26 ft-msl in order to allow the normal water surface elevation in the reservoir to be raised to elevation 21-21.5 ft-msl. This would allow a freeboard from the normal water surface elevation to the top of the dam of 4.5 feet. As shown in Table 10, below, GCWA could yield approximately 5,000 acre-feet of storage if a pilot channel is used to minimize the borrow material necessary to construct a raised embankment. Table 10: RC-4 Excavation Volume Versus Potential Volume of Raw Water Supply

TERMINAL RESERVOIR C-4 Pilot Channel Width [Feet]

Excavated Volume [Cubic Yard]

350

790,000

Maximum Impoundment Volume at Elevation 26 ft-msl [Acre-feet] 5,078

Impoundment Volume at Normal Pool (Elevation 21.5 ft-msl) [Acre-feet] 3,845

Table 11: RC-4 Embankment Slopes Versus Fill Volumes TERMINAL RESERVOIR C-4 Total Fill Volume [CY] Outer Embankment Slope [H:V] 3.5:1 4:1

Embankment Fill of Full Perimeter 761,000 803,000

Using GCWA Levee West of Inlet Canal 663,000 704,000

In Table 11, above, the required fill could range between 761,000- to 803,000-cubic yards. In comparing Tables 10 and 11, it can be observed that excess of spoil material is minimized to approximately 85,000 cubic yards. The excavated spoils listed account for the placement of fill material on top of the existing western embankment of the inlet canal as well as construction of the new RC-4 embankment. The excess spoil materials could be used to raise the embankment above designed in order to anticipate for settlement (surcharge). RC-4 would not likely require any considerable amount of spoil to be hauled off site.

GCWA Reservoir C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority As shown below, the overall earthwork costs for RC-4 are significantly reduced through reduced spoils and increased compacted fill quantities. Although RC-4 requires the inclusion of a pump station, the cost for this alternative is much less than the others due to the high amount of excavation costs incured in the other alternatives. Table 12: Opinion of Probable Costs for RC-4

RC-4 Description Care of Water Clearing and Grubbing Compacted Fill (4:1) Soil Cement Crushed Stone Roadway Relocation of Pipelines Inlet/outlet Structures, Conduits, Misc Pump Station

Quantity Unit 1 LS 300 acre 803,000 CY 50,000 CY 423,600 SF 13,000 LF 1 LS 1 LS

Unit Price $500,000 $820 $4 $68 $1 $300 $850,000 $1,000,000 Sub-total 1 = Sub-total 2 =

Total $500,000.00 $246,000.00 $3,212,000.00 $3,388,500.00 $220,272.00 $3,900,000.00 $850,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $13,316,772.00 $466,087.02 $13,782,859.02

Sub-total 3 =

$895,885.84 $14,678,744.86

Total =

$4,403,623.46 $19,082,368.31

Mobilization (@3.5%) Engineering, Surveying, Geotech, Env. (6.5%) Contingency (accounting for mitigation, other @ 30%)

Summary of the Alternatives In review of the information provided above, GCWA could realize between 1,000 and 6,400 acre-ft of additional storage. This will depend on the amount of earthwork necessary to achieve the respective volume. Alternatives RC-1, RC-2, and RC-3 would each require a large excavation and much cost to transport soil material offsite. Each of these alternatives assumed a final crest elevation of 21.5 ft-msl and a normal WSE of 17 ft-msl (similar to the existing inlet canal and Reservoirs A and B). This would allow approximately 4.5 feet of freeboard. Alternative RC-4 was considered in order to minimize (or eliminate) costs for spoil transport. As described previously, this alternative would require a 350 foot wide pilot channel excavation for embankment construction; however, the crest of the embankment would need to be approximately 26 12

GCWA Reservoir C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority ft-msl to maximize storage and provide adequate freeboard. Also, a portion of the existing west embankment of the inlet canal would need to be raised approximately 4.5 feet. A small pump station would be required to overcome head restrictions between 17 and 21.5 ft-msl. It is important to note the FNI currently does not know what the flow line elevation of the inlet canal is along Attwater Road. It is assumed that it is approximately elevation 8- to 9-ft-msl (similar to that of the inlet canal running adjacent to Reservoirs A and B). If this is the case then minimal to no hydraulic changes need to occur in order to hydraulically engage Reservoir C with the inlet canal and Reservoirs A and B (for alternatives RC-1, RC-2, and RC-3). The relationship with the bottom of Reservoir C and GCWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intention of being able to ascertain the maximum potential of Reservoir C is yet to be determined and could influence the structures which will convey the water into Reservoir C from the inlet canal along Attwater Road, as well as managing the water between the inlet canal and Reservoirs A and B. Additional studies and more detailed analysis is necessary and is recommended for Phase III of this project. Though very important, no detailed consideration has been initiated concerning the infrastructure required to feed Reservoir C from the inlet canal (between Humble Corp Road and the southwest corner of Reservoir A) or through equilizers from the inlet canal running north along Reservoir A and B. The quantities and quantification analysis that is included with this phase should be considered for very high level planning and are intended only to assist GCWA with tools by which to further consider their long range strategic initiative. It should also be noted, the pipeline relocate costs are very significant. The geometry of alternatives RC-1, RC-2, and RC-3 could be adjusted by shortening the east and north embankments to not affect the northern most pipeline. This would require a deeper excavation but will likely reduce the overall cost by $1.5-$2 million.

GCWA Reservoir C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority

Figures

¦ ¨ §

Harris

Chambers

¦ ¨ § 610

GCWA TERMINAL RESERVOIR

352.08'

Brazoria

Galveston

MILAGRO PRODUCING LLC orth Part of Lots 16, 17, and 18 G.C.C.F. 2007078981

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION S 83°22'26"

E 3,330.97 '

S 02°53'03" E 1,041.42'

N 02°53'03" W 1582.95'

RESERVOIR B

N 87°15'57" E 100.00' N 87°15'57" E 1,097.80'

STREAM 1

PI P

IN E

P PI

' N 02°53'03" W 4,167.63

S 02°53'03" E 4,137.63'

TERMINAL RESERVOIR C-3

BCK

RESERVOIR A

(60' R.O.W.)

' R.O.W.) ATTWATER ROAD (60 ' S 87°15'57" W 4,503.00

1,000

500

1,000 Feet

Pipelines Boundary

FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 10497 TOWN AND COUNTRY WAY, SUITE 600 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77024 P: 713-600-6800 F: 713-600-6801

ST RE

E IN EL

HUMBLE CAMP ROAD

Legend

FIGURE

1 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date Saved: 12/6/2013 10:53:50 AM

µ GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY

CLARENCE A. ANDERSON SUBDIVISION OF THE JOHN SELLERS LEAGUE

THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF "CODY M. COCKROFT" P.E. TEXAS NO: 97255 ON DATE: 12/06/2013 IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING OR PERMIT PURPOSES

DATE CREATED

FN PROJECT NO.

Lot 16

LONG RANGE WATER SUPPLY-RESERVOIR C

¦ ¨ § 45

Fort Bend

TERMINAL RESERVOIR

290

DATUM & COORDINATE SYSTEM

£ ¤

Name: Terminal Reservoir

Liberty

PREPARED BY

£ ¤

FILE NAME

Date: 12/6/2013

Jefferson

£ ¤ 90

NAD83 State Plane (feet) Texas South Central

SJR13312

Hardin

Montgomery

Path: M:\Terminal Reservoir.mxd

Chambers 610

GCWA TERMINAL RESERVOIR

S 02°53'03" E 1,041.42'

N 02°53'03" W 1582.95'

Brazoria

FR-008 South Parts of Lots 16, 17 and 18 98.961± Acres G.C.D.R. Bk 2153, Pg 8-12

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

(60' R.O.W.)

1,096.30'

1126.30'

Drill Site #1 150' Easement

343.00'

466.00'

S 87°15'57" W 4,503.00'

Drill Site Tr. 1 150' Easement

1,451.33'

1,247.00'

S 02°53'03" E 2,083.81'

Drill Site Tr. 2 150' Easement

466.00' FR-001 Portion of South Part of Lot 13 4.664± Acres G.C.D.R. Bk. 1159 Pg. 83-84

ATTWATER ROAD (60' R.O.W.)

Legend

1,000

500

1,000 Feet

Boundary

FIGURE

2 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date Saved: 12/6/2013 12:30:22 PM

Path: M:\Property Owners.mxd

BCK

Name: Property Owners

R-005 South 1/2 Lot 12 G.C.D.R. Bk 777, Pg 428-430

FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 10497 TOWN AND COUNTRY WAY, SUITE 600 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77024 P: 713-600-6800 F: 713-600-6801

FR-004 Lot 3 of North 150 Acres of Block 13 30.000± Acres G.C.D.R. Bk. 1257 Pg. 336-340

FR-005 Lot 1 of North 150 Acres of Block 13 30.000± Acres G.C.D.R. Bk. 1257 Pg. 326-329 452.08'

452.08'

FR-002 Portion of South Part of Lot 13 60.045± Acres G.C.D.R. Bk. 1257 Pg. 340-345 S 02°53'03" E 436.00'

Drill Site 150' Easement

RESERVOIR A

N 87°15'57" E 2,260.41'

436.00'

1,011.91'

HUMBLE CAMP ROAD

FR-007 South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Lot 14 22.447± Acres G.C.D.R. Bk 1257, Pg 332-336

452.08'

1,011.91'

1,041.91'

1,096.30'

1,041.91'

N 02°53'03" W 4,167.63'

FR-006 North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Lot 14 26.222± Acres G.C.D.R. Bk 1257, Pg 330-332

FR-004 Lot 5 of North 150 Acres of Block 13 30.000± Acres G.C.D.R. Bk. 1257 Pg. 336-340

N 02°53'03" W 4,137.63'

S 02°53'03" E 4,137.63'

N 87°15'57" E 1,096.30'

µ GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY

2,890.63'

FR-004 Lot 4 of North 150 Acres of Block 13 30.000± Acres G.C.D.R. Bk. 1257 Pg. 336-340 2,890.63'

2,890.63'

FR-003 East 1/2 of Lot 14 and the Northwest 1/4 of Lot 14 159.665± Acres G.C.D.R. Bk 1257, Pg 332-336

R-004 (A, B, C) South 1/2 Lot 12 G.C.D.R. Bk 777, Pg 539-543

FR-005 Lot 2 of North 150 Acres of Block 13 30.000± Acres G.C.D.R. Bk. 1257 Pg. 326-329

Drill Site 150' Easement

Drill Site #2 150' Easement

352.08'

Drill Site 150' Easement

S 02°53'03" E 4,137.63'

N 87°15'57" E 1,129.80' N 87°15'57" E 1,097.80'

N 87°15'57" E 100.00'

1,030.20'

Galveston

R-001 Southerly Parts of Lots 19 and 20 G.C.D.R. Bk 791, Pg 399 & 400

RESERVOIR B 1,130.20'

2,083.81'

466.00' 352.08'

DATE CREATED

1,044.56'

LONG RANGE WATER SUPPLY-RESERVOIR C

¦ ¨ §

Fort Bend

2,890.63'

Lot 16

1,145.95'

TERMINAL RESERVOIR

¦ ¨ §

FN PROJECT NO.

CLARENCE A. ANDERSON SUBDIVISION OF THE JOHN SELLERS LEAGUE

Lot 15

DATUM & COORDINATE SYSTEM

290

PREPARED BY

¦ ¨ §

Harris

£ ¤

R-007 Part of Lots 18, 19 and 20 G.C.D.R. Bk 1083, Pg 473-475

Lot 14

Date: 12/6/2013

Liberty

FILE NAME

£ ¤

NAD83 State Plane (feet) Texas South Central

Jefferson

£ ¤ 90

S 83°22'26" E 3,330.97'

1,140.46'

Hardin

Montgomery

Lot 12

Lot 13

SJR13312

MILAGRO PRODUCING LLC orth Part of Lots 16, 17, and 18 G.C.C.F. 2007078981

GCWA Reservoir C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority

Appendix A Geotechnical Summary and Data Report

GCWA Proposed Terminal Reservoir â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Fatal Flaw Analysis January 15, 2014 Page 2 of 10 3. Select samples for laboratory testing to determine soil classification and engineering properties of the subsurface. 4. Prepare a technical memorandum summary report of the geotechnical investigation to include: a. Appendix with the boring locations, boring logs, laboratory test results, and a key to the symbols used; b. Discussion of subsurface conditions and soil properties found by the field and laboratory work and implications for development of the site as a terminal reservoir site. These implications include potential constraints such as lack of suitable soils for construction of embankments, high groundwater table, etc.; and c. General discussion of expected construction related issues. The five (5) borings were spaced to the best abilities to encompass different areas of the potential site without hindering underground utilities, existing constructions, and accessibility. The approximate locations of the borings drilled are included in Appendix A.

SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site is approximately 520 acres in size and the topography across the site is relatively flat. The site is partially covered with small trees and scrub brush with portions of grassy areas. Two tidally influenced streams and 7-8 ponds are present on the site. One of the streams runs in an east-west direction across the western half of the site and then turns north. This stream is a tributary of Dickinson Bayou. The second stream runs generally in a north-south direction and merges with the other stream in the north central part of the site. Most of the ponds are located in the southeast portion of the site, all vary in size and all appear to be manmade.

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION Field Investigation The subsurface investigation conducted for this study included a total of five (5) geotechnical borings in the potential site for the proposed terminal reservoir, with the approximate locations depicted on the attached Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). Boring locations were determined and staked in the field by personnel from GCWA and FNI.

The borings were drilled on October 21 through October 23, 2013, by Van and Sons

(subcontracted by Aviles Engineering Corporation (AEC)) using a Mayhew buggy-mounted ATV rig. The borings

GCWA Proposed Terminal Reservoir â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Fatal Flaw Analysis January 15, 2014 Page 3 of 10 were drilled within the vicinity of the staked locations based on drill rig access and setup. The coordinates at each location were collected using a handheld GPS with the results listed below in Table 1. Note that these coordinates are accurate only to the degree implied by the method used in their determination. Table 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Geotechnical Boring Coordinates Boring No.

Latitude

Longitude

B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5

29.44122 29.43538 29.42875 29.43834 29.42947

-94.99110 -94.99425 -94.99702 -94.98839 -94.99003

The borings were advanced by dry drilling the top surface (roughly 0 to 20 feet except on Boring B-1 where dry drilling was performed in the upper 10 feet) using 3-inch steel tubes and 4-inch diameter augers. Rotary wash bore drilling methods using a 4-inch wing bit was then utilized to the termination depths of the borings ranging at about 40 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The subsurface soils were sampled intermittently using medium-walled Shelby tube samplers to obtain relatively undisturbed samples for laboratory strength testing, and split-spoon samplers used in conjunction with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Handheld penetrometer and torvane shear tests were performed in the field on cohesive samples, and the results are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix B. As part of rotary wash boring methods, drilling fluid was added to the boreholes for the purpose of cuttings removal and preventing collapse of the borehole sidewalls. Prior to the introduction of drilling fluid, seepage was observed in all of the borings. Seepage observations were not possible after the addition of drilling fluids. Seepage observations are discussed later in this memorandum. The borings were backfilled with cementbentonite slurry upon completion of the drilling.

Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing was performed by AEC on selected soil samples. The testing was performed to allow for material classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), ASTM D 2487 and to evaluate pertinent engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Samples were selected for Atterberg limits, percent passing a No. 200 sieve, moisture content, unit dry weight, and unconfined compressive strength testing. The results of these tests are shown on the individual boring logs. Additional specialized testing

GCWA Proposed Terminal Reservoir â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Fatal Flaw Analysis January 15, 2014 Page 4 of 10 consisted of crumb dispersion testing was performed and the results are included in Appendix B. The boring logs were developed from the field logs, and represent an interpretation of the field data with modifications to the material types and descriptions based on the results of the laboratory testing. The boring logs are attached in Appendix A, and indicate the material types, depths, and other details encountered in each boring. Stratigraphy lines shown on the logs correspond to the approximate boundary between strata and are based on the discrete samples collected during drilling. The in-situ transition between strata can be, and is often, gradual.

GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Geology The proposed site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of North Humble Camp Road and Attwater Avenue, in Texas City, Texas, adjacent to and west of GCWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing Industrial Reservoir. The reservoir is located within the San Jacinto River Basin in the Coastal Prairies subprovince of the Gulf Coastal Plains province. Landscapes of this province are characterized by nearly flat prairies with relict meander ridges and young deltaic deposits comprising sands, silts, and clays. The San Jacinto River Basin is a small, poorly drained coastal basin situated between the larger Brazos and Trinity Basins and whose relatively small discharges consists of effluent from local streams or bayous. Most of the surface deposits in this region were laid down by a laterally shifting Brazos River during the late Pleistocene age which, in conjunction with historical competing fluctuations in sea level, has resulted in a fluvial and deltaic landscape comprising clay with braided sand lentils and layers. The Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Atlas of Texas, Houston Sheet, 1982, indicates that the Pleistocene-age deposits underlying the project site are part of the Beaumont Formation (Qb). The Beaumont Formation is described as generally consisting of mostly clay, silt, and sand deposited largely by rivers in the form of natural levees and deltas and to a lesser extent by local marine and lagoonal waters. The Beaumont Formation in the project area comprises mostly plastic, poorly bedded clay interbedded with lenses and layers of sand. The Beaumont clays are typically moderately to highly plastic and exhibit poor drainage, low shear strength, and high shrink-swell potential and compressibility.

GCWA Proposed Terminal Reservoir – Fatal Flaw Analysis January 15, 2014 Page 5 of 10

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface Stratigraphy The subsurface stratigraphy can be generalized as provided in Table 2. Refer to the attached borings logs for specific subsurface descriptions and thickness of particular strata. Note that the strata thicknesses are based on discrete borings, and actual in-situ transitions may be gradual. Table 2 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy Approx. Thickness (when present)

Stratum

25 – 32 feet

5 to 13.8 feet

III

3+ feet

Description Lean to Fat Clay, with occasional clayey sand seams and silt partings, ferrous and calcareous nodules, with slickensides present in the fat clays, dark brown, reddish brown and gray and tan Silt to Silty Clay, with silt layers and fat clay pockets, brown reddish brown and tan Fat Clay, with some slickensides, brown and reddish brown

Dispersive Soils Baseline crumb dispersion tests were performed on selected samples from the borings. Results from the crumb dispersion tests are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 Crumb Dispersion Test Results Boring Number

Material Type

Sample Depth (ft) bgs

Dispersive Grade

Grade Description

B-1 B-1 B-1 B-1 B-1 B-2 B-2 B-2 B-2 B-2 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3

CH CH CL CL/SC CL CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH

2–4 4–6 6-8 8 – 10 12 – 14 0–2 4–6 6–8 8 – 10 10 – 12 0–2 2–4 4–6 8 – 10 12 – 14

3 1 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1

Dispersive Nondispersive Highly Dispersive Highly Dispersive Highly Dispersive Highly Dispersive Nondispersive Nondispersive Nondispersive Dispersive Nondispersive Nondispersive Nondispersive Nondispersive Nondispersive

GCWA Proposed Terminal Reservoir – Fatal Flaw Analysis January 15, 2014 Page 6 of 10

Boring Number

Material Type

Sample Depth (ft) bgs

Dispersive Grade

Grade Description

B-4 B-4 B-4 B-4 B-4 B-5 B-5 B-5 B-5 B-5

CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CL-ML CL-ML

0–2 2–4 6–8 8 – 10 12 – 14 0–2 2–4 4–6 8 – 10 10 – 12

3 1 4 4 3 1 1 1 4 4

Dispersive Nondispersive Highly Dispersive Highly Dispersive Dispersive Nondispersive Nondispersive Nondispersive Highly Dispersive Highly Dispersive

The test results indicate that the tested samples were nondispersive (Grade 1) to highly dispersive (Grade 4). A dispersive soil may sometimes give a nondispersive reaction in the crumb test; however, a dispersive reaction in the crumb test is an indication that the soil is probably dispersive. Dispersive clays typically occur erratically in most alluvial profiles due to intermixing of dispersive soils with other sediment sources, and alluvial soil deposits can rarely be correlated by dispersive characteristics either laterally or vertically. Based on the results of the crumb dispersion tests, dispersive soils do exist at the proposed reservoir site; however, the extent of those materials cannot be determined based on the relatively small number of crumb tests performed.

Seepage Observations Seepage was observed in all of the borings prior to the introduction of drilling fluids as part of the rotary wash boring methods. A summary of the observed seepage conditions is provided in Table 4. These observations are only indicative of conditions at the time and place shown. The occurrence of groundwater can vary due to many factors. These factors include seasonal changes, site topography, surface runoff, the layering and permeability of subsurface strata, water levels in waterways, utilities, and other factors not evident at the time of this study. Table 4 Seepage Observations Boring

Seepage Depth During Drilling (feet below ground surface)

B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5

9 18 17.5 10 13.4

GCWA Proposed Terminal Reservoir â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Fatal Flaw Analysis January 15, 2014 Page 7 of 10 Twenty-four hour water levels in Borings B-4 and B-5 were 4 feet and 4.5 feet, respectively. Twenty-four hour water levels were not obtained for Borings B-1, B-2 and B-3.

RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Based on the geotechnical borings, the soils in the upper 25 to 30 feet consist primarily of moderately plastic clays (CL material) and highly plastic clays, or fat clays (CH material). Liquid limits range from about 33 to 99 and plasticity indices range from about 16 to 74. At depths ranging from about 25 to 32 feet below the ground surface (bgs), the plastic soils are underlain by silt and silty clay soils. Fat clays were present in some of the borings below the silt and silty clay layer and extended to the terminal depth of the borings at 40 feet bgs. Seepage was observed in all of the borings and ranged in depth from 9 feet to 18 feet bgs at the time of drilling. Although survey information for the borings is not complete at the time of this memo, it is anticipated the ground elevation at the site is near Elevation 8 msl. The borings located in the northern portion of the property encountered seepage at higher elevations (approximately 9 to 10 feet bgs or at about Elevation -1 foot msl to -2 feet msl) while the borings located in the west and southern portions of the property encountered seepage at lower elevations (approximately 17.5 to 18 feet bgs or about Elevation -9.5 feet msl to -10 feet msl). The borings at the north end of the property are in closer proximity to the Dickinson Bayou so that is likely influencing the higher seepage elevations. Crumb dispersion tests were performed on selected soil samples and approximately one-half of the samples tested as dispersive or highly dispersive. The CH soils, due to their high plasticity, are not recommended in the outer portions of the embankment due to their propensity for shallow slides, typically on embankments higher than 15 feet with slopes of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical (4H:1V) or steeper. If fat clay is used in the embankment, it is recommended that it is limited to the interior portion of the embankment, if possible. The fat clays, when exposed on exterior slopes tend to experience weathering over time as a result of desiccation, or drying followed by prolonged periods of rainfall. The drying of the highly plastic soils results in cracking that allows water to infiltrate below the ground surface and create a softened or weakened layer at some uniform depth parallel to the slope. A portion of the slope then fails, typically as a block mass that slides along the weakened layer. The resulting shallow surface slides are typically 4 to 5 feet deep and will require maintenance to replace and recompact the embankment soils. CL material is more suited for the exterior of the embankment and the slopes can likely be constructed at a 3H:1V to 3.5H:1V slope. If CL

GCWA Proposed Terminal Reservoir – Fatal Flaw Analysis January 15, 2014 Page 8 of 10 material is not available in sufficient quantities for the exterior portion of the embankment and CH material needs to be used, then the slopes may need to be constructed at a 4H:1V slope or flatter to reduce the potential for surface slides. Flatter slopes will require more material for construction of the embankment. The water table at the site is likely to dictate the depth at which the proposed reservoir can be excavated. Depending on the size and location of the reservoir, the maximum excavation depth could be limited to about 57 feet (Elevation 3 feet msl to 1 foot msl) or less in the northern area of the property to about 12-14 feet (Elevation -4 feet msl to -6 feet msl) or less in the southwestern portion of the property. It is anticipated there will be sufficient soils on site to construct the embankments even if the depth of excavation is limited to 5 feet, provided the footprint area is of a certain size and the embankments are not too tall. The soft to stiff soils will also provide some limitations to the height of the embankment due to settlement issues. Since dispersive soils were found in about one half of the samples tested, these soils will need to be limited to the interior portions of the embankment and, if possible, should be avoided as fill material altogether. Depending on the size and location of the proposed reservoir, the two streams located on the site may need to be re-routed to accommodate the reservoir. Boring B-4 indicated clayey sands and sands to be present below 15 feet (Elevation -7 feet msl). The sandy soils could present some potential seepage issues that will have to be managed as part of the design. Possible design measures include a clay or geosynthetic liner system, a clay cutoff trench or a bentonite slurry wall, or relief wells. Seepage analyses will need to be performed, along with slope stability analyses, as part of the design process to determine an effective means of managing seepage.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following is a summary of the findings from the subsurface investigation: 

Suitable soil types and quantities are available for construction of the embankments for the reservoir;



Dispersive soils were found onsite and will need to be used selectively;



Due to the shallow water table at the site, excavation depths for the reservoir will be limited. It is recommended that, if possible, the reservoir be located in the southwest portion of the site away from Dickinson Bayou. The water table in the southwestern area, at least at the time of drilling, was deeper and would allow the construction of the reservoir to be more manageable;



Settlement issues may limit the height of the embankment. A settlement analysis will need to be performed as part of the design;

GCWA Proposed Terminal Reservoir – Fatal Flaw Analysis January 15, 2014 Page 9 of 10 

Seepage issues will need to be addressed as part of the design phase. Boring B-4 indicated clayey sands and sands below 15 feet, therefore, some design measures will need to be incorporated into the final design. Seepage analyses, as well as slope stability analyses, will need to be performed as part of the design phase;



Depending on the size and location of the proposed reservoir, the two streams on the property will need to be re-routed as part of the drainage design;



Since this study was limited to a “fatal flaw” analysis of the proposed reservoir, detailed sizing of the reservoir footprint, design of an embankment section and seepage, slope stability and settlement analyses were not performed. These issues will need to be addressed as part of the design phase if this water supply option is selected.

The site appears to be a suitable location for the proposed terminal reservoir, although there may some limitations to excavation depth due to a shallow water table. However, the size of the site will allow for a significant volume of water to be contained by the reservoir. The issues listed above will need to be addressed during the design phase but should be manageable.

LIMITATIONS The recommendations presented in this memorandum are specific to the proposed reservoir as described and shall not be used for other projects or purposes. This work was performed in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of our profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions, and at the date the services were provided. Freese and Nichols, Inc. makes no other representation, guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided. This memorandum was prepared specifically for use by Freese and Nichols and the Gulf Coast Water Authority for this project, and shall not be used for other projects or purposes. The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions contained in this memorandum are based on our field observations, subsurface investigation, limited laboratory testing, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. Conclusions, recommendations, and/or opinions developed by others, different from those provided in this memorandum, are their responsibility. Because of the limited nature of any subsurface study, conditions encountered during construction may differ from those presented in this memorandum. Variations in materials and soil properties between the borings likely exist and may become evident during construction. Verification of subsurface conditions for purposes of determining difficulty of excavation, trafficability, etc. is the responsibility of the contractors/bidders.

GCWA Proposed Terminal Reservoir â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Fatal Flaw Analysis January 15, 2014 Page 10 of 10

--END OF MEMORANDUM--

APPENDIX A Boring Logs

Nam e

B-01 B-02 B-03 B-04 B-05

Latitude

29.441220 29.435383 29.428750 29.438336 29.429474

Longitude

Project Location

-94.991100 -94.994250 -94.997020 -94.988387 -94.990030

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan,

! A

Boring Locations

Proposed Site Boundary Gulf Coast Water Authority Reservoir C

Boring Location Map

4055 International Plaza, Suite 200 Fort Worth, Texas 76109

FNI NO

DRAFTED

GCW13494 Path: H:\WR_DESIGN\Figures\BLM.mxd

NBB

DATE

November, 2013

FILE

BLM.mxd

0 DATUM & COORDINATE SYSTEM

1 1,000 Feet

NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas South Central FIPS 4204 Feet

FIGURE SCALE

1:12,000

LOG OF BORING NO. B-1

U-4

2.75 (P)

U-5

1.4 (P) 0.22 (T)

CLAY, brown, gray, red-brown, stiff, moist -transition to gray, with iron oxide mottles below 2 feet

20 107

0.8

0.8 (P) 0.3 75 (T)

22 107

0.5

U-9

2.3 (P) 0.7 75 (T)

U-10

3.25 (P) 0.625 (T) 40

10 SPT-6

SPT-8

SANDY CLAY, light yellow-brown, light brown with dark red-brown, stiff to loose, wet, with loose to medium dense fine sand seams and pockets, silty, stained with limonite

5-5-6 (11)

U-7

ELEVATION, ft

STRAIN AT FAILURE, %

1.25 (P) 0.59 (T)

UNC. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, tsf

U-3

PLASTICITY INDEX

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

PLASTIC LIMIT

1.5 (P) 0.64 (T)

WATER CONTENT, %

U-2

SYMBOL

RQD, %

RECOVERY, %

2.9 (P) 0.89 (T)

BLOW COUNTS

HAND PENETROMETER (P) / TORVANE (T), tsf

U-1

TYPE

DEPTH, ft

SAMPLE

LIQUID LIMIT

Drilling Co.: Van and Sons Hammer Type: Cathead & Rope Longitude: -94.991100

% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

Project No.: GCW13494 Phase No.: 0002 Date Drilling Completed: 10/23/2013 Drill Method: Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lb.; 30 in. Elevation: UNIT DRY WEIGHT, pcf

Project Description: Detailed Evaluation Strategies Project Location: Texas City, Texas Date Drilling Started: 10/23/2013 Logged By: DDJ Rig Type: ATV Mobile Latitude: 29.441220

2-3-4 (7)

CLAY, with sand, red-brown, hard to stiff, moist to wet, silty 4.5+ (P) 1.25 (T)

U-11

-with stiff to hard calcareous accretion below 24 feet

SPT-12

2-2-4 (6)

21.5/

-with occasional loose to medium dense clayey sand seams below 28.5 feet

1.2 (P)

Water Observations:

Remarks: 9 ft

At Time Of Drilling

Drill dry with 3-inch steel tubes and 4-inch auger 0-10 feet. Rotary wash with 4-inch wingbit 10-40 feet. Pressure tremie grout upon completion 0-40 feet.

The stratification lines represent approximate strata boundaries. In situ, the transition may be gradual. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and recommendations in the associated report.

Sheet 1 of 2

LOG OF BORING NO. B-1

1.75 (P)

ELEVATION, ft

STRAIN AT FAILURE, %

UNC. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, tsf

PLASTICITY INDEX

PLASTIC LIMIT

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND, light red-brown, firm to stiff, wet, with sandy clay seams and layers, fine U-13

WATER CONTENT, %

SYMBOL

RQD, %

RECOVERY, %

HAND PENETROMETER (P) / TORVANE (T), tsf

BLOW COUNTS

TYPE

DEPTH, ft

SAMPLE

LIQUID LIMIT

Drilling Co.: Van and Sons Hammer Type: Cathead & Rope Longitude: -94.991100

% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

Project No.: GCW13494 Phase No.: 0002 Date Drilling Completed: 10/23/2013 Drill Method: Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lb.; 30 in. Elevation: UNIT DRY WEIGHT, pcf

Project Description: Detailed Evaluation Strategies Project Location: Texas City, Texas Date Drilling Started: 10/23/2013 Logged By: DDJ Rig Type: ATV Mobile Latitude: 29.441220

31/

CLAY, red-brown and gray, hard, moist

U-14

36/

3.25 (P) 1.325 (T) 65

Total boring depth 40.0 ft.

Water Observations:

Remarks: 9 ft

At Time Of Drilling

Drill dry with 3-inch steel tubes and 4-inch auger 0-10 feet. Rotary wash with 4-inch wingbit 10-40 feet. Pressure tremie grout upon completion 0-40 feet.

Sheet 2 of 2

LOG OF BORING NO. B-2

U-4

0.8 (P)

2.75 (P) 1.25(T)

U-7

3.3 (P) 1.625 (T) 75

U-8

1.75 (P) 1.1 (T)

U-9

3.75 (P) 1.35 (T)

U-10

3.25 (P) 1.375 (T) 60

-with hard calcareous accretions below 5 feet

0.3

-light red brown, hard, jointed, blocky, mottled with iron oxide and manganese dioxide below 8 feet

10 U-6

-mottled with limonite below 3 feet

3.1 (P) 0.9 50 (T)

U-5

ELEVATION, ft

STRAIN AT FAILURE, %

1.1 (P) 0.57 (T)

UNC. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, tsf

U-3

CLAY, brown-gray, light yellow-brown, stiff, moist

PLASTICITY INDEX

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

PLASTIC LIMIT

1.1 (P) 0.53 (T)

WATER CONTENT, %

U-2

SYMBOL

RQD, %

RECOVERY, %

1.3 (P) 0.58 (T)

BLOW COUNTS

HAND PENETROMETER (P) / TORVANE (T), tsf

U-1

TYPE

DEPTH, ft

SAMPLE

LIQUID LIMIT

Drilling Co.: Van and Sons Hammer Type: Cathead & Rope Longitude: -94.994250

% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

Project No.: GCW13494 Phase No.: 0002 Date Drilling Completed: 10/22/2013 Drill Method: Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lb.; 30 in. Elevation: UNIT DRY WEIGHT, pcf

Project Description: Detailed Evaluation Strategies Project Location: Texas City, Texas Date Drilling Started: 10/22/2013 Logged By: DDJ Rig Type: ATV Mobile Latitude: 29.435383

20 109

-with shell debris, with occasional fine sand below 15 feet

0.7

CLAY, with sand, light red-brown, with light gray, stiff, wet, intercalated with medium clayey sand seams and layers, silty SPT-11

6-8-10 (18)

SPT-12

4-5-5 (10)

21/

1.9 (P)

Water Observations:

Remarks: 18 ft

At Time Of Drilling

Drill dry with 3-inch steel tubes and 4-inch auger 0-20 feet. Rotary wash with 4-inch wingbit 20-40 feet. Pressure tremie grout upon completion 0-40 feet.

Sheet 1 of 2

LOG OF BORING NO. B-2

ELEVATION, ft

STRAIN AT FAILURE, %

UNC. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, tsf

PLASTICITY INDEX

PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

SYMBOL

RQD, %

RECOVERY, %

HAND PENETROMETER (P) / TORVANE (T), tsf

BLOW COUNTS

TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WEIGHT, pcf

Drilling Co.: Van and Sons Hammer Type: Cathead & Rope Longitude: -94.994250

SAMPLE DEPTH, ft

Project No.: GCW13494 Phase No.: 0002 Date Drilling Completed: 10/22/2013 Drill Method: Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lb.; 30 in. Elevation: WATER CONTENT, %

Project Description: Detailed Evaluation Strategies Project Location: Texas City, Texas Date Drilling Started: 10/22/2013 Logged By: DDJ Rig Type: ATV Mobile Latitude: 29.435383

CLAY, with sand, light red-brown, with light gray, stiff, wet, intercalated with medium clayey sand seams and layers, silty (continued)

SPT-13

4-6-7 (13)

U-14

1.0 (P)

0.8 (P)

Total boring depth 40.0 ft.

Water Observations:

Remarks: 18 ft

At Time Of Drilling

Drill dry with 3-inch steel tubes and 4-inch auger 0-20 feet. Rotary wash with 4-inch wingbit 20-40 feet. Pressure tremie grout upon completion 0-40 feet.

Sheet 2 of 2

LOG OF BORING NO. B-3

U-4

1.4 (P) 0.88 (T)

U-5

2.25 (P) 0.9 (T)

ELEVATION, ft

STRAIN AT FAILURE, %

1.1 (P) 0.63 (T)

UNC. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, tsf

U-3

PLASTICITY INDEX

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

PLASTIC LIMIT

1.25 (P) 0.7 (T)

WATER CONTENT, %

U-2

SYMBOL

RQD, %

RECOVERY, %

1.8 (P)

BLOW COUNTS

HAND PENETROMETER (P) / TORVANE (T), tsf

U-1

TYPE

DEPTH, ft

SAMPLE

LIQUID LIMIT

Drilling Co.: Van and Sons Hammer Type: Cathead & Rope Longitude: -94.997020

% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

Project No.: GCW13494 Phase No.: 0002 Date Drilling Completed: 10/22/2013 Drill Method: Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lb.; 30 in. Elevation: UNIT DRY WEIGHT, pcf

Project Description: Detailed Evaluation Strategies Project Location: Texas City, Texas Date Drilling Started: 10/22/2013 Logged By: DDJ Rig Type: ATV Mobile Latitude: 29.428750

CLAY, dark brown, gray, light yellow-brown and light gray, stiff to hard, moist to wet -transition to gray below 2 feet

-mottled with limonite and iron oxide below 4.5 feet

2.4 (P) 1.225 (T) 81

U-7

2.3 (P) 1.125 (T) 75

0.6

17 113

0.7

-with hard calcareous accretions below 9.5 feet

10 U-6

-with firm clay infilled burrows 21

-with shell debris from 14 to 17 feet 15

2.9 (P)

U-8

U-9

2.25 (P) 0.725 (T) 75

U-10

3.3 (P) 1.25 (T)

CLAY, with sand, light yellow-brown and light gray, very stiff

16/

CLAY, reddish-brown, hard U-11

4.25 (P) 1.325 (T) 75

U-12

4.4 (P) 1.225 (T) 65

22/

Water Observations:

Remarks: 17.5 ft

At Time Of Drilling

Drill dry with 3-inch steel tubes and 4-inch auger 0-20 feet. Rotary wash with 4-inch wingbit 20-40 feet. Pressure tremie grout upon completion 0-40 feet.

Sheet 1 of 2

LOG OF BORING NO. B-3

ELEVATION, ft

STRAIN AT FAILURE, %

UNC. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, tsf

PLASTICITY INDEX

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

PLASTIC LIMIT

WATER CONTENT, %

SYMBOL

RQD, %

RECOVERY, %

HAND PENETROMETER (P) / TORVANE (T), tsf

BLOW COUNTS

TYPE

DEPTH, ft

SAMPLE

LIQUID LIMIT

Drilling Co.: Van and Sons Hammer Type: Cathead & Rope Longitude: -94.997020

% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

Project No.: GCW13494 Phase No.: 0002 Date Drilling Completed: 10/22/2013 Drill Method: Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lb.; 30 in. Elevation: UNIT DRY WEIGHT, pcf

Project Description: Detailed Evaluation Strategies Project Location: Texas City, Texas Date Drilling Started: 10/22/2013 Logged By: DDJ Rig Type: ATV Mobile Latitude: 29.428750

CLAY, reddish-brown, hard (continued)

1.25 (P)

U-13

SANDY CLAY, light red-brown, firm to stiff, wet, with medium dense silty fine sand seams and layers

SPT-14

5-5-6 (11)

33.5/

100

Total boring depth 40.0 ft.

Water Observations:

Remarks: 17.5 ft

At Time Of Drilling

Drill dry with 3-inch steel tubes and 4-inch auger 0-20 feet. Rotary wash with 4-inch wingbit 20-40 feet. Pressure tremie grout upon completion 0-40 feet.

Sheet 2 of 2

LOG OF BORING NO. B-4

1.4 (P) 0.74 (T)

U-4

3.75 (P) 1.925 (T) 60

U-5

2.0 (P) 0.92 (T)

U-6

4.25 (P)

ELEVATION, ft

STRAIN AT FAILURE, %

UNC. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, tsf

PLASTICITY INDEX

CLAY, dark brown-gray, light gray, light yellow-brown, light yellow-red-brown, stiff to hard, moist

1.6 (P) 0.6 45 (T)

U-3

WATER CONTENT, %

SYMBOL

RQD, %

2.0 (P) 0.94 (T)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

PLASTIC LIMIT

U-2

RECOVERY, %

U-1

HAND PENETROMETER (P) / TORVANE (T), tsf

BLOW COUNTS

TYPE

DEPTH, ft

SAMPLE

LIQUID LIMIT

Drilling Co.: Van and Sons Hammer Type: Cathead & Rope Longitude: -94.988387

% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

Project No.: GCW13494 Phase No.: 0002 Date Drilling Completed: 10/21/2013 Drill Method: Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lb.; 30 in. Elevation: UNIT DRY WEIGHT, pcf

Project Description: Detailed Evaluation Strategies Project Location: Texas City, Texas Date Drilling Started: 10/21/2013 Logged By: DDJ Rig Type: ATV Mobile Latitude: 29.438336

-mottled with iron oxide below 3 feet

CLAY, with sand, yellow-red-brown, stiff to hard, very moist to wet, with clayey sand seams

CLAY, red-brown, hard to stiff, moist to wet, silty, mottled with limonite, with occasional sand

11/

0.35

22 102

0.65

100

-with shell debris below 13 feet 15

U-7

2.5 (P)

U-8

1.25 (P)

U-9

0.75 (P)

U-10

1.75 (P) 0.14 (T)

CLAYEY SAND, light yellow-brown and light gray, loose to medium dense, wet, with occasional stiff sandy clay seams

SAND, silty, light red-brown, loose to medium dense, wet

CLAY, with sand, light red-brown, very stiff to hard, very moist to wet U-11

14.5/

19/

21.5/

3.25 (P) 1.375 (T) 60

CLAYEY SAND, silty, light red-brown, loose to medium dense, wet, with occasional firm sandy clay seams U-12

1.25 (P) 0.13 (T)

26.5/

Water Observations:

Remarks: 10 ft 4 ft

At Time Of Drilling

Drill dry with 3-inch steel tubes and 4-inch auger 0-20 feet. Rotary wash with 4-inch wingbit 20-40 feet. Pressure tremie grout 0-16 feet 24 hours after completion.

