Water & Wastewater Plan Volume 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I Executive Summary Page No

I.

II.

III. IV.

V.

VI.

INTRODUCTION 1.1 General 1.2 Purpose and Scope

1 1

SUMMARY OF EXISTING UTILITY RELATED CONTRACTS 2.1 Water Supply 2.2 Wastewater

2 3

UTILITY EXTENSION POLICIES 3.1 Water and Wastewater

5

GOVERNING AGENCIES 4.1 Environmental Protection Agency 4.2 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 4.3 Texas Water Development Board 4.4 Brazos River Authority 4.5 Region G Planning Group 4.6 United States Corps of Engineers 4.7 Texas Historical Commission

6 6 7 8 8 8 9

PLANNING 5.1 Planning Area 5.2 Land Use 5.3 Population 5.4 Definitions

10 10 11 12

WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS 6.1 General 6.2 CCN & Planning Area 6.3 Water Treatment 6.4 Pressure Planes 6.5 Historical & Projected Water Demands 6.6 Estimated Hourly Demand Curve 6.7 Design Ideology 6.8 Wholesale Customers 6.9 System Model 6.10 Calibration 6.11 Demands, Population & Connections by Pressure Plane 6.12 Water Storage 6.13 Pump Stations 6.14 Water Transmission 6.15 Water Distribution

13 13 13 16 17 20 21 22 23 28 29 30 36 46 46

TOC - 1

6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 VII.

720 Pressure Plane 785 Pressure Plane 835 Pressure Plane 876 Pressure Plane 920 Pressure Plane Recommended Improvements

48 49 49 50 51 52

WASTEWATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS 7.1 General 7.2 Wastewater Collection System 7.3 Existing Infrastructure 7.4 CCN, Planning Area, & Service Area 7.5 Sewer Basins 7.6 Wastewater Flows 7.7 Design Ideology & Criteria 7.8 Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance (CMOM) / Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Initiative 7.9 Previous Reports 7.10 Leon River Basins 7.11 Cedar Creek Basin 7.12 Pepper Creek Basin 7.13 Bird Creek Basin 7.14 Friars Creek Basin 7.15 Little River Basin 7.16 Boggy Creek Basin 7.17 Knob Creek Basin 7.18 Williamson Creek Basin 7.19 Little Elm Creek Basin

VIII. PHASING PLAN 8.01 General IX.

53 53 55 60 61 63 67 68 69 70 77 81 88 93 97 100 102 108 112 118

PROJECT DELIVERY 9.01 Selection of Engineer 9.02 Right-of-Way 9.03 Permitting 9.04 Preliminary Engineering 9.05 Final Engineering 9.06 Bidding 9.07 Construction Administration 9.08 On-site Representation 9.09 Final Acceptance 9.10 Warranty

119 119 120 121 122 122 122 123 123 123

TOC - 2

EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A – EXHIBIT B – EXHIBIT C – EXHIBIT D – EXHIBIT E – EXHIBIT F – EXHIBIT G – EXHIBIT H – EXHIBIT I – EXHIBIT J – EXHIBIT K – EXHIBIT L –

WATER CCN MAP WASTEWATER CNN MAP FUTURE LAND USE HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND MEMBRANE PLANT LAYOUT EXISTING PRESSURE PLANES PROPOSED PRESSURE PLANES 2019 PRELIMINARY WATER MASTER PLAN WATER TRANSMISSON SYSTEM SCHEMATIC WASTEWATER BASIN MAP DRAINAGE SUB-BASIN MAP 2019 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN

VOLUME II APPENDICES APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H APPENDIX I APPENDIX J APPENDIX K APPENDIX L

– UTILITY RELATED CONTRACTS City of Troy WCID No. 2 (Little River-Academy) City of Morgan’s Point Resort Arrowhead Hill Corporation Brazos River Authority (Temple Belton Regional Sewerage System) Brazos River Authority (Water Storage) Panda Temple Power II, LLC (Effluent and Water Purchase Agreement) – EXTENSION POLICY – INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY FORMS Lift Stations Pump Stations Tanks – EXISTING PUMP STATION PUMP CURVES Old High Service New High Service Avenue G Loop 363 Old Howard Road West Park FM 2305 Airport – WATER CALIBRATION – LOGICAL CONTROLS – OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COST FOR WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS – BASIN FLOW DIAGRAMS – WASTEWATER BASIN DESIGN FLOW CALCULATIONS – IMPACTS OF WASTERWATER PLANNING AREA – PROPOSED LIFT STATION CALCULATIONS – OPINION OF PROBABLE COST FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEM PROJECTS

TOC - 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GENERAL This Water and Wastewater Master Plan provides a comprehensive evaluation and analysis of the City of Temple’s current utilities and infrastructure improvements required to serve the Year 2070 population. Further, this Plan documents the City’s existing utility related contracts, current extension policies, summary of governing agencies as they relate to municipal utilities and projects, planning components and a synopsis of project delivery components. The Water and Wastewater Master Plan in its entirety is contained in Volume II. Volume I is limited to this Executive Summary and Recommendations.

The Master Planning process began with several work sessions involving City Staff to gain updated information related to the current condition of water and wastewater system components. Data collection also included the deployment of pressure recorders to provide field data for calibration of the existing system water model. Substantial advances have been made in the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS), which has been integrated and allowed for a more comprehensive evaluation of the existing water and wastewater systems. System models, condition of the water and wastewater system components and development trends were then utilized in the phasing of capital improvement and rehabilitation projects.

WATER SYSTEM Based on the current Brazos G population projections, historical water use and future land use, water demand projections were established and water distribution network analyses was performed using the computer model WaterGEMS.

Based on these

analyses, pipe sizes, pump station capacities, treatment capacities and storage needs were determined and sequenced to meet the projected water demands for expected populations in Year 2040 and Year 2070. Since

Water System Demands 2018

34.0 MGD

2030

43.6 MGD

2040

49.8 MGD

2070

68.8 MGD

the previous update to the Master Plan in 2009, meter data has been collected and included in the City’s GIS. This information allowed evaluations of infrastructure by pressure plane as related to the number of connections and compliance with certain TCEQ regulations.

This

information is included within numerous tables in Section 6 of the report. Opinions of Probable Cost were prepared and these recommended improvements were phased and are included in Volume II.

Water Treatment The Temple Water Treatment Plant has a rated capacity of 41.0 MGD. As shown in the above table, additional capacity is required prior to Year 2030; thus, final design of an 11.6 MGD expansion of the Membrane Facility is underway. The project will also include chemical feed and storage, construction of additional clearwells and a high service pump station. Upon completion of this project, the City of Temple will have two (2) interconnected, stand-alone treatment plants capable of producing over 52 MGD. As described in the Pump Station and Distribution System Sections, additional projects will be required to convey this treated water through the water system.

Water Storage Additional Elevated Storage is planned such that there is sufficient elevated storage within each pressure plane to meet peak demands within the system. A 1.0MG EST is planned for construction in 2019-2020 in the 835 pressure plane. A 1.0 MG EST will be required in the 920 pressure plane

by Year 2040; however, it is recommended that this area be closely monitored due a high demand user that will be located in the industrial park. The 785 pressure plane will require an additional 1.0 MG EST by Year 2040 and the 720 pressure plane will require a 1.5 MG EST by Year 2070.

Ground storage and clearwell storage are currently sufficient per TCEQ requirements. However, additional ground storage is to be constructed as part of the South Temple and Highway 317 Pump Stations to provide for additional storage within the distribution system. clearwell storage is to be added as part of the membrane plant expansion.

Further, additional

Pump Stations 

Proposed Membrane High Service

The proposed capacity of the Membrane High Service Pump Station will be on the order of 23 MGD, pump into the 835, 785 and 720 pressure planes, and provide redundancy to Old and New High Service via interconnections to their respective transmission mains.

As the new treatment plant is expanded, new supply lines will be required. A transmission main is proposed to serve the Highway 317 Pump Station in the future. Also, new transmission mains are proposed to serve the South Temple Pump Station and Proposed 1.5 million gallon (MG) Elevated Storage Tank in the future 720 plane.



Proposed McLane Pump Station (920 Plane)

As growth to the north and within the industrial park occurs, a new pump station on McLane Blvd. is proposed to supply increased demands. Construction of this pump station is anticipated prior to Year 2040, but will most likely be prompted by future development along Outer Loop and/or high demand water users in the North Industrial Park. For these reasons, the ability of existing infrastructure (pump stations and tanks) to meet the water demand must be monitored to best project when the pump station must be constructed.



Proposed South Temple Pump Station (785 and 876 Planes)

Currently, additional pump capacity is needed for the 785 Pressure Plane based on the number of connections, and as development occurs east of 31st Street, the demands of the existing Loop 363 Pump Station Capacity and the existing transmission line will exceed capacity. The initial phase should be designed to pump 3,500 gpm into the 785 pressure plane.

Lack of redundancy and reliability are a primary concern with regard to supply to the 876 Pressure Plane. Redundant supply to 876 is needed to facilitate replacement and/or repairs to the Avenue G Pump Station and Ground Storage as well as provide for a more reliable supply. The initial phase of the pump station for the 876 pressure plane should be designed to pump 4,000 gpm.

Preliminary Engineering for these facilities has been completed and acquisition of the property is planned for FY 19-21, with final design to follow in 2025-2030.



Proposed Highway 317 Pump Station (835 and 785 Planes)

This Highway 317 Pump Station will serve both the 835 and 785 planes. As stated previously, additional pump capacity is needed for the 785 Pressure Plane based on the number of connections and development in both the 835 and 785 pressure planes will require construction of the Highway 317 Pump Station.

The membrane high service pump station is a prerequisite to the Highway 317 PS and is planned for completion in 2021. The proposed capacity of the new pump station for the 835 and 785 pressure planes respectively is 2,500 and 4,500 gpm initially. Acquisition of the property is planned for FY 19-21, with final design to follow in 2021-2023.

720 Pressure Plane Currently, there are planned projects to construct 12” Water Lines along Poison Oak and Kegley, which coincide with roadway projects. Charter Oak, South Temple and Northwest Transmission Mains will be constructed through the 720 pressure plane; however, their purpose is to provide additional supply to the 835, 785 and 876 pressure planes. The Hwy 317 Pump Station will include a 2MG GST, which is designed to support the 720 EST through a future 18” along Hogan Rd. Aside from construction of distribution lines, an additional 1.5 MG elevated storage tank will be required by Year 2070. This EST will be supplied by a future 36” Transmission Main from the Membrane Plant.

785 Pressure Plane Planned projects include a 12” Water Lines along Hogan and Hartrick Bluff. The Hwy 317 and South Temple Pump Stations will be constructed to provide additional supply to the 785 pressure planes, which is necessary to support the current number of connections within the pressure plane.

An additional 1MG elevated storage tank will be required by Year 2040. This EST will be supplied by the South Temple Transmission Main and supplemented by a future 36” Transmission Main from the Membrane Plant.

835 Pressure Plane A new 1MG Pepper Creek Tank is beginning construction and is scheduled to be operational in 2020. The Hwy 317 Pump Station will be constructed to provide additional and redundant supply to the 835 pressure plane. The pump station discharge will connect to the existing 18” on Hwy 317.

An additional 12” along the FM 2305 corridor and 10” from FM 2305 to FM 2483 will be required in the future to support future development.

876 Pressure Plane Improvements in the 876 Pressure Plane include the future construction of 12” Water Lines along East Loop 363 as well as in conjunction with East Outer Loop. A 12” Water Line from Avenue G PS and connecting to a 12” on FM 2305 is recommended to resolve low pressure issues in the Apache area. In addition, rehabilitation of Avenue G Ground Storage remains a recommendation, as this 7MG of Ground Storage is critical to the City’s Water System. A 16” Water Line is planned from South Loop 363 to the 25th Street Tank to coincide with the South Temple project

920 Pressure Plane Currently, there are planned projects to construct 18” and 12” Water Lines in conjunction with the phased construction of Outer Loop. In addition, a proposed 1.5MG EST to be located on Eberhardt Rd is recommended to support new clients and growth in the Industrial Park.

A continuous 12” Water Line along Northwest Loop 363 is also recommended. A future 12” Water Line providing an interconnection between Loop 363 and Outer Loop will also be necessary.

Because of the significant industry component of this pressure plane and a single high demand user, it is critical to provide reliable supply and pressure. Evaluations of pump station and storage capacities must also be based on this industrial component and single high demand user, as opposed to TCEQ’s simplistic requirements related to meter counts.

Summary of Recommended Water Improvements

WASTEWATER SYSTEM This master plan summarizes the analysis and planning of improvements for the City of Temple’s wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment facilities. Wastewater flow projections were based on future land use and a modeled utilizing Sewer GEMS.

The continued growth and

development of Temple necessitates that the existing wastewater system be analyzed for adequacy of service and that facilities be planned ahead of development. The report identifies and determines the wastewater collection system improvements including gravity lines, force mains and lift stations which will be required to provide service within the planning area. This detailed information along with Opinions of Probable Cost are included in Volume II.

Wastewater Treatment The City of Temple is served by two sewerage systems, the Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant (TBWWTP) and the Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant (DFWWTP).

A. Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant Multiple studies have been conducted over the past 15 years in regards to the expansion of the TBWWTP. The most recent was completed prior to the 2015 Improvements. The improvements constructed to date consist of a new, expanded Headworks facility and conversion of the existing, abandoned aeration basins into Flow Equalization Basins. The projections for the TBWWTP facility, through 2040, are as follows: Temple Population Per Capita Flow, Wet Weather (gpcd) Design Flow (mgd) Peak Flow, 2 hour wet weather (mgd)

67,752 210 14.1 46.1

Belton Population Per Capita Flow, Wet Weather (gpcd) Design Flow (mgd) Peak Flow, 2 hour wet weather (mgd)

22,870 173 3.9 11.4

Total TBWWTP Population Design Flow (mgd) Peak Flow, 2 hour wet weather (mgd)

90,442 18 57.5

The current treatment facility is sized for a design flow of 10 MGD and a peak flow of 30 MGD. Upon completion of the Phase 1 Improvements (Headworks and FEB), the design flow will remain 10 MGD, however, the facility will be able to accommodate a peak flow of 38+ MGD. Future phases will expand the treatment capacities to 14/43.5 MGD and 18/57 MGD. Phase 2 includes the addition of a separate biological treatment process, clarification, UV disinfection and new plant water/post aeration facilities.

B. Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant The design criteria for the plant are summarized as follows: Temple Population Average Day Flow, annual average (gpcd) Average Day Flow, annual average (mgd) Maximum Day Flow, annual average (mgd) Wet Weather Flow, highest 30 day average (gpcd) Wet Weather Flow, highest 30 day average (mgd) Peak Flow, 2 hour wet weather (mgd)

33,000 135 4.50 12.10 225 7.50 22.50

The design flow of the expanded Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant is 7.5 MGD. Population growth and distribution and treatment plant flows should be reviewed periodically for the purposes of planning required projects; however expansion of this plant is not anticipated in the next ten years.

Leon River Basin Proposed improvements within the Leon River Basin focus on eliminating the existing inter-basin transfer, establishing a continuous trunk sewer through the basin by combining the currently independent gravity networks, increasing the number of serviceable properties along Highway 317, and the appropriate upgrades of existing infrastructure required to facilitate new previously unconsidered flows as directed by City Staff;  LO-01 This proposed improvement is the required upsizing of the newly completed Leon River Phase I Trunk Sewer and Lift Station as a direct result of including projected flows generated by adding flow from the Cedar Creek Basin. At the time of the preliminary engineering and final design of this project, the agreed upon service area did not include Cedar Creek or the majority of areas west of FM 2271. With the inclusion of these additional areas, the Leon River Phase I trunk sewer must be upsized from a 36” Wastewater Line to the pipe size of 39” at full build-out. This upsize will likely not be required for more than 20 years but should be monitored as growth and development continue.  LO-02 As described, the basin is currently comprised of two independent gravity systems, and as part of its current configuration, must rely on an inter-basin transfer. The purpose of the Leon River Phase II project (LO-02) is to unite these two gravity systems and allow for the abandonment of the Pea Ridge Lift Station, while providing collection service to an area south of Poison Oak Road and north of the Water Treatment Plan that is currently without service.

The Preliminary Engineering Report proposed a 27” Wastewater Line; however, with the inclusion of Cedar Creek, a 30” Wastewater Line will be required to accommodate future fully developed flows.

This project will also include capacity improvements to the Leon River Lift Station. The Leon River Lift Station had been planned for phased improvements with increasing capacity, however, the improvements are likely to be expedited to accomplish abandonment of Pea Ridge Lift Station.

 LO-03 This improvement generally follows Wild Boys Run along the bank of the Leon River. A ridgeline separates this area from the main Leon River Trunk Sewer. In the event this area subdivides for development, the proposed line will serve to intercept development flows and convey them to the main Leon River Trunk sewer. This interceptor ties into the main Leon River Trunk, as the ridge separating the two diminishes, which coincides with the Leon River Phase I Trunk Sewer in an area near the City of Temple Water Treatment Plant.  LO-04 The main purpose of this project is to provide wastewater service along Highway 317 south of FM 2305 and north of the Leon River. Subsequently, its construction allows for the abandonment of the Oak Hills Lift Station. It is assumed that the completion of this project will supersede the development of the estate properties along the river, therefore a wastewater line is proposed to follow Poison Oak Road and connect this proposed improvement with the main Leon River Trunk Sewer. At the time the estate properties develop, or if they develop before the construction of LO-04, the west to east connecting segment along Poison Oak will no longer be needed and flows can instead be conveyed via the proposed interceptor along Wild Boys Run (LO-03).  LO-05, LO-06, LO-07 These improvements are required due to the impact of the additional planning area. As previously stated, these wastewater lines were not originally expected to convey flows from the Cedar Creek Basin and areas west of FM 2271. The pipe size increases noted on the Master Wastewater Exhibit are required to meet the addition of these added flows.  LO-08 The homes in Lakewood Ranch currently utilize privately owned septic systems; however, in the event that a gravity sewer system is implemented in this subdivision, it will be unable to convey uphill to the north to the interceptor along FM 2305. The purpose of the proposed Lakewood Lift Station and Force Main is to collect these flows and pump them to the gravity line along FM 2305. From a Master Planning perspective, the inclusion of this improvement also dictates that its flows are considered when determining sizes of downstream improvements.  LO-09, LO-10 These two improvement projects are intended to extend and increase the serviceable areas along Highway 317. Without these improvements, these areas are unable to connect the City of Temple wastewater collection system.

Cedar Creek Basin The Cedar Creek Basin is a new addition to the City of Temple wastewater planning area in the current Master Plan. The Cedar Creek Basin had previously been considered outside of the planning area, because it did not have any natural drainage paths leading to any of the other basins within the City of Temple collection system. At the direction of City Staff, this Wastewater Master Plan has included Cedar Creek Basin which previously had not been considered.

As such, the improvements required in the Leon River and Pepper Creek Basins for the existing and planned infrastructure to be able to handle the flows generated from the Cedar Creek Basin were determined and are detailed in their respective basin discussions.

Pepper Creek Basin Proposed improvements within the Pepper Creek Basin focus on extending service to the Riverside Trail-Outer Loop areas, areas near Cearley Road, and final extensions of Pepper Creek Trunk lines to the top of the basin as well as the appropriate upgrades of existing infrastructure required to facilitate the new previously unconsidered flows.  PC-01, PC-04, PC-05 These improvements are required as a result of the addition of more planning area. When these wastewater lines were originally planned, they were not expected to convey flows from the Cedar Creek Basin. The pipe size increases noted on the Exhibit I are required to meet the addition of these new flows.  PC-02, PC-03, PC-06 Several improvements proposed in the Pepper Creek Basin are intended to increase serviceable area of the Temple wastewater collection system. Each of these improvements fills gaps of service that exist in the Pepper Creek Basin.  PC-07 This improvement will extend service to the upper limit of the Pepper Creek Basin. Due to proximity of this proposed project to the top of the Pepper Creek Basin, this project has become the assumed point of outfall for a large portion of flow that is to be transferred from the Cedar Creek Basin to the Pepper Creek Basin. By accepting this flow, larger diameter gravity lines have been proposed than what would typically be expected this upstream in a sewer basin.

 PC-08 Similar to the PC-07 improvement, this improvement would also extend service to the upper limit of the Pepper Creek Basin and accept flow via basin transfer from the Cedar Creek Basin. The flow from the basin transfer, however, is assumed to be substantially less than that which is assumed to be received as part of PC-07. Therefore, pipe diameters in this proposed project remained more typical of a sewer near the extreme upstream end of a basin.

Bird Creek Basin The proposed improvements within the Bird Creek Basin focus to eliminate the intra-basin transfer of flows between the Forest Hills and Bird Creek Trunk Sewers which subsequently would eliminate the need to maintain the Hickory Lift Station. The Bird Creek Basin improvements also focus on the abandonment of the Timber Ridge, Steeplechase and Cliffs Lift Stations while further expanding the serviceable area in the far south of the basin. In addition, proposed projects will provide improvement and rehabilitative projects in an effort to further reduce overflows of the Bird Creek Trunk Sewer.  BD-01 This improvement begins a gravity sewer trunk at the Hickory Lift Station and conveys flows to a proposed Forest Hills Lift Station proposed to be located approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest. Completion of this improvement would include the subsequent abandonment of the Hickory, Timber Ridge, Steeplechase and Cliffs Lift Stations, while expanding the serviceable area of the Bird Creek Basin. Flows from the proposed Forest Hills Lift Station would be pumped to the Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant via force main along FM 93.  BD-02, BD-03 These improvements represent two phases of the five phases intended to provide additional capacity and alleviate overflows in the Bird Creek Trunk Sewer. Construction of Bird Creek Phase V (BC-02) at the time of this Master Plan is nearing completion, while BC-03 remains in final design phase.

Friars Creek Basin The proposed improvements within the Friars Creek Basin are designed to eliminate the necessity for the Valley Ranch Lift Station and further extend the serviceable area of the Friars Creek Wastewater Collection System South of FM 93 to the Leon River. By extending service beyond FM 93, the current Friars Creek Lift Station will be relocated to the lowest and subsequently most advantageous location within the Basin near the Leon River.  FC-01 The extension of wastewater collection service beyond FM 93, the elimination of the Valley Ranch Lift Station and the relocation of the Friars Creek Lift Station to the location denoted as the Taylors Valley Lift Station is contained within this improvement. This improvement is considered to either coincide with or be constructed following the completion of the Proposed South Temple Wastewater Treatment plant. This is reflected in the schematic alignments found on the Master Plan exhibit and the preliminary opinion of costs for this improvement.  FC-02 Improvement FC-01 is a prerequisite of improvement FC-02. The proposed improvement FC-02 proposes extensions, which are intended to bring wastewater flows to the trunk sewer extending south of FM 93 within the Friars Creek Basin.

Little River Basin The improvements within the Little River Basin are intended to create a framework and provide a structure for future development.  LR-01 The initial improvement phase within the Little River Basin is proposed improvement LR-01.

This improvement proposes a general alignment for a wastewater trunk spanning the lower half of the basin and a receiving lift station near the City of Temple CCN boundary which will pump flows out of the basin. Initially, the lift station will direct flows to the Friars Creek Lift Station, but flows will be redirected to the Future South Temple Wastewater Treatment Plant at some time in the future.  LR-02, LR-03 These improvements are interceptors, which are proposed to bring wastewater flows to the Little River Trunk Sewer (LR-01). Improvement LR-03 will also function as an outfall for inter-basin transfer from the Boggy Creek Lift Station.

Boggy Creek Basin The improvements within the Boggy Creek Basin are intended to create a framework and provide a structure for future development.  BC-01 This improvement proposes an initial portion of the future Boggy Creek Trunk Sewer with an interceptor departing from the main trunk heading northwest. The remaining Boggy Creek trunk sewer will head northeast but are included in the cost estimates for BC-02. In addition to the gravity lines included in this improvement, a receiving lift station is also proposed for the basin near the City of Temple Wastewater CCN boundary. The wastewater flows collected at the Boggy Creek lift station will undergo an inter-basin transfer as the flows are pumped into the Little River Basin.  BC-02 This improvement is the continuation of the Boggy Creek Trunk Sewer which began in BC01. The improvement schematically follows Boggy Creek to a point of termination just south of Blackland Road.

Knob Creek Basin The improvements within the Knob Creek Basin are intended to extend the serviceable area of the basin southward to the wastewater CCN boundary, which in the process of doing so, will permit the abandonment of the existing Knob Creek Lift Station. In addition, improvements are intended to increase capacity and rehabilitate gravity wastewater lines in the upper portion of the basin and eliminate the need for the Action World and Proposed Canyon Creek Lift Station in the lower portion of the basin.  KB-01, KB-02, KB-03, KB-04, KB-05 These improvements include the rehabilitation and upsize of the majority of the primary wastewater lines within the upper portion of the Knob Creek Basin. Improvement project KB01 is 100% designed and KB-02 through KB-05 are at 30% design as of the preparation of this report.  KB-06 This improvement provides an intermediary solution to wastewater needs near Old Highway 95 and Barnhardt Road. Included in this improvement is 8,600 LF of gravity wastewater which will be collected at the temporary Canyon Creek Lift Station. Collected wastewater

will be pumped from the Canyon Creek Lift Station into the Friars Creek Basin. The Canyon Creek Lift Station will be necessary until the improvement KB-07 is completed.  KB-07A and KB-07 This improvement extends gravity wastewater from the Action World Lift Station to the proposed West Heidenheimer Lift Station proposed to be located near the City of Temple wastewater CCN boundary. The Action World and Canyon Creek Lift Stations will no longer be required with the completion of this improvement. Flows originally collected at these lift stations will drain to the West Heidenheimer Lift Station. The West Heidenheimer Lift Station will pump flows to the DFWWTP.  KB-08 This improvement will relieve the existing Knob Creek Lift Station and convey flows to the West Heidenheimer Lift Station.  KB-09, KB-10 These improvements will collect wastewater flows from areas along two natural drainage pathways draining to Knob Creek. Both of these interceptors will combine flows after boring underneath Highway 36 and ultimately be collected at the proposed West Heidenheimer Lift Station.

Williamson Creek Basin The improvements proposed within the Williamson Creek Basin are intended to rehabilitate and increase capacity of the Williamson Creek Trunk, to extend the serviceable area of the basin southeast, as well as eliminate the need for the Williamson Creek Lift Station, Force Main and Siphons.  WC-01, WC-02 These improvements include the rehabilitation and line size increases for the Williamson Trunk.  WC-03 This improvement extends the Williamson Creek Trunk from the existing Williamson Creek Lift Station to the Proposed Little Elm Lift Station. The Little Elm Lift Station will be a shared used lift station for Williamson and Little Elm Creek Basins. The preliminary opinion of costs for the Little Elm shared use lift station is not included in the WC-03 improvements or in the Little Elm Trunk Sewer extension (LE-03), but instead has two separate opinions of cost representing the proposed two phases of the Little Elm Lift Station. Flows from this lift

station will be conveyed to the Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant. The completion of this proposed improvement will increase the serviceable area of the basin to the southeast, as well as remove the need for the Williamson Creek Lift Station, force main and associated siphons.

Little Elm Creek Basin The proposed improvements in the Little Elm Creek Basin primarily focus on the expansion of serviceable area while creating a framework for future development.  LE-01, LE-02 These improvements extend the serviceable area of the Little Elm Creek Basin to the northwest. The expansion in the serviceable area is planned to extend beyond the City of Temple Wastewater CCN boundary so that its upper limits may reach the top of the Little Elm Creek Basin.  LE-03 This improvement proposes to extend the Little Elm Trunk Sewer through the undeveloped portion of the basin which currently has no existing wastewater infrastructure. This gravity trunk sewer extension will eliminate the need for the Troy Lift Station by conveying its flow to the Proposed Little Elm Lift Station (LE-04 & LE-05).  LE-04, LE-05 These two improvements represent the two proposed phases of the future Little Elm Lift Station. The Little Elm Lift Station will share wastewater loadings from both the Williamson Creek and Little Elm Creek Basins, and therefore has been separated into two individual phases representing the initial lift station and force main construction and the subsequent improvements necessary to accept additional flow.

