Maine Water Engineering Report Volume II

COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN Volume II –

Sustainable Water System Plan

The Maine Water Company Biddeford & Saco Division January 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME II – SUSTAINABLE WATER SYSTEM PLAN SECTION

PAGE NO.

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... ES-1 1.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1-7

2.

MID-TERM & LONG-TERM TREATMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS................................... 2-1 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.8 2.2.9 2.2.10 2.2.11 2.2.12 2.3

3.

MID-TERM & LONG-TERM DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 3-1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2

4.

Mid-Term Recommendations.................................................................................................... 2-1 Long-Term Recommendations.................................................................................................. 2-6 Filter Valve Replacement.......................................................................................................... 2-7 Lab and Administration Spaces................................................................................................. 2-7 Facility-Wide HVAC .................................................................................................................. 2-7 Facility-Wide Electrical.............................................................................................................. 2-7 Facility-Wide Flood Proofing ..................................................................................................... 2-8 Facility-Wide Roof Replacement ............................................................................................... 2-8 Intake/Headworks..................................................................................................................... 2-8 Replace Backwash Tank .......................................................................................................... 2-8 Add Third Sedimentation Basin................................................................................................. 2-8 Yard Piping .............................................................................................................................. 2-8 Lagoon System Waste Solids Removal..................................................................................... 2-8 Wetland Compensation ............................................................................................................ 2-9 Summary of Mid-Term and Long-Term Treatment Recommendations........................................ 2-9 Mid-Term Recommendations – Water Distribution System......................................................... 3-1 Long Term Recommendations – Water Distribution System Study ............................................. 3-2 Interconnection with Portland Water District .............................................................................. 3-4 Macro Modeling........................................................................................................................ 3-8 Model Inputs .......................................................................................................................... 3-10 Model Results ........................................................................................................................ 3-12

NEW TREATMENT FACILITY OPTIONS .......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7

PRODUCTION Capacity Options .............................................................................................. 4-1 Capacity for Biddeford and Saco............................................................................................... 4-1 Additional Capacity for Kittery and KKW’s Surface Water Demands........................................... 4-1 Additional Capacity for KKW Wells, YWD and to Supplement PWD ........................................... 4-2 Summary of Capacity Options................................................................................................... 4-2 Site Review.............................................................................................................................. 4-3 Topography.............................................................................................................................. 4-4 Floodplain ................................................................................................................................ 4-5 Wetlands.................................................................................................................................. 4-7 Soils 4-9 Habitats ................................................................................................................................. 4-10 Easements............................................................................................................................. 4-11 Zoning Restrictions................................................................................................................. 4-11

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

i

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

4.2.8 4.2.9 4.2.10 4.2.10.1 4.2.10.2 4.2.10.3 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.1.1 4.3.1.2 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.4

5.

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.5

6.

Site Access ............................................................................................................................ 4-12 Summary of Site Constraints .................................................................................................. 4-13 Planning Schematics .............................................................................................................. 4-13 Northwest Quadrant of the Treatment Facility Parcel ............................................................... 4-14 Southwest Quadrant of the Treatment Facility Parcel............................................................... 4-14 Adjacent to Reservoir ............................................................................................................. 4-15 Treatment Technologies ......................................................................................................... 4-15 Conventional Filtration ............................................................................................................ 4-15 Traditional Layout................................................................................................................... 4-15 Packaged Layout.................................................................................................................... 4-16 Direct Filtration & Pressure Filters........................................................................................... 4-16 Membrane Treatment ............................................................................................................. 4-17 Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 4-17 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method and Assumptions.................................................................... 5-1 Capital Investments .................................................................................................................. 5-2 Financing Costs ....................................................................................................................... 5-2 Operations and Maintenance Costs .......................................................................................... 5-2 Staffing Costs........................................................................................................................... 5-3 Electrical Costs ........................................................................................................................ 5-3 Heating Costs........................................................................................................................... 5-3 Chemical Costs ........................................................................................................................ 5-3 Remaining Operations & Maintenance Costs............................................................................. 5-3 Summary of O&M Annual Costs................................................................................................ 5-3 LCCA Results........................................................................................................................... 5-4

SUMAMRY OF COSTS...................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Treatment Facility Rehabilitation Costs Summary...................................................................... 6-1 Distribution System Renewal Costs Summary ........................................................................... 6-1 New Treatment Facility Costs Summary.................................................................................... 6-1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Summary............................................................................................ 6-2

LIST OF TABLES TABLE

PAGE NO.

Table ES-1: Treatment Facility Recommendations Costs ..................................................................................... 1-1 Table ES-2: Distribution System Mid-Term and Long-Term Recommendations Costs........................................... 1-2 Table ES-3: New Treatment Facility Planning Level Costs – Existing Site............................................................. 1-4 Table ES-4: New Treatment Facility Planning Level Costs – Alternate Site ........................................................... 1-4 Table ES-5: Life Cycle Cost Analysis Assumptions .............................................................................................. 1-5 Table ES-6: Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ...................................................................................................... 1-5 Table 2-1: Mid-Term Treatment System Recommendations ................................................................................. 2-2 Table 2-2: Long-Term Treatment System Recommendations ............................................................................... 2-6 Table 2-3: Treatment Recommendations Total Costs........................................................................................... 2-9 The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

ii

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Table 3-1: Mid-Term Recommendations – Water Distribution System................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-2: Long-Term Recommendations – Water Distribution System................................................................. 3-6 Table 3-3: Interconnection with Portland Water District ........................................................................................ 3-7 Table 3-4: Data Adjustment Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-5: Buried No Longer Tool Inputs ........................................................................................................... 3-11 Table 4-1: New Treatment Facility Capacity Options ............................................................................................ 4-3 Table 4-2: Development Constraints.................................................................................................................. 4-13 Table 4-3: New Treatment Facility Capacity Options .......................................................................................... 4-14 Table 4-4: New Treatment Facility Options and Design Criteria .......................................................................... 4-17 Table 4-5: New Treatment Facility Planning Level Costs – Existing Site ............................................................. 4-18 Table 4-6: New Treatment Facility Planning Level Costs – Alternate Site............................................................ 4-20 Table 5-1: Life Cycle Cost Analysis Assumptions................................................................................................. 5-1 Table 5-2: Annual O&M Cost Assumptions – 2013 Dollars ................................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-3: Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results......................................................................................................... 5-4 Table 6-1: Treatment Facility Rehabilitation Cost Summary.................................................................................. 6-1 Table 6-2: Distribution System Renewal Cost Summary....................................................................................... 6-1 Table 6-3: 12 MGD Packaged Treatment Facility Existing Site Cost Summary...................................................... 6-2 Table 6-4: Life Cycle Cost Analysis Summary...................................................................................................... 6-2

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE

PAGE NO.

Figure ES-1:

Estimated Renewal in Miles per Year........................................................................................ 1-3

Figure ES-2:

Estimated Renewal Expenditure by Pipe Material...................................................................... 1-3

Figure 3-1: Historical Production and Use of Water Pipe by Material..................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-2: Derived Current Service Lives for Installed Mains............................................................................. 3-10 Figure 3-3: Estimated Replacement in Miles per Year ........................................................................................ 3-12 Figure 3-4: Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Material...................................................................... 3-13 Figure 3-5: Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Size Category............................................................. 3-13 Figure 3-6: Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Material: Comparative................................................. 3-14 Figure 3-7: Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Size Category: Comparative ....................................... 3-14 Figure 3-8: Estimated Replacement Expenditure per Capita of Population Served.............................................. 3-15 Figure 4-1: Parcel Options .................................................................................................................................. 4-4 Figure 4-2: Reservoir Parcel Topography ............................................................................................................ 4-5

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

iii

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Figure 4-3: Treatment Facility Parcel Floodplain .................................................................................................. 4-6 Figure 4-4: Reservoir Parcel Floodplain............................................................................................................... 4-7 Figure 4-5: Treatment Facility Wetland Delineation .............................................................................................. 4-8 Figure 4-6: Reservoir Parcel Mapped Wetlands ................................................................................................... 4-9 Figure 4-7: Red Maple Swamp .......................................................................................................................... 4-10 Figure 4-8: Deer Wintering Habitat .................................................................................................................... 4-11 Figure 4-9: Zoning Map..................................................................................................................................... 4-12 Figure 4-10: Conventional Capital Costs by Capacity......................................................................................... 4-20

APPENDICES Appendix A:

Mid-Term Treatment System Recommendations by Location

Appendix B:

Survey Of Existing Treatment Facility Site

Appendix C:

Wetland Delineation Report

Appendix D:

Planning Schematics

Appendix E:

Planning Level Cost Estimates

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

iv

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Volume II – Sustainable Water System Plan of the Comprehensive System Facility Plan (CSFP) has been developed to enable The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco Division (“Maine Water”) to make informed decisions on improvements to the Biddeford and Saco water system. It complements Volume I – Water System Assessment of the CSFP which reviews the water system’s assets and performance from source through distribution and provides recommendations for immediate and short-term enhancements. Volume I includes demand projections, an evaluation of the water source, reviews treatment facility flooding potential, and provides a detailed assessment of the treatment facility and the transmission and distribution system. The recommendations provided in Volume I are required to bring the system into compliance, improve health and safety of employees, and improve fire flow conditions within the distribution system.

Volume II addresses mid and long-term concerns in the system including major rehabilitation of the treatment facility or construction of a new treatment facility. Sections 2 and 3 of Volume II detail mid-term and long-term rehabilitation recommendations for the treatment facility and distribution system. These recommendations are necessary for the long-term sustainability and efficiency of the system. Section 4 of Volume II analyzes options and costs associated with construction of a new treatment facility. The review analyzes three treatment capacity ranges, two types of treatment technologies and two potential sites for construction of a new treatment facility. Section 5 of Volume II provides a life cycle cost analysis which evaluates the cost difference between the alternatives of rehabilitating the existing treatment facility and constructing a new treatment facility.

Treatment Facility Improvements The mid-term priority rehabilitation recommendations for the treatment facility total $1,865,000, and the long-term priority recommendations range from $9,700,000 to $12,900,000. These costs are separate from the immediate and short-term priority recommendations provided in Volume I that total $7,110,000. The cost and a description of each recommended upgrade is listed in the tables in Section 2. A breakdown of mid-term recommendations by location within the facility is located in Appendix A

Table ES-1: Treatment Facility Recommendations Costs Priority

Cost

Immediate Process

$235,000

Structural

$55,000

Health & Safety

$520,000 Immediate Subtotal

$810,000

Short-Term Process

$4,780,000

Structural

$1,420,000

Health & Safety

$100,000 Short-Term Subtotal

$6,300,000

Mid-Term Process

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

$270,000

1-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Priority

Cost

Structural

$1,520,000

Health & Safety

$75,000 Mid-Term Subtotal

$1,865,000

Long-Term Subtotal

$9,700,000 - $12,900,000

Total

$21,875,000

Distribution System Costs The mid-term priority recommendations for the distribution system total $12,680,000, and the long-term priority recommendations for the distribution system total $11,382,000. The recommendations and the cost for each are listed in Section 3.

Table ES-2: Distribution System Mid-Term and Long-Term Recommendations Costs Priority

Cost

Mid-Term

$12,680,000

Long-Term

$11,382,000

Mid-Term and Long-Term Subtotal

$24,062,000

Interconnections with Neighboring Systems As Maine Water evaluates options for upgrading the water system, there may be opportunities to sell or purchase water from neighboring systems. There are already interconnections with Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Wells Water District (KKW) to the south that could potentially be strengthened. If Maine Water decides to pursue an interconnection with Portland Water District (PWD), transmission improvements in the area of Portland Road and Cascade Road will be necessary. Various improvements on the PWD system will also be required, depending on the volume and direction of water transferred. The costs associated with the most likely transmission recommendations for interconnection with PWD are estimated to be $3,864,000.

Macro Modeling Transmission and distribution system renewal was examined at the “macro” level, in addition to the analysis performed at the pipe or “micro” level. The macro analysis considered capital renewal needs over the long term to ensure the sustainability of the water transmission and distribution system. The macro analysis indicates that for sustainable renewal, Maine Water should replace approximately 1.5 to 2 miles of pipe per year as shown in Figure ES-1. At an average of $150 per linear foot of pipe, the annual investment is approximately $1.6 million per year as shown in Figure ES-2. This annual investment increases over time peaking at approximately $1.8 million per year in 2030.

While the macro model provides the over-arching annual renewal budget, the specific pipelines to be renewed are listed in the distribution system recommendations section of this report. The results of the macro analysis should be used concurrently with the mid-term and long-term prioritized distribution system recommendations which are described in this report and total $12,680,000 and $11,382,000, respectively. At an average annual investment of $1.7 million per year, the water mains recommended as mid-term and long-term priority could be replaced within approximately fifteen years.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

1-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Estimated Replacement in Miles per Year 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5

Figure ES-1:

2050

2045

2040

2035

2030

2025

2020

2015

2010

0.0

Estimated Renewal in Miles per Year

Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Material $2.50

Conc & PCCP Steel

$2.00

PVC

2012 $M

AC (SSL)

$1.50

AC (LSL) DI (SSL)

$1.00

DI (LSL) CICL (SSL)

$0.50

CICL (LSL)

$0.00

Figure ES-2:

2050

2045

2040

2035

2030

2025

2020

2015

2010

CI

Estimated Renewal Expenditure by Pipe Material

New Treatment Facility Analysis The option to construct a new treatment facility has been analyzed as an alternative to long-term rehabilitation of the existing treatment facility. The Biddeford and Saco system has been identified as having one of the two premier sources of water supply in Southern Maine by the Maine Regional Water Council. It has capacity far beyond the Biddeford and Saco system demands as explained in Volume I. As part of a new treatment facility analysis, the potential for Biddeford and Saco to become a regional supplier of drinking water was evaluated. Three treatment capacities ranges were developed, including a 12 MGD facility extendable to 16 MGD, a 20 MGD facility extendable to 24 MGD and a 36 MGD facility extendable to 40 MGD. Costs for conventional and packaged treatment technologies were developed at each capacity.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

1-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

A review of the existing site and an alternate site also owned by Maine Water was performed to identify constraints to locating a new facility. Estimated footprints for each capacity/treatment were developed. Site constraints for the existing site include: steep slopes in some areas of the site, the presence of the existing facility, challenging subsurface conditions, a large Central Maine Power easement that runs diagonally through the property, flooding potential from the Saco River and the presence of wetlands including wetlands of special significance. Site constraints for the alternate site include site access, a deer wintering area, wetlands and a 100-year floodplain.

Costs for a new transmission main to the reservoir and access road work for the alternative site across the street from the existing site have been included in the cost estimates. Although easements, floodplains, topography and wetland impacts were taken into consideration in the layout options presented, the site work costs associated with these properties were not detailed in the estimates because further investigation is needed to determine specific costs.

Table ES-3: New Treatment Facility Planning Level Costs – Existing Site Treatment Technology

Conventional

Packaged

Initial Capacity (MGD)

Existing Site Planning Level Cost

Extended Capacity (MGD)

Extension Cost

12

$38,000,000

16

$8,000,000

20

$58,000,000

24

$6,000,000

36

$92,000,000

40

$6,000,000

12

$26,000,000

16

$6,000,000

20

$40,000,000

24

$3,000,000

36

$60,000,000

40

$3,000,000

Table ES-4: New Treatment Facility Planning Level Costs – Alternate Site Alternate Site Treatment Technology Conventional

Packaged

Initial Capacity (MGD)

Planning Level Cost

Extended Capacity (MGD)

Extension Cost

12

$40,000,000

16

$5,000,000

20

$58,000,000

24

$5,000,000

36

$90,000,000

40

$5,000,000

12

$29,000,000

16

$2,000,000

20

$40,000,000

24

$2,000,000

36

$59,000,000

40

$2,000,000

Life Cycle Cost Analysis A life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) was performed on two alternatives: rehabilitating the existing treatment facility and constructing a new 12 MGD packaged treatment facility on the existing site. The LCCA allows comparison of the costs associated with capital investments and operations and maintenance costs of the two alternatives over the life of the facility. The following table summarizes the LCCA assumptions.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

1-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Table ES-5: Life Cycle Cost Analysis Assumptions Item

Assumption

Planning Horizon

50 years

Discount Rate

10%

Inflation

2.4%

Capital Loan Interest Rate – Present

2%

Capital Loan Interest Rate – Future

4%

Capital Loan Term

30 years

The existing facility capital investment value is a summation of the immediate, short-term, mid-term and long-term recommendations made in Volume I and Volume II. The new facility capital investment is the cost of construction of a new 12 MGD packaged treatment facility on the existing site as described in Section 4 of this report. The LCCA resulted in the following Net Present Values for the two alternatives:

Table ES-6: Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results Net Present Value Item

Existing Facility

New Facility

$21,875,000

$26,000,000

$760,179

$418,065

$12,101,193

$8,276,344

Staffing

$6,601,066

$4,125,666

Electrical

$2,302,379

$1,841,903

Heating

$255,820

$255,820

Chemicals

$1,662,829

$1,413,405

Remaining Operations & Maintenance

$1,279,099

$639,550

$34,740,000

$34,695,000

Capital Investment Financing Costs Lifecycle Operations and Maintenance Total

Total LCC

The LCCA indicates that over the 50 year planning horizon, the lifecycle cost of the rehabilitated existing treatment facility would be approximately equal to the alternative of constructing a new facility. While the initial capital cost of a new facility is approximately $4 million higher than the costs to rehabilitate the existing facility, the cost to operate the existing facility is approximately $4 million higher than the costs to operate a new facility, essentially balancing the lifecycle costs.

In addition to direct costs and costs that can be easily estimated, there are costs that are difficult to quantify that should be considered. These include cost associated with a higher frequency of age-related failures at the existing facility. It also includes additional construction and rehabilitation challenges at the existing facility that may lead to higher costs. Finally, the risks associated with flooding and the existing facility overall reliability are not included, but would negatively impact rehabilitating the old facility if they were monetized. These factors are not explicitly captured within the LCCA as they are difficult to quantify, but they should be considered.

With an approximately $4 million difference in capital costs and a breakeven 50 year lifecycle cost, and including other considerations such as ease of capacity expansion at a new treatment facility and the precarious location of the existing treatment facility within the flood plain, Woodard & Curran recommends that Maine Water invest in a new

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

1-5

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

treatment facility. Although construction of a new treatment facility will result in a higher initial capital investment, in comparison with rehabilitating the existing facility, a new treatment facility will be more efficient, will reduce staffing and maintenance costs, will improve reliability and will ease replacements and upgrades.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

1-6

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

1. INTRODUCTION This Volume II – Sustainable Water System Plan of the Comprehensive System Facility Plan (CSFP) has been developed to enable The Maine Water Company – Biddeford and Saco Division (“Maine Water”) to make informed decisions on upgrades to the Biddeford and Saco water system. Volume II addresses long-term options for the system including large-scale rehabilitation of the existing treatment facility and construction of a new treatment facility.

Volume II complements Volume I – Water System Assessment which reviews the water system’s assets and performance from source through distribution and provides recommendations for immediate and short-term enhancements. Volume I includes demand projections, an evaluation of the water source, the flooding potential at the treatment site, and a detailed assessment of the treatment facility and transmission and distribution system. The recommendations listed in Volume I are needed to bring the facility into compliance, improve health and safety of employees, and improve fire flow conditions within the distribution system.

Sections 2 and 3 of Volume II list mid-term and long-term rehabilitation recommendations for the treatment facility and distribution system. These recommendations are necessary for the long-term sustainability and efficiency of the system. Mid-term recommendations should be completed in the next 3 to 7 years to ensure continued compliance and reliability of finished water, optimize operational flexibility and extend the life of the facility. Recommendations that are categorized as long-term priority are improvements that are necessary if the decision were made to continue the use of the facility past 7-10 years. These upgrades will improve process efficiencies and ensure adequacy of equipment and facilities. Section 4 of the report analyzes options and costs associated with construction of a new treatment facility. The review analyzes three treatment capacity ranges, two types of treatment technologies, and two potential sites for construction of a new facility.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

1-7

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

2. MID-TERM & LONG-TERM TREATMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS This section identifies mid-term and long-term recommendations to address deficiencies at the water treatment facility. A detailed assessment of the treatment facility and a description of processes, along with immediate and short-term recommendations, are included in Volume I of this CSFP. Priority Descriptions are as follows: Mid-term: Recommendations that are categorized as a mid-term priority are improvements that, while not essential to implement immediately, must be performed in the next 3 to 7 years to ensure continued compliance and reliability of finished water production, provide capacity to meet future predicted demands, optimize operational flexibility and extend the life of the facility.

Long-term: Recommendations that are categorized as long-term priority are improvements that are necessary if the decision were made to continue the use of the facility past 7-10 years. These upgrades will improve process efficiencies and ensure adequacy of equipment and facilities.

2.1 MID-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS Mid-term recommendations are listed by category in Table 2-1 and are organized by common categories (i.e. brick, roof, windows). For each issue, the table provides the area in the facility where the item is located, the item description, and recommendations. Planning level costs, which encompass design, engineering and construction, are included for each recommendation. These items are also organized by location within the facility in Appendix A. Several mid-term deficiencies listed in the table below require further evaluation and analysis to determine the extent of the required upgrades. The costs associated with these items include the estimated cost to implement subsequent upgrades or replacements; however the actual costs may vary based on the outcome of the evaluation and analysis.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

2-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Table 2-1: Mid-Term Treatment System Recommendations Category

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Cost

Process

Sedimentation Building

No ability to monitor flow for process control

Install flow meter on filtered water line near the exposed location where preoxidant chlorine is presently added

$42,900

Process

Filter gallery

Crossover from distribution system to backwash tank and manifold is manually operated through three 2-inch valves

Install a pressure sustaining, flow control valve with high downstream pressure level closure to automate the system and allow for faster recovery between backwashes.

$40,400

Process

Filter gallery

Filter backwash flow rates are not measured

Add a flow meter and rate control valve to monitor and control filter backwash to a 15 gpm/ft2 high rate

$21,200

Process

Filter Gallery

Filter-to-waste cycle is set to low turbidity value and is manually terminated

Experiment with higher turbidity set points and automate the cycle to switch to production when the set point is reached

$31,500

Process

Clearwell

#1 and #2 clearwell baffling is barely adequate for proper CT

Improve baffle factor through installation of Hypalon baffle walls

$133,200

H&S - Hoist

Low Lift Pump Area

Current set-up to remove pumps is cumbersome using roof hatch and exterior crane.

Pump removal process during maintenance should be evaluated.

$40,300

H&S - Hoist

High Lift Pump Area

Current set-up to remove pumps is very cumbersome.

Pump removal process during maintenance should be evaluated.

$30,300

Structural Building

Exterior General

Wood trim along eaves of sloped roofs is deteriorated with peeling paint; numerous wood doors and windows are in poor condition; roof ventilation units are corroded; gutter systems and downspouts are in disrepair; roof flashing and edge trim is in poor condition;

A detailed assessment of the building exterior should be performed. Extensive repairs and upgrades to miscellaneous exterior features should be made.

$73,600

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

2-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Category

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Cost

Structural Brick

Low Lift Pump Area

Interior brick walls are cracked in many locations and have signs of efflorescence from past moisture penetration.

Brick areas should be repointed and cleaned.

$17,200

Structural Brick

Filter Room

Structural Brick

Clerestory brick walls between Closer inspection for weather filters have numerous areas with tightness should be evidence of efflorescence and performed at the roof level moisture damage, especially and at each window to below some windows. This is a identify possible moisture sign that moisture is entering the sources. walls either at the roof level and/or through windows.

$26,500

Abandoned Filter Building

Significant evidence of moisture damage (vegetation growth, efflorescence, cracking, potential mold presence, etc.) to brick walls and stone foundations. The floor is littered with old concrete and other debris and unused equipment.

Evaluate the future use and priorities for this space. If not to be used, doors should be locked to prevent entry. If area is to be used, all observed issues should be properly addressed.

$51,100

Structural Brick

Exterior

In general the brick exterior was found to be in fair condition, especially for a building of its age.

There were some localized areas of joint deterioration which may require repointing, such as brick corbels at main entrance.

A more detailed assessment of the building exterior should be performed, and specific recommendations made relative to building envelope improvements.

$64,700

Building Window

Intake Room

An old, single-pane, wood window is in poor condition.

Window should be replaced with a new, corrosionresistant, energy-efficient unit

$3,400

Building Window

Low Lift Pump Area

Seven old, large, steel, singlepane windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units

$16,300

Building Window

Sedimentation Basin Room

Existing wood windows are very old, rotten, and inefficient.

Approximately 32 existing wood windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$85,500

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

2-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Category

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Cost

Building Window

Filter Room

There are 12 old windows (low) along the sides of the filter tanks and 12 old windows (high) along the center clerestory between filters that are in poor condition, although limited access prevented close inspection.

Consider further inspecting and replacing windows.

$32,200

Building Window

Abandoned Filter Building

Twelve old, single-pane windows are in poor condition.

Evaluate the future use and priorities for this space. If not to be used, doors should be locked to prevent entry. If area is to be used, all observed issues should be properly addressed.

$40,700

Building Window

Hallway – High Four large, old, single-pane, Lift Pump Area to double-hung wood windows are in Filter Room poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$11,000

Building Window

Workshop Entrance

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$16,700

Building Window

Chlorine Injection One old, single-pane windows are Room in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$3,100

Building Window

Polymer Room

Three old, single-pane windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$9,400

Building Window

Lower Level Courtyard Access Room

Two old, single-pane, doublehung windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$4,600

Building Window

Filter Room Corridor

Six old, single-pane, double-hung windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$16,500

Building Window

Laboratory

Four old, single-pane, doublehung windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$13,600

Building- Roof

Low Lift Pump Area

Roof reportedly leaks in this area.

Roof system should be receive a more thorough inspection and likely requires replacement.

$19,800

Five large, old, single-pane windows are in poor condition.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

2-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Category

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Cost

Building- Roof

Abandoned Filter Building

Metal roof deck is uniformly corroded and its load capacity is likely compromised; bar joists and joist girders are corroded but in salvageable condition; The corroded roof deck is the major potential safety hazard in this area.