After Drilling

Sheet 1 of 2

LOG OF BORING NO. B-4

ELEVATION, ft

STRAIN AT FAILURE, %

UNC. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, tsf

PLASTICITY INDEX

PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

SYMBOL

RQD, %

RECOVERY, %

HAND PENETROMETER (P) / TORVANE (T), tsf

BLOW COUNTS

TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WEIGHT, pcf

Drilling Co.: Van and Sons Hammer Type: Cathead & Rope Longitude: -94.988387

SAMPLE DEPTH, ft

Project No.: GCW13494 Phase No.: 0002 Date Drilling Completed: 10/21/2013 Drill Method: Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lb.; 30 in. Elevation: WATER CONTENT, %

Project Description: Detailed Evaluation Strategies Project Location: Texas City, Texas Date Drilling Started: 10/21/2013 Logged By: DDJ Rig Type: ATV Mobile Latitude: 29.438336

CLAYEY SAND, silty, light red-brown, loose to medium dense, wet, with occasional firm sandy clay seams (continued) U-13

0.6 (P) 0.098 (T) 70

U-14

0.9 (P) 0.102 (T) 75

Total boring depth 40.0 ft.

Water Observations:

Remarks: 10 ft 4 ft

At Time Of Drilling

Drill dry with 3-inch steel tubes and 4-inch auger 0-20 feet. Rotary wash with 4-inch wingbit 20-40 feet. Pressure tremie grout 0-16 feet 24 hours after completion.

After Drilling

Sheet 2 of 2

LOG OF BORING NO. B-5

U-4

2.5 (P)

U-5

3.25 (P) 1.475 (T) 70

U-6

2.6 (P) 0.43 (T)

U-7

2.5 (P)

U-8

1.3 (P) 0.42 (T)

U-9

3.75 (P)

U-10

3.75 (P) 1.625 (T) 80

CLAY, with sand, yellow-brown, light gray and light yellow-red-brown, soft to stiff, moist, with occasional medium dense sand seams -with light yellow-brown mottles below 3 feet

0.25

-with light red-brown mottles below 6 feet CLAY, yellow-brown, light gray and light yellow-red-brown, soft to stiff -with hard calcareous accretions from 9 to 14 feet

ELEVATION, ft

STRAIN AT FAILURE, %

1.5 (P)

UNC. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, tsf

U-3

PLASTICITY INDEX

PLASTIC LIMIT

1.25 (P)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LIQUID LIMIT

U-2

SYMBOL

RQD, %

RECOVERY, %

0.8 (P)

BLOW COUNTS

HAND PENETROMETER (P) / TORVANE (T), tsf

U-1

TYPE

DEPTH, ft

SAMPLE

UNIT DRY WEIGHT, pcf

Drilling Co.: Van and Sons Hammer Type: Cathead & Rope Longitude: -94.990030

% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

Project No.: GCW13494 Phase No.: 0002 Date Drilling Completed: 10/21/2013 Drill Method: Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lb.; 30 in. Elevation: WATER CONTENT, %

Project Description: Detailed Evaluation Strategies Project Location: Texas City, Texas Date Drilling Started: 10/21/2013 Logged By: DDJ Rig Type: ATV Mobile Latitude: 29.429474

21 110

-with soft sandy clay seams below 13.5 feet -with shell debris below 14.5 feet CLAY, red-brown, hard, moist to wet, with occasional loose to medium dense silty

0.35

23 16/

-with fine sand seams and pockets below 20 feet

U-11

4.0 (P)

SANDY CLAY, light red-brown, stiff, very moist to wet, with loose to medium dense fine sand seams and layers, silty U-12

1.75 (P) 0.22 (T)

Water Observations:

Remarks: 13.4 ft 4.5 ft

At Time Of Drilling

26/

Drill dry with 3-inch steel tubes and 4-inch auger 0-20 feet. Rotary wash with 4-inch wingbit 20-40 feet. Pressure tremie grout 0-10 feet 24 hours after completion.

After Drilling

Sheet 1 of 2

LOG OF BORING NO. B-5

ELEVATION, ft

STRAIN AT FAILURE, %

UNC. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, tsf

PLASTICITY INDEX

PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

SYMBOL

RQD, %

RECOVERY, %

HAND PENETROMETER (P) / TORVANE (T), tsf

BLOW COUNTS

TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT DRY WEIGHT, pcf

Drilling Co.: Van and Sons Hammer Type: Cathead & Rope Longitude: -94.990030

SAMPLE DEPTH, ft

Project No.: GCW13494 Phase No.: 0002 Date Drilling Completed: 10/21/2013 Drill Method: Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lb.; 30 in. Elevation: WATER CONTENT, %

Project Description: Detailed Evaluation Strategies Project Location: Texas City, Texas Date Drilling Started: 10/21/2013 Logged By: DDJ Rig Type: ATV Mobile Latitude: 29.429474

SANDY CLAY, light red-brown, stiff, very moist to wet, with loose to medium dense fine sand seams and layers, silty (continued) U-13

0.25 (P) 0.128 (T) 85

U-14

3.3 (P) 0.5 90 (T)

Total boring depth 40.0 ft.

Water Observations:

Remarks: 13.4 ft 4.5 ft

At Time Of Drilling

Drill dry with 3-inch steel tubes and 4-inch auger 0-20 feet. Rotary wash with 4-inch wingbit 20-40 feet. Pressure tremie grout 0-10 feet 24 hours after completion.

After Drilling

Sheet 2 of 2

BORING LOG LEGEND AND NOMENCLATURE Abbreviations U – Undisturbed Sample (tube)

SPT – Standard Penetration Test

TV – Torvane

A – Auger Sample

TCP – Texas Cone Penetration

NP – Non Plastic

CS – Continuous Sample

CFA – Continuous Flight Auger

ATD – At Time of Drilling

C – Rock Core

HSA – Hollow Stem Auger

AD – After Drilling

General Terms Term

Description

Blow Counts

Results from either the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) or the Texas Cone Penetration (TCP) test.

Recovery

Length of sample or core recovered divided by the total length pushed, driven, or cored (expressed as a %)

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) Cumulative length of unfractured pieces of core material more than 4 inches in length divided by the total length of material cored (expressed as a percentage) Consistency of Cohesive Soil Description

Comp. Strength, tsf

Very Soft

SPT Blows

TCP Blows

Criteria

< 0.25

0–2

0–8

Soft

≥ 0.25 – < 0.5

>2–4

> 8 – 20

Medium Stiff

≥ 0.5 – < 1.0

>4–8

N/A for TxDOT

Stiff

≥ 1.0 – < 2.0

> 8 – 15

>20 – 40

Imprinted with strong finger pressure or indented easily with fingernail

Very Stiff

≥ 2.0 – < 4.0

> 15 – 30

> 40 to 80

Light imprint from finger or light indent with fingernail

≥ 4.0

> 30

>80

Hard

Sample sags under its own weight and is easily deformed Easily pinched between fingers and remolded with light finger pressure Imprinted easily with fingers and remolded with firm finger pressure

Difficult to indent with fingernail

Apparent Density of Cohesionless Soil Description

SPT Blow Count

Very Loose

Texas Cone Blow Count

0–4

0–8

Loose

> 4 – 10

> 8 – 20

Medium Dense

> 10 – 30

> 20 to 80

Dense

> 30 – 50

80 to ≥ 5”

> 50

0” to < 5”

Very Dense

Soil Structure Description

Criteria

Stratified

Alternating layers of varying material/color with layers ≥ 1/4-inch thick

Laminated

Alternating layers of varying material/color with layers < 1/4-inch thick

Fissured

Breaks along definite planes with little resistance

Slickensided

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy; shows movement direction

Blocky

Cohesive soil that can be broken into small, angular lumps

Lensed

Inclusion of small pockets of soil that is different from dominate type

Homogenous

Same color and appearance throughout Moisture Condition

Textural Adjectives

Description Criteria

Textural Item

Description

Dry

Pit

Pinhole sized openings

Vug

Small openings up to 4 inches in size

Cavity

Opening larger than 4 inches

Honeycomb

Numerous and grouped pits and vugs

Vesicle

Small openings in volcanic rocks

Moist Wet

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Damp but no visible water Visible free water

Page 1 of 2

BORING LOG LEGEND AND NOMENCLATURE Rock Hardness Descriptors Grade

Approx. Comp. Strength, tsf

Approx. TCP Range

Very Soft

< 10 - 100

>6”

Soft

100 - 500

4” - 6”

Can be peeled with pocket knife with difficulty, indented by firm blows of geological hammer

Field Test Can be peeled with pocket knife, crumbles under firm blows of geological hammer

Hard

500 - 1000

1” - 5”

Cannot be peeled with pocket knife, can be fractured by single firm blow of hammer

Very Hard

1000 - 2000

0” - 2”

Specimen requires more than one blow of geological hammer to fracture it

Extremely Hard

> 2000

0”

Specimen requires many blows of geological hammer to fracture it Degree of Rock Weathering

Description

Criteria

Unweathered

No evidence of chemical or mechanical alteration

Slightly Weathered

Slight discoloration of surface or discontinuities; < 10% volume altered

Weathered

Discoloring evident; 10 to 50% of volume altered

Highly Weathered

Entire mass discolored; alteration through majority of rock

Decomposed

Rock reduced to soil consistency with some rock-like texture Rock Bedding Structure Description

Criteria

Laminated

< 3/8 inch

Very Thinly Bedded

3/8—1 inch

Thinly Bedded

1 inch—4 inches

Moderately Bedded

4 inches—1 foot

Thickly Bedded

1 foot—3 feet

Very Thickly Bedded

3– 10 feet

Massive

> 10 feet Soil Column Graphic Symbols*

Graphic

Represented Soil Types

Graphic

Represented Soil Types

Fat Clay, Fat Clay with sand, Sandy Fat Clay

Well-Graded Sand or Poorly-Graded Sand; little to no fines

Lean Clay, Lean Clay with sand, Sandy Lean Clay, Silty Clay

Clayey Gravel, Gravel-Sand-Clay Mixtures

Inorganic Silt and Organic Silt

Silty Gravel, Gravel-Sand-Silt Mixtures

Clayey Sand, Clay-Sand Mixtures

Well-Graded Gravel or Poorly-Graded Gravel; little to no fines

Silty Sands, Sand-Silt Mixtures

Fill with Significant Debris or Deleterious Material

Rock Column Graphic Symbols* Graphic

Represented Rock Types

Graphic

Represented Rock Types

Limestone, Shaly/Marly Limestone, Limestone with Shale

Marl, Marl with Limestone, Marl with Shale

Shale, Shale with Limestone

Sandstone, Shaly Sandstone, Sandstone with Shale

Mudstone

Generic Bedrock Symbol

* Combined graphics may be used for dual classifications. Not all graphics represented. Refer to lithology description for soil classification or rock type.

Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing

GCWA Reservoir C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Geotechnical and Environmental Summary Gulf Coast Water Authority

Appendix B Environmental Summary

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Cody Cockroft; Jason Afinowicz

CC:

Dan Gise

FROM:

Cody Mikeska

SUBJECT:

GCWA Reservoir C Environmental Site Visit Memorandum

DATE:

November 14, 2013

Introduction: On November 7, 2013, Cody Mikeska of Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) conducted a site visit to the Gulf Coast Water Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (GCWA) proposed Reservoir C project area to identify potential waters of the U.S., including wetlands; potential threatened and endangered species habitat; and other potential environmentally sensitive issues. The results of the site visit are discussed below. The proposed Reservoir C project area encompasses approximately 155 acres and is located immediately west of GCWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing Industrial Reservoir (see Figure 2 in Appendix A). Methods: The proposed project site was visited on November 7, 2013 to assess existing conditions. In addition, aerial photos and USGS 7.5 minute topographic imagery were reviewed to determine past and present site conditions from a regional and local perspective. Waters of the U. S., including potential wetlands, were noted and their general locations recorded. Results: Federal Threatened and Endangered Species The proposed Reservoir C project area contains potential habitat for numerous federally threatened and endangered species. Table 1 below lists each federally threatened and endangered species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Galveston County, a brief habitat description for each species, and whether or not there is potential habitat for each species within the proposed project area.

November 14, 2013 Page 2 of 5

Table 1: Federally Threatened and Endangered Species of Galveston County Common Name

Federal Status

Scientific Name

Habitat Description

Potential Habitat Present

BIRDS Attwater’s Greater Prairie-chicken

Tympanuchus cupido attwateri

Brown Pelican

Pelecanus occidentalis

Eskimo Curlew

Numenius borealis

Piping Plover

Charadrius melodus

E, T

Habitat consists of thick 1-3’ tall grass from 0’-200’ above sea level along coast Habitat consists of coastal and near shore areas; roosts and nests on islands and spoil banks. Nonbreeding habitat consists of grasslands, pastures, plowed fields, marshes, and mudflats. Wintering migrant along Texas Gulf Coast. Habitat consists of beaches and bayside mud or salt flats.

Yes

REPTILES Found in Texas gulf and bay system. Habitat consists of warm E Yes shallow waters, especially in rocky environments. Found in Texas gulf and bay system. Habitat consists of shallow water seagrass beds, open Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas E, T Yes water between feeding and nesting areas, and barrier island beaches. Found in Texas gulf and bay system. Habitat consists of Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii E Yes shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Found in Texas gulf and bay Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea E system and is the widest ranging Yes open water reptile Juveniles are primarily found in Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta T Yes Texas gulf and bay system. E – Endangered; T – Threatened; E, T – Endangered in a portion of range and threatened in the remainder of range; DM – Delisted, being monitored Atlantic Hawksbill Sea Turtle

Eretmochelys imbricata

Water Bodies Two tidally influenced streams, eight ponds, and numerous potential forested and herbaceous wetlands were identified in the study area (See Figure 1 in Appendix A), all of which would likely be considered jurisdictional waters of the U.S. by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Only the USACE can make final determinations as to the jurisdictional status of these waterbodies. Photographs of representative waterbodies are presented in Appendix B.

November 14, 2013 Page 3 of 5

Stream 1 Stream 1 is a tributary of Dickenson Bayou that appears to be tidally influenced. This stream has an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) width of approximately 10 feet at the western boundary of the study area and 75 feet at the northern boundary of the study area. Please see Figure 1 in Appendix A for the location of Stream 1. Since Stream 1 is a tributary of Dickenson Bayou, and Dickenson Bayou is considered a navigable water by the USACE, Stream 1 would likely be considered a jurisdictional water of the U.S. by the USACE. Stream 2 Stream 2 is a tributary of Stream 1, mentioned above, that also appears to be tidally influenced. This stream has an OHWM width of approximately 6 feet the southern boundary of the study area and 20 feet at the Stream 1/Stream 2 confluence. Please see Figure 1 in Appendix A for the location of Stream 2. Since Stream 2 is a secondary tributary of Dickenson Bayou, and Dickenson Bayou is considered a navigable water by the USACE, Stream 2 would likely be considered a jurisdictional water of the U.S. by the USACE. Ponds Approximately eight ponds were observed either during the site visit or on aerial photography, and all ponds observed appear to be man-made. Please see Figure 1 in Appendix A for pond locations. Given the proximity of these ponds to Streams 1 and 2 and Dickenson Bayou, the USACE would likely consider these ponds jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Forested Wetlands There are numerous potential forested wetlands scattered throughout the study area, with the majority occurring south of Stream 1 and west of Stream 2. Dominant vegetation within potential forested wetlands includes Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera), dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor), Cherokee sedge (Carex cherokeensis), southern bayberry (Morella cerifera), and bulrush (Scirpus sp.). Given the proximity of these wetlands to Streams 1 and 2 and Dickenson Bayou, the USACE would likely consider these wetlands jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Herbaceous Wetlands There are numerous potential herbaceous wetlands scattered throughout the study area, with the majority occurring west of Stream 2. Dominant vegetation within potential herbaceous wetlands includes gulf cordgrass (Spartina spartinae), saltmarsh aster (Aster subulatus), and Roemerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rush (Juncus roemerianus).

November 14, 2013 Page 4 of 5

Given the proximity of these wetlands to Streams 1 and 2 and Dickenson Bayou, the USACE would likely consider these wetlands jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Hazardous Materials Two high-pressure, underground natural gas pipelines were observed within the study area during the site visit. No visual evidence of contamination (i.e. surface stains, stressed vegetation, sludge ponds) was identified during the site visit; however, the entire study area was not surveyed due to time constraints. Given the proximity of the study area to highly industrialized Texas City, Texas, FNI recommends that a regulatory database search for potential hazardous materials issues and a Phase I hazardous materials site assessment be conducted for the proposed project. A Phase I hazardous materials site assessment would require a field survey to assess any documented hazardous materials issues and identify and assess any undocumented hazardous materials within the proposed project limits. USACE Permitting Given the nature of the proposed reservoir project’s impacts to potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, found within the study area, the Reservoir C project would likely require an Individual Permit (IP) from the USACE in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act along with some modifications to the current proposed impact area. The USACE would likely not issue a permit for impacts to Stream 1, especially downstream (north) of the Stream1/Stream 2 confluence. Therefore, the Reservoir C footprint would likely need to be contained within the area south of the Stream 1 OHWM in order to obtain an IP from the USACE. The IP package would require, but is not limited to, the project description, project purpose, project drawings, reasons for discharge into waters of the U.S., a description of avoidance and minimization measures, and a plan for compensation (mitigation). The IP package would also require a detailed delineation of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, found on the project site; a preliminary jurisdictional determination of all waters of the U.S. delineated on the project site; a Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) functional assessment study for all wetlands impacted by the proposed project; a Galveston SOP study for all streams impacted by the proposed project, and notification of resource agencies and adjacent property owners. In order to obtain an IP, GCWA would need to mitigate for all stream, pond, and wetland impacts by purchasing mitigation credits from a mitigation bank (if available), purchasing in-lieu fee program credits, or through the construction of on-site or near-site, permitee-responsible mitigation projects. According to the USACE’s and Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2008 Compensatory Mitigation Rule, the most preferred option for mitigation is purchasing mitigation bank credits, which are usually in place before the project is permitted. In-lieu fee program credits are second in the preference hierarchy because they may involve larger, more ecologically valuable compensatory mitigation projects compared to permittee-responsible mitigation. Permittee-responsible mitigation is the third and last mitigation option in the hierarchy, with three possible circumstances:

November 14, 2013 Page 5 of 5

1. Mitigation conducted under a watershed approach, 2. On-site and in kind mitigation, and 3. Off-site/out-of-kind mitigation. The time required to conduct all environmental surveys needed on the project site and prepare the IP package would be approximately eight months. Once the USACE deems the IP package administratively complete, the USACE would likely take 12-18 months to review, coordinate, and approve the IP. If any major design changes occur after the IP package is submitted to the USACE, a permit amendment would need to be filed with the USACE, which would restart the USACE's review, coordination, and approval process. The cost associated with performing all required environmental surveys and preparing an IP package would be approximately $225,000, not including mitigation costs. A pre-application meeting should be held with the USACE at the earliest possible time to discuss the proposed project, assess the schedule for permitting, identify issues and obtain input from the regulatory staff. Additionally, a Joint Evaluation Meeting (JEM) is often held for larger projects. These JEMS bring many of the additional regulatory agencies into the permitting discussion at one time and can help identify the issues of the other agencies, as well as resolve conflicts between the various agencies should they exist.

Appendix A. Figures

Project Location

Culvert

Stream

Gulf Coast Water Authority Reservoir C

Project Location

10497 Town and Country Way, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77024 Phone: 713-600-6800. Fax: 713-600-6801 FNI NO

DRAFTED

DATE

GCW13494 JJC November, 2013 Path: H:\ENVIRONMENTAL\FINAL_EXHIBITS\Fig1 Project Location.mxd

FILE

Fig1 Project Location.mxd

0 DATUM & COORDINATE SYSTEM

N 500

Ponds

Study Area

1 1,000 Feet

NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas North Central FIPS 4202 Feet

FIGURE SCALE

1:12,000

Dickinson Quad Texas City Quad

Stream 1

Stream 2

Culvert

Stream

Gulf Coast Water Authority Reservoir C

10497 Town and Country Way, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77024 Phone: 713-600-6800. Fax: 713-600-6801 FNI NO

DRAFTED

USGS Topographic Map: Texas City 7.5' Quadrangle DATE

GCW13494 JJC November, 2013 Path: H:\ENVIRONMENTAL\FINAL_EXHIBITS\Fig 2 Topographic Map.mxd

FILE

Fig 2 Topographic Map.mxd

DATUM & COORDINATE SYSTEM

N 500

Ponds

Study Area

2 1,000 Feet

NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas North Central FIPS 4202 Feet

FIGURE SCALE

1:12,000

Appendix B. Photos

Photo 1: Stream 1 looking upstream (southwest from the Stream 1/Stream 2 confluence

Photo 2: Stream 1 looking downstream (northeast) from the Stream 1/Stream 2 confluence

Photo 3: Stream 2 looking upstream (southwest) from culverted crossing

Photo 4: Stream 2 looking downstream (northeast) from culverted crossing

Photo 5: Representative pond photo, looking south

Photo 6: Representative forested wetland photo, looking south

Photo 7: Representative herbaceous wetland photo, looking northeast

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

APPENDIX C ALLENS CREEK RESERVOIR

MEMORANDUM

TO: PROJECT: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE:

Gulf Coast Water Authority GCW13494 (FN0907c) Jason D. Afinowicz, PE Long Range Water Supply Study – Allens Creek Reservoir July 22, 2014

1.0

INTRODUCTION

Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) worked with the Gulf Coast Water Authority (GCWA) to narrow and further evaluate alternatives from the Long Range Water Supply Study to meet GCWA’s raw and treated water needs. This memorandum presents information related to the development of Allens Creek Reservoir as a raw water supply within the Brazos River Basin. This memorandum presents a brief history of the Allens Creek Reservoir concept, general description of the project, updated costs associated with development, and issues related to the contracting of water from the project. The majority of the effort associated with this analysis originated from the update to this strategy as included in the development of the 2016 Region H Regional Water Plan (RWP).

2.0

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Allens Creek Reservoir site is located on Allens Creek, a tributary to the Brazos River in Austin County, one mile north of the City of Wallis (see Figure 1). The site was originally permitted by Houston Lighting and Power as a cooling water reservoir for a proposed nuclear power plant. The site was later jointly purchased by the Brazos River Authority (BRA) and the City of Houston (COH).

July 22, 2014 Page 2 of 12 Figure 1 – Allens Creek Reservoir Location and Overview

2.5

Miles 10

O 3.0

2,500

5,000

10,000

15,000

Feet 20,000

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

WATER RIGHT AND PROJECT YIELD

A water right is granted to the development of Allens Creek Reservoir through permit 2925A granted January 16, 2002 which was amended from the original right of 2925 granted February 2, 2000. This amendment provided for the ownership of the reservoir among COH, BRA, and the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) that provided funding for the original purchase of the site. A copy of water right 2925A is included as Attachment A to this report. The amended permit is a mixed use permit for municipal, industrial, irrigation, and recreational purposes. The water is permitted for inter‐basin transfer to the San Jacinto and San Jacinto‐Brazos basins. The yield of Allens Creek Reservoir was developed through an analysis of flow conditions in the Brazos River Basin along with storage characteristics for the reservoir site. The impoundment is described by permit as being of a capacity not to exceed 145,533 acre‐feet at a maximum water surface elevation of 121.0 feet above mean sea level. This reservoir may be filled annually by a volume not to exceed 202,000 acre‐feet from the Brazos River resulting in a yield of 99,650 acre‐feet per year (approximately 89 MGD) for municipal, industrial, and irrigation purposes. The priority for impoundment and use of

July 22, 2014 Page 3 of 12 water under permit 2925A is September 1, 1999. Seventy percent of the permit (69,750 acre‐feet per year) is owned by COH and 30 percent of the permit (29,900 acre‐feet per year) is owned by the BRA. The maximum dam height is 53‐feet, and the conservation storage is approximately 145,500 acre‐feet at an elevation of 121.0 feet msl. Despite a preliminary ruling of yield for the permit, it was also decided that, once instream flow standards were developed to be applied to the project, these would be retroactively applied to the permit and may result in the revision of the permit yield by up to a 6.4% (approximately 6,378 acre‐feet per year) increase or decrease. In effect, the actual yield of the project may vary between approximately 93,272 and 106,028 acre‐feet per year. On August 31, 2012, the Brazos River Basin and Bay Stakeholder Committee (BBASC) submitted an environmental flow regime recommendations report for the basin which would serve as a factor in determining the final yield to be applied to the Allens Creek project. Currently, this regime has not been applied to the project for the purpose of reevaluating permit yield. In the near future, these issues of yield will be addressed by the Region H Water Planning Group (RHWPG) through an exercise to reevaluate the potential for development of Allens Creek Reservoir to supply the lower basin. For the purposes of this analysis, the current permit yield of 99,650 acre‐feet per year will generally be used unless otherwise noted. The yield of Allens Creek Reservoir is primarily produced by the storage of flows diverted from the main stem of the Brazos River. Permit 2925A allows for the construction of one or both of two pump stations to be built on the river located at: 

A point on the Brazos River at Latitude 29.650° N, Longitude 96.026°W also bearing N, 44.217°E, 13,300 feet from the southernmost corner of the Milburn Davis Survey, Abstract No. 71, in Austin County Texas, and/or



A point on the Brazos River at Latitude 29.670° N, Longitude 96.053 °W also bearing N, 2.00°E, 16,600 feet from the southernmost corner of the Milburn Davis Survey, Abstract No. 71, in Austin County Texas.

The maximum combined diversion rate permitted from both of these diversion points is 2,200 cubic feet per second (cfs) or approximately 1,400 million gallons per day (MGD). However, the likely scenario is for the construction of only one pump station to provide for filling of the reservoir. Diversions around the perimeter of the reservoir may be made at a rate of 300 cfs (approximately 190 MGD) while the

July 22, 2014 Page 4 of 12 reservoir outlet works may be used to pass water downstream at a maximum rate of 700 cfs (approximately 450 MGD). In addition to providing yield through reservoir storage, the Allens Creek project also provides for additional yield through inclusion in the BRA System Operation Permit. Located near the end of the Brazos basin, the reservoir is situated in an ideal location to provide for optimal use of water supplies corking conjunctively with BRA’s other system reservoirs. Although the specifics of the system permit are currently being addressed, it is estimated that the development of Allens Creek may provide up to an additional 25,000 acre‐feet of yield per year to the overall system in addition to its currently permitted yield, per the current draft of the Water Management Plan for the System Operation Permit. Specific enhancements to yield depend on the operating scenario employed. The original issue of water right permit 2925A included a mandatory date of September 1, 2018 by which construction shall commence with completion of the reservoir within three years following that date. In 2011, the 82nd Legislature adopted Senate Bill 1132 (SB1132) to amend the deadline to September 1, 2025 and this has since been incorporated into a reissued permit for 2925A.

4.0

DESIGN CONCEPT

The general concept of Allens Creek Reservoir is for the construction of an earth‐fill dam on the channel of Allens Creek which contributes flow from a small watershed to the Brazos River. Attachment B contains the drawings submitted with the water right permit application detailing features of the site. Water from the Brazos River, when available, would be pumped into the reservoir to store water for periods of low flow conditions when run of the river supplies are not available from the Brazos. For the sake of this analysis and for the purposes of the RHWPG reevaluation, the details of the river pump station were revisited for development of costs. Nine vertical mixed flow pumps each rated for 177.65 MGD (approximately 1,600 MGD, total) at 50 feet TDH were used for the pump station design. Using the Hydraulic Institute (HI) Standards, the valves and discharge piping from each pump was sized to meet the recommended velocities. The discharge piping was sized to be 72 inches to maintain a velocity close to 10 feet per second. A 60‐inch ball valve was sized based on a 15 feet per second to 20 feet per second velocity. For each of the nine pumps a separate 72‐inch diameter discharge pipeline will convey water a short distance over the dam embankment into the Allens Creek Reservoir. A flap gate will be provided on the end of each discharge line to prevent backflow. The HI standards were also used to determine the pump bay size and hence the pump spacing within the building.

July 22, 2014 Page 5 of 12 The overall dimensions of the pump station building are approximately 210 feet by 60 feet. The pump floor elevation was assumed to be at elevation 113 above mean sea level as presented in the original project concept. The wet well floor elevation was identified at 60 feet above mean sea level and river level elevations ranging from elevation 76 to elevation 111 were also assumed to be the same. An electrical room and control room will also be housed within the pump station building. An electrical substation and four miles of electrical transmission line to provide the nine 2000 HP pumps and other electrical requirements for the pump station was also included in the concept. Provisions for a septic system and water well are also assumed to provide restroom facilities on site. An approach channel with a bottom width of 180‐feet and approximately 1600 linear feet from the Brazos River to the pump station is sued to connect the river channel to the pump station. The outlet structure within the reservoir will consist of a headwall that will anchor the discharge pipes as well as an energy dissipating structure that will prevent erosion on the dam face. Wing walls that include stop log grooves at each of the three discharge pipes are also suggested to allow isolation of each flap gate for maintenance and repair.

5.0

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Investigation has been performed into the nature of the permitting required for the development of the project. The general nature and size/scope of the Allens Creek Reservoir strategy necessitates several environmental permitting considerations. Based on preliminary investigation by FNI environmental scientists, the following environmental permits and permitting activities are likely to apply: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit – Reservoir development will involve modifications to a water of the U.S. As such, the project must be federally permitted using a Section 404 Permit of the Clean Water Act.



National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – An EIS will likely be required as part of the Section 404 Permitting process.



Cultural Resources Survey and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Testing – As part of the Section 404 Permit processing and EIS development, cultural resources surveys and NRHP testing will likely need to be completed.



Mitigation Plan – A mitigation plan will be required as part of the Section 404 Permit.

July 22, 2014 Page 6 of 12  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Ancillary Studies – USFWS and TPWD are stakeholders in the Section 404 Permitting process, and, as such, they will require ancillary studies to be completed. These studies will include surveys for federal threatened and endangered species and habitat modeling to assess impacts of the proposed project. A schedule of environmental permitting activities associated with the project is shown in Attachment C.

6.0

UPDATED COST ANALYSIS

New costs were developed for the impoundment as well as pump station and conveyance facilities. Cost for the reservoir were developed based on updated information based on a combination of recent FNI projects and other cost scaling based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) indices. Quantities of embankment fill, slurry trench, and soil cement were updated form the original estimates. Estimates for erosion protection along the Brazos River were also updated. Costs for the pump station and conveyance conceptual design were based on current and previous design studies as well as rations originating from ENR. Table 1 summarizes the component costs of key facilities. Costs are presented in September 2013 dollars and include a contingency of 30 percent including professional services. Debt service is calculated assuming a rate of 5.5 percent over a period of 40 years. Interest during construction is assumed to be 4 percent. Based on these costs as presented and assuming full utilization of the reservoir yield of 99,650 acre‐feet per year, the unit cost for water from the project is approximately $231 per acre‐foot during the debt term and $33 per acre‐foot following the retirement of the debt on the project (40 years). Detailed summaries of costs are included in Attachment D.

July 22, 2014 Page 7 of 12 TABLE 1 – ALLENS CREEK PROJECT COST ESTIMATE OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ITEM DESCRIPTION PROJECT COST SUMMARY 1 CONSTRUCTION (CAPITAL) COST 2 ENGINEERING, FINANCIAL, AND LEGAL SERVICES AND CONTINGENCIES 3 LAND AND EASEMENTS 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ‐ STUDIES AND MITIGATION 5 INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COST

ITEM DESCRIPTION ANNUAL COST SUMMARY 1 DEBT SERVICE 2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) 3 PUMPING ENERGY COSTS 4 PURCHASE COST OF WATER TOTAL ANNUAL COST

ITEM DESCRIPTION ANNUAL COST SUMMARY 1 ANNUAL COST 2 YIELD 3 UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST

QUANTITY

UNIT

LS LS LS LS LS

1 1 1 1 1

ANNUAL TOTAL 2020 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2030 $19,707,369 $2,691,577 $623,839 $0 $23,022,784

2040 $19,707,369 $2,691,577 $623,839 $0 $23,022,784

2050 $19,707,369 $2,691,577 $623,839 $0 $23,022,784

2060 $19,707,369 $2,691,577 $623,839 $0 $23,022,784

2070 $0 $2,691,577 $623,839 $0 $3,315,415

ANNUAL TOTAL 2020 $0 ‐ $0

2030 $23,022,784 99,650 $231

ITEM DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY 1 PUMP STATIONS 2 APPROACH CHANNEL 3 DISCHARGE CONVEYANCE 4 OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIRS 5 EROSION PROTECTION 6 RELOCATIONS PROJECT COST

QUANTITY

UNIT

LS LS LS LS LS LS

ITEM DESCRIPTION OPERATION AND MINTENANCE (O&M) COST SUMMARY 1 PUMP STATIONS 2 APPROACH CHANNEL 3 DISCHARGE CONVEYANCE 4 OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIRS 5 EROSION PROTECTION 6 RELOCATIONS ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST

QUANTITY

UNIT

% % % % % %

December 30, 2013 UNIT PRICE TOTAL $174,711,410 $174,711,410 $61,148,994 $61,148,994 $952,794 $952,794 $60,458,394 $60,458,394 $18,955,303 $18,955,303 $316,226,894

2040 2050 $23,022,784 $23,022,784 99,650 99,650 $231 $231

1 1 1 1 1 1

2.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.0

2060 $23,022,784 99,650 $231

UNIT PRICE $54,532,000 $5,703,900 $5,395,000 $62,331,900 $28,230,900 $18,517,710

2070 $3,315,415 99,650 $33 $191

TOTAL $54,532,000 $5,703,900 $5,395,000 $62,331,900 $28,230,900 $18,517,710 $174,711,410

TOTAL $1,363,300 $57,039 $53,950 $934,979 $282,309 $0 $2,691,577

July 22, 2014 Page 8 of 12

7.0

DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE

Preliminary review suggests a 15‐year schedule to develop Allens Creek Reservoir and prepare for initial operation of the facility as shown in Attachment E. This includes approximately nine years of environmental studies and permitting following an initial project assessment. Actual design and construction of the project are anticipated to last for approximately 2.5 and 3.5 years, respectively. As a significant component of the schedule is dictated by the environmental and permitting phases, any approaches that result to favorable impacts to that timeline could significantly influence the overall schedule for the development of the reservoir.

8.0

CONTRACT CONSIDERATIONS

There are several factors to be considered in the contracting of water from Allens Creek Reservoir by either of the joint owners, COH and BRA. These make the contractual arrangements for obtaining raw water from either owner unique based on the way each partner administers their raw water supplies. Conceptually, a water provider may purchase water from one or both sponsors. However, the development timeline of the project may be significantly impacted by the volume purchased and the sponsor the water is purchased from.

8.1

TOTAL DEMAND FOR RAW WATER IN THE BRAZOS RIVER BASIN

It is worth noting the total volume of water need in the lower Brazos River basin in order to provide context for the development of the Allens Creek project as well as the contracting of water to potential customers. An analysis of potential demands to be served by Allens Creek or other Brazos projects was performed using results from the 2011 Region H RWP as the 2016 RWP is still in early stages of development. Table 2 below summarizes the need for firm, raw water from all Brazos basin projects in the 2011 RWP. Note that these demands are far beyond the yield of Allens Creek Reservoir as they include supplies that may originate from other sources such as the System Operations Permit or other off‐channel storage. Likewise, these demands may eventually be met by a combination of projects and not necessarily Allens Creek Reservoir.

July 22, 2014 Page 9 of 12 TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF BRAZOS BASIN PROJECT STRATEGY ALLOCATIONS IN 2011 RWP County

WUG Type

Strategy Allocations (ac‐ft/yr)1 2050

2060

90,757

111,535

136,640

806

3,878

7,723

12,864

623

1,698

1,799

1,867

1,698

2,636

12,911

25,872

45,131

72,896

Steam Electric

8,500

Galveston

Municipal

3,911

4,430

4,540

4,663

4,808

Harris

Municipal

336

384

622

48,172

70,818

92,556

113,402

138,338

Municipal

6,727

18,230

34,626

57,901

91,190

Steam Electric

8,500

54,899

89,048

127,182

171,303

238,028

Brazoria

Fort Bend

2020

2030

2040

47,549

69,120

Municipal

165

Manufacturing

Municipal

Manufacturing

Manufacturing TOTALS

Total

2010

Represent unmet needs in the Lower Brazos River Basin that had water management strategies applied in the 2011 Region H RWP. Does not include demands met with existing supplies.

8.2

OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE ALLENS CREEK PROJECT

Due to the critical nature of demands in the lower Brazos River, there has been significant interest in purchase of the Allens Creek project including the property acquired for the reservoir site and the existing water right. Various parties have expressed interest in securing a portion of or the entirety of the ownership share from COH. However, at this time, COH has expressed no interest in a permanent sale of water from the project and intends to continue its 70 percent ownership in the reservoir. The project is also a component of BRA’s long‐term initiative within the basin leaving no alternative for ownership of the project by other parties. Therefore, it is anticipated at this time that the acquisition of water from the project will require entry into a long‐term contract for the raw water supply rather than purchase of ownership in the project.

8.3

TERMS TO INITIATE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

Each project sponsor has suggested terms under which they are prepared to initiate development of the project. Currently, BRA is prepared to commit to the development of the reservoir in anticipation of demands in the lower basin. COH has also expressed an interest in pursuing development but currently lacks an identified need by their existing customer base to develop the project. COH wholesale customers in the vicinity of the project, including the West Harris County Regional Water Authority (WHCRWA) and the North Fort Bend Water Authority (NFBWA), have existing plans to continue their water supply development based on COH supplies owned in the Trinity River basin and transferred as treated water to their service areas on the west side of Houston.

July 22, 2014 Page 10 of 12 Without an identified, current customer, COH has stated that it requires the following to make project initiation financially viable: 

An identified customer base in the lower Brazos River basin that may be served directly from the reservoir through customer‐ constructed infrastructure or through bed and banks transfer,



A contractual agreement to purchase, on a long‐term basis, 20 percent of the COH share of the project or 13,950 acre‐feet per year (approximately 12.5 MGD), and



The availability of funding through the TWDB State Participation Program in order to allow for the development of the project while deferring some of the capital costs of development to future years and after the entire supply can be contracted.

8.4

POTENTIAL CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND COST OF WATER

A decision to develop the project will be based on the existence of contract terms between the sponsoring partners and one or more water suppliers who wish to purchase water through contract. These arrangements will vary depending on whether the water is contracted from BRA or COH. The terms under which BRA will contract water from Allens Creek Reservoir are fairly straight‐forward and based on the authority’s system rate for water. Currently, this rate is set at $65.65 per acre‐foot per year. However, this rate will rise over time as outlined in the authority’s Long Range Financial Plan (LRFP) and will vary depending on the implementation of projects including Allens Creek Reservoir. Figure 2, below, is adapted from BRA’s 2011 LRFP and Five‐Year Outlook and demonstrates the escalation of rates over time with the development of Allens Creek. This analysis was performed assuming the original 2018 deadline for commencement of the project but demonstrates how overall system costs may vary once the project is implemented versus natural escalation over time.

July 22, 2014 Page 11 of 12 Figure 2 – Projected BRA System Rate with Development of Allens Creek Reservoir

$180 $160

Water Cost ($/ac‐ft)

$140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 Contractual terms required by COH are more speculative at present than that of BRA who has already planned for the accommodation of the project into their overall system rate. Recent contracts between COH and the regional water authorities it serves have been based on raw and treated water components. Increases to the overall raw water supply for the COH system are shared by major wholesale customers and, in effect, contributes to an overall “system rate” for those who benefit from the overall supply. This sort of arrangement has made regional customers of COH partners in the development of new raw water projects. Future arrangements may follow this pattern or take on a more traditional contract mechanism linking a customer directly to its source rather than sharing in system capacity and, therefore, cost. These arrangements will be considered in future phases of this study in order to prepare consistent costs across multiple projects.

9.0

SUMMARY

The following summarizes the key issues associated with the contracting of raw water from the Allens Creek Reservoir project:

July 22, 2014 Page 12 of 12  Allens Creek Reservoir is envisioned as a project to scalp high flows from the Brazos River and store them in a 145,500 acre‐foot reservoir to yield an estimated 99,650 acre‐feet of yield annually. 