Summary of Recommended Wastewater Improvements

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 1.1

GENERAL

Updates to the City of Temple’s Water and Wastewater Master Plans were previously performed in 2008, and primarily outlined new capital improvement projects to be constructed in phases. Because of recent growth, the City has requested that a more comprehensive master plan for water and wastewater be prepared to address not only new projects, but also rehabilitation and maintenance type projects.

Substantial advances have been made in the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS), which has been integrated and allowed for a more comprehensive evaluation of the existing water and wastewater systems. Further, this plan will contain information on governing agencies, existing utility related contracts and utility related policies which can be utilized by City Staff for reference.

1.2

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this report is to present a comprehensive plan for the development of water and wastewater treatment, water distribution and wastewater collection systems to serve the City of Temple. In preparing the plan all potential commercial, industrial and residential demands have been considered based on the best available information for future land use. Exhibit C - Future Land Use Map shows the future land uses used in the analysis.

With the significant growth over the last ten years and to provide for ongoing development, these system analyses have been prepared to provide guidance in the development of water and wastewater infrastructure improvements to adequately serve its citizens and wholesale customers.

Section I | 1

SECTION II: SUMMARY OF CONTRACTS 2.1

WATER SUPPLY a.)

Brazos River Authority The following table summarizes the water currently available to Temple pursuant to its existing water rights and contracts as reported by Mathews & Freeland, L.L.P in October 2000 as well as the more recent contract from 2005: Water Right/ Contract

Water Available During Severe Drought (acre-feet per Year)

Water Available During Wet Periods (acre-feet per Year)

Date Executed

CF-852/ 0 to 12,500 12,500 1962 BRA CF-852 8,4181 (best estimate) Agreement Permit 2052/ BRA Storage 18,500 20,0002 1962 Rights Agreement BRA Option 9,453 9,453 1992 Water Contract BRA System 2,500 2,500 2005 Water Contract TOTAL 38,871 44,453 1 This amount was calculated using water availability modeling as part of the Brazos-G RWPG process.

2 BRA could take the position that this number should be limited to 18,500 acre-feet per year or else Temple would be overdrafting its storage right.

b.)

Wholesale Water Customers The following table summarizes the water currently allocated to customers by contract: Customer

Allocation

Executed

City of Troy

600 gpm

968 Ac-ft.

May 9th, 2016

City of Little River – Academy

200 gpm

323 Ac-ft.

July 19th, 2017

City of Morgan’s Point Resort

1,200 gpm

1,936 Ac-ft.

August 13th, 2017

18 gpm

29 Ac-ft.

February 7th, 2017

Arrowhead Hill

Copies of these contracts can be found in Appendix A of the Report. We recommend that each of these contracts be amended to a maximum instantaneous rate in gallons per minute in addition to the annual volume of water in acre-feet.

Section II | 2

2.2

WASTEWATER a.)

Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant (TBWWTP) The City of Temple initially executed an agreement with the Brazos River Authority in July 1971 to establish the Temple-Belton Regional Sewerage System. The treatment facility is located on Highway 93 between Temple and Belton and was placed into operation in 1975. The plant was designed to treat an average daily wastewater flow of five million gallons per day. Lift stations and force mains serving both Temple and Belton were designed accordingly. The plant was then expanded in 1988-90 to a design capacity (wet weather) of 10 million gallons per day and a peak capacity of 30 million gallons a day. Subsequent contract amendments were executed and are included along with the original agreement in Appendix A. The TBWWTP operation is conducted by the Brazos River Authority and the treatment facility generally serves the western portion of the City of Temple and also provides wastewater treatment services to the City of Belton. The annual cost to the City is determined by their pro-rata share of the annual flow. Historically, three fourths of the flow is allocated to the City of Temple. b.)

Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant (DFWWTP) The Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant was first built on its present location in 1939. The first major expansion was in 1969 and designed by Forrest and Cotton, Consulting Engineers, Dallas, Texas. This expansion included some of the present facilities including: the main building, the primary clarifiers, the roughing filter, the old chlorine contact basin, and the digester control building. The anaerobic digesters where also renovated at that time.

Since that time, the roughing filter was renovated in 1990 and dechlorination facilities were added in 1991. In 1994, construction was completed on the second major expansion of the treatment plant. Facilities designed by Roming-Parker Associates, Consulting Engineers, Temple, Texas, as a part of that expansion include: influent junction box, influent meter, screw pump and fine screen structure, roughing filter pumps, biological reactor, two final clarifiers, chlorine contact/dechlorination/cascade aerator, anaerobic digester renovations, digester control building renovation and addition, sludge dewatering building, SO2 building, the laboratory addition, the maintenance building, and the chlorine storage slab.

Section II | 3

The City of Temple contracts with Brazos River Authority for the operation of the Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant. The treatment facility is located on Loop 363 south of Avenue H. The plant was expanded to a design capacity (wet weather) of 7.5 MGD in 1994.

The Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant services the eastern portion of the City of Temple.

Section II | 4

SECTION III. UTILITY EXTENSION POLICY 3.1

WATER AND WASTEWATER

The City passed an ordinance in January 2004, which established the policy for extension of water and wastewater mains. The ordinance is applicable to new and existing subdivisions within the City Limits or Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of the City of Temple. A copy of this ordinance is included in Appendix B. The cost sharing formula as outlined in the ordinance is summarized below: a.) The City will pay 100% for the first 2500’ of the extension b.) The City will pay 50% of the next 2500’ of the extension c.) The Developer will pay 100% for any required extension beyond 5000’ The ordinance also states that the City shall bear the entire cost of over sizing water and wastewater infrastructure not necessitated by proposed development. All of the cost participation by the City is subject to available funding. Generally, there has been an item in the budget for these types of extensions in the amount of $500,000 annually.

The ordinance is currently under staff review as part of the City’s ongoing evaluation of existing ordinances and policies.

Section III | 5

SECTION IV. GOVERNING AGENCIES/REGULATIONS 4.1

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

In July of 1970, the White House and Congress worked together to establish the EPA in response to the growing public demand for cleaner water, air and land. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants that harm human health and degrade the environment. The EPA was assigned the task of repairing the damage already done to the natural environment and to establish new criteria to guide Americans in making a cleaner environment a reality.

The EPA works to develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. EPA is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs, and delegates to states and tribes the responsibility for issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance. Where national standards are not met, EPA can issue sanctions and take other steps to assist the states in reaching the desired levels of environmental quality.

Most of the regulations set forth by the EPA are administered through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which is described more fully below.

4.2

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

During the 1990s, the Texas Legislature moved to make natural resource protection more efficient by consolidating programs. This trend culminated in the creation of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission in the fall of 1993 as a comprehensive environmental protection agency.

Sunset legislation passed by the Texas Legislature in 2000 directed that the agency change it’s name to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on Sept. 1, 2002.

TCEQ is the environmental agency for the state and its responsibilities include rulemaking, permitting, compliance and enforcement and pollution prevention to name a few.

The City of Temple interacts with the TCEQ on a regular basis. Below is a listing of some of the more common topics: 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan submittals



Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant permits with associated reporting, inspections and renewals



Water and Wastewater Regulations (Chapters 290-Public Drinking Water and 317-Design Criteria for Sewerage Systems respectively)

Section IV | 6

On August 28, 2008, Chapter 317 was repealed and replaced with the initial adoption of 30 TAC Chapter 217, Design Criteria for Domestic Wastewater Systems (Rule Project No. 2006-044-217PR). This repeal and adoption were done primarily to update standards and design criteria in keeping with current engineering practices and technology as well as fulfil the commission's goal of having water-related rules in the Chapter 200 series.

With regard to permits associated with the Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants, it is worth noting that expansion or process modifications require notification to TCEQ and likely permit revisions. Further discharge permits typically must be renewed every five years. The permit for Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant includes a provision for the Reclaimed Water used at Wilson Park.

4.3

TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) was created in 1957. It currently 

Provides loans to local governments for water supply projects; water quality projects including wastewater treatment, municipal solid waste management and nonpoint source pollution control; flood control projects; agricultural water conservation projects; and groundwater district creation expenses



Provides grants and loans for the water and wastewater needs of the state's economically distressed areas



Provides agricultural water conservation funding and water-related research and planning grants



Supports regions in developing their regional water plans that will be incorporated into a statewide water plan for the orderly development, management and conservation of the state's water resources by studying Texas' surface and groundwater resources



Collects data and conducts studies concerning the fresh-water needs of the state's bays and estuaries



Administers the Texas Water Bank, which facilitates the transfer, sale or lease of water and water rights throughout the state, and administers the Texas Water Trust, where water rights are held for environmental flow maintenance purposes



Maintains a centralized data bank of information on the state's natural resources called the Texas Natural Resources Information System and manages the Strategic Mapping Program, a Texas-based, public and private sector cost-sharing program to develop consistent, large-scale computerized base maps describing basic geographic features of Texas.

Section IV | 7

The Texas Water Development Board’s (TWDB) mission is “To provide leadership, planning, financial assistance, information, and education for the conservation and responsible development of water for Texas.” The TWDB mission is a vital part of Texas’ overall vision and its mission and goals which relate to maintaining the viability of the state’s natural resources, health and economic development.

To accomplish its goals of planning for the state’s water resources and for providing affordable water and wastewater services, the TWDB provides water planning, data collection and dissemination, financial assistance and technical assistance services to the citizens of Texas. The tremendous population growth that the state has and will continue to experience, and the continual threat of severe drought, only intensify the need for the TWDB to accomplish its goals in an effective and efficient manner.

4.4

BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY

The Brazos River Authority (BRA) was the first river authority established in the US. Its activities include management of flood control operations; operation of wastewater collection and treatment systems; water quality and pollution control operations; and water supply and conservation.

The City of Temple currently has contracts with the BRA for the purchase of raw water and also for the operation of both wastewater treatment plants (Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant & Doshier Farm). These contracts are included in Appendix A. 4.5

REGION G WATER PLANNING GROUP

The Regional Water Planning Group (RWPG) was established by the TWDB on February 19, 1998.

The purpose of the RWPG is to provide comprehensive regional water planning and to carry out the related responsibilities placed on regional water planning groups by state law, including Texas Water Code Chapter 16 and TWDB rules, including 31 TAC Chapters 355, 357, and 358, in and for the Regional Water Planning Authority.

The 2016 Brazos G Regional Water Plan was approved by the TWDB and contains population projections, per capita water use projections and water demand projections through year 2070.

4.6

UNITED STATES CORPS OF ENGINEERS

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is made up of approximately 34,600 Civilian and 650 military members. Military and civilian engineers, scientists and other specialists work hand in hand as leaders in engineering and environmental matters. The diverse workforce of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural resource managers and other professionals meets the demands of changing times and requirements as a vital part of America's Army.

Section IV | 8

The USACE’s mission is to provide quality, responsive engineering services to the nation including: 

Planning, designing, building and operating water resources and other civil works projects (Navigation, Flood Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster Response, etc.)



Designing and managing the construction of military facilities for the Army and Air Force. (Military Construction)



Providing design and construction management support for other Defense and federal agencies. (Interagency and International Services)

The City of Temple typically interacts with USACE on projects which encounter “waters of the US”. For this type of project, typically a utility line crossing a creek, a permit must be obtained from the USACE. Generally, utility projects will be covered under a Nationwide 12 Corps Permit.

4.7

TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION

The Texas Historical Commission (THC) is the state agency for historic preservation. THC staff consults with citizens and organizations to preserve Texas' architectural, archeological and cultural landmarks. The agency is recognized nationally for its preservation programs.

The THC is composed of 17 citizen members appointed by the governor to staggered six-year terms.

The agency employs about 100 people who work in various fields, including archeology, architecture, history, economic development, heritage tourism, public administration and urban planning.

The Texas State Legislature established the agency in 1953 as the Texas State Historical Survey Committee with the task to identify important historic sites across the state. The Texas Legislature changed the agency's name to the Texas Historical Commission in 1973. Along with the name change came more protective powers, an expanded leadership role and broader educational responsibilities.

The City of Temple typically interacts with THC on projects where archeological assessments are performed. Typically, these are projects that are through undisturbed land and site tests must be performed to ensure that there is no historical site present. Once it is determined that there is no historical significance, an antiquities permit (THC clearance) may be obtained.

Section IV | 9

SECTION V. PLANNING 5.1

PLANNING AREA

The planning areas for water and wastewater service are not geographically precise nor are they legally described areas. They generally reflect a boundary between the city limits and the extra territorial jurisdiction of the City of Temple. The planning areas are influenced by areas that can be reasonably served with water and wastewater and are shown as part of the exhibits located within this report.

Currently water is being supplied to Morgan’s Point Resort, Troy, Arrowhead Hill and to Little River-Academy (Water Control and Improvement District No. 2). The Water CCN (Certificate of Convenience and Necessity) Limits of each of these entities is shown on Exhibit A. It is assumed that these relationships will continue indefinitely, and the system facilities have been designed accordingly.

Wastewater CCN’s for the City of Temple and neighboring communities are shown on Exhibit B, along with City’s drainage basins. The planning area for wastewater service is primarily based on natural topography.

5.2

LAND USE

While there are many specifically defined uses of land within the City, the finite differences of each do not affect water demands and wastewater flows for system planning. For example, Temple’s Land Use Map separates Commercial Use into Community Retail, Office, Regional Commercial, and Mixed Use Areas. The differences between these four are negligible from a water and wastewater viewpoint. For this reason, these four zones were condensed into one commercial land use category.

Defined land uses utilized in this report are shown on Exhibit C and are: •

Light Density Residential

•

Medium Density Residential

•

High Density Residential

•

Community Facilities

•

Commercial

•

Industrial

As development occurs in commercial and industrial areas, the projected water demand and wastewater flow from the specific development should be reviewed with respect to this study. The wastewater flows used for each of the various land uses are described in detail under Section 7.6 Wastewater Flows of this report.

Section V | 10

5.3

POPULATION

As previously discussed, development of areas in accordance with projected land use will determine the population to be served. Generally, trunk sewer lines have been sized to serve the ultimate population of the drainage area. Depending upon the timing and location of various developments, it may not be possible to construct facilities to serve the ultimate population. If this situation occurs, a deliberate decision can be made to decrease the size of any given facility and the future additions can be identified.

The demand for water is closely related to a city’s population. Industrial and commercial development also plays an important role in water consumption. The 2011 Temple Water System population, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, and used in the State Water Plan is shown in the adjacent table.

TEMPLE WATER SYSTEM 2011 POPULATION Temple 66,102 Troy 1,645 Morgan’s Point Resort 4,170 Little River-Academy 1,961 Total 73,878

Table 3, in Section 6.5, contains the projected population of the Temple Water System from 1990 to 2070. These population projections are from the Texas Water Development Board 2021 Regional and 2022 State Water Plan, and have been used as the basis for the water demands used in the distribution analysis.

The ultimate water supply and distribution system plan developed herein is capable of serving a future population of approximately 171,750 and should be built in phases as growth occurs. The proposed distribution system is designed so that it may be expanded even further in the distant future as needs require.

Section V | 11

5.4

DEFINITIONS

The design of the water treatment, storage, and distribution system is based on various rates of water consumption which are generally referred to as water demand. Specifically, they are as follows: •

Average Daily Demand - This rate is expressed as gallons per capita per day (gpcd), as million gallons per day (mgd), or as acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr). When expressed as gallons per capita per day it represents the average daily water consumption for each person over a given year. When expressed as million gallons per day, it represents the average daily water used by the entire system over a given year. When expressed as acre-feet per year, it represents the volume of water required per year for supply purposes.

•

Maximum Daily Demand - This is the total amount of water used on the day of the heaviest consumption in any given year. The water treatment and water pumping facilities must be capable of supplying this amount of water for that day.

•

Peak Hourly Demand - This is the rate of water consumption during the peak hour of the maximum day of a given year. This water usage is most economically supplied through a combination of elevated storage and high service pumps. The distribution system and elevated storage must be capable of satisfying this demand.

•

Minimum Hourly Demand - This is the rate of water consumption during the minimum hour of the maximum day of a given year. This number is important because this is the time of day when the elevated storage tanks are being replenished. This demand rate is used in the water distribution system analysis to determine the capability of pumping and distribution facilities to replenish elevated storage tanks.

Section V | 12

SECTION VI: WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS 6.1

GENERAL

This report summarizes the analysis and planning of improvements for the City of Temple’s water system. The City of Temple Water System is comprised of a network of distribution and transmission lines which connect storage tanks, pump stations and the water treatment plant to customers. A computer assisted analysis of the water system was performed utilizing WaterGEMS Software for Existing, Year 2040 and Year 2070 conditions. The computations performed by WaterGEMS provide line velocities, demands, system pressures, pump cycling and elevated tank elevations as they vary through the day. The analysis of these calculations assisted in the determination of sizing, placement and timing of proposed improvements to meet future needs.

6.2

CCN & PLANNING AREA

6.2.1 Water CCN The Public Utility Commission provides and manages Water Certificates of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) for entities in the State of Texas, which provides the holder with the exclusive right to provide water utility service to an identified geographic area. The City of Temple Water and neighboring entities water CNNs can be viewed on Exhibit A. 6.2.2 Planning Area The planning area boundary is set to define the geographic scope of the Water Master Plan. Through discussions with City Staff the current planning area for the current Master Plan has been extended to the south and east, which is observable on exhibits throughout the report.

6.3

WATER TREATMENT

6.3.1 Overview The treated water for the City of Temple Water System is currently supplied by the conventional water treatment plant on Parkside Road and the membrane plant on Charter Oak Loop. The source for the City of Temple Water System is the Leon River downstream of Lake Belton Dam. Pictured below is the Existing Conventional Water Treatment Plant. The Membrane and Conventional Treatment Facilities are presented in greater detail on Exhibit E. 6.3.2 Existing Treatment Facilities The original Temple Water Treatment Plant was built in 1911 in the vicinity of the existing raw water intake structure and abandoned in 1938 when the facilities at the present site were constructed. The first stage of the treatment facilities at this site included three rapid sand filtration units with a

Raw Water Intake Structure

Section VI | 13

nominal capacity of 1 MGD each and a circular 3 MGD sedimentation and softening unit.

Sedimentation basins were later added with a capacity of 1.5 MGD each; however, no mechanical sludge removal equipment was installed in these basins. The rated capacity of the plant at that time was 3 MGD. In 1941, an additional 1 MGD rapid sand filter was constructed, and in 1945, a 6 MGD sedimentation and softening basin was built. These improvements brought the nominal capacity of the filters to 4 MGD and the sedimentation basins to 6 MGD; therefore, the effective nominal capacity of the plant was 4 MGD. The plant remained unchanged until 1958 when the current intake structure and an additional three filters of 2 MGD nominal capacity each were constructed along with two sedimentation basins of 3 MGD each. This addition brought the plant to an effective nominal capacity of 10 MGD. More rehabilitation was completed when the original 3 MGD circular softening unit was abandoned and the 6 MGD softening unit was upgraded with a new lime softening unit (6 MGD) utilizing the existing structure. Although these modifications did not increase the nominal capacity above the 10 MGD level gained in 1958, plant operation was improved and simplified.

Modifications in 1973 brought the existing water treatment plant capacity to 12 MGD. At that time one of the filters built in 1958 was converted to a dual media (anthracite coal and sand) filter with new controller instrumentation and piping to increase its capacity from 2 MGD to 4 MGD. By operation of this filter at its new capacity and the other six filters at their design rates, the capacity of the treatment plant was increased to 12 MGD. Additional 1973 modifications included the addition of temporary sludge settling lagoons and reworking of the sludge recirculation piping, and the addition of one pump at both the raw water intake structure and high service pump station.

In 1978 an additional three filters of 4 MGD nominal capacity each were constructed along with Settling Basin No. 3. This addition brought the plant to an effective nominal capacity of 22 MGD. Additional 1978 modifications included the additions of permanent sludge settling lagoons with sludge recirculation pumps, a sludge gravity thickener and centrifuge, lagoon supernatant recycle pumps, and the addition of one pump at the raw water intake structure. The existing high service pumps located in the lower level at the administration building were removed and a new high service pump station was constructed on the north end of the site along with two clearwells.

Modifications in 1990 brought the existing water treatment plant capacity to approximately 33 MGD. At the time two filters were built along with one settling basin currently known as Clarifier No. 4.

Additional modifications included the addition of two larger sludge settling lagoons and sludge recirculation pumps and the addition of pumps at both the raw water intake structure and high service pump station.

In 1993 the existing plant capacity was re-rated to 30 MGD by the TCEQ due to changes in the Surface Water Treatment Rules, which went into effect July 1, 1993.

Section VI | 14

Existing Conventional Water Treatment Facility

In 2004, the Membrane Plant and a second intake structure were completed. Currently, the conventional plant is rated for 29.4 MGD and the membrane plant is rated for 11.6 MGD for a total capacity of 41.0 MGD. See Exhibit E for existing and proposed plant layout.

6.3.3 Proposed Treatment Facilities The City owns and operates the Temple Water Membrane Facility Treatment Plant (WTP), which has a TCEQ rated capacity of 41.0 million gallons per day (MGD). The WTP consists of the “Conventional” WTP (29.4 MGD rated capacity) and the “Membrane” Facility (11.6 MGD rated capacity). Exhibit D illustrates the historical and projected maximum daily demands and the proposed incremental plant expansions required.

The current project will expand the capacity of the Membrane Facility by 11.6 MGD and include new facilities (chemical feed and storage, clearwell capacity and high service pumps) that are currently located at the Conventional WTP. Upon completion of this project, the City of Temple will have two (2) interconnected, stand-alone treatment plants capable of producing over 52 MGD. A conceptual layout of the membrane plant expansion can be found on Exhibit E. Section VI | 15

6.4

PRESSURE PLANES

The water system for the City of Temple Water Master Plan is divided into five (5) Pressure Planes.

These pressure planes exist to isolate areas of the system so that a satisfactory level of pressure occurs throughout the system. As the result of varying ground elevations within the City of Temple planning area, the use of a single common pressure plane is not possible. The terrain within the planning area of the City of Temple Water System varies from a low ground elevation of approximately 500’ to a high ground elevation of about 800’. If elevated storage for the entire system were located at a common level which provided satisfactory system pressure at the high ground elevation of 800 feet, the pressure at the 500’ elevation would be too high (approximately 190 psi).

In order to minimize complications from these variations in

Pressure Plane Ground Elevation pressure and maintain pressures within a desirable range, 920 690’ - 804’ the City of Temple Water System has been designed to 876 645’ - 760’ 835 605’ - 719’ utilize five (5) pressure planes (720, 785, 835, 876 and 785 555’ - 669’ 920). Each pressure plane is named by the maximum 720 490’ - 604’ elevation in the elevated storage tanks. Generally, pressure Table 1: Ground Elevations for Pressure Planes planes are designed to maintain a pressure range of 50 psi to 100 psi within their boundaries and are typically separated along ground elevations, with considerations for subdivisions, major roads and development boundaries. The ground elevation serviceable from each proposed pressure plane is as follows in the adjacent table. The pressure plane boundaries are located within the overlapping range and follow existing water lines and streets.

The locations of existing and proposed pressure planes are shown on Exhibits F and G. Most often, pressure planes are separated within a water system through the use of check valves gate valves or pressure reducing valves along pressure plane boundaries. Gate valves are closed at pressure plane boundaries to prevent the free exchange of water across a pressure plane boundary and, in this capacity, are known as isolation valves. Pressure reducing valves allow water to cross a pressure plane boundary in a limited fashion because these valves act to reduce pressure from the higher plane to the lower plane while preventing water in the lower plane from entering the higher plane.

Section VI | 16

6.5

HISTORICAL & PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS

6.5.1 Historical Water Demands Water demands drive the sizing, timing and placement of all the components in a water system. Past water use behavior by the population served is strongly indicative of expected water demands so review of historical is critical to accurately determining projected use.

Approximately 20 years of daily water volumes pumped from the water treatment plant to distribution have been collected and analyzed. The following table summarizes the average day and maximum day demand for each year as well as provides the calculated max day factor from 1998 to 2018.

Table 2: Summary of Historical Water Usage

YEAR

AVERAGE DAY DEMAND(1)

MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND(2)

MAX DAY FACTOR(3)

1998

13.2 MGD

29.9 MGD

2.27

1999

13.1 MGD

28.6 MGD

2.18

2000

13.9 MGD

24.6 MGD

1.77

2001

11.7 MGD

29.6 MGD

2.53

2002

10.9 MGD

21.3 MGD

1.95

2003

11.7 MGD

24.9 MGD

2.14

2004

10.7 MGD

19.8 MGD

1.85

2005

12.2 MGD

23.1 MGD

1.89

2006

12.8 MGD

25.3 MGD

1.97

2007

10.9 MGD

18.5 MGD

1.71

2008

12.3 MGD

22.4 MGD

1.82

2009

13.0 MGD

25.2 MGD

1.94

2010

12.5 MGD

21.3 MGD

1.71

2011

15.8 MGD

27.0 MGD

1.72

2012

14.1 MGD

24.7 MGD

1.75

2013

13.1 MGD

23.0 MGD

1.75

2014

13.4 MGD

23.8 MGD

1.77

2015

13.3 MGD

25.9 MGD

1.95

2016

13.9 MGD

27.0 MGD

1.94

2017

15.7 MGD

26.4 MGD

1.69

15.8 MGD

31.3 MGD

1.98

AVERAGE:

13.0 MGD

24.9 MGD

1.92

10-YR AVERAGE:

14.1 MGD

25.6 MGD

1.82

3-YR AVERAGE:

15.1 MGD

28.2 MGD

1.87

2018

(4)

(1)

The Total Demand in a Given Year Divided by the Number of Days in a Year

(2)

The Greatest Water Demand Experienced in a Single Day

(3)

The Ratio of the Maximum Day to the Average Day in a Given Year

(4)

The Average Day of this Year is Calculated based on January 1st - September 30th

Section VI | 17

6.5.3 Determination of a Max Day Factor The infrastructure within a water system is designed to accommodate the demand required on max day. Consequently, the sizing, placement and timing of storage tanks, pump stations, treatment facilities, distribution lines and transmission lines are all predicated on the max day demand projected to occur in a given year.

Water use projections represent the anticipated use on a typical (average) day and therefore are normalized figures which do not establish water use on max day. Since the system is designed to meet max day demands, a max day factor must be determined from historical data and then is applied to the projected average day. The determination of the amount of water required on max days will then subsequently impact the recommended sizing, placement and timing of all infrastructure improvements.

Based on historical data found in Table 2 and through numerous discussions with City Engineering Staff, the current Master Plan is based on a max day factor of 2.0.

6.5.4 State Water Plan (Region-G) The Texas State Water Plan is based on 16 region specific water plans developed across the state to identify future water supply needs and population growth. The City of Temple is considered within the Brazos Region (Region-G) and the water demand projections developed by the Brazos Region are employed in the Water Master Planning process.

6.5.5 Water Demand Projections The following table illustrates projections for Average, Maximum Day and Peak Hour water demands based on a max day factor of 2.0. The table depicts 10-year increments through the year 2070 for the City of Temple and its wholesale customers, which serve as distributors. The population and yearly total water consumption projections are from the 2022 State Water Plan Projections Data and are the basis for the Maximum Day and Peak Hour calculated water demand projections. The study area totals represent the sum total of all water demands in the water system.

The max day factor of 2.0 was based on historical data and discussions with Staff. The application of this max day factor to projections determined in the State Water Plan, anticipates that the Temple Water System must meet max day demands of 49.83 MGD in Year 2040 and 68.83 MGD in Year 2070.