Evaluate the future use of this space. If not to be used, doors should be locked to prevent entry. The metal roof deck may be in danger of failure or collapse as it continues to corrode over time. Closer inspection by a structural engineer could confirm this. If area is to be used moving forward, all observed issues should be properly addressed.

$59,200

Building- Roof

Filter Room – East Filter Bank

In 2002 roofing and concrete roof deck were replaced with metal deck and additional steel beams were added in snow drift areas.

Painted roof steel needs repainting but is in good condition.

The low roof is reportedly leaking along the clerestory, which appears to be the low point of the roof slope.

Painted steel framing should be repainted; roof system should be repaired and/or replaced.

$25,900

Building- Roof

Filter Room – West Filter Bank

Unlike the East Filter Bank roof, this roof deck is original. The deck appears to be concrete plank spanning between roof framing; multiple areas of the deck are sagging noticeably, corroded, and reportedly leaking. Low roof drains toward clerestory. Roof steel is in fair condition, but has peeling paint.

Roof should be replaced with a new deck and membrane; roof framing should be structurally analyzed and upgraded as required to meet code. Steel framing should be repainted.

$47,900

Building- Roof

General

Multiple roof areas are beyond their useful life and in need of replacement, and many areas currently leak. The Sedimentation Basin and Filter Room roofs are two sections that should be replaced in the short-term. A detailed assessment of each specific roof area is beyond the scope of this report.

A detailed assessment of each roof area should be performed and a phased approach for replacement of each section should be developed.

$806,900

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

2-5

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Category Structural Miscellaneous

Area

Item Description

Filter Room

Plaster arch ceiling of clerestory has multiple cracks, but there is no sign of spalling or failure; there could be loose, delaminated sections, which could be a falling hazard.

Recommendation Ceiling should be inspected using staging, so that it can be sounded to make sure it is intact and there are no falling hazards.

Cost $69,500

2.2 LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS Long-term priority recommendations have a more involved scope than the higher priority recommendations and require further information and analysis prior to development of detailed costing. Planning level costs are provided using an order-of-magnitude cost range. Many of these upgrades could change significantly, depending upon owner preferences and future changes in the way Maine Water choses to operate the facility after shorter-term recommendations have been implemented.

The costs associated with each long-term recommendation are listed in Table 2-2 and the details of the recommendations are described in the following subsections.

Table 2-2: Long-Term Treatment System Recommendations Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Cost Range

Filter Gallery

Filter Valve Replacement

Replace all valves, pipe and supports in the filter gallery

$900,000 – $1,500,000

New Chemical Handling Building

Lab and Administration Spaces

Build lab, administration, kitchen and employee spaces in unfinished second floor

$200,000 – $400,000

Entire Facility

HVAC

Facility-wide heating system

$400,000 - $600,000

Entire Facility

Electrical

Facility-wide electrical upgrade including replacement of high lift pump motors

Entire Facility

Flood proofing

Facility-wide flood proofing

$600,000 - $2,000,000

Entire Facility

Roof

Facility-wide roof replacement

$900,000 – $1,000,000

Intake/Headworks

Intakes & Wetwell

Modify intake depths and provide a common clearwell for both pumps

$600,000 – $1,000,000

Yard

Backwash Tank

Replace backwash tank to allow for automation of backwash system

$300,000 – $500,000

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

2-6

$1,200,000 - $2,500,000

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Cost Range

Process

Sedimentation Basin

Add third sedimentation Basin

Yard

Lagoon System

Waste solids removal

$300,000 - $600,000

Yard

Yard Piping

Upgrade yard piping

$300,000 - $700,000

Yard

Wetlands Compensation

Compensation fees for wetland impacts associated with lagoon system and yard piping upgrades.

$300,000 - $600,000

Total Long-Term Recommendations

2.2.1

$1,000,000 – 1,500,000

$9,700,000 - $12,900,000

Filter Valve Replacement

The effluent valves in the filter gallery leak, which results in clearwell and courtyard flooding. The effluent valves need to be replaced to correct this situation. The filter gallery valves, adjacent piping and pipe supports are very old.

Considering the amount of effort to replace the effluent valves and the condition of the piping and supports, it is recommended that the filter gallery piping and valves are replaced as part of one project. The project would include influent, effluent and backwash valves, all interconnected piping and associated pipe supports, as well as installation of flow meters. In addition to the cost of the large diameter piping and appurtenant items, the cost of construction considers restricted access to the filter gallery and the need for a complex temporary piping arrangement that will be required during construction.

2.2.2

Lab and Administration Spaces

A basic chemical building with no additional facilities is identified as a short-term recommendation in Volume I of this CSFP due to the numerous issues surrounding chemical handling. If a new chemical handling building is constructed, Maine Water may choose as a long-term improvement to relocate the laboratory, administrative spaces, employee kitchen and break area, and bathrooms/locker area to the second story of the new building.

2.2.3

Facility-Wide HVAC

The entire facility is heated with a combination of forced hot air furnaces and portable electric space heaters.

Remnants of the original steam boiler system and discontinued hot water unit heaters remain. As part of the proposed chemical handling building recommended in Volume I of this CSFP, a centralized heating system could be installed that could heat the new space and adjacent areas. Longer term, a new centralized heating system should be extended throughout all the areas of the facility, including the filter and sedimentation basin wings. This long-term recommendation could either assume that a system large enough to serve the entire facility is installed as part of the new chemical building (one that could be expanded as part of a second project) or that a second centralize heating system is installed in another part of the facility.

2.2.4

Facility-Wide Electrical

The medium voltage entrance and distribution panels are obsolete. At some point, due to lack of available parts, code compliance issues, or equipment change out, it will become necessary to replace the system in its entirety. The existing medium voltage high-lift pump motors would require replacement if a facility-wide electrical system upgrade were to occur. In addition, given their present age, the replacement of one or both of the medium voltage high-lift pumps themselves should be anticipated during the full design life of the facility.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

2-7

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

2.2.5

Facility-Wide Flood Proofing

”Flood-proofing” is accomplished to varying degrees within a couple of the short-term projects addressed in Volume I of the CSFP. New lagoon construction and its related courtyard improvements, the sealing of the corridor by the main entrance, and a new chemical handling building help keep portions of the facility and support facilities from being inundated. A long-term recommendation for facility flood-proofing would build upon earlier measures by potentially recontouring much of the site, removing the abandoned filter building and putting a berm around the area, and by eliminating all floor drains and other points of water back-up to the facility. Allowing the facility to be accessible, but not necessarily fully functional, during high water conditions would be the goal of this recommendation.

2.2.6

Facility-Wide Roof Replacement

Urgent roof replacements are covered under the short-term recommendations in Volume I of this CSFP and mid-term recommendations in Volume II of this CSFP. Before the design life of the facility is exceeded, virtually all roof systems (with the possible exception of the slate roof on the original building) will need replacement.

2.2.7

Intake/Headworks

The present two intakes are in close proximity to one another and at the same river depth. Benefit may be derived from locating intakes at two different depths in order to access raw water with different characteristics and treatability during different seasons and river levels. In addition, the present intakes pass through the headworks sump area and are piped directly to one or the other of the two low lift pumps. In order to provide maximum flexibility for intake selection and pump operation, a raw water wetwell (or pipe crossover and valving network) should be constructed that would allow either intake to feed either low lift pump.

2.2.8

Replace Backwash Tank

The existing backwash tank is known to be leaking. In the long-term, the present 65,000 gallon backwash tank, even if repaired, would be too small to support multiple concurrent filter backwashes that might be necessary if the facility was routinely operating near peak capacity or during extended periods of reduced raw water quality. A tank of somewhere between 120,000 gallon to 160,000 gallon capacity would be sufficient to allow multiple concurrent backwashes or a series of backwashes after short filter runs.

2.2.9

Add Third Sedimentation Basin

Although short-term recommendations addressed in Volume I of this CSFP propose ways to maximize the effectiveness of the sedimentation basins through the installation of weir troughs and lamella plates, for peak flows and primarily to provide redundancy, Maine Water should consider the installation of a third floc/sedimentation basin train in a new building extension.

2.2.10 Yard Piping Process and transmission piping within the facility property will need to be replaced as part of the long-term rehabilitation of the facility. Replacement will be complicated because of the pipe’s location within the courtyard adjacent to buildings and because the treatment facility will need to stay in operation as new piping is installed.

Additionally, this work is within the 100-year flood plain and subject to flooding.

2.2.11 Lagoon System Waste Solids Removal The waste solids from the existing lagoon system will need to be removed and disposed of off-site to allow for upgrades, for the addition of the third sedimentation basin and for the yard piping project.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

2-8

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

2.2.12 Wetland Compensation Work within a floodplain of special significance will likely require substantial wetland compensation fees. Anticipated work within the floodplain includes lagoon upgrades, the additional sedimentation basin installation and for the yard piping replacement.

2.3 SUMMARY OF MID-TERM AND LONG-TERM TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Mid-term and long-term treatment facility recommendations have been developed to enable Maine Water to make informed decisions about upgrades to the Biddeford and Saco water system. The total cost for all mid-term and longterm treatment system recommendations are listed in Table 3-1. These costs are separate from the immediate and short-term priority treatment system recommendations provided in Volume I of this CSFP that total $7,110,000.

Table 2-3: Treatment Recommendations Total Costs Priority

Cost

Mid-Term

$1,865,000

Long-Term

$9,700,000 - $12,900,000 Mid-Term and Long-Term Treatment Subtotal

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

2-9

$14,765,000

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

3. MID-TERM & LONG-TERM DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS This section provides recommendations to address distribution system deficiencies that are not immediate or short term priority. Immediate and short-term priority recommendations, along with suggested operational changes, are listed in Volume I of the CSFP. This section includes recommendations intended to eliminate insufficient storage, improve system operation, strengthen the transmission capabilities, and mitigate fire flow deficiencies. Hydraulic capacity, location in proximity to critical users and facilities, and break history were considered when prioritizing water main recommendations. Additionally, this section provides recommendations for a potential interconnection with the Portland Water District (PWD). All recommendations are prioritized based on the previously described Priority Descriptions, which are as follows: Immediate and short-term recommendations are addressed in Volume I of this CSFP. Mid-term: Recommendations that are categorized as mid-term priority are improvements that, while not essential to implement immediate, should be considered in the next five to ten years to improve the water distribution system.

The mid-term recommendations are listed in Table 5-1.

Long-term: Recommendations that are categorized as long-term priority are improvements that are necessary going forward to provide adequate storage, supply, and recommended fire protection to the system while planning for future growth beyond the next five to ten years. The long-term recommendations are listed in Table 5-2.

3.1 MID-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS – WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM A new 12-inch diameter ductile iron water main is recommended on West Street from Forest Street to the existing 12inch diameter water main. Currently the main in this location is 8-inch diameter. This water main will improve transmission from the Forest Street Tank and BPS to the eastern portion of the HSS. The estimated probable construction cost of approximately 7,400 linear feet of 12-inch diameter water main is $1,620,000.

The existing 6-inch and 8-inch diameter water mains on Main Street and North Street should be replaced with 12inch diameter ductile iron water main from School Street to the existing 12-inch diameter water main on North Street.

This improvement will improve transmission within the LSS. The estimated probable construction cost of approximately 3,700 linear feet of 12-inch diameter water main is $972,000.

The existing 4-inch diameter water main on Temple Avenue between Bridge Street and West Grand Avenue in Old Orchard Beach should be replaced with 12-inch diameter ductile iron water main. By creating a grid of 12-inch diameter water main, this improvement will strengthen the transmission grid. The estimated probable construction cost of approximately 2,000 linear feet if 12-inch diameter water main is $504,000.

The existing 6-inch and 8-inch diameter water mains on Pool Street should be replaced with 12-inch diameter polyethylene wrapped ductile iron water main from Pike Street to Guinea Road. This improvement will improve transmission and increase the available flow to the eastern portion of the HSS. This recommendation combined with the replacement of 8-inch diameter water main on West Street will create a grid of 12-inch diameter water main in an area of projected future growth. The estimated probable construction cost of approximately 12,000 linear feet of 12inch diameter water main is $3,213,000 Due to the proposed surplus of available storage in the Low Service System (LSS) and the condition of the Bradbury Tank, demolishing the Bradbury Tank is recommended. The hydraulic model was utilized to evaluate the impact taking the tank offline would have on pressures and available flow in the LSS. Based on the remaining storage in the service area, and the fact that the residential area surrounding the Bradbury Tank is served by the High Service System (HSS), removing the tank and the booster station has minimal hydraulic impact on the LSS. Once the tank is removed, the only storage in the LSS will be the 7.5 mg reservoir and the Pine Point Tank. The altitude valve at the Pine Point Tank should be taken out of service or replaced to eliminate the potential for over pressurizing the system if the altitude valve at the Pine Point Tank were online and the control valves at the Reservoir were closed. The estimated construction cost for demolishing the existing Bradbury Tank is approximately $150,000.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

3-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

A new 16-inch diameter corrosion-protected ductile iron water main is recommended to replace the existing 8-inch diameter cast iron water main on Pool Street and Newtown Road from Guinea Road to the proposed tank location near the UNE athletic facilities on Pool Street. The estimated construction cost of approximately 11,300 linear feet of 16-inch diameter water main is $3,314,000.

A new 16-inch diameter ductile iron water main is recommend on Lina Avenue and Industrial Park Road in Saco from Shadagee Road to the existing 16-inch main at Lehner Road. A new 16-inch tap to the existing 24-inch main should be completed to provide the full capacity of the new 16-inch main, while eliminating the existing 6-inch restriction.

This improvement will improve transmission in the LSS area. The existing water main is 12-inch cast iron. The condition of this water main should be evaluated. If the water main is in fair to good condition, a parallel 12-inch diameter water main could be considered. The estimated construction cost of approximately 2,100 feet of 16-inch diameter water main is $604,000.

To strengthen distribution capabilities and provide recommended residential fire flows in the Camp Ellis area of Saco, cleaning and lining the existing 8-inch diameter, 1909, cast iron water main on Ferry Road and Lower Beach Road from Bayview Road to the end is recommended. The estimated construction cost of approximately 7,000 linear feet of cleaned and lined 8-inch diameter water main is $1,007,000.

Prior to implementing this improvement, it is recommended that a pipe assessment is performed to confirm the condition of the water main. The assessment should calculate the pipe wall thickness and to determine the extent of internal and external corrosion. Furthermore, this recommendation was made based on the assumption that the water main has not experienced significant breaks. If institutional knowledge identifies this water main as having experienced several breaks, unrelated to joint breaks or construction site error, then it is recommended that this water main be replaced with new 8-inch diameter corrosion-protected ductile iron pipe. The estimated construction cost of approximately 7,000 linear feet of new 8-inch diameter water main is $1,540,000.

To improve residential fire flows in the Camp Ellis area of Saco, new 8-inch diameter corrosion-protected ductile iron water main is recommended to replace the existing 6-inch diameter cast iron water mains on Camp Ellis Avenue from Ferry Road to Fore Street, Pine Tree Avenue from Lower Beach Road to Main Avenue, Main Avenue from Pine Tree Avenue to North Avenue, and North Avenue from Main Avenue to Beach Avenue. The estimated construction cost of approximately 2,450 linear feet of 8-inch diameter water main is $469,000.

A new 8-inch diameter ductile iron water main is recommended on Portland Avenue from Walnut Street to the existing 8-inch diameter water main on Portland Avenue. Replacing the existing 6-inch diameter water main will reduce the bottleneck in the LSS. The estimated construction cost of approximately 1,900 linear feet of 8-inch diameter water main is $357,000.

A new 8-inch diameter ductile iron water main is recommended on Jordan Street and Bonython Avenue from North Street to the existing 8-inch diameter water main. Replacing the existing 2-inch and 6-inch diameter water mains with new 8-inch diameter water main will improve residential fire flows in the area. The estimated construction cost of approximately 1,350 linear feet of 8-inch diameter water main is $254,000.

To improve residential fire flows in the Glenwood Avenue neighborhood, a new 8-inch diameter ductile iron water main is recommended to replace the existing 6-inch diameter cast iron water mains on Lawn Avenue, Birch Street, and Glenwood Avenue from Beach Street to Laurel Avenue. The estimated construction of approximately 1,150 linear feet of 8-inch diameter water main is $216,000.

3.2 LONG TERM RECOMMENDATIONS – WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STUDY To provide capacity to meet the estimated ISO recommended fire flow at the University of New England campus on Hills Beach Road, a new 12-inch diameter corrosion-protected ductile iron water main is recommended to replace the existing 8-inch diameter cast iron water main on Hills Beach Road from Pool Street to Old Pool Road. The estimated construction cost of approximately 2,300 linear feet of 12-inch diameter water main is $591,000.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

3-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

To improve residential fire flows on Moody Street in Saco, a new 8-inch diameter ductile iron water main is recommended to replace the existing 6-inch diameter cast iron water main on Moody Street from Main Street to the end of the road. The estimated construction cost of approximately 2,450 linear feet of 8-inch diameter water main is $460,000.

To strengthen transmission capabilities and improve the estimated ISO recommended fire flows in downtown Old Orchard Beach, a new 12-inch diameter corrosion-protected ductile iron water main is recommended to replace the existing 10-inch diameter cast iron water main on Grand Avenue between the existing 12-inch diameter water main at Ladd Avenue and Old Orchard Street. The estimated construction cost of approximately 4,500 linear feet of 12-inch diameter water main is $1,155,000.

A new 12-inch diameter ductile iron water main is recommended on Hillview Avenue and Buxton Road from Jeffery Avenue to Wendy Way in Saco to replace the existing 8-inch diameter water main. This will improved transmission in the LSS. The estimated construction cost of approximately 2,600 linear feet of 12-inch diameter water main is $683,000.

The LSS has a projected 1.75 mg of surplus storage. The 7.5 mg reservoir is old and the existing lining system could be leaking and the floating cover has historically caused problems. It will likely continue to be an issue in the future. It is recommended that Maine Water Company construct a new water storage tank at the reservoir location and abandon the existing reservoir. Then new tank should be designed to provide 2.5 mg of usable storage. The estimated construction cost for abandoning the existing reservoir and constructing a new water storage tank is approximately $3,000,000. It is important to note that the timing for when this improvement is necessary may change based on the results of the recommended tank inspection and leakage test.

The recommendations from the HSS Evaluation and Tank Siting Study should be used to design and construct a new water storage tank in the HSS. The estimated construction cost of the tank depends on the construction material, site conditions, site location, and tank size. The estimated construction costs range from $1,800,000 to $2,100,000.

These estimates do not include costs associated with land acquisition, easements, permits, legal fees, excessive site work, or distribution system modifications to connect the tank to the existing distribution system.

To provide the estimated ISO recommended residential fire flows in the Pine Point area of Scarborough, new 8-inch diameter corrosion-protected ductile iron water main is recommended to replace the existing 6-inch diameter cast iron water main on Jones Creek Drive between Pine Point Road and Avenue 5 and on Avenue 5 between Jones Creek Road and King Street. The estimated construction cost of approximately 2,400 linear feet of 8-inch diameter water main is $459,000.

To strengthen transmission capabilities, improve the fire flows in downtown Old Orchard Beach, and replace a section of water main with a history of significant breaks, a new 12-inch diameter corrosion-protected ductile iron water main is recommended to replace the existing 10-inch diameter cast iron water main on Grand Avenue between Pine Point Road and the existing 16-inch diameter water main at Longwave Place. The estimated construction cost of approximately 3,350 linear feet of 12-inch diameter water main is $860,000.

A 12-inch diameter corrosion-protected ductile iron water main is recommended on Hills Beach Road from Old Pool Road to Ocean Edge Lane to provide estimated ISO recommended residential fire flows. The estimated construction cost of approximately 5,900 linear feet of 12-inch diameter water main is $1,317,000.

To strengthen distribution capabilities and improve fire flow on Fern Park Avenue, it is recommended to connect the dead end water mains on Laurens Drive and Balsam Lane with new 8-inch diameter ductile iron water main. The existing 4-inch diameter water main on Balsam Lane should be replaced with new 8-inch diameter water main. The estimated construction cost of approximately 600 linear feet of 8-inch diameter water main is $113,000.

To provide the capacity for the estimated ISO recommended fire flow to the Salvation Army facilities off of Church Street, a new 12-inch diameter water main is recommended to replace the existing 6-inch diameter cast iron water

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

3-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

main on Eleventh Street from Evergreen Avenue to Maplewood Drive. The estimated construction cost of approximately 300 linear feet of 12-inch diameter water main is $94,000.

A new 12-inch diameter water main is recommended to replace the existing 6-inch diameter cast iron water main on Bluff Avenue to provide the estimated ISO recommended residential fire flows. The estimated construction cost of approximately 200 linear feet of 12-inch diameter water main is $63,000.

A new 8-inch corrosion-protected ductile iron water main is recommended to replace the existing 6-inch diameter cast iron water main on Ocean Avenue between Grand Avenue and Seaside Avenue to provide the estimated ISO recommended fire flow. The estimated construction cost of approximately 300 linear feet of 8-inch diameter water main is $102,000.

The sections of 6-inch diameter cast iron water main along Smithwheel Road should be replaced with new 8-inch diameter ductile iron water main to improve distribution capabilities and provide estimated ISO recommended residential fire flows. One section is located between Ervin Avenue and the existing 8-inch diameter water main located to the northwest of Ervin Avenue, and a second section is located between Valle Lane and the existing 8-inch diameter water main located to the southwest of Valle Lane. The estimated construction cost of approximately 2,050 linear feet of 8-inch diameter water main is $385,000.

3.3 INTERCONNECTION WITH PORTLAND WATER DISTRICT There may be opportunities to sell or purchase water from neighboring systems. To provide redundancy to the system, a future interconnection with the Portland Water District could be considered. If Maine Water decides to pursue an interconnection in the future, the following transmission improvements will be necessary to purchase large amounts of water.

A new 20-inch or larger diameter ductile iron water main is recommended on Portland Road from the existing 12-inch diameter water main on Portland Road to Cascade Road. Replacing the existing 8-inch diameter water main will improve transmission in the LSS. The estimated construction cost of approximately 3,400 linear feet of 20-inch diameter water main is $1,173,000.

A new 20-inch or larger diameter ductile iron water main is recommended on Portland Road from Cascade Road to the Scarborough town line, along with a new 20-inch or larger diameter water main on Cascade Road from Portland Road to Milliken Mills Road. The condition of the 16-inch water main should be evaluated. The estimated construction cost of approximately 7,800 linear feet of 20-inch diameter water main is $2,691,000.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

3-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Table 3-1: Mid-Term Recommendations – Water Distribution System Item No.

Location

From

To

Town

Water Main Diameter (in)

Length (LF)

Estimated Cost

Biddeford

12

7,400

$1,620,000

Saco

12

3,700

$972,000

Old Orchard Beach

12

2,000

$504,000

3

West Street

Forest Street

Existing 12-Inch

4

Main Street and North Street

School Street

Existing 12-Inch North Street

5

Temple Avenue

Bridge Street

West Grand Avenue

6

Pool Street

Pike Street

Guinea Road

Biddeford

12

12,000

$3,213,000

7

Pool Street

Guinea Road

Proposed Tank

Biddeford

16

11,300

$3,314,000

8

Demolish Bradbury Tank

9

Lina Avenue and Industrial Park Road

Shadagee Road

Existing 16-Inch at Lehner Road

Saco

16

2,100

$604,000

10

Ferry Road and Lower Beach Road

Bayview Road

End

Saco

C&L

7,000

$1,007,000

11

Camp Ellis, Pine Tree, Main, and North Avenue

Ferry Road; Lower Fore Street; Beach Beach Road Avenue

Saco

8

2,450

$469,000

12

Portland Avenue

Walnut Street

Existing 8-Inch on Portland Avenue

Old Orchard Beach

8

1,900

$357,000

13

Jordan Street and Bonython Avenue

North Street

Existing 8-Inch

Saco

8

1,350

$254,000

14

Lawn Avenue, Birch Street, and Glenwood Avenue

Beach Street

Laurel Avenue

Saco

8

1,150

$216,000

on

$150,000

Mid-Term Total Estimated Cost:

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

3-5

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

$12,680,000

Table 3-2: Long-Term Recommendations – Water Distribution System Item No.

Location

From

To

Town

Water Main Diameter (in)

Length (LF)

Estimated Cost

Biddeford

12

2,300

$591,000

Saco

8

2,450

$460,000

Old Orchard Beach

12

4,500

$1,155,000

Saco

12

2,600

$683,000

15

Hills Beach Road

Pool Street

Old Pool Road

16

Moody Street

Main Street

End

17

Grand Avenue

Existing 12-Inch at Ladd Avenue

Old Orchard Street

18

Hillview Avenue and Buxton Road

Jeffery Avenue

Wendy Way

19

Abandon Existing Reservoir and Construct New LSS Water Storage Tank

$3,000,000

20

Construct New HSS Water Storage Tank

$2,100,000

21

Jones Creek Drive & Avenue 5

Pine Point Road

King Street

Scarborough

8

2,400

$459,000

22

Grand Avenue

Pine Point Road

Existing 16-Inch at Longwave Place

Scarborough

12

3,350

$860,000

23

Hills Beach Road

Old Pool Road

Ocean Edge Lane

Biddeford

12

5,900

$1,317,000

24

Balsam Lane and Lauren Drive

Saco Avenue

Existing 8-Inch on Laurens Drive

Old Orchard Beach

8

600

$113,000

25

Eleventh Street

Evergreen Avenue

Maplewood Drive

Old Orchard Beach

12

300

$94,000

26

Bluff Avenue

Union Avenue

Ocean Avenue

Old Orchard Beach

12

200

$63,000

27

Ocean Avenue

Grand Avenue

Seaside Avenue

Old Orchard Beach

8

300

$102,000

28

Smithwheel Road

Ervin Avenue and Existing 8-Inch

Existing 8-Inch and Valle Lane

Old Orchard Beach

8

2,050

$385,000

Long Term Total Estimated Cost:

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

3-6

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

$11,382,000

Table 3-3: Interconnection with Portland Water District Item No. 29 30

Location

From

To

Town

Water Main Diameter (in)

Length (LF)

Estimated Cost

Portland Road

Existing 12-Inch on Portland Road

Cascade Road

Saco

20

3,400

$1,173,000

Portland Road

Cascade Road

Scarborough Town Line

Saco

20

5,600

$1,966,000

Cascade Road

Portland Road

Milliken Mills Road

Saco

20

2,500

$725,000

Interconnection with Portland Water District Total Estimated Cost:

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

3-7

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

$3,864,000

3.4 MACRO MODELING The Biddeford & Saco water system is similar to many other aging water systems that began installing pipe in the late nineteenth century. The robust nature of cast iron pipe, which constitutes a bulk of the system’s piping, has delayed the need to invest in widespread distribution system rehabilitation and replacement (renewal). Even though cast iron pipes have extended useful lives that can exceed 125 years, their lives are not infinite. Maine Water can expect that a considerable portion of older water mains will reach the end of their useful lives in the next few decades and will require renewal. Investment in the renewal of these aging assets will be required to maintain current level of service. Delaying this investment will likely result in lower service levels, more frequent leaks and breaks, and increased expenditures for emergency repairs. This will ultimately require significantly more money to address.