Project yield may vary by up to 6.4 percent based on the application of environmental flow standards which may be increase or decrease water availability.



The project may allow for additional yield to be generated by the BRA System Operations Permit.



The project is owned jointly by COH and BRA with 70‐ and 30‐percent shares, respectively.



Although the project has a water right, the process to develop the reservoir will require approximately 10 years of environmental and permitting efforts involving USACE, the NEPA process, USFWS, TPWD, investigation of cultural resources, and mitigation of identified impacts.



The project is expected to provide water at a unit cost of approximately $231 per acre‐foot during the debt term and $33 per acre‐foot following the retirement of the debt on the project.



The overall process of project initiation, permitting, planning, design, and construction is expected to require 15 years before the project is available as a supply although this timeline is heavily influenced by environmental and permitting factors as described above.



Allens Creek Reservoir will likely be a significant component in meeting substantial needs identified in the lower Brazos River basin.



In order to meet identified needs in the basin, BRA and COH are both seeking customers to request access to the Allens Creek supply.



COH requires 20% of their share to be contracted in order to access TWDB State Participation Program for funding.



Contracting for water from BRA will involve purchasing water at the established system rate.



Contracts with COH for water may take on the form of either a share of the COH regional raw water infrastructure as other entities have previously arranged or a traditional, direct contract related to Allens Creek Reservoir.

Attachment A Water Right Permit 2925A

(

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

"tj'"" o,.~"'~

;;:."'

RECEIVED

路1A'I-;c ,:." 3 路-7002 AMENDMENT TO WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 3194A Permittee:

PERMIT NO. 2925A

Texas \Vater Development Board;

Address:

City of Houston; and,

WATER RIGHTS PERMITTING TYPE:搂搂ll.122 & 11.085 P. 0. Box 13231, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711 P.O. Box 1562 Houston, Texas 77251

Brazos River Authority P.O. Box 7555 Waco, Texas 76714-7555

(

Filed:

June 30, 2000

Purposes:

Municipal, Industrial, Irrigation, Recreational

Granted:

\Vatercourse:

County:

Allens Creek, tributary of the Brazos River and Brazos Watershed: River

JAN 16 2002 Austin, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and Waller Brazos River Basin

WHEREAS, Water Use Permit No. 2925, (the Permit) with a priority date of September 1, 1999, authorized permittee to construct and maintain a darn and reservoir on Allens Creek, tributary of the Brazos River, in Austin County, approximately 23 miles southeast of Bellville, Texas, with an irnpoundrnent volume not to exceed 138 ,441 acre-feet of water at a normal operating elevation of 118 feet above mean sea level; and WHEREAS, the Permit authorizes diversion, at a maximum rate of 8,889 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.) [4,000,000 gallons per minute (g.p.rn.)], from any point on the perimeter of the reservoir, and circulation and re-circulation ofreservoir water, so as to consurnptivelyuse from the reservoir for industrial purposes not to exceed 46,256 acre-feet of water per year from the stream flow of Allens Creek and other water as may be provided by confract from the Brazos River Authority (BRA); and

(

WHEREAS, the Permit authorizes the use of500 acre-feet of unappropriated water from Allens Creek or the Brazos River for darn and reservoir construction, and the diversion and use of up to 189,181 acre-feet of water from Allens Creek or the Brazos River over a three-year period during the initial filling of the reservoir; and 1

(

WHEREAS, the Permit authorizes the return of surplus water to the Brazos River at a point N 60.5° E, 16,350 feet from the east corner of the Jesse Boykin Heirs Survey, Abstract No. 131, Austin County Texas; and WHEREAS, the Permit contains conditions that diversion of water for construction and initial filling of the reservoir be limited to times when the flow at the Richmond United States Geological Survey streamflow gage on the Brazos River 37.5 miles downstream from the mouth of Allens Creek is greater than l, 100 c.f.s. (when corrected to deduct upstream reservoir releases by the Brazos River Authority to provide water under contract downstream of the Richmond gage) after the diversion; and a requirement that all water inflows from the Allens Creek watershed be released through the reservoir when flow at the U.S.G.S. gage at Richmond, not including~ water released by the Brazos River Authority for use downstream of the Richmond gage, is less than 1,100 c.f.s.; and

(

WHEREAS, pursuant to §11.122 of the Texas Water Code, on June 6, 2000 an application was received by the Commission from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), BRA, and the City of Houston (COH) (applicants) to amend the Permit to: 1) increase storage up to 145,533 acre-feet in Allens Creek Reservoir at a maximum water surface elevation of 12 LO feet above mean sea level; 2) authorize diversion from Allens Creek Reservoir of up to 99,650 acre-feet per year for municipal, industrial, and irrigation purposes in lieu of the 46,256 acre-feet originally authorized for industrial purposes; 3) authorize in-place use of Allens Creek Reservoir for recreational purposes; 4) authorize the right to divert up to 202,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Brazos River into Allens Creek Reservoir in lieu of the original authorization to divert 189, 181 acre-feet of water from the Brazos River over a three-year period during the initial filling of the reservoir; 5) authorize a diversion point on the Brazos River on the river bottom lands at Latitude 29.650° N, Longitude 96.026°W, and a point immediately east of the dam, about 1,600 feet west of the Brazos River at Latitude 29.670°N, Longitude 96.053 °W with authorization for a combined maximum diversion rate of2,200 cfs (987,380 g.p.m.) from those points; 6) include monthly flow requirements at the Richmond gage for diversions from the Brazos River to safeguard downstream water rights and provide environmental flows; 7) authorize the right to impound runoff from Allens Creek watershed conditionally on the same monthly flow requirements dependent upon streamflows at the Richmond gage as those requirements for diversions from the Brazos River; 8) authorize the right to release water through the outlet works of the dam by gravity at a maximum rate of700 cfs (314, 160 g.p.m); 9) limit the maximum diversion rate from the perimeter of the reservoir to 300 cfs (134,640 g.p.m.); 10) authorize the right for interbasin transfers of water released from Allens Creek Reservoir from the Brazos River Basin to San J ~cinto-Brazos Coastal Basin and the San Jacinto River Basin for use in Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Austin, and Waller Counties; 11) authorize points ofreturn for surplus water created by the requested use of water under this water right, to be discharged at the locations of wastewater freatment plants that may be located in the Brazos River Basin, San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin, and San Jacinto River Basin, in Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Austin, and Waller Counties; 12) authorize the right to reuse all return flows generated from this project for municipal, industrial, and irrigation purposes within the areas of use authorized under this amendment, and as may be authorized by future amendments of the permit, in Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Austin, and Waller Cpunties; and

(

WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1593, 76rh Legislature (1999), which act contained specific provisions related to Allens Creek Reservoir, the priority of amendments, time to construct Allens Creek Reservoir, and processing and issuing any amendments; and WHEREAS, the San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin is adjacent to the Brazos River Basin, the basin of origin of the interbasin transfer authorization requested by the applicants; and WHEREAS, the municipal service areaofone of the applicants, the COH, includes Harris and Fort Bend Counties, both of which are partially located within the Brazos River Basin; and WHEREAS, the proposed interbasin transfer is exempted from the requirements ofvVater Code § l l .085(b)-(u) under Water Code § l l.085(v)(3) and (4); and

(

WHEREAS, the TWDB currently owns the Permit, and the BRA and the COHjointly own the land at the authorized location of the reservoir and dam site, and the applicants have indicated that the BRA and the COH will acquire an ownership interest from the TWDB, of the water rights authorized in the Permit, and that TWDB, BRA and COH shall share in the acquisition, financing, ownership, construction, and operation of the reservoir site and the reservoir project; and WHEREAS, Station 232 +50 on the centerline of the dam for the reservoir authorized in the Permit ' was to be N 58.5 ° E, 13,750 feet from the east comer of the Jesse Boykin Heirs Survey, Abstract No. 131, Austin County Texas, 23 miles SE of Bellville, Texas, and applicants have submitted plans with the application for amending the Permit, describing a different dam location reducing the area to be inundated from 8,250 acres to 7,003 acres and avoiding an area known as Alligator Hole, a wetland that would be inundated under the original Permit; and WHEREAS, Station 234+50 on the centerline of the dam for the reservoir proposed by the applicants is N 6.717 °E, 12;400 feet from the southernmost comer of the Milburn Davis Survey, Abstract No. 71 in Austin County, Texas approximately at Latitude 29.658°N, Longitude 96.050° W; and vVHEREAS, based upon the results of the hydrological analysis, the Executive Director has concluded that the application is consistent with the State Water Plan, and that there is adequate streamflow and unappropriated water available to provide recoinmended instream flow requirements and support a perpetual water right in the amount of diversion of not to exceed 99,650 acre-feet per annum diverted from the reservoir, with this diversion being dependent upon the diversion of not to exceed 202,000 acre feet of water per annum from the Brazos River, and;

(

WHEREAS, the hydrological analysis for this amendment was based on the best available hydrology tools available and any applications to amend this amended permit will be analyzed based on the current best available hydrological techniques, and; WHEREAS, the Executive Director has determined that in order to protect downstream water

(

rights, water quality, and aquatic habitats, diversions of the additional state water requested will include limitations; and WHEREAS, the Executive Director indicates that a mitigation plan for the environmental impacts of the entire project embodied in the application must be prepared and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to construction of the reservoir, which plan will include mitigation for impacts related to wetlands and wildlife habitat associated with this amendment; and WHEREAS, the applicants, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and the Executive Director have agreed that a site-specific instream flow study of the Brazos River below the authorized points of diversion will be undertaken, have agreed that this amended permit, may be amended to add streamflow diversion restrictions based on the results of that study, and have agreed that the Permittees, TPWD, or the Executive Director may file a; application to amend the permit based upon the results of the study; and

(

WHEREAS, the Executive Director further recommends that in order to detem1ine the firm yield of the project in the absence of a site specific comprehensive instrearh flow study, streamflow restrictions based on the consensus based planning criteria will be used and that this permit may be further amended to replace the interim stream flow restrictions of this amended permit following completion of the site specific field study of the segment of the Brazos River impacted by this project and prior to placing the, p~~~~~~~ ' "WHEREAS, applicants have requested authorization for use of return flows for surplus water generated by this project at various unspecified locations, and has made the general request to use al!retum flows generated by this project; and WHEREAS, the Commission acknowledges the applicants' intent to use these surplus waters and return flows; and that the requested reuse authorization can be granted at this time; however additional future authorization must be obtained pursuant to Water Code§ 11.042 in order to use the bed and banks of state watercourses to deliver water for reuse, and this authorization cannot be obtained until discharge and diversion points have been identified by applicants and all statutory requirements satisfied; and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has determined that the BRA and COH conservation plans do not include the diver~ion included in this amendment and has thus recommenC!ed that the permit, as amended, include a special condition that requires owners to submit to the Executive Director, revised water conservation and drought contingency plans within 180 days prior to the diversion of the water, subject to evaluation and approval by the Executive Director; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Texas Water Code §§11.122 and 11.085 the Commission finds that jurisdiction of the application is established, and further finds that the application to amend the Permit is subject to the Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) pursuant to Title 31, Part 16, Chapter 501 through Chapter 506 of the Texas Administrative Code and §33 of the Texas Natural Resources Code and is consistent with the CMP goals and policies; and

( (

WHEREAS, the Commission has complied with the requirements of the Texas Water Code and Rules of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission in issuing this amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, this amendment to Water Use Permit 2925 is issued to the Texas Water Development Board, City of Houston, and Brazos River Authority, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1.

IMPOUNDMENT In lieu of the previous authorization to store water in Allens Creek Reservoir, owners are authorized to store, at normal maximum operating capacity, not to exceed 145,533 acre-feet at a maximum water surface elevation of 121.0 feet above mean sea level. Station 234+50 on the centerline of the dam for the reserV'oir is North 6.717°East bearing, 12,400 feet from the southernrr)ost corner of the Milburn Davis Survey, Abstract No. 71 in Austin County, Texas, at Latitude 29.658°N, Longitude 96.050° W.

(

USE a)

In lieu of the previous authorizations in §§2(a) and 2(c) of Water Use Permit No. 2925, to divert and use consumptively not to exceed 46,256 acre-feet of water per annum from Allens Creek Reservoir for industrial use, and to use contract water from Brazos River I Authority, and to divert 189,181 acre-feet of \Yater per annum from the Brazos River over a three-year period for initial filling of the reservoir, owners are herein authorized to divert not to exceed 202,000 acre-feet of water per annum from the Brazos River for storage in the Allens Creek Reservoir, and to subsequently divert and use 99,650 acre-feet of water per annum from the reservoir for municipal, industrial, and irrigation purposes within the Brazos River Basin. Interbasin transfers of this water are herein authorized, from the basin of origin, the Brazos River Basin, to the San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin and the San Jacinto River Basin for use of that water in Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Austin, and Waller Counties.

The owners are authorized to use the water impounded in Allens Creek Reservoir for recreational purposes.

The ow~ers are authorized to reuse water appropriated by this permit subject to obtaining future authorizations, after identifying specific points of discharge and diversion and satisfying the requirements of Water Code §11.042, for use of bed and banks for delivery of reuse water.

DNERSION a)

In addition to the existing authorization to divert from any point on the perimeter of the reservoir, owners are herein authorized to divert water from two points on the Brazos 5

(

River: i

Maximum combined diversion rate from the Brazos River: 2,200 c.f.s. (987,360 g.p.rn.);

Maximum diversion from anypoint on the perimeter ofthereservoiris herein reduced from the previously authorized maximum of 8,889 cfs (4,000,000 g.p.m.) to a maximum combined rate of300 cfs (134,640 g.p.m.);

Water stored in Allens Creek Reservoir may be released through the outlet works by gravity at a maximum rate of 700 cfs (314,160 g.p.m.).

( 4.

(

SPECIAL CONDITIONS a)

The owners, in cooperation with the Executive Director, and TPWD, shall undertake a site specific study of instteam flow requirements of the Brazos River below the authorized points of diversion. Following completion of the study, either the Permittees, TPWD, or the Executive Director may file an application to amend this amended permit to implement streamflow diversion restrictions based upon the results of the study. Modification of streamflow diversion restrictions in that amendment may not increase or decrease the firm yield of the project authorized under this permit in paragraph 2(a) by more than 6.4% .

In order to protect in-stream uses, water quality, and aquatic habitat, owners shall not divert water from the Brazos River in such a way that will cause streamflows immediately downstream ofthe permitted diversion points, excluding waterreleased to meet downstream contracts, to fall below the following trigger levels:

For any given month, when flow in the Brazos River before diversions is greater than the naturalized median flow given in the table in 4(c), below, diversions shall not cause flow in the Brazos River to fall below that naturalized median flow;

ii)

For any given month, when flow in the Brazos River before diversions is less than the naturalized median flow given in the table in 4(c), below, but greater than the naturalized 25th percentile flow, diversions shall not cause flow in the .Brazos River to fall below that naturalized 25'h percentile flow;

(

iii)

For any given month, when the flow in the Brazos River before diversions is less than the naturalized 25'h percentile flow given in the table in 4(c), below, diversions shall not cause flow in the Brazos River to fall below 734 cfs;

iv)

At no time will diversions cause flow in the Brazos River to fall below 734 cfs.

The naturalized median, 25'h percentile, and water quality protection flows are as follows: Month

Naturalized Median Flow (cfs):

Naturalized 25'h Percentile Flow (cfs)

Water Quality Protection Flow (cfs)

JAN FEB MAR

2,566 4,315 3,241 4,601 9,059 5,576 2,512 1,379 2,293 2,224 2,437 3,048

964 1,773 1,343 1,835 3,159 2,596 1,139 709* 1,104 1,098 1, 100 1,055

734 734 734 734 734 734 734 734 734 734 734 734

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

(

*Since 25th percentile is Jess than water quality protection flow, water quality protection flow (734 cfs) would apply. d)

In order to protect downstream senior water rights, for any given month owners shall not divert water from the Brazos River in such a way that will cause streamflows immediately downstream of the permitted diversion points, excluding water released to meet downstream contracts, to fall below the following instantaneous flow rates measured in cfs: Jan 795

(

Feb 795

Mar 812

Apr 882

May 882

June 1017

July 1017

Aug 1017

Sept 882

Oct 812

Nov 812

Dec 795

The higher of the environmental flow restrictions of subparagraph 4 (b) and 4(c) and the flows to protect downstream senior water rights of subparagraph 4 (d) shall control.

Notwithstanding the streamflow restrictions of subparagraph 4 (d) to protect downstream senior water rights, downstream senior and superior water rights may exercise their lawful rights, including the right to call for the curtailment of upstream junior rights if downstream senior and superior water rights are not able to divert and use their full lawful right. 7

(

As authorized by Special Condition 6(c) in Permit 2925, diversions from the Brazos River authorized for construction purposes or for the initial filling of the reservoir shall be limited to such times as the flow rate at the Richmond gaging station (when corrected to deduct upstream reservoir releases by the Brazos River Authority to provide water under contract downstream of the Richmond gage) does not reduce the flow rate below 1100 cfs at said gaging station.

As authorized by Special Condition 6( d) in Permit 2925, inflow from Allens Creek Watershed shall be passed through the reservoir whenever flow at the Richinond gaging station (when corrected to deduct upstream reservoir releases by the Brazos River Authority to provide water under contract downstream of the Richmond gage) is less than 1100 cfs, provided, however, Permittees are authorized to substitute for inflow from Allens Creek an equal quantity of waterreleased by Brazos River Authority from upstream reservoirs for this purpose.

The owners, in cooperation with the Executive Director and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, shall undertake a habitat mitigation study and develop a wetland and wildlife habitat mitigation plan, to be approved by the U.S. Ailny Corps of Engineers prior to initiating construction.

The owners will provide a means to pass inflows downstream from the reservoir to provide water to downstream domestic and livestock water users and senior downstream water right holders, and inflows will be passed downstream when required by the Executive Director.

Construction of the dam creating Allens Creek Reservoir, will be in accordance with standard engineering practices, and will include a means to pass inflows past the dam in such quantities as may be necessary to satisfy Special Condition 4(j). The dam authorized under this amendment will be designed and constructed to safely pass the probable maximum flood, and meet the appropriate minimum hydrological requirements of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code ยง299.14. The owners shall advise the Ex~cutive Director upon reaching significant milestones during the project's design process, including the 50% and 75% completion stages of the final plans and specifications. Final construction plans and specific~tions shall be submitted to the Executive Director for approval prior to commencement of construction of the project.

At least 180 days prior to diversion and use of water authorized in this amendment, owners shall submit to the Executive Director revised conservation and drought contingency plans incorporating the water use authorized in this amendment. The drought contingency and conservation plans shall meet the minimum requirements ofTitle 30 TAC Chapter 288, and will be subject to evaluation and approval by the Executive Director.

This permit, as amended, does not authorize use of the bed and banks downstream of the

(

( reservoir to convey water for subsequent diversion. 5.

CONSERVATION Owners shall implement water conservation plans that provide for the utilization of those practices, techniques, and technologies that reduce or maintain the consumption of water, prevent or reduce the loss or waste of water, maintain or improve the efficiency in the use of water, increase the recycling and reuse of water, or prevent the pollution of water, so supply is made available for future . that a water . or alternative uses. Such plans shall include a requirement that in every wholesale water contract entered into, on or after the effective date of this amendment, including any contract extension or renewal, that each successive wholesale customer develop and linplernent conservation measures. If the customer intends to resell the water, then the contract for resale of the water must have water conservation requirements so that each successive wholesale customer in the resale of the water be required to implement water conservation measures.

(

TIME PRIORITIES (a)

The time priority for the additional water authorized for diversion and use of water under this amendment, and for all other authorizations included in this amendment, is September 1, 1999.

(b)

The time priority for irnpoundrnent of inflows in the first 138,441 acre-feet of conservation storage and diversion of 46,256 acre-feet per year remains September 1, 1999.

TIME LIMITATIONS (a)

Construction of the darn herein authorized shall be in accordance with plans approved by the Executive Director and shall be commenced not later than September 1, 2018 and completed within three years thereafter.

(b)

Failure to commence or complete construction of the darn within the period stated above shall cause this permit to expire and become null and void, unless Permittees apply for an extension of time to commence or complete construction prior to the respective deadlines for commencement or completion, and the application is subsequently granted.

This amendment is issued subject to all superior and senior water rights in the Brazos River Basin.

(

Permittees agrees t0 be bound by the terms, conditions and provisions contained herein and such agreement is a condition precedent to the granting of this amendment.

( All other matters requested in the application which are not specifically granted by this amendment are denied. This amendment is issued subject to the Rules of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and to the right of coritinuing~upervision of State water resources exercised by the Commission. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

DATE ISSUED:

JAN 1 6 2002

(

[

(

Attachment B Design Concept Drawings

Attachment C Environmental Permitting Schedule

Environmental Permitting Activities Scheduling

Activity Agency Coordination and Scoping Obtain Conceptual Design (Dam Footprint and Pool) Develop Sampling Plan Field Work Cultural Resources Survey and NHRP Eligibility Testing Prepare Environmental Information Document Permit Application Preparation Agency and Public Comment Draft EIS Preparation Final EIS Preparation Development and Negotiation of Mitigation Plan Agency Review and Comment Public Hearing and Public Comment Periods Record of Decision Issued

Year 1

Year 2

Phase I (Project Assessment) Phase II (Permit Applications) Phase III (Additional Permitting)

Phase IV (Design) Agency Review and Comment Other Key Activities

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Year 10

Year 11

Year 12

Year 13

Year 14

Year 15

Attachment D Detailed Cost Estimates

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

December 30, 2013

ITEMDESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

PROJECT COST SUMMARY 1 CONSTRUCTION (CAPITAL) COST 2 ENGINEERING, FINANCIAL, AND LEGAL SERVICES AND CONTINGENCIES 3 LAND AND EASEMENTS 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ‐ STUDIES AND MITIGATION 5 INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COST

1 1 1 1 1

2020 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2030 $19,707,369 $2,691,577 $623,839 $0 $23,022,784

ITEMDESCRIPTION

2040 $19,707,369 $2,691,577 $623,839 $0 $23,022,784

2020

$0 ‐ $0

2030 $23,022,784 99,650 $231

2040 $23,022,784 99,650 $231

QUANTITY

CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY 1 PUMP STATIONS 2 APPROACH CHANNEL 3 DISCHARGE CONVEYANCE 4 OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIRS 5 EROSION PROTECTION 6 RELOCATIONS PROJECT COST

ITEMDESCRIPTION OPERATION AND MINTENANCE (O&M) COST SUMMARY 1 PUMP STATIONS 2 APPROACH CHANNEL 3 DISCHARGE CONVEYANCE 4 OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIRS 5 EROSION PROTECTION 6 RELOCATIONS ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST

1 of 3

$174,711,410 $61,148,994 $952,794 $60,458,394 $18,955,303

TOTAL

$174,711,410 $61,148,994 $952,794 $60,458,394 $18,955,303 $316,226,894

2050 $19,707,369 $2,691,577 $623,839 $0 $23,022,784

2060 $19,707,369 $2,691,577 $623,839 $0 $23,022,784

2070 $0 $2,691,577 $623,839 $0 $3,315,415

ANNUAL TOTAL

ITEMDESCRIPTION ANNUAL COST SUMMARY 1 ANNUAL COST 2 YIELD 3 UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST

LS LS LS LS LS

UNIT PRICE

ANNUAL TOTAL

ITEMDESCRIPTION ANNUAL COST SUMMARY 1 DEBT SERVICE 2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) 3 PUMPING ENERGY COSTS 4 PURCHASE COST OF WATER TOTAL ANNUAL COST

UNIT

2050 $23,022,784 99,650 $231

UNIT

1 1 1 1 1 1

QUANTITY

2.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.0

LS LS LS LS LS LS

UNIT

% % % % % %

2060 $23,022,784 99,650 $231

UNIT PRICE

$54,532,000 $5,703,900 $5,395,000 $62,331,900 $28,230,900 $18,517,710

UNIT PRICE

$54,532,000 $5,703,900 $5,395,000 $62,331,900 $28,230,900 $18,517,710

2070 $3,315,415 99,650 $33 $191

TOTAL

$54,532,000 $5,703,900 $5,395,000 $62,331,900 $28,230,900 $18,517,710 $174,711,410

TOTAL

$1,363,300 $57,039 $53,950 $934,979 $282,309 $0 $2,691,577

ITEMDESCRIPTION PUMP STATION CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1 PUMPS (9 PUMPS, 123,400 GPM EACH, 50 FEET HEAD) 2 ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION (EXCLUDING SUBSTATION) 3 ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AND TRANSMISSION LINE 4 BAR RACKS/CLEANING 5 STRUCTURE 6 PIPING AND VALVES 7 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL 8 ACCESS ROADS AND SITE WORK 9 6" CASING WATERWELL 10 SEPTIC PUMP STATIONS TOTAL COST

ITEMDESCRIPTION APPROACH CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1 EXCAVATION 2 FILL 3 RIVER DREDGING 4 RIPRAP 5 BRIDGE AT FM 1458 6 EROSION CONTROL APPROACH CHANNEL TOTAL COST

ITEMDESCRIPTION DISCHARGE CONVEYANCE CONSTRUCTION COST 1 CONVEYANCE PIPELINE AND GATES 2 OUTLET STRUCTURE DISCHARGE CONVEYANCE TOTAL COSTS

ITEMDESCRIPTION OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION COST 1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION (5%) 2 CARE OF WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION 3 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 4 ENCASED 72" RCP CLASS IV 5 CUT 6 FILL 7 SOIL BENTONITE SLURRY TRENCH 8 INTERNAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM 9 REINFORCED CONCRETE (GRAVITY STRUCTURE) 10 REINFORCED CONCRETE (VERTICAL WALLS) 11 REINFORCED CONCRETE (SLAB) 12 OUTLET WORKS, GATES AND CONCRETE 13 SPILLWAY SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE 14 SOIL CEMENT 15 SEEDING 16 EROSION CONTROL 17 FLEX BASE ROAD MATERIAL (8") 18 TIMBER GUARD POST 19 BRIDGE (100' SPAN, 20' WIDTH) 20 OUTLET WORKS BRIDGE (100' SPAN, 16' WIDTH) 21 INSTRUMENTATION OFF‐CHANNEL RESERVOIRS TOTAL COSTS

2 of 3

QUANTITY

9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

QUANTITY

436,800.0 11,250.0 1.0 27,700.0 4,000.0 26,250.0

QUANTITY

1.0 1.0

QUANTITY

UNIT

EA LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS

UNIT

CY CY LS CY SF SY

UNIT

LS LS

UNIT

UNIT PRICE

$1,716,000 $6,755,000 $9,139,000 $2,941,000 $12,161,000 $4,897,000 $1,905,000 $747,000 $494,000 $49,000

UNIT PRICE

$4 $6 $467,000 $91 $186 $6

UNIT PRICE

$3,349,000 $2,046,000

UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

$15,444,000 $6,755,000 $9,139,000 $2,941,000 $12,161,000 $4,897,000 $1,905,000 $747,000 $494,000 $49,000 $54,532,000

TOTAL

$1,747,200 $67,500 $467,000 $2,520,700 $744,000 $157,500 $5,703,900

TOTAL

$3,349,000 $2,046,000 $5,395,000

TOTAL

1.0 1.0 80.0 510.0 426,000.0 3,990,000.0 89,500.0 22,400.0 15,500.0 520.0 3,900.0 1.0

LS LS AC LF CY CY SF LF CY CY CY LS

$3,010,000 $513,100 $3,600 $1,600 $4 $6 $16 $108 $460 $820 $460 $384,000

$3,010,000 $513,100 $288,000 $816,000 $1,704,000 $23,940,000 $1,432,000 $2,419,200 $7,130,000 $426,400 $1,794,000 $384,000

1.0 211,000.0 64.0 1.0 58,000.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

LS CY SF LS SY LS EA EA LS

$231,000 $72 $9,200 $445,400 $14 $92,000 $354,000 $315,000 $445,000

$231,000 $15,192,000 $588,800 $445,400 $812,000 $92,000 $354,000 $315,000 $445,000 $62,331,900

ITEMDESCRIPTION EROSION PROTECTION CONSTRUCTION COST 1 REACH A‐A: EXCAVATION 2 REACH A‐A: MATERIALS DISPOSAL 3 REACH A‐A: SOIL CEMENT 4 REACH A‐A: SHEET PILING 5 REACH A‐A: DRAINAGE LAYER 6 REACH B‐B: EXCAVATION 7 REACH B‐B: MATERIALS DISPOSAL 8 REACH B‐B: ROCK RIPRAP 9 REACH C‐C: EXCAVATION 10 REACH C‐C: MATERIALS DISPOSAL 11 REACH C‐C: ROCK RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION TOTAL COSTS

ITEMDESCRIPTION RELOCATIONS CONSTRUCTION COST 1 24‐INCH HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE RELOCATION 2 6‐INCH PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PIPELINE RELOCATION 3 8‐INCH CRUDE OIL PIPELINE RELOCATION 4 LAND FOR 50' WIDE PIPELINE EASEMENT 5 RAISING STATE HIGHWAY 36 6 18‐INCH SANITARY SEWER PLANT OUTFALL RELOCATION 7 MISCELLANEOUS DRAINAGE CONFLICTS 8 RAILROAD EMBANKMENT PROTECTION RELOCATIONS TOTAL COSTS

3 of 3

QUANTITY

238,500.0 238,500.0 54,900.0 90,000.0 4,500.0 399,000.0 399,000.0 79,800.0 260,000.0 260,000.0 55,000.0

QUANTITY

54,250.0 13,000.0 13,000.0 7.0 1.0 14,000.0 1.0 1.0

UNIT

CY CY CY SF LS CY CY CY CY CY CY

UNIT

LF LF LF AC LS LF LS LS

UNIT PRICE

$4 $5 $72 $41 $174 $4 $5 $87 $4 $5 $87

UNIT PRICE

$224 $142 $187 $4,130 $374,100 $90 $374,100 $51,600

TOTAL

$954,000 $1,192,500 $3,952,800 $3,690,000 $783,000 $1,596,000 $1,995,000 $6,942,600 $1,040,000 $1,300,000 $4,785,000 $28,230,900

TOTAL

$12,152,000 $1,846,000 $2,431,000 $28,910 $374,100 $1,260,000 $374,100 $51,600 $18,517,710

Attachment E Project Implementation Schedule

Allens Creek Reservoir Development Schedule Activity

Project Assessment Environmental Studies and Permitting Dam and Reservoir Design Pipeline and Pump Station Design Dam and Reservoir Construction Reservoir Impoundment Pipeline and Pump Station Construction Initial Operation

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Phase I (Project Assessment) Phase II (Permit Applications) Phase III (Additional Permitting)

Phase IV (Design) Phase V (Construction) Other Key Activities

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Year 10

Year 11

Year 12

Year 13

Year 14

Year 15

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

APPENDIX D EAST TEXAS SUPPLIES

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Ivan Langford, Gulf Coast Water Authority

CC: FROM:

Jason Afinowicz, P.E.

SUBJECT: Long Range Water Supply Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; East Texas Interbasin DATE:

1.0

Transfer July 16, 2014

INTRODUCTION

Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) worked with the Gulf Coast Water Authority (GCWA) to narrow and further evaluate alternatives from the Long Range Water Supply Study to meet GCWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s raw and treated water needs. This memorandum presents options for obtaining water from the Sabine River and transporting it to the Trinity River. The water supplied to the Trinity River would either be transferred to GCWA facilities using a combination of existing and proposed conveyances through the Coastal Water Authority's (CWA) Lynchburg Reservoir facility or exchanged for water from the City of Houston's Supply in the Trinity Basin which would then be diverted from Lake Livingston to the Brazos River. The alternatives were evaluated based on the cost of construction, operation, and maintenance of the required facilities. For the purpose of this study, a transfer of 100,000 acre-feet per year was considered to provide a representative unit project cost. Actual capacities of the developed transfer may be sized differently to accommodate the specific needs of GCWA and other potential stakeholders in such a project.

2.0

SABINE TO NECHES WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

A preliminary canal system concept was created to deliver water from the Sabine River to the Neches River. This would be achieved through the construction of approximately 20 miles of canal and 60 siphon structures. A large majority of this canal system route crosses heavily wooded private property and numerous major roads and highways.

Long Range Water Supply Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Interbasin Transfer 7/15/2014 Page 2 of 11

2.1

PRELIMINARY CANAL ALIGNMENT

The design capacity of the preliminary canal option is 100,000 acre-feet per year. The estimated right of way width required would be approximately 115 feet wide. This approximately 20 mile long canal system would likely run closely parallel to the north border of Orange County. As shown in Figure 2-1, the canal would require the construction of approximately 60 siphon structures to cross various sized farm roads, existing canals, and major roads and highways.

2.2

ESTIMATED SEGMENT COST

The total project cost would consist of approximately 20 miles of canal construction with the inclusion of approximately 60 siphon structures. Costs correspond to the acquisition of mostly rural land, construction of the siphon crossings, earthwork required to excavate the canal, and the fill to construct the earthen embankments. A contingency of 35% covers the engineering and legal aspects of the project, while the land acquisition costs would include the environmental fees. This results in a total project cost of approximately $102,000,000 to transport 100,000 acre-feet of water from the Sabine River to the Neches River.

3.0

NECHES TO TRINITY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

A preliminary canal system concept was created to deliver water from the Neches River to the Trinity river near the Proposed Trinity River pump station. This would be achieved through the use of the Lower Neches Valley Authority (LNVA) canal system as well as the construction of a total of 16 miles of canals to connect the LNVA system to the CWA system. The current total capacity of the LNVA canal system is unknown; however, it was assumed that the associated LNVA canals have the required capacity for the increased volume of water transported.

3.1

PRELIMINARY CANAL ALIGNMENT

There are two canal segments that would need to be constructed in order to provide water from the Neches River to the proposed pump station. The design capacity of the preliminary canal option is 100,000 acre-feet per year. The estimated right of way width required would be approximately 115 feet wide. The first canal segment would be approximately 13 miles long and connect the LNVA main canal with the LNVA-Devers canal. This would require the construction of approximately 19 siphons to cross various farm roads, existing canals, and two lane highways. The second segment is approximately 3 miles long and would connect the LNVA-Devers canal system with the proposed pump station. This would require approximately 5 siphons, the majority of which cross small farm roads or existing streams. The preliminary canal alignments can be seen in Figure 3-1.

Long Range Water Supply Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Interbasin Transfer 7/15/2014 Page 3 of 11

3.2

ESTIMATED SEGMENT COST

The total project cost would consist of approximately 16 miles of canal construction with the inclusion of approximately 24 siphons. Costs correspond to the acquisition of rural land, construction of the siphon crossings, earthwork required to excavate the canal, and the fill to construct the earthen embankments. A contingency of 35% covers the engineering and legal aspects of the project, while the land acquisition costs would include the environmental fees. This results in a total project cost of approximately $48,000,000 to transport 100,000 acre-feet of water from the Neches River to the the Trinity River.

4.0

LIVINGSTON TO BRAZOS WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

A water supply system to deliver water from Lake Livingston to the Brazos River was developed with the intention that the water supplied to the Trinity River from the Neches River by the canal system detailed in Section 2 would replace water pulled upstream at Lake Livingston. Once in the Brazos River, GCWA would use existing facilities to convey the water supply into their system.

4.1

LAKE LIVINGSTON PUMP STATION

The preliminary pump station for drawing water out of Lake Livingston is estimated to have a total capacity of 140 MGD and be located on the southwest shore of the lake with facilities capable of accessing deep water. The pump station was assumed to pump at approximately 85 MGD for 300 days of the year and 110 MGD for 65 days of the year. This would provide an annual yield of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The pump station was estimated to have five identical pumps with three capable of variable speed pumping. The location of the intake is important in order to be able to draw water at low lake levels and capture flow of acceptable water quality, which may vary with the lake water level. The southwest shore of the lake near the proposed location has areas of undeveloped land, which may be easier to acquire for the pump station site. A study should be performed to fully investigate the location of the pump station and the facilities required.

4.2

PRELIMINARY PIPELINE ROUTE

A potential pipeline route was developed to transport water from Lake Livingston to the Brazos River. The pipeline route travels from the southwest shore of Lake Livingston through the national forest following State Highway 150 and Farm to Market 1097 to the east side of Willis. The route then travels south around Willis and on the south side of Lake Conroe directing generally west. The route meets the Brazos River approximately 8 miles south of Navasota and 3 miles west of State Highway 6. The pipeline route is approximately 445,700 feet long and in most cases follows roads, existing utilities, and property lines. The preliminary pipeline route can be found in Figure 4-1.

Long Range Water Supply Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Interbasin Transfer 7/15/2014 Page 4 of 11

4.3

PIPELINE HYDRAULICS

Ground elevations along the pipeline route were used to analyze the system pressure and determine the head required to be added at the pump station. The pipe size was initially set based on maintaining velocities under 8 fps at the maximum flow rate. The peak flow rate of 110 MGD resulted in an initial pipe diameter of 72 inches. However, when the pipeline pressures and headloss through the system were examined, pressures exceeded 275 psi and the head required to be added by the pumps was greater than 625 feet. Pipe and valve pressure classes 250 psi and greater are typically much more expensive than lower pressure classes, especially for large diameters. Also, pumps capable of producing 700 feet of head will be very expensive and require a large building, which will also be costly. Three options were assessed in order to develop a realistic and cost efficient transmission system: increase the pipe diameter, add a booster pump station to the system, or both. The pipe diameter was increased to 96 inches in order to lower internal pressures below 190 psi, which is the suggested maximum operating pressure for 200-psi class pipe. This also resulted in a much lower system headloss and required pumping head. While increasing the pipe diameter to 96 inches produced preferable internal pipeline pressures, the construction of 445,700 feet of 96 inch diameter pipe costs approximately $156,000,000 more to build than 445,700 feet of 72 inch diameter pipe. Assessing the potential benefit of adding a booster pump station began with examining the Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) to determine the most advantageous location of the pump station. A high point near the halfway point of the alignment was decided to be the most beneficial location of the booster pump station. The addition of the booster pump station resulted in a required pumping head of 510 feet at Lake Livingston and 285 feet at the booster pump station. The maximum pressure for the 72-inch pipe was found to be 225 psi, which is not preferable. Therefore, adding a booster pump station helped alleviate the high pumping head required and reduced the internal pressures, but pipe pressures for a 72-inch pipeline were still above the desired maximum. Increasing the pipe size of the system with a booster pump station was analyzed to determine what diameter was required to ensure pressures would be below 190 psi. A 78-inch pipeline was found to have acceptable required pipe pressure classes and less system headloss. The construction and material cost of increasing the pipe size from 72 inches to 78 inches was estimated to be approximately $37,000,000. A booster pump station and 10 MG ground storage tank was expected to cost approximately $19,000,000. Therefore, it was estimated that a 78-inch pipeline with a booster pump station would be more cost effective than a 96-inch pipeline without a booster pump station. The final hydraulic grade line can be seen in Figure 4-2.

Long Range Water Supply Study – Interbasin Transfer 7/15/2014 Page 5 of 11

4.4

LAKE CONROE BOOSTER PUMP STATION

The most beneficial location of the booster pump station was found to be approximately 1 mile southeast of the Lake Conroe dam. The possible site, as seen in Figure 4-1, is just off of League Line Rd. approximately 2 miles northwest of State Highway 45. Also, there is an electrical substation nearby that may allow easy access to power for the pump station. A 10 MG ground storage tank may also be constructed on site as temporary storage and to simplify the system operation. This would also allow the Lake Livingston pump station to transport water to the ground storage tank, which was sized to be able to store just over 2 hours of peak capacity pumping. The booster pump station would pump water from the ground storage tank since it would be difficult to perfectly match the flow rate of the lake pump station. A bypass around the booster pump station could also be constructed for low flow situations where pumping directly from Lake Livingston to the Brazos could be accomplished with satisfactory pressures along the pipeline.

4.5

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

A large portion of the pipeline alignment travels through the Sam Houston National Forest. Research of the forest showed that there are large areas that are privately owned and would most likely be easier to acquire a pipeline easement on than publicly owned forest property. The preliminary pipeline route avoids all publicly owned land within the national forest, while following highways and roads through much of the forest to limit environmental impacts. FNI contacted the United States Forest Service (USFS) and received very useful information regarding proceeding with a pipeline route through the national forest. A summary of the coordination performed can be found in the memorandum “Telephone discussion with Richard Potts, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) regarding the Interbasin Transfer Pipeline,” which is attached in Appendix A. After reviewing the information received, it appears that the pipeline route proposed by this study is tentatively possible. However, this issue would need to be addressed further in future phases of study.