Section VI | 18

Table 3: Population & Water Use Projections HISTORICAL

AREA

PROJECTIONS

1990

2000

20104

2020

2030

46,109

54,514

66,102

81,736

224

229

219

13,678

16,956

Million Gallons per Day -- Average

12.21

Million Gallons per Day -- Max Day (2.0)

24.43

Million Gallons per Day -- Peak Hour2

2040

2050

2060

2070

96,082

110,900

125,626

140,074

154,295

216

214

213

212

212

20,095

23,231

26,532

29,903

33,301

36,666

15.14

17.94

20.75

23.69

26.70

29.74

32.74

30.28

35.89

41.49

47.39

53.41

59.48

65.49

41.53

51.48

61.01

70.53

80.56

90.79

101.11

111.33

TEMPLE Population¹ GPCD -- Domestic Acre Ft per Year -- Total¹

BELL COUNTY WCID #2 (LR-A) Population¹

1,645

1,961

2,239

2,535

2,835

3,130

3,419

3,704

GPCD -- Domestic

1,390

141

160

122

118

116

115

114

114

Acre Ft per Year -- Total¹

260

351

305

335

367

402

438

474

Million Gallons per Day -- Average

0.23

0.31

0.27

0.30

0.33

0.36

0.39

0.42

Million Gallons per Day -- Max Day (2.0)

0.46

0.63

0.54

0.60

0.66

0.72

0.78

0.85

Million Gallons per Day -- Peak Hour2

0.79

1.07

0.93

1.02

1.11

1.22

1.33

1.44

10,353

MORGAN'S POINT RESORT Population¹

2,989

4,170

5,077

6,110

7,187

8,261

9,315

GPCD -- Domestic

1,766

104

111

102

100

98

97

97

97

Acre Ft per Year -- Total¹

348

518

582

681

787

897

1,009

1,121

Million Gallons per Day -- Average

0.31

0.46

0.52

0.61

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Million Gallons per Day -- Max Day (2.0)

0.62

0.93

1.04

1.22

1.41

1.60

1.80

2.00

Million Gallons per Day -- Peak Hour2

1.06

1.57

1.77

2.07

2.39

2.72

3.06

3.40

3,398

TROY Population¹

1,378

1,645

2,049

2,321

2,598

2,869

3,136

GPCD -- Domestic

1,395

124

90

81

77

74

73

72

72

Acre Ft per Year -- Total¹

191

166

185

199

215

233

254

275

Million Gallons per Day -- Average

0.17

0.15

0.17

0.18

0.19

0.21

0.23

0.25

Million Gallons per Day -- Max Day (2.0)

0.34

0.30

0.33

0.36

0.38

0.42

0.45

0.49

Million Gallons per Day -- Peak Hour2

0.58

0.50

0.56

0.60

0.65

0.71

0.77

0.83

60,526

73,878

91,101

107,048

123,520

139,886

155,944

171,750

STUDY AREA TOTALS Population GPCD -- Domestic

50,660 3

214

217

207

204

202

201

201

200

14,478

17,992

21,167

24,446

27,901

31,435

35,002

38,536

Million Gallons per Day -- Average Million Gallons per Day -- Max Day (2.0)

12.93

16.07

18.90

21.83

24.92

28.07

31.26

34.41

25.86

32.13

37.80

43.66

49.83

56.14

62.51

68.83

Million Gallons per Day -- Peak Hour

43.96

54.63

64.27

74.22

84.71

95.44

106.27

117.00

Acre Ft per Year -- Total

1. per TWDB 2021 Regional and 2022 State Water Plan Projections Data 2. Peak Hour values were Calculated using a Factor of 1.70.

3. GPCD was Calculated using Weighted Averages from each Entity.

4. GPCD for this Column is for Year 2011 per 2016 Brazos G Water Plan

Section VI | 19

6.6

ESTIMATED HOURLY DEMAND CURVE

Water demand within a system is not consistent, but rather varies throughout the day. Assuming a consistent water demand from all demand locations within a modeled water system would prohibit observation of the dynamic nature that occurs within a system over the course of a day and limit the effectiveness of modeling an extended period simulation. By varying demands over time in a modeled system, the modeled system is able to behave in a more realistic manner and reveal insights and issues that otherwise would remain unnoticed.

Although, water consumption behavior of individual customers is unique and not directly measurable with current systems utilized by the City of Temple, the trends of the total study area population as a whole could be estimated using tank level, pressure recorder and pump cycle data, which were collected during high demand periods.

In general, Temple customers are estimated to use water with two peak periods occurring early morning and evening with the morning peak being somewhat more pronounced. The peak hour for the City of Temple is estimated to be 170% that of average demand for the max day and the minimum hour is 40% of the average demand for max day. The Estimated Hourly Demand Curve is illustrated below.

Figure 1: Estimated Typical Hourly Water Demand Curve

Section VI | 20

6.7

DESIGN IDEOLOGY

The City of Temple water system infrastructure is designed to meet max day demands and utilize elevated storage for peak hour. The combined pumping capacity within the Temple System is designed to provide water at the maximum day flow rate but as discussed in the previous subsection the demands vary over the course of the day and are their greatest during the peak hour. The most cost-effective way to provide for this peak demand is through a combination of pumps and elevated storage. If the pumps for a given pressure plane deliver water at the maximum day pump rate all day, two things will happen: •

When demand exceeds the pump rate, that demand will be satisfied through the use of water stored in elevated storage tanks.

•

When the pump rate exceeds the demand, excess water will be stored in the elevated storage tanks.

For this reason, the pump stations are designed for maximum daily flow rates (with the largest pump out of service) and the elevated storage tanks are designed to hold enough water to meet peak hour demands. The pipes in the system are designed to carry the maximum flow rate encountered during the day and their velocities are analyzed regularly throughout the modeling process to ensure appropriate velocities are maintained. This is normally either at the maximum hour or the minimum hour depending on location. The data utilized in the model follows the above parameters.

Section VI | 21

6.8 WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS The City of Temple Maintains Wholesale Water Contracts with several neighboring entities which resale Temple’s water to their respective customers. The contracts for these Wholesale Customers can be found in Appendix A and are summarized in Section II of this Report. The following table describes the application of these customers water use from a modeling perspective and details the rationalization for the specific demands applied for each of the wholesale customers in each of the three (3) models.

Table 4: Wholesale Distributors CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT Arrowhead Hill GAL 2,210,000 Minimum Volume (Take or Pay) GPM 4 GAL 9,460,800 Maximum Volume GPM 18 Max Instantaneous Expiration Date February 7, 2023

City of Troy 36,500,000 69 315,359,013 600 600 May 9, 2047

Little River-Academy 30,000,000 57 105,119,671 200 July 19, 2048

MPR (FM 2483) MPR (MPR Road) 100,000,000 190 630,721,284 1,200 1,200 August 13, 2044

Arrowhead Hill August 564,300 13

City of Troy August 16,065,100 360

Little River-Academy July 5,892,100 132

MPR (FM 2483) MPR (MPR Road) August 3,703,200 20,836,300 83 467

Arrowhead Hill August 600,000 13

City of Troy September 14,384,800 333

Little River-Academy August 6,277,700 141

MPR (FM 2483)

Arrowhead Hill -

City of Troy July 11,759,400 263

Little River-Academy July 4,970,400 111

MPR (FM 2483) MPR (MPR Road) August 3,450,900 19,848,500 77 445

Little River-Academy

MPR (FM 2483)

PEAK USAGE MONTH FY 18 Peak Month Total Volume Averaged Rate

GAL GPM

PEAK USAGE MONTH FY 17 Peak Month Total Volume Averaged Rate

GAL GPM

11,628,500 260

MPR (MPR Road) July 10,823,600 242

PEAK USAGE MONTH FY 16 Peak Month Total Volume Averaged Rate

GAL GPM

WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD PROJECTIONS Arrowhead Hill City of Troy 2040 GPM 264 (Max Day=2.0) 2070 GPM 340 (Max Day=2.0)

MPR (MPR Road)

556

980

715

1,396

MODELED RATES 2017 System 2040 System 2070 System

GPM GPM GPM 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

Arrowhead Hill 36 (5) 36 (5) 36 (5)

City of Troy 600 (1) 600 (3) 600 (3)

Little River-Academy 195 (2) 556 (4) 715 (4)

MPR (FM 2483) 600 (1) 600 (3) 700 (4)

MPR (MPR Road) 600 (1) 600 (3) 700 (4)

Rates Correspond to Contractual Maximum Instantaneous Take Limit Determined by Average of Peak Months for FY 16-18 of Little River Academy Multiplied by a factor of 1.5 The Current Contractual Maximum Instantaneous Rate exceeded the Development Board Projection therefore the Contractual Maximum Instantaneous Rate was Used The Development Board Projections exceeded Contractual Maximum Instantaneous Rate therefore the Development Board Projected Rate was Used The Average Day Rate was Multiplied by the Master Plan Max Day Factor of 2.0

Section VI | 22

6.9

SYSTEM MODEL

6.9.1 Overview A computer assisted analysis was performed utilizing WaterGEMS Software for Existing, Year 2040 and Year 2070 conditions. Computations performed by WaterGEMS provide line velocities, demands, system pressures, pump cycling and elevated tank elevations as they vary through the day.

The analysis of these calculations was then used to aid in the determination of sizing, placement and timing of improvements to meet future water needs.

Each of the three (3) models represent their respective conditions through the variation of demands, pipe topology, pressure plane boundaries, logical controls representative of operational dependences, pump stations in operation, storage tanks in operation, pressure reducing valves in operation and the use of system valves.

6.9.2 EPS & Steady-State The Existing, Year 2040 and Year 2070 models were all simulated as extended period simulations (EPS). An extended period simulation is a dynamic analysis of a water distribution system. An EPS computes system changes over regular time steps which imitates the variation of conditions within a distribution system including the fluctuations in tank levels, pump cycling and the pattern of demands.

Steady-State calculations differ from EPS in that Steady-State calculations do not consider an element of time. Steady-State calculations are instantaneous views of a system. Assuming a static system water system does not allow observation of the dynamic response to changes in the system that occur over the course of a day and would limit the effectiveness of the modeled results. By modeling with respect to time, the simulated system is able to behave in a more realistic manner and reveal insights and issues that may otherwise remain unnoticed.

6.9.3 Modeled Infrastructure The existing infrastructure represented in these models has come from a collection of sources including City of Temple GIS data, record drawings, pump curves, infrastructure assessments and local system knowledge. The proposed infrastructure in the Year 2040 and Year 2070 models, represent recommended improvements necessary to provide for and meet system needs in their respective year.

6.9.4 Modeled Pressure Planes, Isolation Valves, and PRVs Pressure planes are a major component of a topographically diverse water system. Accurate modeling of pressure planes is crucial to modeling of a system. Pressure planes are modeled by the same methods exercised in operation of a water system which is most often through the use of gate, check or pressure reducing valves at pressure plane boundaries. Gate valves are closed at pressure plane boundaries to prevent the free exchange of water across a pressure plane boundary and, in this Section VI | 23

capacity, are known as isolation valves. Pressure reducing valves allow water to cross a pressure plane boundary in a limited fashion because these valves act to reduce pressure from the higher plane to the lower plane while preventing water in the lower plane from entering the higher plane.

Each of the three (3) models, has a unique scheme of isolation and pressure reducing valves to simulate the existing or proposed pressure planes. The existing model reflects current pressure planes as provided by the City of Temple GIS department, whereas the intermediate and ultimate models reflect proposed intermediary and proposed ultimate pressure planes. The ultimate positions for the proposed pressure planes are recommended to enhance system performance and improve system operation.

With the purpose of most accurately reflecting current conditions, the existing model utilizes existing infrastructure to simulate existing pressure planes. Existing Pressure Planes boundaries were provided in the City of Temple GIS data; however, the City of Temple GIS system does not currently notate whether system valves are open or closed to indicate which system valves are acting to isolate existing pressure planes. Isolation valves have been closed or left open in the existing model based on careful discernment of existing pressure planes and pipe topology to most accurately reflect current operation of the system.

In the projection models, the intermediary and ultimate pressure planes are achieved with a combination of existing and proposed valves. Proposed valve status and placement is based on careful discernment of projected pressure plane boundaries and pipe topology.

6.9.5 Water Demand Each modeled system has a unique demand assigned to it Modeled System Demands representative of the conditions being modeled and is summarized in the adjacent table. The existing system demand is based on the historical maximum day of 31.3 2018 34.0 MGD MGD with an additional 2.7 MGD added to account for a known large single point consumer in the north industrial 2040 49.8 MGD park. The intermediary and ultimate models simulate system demands of 49.8 MGD and 68.8 MGD 2070 68.8 MGD respectively which are based on the methodology Table 5: Modeled System Demands discussed in Section 6.5. Portions of the demands shown in Table 5 are allocated specifically in the modeled systems to represent Temple’s wholesale customers which act as distributors as described in Section 6.8 as well as the Panda Power Plant and a known large single point consumer. The remaining demand is distributed throughout the system by one of two methodologies as described in the two following subsections.

Section VI | 24

6.9.6 Allocation of Demand – Existing System The 34.0 MGD demand in the existing system, which is not specifically allocated to the wholesale distributors, Panda powerplant, or the known large single point consumer, is distributed throughout the system based on meter location. Approximate meter locations are recorded by the City GIS Department and were the basis for assigning demands to the existing system.

A

D 0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50 0.80

0.20

C

B 0.15

0.85

Figure 2: Proportional Distribution of Meters

To best allocate demands in the Existing System, each of Temple’s approximately 27,000 meters were assigned to the pipe nearest them as determined by distance formula calculation. Fractions of each meter were then proportionally distributed to each of the pipe’s nodes based on the distance from each point of attachment to the nearest node as illustrated in the figure above. The resulting summation at each impacted node signifies the number of meters or fraction of meters represented at each node.

The City of Temple reads the vast majority of its meters manually, so accurate per hour or even per day data by meter is not available. Therefore, all meters within the Existing System were assumed to consume an equal portion of the max day demand, (đ?‘€) − (đ?‘Š) − (đ?‘ƒ) − (đ?‘†) which was not already assigned to the Wholesale đ??´đ?‘Łđ?‘’đ?‘&#x;đ?‘Žđ?‘”đ?‘’ đ?‘ƒđ?‘’đ?‘&#x; đ?‘€đ?‘’đ?‘Ąđ?‘’đ?‘&#x; đ??śđ?‘œđ?‘›đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘šđ?‘?đ?‘Ąđ?‘–đ?‘œđ?‘› = đ?‘?

Distributors, Panda Power Plant or the known large Where, M = Max Day Demand single point consumer. The following equation W = Consumption of Wholesale Distributors (See Section 6.8) describes the calculation of the average per meter consumption.

P = Consumption of Panda Power Plant S = Consumption of Known Large Single Point Consumer Z = Number of Existing Meters

The proportion of meter counts determined to be represented at each node within the Existing System model was multiplied by the average per meter consumption to determine the demand to be allocated at each node. All demands resulting from this calculation follow the estimated hourly demand curve, which varies their demands through the course of the extended period simulation as is described in Section VI | 25

Section 6.6. Known transmission mains without service connections did not have meters assigned to them and subsequently their nodes did not receive any demand allocation.

6.9.4 Allocation of Demand – Intermediate & Ultimate Systems The method of demand allocation performed in the development of the intermediate and ultimate system models relied on the City of Temple Future Land Use Map (FLUP) and existing meter locations. Existing developed properties were assumed to remain developed, so the demands assigned in the system according to existing meter locations as discussed in the previous subsection remained unchanged. These existing demands were augmented as guided by the anticipated Future Land Use, which was a product of the Comprehensive Master Plan for the City of Temple.

The intermediary and ultimate models simulate system demands of 49.8 MGD and 68.8 MGD respectively, which are based on the methodology discussed in section 6.5. Portions of these demands are allocated to key locations in the models to represent specific key users as described in subsection 6.9.5. As previously described, existing developed properties were assumed to remain developed, so another portion of these max day demands is assigned according to existing meter locations. The remaining demand therefore represents the demand that will be realized through development occurring between the existing conditions and the given model year.

To allocate the demand representative of growth between existing conditions and the given model year, Theisen Polygons were developed for all eligible nodes in the Intermediate (Year2040) and Ultimate (2070) Systems. Nodes not considered consisted largely of those nodes that were part of waterlines intended exclusively for transmission. The Theisen polygons were then digitally merged with the City of Figure 3: Future Land Use Map Merged with Node Theisen Polygons Temple FLUP as shown in the adjacent figure. The heavy black lines are the boundaries of the Theisen Polygons and the colored parcels represent the various future land use types found in the City of Temple’s Future Land Use Plan.

Future Land Use parcels which already had an existing meter were considered developed and were ignored in the area calculations of the intersecting polygons to prevent instances of existing developed properties having double the demand it was intended.

Area calculations of the intersecting polygons were then performed to determine the areas of each future land use type within each Theisen Polygon. The result delivered the areas of various anticipated future land use types to be associated with a particular node. The areas of each land use Section VI | 26

type within a node’s respective Theisen Polygon were then multiplied by a corresponding coefficient representing the relative weighting assigned to each land use type. For the purpose of this report, the result will be referred to as the Land Use Coefficient. It represents the portion of the total demand that a node is to receive.

The Land Use Coefficient is a dimensionless unit which describes the portion of total demand a node is to receive. To determine the demand a node is to receive, the total demand for a given model year was divided by the summation of land use coefficients within the system and then the resulting value was multiplied by the Land Use Coefficient determined for each node.

The result of the method described in this subsection was demand allocation by node which spatially accounted for areas of existing development and areas of potential growth, while considering existing demands, future land use, the intended function of waterlines, and projected system population.

6.9.5 Logical Controls The City of Temple manages pump stations and storage tanks with a combination of manual and automated SCADA based controls. These controls permit system operators to turn on pumps when needed and off when no longer necessary. As discussed in Section 6.7, storage tanks are dependent on pump stations for filling which is regularly practiced in Temple’s system as well as in the model.

To achieve this relationship, logical controls are used in the model to automate pump cycles based on conditional statements describing the water levels within storage tanks. Typical operating ranges of tanks were provided by the City as part of the infrastructure assessments found in Appendix C. These operating ranges were used to guide the relationships of existing elevated storage and existing pump stations. Below is a tabular example which summarizes the logical controls in the Ultimate System as related to the storage in tanks in 876.

Section VI | 27

Table 6: Example of Logical Controls

Plane

Ultimate 876

6.10

Storage Tank Avenue G North OR Avenue G North AND 25th Street OR 25th Street AND West Park OR OR OR West Park AND AND AND

Avenue G South Avenue G South Taylor Taylor Nugent 25th Street Taylor Nugent 25th Street Taylor

< < > > < < > > < < < < < < < <

Level 6.7 ft 6.7 ft 12.7 ft 12.7 ft 24.0 ft 20.0 ft 36.5 ft 33.0 ft 24.0 ft 18.0 ft 24.0 ft 20.0 ft 34.0 ft 38.0 ft 36.5 ft 33.0 ft

Feature Old High Service

Status On

Old High Service

Off

Prop. South Temple PS (876)

On

Prop. South Temple PS (876)

Off

Avenue G Pump Station

On

Avenue G Pump Station

Off

CALIBRATION

Calibration is the comparison of actual data to modeled results in an effort to modify the model so that it mimics reality most accurately as possible. The current Master Plan had several sources of measured data to evaluate in comparison to the existing system model including pump suction and discharge pressures, pump flow rates, pump cycling behavior, tank levels and finally pressure data that was collected as part of a contract amendment for this project.

Pump and tank data were provided by Pressure Plane Installation Date Removal Date the City of Temple as captured by 835 July 16, 2018 July 30, 2018 system SCADA equipment. The 785 July 30, 2018 August 13, 2018 pressure data used for calibration was 720 August 13, 2018 August 28, 2018 920 August 13, 2018 August 28, 2018 collected by KPA through the use of 876 August 28, 2018 September 11, 2018 fire hydrant mounted pressure 835 September 11, 2018 September 25, 2018 recorders. A total of 20 pressure Table 7: Pressure Recorder Dates recorders collected data over a tenweek period. All of the pressure recorders collected data from a single plane for a two-week interval and then were moved to another plane for a two-week interval. Due to their small size, the 920 and 720 pressure planes were an exception and were monitored simultaneously with 10 recorders in each plane for the two-week period. The table above details the movement of the pressure recorders throughout the system.

Section VI | 28

The data collected underwent immense review and analysis. Exhibits detailing the locations of the pressure recorders, graphs of reordered pressure for each pressure recorder in each plane as well as data statics including averages, minimum, maximums and standard deviations for each data set are found in Appendix E. Also, in Appendix E are the model calibration results, which describe the modelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nearness in computed pressure to actual collected pressure data.

The variation and uniqueness of every water customer consumption behavior impacts tank levels that influences decisions made by operators, which cumulatively determine the pressures within a system.

Calibration of a model is not an exact science and is never complete. Constant modification to the existing model is performed in attempt to better reality.

6.11

DEMANDS, POPULATION & CONNECTIONS BY PRESSURE PLANE

The first table below summarizes existing and anticipated demands for each planning year by pressure plane. The second table summarizes the existing and anticipated populations and connections for each planning year by pressure plane.

Table 8: Demand, Population & Connections by Pressure Plane Max Day System Demands Pressure Planes

2018

Pressure Plane --720 Pressure Plane --785 Pressure Plane --835 Pressure Plane --876 Pressure Plane --920 Totals (1) (2) (3)

2040

2070

0.6

MGD

395

GPM

4.1

MGD

2,860

GPM

8.2

MGD

5,728

GPM

13.9

MGD

9,659

GPM

14.5

MGD

10,063

GPM

20.9

MGD

14,528

GPM

3.9

MGD

2,735

GPM

6.5

MGD

4,540

GPM

8.5

MGD

5,895

GPM

11.4

MGD

7,904

GPM

17.6

MGD

12,204

GPM

21.9

MGD

15,204

GPM

GPM

7.1

MGD

4,918

GPM

9.3

MGD

6,424

GPM

4.2

MGD(1)

2,916

34.0

MGD(2)

23,611

GPM(2)

49.8

MGD(3)

34,584

GPM(3)

68.8

MGD(3)

47,779

GPM(3)

An Additional 2.7 MGD is assigned to this Pressure Plane in the 2018 Model to account for a Known Large Single Point Consumer Historical Max Day Demand and Known Large Single Point Consumer (reflected in the Existing System Model) Water Demand Projection Totals are Based on TWDB 2021 Regional and 2022 State Water Plan Projections

Populations & Connections 2018

Pressure Planes

2040

2070

Population(2)

Connections(1)

Population(2)

Connections(3)

Population(2)

Connections(3)

Pressure Plane --- 720

1,468

464

10,214

3,192

20,590

6,434

Pressure Plane --- 785

35,861

13,681

35,940

11,231

52,223

16,320

Pressure Plane --- 835

10,155

2,654

16,214

5,067

21,191

6,622

Pressure Plane --- 876

29,345

9,963

43,587

13,621

54,653

17,079

Pressure Plane --- 920 Totals(4)

10,827 87,656

546 27,308

17,564 123,520

5,489 38,600

23,092 171,750

7,216 53,672

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Connection Counts in this Column are actual Meter Accounts determined from City of Temple GIS Data Pressure Plane Population Estimates using weighted Portion of the Total Population based on portion of demand in the Pressure Plane Number of Connections calculated as 3.2 Persons/Connection, based on Existing System Ratio of Persons per Connection Population Projection Totals are Based on TWDB 2021 Regional and 2022 State Water Plan Projections

Section VI | 29

6.12

WATER STORAGE

There are two types of water storage: ground storage and elevated storage. Ground storage is located at ground level and is used to provide a supplemental supply of treated water to the system.

Ground storage is also used to supply a short term demand which is in excess of treatment plant capacity, especially in the event of a water treatment failure. Elevated storage is used to provide a supplemental supply of water to the distribution system to meet peak hourly demands and also provide a supplemental supply in the event of pump failure.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has requirements concerning the amount of storage required in municipal water systems. Systems must have clearwell capacity of 50 gallons per connection or 5% of daily plant capacity, total storage capacity of 200 gallons per connection and elevated capacity of 100 gallons per connection. TCEQ also requires that each tank in the system be inspected annually. The City of Temple System meets each of these requirements, which is illustrated in the following Tables for each pressure plane. The Tables also include the maximum number of connections for each pressure plane based on the combination of ground and elevated storage.

Table 9: TCEQ Storage Requirements and Allowable Connections

Storage Capacity - 920 Ground Storage Avenue G GST (Total=7.0 MG) [876/920](1) Ground Storage Total Elevated Storage Range Road EST Proposed 920 EST Elevated Storage Total TCEQ Storage Requirements Allowable Connections, EST (100 gpc) Allowable Connections, EST+GST (200 gpc)

2018 1.89 MG

2040 2.01 MG

2070 2.08 MG

1.89

MG

2.01

MG

2.08

MG

1.00 -

MG

1.00 1.00

MG MG

1.00 1.00

MG MG

1.00

MG

2.00

MG

2.00

MG

10,000 14,433

20,000 20,053

20,000 20,396

Maximum Allowable Connections Connection Availability Maximum Allowable Connections + Connections -

10,000

20,000

20,000

10,000 546

20,000 5,489

20,000 7,216

Connection Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

9,454

14,511

12,784

(1)

Ground Storage is shared between two or more Pressure Planes. The Portion of Storage Attributed to a given Plane is a weighted calculation based on demands within the various Pressure Planes which share the Ground Storage.

Section VI | 30

Storage Capacity - 876 Ground Storage Avenue G GST (Total=7.0 MG) [876/920](1) South Temple GST (Total=2.0 MG) [785/876](1) Ground Storage Total Elevated Storage 25th Street EST Taylor EST Nugent EST West Park EST Elevated Storage Total TCEQ Storage Requirements Allowable Connections, EST (100 gpc) Allowable Connections, EST+GST (200 gpc)

2018 5.11 MG -

2040 4.99 MG

2070 4.92 MG

1.10

MG

1.02

MG

5.11

MG

6.09

MG

5.94

MG

1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00

MG MG MG MG

1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00

MG MG MG MG

1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00

MG MG MG MG

3.50

MG

3.50

MG

3.50

MG

35,000 43,067

35,000 47,928

35,000 47,218

Maximum Allowable Connections Connection Availability Maximum Allowable Connections + Connections -

35,000

35,000

35,000

35,000 9,963

35,000 13,621

35,000 17,079

Connection Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

25,037

21,379

17,921

(1)

Ground Storage is shared between two or more Pressure Planes. The Portion of Storage Attributed to a given Plane is a weighted calculation based on demands within the various Pressure Planes which share the Ground Storage.

Storage Capacity - 835 Ground Storage HWY 317 (Total=2.0 MG) [785/835](1) Ground Storage Total Elevated Storage FM 2483 EST Pepper Creek EST Proposed Pepper Creek EST Elevated Storage Total TCEQ Storage Requirements Allowable Connections, EST (100 gpc) Allowable Connections, EST+GST (200 gpc)

2018 -

2040 0.62 MG

2070 0.58 MG

0.00

MG

0.62

MG

0.58

MG

1.00 0.25 -

MG MG

1.00 1.00

MG

MG

MG

1.00 1.00

1.25

MG

2.00

MG

2.00

MG

MG

12,500 6,250

20,000 13,109

20,000 12,886

Maximum Allowable Connections Connection Availability Maximum Allowable Connections + Connections -

6,250

13,109

12,886

6,250 2,654

13,109 5,067

12,886 6,622

Connection Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

3,596

8,042

6,264

(1)

Ground Storage is shared between two or more Pressure Planes. The Portion of Storage Attributed to a given Plane is a weighted calculation based on demands within the various Pressure Planes which share the Ground Storage.