Macro modeling provides a way to evaluate the long term pipe renewal picture. It can help predict the needed investments to sustainably managing the distribution system. Although the macro analysis can tell you how much pipe to renew, it does not specify which individual pipe segments to renew. The micro analysis provides pipe asset renewal recommendations by evaluating risks associated with individual pipe segments and prioritizing renewal based on pipeline specific data. The prioritized list for the Biddeford & Saco system is provided in the Distribution System Recommendations (Section X) portion of this report. Combining the macro and micro analyses provides Maine Water with a defensible and sustainable long-term distribution renewal plan.

Macro analysis tools, such as KANEW and the Buried No Longer Pipe Replacement Modeling Tool (which was recently developed by the American Water Works Association) help water systems understand long-term pipe renewal needs. The Buried No Longer Tool is derived from a comprehensive, national-level analysis of the cost and timing of the investments necessary for sustainable distribution system renewal. Keys to development of the model included: 

Tracking the timing of water system development through grow and recession over the last 150 years;



Cataloging the materials from which pipes were made and where and when pipes of each material were likely to have been installed;



Measuring the service lives of the various pipe types and sizes in actual operating environments;



Developing replacement costs for each type and size of pipe; and



Establishing a probability distribution to estimate service life for each pipe group; these values can be adjusted for local conditions and differences.

The Buried No Longer model has twelve sub-models that encompass three water system size categories in four regions of the US (very small, medium small and large; and northeast, south, Midwest and west). Data used by the model’s developers included: 

Regional pipe installation profiles by system size and pipe diameter from USEPA, water industry and US Census Bureau data



AWWA Water/Stats database



USEPA Community Water Supply Survey



2002 Public Works Infrastructure Survey



Survey of professionals in the field



Historical data on production and use of pipe as shown in Figure 3-1



US Census Bureau population trends

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

3-8

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Figure 3-1: Historical Production and Use of Water Pipe by Material1 This data was used along with a “typical” useful service live which assumes that pipe is replaced at the end of the pipe’s useful life. The result is a Nessie Curve, which is a graph of the annual replacement needs for a specific water system, based on when pipes were installed and how long they are expected to last in that water system. The model takes into account pipe failure probability distributions based on a compilation of various utilities’ current operating experiences, extensive research and professional experience.

The model assumes “typical” service lives of each material type for each regions/sizes as shown in Figure 3-2.

Note that the service lives for pipes within a particular water system may vary from the “typical” as the rate of deterioration is not determined solely by the age of the pipe, but rather is the cumulative effect of pipe installation practices, soil conditions, the quality of the material and other factors. For example, the Biddeford & Saco system may have pipes with services lives greater than 100 years whereas other utilities may conversely be observing significantly shorter services lives, because of local conditions. Although the Buried No Longer Tool has not been developed to allow the user to input specific services lives, Woodard & Curran is working with the Tool’s developer to expand the model to allow water system specific calibration based on known conditions including leak and break rates.

1

Buried No Longer Pipe Replacement Modeling Tool

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

3-9

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Figure 3-2: Derived Current Service Lives for Installed Mains2 3.4.1 Model Inputs The macro model requires utility-specific data including distribution system commencement date, population served, expected growth rate, pipe costs and summary of pipe materials and sizes in the distribution system.

The model provides system growth profile options based on the commencement date of the distribution system.

The model allows the selection of a growth profile based on region/size or the most representative growth profile based on utility specific cumulative percent of pipe installed per decade. The utility specific cumulative percent of pipe installed per decade is only applicable if the utility has accurate pipe installation information. Otherwise, the sub-model is selected based on the utility’s region and size.

Biddeford & Saco’s distribution system GIS data was analyzed to develop the inputs for the Buried No Longer Tool. The Buried No Longer Tool allows input of the following material categories: cast iron, concrete lined cast iron, ductile iron, asbestos cement, PVC, steel and concrete & PCCP. The Biddeford & Saco data was adjusted for consistency with model terminology and to fill in missing data gaps. As with any data adjustment such as assuming material types based on installation year, a degree of imprecision is introduced into the model; however as approximately 15 percent of the pipes had unknown material types, the model would be significantly less accurate if the pipes with unknown material types were omitted from the model. The following assumptions were made based on review of available data and based on the distribution system analysis in Section 8 of Volume I of this report.

Table 3-4: Data Adjustment Assumptions GIS Model Data

2

Buried No Longer Tool

Year

Material

Analysis Adjustment

1959 to Present

Cast Iron

Concrete Lined Cast Iron

1969

Cast Iron - Cleaned

Concrete Lined Cast Iron

1969

Cast Iron – Cleaned and Lined

Concrete Lined Cast Iron

1991 to Present

HDPE

PVC*

1867-1958

Unlined Cast Iron

Cast Iron*

Buried No Longer Pipe Replacement Modeling Tool

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

3-10

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

GIS Model Data

Buried No Longer Tool

Year

Material

Analysis Adjustment

1948

Reinforced Concrete

Concrete*

1885-1958

Unknown

Cast Iron

1959-1967

Unknown

Concrete Lined Cast Iron

1968-Present

Unknown

Ductile Iron

*Terminology adjustment based on allowable Tool inputs.

Table 3-5 lists the Buried No Longer Tool inputs used for the Biddeford & Saco system.

Table 3-5: Buried No Longer Tool Inputs Parameter

Input

Commencement decade of system

1884

2010 population served

31,000

Future growth rate in customers

0.1%

Expected average annual inflation rate

2.5%

Average installed cost per LF of water main in 2012

$150/LF

Length of the water system

233 miles

Region/Size Reference Model

Northeast Medium & Small

Cast Iron – < 6-inch

13%

Cast Iron – 6-inch to 10-inch

29%

Cast Iron – > 10-inch

7%

Cast Iron Concrete Lined – < 6-inch

4%

Cast Iron Concrete Lined – 6-inch to 10-inch

6%

Cast Iron Concrete Lined – > 10-inch

5%

Ductile Iron – < 6-inch

5%

Ductile Iron – 6-inch to 10-inch

19%

Ductile Iron – > 10-inch

9%

Asbestos Cement – 6-inch to 10-inch

0.6%

Asbestos Cement – > 10-inch

0.5%

PVC* – < 6-inch

1.4%

PVC* – 6-inch to 10-inch

0.1%

Concrete & PCCP – > 10-inch

0.4%

*Note, within the Buried No Longer Tool, “PVC” is used as a “catch-all” for later pipe types such as HDPE

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

3-11

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

3.4.2 Model Results The analysis uses the Nessie Model to combine demographically based pipe inventories with average service lives to yield an estimate of how much pipe of each size and material must be replaced in each of the coming years to the year 2050. The model is scaled based on specific water system inputs and the average cost to replace these pipes is applied to determine the total investment for each year. The tool outputs a series of graphs (Nessie curves) that display the amount of investment required in each future year to replace each of the different pipe materials and size categories.

The macro analysis for the Biddeford & Saco system indicates that for sustainable renewal, Maine Water should replace approximately 1.5 to 2 miles per year as shown in Figure 3-2. At an average investment of $150 per linear foot of pipe, the annual investment is approximately $1.6 million per year as shown in Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5. This annual investment increases over time peaking at approximately $1.8 million per year in 2030.

While the macro model provides the over-arching annual renewal budget, the specific pipelines to be renewed are listed in the distribution system recommendations section of this report. The results of the macro analysis should be used concurrently with the mid-term and long-term prioritized distribution system recommendations which were described previously in this report and totaled $12,680,000 and $11,382,000, respectively. At an average annual investment of $1.7 million per year, the water mains recommended as mid-term and long-term priority could be replaced within approximately fifteen years.

The following figures are the graphical outputs of the model and include the estimated miles of replacement per year, estimated replacement investment by pipe material and by pipe size category and the estimated investment per capita of population served.

Estimated Replacement in Miles per Year 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5

2050

2045

2040

2035

2030

2025

2020

2015

2010

0.0

Figure 3-3: Estimated Replacement in Miles per Year Figure 3-4 depicts cumulative investment by pipe material type whereas Figure 3-5 depicts cumulative investment by pipe size category (pipe diameter). While cast iron is generally the oldest pipe in a system, it has a longer service life than many other materials so the oldest pipes in the system will not necessarily be the first renewed. As shown in Figure 3-4, the investment should shift over time.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

3-12

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Material $2.50

Conc & PCCP Steel

$2.00

PVC AC (SSL)

$1.50

2012 $M

AC (LSL) DI (SSL)

$1.00

DI (LSL) CICL (SSL)

$0.50

CICL (LSL)

$0.00 2050

2045

2040

2035

2030

2025

2020

2015

2010

CI

Figure 3-4: Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Material Figure 3-5 highlights investment by pipe size category. Based on the model, the 6-inch to 10-inch category should receive approximately half of the investment, with pipes less than 6-inch in diameter and greater than 10inch in diameter each receiving approximately a fourth of the investment.

Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Size Category $2.50

2012 $M

$2.00 $1.50

>10 6-10 <6

$1.00 $0.50

2050

2045

2040

2035

2030

2025

2020

2015

2010

$0.00

Figure 3-5: Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Size Category Figure 3-6 depicts comparative investment by pipe material type whereas Figure 3-7 depicts comparative investment by pipe size category (pipe diameter).

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

3-13

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Material: Comparative

$2.00

CI

$1.80

CICL (LSL)

$1.60

CICL (SSL)

2012 $M

$1.40

DI (LSL)

$1.20 $1.00

DI (SSL)

$0.80

AC (LSL)

$0.60

AC (SSL)

$0.40

PVC

$0.20

Steel

2050

2045

2040

2035

2030

2025

2020

2015

2010

$0.00

Conc & PCCP

Figure 3-6: Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Material: Comparative Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Size Category: Comparative

$1.20 $1.00

2012 $M

$0.80 <6 6-10

$0.60

>10

$0.40 $0.20

2050

2045

2040

2035

2030

2025

2020

2015

2010

$0.00

Figure 3-7: Estimated Replacement Expenditure by Pipe Size Category: Comparative Figure 3-8 shows estimated per capita investment in 2012 dollars as well as estimated per capita investment with a 2.5% inflation rate applied to the year 2050.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

3-14

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

$160

Estimated Replacement Expenditure per Capita of Population Served

$140 $120

2012$

$100 With Inflation

$80 $60

2.5%

$40 $20 2050

2045

2040

2035

2030

2025

2020

2015

2010

$0

Figure 3-8: Estimated Replacement Expenditure per Capita of Population Served Combining the results of the macro model with the specific distribution system recommendations made in this CSFP will allow Maine Water to understand both the big picture investments required for sustainable renewal well as specific replacement priorities based on the individual pipeline hydraulic limitations and risk factors.

These analyses together provide a defensible and sustainable long-term distribution renewal plan.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

3-15

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

4. NEW TREATMENT FACILITY OPTIONS An analysis of options for construction of a new treatment facility was performed. The analysis is a planning level review which takes into account three production capacity range options, siting options and two treatment technologies.

4.1 PRODUCTION CAPACITY OPTIONS The Biddeford and Saco water system is located adjacent to multiple southern Maine water systems including Kittery Water District (Kittery), Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Wells Water District (KKW), York Water District (YWD) and the Portland Water District (PWD). The Biddeford and Saco system has been identified as having one of the two premier sources of water supply in southern Maine by the Maine Regional Water Council. As part of a new treatment facility analysis, it is prudent to evaluate the potential for Biddeford and Saco to become a regional supplier of drinking water. The three production capacity options considered, which are detailed subsequently, are as follows: 1. Capacity for Biddeford and Saco’s projected 2050 demands 2. Capacity for Biddeford and Saco’s projected 2050 demands, plus additional capacity to supply Kittery and KKW’s anticipated surface water demands 3. Capacity for Biddeford and Saco’s projected 2050 demands, plus additional capacity to supply all of Kittery, KKW and YWD’s demands and roughly half of Portland’s anticipated demands

4.1.1

Capacity for Biddeford and Saco

A demand projection was given for the Biddeford and Saco system in Volume I of this report. The demand projection did not include any future demands from adjacent regional water systems. The results were a 2050 average day demand range of 4.5-7.1 MGD, a maximum day demand range of 8.1-12.8 MGD and a peak week demand range of 7.7-12.0 MGD. The maximum day demand is capable of being buffered by the system’s storage of approximately 3 MG and, therefore, the capacity of a new treatment facility is based on the peak week future demand. Using this projection, a 12 MGD facility that is expandable to 16 MGD is appropriate.

Another potential capacity consideration is an interconnection with the Portland Water District. A letter from the Portland Water District to Tata & Howard dated July 18, 2013, states that through hydraulic modeling, it appears Portland Water District could provide 3.7 MGD to the Biddeford and Saco system after major upgrades to the Portland Water District’s distribution system including the addition of an interconnect between the two systems. If Maine Water chooses to work with the Portland Water District on an interconnection, the design capacity of the Biddeford and Saco treatment facility could be reduced to 8-10 MG with the Portland interconnect supplying the additional peak week flows. In this case, the facility should allow for future extension to 12 MGD. This production point is comparable to that envisioned in Volume I for the proposed upgrades to the existing treatment facility. As such, the costs for this new facility option and PWD interconnection should be compared to the costs developed for the existing facility rehabilitation option.

4.1.2

Additional Capacity for Kittery and KKW’s Surface Water Demands

In considering Biddeford and Saco as a regional supplier, the new facility would likely need to supply water to Kittery as well as replace KKW’s aging surface water treatment facility. KKW obtains a portion of their present supply from groundwater wells, and it was assumed that they would continue to rely on those wells for a future portion of their needs.

Kittery’s current demands average approximately 2.2 MGD in the summer, spring and fall and 3.4 MGD in the winter; however demands in the winter can spike to 3.8 MGD. The increase in winter demands is due to consumption at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Demands have been fairly steady over the last few years, but they have the potential to decrease with changes in workload at the shipyard.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

4-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

KKW’s current demands average approximately 6 MGD in peak summer months and 1.25 to 2 MGD in the winter.

KKW’s production has increased slowly over the last few years with residential construction. District staff indicate that approximately 60 percent of the summer production, or approximately 4 MGD, comes from their surface water source with the remaining 40 percent coming from their groundwater wells. The wells have minor iron and manganese concerns as well as supply limitations. The surface water source, Branch Brook, is very limited in capacity.

The historical demand analysis for the Biddeford and Saco system revealed a declining trend in per capita water use.

Even with modest residential growth, the declines in per capita water use result in a leveling off or, in some cases depending on growth, declining water demands into the future. It is anticipated that this trend is generally applicable to other southern Maine water systems and therefore, it is estimated that Kittery and KKW’s future demands will be similar to current peak demands; although this should be vetted before any future facility is designed.

The estimated capacity of a treatment facility capable of supplying Biddeford and Saco, Kittery and KKW’s 4 MGD surface water demand totals approximately 20 MGD. The layout for such a treatment facility should be designed for 20 MGD and allow for extension to 24 MGD.

4.1.3

Additional Capacity for KKW Wells, YWD and to Supplement PWD

This option includes capacity for Biddeford and Saco, all demands for Kittery, KKW, YWD and back-up supply for PWD. This option is likely to be considered in only long term planning scenarios as it would require major upgrades to the distribution networks, particularly when considering large volume transfers north to the Portland system. In addition to the previous option’s 20 MGD for the Biddeford and Saco, Kittery and KKW surface water demands, the facility would be required to produce an additional 2 MGD in place of KKW’s well supply, 2 MGD for YWD and half of PWD’s estimated 25 MGD demand. This totals approximately 36 MGD. The layout for the treatment facility include should be designed for 36 MGD and allow extension to 40 MGD.

4.1.4

Summary of Capacity Options

The following table summarizes the capacity options used for the new treatment facility analysis.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

4-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Table 4-1: New Treatment Facility Capacity Options Options – System Demands

Initial Capacity

Expandable To

Option 1 – Biddeford and Saco Only

12 MGD

16 MGD

Option 2 – Biddeford and Saco – 12 MGD Kittery – 4 MGD KKW surface only – 4 MGD

20 MGD

24 MGD

Option 3 – Biddeford and Saco – 12 MGD Kittery – 4 MGD KKW – 6 MGD York – 2 MGD Portland – 12 MGD

36 MGD

40 MGD

4.2 SITE REVIEW This section provides a review of the existing site constraints and discusses how these constraints can impact the development of a new treatment facility. As part of this analysis, both conventional filtration and packaged filtration treatment technologies, and assumed a facility size of 16 MGD, expandable to 24 MGD and/or 40 MGD were considered. The analysis considered treatment facility development at both the existing treatment facility parcel and the nearby reservoir parcel.

Maine Water owns two parcels of land along South Street: the treatment facility parcel at 466 South Street, adjacent to the Saco River and identified as Tax Map 2-40; and the reservoir parcel, located at 439 South Street, identified as Tax Map 2-19. The locations of these two parcels are shown on Figure 4-1.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

4-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Treatment Facility Parcel 17 Acres +/-

Reservoir Parcel 126 Acres +/-

Figure 4-1: Parcel Options The review considered several potential development constraints as part of this evaluation, including topography, floodplains, wetlands, soils, habitats, easements, zoning restrictions and access. Readily available mapping documentation from City of Biddeford GIS databases as well as the existing conditions survey and wetland delineation recently performed at the treatment facility site was utilized.

4.2.1

Topography

A survey of the existing treatment facility parcel was provided by Royal River Survey; and is attached as Appendix B of this report. The site generally slopes from southwest to northeast. The site contains several areas of steep slopes, and in some cases slopes exceed 2H:1V and have embankment heights of over 20 feet. Areas with steep slopes include portions of the site adjacent to South Street, areas adjacent to the access road, and a large portion of the north corner of the parcel. Construction in these areas of steep slopes will result in substantial earthwork prior to new building construction.

Field survey information was not available at the reservoir property; therefore topography information from GIS maps as well as visual observations of the site were used to conduct this review. The following figure shows the topography of the site, with 10â&#x20AC;&#x2122; contour intervals.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Figure 4-2: Reservoir Parcel Topography Topographic mapping indicates that the site generally slopes from South Street towards the reservoir at roughly a 6 percent slope. The areas adjacent to the reservoir are relatively flat. A review of these figures indicates that the reservoir property appears to be the preferable site from a topographic perspective.

4.2.2

Floodplain

Review of FEMA Firm maps indicate that both parcels have areas designated as the 100-year floodplain. The treatment facility parcel is located within the floodplain of the Saco River, and has a history of flood impacts. FEMA has established a flood elevation of 62 in this area. This flood elevation is shown on the planning schematics attached as Appendix D, and show on the following GIS map for reference.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-5

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

100 year floodplain

500 year floodplain

Figure 4-3: Treatment Facility Parcel Floodplain Approximately one-fourth of the existing treatment facility site is within the 100-year floodplain, including the treatment facility and lagoon system. All proposed site improvements within the 100-year floodplain will require additional fill to bring structures above the flood elevation, and/or construction of flood berms or other mitigation measures, potentially adding significant costs to the development.

The reservoir parcel also contains some areas within the 100-year floodplain, although no elevation has been set by FEMA for this area. The floodplain delineation is shown on the following figure as well as on planning schematics in Appendix D. Given the size of the parcel, Woodard & Curran anticipates that significant impacts to this floodplain can be minimized, and that the reservoir site is preferable from a flooding perspective.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-6

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Figure 4-4: Reservoir Parcel Floodplain 4.2.3

Wetlands

Wetland areas appear to be present on both the treatment facility and reservoir sites. A wetland delineation of the treatment facility site was performed by FB Environmental Associates in September 2013. The report, which is included in Appendix C, includes a description of soils, as well as an identification and classification of wetlands. The locations of the wetlands are also shown as green hatches on the planning schematics in Appendix D. As shown in the following figure, a large area in the south corner of the site has been delineated as wetlands. The wetlands are described as having been significantly disturbed as a result of historical land uses including agriculture, development and deposition of fill material. Several species of invasive plants were documented throughout the site.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-7

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Figure 4-5: Treatment Facility Wetland Delineation A portion of the wetlands are located within the 100-year FEMA floodplain and therefore are classified as Wetlands of Special Significance. Impacts to these wetlands will require significant levels of compensation, as described in following sections of this report. The wetland delineation also identified a potential vernal pool in the northern portion of the site, although FB Environmental notes that the vernal pool is unlikely to be classified as significant. Additional review of this area in the spring (including counting of egg masses) will be necessary to fully classify this area.

Woodard & Curran reviewed National Wetland Inventory Maps to determine if any known wetland areas are mapped for the reservoir site. These mapped wetland areas are shown as dark blue on the following GIS map, with municipal buffer areas shown in light purple.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-8

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Figure 4-6: Reservoir Parcel Mapped Wetlands No field wetland delineation was conducted on the reservoir site, and consequently the actual location of wetlands can vary significantly from the mapped locations. However, these maps are a good indication that wetland areas are likely to be present at the reservoir parcel. Due to the size of the parcel, a full wetland delineation of the 126 acres would be cost prohibitive. Instead, it is recommend that a wetland scientist walk the site and provide siting recommendations, if Maine Water chooses to further pursue a new treatment facility at this site.

4.2.4

Soils

No geotechnical investigation was conducted as part of this planning exercise, so information regarding soils is relatively unknown. The wetland delineation indicates that soils between the treatment facility and South Street are poorly draining and have slow permeability. These soft soils will likely require large investments in foundations for a new treatment facility. If Maine Water chooses to further pursue development of a new treatment facility, it is highly recommend that exploratory geotechnical analysis of the potential sites be conducted prior to advancement of a site design.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-9

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

4.2.5

Habitats

Information from the Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) was requested to determine if any known rare or threatened habitats are located within the area. Documentation from these review agencies is included as part of Appendix C. Woodard & Curran has received confirmation that no known rare or threatened botanical features are located within the treatment facility site; however Red Maple Swap, which is an exemplary natural community, has been identified within the reservoir parcel. Although it appears that the Red Maple Swap is located southwest of the anticipated development area, the agency review does not provide a definitive delineation, and an on-site assessment by a biologist would be required to confirm the extents of the feature.

Figure 4-7: Red Maple Swamp The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IFW) reviewed the two parcels in regards to wildlife habitat and confirmed that no known rare or threatened species are mapped for this area. Please note, IFW confirmed that the reservoir parcel is listed as Deer Wintering Habitat, and will be classified as a significant wildlife habitat, which may result in additional permitting through the Maine DEP Natural Resources Protection Act. As suggested by IF&W, forestry regulations and guidelines for management of Deer Wintering Areas should be followed to minimize impacts to this habitat.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-10

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Figure 4-8: Deer Wintering Habitat 4.2.6

Easements

The existing treatment facility site contains a 100-foot wide easement for Central Maine Powerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (CMP) high voltage overhead electrical system. This easement cuts diagonally through the western half of the site. The location of the easement is shown on the survey attached as Appendix B as well as the planning schematics in Appendix D. The configuration and location of the easement represents a significant site constraint for the treatment facility site, because it reduces the amount of contiguous land available for development. Relocation of the easement would likely represent significant costs and require additional time for negotiation with the utility company and development of new legal documents.

Since no survey of the reservoir site has been conducted to date, there is limited information available regarding the easements on the property.

4.2.7

Zoning Restrictions

The zoning maps and local land use regulations were reviewed as they pertain to these two sites. A copy of the zoning map is shown on Figure 4-8.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-11

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Figure 4-9: Zoning Map The treatment facility parcel is located within the Suburban Residential 1 (SR1) Zone and portions of the site within 250 feet of the Saco River are designated as being in the Limited Residential Shoreland Overlay Zone. Setbacks for structures in this zone are listed as 40-feet along South Street frontage and 10-feet along the side and rear property lines.

The reservoir parcel is located within the Rural Farm (RF) zone, and has setback of 40-feet along South Street frontage and 25-feet along the side and rear property lines.

The local regulatory permitting requirements will largely be driven by the “use classification” assigned to the new treatment facility. Water treatment facilities are not currently listed in the City’s Table of Land Uses, and therefore the extent of local permitting is difficult to determine at this stage. If Maine Water chooses to further pursue the development of a new treatment facility, meeting with City Planning officials prior to finalization of site development is recommended. In general, it is anticipated that permitting of development within the treatment facility parcel may be more challenging because the shoreland zone will require additional regulatory review.

4.2.8

Site Access

The treatment facility parcel has over 1,000 feet of frontage along South Street which can be utilized to establish access to the new treatment facility. As discussed above, the topography along South Street and the access path includes some steep side slopes which will need to be considered during establishment of access paths.