4.6

ESTIMATED SEGMENT COST

The total project would consist of approximately 445,700 feet of 78 inch diameter pipe, a 140 MGD lake pump station, a 140 MGD booster pump station, and a 10 MG ground storage tank. The 78-inch pipeline was estimated to cost $347,000,000, which includes materials, construction, and property acquisition. The Lake Livingston pump station was estimated to cost $24,820,000, but the cost could vary depending on the intake and structural design of the pump station. The Lake Conroe booster pump station and 10 MG ground storage tank were estimated to cost $12,445,000 and $6,500,000, respectively. This results in a total project capital cost of approximately $391,000,000 to transport 100,000 acre-feet of water from Lake Livingston to the Brazos River.

Long Range Water Supply Study – Interbasin Transfer 7/15/2014 Page 6 of 11

5.0

TRINITY TO GCWA WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

A water supply segment to deliver water from the Trinity River to GCWA facilities was developed as an alternative to the pipeline route from Lake Livingston to the Brazos River. The system would transport 100,000 acre-feet of water that was conveyed into the Trinity River by the canal system detailed in Section 3. A pump station on the Trinity River would pump the water into an existing CWA Canal, which would transport the water supply to the Lynchburg Reservoir. From there, a pump station and pipeline would transport the water to the GCWA supply. Two options were developed for the point of entry into the GCWA system: a pipeline to the GCWA Reservoir and a pipeline to the GCWA canal system.

5.1

TRINITY RIVER PUMP STATION

The Proposed Trinity River pump station is estimated to have a total capacity of 140 MGD and be located on the west bank of the Trinity River near the existing CWA pump station. The pump station would pump from the river into the existing CWA sedimentation basin and canal system just west of the Trinity River. The pump station was assumed to pump at approximately 85 MGD for 300 days of the year and 110 MGD for 65 days of the year. This would provide an annual yield of approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The pump station was estimated to have five identical pumps with three capable of variable speed pumping. There are multiple options for the intake design of the pump station. Micro tunneling intake piping into the river was determined to be the preferred option. Micro tunneling would allow the pump station to be constructed away from the river bank. The pump station could be designed similar to the CWA pump station, which has a rectangular intake built into the bank of the river. This would most likely result in a more complicated structural design and has a large potential for complications during construction. A full investigation should be performed to determine the optimal intake design and location for the pump station.

5.2

CWA CANAL IMPROVEMENTS

An existing 22 mile segment of CWA owned canal systems would need to be expanded in order to be utilize the total capacity of the proposed pump station detailed in Section 4.1. As shown on Figure 5-1, canal improvements would begin adjacent to the existing Trinity River pump station and span eight miles southwest past the Cedar Point Lateral and continue fourteen miles into the Lynchburg Reservoir. The canal would be improved to accommodate the increase of 140 MGD from the current maximum capacity of 1,300 MGD upstream and 1,100 MGD downstream of the Cedar Point Lateral. It is assumed that CWA’s approximately 200-foot wide easement could be utilized to provide the required space to increase the canal’s maximum capacity through excavation, widening, and embankment raising. To minimally

Long Range Water Supply Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Interbasin Transfer 7/15/2014 Page 7 of 11 achieve the increase of 100,000 acre-feet per year, the existing 140-foot wide top of banks would be widened by ten feet on each side. The excavated earthwork would then be used to raise the embankment by two feet to allow for an increased freeboard. Armoring of the canal at approximately 23 road crossings would also be necessary to meet the increased water demand in areas where the canal cannot be expanded due to space restrictions.

5.3

LYNCHBURG PUMP STATION

A pump station would need to be constructed on the Lynchburg Reservoir in order to pump water entering the reservoir from the CWA canal. The Proposed Lynchburg pump station is estimated to have a total capacity of 140 MGD and pump to match the Trinity River Pump Station. The pump station would preferably be located on the same site as the existing pump station with an intake pipe installed out to the reservoir. Coordination with CWA would need to be performed in order to determine the location of the pump station and intake design. It is very likely that the site has high groundwater levels, which typically results in more difficult construction methods especially for the foundation and deep excavations of the pump station. A well point system would most likely be required for dewatering along with using sheet piles during excavation. Extensive care of water for dewatering can result in a large expense for pump station construction. A cost of at least $500,000 should be expected for the care of water for the Lynchburg pump station if high groundwater levels are found to exist at the location of the pump station.

5.4

PRELIMINARY PIPELINE ROUTE

Two potential pipeline routes were developed to transport water from the Lynchburg Pump Station to the GCWA Reservoir or one of its channels. The general corridor of the first pipeline option for the southern interbasin transfer transmission system, as seen in Figure 5-2, begins at the Lynchburg Reservoir and runs south to the GCWA Reservoir that is approximately 4 miles southeast of Dickinson, Texas. The area is highly developed and is constrained by water on the east side which limits the number of pipeline options to the reservoir. The length of pipe for the proposed route is approximately 30 miles long and generally runs in a north to south direction. Approximately 9 miles of the proposed pipeline runs parallel with an existing CWA pipeline that runs from the Lynchburg Reservoir south to the City of Houston Southeast Wastewater Plant. The remaining pipeline begins to run in a southeastern direction and primarily follows existing utility easements and roadways until reaching GCWAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reservoir. A second pipeline route option, as seen in Figure 5-3, follows the same existing CWA pipeline easement but then runs in a southern direction to where it outfalls into the GCWA canal system. The majority of the second

Long Range Water Supply Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Interbasin Transfer 7/15/2014 Page 8 of 11 pipeline option runs along roadways between large developments and in some areas it runs along an existing canal between the developments. The length of the second pipeline option is approximately 25 miles.

5.5

PIPELINE HYDRAULICS

Ground elevations of the pipeline were determined in order to analyze the hydraulics of the two routes based on an annual yield of 100,000 acre-feet. It was determined that the most cost effective pipe size for both proposed pipeline routes was a 72-inch pipe. A 66-inch pipe was estimated to be more cost effective; however, the velocity in the pipe was found to be outside of optimal parameters and would result in a large amount of headloss for the system.

5.6

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Both pipeline route options run through large urban areas and near highly established developments. The cost of construction has the potential to be very expensive for both routes. In addition to high construction costs, land acquisition would be costly and difficult to achieve. The urban area greatly limits easement size and availability which would make construction difficult and might require different methods than what might commonly be used. Further evaluation and coordination with existing easements and easement owners would need to be performed to see if running along or in these easements is possible. The proposed pipeline route that runs to the GCWA Reservoir is located near Clear Lake where there is a potential for high groundwater and wet conditions during construction as well as the need for tunneling under several wide water channels that branch from the lake. While the route that outfalls into the GCWA canal system does not have as many wide channels to be tunneled under, it does cross a large highway that is largely developed on one side and runs through large development areas with little to no open space. Construction methods might be limited in the area and could possibly lead to needing to use tunneling methods versus open-cut construction.

5.7

ESTIMATED SEGMENT COST

The total project would consist of a 140 MGD Trinity River pump station, approximately 120,000 feet of canal improvements, a 140 MGD pump station at the Lynchburg Reservoir, and over 100,000 feet of 72 inch diameter pipe. The Trinity River pump station was expected to cost $23,145,000, but the cost could vary depending on the intake design of the pump station. The canal improvements for the CWA Canal were estimated to cost approximately $40,518,000 in order to accommodate the additional 100,000 acre-feet per year. The pump station at the Lynchburg Reservoir was estimated to cost approximately $23,552,000. The pipeline route from the Lynchburg Reservoir to the GCWA Reservoir was estimated to be approximately 149,500 feet of 72 inch diameter pipe with a construction cost of $280,223,600 and property acquisition cost of

Long Range Water Supply Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Interbasin Transfer 7/15/2014 Page 9 of 11 $19,300,000. However, because the pipeline is routed through an urban area, there is a high potential for opposition that would delay or terminate the project. The pipeline route from the Lynchburg Reservoir to the GCWA canal system was estimated to be approximately 132,100 feet of 72 inch diameter pipe with a construction cost of $217,147,500 and property acquisition cost of $19,830,000. Similar to the alternative to the GCWA Reservoir, this pipeline route travels through an urban area and has a high potential for conflicts. The pipeline route from the Lynchburg Reservoir to the GCWA canal system was chosen as the preferred route for this segment due to the lower cost estimated. The total project cost to transport water from the Trinity River to the GCWA canal system was estimated to be $325,000,000.

6.0

RECOMMENDATION

In order to obtain water for current needs, it is recommended that the facilities described above are used to divert water from the Sabine River for transporting to GCWA supplies. The conveyance system would consist of a proposed canal from the Sabine River to the Neches River, the existing LNVA canal and a proposed canal from the Neches to the Trinity River, a proposed pump station and expanding the existing CWA canal from the Trinity River to the Lynchburg Reservoir, and a proposed pump station and pipeline from the Lynchburg Reservoir to the GCWA Reservoir. Detailed cost estimates and pipeline optimization calculations for the system are included in Appendix B. Transporting water from the Trinity River to the Lynchburg Reservoir and then to the GCWA Reservoir is the recommended alternative to transport 100,000 acre-feet of water to GCWA as it is less expensive than the Lake Livingston to Brazos River system. The Lake Livingston to the Brazos River system would likely encounter fewer conflicts than the two southern alternatives, but is much more expensive. The pipeline would become more cost effective for larger flows, and the alternative has the potential to attract additional stakeholders willing to participate to offset costs of the overall project. However, for 100,000 acre-feet, the Livingston to Brazos alternative is not cost effective. Overall, the recommendation for the Interbasin Transfer Strategy is to attract additional stakeholders in order to offset the large infrastructure costs of the project. Also, a conveyance system transporting more than 100,000 acre-feet of water would most likely be more cost effective than the facilities detailed in the memorandum since significant portions of the right-of-way and construction costs are independent from the size of the facilities and other may only see a small increase relative to the increase in water supply provided.

GCW13494

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

FIGURE 2-1

IBT_CANAL_FIGURE

AJB

DATUM NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet DATE 7/11/2014 DRAFTED BY

Proposed Siphons

FILE NAME

PROJECT NO.

S-N Canal

SABINE TO NECHES CANAL ALIGNMENT

GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY

Legend

N-T Segment 1

N-T Segment 2

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

CWA Canal Improvements

Proposed Siphons

FIGURE 3-1 2-1

DRAFTED BY

AJB

DATUM NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet DATE 6/24/2014

IBT_CANAL_FIGURE

GCW13494

Existing LNVA Canals

FILE NAME

PROJECT NO.

Existing CWA Canals

NECHES TO TRINITY CANAL ALIGNMENT

GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY

Legend

Trinity

PROJECT NO.

San Jacinto

Brazos

Booster Pump Station

Montgomery Liberty

Washington Outfall to Brazos River

Legend Proposed Route - Livingston to Brazos Sam Houston National Forrest Federally Owned Land

Waller Harris 0 TomTom, 3.5Source: 7Esri, DigitalGlobe, 14 Copyright:ÂŠ GeoEye, iHarris 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ,

cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISMiles User Community

Gulf Coast Water Authority

Grimes

EJE DRAFTED BY

Lake Pump Station

Livingston to Brazos Pipeline Route

Walker

DATUM NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet DATE 7/11/2014

GCW13494

IBT_Route_Figure_rp.mxd

Polk

FILE NAME

Madison

FIGURE 4-1

Hydraulic Grade Line (Q=50 MGD)

Figure 4-2 78" Raw Water Pipeline Lake Livingston to Brazos River

Pipe Class Lengths: (Q=110.5 MGD) 300 psi: 0 ft 250 psi: 0 ft 200 psi: 65,700 ft 150 psi: 340,100 ft

Hydraulic Grade Line (Q=85 MGD) Hydraulic Grade Line (Q=110.5 MGD) Approximate Ground Line Guage Pressure (psi) (Q=85 MGD) Guage Pressure (psi) (Q=110.5 MGD)

900

300.0

800

200.0

700

100.0

600

Q=110.5 MGD (1.3PF), Dia=78in, C=120, HL=1.05 fpt

0.0

Elev=594 Elev=529

Elev=565 Q=85 MGD (1.0PF), Dia=78in, C=120, HL=0.62 fpt Elev=498

Q=50 MGD (0.59 PF), Dia=78in, C=120, HL=0.23 fpt

500

Elev=464

400

‐100.0

Elev=440

‐200.0

Elev=390

300

‐300.0

200

‐400.0

Valve Station at Brazos River Elev=145

Lake Livingston Pump Station Elev=140

100

‐500.0 0

50000

100000

150000

Note: Ground line obtained from TNRIS Quad Maps with 10' contours. Minor losses are not accounted for in HGL calculations.

200000 Station (ft)

250000

300000

350000

400000

Pressure (psi, Scale Applies to Pipe Pressure and Pressure Class)

Elevation (ft‐msl, Scale Applies to Ground Line and HGL's)

Required Press Class (psi)

Miles Existing CWA Canals

Existing LNVA Canals

N-T Segment 2

Proposed Siphons

Existing CWA Pipelines

FIGURE 4-1 5-1

AJB

DATUM NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet DATE 6/24/2014

IBT_CANAL_FIGURE

CWA Canal Improvements

DRAFTED BY

Legend

TRINITY TO SAN JACINTO CANAL IMPROVEMENTS

N-T Segment 1 GCW13494

FILE NAME

PROJECT NO.

2.5

GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY

Legend

Proposed Pipeline Lynchburg PS to GCWA Reservoir

GCWA Canals

American Canal; Jones Creek; Oyster Creek; Lateral 10; System A - New Extension

Briscoe Canal; Ranch Canal; Monsanto Canal Chocolate Bayou System

Galveston System

Juliff Canal System

1.5

Miles

Copyright:ÂŠ 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY

LYNCHBURG PS TO GCWA RESERVOIR PIPELINE ROUTE - OPTION 1

PROJECT NO. FILE NAME

GCW13494

Figure_Res.mxd

DATUM NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas South Central FIPS 4204 Feet DATE DRAFTED BY

7/11/2014

FIGURE 5-2

Legend Proposed Pipeline Lynchburg PS to GCWA Channel

GCWA Canals

American Canal; Jones Creek; Oyster Creek; Lateral 10; System A New Extension

Briscoe Canal; Ranch Canal; Monsanto Canal Chocolate Bayou System

Galveston System

Juliff Canal System

1.5

Miles

Copyright:ÂŠ 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY

LYNCHBURG PS TO GCWA CANAL PIPELINE ROUTE - OPTION 2

PROJECT NO. FILE NAME

GCW13494

Figure_Channel.mxd

DATUM NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas South Central FIPS 4204 Feet DATE DRAFTED BY

7/10/2014

FIGURE 5-3

Long Range Water Supply Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Interbasin Transfer 7/15/2014 Page 10 of 11

Appendix A Telephone discussion with Richard Potts, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) regarding the Interbasin Transfer Pipeline

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Jason Afinowicz, Eric Engelskirchen

CC: FROM:

Dan Gise

SUBJECT:

Telephone discussion with Richard Potts, U. S. Forest Service (USFS) regarding the Interbasin Transfer Pipeline January 9, 2014

DATE:

At 9:30 AM on January 9, 2014, I spoke with Robert Potts with the USFS regarding the potential development of an Interbasin Transfer Pipeline route through the Sam Houston National Forest. Mr. Potts is the Natural Resources and Planning Team Leader for the USFS for the State of Texas. I asked Mr. Potts about the issues associated with the pipeline if it did not affect federally owned property. He stated that he did not think that there was federal review required if the pipeline did not go through federal properties, but cautioned that this may need to be verified through attorneys. I then asked him about crossing the Lone Star Trail and the federal review required to cross the Trail in a portion of the trail not on federally owned property. Note: much of the length of the Trail lies outside the part of the National Forest Proclamation Area that is federally owned. The Proclamation Area is the area within which the USFS may purchase properties for inclusion in the National Forest; however, not all of the land within the Proclamation Area may be federally owned. Mr. Potts stated that federal involvement in crossing the Trail would likely depend on the conditions within whatever legal instrument was used for acquiring the easement. He suggested speaking with Mary Hughes Frye, the Recreational and Special Use Easement Task Leader. Her number is 936-639-8528. It was his opinion that boring the pipeline, in contrast with open trenching, would have no impact on the USFS process since both activities would be considered earth disturbing activities and would be viewed similarly. Mr. Potts stated that the Sierra Club is very active in regard to the Sam Houston National Forest, but that the USFS has had many dealings with the Sierra Club over the years and that they are reasonable. A second group that may need to be consulted would be the Texas Conservation Alliance. Any planning for a pipeline route should at least involve the Sierra Club. My suggestion would be to involve the Sierra Club early in the process to identify their issues and see how they would best be resolved, if feasible. Mr. Potts stated that the best alternative may not be to avoid federal property. An example he provided would be routing a pipeline through federal property through an existing easement as opposed to using a new easement on new location through a heavily forested area. He also stated that one of the big issues in the Sam Houston National Forest is the red-cockaded woodpecker, a federal endangered species. This species would also need to be considered on non-federal lands as well. He suggested further conversations with the USFS and Sierra Club in the future to help with route planning. I concur with his suggestion.

Long Range Water Supply Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Interbasin Transfer 7/15/2014 Page 11 of 11

Appendix B Cost Estimates and Pipeline Optimization Calculations

June 25, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Sabine to Neches Canal System

ESTIMATOR AJB ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY CMC QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 3 4 5

MOBILIZATION (NTE 5% OF TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT) EXCAVATION FILL (COMPACTED CLASS II EARTH FILL) HAUL (SPOILS)

$6,696,000 1 220,000 88,000 132,000

LS CY CY CY

$3,000,000.00 $7.50 $15.00 $5.50

1 LS 31 EA 21 EA

$54,680,000.00 $350,000.00 $75,000.00

$54,680,000 $10,850,000 $1,575,000

35%

$73,801,000 $25,830,350

CONSTRUCTION OF SEGMENT 1 2 3

TOTAL

$3,000,000 $1,650,000 $1,320,000 $726,000 $67,105,000

SIPHON CROSSINGS (60 CROSSINGS) MAJOR SIPHON CROSSING - CARE OF WATER MINOR SIPHON CROSSING - CARE OF WATER

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$99,631,400

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 1

ORANGE COUNTY LAND ACQUISITION/PERMANENT EASEMENT COST (20 MILE LONG CANAL)

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$2,156,112 279 AC

$7,728.00

$2,156,112

$2,156,112 $101,788,000

June 25, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Neches to Trinity Canal System

ESTIMATOR AJB ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY CMC QUANTITY

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494

UNIT

UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4

MOBILIZATION (NTE 5% OF TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT) EXCAVATION FILL (COMPACTED CLASS II EARTH FILL) HAUL (SPOILS)

1 2 3

SIPHON CROSSINGS (19 CROSSINGS) MAJOR SIPHON CROSSING - CARE OF WATER MINOR SIPHON CROSSING - CARE OF WATER

1 2 3

SIPHON CROSSING (5 CROSSINGS) MAJOR SIPHON CROSSING - CARE OF WATER MINOR SIPHON CROSSING - CARE OF WATER

TOTAL $4,179,533

1 189,258 75,703 113,555

LS CY CY CY

$1,000,000.00 $7.50 $15.00 $5.50

$1,000,000.00 $1,419,435.00 $1,135,545.00 $624,552.50

1 7 12

LS EA EA

$17,760,000.00 $350,000.00 $75,000.00

$17,760,000.00 $2,450,000.00 $900,000.00

1 1 4

LS EA EA

$7,800,000.00 $350,000.00 $75,000.00

$7,800,000.00 $350,000.00 $300,000.00

35%

$33,739,533 $11,808,836

CONSTRUCTION OF SEGEMENT 1

$21,110,000

CONSTRUCTION OF SEGMENT 2

$8,450,000

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$45,548,400

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 1 2

LIBERTY COUNTY LAND ACQUISITION/PERMANENT EASEMENT COST (11 MILE LONG CANAL) LIBERTY COUNTY LAND ACQUISITION/PERMANENT EASEMENT COST (3 MILE LONG CANAL)

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$1,707,888 178 AC 43 AC

$7,728.00 $7,728.00

$1,375,584 $332,304

$1,707,888 $47,256,000

June 25, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Trinity to San Jacinto River Basin Canal System

ESTIMATOR AJB ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY CMC QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4

MOBILIZATION (NTE 5% OF TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT) EXCAVATION FILL (COMPACTED CLASS II EARTH FILL) HAUL (SPOILS)

$18,182,000 1 968,000 484,000 484,000

LS CY CY CY

$1,000,000.00 $7.50 $15.00 $5.50

CONSTRUCTION OF SEGMENT 1 2

TOTAL

$1,000,000 $7,260,000 $7,260,000 $2,662,000 $10,350,000

CARE OF WATER AT EACH CROSSING ARMORING AT ROAD CROSSINGS

23 EA 23 EA

Subtotal Contingency

$350,000.00 $100,000.00

$8,050,000 $2,300,000

35%

$28,532,000 $9,986,200

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$38,518,200

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 1

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES (22 MILE LONG CANAL)

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$2,000,000 1 EA

$2,000,000.00

$2,000,000

$2,000,000 $40,518,000

June 25, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lake Livingston Pump Station - 110.5 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Care of Water Intake Structure Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves 78" Pump Cans 28 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps 30" Pump Discharge Piping and Valves 30" Ball Valve 30" Butterfly Valve 78" Discharge Header Bridge Crane Pump Station Building and Foundation (190' x 100') Access Roads and Site Work Miscellaneous Mechanical Electrical and Instrumentation

1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 125 1 19000 1 1 1

LS LS LS EA EA EA EA EA LF EA SF LS LS LS

Subtotal Contingency

TOTAL

$500,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $25,000 $750,000 $20,000 $200,000 $5,000 $1,175 $250,000 $200 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $3,799,000

$18,995,875 $500,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $125,000 $3,750,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $25,000 $146,875 $250,000 $3,800,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $3,799,000

30%

$18,995,875 $5,698,763

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$24,694,600

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 15 16

Land Acquisition Legal Fees Property Acquisition

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

1 EA 1 ACRE

$25,000 $100,000

$125,000 $25,000 $100,000

$125,000 $24,820,000

June 25, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lake Conroe Booster Pump Station - 110.5 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Connection to Water Transmission Pipeline Suction Piping and Valves 28 MGD Horizontal Split Case Pumps 30" Pump Discharge Piping and Valves 30" Ball Valve 30" Butterfly Valve 78" Discharge Header Bridge Crane Pump Station Building and Foundation (150' x 90') Access Roads and Site Work 10 MG Ground Storage Tank Electrical and Instrumentation

1 1 5 5 5 5 125 1 13500 1 1 1

LS LS EA EA EA EA LF EA SF LS LS LS

Subtotal Contingency

TOTAL

$100,000 $100,000 $600,000 $20,000 $200,000 $5,000 $1,175 $250,000 $200 $250,000 $5,000,000.00 $1,805,000

$14,476,875 $100,000 $100,000 $3,000,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $25,000 $146,875 $250,000 $2,700,000 $250,000 $5,000,000 $1,805,000

30%

$14,476,875 $4,343,063

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$18,819,900

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14

Land Acquisition Legal Fees Property Acquisition

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

1 EA 1 ACRE

$25,000 $100,000

$125,000 $25,000 $100,000

$125,000 $18,945,000

June 25, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Trinity River Pump Station - 110.5 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 125 1 19000 1 1 1

LS LS LS EA EA EA EA EA LF EA SF LS LS LS

Subtotal Contingency

TOTAL

$500,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $25,000 $750,000 $20,000 $200,000 $5,000 $1,175 $250,000 $200 $500,000 $1,000,000 $3,549,000

$17,745,875 $500,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $125,000 $3,750,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $25,000 $146,875 $250,000 $3,800,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $3,549,000

30%

$17,745,875 $5,323,763

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$23,069,600

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 15 16

Land Acquisition Legal Fees Property Acquisition

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

1 EA 1 ACRE

$25,000 $50,000

$75,000 $25,000 $50,000

$75,000 $23,145,000

June 25, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lynchburg Pump Station - 110.5 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 125 1 19000 1 1 1

LS LS LS EA EA EA EA EA LF EA SF LS LS LS

Subtotal Contingency

TOTAL

$750,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $25,000 $750,000 $20,000 $200,000 $5,000 $1,175 $250,000 $200 $500,000 $1,000,000 $3,612,000

$18,058,875 $750,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $125,000 $3,750,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $25,000 $146,875 $250,000 $3,800,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $3,612,000

30%

$18,058,875 $5,417,663

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$23,476,500

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 15 16

Land Acquisition Legal Fees Property Acquisition

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

1 EA 1 ACRE

$25,000 $50,000

$75,000 $25,000 $50,000

$75,000 $23,552,000

Gulf Coast Water Authority Interbasin Transfer ‐ Livingston to Brazos Pipeline Diameter Optimization Preferred Route Assumptions: 100,000 Acre-ft Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF 85 MGD 1.3 PF 110.5 MGD TOTAL

Date

300 Days 65 Days 365 Days

Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Power Required (1.3 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.3 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

By:

EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

78252 Acre‐ft 22041 Acre‐ft 100292 Acre‐ft

Parameters

Peak Flow Velocity Check 1.3 PF Flow, MGD 1.3 PF Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data Navasota River Outfall, ft‐msl Livingston Water Level, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Pump Head Calculation (1.3 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr

6/25/2014

Pipe Diameter 60

110.5 8.67

110.5 7.16

110.5 6.02

110.5 5.13

110.5 4.42

85 6.67

85 5.51

85 4.63

85 3.94

85 3.40

175 131

445,700 445,700 120

44 991 1,035

44 623 667

44 408 452

44 277 321

44 193 237

44 1,610 1,654

44 1,013 1,057

44 663 707

44 449 493

44 313 357

75 20,594 15,357 300 7,200 110,568,717

75 13,277 9,901 300 7,200 71,284,317

75 8,997 6,709 300 7,200 48,302,590

75 6,377 4,755 300 7,200 34,237,795

75 4,711 3,513 300 7,200 25,296,080

$ 0.10

$ 11,056,872 $ 7,128,432

$ 4,830,259

$ 3,423,779

$ 2,529,608

75 42,787 31,907 65 1,560 49,774,308

75 27,333 20,382 65 1,560 31,795,919

75 18,292 13,640 65 1,560 21,278,400

75 12,758 9,514 65 1,560 14,841,688

75 9,241 6,891 65 1,560 10,749,539

$ 0.10

$ 4,977,431 $ 3,179,592 $ 2,127,840 $ 1,484,169 $ 1,074,954 $ 262,804,000 $ 286,407,000 $ 310,011,000 $ 346,789,000 $ 386,303,000 4.5 30

4.5 30

$ 16,133,943 $ 17,582,968 $ 19,032,054 $ 21,289,912 $ 23,715,737 $ 32,168,246 $ 27,890,991 $ 25,990,153 $ 26,197,860 $ 27,320,299

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\Task_04-Water_Management_Strategies\4D15_1_IBT\Pipeline\Pipeline Optimization 100,000 AC-FT

7/15/2014

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Livingston to Brazos Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO SJR11328 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

60‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 60‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (84‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

TOTAL $204,157,103

439,500 6,200 439,500 74 5 74 1 37 303 445,700 445,700 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$420.00 $1,260.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $45,000.00 $15,000.00 $50,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $5,946,323.00

$184,590,000 $7,812,000 $439,500 $1,480,000 $225,000 $1,110,000 $50,000 $370,000 $351,480 $891,400 $891,400 $5,946,323

20%

$204,157,103 $40,831,421

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$244,988,500

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$17,815,000 200 EA 307 ACRE 614 ACRE

$20,000.00 $25,000.00 $10,000.00

$4,000,000 $7,675,000 $6,140,000

$17,815,000 $262,804,000

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Livingston to Brazos Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

66‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 66‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (90‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

TOTAL $223,827,013

439,500 6,200 439,500 74 5 74 1 37 303 445,700 445,700 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$462.00 $1,350.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $15,000.00 $55,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $6,519,233.00

$203,049,000 $8,370,000 $439,500 $1,480,000 $300,000 $1,110,000 $55,000 $370,000 $351,480 $891,400 $891,400 $6,519,233

20%

$223,827,013 $44,765,403

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$268,592,400

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$17,815,000 200 EA 307 ACRE 614 ACRE

$20,000.00 $25,000.00 $10,000.00

$4,000,000 $7,675,000 $6,140,000

$17,815,000 $286,407,000

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Livingston to Brazos Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

72‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 72‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (96‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

TOTAL $243,496,923

439,500 6,200 439,500 74 5 74 1 37 303 445,700 445,700 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$504.00 $1,440.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $75,000.00 $15,000.00 $60,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $7,092,143.00

$221,508,000 $8,928,000 $439,500 $1,480,000 $375,000 $1,110,000 $60,000 $370,000 $351,480 $891,400 $891,400 $7,092,143

20%

$243,496,923 $48,699,385

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$292,196,300

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$17,815,000 200 EA 307 ACRE 614 ACRE

$20,000.00 $25,000.00 $10,000.00

$4,000,000 $7,675,000 $6,140,000

$17,815,000 $310,011,000

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Livingston to Brazos Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

78‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 78‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (102‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

TOTAL $272,019,941

439,500 6,200 439,500 74 5 74 1 37 303 445,700 445,700 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$565.50 $1,530.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $95,000.00 $15,000.00 $65,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $7,922,911.00

$248,537,250 $9,486,000 $439,500 $1,480,000 $475,000 $1,110,000 $65,000 $370,000 $351,480 $891,400 $891,400 $7,922,911

20%

$272,019,941 $54,403,988

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$326,423,900

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 40‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$20,365,000 200 EA 409 ACRE 614 ACRE

$20,000.00 $25,000.00 $10,000.00

$4,000,000 $10,225,000 $6,140,000

$20,365,000 $346,789,000

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Livingston to Brazos Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

84‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 84‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (108‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

TOTAL $301,952,513

439,500 6,200 439,500 74 5 74 1 37 303 445,700 445,700 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$630.00 $1,620.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $125,000.00 $15,000.00 $70,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $8,794,733.00

$276,885,000 $10,044,000 $439,500 $1,480,000 $625,000 $1,110,000 $70,000 $370,000 $351,480 $891,400 $891,400 $8,794,733

20%

$301,952,513 $60,390,503

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$362,343,000

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 50‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 70‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$23,960,000 200 EA 512 ACRE 716 ACRE

$20,000.00 $25,000.00 $10,000.00

$4,000,000 $12,800,000 $7,160,000

$23,960,000 $386,303,000

Gulf Coast Water Authority Interbasin Transfer ‐ Lynchburg to GCWA Reservoir Pipeline Diameter Optimization Preferred Route Assumptions: 100,000 Acre-ft Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF 85 MGD 1.3 PF 110.5 MGD TOTAL

300 Days 65 Days 365 Days

2/26/2014

By:

RP/EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

78252 Acre‐ft 22041 Acre‐ft 100292 Acre‐ft

Parameters

Peak Flow Velocity Check 1.3 PF Flow, MGD 1.3 PF Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data GCWA Reservoir, ft‐msl Lynchburg PS, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Pump Head Calculation (1.3 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr

Date

Pipe Diameter 60

110.5 8.67

110.5 7.16

110.5 6.02

110.5 5.13

110.5 4.42

85 6.67

85 5.51

85 4.63

85 3.94

85 3.40

15 24

149,500 149,500 120

‐9 332 323

‐9 209 200

‐9 137 128

‐9 93 84

‐9 65 56

‐9 540 531

‐9 340 331

‐9 222 213

‐9 151 142

‐9 105 96

75 6,435 4,799 300 7,200 34,549,815

75 3,981 2,968 300 7,200 21,372,750

75 2,545 1,898 300 7,200 13,664,049

75 1,666 1,243 300 7,200 8,946,331

75 1,108 826 300 7,200 5,947,035

$ 0.09

$ 3,109,483

$ 1,923,548

$ 1,229,764

$ 805,170

$ 535,233

75 13,738 10,244 65 1,560 15,980,808

75 8,554 6,378 65 1,560 9,950,363

75 5,521 4,117 65 1,560 6,422,499

75 3,665 2,733 65 1,560 4,263,449

75 2,485 1,853 65 1,560 2,890,830

$ 0.09

$ 1,438,273 $ 895,533 $ 578,025 $ 383,710 $ 260,175 $ 255,784,000 $ 277,654,000 $ 299,524,000 $ 321,530,000 $ 349,895,000 5 25

5 25

$ 18,148,503 $ 19,700,234 $ 21,251,964 $ 22,813,344 $ 24,825,910 $ 22,696,259 $ 22,519,314 $ 23,059,753 $ 24,002,224 $ 25,621,318

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\Task_04-Water_Management_Strategies\4D15_1_IBT\Pipeline\Pipeline OptimizationRES_rp 100,000 AC-FT

7/15/2014

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lynchburg to GCWA Reservoir Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR RP ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

60‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 60‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (84‐INCH CASING) SHIP CHANNEL CROSSING CLEAR LAKE TUNNEL TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (5%)

TOTAL $181,910,400

160,000 3,600 2,250 3,500 160,000 27 5 27 1 14 110 160,000 160,000 1

LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$900.00 $1,680.00 $3,840.00 $2,880.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $75,000.00 $15,000.00 $160,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $8.00 $5.00 $8,662,400.00

$144,000,000 $6,048,000 $8,640,000 $10,080,000 $160,000 $540,000 $375,000 $405,000 $160,000 $210,000 $550,000 $1,280,000 $800,000 $8,662,400

30%

$181,910,400 $54,573,120

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$236,483,500

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 15 16 17

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$19,300,000 500 EA 110 ACRE 220 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$5,000,000 $7,700,000 $6,600,000

$19,300,000 $255,784,000

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lynchburg to GCWA Reservoir Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR RP ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

66‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 66‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (90‐INCH CASING) SHIP CHANNEL CROSSING CLEAR LAKE TUNNEL TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (5%)

TOTAL $198,733,500

160,000 3,600 2,250 3,500 160,000 27 5 27 1 14 110 160,000 160,000 1

LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$990.00 $1,800.00 $4,080.00 $3,060.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $75,000.00 $15,000.00 $180,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $8.00 $5.00 $9,463,500.00

$158,400,000 $6,480,000 $9,180,000 $10,710,000 $160,000 $540,000 $375,000 $405,000 $180,000 $210,000 $550,000 $1,280,000 $800,000 $9,463,500

30%

$198,733,500 $59,620,050

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$258,353,600

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 15 16 17

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$19,300,000 500 EA 110 ACRE 220 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$5,000,000 $7,700,000 $6,600,000

$19,300,000 $277,654,000

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lynchburg to GCWA Reservoir Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR RP ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

72‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 72‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (96‐INCH CASING) SHIP CHANNEL CROSSING CLEAR LAKE TUNNEL TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (5%)

TOTAL $215,556,600

160,000 3,600 2,250 3,500 160,000 27 5 27 1 14 110 160,000 160,000 1

LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$1,080.00 $1,920.00 $4,320.00 $3,240.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $75,000.00 $15,000.00 $200,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $8.00 $5.00 $10,264,600.00

$172,800,000 $6,912,000 $9,720,000 $11,340,000 $160,000 $540,000 $375,000 $405,000 $200,000 $210,000 $550,000 $1,280,000 $800,000 $10,264,600

30%

$215,556,600 $64,666,980

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$280,223,600

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 15 16 17

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$19,300,000 500 EA 110 ACRE 220 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$5,000,000 $7,700,000 $6,600,000

$19,300,000 $299,524,000

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lynchburg to GCWA Reservoir Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR RP ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

78‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 78‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (102‐INCH CASING) SHIP CHANNEL CROSSING CLEAR LAKE TUNNEL TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (5%)

TOTAL $232,484,700

160,000 3,600 2,250 3,500 160,000 27 5 27 1 14 110 160,000 160,000 1

LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$1,170.00 $2,040.00 $4,560.00 $3,420.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $95,000.00 $15,000.00 $220,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $8.00 $5.00 $11,070,700.00

$187,200,000 $7,344,000 $10,260,000 $11,970,000 $160,000 $540,000 $475,000 $405,000 $220,000 $210,000 $550,000 $1,280,000 $800,000 $11,070,700

30%

$232,484,700 $69,745,410

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$302,230,100

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 15 16 17

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$19,300,000 500 EA 110 ACRE 220 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$5,000,000 $7,700,000 $6,600,000

$19,300,000 $321,530,000

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lynchburg to GCWA Reservoir Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR RP ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

84‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 84‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (108‐INCH CASING) SHIP CHANNEL CROSSING CLEAR LAKE TUNNEL TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (5%)

TOTAL $249,465,300

160,000 3,600 2,250 3,500 160,000 27 5 27 1 14 110 160,000 160,000 1

LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$1,260.00 $2,160.00 $4,800.00 $3,600.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $125,000.00 $15,000.00 $240,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $8.00 $5.00 $11,879,300.00

$201,600,000 $7,776,000 $10,800,000 $12,600,000 $160,000 $540,000 $625,000 $405,000 $240,000 $210,000 $550,000 $1,280,000 $800,000 $11,879,300

30%

$249,465,300 $74,839,590

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$324,304,900

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 15 16 17

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 50‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 70‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$25,590,000 500 EA 184 ACRE 257 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$5,000,000 $12,880,000 $7,710,000

$25,590,000 $349,895,000

Gulf Coast Water Authority Interbasin Transfer ‐ Lynchburg to GCWA Canal Pipeline Diameter Optimization Preferred Route Assumptions: 100,000 Acre-ft Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF 85 MGD 1.3 PF 110.5 MGD TOTAL

2/26/2014

By:

RP/EJE

Chk'd:

300 Days 65 Days 365 Days

JVW

78252 Acre‐ft 22041 Acre‐ft 100292 Acre‐ft

Parameters

Peak Flow Velocity Check 1.3 PF Flow, MGD 1.3 PF Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data GCWA Channel, ft‐msl Lynchburg PS, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Pump Head Calculation (1.3 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr

Date

Pipe Diameter 60

110.5 8.67

110.5 7.16

110.5 6.02

110.5 5.13

110.5 4.42

85 6.67

85 5.51

85 4.63

85 3.94

85 3.40

30 24

132,100 132,100 120

6 294 300

6 185 191

6 121 127

6 82 88

6 57 63

6 477 483

6 300 306

6 197 203

6 133 139

6 93 99

75 5,964 4,447 300 7,200 32,019,068

75 3,795 2,830 300 7,200 20,375,655

75 2,526 1,884 300 7,200 13,564,154

75 1,750 1,305 300 7,200 9,395,521

75 1,256 937 300 7,200 6,745,307

$ 0.09

$ 2,881,716

$ 1,833,809

$ 1,220,774

$ 845,597

$ 607,078

75 12,500 9,321 65 1,560 14,540,640

75 7,919 5,905 65 1,560 9,212,067

75 5,239 3,907 65 1,560 6,094,803

75 3,599 2,684 65 1,560 4,187,041

75 2,557 1,907 65 1,560 2,974,178

$ 0.09

$ 1,308,658 $ 829,086 $ 548,532 $ 376,834 $ 267,676 $ 202,500,000 $ 219,739,000 $ 236,978,000 $ 254,353,000 $ 276,966,000 5 25

5 25

$ 14,367,873 $ 15,591,022 $ 16,814,171 $ 18,046,970 $ 19,651,418 $ 18,558,246 $ 18,253,917 $ 18,583,478 $ 19,269,401 $ 20,526,172

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\Task_04-Water_Management_Strategies\4D15_1_IBT\Pipeline\Pipeline OptimizationCHANNEL_rp 100,000 AC-FT

7/15/2014

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lynchburg to GCWA Canal System Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR RP ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO SJR11328 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

60‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 60‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (84‐INCH CASING) SHIP CHANNEL CROSSING TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (5%)

TOTAL $140,515,620

132,100 1,500 2,250 132,100 22 5 22 1 11 91 132,100 132,100 1

LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$900.00 $1,680.00 $3,840.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $75,000.00 $15,000.00 $160,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $8.00 $5.00 $6,691,220.00

$118,890,000 $2,520,000 $8,640,000 $132,100 $440,000 $375,000 $330,000 $160,000 $165,000 $455,000 $1,056,800 $660,500 $6,691,220

30%

$140,515,620 $42,154,686

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$182,670,300

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$19,830,000 800 EA 91 ACRE 182 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$8,000,000 $6,370,000 $5,460,000

$19,830,000 $202,500,000

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lynchburg to GCWA Canal System Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR RP ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

66‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 66‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (90‐INCH CASING) SHIP CHANNEL CROSSING TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (5%)

TOTAL $153,776,070

132,100 1,500 2,250 132,100 22 5 22 1 11 91 132,100 132,100 1

LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$990.00 $1,800.00 $4,080.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $75,000.00 $15,000.00 $180,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $8.00 $5.00 $7,322,670.00

$130,779,000 $2,700,000 $9,180,000 $132,100 $440,000 $375,000 $330,000 $180,000 $165,000 $455,000 $1,056,800 $660,500 $7,322,670

30%

$153,776,070 $46,132,821

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$199,908,900

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$19,830,000 800 EA 91 ACRE 182 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$8,000,000 $6,370,000 $5,460,000

$19,830,000 $219,739,000

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lynchburg to GCWA Canal System Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR RP ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

72‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 72‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (96‐INCH CASING) SHIP CHANNEL CROSSING TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (5%)

TOTAL $167,036,520

132,100 1,500 2,250 132,100 22 5 22 1 11 91 132,100 132,100 1

LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$1,080.00 $1,920.00 $4,320.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $75,000.00 $15,000.00 $200,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $8.00 $5.00 $7,954,120.00

$142,668,000 $2,880,000 $9,720,000 $132,100 $440,000 $375,000 $330,000 $200,000 $165,000 $455,000 $1,056,800 $660,500 $7,954,120

30%

$167,036,520 $50,110,956

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$217,147,500

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$19,830,000 800 EA 91 ACRE 182 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$8,000,000 $6,370,000 $5,460,000

$19,830,000 $236,978,000

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lynchburg to GCWA Canal System Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR RP ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

78‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 78‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (102‐INCH CASING) SHIP CHANNEL CROSSING TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (5%)

TOTAL $180,401,970

132,100 1,500 2,250 132,100 22 5 22 1 11 91 132,100 132,100 1

LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$1,170.00 $2,040.00 $4,560.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $95,000.00 $15,000.00 $220,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $8.00 $5.00 $8,590,570.00

$154,557,000 $3,060,000 $10,260,000 $132,100 $440,000 $475,000 $330,000 $220,000 $165,000 $455,000 $1,056,800 $660,500 $8,590,570

30%

$180,401,970 $54,120,591

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$234,522,600

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$19,830,000 800 EA 91 ACRE 182 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$8,000,000 $6,370,000 $5,460,000

$19,830,000 $254,353,000

January 17, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Lynchburg to GCWA Canal System Pipeline OPCC

ESTIMATOR RP ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

84‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 84‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (108‐INCH CASING) SHIP CHANNEL CROSSING TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES OUTFALL STRUCTURE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (5%)

TOTAL $193,819,920

132,100 1,500 2,250 132,100 22 5 22 1 11 91 132,100 132,100 1

LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$1,260.00 $2,160.00 $4,800.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $125,000.00 $15,000.00 $240,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $8.00 $5.00 $9,229,520.00

$166,446,000 $3,240,000 $10,800,000 $132,100 $440,000 $625,000 $330,000 $240,000 $165,000 $455,000 $1,056,800 $660,500 $9,229,520

30%

$193,819,920 $58,145,976

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$251,965,900

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 50‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 70‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$25,000,000 800 EA 152 ACRE 212 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$8,000,000 $10,640,000 $6,360,000

$25,000,000 $276,966,000

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

APPENDIX E SEWPP TREATED WATER

TO: CC: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE:

1.0

Gulf Coast Water Authority FN0907c Leo M. Weinberg, PE Long Range Water Supply Study – Southeast Water Purification Plant (SEWPP) August 11, 2014

INTRODUCTION

Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) worked with the Gulf Coast Water Authority (GCWA) to narrow and further evaluate alternatives from the Long Range Water Supply Study to meet GCWA’s raw and treated water needs. This memorandum presents the SEWPP alternative. It evaluates the objective to develop an additional 20-MGD, reliable supply on either a temporary or permanent basis. This memorandum presents a brief history of the SEWPP; the current ownership of the treatment facilities and the treated water transmission system; and GCWA options and considerations for controlling an additional 20-MGD of capacity.