Section VI | 31

Storage Capacity - 785 Ground Storage South Temple GST (Total=2.0 MG) [785/876](1) HWY 317 (Total=2.0 MG) [785/835](1)

2018 -

Ground Storage Total Elevated Storage Airport EST Apache EST Scott EST Proposed 785 EST Elevated Storage Total TCEQ Storage Requirements Allowable Connections, EST (100 gpc) Allowable Connections, EST+GST (200 gpc)

2040

2070

0.90 0.62

MG MG

0.98 0.58

MG MG

0.00

MG

1.53

MG

1.55

MG

1.50 0.50 1.00 -

MG MG MG

1.50 0.50 1.00 1.00

MG MG MG MG

1.50 0.50 1.00 1.00

MG MG MG MG

3.00

MG

4.00

MG

4.00

MG

30,000 15,000

40,000 27,628

40,000 27,773

Maximum Allowable Connections Connection Availability Maximum Allowable Connections + Connections -

15,000

27,628

27,773

15,000 13,681

27,628 11,231

27,773 16,320

Connection Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

1,319

16,397

11,453

(1)

Ground Storage is shared between two or more Pressure Planes. The Portion of Storage Attributed to a given Plane is a weighted calculation based on demands within the various Pressure Planes which share the Ground Storage.

Storage Capacity - 720 Ground Storage -

Ground Storage Total

Elevated Storage 720 EST Propsoed 720 EST Elevated Storage Total TCEQ Storage Requirements Allowable Connections, EST (100 gpc) Allowable Connections, EST+GST (200 gpc)

2018 -

2040 -

2070 -

0.00

MG

0.00

MG

0.00

MG

1.00 -

MG

1.00 -

MG

1.00 1.50

MG MG

1.00

MG

1.00

MG

2.50

MG

10,000 5,000

10,000 5,000

25,000 12,500

Maximum Allowable Connections Connection Availability Maximum Allowable Connections + Connections -

5,000

5,000

12,500

5,000 464

5,000 3,192

12,500 6,434

Connection Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

4,536

1,808

6,066

Section VI | 32

Since demands fluctuate during the day, a combination of pumping and elevated storage is an economical way to meet fluctuating demands while maintaining a constant pump rate. In this operation, water demands which are in excess of the pump rate are met by reserves stored in elevated tanks. During the night, when demands are less than the pump rate, the elevated tanks are replenished.

The more critical requirement of storage is the ability to meet peak hour demands within the system.

The elevated and ground storage capacity proposed to supply peak demands in the Year 2040 and Year 2070 systems meet both the TCEQ and system demand requirements (See Table 5).

Table 10: Peak Hour Storage Requirements PEAK HOUR CALCULATION - 920 Elevated Storage Range Road EST Proposed 920 EST

2018 1.00 MG -

Elevated Storage Total Demands Max Day Demand Peak Hour Demand

+ Delta

Storage Needs Elevated Storage Volume + Elevated Storage Required (w/SF=4.0) Storage Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

1.00 MG

4.2 MGD(1) 2,916 GPM 7.1 MGD 4,958 GPM 2.9 MGD

2,041 GPM

2040 1.00 MG 1.00 MG

2070 1.00 MG 1.00 MG

2.00 MG

2.00 MG

7.1 MGD 12.0 MGD

4,918 GPM 8,360 GPM

5.0 MGD

3,442 GPM

9.3 MGD 6,424 GPM 15.7 MGD 10,921 GPM 6.5 MGD

4,497 GPM

1.00 MG 0.49 MG

2.00 MG 0.83 MG

2.00 MG 1.08 MG

0.51 MG

1.17 MG

0.92 MG

(1) An Additional 2.7 MGD is assigned to this Pressure Plane in the 2018 Model to account for a Known Large Single Point Consumer

PEAK HOUR CALCULATION - 876 Elevated Storage 25th Street EST Taylor EST Nugent EST West Park EST Elevated Storage Total Demands Max Day Demand Peak Hour Demand

+ Delta

Storage Needs Elevated Storage Volume + Elevated Storage Required (w/SF=4.0) Storage Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

2018 1.00 MG 1.00 MG 0.50 MG 1.00 MG

2040 1.00 MG 1.00 MG 0.50 MG 1.00 MG

2070 1.00 MG 1.00 MG 0.50 MG 1.00 MG

3.50 MG

3.50 MG

3.50 MG

11.4 MGD 7,904 GPM 19.3 MGD 13,437 GPM

17.6 MGD 12,204 GPM 29.9 MGD 20,746 GPM

21.9 MGD 15,204 GPM 37.2 MGD 25,847 GPM

12.3 MGD

15.3 MGD 10,643 GPM

8.0 MGD

5,533 GPM

8,543 GPM

3.50 MG 1.33 MG

3.50 MG 2.05 MG

3.50 MG 2.55 MG

2.17 MG

1.45 MG

0.95 MG

Section VI | 33

PEAK HOUR CALCULATION - 835 Elevated Storage FM 2483 EST Pepper Creek EST Proposed Pepper Creek EST Elevated Storage Total Demands Max Day Demand Peak Hour Demand

2070 1.00 MG - MG 1.00 MG

1.25 MG

2.00 MG

2.00 MG

3.9 MGD 6.7 MGD

2,735 GPM 4,650 GPM

6.5 MGD 11.1 MGD

4,540 GPM 7,717 GPM

Delta

2.8 MGD

1,915 GPM

4.6 MGD

3,178 GPM

Storage Surplus/Deficit (+/-) PEAK HOUR CALCULATION - 785 Elevated Storage Airport EST Apache EST Scott EST Proposed 785 EST Elevated Storage Total + Delta Storage Needs Elevated Storage Volume + Elevated Storage Required (w/SF=4.0) Storage Surplus/Deficit (+/-) PEAK HOUR CALCULATION - 720 Elevated Storage 720 EST Propsoed 720 EST Elevated Storage Total Demands Max Day Demand Peak Hour Demand

2040 1.00 MG - MG 1.00 MG

+

Storage Needs Elevated Storage Volume + Elevated Storage Required (w/SF=4.0) -

Demands Max Day Demand Peak Hour Demand

2018 1.00 MG 0.25 MG -

8.5 MGD 5,895 GPM 14.4 MGD 10,022 GPM 5.9 MGD

4,127 GPM

1.25 MG 0.46 MG

2.00 MG 0.76 MG

2.00 MG 0.99 MG

0.79 MG

1.24 MG

1.01 MG

2018 1.50 MG 0.50 MG 1.00 MG -

2040 1.50 MG 0.50 MG 1.00 MG 1.00 MG

2070 1.50 MG 0.50 MG 1.00 MG 1.00 MG

3.00 MG

4.00 MG

4.00 MG

13.9 MGD 9,659 GPM 23.6 MGD 16,421 GPM

14.5 MGD 10,063 GPM 24.6 MGD 17,107 GPM

20.9 MGD 14,528 GPM 35.6 MGD 24,698 GPM

10.1 MGD

14.6 MGD 10,170 GPM

9.7 MGD

6,762 GPM

7,044 GPM

3.00 MG 1.62 MG

4.00 MG 1.69 MG

4.00 MG 2.44 MG

1.38 MG

2.31 MG

1.56 MG

2018 1.00 MG -

2040 1.00 MG -

2070 1.00 MG 1.50 MG

1.00 MG

1.00 MG

2.50 MG

+

0.6 MGD 1.0 MGD

395 GPM 672 GPM

4.1 MGD 7.0 MGD

2,860 GPM 4,861 GPM

8.2 MGD 14.0 MGD

5,728 GPM 9,738 GPM

Delta

0.4 MGD

277 GPM

2.9 MGD

2,002 GPM

5.8 MGD

4,010 GPM

Storage Needs Elevated Storage Volume + Elevated Storage Required (w/SF=4.0) Storage Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

1.00 MG 0.07 MG

1.00 MG 0.48 MG

2.50 MG 0.96 MG

0.93 MG

0.52 MG

1.54 MG

Section VI | 34

Additional Elevated Storage is planned such that there is sufficient elevated storage within each pressure plane to meet system demands and are represented in the columns for Year 2040 and 2070. The adjacent table documents the years in which each of the elevated tanks was last rehabilitated or when constructed.

Ground storage and clearwell storage are currently sufficient per TCEQ requirements.

However, additional ground storage is to be constructed as part of the South Temple and Highway 317 Pump Stations to provide for additional storage within the distribution system. Further, additional clearwell storage is to be added as part of the membrane plant expansion.

Elevated Storage Tank

Constructed or Last Rehabilitated

720* Apache West Park 25th Street* FM 2483* Taylor Pepper Creek Nugent Range Airport Scott

2003 2004 2006 2007 2010 2011 2011 2012 2015 2015 2019

*Year Constructed Table 11: EST Rehab/Construction Dates

Section VI | 35

6.13

PUMP STATIONS

6.13.1 TCEQ Pump Station Requirements TCEQ requires that two or more pumps have a total capacity of 2.0 gpm per connection or a total capacity of at least 1,000 gpm and the ability to meet peak hourly demands with the largest pump out of service, whichever is less, at each pump station or pressure plane. Alternatively, if the system is able to provide 200 gallons of elevated storage per connection, TCEQ requires the summation of firm rated capacities of all pump stations supplying a given pressure plane provide 0.6 gpm per connection. This alternative requirement is applicable to the Temple Water System and allows for lessened pumping capacity in exchange for increased elevated storage capacity. The following table provides evidence of the City of Temple’s ability to provide at least 200 gallons of elevated storage per connection under Existing, Year 2040 and Year 2070 conditions.

Volume @ 200 Gal/Con

Table 12: TCEQ Elevated Storage for Pump Requirement 2018 2040

2070

Pressure Plane --- 720

0.09 MG

0.64 MG

1.29 MG

Pressure Plane --- 785

2.74 MG

2.25 MG

3.26 MG

Pressure Plane --- 835 Pressure Plane --- 876 Pressure Plane --- 920

0.53 MG 1.99 MG 0.11 MG

1.01 MG 2.72 MG 1.10 MG

1.32 MG 3.42 MG 1.44 MG

Elevated Storage Totals

2018

2040

2070

Pressure Plane --- 720 Pressure Plane --- 785 Pressure Plane --- 835 Pressure Plane --- 876 Pressure Plane --- 920

1.00 3.00 1.25 3.50 1.00

MG MG MG MG MG

1.00 4.00 2.00 3.50 2.00

MG MG MG MG MG

2.50 4.00 2.00 3.50 2.00

MG MG MG MG MG

EST > 200 Gal/Connection

2018

2040

2070

Pressure Plane --- 720

YES

YES

YES

Pressure Plane --- 785 Pressure Plane --- 835 Pressure Plane --- 876 Pressure Plane --- 920

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES

The following tables describe the firm rated capacities of Temple’s Pump Stations by pressure plane for each planning year, the number of connections per pressure plane and the evaluation of each pressure planes compliance with TCEQ’s pumping requirement for systems which provide at least 200 gallons of elevated storage per connection. Number of connections are based on the information that is found in Table 8.

Section VI | 36

Table 13: TCEQ Pump Station Compliance Pump Stations - 920 Firm Capacity West Park Old Howard McLane Total Firm Capacity TCEQ Pump Station Connection Count 0.6 GPM per Connections Capacity >0.6 GPM/Connection Connection Availability Maximum Allowable Connections + Connections Connection Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

2018 4.2 MGD 2,920 GPM 2.9 MGD 2,000 GPM 7.1 MGD 4,920 GPM 2018 546 328 GPM YES 2018 8,200 546 7,654

Pump Stations - 876 Firm Capacity Avenue G South Temple [785/876] Total Firm Capacity TCEQ Pump Station Connections Count 0.6 GPM per Connections Capacity >0.6 GPM/Connection Connection Availability Maximum Allowable Connections + Connections Connection Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

2018 13.8 MGD 9,600 GPM 13.8 MGD 9,600 GPM 2018 9,963 5,978 GPM YES 2018 16,000 9,963 6,037

Pump Stations - 835 Firm Capacity FM 2305 Airport Highway 317 [785/835] Total Firm Capacity Pressure Plane Features Connections Count 0.6 GPM per Connections Capacity >0.6 GPM/Connection Connection Availability Maximum Allowable Connections + Connections Connection Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

2018 2.5 MGD 1,750 GPM 3.6 MGD 2,500 GPM 6.1 MGD 4,250 GPM 2018 2,654 1,592 GPM YES 2018 7,083 2,654 4,429

Pump Stations - 785 Firm Capacity Loop 363 South Temple [785/876] Highway 317 [785/835] Total Firm Capacity Pressure Plane Features Connections Count 0.6 GPM per Connections Capacity >0.6 GPM/Connection Connection Availability Maximum Allowable Connections + Connections Connection Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

2018 11.5 MGD 8,000 GPM 11.5 MGD 8,000 GPM 2018 13,681 8,209 GPM NO 2018 13,333 13,681 -348

4.2 2.9 7.2 14.3

2040 MGD 2,920 MGD 2,000 MGD 5,000 MGD 9,920 2040 5,489 3,293 GPM YES 2040 16,533 5,489 11,044

GPM GPM GPM GPM

2040 17.3 MGD 12,000 GPM 5.8 MGD 4,000 GPM 23.0 MGD 16,000 GPM 2040 13,621 8,173 GPM YES 2040 26,667 13,621 13,046

2.5 3.6 3.6 9.7

11.5 5.0 6.5 23.0

2040 MGD 1,750 MGD 2,500 MGD 2,500 MGD 6,750 2040 5,067 3,040 GPM YES 2040 11,250 5,067 6,183

2040 MGD 8,000 MGD 3,500 MGD 4,500 MGD 16,000 2040 11,231 6,739 GPM YES 2040 26,667 11,231 15,435

4.2 2.9 7.2 14.3

2070 MGD 2,920 MGD 2,000 MGD 5,000 MGD 9,920 2070 7,216 4,330 GPM YES 2070 16,533 7,216 9,317

GPM GPM GPM GPM

2070 17.3 MGD 12,000 GPM 11.5 MGD 8,000 GPM 28.8 MGD 20,000 GPM 2070 17,079 10,248 GPM YES 2070 33,333 17,079 16,254

GPM GPM GPM GPM

2.5 5.4 5.4 13.3

GPM GPM GPM GPM

11.5 10.1 13.0 34.6

2070 MGD 1,750 MGD 3,750 MGD 3,750 MGD 9,250 2070 6,622 3,973 GPM YES 2070 15,417 6,622 8,795

2070 MGD 8,000 MGD 7,000 MGD 9,000 MGD 24,000 2070 16,320 9,792 GPM YES 2070 40,000 16,320 23,680

GPM GPM GPM GPM

GPM GPM GPM GPM

Section VI | 37

6.13.2 Existing Old High Service Pump Station The High Service Pump Station is located at the conventional water treatment plant. It consists of twelve (12) pumps numbered P10 through P20. Pumps P10 to P15 and P-11A, known as Old High Service, are connected to a 36” header pipe which supplies the Loop 363 Pump Station and the Avenue G Ground Storage Tanks through a 30” and an 18” supply line. Construction of the first phase to replace the 18” with a 24” transmission main has been completed. Construction of the second phase is pending right of way acquisition. Depending on the hydraulic conditions in the system, these pumps have a combined capacity of approximately 17,500 gallons per minute (gpm) with the largest pump out of service.

All capacities on all pump stations listed hereafter assume the largest pump is out of service. Copies of the Pump Curves for existing Pump Stations are included in Appendix D. 6.13.3 Existing New High Service Pump Station Pumps P16 to P20, known as New High Service, are connected to a 24” header which currently supplies water to the 785 plane, the FM 2305 Pump Station, the Old Howard Road Pump Station, and the Airport Elevated Tank through a 24” Transmission Main along Old Waco Road. These pumps have a combined capacity of approximately 7,500 gpm.

6.13.4 Proposed Membrane High Service Pump Station As previously stated, the membrane plant located adjacent to the existing conventional plant was to be constructed in phases. The second phase of that project outlined the construction of clearwells and a high service pump station. The proposed capacity of the Membrane High Service Pump Station will be on the order of 23 million gallons per day. The High Service Pump Station located at the membrane plant will pump into the 835, 785 and 720 pressure planes and provide redundancy to Old and New High Service via interconnections to their respective transmission mains.

As the new treatment plant is expanded, new supply lines will be required. A transmission main is proposed to serve the Highway 317 Pump Station in the future. Also, new transmission mains are proposed to serve the South Temple Pump Station and Proposed 1.5 million gallon (MG) Elevated Storage Tank in the future 720 plane.

Section VI | 38

Table 14: Transmission Main and High Service Pump Station Capacities Transmission Capactiy(1) - Water Treatment Plant Transmission Main Size 2018 EX Southwest Transmission 18" 5.7 MGD 3,965 EX New High Service 24" 10.2 MGD 7,050 EX Charter Oak 30" 15.9 MGD 11,020 PR Charter Oak(2) 24" 10.2 MGD 7,050 PR Northwest Transmission 30" PR Taylors Valley Transmission 36" + Total Transmission Capacity* 41.9 MGD 29,085 - Max Day System Demand 34 MGD 23,611 Surplus/Deficit (+/-) 7.9 MGD 5,474

GPM GPM GPM GPM

GPM GPM GPM

5.7 10.2 15.9 10.2 15.9 57.8 49.8 8.0

2040 MGD 3,965 MGD 7,050 MGD 11,020 MGD 7,050 MGD 11,020 MGD 40,105 MGD 34,583 MGD 5,522

40.0 25.2 10.8 15.1 51.1 49.8 1.3

2040 MGD 27,778 MGD 17,500 MGD 7,500 MGD 10,500 MGD 35,500 MGD 34,583 MGD 917

GPM GPM GPM

5.7 10.2 15.9 10.2 15.9 22.8 80.6 68.8 11.8

2070 MGD 3,965 MGD 7,050 MGD 11,020 MGD 7,050 MGD 11,020 MGD 15,850 MGD 55,955 MGD 47,778 MGD 8,177

GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM

GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM

40.0 25.2 10.8 35.3 71.3 68.8 2.5

2070 MGD 27,778 MGD 17,500 MGD 7,500 MGD 24,500 MGD 49,500 MGD 47,778 MGD 1,722

GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM

GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM

(1) Transmission Capacity Based on Pipe Velocity of 5.0 ft/s (2) Construction Currently in Progress

Pump Capacity - Water Treatment Plant Pump Station EX Existing High Service Combined(3) Old High Service (4)(5)(6) New High Service (4)(5)(6) PR Membrane High Service + Total Pump Capacity - Max Day System Demand Surplus/Deficit (+/-)

40.0 25.2 10.8 40.0 34.0 6.0

2018 MGD 27,778 MGD 17,500 MGD 7,500 MGD 27,778 MGD 23,611 MGD 4,167

GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM

(3) Based on Largest Old High Service Pump Out of Service & Interconnect Open (4) Rated Firm Capacity. Largest Pump Out of Service.

(5) Based on System of Curve of Existing 30" & 18" Transmission (6) Old High Service Capacity will Increase with Completion of the 24" Charter Oak Transmission Main

Section VI | 39

6.13.5

Existing Avenue G. Pump Station (876 Plane)

The Avenue G Pump Station contains six pumps, which pump water from the Avenue G Ground Storage Tanks to the 876 pressure plane and the West Park Pump Station. The Avenue G Pump Station is used to replenish the West Park, Nugent, 25th Street and Taylor Road Elevated Storage Tanks. This pump station also supplies water to the WCID No. 2 system in Little River-Academy.

The pumps have a combined capacity of 9,600 gallons per minute.

This station currently has two Rosemont flow meters in operation.

The meter output is transmitted to the City’s SCADA system and recorded. It is recommended that calibration of meters and review of pump performance be conducted on an annual basis. This station has GE soft starts on P-1 – P-4B and a VFD on P-5 and a generator on site for backup power.

No known operational issues were reported as part of the Infrastructure Assessment.

6.13.6

Existing Loop 363 Pump Station (785 Plane)

This pump station currently pumps water from the 30” supply line along Charter Oak Drive into the 785 pressure plane. The pump station is used to fill the Apache and Scott Elevated Storage Tanks.

The pump station has four pumps with a combined capacity of approximately 8,000 gpm.

This station currently has a Rosemont flow meter in operation. The meter output is transmitted to the City’s SCADA system and recorded. It is recommended that calibration of meters and review of pump performance be conducted on an annual basis. This station has GE soft starts and a generator on site for backup power. Operationally, it was noted that access and inoperable/inaccessible valves are current issues. It is recommended that the Section VI | 40

City work with TxDOT and adjacent property owners for better site access and that exploratory excavation work be performed by the City to determine whether valve replacement is required.

As noted in Table 10, additional pump capacity is needed to support the existing connections in the 785 Pressure Plane. The South Temple and Highway 317 Pump Stations (see below) should be constructed to support these connections and serve increased demands.

6.13.7

Existing Old Howard Road Pump Station (920 Plane)

The Old Howard Road Pump Station pumps water from the 785 pressure plane into the 920 pressure plane. It is used to replenish the Range Road Elevated Storage Tank and to supply water to the City of Troy. The pump station contains four pumps and has a firm rated capacity of 2,000 gallons per minute. Pumps 1 and 2 were replaced in 2004 and pump control valves were added along the discharge piping.

This station currently has an insertion type flow meter in operation. The meter output is transmitted to the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SCADA system and recorded. It is recommended that calibration of meters and review of pump performance be conducted on an annual basis. This station has GE soft starts and a generator on site for backup power. No known operational issues were reported as part of the Infrastructure Assessment; however, in subsequent progress meetings it was reported that pumps would occasionally shut off due to high amperage. In an effort to determine the cause, City Staff began recordings system conditions when this occurred, but there was no apparent correlation. If this issue continues, additional investigation is likely warranted and recommended.

As the 920 pressure plane develops, the McLane Pump Station should be constructed to serve increased demands.

Section VI | 41

6.13.8

Existing West Park Pump Station (920 Plane)

The West Park Pump Station pumps water from the 876 pressure plane into the 920 pressure plane supplying water to the Range Road Elevated Storage Tank as well as the City of Troy. This pump station contains three pumps with a combined capacity of 2,920 gallons per minute. As the 920 pressure plane develops, the McLane Pump Station (see below) should be constructed to serve increased demands.

This station currently has an insertion type flow meter in operation.

The meter output is transmitted to the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SCADA system and recorded. It is recommended that calibration of meters and review of pump performance be conducted on an annual basis. This station has GE soft starts and a generator on site for backup power.

No known operational issues were reported as part of the Infrastructure Assessment.

6.13.9

Existing FM 2305 Pump Station (835 Plane)

The FM 2305 Pump Station pumps water from the 785 pressure plane into the 835 pressure plane supplying the Pepper Creek and FM 2483 Elevated Storage Tanks as well as the City of MPR. This pump station contains four pumps. As part of the utility relocation project for FM 2305 in 2008, the transmission lines and pump station capacities were increased. Pressure sustaining valves were installed for Pumps 1 and 2 and the capacity of each is in the range of 1,400 gpm at approximately 215 ft. of head. Pumps 3 and 4 each have a capacity of 725 gpm at approximately 149 ft. of head.

Because of the differing head conditions, Pumps 3 and 4 do not provide any additional capacity if run with Pumps 1 and 2. Typically Pumps 3 and 4 are utilized during low periods.

The this

demand

modifications to pump station Section VI | 42

increased its rated capacity to approximately 1,400 gpm. However, continued development within the 835 pressure plane will require additional pumping capacity and most likely require an additional pump station (see below). The flow meter in this station was also replaced as part of the FM 2305 utility relocation project.

This station currently has a transit time (Eastech Model 4400) flow meter in operation. The meter output is transmitted to the City’s SCADA system and recorded. It is recommended that calibration of meters and review of pump performance be conducted on an annual basis. This station has GE soft starts and a generator on site for backup power. Operationally, it was noted that pump control valves, pressure sustaining valves and pressure gauges are current issues, which were addressed in the field by KPA and City Staff. It is recommended that operability of these valves and gauges be reviewed annually.

6.13.10

Existing Airport Pump Station (835 Plane)

The existing Airport Pump Station has a rated capacity of 2,500 gpm, with one unused pump pad, which will facilitate the addition of another pump bringing the station capacity to 3,750 gpm ultimately. This scenario would provide for flexibility in operations between the Airport and FM 2305 Pump Stations, as well as the Proposed SH 317 Pump Station. As noted in the previous Master Plan and FM 2305/Pepper Creek Area Studies, the Airport PS was constructed as an interim solution and its water source, Airport Tank, will ultimately be necessary to support growth in the 785 Pressure Plane.

This station currently has a transit time (Eastech Model 4400) flow meter in operation. The meter output is transmitted to the City’s SCADA system and recorded. It is recommended that calibration of meters and review of pump performance be conducted on an annual basis. This station has Eaton VFD’s and a generator on site for backup power. No known operational issues were reported as part of the Infrastructure Assessment.

Section VI | 43

6.13.11

Proposed McLane Pump Station (920 Plane)

The 920 plane and the City of Troy are currently served by the Old Howard Road Pump Station and the West Park Pump Station. As the industrial park grows, the capacity of these pump stations may be exceeded. When this occurs, a new pump station on McLane Blvd. (See Exhibit H) will be used to supply increased demands. The increase in available water supply provided by the expansion of the membrane plant is a prerequisite to this pump station. The proposed capacity of the new pump station is 5,000 gallons per minute.

6.13.12

Proposed South Temple Pump Station (785 and 876 Planes)

The 785 Plane is currently served by the Loop 363 Pump Station. As development occurs in the 785 pressure plane east of 31st Street, the demands of the existing Loop 363 Pump Station Capacity and the existing transmission line will exceed capacity. Initially, these demands may be relieved by pumping from the existing water treatment plant through the existing 18” and 14” lines to the 12” water lines on Hickory Road and South 31st Street (See Exhibit H).

The pump station should be initially designed to pump 3,500 gallons per minute into the 785 pressure plane. As demands in the 785 plane west of 31st Street and in the southern 876 pressure plane continue to increase, the capacity of the pump station will be exceeded. When this occurs, a pump station expansion to 7,000 gallons per minute will be required to meet the increased demands.

The 876 Plane is currently served by the Avenue G Pump Station. Further, Avenue G Pump Station, supplied by the high service pumps at the existing water treatment plant, is the only supply for the 876 pressure plane, WCID No. 2, West Park Pump Station, and the West Park, Nugent, 25th Street, and Taylor Road Elevated Storage Tanks. However, this alone will not supply adequate water for the ultimate 876 plane demands. Lack of redundancy and reliability are also a concern because of the infrastructure that is dependent on Avenue G. The initial phase of the pump station for the 876 pressure plane should be designed to pump 4,000 gpm, with an expansion to 8,000 gpm.

Construction of the South Temple Pump Station is not only necessary to provide for projected increases in demand, but also to alleviate several other issues. This facility will provide the redundancy necessary to allow for replacement and/or repairs to the Avenue G Pump Station and Ground Storage and provide for a more reliable supply.

This South Temple Pump Station, shown on Exhibit H, will serve both the 876 and 785 planes by pumping water from the eastern 785 plane to the southern 876 plane including the 25th Street and Taylor Road Elevated Storage.

Preliminary Engineering for these facilities has been completed and acquisition of the property is recommended. It is anticipated that two separate banks of pumps will be housed in one building and

Section VI | 44

take suction out of an adjacent 2 MG Ground Storage Tank. additional storage in the system.

6.13.13

This storage tank will provide

Proposed Highway 317 Pump Station (835 and 785 Planes)

This Highway 317 Pump Station will serve both the 835 and 785 planes. Two separate banks of pumps will be housed in one building and pump to the appropriate plane. An adjacent 2 MG Ground Storage Tank will also be constructed and the pump stations will take suction out of this reservoir.

The 835 plane is currently served by the FM 2305 and Airport Pump Stations, while the 785 plane is currently served by the Loop 363 Pump Station. Development in the 835 and 785 pressure planes will lead to the eventual construction of the Highway 317 Pump Station.

The increase in available water supply will be provided by the construction of a high service pump station at the membrane plant. This high service pump station is a prerequisite to the Highway 317 PS. The proposed capacity of the new pump station for the 835 and 785 pressure planes respectively is 2,500 and 4,500 gallons per minute initially with an ultimate capacity of 3,750 and 9,000 gallons per minute.