The reservoir site is rather limited in site access. A wet area of significant size is located along the South Street frontage. An easement was provided across abutting properties for the existing access road to the reservoir. Maine Water should review their easement to determine if it is restricted for access to the reservoir exclusively, or if it could The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

4-12

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

be used to access the property for treatment facility operations. In addition to the cost of easements, the road would likely require upgrades in order to accommodate access to the treatment facility. The reservoir is approximately 3,200 feet from South Street, so these road upgrades would be a significant cost.

4.2.9

Summary of Site Constraints

The following table provides a summary of the development constraints reviewed by Woodard & Curran as part of this planning process.

Table 4-2: Development Constraints Constraint

Treatment Facility Parcel

Reservoir Parcel

Topography

Significant areas of steep sideslopes and embankments

Relatively flat areas near reservoir

Floodplains

Significant floodplain impacts

Floodplains located on-site, but impacts can be minimized

Wetlands

Wetlands are present, including Wetlands of Special Significance

Wetlands are mapped, further review recommended

Soils

Soft soils are likely, recommend geotechnical investigation prior to finalization of site selection

Soil types unknown; recommend geotechnical investigation prior to finalization of site selection

Habitats

Awaiting information from review agencies

Possible Deer Wintering Habitat; awaiting information from Review Agencies

Easements

CMP easement diagonally divide the site

No known easements, further review recommended

Zoning Restrictions

Suburban Residential and Shoreland Overlay

Rural Farm Zoning

Access

Access is available, topography may impact cost of access road

Access is limited and the length of the access road is significant; recommend examining rights of existing access road easement.

Both sites have constraints that will need to be thoughtfully considered during the design of a new treatment facility.

Although these site constraints do not eliminate the potential for a new treatment facility, they have the potential to add time and cost to the project. They also drive the selection of treatment technology options towards those that require a smaller footprint on the treatment facility parcel.

4.2.10 Planning Schematics To better understand how the constraints identified above impact the development of a treatment facility, a series of planning figures, which are attached as Appendix D, are provided. Conventional filtration and packaged filtration treatment facilities with an assumed initial capacity of 16 MGD, 24 MGD and 40 MGD were evaluated. These represent the maximum anticipated size of the three size range options considered for a new treatment facility. The following table summarizes the potential footprints for each treatment capacity and treatment technology.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-13

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Table 4-3: New Treatment Facility Capacity Options Capacity 16 MGD 24 MGD 40 MGD

Treatment Technology

Approximate Footprint (SF)

Conventional

56,000

Packaged

25,000

Conventional

81,000

Packaged

32,000

Conventional

127,000

Packaged

48,000

The planning schematics are based on facility capacity at full expansion (16 MGD, 24 MGD and 40 MGD), and take into account layout considerations for expansion from base capacities. These footprints are for planning purposes only and would need to be refined in the preliminary and design phases.

Three site locations for the treatment facility were considered: 

Northwest Quadrant of the treatment facility parcel, between the CMP Easement and South Street



Southwest Quadrant of the treatment facility parcel, in front of existing treatment facility



Adjacent to the reservoir

The following sections describe the suitability of these three sites for treatment facility development.

4.2.10.1Northwest Quadrant of the Treatment Facility Parcel For purposes of this analysis, the Northwest Quadrant is defined by a triangular piece of land east of the setback from South Street, south of the side setback, and west of the CMP Easement. This area of the site is approximately 2.5 acres. Although clear of wetlands, the topography of the area includes steep embankments and ravines. This quadrant is likely not of sufficient size to support a 40 MGD conventional filtration facility. An example of a 16 MGD Facility, expandable to 24 MGD, is shown on Figure 1A in Appendix D. Note that the 24 MGD conventional facility is likely to infringe upon the CMP easement and the setbacks. Furthermore, the northwest quadrant does not have sufficient area for the lagoons, which would need to be located to the southwest resulting in wetland impacts and associated compensation costs.

The packaged filtration facility, shown in Figure 1B of Appendix D, can accommodate up to a 40 MDG facility in this northwest quadrant. The footprint is significantly smaller than that of the conventional treatment facility because a packaged facility does not require sedimentation basins. Lagoons will still need to be located to the southwest resulting in wetland impacts and associated compensation costs.

Wetlands impacts of this nature will be difficult to permit, because Maine Water would need to document that no other alternative is available. Wetland impacts also have significant compensation costs. As a point of reference, the in-lieu compensation costs for impacts to the 1.6 acres of wetlands in front of the treatment facility would cost approximately $300,000, according to the current Maine DEP’s In-Lieu Compensation Rates, per the rates published on their fact sheet http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/nrpa/ILF_and_NRCP/ILF/fs-in-lieu.pdf. Please note this rate could further escalate if the wetlands are determined to be within significant wildlife habitat.

4.2.10.2Southwest Quadrant of the Treatment Facility Parcel The Southwest Quadrant is described as a piece of land east of the setback from South Street, north of the side setback, and west of the existing treatment facility. This area is approximately 5 acres in size; 1.6 acres of which are wetlands. Roughly half of the area is within the 100 year floodplain.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

4-14

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

An example of a 16 MGD conventional filtration facility, expandable to 24 MGD and 40 MGD, is shown on Figure 2 in Appendix D. As you will note, the conventional facility and lagoons will impact significant areas of wetlands, including wetlands of special significance. As noted above, the compensation and associated permitting costs for these wetland impacts will be significant.

4.2.10.3Adjacent to Reservoir In light of the significant constraints to construction of a new treatment facility on the existing site, it is recommended that Maine Water consider the reservoir parcel as a potential development site. An example of a conventional treatment facility is shown on Figure 3 of Appendix D. A principal advantage of locating a new treatment facility in the vicinity of the reservoir is that there appears to be a large suitable building site. A conventional filtration facility, fitted with a gravity sedimentation step, tends to occupy a larger footprint than some other package-type treatment methods. A conventional filtration facility has the advantage of more robust performance and recovery in periods of high loading during high raw water turbidity events, and generally lower energy requirements compared to the upflow adsorption clarifiers and their captive media which require backwashing and scouring.

A second significant advantage of locating a new facility near the reservoir is that it would be possible to convert the treatment system to a single-pumped system. New raw water pumps, installed in a new or redesigned facility on the present treatment site, could move water to the high elevation treatment facility. From there the reservoir and the distribution system (other than the high service zone) could be served by gravity.

One downside to operating in this fashion is that initial calculations suggest that the present transmission line between the existing treatment facility and the reservoir is suitable for only upwards of 14 MGD flow. This line could continue to be used for a new treatment facility constructed at the first breakpoint of 12 MGD to serve the existing Biddeford-Saco service territory. This process consideration also applies for construction of a treatment facility on the existing site. Any future facility capacity expansion to serve areas to the south of Biddeford, or deliver large volumes of water to PWD would require a new transmission line be included as an element of the expansion project.

Other advantages to the upland site include moving away from the residential neighborhood surrounding the existing facility, reducing concerns with flooding, and co-locating a staffed treatment facility adjacent to the storage reservoir (or some future replacement reservoir). This provides an additional measure of security for the reservoir, which is remote and susceptible to vandalism.

As described above, additional research into site accessibility, wetland delineation, and site soils is recommended prior to finalizing site selection; however overall, the reservoir site appears to be the preferred location.

4.3 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES The existing treatment facility utilizes conventional treatment which has historically performed well for the Biddeford and Saco system. When considering design of a new treatment facility, it is prudent to evaluate multiple technologies to ensure the most cost effective and reliable technology is utilized. This section describes the technologies that were evaluated as well as provides parameters for the selected treatment technologies.

Existing source water conditions, chemical application rates and process design criteria are described in Volume I of this CSFP.

4.3.1

Conventional Filtration

4.3.1.1 Traditional Layout Conventional filtration, utilizing alum or PAC-based flocculation, gravity settling, and dual media filters, is the existing treatment method and the one most likely to successfully treat the full range of Saco River water conditions. Filters could be within cast-in-place concrete basins or in painted steel or stainless steel tanks. Steel tank based filters The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-15

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

would be easier to situate on an upland site since they could be located in a building with a shallow foundation and with greater access to the interconnected piping gallery. Steel tanks also lend themselves to simpler building arrangements that could be more readily expanded to the second and third production volumes, should this become necessary. The selection of steel tanks would reduce initial capital costs but would likely increase maintenance costs.

Whether steel or concrete filters are selected, it is envisioned that plastic sectional underdrains, such as those manufactured by Roberts or Leopold would be installed. Such filters, with their sintered or slotted caps, eliminate the need for media support gravel while improving uniform filtration. Filters would be fitted with an air scour system with air discharge headers mounted above the underdrain for ease of maintenance and to avoid the risk of air-binding the underdrains. Individual filter monitoring, filter-to-waste, and automated backwashing based on differential pressure or breakthrough would be included in a new design.

A conventional flocculation/sedimentation step would be based on the design parameters previously noted.

Sedimentation basins would be concrete and would be paired with two filters each. Sedimentation basins could be located beneath the filter level, or could be located outside from the filtration building. Other than concrete tank tops and access structures, no additional building coverage would be necessary above the basins.

Disinfection contact chambers, a separate chloramination basin, and finished water clearwells could be located beneath the filtration building floor. Given the operating history of the Biddeford-Saco system, an ozone preoxidation step does not appear necessary and would only add complexity. Given the systemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Long Term II Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) Bin classification, continued primary disinfection using chlorine should be sufficient for the foreseeable future. Conversion to chloramines to provide a distribution system residual should continue to be practiced.

Potential layouts on the existing site are shown for the 16 MGD and 24 MGD options. Both would be crowded in the available area and by the Central Maine Power right-of-way. The fully built-out 40 MGD option would not fit to the west of the CMP easement but could be located within the south corner of the site within the floodplain and wetland zones. Sufficient land exists near the reservoir site to accommodate even the largest build-out of a conventional filtration system.

4.3.1.2 Packaged Layout One modification to the classic conventional filtration system is the use of packaged treatment units, such as those produced by Trident or Suez-Degremont. These packaged filters, in steel tanks or concrete basins, paired with captive plastic media in high-rate upflow adsorption clarifiers can significantly reduce the footprint and construction costs for a conventional filtration facility. Steel tank units typically range in capacities up to 2 MGD each, while concrete basin mounted units can be sized for up to 20 MGD each. For the full build out at 40 MGD, steel tank units would be impractical for a single facility. At the lower production breakpoints, the use of steel tanks could be justified, particularly if there was a significant interval between the initial construction and the first expansion.

High rate clarifiers are not as resilient during high turbidity spikes, such as can occur on the Saco River, as traditional settling basins. In addition, they are far more sensitive to coagulant dosing. From an operations standpoint, it would be preferable to consider traditional settling basins if the upland reservoir site was considered for development. Highrate, upflow clarifiers with packaged filters may be the only filtration option feasible on the existing facility site, given the space constraints.

4.3.2

Direct Filtration & Pressure Filters

Direct and pressure filtration systems without pre-treatment such as sedimentation or clarification are generally not be suitable for source waters that could see turbidities exceeding 5-10 NTU. Pressure filters are typically for lower flow applications and for groundwater sources, principally for iron and manganese removal. Experience has shown that the turbidity in Saco River water settles readily, even during periods of high turbidity. From an operations standpoint, the easiest and best location for removing these readily settleable solids would be during a separate The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-16

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

sedimentation treatment step. Removal of solids through a clarification step, such as that of a packaged facility is also possible, but less robust than through conventional sedimentation. Clarification tends to struggle water that has turbidity over 50 NTU. The tradeoff is the higher construction cost of conventional sedimentation basins. Direct and pressure filtration alone without pre-treatment would not be suitable for a source such as the Saco River and for the capacities and reliability required of the Biddeford-Saco treatment system.

Since the floc at the existing treatment facility has been observed to settle under gravity conditions quite readily, there is no operational driver to employ more complex, energy intensive measures such as dissolved air floatation or ballasted floc systems. The only reason to consider these technologies would be to reduce the treatment facility footprint, but this would come with proportionately greater operational costs that are not justified.

4.3.3

Membrane Treatment

While some membrane treatment facilities have been sized as large as 100 MGD, the technology is most appropriate for facility sizes less than 5 MGD and for facilities with extremely high raw water quality. Low chemical consumption and backwash volumes are membranes biggest advantages. They are, however, a high energy process and are not well suited to source waters susceptible to turbidity spikes.

4.4 COSTS Planning level costs associated with a new treatment facility were developed using formulas presented in the Cost Estimating Manual for Water Treatment Facilities in combination with data from similarly-sized treatment facilities constructed in New England within the last 5 years.3 Although the manual was developed based on national costs, as described below, regional construction costs were also reviewed for comparison. It was impractical to base costs solely on the similar treatment facilities build in New England, since relatively few facilities in the size ranges considered have been constructed in the last 5 years.

As the Cost Estimating Manual for Water Treatment Facilities manual was developed in 2007, an ENR cost factor of 1.17 was applied to the estimated costs to bring costs to 2013 dollars. The estimated costs were developed using the formulas for individual processes and components of a treatment facility. These costs were then summed as a process subtotal and additional percentages were applied for sitework, yard piping, landscaping, site electrical and controls, engineering, legal, administration and twenty percent contingency. Also included as appropriate were estimated costs for replacement of the transmission main to the reservoir and access road work for the alternative site across the street from the existing site. The individual values associated with each of these line items are included in Appendix E. The cost estimates were developed based on the following criteria.

Table 4-4: New Treatment Facility Options and Design Criteria Treatment Technology

Conventional

Design Parameters Sedimentation Basin: Detention Time: 4 hours Surface Overflow Rate: 0.5 gpm/ft2 gpm/ft2

Filtration Rate: 3 Clearwell: Tc of 18 minutes

Initial Capacity (MGD)

Extended Capacity (MGD)

12

16

20

24

36

40

McGivney, William, and Susumu Kawamura. Cost Estimating Manual for Water Treatment Facilities. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

Print.

3

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-17

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Packaged

Based on standard painted carbon steel Trident Microfloc Units

12

16

20

24

36

40

As the selected technologies are similar to the current treatment, the estimate assumed continued use of the chemicals currently used unless otherwise recommended in Volume I of this report including sodium hypochlorite, aluminum sulfate, sodium aluminate, polymer, lime, fluoride, phosphate and aqua ammonia.

For each initial capacity, it was assumed that the filter building footprint required for the extended capacity would be built in the first phase of the project (for example, the initial 12 MGD facility footprint would be designed to accommodate the process equipment for the extended 16 MGD capacity), and the additional filters required to extend the treatment capacity would be installed during a second phase. Additional sedimentation basins and lagoons were also assumed to be installed as part of the second phases.

For the existing site, the additional lagoons required for the 36 MGD and 40 MGD conventional option are located at a higher elevation than the treatment facility and will require pumping. These costs have been included in the estimate.

On the existing site, the 12 MGD facility will not require replacement of the transmission main from the existing site to the reservoir; however, costs associated with all other capacities including extension to 16 MGD include the cost for the replacement of this transmission main.

The planning level cost estimates below assume site work adds 15 percent to the process construction total. Due to the numerous existing site constraints on both sites as previously discussed, it is anticipated that the site work costs will likely be higher than this, especially considering potential impacts to protected resources. Although easements, floodplains, topography and wetland impacts were taken into consideration in the layout options presented, the site work costs associated with these were not specifically included in the estimates below because the magnitude of the costs will be specific to the chosen site. A more detailed site work cost should be investigated and determine after a decision has been made to move forward with construction of a new treatment facility and a site has been selected.

The estimated costs do not include costs associated with demolition of the existing treatment facility. The layouts have been designed such that the building and lagoon footprints are outside of the existing treatment facility footprint.

The estimated costs do not include the costs associated with additional survey, wetland delineation or soils investigation necessary for site selection.

The following table includes planning level cost estimates for construction of a new treatment facility on the existing site for each selected technology at each selected treatment capacity including the additional cost to extend the facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity. A more detailed estimate is located in Appendix E.

Table 4-5: New Treatment Facility Planning Level Costs â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Existing Site Existing Site Treatment Technology Conventional

Packaged

Initial Capacity (MGD)

Planning Level Cost

Extended Capacity (MGD)

Extension Cost

12

$38,000,000

16

$8,000,000

20

$58,000,000

24

$6,000,000

36

$92,000,000

40

$6,000,000

12

$26,000,000

16

$6,000,000

20

$40,000,000

24

$3,000,000

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-18

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

36

$60,000,000

40

$3,000,000

A new facility on the alternate site would have similar costs as a facility on the existing site except that the alternate site allows for a single-pump system, which should eliminate the need for pumping into the distribution system, and the alternate site requires upgrades to the existing 3,200 LF access drive. With the reduction in costs due to elimination of pumping and addition of costs due to the access road upgrades, the total capital costs for each site are very similar. A life-cycle cost analysis including operations and maintenance costs was not performed. This type of analysis may show that eliminating secondary pumping significantly reduces long-term operations costs.

The estimate assumes that the existing access road will continue to be used and upgraded to a paved roadway for improved access to allow for higher levels of traffic such as chemical deliveries. If it is determined that the access drive does not have an easement that allows use for a new treatment facility, then the costs of constructing a new access road within the property boundaries would be higher than estimated. As the road requires upgrading for any size facility, the transmission main replacement was assumed to be included in the cost of construction at the 12 MGD capacity.

Other site elements that have been considered in the facility layout, but that have not been captured in the estimates due to lack of site information, include costs for potential ledge removal and blasting and any costs associated with construction within the deer wintering areas.

The following table includes planning level cost estimates for construction of a new treatment facility on the alternate site for each selected technology at each selected treatment capacity including the additional cost to extend the facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity. A more detailed estimate is located in Appendix E.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

4-19

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Table 4-6: New Treatment Facility Planning Level Costs – Alternate Site Treatment Technology Conventional

Packaged

Initial Capacity (MGD)

Alternate Site Planning Level Cost

Extended Capacity (MGD)

Extension Cost

12

$40,000,000

16

$5,000,000

20

$58,000,000

24

$5,000,000

36

$90,000,000

40

$5,000,000

12

$29,000,000

16

$2,000,000

20

$40,000,000

24

$2,000,000

36

$59,000,000

40

$2,000,000

In addition to providing formulas for the individual process costs as previously described, the capital cost for conventional treatment per million gallons per day treatment capacity are provided. The cost estimated for the Biddeford and Saco treatment facility, which were developed by estimating the costs of individual process items and components, are also shown on the graph. This graph illustrates that the costs estimated for the 12/16 MGD facility are within 18 percent, and estimated costs for the 20/24 MGD and 36/40 MGD facilities are within 5 percent of the general estimate based on treatment facility capacity.

Capital Costs Conventional Treatment - 2013 Dollars 120

Millions of Dollars

100 Estimate for Biddeford and Saco

80 60

Cost Estimating Manual

40 20 0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Million Gallons per Day

Figure 4-10: Conventional Capital Costs by Capacity For comparison purposes construction costs for the following recently constructed New England region water treatment facilities were examined. 

The construction costs for the 16 MGD conventional water treatment facility built in 2007 in Lawrence, MA, totaled approximately $28,000,000.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

4-20

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014



The construction costs for the 25 MGD alternative water treatment facility constructed in 2008 in Pawtucket, RI, totaled approximately $44,000,000. This facility included upflow clarifiers, GAC filters, UV disinfection and a 5 million gallon clearwell. Note that the capital costs of these technologies are more expensive than conventional treatment and the 5 million gallon clearwell is atypical for a facility of this size.



The construction costs for a 4 MGD water treatment facility constructed in 2009 in Portsmouth, NH, totaled approximately $18,000,000. The facility included dissolved air flotation (DAF) with conventional filters.

Construction costs for each option for Biddeford and Saco are included in Appendix E and include the sum of the Subtotal Process Cost, the Sitework, Yard Piping, Landscaping and Site Electrical and Controls line items. The Lawrence, MA, project construction costs are within 0.1 percent of the construction costs estimated for the Biddeford and Saco 16 MGD conventional facility, and the Pawtucket, RI project construction costs are within 10 percent of the construction costs estimated for the 24 MGD conventional facility for Biddeford and Saco. These comparisons confirm the cost ranges estimated for the new Biddeford and Saco treatment facility.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

4-21

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

5. LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS A life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) was performed on the alternatives of rehabilitating the existing water treatment facility and construction of a new 12 MGD packaged treatment facility on the existing site. The LCCA allows comparison of the costs associated with capital investments and operations and maintenance of the two alternatives over a defined time period. In the case of this analysis, a 50 year period was selected corresponding to the expected useful life of a new treatment facility.

5.1 LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS METHOD AND ASSUMPTIONS One of the best ways to compare mutually exclusive alternatives is to summarize their estimated lifecycle costs in present day dollars. The Net Present Value method, which allows for comparison of uneven cash flows among alternatives by discounting and then summarizing annual and future costs to present day value is the desired tool for this analysis. Costs include capital investment costs, annual operations and maintenance costs and financing costs.

Engineering economic analysis focuses on the future consequences of current decisions. Because these consequences are in the future, they must be estimated and cannot be known with certainty. The following assumptions were incorporated into this analysis.

One of the fundamental principles in engineering economics analysis is that in choosing between completing alternative, the emphasis is on the difference between the alternatives; therefore costs that would be equal for both alternatives have not been included in this analysis. The analysis does not include revenue as it is anticipated that as the treatment facilities are the same capacity, the revenue from each alternative would be equal. Additionally, intermittent capital replacement costs have not been included as it is anticipated that after initial rehabilitation of the existing facility was complete, intermittent capital replacement costs would be approximately equal across both alternatives.

The planning horizon for this analysis was selected to be 50 years and it is assumed that the useful life of each alternative equals the planning horizon. Fifty years was selected as this is the anticipated life cycle of a new treatment facility before large scale upgrades, such as structural upgrades would be required. Additionally review of the existing facility showed approximately a 50 year cycle between major upgrades, with the facility being constructed in 1880, and major upgrades in the 1930s and 2010s. Although the existing facility has not had a major upgrade in 70 years, the upgrades that are being conducted were delayed and likely should have been performed prior to the turn of the century.

The discount rate of 10% percent was selected based on discussions with Maine Water. The present loan interest rate was based on the current Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) lending rate of 2 percent. It is estimated that in the future, the loan rate will increase to 4%. A 30 year SRF loan is anticipated.

The following table summarizes the LCCA assumptions.

Table 5-1: Life Cycle Cost Analysis Assumptions Item

Assumption

Planning Horizon

50 years

Discount Rate

10%

Inflation

2.4%

Capital Loan Interest Rate - Present

2%

Capital Loan Interest Rate - Future

4%

Capital Loan Term

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

30 years

5-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Salvage costs were not included in the LCCA due to the assumption that the investment is intended to be long-term, with no expectation of salvaging of assets. The salvage values would be similar between alternatives.

Future intermittent capital costs associated with wear and tear of equipment and facilities were not included in this analysis. These costs are difficult to estimate for a new facility and even more challenging for an aging facility without meticulous historical records, which were not available for the Biddeford & Saco treatment facility. These costs will certainly be higher for the existing facility as compared with a new facility. For example, it is anticipated that roof repairs, outside of the ones specifically mentioned in this report, will cost more than similar repairs to a new facility.

Repairs to older facilities typically require upgrading to current building codes, working with non-standard or obsolete equipment, and unusual measurements (non-square openings, old standards, etc.). It is anticipated that the roof upgrades for the existing facility will cost approximately $15 more per square foot more than similar replacements on a newer facility. This results in approximately $450,000 more costs over the lifecycle of the existing facility (roof lives are approximately 20 years which results in two replacements within the analysis lifecycle leading to an estimated additional $1 million in cost for maintenance to the existing facility.) Due to the complexity of determining replacement costs and the specific timing of these costs, they were not included in the LCCA. This results in a slightly lower LCCA value for the existing facility. These additional costs should be subjectively considered in the evaluation.

5.2 CAPITAL INVESTMENTS The existing treatment facility’s capital investments are a summation of the immediate, short-term, mid-term and long-term treatment facility recommendations detailed in Volume I and Volume II, which total $21,875,000. The new facility’s capital investments is the estimated cost of construction of a new 12 MGD packaged treatment facility on the existing site as detailed in Section 4 of this report, which totals $26,000,000. Construction of a new facility on the reservoir site and/or a larger facility was not evaluated using the LCCA methodology even though they may be a more desirable alternative from other perspectives. This type of comparison was not considered equivalent.

5.3 FINANCING COSTS Renewal of the existing treatment facility was assumed to be financed through SRF loans initiated in 2014 to finance the immediate and short-term capital recommendations, 2016 to finance the mid-term recommendations, and 2020 for the long-term recommendations. Financing costs for the new facility assumed an SRF loan for the entire cost of the capital investment initiated in 2015.

5.4 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS It is anticipated that the annual costs to operate and maintain the existing facility will be greater than the costs to operate and maintain a new facility. The anticipated operations costs are broken down into six categories including: 

Staffing Costs



Electrical Costs



Heating Costs



Chemical Costs



Remaining Operations & Maintenance Costs

Operations and maintenance costs were estimated based on Public Utilities Commission (PUC) reports from 2008 to 2012 and input from Maine Water. Though PUC reports provide valuable data, it appears that some of the cost categories overlap resulting in double-counting of some costs such as labor. Adjustments were made based on available data to account for overlapping categories.

For LCCA purposes, annual costs are assumed at the end of each year. The following are the operations and maintenance assumptions that were included in the analysis.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

5-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

5.4.1 Staffing Costs Based on the PUC reports and discussions with staff, the number of staff required to operate and maintain the existing water treatment facility includes one dedicated lab employee and seven general water treatment operators. It also assumes that there are two fully staffed shifts per weekday and one partial weekend shift. A new treatment facility would have a significantly higher degree of SCADA automation than the existing facility. This automation would reduce the need for staff. It is assumed that new facility could be operated by a total of five operators working overlapping shifts. A dedicated lab employee would not be required due to automated sampling. The facility would operate without staffing during certain periods through careful monitoring and a highly automated SCADA system.

Based on PUC reports and for the purposes of this analysis, it is estimated that employee salaries average $60,000 a year, including all overhead costs and benefits. A review of PUC reports and discussions with Maine Water indicate an average of a 3 percent annual raise in employee salaries.