2.0

SEWPP BACKGROUND

The Southeast Water Purification Plant (SEWPP) is located at 3100 Genoa-Red Bluff Rd. in Houston, TX 77034. It is a conventional surface water treatment plant consisting of coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation and filtration processes. Chloraminated raw water is received from the Coastal Water Authority (CWA) via direct pipeline. The plant was constructed in three phases. •

Phase 1, circa 1987, initial construction with a capacity of 80-mgd.

•

Phase 2, circa 2001, plant capacity was increased from 80- to 120-mgd.

•

Phase 3, completed in 2011, known as the “200 MGD Project”. It increased production capacity from 120- to 200-mgd; and the plant’s pumping capacity to 255 MGD.

Various municipalities and authorities participated in planning and capital funding of the plant. A “Cost Sharing Agreement” or “Restated and Amended Cost Sharing Agreement” (Agreement) is associated with each construction phase.

August 11, 2014 Page 2 of 11 The Agreement provides that the City of Houston is the Managing Participant, responsible for management and administration duties. The other municipalities and agencies, excluding the City of Houston, are collectively referred to as the Co-Participants. Together, these “Participants” individually own shares of the SEWPP production capacity, and the principle potable water transmission mains. The 2006 Cost Sharing Agreement, Exhibit F “Calculation of Total Gallons By Participant” lists the “Demand Allocation” and the “Pumping Allocation” for each Participant. The allocations are based on each Participant’s capital investment in the design and construction of the SEWPP. Table 1 summarizes this information. TABLE 1: SEWPP TREATMENT CAPACITY OWNERSHIP BY PARTICIPANT Demand1 Allocation (MGD)

Pumping2 Allocation (MGD)

Houston (Managing Participant)

69.1375

88.9005

Gulf Coast Water Authority (GCWA)

31.5000

Clear Lake City Water Authority (CLCWA)

24.0000

36.5100

Clearbrook City MUD

2.5000

3.8455

LaPorte Area Water Authority

7.8000

9.7500

Harris County Municipal Utility District 55 (MUD 55)

3.4625

4.2520

40.0000

52.7660

City of South Houston

3.7500

City of Webster

4.0500

5.8310

12.0000

14.5200

1.8000

3.3750

200.0000

255.0000

SEWPP Participants

City of Pasadena

City of Friendswood Baybrook Municipal Utility District 1 (Mud 1) Plant Capacity

1. Demand Allocation is based on the rated design capacity of the plant. 2. Pumping Allocation is based on the peak firm capacity of the high service pump station.

Table 2 presents “Distribution Allocation” information that is also listed in Exhibit F of the 2006 Cost Sharing Agreement. The Distribution Allocation refers to the Participants allocation of the 96-inch and Beamer Road 36-inch transmission mains. Table 2 also includes information from Exhibit G in the 2006 Cost Sharing Agreement concerning the Participant’s capacity in the Highway 3, 42-inch transmission line. Figure 1, at the end of this Technical Memo, is from the 2006 Cost Sharing Agreement and is a graphical view of this information.

August 11, 2014 Page 3 of 11 TABLE 2: SEWPP PARTICIPANT SHARES OF TRANSMISSION MAINS 96-inch

Participant

42-inch to Beamer

Northern 10k-lf

33.17

15.00

5.00

18.1675

Baybrook Mud 1

3.38

0.00

3.3750

Clear Brook Mud

3.85

0.00

0.0000

Clear Lake City

36.51

0.00

9.1200

Friendswood

14.52

9.68

4.8400

128.08

218.25

10.25

14.10

1.1583

LaPorte

0.00

0.0000

Mud 55

4.25

1.36

2.8920

16.67

0.00

0.0000

South Houston

3.75

0.00

0.0000

Webster

5.83

1.86

3.9710

250.00

32.00

43.5238

Houston

Pasadena

Total Capacity (MGD)

Southern 26k-lf

42-inch

SEWPP to 42-inch

GCWA

3.0

Beamer Rd. 36-inch

96-inch S. Hwy 3

AVAILABILITY TO CONTRACT ADDITIONAL WATER FROM THE SEWPP

The SEWPP was originally constructed and later expanded based on the cumulative expected needs of the Participants. Each Participant paid the capital construction cost for their share of the treatment plant capacity and for their respective capacity in the transmission/distribution system. None of the plant capacity was built on spec, or in the anticipation of future sale. Therefore, in order to obtain more SEWPP water, there are basically three options: •

Purchase all or part of another Participant’s share, or

•

Contribute the capital to design and construct additional capacity. This would likely involve additional agreements amongst the Participants,

•

Temporarily own more SEWPP water. This would involve an agreement between GCWA and one or more of the other Participants that, owns more SEWPP capacity than currently needed. The agreement would define the amount and duration of the temporary ownership.

August 11, 2014 Page 4 of 11 If GCWA is successful in moving forward with one of the above options, it will also need to consider how to convey the newly acquired water to its destination. For example, the City of Pasadena owns quite a bit more plant capacity than it has used, or is projected to use for the foreseeable future. However, because the City of Pasadena’s metering station is on the SEWPP site, it does not own a comparable share of the SEWPP transmission system.

4.0

AVAILABILITY TO TAKE ADDITIONAL WATER WITHOUT CONTRACT

One topic that is not addressed in the Agreements between the Participants is the issue of what happens if one or more Participants actually take more water than it owns. While not specifically addressed in the Agreements, according to one of the Participants, the issue was discussed some years ago. The result of that discussion was a verbal agreement, essentially allowing: … a Participant to use (take) additional water from the system, as long as it does not inhibit another Participant from obtaining its rightful share of the water … Also, since the actual operating and maintenance cost is divided proportionally between the Participants based on actual metered use, there is arguably a financial benefit to the other Participants when one Participant uses a larger share of the SEWPP production. This is because a larger share of the fixed O&M costs would be borne by that Participant. The SEWPP has a rated capacity of 200-mgd. Every fiscal year (July 1 through June 30), the City of Houston prepares a “True-Up” report that includes the metered water use for each of the CoParticipants and total water production for the SEWPP. City of Houston use is calculated as the difference between SEWPP total water production and the Co-Participant’s total metered use. Table 3 summarizes the True-Up flow information for FY 2007 through 2013.

August 11, 2014 Page 5 of 11 TABLE 3: WATER PRODUCTION AND USE FROM THE FISCAL YEAR TRUE-UP REPORTS SEWPP Total Water Production

Co-Participant Total Metered Use

City of Houston Use

FY 2007 (July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007)

79.64

44.27

35.37

FY 2008 (July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008)

72.95

46.39

26.56

FY 2009 (July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009)

78.48

49.11

29.37

FY 2010 (July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010)

79.61

48.46

31.15

FY 2011 (July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011)

80.55

52.29

28.26

FY 2012 (July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012)

95.35

55.89

39.46

FY 2013 (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013)

95.44

56.16

39.28

Fiscal Year

Table 3 indicates that from FY2007 through FY2011, total water production remained fairly constant. In FY2012 and FY2013, production increased about 15 MGD. The increase coincides with the recent 80 MGD plant expansion coming fully on-line, and with FY2012 and FY2013 being relatively dry years. The table also indicates that the City of Houston used the majority (approximately 11 of the 15 MGD) of the increased production. Based on the current and near-term anticipated pumpage demands for the SEWPP, it appears that any of the Participants can readily access additional treated water, in excess of its purchased share. Again, transmission of the additional water would need to consider the available transmission system capacity leading to the point(s) of delivery. FNI received SEWPP daily metered water use data for 2011, 2012 and eleven months of 2013. The data was analyzed and adjusted for anomalies such as meter reading gaps, meter rollovers/resets, and missing SEWPP daily production readings. After adjustments, the information was analyzed to develop annual average use, peak day use, and 3-day average peak use for each of the participants. Table 4 presents the results of meter data analysis. Figures 2, 3, and 4 provide a graphical presentation of the of the 3-day running average data for the SEWPP and the Participants for the calendar years 2011, 2012 and January through November of 2013.

August 11, 2014 Page 6 of 11 TABLE 4: SEWPP METERED FLOW DATA FOR 2011, 2012 AND 2013

SEWPP Participant Flow Data 2011 through 2013 Participant

Pasadena

Baybrook MUD

Clear Brook MUD

Contract MGD

40.00

1.80

2.50

14.88

2011

19.20

0.20

2.07

2012

19.01

0.15

2013

17.34

2011

Annual Average

Peak 3-Day Average

Peak Day

Friends wood

GCWA

HC MUD #55

La Porte

South Houston

Webster

COH

TOTAL

9.12

12.00

31.50

3.4625

7.80

3.75

4.05

69.1375

200.00

8.34

3.90

4.79

8.32

1.30

4.82

1.65

1.90

21.63

90.37

1.82

6.76

3.56

5.14

9.90

1.13

4.60

1.45

1.76

37.12

102.71

0.13

1.52

5.17

3.72

4.65

10.48

1.00

4.01

1.32

1.63

39.24

99.44

22.63

0.80

3.50

12.07

7.58

7.93

12.14

2.31

9.51

2.30

2.44

60.16

n/a

2012

20.62

0.68

2.89

8.86

6.14

8.07

13.82

1.85

7.43

3.28

3.42

61.24

n/a

2013

28.43

0.80

3.01

18.25

8.79

8.48

15.26

3.28

11.71

7.91

2.31

63.43

n/a

2011

29.82

0.84

3.66

12.25

8.62

9.97

12.14

2.48

11.92

2.77

2.88

68.61

n/a

2012

21.30

0.95

2.99

8.86

6.65

8.07

13.91

1.93

11.22

7.53

6.23

97.47

n/a

2013

47.46

1.39

5.44

38.29

8.79

8.58

26.10

4.36

26.55

20.65

2.50

64.97

n/a

CLCWA-A CLCWA-B

August 11, 2014 Page 7 of 11

5.0

PLANT EXPANSION CONSIDERATIONS

The SEWPP site has extensive space for expansion. The recent 80-MGD expansion consisted of four 20MGD parallel treatment trains (modules). The design provided for two additional 20-MGD modules, one on each side of the new units. So the concept of a 20-MGD expansion is very consistent with the longterm plans for the plant. It is also likely that the cost for the expansion could be proportionally less than the 80-MGD expansion, if the core infrastructure (raw water pump station, major underground utilities, and high service pump station) are already designed to structurally and hydraulically handle the increased flows. Some factors to be considered for planning and executing a plant expansion are:

1. The capacity of the CWA raw water delivery system, 2. The time frame for planning, engineering and construction of the expansion, 3. The available capacity and reliability of the existing potable water transmission mains; or alternatively, construction of an independent transmission main, and

4. The requirements and time frame for reaching agreement with the other SEWPP participants.

5.1

CAPACITY OF THE CWA SYSTEM

The SEWPP receives raw water from CWA’s “System A” via a 96-inch pipeline. The Lynchburg “A” Pump Station has five 80-MGD pumps and slots for two additional pumps. While the maximum deliverable capacity is not found in the Agreements, the annual “True-up” audits indicate that 93.11 percent of the CWA 96-inch line debt service is allocated to the SEWPP, seeming to indicate the rest of the capacity is for other CWA customers. Figure 5 shows hydraulic grade lines (HGLs) based on Lynchburg “A” Pump Station flows, allocating 65MGD to Bayport and either 200, 225, or 250-MGD to the SEWPP, for a maximum flow of 315-MGD. The 65-MGD flow comes from written information provided by CWA regarding the Bayport System and states that it is the current capacity of the Bayport System. System “A” pipeline consists of a 108-in pipeline from the Lynchburg Pump Station to the Ship Channel. At the Ship Channel the pipeline is reduced to 102-in. Figure 6 show that the combined flow in the 102in pipeline below the Ship Channel produces a maximum pressure of approximately 95 psi. At Valve Station No. 1, south of the Ship Channel, the 102-in pipeline terminates and splits into a 60-in pipeline

August 11, 2014 Page 8 of 11 going to the Bayport Pump Station and 96-in pipeline to the SEWPP. While the pressure capacity of the both pipes is unknown, the pressure in the 96-in pipeline at a flow of 250-MGD is below 70 psi. At a pipeline velocity of about 7-fps, CWA could deliver about 227-MGD to the plant. The 227-MGD is a reasonable raw water flow to reliably produce 200-MGD of treated potable water. The velocity at 250MGD in the 96-in line is approximately 7.7-fps. Increasing the velocity in the 96-inch line to 7.7 could increase the reasonable amount of potable water to 220-MGD. The higher flow rate would increase the friction head about 20 percent. (Table 5) In addition to the increase in friction head, approximately 8 psi is added to the pipe near the Ship Channel when the flow to the SEWPP is increased from 227-MGD to 250-MGD. TABLE 5 – SYSTEM “A” PIPELINE FLOWS

108-in

102-in

96-in

Bayport Flow MGD

SEWPP Flow MGD

Total Flow, MGD

Head Loss

200

265

1.0

6.4

225

290

1.2

7.1

250

315

1.4

7.7

200

265

1.4

7.2

225

290

1.6

7.9

250

315

1.9

8.6

N/A

200

1.1

6.2

N/A

225

1.4

6.9

N/A

250

1.7

7.7

ft/1000-ft

Velocity fps

The overall impact of the increased flows on CWA’s Lynchburg Pump Station would require further evaluation. Although CWA could not provide any firm data to demonstrate the ability to pump 250 MGD, they were confident that the system could handle another 20-40 MGD. It is recommended that in future phases a hydraulic model be prepared for the system with additional data gathered on pump curves, pipe pressure class, and further analysis of the capacity of the pressure reducing station and flow metering.

5.2

TIME FRAME FOR PLANT EXPANSION

For planning purposes, a reasonable schedule for expanding the SEWPP 20-MGD would be:

August 11, 2014 Page 9 of 11 •

6-months for planning, preliminary engineering, and review for the SEWPP and the CWA raw water delivery system.

•

18-months for engineering design including intermediate and final reviews.

•

6-months for bidding and award.

•

24-months for construction and start-up.

5.3

AVAILABILITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE POTABLE WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS

SEWPP treated water is pumped from the plant through a 96-inch transmission main that runs west from the plant to Beltway 8 and then toward the west along Beltway 8. The 96-inch line feeds a 42-inch line that runs southeast along State Highway 3, and a 36-inch line along Beamer Road that parallels the 42-inch. Figure 1 is a representation of the major transmission lines. As shown previously in Table 2, the 96-inch has an ownership interest (assumed capacity) of 250-MGD. The 42-inch and 36-inch have ownership interest of 43.52- and 32-MGD respectively. The City of Houston appears to own excess capacity in the 96-inch, well beyond its participation in the SEWPP. This excess capacity is likely for future anticipated plant expansions. The other Co-Participants appear to have shares that match its SEWPP participation. There is no indication of excess capacity in the 42- or 36-inch lines. Additionally, the 42-inch line is known to have a history of problems. The line was constructed of wire wrapped RCCP, and has over the years experienced a series of leaks, particularly at the pipe joints. The Beamer Road line, along with a 24-inch line on Bay Area Blvd, was constructed, in part, to provide a water loop capable of by-passing portions of the 42-inch. Based on the limited reliable capacity in the transmission system beyond the 96-inch line, there are two reasonable approaches to delivering potable water from the SEWPP.

1. Replacement of the 42-inch line with a more reliable and larger capacity line. The SEWPP Participants have discussed and tentatively agreed to participate in this project. The ultimate line size would be based on fiscal commitments from the Participants that will share in the ownership of the line. This project would involve evaluating alternate routes as well.

August 11, 2014 Page 10 of 11

2. Construct an independent, wholly-owned metering station and pipeline from the SEWPP to a receiving station. This would be comparable to facilities owned by the Cities of Pasadena and LaPorte, and the Clear Lake City Water Authority.

5.4

REQUIREMENTS AND TIME FRAME FOR CO-PARTICIPANT AGREEMENTS

Negotiations and agreements with discrete Participants to acquire temporary or permanent shares of the SEWPP, or the transmission system are not impacted by the other Co-Participants. So the time frame will be that of any potentially sensitive and political negotiation. Negotiations pertaining to a SEWPP plant expansion will likely, to some extent, involve all of the Participants. The City of Houston has indicated to FNI that as long as the plans are reasonable, consistent with the long-term build-out goals of the SEWPP, and fully funded by the interested Participant(s), Houston would not object to the improvements.

6.0

SUMMARY

The following summarizes the key issues associated with GCWA’s interest in increasing its SEWPP demand by 20-MGD.

1. On a near-term basis it appears the SEWPP has significant rated capacity, more than 20MGD, above the projected demand. This would indicate that GCWA could potentially negotiate with one or more Participants to “borrow” a portion of the Participant’s unused capacity.

2. Alternatively, and also on a near term basis, GCWA could just take more than its invested share as long as the other Participants are not impacted. FNI would recommend that this approach be further discussed with the other Participants to confirm the prior understanding.

3. The recent SEWPP plant expansion was designed to readily accommodate two additional 20MGD modules. Therefore, GCWA’s goal of an additional 20-MGD appears to match the future plans for the plant. Determining how well the recent expansion was designed to accommodate the future 20-MGD modules would require additional evaluation. Assuming no major obstacles to a proposed 20-MGD expansion, a reasonable time frame for design and construction would be about 4.5 years. Alternative delivery techniques have the potential to shorten the schedule.

August 11, 2014 Page 11 of 11

4. Expansion of the SEWPP to 220-MGD will require CWA to deliver more raw water. This will require an evaluation of the CWA â&#x20AC;&#x153;System Aâ&#x20AC;? to determine capacity of the existing infrastructure, pipe pressure class, and if changes would be required at the pump station, valve structures, or pressure reducing station to deliver the additional water.

5. Regardless of whether GCWA obtains temporary or permanent capacity at the SEWPP, the availability of adequate and reliable treated water transmission system capacity will need to be evaluated along with options for building an independent metering station and pipeline.

--___Figure 1 - Transmission Line Capacity Distribution Map

Reference Exhibit J from the September 2006 Cost Sharing Agreement

Exhibit J - Transmission Line Capacity Distribution Map

--------

200-mgd Capacity Distribution with Beamer Road Line

Houston -,

•Total Capacity of 42" & 36" Lines= 75.52 mgd · ··' • Exist·&·Expansion Purchased Capacity= 75.52 nigd (as of October 7, 2005)

•J- .

4" & 12·

4• & 8'"

4"&10"

South Houston Point B Point C ----.1----·Glearlake Gity---• Water Authority LaPorte Area 110· & 2•·) Pasadena Water Authority (2·16" & 1-24")

Point D Gulf Coast Water Authority (10.00 mgd) ---~·~.• -

Clearbrook

(Scarsdale & Beamer)

(Hall & Sage Canyon)

(1.92/0 mgd)

. ?

Clear Lake City Water Authority (0/9.12 mgd)