6.13.14

Pump Station Design Considerations

Many of the pump stations in the Temple Water System are interrelated. For this reason, any consideration of improvements must take the following factors into consideration: •

Is there adequate treatment capacity to supply new pump requirements?

•

Are other pump stations able to supply the new pumps as well as other demands?

•

Are the water transmission and distribution pipes capable of carrying increased flows caused by new pumps?

Table 13 shows the pump stations which pump into each pressure plane. The existing capacity of each pump station is shown along with expected expanded capacities for each phase of development.

Section VI | 45

6.14

WATER TRANSMISSION

A schematic of the Temple Water System is shown on Exhibit I and includes the transmission mains.

Old High Service Pump Station supplies water through the 30” and 24” lines to the Loop 363 Pump Station and Avenue G Ground Storage. The 24” main is replacing the existing 18” and is in phased construction at this time. The 24” is depicted as existing for the purpose of this Master Plan.

New High Service Pump Station supplies water through the 24” line to the Airport Elevated Tank, as well as the FM 2305 and Old Howard Road Pump Stations. While there have not been any problems reported on this main, much of it is being relocated with the phased construction of Outer Loop.

The 18” Water Line, known as the Southwest Transmission Main, supplies water to the 785 Plane.

In emergency conditions this transmission main can be utilized to backfeed into the 876 Plane.

However, a piece of 8” line along Hickory Road creates a “bottleneck” and remains as a recommended project to be upgraded to a 12”.

A 36” Transmission Main is proposed from the WTP to the Hwy 317 PS Facility and will be served by the high service pump station at the Membrane Plant. This transmission main will terminate at a 2MG GST and supply water to the 720, 785 and 835 pressure planes in west Temple.

6.15

WATER DISTRIBUTION

A computer assisted analysis of the water system was performed utilizing WaterGEMS Software.

The analysis provides information on line velocities, system pressures, and elevated tank elevations as they vary through the day.

Distribution lines were analyzed to determine if pressures and velocities were within an acceptable design range and meet the requirements of TCEQ Chapter 290. All newly installed water lines within the City of Temple System shall be a minimum 6” diameter, AWWA C900 PVC pipe (up to 12” diameter) with fire hydrants spaced at a maximum of 500’ intervals.

The adjacent table from Chapter 290 illustrates the minimum water line size for a certain number of connections. It should be noted that the required sizes are based strictly on the number of customers to be served and not on the distances between connections or differences

Maximum Number of Connections

Minimum Line Size (inches)

10

2

25

2.5

in elevation or the type of pipe. Further these minimum sizes do not consider fire flows.

50

3

100

4

150

5

250

6

>250

8 and larger Section VI | 46

A fire flow analysis was performed in the model to determine if the system could maintain a residual pressure of 20 psi with a fire demand placed at various locations throughout the system. As expected, maintaining 20 psi in the far reaches of the system was a challenge, but possible with the proposed infrastructure. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s worth noting that the increased fire demand of 1,000 gpm is a significant challenge in areas that are fed by single 6â&#x20AC;? water line. We recommend that as development occurs and projects are implemented, that careful consideration be given to meeting the 1,000 gpm fire demand and maintain residual pressure.

As part of the analysis of the system, many factors are considered to determine improvements to be made. Water line velocities greater than 5 feet per second (fps) may cause low pressures in the system due to friction losses in the pipe. Pressures less than 40 psi indicate problems in the distribution system and that improvements are likely necessary. Critical times are during minimum hour when elevated storage tanks are being replenished and during peak hour where usage is at its highest. Within the system, pressures ranging from 50 to 90 psi are desirable. Pressures in the distribution system which are below 40 psi or above 100 psi may indicate water distribution lines which are too small or isolated areas of higher ground elevation not readily served by a higher pressure plane. In some instances, high pressures exist near pump stations and may require installation of PRVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s to protect customer meters and/or distribution lines.

Exhibit H shows the distribution lines required for the ultimate system (171,750 people) prioritized in phases. Minor improvements should be constructed as areas develop, while Capital Improvement Projects are programmed to facilitate ongoing growth.

Section VI | 47

6.16 6.16.1

720 PRESSURE PLANE Pressure Plane Overview and Existing Infrastructure

The Existing 720 Pressure Plane occupies an area of 2,000 acres in the southwestern portion of the City’s Water System. The pressure plane is generally bound by Kegley Road to the east, Tarver Road to the north, SH 317 to the west and Charter Oak Drive to the south.

It is currently supplied by two PRV connections to the 24” New High Service Transmission Main along Old Waco Road and supported by the 1MG 720 EST. As development occurs, the pressure plane is planned to extend further south and east encompassing a total of 13,580 acres.

6.16.2

Proposed Improvements

As growth occurs and the 720 pressure planes expand, incremental infrastructure improvements will be required as shown on Exhibit F. Currently, there are planned projects to construct 12” Water Lines along Poison Oak and Kegley, which coincide with roadway projects.

Charter Oak, South Temple and Northwest Transmission Mains will be constructed through the 720 pressure plane; however, their purpose is to provide additional supply to the 835, 785 and 876 pressure planes. The Hwy 317 Pump Station will include a 2MG GST, which is designed to support the 720 EST through a future 18” along Hogan Rd. Aside from construction of distribution lines, an additional 1.5 MG elevated storage tank will be required by Year 2070. This EST will be supplied by a future 36” Transmission Main from the Membrane Plant.

Section VI | 48

6.17 6.17.1

785 PRESSURE PLANE Pressure Plane Overview and Existing Infrastructure

The Existing 785 is a very large pressure plane occupying an area of 21,300 acres located in the middle portion of the City’s Water System and extending from the Airport in the north to the southern CCN. The pressure plane adjoins each of the other pressure planes; 920 to the northeast, 876 to the east, 720 to the southwest and 835 to the west.

It is currently supplied by the Loop 363 Pump Station and supported by the 1.5 MG Airport EST, 1MG Scott EST and 0.5MG Apache EST. As development occurs, the 785 pressure plane will extend further east along Loop 363, while the southern portion of the 785 pressure plane will be converted to 720. Although, geographically different, the future 785 pressure plane will be only slightly increased in size to 21,900 acres.

6.17.2

Proposed Improvements

Currently, there are planned projects to construct 12” Water Lines along Hogan and Hartrick Bluff.

The Hwy 317 and South Temple Pump Stations will be constructed to provide additional supply to the 785 pressure planes, which is necessary to support the current number of connections within the pressure plane. Aside from construction of distribution lines, an additional 1MG elevated storage tank will be required by Year 2040. This EST will be supplied by the South Temple Transmission Main and supplemented by a future 36” Transmission Main from the Membrane Plant.

6.18 6.18.1

835 PRESSURE PLANE Pressure Plane Overview and Existing Infrastructure

The Existing 835 Pressure Plane occupies an area of 6,600 acres in the western portion of the City’s Water System. The pressure plane is bound by Belton Lake and the City of Morgan’s Point Resort to the west, Westfield Blvd, to the east and SH 36 to the north.

It is currently supplied by the FM 2305 and Airport Pump Stations and supported by the 1MG FM 2483 EST and 0.22MG Pepper Creek EST. The 835 pressure plane will extend further north toward the CCN boundary as development occurs and eventually encompass approximately 7,300 acres.

6.18.2

Proposed Improvements

Currently, the new 1MG Pepper Creek Tank is beginning construction and will be operational in 2020. The Hwy 317 Pump Station will be constructed to provide additional and redundant supply to the 835 pressure plane. The pump station discharge will connect to the existing 18” on Hwy 317.

An additional 12” along the FM 2305 corridor and 10” from FM 2305 to FM 2483 will be required in the future to support future development.

Section VI | 49

6.19 6.19.1

876 PRESSURE PLANE Pressure Plane Overview and Existing Infrastructure

The Existing 876 is a very large pressure plane and occupies an area of 20,500 acres situated in the middle portion of the City’s Water System, primarily east of IH-35 and extending north and south to the CCN. The pressure plane adjoins the 920 and 785 pressure planes to the west.

The 876 Pressure Plane is supplied by Avenue G Pump Station and supported by the 1MG West Park EST, 1MG 25th Street EST, 1MG Taylor Rd. EST and 0.5MG Nugent EST. As development occurs, and the 785 pressure plane extends around Loop 363, the 876 pressure plane will be reduced to a total of 15,400 acres.

6.19.2

Proposed Improvements

Improvements in the 876 Pressure Plane include the future construction of 12” Water Lines along East Loop 363 as well as in conjunction with East Outer Loop. A 12” Water Line from Avenue G PS and connecting to a 12” on FM 2305 is recommended to resolve low pressure issues in the Apache area. In addition, rehabilitation of Avenue G Ground Storage remains a recommendation, as this 7MG of Ground Storage is critical to the City’s Water System. A 16” Water Line is planned from South Loop 363 to the 25th Street Tank to coincide with the South Temple project

Section VI | 50

6.20 6.20.1

920 PRESSURE PLANE Pressure Plane Overview and Existing Infrastructure

The Existing 920 Pressure Plane occupies an area of 6,700 acres located in the northern portion of the City’s Water System west of IH-35 and includes the Industrial Park. The pressure plane adjoins the 785 pressure plane to its southwest and 876 to the south and east.

It is currently supplied by the West Park and Old Howard Pump Stations and supported by the 1MG Range Rd. EST. The future 920 pressure plane is not recommended to change significantly and only contains minor adjustments to align with roadways and future improvements. The future 920 pressure plane is planned to total 8,000 acres.

6.20.2

Proposed Improvements

Currently, there are planned projects to construct 18” and 12” Water Lines in conjunction with the phased construction of Outer Loop. In addition, a proposed 1.5MG EST to be located on Eberhardt Rd is recommended to support new clients and growth in the Industrial Park.

A continuous 12” Water Line along Northwest Loop 363 is also recommended. A future 12” Water Line providing an interconnection between Loop 363 and Outer Loop will also be necessary.

Because of the significant industry component of this pressure plane and a single high demand user, it is critical to provide reliable supply and pressure. Evaluations of pump station and storage capacities must also be based on this industrial component and single high demand user, as opposed to TCEQ’s simplistic requirements related to meter counts.

Section VI | 51

6.21

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

While the current and major recommended improvements have been discussed in the above sections for each pressure planes, Exhibit H shows the ultimate water treatment, storage, and distribution system for the Temple Water System as it is currently planned. Improvements are shown in colors representative of the fiscal year in which the project is expected to begin.

The development of these improvements and their phased scheduling has been done in close cooperation with the City of Temple staff. As development and growth occur, however, improvements may be accelerated or delayed and priorities may be altered based on actual growth trends and development conditions. The projects have been prioritized by City Staff based on needed upgrades to the system, increased capacity and completion to meet other obligations.

The improvements to the water system are interrelated and as a result the order of improvements is important in many cases. As previously stated, the actual time to schedule design and construction should be based on a continuing examination of growth trends. Opinions of Probable Cost for Recommended Improvements are included in Appendix G.

Section VI | 52

SECTION VII: 7.1

WASTEWATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS

GENERAL

This report summarizes the analysis and planning of improvements for the City of Temple’s wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment facilities. The continued growth and development of Temple necessitates that the existing wastewater system be analyzed for adequacy of service and that facilities be planned ahead of development. The report identifies and determines the wastewater collection system improvements including gravity lines, force mains and lift stations which will be required to provide service within the planning area.

7.2

WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM

The City of Temple is served by two sewerage systems, the Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant (TBWWTP) and the Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant (DFWWTP). Within each of these sewerage systems is a network of gravity lines, pressurized force mains and lift stations. The components within these networks function as a system to connect customers of the wastewater collection systems with their respective treatment facilities.

Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant (January 2019)

The majority of a wastewater network is comprised of gravity wastewater lines since gravity flow is the most economic means of conveyance in a wastewater collection system. The gravity wastewater lines in a collection system are generally classified as either a “trunk” or “interceptor”. A trunk line differs from a collection line in that a trunk line is the principal sewer to which collection lines are tributary. The capacity of gravity wastewater lines, operating as either a trunk or a interceptor, is largely dependent on pipe diameter, slope and material. Smoother, larger diameter pipes at steeper Section VII | 53

slopes will convey greater volumes of wastewater than rougher, smaller diameter pipes at shallower slopes.

In planning for and construction of wastewater collection systems natural topography is a crucial factor because there is a practical limit to the depth at which a pipeline can be buried. Practical limits on depth exist due to the higher risk posed to worker safety, the difficulty of working conditions, the excavation required, and the costs associated with these factors. A gravity conduit following natural ground slope will transport sewage at a slower rate in areas where the terrain is flat as compared to a gravity conduit following natural ground slope in an area with steeper topography. To minimize, the slope of the pipe can be increased, requiring the conduit to be buried deeper and deeper as the line progresses down the slope. When depth reaches the practical limit, pipe diameter can be increased while slope simultaneously is decreased, or the sewage can be lifted by pumps. The artificial lifting of wastewater is accomplished at a lift station where the wastewater is pressurized and conveyed through pressure pipe known as force main. The pressurized flow is brought to an appropriate point at which the process of pipe size and depth of excavation can again be evaluated, as described above.

Section VII | 54

7.3

EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

7.3.1 Overview The various components contained within the City of Templeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wastewater collection system were discussed through several work sessions with City of Temple Engineering, Public Works and Brazos River Authority Personnel. These work sessions were held to discuss the existing system in order to best determine which areas and concerns were most prevalent. Wastewater trunks lines, wastewater collection lines, lift stations, force mains and both treatment plants were discussed in detail.

Infrastructure Assessment Summaries were prepared and are included in the Appendix.

7.3.2 Treatment Facilities As previously described, the City of Temple is served by two sewerage systems, the Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant (TBWWTP) and the Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant (DFWWTP).

With regard to treatment capacity TCEQ requires that preliminary design begin when the 30-day average exceeds 75% of the design flow (5.63 MGD for DFWWTP & 7.5 MGD for TBWWTP) for 3 consecutive months. Once the 30-day average reaches 90% of the design flow, construction must begin.

Wastewater Treatment Plants must obtain a discharge permit to release effluent into adjacent streams/tributaries/waters. Typically, these permits must be renewed every five years. a.)

Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant The Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant was expanded in 1990-91 to treat a peak flow of 30 million gallons per day (MGD) generated from 66,667 people or their equivalent. As shown below, 20 million gallons of peak flow capacity has been allocated to the City of Temple.

The design criteria for the plant and allocation of capacity are summarized as follows: Temple Population Per Capita Flow, Dry Weather (gpcd) Average Day Flow, annual average (mgd) Maximum Day Flow, annual average (mgd) Wet Weather Flow, highest 30 day average (mgd) Peak Flow, 2 hour wet weather (mgd)

46,188 116 5.36 16.10 6.93 20.00

Section VII | 55

Belton Population Per Capita Flow, Dry Weather (gpcd) Average Day Flow, annual average (mgd) Maximum Day Flow, annual average (mgd) Wet Weather Flow, highest 30 day average (gpcd) Wet Weather Flow, highest 30 day average (mgd) Peak Flow, 2 hour wet weather (mgd) Total Population Per Capita Flow, Dry Weather (gpcd) Average Day Flow, annual average (mgd) Maximum Day Flow, annual average (mgd) Wet Weather Flow, highest 30 day average (gpcd) Wet Weather Flow, highest 30 day average (mgd) Peak Flow, 2 hour wet weather (mgd)

20,479 112 2.29 6.90 150 3.07 10.00

66,667 115 7.65 23.00 150 10.00 30.00

Multiple studies have been conducted over the past 15 years in regards to the expansion of the TBWWTP. The most recent was completed prior to the 2015 Improvements. The improvements constructed to date consist of a new, expanded Headworks facility and conversion of the existing, abandoned aeration basins into Flow Equalization Basins. The projections for the TBWWTP facility, through 2040, are as follows: Temple Population Per Capita Flow, Wet Weather (gpcd) Design Flow (mgd) Peak Flow, 2 hour wet weather (mgd)

67,752 210 14.1 46.1

Belton Population

22,870

Per Capita Flow, Wet Weather (gpcd) Design Flow (mgd) Peak Flow, 2 hour wet weather (mgd)

173 3.9 11.4

Section VII | 56

Total TBWWTP Population Design Flow (mgd) Peak Flow, 2 hour wet weather (mgd)

90,442 18 57.5

The new Headworks facility was constructed with four treatment trains, consisting of a fine screen and vortex grit removal unit, each sized for 14.5 MGD. The first phase included equipment for three of the treatment trains (3/4 of total capacity) totaling 43.5 MGD of influent capacity. A future expansion will install the fourth treatment train. The Flow Equalization Basin allows excess influent flow to stored during high flows and then processed and discharged from the facility at a time when the influent flow has fallen below the rated 2 Hour Peak Flow for the facility. The FEB allows approximately 7-8 MGD of flow to be stored over the course of the elevated flows. As such, the headworks facility has been sized for 57+ MGD while the downstream facilities will be sized for 50 MGD. The current treatment facility is sized for a design flow of 10 MGD and a peak flow of 30 MGD. Upon completion of the Phase 1 Improvements (Headworks and FEB), the design flow will remain 10 MGD, however, the facility will be able to accommodate a peak flow of 38+ MGD. Future phases will expand the treatment capacities to 14/43.5 MGD and 18/57 MGD. Phase 2 includes the addition of a separate biological treatment process, clarification, UV disinfection and new plant water/post aeration facilities. b.)

Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant

The Temple Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant underwent a major expansion which was completed in the fall of 1994. The facility is capable of treating a peak flow of 22.5 million gallons per day and a maximum 30-day average flow of 7.5 million gallons per day from 33,000 people or their equivalent. The design criteria for the plant are summarized as follows: Temple Population Average Day Flow, annual average (gpcd) Average Day Flow, annual average (mgd) Maximum Day Flow, annual average (mgd) Wet Weather Flow, highest 30 day average (gpcd) Wet Weather Flow, highest 30 day average (mgd) Peak Flow, 2 hour wet weather (mgd)

33,000 135 4.50 12.10 225 7.50 22.50 Section VII | 57

The design flow of the expanded Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant is 7.5 MGD. TCEQ mandates that if the 30 day average exceeds 75% of the design flow (5.63 MGD) for 3 consecutive months, preliminary design of an expansion must begin. Once the 30 day average reaches 90% of the design flow, construction must begin. Population growth and distribution and treatment plant flows should be reviewed periodically for the purposes of planning required projects.

Section VII | 58

7.3.3 Gravity Wastewater Lines The majority of most wastewater collection systems are comprised of gravity wastewater lines. The existing City of Temple system contains over 2,000,000 linear feet of gravity lines. Viewable below is a table which provides the quantities of various material categories and length combinations currently found within the Temple system. This table does not include wastewater projects currently under construction or those which are about to begin construction (NW & NE Little Elm Creek, Williamson Creek Ph I-II, Bird Creek Phase V etcâ&#x20AC;Ś).

Table 1: Existing Gravity Lines SIZE

PVC

DIP

VCP

CAS

UNK

TOTAL

4''

565

-

-

-

168

733

6''

246,280

903

339,721

135

268,776

855,815

8''

515,031

3,360

61,524

1,152

132,080

713,147

10''

70,628

-

27,988

764

16,272

115,652

12''

62,221

1,549

36,129

354

7,829

108,081

15''

43,655

824

29,553

-

8,234

82,265

16''

-

-

1,060

-

-

1,060

18''

37,232

-

23,920

546

3,283

64,980

20''

-

349

-

-

1,479

1,828

21''

11,777

1,791

9,008

-

3,899

26,475

24''

19,171

5,732

11,215

-

2,222

38,341

27''

2,361

2,609

7,652

-

1,842

14,464

30''

11,895

12,523

-

4,680

-

29,098

33''

3,498

-

-

-

-

3,498

36''

-

3,220

-

-

-

3,220

1,024,312

32,859

547,770

7,632

446,084

2,058,657

TOTAL PVC -

Polyvinyl Chloride

DIP -

Ductile Iron Pipe

VCP -

Vitrified Clay Pipe

CAS -

Cast Iron Pipe

UNK -

Unknown Material

*All Lengths are in Feet

UNK 22%

CAS < 1%

PVC 50%

VCP 27%

DIP 1%

Section VII | 59

7.3.4 Lift Stations The City of Temple currently utilizes twenty-eight (28) Lift Stations within its collection system which are operated by the Brazos River Authority. These lift stations, in certain instances, provide temporary solutions to topographic barriers or existing topologic limitations while others will be irreplaceable permanent fixtures for the foreseeable future. Exhibit I has notation which indicates if a given lift station will be abandoned in the future through the construction of a proposed improvement.

7.4 CCN, PLANNING AREA, & SERVICE AREA 7.4.1 Wastewater CCN The Public Utility Commission manages Sewer Certificates of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) for entities in the State of Texas which provides the holder with the exclusive right to provide sewer utility service to an identified geographic area. The public utility commission maintains separate CCNâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s for Water and Wastewater as is shown in Exhibits A-1 and A-2.

7.4.2 Planning Area The planning area boundary is set to define the geographic scope of the Wastewater Master Plan.

Through discussions with City Management and Staff, the current directive is to use the Temple Wastewater CCN as a guide in establishing the boundary of the planning area. The planning area encompasses nearly all area within the Wastewater CCN including areas outside of natural topography. These areas were previously outside the planning area and had not been planned for in the design of any existing wastewater systems in the City of Temple. The impacts of their inclusion into the planning process are detailed exhibits found in Appendix J as well as discussion in the basin discussions of impacted basins.

7.4.3 Service Areas The planning area is divided into two areas which represent the extents of service of each wastewater treatment plant. Generally, the Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant services east Temple and the Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant provides service for west Temple. The services areas for both are on Exhibit I.

Section VII | 60

7.5 SEWER BASINS 7.5.1 Basins Wastewater collection systems are, for the most part, dependent on gravity to convey flows which results in a dependence on natural topography. The outcome is that sewage must be carried out of a drainage basin in a similar manner as rainfall runoff. Interceptor lines gather flows from points of generation and then bring these flows downhill to accumulate in a large diameter trunk line. The trunk lines are therefore placed in the location with the lowest elevation available, which subsequently results in trunk lines following local creeks and tributaries.

Sewer basins therefore often closely resemble drainage basins. In the City of Temple, like many communities, these geometrically similar basin delineations share names. Sewer basins in Temple are not identical, however, to their like named drainage basins because of instances where gravity lines flow opposite to natural grade. A major focus of this master plan has been the careful inspection and re-delineation of the City of Templeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sewer basins to accurately reflect the areas which actually flow to their respective trunks. The accurate definition of area flowing to a particular sewer line is critical to realistic modeling of a wastewater collection system and is reason for the concentrated focus given re-delineation of sewer basin boundaries in the current Wastewater Master Plan.

It is occasionally necessary to transport sewage from one drainage basin to another, either by pumping or occasionally by deep cuts through natural divides. Each case must be evaluated based on the areas that can be served, operation and maintenance costs to the City, and treatment plant location. Because of developments occurring beyond the sewer service area, there have been numerous temporary lift stations constructed in lieu of the more costly trunk sewer for the basin.

When this occurs and creates a basin transfer, the receiving basin must be analyzed to determine if there is sufficient capacity.

Table 2: City of Temple Sewer Basins

The current wastewater master plan identifies and delineates ten (10) sewer basins within the planning area. Of these basins, seven (7) contain existing wastewater infrastructure while the remaining three (3) only have proposed wastewater infrastructure. To the right is a table which identifies the basin name, acreage and corresponding treatment plant within the City of Templeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Planning Area.

Sewer Basin

WWTP

Acreage

Leon River

Temple-Belton

6,198

Cedar Creek

Temple-Belton

4,993

Pepper Creek

Temple-Belton

13,682

Bird Creek

Temple-Belton

6,444

Friars Creek

Temple-Belton

5,339

Little River

Temple-Belton

2,517

Boggy Creek

Temple-Belton

2,388

Knob Creek

Doshier

9,358

Williamson Creek

Doshier

2,381

Little Elm Creek

Doshier

8,548

Section VII | 61

7.5.2 Sub-Basins The ten (10) basins within the City of Temple planning area are further subdivided into 294 subbasins which are the basis of determining wastewater flows within the collection system. Previous master planning efforts were required to rely solely on topography when delineating sub-basins due to insufficient information as a result of technological limitations. Through the availability of GIS data provided by the City of Temple, the current Master Plan had the ability to more accurately define sub-basins through the awareness of small diameter pipe locations and assumed flow directions.

In the current master plan the sub-basins were able to be delineated with great detail through the study of natural topography digitally overlaid with existing sewer locations, property boundaries and satellite imagery which was all interpreted with local knowledge and careful discernment these factors. The re-delineation of sub-basins within the City of Templeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sewer basins was a large undertaking and a major focus of this master plan. The re-delineation serves to more correctly reflect realities of the built system.

Section VII | 62

7.6 WASTEWATER FLOWS 7.6.1 Overview Prior to the sizing of pipelines, lift stations or treatment plants, it is necessary to determine the expected magnitude of wastewater flows. Wastewater is discharged from residential, commercial, and industrial customers but is also comprised of inflows and infiltration (I/I). Wastewater is conveyed in collectors, then in trunk sewers and is carried to a plant for treatment and discharge.

Wastewater is not contributed to the trunk lines at a uniform rate throughout the day. This study has included peak flows through the use of typical peaking factors. Flow monitoring within the existing system allows for determination of actual peaking factors. The City has a system wide assessment currently underway that can be utilized to update these peak factors to more accurately reflect the existing peaks within each basin. Peak flows generally occur at mid-morning and early evening, much the same as is experienced in a water distribution system. These peak flows along with I/I are the basis for designing wastewater infrastructure.

7.6.1 Determination of Flows Wastewater flows were determined for each sub-basin in the service area by utilizing projected land use and assumed flows related to particular land uses. The current City of Temple Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) provided by the City of Temple is the basis of future land use assumptions and is a product of the 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan. After the start of the current Water and Wastewater Master Plans, the City of Temple began an update of the Comprehensive Plan. At the completion of the Comprehensive Plan, the calculations and subsequently the recommendations of the Water and Wastewater Master Plans should be reevaluated as they heavily rely on the Future Land Use Map. To determine the areas of each land use type within each sub-basin, the approximately 26,000 future land use parcels and the 294 newly delineated subbasins were digitally merged. Areas of the intersecting polygons were calculated according to the area of each future land use contained within each sub-basin. The figure below depicts the merged future land use and sub-basin layers. The heavy black lines are the boundaries of the sub-basins and the colored parcels represent the various future land use types found in the City of Templeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Future Land Use Plan.

Figure 1: FLUP & Sub-Basin Delineations Merged

Section VII | 63

An example of the resulting output of these area calculations of the intersecting polygons can be found in the table below, while the entirety of those calculations exists in the Appendix F of this report. The abbreviations for the FLUP land use types are listed across the header row and the subbasins identifying labels are listed down the first column. All values shown are in acres.

N/A

-

UC

-

TMED

-

SUR

BP

9

SUC

AUR

82

PK

AUMU

-

PI

AUMF

244

NC

AUC

FH-01

I

Total Area

ER

SubBasin

AR

Table 3: Example of Intersecting Polygon Calculation (acres)

-

-

22

0

6

32

-

36

-

54

FH-02

322

-

89

15

-

-

-

-

-

69

52

34

-

-

-

-

63

FH-03

191

-

149

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

29

FH-04

403

-

56

8

-

0

-

-

-

250

-

11

-

-

-

-

78

FH-05

106

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

51

-

37

-

-

-

-

18

FH-06

34

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25

-

1

-

-

-

-

8

FH-07

32

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27

-

1

-

0

-

-

4

FH-08

100

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

76

-

-

-

0

-

-

24

FH-09

43

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

29

-

-

-

6

-

-

8

FH-10

283

133

-

-

-

0

-

-

-

0

-

60

-

86

-

-

4

FH-11

407

268

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11

122

-

-

6

The City of Temple Future Land Use Plan makes use of 15 identifiers to differentiate and describe predicated future land use. The “N/A” identifier is not a label explicitly found in the FLUP. The “N/A” identifier is an implicit category representing the areas within a sub-basin which have not received a future land use type through the City of Temple Future Land Use Plan. The “N/A” identifier most always represents the extents of right of way or in certain instances other nondevelopable property. The FLUP land use type categories are listed below: AR – Agricultural AUC – Auto Urban Commercial AUMF – Auto Urban Multi-Family AUMU – Auto Urban Mixed Use AUR – Auto Urban Residential BP – Business Park ER – Estate Residential I – Industrial

NC – Neighborhood Conservation PI – Public Institution PK – Park Land SUC – Suburban Commercial SUR – Suburban Residential TMED – Temple Medical and Educational District UC – Urban Commercial

The land uses found in the FLUP were simplified into six (6) categories which include Low Density Residential (LR), Medium Density Residential (MR), High Density Residential (HR), Commercial (CO), Industrial (IN), and Community Facilities (CF). These categories were then used as a basis of flow generation assumptions in the calculation of ultimate sub-basin flow estimations in conjunction with peaking factors and inflow-infiltration calculations.