5.4.2 Electrical Costs A 2005 Power Assessment of the existing treatment facility performed by Woodard & Curran estimated that the facility purchases an average of approximately 2 gigawatt-hours of electricity annually at a cost of approximately $180,000. A new facility could reduce electrical costs by approximately 20 percent through more efficient piping configurations, better use of shoulder and off-peak pumping, more efficient electrical equipment, and elimination of space heaters in the chemical areas.

5.4.3 Heating Costs The new treatment facility is anticipated to have a smaller footprint than the existing facility, and the new facility would be designed to meet current energy codes which require a substantially higher thermal resistance value than the existing building. Much of the existing facility is not heated or is marginally heated, so it is difficult to use historical heating costs as a guide. For the purposes of this life cycle cost analysis, it is assumed that the heating costs for each alternative are equal.

5.4.4 Chemical Costs The existing facility purchases approximately $130,000 in chemicals annually. It is anticipated that the higher degree of SCADA automation at a new facility including such changes as pacing chemicals to flow would lead to approximately 15 percent savings in chemical costs.

5.4.5 Remaining Operations & Maintenance Costs The existing facility's remaining operations and maintenance costs averaged $100,000 annually, which includes maintenance, materials, supplies, contractual services, transportation and other miscellaneous expenses related to treatment facility operations but excludes the previously described labor, electrical, heating and chemical costs. It is anticipated that due to efficiencies in construction and operations of a new treatment facility, the new treatment facility operations and maintenance would be approximately 50 percent more efficient than the existing facility.

5.4.6Summary of O&M Annual Costs All annual costs were inflated by the assumed interest rate (except salaries which were inflated by 3 percent as previously discussed). The following table summarizes the O&M assumptions made for this LCCA.

Table 5-2: Annual O&M Cost Assumptions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2013 Dollars Category Staffing

Existing Facility Annual Costs

Reduction for New Facility

New Facility Annual Costs

8 employees

3 employees

5 employees

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

5-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Electrical

$180,000

20%

$144,000

Heating

$20,000

0%

$20,000

Chemical

$130,000

15%

$110,500

Remaining O&M

$100,000

50%

$50,000

5.5 LCCA RESULTS The LCCA resulted in the following Net Present Values:

Table 5-3: Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results Net Present Value Item

Existing Facility

New Facility

$21,875,000

$26,000,000

$760,179

$418,065

$12,101,193

$8,276,344

Staffing

$6,601,066

$4,125,666

Electrical

$2,302,379

$1,841,903

Heating

$255,820

$255,820

Chemicals

$1,662,829

$1,413,405

Remaining Operations & Maintenance

$1,279,099

$639,550

$34,740,000

$34,695,000

Capital Investment Financing Cost Operations and Maintenance Total

Total LCC

The LCCA indicates that over the 50 year planning horizon, the lifecycle cost of the rehabilitated existing treatment facility would be approximately equal to the alternative of constructing a new facility. While the initial capital cost of a new facility is approximately $4 million higher than the costs to rehabilitate the existing facility, the cost to operate the existing facility is approximately $4 million higher than the costs to operate a new facility, essentially balancing the lifecycle costs.

In addition to direct costs and costs that can be easily estimated, there are costs that are difficult to quantify that should be considered. These include cost associated with a higher frequency of age-related failures at the existing facility. It also includes additional construction and rehabilitation challenges at the existing facility that may lead to higher costs. Finally, the risks associated with flooding and the existing facility overall reliability are not included, but would negatively impact rehabilitating the old facility if they were monetized. These factors are not explicitly captured within the LCCA as they are difficult to quantify, but they should be considered.

With an approximately $4 million difference in capital costs and a breakeven 50 year lifecycle cost, and including other considerations such as ease of capacity expansion at a new treatment facility and the precarious location of the existing treatment facility within the flood plain, Woodard & Curran recommends that Maine Water invest in a new treatment facility. Although construction of a new treatment facility will result in a higher initial capital investment, in comparison with rehabilitating the existing facility, a new treatment facility will be more efficient, will reduce staffing and maintenance costs, will improve reliability and will ease replacements and upgrades.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

5-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

6. SUMAMRY OF COSTS 6.1 TREATMENT FACILITY REHABILITATION COSTS SUMMARY The following table summarizes the immediate, short-term, midterm and long-term source and treatment rehabilitation costs as well as the life cycle costs.

Table 6-1: Treatment Facility Rehabilitation Cost Summary Priority

Cost

Immediate

$810,000

Short-Term

$6,300,000

Mid-Term

$1,865,000

Long-Term

$12,900,000

Treatment Facility Rehabilitation Total Capital Cost

$21,875,000

Life Cycle Cost – 50 Year

$34,740,000

6.2 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RENEWAL COSTS SUMMARY The following table summarizes the immediate, short-term, mid-term and long-term distribution system renewal costs.

Table 6-2: Distribution System Renewal Cost Summary Priority

Cost

Immediate

$705,000

Short-Term

$845,000

Mid-Term

$12,680,000

Long-Term

$11,382,000

Distribution System Renewal Total

$25,612,000

In addition to the costs shown in the above table, an interconnection with the Portland Water District is estimated to cost $3,864,000.

6.3 NEW TREATMENT FACILITY COSTS SUMMARY The following table summarizes the lowest cost option for a new treatment facility, which is a 12 MGD packaged treatment facility on the existing site.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

6-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Table 6-3: 12 MGD Packaged Treatment Facility Existing Site Cost Summary Option

Cost

Capital Cost

$26,000,000

Life Cycle Cost – 50 Years

$34,695,000

6.4 LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS SUMMARY The following table summarizes the results of the LCCA over a 50 year planning horizon for the alternatives of rehabilitating the existing facility and constructing a new 12 MGD packaged treatment facility on the existing site.

Table 6-4: Life Cycle Cost Analysis Summary Alternative

Cost

Existing Facility - Life Cycle Cost – 50 Years

$34,740,000

New Facility - Life Cycle Cost – 50 Years

$34,695,000

Additional Cost of Existing Facility – 50 Years

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Volume II

6-2

$45,000

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

APPENDIX A: MID-TERM TREATMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS BY LOCATION

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Abandoned Filter Building

Significant evidence of moisture damage Evaluate the future use and priorities for this (vegetation growth, efflorescence, cracking, space. If not to be used, doors should be potential mold presence, etc.) to brick walls locked to prevent entry. If area is to be used, and stone foundations. The floor is littered all observed issues should be properly with old concrete and other debris and addressed. unused equipment.

$51,100

Abandoned Filter Building

Evaluate the future use and priorities for this space. If not to be used, doors should be Twelve old, single-pane windows are in poor locked to prevent entry. If area is to be used, condition. all observed issues should be properly addressed.

$40,700

Building- Roof

Abandoned Filter Building

Metal roof deck is uniformly corroded and its load capacity is likely compromised; bar joists and joist girders are corroded but in salvageable condition; The corroded roof deck is the major potential safety hazard in this area.

Evaluate the future use of this space. If not to be used, doors should be locked to prevent entry. The metal roof deck may be in danger of failure or collapse as it continues to corrode over time. Closer inspection by a structural engineer could confirm this. If area is to be used moving forward, all observed issues should be properly addressed.

$59,200

Building - Window

Chlorine Injection Room

One old, single-pane windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$3,100

Process

Clearwell

#1 and #2 clearwell baffling is barely adequate for proper CT

Improve baffle factor through installation of Hypalon baffle walls

$133,200

In general the brick exterior was found to be in fair condition, especially for a building of its A more detailed assessment of the building age. There were some localized areas of exterior should be performed, and specific joint deterioration which may require recommendations made relative to building repointing, such as brick corbels at main envelope improvements. entrance.

$64,700

Structural - Brick

Building - Window

Structural - Brick

Exterior

Wood trim along eaves of sloped roofs is deteriorated with peeling paint; numerous A detailed assessment of the building exterior wood doors and windows are in poor should be performed. Extensive repairs and condition; roof ventilation units are corroded; upgrades to miscellaneous exterior features gutter systems and downspouts are in should be made. disrepair; roof flashing and edge trim is in poor condition;

$73,600

Structural - Building

Exterior - General

Process

Filter gallery

Crossover from distribution system to backwash tank and manifold is manually operated through three 2-inch valves

Install a pressure sustaining, flow control valve with high downstream pressure level closure to automate the system and allow for faster recovery between backwashes.

$40,400

Process

Filter gallery

Filter backwash flow rates are not measured

Add a flow meter and rate control valve to monitor and control filter backwash to a 15 gpm/ft2 high rate

$21,200

Process

Filter Gallery

Filter-to-waste cycle is set to low turbidity value and is manually terminated

Experiment with higher turbidity set points and automate the cycle to switch to production when the set point is reached

$31,500

Structural - Brick

Building - Window

Filter Room

Clerestory brick walls between filters have numerous areas with evidence of Closer inspection for weather tightness efflorescence and moisture damage, should be performed at the roof level and at especially below some windows. This is a each window to identify possible moisture sign that moisture is entering the walls either sources. at the roof level and/or through windows.

$26,500

Filter Room

There are 12 old windows (low) along the sides of the filter tanks and 12 old windows (high) along the center clerestory between filters that are in poor condition, although limited access prevented close inspection.

$32,200

Consider further inspecting and replacing windows.

Plaster arch ceiling of clerestory has multiple Ceiling should be inspected using staging, so cracks, but there is no sign of spalling or that it can be sounded to make sure it is intact failure; there could be loose, delaminated and there are no falling hazards. sections, which could be a falling hazard.

$69,500

Filter Room – East Filter Bank

In 2002 roofing and concrete roof deck were replaced with metal deck and additional steel beams were added in snow drift areas.

Painted roof steel needs repainting but is in good condition. The low roof is reportedly leaking along the clerestory, which appears to be the low point of the roof slope.

$25,900

Building- Roof

Filter Room – West Filter Bank

Unlike the East Filter Bank roof, this roof deck is original. The deck appears to be Roof should be replaced with a new deck and concrete plank spanning between roof membrane; roof framing should be framing; multiple areas of the deck are structurally analyzed and upgraded as sagging noticeably, corroded, and reportedly required to meet code. Steel framing should leaking. Low roof drains toward clerestory. be repainted.

Roof steel is in fair condition, but has peeling paint.

Building - Window

Filter Room Corridor

Structural - Miscellaneous

Building- Roof

Filter Room

Building- Roof

General

Building - Window

Hallway – High Lift Pump Area to Filter Room

Six old, single-pane, double-hung windows are in poor condition.

Painted steel framing should be repainted; roof system should be repaired and/or replaced.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

Multiple roof areas are beyond their useful life and in need of replacement, and many A detailed assessment of each roof area areas currently leak. The Sedimentation should be performed and a phased approach Basin and Filter Room roofs are two sections for replacement of each section should be that should be replaced in the short-term. A developed. detailed assessment of each specific roof area is beyond the scope of this report.

Four large, old, single-pane, double-hung wood windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$47,900

$16,500

$806,900

$11,000

H&S - Hoist

High Lift Pump Area

Current set-up to remove pumps is very cumbersome.

Pump removal process during maintenance should be evaluated.

$30,300

Building - Window

Intake Room

An old, single-pane, wood window is in poor condition.

Window should be replaced with a new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient unit

$3,400

Building - Window

Laboratory

Four old, single-pane, double-hung windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$13,600

H&S - Hoist

Low Lift Pump Area

Current set-up to remove pumps is cumbersome using roof hatch and exterior crane.

Pump removal process during maintenance should be evaluated.

$40,300

Structural - Brick

Low Lift Pump Area

Interior brick walls are cracked in many locations and have signs of efflorescence from past moisture penetration.

Brick areas should be repointed and cleaned.

$17,200

Building - Window

Low Lift Pump Area

Seven old, large, steel, single-pane windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units

$16,300

Building- Roof

Low Lift Pump Area

Roof reportedly leaks in this area.

Roof system should be receive a more thorough inspection and likely requires replacement.

$19,800

Building - Window

Lower Level Courtyard Access Room

Two old, single-pane, double-hung windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$4,600

Building - Window

Polymer Room

Three old, single-pane windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$9,400

Building - Window

Sedimentation Basin Room

Existing wood windows are very old, rotten, and inefficient. Approximately 32 existing wood windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$85,500

Process

Sedimentation Building

No ability to monitor flow for process control

Install flow meter on filtered water line near the exposed location where preoxidant chlorine is presently added

$42,900

Building - Window

Workshop Entrance

Five large, old, single-pane windows are in poor condition.

Windows should be replaced with new, corrosion-resistant, energy-efficient units.

$16,700

APPENDIX B: SURVEY OF EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITY SITE

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

APPENDIX C: WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

Wetland Delineation Report Maine Water Biddeford-Saco Biddeford, Maine

Prepared for: Woodard & Curran, October 2013

Prepared by: FB Environmental Associates 97A Exchange St., Suite 305 Portland, ME 04101

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION

PAGE

1.0

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….……..

1

2.0

SURVEY AREA…….…………...………………………………………………..

1

2.1

General Site Description………...………………………………………………….

1

2.2

Soils Description.……………………..…………….……...………..……………...

3

REVIEW OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION…...…………………...…….

5

3.1

National Wetlands Inventory Maps...........................................................................

5

3.2

Maine Natural Areas Program Correspondence........................................................

5

3.3

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Correspondence……………..

5

SURVEY METHODS.......................................................................................…...

6

4.1

Wetland Delineation…………………………..…………………………….…...….

6

4.2

Wetlands of Special Significance………………..……………………………...….

7

4.3

Rivers, Streams and Brooks…….………………..…………………………….…....

8

4.4

Potential Vernal Pools…………….…………………………………………………

8

SURVEY RESULTS.........................................................................................…... .

9

5.1

Description of Delineated Wetlands...........................................................................

9

5.2

Wetlands of Special Significance…………………………………….………….…..

12

5.3

Rivers, Streams and Brooks…….…………..………………………….……….……

12

5.4

Potential Vernal Pools……………………………………………………………….

12

6.0

SUMMARY OF RESULTS……………………………………………….………

13

7.0

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………..……

13

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………….………....

14

APPENDIX A. Photographs of Wetlands and Other Areas……………….………..……....

14

APPENDIX B. MNAP and MDIFW Correspondence…………………….….………..…...

17

APPENDIX C. Wetland Determination Data Forms……….….…………...…………..…...

29

3.0

4.0

5.0

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

i

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

PAGE

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Site Location Map…………………………………………….………….………

2

Figure 2. NWI Wetlands and Soils Map……………………………………………….…...

4

Figure 3. 100-Year Floodplain……………………….……………….….…………………

7

Figure 4. Delineated Wetland Areas……………….……………….….…………………...

10

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

ii

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION FB Environmental (FBE) was contracted by Woodard & Curran to conduct a wetland delineation for approximately 18.5 acres of land located at 466A South Street in Biddeford, Maine (Figure 1). The project area is located at the Maine Water- Biddeford Saco water treatment facility, which supplies drinking water to the cities of Biddeford, Saco, Old Orchard Beach and Scarborough. The existing facility was constructed in 1881 and renovated in 1936. Maine Water is proposing to update and expand the facility, which in addition to the renovation or complete reconstruction of the existing building, will involve the construction of several lagoons used to temporarily store water used to back-flush water filters.

Section 2 of this report provides an overall description of the survey area. Section 3 describes wetland survey methodology, and survey results are presented in Section 4. Appendix A contains photographs from the delineation. Appendix B includes letters of correspondence from Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP) and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). Appendix C includes copies of original wetland delineation data forms completed during the field survey.

2.0 SURVEY AREA 2.1 General Site Description The survey area is located at the Maine Water- Biddeford and Saco water treatment facility, between South Street in Biddeford, Maine and the Saco River (Figure 1). The site is divided roughly in half by the facility’s access road. The area to the east of the road is bound by the access road to the west, by a steep bank leading to South Street to the south, by a steep bank bordering an adjacent landowner’s property to the east, and to the north by the Saco River. Hydrologic inputs to this area consist of precipitation, runoff from adjacent slopes, and connections to the groundwater table. The treatment facility is located in the north-east corner of the survey area approximately 25 feet from the bank of the Saco River. An approximately ¼ acre treatment lagoon is situated just east of the facility. To the south of the facility is approximately six-acres of reverting field/pasture that is currently a complex mosaic of wetland and upland areas.

Conversations with Maine Water employees indicate that the field was mowed in the past, has served as both hayfield and pasture for horses, and that tile drains were installed at some point, presumably to improve the area for agricultural purposes. A large, approximately ¼ acre pile of silt, that has been excavated from the aforementioned lagoon, was documented at the northeast end of the field.

A leaky fire hydrant, southwest of the treatment facility Area 1. View north towards treatment facility from has resulted in a small wet area (~ 10' x 10'). wetland 1A.

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

1

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

Figure 1. Site Map FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

2

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

The western portion of the survey area is bound to the east by the access road, to the south by South Street, to the west by a residential area and to the north by the Saco River. Hydrologic inputs to this area consist of precipitation and connections to the groundwater table. This area is predominantly forested, and is bisected by a transmission line corridor that runs southeast to northwest. A power station is located along the west side of the treatment facility access road. An abandoned house and detached garage are located at the southern end of the survey area along South Street. An additional old (collapsed) garage was documented to the northeast. Old car parts, a large bottle dump, and other debris are present throughout this portion of the study area. In addition, several invasive plant species were noted within the area including Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), honeysuckle (Lonicera tartarica) and Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), indicative of the disturbed nature of this portion of the survey area.

Overall, the project area includes a number of natural resource features including several unmapped wetlands and the Saco River and its floodplain. The wetlands within the survey area include emergent wetlands (PEM), scrub-shrub (PSS), and a forested wetland (PFO).

2.1 Soils Description Soils information for the survey area was obtained from the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Data Mart (USDA-NRCS, 2013) and the Soil Survey of York County, Maine (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1982). Soils within the survey area include Scantic silt loam (Sc) and Buxton silt loam (BuB & BuC) (Figure 2). Scantic silt loam (Sc) is considered a hydric soil in Maine. It is a nearly level, poorly drained, deep soil found at low elevations. It receives runoff from adjacent, higher areas. The surface layer is typically nine inches thick and consists of dark greyish brown silt loam. The subsurface layer typically five inches thick consisting of mottled, olive gray silty clay loam. The subsoil is mottled, dark grayish brown and olive gray, firm silty clay 22 inches thick. The substratum is firm, mottled, olive gray silty clay to a depth of 60 inches or more.

The soil has a moderate or moderately slow permeability in the surface and subsurface layers and slow or very slow permeability in the subsoil.

Buxton silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (BuB) is a gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained, deep soil. Areas of this soil are oval or finger-shaped and typically range in size from 3 to 20 acres. The surface layer is typically dark brown silt loam seven inches thick. The upper part of the 30-inch thick subsoil is yellowish brown and mottled, light olive brown silt loam and mottled, light brownish grey silty clay loam. The lower part is firm, mottled, olive gray and grayish brown silty clay. The substratum is firm, mottled, olive gray silty clay to a depth of 60 inches or more. The soil has moderate or moderately slow permeability in the surface layer and upper part of the subsoil and slow or very slow permeability in the lower part of the subsoil and in the substratum.

Buxton silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (BuC) is a sloping, somewhat poorly drained, deep soil. Areas of this soil are oval or finger-shaped and typically range in size from 4 to 30 acres. The surface layer is typically dark brown silt loam seven inches thick. The subsoil is 30 inches thick, the upper part of which is yellowish brown FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

3

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

Figure 2. NWI Wetlands and Soils Map FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

4

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

and mottled, light olive brown silt loam and mottled, light brownish gray silty clay loam. The lower part is firm, mottled, olive gray and grayish brown silty clay. The substratum is firm, mottled, olive silty clay to a depth sometimes exceeding 60 inches. The soil has a moderate or moderately slow permeability in the surface layer and upper part of the subsoil and slow or very slow permeability in the lower part of the subsoil and in the substratum.

3.0 REVIEW OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.1 National Wetland Inventory Maps The National Wetland Inventory Maps (NWI) are produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are produced using aerial photography and infrared color photography. The USFWS provides information on the characteristics, extent, and status of the nation's wetlands and deepwater habitats and other wildlife habitats. Wetland Inventory Maps of this project area were acquired from the Maine Office of GIS. There is one mapped NWI wetland within the survey area (Figure 2). NWI classifies the small wastewater lagoon on the north-east corner of the survey area as an excavated palustrine wetland (PUBHx). However, conversations with facility employees indicate that the lagoon is lined. Therefore the lagoon would not meet the regulatory definition of a wetland because it will not meet the soil and possibly vegetation requirements. Lack of ground-truthing to create NWI maps sometimes result in misclassification such as this.

3.2 Maine Natural Areas Program Correspondence A letter was sent to the Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP) by Woodard & Curran on September 16, 2013 requesting a search of their Biological and Conservation Data System files for rare or unique botanical features and Registered Critical Areas known to occur at or near the survey area. Rare and unique botanical features include the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered (RTE) plant species and unique or exemplary natural communities. A reply letter was sent on September 26, 2012 from Don Cameron of MNAP stating that there are no known rare botanical features documented within the project area (Appendix B).

3.3 Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Correspondence A request was sent to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) on September 16, 2013 for review of any known or potential significant wildlife resources (Appendix B). The purpose of this review is to aid in documenting potential rare species or habitats along the project area so that avoidance, protection and mitigation steps can be taken. As of the writing of this report, a reply letter has not yet been received.

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

5

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

4.0 SURVEY METHODS 4.1 Wetland Delineation Survey methods followed standard practice for a routine wetland delineation using the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE, 2012). This methodology involves identifying wetlands based on three main criteria: Hydrophytic Vegetation, Hydric Soils, and Hydrology. For a given area to be considered a wetland, all three of these criteria must be met.

Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as the community of macrophytes that occurs in areas where inundation or soil saturation is either permanent or of sufficient frequency and duration to influence plant occurrence (USACE, 2012). Vegetation data were based on the percent aerial coverage for each plant species visually estimated within a 30’ plot for the tree stratum, a 15’ plot for the sapling/shrub stratum, and a 5’ plot for the herb stratum. Sample points were selected within each wetland and within the adjacent upland.

A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1994).

The concept of hydric soils includes soils developed under sufficiently wet conditions to support the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Soils within the survey area were examined using soil augers for reconnaissance purposes, and where practicable, soil pits were hand dug ~ 18 inches deep to document soil profiles. Soil test pits were located as close to the wetland-upland transition as practicable to better constrain soil properties in the transition region. Determination of whether hydric soils were present was carried out according to the methods in the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA-NRCS, 2010).

The term "wetland hydrology" encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and reducing conditions, respectively. Hydrology is often the least exact of the parameters, and indicators of wetland hydrology are sometimes difficult to find in the field (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Indicators of hydrology, if present, were noted at all wetland and upland test pits.

Glo-pink “Wetland Delineation” flagging was sequentially numbered and hung at intervals along wetland boundaries within the survey area. Blue flags were sequentially numbered and labeled as TOB (top of bank) along the edge of the river. TOB flags at the edge of the survey area were labeled as “start open” or “end open”, indicating that the resource continues beyond the survey area. Red flagging was used in indicate wetland and upland soil determination pits (DP). Orange and black striped flagging was used to demarcate small upland islands within a wetland.

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

6

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

4.2 Wetlands of Special Significance In Maine, Wetlands of Special Significance (WoSS) are regulated by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) under chapter 310 of the Maine Natural Resources Protection Act. All coastal wetlands and great ponds (inland bodies of water >10 acres in size) are classified as WoSS. In addition, a freshwater wetland may be considered one of special significance if it: (1) contains a natural community that is critically imperiled or imperiled as defined by the Maine Natural Areas Program; (2) contains significant wildlife habitat; (3) is located within 250 feet of a coastal wetland; (4) is located within 250 feet of a great pond; (5) contains at least 20,000 square feet of aquatic vegetation, emergent marsh vegetation, or open water; (6) is inundated with floodwater during a 100-year flood event based on flood insurance maps (Figure 3); (7) is or contains peatlands; and (8) is located within 25 feet of a river, stream or brook. The survey area was assessed for WoSS.

Figure 3. 100-year Floodplain (The blue line indicates the extent of the 100-year floodplain for the Saco River. Green areas indicate delineated wetlands. Source: Woodard & Curran.)

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

7

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

4.3 Rivers, Streams and Brooks Rivers, streams and brooks were determined according to the definition of “River Stream or Brook” provided in Maine’s Revised Statutes, Title 38, § 480-B (9). "River, stream or brook" means a channel between defined banks. A channel is created by the action of surface water and has two or more of the following characteristics: (A) It is depicted as a solid or broken blue line on the most recent edition of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5minute series topographic map or, if that is not available, a 15-minute series topographic map; (B) It contains or is known to contain flowing water continuously for a period of at least 6 months of the year in most years; (C) The channel bed is primarily composed of mineral material such as sand and gravel, parent material or bedrock that has been deposited or scoured by water; (D) The channel contains aquatic animals such as fish, aquatic insects or mollusks in the water or, if no surface water is present, within the stream bed; (E) The channel contains aquatic vegetation and is essentially devoid of upland vegetation. "River, stream or brook" does not mean a ditch or other drainage way constructed, or constructed and maintained, solely for the purpose of draining storm water or a grassy swale. Rivers, streams and brooks were documented if present within the survey area.

4.4 Potential Vernal Pools Vernal pools are a protected natural resource feature both at the state and federal level. At the state level, vernal pools meeting specific criteria are considered significant wildlife habitat under Chapter 335 and are a protected resource under the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA). Before making a significance determination, a feature, often identified as a potential vernal pool (PVP) must first meet either the federal and or the state definition of a vernal pool. Whether a vernal pool is significant or not is based on the number and type of amphibian egg masses, the presence of fairy shrimp, or use by threatened or endangered species. Both the pool and its critical terrestrial habitat (within 250’ of the pool) are protected under these rules. A vernal pool is considered significant if it contains any number of fairy shrimp (at any life stage) or the presence of at least 10, 20, or 40 Blue-spotted Salamander (Ambystoma laterale), Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), or Wood Frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) egg masses, respectively.