(1.92/0 mgd)

~~~ 7.

. Friendswood (9.68/0 mgd)

~.."'?.

Lodge Apartments

7. 0'(-0.

<?9.:

l:S'

HC MUD 55 (1.36/2.892 mgd)

l':~iei:ldswood

( 0/4.84mgd) Q:,

TakePoint

(1.5 mgd) Purchased Capacity 20.00

Balance of Purchased Line Capacity (mgd)

•1

'Q. Gulf Coast · Water Authority (5.00/0 mgd)

(Magnolia)

Baybrook Water Plant 16" & 12·) (0/3.38 mgd)

(0.93/1.98 mgd)

Gulf Coast Water Authority (0/16.50 mgd)

·'

Figure 2 ‐ 2011, 3‐Day Demand for SEWPP and Participants 90

160 COH

Pasadena

GCWA

CLCWA‐A

Friendswood

La Porte

CLCWA‐B

Clear Brook MUD

Webster

HC MUD #55

South Houston

Baybrook MUD

Note: COH demand was assumed to be the difference between the SEWPP demand and the co‐participant demand

140 SEWPP Total Demand

120

100 50 80 40 60 30

40 20

0 1/1/2011

0 2/20/2011

4/11/2011

5/31/2011

7/20/2011 Date

9/8/2011

10/28/2011

12/17/2011

SEWPP Total Demand (MGD)

Co‐Participant Demand (MGD)

Figure 3 ‐ 2012, 3‐Day Demand for SEWPP and Participants 90

160 COH

Pasadena

GCWA

CLCWA‐A

Friendswood

La Porte

CLCWA‐B

Clear Brook MUD

Webster

HC MUD #55

South Houston

Baybrook MUD

Note: COH demand was assumed to be the difference between the SEWPP demand and the co‐participant demand

140 SEWPP Total Demand

120

100 50 80 40 60 30

40 20

0 1/1/2012

0 2/20/2012

4/10/2012

5/30/2012

7/19/2012 Date

9/7/2012

10/27/2012

12/16/2012

SEWPP Total Demand (MGD)

Co‐Participant Demand (MGD)

Figure 4 ‐ 2013, 3‐Day Demand for SEWPP and Participants 140 Pasadena

GCWA

CLCWA‐A

Friendswood

La Porte

CLCWA‐B

Clear Brook MUD

Webster

HC MUD #55

South Houston

Baybrook MUD

Note: COH demand was assumed to be the difference between the SEWPP demand and the co‐participant demand

SEWPP Total Demand

Co‐Participant Demand (MGD)

100

160

120

80 60

40 40

0 2013‐01‐01

0 2013‐02‐20

2013‐04‐11

2013‐05‐31 Date

2013‐07‐20

2013‐09‐08

2013‐10‐28

SEWPP Total Demand (MGD)

120

COH

Figure 5 HGL - System "A" Pipeline Lynchburg Pump Station to SEWPP Based on 65 MGD to Bayport and the remaining flow to SEWPP 175

108"

96"

102"

Elev=150 60-in to Bayport Elev=130

125 Elev=113

Pumping Head

SEWPP TSR Elev = 38

Elevation (ft-msl)

Lynchburg Reservoir Elev=16

25 Top of Pipe (Approx.) Invert of Pipe (Approx.)

-25 Ground Line (Approx.)

-75 0

10000

20000

30000 Length (ft)

Note: Ground line obtained from TNRIS with 2' contours.

40000

50000

60000

Figure 6 Pressure - System "A" Pipeline Lynchburg Pump Station to SEWPP Based on 65 MGD to Bayport and the remaining flow to SEWPP

Pipe Sizes: Lynchburg PS to Ship Channel - 108" Tunnel Under Ship Channel - 102" Tunnel Under Ship Channel to Valve Station 1 - 102" Valve Station 1 to SEWPP - 96"

150.0

96"

102"

60-in to Bayport

130.0

140 Elev=130

120

110.0

Elev=113

100

90.0

70.0 TSR Elev=38 Gauge Pressure (Q=250 MGD) Pumping Head

Elevation (ft-msl, Scale Applies to Ground Line and HGL's)

Elev=150

50.0 Gauge Pressure (Q=225 MGD)

30.0 Lynchburg PS Elev=16

10.0

20 Approximate Ground Line

-10.0 0

10000

20000

Note: Ground line obtained from TNRIS with 2' contours.

30000 Length (ft)

40000

50000

60000

Pressure (psi, Scale Applies to Pipe Pressure and Pressure Class)

160 108"

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

APPENDIX F CITY OF HOUSTON REUSE

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Ivan Langford, Gulf Coast Water Authority

CC:

Alan Hutson, P.E., Jason Afinowicz, P.E.

FROM:

Leo Weinberg, P.E.

SUBJECT: Long Range Water Supply Study – City of Houston Reuse DATE:

March 10, 2014

1.0

INTRODUCTION

Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) worked with the Gulf Coast Water Authority (GCWA) to narrow and further evaluate alternatives from the Long Range Water Supply Study to meet GCWA’s raw and treated water needs. This memorandum presents options for obtaining City of Houston wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent from the Southwest WWTP and the Almeda Sims WWTP, and routing it to the GCWA canal system. Evaluated options are based on the potential water supply relative to the cost for construction, operation, and maintenance of the required facilities. FNI examined two methods to acquire City of Houston WWTP effluent: 1) Bayou diversion, through the use of Houston’s “Bed and Banks” water reuse permit, at the Southwest WWTP diversion point, and 2) Direct reuse from the WWTPs, prior to discharge. Strategies were investigated including one related to the Texas Brine Company, LLC (Texas Brine), one of GCWA’s customers. Except in the case of Texas Brine, water obtained through the strategies presented in this memorandum was assumed to be intended for meeting industrial and potable demands downstream in the GCWA canal system. This memorandum summarizes the relevant information, activities undertaken, meeting summaries, data evaluations, and conclusions and recommendations for the strategies developed.

2.0

HOUSTON’S WATER USE PERMIT NO. 5827

In 2004, the City of Houston (City) applied for a water rights permit that is more commonly known as a “Bed and Banks” permit. Texas law essentially provides that any discharge into State Waters becomes the property of the

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 2 of 27 State. A Bed and Banks permit basically provides for: 1. An entity to discharge water such as WWTP effluent into State Waters and retain ownership of that flow (or some portion of it); and 2. To divert that flow from the State Waters downstream from where it was discharged. The entity is essentially using the bed and banks of the river, stream, or bayou to convey its water from a point of discharge to where it can provide a beneficial use (diversion point). TCEQ issued Permit No. 5827 on May 11, 2011. The permit lists 32 City WWTPs with permitted discharge rates, and 14 authorized diversion points with maximum diversion rates. At the end of this section, Figure 1 maps the location of the 32 WWTPs; Figure 2 maps the permitted diversion locations. Table 1, below, lists the WWTPs that were investigated for this study. The Almeda Sims WWTP and Southwest WWTP were examined for direct reuse, while the other four WWTPs were only examined for potential flow contribution downstream in Brays Bayou. Table 2 lists the permitted diversion location and maximum diversion rate that was considered for this study. TABLE 1: CITY OF HOUSTON PERMITTED DISCHARGES Wastewater Treatment Plant Almeda Sims Southwest WCID2 111 Beltway Upper Brays Keegans Bayou

TPDES Permit # 10495003 10495037 10495095 10495111 10495116 10495119

Discharge (MGD) 28.00 60.00 7.20 13.34 18.00 23.10

Receiving Stream Houston Ship Channel Houston Ship Channel Keegans Bayou Houston Ship Channel Houston Ship Channel Houston Ship Channel

TABLE 2: CITY OF HOUSTON PERMITTED DIVERSIONS Diversion Location

Maximum Diversion Rate (cfs)

Maximum Diversion Rate (MGD)

Stream or Lake

Southwest WWTP

188.2

121.6

Brays Bayou

The tables appear to indicate that there is substantial reuse water available for diversion. However, there are several significant conditions that impact the amount of water that can actually be diverted on a reliable basis from the bayou. These conditions are listed below along with FNI commentary in italics.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 3 of 27 1. In order to maintain fresh water inflows to Galveston Bay, Permittee shall only divert 50% of the volume discharged on a daily basis from each wastewater treatment plant. Note: This condition appears to be subject to interpretation. The 50% could refer to the total City discharge, the drainage basin discharge, or to a single WWTP discharge at or near the diversion location. As a conservative assumption, 50% of the total upstream WWTP flow estimated was assumed to be available for diversion as long as TCEQ minimum bayou flows are met downstream of the diversion point. 2. The right to divert the discharged return flows is subject to revocation if discharges become permanently unavailable for diversion and may be subject to reduction if the return flows are not available in quantities and qualities sufficient to fully satisfy the permit. Note: During periods of low WWTP flows/discharges, the available diversion flow would be reduced. This is most likely to occur during extended periods of hot, dry weather. These are the same times that GCWA would want a consistently reliable supply. 3. In order to provide sufficient flow for in-stream uses of Brays Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when stream flow immediately downstream of the diversion point at the Southwest WWTP equals or exceeds the following values: TABLE 3: TCEQ RECOMMENDED MONTHLY FLOWS Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Brays Bayou at Southwest WWTP Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

38.74

38.20

48.96

50.58

53.80

54.88

34.26

35.15

35.87

MUD #203 WWTP

# *

# * # *

Imperial Valley WWTP

WCID #76 WWTP

# *

GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY

# *

Tidwell Timbers WWTP

FWSD #23 WWTP

Northwest WWTP

Homestead WWTP

# * Northeast WWTP

Park Ten WWTP

# *

West District WWTP

69th Street WWTP

# *

Sims Bayou North WWTP

Upper Brays WWTP

# *

Sims Bayou South WWTP

# *

Beltway WWTP

Southwest WWTP

# *

Keegans Bayou WWTP WCID 111 WWTP

# *

# * # *

# *

Chocolate Bayou WWTP Almeda Sims WWTP

# *

WCID #47 WWTP Easthaven WWTP

# *

Legend

# *

COH Wastewater Treatment Plants

Date Saved: 1/10/2014 3:24:39 PM

Greenridge WWTP

# *

Path: H:\PIPES_PUMPS\FINAL_EXHIBITS\Memo\MXDs\WWTP.mxd

FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 10497 TOWN AND COUNTRY WAY, SUITE 600 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77024 P: 713-600-6800 F: 713-600-6801

Turkey Creek WWTP

Name: WWTP

City of Houston Reuse Project

Whiteoak WWTP

Westway WWTP

PREPARED BY

Northbelt WWTP

City of Houston Wastewater Treatment Plants

# *

Northgate WWTP

Date: 1/10/2014

International Airport WWTP Willowbrook Regional WWTP

DATE CREATED

FN PROJECT NO.

# *

DATUM & COORDINATE SYSTEM

Kingwood Central WWTP

FILE NAME

# *

NAD83 State Plane (feet) Texas South Central

GCW13494

Kingwood West WWTP

9,000 18,000

36,000 Feet

Figure 1

Stude Park

Legend

Date Saved: 1/10/2014 3:22:25 PM

Herman Brown Park

Memorial Park

MacGregor Park

Southwest WWTP

COH Permitted Diversion Locations

Path: H:\PIPES_PUMPS\FINAL_EXHIBITS\Memo\MXDs\DiversionPoints.mxd

Sims Bayou North WWTP

Reveille Park FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 10497 TOWN AND COUNTRY WAY, SUITE 600 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77024 P: 713-600-6800 F: 713-600-6801

Homestead WWTP

Northeast WWTP

69th Street WWTP

Brock Park

0 5,000 10,000 20,000 Feet

City of Houston Permitted Diversions

City of Houston Reuse Project

Northwest WWTP

GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY

Lake Houston Pump Station PREPARED BY

FILE NAME

Date: 1/15/2014

GCW13494

Figure 2

Name: DiversionPoints

NAD83 State Plane (feet) Texas South Central

DATUM & COORDINATE SYSTEM

DATE CREATED

FN PROJECT NO.

NEWPP

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 6 of 27

3.0

DIRECT WATER REUSE

The Bed and Banks permit relates to waters (effluent) that are actually discharged to waters of the State, such as Brays Bayou. WWTP effluent can be directly reused without a State water rights permit if the effluent is not discharged to State waters. For example, prior to discharge, the effluent can be diverted (pumped) to an off-site location to achieve a beneficial use. Direct water reuse is often part of a regulated entities’ water conservation strategy. Direct reuse is often associated with public landscape or golf course irrigation, amenity pond maintenance, and other uses that do not require potable water. The total effluent flow obtained through direct reuse is allowable for diversion. However, for indirect reuse using the Bed and Banks permit, it was assumed only 50% of the upstream WWTP flow is available for diversion and water is only available if the TCEQ recommended monthly flows are met. As noted above, application of the 50% requirement may be subject to interpretation and may require clarification in project-specific discussions with TCEQ. However, the assumption, as applied, provides a conservative approach to this requirement.

4.0

WWTP EFFLUENT AND BAYOU WATER QUALITY

For effluent discharge and permitting purposes, both the Southwest and Almeda Sims WWTPs are classified as Enhanced Secondary with Nitrification treatment plants. For this classification, the 30 day average effluent limits are: •

Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) = 10 mg/l

•

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) = 15 mg/l

•

Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) = 3.0 mg/l, and

•

Escherichia Coli (E. coli) = 126 cfu/100-ml. Note: cfu means colony forming units.

Every month, the WWTPs are required to send the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). The DMR lists the daily flow and effluent quality, i.e., laboratory results for the permit parameters. FNI obtained and analyzed the DMR data from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2013. The data indicates the WWTPs, with very few exceptions, consistently meet their effluent permit limits. Waters of the State, such as Brays and Sims Bayou, are typically monitored by the TCEQ through counties or

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 7 of 27 other local entities. FNI obtained solids and bacteria monitoring data from the SWQM database for Brays and Sims Bayous for the years 2008 through 2012. Samples are taken about once per month at multiple locations along the bayous, so the number of data points is considerably less than the WWTP data. The following observations can be made from FNIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analysis of the data for Brays and Sims Bayous: 1. There is little difference in reported water quality upstream versus downstream of the respective WWTP effluent discharge locations. 2. The bayous report TSS and bacteria measurements much higher than that of the WWTP effluents. Whereas the WWTP consistently reported TSS and E. coli below the permit limits, the TSS and E. coli values for the Bayous were reported to regularly exceed 300 mg/l for TSS and 1,000 cfu/100-ml. The water quality information for the WWTPs and for the Bayous is not unexpected. The WWTPs are designed to capture the solids and disinfect the effluent before discharge. The Bayou water quality reflects that of drainage and run-off in urban areas. Based on the limited scope of the sampling and analyses, there is nothing to indicate that either the WWTP effluents or the Bayou waters are not suitable for blending into the GCWA canals and on to the surface water treatment plant. This assessment is subject to a follow-up study being performed by GCWA regarding water quality standards for discharge to the authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s canal systems.

5.0

WWTP SITE VISITS

On November 25th, FNI staff visited two City of Houston WWTPs. The Southwest and the Almeda Sims WWTPs were selected in consultation with GCWA, based on the rated capacities, locations and potential access the GCWA canal system via existing utility easements. Both WWTPs are considered major facilities by the City of Houston. Photos taken during the site visit are included in the site visit memos in Appendix B.

5.1

SOUTHWEST WWTP

The Southwest WWTP is located at on Beechnut Street about two-thirds of a mile east of the West Loop 610. The Southwest WWTP is designed as a 60 MGD, pure-oxygen, advanced WWTP with tertiary gravity filters. Treated effluent is discharged to Brays Bayou, immediately adjacent to the plant. During normal dry weather conditions, the effluent flows by gravity through sluice gates to the bayou. The Southwest WWTP also has eight submersible-type effluent pumps. During major rain events, if the bayou water level rises to a certain elevation, the gravity discharge sluice gates are closed to prevent backwater flooding of the facility. In those cases, the effluent discharge pumps are activated and treated effluent is

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 8 of 27 pumped over a flood barrier weir and into the bayou. The Southwest WWTP is permitted for “Enhanced Secondary Treatment with Nitrification”. The 30-day average permit limits are: •

10 mg/l for CBOD5 (carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand),

•

15 mg/l for TSS (total suspended solids), and

•

3 mg/l for NH3-N (ammonia nitrogen).

Waste activated sludge from the treatment process is pumped via direct pipeline to the Almeda Sims Sludge Processing Facility, one of Houston’s three facilities designed to digest, dewater, dry and sterilize waste activated sludge, and produce “HouActinite”, a marketable soil supplement. At the time of the site visit, neither the pure-oxygen system nor the tertiary filters were in operation. Essentially, the facility is operated as a conventional activated sludge WWTP. Discussions with the plant manager and a review of monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data for the WWTP indicate that the plant consistently meets its permit without the advanced treatment processes in operation. The DMR data also show that from October 2010 to October 2013, WWTP effluent flows equaled or exceeded:

5.2

•

20.0 MGD over 99.8 percent of the time,

•

25.0 MGD about 91 percent of the time,

•

30 MGD slightly less than 54 percent of the time, and

•

35 MGD less than 9 percent of the time.

ALMEDA SIMS WWTP

The Almeda Sims WWTP is located off Almeda Road, immediately north of West Orem Drive, approximately midway between South Loop 610 and South Beltway 8. The WWTP was designed and operates as a conventional activated sludge facility. The Almeda Sims WWTP is also permitted for “Enhanced Secondary Treatment with Nitrification” with the same 10 – 15 – 3 mg/l for CBOD5, TSS, and NH3-N. Treated effluent is discharged by gravity to the adjacent Sims Bayou. Discussions with one of the plant operators and a review of monthly DMR data indicate that the plant consistently meets the permit limits.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 9 of 27 The Almeda Sims WWTP has an internal effluent reuse system. Prior to discharge, a reuse water pump station provides non-potable water for process wash downs, foam control, and other related WWTP use. It also provides non-potable water to the Almeda Sims Sludge Processing Facility. The sludge disposal process uses natural gas fed dryers (somewhat similar to incinerators) to drive off the excess moisture and to sterilize the final product. The dryers must maintain a narrow temperature band to properly process and avoid burning the sludge. Excess heat is wasted by adding treated effluent from the Almeda Sims WWTP. Effluent can also be used to help pre-condition the sludge for consistency. The WWTP operator was not able to provide information on the total internal demand for reuse water. The DMR reports show that from October 2010 to October 2013, plant effluent flows equaled or exceeded:

5.3

•

5.0 MGD over 95 percent of the time,

•

7.0 MGD about 50 percent of the time, and

•

8.0 MGD slightly less than 32.5 percent of the time.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

Based on the site visit, DMR data, discussions with WWTP operators, and other relevant information, the following observations and findings about the Southwest and Almeda Sims WWTPs are noted: 1. Both WWTPs have effluent available for reuse, and while the DMRs only report a limited number of parameters, the total suspended solids and bacteria values appear consistently better than the water in the bayous. 2. Both WWTPs appear to be able to accommodate a new reuse water pump station capable of diverting flow prior to discharge. 3. The Southwest WWTP appears to reliably generate in excess of 20 MGD of effluent that could be reused. The Almeda Sims WWTP appears to have considerable less flow available and the reliability is subject to the uncertain demands of the Almeda Sims Sludge Processing Facility. 4. The Southwest WWTP is in close proximity and nearly adjacent to a major north-south, CenterPoint power transmission corridor that appears to be able to accommodate a reuse pipeline. 5. Almeda Sims is located near an existing GCWA raw water customer. There is the potential to provide reuse water from Almeda Sims in lieu of providing water from the GCWA canal system. 6. If needed, the effluent filters at the Southwest WWTP could likely be put back into service to produce

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 10 of 27 better quality reuse water.

6.0

STRATEGIES FOR INCORPORATION INTO GCWA SUPPLY

For this study, direct and indirect reuse was investigated to develop strategies to deliver water to GCWA. For direct reuse, the concept is to pump all available effluent up to the capacity of the pump station. Pumps would have variable frequency drives in order to match the WWTP flow. So as long as effluent was available, the pump stations would operate. The costs presented in this study are estimates for the construction, operation, 4-log reduction (disinfection), and maintenance of facilities to transport water to the GCWA Canal system. A 4-log reduction system was assumed to be necessary for use on all water obtained through direct and indirect reuse. See Section 7.0 for further information regarding 4-log reduction. Life cycle costs were calculated assuming a power cost of $0.10, an interest rate of 5%, and a debt-service period of 25 years. The cost associated with purchasing the water was not included and will be addressed in a separate study.

6.1

SOUTHWEST WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

6.1.1 Effluent Flow Availability

FNI obtained and analyzed the daily Southwest WWTP effluent flow data for the period from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2013. Figure 3 graphically shows the percent of time that the measured effluent flow exceeded a certain value over the three year period. Although the permitted monthly average flow is 60 MGD; the reported flow is considerably less. As shown, Southwest releases at least 24 MGD 95% of the time, at least 30 MGD 54% of the time, and 35 MGD 10% of the time. The plant only releases 60 MGD 1% of the time. Therefore, while pulling 60 MGD from the Southwest WWTP is not likely, 24 MGD is a reliable expectation.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 11 of 27

Southwest WWTP Effluent Data

Plant Flow (MGD)

October 2010 to September 2013

160.0 150.0 140.0 130.0 120.0 110.0 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

Average Daily Flow (MGD) 2-Hr Peak Flow (MGD)

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent Time Flow Exceeded (%)

FIGURE 3: SOUTHWEST WWTP EFFLUENT FLOW DATA

6.1.2 Diversion Point

Direct reuse requires that the effluent be captured prior to discharge to the bayou. It is preferable to intercept the effluent after the chlorination process and if the filters are in service, after the filtration process. The optimal point to intercept and pump the treated effluent will require a more detailed evaluation of the WWTP and the structural design of the chlorine contact basin, filter basin and appurtenant channels.

6.1.3 Pumping Facilities

An effluent pump station at the Southwest WWTP would preferably be located on the plant site. By staying within the plant site, a pump station building and security features could likely be avoided compared to a standalone pump station. Six pump station and pipeline options were analyzed, comparing the facility costs with the potential water yields. Water yields are based on the effluent flow data. The six options were 20, 24, 30, 35, 48, and 60 MGD.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 12 of 27 The 35 MGD option is expected to provide an annual average of 30.1 MGD, for an average annual yield of 33,700 acre-feet. The detailed analysis of the pumping strategies can be found in Appendix F.

6.1.4 Water Transmission System

There are practical limitations for routing the transmission main from the Southwest WWTP to the GCWA canal system. Fortunately, there is a CenterPoint Energy high voltage power transmission corridor that runs from the Southwest WWTP south to McHard Rd. The corridor has overhead electric and buried pipeline easements located throughout much of the Right-of-Way (ROW). FNI met with CenterPoint representatives to discuss requirements for an effluent pipeline easement. A summary of those discussions is documented in Appendix C, â&#x20AC;&#x153;City of Houston Reuse CenterPoint Coordinationâ&#x20AC;?. The anticipated pipeline length is approximately 52,000 feet (9.85 miles) with about 39,000 feet (7.39 miles) within the CenterPoint ROW. The pipeline would begin at the pump station located at the Southwest WWTP, and tunnel to the south under Brays Bayou. The route would then traverse through the CenterPoint ROW until reaching the South side of McHard Rd. At this point, the pipeline would exit the CenterPoint ROW and generally head southwest following property lines. The pipe would most likely flow into the GCWA A Canal slightly less than a mile due west of the intersection of W. Broadway St. and F.M. 521 (Almeda Rd.). A map of the preliminary pipeline route can be found below in Figure 4. Water transmission systems are generally preferred to have a velocity above 2 fps and less than 8 fps. A pipeline optimization was completed for the 35 MGD, comparing construction and operation costs for several pipe diameters. A 42 inch pipe was determined to be the most efficient pipe size. A 42-inch pipe with a flow of 35 MGD has a velocity of 5.6 fps. A 30 MGD flow has a velocity of 4.8 fps. The majority of the time the system would be run around 30 MGD, with peak flows up to 35 MGD.

6.1.5 Estimated Cost of Strategy

The estimated construction cost for the 35 MGD pump station, 42 inch pipeline, and the required treatment is $39,875,000. Debt service on the construction cost, plus annual operation and maintenance is estimated to be $4,296,000. Therefore, this option produces 33,700 acre-feet per year for about $126 per acre-foot. Detailed opinions of probable cost can be found in Appendices D and E.

FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 10497 TOWN AND COUNTRY WAY, SUITE 600 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77024 P: 713-600-6800 F: 713-600-6801

Begin Centerpoint Cooridor

Legend

Pipeline

Date Saved: 1/17/2014 1:15:28 PM Path: H:\PIPES_PUMPS\FINAL_EXHIBITS\Memo\MXDs\SWPtoGCWA.mxd

GCWA Canal

Southwest WWTP

0 2,000 4,000 8,000 Feet

Pipeline Route from Southwest Plant to GCWA Canal

City of Houston Reuse Project

GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY

End Centerpoint Cooridor

Figure 4

PREPARED BY

FILE NAME

Date: 1/17/2014

GCW13494

Name: SWPtoGCWA

NAD83 State Plane (feet) Texas South Central

DATUM & COORDINATE SYSTEM

DATE CREATED

FN PROJECT NO.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 14 of 27

6.2

BRAYS BAYOU DIVERSION

6.2.1 Bayou Flow Available

FNI obtained Brays Bayou stream gauge data for October 20, 2003 through October 21, 2013 for three different gauge sites. The South Gessner Road gauge was used to predict flows upstream of the Southwest WWTP. The Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reuse permit allows a maximum diversion of 188.2 MGD. The permit also cites minimum flows (environmental flows) that must continue downstream of any diversion point. If the bayou flow is equal to or less than the minimum, diversion cannot take place. The gauge data indicate that Brays Bayou has a wide variation of flow. Upstream of the Southwest WWTP, the flow is above the specified minimum 93% of the time with at least 5 MGD available for diversion 80% of the time and 16 MGD available 50% of the time. As previously noted, the Bed and Banks permit restricts diversions to 50% of the total upstream WWTP effluent discharge. Downstream of the Southwest WWTP, with the added effluent flow, there is considerably more water available for diversion. However, the diversion would be subject to the minimum (environmental) flow restrictions. From the data analysis, while there is always water available for diversion, the available amounts will at times, be less than the amount of effluent discharged to the bayou. A graph of the flow data for Brays Bayou downstream of the Southwest WWTP is shown below in Figure 5. The available flow for the data was the amount of flow exceeding the TCEQ minimum flow specified for Brays Bayou. It should be noted that while the Brays Bayou stream gauge provides total flow in the bayou, only upstream effluent flow is available for diversion. A dataset of naturalized upstream wastewater flows along with plant average flow rates was used to estimate the effluent flow available for diversion in Brays Bayou. Approximately 20 MGD (annual average) is available for diversion based on 50% of the total upstream effluent flow, exceeding TCEQ instream flow criteria, and recorded plant discharges. The estimated upstream effluent flows are combined with Southwest WWTP flows to determine the total potential diversion.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 15 of 27

Brays Bayou Available Diversion at Southwest WWTP October 2010 to September 2013

300.00 275.00

Available Diversion (MGD) Available Diversion w/o SW WWTP Effluent (MGD)

250.00 Diversion Flow (MGD)

225.00 200.00 175.00 150.00 125.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent Time Flow Exceeded (%)

FIGURE 5: BRAYS BAYOU AVAILABLE DIVERSION FLOW DATA

6.2.2 Diversion Point and Intake Facilities

Diversion from Brays Bayou would likely require an intake and off-channel pump station to be constructed within the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) ROW. The permitting, design and construction would need to comply with HCFCD policies and could not interfere with the flood control aspects of Brays Bayou. The diversion point would be downstream of the Southwest WWTP in order to capture the maximum available flows. The intake would include some type of screening to protect piping and pumps from debris typically associated with large drainage channels. Sedimentation is also a concern for stormwater pump stations. Even though Brays Bayou is concrete lined and does not erode as an earthen channel might, heavy rainfall events are still likely to wash debris and sediment into the channel and potentially into the diversion intake. The intake can be designed to prevent the majority of sediment in the channel from entering the pumping facilities.

6.2.3 Pumping Facilities

The pump station for this alternative would preferably be located on the south side of Brays Bayou, west of the

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 16 of 27 Union Pacific Railroad. As an alternative, there is available space on the north side of North Braeswood Boulevard and in the median between the westbound and eastbound lanes. This would place the pump station within the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ROW. The Brays Bayou flow data indicate that the 45 MGD pump station option is expected to provide an annual average of 35.1 MGD, for an annual average yield of approximately 39,500 acre-feet.

6.2.4 Water Transmission System

The water transmission system for the Brays Bayou pump station would likely follow the same route as the previously described transmission system for the Southwest WWTP direct reuse system. A 42 inch pipeline can handle 45 MGD at a velocity below 7 fps. The majority of the time the system would be run closer to 30 MGD, with a velocity of 4.8 fps.

6.2.5 Estimated Cost of Strategy

The estimated cost for a 45 MGD pump station, 42 inch pipeline, and the required treatment for this water transmission system is $43,730,000. Debt service on the construction cost, plus annual operation and maintenance is estimated to be $4,876,000. This option produces 39,500 acre-feet per year for about $123 per acre-foot.

6.3

SOUTHWEST WWTP AND BRAYS BAYOU COMBINED PUMP STATION

6.3.1 Intake Points

In order to maximize the amount of water capable of being provided to the GCWA Canal system, a transmission system could be constructed to use a single pump station, but with two intake points: one intake to capture treated effluent directly from the Southwest WWTP, and a second intake to pull water from Brays Bayou. The Southwest WWTP intake would be capable to divert all plant effluent. The Brays Bayou intake would be capable of diverting flows in excess of the specified environmental flows, up to the design capacity of the pump station. Dual intakes would allow GCWA to pull available water from the bayou to supplement Southwest WWTP effluent.

6.3.2 Pumping Facilities

The pumping facilities for this strategy are the same as for the Brays Bayou Diversion in Section 6.2.3. FNIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analysis of the WWTP and bayou flows indicates that a 60 MGD pump station can provide an annual average of 50.8 MGD, for an annual yield of 57,300 acre-feet.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 17 of 27

6.3.3 Water Transmission System

The water transmission system for the combined pump station would follow the same route as the previously described transmission systems. The estimated pipeline size is 48 inches in order to be able to transport 60 MGD at a velocity below 7.4 fps. The majority of the time the system would be run closer to 47 MGD, which would result in a velocity of 5.8 fps.

6.3.4 Estimated Cost of Strategy

The estimated cost for a 60 MGD, dual-intake pump station, 48 inch pipeline and the required treatment for this water transmission system is approximately $52,382,000. Annual debt service on the construction cost, plus annual operation and maintenance is estimated to be $5,688,000. This option produces 57,300 acre-feet per year for about $99 per acre-foot.

6.4

ALMEDA SIMS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

6.4.1 Effluent Flow Available

FNI obtained Almeda Sims WWTP effluent flow data for October 2010 through September 30, 2011 and from September 30, 2012 to September 30, 2013. Figure 6 graphically shows the percent of time that the measured effluent flow exceeded a certain value over the recorded period. From the analysis performed, the plant discharges approximately 5 MGD 95% of the time, 7 MGD 50% of the time, and 10 MGD 10% of the time. The daily peak 2-hr flow exceeds 6 MGD 100% of the time and 11 MGD 50% of the time. Therefore, 5 to 6 MGD would be commonly available, but flow over 10 MGD will be rare, unless future regional development adds to the plant influent.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 18 of 27

Almeda Sims WWTP Effluent Data

October 2010 to September 2011 and October 2012 to September 2013 60.0 55.0 Average Daily Flow (MGD) 2-Hr Peak Flow (MGD)

50.0

Plant Flow (MGD)

45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent Time Flow Exceeded (%)

FIGURE 6: ALMEDA SIMS PLANT EFFLUENT FLOW DATA

6.4.2 Plant Diversion Point

Effluent would need to be pulled from the plant flow after it leaves the chlorine contact basins. Ideally intake piping could be directly connected to underground plant piping; however, the diversion point and pump station design will have to be thoroughly investigated to determine the best method for diverting flow at the plant.

6.4.3 Pumping Facilities

A pump station at the Almeda Sims WWTP would preferably be located on the plant site in order to eliminate the need for a pump station building and security features of a standalone pump station. Six pump station and pipeline options were analyzed, comparing the facility costs with the potential water yields. The six options were 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12 MGD. The 12 MGD pump station delivered the most water at an annual average of 7.55 MGD, but had a significant cost in relation to the amount of water delivered. The 8 MGD pump station is estimated to deliver an annual average of 7.0 MGD using a 24-inch diameter pipeline, and was overall the most cost effective.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 19 of 27

6.4.4 Water Transmission System

A transmission system to transport effluent from the Almeda Sims WWTP to the GCWA canal system would be too costly for the limited amount available. However, it would be possible to combine the transmission system from the Almeda Sims WWTP with a system from the Southwest WWTP or Brays Bayou to the GCWA Canal. Almeda Sims effluent could possibly be used to supply Texas Brine, as discussed in Section 6.5.

6.5

TEXAS BRINE

6.5.1 Water Usage and Existing System

Monthly water usage data from GCWA for January 2007 to December 2011 shows that over the five year period, Texas Brine used an average of 17 MG per month with a peak month of 73.8 MG in November 2010. However, throughout 2011, the last year of the data, Texas Brine’s monthly water use averaged about 29 MG. Currently, Texas Brine pumps water from the GCWA canal south of Houston, through a 12-inch pipeline, to its Feldman St. facility. A large portion of the alignment is in CenterPoint’s ROW adjacent to other pipeline easements and overhead electric lines. Based on the 12 inch pipe size, to deliver 4 MGD would require a velocity of nearly 7.9 fps. Based on the hydraulics, it is reasonable assume that if 5 MGD of effluent is available, and if the effluent quality is acceptable, Texas Brine’s process water demands could be met with effluent reuse water in place of GCWA canal water.

6.5.2 Water Delivery from Almeda Sims WWTP

The Almeda Sims WWTP is located less than 2 miles southeast of Texas Brine’s facility. Constructing a pump station at the WWTP and a pipeline to the Texas Brine waterline would allow treated effluent to be supplied to Texas Brine in lieu of drawing water from the GCWA canal. From the WWTP, a pipeline could be installed along the north side of Orem Dr. traveling west, but the pipeline would most likely have to be installed in the median shortly after crossing Almeda Rd. due to limited ROW on the north side of Orem Dr. The pipeline could then intersect the Texas Brine alignment just as it makes a 90 degree bend in the median of Orem Dr. The total pipeline alignment would be about 5,325 feet and could tee into the existing system. This approach would ensure that Texas Brine could pump from the GCWA canal if there is not enough water available at the Almeda Sims WWTP.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 20 of 27

6.5.3

Connection to Southwest WWTP Pipeline

The Almeda Sims WWTP is capable of providing an annual average of 7.55 MGD or 8,450 acre-feet per year for direct reuse. From the monthly water usage data, this is much more water than Texas Brine needs. In order to maximize the amount of water available from the Almeda Sims WWTP, the pipeline would need to continue west from the Texas Brine pipeline to connect with the Southwest WWTP pipeline. This pipeline could be constructed parallel to the existing Texas Brine pipeline to the GCWA Canal or could actually replace the Texas Brine pipeline. The full pipeline length from the Almeda Sims WWTP to the connection with the Southwest WWTP is about 13,525 feet. An 8 MGD pump station and 24-inch pipeline was found to be the most cost effective option to transport water from the Almeda Sims WWTP. A map of the conceptual pipeline routes can be found below in Figure 7.

6.5.4 Estimated Cost of Strategy

The 8 MGD pumping system from the Almeda Sims WWTP to the Texas Brine pipeline is estimated to have a construction cost of about $6,206,000. The annual cost for debt service, power, operation, and maintenance is estimated to be $703,000. This option produces 7,830 acre-feet per year for about $90 per acre-foot. However, Texas Brine only needs about 1 MGD or 1,120 acre-feet. So unless the rest of the water can be diverted to the GCWA canal, the Texas Brine option is not cost competitive. An 8 MGD pumping system to deliver water from the Almeda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine and then connecting to the pipeline from the Southwest WWTP would make use of all available water at the Almeda Sims WWTP. The construction cost for this option is estimated to be $8,990,000 with an annual cost of $916,000 this raises the cost for the 7,830 acre-feet to about $117 per acre-foot.

Legend

Date Saved: 2/3/2014 12:32:04 PM FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 10497 TOWN AND COUNTRY WAY, SUITE 600 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77024 P: 713-600-6800 F: 713-600-6801

Connection to Texas Brine

Connection to Southwest Plant Piping

Pipeline from Almeda Sims

Texas Brine Raw Water Pipeline

Path: H:\PIPES_PUMPS\FINAL_EXHIBITS\Memo\MXDs\AlmedaSimsTexasBrine.mxd

1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet

Pipeline Route from Almeda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

City of Houston Reuse Project

GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY

# *

Almeda Sims WWTP

Figure 7

PREPARED BY

FILE NAME

Date: 2/3/2014

GCW13494

Name: AlmedaSimsTexasBrine

NAD83 State Plane (feet) Texas South Central

DATUM & COORDINATE SYSTEM

DATE CREATED

FN PROJECT NO.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 22 of 27

7.0

TCEQ CONSIDERATIONS

The proposed concept is to capture new source waters (direct and indirect treated effluent) and discharge into GCWA’s canal system upstream of its reservoir. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has regulatory authority over source waters, including regulating the use of new diversions from effluent dominated bayous and direct reuse of treated effluent. TCEQ has not published fully defined processes or procedures for obtaining regulatory approval when these new source waters are to be used for drinking water supplies. Each application will be evaluated on its own merits. FNI and TCEQ worked closely together when FNI designed the State’s first system for direct potable reuse of treated effluent. That experience helped shape TCEQ’s approach. The information summarized below is based on email communications with TCEQ and reflects FNI understanding of the key issues and related protections that are likely to be required before these new source waters receive regulatory approval.

7.1.1 Key Issues

Because Brays Bayou is an effluent dominated stream with multiple WWTPs discharging effluent within 10 miles of the diversion point, it is very likely that TCEQ would evaluate the source water in the same manner as it does for direct potable reuse. The TCEQ will consider approving (and has approved) potable reuse, including direct potable reuse, if adequate safeguards are provided to consistently and conservatively meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act; more specifically, the Surface Water Treatment Rules for pathogen inactivation. Currently the key health related requirements are a minimum of: • • •

8-log removal for virus (9-log if chloramines are used), 6-log removal for Giardia, and

5.5-log removal for Cryptosporidium

Additional inactivation could be required if the wastewater source contained greater than typical concentration of pathogens. TCEQ considers inactivation in subsequent surface water treatment, for example the GCWA’s Thomas S. Mackey WTP, but does not recognize any credit from upstream wastewater treatment processes, for example filtration and chlorination at the Southwest WWTP. Additionally, critical microbiological and chemical treatment processes may require continuous online monitoring with provisions for automatic shutdown if treatment goals for acute health protection are jeopardized. For example, if the WWTP effluent exceeds the drinking water MCL for nitrite/nitrate or any other chemical that has an acute health risk, continuous monitoring and automatic shutdown will be required.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 23 of 27 A direct potable reuse WTP must produce a water with a chemical quality that meets all Chapter 290, Subchapter F requirements, including being noncorrosive, not exceeding the disinfection byproduct maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in distribution, and meeting future MCLs. At this time, TCEQ does not require compliance with unregulated microbiological and chemical contaminants, but some monitoring may be required, and should an unregulated contaminant become regulated, compliance will be required.

7.1.2 Project Considerations

For GCWA, the primary issue will be to achieve the log removal goals. The log-reduction terminology is a way to express levels of decreased biological contamination in water by factors of 10. Log reduction relates to the percentage of microorganisms physically removed or inactivated by a given process. •

1-log reduction = 90% removal

•

2-log reduction = 99% removal

•

3-log reduction = 99.9% removal

•

4-log reduction = 99.99% removal

Specific water treatment processes are credited with achieving a defined log removal. For example, conventional water treatment plants typically achieve 4-log reduction by use of coagulation-sedimentationfiltration, followed by chemical disinfection with chlorine or chloramines. For direct potable reuse applications, TCEQ will require another 4-log reduction to achieve a total of 8-log reduction or 99.999999% removal. There are multiple disinfection options to achieve the added 4-log reduction. The evaluation of which approach may be optimum is beyond the scope of this Technical Memorandum. For planning purposes, FNI considered 4-log reduction of the new source water prior to introduction into the GCWA system. Typical disinfection options include: •

Chlorination, by chlorine gas, chloramines or chlorine dioxide;

•

Ultraviolet radiation, and

•

Ozonation

Again, for planning purposes, FNI looked at ozonation because it is relatively easy to achieve 4-log reduction, is easy to apply and measure, and is least likely to create disinfection by-products or create bromates. A suitably sized ozone system at the Southwest WWTP would likely include the following components:

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 24 of 27 •

Two 1,500ppd ozone generators

•

1-Nitrogen Boost

•

LOX Tank and Vaporizers

•

Closed Loop Cooling System

•

Injection System with Pipeline Flash Reactor

For budgetary purposes a capital cost of $3,700,000 is used for the 35 MGD Southwest WWTP direct reuse option. The annual cost for oxygen, electricity, and maintenance is estimate to be $700,000. For planning purposes these costs were factored up or down in relation to the flows in the other options. The ozone system would provide the 4-log reduction for all water obtained from both direct reuse and bayou diversion. If the additional 4-log reduction is done at the Thomas S. Mackey WTP, i.e., after reuse water is blended with the canal or reservoir water, the size of the system would need to be capable of handling the entire 50 MGD plant flow. In that case, a capital budget of $4,920,000 with an annual cost for materials, operations, and maintenance of $990,000 is reasonable.

8.0

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND SCHEDULE

Table 4, below, shows the various options presented in this memorandum and relevant information for each option. The combined Southwest WWTP and Brays Bayou diversion is marginally more expensive than direct reuse at the Southwest WWTP and Brays Bayou Diversion, but would provide a larger quantity of water and more flexible water supply. The costs presented as part of this study and shown below do not include cost associated with purchasing the water, and are only included for the comparison of the strategies developed. Final costs will be developed as part of a future study. Project schedules for the estimated duration of preliminary engineering, permitting, final engineering, and construction for each of the options can be found below in Figure 8.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 25 of 27 TABLE 4: WATER SUPPLY STRATEGIES Southwest WWTP Direct Reuse

Brays Bayou Diversion

Combined Southwest and Brays Diversion

Almeda Sims to Texas Brine

Almeda Sims to Southwest Pipeline

Average Flow (MGD)

30.1

35.1

50.8

7.0

Pipeline Diameter (in)

Pump Station Cost

$4,980,000

$8,012,000

$11,805,000

$2,275,000

Pipeline Cost

$31,194,000

$34,882,000

$2,795,000

$5,579,000

Additional 4-log Removal Cost

$3,700,000

$4,524,000

$5,700,000

$1,136,000

Total Cost

$39,875,000

$43,730,000

$52,382,000

$6,206,000

$8,990,000

Annual Cost

$4,296,000

$4,876,000

$5,688,000

$703,000

$916,000

$126

$123

$99

$90

$117

Pump Station Capacity (MGD)

$ per Acre-foot

Notes: 1. An average flow of 7 MGD is available for Almeda Sims to Texas Brine, but Texas Brine does not have a need for the full 7 MGD. 2. The water for Almeda Sims to Texas Brine is only valued at $90 per acre-foot if Texas Brine buys the full amount of water available. 3. All costs were rounded to the nearest $1,000. 4. For planning purposes, ozone treatment was used for the additional 4-log removal (virus disinfection). 5. The per acre-foot cost do not include the cost to purchase effluent from the City of Houston.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 26 of 27 Southwest WWTP PS and PL Task

Project Yr 1 Duration

Prelim. Engineering

6 mon

Permitting

3 mon

Final Engineering

12 mon

Construction

12 mon

Brays Diversion PS and PL Task

Duration

Prelim. Engineering

6 mon

Permitting

6 mon

Final Engineering

12 mon

Construction

15 mon

Prelim. Engineering

Duration

Project Yr 3 Q4

Project Yr 2 Q4

Project Yr 3 Q4

Project Yr 2 Q4

Project Yr 4

Project Yr 4 Q4

Project Yr 3 Q4

Project Yr 4 Q4

6 mon 6 mon

Final Engineering

12 mon

Construction

18 mon

Almeda Sims to Texas Brine PS and PL Duration

Prelim. Engineering

3 mon

Permitting

3 mon

Final Engineering

6 mon

Construction

6 mon

Project Yr 1 Q1

Almeda Sims to Southwest PS and PL Task

Project Yr 1

Permitting

Task

Project Yr 1

Combined PS and PL Task

Project Yr 2

Duration

Prelim. Engineering

3 mon

Permitting

3 mon

Final Engineering

6 mon

Construction

9 mon

Project Yr 2 Q4

Project Yr 1 Q1

Project Yr 3 Q4

Project Yr 2 Q4

Project Yr 4 Q4

Project Yr 3 Q4

FIGURE 8: PROJECT SCHEDULES

Project Yr 4 Q4

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014 Page 27 of 27

9.0

PROPOSED PUMPING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

9.1

SOUTHWEST WWTP AND BRAYS BAYOU COMBINED PUMP STATION

The Southwest WWTP and Brays Bayou combined pump station was determined to be the most effective balance of capital investment for the water supplied. The pump station would preferably be located on the south side of Brays Bayou along N. Braeswood Blvd. with two intakes feeding into it. It is proposed to construct a 60 MGD pump station with a 48-inch pipeline. The proposed pipeline would be located within the CenterPoint ROW south to McHard Rd. and then head southwest to the GCWA canal with a total length of about 52,000 feet. Only one pipeline route was investigated due to the limited pipeline corridors available.

9.2

ALMEDA SIMS WASTEWATER TREATMENT WWTP

The Almeda Sims WWTP pump station was determined to provide little benefit unless the system is combined with the transmission system from the Southwest WWTP to send water to the GCWA Canal. This would allow the excess water not used by Texas Brine to be transported to GCWA. It is proposed to construct an 8 MGD pump station on the plant site with a 24-inch pipeline from the Almeda Sims WWTP to the Southwest pipeline with a connection to the Texas Brine pipeline. A complete transmission system between the Southwest WWTP, Almeda Sims WWTP, and Texas Brine would provide redundancy with a greater chance of water availability, while also providing GCWA with water from both WWTPs and Brays Bayou.

9.3

RECOMMENDATION

From the results of this study, the Southwest WWTP and Brays Bayou combined pump station is recommended as the most cost effective water supply. In order to maximize the benefit of the constructed transmission system, it is also recommended that GCWA pumps the full capacity of the pump station whenever the water is available. The WWTP flows are fairly consistent throughout the year, and vary mainly due to large rain events. Therefore, this strategy is not recommended for providing peak demand flows during summer months because there is no storage for water that is not diverted and the infrastructure only provides benefit if water is pumped. Final costs and a detailed investigation of pumping scenarios will be examined in a future study.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014

APPENDIX A WATER REUSE PERMIT

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

WATER USE PERMIT PERMIT NO. 5827

TYPE §§11.121, 11.042 11.085(v)

Permittee:

City of Houston

Address:

611 Walker 21st Floor Houston, Texas 77002

Filed:

May 14, 2004

Granted:

May 11, 2011

Purpose:

Municipal and Industrial

Counties:

Harris, Fort Bend, Brazoria, Chambers and Galveston

Watershed:

San Jacinto Basin, Trinity River Basin, San JacintoBrazos Coastal Basin, TrinitySan Jacinto Coastal Basin

Watercourse: Brays Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Green Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Lake Houston, Sims Bayou, and Whiteoak Bayou

WHEREAS, the City of Houston (City) has applied for a Water Use Permit to divert and reuse not to exceed a combined total of 580,923 acre-feet of its return flows and any future return flows from its wastewater treatment plants located in the San Jacinto River Basin for municipal and industrial purposes within the City’s service area. The return flows originate from groundwater, interbasin transfer of surface water, and San Jacinto River Basin water rights; and WHEREAS, the City also requested authorization to use the bed and banks of Brays Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Greens Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Lake Houston, Sims Bayou, and Whiteoak Bayou to convey the return flows from the point of discharge to the point of diversion; and WHEREAS, the City also requests an exempt interbasin transfer to transfer water to the Trinity River Basin, San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin, and Trinity-San Jacinto Coastal Basin within the City’s service area in Harris, Fort Bend, Brazoria, Chambers and Galveston counties within those basins; and WHEREAS, water will be discharged from Wastewater Treatment Plants located on the Houston Ship Channel, Greens Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Cole Creek, Berry Bayou, Keegans Bayou, Brickhouse Gully, Whiteoak Bayou, Evans Gully and Lake Houston; and WHEREAS, the City has estimated a 5% carriage loss associated with conveyance of water

down the bed and banks; and WHEREAS, the City entered into an agreement to pass downstream not less than 50% of the volume discharged or directly reused from the Wastewater Treatment Plants on a daily basis by the treatment plants subject to this application for the purpose of providing instream flows and freshwater inflows to the Galveston Bay estuary system; and WHEREAS, this application is subject to the Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) and must be consistent with the CMP goals and policies; and WHEREAS, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality finds that jurisdiction over the application is established; and WHEREAS, Applicant has provided and the Executive Director has approved the Unappropriated Flow and Reuse Accounting Plan and modifications to the Lake Houston Reservoir Accounting Plan; and WHEREAS, the Executive Director recommends special conditions be included in the permit; and WHEREAS, three requests for a contested case hearing were received and subsequently withdrawn; and WHEREAS, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality finds that the issuance of the permit is consistent with the goals and policies of the Texas CMP; and WHEREAS, the Commission has complied with the requirements of the Texas Water Code and Rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in issuing this permit; NOW, THEREFORE, this Water Use Permit No. 5827 is issued to the City of Houston, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1.

USE Permittee is authorized to use the bed and banks of Brays Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Greens Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Lake Houston, Sims Bayou, and Whiteoak Bayou, San Jacinto River Basin to convey return flows originating from groundwater, interbasin transfer of surface water, and San Jacinto River Basin water rights for subsequent diversion and use of up to 580,923 acre-feet of those return flows, and any future return flows, per year for municipal, industrial purposes in the Trinity River Basin, San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin, and Trinity-San Jacinto Coastal Basin within the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s service area in Harris, Fort Bend, Brazoria, Chambers and Galveston counties within those basins.

2 of 10

DISCHARGE The TPDES permits authorize the Permittee to discharge return flows at each of the following locations:

Name

TPDES Permit #

Discharge (mgd)

Receiving Stream

North Latitude

West Longitude

Sims Bayou North WWTP

10495002 (Outfall 001)

39.900

Houston Ship Channel

29.709

-95.259

Sims Bayou South WWTP

10495002 (Outfall 002)

54.000

Houston Ship Channel

29.699

-95.266

Almeda Sims WWTP

10495003

28.000

Houston Ship Channel

29.628

-95.408

Chocolate Bayou WWTP

10495009

7.000

Houston Ship Channel

29.647

-95.339

FWSD1 # 23 WWTP

10495016

11.400

Greens Bayou

29.846

-95.275

Homestead WWTP

10495023

4.000

Houston Ship Channel

29.806

-95.294

West District WWTP

10495030

26.400

Buffalo Bayou

29.763

-95.561

Southwest WWTP

10495037

60.000

Houston Ship Channel

29.686

-95.449

WCID2 # 47 WWTP

10495050

5.760

Berry Bayou

29.649

-95.223

Easthaven WWTP

10495065

3.000

Houston Ship Channel

29.644

-95.263

Northwest WWTP

10495076

21.000

Cole Creek

29.846

-95.464

Northeast WWTP

10495077

7.250

Greens Bayou

29.781

-95.215

International Airport WWTP

10495078

8.000

Greens Bayou

29.963

-95.357

3 of 10

Name

TPDES Permit #

Discharge (mgd)

Receiving Stream

North Latitude

West Longitude

Houston Ship Channel

29.754

-95.298

69th Street WWTP

10495090

200.000

WCID2 111 WWTP

10495095

7.200

Keegans Bayou

29.666

-95.607

Whiteoak WWTP

10495099

4.000

Whiteoak Bayou

29.876

-95.495

Northgate WWTP

10495100

3.710

Greens Bayou

29.948

-95.401

Imperial Valley WWTP

10495101

4.000

Greens Bayou

29.928

-95.393

Turkey Creek WWTP

10495109

12.000

Buffalo Bayou

29.766

-95.620

Greenridge WWTP

10495110

7.050

Houston Ship Channel

29.604

-95.477

Beltway WWTP

10495111

13.340

Houston Ship Channel

29.708

-95.567

Upper Brays WWTP

10495116

18.000

Houston Ship Channel

29.716

-95.589

Keegans Bayou WWTP

10495119

23.100

Houston Ship Channel

29.668

-95.542

Northbelt WWTP

10495122

5.000

Greens Bayou

29.929

-95.279

Willowbrook Regional WWTP

10495126

2.000

Greens Bayou

29.954

-95.532

MUD3 # 203 WWTP

10495133

3.000

Greens Bayou

29.945

-95.436

Park Ten WWTP

10495135

3.500

Buffalo Bayou

29.789

-95.672

Westway WWTP

10495139

0.995

Brickhouse Gully

29.844

-95.547

Kingwood West WWTP

10495142

2.000

Evans Gully

30.059

-95.264

4 of 10

Name

TPDES Permit #

Discharge (mgd)

Receiving Stream

North Latitude

West Longitude

Kingwood Central WWTP

10495146

9.400

Lake Houston

30.045

-95.189

Tidwell Timbers WWTP

10495148

0.488

Greens Bayou

29.850

-95.228

WCID2 # 76 WWTP

10495150

0.700

Greens Bayou

29.913

-95.291

3. DIVERSION Permittee is authorized to divert from the following described diversion points: Maximum Diversion Rate (cfs)

Maximum Diversion Rate (gpm)

Southwest WWTP

188.2

84,472

MacGregor Park

188.2

69th Street WWTP

North Latitude

West Longitude

Brays Bayou

29.686

-95.449

84,472

Brays Bayou

29.714

-95.333

374.3

167,986

Buffalo Bayou

29.754

-95.298

Memorial Park

64.8

29,097

Buffalo Bayou

29.758

-95.434

Northeast WWTP

64.4

28,922

Greens Bayou

29.781

-95.215

Brock Park

53.2

23,888

Greens Bayou

29.838

-95.234

Homestead WWTP

6.2

2,778

Hunting Bayou

29.806

-95.294

Herman Brown Park

6.2

2,778

Hunting Bayou

29.785

-95.238

Lake Houston Pump Station

12.3

5,506

Lake Houston

29.916

-95.142

NEWPP

12.3

5,506

Lake Houston

29.940

-95.167

Name

Stream or Lake

5 of 10

Maximum Diversion Rate (cfs)

Maximum Diversion Rate (gpm)

Sims Bayou North WWTP

199.3

89,441

Reveille Park

58.9

Northwest WWTP Stude Park

Name

Stream or Lake

North Latitude

West Longitude

Sims Bayou

29.709

-95.259

26,424

Sims Bayou

29.678

-95.284

34.0

15,278

White Oak Bayou

29.846

-95.464

35.6

15,969

White Oak Bayou

29.778

-95.385

TIME PRIORITY The time priority of this right is May 14, 2004.

CONSERVATION Permittee shall implement water conservation plans that provide for the utilization of reasonable practices, techniques, and technologies, for each category of authorized use, that reduce on a per-unit basis the consumption of water, prevent or reduce the loss or waste of water, improve the efficiency in the use of water, increase the recycling and reuse of water, and prevent the pollution of water, so that a water supply is made available for future or alternative uses. The practices, techniques, and technologies used shall be designed to achieve a level of efficiency of use for each category of authorized use that is equal to or greater than the level provided for in Permitteesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; most recent water conservation plans on file with the Commission as of the date of the issuance of this permit. Such plans shall include a requirement in every wholesale water contract entered into, on or after the effective date of this amendment, including any contract extension or renewal, that each successive wholesale customer develop and implement conservation measures meeting the requirements of this provision. If the customer intends to resell the water, then the contract for resale of the water must have water conservation requirements so that each successive wholesale customer in the resale of the water is required to implement water conservation measures meeting the requirements of this provision.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS A.

The diversions authorized by this permit are dependent upon potentially interruptible return flows or discharges and are conditioned on the availability of those discharges. The right to divert the discharged return flows is subject to revocation if discharges become permanently unavailable for diversion and may be subject to reduction if the return

6 of 10

flows are not available in quantities and qualities sufficient to fully satisfy the permit. Should the discharges become permanently unavailable for diversion, Permittee shall immediately cease diversion under this permit and either apply to amend the permit, or voluntarily forfeit the permit. If Permittee does not amend or forfeit the permit, the Commission may begin proceedings to cancel this permit. Permittee shall only divert the return flows that are actually discharged and if there is a permanent reduction in available return flows, Permittee shall immediately seek an amendment to the permit to reflect the reductions. B.

Permittee shall only divert and use return flows pursuant to Paragraph 1. USE and Paragraph 3. DIVERSION in accordance with the most recently approved accounting plan. Permittee shall maintain the plan in electronic format and make the data available to the Executive Director and the public upon request. Any modifications to the accounting plan shall be approved by the Executive Director. Any modification to the accounting plan that changes the permit terms must be in the form of an amendment to the permit. Should Permittee fail to maintain the accounting plan or notify the Executive Director of any modifications to the plan, Permittee shall immediately cease diversion of discharged return flows, and either apply to amend the permit, or voluntarily forfeit the permit. If Permittee fails to amend the accounting plan or forfeit the permit, the Commission may begin proceedings to cancel the permit. Permittee shall immediately notify the Executive Director upon modification of the accounting plan and provide copies of the appropriate documents effectuating such changes.

Prior to diversion of future return flows in excess of the amount currently authorized in Paragraph 1. USE, Permittee shall apply for and be granted the right to reuse those return flows. Permittee shall amend the accounting plan to include future discharges of groundwater-based return flows prior to diverting said return flows.

The following special conditions are subject to adjustment by the commission if the commission determines, through an expedited public review process, that such adjustment is appropriate to achieve compliance with applicable environmental flow standards adopted pursuant to Texas Water Code ยง 11.1471. Any adjustment shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Texas Water Code ยง 11.147(e-1). 1.

In order to provide sufficient flow for instream uses of Buffalo Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when streamflow immediately downstream of the diversion point at the 69th Street WWTP equals or exceeds the following values:

Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Buffalo Bayou at 69th Street WWTP Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 107.06 101.08 101.21 88.88 129.96 190.09 130.71 109.80 118.76 84.12 84.12

7 of 10

Dec 98.10

Jan 75.26

Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Buffalo Bayou at Memorial Park Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 68.58 58.34 52.47 91.13 142.57 89.75 70.42 79.40 48.79 55.69 3.

Jan 38.74

Feb 53.73

Jan 36.54

Feb 37.98

Jan 41.17

Dec 50.45

In order to provide sufficient flow for instream uses of Greens Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when streamflow immediately downstream of the diversion point at Brock Park equals or exceeds the following values:

Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Greens Bayou at Brock Park Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 50.52 45.14 46.22 48.37 41.92 40.84 41.92 30.53 6.

Dec 35.87

In order to provide sufficient flow for instream uses of Brays Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when streamflow immediately downstream of the diversion point at McGregor Park equals or exceeds the following values:

Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Brays Bayou at McGregor Park Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 68.87 71.14 75.68 75.68 75.68 77.19 77.19 48.18 49.44 5.

Dec 69.04

In order to provide sufficient flow for instream uses of Brays Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when streamflow immediately downstream of the diversion point at the Southwest WWTP equals or exceeds the following values:

Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Brays Bayou at Southwest WWTP Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 38.20 48.96 50.58 53.80 53.80 53.80 54.88 54.88 34.26 35.15 4.

Jan 54.49

In order to provide sufficient flow for instream uses of Buffalo Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when streamflow immediately downstream of the diversion point at Memorial Park equals or exceeds the following values:

Nov 30.53

Dec 33.68

In order to provide sufficient flow for instream uses of Greens Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when streamflow immediately downstream of the diversion point at the Northeast WWTP equals or exceeds the following values:

Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Greens Bayou at Northeast WWTP Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 42.78 56.91 50.85 52.07 54.49 47.22 46.01 47.22 34.39 34.39

8 of 10

Dec 37.94

Jan 2.26

Feb 2.26

Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Hunting Bayou at Homestead WWTP Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 2.92 2.48 2.54 2.65 2.34 2.00 2.27 1.61 1.61 8.

Jan 4.97

Feb 4.97

Feb 20.00

Jan 28.96

Dec 4.17

In order to provide sufficient flow for instream uses of Sims Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when streamflow immediately downstream of the diversion point at Reveille Park equals or exceeds the following values:

Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Sims Bayou at Reveille Park Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 22.46 20.00 22.46 22.46 20.58 20.58 22.46 20.00 10.

Dec 1.90

In order to provide sufficient flow for instream uses of Hunting Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when streamflow immediately downstream of the diversion point at Herman Brown Park equals or exceeds the following values:

Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Hunting Bayou at Herman Brown Park Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 6.41 5.44 5.59 5.81 5.14 4.40 4.99 3.53 3.53 9.

Jan 20.00

In order to provide sufficient flow for instream uses of Hunting Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when streamflow immediately downstream of the diversion point at the Homestead WWTP equals or exceeds the following values:

Nov 20.00

Dec 20.00

In order to provide sufficient flow for instream uses of Sims Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when streamflow immediately downstream of the diversion point at the Sims Bayou WWTP equals or exceeds the following values:

Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Sims Bayou at Sims Bayou WWTP Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 28.96 32.51 28.96 32.51 32.51 29.80 29.80 32.51 28.96 28.96

9 of 10

Dec 28.96

11.

In order to provide sufficient flow for instream uses of Whiteoak Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when streamflow immediately downstream of the diversion point at the Northwest WWTP equals or exceeds the following values:

Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Whiteoak Bayou at Northwest WWTP Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 19.06 19.06 21.72 19.06 19.06 20.44 19.16 19.16 19.06 19.06 19.06 19.06 12.

Jan 26.86

Feb 26.86

In order to provide sufficient flow for instream uses of Whiteoak Bayou, diversions should be limited to times when streamflow immediately downstream of the diversion point at Stude Park equals or exceeds the following values:

Recommended Monthly Flows (cfs) for Whiteoak Bayou at Stude Park Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 30.60 26.86 26.86 28.80 27.00 27.00 26.86 26.86 26.86

Dec 26.86

In order to maintain fresh water inflows to Galveston Bay Permittee shall only divert 50% of the volume discharged on a daily basis from each wastewater treatment plant.

Diversions under this permit are subject to both the applicable instream flow requirements and the requirement in Special Condition 6. E.

This permit is issued subject to all superior and senior water rights in the San Jacinto River Basin. Permittee agrees to be bound by the terms, conditions, and provisions contained herein and such agreement is a condition precedent to the granting of this permit. All other matters requested in the application which are not specifically granted by this permit are denied. This permit is issued subject to the Rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and to the right of continuing supervision of state water resources exercised by the Commission.

_________________________ For the Commission Date issued: May 11, 2011

10 of 10

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014

APPENDIX B SITE VISIT MEMOS

SITE VISIT MEMORANDUM TO:

File

FROM:

Alan C. Hutson, P.E.; Leo Weinberg, P.E.

SUBJECT:

GCWA Long Range Water Supply Study City of Houston Re-Use SWWWTP Site Visit

DATE:

December 9, 2013

FNI visited the Southwest WWTP and Almeda-Sims WWTP on Monday, November 25, 2013 to look at the plant facilities and assess the potential for adding facilities to divert treated effluent for re-use by GCWA. Alan Hutson, Leo Weinberg and Murali Erat of visited both plants while Jason Affinowich visited the SWWWTP only. The following memo details the findings of the site trip. FNI met with the Plant Superintendent of the SWWWTP for the City of Houston and received a tour of the plant facilities and provided some drawings at the end of the visit. Photos 1-7 below illustrate the major plant facilities. The chlorine contact basin has three basins (Photo 1). A pair of 120” conduits deliver the effluent by gravity to the filter basins. The three filter basins are in need of rehabilitation (Photo 2) and are currently being bypassed. A bypass conduit runs below slab between basins 2 and 3 (Photo 3). The channel empties into a wide basin at the end of the filter gallery. From here the water flows by gravity through sluice gates into the Bray’s Bayou. When the water level in the Bayou is high, the sluice gates are closed and the effluent is pumped by up to eight submersible pumps over a weir and into the Bayou. The line of pumps is shown in Photo 4. The pumps are also used for return water throughout the plant. The outfall consists of three 10’x5’ box culverts. Photos 5 and 6 show Brays Bayou, looking upstream and downstream respectively. Photo 7 shows the CenterPoint substation south of the Bayou that a proposed pipeline will have to be routed around.

WWTP Site Visit Memo Page 2 of 5

Photo 1. Chlorine Contact Basin

Photo 2. Filter Gallery between Basin 1 and 2.

WWTP Site Visit Memo Page 3 of 5

Photo 3. Filter Gallery between Basins 2 and 3.

Photo 4. Submersible Pumps with structure for monorail and crane.

WWTP Site Visit Memo Page 4 of 5

Photo 5. Looking upstream at Bray’s Bayou.

Photo 6. Looking downstream at Bray’s Bayou.

WWTP Site Visit Memo Page 5 of 5

Photo 7. CenterPoint Substation across from Brayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bayou

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014

APPENDIX C CITY OF HOUSTON REUSE CENTERPOINT COORDINATION

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Gulf Coast Water Authority

CC: FROM:

Freese and Nichols, Inc.

SUBJECT:

City of Houston Reuse CenterPoint Coordination

DATE:

December 10, 2013

Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) met with Lee Stoerner, Kevin Meals, and Mark Chan from CenterPoint Energy on November 26, 2013 to discuss the potential installation of a waterline within CenterPoint Right-of-Way (ROW). The discussion detailed many of the costs associated with the construction of the waterline, requirements for the design of the waterline and accompanying facilities within CenterPoint ROW, and the process for establishing an encroachment agreement with CenterPoint. The most substantial cost for the installation of the waterline will be for the easement of the pipeline. For a pipeline installed within ROW owned by CenterPoint, the cost is $40 per dia. in./rod. For a pipeline installed within a CenterPoint easement, the cost is $4 per dia. in./rod. The actual waterline easement owned would essentially be the width of the pipe plus a limited area for construction and maintenance. Manholes, access points, and any above ground structures would require additional easement costing $25/sq. ft. The construction time period will be limited to one year, and during construction, a $1 million letter of credit will be required. A CenterPoint damage prevention specialist is required to be on site and paid by the contractor during all construction activities. Also, a flat annual maintenance fee will be included in the encroachment agreement. The pipeline alignment will need to reference the location of existing CenterPoint structures. A survey of the ROW must be performed to locate structures and other utilities within the potential area of construction. It is preferred that the pipeline is located at least 25 ft. from the center of any overhead electric towers or poles, and no digging is allowed within 20 ft. of structures. The pipeline alignment should be as straight as possible throughout the ROW. Cathodic protection will be coordinated with CenterPoint once the location of the line and proximity of existing facilities is established. The pipeline will need to be designed in accordance with CenterPoint specifications and standards. CenterPoint will not review any pipeline alignments until a survey of the existing facilities has been completed. Once the survey is completed, an application can be submitted along with the proposed alignment, which clearly shows the location of the pipeline referenced to the existing facilities. After an alignment and application are submitted, CenterPoint will review and provides comments along with any preferred revisions to the route. For bid projects with multiple materials, the material with the smallest wall thickness should be chosen since the fee will be based on the outside diameter of the pipe, and the fee will be required to be paid before the bid is awarded. If the overall pipe outside diameter is found to be different than the original fee, a true-up clause will be required. CenterPoint advises that the owner err on the smaller side so that the true-up is a payment to CenterPoint. Also, the contractor must be in good standing with CenterPoint before construction will be allowed to commence. The agreement will require that As-Builts are provided to CenterPoint once the pipeline is constructed.

12/10/13 Page 2 of 2 From discussion with CenterPoint, the overall process should have a short timeline and the agreement should be very similar to the encroachment agreement between CenterPoint and West Harris County Regional Water Authority. Lee Stoerner and Kevin Meals did not think the ROW was overly crowded, but mentioned that the largest obstacle will be locating the pipeline near Brays substation. Brays substation is less than a mile south of the Southwest WWTP, and has extensive infrastructure surrounding it. Overall, both CenterPoint and FNI are confident that a waterline can be installed between the Southwest WWTP and the GCWA canal system south of Houston.

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014

APPENDIX D PUMP STATION OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Southwest WWTP Pump Station - 20 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$200,000

Diversion Structure

1 LS

$500,000

Sump

1 LS

$800,000

Suction Piping and Valves

1 LS

$200,000

5 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

5 EA

$150,000

$750,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$200,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

1 LS

$613,000

30%

$3,263,000 $978,900

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

1 of 27

$4,242,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Southwest WWTP Pump Station - 24 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$200,000

Diversion Structure

1 LS

$500,000

Sump

1 LS

$850,000

Suction Piping and Valves

1 LS

$200,000

6 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

5 EA

$175,000

$875,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$220,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

1 LS

$661,000

30%

$3,506,000 $1,051,800

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

2 of 27

$4,558,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Southwest WWTP Pump Station - 30 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$200,000

Diversion Structure

1 LS

$600,000

Sump

1 LS

$900,000

Suction Piping and Valves

1 LS

$200,000

10 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

4 EA

$200,000

$800,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$250,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

1 LS

$688,000

30%

$3,638,000 $1,091,400

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

3 of 27

$4,729,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Southwest WWTP Pump Station - 35 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$200,000

Diversion Structure

1 LS

$650,000

Sump

1 LS

$900,000

Suction Piping and Valves

1 LS

$200,000

12 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

4 EA

$220,000

$880,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$275,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

1 LS

$726,000

30%

$3,831,000 $1,149,300

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

4 of 27

$4,980,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Southwest WWTP Pump Station - 48 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$150,000

Diversion Structure

1 LS

$800,000

Sump

1 LS

$1,000,000

Suction Piping and Valves

1 LS

$300,000

12 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

5 EA

$220,000

$1,100,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$350,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

1 LS

$888,000

30%

$4,588,000 $1,376,400

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

5 of 27

$150,000

$5,964,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Southwest WWTP Pump Station - 60 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$200,000

Diversion Structure

1 LS

$900,000

Sump

1 LS

$1,200,000

Suction Piping and Valves

1 LS

$600

12 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

6 EA

$220,000

$1,320,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$400,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

1 LS

$955,000

30%

$4,975,600 $1,492,680

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

6 of 27

$200,000

$6,468,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station - 5 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$200,000

Intake Structure

1 LS

$300,000

Sump

1 LS

$350,000

Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$300,000

2.5 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

3 EA

$80,000

$240,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$50,000

1200 SF

$250

$300,000

1 LS

$385,000

30%

$2,125,000 $637,500

Pump Station Building and Foundation (30' x 40') Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

7 of 27

$2,763,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station - 16 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$200,000

Intake Structure

1 LS

$500,000

Sump

1 LS

$600,000

Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$300,000

4 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

5 EA

$120,000

$600,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$200,000

2400 SF

$250

$600,000

1 LS

$700,000

30%

$3,700,000 $1,110,000

Pump Station Building and Foundation (40' x 60') Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

8 of 27

$4,810,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station - 20 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$250,000

Intake Structure

1 LS

$500,000

Sump

1 LS

$800,000

Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$300,000

5 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

5 EA

$150,000

$750,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$200,000

3000 SF

$250

$750,000

1 LS

$825,000

30%

$4,375,000 $1,312,500

Pump Station Building and Foundation (50' x 60') Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

9 of 27

$5,688,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station - 30 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$300,000

Intake Structure

1 LS

$600,000

Sump

1 LS

$900,000

Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$400,000

10 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

4 EA

$200,000

$800,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$250,000

3000 SF

$250

$750,000

1 LS

$925,000

30%

$4,925,000 $1,477,500

Pump Station Building and Foundation (50' x 60') Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

10 of 27

$6,403,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station - 60 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$400,000

Intake Structure

1 LS

$800,000

Sump

1 LS

$1,200,000

Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$600,000

12 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

6 EA

$220,000

$1,320,000

Discharge Piping and Valves Pump Station Building and Foundation (60' x 80')

1 LS

$400,000

4800 SF

$250

$1,200,000

1 LS

$1,080,000

30%

$7,000,000 $2,100,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

11 of 27

$400,000

$9,100,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station Combined (1 Intake) - 20 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$250,000

Intake Structure

1 LS

$500,000

Sump

1 LS

$800,000

Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$300,000

5 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

5 EA

$150,000

$750,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$200,000

3000 SF

$250

$750,000

1 LS

$825,000

30%

$4,375,000 $1,312,500

Pump Station Building and Foundation (50' x 60') Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

12 of 27

$5,688,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station Combined (1 Intake) - 30 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$300,000

Intake Structure

1 LS

$600,000

Sump

1 LS

$900,000

Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$400,000

10 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

4 EA

$200,000

$800,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$250,000

3000 SF

$250

$750,000

1 LS

$925,000

30%

$4,925,000 $1,477,500

Pump Station Building and Foundation (50' x 60') Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

13 of 27

$6,403,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station Combined (1 Intake) - 45 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$350,000

Intake Structure

1 LS

$700,000

Sump

1 LS

$1,100,000

Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$500,000

15 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

4 EA

$250,000

$1,000,000

Discharge Piping and Valves Pump Station Building and Foundation (60' x 70')

1 LS

$300,000

4200 SF

$250

$1,050,000

1 LS

$1,163,000

30%

$6,163,000 $1,848,900

Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

14 of 27

$350,000

$8,012,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station Combined (1 Intake) - 60 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$400,000

Intake Structure

1 LS

$800,000

Sump

1 LS

$1,200,000

Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$600,000

12 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

6 EA

$220,000

$1,320,000

Discharge Piping and Valves Pump Station Building and Foundation (60' x 80')

1 LS

$400,000

4800 SF

$250

$1,200,000

1 LS

$1,080,000

30%

$7,000,000 $2,100,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

15 of 27

$400,000

$9,100,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station Combined (1 Intake) - 120 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$500,000

Intake Structure

1 LS

$1,000,000

Sump

1 LS

$2,000,000

Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$600,000

24 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

6 EA

$500,000

$3,000,000

Discharge Piping and Valves Pump Station Building and Foundation (80' x 100')

1 LS

$600,000

8000 SF

$250

$2,000,000

1 LS

$1,800,000

30%

$11,500,000 $3,450,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

16 of 27

$14,950,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station Combined (2 Intakes) - 20 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$300,000

Bayou Intake Structure

1 LS

$500,000

Plant Intake Structure

1 LS

$500,000

Sump

1 LS

$800,000

Bayou Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$300,000

Plant Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$500,000

5 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

5 EA

$150,000

$750,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$200,000

Pump Station Building and Foundation (50' x 60')

3000 SF

$250

$750,000

1 LS

$1,075,000

30%

$5,675,000 $1,702,500

Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

17 of 27

$7,378,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station Combined (2 Intakes) - 30 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$300,000

Bayou Intake Structure

1 LS

$600,000

Plant Intake Structure

1 LS

$600,000

Sump

1 LS

$900,000

Bayou Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$400,000

Plant Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$550,000

10 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

4 EA

$200,000

$800,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$250,000

Pump Station Building and Foundation (50' x 60')

3000 SF

$250

$750,000

1 LS

$1,213,000

30%

$6,363,000 $1,908,900

Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

18 of 27

$8,272,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station Combined (2 Intakes) - 45 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$400,000

Bayou Intake Structure

1 LS

$700,000

Plant Intake Structure

1 LS

$700,000

Sump

1 LS

$1,100,000

$1,100,000 $500,000

Bayou Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$500,000

Plant Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$750,000

15 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

4 EA

$250,000

$1,000,000

Discharge Piping and Valves Pump Station Building and Foundation (60' x 70')

1 LS

$300,000

4200 SF

$250

$1,050,000

1 LS

$1,525,000

30%

$8,025,000 $2,407,500

Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

19 of 27

$10,433,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station Combined (2 Intakes) - 60 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$500,000

Bayou Intake Structure

1 LS

$800,000

Plant Intake Structure

1 LS

$800,000

Sump

1 LS

$1,200,000

$1,200,000 $600,000

Bayou Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$600,000

Plant Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$785,000

12 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

6 EA

$220,000

$1,320,000

Discharge Piping and Valves Pump Station Building and Foundation (60' x 80')

1 LS

$400,000

4800 SF

$250

$1,200,000

1 LS

$1,476,000

30%

$9,081,000 $2,724,300

Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

20 of 27

$11,805,000

December 10, 2013

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Brays Bayou Pump Station Combined (2 Intakes) - 120 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$600,000

Bayou Intake Structure

1 LS

$1,000,000

Plant Intake Structure

1 LS

$800,000

Sump

1 LS

$2,000,000

$2,000,000 $600,000

Bayou Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$600,000

Plant Suction Piping, Tunnel, and Valves

1 LS

$785,000

24 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

6 EA

$500,000

$3,000,000

Discharge Piping and Valves Pump Station Building and Foundation (80' x 100')

1 LS

$600,000

8000 SF

$250

$2,000,000

1 LS

$2,196,000

30%

$13,581,000 $4,074,300

Electrical and Instrumentation

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

21 of 27

$17,655,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Almeda Sims WWTP Pump Station - 5 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$100,000

Diversion Structure

1 LS

$200,000

Sump

1 LS

$400,000

Suction Piping and Valves

1 LS

$100,000

5 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

2 EA

$150,000

$300,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$100,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

1 LS

$275,000

30%

$1,475,000 $442,500

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

22 of 27

$1,918,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Almeda Sims WWTP Pump Station - 6 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$110,000

Diversion Structure

1 LS

$200,000

Sump

1 LS

$400,000

Suction Piping and Valves

1 LS

$110,000

6 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

2 EA

$175,000

$350,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$110,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

1 LS

$293,000

30%

$1,573,000 $471,900

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

23 of 27

$2,045,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Almeda Sims WWTP Pump Station - 8 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$125,000

Diversion Structure

1 LS

$225,000

Sump

1 LS

$450,000

Suction Piping and Valves

1 LS

$125,000

4 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

3 EA

$125,000

$375,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$125,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

1 LS

$325,000

30%

$1,750,000 $525,000

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

24 of 27

$2,275,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Almeda Sims WWTP Pump Station - 9 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$130,000

Diversion Structure

1 LS

$225,000

Sump

1 LS

$450,000

Suction Piping and Valves

1 LS

$135,000

5 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

3 EA

$150,000

$450,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$135,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

1 LS

$349,000

30%

$1,874,000 $562,200

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

25 of 27

$2,436,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Almeda Sims WWTP Pump Station - 10 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$135,000

Diversion Structure

1 LS

$230,000

Sump

1 LS

$475,000

Suction Piping and Valves

1 LS

$145,000

5 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

3 EA

$150,000

$450,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$145,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

1 LS

$361,000

30%

$1,941,000 $582,300

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

26 of 27

$2,523,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Almeda Sims WWTP Pump Station - 12 MGD

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

Pump Station Care of Water

1 LS

$150,000

Diversion Structure

1 LS

$250,000

Sump

1 LS

$500,000

Suction Piping and Valves

1 LS

$150,000

6 MGD Vertical Turbine Pumps

3 EA

$175,000

$525,000

Discharge Piping and Valves

1 LS

$150,000

Electrical and Instrumentation

1 LS

$394,000

30%

$2,119,000 $635,700

Subtotal Contingency

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

27 of 27

$2,755,000

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014

APPENDIX E PIPELINE OPTIMIZATION AND OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project Pipeline Diameter Optimization Almeda Sims WWTP to Southwest Pipeline

Date By: Chk'd:

1/13/2014 EJE JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (5 MGD) for 365 Days Parameters Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (2.0 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data Tee at Southwest PL, ft‐msl Almeda Sims WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 12

10 20

10 11.03

10 7

10 5

10 3

5 9.80

5 5.51

5 3.53

5 2.45

5 1.57

55 50

13,525 13,525 120

5 401 406

5 99 104

5 33 38

5 14 19

5 5 10

75 475 354 365 8,760 3,100,840

75 121 91 365 8,760 793,671

75 45 33 365 8,760 293,312

75 22 16 365 8,760 143,284

75 11 8 365 8,760 73,700

$ 0.10

$ 310,084 $ 4,098,000

$ 79,367 $ 4,582,000

$ 29,331 $ 5,080,000

$ 14,328 $ 5,579,000

$ 7,370 $ 6,314,000

5 25

$ 290,763

$ 325,104

$ 360,438

$ 395,844

$ 447,994

$ 600,847

$ 404,471

$ 389,770

$ 410,172

$ 455,364

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Almeda Sims to Southwest 5 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project Pipeline Diameter Optimization Almeda Sims WWTP to Southwest Pipeline

Date By: Chk'd:

1/13/2014 EJE JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (6 MGD) for 365 Days Parameters Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (2.0 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data Tee at Texas Brine PL, ft‐msl Almeda Sims WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 12

12 24

12 13.24

12 8

12 6

12 4

6 11.76

6 6.62

6 4.24

6 2.94

6 1.88

55 50

13,525 13,525 120

5 561 566

5 138 143

5 47 52

5 19 24

5 7 12

75 795 593 365 8,760 5,195,297

75 201 150 365 8,760 1,316,063

75 73 54 365 8,760 474,768

75 34 25 365 8,760 222,514

75 16 12 365 8,760 105,517

$ 0.10

$ 519,530 $ 4,098,000

$ 131,606 $ 4,582,000

$ 47,477 $ 5,080,000

$ 22,251 $ 5,579,000

$ 10,552 $ 6,314,000

5 25

$ 290,763

$ 325,104

$ 360,438

$ 395,844

$ 447,994

$ 810,293

$ 456,710

$ 407,915

$ 418,095

$ 458,545

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Almeda Sims to Southwest 6 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project Pipeline Diameter Optimization Almeda Sims WWTP to Southwest Pipeline

Date By: Chk'd:

1/13/2014 EJE JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (8 MGD) for 365 Days Parameters Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (2.0 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data Tee at Texas Brine PL, ft‐msl Almeda Sims WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 12

16 31

16 17.65

16 11

16 8

16 5

8 15.69

8 8.82

8 5.65

8 3.92

8 2.51

55 50

13,525 13,525 120

5 956 961

5 236 241

5 80 85

5 33 38

5 11 16

75 1,799 1,342 365 8,760 11,751,693

75 451 336 365 8,760 2,944,826

75 158 118 365 8,760 1,034,870

75 71 53 365 8,760 462,187

75 30 22 365 8,760 196,573

$ 0.10

$ 1,175,169 $ 4,098,000

$ 294,483 $ 4,582,000

$ 103,487 $ 5,080,000

$ 46,219 $ 5,579,000

$ 19,657 $ 6,314,000

5 25

$ 290,763

$ 325,104

$ 360,438

$ 395,844

$ 447,994

$ 1,465,932

$ 619,587

$ 463,925

$ 442,062

$ 467,651

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Almeda Sims to Southwest 8 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project Pipeline Diameter Optimization Almeda Sims WWTP to Southwest Pipeline

Date

1/13/2014

By:

EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (7.5 MGD) for 328.5 Days 1.2 PF (9 MGD) for 36.5 Days Parameters

Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (1.2 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data Tee at Texas Brine PL, ft‐msl Almeda Sims WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Pump Head Calculation (1.2 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Power Required (1.2 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.2 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 16

9 10

9 6.35

9 4

9 3

9 2

8 8.27

8 5.29

8 3.68

8 2.35

8 1.63

55 50

13,525 13,525 120

5 209 214

5 71 76

5 29 34

5 10 15

5 4 9

5 293 298

5 99 104

5 41 46

5 14 19

5 6 11

75 376 280 329 7,884 2,210,867

75 133 99 329 7,884 780,709

75 60 45 329 7,884 351,889

75 26 19 329 7,884 153,000

75 16 12 329 7,884 93,365

$ 0.10

$ 221,087

$ 78,071

$ 35,189

$ 15,300

$ 9,336

75 628 468 37 876 410,275

75 219 163 37 876 143,092

75 96 72 37 876 62,980

75 40 29 37 876 25,823

75 22 17 37 876 14,682

$ 0.10

$ 41,027 $ 4,582,000

$ 14,309 $ 5,080,000

$ 6,298 $ 5,579,000

$ 2,582 $ 6,314,000

$ 1,468 $ 7,569,000

5 25

$ 325,104

$ 360,438

$ 395,844

$ 447,994

$ 537,039

$ 587,218

$ 452,819

$ 437,331

$ 465,876

$ 547,844

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Almeda Sims to Southwest 9 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project Pipeline Diameter Optimization Almeda Sims WWTP to Southwest Pipeline

Date

1/13/2014

By:

EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (7.5 MGD) for 328.5 Days 1.33 PF (10 MGD) for 36.5 Days Parameters

Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (1.33 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data Tee at Texas Brine PL, ft‐msl Almeda Sims WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Pump Head Calculation (1.33 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Power Required (1.33 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.33 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 16

10 11

10 7.06

10 5

10 3

10 2

8 8.27

8 5.29

8 3.68

8 2.35

8 1.63

55 50

13,525 13,525 120

5 209 214

5 71 76

5 29 34

5 10 15

5 4 9

5 356 361

5 120 125

5 50 55

5 17 22

5 7 12

75 376 280 329 7,884 2,210,867

75 133 99 329 7,884 780,709

75 60 45 329 7,884 351,889

75 26 19 329 7,884 153,000

75 16 12 329 7,884 93,365

$ 0.10

$ 221,087

$ 78,071

$ 35,189

$ 15,300

$ 9,336

75 846 631 37 876 552,321

75 293 219 37 876 191,562

75 128 95 37 876 83,392

75 51 38 37 876 33,222

75 28 21 37 876 18,179

$ 0.10

$ 55,232 $ 4,582,000

$ 19,156 $ 5,080,000

$ 8,339 $ 5,579,000

$ 3,322 $ 6,314,000

$ 1,818 $ 7,569,000

5 25

$ 325,104

$ 360,438

$ 395,844

$ 447,994

$ 537,039

$ 601,423

$ 457,666

$ 439,372

$ 466,616

$ 548,194

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Almeda Sims to Southwest 10 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project Pipeline Diameter Optimization Almeda Sims WWTP to Southwest Pipeline

Date

1/13/2014

By:

EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (7.5 MGD) for 328.5 Days 1.6 PF (12 MGD) for 36.5 Days Parameters

Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (1.6 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data Tee at Texas Brine PL, ft‐msl Almeda Sims WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Pump Head Calculation (1.6 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Power Required (1.6 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.6 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 16

12 13

12 8.47

12 6

12 4

12 3

8 8.27

8 5.29

8 3.68

8 2.35

8 1.63

55 50

13,525 13,525 120

5 209 214

5 71 76

5 29 34

5 10 15

5 4 9

5 499 504

5 169 174

5 69 74

5 23 28

5 10 15

75 376 280 329 7,884 2,210,867

75 133 99 329 7,884 780,709

75 60 45 329 7,884 351,889

75 26 19 329 7,884 153,000

75 16 12 329 7,884 93,365

$ 0.10

$ 221,087

$ 78,071

$ 35,189

$ 15,300

$ 9,336

75 1,416 1,056 37 876 924,983

75 487 363 37 876 318,410

75 209 156 37 876 136,534

75 80 60 37 876 52,179

75 41 31 37 876 26,886

$ 0.10

$ 92,498 $ 4,582,000

$ 31,841 $ 5,080,000

$ 13,653 $ 5,579,000

$ 5,218 $ 6,314,000

$ 2,689 $ 7,569,000

5 25

$ 325,104

$ 360,438

$ 395,844

$ 447,994

$ 537,039

$ 638,689

$ 470,350

$ 444,686

$ 468,512

$ 549,064

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Almeda Sims to Southwest 12 MGD

1/13/2014

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Alemda Sims WWTP to Southwest Pipeline

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

TOTAL $2,382,035

12‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 12‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (36‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES CONNECTION TO TEXAS BRINE PIPELINE CONNECTION TO SOUTHWEST PIPELINE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

11675 1850 11675 7 8 7 1 1 4 8 13525 13525 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$72.00 $540.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $11,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $69,380.00

$840,600 $999,000 $11,675 $140,000 $88,000 $105,000 $10,000 $15,000 $40,000 $9,280 $27,050 $27,050 $69,380

20%

$2,382,035 $476,407

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$2,858,400

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

$1,240,000 7 EA 9 ACRE 18 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $630,000 $540,000

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,240,000

PROJECT TOTAL

$4,098,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Alemda Sims WWTP to Southwest Pipeline

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

TOTAL $2,784,971

16‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 16‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (40‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES CONNECTION TO TEXAS BRINE PIPELINE CONNECTION TO SOUTHWEST PIPELINE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

11675 1850 11675 7 8 7 1 1 4 8 13525 13525 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$96.00 $600.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $11,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $81,116.00

$1,120,800 $1,110,000 $11,675 $140,000 $88,000 $105,000 $10,000 $15,000 $40,000 $9,280 $27,050 $27,050 $81,116

20%

$2,784,971 $556,994

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$3,342,000

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

$1,240,000 7 EA 9 ACRE 18 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $630,000 $540,000

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,240,000

PROJECT TOTAL

$4,582,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Alemda Sims WWTP to Southwest Pipeline

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

TOTAL $3,200,267

20‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 20‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (44‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES CONNECTION TO TEXAS BRINE PIPELINE CONNECTION TO SOUTHWEST PIPELINE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

11675 1850 11675 7 8 7 1 1 4 8 13525 13525 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$120.00 $660.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $12,500.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $93,212.00

$1,401,000 $1,221,000 $11,675 $140,000 $100,000 $105,000 $10,000 $15,000 $40,000 $9,280 $27,050 $27,050 $93,212

20%

$3,200,267 $640,053

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$3,840,300

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

$1,240,000 7 EA 9 ACRE 18 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $630,000 $540,000

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,240,000

PROJECT TOTAL

$5,080,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Alemda Sims WWTP to Southwest Pipeline

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

TOTAL $3,615,563

24‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 24‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (48‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES CONNECTION TO TEXAS BRINE PIPELINE CONNECTION TO SOUTHWEST PIPELINE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

11675 1850 11675 7 8 7 1 1 4 8 13525 13525 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$144.00 $720.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $14,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $105,308.00

$1,681,200 $1,332,000 $11,675 $140,000 $112,000 $105,000 $10,000 $15,000 $40,000 $9,280 $27,050 $27,050 $105,308

20%

$3,615,563 $723,113

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$4,338,700

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

$1,240,000 7 EA 9 ACRE 18 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $630,000 $540,000

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,240,000

PROJECT TOTAL

$5,579,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Alemda Sims WWTP to Southwest Pipeline

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

TOTAL $4,228,207

30‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 30‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (54‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES CONNECTION TO TEXAS BRINE PIPELINE CONNECTION TO SOUTHWEST PIPELINE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

11675 1850 11675 7 8 7 1 1 4 8 13525 13525 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$180.00 $810.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $123,152.00

$2,101,500 $1,498,500 $11,675 $140,000 $120,000 $105,000 $10,000 $15,000 $40,000 $9,280 $27,050 $27,050 $123,152

20%

$4,228,207 $845,641

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$5,073,800

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

$1,240,000 7 EA 9 ACRE 18 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $630,000 $540,000

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,240,000

PROJECT TOTAL

$6,314,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Alemda Sims WWTP to Southwest Pipeline

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

TOTAL $5,273,760

36‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 36‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (60‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES CONNECTION TO TEXAS BRINE PIPELINE CONNECTION TO SOUTHWEST PIPELINE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

11675 1850 11675 7 8 7 1 1 4 8 13525 13525 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$252.00 $900.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $16,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $153,605.00

$2,942,100 $1,665,000 $11,675 $140,000 $128,000 $105,000 $10,000 $15,000 $40,000 $9,280 $27,050 $27,050 $153,605

20%

$5,273,760 $1,054,752

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$6,328,500

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

$1,240,000 7 EA 9 ACRE 18 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $630,000 $540,000