Section VII | 64

The following table describes the land use assumptions leading to a calculated gallons per day per acre peak flow. The land use assumptions do not include inflow and infiltration. This topic is discussed in the following subsection.

Table 4: Land Use Assumptions Land Use LR

Low Density Residential

MR

Medium Density Residential

HR

High Density Residential

CF

Residents Per Acre

Per Capita GPD

Avg. Flow GPD/Acre

Peaking Factor

Peak Flow GPD/Acre

4.2

115

483

3.5

1690

8

125

1000

3.5

3500

12

100

1200

3.5

4200

Community Facilities

-

-

600

2.0

1200

CO

Commercial

-

-

500

2.0

1000

IN

Industrial

-

-

600

2.0

1200

7.6.2 Inflow-Infiltration Water also infiltrates the system through unintentional means including manhole covers, broken pipe, and faulty pipe joints, particularly at house connections. In addition, infiltration of rainfall and ground water into the sewer lines must also be considered in calculating pipe sizes and plant hydraulics. Extremes in pipeline infiltration can be controlled by Infiltration Rates making every effort during design and construction of lateral and Pipe Diameter Infiltration Rate trunk sewers to utilize improved sewer jointing materials and Inches GPD/mi. maintain careful and workmanlike installation practices. Special 8 3500 10 4000 attention should be given to small sewers since they normally 12 4500 constitute the largest percentage of pipeline length in a system.

Using the American Society of Civil Engineers Gravity Sanitary Sewer Design and Construction reference, lengths and diameters of gravity wastewater lines can be used to determine expected infiltration rates.

15

5000

18

6500

24

10000

30

15000

36

18000

Table 5: ASCE Gravity Sanitary Sewer Design and Construction

7.6.3 Cedar Creek & Other Planning Area Increases As directed by City Staff, this Wastewater Master Plan has included areas which previously had not been considered as they are outside the natural drainage basin and would create a basin transfer. City Staff requested that the current master plan determine the improvements necessary for existing and planned infrastructure to be able to handle the entirety of the flows generated from these previously unconsidered areas.

The smaller of the two areas newly included in the current Master Plan is a Sub-Basin (WT-01) of the Leon River Basin. This sub-basin is 849 acres of mostly developed property west of FM 2271 bounded on all other sides by Belton Lake. The topographic irregularity of this sub-basin does not Section VII | 65

provide the area with a common point of collection and the existing area residents currently utilize privately owned On-Site Sewage Facilities.

The Cedar Creek Basin is the second and larger of the two areas added to the planning area in this Master Plan and is situated north of the Leon River and Pepper Creek Basins. The Cedar Creek Basin had in previous Master Plans been considered outside of the planning area because it did not have any natural drainage paths leading to adjacent basins within the City of Temple collection system. Essentially the basin exists over the ridge which demarcates the naturally serviceable of the Temple collection system. Due to this inherent topographic obstacle, the Cedar Creek Basin had not been considered in the design of existing infrastructure or planned for in past master plans. The portion of the Cedar Creek Basin considered in the current Master Plan is the portion of the Cedar Creek Basin contained within the City of Temple CCN which amounts to just under 5,000 additional acres. This acreage is modeled as basin transfers to the Leon River and Pepper Creek Basins.

7.6.4 Use of Projected Flows The projected flows calculated and used for analysis of the City of Temple wastewater collection system rely on several key influences, which are not static. Many of the proposed improvements will not be constructed for several years, if not decades, in the future. The projected land uses and unit flows should be reviewed periodically to determine if the design assumptions are changing.

Section VII | 66

7.7 DESIGN IDEOLOGY & CRITERIA Generally, within the Temple Sewer System, trunk sewer lines have been sized to serve the ultimate population of the drainage area. Over the life of the system this is a more economical approach because constant upgrades are eliminated, however, depending upon the timing and location of various developments, it may not be possible to construct facilities to serve the ultimate population.

If this situation occurs, a deliberate decision can be made to decrease the size of any given facility and the future additions can be identified. As discussed in Section 3.01, the current City allows for participation in in the extension of utilities and funding for any necessary oversizing to encourage the construction of infrastructure to serve the ultimate population. Developments occurring outside the existing sewer service area do occur, and in past years numerous temporary lift stations have been constructed in lieu of a more costly trunk sewer for a basin. When this occurs and creates a basin transfer, the receiving basin must be analyzed to determine if sufficient capacity is available. Master planning typically depicts proposed lift stations, trunks and extensions in their desired ultimate locations rather than intermediary temporary locations.

TCEQ requires that all sewer systems be designed in accordance with Chapter 217. The following tables illustrate the current minimum and maximum pipe slopes as well as maximum manhole spacing based on manhole diameter: Maximum Manhole Spacing

Minimum and Maximum Pipe Slopes Size of Pipe (inches)

Minimum Slope (%)

Maximum Slope (%)

6

0.50

12.35

8

0.335

8.40

10

0.25

6.23

12

0.20

4.88

15

0.15

3.62

18

0.115

2.83

Pipe Diameter (inches)

Maximum Manhole Spacing (feet)

21

0.095

2.30

24

0.08

1.93

6-15

500

27

0.06

1.65

18-30

800

30

0.06

1.43

36-48

1000

33

0.055

1.26

54 or larger

2000

36

0.045

1.12

39

0.04

1.01

Table 7: TCEQ Maximum Manhole Spacing

>39

Calculate based on Manningâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s formula

Table 6: TCEQ Minimum and Maximum Pipe Slopes

Section VII | 67

7.8

CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (CMOM) / SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW (SSO) INITIATIVE CMOM is a flexible, dynamic framework for municipalities to identify accepted wastewater practices to better manage, operate and maintain collection systems, investigate capacity constrained areas and respond to SSO events.

For CMOM planning the City selects goals and activities to meet those goals. Further, data collection and management are used to track performance and whether overall system efficiency is improving. A sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) is any overflow, spill, release, discharge or diversion of wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. SSO’s include: 

overflows or releases of wastewater that reach waters of the United States



overflows or releases of wastewater that do not reach waters of the United States



wastewater backups into buildings and on private property that are caused by lockages or flow conditions in a sanitary sewer, other than a building lateral. Wastewater backups into buildings caused by a blockage or other malfunction of a building lateral that is privately owned is a SSO when sewage is discharged off of private property into streets, stormdrains, or waters of the State.

SSO’s of untreated or partially treated wastewater from collection systems which may reach waters of the U.S. are violations of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the provisions of NPDES permits, and therefore subject to enforcement actions. In addition, federal regulations [40 CFR Part 122.41(1)(6)] require that all such discharges which may endanger health or the environment must be reported to EPA. The Region's approach to addressing SSO’s is to require permittees to develop and implement an SSO corrective action program which will result in locating and eliminating overflows in the shortest possible time period. Each permittee is responsible for aggressively pursuing solutions for both the technical and fiscal problems which may arise during the implementation of a corrective action program, and EPA expects permittees to utilize state-of-the-art methods and expertise in evaluating their system.

The City of Temple submitted a Sanitary Sewer Overflow Outreach Program in March 2007 for inclusion in the overall TCEQ Program. The Temple Program includes a description of the causes of SSO’s, corrective measures, timelines, completion dates and funding sources.

Section VII | 68

7.9

PREVIOUS REPORTS

The following is a list of reports previously completed for the City of Temple regarding the Sewer System which have been incorporated into the Master Plan: 

Knob Creek Preliminary Engineering Report – December 2016



Williamson Creek Preliminary Engineering Report – June 2016



Preliminary Engineering Report for the Bird Creek Trunk Sewer – 2008



Leon River Preliminary Engineering Report

Section VII | 69

7.10

LEON RIVER BASINS

7.10.1 Basin Overview The Leon River Basin occupies an area of 6,198 acres and is the western most basin in the City of Temple Future Land Use wastewater collection system. It is treated by the LR Low Density Residential Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant MR Medium Density Residential HR High Density Residential (TBWWTP). This basin has experienced rapid CF Community Facilities development over the past decade, but still has CO Commercial developable area remaining. The Future Land Use Plan IN Industrial assumes that this basin when fully developed will N/A Not Assigned Future Land Use consist largely of low and medium density residential property.

33% 37% 0% 4% 17% 0% 10%

7.10.2 Existing Infrastructure and Connectivity The basin is currently comprised of two independent gravity systems. A gap in this basin exists south of the Pea Ridge Lift Station and north of the Water Treatment Plant. The lower portion of the basin drains to the Leon River Lift Station, which sends flows directly to the TBWWTP, while the upper portion of the basin drains to the Pea Ridge Lift Station, which currently serves as an inter-basin transfer sending collected flows to the adjacent Pepper Creek Basin.

More specifically, the upper portion of this basin utilizes two trunk sewers which generally follow the two primary branches of Hog Pen Creek until their flows combine south of Hogan Road. The combined flows continue to the Pea Ridge Lift Station and as previously described are then transferred to the Pepper Creek Basin.

As a result of rolling topography without a consistent drain path, the most western end of the Leon River Basin must rely on a series of lift stations. Lago Terra, Oaks at Lakewood and North Cliffe Lift Stations were constructed to provide collection service to their correspondingly named subdivisions. The flows from these lift stations are pumped to the FM 2271 Lift Station which pumps flows to a point just west of the BISD Lakewood Elementary School. The wastewater then gravity flows to the FM 2305 Lift Stations. The FM 2305 Lift Station pumps these flows over the next topographic barrier and back into the gravity system. The lift stations are a result of topographic barriers, and therefore are not considered temporary solutions.

Section VII | 70

Figure 2: West Temple Lift Station Organization

7.10.3 Proposed Improvements Proposed improvements within the Leon River Basin focus on eliminating the existing inter-basin transfer, establishing a continuous trunk sewer through the basin by combining the currently independent gravity networks, increasing the number of serviceable properties along Highway 317, and the appropriate upgrades of existing infrastructure required to facilitate new previously unconsidered flows as directed by City Staff;  LO-01 This proposed improvement is the required upsizing of the newly completed Leon River Phase I Trunk Sewer and Lift Station as a direct result of including projected flows generated by adding flow from the Cedar Creek Basin. At the time of the preliminary engineering and final design of this project, the agreed upon service area did not include Cedar Creek or the majority of areas west of FM 2271. With the inclusion of these additional areas, the Leon River Phase I trunk sewer must be upsized from a 36” Wastewater Line to the pipe size of 39” at full build-out. This upsize will likely not be required for more than 20 years but should be monitored as growth and development continue.  LO-02 As described, the basin is currently comprised of two independent gravity systems, and as part of its current configuration, must rely on an inter-basin transfer. The purpose of the Leon River Phase II project (LO-02) is to unite these two gravity systems and allow for the abandonment of the Pea Ridge Lift Station, while providing collection service to an area Section VII | 71

south of Poison Oak Road and north of the Water Treatment Plan that is currently without service.

The Preliminary Engineering Report proposed a 27” Wastewater Line; however, with the inclusion of Cedar Creek, a 30” Wastewater Line will be required to accommodate future fully developed flows.

This project will also include capacity improvements to the Leon River Lift Station. The Leon River Lift Station had been planned for phased improvements with increasing capacity, however, the improvements are likely to be expedited to accomplish abandonment of Pea Ridge Lift Station.  LO-03 This improvement generally follows Wild Boys Run along the bank of the Leon River. A ridgeline separates this area from the main Leon River Trunk Sewer. In the event this area subdivides for development, the proposed line will serve to intercept development flows and convey them to the main Leon River Trunk sewer. This interceptor ties into the main Leon River Trunk, as the ridge separating the two diminishes, which coincides with the Leon River Phase I Trunk Sewer in an area near the City of Temple Water Treatment Plant.  LO-04 The main purpose of this project is to provide wastewater service along Highway 317 south of FM 2305 and north of the Leon River. Subsequently, its construction allows for the abandonment of the Oak Hills Lift Station. It is assumed that the completion of this project will supersede the development of the estate properties along the river, therefore a wastewater line is proposed to follow Poison Oak Road and connect this proposed improvement with the main Leon River Trunk Sewer. At the time the estate properties develop, or if they develop before the construction of LO-04, the west to east connecting segment along Poison Oak will no longer be needed and flows can instead be conveyed via the proposed interceptor along Wild Boys Run (LO-03).  LO-05, LO-06, LO-07 These improvements are required due to the impact of the additional planning area. As previously stated, these wastewater lines were not originally expected to convey flows from the Cedar Creek Basin and areas west of FM 2271. The pipe size increases noted on the Master Wastewater Exhibit are required to meet the addition of these added flows.

Section VII | 72

ď ś LO-08 The homes in Lakewood Ranch currently utilize privately owned septic systems; however, in the event that a gravity sewer system is implemented in this subdivision, it will be unable to convey uphill to the north to the interceptor along FM 2305. The purpose of the proposed Lakewood Lift Station and Force Main is to collect these flows and pump them to the gravity line along FM 2305. From a Master Planning perspective, the inclusion of this improvement also dictates that its flows are considered when determining sizes of downstream improvements. ď ś LO-09, LO-10 These two improvement projects are intended to extend and increase the serviceable areas along Highway 317. Without these improvements, these areas are unable to connect the City of Temple wastewater collection system.

Section VII | 73

Section VII | 74

Section VII | 75

Section VII | 76

7.11

CEDAR CREEK BASIN

7.11.1 Basin Overview The Cedar Creek Basin is a new addition to the City of Temple wastewater planning area in the current Master Plan. The Cedar Creek Basin had previously been considered outside of the planning area, because it did not have any natural drainage paths leading to any of the other basins within the City of Temple collection system. At the direction of City Staff, this Wastewater Master Plan has included Cedar Creek Basin which previously had not been considered.

The basin exists over the ridge which demarcates the naturally serviceable of the Temple collection system. Due to this inherent topographic barrier, the Cedar Creek Basin had not been considered in the design of existing infrastructure or planned for in past master plans. The portion of the Cedar Creek Basin considered in the current Master Plan is the portion of the Cedar Creek Basin contained within the City of Temple Wastewater CCN which amounts to just under 5,000 additional acres.

Section VII | 77

The adjacent table describes the future land use of the Cedar Creek Basin according to the City of Temple Future Land Use Map except, where the Cedar Creek Basin extended beyond the Future Land Use Map, in which case the land use was categorized as Low Density Residential.

Future Land Use LR

Low Density Residential

91%

MR

Medium Density Residential

0%

HR

High Density Residential

0%

CF

Community Facilities

4%

CO

Commercial

0%

IN

Industrial

3%

N/A

Not Assigned Future Land Use

1%

7.11.2 Existing Infrastructure The Cedar Creek Basin has no existing wastewater infrastructure.

7.11.3 Proposed Improvements City Staff has requested that the current master plan determine the improvements necessary in the Leon River and Pepper Creek Basins for the existing and planned infrastructure to be able to handle the flows generated from the Cedar Creek Basin. These improvements are detailed in their respective basin discussions.

Section VII | 78

Section VII | 79

Section VII | 80

7.12 PEPPER CREEK BASIN 7.12.1 Basin Overview The Pepper Creek Basin is the largest Basin within the City of Temple Wastewater Collection System, covering 13,682 acres, and is treated by the TempleBelton Wastewater Treatment Plant. Similar to the Leon River Basin, this basin has experienced continued development over the past decade south of Highway 36, particularly concentrated around FM 2305. Even with recent growth, this basin has large undeveloped areas north of Highway 36 and south of Tarver Road.

Future Land Use LR

Low Density Residential

13%

MR

Medium Density Residential

18%

HR

High Density Residential

1%

CF

Community Facilities

10%

CO

Commercial

15%

IN

Industrial

34%

N/A

Not Assigned Future Land Use

7%

7.12.2 Existing Infrastructure and Connectivity Pepper Creek Basin drains to the Shallowford Lift Station which operates along the Leon River near the outfall of Bird Creek. As a result of this common outfall, Pepper Creek and Bird Creek share capacity at Shallowford Lift Station and the combined flows are pumped directly to the TempleBelton Wastewater Treatment Plant. Currently, the Shallowford Lift Station is nearing completion of two major improvements projects. A replacement lift station and a second 30â&#x20AC;? Force Main are finishing construction which will increase the current capacity of 17.5 MGD at the Shallowford Lift Station to 38.0 MGD in its initial phase.

Figure 1: Shallowford Lift Station Improvements (April 2019)

The primary gravity trunk line in the Pepper Creek Basin generally follows Pepper Creek and collects flows from numerous interceptors which follow Pepper Creekâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s many tributaries. Due to Section VII | 81

changes in predicted future land use, portions of the Pepper Creek Trunk will be undersized at the time of total build-out. The future land use assumptions utilized in the design of the portion of the Pepper Creek Trunk from Shallow Ford to FM 2305 have changed. Based on current projections, this section of trunk sewer will eventually be undersized by one or two nominal pipe diameters; however, with the addition of the Cedar Creek Basin into the planning area this issue is exacerbated and spread to a larger portion of the gravity system within the Pepper Creek Basin. With the addition of flow considerations from the Cedar Creek Basin, pipe sizes will be required to increase three or four nominal pipe diameters to meet future flows which impacts an additional 21,500 LF of gravity lines that would otherwise not require size improvements.

7.12.3 Proposed Improvements Proposed improvements within the Pepper Creek Basin focus on extending service to the Riverside Trail-Outer Loop areas, areas near Cearley Road, and final extensions of Pepper Creek Trunk lines to the top of the basin as well as the appropriate upgrades of existing infrastructure required to facilitate the new previously unconsidered flows.  PC-01, PC-04, PC-05 These improvements are required as a result of the addition of more planning area. When these wastewater lines were originally planned, they were not expected to convey flows from the Cedar Creek Basin. The pipe size increases noted on the Exhibit I are required to meet the addition of these new flows.  PC-02, PC-03, PC-06 Several improvements proposed in the Pepper Creek Basin are intended to increase serviceable area of the Temple wastewater collection system. Each of these improvements fills gaps of service that exist in the Pepper Creek Basin.  PC-07 This improvement will extend service to the upper limit of the Pepper Creek Basin. Due to proximity of this proposed project to the top of the Pepper Creek Basin, this project has become the assumed point of outfall for a large portion of flow that is to be transferred from the Cedar Creek Basin to the Pepper Creek Basin. By accepting this flow, larger diameter gravity lines have been proposed than what would typically be expected this upstream in a sewer basin.

Section VII | 82

ď ś PC-08 Similar to the PC-07 improvement, this improvement would also extend service to the upper limit of the Pepper Creek Basin and accept flow via basin transfer from the Cedar Creek Basin. The flow from the basin transfer, however, is assumed to be substantially less than that which is assumed to be received as part of PC-07. Therefore, pipe diameters in this proposed project remained more typical of a sewer near the extreme upstream end of a basin.

Section VII | 83

Section VII | 84

Section VII | 85

Section VII | 86

Section VII | 87

7.13

BIRD CREEK BASIN

7.13.1 Basin Overview The Bird Creek Basin is located centrally within the City of Temple Wastewater CCN boundary and Future Land Use occupies 6,444 acres. It is mostly developed with the LR Low Density Residential majority of remaining property located within areas MR Medium Density Residential HR High Density Residential prone to flooding. The Future Land Use Plan has CF Community Facilities projected that a majority of this basin will remain CO Commercial residential with nearly 26% of future land use being IN Industrial classified as Neighborhood Conservation. The flow N/A Not Assigned Future Land Use from Bird Creek Basin is treated at the Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant.

12% 31% 3% 10% 21% 6% 16%

7.13.2 Existing Infrastructure Bird Creek Basin utilizes two gravity trunk systems which converge into a single interceptor in the lower third of the basin. The West Side Trunk follows Bird Creek’s main channel and the Forest Hill’s Trunk Sewer follows a primary tributary of Bird Creek until it reaches the Hickory Lift Station at which point flow is transferred to the primary trunk. The confluence of these flows occurs in Lions Park. The combined flows then continue south to the Shallowford Lift Station.

All of the Bird Creek Basin ultimately drains to the Shallowford Lift Station which operates along the Leon River, near the outfall of Pepper Creek. As a result of this common outfall, Pepper Creek and Bird Creek share capacity at the Shallowford Lift Station and the combined flows are pumped directly to the Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant. Currently, the Shallowford Lift Station is nearing completion of two major improvements projects. A replacement lift station and a second 30” Force Main, which will increase the current capacity of 17.5 MGD at the Shallowford Lift Station to 38.0 MGD in its initial phase.

Flows in the southeastern portion of the basin being conveyed to the Forest Hills Trunk Sewer must rely on a series of lift stations. The Timber Ridge Lift Station collects flows from the Timber Ridge subdivision and is the most hydraulically distant lift station in the chain. Flows collected in its wet well are pumped to the Steeplechase Lift Station, which also collects flows from its subdivision. The combined flows are then pumped over the following ridge, toward the Forest Hills Trunk Sewer, but flows do not reach the trunk sewer before being combined with flows from the Cliffs Lift Station.

The confluence of this chain of lift stations and the Forest Hills Trunk occurs just upstream of the Hickory Lift Station. A flow diagram below depicts the sequence of lift stations.

Section VII | 88

Figure 2: Forest Hills Lift Station Organization

The Bird Creek Trunk has experienced overflows in the portion which flows through Lions Park.

Various projects are both planned and under construction intended to mitigate these capacity issues found in the Bird Creek Trunk.

7.13.3 Proposed Improvements The proposed improvements within the Bird Creek Basin focus to eliminate the intra-basin transfer of flows between the Forest Hills and Bird Creek Trunk Sewers which subsequently would eliminate the need to maintain the Hickory Lift Station. The Bird Creek Basin improvements also focus on the abandonment of the Timber Ridge, Steeplechase and Cliffs Lift Stations while further expanding the the serviceable area in the far south of the basin. In addition, proposed projects will provide improvement and rehabilitative projects in an effort to further reduce overflows of the Bird Creek Trunk Sewer. ď ś BD-01 This improvement begins a gravity sewer trunk at the Hickory Lift Station and conveys flows to a proposed Forest Hills Lift Station proposed to be located approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest. Completion of this improvement would include the subsequent abandonment of the Hickory, Timber Ridge, Steeplechase and Cliffs Lift Stations, while expanding the serviceable area of the Bird Creek Basin. Flows from the proposed Forest Hills Lift Station would be pumped to the Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant via force main along FM 93.

Section VII | 89

ď ś BD-02, BD-03 These improvements represent two phases of the five phases intended to provide additional capacity and alleviate overflows in the Bird Creek Trunk Sewer. Construction of Bird Creek Phase V (BC-02) at the time of this Master Plan is nearing completion, while BC-03 remains in final design phase.

Section VII | 90

Section VII | 91

Section VII | 92

7.14

FRIARS CREEK BASIN

7.14.1 Basin Overview The upper two-thirds of Friars Creek Basin has existing infrastructure and is almost completely built out, while the lower one-third of Friars Creek Basin is largely undeveloped and does not have an existing collection system. The Basin as a whole covers 5,339 acres and its wastewater flows are treated at the Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Future Land Use LR

Low Density Residential

12%

MR

Medium Density Residential

31%

HR

High Density Residential

3%

CF

Community Facilities

10%

CO

Commercial

21%

IN

Industrial

N/A

Not Assigned Future Land Use

6% 16%

7.14.2 Existing Infrastructure The Friars Creek Basin currently contains a single continuous trunk sewer, which runs the length of the basin beginning near Avenue L and terminating at the Friars Creek Lift Station located immediately north of FM 93. The trunk follows Friars Creek and collects flows from a small number of collectors.

Two neighborhood specific lift stations serve the subdivisions of Las Colinas and Valley Ranch.

These lift stations pump to the Friars Creek Lift Station, which in turn sends the combined flows to the Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Valley Ranch Lift Station will have the opportunity for abonnement at the completion of proposed improvements, while the Las Colinas Lift Station will likely remain to serve the Las Colinas subdivision for the foreseeable future.

7.14.3 Proposed Improvements The proposed improvements within the Friars Creek Basin are designed to eliminate the necessity for the Valley Ranch Lift Station and further extend the serviceable area of the Friars Creek Wastewater Collection System South of FM 93 to the Leon River. By extending service beyond FM 93, the current Friars Creek Lift Station will be relocated to the lowest and subsequently most advantageous location within the Basin near the Leon River. ď ś FC-01 The extension of wastewater collection service beyond FM 93, the elimination of the Valley Ranch Lift Station and the relocation of the Friars Creek Lift Station to the location denoted as the Taylors Valley Lift Station is contained within this improvement. This improvement is considered to either coincide with or be constructed following the completion of the Proposed South Temple Wastewater Treatment plant. This is reflected in the schematic alignments found on the Master Plan exhibit and the preliminary opinion of costs for this improvement.

Section VII | 93

ď ś FC-02 Improvement FC-01 is a prerequisite of improvement FC-02. The proposed improvement FC-02 proposes extensions, which are intended to bring wastewater flows to the trunk sewer extending south of FM 93 within the Friars Creek Basin.

Section VII | 94

Section VII | 95

Section VII | 96

7.15

LITTLE RIVER BASIN

7.15.1 Basin Overview The Little River Basin covers an area of approximately 2,517 acres. Currently no wastewater infrastructure exists in the Little River Basin. This basin is roughly bound by Hartrick Bluff to the west, FM 93 to the north, Old 95 in the east and extends to the Temple CCN line in the south. Its inclusion in the current Master Plan is intended to prepare and provide structure for the potential development of South Temple. The wastewater collected in the Little River Basin is initially expected to be treated by the Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant while future flow rerouting to the Proposed Future Wastewater Treatment plant is planned. The City of Temple future land use map (FLUP) as provided by the City of Temple predicts that the basin will be mostly comprised of Future Land Use Residential and Industrial development as seen in the

LR

Low Density Residential

41%

MR

Medium Density Residential

4%

adjacent table. However, with the completion of the HR High Density Residential 0% ongoing comprehensive master plan, the City of CF Community Facilities 0% Temple Future Land Use Map will likely be modified CO Commercial 9% to include more residential property in this area. IN Industrial 39% 6% Therefore, as in all basins but especially in the case of N/A Not Assigned Future Land Use the Little River Basin, the projected wastewater flows will need to be reassessed at the completion of the Comprehensive Master Plan.

7.15.2 Existing Infrastructure The Little River Basin does not contain any existing wastewater infrastructure.

7.15.3 Proposed Improvements The improvements within the Little River Basin are intended to create a framework and provide a structure for future development. ď ś LR-01 The initial improvement phase within the Little River Basin is proposed improvement LR-01.

This improvement proposes a general alignment for a wastewater trunk spanning the lower half of the basin and a receiving lift station near the City of Temple CCN boundary which will pump flows out of the basin. Initially, the lift station will direct flows to the Friars Creek Lift Station, but flows will be redirected to the Future South Temple Wastewater Treatment Plant at some time in the future. ď ś LR-02, LR-03

Section VII | 97

These improvements are interceptors, which are proposed to bring wastewater flows to the Little River Trunk Sewer (LR-01). Improvement LR-03 will also function as an outfall for inter-basin transfer from the Boggy Creek Lift Station.

Section VII | 98

Section VII | 99

7.16

BOGGY CREEK BASIN

7.16.1 Basin Overview The Boggy Creek Basin is comprised of 2,388 acres in Future Land Use 88% South Temple. The Basin currently has no existing LR Low Density Residential 0% wastewater infrastructure. The majority of the Boggy MR Medium Density Residential 0% Creek Basin exists outside of the current City Limits HR High Density Residential CF Community Facilities 0% but extends to the current CCN boundary.

CO Commercial 12% Approximately 24% of this Basin extends beyond the IN Industrial 0% areas planned for in the City of Temple Future Land N/A Not Assigned Future Land Use 0% Use Map as provided by the City of Temple. The areas outside of the City of Temple Future Land Use Map are considered to be Low Density Residential for the purpose of the Wastewater Master Plan, but, as with all basins, the resulting projected flows will need to be reevaluated when the currently ongoing Comphrensive Master Plan is completed. The table below depicts the Future Land Use used in consideration of projected flows for the current Master Plan.

7.16.2 Existing Infrastructure The Boggy Creek Basin does not contain any existing wastewater infrastructure.

7.16.3 Proposed Improvements The improvements within the Boggy Creek Basin are intended to create a framework and provide a structure for future development. ď ś BC-01 This improvement proposes an initial portion of the future Boggy Creek Trunk Sewer with an interceptor departing from the main trunk heading northwest. The remaining Boggy Creek trunk sewer will head northeast but are included in the cost estimates for BC-02. In addition to the gravity lines included in this improvement, a receiving lift station is also proposed for the basin near the City of Temple Wastewater CCN boundary. The wastewater flows collected at the Boggy Creek lift station will undergo an inter-basin transfer as the flows are pumped into the Little River Basin. ď ś BC-02 This improvement is the continuation of the Boggy Creek Trunk Sewer which began in BC01. The improvement schematically follows Boggy Creek to a point of termination just south of Blackland Road.

Section VII | 100

Section VII | 101

7.17

KNOB CREEK BASIN

7.17.1 Basin Overview The Knob Creek Basin, through the course of the current Master Plan, has undergone a significant expansion and now covers an area of 9,358 acres. The wastewater flow generated in this basin is currently treated by the Doshier-Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant (DFWWTP). A small portion of the basin is planned to be intermediately treated by the Future Land Use Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant LR Low Density Residential 42% 14% (TBWWTP) in order to accommodate expected growth MR Medium Density Residential 1% but ultimately the basin will again eventually utilize HR High Density Residential CF Community Facilities 4% DFWWTP exclusively. Adjacent is a table describing CO Commercial 12% the various percentages of future land use expected in IN Industrial 14% the Knob Creek Basin as is found in the City of

N/A

Not Assigned Future Land Use

13%

Temple Future Land Use Map. 7.17.2 Existing Infrastructure The Doshier-Farms Wastewater Treatment Plant is located centrally in the Knob Creek Basin and as a result, wastewater collection within the basin is comprised of two independent gravity systems.

The gravity system in the upper portion of the basin is complete whereas only a portion of the system downstream of DFWWTP is currently constructed.

The upper portion of the Knob Creek Basin is further divided into two gravity systems which combine immediately upstream of DFWWTP. The western portion is comprised of a central trunk and several interceptors which collect flows and convey them directly to DFWWTP. The eastern portion generally follows the Little Elm Tributary, beginning just north of East Adams, and then proceeds to convey flows through Wilson Park to a large junction box. After entering the junction box, the flow is then conveyed through three parallel siphons, which combine with the main Knob Creek Trunk. This portion of the upper Knob Creek wastewater collection system also receives flows via an inter-basin transfer from the Williamson Creek Basin.

Several lift stations are currently in operation within the upper portion of the Knob Creek Basin, but none within the upper portion are planned to be abandoned. The upper portion of the Knob Creek collection system follows creek lines as is common among gravity sewer collection systems but in several locations it does so with a great enough offset that the use of lift stations to pump sewage uphill to the nearest trunk line is required. The lift stations within the upper portion of the Knob Creek Basin are utilized to overcome topographic barriers often as a result of the original alignment of the trunk sewers and therefore are permanent fixtures for the foreseeable future.

Section VII | 102

The lower portion of the Knob Creek Basin currently drains to the Knob Creek Lift Station along FM 3117. The Knob Creek Lift Station collects flows from the lower portion of Knob Creek and pumps to the Doshier-Farm Wastewater Treatment.

7.17.3 Proposed Improvements The improvements within the Knob Creek Basin are intended to extend the serviceable area of the basin southward to the wastewater CCN boundary, which in the process of doing so, will permit the abandonment of the existing Knob Creek Lift Station. In addition, improvements are intended to increase capacity and rehabilitate gravity wastewater lines in the upper portion of the basin and eliminate the need for the Action World and Proposed Canyon Creek Lift Station in the lower portion of the basin.  KB-01, KB-02, KB-03, KB-04, KB-05 These improvements include the rehabilitation and upsize of the majority of the primary wastewater lines within the upper portion of the Knob Creek Basin. Improvement project KB01 is 100% designed and KB-02 through KB-05 are at 30% design as of the preparation of this report.  KB-06 This improvement provides an intermediary solution to wastewater needs near Old Highway 95 and Barnhardt Road. Included in this improvement is 8,600 LF of gravity wastewater which will be collected at the temporary Canyon Creek Lift Station. Collected wastewater will be pumped from the Canyon Creek Lift Station into the Friars Creek Basin. The Canyon Creek Lift Station will be necessary until the improvement KB-07 is completed.  KB-07 This improvement extends gravity wastewater from the Action World Lift Station to the proposed West Heidenheimer Lift Station proposed to be located near the City of Temple wastewater CCN boundary. The Action World and Canyon Creek Lift Stations will no longer be required with the completion of this improvement. Flows originally collected at these lift stations will drain to the West Heidenheimer Lift Station. The West Heidenheimer Lift Station will pump flows to the DFWWTP.  KB-08 This improvement will relieve the existing Knob Creek Lift Station and convey flows to the West Heidenheimer Lift Station.

Section VII | 103

ď ś KB-09, KB-10 These improvements will collect wastewater flows from areas along two natural drainage pathways draining to Knob Creek. Both of these interceptors will combine flows after boring underneath Highway 36 and ultimately be collected at the proposed West Heidenheimer Lift Station.

Section VII | 104

Section VII | 105

Section VII | 106

Section VII | 107

7.18

WILLIAMSON CREEK BASIN

7.18.1 Basin Overview The Williamson Creek Basin covers an area of 2,381 acres and wastewater flow generated in this basin is treated by the Doshier-Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant (DFWWTP). The Williamson Creek Basin in past master plans was not an independent basin, but instead was a considered part of the Little Elm Creek Basin because of its future Future Land Use 8% codependent relationship on the Proposed Little Elm LR Low Density Residential MR Medium Density Residential 41% Lift Station. The current master plan considers the 1% Williamson Creek Basin as independent of Little Elm HR High Density Residential CF Community Facilities 7% Creek Basin but still proposes a shared future use of CO Commercial 11% the Proposed Little Elm Lift Station. Adjacent is a IN Industrial 16% table describing the various percentages of future land

N/A

Not Assigned Future Land Use

15%

use expected in the Knob Creek Basin as is found in the City of Temple Future Land Use Map. 7.18.2 Existing Infrastructure The primary trunk in Williamson Creek begins near Interstate 35 and drains to the Williamson Creek Lift Station which is located along East Adams Avenue. The Williamson Creek Lift Station makes an inter-basin transfer to the Knob Creek Basin via a 20â&#x20AC;? Force Main which conveys flows to a siphon box with two outgoing parallel siphon wastewater lines.

7.18.3 Proposed Improvements The improvements proposed within the Williamson Creek Basin are intended to rehabilitate and increase capacity of the Williamson Creek Trunk, to extend the serviceable area of the basin southeast, as well as eliminate the need for the Williamson Creek Lift Station, Force Main and Siphons. ď ś WC-01, WC-02 These improvements include the rehabilitation and line size increases for the Williamson Trunk.

Section VII | 108

ď ś WC-03 This improvement extends the Williamson Creek Trunk from the existing Williamson Creek Lift Station to the Proposed Little Elm Lift Station. The Little Elm Lift Station will be a shared used lift station for Williamson and Little Elm Creek Basins. The preliminary opinion of costs for the Little Elm shared use lift station is not included in the WC-03 improvements or in the Little Elm Trunk Sewer extension (LE-03), but instead has two separate opinions of cost representing the proposed two phases of the Little Elm Lift Station. Flows from this lift station will be conveyed to the Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant. The completion of this proposed improvement will increase the serviceable area of the basin to the southeast, as well as remove the need for the Williamson Creek Lift Station, force main and associated siphons.

Section VII | 109

Section VII | 110

Section VII | 111

7.19

LITTLE ELM CREEK BASIN

7.19.1 Basin Overview The Little Elm Creek Basin is the most eastern basin within the City of Temple planning area and covers an area of 8,548 acres. Wastewater generated in this basin is treated by the Doshier-Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant (DFWWTP).The Little Elm Creek Basin in past master plans was not an independent basin but also included Williamson Creek Basin because of its future codependent Future Land Use 41% relationship on the Proposed Little Elm Lift Station. LR Low Density Residential MR Medium Density Residential 4% The current master plan considers the Williamson HR High Density Residential 0% Creek Basin as independent of Little Elm Creek Basin CF Community Facilities 0% but still proposes a shared future use of the Proposed CO Commercial 9% Little Elm Lift Station. Adjacent is a table describing

IN

Industrial

39%

the various percentages of future land use expected in N/A Not Assigned Future Land Use the Little Elm Creek Basin as is found in the City of Temple Future Land Use Map.

6%

7.19.2 Existing Infrastructure The existing wastewater collection system within the Little Elm Creek Basin drains to the Troy Lift Station located east of IH-35. Three branches of gravity collection lines combine at the Troy Lift Station which then pumps the combined flow into the Williamson Creek Trunk Sewer at the top of the Williamson Creek Basin. East of Interstate 35 the Little Elm Creek Basin is largely undeveloped, and no wastewater infrastructure exists east of Lower Troy Road.

7.19.3 Proposed Improvements The proposed improvements in the Little Elm Creek Basin primarily focus on the expansion of serviceable area while creating a framework for future development. ď ś LE-01, LE-02 These improvements extend the serviceable area of the Little Elm Creek Basin to the northwest. The expansion in the serviceable area is planned to extend beyond the City of Temple Wastewater CCN boundary so that its upper limits may reach the top of the Little Elm Creek Basin. ď ś LE-03 This improvement proposes to extend the Little Elm Trunk Sewer through the undeveloped portion of the basin which currently has no existing wastewater infrastructure. This gravity trunk sewer extension will eliminate the need for the Troy Lift Station by conveying its flow to the Proposed Little Elm Lift Station (LE-04 & LE-05).

Section VII | 112

ď ś LE-04, LE-05 These two improvements represent the two proposed phases of the future Little Elm Lift Station. The Little Elm Lift Station will share wastewater loadings from both the Williamson Creek and Little Elm Creek Basins, and therefore has been separated into two individual phases representing the initial lift station and force main construction and the subsequent improvements necessary to accept additional flow.

Section VII | 113

Section VII | 114

Section VII | 115

Section VII | 116

Section VII | 117

SECTION VIII. PHASING PLAN 8.01

GENERAL

Exhibits H and L show the ultimate Water and Wastewater Systems need to serve the projected Year 2070 Population. The proposed water improvements are shown in colors representative of the fiscal year in which the project is expected to begin.

The development of these improvements and their phased scheduling has been done in close cooperation with the City of Temple staff. However, as development and growth occur, improvements may be accelerated or delayed and priorities may be changed based on actual growth trends and development conditions. Although the source and amount of funding is not finalized, the projects have been prioritized by City Staff based on needed upgrades to the system, increased capacity and completion to meet other obligations.

Upcoming TxDOT, Economic Development and Reinvestment Zone projects could also result in reprioritization of projects, so the City must maintain communication with the staff and/or members of each entity. Also, it is imperative that the staff be fully aware of the timelines associated with major construction projects from conceptual phase to completion. These considerations are discussed in detail in Section 9.

Section VIII | 118

SECTION IX. PROJECT DELIVERY 9.01

SELECTION OF ENGINEER

The Texas Engineering Practice Act dates back to 1937 and was established following the tragic explosion at the school in New London, Texas. This law provided for the regulation of the practice of engineering and the creation of the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers in order to protect public health, safety and welfare. Along the same line, the Professional Services Procurement Act was enacted to ensure that governmental entities selected professionals (accounting, architecture, landscape architecture, land surveying, medicine, optometry, professional engineering, real estate appraising, professional nursing) on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications and precludes selection based on competitive bidding.

The selection of an engineer can range from an informal request for a proposal to an extensive process requiring statements of qualification.

Should the project require that the City seek

qualification statements, the process of reviewing, short listing and presentation can take 30-60 days.

Once an engineer is selected, a proposal including scope and fee is provided. If agreeable to all parties and approved by the City Council, a contract for the work is executed.

9.02

Right-of-Way a.)

Right of Entry In order to perform topographic surveys and archeological and environmental investigations rights of entry must be obtained from each property owner along the proposed alignment or for the site. Once the affected property owners are identified a letter describing the project and work to be performed is mailed to the property owner along with a consent form to sign.

The right of way agent will typically follow up with each property owner on a weekly basis until each right of entry is obtained or they are convinced that it will require action by the court system. According to the Legal Staff, there is case law that provides the City the right to conduct topographic surveys on private property so long as there is no disturbance. Many times a letter from the City asserting this right will alleviate the situation and work may proceed. However, if the property owner is not agreeable to test holes for archeological purposes this must be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Should neither of these methods prove successful, the City can file for a temporary restraining order to obtain entry. Again, consideration must be given to the archeological aspect of the investigation.

Section IX | 119

b.)

Easement Acquisition Once the project is designed to the point where easement dimensions are known a metes and bounds description and drawing are provided so that negotiation for the easement may begin. Typically the right of way agent will request donation of the easement and if the property owner is not agreeable then the negotiation process begins.

Negotiations may be as simple as agreeing to service connections and very little compensation. However, an appraisal may be required to establish the fair market value of the property. If both parties are not able to agree on the terms of the transaction, the City has the right to file eminent domain proceedings. These proceedings are a long, expensive process, but sometimes are the only means to obtain the property needed for construction of a project.

c.)

Land Acquisition Land acquisition works much the same way as easement acquisition. The difference is the City acquires the property in fee title. The appraisal process differs slightly in that there is no discounted value in the property owner maintaining title. The negotiation process and eminent domain protocol is the same.

9.03

Permitting

An important aspect of any project that is often misunderstood is the permitting process. The following are some of the more common assessments, investigations, clearances and permits that will be required to complete a project: a.)

Archeological Archeological investigations are required for Texas Historical Commission (THC) clearance. Generally, when a project is in undisturbed terrain an archeological investigation is performed.

b.)

Environmental Phase I Environmental Site Assessments identify areas with a potential need for remediation during construction. Examples would be underground fuel storage tanks, wetlands and endangered species. If an area is designated as a “wetlands”, Streambed remediation may be required by the US Corps of Engineers.

c.)

US Corps of Engineers A Corps of Engineers (COE) permit is required for construction affecting “waters of the U.S.”. This permit process is generally a 6-month to 1-year process and should be initiated as soon as the proposed alignment is confirmed.

Section IX | 120

d.)

Texas Point Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) TPDES coordination is required for construction sites larger than one acre in order to obtain authorization to discharge stormwater under an TPDES construction stormwater permit. Typically, the Contractor is responsible for the stormwater pollution prevention plan and permit as part of their contract.

e.)

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) The most common permits obtained from TxDOT are utility crossings and driveways.

A utility permit is required if a utility line is to be placed in or cross State of Texas Right-of-Way. Permit forms are available online and are to be submitted to the Area Office with plans for the project prior to construction.

Driveway permits are required for any new drive to be installed along a state maintained roadway.

f.)

Bell County A permit from Bell county is required if a utility line is to be placed in or cross a county maintained roadway. Permit forms are available from the County Engineerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office and are to be submitted with plans for the project prior to construction.

Driveway permits are required for any new drive to be installed along a state maintained roadway.

g.)

Railroad Railroad permits are required if a utility line is to be placed in or across a railroad.

The permit forms are available online and are to be submitted to the appropriate railway with plans for the project. Typically, there are fees associated with these permits and some require additional insurance. Permits for crossing the railroad with a utility line can be obtained for a reasonable fee. However, a permit to lay a utility line parallel to the railroad and within the railroad right-of-way can be cost prohibitive.

9.04

Preliminary Engineering

Preliminary engineering services are typically utilized for projects that require advance planning, permitting and/or route selection. This process allows time for analysis and determination of the most economical project. Generally, the findings and recommendations are presented in a report to the City which also contains the Engineerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Opinion of Probable Cost.

This preliminary work allows for a smooth transition into final design of the project.

Section IX | 121

9.05

Final Engineering

Final Engineering on a project consists of producing the plans and specifications required for construction. Projects range from very straightforward with limited permitting to a project that requires multiple disciplines and substantial permitting and right-of-way acquisition. The timeline and cost for engineering services varies based on these same factors.

Typically, the City contracts with a single Consultant for final engineering as well as construction phase services. The contract is presented to council for award and the City issues a Notice to Proceed once the contracts are fully executed. Once the design work is substantially complete, it is submitted for review by the City. When comments are addressed, final plans and specifications are completed, permits and right-of-way are obtained the project moves into the bidding phase.

9.06

Bidding

Once the review process is complete, a bidding schedule is established. Typically, the project is advertised on two consecutive Sundays, followed by a pre-bid conference the following week. A final addendum is issued at the conclusion of the period for questions and bids are opened the following Tuesday or Thursday.

The Engineer reviews the bids and prepares a tabulation of all bids received. After review of the Contractor qualifications, the Engineer provides a letter of recommendation to the Project Manager.

The Project Manager will place the item on the City Council Agenda for Award and if approved, contracts are executed.

9.07

Construction Administration

Most engineering contracts contain construction administration work. Generally the scope includes conducting a pre-construction conference, reviewing submittals, processing pay requests, communicating and coordinating with the contractor, conducting site visits and progress meetings.

Construction Administration services differ from Daily On Site Representation in that site visits are made periodically to insure general conformance with plans and specifications.

At the conclusion of the project there is usually a walk through with City personnel and a â&#x20AC;&#x153;punch listâ&#x20AC;? is generated for completion by the contractor. Once the punch list items are completed to the satisfaction of the Owner, final acceptance is recommended.

Section IX | 122

9.08

On-Site Representation

On-Site Representation may be provided by City Staff or by Engineering Consultant. On-Site Representation normally consist of daily site visits and observation of utility installations, bedding material, compaction, concrete, asphalt, testing, etc. For the benefit of all parties, a daily log documenting construction activity should be maintained.

9.09

Final Acceptance

When the improvements are complete and the final inspection has been performed, the City issues a certificate of acceptance. It is usually as this time that the final payment for the project is processed and released to the Contractor.

9.10

Warranty

The City of Temple contract provides for a One Year Warranty by the Contractor. In some cases, specific items may be warrantied for a longer period so long as it is clearly specified in the contract documents.

Typically, a warranty inspection is conducted during the eleventh anniversary of the project to determine if all items are in working condition and the site is appropriately restored. The contractor is obligated to correct any deficiencies at no cost to the City.

Section IX | 123

EXHIBITS

WATER CCN AREAS TROY TROY PENDLETON WSC

MOFFAT WSC

MORGANS POINT WSC

ETJ

MOFFAT WSC

WA

TER

ETJ

N CC

ARROWHEAD HILL WSC

PENDLETON WSC

ETJ

TEMPLE PARK ESTATES WSC

PLAN NING AR

EA

439 WSC BELTON

LITTLE ELM WSC

DOG RIDGE WSC Tem

BELTON LAKE

ple City

Limit

s

ARMSTRONG WSC BELL CO. WCID #2

Lim

Tem ple City Limit s

its

WATER CCN LINES

OENAVILLE - BELFALLS WSC

ple City

ple City

Lim

WSC Tem

Tem

BELL-MILAM-FALLS WSC

its

MORGANS POINT

WAT

BELTON LAKE

TEMPLE PARK ESTATES

LITTLE ELM WSC

EAST BELL WSC

ETJ

CN

ER C

OEANVILLE-BELFALLS WSC

ARROWHEAD HILL ple ts TemLimi y Cit

AN

PL NG

NI

r

EA

Rive

AR

n

Leo

439 WSC

WA

J

TER

ET BELTON

olan

k ee Cr

Leon

Ri

ve

s

EAST BELL WSC

Templ

e City Limits

r

ETJ

s

pasa Lam

ple C ity L imit

Tem

N

Tem

Rive

ETJ

BELLMILAMFALLS

r

ARMSTRONG WSC

ETJ

WATER CCN ETJ

BELTON

BEL

LC

O. W

CID

0

5000

ETJ

ple C ity L imit

s

Tem

ple

City

Lim

its

CCN

DOG RIDGE WSC

#2

LITTLE RIVER ACADEMY

CITY OF TEMPLE, TEXAS WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN WATER CCN MAP

10000

e

ee k

CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Cr

TEMPLE, TEXAS 76501 Firm Registration No. F-510

Salado

er

Riv

c 2019 Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP P:\Temple\2017\2017-131 Master Plan\CAD\FINAL\2019 Report Ultimate\EXHIBIT A 2019 WATER CCN.dwg

KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP

Littl

ETJ HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

2019

EXHIBIT A

TEMPLE SEWER CCN

BELTON SEWER CCN ETJ

ETJ

TROY SEWER CCN

WCID#2 SEWER CCN

ETJ

ETJ

TROY

DRAINAGE BASINS

BELTON LAKE

Tem ple

MORGANS POINT

EA

City ple

City

PEPPER CREEK

R SE

Limit s

Tem

s

AR

BIRD CREEK

N CC

ETJ

Tem ple

Lim it

s

ER

Tem ple City

Limit

SEW

Lim it

s

CE VI

LEON RIVER City

FRIARS CREEK

ETJ

SEWER CCN

LITTLE RIVER

ple im y L

Cit

KNOB CREEK

EA

AR

its

E VIC

SER

Tem

BELTON LAKE

LITTLE ELM

TEMPLE

BOGGY CREEK

n

Leo

Rive r

CEDAR CREEK

J ET ple C ity L imit

s

Tem p

le C ity

Lim its

WILLIAMSON CREEK

BELTON

Tem

ple C ity

Limit s

Tem

Cr

ee

k

N

olan

Ri

Leon

ET

REA ICE A

ETJ

s

pasa

Lam

J

SERV

Templ e

City L imits

r Rive

ETJ 0

ve

5000

10000

r

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

TJ

E

SEWER CCN

ETJ

BEL

LITTLE RIVER ACADEMY

LC

O. W CID #

2

CITY OF TEMPLE, TEXAS WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN

e Littl

KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Cr

ee

k

WASTEWATER CCN MAP ETJ

TEMPLE, TEXAS 76501 Firm Registration No. F-510

er

Riv

c 2019 Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP P:\Temple\2017\2017-131 Master Plan\CAD\FINAL\2019 Report Ultimate\EXHIBIT B 2019 WASTEWATER CCN.dwg

Salado

2019

EXHIBIT B

LAND USE TYPES: LIGHT DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

COMMERCIAL

INDUSTRIAL

n

Leo

r Rive ONLY

an Nol ee

k

BELTON

Cr

P:\Temple\2017\2017-131 Master Plan\CAD\FINAL\2019 Report Ultimate\EXHIBIT C 2017 Future Land Use.dwg - L-Exh KPA

TEMPLE

WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN

N O R T H

0

3000

CITY OF TEMPLE, TEXAS FUTURE LAND USE KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP

6000

CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEMPLE, TEXAS 76501 Firm Registration No. F-510

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

2019

EXHIBIT C

Treatment Capacity in Million Gallons per Day (MGD)

100

PROJECTED TREATMENT CAPACITY (MGD)

2008 WATER MASTER PLAN PROJECTIONS MAX DAY FACTOR = 2.5

80

60

EXISTING TREATMENT CAPACITY (MGD) (41.0 MGD)

40

SEE NOTE 1 2000 WATER MASTER PLAN PROJECTIONS MAX DAY FACTOR = 2.5

20

RECORD MAXIMUM DAILY DEMAND (2018 - 31.3 MGD)

MAXIMUM DAILY DEMANDS (1998 - 2018)

0 1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2019 WATER MASTER PLAN PROJECTIONS MAX DAY FACTOR = 2.0

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

CITY OF TEMPLE, TEXAS WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED MAXIMUM DAILY DEMAND KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEMPLE, TEXAS 76501 Firm Registration No. F-510

c 2019 Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP P:\Temple\2017\2017-131 Master Plan\CAD\FINAL\2019 Report Ultimate\EXHIBIT D (DAILY DEMAND).dwg

2019

EXHIBIT D

24" PR OP O TO NW SED 3 . TE 0" W MP LE ATER &H L WY INE 317

EX IST ING ELECTRIC

PR O 30" POSE WA D LIN TER E

IST

IST

ING

24"

EX

48"

PRO CLE POSED ARW 1.5 M ELL G

PA RK SID E

EXI STI NG

30"

PRO MEM POSED FILT BRANE RAT ION

AL ION DIT TS I AD OR NT UN F E ME AC SP REAT T

18" ING

EX

NG STI EXI

18"

30"

(2)

ING

30"

EXI

STI

NG

EX

30"

NG

STI

EXI

IST

IST I

NG

48"

EX

IST

ING

18"

18"

IST

R ATE

EX

30"

TIN

IS EX

ING

E

G3

DUS

4"

TY L N

.

EXISTING

18"

24"

R

ING IST

E R LIN WATE

OP

W 6" RA ING 3 EXIST

LO

30"

K

OA

EX

ING EXIST

N O R T H

TE AR CH

EX

IST

ING

EXIS

TIN

G2

EX IST

ECTRIC AD EL OVERHE

LIN

WW

A 6" R

0

100

200

TIN

G

24 "

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

EX

IS

LEGEND

NG 30" EXISTI EX

PROPOSED MEMBRANE PLANT IMPROVEMENTS NG

EXISTING UNDERGROU ND GAS LINE

TI

IS "

18

LEON RIVER

P:\Temple\2017\2017-131 Master Plan\CAD\FINAL\2019 Report Ultimate\Exhibit E (PLANT LAYOUT).dwg - Exhibit E

EXI STI NG

CITY OF TEMPLE PROPERTY

R

YE

CR

C 2019 Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP

PRO CLE POSED ARW 1.5 M ELL G

EX

48"

I ST IN 48" G

ING

EX IST ING

EXISTING

EXISTING

AD OVERHE

OVERHEAD

IC ELECTR

EX

PRO POS ED HIGH SE PUM RVICE P ST ATIO N

PR

OP E

RT YL INE

CITY OF TEMPLE, TEXAS WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN MEMBRANE PLANT LAYOUT KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEMPLE, TEXAS 76501 Firm Registration No. F-510

2019 100'

EXHIBIT E

MOFFAT

& BN SF

Tem

ple City

Limit s

920 PRESSURE PLANE

Draughon-Miller Regional Airport

PRESSURE PLANES:

Tem p

le C ity

Lim its

MORGAN'S POINT

ad ilro Ra

BELTON LAKE

720 PLANE

CITY OF TEMPLE

785 PRESSURE PLANE

835 PRESSURE PLANE

785 PLANE

835 PLANE

ts

i Lim

920 PLANE

Adam

s A venu e

n

Leo

720 PRESSURE PLANE

876 PLANE

y Cit

876 PRESSURE PLANE

ple Tem

BELTON LAKE

t

r Rive

Aven u

31st

Stree

e H

ek

ple C ity L imit

s

oad

wn

oad ailr

FR

eto or g Ge

ilr Ra

&S

Cr e

Tem

BN

n Nola

Tem ple C ity

Limit

s

Tem

ple City

5th

Lim

its

Stree

t

BELTON

Temple

City L imits

785 PRESSURE PLANE

876 PRESSURE PLANE

NOT TO SCALE

CITY OF TEMPLE, TEXAS WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN EXISTING PRESSURE PLANES KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS

c 2019 Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP P:\Temple\2017\2017-131 Master Plan\CAD\FINAL\2019 Report Ultimate\EXHIBIT F 2019 (Exist Press Plane).dwg

LITTLE RIVER ACADEMY

TEMPLE, TEXAS 76501 Firm Registration No. F-510

2019

EXHIBIT F

MOFFAT

CC

N

& BN SF

Tem

ple City

Limit s

920 PRESSURE PLANE

Draughon-Miller Regional Airport

PRESSURE PLANES:

Tem p

le C ity Lim it

s

MORGAN'S POINT

ad ilro Ra

BELTON LAKE

720 PLANE

835 PRESSURE PLANE

CITY OF TEMPLE

785 PLANE CCN

785 PRESSURE PLANE

835 PLANE le

876 PLANE

ts

imi y L

Cit

876 PRESSURE PLANE

p Tem

BELTON LAKE

920 PLANE

Adam

s A venu e

n

Leo t

r Rive

Aven u

31st

Stree

e H

ple City

5th

Lim

its

Stree

t

720 PRESSURE PLANE

Limit

s

Tem

BELTON

k

s

oad

wn

oad

ailr

Temple

785 PRESSURE PLANE

FR

eto or g Ge

ilr Ra

&S

Cr ee

ple C ity L imit

BN

n Nola

Tem ple

City

Tem

City L imits

NOT TO SCALE CCN

CITY OF TEMPLE, TEXAS ETJ

WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN PROPOSED PRESSURE PLANES KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS

c 2019 Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP P:\Temple\2017\2017-131 Master Plan\CAD\FINAL\2019 Report Ultimate\EXHIBIT G 2019 (Fut Press Plane).dwg

LITTLE RIVER ACADEMY

TEMPLE, TEXAS 76501 Firm Registration No. F-510

2019

EXHIBIT G

Clare nce R

12"

PLANNING AREA

Belton Lake

To Troy

oad

12"

BN

8"

12"

12"

&S

8"

FR

High

8"

8"

Lowe r Tr oy R oad

12" Gun Club Road

12"

8"

12"

12 "

12"

12 "

8"

8"

8" 18"

8"

6"

12"

18 "

12"

8"

18"

12"

12"

24"

12"

12"

36"

18"

12"

31st

12"

t

12"

Stree

8"

12"

ts Limi City ple

n

8"

Tem

Hoga

12"

8"

12"

t Stree

12" 876 PRESSURE PLANE

8"

8"

8"

8"

12"

Old

12" e Ro ad Rang

Cent er

nt

12"

12"

PROPOSED G.S.T. (2.0 M.G.)

12"

ardt

8"

Nuge

Road

12"

12"

PROPOSED HWY 317 835/785 P.S.

Belton Lake

8"

12"

Wen dland

8"

"

30"

30"

Road ley

12

8"

8"

18" PROPOSED E.S.T. 920 (1.5 M.G.)

12"

Cear

24"

24"

12 "

Eber h

30"

24"

12" 12"

Pea

12"

8"

24"

12"

d Ol

12"

12"

12 "

Blvd.

w Ho

12"

8"

785 PRESSURE PLANE

trial

d ar

Ridg e

12"

10"

10"

Indus

8"

Ro ad

Road

Road

8"

12"

10"

s Mc Celve y

Road

" 12

Drive

18"

24"

12"

12"

12"

12"

Drive

Luciu

Draughon-Miller Regional Airport

er R oad

8"

Wilso nart

Prair

ie V iew

ter

way

8"

Road

12"

8"

24 "

" 18

24" Pea Ridg e R oad

12"

8"

8"

Berg

Pega sus Drive

8"

8"

8"

ple C ity L imits Tem

10"

8"

ister

920 PRESSURE PLANE

2"

oad

Armb r

12"

12"

ne R

24"

10"

PROPOSED PC TANK 1.0 M.G.

McLa

PLANNING AREA

12"

10"

"

Road

City Lim its

12"

8" 1

24

Temple

18"

To n's rga Mo int Po ort s Re

10"

PROPOSED McLANE 920 P.S.

8"

8"

Moor es M ill

12"

ple C ity L imits

12"

To M or gan Poin 's Res t ort

10"

Tem

12"

8"

81

835 12" PRESSURE PLANE

12"

Brew s

12"

12"

12"

oad ailr

12"

MKT Railro ad

8"

8"

12"

12"

12" 12"

8"

hite Bobw

12"

12"

12" 8" 8"

12"

12"

12"

12"

8"

8"

8"

8"

8"

Little

T Rive o r/

12"

8" 8"

12"

8"

12"

12" 12"

P:\Temple\2017\2017-131 Master Plan\CAD\FINAL\2019 Report Ultimate\Exhibit H (WL 2019).dwg

Tem pl

8"

Leon

EXHIBIT H

12"

12"

12"

12"

12"

8"

f Ro ad Bluf rick

12"

er

WATER MASTER PLAN

PLANNING AREA

12"

12"

PLANNING AREA

12"

8"

12"

Hart

12"

12"

12"

Riv

2019

12"

Limit s

12"

12"

12"

12"

8"

e Ci ty

e Ci ty Li mits

16" Tem pl

12"

12"

le C ity L imits

16"

12"

24" PROPOSED 785/876 P.S.

12"

24" PROPOSED G.S.T. (2.0 M.G.)

30"

Tem p

12"

8"

8"

16"

Road

ad ailro

12"

12"

12"

FR &S

30"

720 PRESSURE PLANE

hardt

Road

PROPOSED E.S.T. 720 (1.5 M.G.)

30"

12"

Barn

BN

ad ailro R n tow rge o e G

12"

Road

12"

24"

1. ALL UNLABELED WATER LINES ARE 8" IN DIAMETER. LINES SMALLER THAN 6" ARE TYPICALLY NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.

PROPOSED E.S.T. 785 (1.0 M.G.)

ailro ad

NOTES:

24"

t Stree

rs D airy

16"

24"

its

24"

City

Lim

Wate

PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE

30"

P.R.V.

12"

24"

MILLION GALLONS

Black land

UP R

M.G.

Sleepy Hollow

rive

12"

n Cr eek Drive

5th

HIGH SERVICE PUMP STATION

24"

12"

ine D

od R oad

10"

H.S.P.

Cany o

Lorra

Rd.

ndwo

12"

GROUND STORAGE TANK

Marla

14"

G.S.T.

ple

ELEVATED STORAGE TANK

36 "

Tem

E.S.T.

12" Case

36"

NORMALLY CLOSED SEPARATION VALVE

18"

ad Rail ro

Tower Road

ELEVATED STORAGE TANK PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE

12"

12"

12"

12"

"

ory R

12"

Hick

Road

12"

Shal

36

low

8"

EXISTING ELEVATED STORAGE TANK

8"

12"

EXISTING PUMP STATION

Ford

PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY

oad

its

Lim ity C ple Tem ive Dr k Oa r e art Ch

CITY LIMITS

PUMP STATION

785 PRESSURE PLANE

MKT

920 PRESSURE PLANE

EXISTING CCN

P.S.

H

12"

ONLY

ive

8"

12"

1st

12"

ay Dr

ue

16"

Midw

31st

"

8"

Aven

Stree t

Stree t

36"

12

876 PRESSURE PLANE

PUMP STATION

8"

2

TO BE ABANDONED EXISTING ETJ

12"

18"

18"

4"

"

FY 2040 - 2070

8" 12"

le Cit y Lim its

12

835 PRESSURE PLANE

FY 2030 - 2040

ey R

oad

ple C ity L imits Pea Ridg e R oad

FY 2024 - 2025

10"

8"

Tem

785 PRESSURE PLANE

FY 2025 - 2030

8"

ue

Kegl

12"

FY 2019 - 2021

Aven

10"

720 PRESSURE PLANE

FY 2022 - 2023

12" Temp

12"

12"

12"

Adam s

12"

36"

LEGEND: EXISTING WATER LINE

12"

12"

ky

12"

"

PLANNING AREA

Lave ndus

18"

12

r

ve

Ri

36"

12"

8"

Old Wac o R oad

on

Le

Pois

on O ak

12"

12"

KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEMPLE, TEXAS 76501 Acad

emy

LEGEND EXISTING WATERLINE RANGE RD. TANK (920) 1.0 MG FM 2483 TANK (835) 1.0 MG

720 PRESSURE PLANE AIRPORT TANK (785) 1.5 MG

APACHE TANK (785) 0.50 MG

PEPPER CREEK TANK (835) 1.0 MG

12" / 18"

10"

1760 gpm / 3960 gpm

1230 gpm

12" / 18"

12" 1760 gpm

12" / 14"

TAYLOR RD. TANK (876) 1.0 MG

14"

WEST PARK PUMP STATION (2920 gpm)

18" 2400 gpm

18"

3960 gpm

3960 gpm

NUGENT TANK (876) 0.50 MG

30"

12"

1760 gpm

25th STREET TANK (876) 1.0 MG

12" / 14"

30"

7050 gpm

24" 18"

LOOP 363 PUMP STATION (6750 gpm)

720 TANK (720) 1.0 MG 11020 gpm

MEMBRANE PLANT

PROPOSED HIGHWAY 317 GROUND STORAGE 2.0 MG

3960 gpm

36"

16000 gpm

16" / 20"

11020 gpm

12" 1760 gpm 12" / 14"

14"

1760 gpm / 2400 gpm

2400 gpm

WATER TREATMENT PLANT

24" 18" & 30"

18" & 27"

18" & 30" 7050 gpm

18"

3960 gpm & 8920 gpm

3960 gpm

3960 gpm & 11020 gpm

3960 gpm & 11020 gpm

AVENUE G GROUND STORAGE (876) 7.0 MG

AVE. G PUMP STATION (9600 gpm) 20" / 14"

14"

TO LITTLE RIVER ACADEMY

4900 gpm / 2400 gpm

12"

1760 gpm

2400 gpm

CLEARWELL STORAGE 5.6 MG

8" / 12"

FM 2305 PUMP STATION (1800 gpm)

18"

3130 gpm / 4900 gpm

3960 gpm

PROPOSED HIGHWAY 317 PUMP STATION (2500 gpm to 835) (4500 gpm to 785)

1760 gpm / 2400 gpm

1760 gpm / 2400 gpm

780 gpm / 1760 gpm

18" / 24"

2400 gpm / 3120 gpm

SCOTT TANK (785) 1.0 MG

3960 gpm / 7050 gpm

14" / 16"

876 PRESSURE PLANE 920 PRESSURE PLANE

WEST PARK TANK (876) 1.0 MG AIRPORT PUMP STATION (2500 gpm)

835 PRESSURE PLANE

TO TROY

1760 gpm / 3960 gpm

18" / 24"

785 PRESSURE PLANE OLD HOWARD RD. PUMP STATION (2000 gpm)

3960 gpm / 7050 gpm

TO MORGAN'S POINT RESORT

C 2019 Kasberg, Patrick & Assocates, LP P:\Temple\2017\2017-131 Master Plan\CAD\FINAL\2019 Report Ultimate\EXHIBIT I (2019 SCHEMATIC).dwg Plotted By: JCHANDLER Plot Date: Jun 14, 2019 - 10:52am

PROPOSED WATERLINE

PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE

CITY OF TEMPLE, TEXAS

24"

WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN

7050 gpm

TO SOUTHWEST TEMPLE

Note: Flow Rates shown represent a velocity of 5 feet per second and are shown for general information purposes only.

PROPOSED SOUTH TEMPLE GROUND STORAGE 2.0 MG

PROPOSED SOUTH TEMPLE PUMP STATION (3500 gpm to 876) (3500 gpm to 785)

WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SCHEMATIC KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEMPLE, TEXAS 76501 Firm Registration No. F-510

2019

EXHIBIT I

CEDAR CREEK BASIN

NOT TO SCALE

LITTLE ELM BASIN CC N

CE

EA R A

I RV E S

PEPPER CREEK BASIN

WILLIAMSON CREEK BASIN

REA

EA

VIC

SER

LEON RIVER BASIN

KNOB CREEK BASIN BIRD CREEK BASIN

FRIARS CREEK BASIN

BOGGY CREEK BASIN

CITY OF TEMPLE, TEXAS SERVIC

LITTLE RIVER BASIN

E AREA

WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN WASTEWATER BASIN MAP KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEMPLE, TEXAS 76501 Firm Registration No. F-510

c 19 Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP P:\Temple\2017\2017-131 Master Plan\CAD\FINAL\2019 Report Ultimate\EXHIBIT J (WW BASIN).dwg

2019

EXHIBIT J

LE 01 CC 04

Belton Lake

LE 06 CC 03 LE 02

LE 07

LE 03 LE 05 H 01 LE 08

CC

LE 04

EA 01 CC 02

N

PC 01 CC 01

H 02

LE 09

LE 10

EA 02

AREA

ICE ERV S

A

LE 18

LO 08

WT 20

EA 06

WA 07

PC 09

LO 09

WT 10

WT 21

WT 12 WT 11

PC 12

WT 18 LO 11

Proposed Lakewood Ranch Lift Station

WF 03

PC 16

E 02

PC 22

PC 17 PC 25 PC 26

LO 14

WT 27

WC 07

PC 27

PC 29 PC 36

WC 10

E 04

PC 23

LO 18

E 03

WS 03

PC 20

PC 28

WS 04

WC 11

PC 30 E 08

E 07

PC 33

LE 20 E 12

E 06 LO 19

E 05

LO 16

WB 02

ON

LE ER RIV

Pea Ridge Lift Station (TBA)

E 11

PC 31

LO 20

LP 01

E 10

E 09

E 15

E 21 FC 01 E 19

E 14 PC 43

WS 10

LP 02

PC 42

WS 07

LO 22

BOGGY CREEK

E 13

E 16

E 18

PC 48

SE 10

Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant (DFWWTP)

SE 02

ARE A

LO 24

EXISTING ETJ

LE 22

A

TO BE ABANDONED

WS 14

PC 46

SE 08

EXISTING CCN

SE 03

FC 04

FH 03

CITY LIMITS

FH 04

LO 25

SE 11 SW 01

TP

SERVICE

Cliffs Lift Station (TBA)

W

WS 15

Hickory Lift Station (TBA)

FH 06

FH 07

FC 05

TB

Leon River Lift Station

AR EA

Steeple Chase Lift Station

SE 05

SE 04 SW 02

FC 10 FH 08

SE 12

FC 06

FH 10

Shallowford Lift Station

Action World Lift Station (TBA)

SE 09

FH 05

PC 49

W

LO 26

Proposed Little Elm Lift Station

S

ARE

WS 13 EXISTING TRUNK SEWER AND MANHOLE EXISTING LIFT STATION AND FM FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

TP

VIC E

FC 03 FH 02

LEGEND:

WC 15 SE 01

30th St. Lift Station

ERV ICE

PC 47

WB 04

PS ER

WS 12

PC 45

LO 23

FRIARS CREEK

FH 01

WS 11

LE 21

Service Center Lift Station

E 26

E 23

DFW W

WILLIAMSON CREEK

FC 02

55th St. Lift Station

WT

KNOB CREEK

E 17 TBW

BIRD CREEK

E 25

Lift Station

PC 44 Tranum Lift Station

Wilson Park E 24 Lift Station

E 20 40th St.

WS 09 PC 41

CEDAR CREEK

WC 14

Lift Station

WS 08

PC 40

Williamson Creek Lift Station (TBA)

E 22 Little Flock

PC 32

DRAINAGE BASINS

WC 13

WS 06

PC 35

PC 39

PC 38

LO 21

WC 12

19th St. Lift Station

WS 05

PC 34

WB 03

LITTLE RIVER

WC 09

WS 02

PC 37

PEPPER CREEK

LE 19

WC 06

LO 13

LO 15 WB 01

WC 04 (W-WWL)

PC 21

PC 24

WT 28 Oak Hills Lift Station (TBA)

PC 18

PC 19

LO 12

WT 26

LO 17

WC 05

WC 08

WT 25

QU 04

WC 03 WC 02 (W-WWL)

PC 15

WA 08

WT 23 WT 24

QU 03

PC 10

E 01

LO 10

WT 22 QU 01

WC 01 (E-WWL)

WS 01

WT 19

FM 2305 Lift Station

PC 11

PC 13

PC 14

Belton Lake

LITTLE ELM

ARE

WT 17

QU 02

LEON RIVER

LE 13

LE 16 WT 14

WT 07 North Cliff Lift Station

VICE

WT 08

LE 15

EA 05

WF 02

FM 2271 Lift Station

SER

LO 06

WTP

WT 06

WT 05

EA 04

WA 06

PC 08

WT 09 WT 04

PC 06 LE 14

WF 01

WT 16

DFW

WT 01

PC 07

LO 04

LE 17

WA 02

LO 07

WT 15

WT 13

WT 03

WA 05

A RE

LO 02

P TBWWT

WT 02 Lago Terra Lift Station

LO 03

EA

Oaks at Lakewood Lift Station

LO 05

AR

PC 04

PC 05

Troy Lift Station (TBA)

LE 12

EA

E VIC

WA 04

LO 01

VIC

PC 03

H 04

ER

R SE

WA 03

S TP

PC 02

EA 03

TP WW

WA 01

WW DF

TB

H 03

LE 11

SE 16

SW 03 FH 09 Timber Ridge Lift Station

Knob Creek Lift Station (TBA)

FC 11

Proposed Forest Hills Lift Station

SW 04

FC 07 FH 11

Proposed Canyon Creek Lift Station (TBA)

BC 01

FC 09

SE 21 SE 17

SE 06

SE 13

Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant (TBWWTP)

SE 18

FC 08

FC 13

FC 12

Friars Creek Lift Station (TBA)

FC 14

BC 04

HB 01 TV 02 Valley Ranch Lift Station

SE 22

SE 07 Proposed Hartrick Bluff Lift Station (TBA)

BC 02 SE 14

TV 01

LR 01 LR 03

TV 03 TV 05

SE 19

TV 08

SE 23

BC 03 BC 05

TV 06

SE 15 TV 04

TV 07

DRAINAGE SUB-BASIN MAP

LR 04 SE 25

LR 02

Proposed West Heidenheimer Lift Station

General Location of Future Treatment Plant

BC 06 LR 06 LR 07

Proposed Little River Lift Station Phase I

EXHIBIT K P:\Temple\2017\2017-131 Master Plan\CAD\FINAL\2019 Report Ultimate\EXHIBIT K 2019 (Sub Basins).dwg PLOTTED: 08-29-19

RIVER

SE 24

TV 09 Proposed Taylors Valley Lift Station

LEON

SE 20

LR 05

Proposed Little River Lift Station Phase II

BY: JAC

LR 08

Proposed Boggy Creek Lift Station

KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEMPLE, TEXAS 76501

Belton Lake

BN

8" PC -08

" -0 8

Ou ter

MK T

Old High way

Stree t Troy

Drive

hard t

Road

12/12

Gun

Club

"→18 /12"

Pega sus Drive

et er St re Cent

ley

Road

Road

Luciu

Rang e

Road

s Mc Celve y

nd R oad Wen dla

01

18"

Eber

12"→

WC-

24" 15"→ 18"→ 24" 5 0 PCPC06

18" →2 7" PC -05

Cear

Limi

01

PC-

30"→

36"

10"→15" LO-06 06

18"

LO-

15"→

t Stree

01

36"

31st

PC-

4"

01

KB-

→2 4" KB01

18"

03

0"

t

1st

KB-0 7 30"-

Stree

t

Stree 31st

01

PC-

39" 30"→

27"→ BD-030" 3

Road Ford low

Road

6" FM

ity L imits

KB-0 7

r Ro ad UP R

15"- KB-09

8" LR-02

8" LR-03

1 LR 8" -0 1

LR 18" -0 3

2

"

-0

LR

12

12"

Little

ad ailro

8" LR-0 2

8" LR-0 2

f Ro ad Bluf rick Hart

R-04

07

24"L

-07 KB

"

24

B-

-K

LR-01

"-

M

"F

8" FM

21

FC 8" -0 2

" 24

FC-01

18

24" FM

07

8 FC " -02

d

15"

KB-

33" FC-01

a ailro

FR

07

-10

KB

M BC-0 1

24" 08 KBProposed West Heidenheimer Lift Station

"

Proposed Little River Lift Station Phase II LR-04

LR-01

16" F

18

R-04

Proposed Little River Lift Station Phase I

"

18

-01

01

BC

M- L

" 12

02

21" F

- LR-

15" 01 LR-

8" FM

12"

BC-

"

-02

General Location of Future Treatment Plant

LR

RIVER

1 LR 2" -0 2 12" 1 LR-0

LEON

1 BC 5" -0 1 2 BC 0" -0 1

10

10" LR-02

2019

Proposed Taylors Valley Lift Station 36"- F C-01

-01

8" FC-01

8"

01

KB

"

FC

Valley Ranch Lift Station

10" BC-02

Proposed Hartrick Bluff Lift Station (TBA)

BC

33

&S

Rive

t

BN

R own

Friars Creek Lift Station (TBA)

Temple-Belton Wastewater Treatment Plant (TBWWTP)

10" 12"

M- B D-03

-06

KB-07

rge

Knob Creek Lift Station (TBA)

- KB

Proposed Canyon Creek Lift Station (TBA)

ple C

Geo

B-06 8" 12"

Tem

8" BC-02

24" -01 BD

16" F

e Ci ty Li mits

10"- K

Bobw hite

Timber Ridge Lift Station

Temp l

n Pa

rs D airy Road

10" KB09

cific

Stree t

Wate

Road

21" - KB -08

18"

hardt

-07

-01 BD " 8

2 BD 1" -0 1

Barn

-08

48"

Road

- KB

Black land

FM

Steeple Chase Lift Station

BD-01 8"

8"

30"→

on C reek Drive

Hickory Lift Station (TBA)

Unio

Cliffs Lift le C ity L imits Station (TBA)

BD -01

-01

Temp

d Ro ad

Cany

5th

48" PC

36" →

-02 D B

Rail ro

ad

Shal

LE-04 LE-05

rive

21" - KB

8" 02 PC-

Proposed Little Elm Lift Station

24"

TP

FM

ine D

Action World Lift Station (TBA)

KB-07A

W

"

12" PC-0 2

BD-

→3 18"

02

PC-

→2

PC01

30"→

39"

10" PC-0 3

Kegl

27"→36" PC-01

ey R

oad

OUT ER L

e R oad

18"

OOP

5

27" 24"→

LO-0

8"

C-03

Doshier Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant (DFWWTP)

10"

W

42

"→

30

ndwo o

KB-06

TB

"→

K

" 33 03 LE

Ridg

" 36 3 0 C-

W

27

Pea

" 36 "→ 2 27 0 " CW

02

s

36

C-

Limit

3

"→

2"

3 LO 0" -0 Tem 2 ple City

27"

LE-0

27 W

30" LO-0 2

ts

"

30"

KB-1 0

Pea Road Ridg e Pea

Lowe r

10

PC

Lo op

2 PC 4" -0 7

e R oad Ridg

12" LO-1 0 15" LO 06

10"→ 8" LO09

21"→

City

04

ple Tem

LO-

"

03

8"

24

LE

36

"→ 36"W

Lorra

ad ailro

BY: JAC

02

"

42

Proposed Forest Hills Lift Station

P:\Temple\2017\2017-131 Master Plan\CAD\FINAL\2019 Report Ultimate\EXHIBIT L 2019 WASTEWATER MASTER.dwg PLOTTED: 08-29-19

24

Marla

Shallowford Lift Station

EXHIBIT L

42"

Service Center Lift Station

Towe r

42"→ 48"

WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN

/1 24 "→ 3 /12 -0 24 KB 2"

AR EA

01 B-

30th St. Lift Station

8"

SERVICE

27"→

36"

Williamson Creek Lift Station (TBA)

Wilson Park Station AvLift enue H

" 42

2

24"→

s A venu e Little Flock Lift Station

4"→

KB-0 1

-06

"→ 39 LO " -0 1 Leon River Lift Station

ive

KB

36

C-

18" PC02

W

10"

A

S

ARE

AREA

VICE

ICE ERV

SER

6" FM LO-0 8

WTP

21"→36"

O

/1 24 "→ 3 /12 -0 15 KB

ay Dr

55th St. Lift Station

Adam

40th St. Lift Station

" 36 → 1 7" -0 KB

er

6" 2 0" 21"→3

C

rt ha

Dr

→3

Midw

BD-03

/12"

ky

EA REA

CITY LIMITS

" 39 "→ 1 36 -0 LO

EXISTING CCN

01

Tranum Lift Station

"

ARE A

TO BE ABANDONED EXISTING ETJ

4

18"→30

ive

ak

15/12

"→18

24"

KB-0

Limit s

its Lim City

ple

12"→ KB-012" 3

Lave ndus

VIC E

3

Tem

LEGEND: EXISTING TRUNK SEWER AND MANHOLE EXISTING LIFT STATION AND FM FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

18 4 "→ 12 KB " 15"→ -04 18 12" "→ 2 4 18 " →18 KB-0 " " 5 KB-0 5 24"→

DFW

LO-0

FRIARS CREEK

KB-0

KB-

City

12"

21"

Pea Ridge Lift Station (TBA)

CEDAR CREEK

WILLIAMSON CREEK

WC-02

04

Tem ple

12"→

WT TBW PS ER W TP SER VIC

KNOB CREEK

12" 1 2"→ 12" 1 2 5"→1 KB-0 8" 2 KB-0 2

" 24 "→ 02 21 KB-

8" PC-0 3

15"-

BIRD CREEK

" 24 → 5" /1 "15 18 "→ 01 /15 CW

LITTLE RIVER

10"→

19th St. Lift Station

LO-

BOGGY CREEK

DFW

15

15" -03

LO

ER RIV

PEPPER CREEK

LITTLE ELM

"

4

-0 ON

LE

LEON RIVER

18"→ 21" WC -01 18"→30" WC-02

6" 24"→3 PC-01

"

12

LO

Oak

DRAINAGE BASINS

nt

"

Oak Hills Lift Station (TBA)

12"-

Nuge

KB-0

15"→ 21" LO-05

Pois on

10" 06 PC-

10"→10

21 "→

15

05

Hoga n

8" 06 PC-

24 "

12" PC06

LE-03

12" PC-06

KB-02

15"→18" LO-05

LO

Belton Lake

Blvd.

N

1

trial

8"→10" KB-02

12"→ 18" LO-0 7

Proposed Lakewood Ranch Lift Station

"

12"→15"

PC-04

8" -09 LO

North Cliff Lift Station

er R oad

24"

A RE

EA

Indus

FM 2271 Lift Station

12"→ 18" LO-0 7

EA

AR

10"→ 15" PC-0 4

Troy Lift Station (TBA)

VIC

" 15 "→ 6 10 -0

Limit s

FM 2305 Lift Station

E VIC

ie V iew Road

LO

e Ci ty

R SE

Prair

P TBWWT Tem pl

Lago Terra Lift Station

" 12 8"→ -04 PC

Oaks at Lakewood Lift Station

Drive

ER

nart

Road

es M ill Ro ad

S TP

TP WW

PC

rister

Moor

-0

oad

Wilso

15" → " 10 -04 PC

15

LE

ne R

-07

TB

Draughon-Miller Municipal Airport

Berg

WW DF

McLa

" 21

Armb

12 "

CC

" 12 1 -0 LE

" 12 7 -0 PC

Railro ad

81

Br e w ster

12" 02 LE-

ple C ity L imits

10"

2" o ad 1 1 ailr -0 FR LE

Tem

LE-02

&S

Tem ple C ityLi mits

16" F

M BC-0 1 Proposed Boggy Creek Lift Station

KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEMPLE, TEXAS 76501