At the federal level, vernal pools are less strictly defined and are protected on a case-by-case basis, largely reliant upon both the definition of ‘vernal pool’ included in the Department of the Army, General Permit (PG), State of Maine, and the functions and values of the vernal pool. Potential vernal pools were documented if present within the study area.

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

8

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

5.0 SURVEY RESULTS 5.1 Description of Delineated Wetlands (Copies of all field survey forms are located in Appendix C) Wetlands were delineated over six days on September 18-20 and 23-25, 2013. FBE Wetland Scientist Kevin Ryan and Wetland Scientist/Project Manager Jennifer Jespersen conducted the survey. FBE Project Scientist Logan Cline assisted with the delineation on September 18th.

Four wetland areas were identified and delineated in Area 1: 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D. Two wetland areas, 2A and 2B, and two single line drains, 1 and 2, were delineated in Area 2 (Figure 4). Delineated wetlands are described below. Photos of the wetlands and other areas notable features within the survey area are included in Appendix A. Wetland 1A Wetland 1A is the largest and most hydrologically and botanically diverse wetland within the project area. It is a palustrine emergent wetland (PEM) dominated by wetland graminoids, particularly invasive reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Other observed wetland vegetation included immature green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), calico aster (Symphyotrichum lateriflorum), wrinkle-leaved goldenrod (Solidago rugosa), cattail (Typha latifolia), fowl blue grass (Poa palustris), as well as various sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.) and patches of silky dogwood (Cornus amomum). Several areas of invasive purple loosestrife (Lytrhum salicaria) were also documented within Wetland 1A. Soils within this wetland met the criteria for redox dark surface (USDA-NRCS, 2010) due to a layer that was greater than four inches thick but entirely within 12 inches of the mineral soil that had low value and low chroma and five percent redox concentrations (soft masses). The soil texture for this area consists of sandy -clay loam, although gravelly fill material is present within the first several inches of the soil profile (Appendix C).

The boundary of this wetland was in many areas very difficult to establish due to subtle changes in vegetation and hydrology bordering on wetland/upland transition. It is likely that the plant and hydrological characteristics area are a result of the underlying soils (Scantic) and historical use of the area (tile drains, pasture). A small upland area containing common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) was delineated near the center of this wetland, however several very small areas of upland are also present within the flagged wetland boundary within Area 1, but were not flagged.

The portion of Wetland 1A within the 100-year floodplain is considered Wetlands of Special Significance (WoSS).

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

9

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

Figure 4. Delineated Wetland Areas (Note: SLD1 connects to wetland 2A.) FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

10

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

Wetland 1B Wetland 1B is a small, circular palustrine emergent (PEM) wetland situated in a small depression at the westcentral portion of Area 1. The vegetation is dominated solely by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea).

Soils within wetland 1B meet the criteria for depleted matrix (USDA-NRCS, 2010) due to a layer of high value and low chroma starting within ten inches of the soil surface. The soil texture for this wetland is silty clay loam (see Appendix C).

Wetland 1C Wetland 1C is a palustrine emergent (PEM)/palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) wetland located west of Wetland 1B (Figure 4). The wetland consists of a small depression situated at the base of the slopes leading to South Street and the access road in the southwest corner of the survey area. The PSS portion of the wetland is dominated by silky dogwood (Cornus amomum). The PEM portion is dominated by sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Other observed wetland plants in this area include fringed willowherb(Epilobium ciliatum), New England Aster (Symphyotrichum novi-angilae), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea).

Soils within wetland 1C meet the criteria for depleted matrix (USDA-NRCS, 2010) due to a layer of high value and low chroma starting within ten inches of the soil surface. The soil texture for this wetland is silty-clay loam.

Wetland 1D This wetland is located at the southeastern side of Area 1. The majority of the wetland is palustrine emergent (PEM) although the portion bordering the eastern property boundary is palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS). The emergent area is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and the scrub-shrub area is dominated by silky dogwood (Cornus amomum).

Soils within this wetland met the criteria for redox dark surface (USDA-NRCS, 2010) due to a layer that was greater than four inches thick but entirely within 12 inches of the mineral soil that had low value and low chroma and five percent redox concentrations (soft masses). The soil texture for wetland 1D is a silty clay loam.

Wetland 2A Wetland 2A is a palustrine forested wetland (PFO) located in the east-central portion of Area 2. The wetland is in a depression at the base of single line drain 1. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) dominate the tree layer and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) dominates the shrub layer.

The herb layer is sparsely vegetated. Observed species include American cranberrybush viburnum (Viburnum trilobum), bristly dewberry (Rubus hispidus), and lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina).

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

11

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

Soils for this wetland meet the criteria for redox depressions (USDA-NRCS, 2010) in that five percent redox concentrations occur in a layer more than two inches thick entirely within the upper six inches of the soil profile. Soil texture for this wetland is silt loam.

Wetland 2B This wetland is a narrow, linear, palustrine scrub-shrub wetland situated mostly within the transmission line corridor. Single line drain 2 empties into and drains out of the wetland from the west and east, respectively.

Single line drain 3 enters this wetland from the north. The shrub layer in the wetland is dominated by silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) and the herb layer is dominated by thyme-leaved speedwell (Veronica perphyllifolia) and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) and fringed willow-herb (Epilobium ciliatum) are also present.

Soils for this wetland meet the criteria for redox depressions in that five percent redox concentrations occur in a layer more than two inches thick entirely within the upper six inches of the soil profile. Soil texture for this wetland is silt loam.

5.2 Wetlands of Special Significance Only the northern portion of Wetland 1A within the 100-year floodplain is considered a WoSS (Figure 3).

Wetland 2A was documented as a potential vernal pool. Though the probability of significance is low due to short hydroperiod and a disturbed landscape, a spring survey is recommended to confirm that this area is not a WoSS. However, there has been no response to date from the MDIFW regarding significant wildlife habitat, which potentially could result in other areas being classified as WoSS. This is unlikely, however, due to the highly disturbed nature of the site.

5.3 Rivers, Streams and Brooks The Saco River meets the regulatory definition of a river; the south bank (top-of-bank) of the river was delineated. The three single line drains in Area 2 do not meet the definition of a river, stream or brook.

5.4 Potential Vernal Pools Wetland 2A is a sparsely vegetated depression that likely holds water for during a portion of spring and summer. However, due to its apparently short hydroperiod and surrounding urban landscape, it is highly unlikely that the wetland would meet the criteria to be considered a significant vernal pool. A spring vernal pool survey consisting of egg mass counts would be needed to confirm that the area does not function as a vernal pool.

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

12

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

6.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS Six wetlands and the top of the south bank of the Saco River were delineated within the survey area.

Characteristics of all wetlands, including hydrology, vegetation and soils have been significantly disturbed as a result of historical land uses including agriculture (hayfield, pasture, tile drains), residential development/use, and deposition of fill material from the water treatment facility. Several species of invasive plants were documented throughout Area 1 and 2 and along the bank of the river.

A portion of one of the delineated wetlands (1A) met the criteria for Wetlands of Special Significance (WoSS); however, correspondence from MDIFW has not yet been received to determine if significant wildlife habitat exists at the site. In addition, wetland 2A was documented as a potential vernal pool. Though the probability of significance is low due to short hydroperiod and a disturbed landscape, a spring survey is recommended to confirm that this area is not a WoSS.

7.0 REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory. (1987). Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/pdfs/wlman97.pdf) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2012). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble, and J. F. Berkowitz. ERDC/EL TR-12-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

USDA-NRCS (2010). Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA-NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.

USDA-NRCS (2013). USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Data Mart. Retrieved August 7, 2013 from: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/.

USDA Soil Conservation Service. (1994). Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register 59(133):35680-35681, July 13, 1994.

USDA Soil Conservation Service. (1982). Soil Survey of York County, Maine. Retrieved August 7, 2012 from:http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/.

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

13

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

APPENDIX A Photographs of Wetlands and Other Areas

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

14

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

Wetland 1A. View southwest from DP1A-1 (wetland pit). (Photo: FB Environmental September 2013)

Wetland 1A. View northeast facing silt deposition area. (Photo: FB Environmental September 2013)

Wetland 1A. View south toward the small upland island delineated within wetland 1A. (Photo: FB Environmental September 2013)

Upland Area. View north from DP1A-2 (upland pit). (Photo: FB Environmental September 2013)

Wetland 1B. View southwest from DP1B-1 (wetland). (Photo: FB Environmental September 2013)

Wetland 1C. View north from DP1C-1 (wetland). (Photo: FB Environmental September 2013)

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

15

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

Wetland 1D. View north from DP1D-1 (wetland). (Photo: FB Environmental September 2013)

Wetland 2A. View north from southern end of wetland. Single line drain 1 feeds into this wetland from the south (Photo: FB Environmental September 2013)

Wetland 2B. View north from DP2B-B (wetland). (Photo: FB Environmental September 2013)

Single Line Drain 2. Facing south in the portion of the drain west from wetland 2B. (Photo: FB Environmental September 2013)

Wet area near fire hydrant. This small area was created from the continuious leak from the fire hydrant.

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

16

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

APPENDIX B MNAP and MDIFW Correspondence

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

17

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

18

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

19

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

20

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

21

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

22

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

23

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

24

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

25

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

26

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

27

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

28

Biddeford-Saco Wetland Delineation- October 2013

APPENDIX C Wetland Determination Data Forms

FB Environmental Associates, Inc.

29

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM

-

Northcentraland Northeast Region Sampling Date:

ApplicanVownel

J:'lr':::

'I.'''

i''':

Sampling Point:

State;

"

.Xz t "

Section, Tor,vnship, Range:

lnvestigato(s):

Slope (%):

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Datum:

Long

Subregion (LRR or MLRA):

'---_==--

NWI classification:

Soil Map Unit Name:

-' No (lf no, explain in Remarks ) Are climaiic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for ihis time of year? Yes No Soit {t , or Hydrology d significanily disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Are Vegetation soit /, ,or Hydrotogy X naturally problematic? (lf needed, explain any answers in Remarks') Are vegetation -, --, features, etc' oF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important

-

suMMARY

Present? Yes Yes .

Hydric Soil Present?

YesPresent?

Hydrology Wetland Hydrophytic Vegetation

ls the Sampled Area

No

within

No

a

Wetland?

No

Yes

lf yes, optional Wetland Site lD:

No

-

or in a separate report.)

HYDROLOGY lndicators:

applv)

Primarv lndicators (minimum of one is required: check all that Water-Stained Leaves (BS) Surface Water (Al ) Aquatic Fauna (B13) High Water Table (A2) (815) Marl Deposits (43) Saturation Odor (Cl ) Sulfide Hydrogen (Bl) Marks Water

_ _ _ _

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Drift Deposits (83)

-_

Algal Mat or Crust (84) lron Deposits (B5)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced lron (C4) Recent lron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

-_

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Sediment Deposits (82)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

lnundaiion Visible on Aerial lmagery (87) Sparsely Vegeiated Concave Surface (88)

Surface Water Presetrt?

Yes

Water Table Present?

Yes

Saturation Present?

.J Yes

-

No ''.

DePth (inches):

No

Depth (inches):

No

-

Surface Soil Cracks (86)

-

Drainage Patterns (B10) Moss Trim Lines (B16)

Dry-season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial lmagery (Cg) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test {D5)

Depth (ilciles):

vious insPections)' if available:

VEGETATION

-

Use scientific names of plants

Tree Stratum (Plot size:

Poiil

SamPling

Absolu'ie Dominani lndicator %

Cover Soecies?

,/

Lt' tt.''t(' )

Dominance Test worksheet:

Status

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FAC$J, or FAC:

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Slrata: 4.

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

6,

Prevalence lndex worksheetr

7.

Total % Cover

of:

Multiolv bv:

= Total Cover

Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:

I

tal'

x2= x3=

FACUspecies

_ _ _

Column Totals:

_

(A)

FACWspecies

,/

t. i r.'

.

I

FACspecies

J

4

(B)

Prevalence lndex = BIA =

A

Hydrophytic Vegetation lndicators:--

6.

{ Herb

x4=

Stratum (Plot size

= Total Cover

2 - Dominance Test is >50%

-

4 - fulorphological Adaptationsl (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

t

- napiO Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

3 - Prevalence lndex is 33.01

.-).-

jg_

2

fi _

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetationl (Explain)

tlndicators

of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. unless disturbed or problemalic.

a,\I

Definitions of Vegetation Strata: o.

Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.

7.

8.

Saplinglshrub

- Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

o

10.

Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

11.

Woody vines

12. t! I

Woody Vine

1

= Total Cover

height.

-

All rvoody vines greater than 3.28 ft in

Stratum (Plot size

irJ:'

z

Hydrophytic Vegetation Piesent?

4

='l-otal Cover Renrarks: (iilcluie

to nurrbers here or on a separaie sheet.)

US l,,r;:7 Cori): o, [:,i3i,t,"e,s

Yes

./\

No

sotL

Samplins eoint: I

Prorlleuescrlptlon:(Describetothedepthneecledtodocumenttheindicai

Depth

Malrix (inches) - Color(mor'st) %

C" 4

r--i-i,+

lCIVf"il;: loYA,

Redox Features

lrto

,-)

_Tqxture

fr -tg f,r''ii-t

,,J ;

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Histosol (A'1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hvdrooen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mlneral (Sl) Sandy cleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5)

_

Polyvalue Below Surface (SS) (LRR R,

_ _ _ _ X _ _

Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 1498) Loamy Mucky Minerat (F1) (LRR K, L) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3)

MLR,A 149B)

Stratified Layers (A5) 'l

)

ReOox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (FB)

Stripped Matrix (56) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 1498)

3lndicators

Remarks

'-

!. ti..

lType: C=Concentration, D=Depleiion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Gr Hydric Soil lndicators:

_ _ _

* 4 I (we{)

2l

ncrtion

Pl =Pnre linind l\r=Mairiy

tnaicitors@ _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 1498) _ Coast Prairie Redox (416) (LRR K, L, R) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (LRR K, L) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _ lron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _ Mesic Spodic g46) (MLRA 144A, 145, 1498) _ Red Parent Material (F21) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF'l2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)

of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depih (inches):

G ,.t,i r tt ,tI

l.lydric Soil Present?

.,1'J t; I' r

.1 - J\.

"".

X

No

ii

______,.i l"lS

tl'iixy Cr-,lps ci Engi;raeis

L/

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ProjecVSite:

ApplicanUo'vner: tnvestigator(s):

ff4.-:;,np

K'ts-vi

I

\Jc,l r.f,

[''rl'-,^

Landform (hillslope, tenace , etc.):

- Northcentraland Northeast Region !' ,.,,...'.-.-r; , ,,' i./li;'; samptirE oate, ? /18 113 s16lte:

di;"t

,":r-

t...JPll^,.:

i- i,f

r\*;

blLE-

sampling Point:

M-

Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none):

{::,

'tr a

Slope

1r - .Sc"s"".i' *

*

|

Datum:

Long:

Subregion (LRR or MLRA):

(%):

1 {:'tP l*"6i

_ t{ /t ctassificaoon, rJ /<l ' (lf no, explain in Remarks.)

No Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time ot year2 Yes no X Soif .4- , or Hydrology X significandy disturbâ&#x201A;Źd? Are'Notmal Circumstances" present? Yes Arc Vegetation (lf needed, explain any answers in Remar[s.1 1: naturally problematic?

Are Vegetation , Soil d , or l'lydrology -, suMMARy OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. ls th6 Sampled Area No Yes_ Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation nithin a W6dand?

No Yes_ Hydric Soil Present?

Yes_ No lf yes, optional Wetland Site lD: Wetland Hydrology Present?

Soil Map Unit Name:

:

G

,

here or in a separate report.)

{Explain alternative

lâ&#x201A;Ź

L'rc-f

k)

x:,.

-.1.t!

<" a1\i*,,'<=,.1'^.-'.-. t'<!

HYDROLOGY ').im'ru

_ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _

Surface Water (41) High WaterTable (A2) Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (81)

-_ _ *

Surface Soil Cracks (86)

ln.linatan lminimilm 6{ 6nc is rmrrired' chec* ell thal anolv}

Sediment Deposits (82) Drift Deposits (83) Algal Mat or Crust (84)

Drainage Patterns (810) Moss Trim Lines (8'16)

Marl Deposib (815)

Dry-season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Bunows (C8) Saturation Msible on Aerial lmagery (C9)

Hydrogen Sutlide Odor

(Cl)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Re<lucecl lron (G4) Recent lron Reduciion in Tille<l Soils (C6)

lron Deposits {85) lnundation Visible on Aerial lmagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)

-Field Obeervations: Surface Water Present? Yes Yes WaterTable Present?

SaturaiionPresent? Ye${indudes cebillerv fiinoe) -

Water-Slained Leaves (89) Aquatic Fauna (813)

_ _

tto { Ho X ruo X

Thin Muck Surface (CD Other (Explain in Remarks)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Depth (inches): Depth (inches):

Depth(inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present?

\./ No r.

Ye6-

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring welt, aerial photos, prcvious inspections), if available:

Remafts:

US fumy Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

Version 2.0

-

VEGETATION

Tree Stratum (Plot

I

t\7

samptins Point,

Use scientific names of plants.

size: * -'

)

Absolute Dominant lndicator % Cover Soecies? Status

1

Dominance Test workghe€t: Number of Dominant Species

ThatAre OBL, FACW,

2.

/A*L ('f,tc'ii

OT

FAC:

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

3.

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FAC1ru, or FAC:

4.

5.

6.

(A/B)

Prcvalence lndex workEhoot: Tntel o4 Cowr of:

7.

Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:

1. f- '1r'

-

,'i

2.

3.

Multiotv bv:

x1=-

OBLspecies FACW species FACspecies FACUspecies UPlspecies

= Total Cover

x2=

x3=-x4=x5=(A) -

Cdumn Totals:

(B)

4.

Pn-.valence lndex = BIA =

5

Hydrophytic Vegetation lndicator€:

6.

7.

= Total Cover Herb

't.

Stratum (Plot size:

1-rJl

l,;1..r L

a. As 6\tq. vic-;e.

P7 ftr*,r

f'r

PiaS ,l ,r ,' G(dtq

- Qo

i] l) a

-

-

_ _

2 - Dominance Test is >50%

-

4 - Mophologi;al Adaptationst lProvide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

3 - Preval€nce lndex is s3.01

f+<' i

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetationl (Explain)

-

, /..

tlndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be pres€nt, unless disturbed or problematic.

5.

Definltions of Vegetation Strata:

6.

Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.

7.

8_

Sapling/shrub

g

and greater than or equal

10.

Herb

Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH

to 3.28 fi

(1 m) tall.

- All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 fi tall.

11.

Woody vines

12.

' Woodv Vine Stratum

-

-

All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in

height= Total Cover

(Plot size:

1.

2.

Hydrophytic Vegetatlon

3.

4.

Pres6rt? = Total Cover

Yes

No

''\

Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separste she€t.)

US Army Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

Version 2.0

6 samplinsro,n,' I A- Z sotL @'creoepttrneed€dtodocumentt'relndicatororconfirmtheabsenceofindicatoF.l Depth finches) Color {moist) oh C *L-l z.*:3.'11r_ :;."i: I .lf 4* i6 Z {".\{

t

Color

(moist)

%

Tvoe'

R6mrrks

Texture

( 'l:

lTvne: C=Conrnnlration- D=DeDletion. RM=Reduced Malrix. Ms=Masked Sand Grains.

Hydric Soil lndlcatqrs:

_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR & _ Histosol (Al) HLRA 1498) * Histic Epipcdon (A2) _ Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (LRR R, IIILRA l49B) _ Btack Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K L) _ Hydrogen Sutfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ DepletedBelowDarkSurface(A11) _ DepletedMatrix(F3) Redox Dark Surface (FO) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Mucky Mineral Sandy _ - Redox Depressions (F8) _ _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ SandyRedox(Ss) _ Stripped Matrix (SO) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, ttLRA {4SB) 3lndicators

(uFfad)

tlocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. lndicatots for Problernatic tlydrlc Soils": 2crn Muck (A10) (LRR K l- IILRA 1498)

*-

-_

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K l- R) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L)

Polyvalue Below Surfae (SB) (LRR K L) ThinDarkSurface(Sg)(LRRK,L) lron-Manganese Masses (Fla (LRR K L, R) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (ilLRA 1498) Mesic Spodic (fA6) (ULRA t44A lt[s' t'lgB)

RedParentMaterial(F2l) Very Shallow Dark Surfaca ffF12) Other (Explain in Rematks)

-

of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be pres€nt, unless distufied or problematic.

Type: Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil

Prsent?

N. X

Yes-

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Northea8t Region

-

Version 2-0

WETLAND DETERilINATION DATA FORM Project/Site:

f'.vi{:{viu - ;*:r' ,:

-

Northcentral and Northeast Region

q 1t?/tE samplingpoint 1A-3 {'trlorc)

sampling Date:

1

ooo,,""nr

state:

ft[

Secfion, Township, Ratge:

lnvestigator(s):

Sbpe (%): Datum:

Long:

Subregion (LRR or MLRA):

1r, - {.La.r,

Soil Map Unit Name:

eonve{

Local relief (concave, con\rex, none):

Landform (hillslope, tenace, etc.):

+-r

r,A-

l.lW dassification:

(lf no, explain in Remarks.)

No Ves L U//signifcantlydisturbed?

Are"Nomal Circumstanâ&#x201A;Źs'present? YesAreVegetation-,Soif \J ot{ydtology Are dimatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typlcal for t|is time of year?

sol V,

Are Vegetation

or Hydrotogy

-

suuluARy oF -, FINDINGS

/

naturally

problematic? (lf needed,

X

explain any ansvt ers in Remarks.)

Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc'

Y Y"r: YesYes

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Hydric Soil Present?

Wetland Hydrology Present?

ls the Sempled Arca within a Wedand?

No

No-?ruo (

noX

lf yes, optionalWetland Site lD:

here or in a separate report.)

(Explain altemative

Siie i"rS he,-.

No

lr!'r,* -{r:4'

.i{c...o-:

:'.

'it,,rt(.

i.-1,t,''-:i

'y'"

rJ

;

.{,

'

'i' t.

,r

'

r.),.

l'

rji '1 ,' r"

HYDROLOGY primeru

lillieiloF

Surface Water

Surfaoe Soil Cracks (BO)

{minimum of one is reouired: check all that aDolv)

-_ _

Water-Stained Leaves (89) Aquatic Fauna (813) Marl Deposits (815)

(Al)

High WaterTable (A2) Saturation (A3)

(Cl)

Water Marks {81) Sediment Deposits (82) Drifl Deposits (83)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor

Algal Mat or Crust (84) lron Deposits (85)

Recent lron Reduclion in Tilled Soils (C6)

Ofdized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced lron (O4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other {Explain in Remarks)

lnurdation Visible on Aerial lmagery {87) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)

Obgeilauons: Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

Field

Surface Water

/ '/ . lto---7 No -!1,-

-_-f _ _ _ _ *

Drainagre Pauems (810)

Moss Trim Unes (816) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Bunows (CB) Saturation Visible on Aerial lmagery (C9)

StuntedorStressed Plants (Dl) Geomorphic Poeition (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-l.leutral Test (D5)

,

Yes Yes

No ' -

/includes caoillarv tinoe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, - monitoring Yes

Depth (inches): Depth (inches):

WetlandttdrologyPtâ&#x201A;Źsent?

Depth (inches):

ves

ilo-

X

well, aerial photos, prcvious inspedions), if available:

Rema*s:

3

US Army Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Nodheast Region

-

Version 2.0

( VEGETATIOI{

-

rt,.;tr-.,t;

Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size:

tt'\

Absolute Dominant lndicator % Cover Soecies? Status

)

1.

2.

[tomlnanco Tost workshg€t:

l-

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW or FAC:

z

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

3_

4.

,r,

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, Or FAC:

5.

6.

(A/B)

Pl€val€nce lndex worksheeti Tntal

7

= Total Cover

Saplinolshrub Stratum (Plot size:

t. Zo( nns q'"lll/>1\J ty1,

3

J

7.a r)

2.

3.

%,

Cnwr nf'

Mrtlfinlv hv:

species f1 FACWspecies {t FACspecies ZS FACuspecies q J UPL species 5 corumn Totats: 11 8

x1- d,2- .,2-6x3= 75

OBL

4.

Prevatence tndex

5-

t+=

r "16

L6 75.-:ffi-5o6 (A) = 3'66

6.

Hyd

rophydc Vegetrtlon lndicatoF:

7

* _

2 - Dominance Test is >50%

3 Herb

t.

,o,

Stratum (Plot $ize:

)

=TotalCover

eS h./o Tt:16 No lt.cv.

*tiAaqo f.&OSq

z.&rr&{e aisls.,*s*. s. A*le?i*t Svrrr:{q

f;

o 7">, ri::.luStr:S

15,

lJo l-PLt,* \e< flW

5.

1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

3 - Prevalence lrdex is 33.01

-

4 - Morphological Adaptationst (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate $heet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetationi {Explain)

'tnorcalorg or nyonc soll ano weuano nltorology be present, unless disturbed or probbmatk.

Definitions of Vegetation Strata:

6.

I nae - woooy planE J n. (/.b ctn) or more ln qlamerer at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.

7 8

Saplingrshrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

I

Herb * All herbaceous (non-woody) dants, egardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

10.

11.

lYoody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in

12.

Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size:

tel

height.

)

1.

2.

3

Hydrophytlc Vegetation

4.

Present?

v"s

X

No-

= Total Cover

Remarks; (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

US Army Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

Version 2.0

1^\

sotL

samplins

ron

'

,A-3 fuxx*t*)

Protll€ Descrlpdon: (Describe to tne dopttr nesded to rlocument ths indlcator or contirm the ab6ence of lndlcatol€,) Metriv

Depth

(inches)

Color

{moist)

- g' ' to't 4 ,'78- ji,r 3q'l 5 :.

o

S+

Redox FedurBs o/o

Texture

lo)T" it

lt '" i?

ti

rTvoe: C=Concentration. D=DeDl6tion. RM=Reduced Matrix. Ms=Mesked Sand tlyddc Soil hdicators:

(Al)

I'tt

Grains.