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,240,000

PROJECT TOTAL

$7,569,000

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project Pipeline Diameter Optimization Almeda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

Date By: Chk'd:

1/13/2014 EJE JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (5 MGD) for 365 Days Parameters Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (2.0 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data Tee at Texas Brine PL, ft‐msl Almeda Sims WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 12

10 20

10 11.03

10 7

10 5

10 3

5 9.80

5 5.51

5 3.53

5 2.45

5 1.57

51 50

5,325 5,325 120

1 158 159

1 39 40

1 13 14

1 5 6

1 2 3

75 186 139 365 8,760 1,213,443

75 47 35 365 8,760 305,075

75 17 12 365 8,760 108,077

75 8 6 365 8,760 49,008

75 3 2 365 8,760 21,612

$ 0.10

$ 121,344 $ 2,249,000

$ 30,508 $ 2,427,000

$ 10,808 $ 2,611,000

$ 4,901 $ 2,795,000

$ 2,161 $ 3,065,000

5 25

$ 159,572

$ 172,202

$ 185,257

$ 198,312

$ 217,469

$ 280,916

$ 202,709

$ 196,065

$ 203,213

$ 219,630

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Almeda Sims to Texas Brine 5 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project Pipeline Diameter Optimization Almeda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

Date By: Chk'd:

1/13/2014 EJE JVW

Pipe Diameter 12

12 24

12 13.24

12 8

12 6

12 4

6 11.76

6 6.62

6 4.24

6 2.94

6 1.88

51 50

5,325 5,325 120

1 221 222

1 55 56

1 18 19

1 8 9

1 3 4

75 312 232 365 8,760 2,036,582

75 78 58 365 8,760 509,268

75 27 20 365 8,760 178,038

75 12 9 365 8,760 78,721

75 5 4 365 8,760 32,658

$ 0.10

$ 203,658 $ 2,249,000

$ 50,927 $ 2,427,000

$ 17,804 $ 2,611,000

$ 7,872 $ 2,795,000

$ 3,266 $ 3,065,000

5 25

$ 159,572

$ 172,202

$ 185,257

$ 198,312

$ 217,469

$ 363,230

$ 223,128

$ 203,061

$ 206,184

$ 220,735

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Almeda Sims to Texas Brine 6 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project Pipeline Diameter Optimization Almeda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

Date By: Chk'd:

1/13/2014 EJE JVW

Pipe Diameter 12

16 31

16 17.65

16 11

16 8

16 5

8 15.69

8 8.82

8 5.65

8 3.92

8 2.51

51 50

5,325 5,325 120

1 376 377

1 93 94

1 31 32

1 13 14

1 4 5

75 706 527 365 8,760 4,614,974

75 176 131 365 8,760 1,147,575

75 61 45 365 8,760 395,596

75 26 19 365 8,760 170,122

75 10 7 365 8,760 65,546

$ 0.10

$ 461,497 $ 2,249,000

$ 114,758 $ 2,427,000

$ 39,560 $ 2,611,000

$ 17,012 $ 2,795,000

$ 6,555 $ 3,065,000

5 25

$ 159,572

$ 172,202

$ 185,257

$ 198,312

$ 217,469

$ 621,069

$ 286,959

$ 224,817

$ 215,324

$ 224,024

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Almeda Sims to Texas Brine 8 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project Pipeline Diameter Optimization Almeda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

Date

1/13/2014

By:

EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (7.5 MGD) for 328.5 Days 1.2 PF (9 MGD) for 36.5 Days Parameters

Pipe Diameter 16

9 10

9 6.35

9 4

9 3

9 2

8 8.27

8 5.29

8 3.68

8 2.35

8 1.63

51 50

5,325 5,325 120

1 82 83

1 28 29

1 11 12

1 4 5

1 2 3

1 115 116

1 39 40

1 16 17

1 5 6

1 2 3

75 146 109 329 7,884 860,456

75 51 38 329 7,884 297,381

75 22 16 329 7,884 128,548

75 9 6 329 7,884 50,242

75 5 3 329 7,884 26,762

$ 0.10

$ 86,046

$ 29,738

$ 12,855

$ 5,024

$ 2,676

75 245 183 37 876 160,199

75 84 63 37 876 55,005

75 36 27 37 876 23,463

75 14 10 37 876 8,834

75 7 5 37 876 4,448

$ 0.10

$ 16,020 $ 2,427,000

$ 5,500 $ 2,611,000

$ 2,346 $ 2,795,000

$ 883 $ 3,065,000

$ 445 $ 3,553,000

5 25

$ 172,202

$ 185,257

$ 198,312

$ 217,469

$ 252,094

$ 274,267

$ 220,495

$ 213,513

$ 223,377

$ 255,215

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Almeda Sims to Texas Brine 9 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project Pipeline Diameter Optimization Almeda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

Date

1/13/2014

By:

EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (7.5 MGD) for 328.5 Days 1.33 PF (10 MGD) for 36.5 Days Parameters

Pipe Diameter 16

10 11

10 7.06

10 5

10 3

10 2

8 8.27

8 5.29

8 3.68

8 2.35

8 1.63

51 50

5,325 5,325 120

1 82 83

1 28 29

1 11 12

1 4 5

1 2 3

1 140 141

1 47 48

1 20 21

1 7 8

1 3 4

75 146 109 329 7,884 860,456

75 51 38 329 7,884 297,381

75 22 16 329 7,884 128,548

75 9 6 329 7,884 50,242

75 5 3 329 7,884 26,762

$ 0.10

$ 86,046

$ 29,738

$ 12,855

$ 5,024

$ 2,676

75 331 247 37 876 215,976

75 113 84 37 876 73,940

75 48 36 37 876 31,352

75 18 13 37 876 11,599

75 9 6 37 876 5,676

$ 0.10

$ 21,598 $ 2,427,000

$ 7,394 $ 2,611,000

$ 3,135 $ 2,795,000

$ 1,160 $ 3,065,000

$ 568 $ 3,553,000

5 25

$ 172,202

$ 185,257

$ 198,312

$ 217,469

$ 252,094

$ 279,845

$ 222,389

$ 214,302

$ 223,653

$ 255,338

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Almeda Sims to Texas Brine 10 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project Pipeline Diameter Optimization Almeda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

Date

1/13/2014

By:

EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (7.5 MGD) for 328.5 Days 1.6 PF (12 MGD) for 36.5 Days Parameters

Pipe Diameter 16

12 13

12 8.47

12 6

12 4

12 3

8 8.27

8 5.29

8 3.68

8 2.35

8 1.63

51 50

5,325 5,325 120

1 82 83

1 28 29

1 11 12

1 4 5

1 2 3

1 197 198

1 66 67

1 27 28

1 9 10

1 4 5

75 146 109 329 7,884 860,456

75 51 38 329 7,884 297,381

75 22 16 329 7,884 128,548

75 9 6 329 7,884 50,242

75 5 3 329 7,884 26,762

$ 0.10

$ 86,046

$ 29,738

$ 12,855

$ 5,024

$ 2,676

75 555 414 37 876 362,403

75 189 141 37 876 123,586

75 80 59 37 876 51,978

75 29 21 37 876 18,766

75 13 10 37 876 8,808

$ 0.10

$ 36,240 $ 2,427,000

$ 12,359 $ 2,611,000

$ 5,198 $ 2,795,000

$ 1,877 $ 3,065,000

$ 881 $ 3,553,000

5 25

$ 172,202

$ 185,257

$ 198,312

$ 217,469

$ 252,094

$ 294,487

$ 227,353

$ 216,365

$ 224,370

$ 255,651

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Almeda Sims to Texas Brine 12 MGD

1/13/2014

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Alemda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $841,155

12‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 12‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (36‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES CONNECTION TO TEXAS BRINE PIPELINE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

4875 450 4875 4 3 4 1 1 3 5325 5325 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$72.00 $540.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $11,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $24,500.00

$351,000 $243,000 $4,875 $80,000 $33,000 $60,000 $10,000 $10,000 $3,480 $10,650 $10,650 $24,500

20%

$841,155 $168,231

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,009,400

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

$1,240,000 7 EA 9 ACRE 18 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $630,000 $540,000

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,240,000

PROJECT TOTAL

$2,249,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Alemda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $989,475

16‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 16‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (40‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES CONNECTION TO TEXAS BRINE PIPELINE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

4875 450 4875 4 3 4 1 1 3 5325 5325 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$96.00 $600.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $11,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $28,820.00

$468,000 $270,000 $4,875 $80,000 $33,000 $60,000 $10,000 $10,000 $3,480 $10,650 $10,650 $28,820

20%

$989,475 $197,895

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,187,400

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

$1,240,000 7 EA 9 ACRE 18 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $630,000 $540,000

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,240,000

PROJECT TOTAL

$2,427,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Alemda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $1,142,430

20‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 20‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (44‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES CONNECTION TO TEXAS BRINE PIPELINE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

4875 450 4875 4 3 4 1 1 3 5325 5325 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$120.00 $660.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $12,500.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $33,275.00

$585,000 $297,000 $4,875 $80,000 $37,500 $60,000 $10,000 $10,000 $3,480 $10,650 $10,650 $33,275

20%

$1,142,430 $228,486

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,370,900

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

$1,240,000 7 EA 9 ACRE 18 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $630,000 $540,000

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,240,000

PROJECT TOTAL

$2,611,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Alemda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $1,295,385

24‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 24‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (48‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES CONNECTION TO TEXAS BRINE PIPELINE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

4875 450 4875 4 3 4 1 1 3 5325 5325 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$144.00 $720.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $14,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $37,730.00

$702,000 $324,000 $4,875 $80,000 $42,000 $60,000 $10,000 $10,000 $3,480 $10,650 $10,650 $37,730

20%

$1,295,385 $259,077

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,554,500

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

$1,240,000 7 EA 9 ACRE 18 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $630,000 $540,000

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,240,000

PROJECT TOTAL

$2,795,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Alemda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $1,520,955

30‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 30‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (54‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES CONNECTION TO TEXAS BRINE PIPELINE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

4875 450 4875 4 3 4 1 1 3 5325 5325 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$180.00 $810.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $44,300.00

$877,500 $364,500 $4,875 $80,000 $45,000 $60,000 $10,000 $10,000 $3,480 $10,650 $10,650 $44,300

20%

$1,520,955 $304,191

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,825,100

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

$1,240,000 7 EA 9 ACRE 18 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $630,000 $540,000

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,240,000

PROJECT TOTAL

$3,065,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Alemda Sims WWTP to Texas Brine

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

DESCRIPTION

CHECKED BY JVW QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $1,927,290

36‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 36‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (60‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES CONNECTION TO TEXAS BRINE PIPELINE ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

4875 450 4875 4 3 4 1 1 3 5325 5325 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA LS EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$252.00 $900.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $16,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $56,135.00

$1,228,500 $405,000 $4,875 $80,000 $48,000 $60,000 $10,000 $10,000 $3,480 $10,650 $10,650 $56,135

20%

$1,927,290 $385,458

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$2,312,700

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

$1,240,000 7 EA 9 ACRE 18 ACRE

$10,000.00 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $630,000 $540,000

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,240,000

PROJECT TOTAL

$3,553,000

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project CenterPoint Corridor Pipeline Diameter Optimization Southwest WWTP

Date By: Chk'd:

1/13/2014 EJE JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (5 MGD) for 365 Days Parameters Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (2.0 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data GCWA A Canal, ft‐msl Southwest WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 12

10 20

10 11.03

10 7

10 5

10 3

5 9.80

5 5.51

5 3.53

5 2.45

5 1.57

70 50

52,000 52,000 120

20 1,540 1,560

20 380 400

20 128 148

20 53 73

20 18 38

75 1,826 1,362 365 8,760 11,927,834

75 468 349 365 8,760 3,057,386

75 174 129 365 8,760 1,133,641

75 85 64 365 8,760 556,824

75 44 33 365 8,760 289,292

$ 0.10

$ 1,192,783 $ 12,100,000

$ 305,739 $ 13,215,000

$ 113,364 $ 15,077,000

$ 55,682 $ 18,802,000

$ 28,929 $ 22,148,000

5 25

$ 858,525

$ 937,637

$ 1,069,750

$ 1,334,048

$ 1,571,455

$ 2,051,308

$ 1,243,375

$ 1,183,114

$ 1,389,730

$ 1,600,384

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Southwest 5 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project CenterPoint Corridor Pipeline Diameter Optimization Southwest WWTP

Date By: Chk'd:

1/13/2014 EJE JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (16 MGD) for 365 Days Parameters Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (2.0 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data GCWA A Canal, ft‐msl Southwest WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 24

32 16

32 10.04

32 7

32 5

32 4

16 7.84

16 5.02

16 3.49

16 2.56

16 1.96

70 50

52,000 52,000 120

20 454 474

20 153 173

20 63 83

20 30 50

20 16 36

75 1,777 1,325 365 8,760 11,605,949

75 650 484 365 8,760 4,242,980

75 312 232 365 8,760 2,035,262

75 187 139 365 8,760 1,219,539

75 133 99 365 8,760 870,627

$ 0.10

$ 1,160,595 $ 18,802,000

$ 424,298 $ 22,148,000

$ 203,526 $ 27,507,000

$ 121,954 $ 31,194,000

$ 87,063 $ 34,882,000

5 25

$ 1,334,048

$ 1,571,455

$ 1,951,689

$ 2,213,291

$ 2,474,964

$ 2,494,643

$ 1,995,753

$ 2,155,215

$ 2,335,245

$ 2,562,026

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Southwest 16 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project CenterPoint Corridor Pipeline Diameter Optimization Southwest WWTP

Date By: Chk'd:

1/13/2014 EJE JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (20 MGD) for 365 Days Parameters Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (2.0 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data GCWA A Canal, ft‐msl Southwest WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 30

40 13

40 8.71

40 6

40 5

40 4

20 6.27

20 4.36

20 3.20

20 2.45

20 1.94

70 50

52,000 52,000 120

20 232 252

20 95 115

20 45 65

20 24 44

20 13 33

75 1,179 879 365 8,760 7,701,707

75 541 403 365 8,760 3,531,696

75 305 227 365 8,760 1,990,933

75 204 152 365 8,760 1,331,897

75 156 116 365 8,760 1,017,700

$ 0.10

$ 770,171 $ 22,148,000

$ 353,170 $ 27,507,000

$ 199,093 $ 31,194,000

$ 133,190 $ 34,882,000

$ 101,770 $ 38,577,000

5 25

$ 1,571,455

$ 1,951,689

$ 2,213,291

$ 2,474,964

$ 2,737,133

$ 2,341,626

$ 2,304,859

$ 2,412,384

$ 2,608,153

$ 2,838,903

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Southwest 20 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project CenterPoint Corridor Pipeline Diameter Optimization Southwest WWTP

Date By: Chk'd:

1/13/2014 EJE JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (24 MGD) for 365 Days Parameters Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (2.0 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data GCWA A Canal, ft‐msl Southwest WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 30

48 15

48 10.46

48 8

48 6

48 5

24 7.53

24 5.23

24 3.84

24 2.94

24 2.32

70 50

52,000 52,000 120

20 325 345

20 134 154

20 63 83

20 33 53

20 19 39

75 1,937 1,445 365 8,760 12,655,099

75 864 644 365 8,760 5,643,715

75 467 349 365 8,760 3,053,102

75 298 222 365 8,760 1,945,011

75 217 162 365 8,760 1,416,725

$ 0.10

$ 1,265,510 $ 22,148,000

$ 564,372 $ 27,507,000

$ 305,310 $ 31,194,000

$ 194,501 $ 34,882,000

$ 141,673 $ 38,577,000

5 25

$ 1,571,455

$ 1,951,689

$ 2,213,291

$ 2,474,964

$ 2,737,133

$ 2,836,965

$ 2,516,061

$ 2,518,601

$ 2,669,465

$ 2,878,805

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Southwest 24 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project CenterPoint Corridor Pipeline Diameter Optimization Southwest WWTP

Date By: Chk'd:

1/13/2014 EJE JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (30 MGD) for 365 Days Parameters Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (2.0 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data GCWA A Canal, ft‐msl Southwest WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 30

60 19

60 13.07

60 10

60 7

60 6

30 9.41

30 6.54

30 4.80

30 3.68

30 2.90

70 50

52,000 52,000 120

20 491 511

20 202 222

20 95 115

20 50 70

20 28 48

75 3,587 2,675 365 8,760 23,434,508

75 1,560 1,163 365 8,760 10,191,176

75 811 605 365 8,760 5,297,940

75 491 366 365 8,760 3,204,942

75 338 252 365 8,760 2,207,099

$ 0.10

$ 2,343,451 $ 22,148,000

$ 1,019,118 $ 27,507,000

$ 529,794 $ 31,194,000

$ 320,494 $ 34,882,000

$ 220,710 $ 38,577,000

5 25

$ 1,571,455

$ 1,951,689

$ 2,213,291

$ 2,474,964

$ 2,737,133

$ 3,914,906

$ 2,970,807

$ 2,743,085

$ 2,795,458

$ 2,957,843

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Southwest 30 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project CenterPoint Corridor Pipeline Diameter Optimization Southwest WWTP

Date

1/13/2014

By:

EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (30 MGD) for 328.5 Days 1.17 PF (35 MGD) for 36.5 Days Parameters

Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (1.17 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data GCWA A Canal, ft‐msl Southwest WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Pump Head Calculation (1.17 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Power Required (1.17 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.17 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 30

35 11

35 7.63

35 6

35 4

35 3

30 9.41

30 6.54

30 4.80

30 3.68

30 2.90

70 50

52,000 52,000 120

20 491 511

20 202 222

20 95 115

20 50 70

20 28 48

20 653 673

20 269 289

20 127 147

20 66 86

20 37 57

75 3,587 2,675 329 7,884 21,091,057

75 1,560 1,163 329 7,884 9,172,058

75 811 605 329 7,884 4,768,146

75 491 366 329 7,884 2,884,447

75 338 252 329 7,884 1,986,389

$ 0.10

$ 2,109,106

$ 917,206

$ 476,815

$ 288,445

$ 198,639

75 5,512 4,111 37 876 3,600,933

75 2,367 1,765 37 876 1,546,010

75 1,204 898 37 876 786,743

75 707 527 37 876 461,980

75 470 351 37 876 307,148

$ 0.10

$ 360,093 $ 22,148,000

$ 154,601 $ 27,507,000

$ 78,674 $ 31,194,000

$ 46,198 $ 34,882,000

$ 30,715 $ 38,577,000

5 25

$ 1,571,455

$ 1,951,689

$ 2,213,291

$ 2,474,964

$ 2,737,133

$ 4,040,654

$ 3,023,496

$ 2,768,780

$ 2,809,606

$ 2,966,487

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Southwest 35 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project CenterPoint Corridor Pipeline Diameter Optimization Southwest WWTP

Date

1/13/2014

By:

EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (30 MGD) for 328.5 Days 1.5 PF (45 MGD) for 36.5 Days Parameters

Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (1.5 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data GCWA A Canal, ft‐msl Southwest WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Pump Head Calculation (1.5 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Power Required (1.5 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.5 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 30

45 14

45 9.80

45 7

45 6

45 4

30 9.41

30 6.54

30 4.80

30 3.68

30 2.90

70 50

52,000 52,000 120

20 491 511

20 202 222

20 95 115

20 50 70

20 28 48

20 1,039 1,059

20 428 448

20 202 222

20 106 126

20 60 80

75 3,587 2,675 329 7,884 21,091,057

75 1,560 1,163 329 7,884 9,172,058

75 811 605 329 7,884 4,768,146

75 491 366 329 7,884 2,884,447

75 338 252 329 7,884 1,986,389

$ 0.10

$ 2,109,106

$ 917,206

$ 476,815

$ 288,445

$ 198,639

75 11,158 8,320 37 876 7,288,705

75 4,719 3,519 37 876 3,082,821

75 2,340 1,745 37 876 1,528,802

75 1,323 986 37 876 864,097

75 838 625 37 876 547,197

$ 0.10

$ 728,871 $ 22,148,000

$ 308,282 $ 27,507,000

$ 152,880 $ 31,194,000

$ 86,410 $ 34,882,000

$ 54,720 $ 38,577,000

5 25

$ 1,571,455

$ 1,951,689

$ 2,213,291

$ 2,474,964

$ 2,737,133

$ 4,409,431

$ 3,177,177

$ 2,842,986

$ 2,849,818

$ 2,990,492

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Southwest 45 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project CenterPoint Corridor Pipeline Diameter Optimization Southwest WWTP

Date

1/13/2014

By:

EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (30 MGD) for 328.5 Days 1.6 PF (48 MGD) for 36.5 Days Parameters

Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (1.6 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data GCWA A Canal, ft‐msl Southwest WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Pump Head Calculation (1.6 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Power Required (1.6 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.6 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 30

48 15

48 10.46

48 8

48 6

48 5

30 9.41

30 6.54

30 4.80

30 3.68

30 2.90

70 50

52,000 52,000 120

20 491 511

20 202 222

20 95 115

20 50 70

20 28 48

20 1,171 1,191

20 482 502

20 228 248

20 119 139

20 67 87

75 3,587 2,675 329 7,884 21,091,057

75 1,560 1,163 329 7,884 9,172,058

75 811 605 329 7,884 4,768,146

75 491 366 329 7,884 2,884,447

75 338 252 329 7,884 1,986,389

$ 0.10

$ 2,109,106

$ 917,206

$ 476,815

$ 288,445

$ 198,639

75 13,383 9,979 37 876 8,741,953

75 5,644 4,209 37 876 3,686,743

75 2,784 2,076 37 876 1,818,910

75 1,561 1,164 37 876 1,019,976

75 978 730 37 876 639,082

$ 0.10

$ 874,195 $ 22,148,000

$ 368,674 $ 27,507,000

$ 181,891 $ 31,194,000

$ 101,998 $ 34,882,000

$ 63,908 $ 38,577,000

5 25

$ 1,571,455

$ 1,951,689

$ 2,213,291

$ 2,474,964

$ 2,737,133

$ 4,554,756

$ 3,237,569

$ 2,871,997

$ 2,865,406

$ 2,999,680

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Southwest 48 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project CenterPoint Corridor Pipeline Diameter Optimization Southwest WWTP

Date

1/13/2014

By:

EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (30 MGD) for 328.5 Days 2.0 PF (60 MGD) for 36.5 Days Parameters

Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (2.0 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data GCWA A Canal, ft‐msl Southwest WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Pump Head Calculation (2.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Power Required (2.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 2.0 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 42

60 10

60 7.35

60 6

60 5

60 4

30 4.80

30 3.68

30 2.90

30 2.35

30 1.94

70 50

52,000 52,000 120

20 95 115

20 50 70

20 28 48

20 17 37

20 11 31

20 344 364

20 180 200

20 101 121

20 61 81

20 38 58

75 811 605 329 7,884 4,768,146

75 491 366 329 7,884 2,884,447

75 338 252 329 7,884 1,986,389

75 259 193 329 7,884 1,520,845

75 215 160 329 7,884 1,262,889

$ 0.10

$ 476,815

$ 288,445

$ 198,639

$ 152,085

$ 126,289

75 5,116 3,815 37 876 3,341,844

75 2,806 2,092 37 876 1,832,792

75 1,704 1,271 37 876 1,113,347

75 1,133 845 37 876 740,394

75 817 609 37 876 533,742

$ 0.10

$ 334,184 $ 31,194,000

$ 183,279 $ 34,882,000

$ 111,335 $ 38,577,000

$ 74,039 $ 42,271,000

$ 53,374 $ 45,966,000

5 25

$ 2,213,291

$ 2,474,964

$ 2,737,133

$ 2,999,231

$ 3,261,401

$ 3,024,290

$ 2,946,688

$ 3,047,106

$ 3,225,355

$ 3,441,064

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Southwest 60 MGD

1/13/2014

Gulf Coast Water Authority City of Houston Reuse Water Supply Project CenterPoint Corridor Pipeline Diameter Optimization Southwest WWTP

Date

1/13/2014

By:

EJE

Chk'd:

JVW

Assumptions: Raw Water Pipeline 1.0 PF (30 MGD) for 328.5 Days 4.0 PF (120 MGD) for 36.5 Days Parameters

Peak Flow Velocity Check Peak Flow, MGD (4.0 PF) Peak Velocity, fps Design Flows 1.0 PF Flow, MGD 1.0 PF Velocity, fps Elevation Data GCWA A Canal, ft‐msl Southwest WWTP, ft‐msl Pipe Data Pressure Pipe Length, ft Pipe Length, ft H‐W C Factor Pump Head Calculation (1.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Pump Head Calculation (4.0 PF) Static Head, ft Friction Head, ft Total Head, ft Power Required (1.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 1.0 PF power cost Power Required (4.0 PF) Wire‐to‐Water Efficiency, % Horsepower kW Days operating per year Hours per year kWh/yr Power cost Full Year 4.0 PF power cost Pipeline Construction Cost Interest rate, % Debt‐service period, years Annualized cost Total Annual Cost

Pipe Diameter 60

120 9

120 7.78

120 7

120 6

120 5

30 2.35

30 1.94

30 1.63

30 1.39

30 1.20

70 50

52,000 52,000 120

20 17 37

20 11 31

20 7 27

20 5 25

20 3 23

20 219 239

20 138 158

20 90 110

20 61 81

20 43 63

75 259 193 329 7,884 1,520,845

75 215 160 329 7,884 1,262,889

75 189 141 329 7,884 1,111,982

75 173 129 329 7,884 1,019,627

75 163 122 329 7,884 960,912

$ 0.10

$ 152,085

$ 126,289

$ 111,198

$ 101,963

$ 96,091

75 6,709 5,003 37 876 4,382,301

75 4,428 3,302 37 876 2,892,340

75 3,093 2,307 37 876 2,020,699

75 2,277 1,698 37 876 1,487,255

75 1,758 1,311 37 876 1,148,118

$ 0.10

$ 438,230 $ 42,271,000

$ 289,234 $ 45,966,000

$ 202,070 $ 49,667,000

$ 148,726 $ 57,732,000

$ 114,812 $ 61,775,000

5 25

$ 2,999,231

$ 3,261,401

$ 3,523,996

$ 4,096,227

$ 4,383,088

$ 3,589,546

$ 3,676,923

$ 3,837,264

$ 4,346,915

$ 4,593,991

[GCW13494]T:\Technical\06_COH_Reuse\Pipeline and Pump Station\Pipeline Optimization-Southwest 120 MGD

1/13/2014

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $7,946,666

12‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 12‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (36‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 12‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$72.00 $540.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $11,000.00 $15,000.00 $13,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $231,456.00

$3,258,000 $3,645,000 $45,250 $200,000 $110,000 $150,000 $13,000 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $231,456

20%

$7,946,666 $1,589,333

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$9,536,000

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (14‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$2,563,636

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $33.94 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $1,323,636 $630,000 $540,000

$2,563,636 $12,100,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $9,482,396

16‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 16‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (40‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 16‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$96.00 $600.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $11,000.00 $15,000.00 $13,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $276,186.00

$4,344,000 $4,050,000 $45,250 $200,000 $110,000 $150,000 $13,000 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $276,186

20%

$9,482,396 $1,896,479

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$11,378,900

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (18‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$1,835,636

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $15.27 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $595,636 $630,000 $540,000

$1,835,636 $13,215,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $11,034,606

20‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 20‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (44‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 20‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$120.00 $660.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $12,500.00 $15,000.00 $14,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $321,396.00

$5,430,000 $4,455,000 $45,250 $200,000 $125,000 $150,000 $14,000 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $321,396

20%

$11,034,606 $2,206,921

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$13,241,500

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (18‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$1,835,636

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $15.27 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $595,636 $630,000 $540,000

$1,835,636 $15,077,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $12,586,816

24‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 24‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (48‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 24‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$144.00 $720.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $14,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $366,606.00

$6,516,000 $4,860,000 $45,250 $200,000 $140,000 $150,000 $15,000 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $366,606

20%

$12,586,816 $2,517,363

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$15,104,200

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (26‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$3,698,182

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $63.03 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $2,458,182 $630,000 $540,000

$3,698,182 $18,802,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $14,901,741

30‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 30‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (54‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 30‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$180.00 $810.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $16,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $434,031.00

$8,145,000 $5,467,500 $45,250 $200,000 $150,000 $150,000 $16,000 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $434,031

20%

$14,901,741 $2,980,348

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$17,882,100

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (32‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$4,265,455

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $77.58 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $3,025,455 $630,000 $540,000

$4,265,455 $22,148,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $18,895,051

36‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 36‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (60‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 36‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$252.00 $900.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $16,000.00 $15,000.00 $17,500.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $550,341.00

$11,403,000 $6,075,000 $45,250 $200,000 $160,000 $150,000 $17,500 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $550,341

20%

$18,895,051 $3,779,010

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$22,674,100

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (38‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$4,832,727

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $92.12 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $3,592,727 $630,000 $540,000

$4,832,727 $27,507,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $21,495,286

42‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 42‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (66‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 42‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$294.00 $990.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $17,500.00 $15,000.00 $19,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $626,076.00

$13,303,500 $6,682,500 $45,250 $200,000 $175,000 $150,000 $19,000 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $626,076

20%

$21,495,286 $4,299,057

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$25,794,300

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (44‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$5,400,000

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $106.67 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $4,160,000 $630,000 $540,000

$5,400,000 $31,194,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $24,096,036

48‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 48‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (72‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 48‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$336.00 $1,080.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $19,000.00 $15,000.00 $21,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $701,826.00

$15,204,000 $7,290,000 $45,250 $200,000 $190,000 $150,000 $21,000 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $701,826

20%

$24,096,036 $4,819,207

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$28,915,200

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (50‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$5,967,273

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $121.21 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $4,727,273 $630,000 $540,000

$5,967,273 $34,882,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $26,701,936

54‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 54‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (78‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 54‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$378.00 $1,170.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $21,000.00 $15,000.00 $23,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $777,726.00

$17,104,500 $7,897,500 $45,250 $200,000 $210,000 $150,000 $23,000 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $777,726

20%

$26,701,936 $5,340,387

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$32,042,300

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (56‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$6,534,545

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $135.76 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $5,294,545 $630,000 $540,000

$6,534,545 $38,577,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $29,307,836

60‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 60‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (84‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 60‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$420.00 $1,260.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $23,000.00 $15,000.00 $25,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $853,626.00

$19,005,000 $8,505,000 $45,250 $200,000 $230,000 $150,000 $25,000 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $853,626

20%

$29,307,836 $5,861,567

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$35,169,400

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (62‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$7,101,818

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $150.30 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $5,861,818 $630,000 $540,000

$7,101,818 $42,271,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $31,914,251

66‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 66‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (90‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 66‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$462.00 $1,350.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $15,000.00 $27,500.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $929,541.00

$20,905,500 $9,112,500 $45,250 $200,000 $250,000 $150,000 $27,500 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $929,541

20%

$31,914,251 $6,382,850

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$38,297,100

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (68‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$7,669,091

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $164.85 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $6,429,091 $630,000 $540,000

$7,669,091 $45,966,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $34,525,816

72‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 72‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (96‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 72‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$504.00 $1,440.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $27,500.00 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1,005,606.00

$22,806,000 $9,720,000 $45,250 $200,000 $275,000 $150,000 $30,000 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $1,005,606

20%

$34,525,816 $6,905,163

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$41,431,000

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (74‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$8,236,364

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $179.39 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $6,996,364 $630,000 $540,000

$8,236,364 $49,667,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $40,773,281

78‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 78‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (102‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 72‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$624.00 $1,530.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $15,000.00 $33,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1,187,571.00

$28,236,000 $10,327,500 $45,250 $200,000 $300,000 $150,000 $33,000 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $1,187,571

20%

$40,773,281 $8,154,656

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$48,927,900

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (80‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$8,803,636

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $193.94 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $7,563,636 $630,000 $540,000

$8,803,636 $57,732,000

January 13, 2014

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Pipeline: Southwest WWTP to GCWA

ESTIMATOR EJE ITEM

CHECKED BY JVW

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

ACCOUNT NO GCW13494 UNIT PRICE

GENERAL ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TOTAL $43,670,156

84‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY OPEN CUT 84‐INCH PIPELINE ‐ INSTALLED BY TUNNELING (108‐INCH CASING) TRENCH SAFETY AIR VALVES BUTTERFLY VALVES BLOW OFF VALVES 72‐INCH FLAP GATES ACCESS MANYWAYS REVEGETATION CATHODIC PROTECTION TESTING MOBILIZATION (3%)

45250 6750 45250 10 10 10 1 5 31 52000 52000 1

LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA AC LF LF LS

Subtotal Contingency

$672.00 $1,620.00 $1.00 $20,000.00 $33,000.00 $15,000.00 $36,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,160.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1,271,946.00

$30,408,000 $10,935,000 $45,250 $200,000 $330,000 $150,000 $36,000 $50,000 $35,960 $104,000 $104,000 $1,271,946

20%

$43,670,156 $8,734,031

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$52,404,200

NON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Land Acquisition 13 14 15 16

LAND ACQUISITION LEGAL FEES EASEMENT IN CENTERPOINT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (86‐INCH OUTSIDE DIAMETER PIPE) 30‐FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT 60‐FOOT TEMPORARY EASEMENT

NON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL

$9,370,909

7 39,000 9 18

EA LF ACRE ACRE

$10,000.00 $208.48 $70,000.00 $30,000.00

$70,000 $8,130,909 $630,000 $540,000

$9,370,909 $61,775,000

City of Houston Reuse 3/10/2014

APPENDIX F WATER STRATEGY ANALYSIS

2010 2011 2012 2013 Avg.

20 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

PL Size

2011 2012 Avg.

PS PL 4-log Total $/MGD $/Ac-ft

22401.40 22461.60 22431.50

$4,242,000 $27,507,000 $2,364,674 $34,113,674 $1,705,684 $1,521

SW Plant Diversion Annual Average Daily Flow (MGD) 24 30 35 23.98 29.59 31.57 24.00 29.46 31.07 23.96 28.74 29.84 23.91 27.22 27.98 23.96 28.75 30.12

48 32.15 31.52 30.67 28.33 30.67

60 32.28 31.63 31.12 28.47 30.88

26881.70 26915.10 26898.40

Annual Totals (ac-ft) 32993.00 34803.80 32274.00 33518.60 32633.50 34161.20

35303.70 34449.10 34876.40

35425.22 34957.25 35191.23

$4,558,000 $27,507,000 $2,736,001 $34,801,001 $1,452,311 $1,294

Capital Cost $4,729,000 $4,980,000 $31,194,000 $31,194,000 $3,270,727 $3,700,000 $39,193,727 $39,874,000 $1,363,142 $1,324,058 $1,201 $1,167

$5,964,000 $34,882,000 $4,763,655 $45,609,655 $1,487,231 $1,308

$6,468,000 $34,882,000 $5,694,666 $47,044,666 $1,523,690 $1,337

Annual Cost $2,406,163 $2,447,926 $529,794 $555,489 $586,135 $592,410

Debt $2,094,291 $2,136,487 $2,800,047 $2,888,145 Power $353,170 $564,372 $390,443 $471,724 O&M $518,655 $526,555 $672,330 $684,930 O3 O&M $406,767 $485,375 $602,684 $700,000 $951,605 $1,182,481 Total $3,372,883 $3,712,789 $4,124,776 $4,295,825 $4,814,425 $5,227,280 $/MGD $168,644.17 $154,941.63 $143,458.00 $142,647.36 $156,987.84 $169,301.99 $/Ac-ft $150.36 $138.03 $126.40 $125.75 $138.04 $148.54

2010 2011 2012 2013 Avg.

20 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

PL Size

2011 2012 Avg.

PS PL 4-log Total $/MGD $/Ac-ft

22402.88 22402.88 22402.88

Brays Bayou Diversion Annual Average Daily Flow (MGD) 30 45 60 30.00 35.51 36.50 30.00 35.44 36.25 30.00 35.08 35.63 30.00 34.32 34.70 30.00 35.09 35.77 42

Annual Totals (ac-ft) 33604.32 39697.90 40599.61 33604.32 39294.65 39910.73 33604.32 39496.27 40255.17

40851.65 40375.59 40613.62

$5,688,000 $6,403,000 $27,507,000 $31,194,000 $2,364,674 $3,270,727 $35,559,674 $40,867,727 $1,777,984 $1,362,258 $1,587 $1,216

120 36.79 36.47 36.05 34.88 36.04

Capital Cost $8,012,000 $31,194,000 $4,523,945 $43,729,945 $1,246,356 $1,107 Annual Cost $2,684,649 $629,695 $668,210

$9,100,000 $14,950,000 $34,882,000 $45,966,000 $5,694,666 $9,914,990 $49,676,666 $70,830,990 $1,388,877 $1,965,139 $1,234 $1,744

Debt $2,183,063 $2,508,933 $3,049,727 $4,348,424 Power $353,170 $529,794 $471,724 $415,523 O&M $554,805 $627,985 $750,730 $1,063,240 O3 O&M $406,767 $602,684 $893,697 $1,182,481 $2,325,116 Total $3,497,806 $4,269,396 $4,876,251 $5,454,663 $8,152,302 $/MGD $174,890.28 $142,313.19 $138,978.98 $152,503.32 $226,177.97 $/Ac-ft $156.13 $127.05 $123.46 $135.50 $200.73

2010 2011 2012 2013 Avg.

20 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

PL Size

2011 2012 Avg.

PS PL 4-log Total $/MGD $/Ac-ft

22402.88 22402.88 22402.88

Combined Diversion (2 Intakes) Annual Average Daily Flow (MGD) 30 45 60 30.00 45.00 52.28 30.00 45.00 51.78 30.00 45.00 50.55 30.00 45.00 48.69 30.00 45.00 50.83 42

Annual Totals (ac-ft) 33604.32 50406.47 58001.05 33604.32 50406.47 56623.27 33604.32 50406.47 57312.16

58505.11 57552.99 58029.05

$7,378,000 $8,272,000 $27,507,000 $31,194,000 $2,364,674 $3,270,727 $37,249,674 $42,736,727 $1,862,484 $1,424,558 $1,663 $1,272

120 52.86 52.23 51.38 49.04 51.38

Capital Cost $10,433,000 $31,194,000 $4,523,945 $46,150,945 $1,025,577 $916 Annual Cost $2,833,278 $629,695 $728,735

$11,805,000 $17,655,000 $34,882,000 $45,966,000 $5,694,666 $9,914,990 $52,381,666 $73,535,990 $1,030,628 $1,431,288 $914 $1,267

Debt $2,286,815 $2,623,674 $3,215,791 $4,514,488 Power $353,170 $529,794 $471,724 $415,523 O&M $597,055 $674,710 $818,355 $1,130,865 O3 O&M $406,767 $602,684 $893,697 $1,182,481 $2,325,116 Total $3,643,807 $4,430,861 $5,085,405 $5,688,352 $8,385,991 $/MGD $182,190.36 $147,695.38 $113,009.00 $111,920.35 $163,223.03 $/Ac-ft $162.65 $131.85 $100.89 $99.25 $144.51

2010 2011 2012 2013 Avg.

5 5.00 4.98 4.94 4.94 4.97

PL Size

Avg.

PS PL 4-log Total $/MGD $/Ac-ft

5561.22

$1,918,000 $2,611,000 $780,052 $5,309,052 $1,069,214 $955

Almeda Sims to Texas Brine Annual Average Daily Flow (MGD) 6 8 9 5.99 7.40 7.73 5.92 7.00 7.23 5.72 6.44 6.63 5.84 7.10 7.34 5.87 6.99 7.23

10 7.91 7.39 6.76 7.48 7.38

12 8.08 7.58 6.86 7.67 7.55

6570.10

Annual Totals (ac-ft) 7824.25 8100.30

8270.82

8451.44

$2,045,000 $2,611,000 $902,544 $5,558,544 $947,561 $846

Capital Cost $2,275,000 $2,436,000 $2,795,000 $2,795,000 $1,136,107 $1,248,364 $6,206,107 $6,479,364 $888,372 $895,879 $793 $800

$2,523,000 $2,795,000 $1,358,149 $6,676,149 $904,056 $807

$2,755,000 $2,795,000 $1,571,420 $7,121,420 $943,744 $843

Annual Cost $381,002 $397,778 $55,682 $55,682 $98,800 $102,825

Debt $325,931 $341,248 $409,859 $437,195 Power $55,682 $55,682 $55,682 $55,682 O&M $87,115 $90,290 $105,000 $110,800 O3 O&M $106,797 $127,250 $167,848 $188,025 $208,135 $248,185 Total $575,525 $614,470 $703,333 $744,310 $778,676 $851,862 $/MGD $115,907.53 $104,748.26 $100,678.44 $102,913.19 $105,445.09 $112,890.36 $/Ac-ft $103.49 $93.53 $89.89 $91.89 $94.15 $100.79

2010 2011 2012 2013 Avg.

5 5.00 4.98 4.94 4.94 4.97

PL Size

Avg.

PS PL 4-log Total $/MGD $/Ac-ft

5561.22

$1,918,000 $5,080,000 $780,052 $7,778,052 $1,566,457 $1,399

Almeda Sims to Southwest Pipeline Annual Average Daily Flow (MGD) 6 8 9 5.99 7.40 7.73 5.92 7.00 7.23 5.72 6.44 6.63 5.84 7.10 7.34 5.87 6.99 7.23

10 7.91 7.39 6.76 7.48 7.38

12 8.08 7.58 6.86 7.67 7.55

6570.10

Annual Totals (ac-ft) 7824.25 8100.30

8270.82

8451.44

$2,045,000 $5,080,000 $902,544 $8,027,544 $1,368,450 $1,222

Capital Cost $2,275,000 $2,436,000 $5,579,000 $5,579,000 $1,136,107 $1,248,364 $8,990,107 $9,263,364 $1,286,887 $1,280,813 $1,149 $1,144

$2,523,000 $5,579,000 $1,358,149 $9,460,149 $1,281,054 $1,144

$2,755,000 $5,579,000 $1,571,420 $9,905,420 $1,312,685 $1,172

Annual Cost $551,917 $568,692 $55,682 $55,682 $140,560 $144,585

Debt $477,507 $492,823 $580,773 $608,109 Power $55,682 $55,682 $55,682 $55,682 O&M $124,150 $127,325 $146,760 $152,560 O3 O&M $106,797 $127,250 $167,848 $188,025 $208,135 $248,185 Total $764,135 $803,081 $916,007 $956,985 $991,350 $1,064,536 $/MGD $153,892.71 $136,900.60 $131,121.62 $132,318.89 $134,244.53 $141,074.32 $/Ac-ft $137.40 $122.23 $117.07 $118.14 $119.86 $125.96

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

APPENDIX G STRATEGY PORTFOLIO COST ANALYSIS

Portfolio 1: COH Reuse (Direct) and Allens Creek (COH) 1,200

Water Rate ($/MG)

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Baseline (No Additional Water Purchase) Baseline (w/ Current Other Purchases)

2026

2028

2030

Portfolio 2: COH Reuse (Combined) and Allens Creek (COH) 1,400

1,200

Water Rate ($/MG)

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Baseline (No Additional Water Purchase) Baseline (w/ Current Other Purchases)

2026

2028

2030

Portfolio 3: 5322, COH Reuse (Direct) and Allens Creek (COH) 1,200

Water Rate ($/MG)

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Baseline (No Additional Water Purchase) Baseline (w/ Current Other Purchase)

2026

2028

2030

Portfolio 4: 5322 and COH Reuse (Combined) 1,200

Water Rate ($/MG)

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Baseline (No Additional Water Purchase) Baseline (w/ Current Other Purchase)

2026

2028

2030

Portfolio 5: 5322 and Allens Creek (COH) 1,200

Water Rate ($/MG)

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Baseline (No Additional Water Purchase) Baseline (w/ Current Other Purchase)

2026

2028

2030

Portfolio 6: 5322, and Allens Creek (BRA and COH) 1,200

Water Rate ($/MG)

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Baseline (No Additional Water Purchase) Baseline (w/ Current Other Purchase)

2026

2028

2030

Long Range Water Supply Study Detailed Evaluation of Selected Strategies Gulf Coast Water Authority

APPENDIX H RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

Comprehensive Risk Analysis Summary Risk Percentages

COH Reuse (Direct) Institutional and Legal Risk

Potential Challenge

No Challenge Likely Successful Potentially Unsuccessful Likely Unsuccessful Fatal Flaw

Environmental and Regulatory Significant Process Risk

Minor Process Likely Successful Potentially Unsuccessful Likely Unsuccessful

Yield Reduction Likely Occurrence Risk

No Probability Limited to No Impact Some Impacts to Yield Significant Impacts

Cost Escalation Risk

Capital Energy Administrative Lowest

Relative Risk in Category Highest

% Probability of % Annual Cost Impact to from Project Component

10% 60% 30% 10%

80%

Direct intake eliminates issues involved with diversions from Brays Bayou. Water quality permit issues associated with lack of blending with Waters of the State.

COH Reuse (Combined) 2%

10%

80% 15% 5% 70%

30%

60% 30% 10%

60% 10% 75%

30% 5% 65%

Some risk associated with permit of reclaimed water use directly to GCWA canal system without blending with Waters of the State.

Risk to directly diverted effluent very minimal and limited to reduction of inflows to SWWWTP due to conservation.

Potential risk to pipeline infrastructure costs in coming years. High risk from potential costs associated with City of Houston water rate.

Unknown process associated with procurement of contract with City of Houston. Additional implications of other regional raw water partners.

Allens Creek (BRA) 15%

75% 20% 5% 50%

50%

40% 35% 25%

60% 10% 75%

26% 4% 70%

Risks associated with introduction of treated effluent to GCWA canal system. Potential impacts to mitigate related to bayou intake design.

Instream flows targets increase potential for variability in flow due to upstream regionalization of WW infrastructure. Potential use by City of Houston downstream.

Potential risk to pipeline infrastructure costs in coming years. High risk from potential costs associated with City of Houston water rate.

Reduced institutional risk associted with River Authority's existing plan for selling water at system rate. Potential obstacles associated with need for cooperation with Houston.

10%

1% 60% 30% 10%

99%

30% 50% 20%

75%

10%

3% 97%

65% 20% 15%

88%

20%

5% 95%

30% 50% 20%

78%

Hybrid dual‐source intake may require additional steps to permit. Water quality permit issues associated with diversions from Brays Bayou.

Allens Creek (COH)

50% 50%

70% 20% 10%

65% 40% 75%

59% 8% 33%

Regulatory process fairly well outlined. However, signitifant permitting obstacles remainning. General support for project development.

1% 60% 30% 10%

99%

Project yield may be modified by environmental flow standards but by only a small margin. Potential competition with other parties for available yield.

50%

70% 20% 10%

Higher risk to capital and energy infrastructure construction in remote location. Risk associated with City of Houston water associated.

65% 40% 50%

59% 8% 33%

50%

Regulatory process fairly well outlined. However, signitifant permitting obstacles remainning. General support for project development.

Project yield may be modified by environmental flow standards but by only a small margin. Potential competition with other parties for available yield.

Higher risk to capital and energy infrastructure construction in remote location. Less risk associated with River Authority rates.

Comprehensive Risk Analysis Summary Final Risk Scores COH Reuse (Direct) Institutional and Legal Risk

Potential Challenge

No Challenge Likely Successful Potentially Unsuccessful Likely Unsuccessful Fatal Flaw

Environmental and Regulatory Significant Process Risk

Minor Process Likely Successful Potentially Unsuccessful Likely Unsuccessful

Yield Reduction Risk Likely Occurrence

No Probability Limited to No Impact Some Impacts to Yield Significant Impacts

Cost Escalation Risk

Capital Energy Administrative Lowest

Relative Risk in Category Highest

% Probability of % Annual Cost Impact to from Project Component

38.00 27.10 17.80 67.25

Direct intake eliminates issues involved with diversions from Brays Bayou. Water quality permit issues associated with lack of blending form Waters of the State.

Some risk associated with permit of reclaimed water use directly to GCWA canal system without blending of Water of the State.

Risk to directly diverted effluent very minimal and limited to reduction of inflows to SWWWTP due to conservation.

Potential risk to pipeline infrastructure costs in coming years. High risk from potential costs associated with City of Houston water rate.

COH Reuse (Combined)

56.66

Hybrid dual‐source intake may require additional steps to permit. Water quality permit issues associated with diversions from Brays Bayou.

28.92

Risks associated with introduction of treated effluent to GCWA canal system. Potential impacts to mitigate related to bayou intake design.

29.00

Instream flows targets increase potential for variability in flow due to upstream regionalization of WW infrastructure. Potential use by City of Houston downstream.

68.50

Potential risk to pipeline infrastructure costs in coming years. High risk from potential costs associated with City of Houston water rate.

Allens Creek (COH)

40.80

Unknown process associated with procurement of contract with City of Houston. Additional implications of other regional raw water partners.

35.74

Regulatory process fairly well outlined. However, signitifant permitting obstacles remainning. General support for project development.

21.50

Project yield may be modified by environmental flow standards but by only a small margin. Potential competition with other parties for available yield.

66.30

Higher risk to capital and energy infrastructure construction in remote location. Risk associated with City of Houston water associated.

Allens Creek (BRA)

45.25

Reduced institutional risk associted with River Authority's existing plan for selling water at system rate. Potential obstacles associated with need for cooperation with Houston.

35.74

Regulatory process fairly well outlined. However, signitifant permitting obstacles remainning. General support for project development.

21.50

Project yield may be modified by environmental flow standards but by only a small margin. Potential competition with other parties for available yield.

58.05

Higher risk to capital and energy infrastructure construction in remote location. Less risk associated with River Authority rates.