_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, (A2) I,LRA 1498) (A3) * Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (LRR R, MLRA l49B) (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) *Stratified Layers (A5) *- Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Dopleted Matrix (F3) - Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) - Thick Dark Surface (A12) - Redox Dark Surhce (F6) - Sandy Muc*y Mineral (Sl) - Depleted Dark Surface (F7) - SandyGleyedMatrix(S4) - RedoxDepressions(FB) - Sancly Redox (S5) _ _ Slripped Matrix (56) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R" MLRA 1498) _

Histosol

Histic Epipedon Black Histic Hydrogen Sulfide

Remarks

f -, I ./i

2location: PL=Pore Linino. M=Matrixlndicators for Problemafc Hydric Solls': _ 2 cnr Muck (A10) (tRR K l. MLRA r49B)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) 5 crn Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Potyvalue Bebw Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)

Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (LRR K L) lron.Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (ttRA 1498)

MesicSpodicffAo)(iILRA1444145,{498) Red Parent Materiat (F21)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks)

'lndicatorg of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrktivc Layor {lf observed}: Type: Depth (inches):

HydricsollPrcsent?

Yeo-

H",X,

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

i, -i' '' n/'f'r'.

cityiCounty:

Sampling Date Sampling

State:

Point:4

i.--

I

Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, tenace, Slope (%):

etc'): f'

t

':|-*

L il I '"

"

:'

t'-'

Local reliet (concave' convex' nond:

-

Long:

Lat:

Datum:

NW classification:

Soil Map Unit Name:

,' :1. t"

i,:.-

(lf no, explain in Remarks.)

Yes , No "Normal Circrmstances'present? Yes Are Sol X , or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? (lf needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Soil X , or Hydrotogy f'x naturally problematic?

-

'

Are dimatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?

-

Are Vegetatron Are Vegetation

:IL2!f

-,

-

suMMARy OF -, FINDINGS

No

r''!

A

Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

HYDROLOGY Secondarv lndicators {mlnimum ot two resulreo)

lruetland Hydrology lndlcatons:

Surface Soil Cracks (86)

Primarv lndicators {minimum of one is reouired: check all that aoolv) Surface Water

-_ _

Water-Stained Lea\Es (Bg)

(Al)

Drainage Pattems (810) Moss Trim Lines (816)

High Water Table (A2)

Aquatic Fauna (B13)

Saturation (A3)

Marl Deposits (815)

Water Marks (Bl)

Hydrogen Sutfide Odor

Sediment Deposits (82) Drift Deposits (83) Algal Mat or Crust (84)

Oxidieed Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced lron (C4)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

Recent lron Reduc{ion in Tilled Soils (C6)

Geomoryhic Position (D2)

lron Deposits (85) lnundation Visible on Aerial lmagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard {D3)

Field Observations:

Present?

Water Table Present?

SaturationPresent?

Surface Water

/indr rles r:nillarv frince)

No

Yes

Yes

"1'

yes -){

_

(Cl)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

5

"\

Dry-season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Bunows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial lmagery (C9)

Microtopographic Relief (D{) FAGNeutral Test (D5)

Depth (inctres):

No

Depth (incfies):

No-

Depth(inâ&#x201A;Źfies):

-

i'-'

wbtland Hydrology Present? yes

-\

Ho

vious insPeciions), if available:

-

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

lnterim Version

,.

VEGETATION

-

Sampling Point:

Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant lndicator

Tree Stratum (Plot

1.

r ''.]..

size: '

)

7n

Cover Soecies?

Status

,-.

2.

3.

Dorninance Test worksh€etr Number of Dominant SPecies

ThatAreOBL, FACWoTFAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

4.

5.

(A/B)

Multiplv bv:

Total % Cover of:

7. = Total Cover

Stratum (Plot size:

1.

2.

3.

x1=..--

OBlspecies FACWspecies FACspecies FACUspecies UPLspecies

x2=

x3=_-x4=

_..-(A) -.--*lndex = B/A =

Column Totals:

4.

Prevalence

x5=

{B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation lndicator3:

6.

7.

= Total Cover H€rb Stratum

-

Prcvalence lnd€x worksheet:

6.

Saolino/Shrub

lE-l ('vte'\ ,

-

-

Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence lndex is <3.01

-

(Plot size:

1.

;! _

Morphological Adaptationsl (Provide supporting data in Remark$ or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetationl (Explain)

2.

-

3,

tlndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

4

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

5.

Definitions of Vegetation Strata:

6.

Tree

7.

- Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.

B.

Sapling/shrub

- Woody plants tess tnan 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

9.

- All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Herb

10.

11,

Woody vines

12-

ia) Woodv Vine Stratum

)

-

All woody vines greater than 3.28 fi in

height.

=TotalCover

(PIot size:

1.

2.

Hydrophytic

3.

Vegetation Present?

4.

Yes

l\"1

l{o

= Total Cover

Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet

US Army Corps of Engineers

-

)

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

lnterim Version

samplins eoint,

solL

i

L' I (wel I

todocumenttheindicatororconfirmtheabsenceofindicatoF')

DeDth /in.ies)

Color

Matrix (moist) oh

Redox Features

Color

lTvna' C=C

(moist)

%

-TvDe' Loc' ,

Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand

Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

-_

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

-_ _ _ _

Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R,

f,ILRA {498)

Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Qurfece (A11)

\

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (56) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R,

IILRA 1498)

Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 1498) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR K, L) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)

exture

Remarks

Grains.

Hydric Soil lndicators:

_ * _ _ _

I

'Location: PL=Pore Lining lndicatorâ&#x201A;¬ lor Problematic llydrie Soils': 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, iILRA 1498) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Polyvalue Below Surface (Sg) (LRR K, L) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)

lron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K' L, R) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 1498) Mesic Spodic O46) (iltRA 144A, 1.t5, 1498) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks)

tlndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or probternatic. strictive Layer (if oheerved): Tvpe: Depth (inches): Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

No

-\-

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

-

lnterim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ProjecUSite:

:

ApplicanU0wner:

lnvestigator(s):

Northcentraland Northeast Region Sampling Date:

City/County:

:.,'", Fi,:? t.,

Landform (hillslope, terrace, Slope

-

,'. i' l'* r etc.):

'l- '; 'r

i '

"

,L'i'|i

'r-'

Local relief (concave, convex, Long:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

Are Vegetation

i

none;: {

-

:"

r

Datum:

NW classification:

Soil Map Unit Name

Are Vegetation -

l{'

Secdion, Township, Range:

Lat:

(o/o):

Sampling Polnt:

State:

Soil { Soil X

l,{ Hydrology X or , ,

or Hydrotogy

disturbed? problematic?-

(lf no, explain in Remarks')

No

significantly

Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes

naturally

(lf needed,

_-

f'fo

i!-

explain any answers in Remarks')

-, site map showing sampling point locations, transecF, important features, etc. suMMARy OF -, FINDINGS - Attach ls the Sampled Area \- No HydrophyticVegetation Present? Yes No ves X within a Wetland?

No Yes *IHydric Soil Present? lf yes, optional Wetland Site ID:

:

(Explain altemative procedures here or in a separate report.)

HYDROLOGY Secondarv lndicators (minimum of two required)

@ors: Primarv lndicators (minimum of one is required: ctleck all that aoDlv)

_ \ x' _ _ _ _ _

_ _

Surface Water (A1) Hign Water Table (A2)

Water-Stained Leaves (Bg) Aguatic Fauna (Bl 3) Marl Deposits (815)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (81) Sediment Deposits (82) Drift Deposits (83)

Algal Mat or Crust (Bt) lron Deposits (85) lnundation Visible on Aerial lmagery (87) SparselyVegetated Concave Surface (B8)

-Field Observations: No Surface Water Present? Yes Yes ' No Water Table Present?

Ves- X No Saturation Present? /innh r.les mnillerv frinoe) -

-* _ * _ _ _

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence ofReduced lron (C4) Recent lron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CO)

Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks)

_ _ _

Surface Soil Cracks (86)

_

Crayfish Bunows (C8)

_ _ _ _ _

Drainage Patterns (810)

MossTrim Lines (816) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Msible on Aerial lmagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth

(inches): 6

No-

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes

Remarks:

(,t1'!';

US Army Corps of Engineers

r

i r

'!ri' -

Northcenirat and Northeast Region

-

lnterim Version

'-:'

VEGETATION Tree Stratum

-

sampling Point'

Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant lndicator o/n Cover Soecies? Status

(Plot size:

ld*' i :''i''.i""r

Dominance Test worksheet:

1. l" 'i' .i

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW or FAC

(A)

2-

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

3.

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC

4.

5.

_

(A/B)

Prcvalence lndex worksheet: Multiolv bv:

Total % Cover of:

f-

J

Saplinoishrub Stratum (Plot size:

\"J

2.

3.

x2=

x3!--.-.-x4=

x5=-.-.-.--(A) -lndex = B/A =

Column Totals:

4.

Prevalence

(B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation lndicatos:

6.

.r\ _

7. = Total Cover

-, Herb

x1=-_--

OBlspecies FACWspecies FACspecies FACUspecies UPlspecies

= Total Cover

{: ^p2t:':r

2. .: , , r

"')-i,

-

.

:

b.

Morphological Adaptationsl iProvide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetationl (Explain)

..)

,--t

t,I

5.

:

'

-r

-

j

it l.'-)

Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence lndex is <3.01

Stratum (Plot size:

1.

-

Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

!

tlndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Definitions of Vegetation Strata:

7.

- Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height'

8.

Sapling/shrub

Tree

- Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 fi (1 m) tall.

9.

Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

10.

11.

Woody vines

12, I

Woodv Vine Stratum

-

All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in

height. otal uover

(Plot size:

1.

2"

Hydrophytic

3.

Vegetation Present?

4. = Total Cover

Yes

-/ -\-

No

-

ie sheet.)

US Army Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

lnterim Version

I

!

SOIL

samptins

poin,

l4* i (wei

Profile Dcscrlption: (D$cribe to the depth needsd to document the indicator or contirm the absenee of indicatoF.) Depth

(incfies)

Melrix Color (moist)

/--'I

t.

'I

{"'i,tr |

tTvpe:

-

%

R,edox Features

coroiimoEiiffi

Texture

I

_ _ _ _ _ _

_

Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)

(A5)

Depleted Below Dark Surface Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) $andy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

(A11)

_ _ _

Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (LRR R, ilLR^A 1,f98) Loamy Muc*y Mineral (Fl) (LRR K, L) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) )lOepteteO Matrix (F3)

_ * _

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (56) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, IYILRA 1498)

tlndicators

Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R,

MLRA 1498)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers

Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)

2location: PL=Pore Lininq, M=Malrix lndicators for Problematic Hydric Soills":

Grains-

Hydric Soil lndicators:

* _ _ _ _

Remnrks

-\

C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 1498) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R,) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peai (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)

Thin Dark Surface {S9) (LRR K, L) lron-Manganese Masses {F12) (LRR K, l- R) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 1'l9B) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (ftLRA 144A, 145, 1498) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks)

of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Y""

\,

No

Remarks:

-

US Army Corps ot Engineers

Northcentral and Northeast Region

'-t

- lnterim

Version

1

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ProjecVsite:

j

Cityicounty: I

ApplicanUowner:

lnvestigator(s):

State:

,

l.{r':.' ,'

....-

Soil Map Unit

Name:

, ',

Sampling Date: SamPling Point:

!lj5aj"*

Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none):

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ): Slope (%):

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

Datum:

Long:

Lat:

{: t.r'^ ..\.' "',,Lt, il" - ,'l- ' :,'^

NWI classification'.

{\':>:' r ' <1;'i '

(lf no, explain in Remarks.) ves X No Soil X , or Hydrology X. significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes (lf needed, explain any answers in Remarks') Soit )/ , or Hydrology -1- naturally problematic?

-

';'

Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?

Are Vegetation Are Vegetation

-,

-

suMMARy OF -, FINDINGS

f'fo

X

Attach site map showing samplang point locations, transects, important features, etc' ls the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

v""

X.

No

lf yes, optional Wetland Site lD:

/,:_.

I

-

HYDROLOGY Wbtland Hydrology lndicators: D;m^nr r^di^.+^'. 1frirtimr rn df

_ -{ { _ _ _ -_

^na

Surface Water (A1) Hign water Table (A2)

_ _

Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1)

-_

Aquatic Fauna (B13)

Drainage Pattems (810) Moss Trim Lines (B16)

Marl Deposits (815)

Dry-season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Crayfsh Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial lmagery (C9)

Water-Stained Leaves (89)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Sediment Deposits (82) Ddfi Deposits (83) Algal Mat or Crust (84) lron Deposits (85) lnundation Visible on Aerial lmagery (87)

-

Surface Soil Cracks (86)

ic ranr rired rl.pc* all thel annlv)

(g)

_

Presence of Reduced lron

Recent lron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2)

_ _

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)

Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

Surface Water

/inntrrdac cqnillaru frime\

Yes

No

-_ -IYes -L

No

Yes

ruo

X

Depth (inches):

oeptn(incnes): j '!

Depth (inches):

I

I

| Wetlano Hydrology Present? Yâ&#x201A;Ź

.,

No

-\-

Remarks:

.* i..,\

US Army Corps of Engineers

4: L,'

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

lnterim Version

,

l{ VEGETATION

-

Treâ&#x201A;Ź Straium (Plot

1. ff .r/ir.,. I

Sampling Point'

Use scientific names of plants.

size: ":,.-l

)

i'a.-:"t::i*i.' .''

Absolute Dominant lndicator % Cover Species? Status

."

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

I

lr' Ir/(',''-' I

Dominance Test worksheet; Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW OT FAC:

(A/B)

Prevalence lndex worksheet: Total o/' Cover of:

7.

7

= Total Cover

OBlspecies FACwspecies FACspecies FACUspecies UPLspecies Column Totals:

Multiolv bv:

x1=-x2=

x3=-.-x4=x5= -.-.-(A) -.--

(B)

Prevalence lndex = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation lndicatorg:

6.

7.

'/ r)

..t Herb

Stratum (Plot size:

I

I]-" .,r

('r- ..

= Totat Cover

Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

_

Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence lndex is s3.01

-

)

".

-

14

Morphological Adaptationsl lProvide supporting data in Remark$ or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetationl (gxplain)

3.

4.

tlndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic

5.

Deflnitions of Vegetation Strata:

6.

Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.

7.

L

Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 fi (1 m) tall.

9.

Flcrb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

10.

11.

woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in

12.

,

= lotaluover

height.

Woodv Vine Skatum (Plot size: 1.

2.

Hydrophytic \ | Vegetation X Yes I \ Present?

3.

4.

No

= Total Cover

-

Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

US Army Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

lnterim Version

t/

-' samplins point, I l) I (u^ i ) solL @iotrreoepthneededtodoeumenttheindicatororconfitmtheabseaceofindlcatoF', Redox Fe?lures Matrix Depth .

- r Remarks (incfps) color(moist) o/o colot(moisffi :Ig"ure-

\*

1

n. !,1_';-:l i

€r-:lz{ r:,iLili

C:4€ -l)

-7 /-,./-t.

f-

.{O z,c*',11{

?--

L,i(L_i6

' .^..o ": __=_ I",t

-r ..

1,"; t

_ _ _ _ _ _

Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (LRR R,

(Al)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (45) Depleted Below Dark Suface (A11)

(A12)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3)

/'

Mucky Mineral (Sl) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (SG) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA t49B)

Sndy

-_ _ _

MLRA 1498) Thin Dark Surface (S9) {LRR & MLRA 1/rgB) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)

Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3)

fhick Dark Surface

,-,..,-..

lndicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':

Hydric Soil lndicators: Histosol

"'

]

Redox Dark Surface (FO) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (FB)

2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA l49B) Coast Prairie Redox (416) (LRR K L, R) 5 crn Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Polyvalue Below Surface (Se) GRR K, L) Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (LRR K, L) lron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, l- R) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA t49B) Mesic Spodic (fA6) (MLRA 144A, t45, t49B) Red Parent Material (TFz)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks)

-

tlndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. strictive Layer (if observed): Type:

Hydric Soil Present?

Depth (inches):

Remarks:

T

lc'i

Y"s X

ilo

j':

-

-..."qr}

US Army Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Northea$t Region

-

lnterim Version

i,-t

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM

projecusite:

*!*rlc, i-;,: j,'l'i' ,ljrdcj{{* r.i

-

Northcentraland Northeast Region

f, -

state:

Applicant/Owner:

o*",

Section, Township, Range:

lnvestigator(s): Landform (hillslope, tenace,

etc.):

Subregion (LRR or MLM): Soil Map Unit Name:

".

' tl t'

.#

Are Vegetation

or Hydrology

Soil

or Hydrology

--, - Attach siteSUMilARY OF FlttlDlNG$ -, -, Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Ye$

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

r'

t -.'

stope(%):

5-8

Long:

Lat:

A,rF--Pl,tlx*an

Soil

r>

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

l.lw dassification: rn

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time ol year? Yes Are Vegetation

? l7-'-t / t3 pa*'?Qle,1\!";ri' sampring

sampring

city/county:

No

disturbed? problematic?-

(lf no, explain in

significantty

Are "Normal Circilmstances"

naturally

(lf needed,

/q

Remarks.) present?

.

Yes ' -/.

No

explain any answers in Remarks.)

map showing sampling poant locations, transects, importantfeatures, etcNo

-No '/

No7

ls the Sampled Ata within a Wetland?

Yes

t{o '-/"

lf yes, optionalWetland Site lD:

here or in a separate report.)

(Explain altemative

HYDROLOGY Ylretland Hydrology lndicatoF:

s€COnOary InOlcaIOTS tmlnrmum or rwo

primrru lndi.rfom {minimrrm of one is reduired: check all that eDolv)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (813) Marl Deposits (815)

Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (42) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (81)

Hydrogen Sullide Odor

(Cl)

Sediment Deposits (82) Drn Deposits (83) Algal Mat or Crust (84)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced lron {C4)

lron Deposits (85)

Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remafks)

Field Observations: Surface water Present? Yes

Present? Yes SaturationPresent? Yes{indlrdds caoillarv frinoe) -

Waier Table

*o '/

Depth (inches):

*o

Depth (inches):

No-/-','

Depth(inches):

Drainage Pattems (810) Moss Trim Lines (816) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Crayfish Bunows (C8) Saturation visible on Aerial lmagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants

-_

Shallow Aguitard (Dg)

-

FAc-Neutral Test (D5)

Microtopographic Relief (Dt)

,,t-,-i

ir,

{t } f

US Army Corps of Engineers

:"'

No '/

Wetland Hydrology Prcs.ent? YoG

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previou6 inspedions), if available:

Remarks:

(Dl)

Geomorphlc Position (D2)

Recent lron Redu€*ion in Tilled Soils (C6)

lnundation Visible on Aerial lmagery @7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)

rt'(luilt

Surface Soil Cracks (Bo)

-

! "'

Northcentral and Notth€ast Region

-

Version 2.0

','"

":

VEGETATION

-

Tree Stratum (Plot

Use scientific narnes of plants.

samplins Po;6' AOSOTWe

size: V) '

o/o

I

o,r. -,- ;:g',r,,.^ ''-"tr t),,t ' r)'l ,:. : -t ^ lr "., ; 2. t1 ,.ry r '.t ...r :!.::' 3 !') ' .;-t' . ' ', ,,: y ,J . 'r 2.

4. ' ,' V:!,-i'f i1 ' .. i, 1 ' 5

Uonrnafi lnorcator

Cover Soecies?

t,' i-A{i;

1. t] r r y

1,J

*r '

€'

,.'')

,1

Status

lio

FAC l, l:;( ')

e')

! j:

C

t--ACr-r

{

i t,,l

6.

7

\L5

I

Saolinq/Shrub Stratum

(Ptot size:

IE

)

)

+:-'

1. \/ll,'i',".

=Totat Cover

'/,.:", F ftr**

2.

3.

,.r

ZA Ar'-;'lt':)

Domlnance Tegt worksheet: Number of Dominant Species

ThatAre OBL, FACW or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominard Species That Are OBL, FACIA/, or FAC:

til

Prcvalence lndex worksheet: Tnfal ol. /larar a+

ffi rhinlrr hv'

OBLspecies FAClff species FACspecies FAcuspecies UPlspecies Column Totals:

tffel

x1=_ x2 *

x3=x4=x5=(A) -

(B)

4 Prevalence Index = B/A =

5

Hydrophytlc Vegetation lndicators:

6.

_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation XZ - Do*in"nc€ Test is >50%

7

Herb

stratum

(Plot

ir;

size: 3 t

co\€r

,

z. Q , ,'',

:,1 Ft-

v*j

ri(-to^r,,r,'.

3 - Prevalence lndex is <3.01

f

1.

3. 5'r*t

= Total

V

t .'",.

oi

l' :;...'.--i

lvc

Sf

i.r

1.

5. Po*. { t?

6. Srrt :.-\"'qr, ',P ("4 {iu,,:r,^,a \I v

c;

I l'

I.r;,

i

f

J,-;

7

{;l

-

4 - Morphological Adaptationsl (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetationl (Explain)

'lnd;cators of hydric soil and wetland hyclrology must be present, unless disturbed or pmblematic.

Deftnltlons of Vegetation Stfiate:

- Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of heigtrt.

Trce

8.

9.

and greater than or egual to 3.28 ft (1 m) talt.

10.

Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

11.

Woody vlnes

12. :i

i i Woodv Vine Stratum

= lolalcover

height.

-

All woody vines greater than 3:28 fi in

(Plot size:

1.

2 3.

Hydrophytic

Vegetatlon r/ Presont?

Yes ir

4.

No_

= Total Cover

Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

US Army Corps of Engineers

Norllrcentral and Northeast Region

-

Version 2.0

(( l solL @;dcpthneodedtodoGumenttheindicatororconfirmtheabsenceofindicato's.} Redox Features , Depth Matrix. , T€xture {inihes) @

/t' i:jr: Tl3 77 ;'irz.)!L ,. , :) :,1-tt,tJ.q! ^o' o'

lev'{'

L

't

_ _

Histosol

(A1)

Polyvalue Below Surface (Sg) (LRR

(A2) (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratifred Layers (A5)

_

Histic Epipedon Btack Histic

DepletedBelowDarkSurface(A11)

(A12) (Sl) (S4) (S5) (56)

Thick Dark Surface Sandy Mucky Mineral Sandy Gleyed Matrix Sandy Redox Stripped Matrix Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R" ilILRA

ilLRA

1,198)

f49B)

R,

Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (LRR R, ilLRA Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K Loamy Gleyed Matrix

(F2) - DepletedMatrix(F3) - Redox Daft S.rrface (FO) _ _ Depleted Dark Surtae (F7) _ Redox Depressions (Fg)

r

j

t'

r

f

,

.

z

.-'14 .1

Remarks o.".

tr\

lTvoe: C=Concentration. D=Deoletion. RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains.

Hydric Soil Indicators:

_ _ _ * _ _ _ _ _

4

samplins Point'.

L)

{.198)

zlocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. lndicaiors for Problernatic Hydtic Soib": 2 crn Muck (A10) (LRR K L, MLRA t49B)

_

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K L)

ThinDarkSurface($9)(LRRK,L) lron-Manganese Mass€s (F12) (LRR K L, R) Piedmont Flnodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA t49B) Me$ic Spodic (IA6) (MLRA 1444 l'15, 1,{98) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface fIF12) Other (Explain in Remarks)

-

'lndicators of hydrophytic rregetation and wetland hydrology must tre present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Type: Depth (incies):

US Army Corps of Engineers

HydricsollPr€sant?

Yes-

Nortlrcentral and Northeast Region

Ho'/

-

Version 2.0

('-tp

I

WETLAND DETERI|INATION DATA FORIS ProjectlSite:

t.

_!,

Citylcounty;

f;''?> ';r

Applicanuowner:

dr

I

.

j*"

4 a'

[-''

''

etc.): 'i ' i ''

Subregion (LRR or MLRA):

' ]

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

Lat:

_, -,

Soil

_, -,

SUiIffARY OF FINDINGS

or Hydrology

-

Dafum:

Long:

i"lrr'

_

"i^:":

fillr*

(lfno,erylaininRernarks.)

Yes Y No"Normal Are Circumstances" preEent? Ves 5signmcantly disturbed? naturally problematic? (lf needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

No

Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transeets, importantfeaturcs, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Prcsent?

Yes

WetlaBd Hydrology Present?

_ -

-!!1;---p- B&* Li i,t-,-'point.p Slope (%):

-j-:.-!-ji!e.-

forthistimeof year?

or Hy{trology

Soil

sampting

Nfwl classification,

Aredimatic/hydrologicconditionsonthesitetypical Ale Vegetation

fr

Section, Township, Range:

l?,,R* i';rr{n:rr'

Soil Map Unit Name:

'a 1..

Sampling Date;

""""'' " state:

lnv€stigato(s): Ke'; l": I i 'lr' , Tf ', .T*'ii:'i .'

Landform (hillslope, tenace,

Northcentral and Northeast Region

r

,

Are Vegetation

-

{

X

Yes X-

No

ls the Sampled Arca within a WeUand?

lto

lf yes, optional Wetland Site ID:

No

altemative procadures here or in a separate report.)

HYDROLOGY Prinrrrv lndicators Iminimum of one is reouired: c,heck tll thet eoDful

{ L

*

L

Surface Soil Crac*s (86)

Water-Stained Leaves (Bg)

Drainage Pattems (810)

Aquatic Fauna (813) Mad Depo$its (815)

Moss Trim Lines (816)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Crayfish Bunows (CB)

Sediment Deposits (82) Dffi Deposits (83)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Saturation Msible on Aerial lmagery (Cg)

Presen€ of Reduced lron (O4)

Algal Mat or Crust (Bt) lron Deposits (85)

Recent lron Reduclion in Tilled Soils (C6)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl ) Geomorphic Position (D2)

Surface Water

(Al)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3) Water Marks (81)

lnundation Visible on Aerial lmagery (87) Sparsely Vegetated Conca\re Surface (88)

Yes- *o X WaterTablePresent? Yes X- NoSalurationPresent? yes X . NoSurfacewaterPrcsent?

Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Remarks:

/^

:r4

i

t,

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAc-Neutral Test (D5)

Depth(incfies):Depth(inches): Depth(incfres):

esoillarv ftinde) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, f inchrdes

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

,C

wetland Hydrology

Pr€ent?

T

".

X

No

prvious inspedions), if available:

-

,,

US Army Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

Version 2.0

,

/a

VEGETATION

Tree.Stratum (Plotsize:

1. 1!::l

2. Jrir{)-

. -j-ar

)

,..'-,'-1",''.',.

ZA-

Samplirlg Point:

Use scientific names of plants.

-

Absolute Dominant lndicator % Cover Soecies? Siatus

:l *

YfS {r-'

Dominance Test worksheetl Number of Dominant Species

ThatAre OBL, FACW or FAC:

.t

l'/rl

-

13

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

3.

4.

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species (AlB)

ThatAre OSL, FACW or FAC:

5.

6.

Prevalence lndex worksheet: Cover of: OBlspecies FACWspecies FAC species FACU species UPlspecies

Tolrl

7. = Total Cover

Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:

l

I

(

2.

.,:tl .'u i. :'v,

::

:-

v

r'- ll

3-

t^;

0/6

x2= x3 =

x4 =

x5=(A) B/A lndex = =

Cdumn Totals:

4.

Prevalence

5

Muhiolv bv:

x1=--

(B)

6.

Hydrcphytic Vegetatlon lndicatoc:

7

_ $

2 - oominance Test is >50%

-

4 - Morphological Adaptationsl (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

5i Stratum (Plot \J tr-ttt: : .

Herb

1.

2.!

3.

size: I '11 li; 4 t-, . .'

rn

)

= Total Cover

-

-

1 - Rapid Test for l-lydrophytic Vegetation

3 - Prevatence lndex is <3.0r

-

i;-.

'rJnr t- )

,*,

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetationt (Etplain) !"Jr: i ,ir{'ur i.it; i., tlndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

i

4.

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

5

Definitions of Vegstation Strata:

t)

I râ&#x201A;Źe - vvoooy plants J ln. (/.0 qrl, ol trlotg ul ulalrrstt at breast height (DBH), regardless of hâ&#x201A;Źight.

7 8.

Sapling/shrub

9.

and greater than or equal

Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH

to 3.28 fr {1 m) tall.

Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants fess than 3.28 ft tall.

10.

11.

Woody vines

12.

L! Woodv Vine Stratum

-

height'

-

All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in

=TolalCover

+.

(Plot size:

1.

2.

Hydrophytic

3.

Vegebtion Presont?

4.

V Y$-:

No-

= Total Cover

Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

US Army Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

Version 2.0

(

sotL

sampting

Point

ZA - B

Profile Description: {I}escribe to the depth needed to document the lndicator or confirm tfie absence of lndlcatoe.]

Depth {inehes)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox oa

Features __

o-la+ :",f Y1/:. ?E tr;'ti '6/4

:

:,

.

Texture

Remerks

1,;.,..,

rI

E

lTvm'

C=Conenntrafion D=f)enleiion. RM=Redur:ed Matrix Ms=Mrsked Sand

_ _ _ _

lndicators: (Al) (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sumde (A4) Stratified Layers (A5)

* _ _

Depleted Below Dark Surface Thick Dark Surface Sandy Mucky Mineral

Grains

Hydric Soil

Histosol Histic Epipedon

Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR

_ _ _ (A11) _

ilLRA

l49B)

Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (LRR R, ilILRA Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, Loamy Gleyed Matrix

(F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) - Depleted Da* Surface (F7) -{ Reaor Depressions (FB)

(A12) (Sl) Sancly Gleyed Matrix (S4) -* Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matdx (36) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR & I$LRA t49B)

R, L)

1.198)

2location: PL=Pore Linino. M=Matrix. lndlcatoF for Problematic Hydric Soils": 2crn Muck (A10) (LRR K l- ilLRA f49B)

-* * _ _ _ _ _ -_

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) 5 crn Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K L, R) Dark Surface (S7) {LRR K, L) Polwalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, t) Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (LRR K L) lron-Manganeae Masses (F12) (LRR K L, R) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (ilLRA 1498) Mesic Spodic fiA6) fiilLRA 1,14A, t,{5, l49B) Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (IF12) Other (Explain in Remarks)

tlndicators of hydrophytic \â&#x201A;¬getation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Tvpe: Depth (inctes):

HydricsollPmserrt?

to A

No-

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineen

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

Version 2.0

_,

',.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORiI

ApplicanUowner:

-

Northcentral and Northeast Region

MC""lr. {".,&:iff Seciion, Township, Range:

lnvestigator(s):

{\,,a - (1'*}nn

Soil

_, -,

Soil

_, -,

Datum:

Nwt dassmcation:

Are dimatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time Are Vegetatign

Slope (06):

"

Lorg:

Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Soil Map Unit Name:

/,r>:,r-r-^;g

Local relief {concave, convex, none):

Landform (hillslope, tenace, etc.):

Are Vegetation

d yeaft

Yes

No

-il{:l-!$tr}ifl.d-

(lf no, erplain in Remarks.)

or l-lydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are "Normal Circumstances"

or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(lf needed,

prsent? Yes

X'.

-

No

explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUUilARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, tnansects, impoftantfieatures, ls the Sampled Area ( No Hydrophytic Vegeiation Pre$ent? Yes wlthln a Wefland?

No Yes x Hydric Soil Present?

Yes x No Wetland Hydrology Present? lf yes, optional Wetland Site lD: :

etc.

{Explain altemative procedures here or in a separate report.)

HYDROLOGY weuano Hyurorogy lnorgarois: primrru lndirgine /minimr rm of nm is Hiliraal'

_ V j _ _ _ _ _ _ _

{

Surface Water

a:hea-k all

(Al)

Surface Soil Cracks (86)

th2t annlv)

Water-Stained Leaves (89) Aquatic Fauna (813) Marl Deposit€ (815)

Hioh Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3) Water Marks (Bl)

Hydrogen Sumde Odor

Drainage Pa{ems {810) Moss Trim Lines (816) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

(Ci)

Crayfish Bunovrs (C8)

Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift DepositE (83)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Saturation Msible on Aerial lmagery (Cg)

Presene of Reduced lron (C4)

Algal Mat orCrust (84) lron Deposits (85)

Recent lron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Stunted or Strossed Plants (Dl) Geomorphic Position (DZ)

Thin Muck Surface {C7) Other (Erplain in Remarks)

lnundation Visible on Aerial lmagery (87) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surfae (BB)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Microtopographic Reli€f (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Fleld oDssrvafions:

No I NoYesl: WaterTablePresent?

Ves { No Saturation Present?

Surface Water

Present?

Yes

Depth (inches):

Depth(inches): I Depth (inches): 5

WetlandHydrologyPrueent?

lindrrdas c:nillaru frinoe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, preuous insp€ctions), if available:

-

No-

-

ZA

US Army Corps of Engineers

X """

/-,

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

Version 2.0

VEGETATION Tree

stratum ,.

-

Use scientific names of plants.

(Plot

size:

ADSOluIe LXtmlnam rnorcator

]lt'

)

Z{}-i}

sampling Pni,rt' %

Cover Soecies?

Slatus

Dominance Test workshoct: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FAClfi, or FAC

I

1. I l(Y .:' 2

") )

t

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

3.

4

Percent of Dominant Species

5

ThatAre OBL, FACW or FAC

6.

(A)

a

It

(B)

L.J

(A/B)

Prevalonce lndex workaheet:

7

Saolino/Shrub Stratum f

i'-, ql) i ''

.

1'

(Plot size:

Ye

'.'1' ''l',-'

S

i::.c:-t

i['.c:t

2.

3.

OBLspecies FACWspecies FACspecies FACU species UPL species Column Totals: _

= Total Coyer

JL j

tl

I

f ,"r \)

4.

Prevalene

5.

_ X

7

?(

size: ) t. .-I{-[",r.,1:-'i: r-r:.f;r+.ti:l stratum

(prot

li I t:1

= Tolal cover

x3=x4 =

x 5' _ (A) _ lndex = B/A;

{B)

'Jatt J

{r,'

i-:,., l't-/t

]r

5.

1 - Rapid Test

for Hydrophytic Vegetation

2 - Oo*in"nce Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence lndex is <3.01

Yr.*5 i,",:.--, :'.t'' \ i val

3.

4

x2 =

Hydrophyff c Vcgetatlon lndicatonsi

6,

Herb

x1._

,

4 - Morphological Adaptationsl (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetationl

-

lEplain;

'hdic€tors of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must he nmt'ant r lnln*s di*fi rrtrad nr nrnhlemrfin Definltions of Vegetation Strata:

6

Tlte - Wogdy

plants 3 in. (7.6 crn) or more in diameter at br€ast heighi (DBH), regardless ot height.

7 8.

gaplingrshrub

9.

and greater than qr equal

10.

Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

11.

Woody vlnee

't2.

-_-a)_ = lotal cover WoodY Vine Straturn

*

-

Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

All woody vines greater than 3.28 fi in

height.

(Plot size:

1.

2.

3.

tlydrophytic

Vegetauon ',/ Prosent?

Yes A

4

No_

= Tolal Co\rer

Remarks: (lnclude photo numbers here or on a separate she€t.)

US Army Corps of Engineers

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

Version 2.0

77

solL

!

lType:

C=Conlentraiign, DeDepbtion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Hydrtc $oil lndicatoE:

* _ _ _ _ _ * _ _ _ _

Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2)

. La.t;.i

Grains.

Potyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R,

HLRA 1498) Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (LRR & ITLRA li+98) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfde (A4) Stratifted Layers (A5)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (56) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR & ilLRA 1498)

Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (FG)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

X Redox Depressions

3lndicators

-Lp.-&

Sampling Point:

(Fg)

r

2Location: Pl=pore Linino. M=Matrix.

lndicators for Problematlc t{ydric soi61-2 crn Mud< (Al0) (LRR K, l- I$LRA {498)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR

K

L, R)

5on MuckyPeatorPeat(S3)(LRRK L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR X, L) Polwalue Below Surface (Sg) (LRR

K L) Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (LRR K L) lron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K L, R) Piedrnont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA r49B) Mesic Spodic CfA6) (MLRA t'lfA 1.[5, 1498) Red Parent Msterial (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface CIF12) other (Erplain in Remarks)

of hydrophytic wgetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Type:

HydricsoilPresent?

Depth {inches):

to X

No-

Remafl(s:

'r st-J.^"..,t'r .''! *: '.' .it J I !

US Army Corps of Engineers

l

Northcentral and Northeast Region

-

Version 2.0

PAUL R. LEPAGE

STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES & WILDLIFE 284 STATE STREET 41 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA ME 04333-0041

GOVERNOR

CHANDLER E. WOODCOCK COMMISSIONER

October 21, 2013 Denise Cameron Woodard & Curran 41 Hutchins Dr. Portland, ME 04102 RE: Information Request - Biddeford Saco Water Treatment Facility, Biddeford Dear Denise:

Per your requests received October 1 and October 16, 2013, we have reviewed current Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) information for known locations of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern species; designated Essential and Significant Wildlife Habitats; and fisheries habitat concerns within the vicinity of the two proposed sites of the Biddeford Saco Water Treatment Facility, located on the north and south sides of South Street in Biddeford. Findings for each category of protected resource are specified below.

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Our information indicates no locations of Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species within either parcel area.

Essential Habitat Currently, Essential Habitat is designated only for Piping Plovers, Least Terns, and Roseate Terns, all of which are coastal breeding species and which do not occur in this area.

Significant Wildlife Habitat The parcel located on the south side of South Street bisects a Deer Wintering Area, a Significant Wildlife Habitat identified under the Natural Resources Protection Act. Depending on what activities are proposed and how they are designed, development here could impact deer wintering habitat. Forestry regulations should be closely adhered to and the attached guidelines for managing Deer Wintering Areas should also be followed. Please contact, Brad Zitske, MDIFW Region A Wildlife Biologist (657-2345) for additional information and to discuss project details.

At this time, Significant Vernal Pools have not been mapped within either parcel area. A comprehensive statewide inventory for Significant Vernal Pools, however, has not been completed at this time. Vernal pool surveys may need to be conducted prior to project design to verify the presence or absence of

PHONE: (207) 287-5202

FISH AND WILDLIFE ON THE WEB: www.maine.gov/ifw

EMAIL ADDRESS: ifw.webmaster@maine.gov

PAUL R. LEPAGE

STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES & WILDLIFE 284 STATE STREET 41 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA ME 04333-0041

GOVERNOR

CHANDLER E. WOODCOCK COMMISSIONER

Significant Vernal Pools. Once surveys are completed, our Department will need to verify vernal pool data sheets prior to final determination of significance.

Fisheries habitat concerns The parcel on the north side of South Street is located adjacent to the Saco River, which supports wild brook trout. Best Management Practices should be closely followed to avoid erosion, sedimentation, and other impacts to the river habitat.

This consultation review has been conducted specifically for known MDIFW jurisdictional features and should not be interpreted as a comprehensive review for the presence of other regulated features that may occur in this area. Prior to the start of any future site disturbance we recommend additional consultation with the municipality, and other state resource agencies including the Maine Natural Areas Program and Maine Department of Environmental Protection in order to avoid unintended protected resource disturbance.

Please feel free to contact my office if you have any questions regarding this information, or if I can be of any further assistance.

Best regards,

John Perry Environmental Review Coordinator

PHONE: (207) 287-5202

FISH AND WILDLIFE ON THE WEB: www.maine.gov/ifw

EMAIL ADDRESS: ifw.webmaster@maine.gov

New England Cottontail

4818000

380000

4818000

378000

Blanding's Turtle

4816000

4816000

000407

378000

380000

Environmental Review of Fish and Wildlife Observations and Priority Habitats Project Name:

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

H !

Biddeford Saco water treatment facility

0 0.125 0.25

0.5

ProjectPoints

Deer Winter Area

Roseate Tern

ProjectPolys

Cooperative DWAs

Aquatic ETSc (2.5 mi review)

ProjectLines

ProjectSearchAreas

LURC p-fw

Seabird Nesting Islands Shorebird Areas

Inland Waterfowl/Wading Bird Shoreland Zoning_Iwwh

Tidal Waterfowl/Wading Bird Significant Vernal Pools

Environmental Review Polygons

0.75

(Version 1)

1

Miles

Piping Plover/Least Tern

Rare Mussels (5 mi review) A and B List Ponds

Arctic Charr Habitat

E. Brook Trout Joint Venture Subwatershed Classification Redfin Pickerel/Swamp Darter Habitats (buffer100ft) Special Concern-occupied habitats(100ft buffer) Wild Lake Trout Habitats

Š

Projection: UTM, NAD83, Zone 19N

Date: 10/9/2013

STATE OF MAINE

DEPARTMENT

OF

AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION

&

FORESTRY

93 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0093

PAUL R. LEPAGE

WALTER E. WHITCOMB

GOVERNOR

COMMISSIONER

October 25, 2013 Lauren Swett Woodard & Curran 41 Hutchins Drive Portland, ME 04102 Re: Rare and exemplary botanical features in proximity to: Biddeford & Saco Water Treatment Facility, south of South Street, Biddeford, Maine Dear Ms. Swett: I have searched the Natural Areas Programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Biological and Conservation Data System files in response to your request received October 24, 2013 for information on the presence of rare or unique botanical features documented from the vicinity of the alternatives analysis location south of South Street in Biddeford, Maine. Rare and unique botanical features include the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant species and unique or exemplary natural communities. Our review involves examining maps, manual and computerized records, other sources of information such as scientific articles or published references, and the personal knowledge of staff or cooperating experts.

Our official response covers only botanical features. For authoritative information and official response for zoological features you must make a similar request to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 284 State Street, Augusta, Maine 04333.

Our comments of September 26, 2013 are the same provided the facility is located north of the transmission line in the parcel south of South Street. The southern area of this parcel intersects with an exemplary natural community, a Red Maple Swamp. If you are planning work in the southern portion of the parcel, we would want to look at details of the project to provide recommendations. For more information about red maple swamps in Maine, please visit our website, http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mnap/features/communities/redmapleswamp.htm.

Table of Significant Natural Features Feature Red Maple Swamp

Global Rank G3G5

State Rank S5

Occurrence Rank Aâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Excellent

Notes West Biddeford Black Gum Swamp

This finding is available and appropriate for preparation and review of environmental assessments, but it is not a substitute for on-site surveys. Comprehensive field surveys do not exist for all natural areas in Maine, and in the absence of a specific field investigation, the Maine Natural Areas Program cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of unusual natural features at this site.

MAINE NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM MOLLY DOCHERTY, DIRECTOR

PHONE: (207) 287-8044 FAX: (207) 287-8040 TTY: (207) 287-2213

Letter to Lauren Swett, Woodard & Curran Comments RE: Biddeford & Saco Water Treatment Plant October 25, 2013 Page 2 of 2

The Natural Areas Program is continuously working to achieve a more comprehensive database of exemplary natural features in Maine. We would appreciate the contribution of any information obtained should you decide to do field work. The Natural Areas Program welcomes coordination with individuals or organizations proposing environmental alteration, or conducting environmental assessments. If, however, data provided by the Natural Areas Program are to be published in any form, the Program should be informed at the outset and credited as the source.

The Natural Areas Program has instituted a fee structure of $75.00 an hour to recover the actual cost of processing your request for information. You will receive an invoice for $150.00 for our services.

Thank you for using the Natural Areas Program in the environmental review process. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions about the Natural Areas Program or about rare or unique botanical features on this site.

Sincerely,

Don Cameron Ecologist Maine Natural Areas Program 207-287-8041 don.s.cameron@maine.gov Enclosures

Significant Natural Features Water Treatment Facility Biddeford, Maine Revised Project Area Original Project Area

¹

Red Maple Swamp

§ ¦ ¨ 95

§ ¦ ¨ Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

95

Y X

0.5 Miles

Y X

0.25

Y X

0.125

Y X

Maine Natural Areas Program, October 2013

Y X

0

Y X

Rare/Exemplary Natural Community

APPENDIX D: PLANNING SCHEMATICS

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS

WOODARD CURRAN

41 Hutchins Drive Portland, Maine 04102 800.426.4262 | www.woodardcurran.com

ZONE: SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL 1 (SR1) (with portions of the site within 250 ft. of the Saco River are within the Limited Residential Shoreland Overlay Zone)

SETBACKS: FRONT 40 FT. (along South Street) SIDE AND REAR 10 FT.

CHEMICAL FEED/ PUMPING/ ADMIN

FILTERS (8)/ CLEARWELL

FILTERS (4)/ CLEARWELL

4 LAGOONS

SEDIMENTATION BASINS (4) SEDIMENTATION BASINS (2)

LEGEND: CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 16 MGD, 56,000 SF 24 MGD, 81,000 SF

2 LAGOONS

COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS

WOODARD CURRAN

41 Hutchins Drive Portland, Maine 04102 800.426.4262 | www.woodardcurran.com

ZONE: SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL 1 (SR1) (with portions of the site within 250 ft. of the Saco River are within the Limited Residential Shoreland Overlay Zone)

SETBACKS: FRONT 40 FT. (along South Street) SIDE AND REAR 10 FT.

4 LAGOONS

CHEMICAL FEED/ PUMPING/ ADMIN

PACKAGED TREATMENT UNITS

LEGEND: PACKAGED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 16 MGD, 25,000 SF 24 MGD, 32,000 SF 40 MGD, 48,000 SF

PACKAGED TREATMENT UNITS

PACKAGED TREATMENT UNITS

2 LAGOONS

4 LAGOONS

COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS

WOODARD CURRAN

41 Hutchins Drive Portland, Maine 04102 800.426.4262 | www.woodardcurran.com

ZONE:

4 LAGOONS

SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL 1 (SR1) (with portions of the site within 250 ft. of the Saco River are within the Limited Residential Shoreland Overlay Zone)

SETBACKS: FRONT 40 FT. (along South Street) SIDE AND REAR 10 FT.

2 LAGOONS

FILTERS (8)/ CLEARWELL

FILTERS (8)/ CLEARWELL

FILTERS (4)/ CLEARWELL

SEDIMENTATION BASINS (2)

CHEMICAL FEED/ PUMPING/ ADMIN

4 LAGOONS

SEDIMENTATION BASINS (4) SEDIMENTATION BASINS (4)

LEGEND: CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 16 MGD, 56,000 SF 24 MGD, 81,000 SF 40 MGD, 127,000 SF

KEY

SS ROAD

EXISTING ACCE

LAGOONS

EXISTING RESERVOIR

40 MGD CONVENTIONAL PLANT FOOTPRINT

LEGEND:

ZONE:

NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY WETLAND

75 FT. STREAM BUFFER

DEER WINTERING YARD

FLOOD ZONE

RURAL FARM (RF)

SETBACKS:

FRONT 40 FT. (along South Street) SIDE AND REAR 25 FT.

APPENDIX E: PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume II

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard January 2014

TRADITIONAL CONVENTIONAL Line Item Subtotal Process Cost Sitework, Yard Piping, Landscaping 15% Site Electrical & Controls 20% 36" Transmission Main to Reservoir Total Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Admin 35% Contingency 20% Total Project Cost

Line Item Subtotal Process Cost Sitework, Yard Piping, Landscaping 15% Site Electrical & Controls 20% 36" Transmission Main to Reservoir Total Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Admin 35% Contingency 20% Total Project Cost

EXISTING SITE OPTION TRADITIONAL CONVENTIONAL FILTRATION Capacity 12 MGD 16 MGD 20 MGD 24 MGD $18,126,059 $20,754,839 $26,626,273 $29,245,463 $2,718,909 $3,113,226 $3,993,941 $4,386,819 $3,625,212 $4,150,968 $5,325,255 $5,849,093 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $24,470,179 $29,519,032 $37,445,469 $40,981,375 $8,564,563 $10,331,661 $13,105,914 $14,343,481 $4,894,036 $5,903,806 $7,489,094 $8,196,275 $37,928,778 $45,754,500 $58,040,477 $63,521,131 PACKAGED CONVENTIONAL FILTRATION Capacity 12 MGD 16 MGD 20 MGD 24 MGD $12,406,306 $13,760,651 $18,023,340 $19,422,481 $1,860,946 $2,064,098 $2,703,501 $2,913,372 $2,481,261 $2,752,130 $3,604,668 $3,884,496 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $16,748,513 $20,076,879 $25,831,509 $27,720,350 $5,861,980 $7,026,908 $9,041,028 $9,702,122 $3,349,703 $4,015,376 $5,166,302 $5,544,070 $25,960,195 $31,119,162 $40,038,839 $42,966,542

36 MGD $42,811,699 $6,421,755 $8,562,340 $1,500,000 $59,295,794 $20,753,528 $11,859,159 $91,908,481

40 MGD $45,430,889 $6,814,633 $9,086,178 $1,500,000 $62,831,700 $21,991,095 $12,566,340 $97,389,134

36 MGD $27,438,183 $4,115,728 $5,487,637 $1,500,000 $38,541,548 $13,489,542 $7,708,310 $59,739,399

40 MGD $28,837,325 $4,325,599 $5,767,465 $1,500,000 $40,430,388 $14,150,636 $8,086,078 $62,667,102

Line Item Subtotal Process Cost Sitework, Yard Piping, Landscaping 15% Site Electrical & Controls 20% 36" Transmission Main to Reservoir Access Road Upgrade Total Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Admin 35% Contingency 20% Total Project Cost

Line Item Subtotal Process Cost Sitework, Yard Piping, Landscaping 15% Site Electrical & Controls 20% 36" Transmission Main to Reservoir Access Road Upgrade Total Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Admin 35% Contingency 20% Total Project Cost

ALTERNATE SITE OPTION TRADITIONAL CONVENTIONAL FILTRATION Capacity 12 MGD 16 MGD 20 MGD 24 MGD $17,470,313 $19,880,512 $25,751,947 $28,152,554 $2,620,547 $2,982,077 $3,862,792 $4,222,883 $3,494,063 $3,976,102 $5,150,389 $5,630,511 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $25,834,923 $29,088,691 $37,015,128 $40,255,948 $9,042,223 $10,181,042 $12,955,295 $14,089,582 $5,166,985 $5,817,738 $7,403,026 $8,051,190 $40,044,131 $45,087,471 $57,373,448 $62,396,720 PACKAGED CONVENTIONAL FILTRATION Capacity 12 MGD 16 MGD 20 MGD 24 MGD $11,750,561 $12,886,324 $17,149,013 $18,329,573 $1,762,584 $1,932,949 $2,572,352 $2,749,436 $2,350,112 $2,577,265 $3,429,803 $3,665,915 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $18,113,257 $19,646,537 $25,401,167 $26,994,923 $6,339,640 $6,876,288 $8,890,409 $9,448,223 $3,622,651 $3,929,307 $5,080,233 $5,398,985 $28,075,548 $30,452,133 $39,371,810 $41,842,131

36 MGD $41,063,045 $6,159,457 $8,212,609 $1,500,000 $750,000 $57,685,111 $20,189,789 $11,537,022 $89,411,922

40 MGD $43,463,653 $6,519,548 $8,692,731 $1,500,000 $750,000 $60,925,931 $21,324,076 $12,185,186 $94,435,194

36 MGD $26,126,693 $3,919,004 $5,225,339 $1,500,000 $750,000 $37,521,035 $13,132,362 $7,504,207 $58,157,605

40 MGD $27,307,253 $4,096,088 $5,461,451 $1,500,000 $750,000 $39,114,791 $13,690,177 $7,822,958 $60,627,926

woodardcurran.com COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS