View
5
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE i
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1-6
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1-6 1.2 Planning Scenarios and Demand Projections .......................................................... 1-6 1.3 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 1-8 1.4 Water Treatment .................................................................................................... 1-10 1.5 Distribution ............................................................................................................. 1-13 1.6 Integrated 10 Year CIP Prioritization and Results.................................................. 1-14 1.7 Summary ............................................................................................................... 1-16
2.0 Project Introduction ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Overview of the Aurora Water System ..................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Authorization ............................................................................................................ 2-2
3.0 Demand Planning ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Water Demands ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Water Conservation ................................................................................................. 3-3
4.0 Planning Framework .................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Planning Horizon ..................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Planning Scenarios .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Risk Identification ..................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4 IWMP Assumptions ................................................................................................. 4-4
5.0 Water Resources .......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Basis of Planning ..................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Water Resources Modeling ..................................................................................... 5-1 5.4 Vulnerability and Planning Scenarios Assessment .................................................. 5-3 5.5 Water Resources Projects ....................................................................................... 5-5 5.6 Water Resources Portfolios ................................................................................... 5-15 5.7 Water Resources Plan ........................................................................................... 5-17
6.0 Treatment ...................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 System Design Requirements ................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Existing System Demands and Capacity ................................................................. 6-1 6.3 Future System Demands and Capacity Required .................................................... 6-4 6.4 Proposed Capital Projects ....................................................................................... 6-6
6.4.1 Rampart Raw Water System .............................................................................. 6-6 6.4.2 Griswold WPF Capacity Recovery ...................................................................... 6-6 6.4.3 Binney WPF – South Platte Train Build-Out ....................................................... 6-7
6.5 Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................... 6-10 6.5.1 Planning Scenario 1 (Baseline Plus)................................................................. 6-13 6.5.2 Planning Scenario 2 (Fast Growth) ................................................................... 6-14 6.5.3 Planning Scenario 3 (Fast and Hot) .................................................................. 6-15 6.5.4 Planning Scenario 4 (Hot Baseline) .................................................................. 6-16
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE ii
7.0 Distribution ................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 System Design Requirements ................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Near-Term Projects ................................................................................................. 7-8 7.3 Long-Term Projects ................................................................................................. 7-9 7.4 Capital Improvement Plan ..................................................................................... 7-10
8.0 CIP Prioritization and Results ..................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 CIP Prioritization ...................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Approach ................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 8-1 8.2.2 Criteria Determination, Weighting, and Scoring .................................................. 8-2 8.2.3 Additional Prioritization Analyses – Schedule Optimization ............................... 8-5
8.3 CIP Results .............................................................................................................. 8-5
9.0 References .................................................................................................................... 9-1
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE iii
List of Tables
Table 1-1. IWMP Planning Scenario Characteristics ................................................................ 1-7 Table 1-2. Key Metrics for Water Resources System Performance Analysis ............................ 1-8 Table 1-3. Existing Raw Water Supply and Treatment Capacities .......................................... 1-11 Table 3-1. Annual Demand for Future Years by Exceedance Probability ................................. 3-2 Table 3-2. Conservation Measures Included in Program B ...................................................... 3-3 Table 3-3. Projected GPCD Change with Conservation Program B as Compared to 2014
GPCD ...................................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 4-1. IWMP Planning Scenario Characteristics ................................................................ 4-2 Table 4-2. CIP Growth and Climate Related Risks ................................................................... 4-4 Table 5-1. Drought Response Stages and Watering Restrictions ............................................. 5-2 Table 5-2. Drought Response Stage Thresholds for Current Demand and Storage
Conditions ................................................................................................................ 5-2 Table 5-3. Key Metrics for Water Resources System Performance Analysis ............................ 5-3 Table 5-4. Potential Water Resources Supply Projects for Analysis in the IWMP .................... 5-6 Table 5-5. Potential Delivery System Improvement Projects for Analysis in the IWMP .......... 5-11 Table 5-6. Cost Estimates for Potential Water Resources Supply Projects ............................ 5-14 Table 5-7. Cost Estimates for Potential Delivery System Improvement Projects .................... 5-14 Table 5-8. Balanced Storage/Supply Portfolios for 2070 Gap ................................................ 5-17 Table 6-1. Existing Raw Water Supply and Treatment Capacities ............................................ 6-3 Table 6-2. Water Demands by Year and Planning Scenario..................................................... 6-4 Table 6-3. Water Demands Satisfied by Existing Capacity ....................................................... 6-5 Table 6-4. Capital Costs of Proposed Treatment and Water Resources Projects Impacting
Capacity ................................................................................................................. 6-11 Table 6-5. Cumulative Raw Water Supply and Treatment Capacities .................................... 6-12 Table 7-1. 2020 T&D Improvement Projects ............................................................................. 7-2 Table 7-2. 2035 T&D Improvement Projects ............................................................................. 7-3 Table 7-3. 2070 T&D Improvement Projects ............................................................................. 7-5 Table 7-4. 2070 Pump Station Improvement Projects .............................................................. 7-7 Table 7-5. 2070 Storage Improvement Projects ....................................................................... 7-7 Table 7-6. Distribution CIP Total Cost by Year and Project Category ..................................... 7-10 Table 8-1. Final TBL Prioritization Criteria ................................................................................ 8-4 Table 8-2. Aurora Water 10 Year CIP Cash Flow Summary* ................................................... 8-8
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE iv
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Range of Annual Demand Projections ..................................................................... 1-7 Figure 1-2. Summary of Water Resources Portfolios for Each Planning Future ........................ 1-9 Figure 1-3. Peak Day Water Demands by Year and Total Existing WPF Production Capacity 1-12 Figure 1-4. Planning Scenario 2 Project Timing ....................................................................... 1-13 Figure 1-5. Aurora Water 10 Year CIP, Spend by Year ........................................................... 1-14 Figure 1-6. Aurora Water 10 Year CIP Summary Gantt Chart ................................................. 1-15 Figure 3-1. Range of Annual Demand Projections ..................................................................... 3-2 Figure 4-1. System-wide Annual Raw Water Demands at WPF Intakes for IWMP Planning
Scenarios ................................................................................................................. 4-2 Figure 4-2. Risk Workshop Process ........................................................................................... 4-3 Figure 5-1. Non-Restriction Frequency System Performance with Selected System Risks ....... 5-5 Figure 5-2. Overview of Portfolio Development Process .......................................................... 5-15 Figure 5-3. Summary of CIP Portfolios for Each Planning Future ............................................ 5-16 Figure 5-4. Aurora Water Resources Strategies and Threats .................................................. 5-18 Figure 5-5. Factors to Track for Adaptive Water Supply Planning ........................................... 5-19 Figure 6-1. Ideal Annual System Demand and WISE Distribution ............................................. 6-2 Figure 6-2. Water Demands by Year and Planning Scenario..................................................... 6-5 Figure 6-3. Planning Scenario 1 (Baseline Plus) Project Timing .............................................. 6-14 Figure 6-4. Planning Scenario 2 (Fast Growth) Project Timing ................................................ 6-15 Figure 6-5. Planning Scenario 3 (Fast and Hot) Project Timing ............................................... 6-16 Figure 6-6. Planning Scenario 4 (Hot Baseline) Project Timing ............................................... 6-17 Figure 8-1. Initial Prioritization Process ...................................................................................... 8-2 Figure 8-2. Aurora Water 10 Year CIP, Total by Discipline ........................................................ 8-6 Figure 8-3. Aurora Water 10 Year CIP, Spend by Year ............................................................. 8-6 Figure 8-4. Aurora Water 10 Year CIP Summary Gantt Chart ................................................... 8-7
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE v
List of Abbreviations
ac-ft acre-feet
ac-ft/yr acre-feet per year
AMI Automated Meter Infrastructure
AR Aurora Reservoir
ARR Aquifer Recharge and Recovery
AW Aurora Water
BBC BBC Research & Consulting
CII Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
DMS data management system
FTW filter-to-waste
GPCD gallons per capita per day
HE high efficiency
IWMP Integrated Water Master Plan
LOS level of service
LP large property
MGD million gallons per day
MWH MWH Americas, Inc.
O&M operation and maintenance
OPCC Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
OPT-Search optimization-based searches
PCCP pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe
PS pump station
PW Prairie Waters
RBF riverbank filtration
RMF Risk Management Framework
SP South Platte
SQL Structured Query Language
TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone
T&D Transmission and Distribution
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TWMP Treated Water Master Plan
UHET ultra-high-efficiency toilet
VFD variable frequency drive
WISE Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency
WNA water needs assessment
WPF water purification facility
WRTM Water Resources Technical Memorandum
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 1-6
1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
The Integrated Water Master Plan (IWMP) integrates short-term and long-range planning across the
Water Resources, Treatment, and Transmission and Distribution (T&D) disciplines within Aurora
Water. An integrated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) focused on growth-related projects was
developed using consistent key assumptions and the same planning horizon for all disciplines. Long
range plans were also developed for each of the disciplines to address uncertainty around future
growth and climate variability.
1.2 Planning Scenarios and Demand Projections
The IWMP addresses water needs and planning strategies from 2016 to 2070. Planning milestones
were set at 2025, 2035, and 2050 to evaluate interim needs and solutions. Four planning scenarios
were developed to cover a range of population growth, economic growth, future climate, and future
conservation program assumptions. Table 1-1 shows a summary of the assumptions included in each
planning scenario and the associated system-wide raw water demands.
Demand projections were created using a demand forecasting model that incorporated population,
land use, development density, projections of water use and water use intensity among different classes
of customers, employment factors, water pricing, and weather conditions – 19 variables in all.
Demands were estimated for different confidence intervals, representing the uncertainty surrounding
the demand model parameters used to develop the future demand projections. Figure 1-1 shows the
planning scenario demands as well as the base forecast and its associated 90% and 99% confidence
intervals.
A review of the water conservation program was conducted to identify additional conservation
measures that would be cost-effective to add to the existing program. Three future conservation
programs were analyzed and resulted in the selection of Program B, which includes additional
conservation measures that provide the greatest benefit-cost and can be readily implemented by
Aurora Water. When combined with savings associated with changes in the plumbing code, Program
B will reduce 2015 per capita demands by about 10 percent by 2050.
Simulations of Aurora Water’s water supply system were performed using a Paleo hydrologic ensemble
representing current climate conditions and a Modified Paleo hydrologic ensemble representing a
hotter, drier climate that would result in approximately 19 percent reduction in mean streamflow.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 1-7
Table 1-1. IWMP Planning Scenario Characteristics
Characteristics Hydrology Ensemble
Annual Demands (ac-ft/year) at WPF Intakes**
2015* 2025 2035 2050 2070
1) Baseline Plus
Average growth, weather, and hydrology – enhanced conservation (Program B)
Paleo 49,750 55,172 61,313 75,928 95,332
2) Fast Growth
High growth, average weather, and hydrology – enhanced conservation (Program B)
Paleo 51,290 59,438 68,301 87,194 115,811
3) Fast and Hot
High growth, hot/dry weather, and hot/dry hydrology – enhanced conservation (Program B)
Modified Paleo
57,247 66,429 76,477 98,295 130,158
4) Hot Baseline
Average growth, hot/dry weather, and hot/dry hydrology – enhanced conservation (Program B)
Modified Paleo
55,495 61,620 68,550 85,367 106,972
*Forecast was prepared in 2014; actual 2015 demand was 47,540 ac-ft. **Demands for finished water from the water purification facilities are 3 percent less than the values in this table.
Figure 1-1. Range of Annual Demand Projections
Planning Scenario 2 (Fast Growth) was selected as the basis for IWMP CIP development. Planning
Scenario 3 (Fast and Hot) generated demands that fell outside the 90 percent confidence range of the
base demand forecast, and was thus eliminated from most IWMP analyses.
Future maximum-day and maximum-hour demands were estimated based on analysis of historical
data and anticipated future water use, demographic trends, and climate conditions. Maximum-day
demand was estimated as 3.4 times average winter day demand and maximum-hour demand was
estimated as 1.6 times maximum-day demand.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 1-8
1.3 Water Resources
The Aurora Water supply simulation model (Excel-CRAM) was used to quantify impacts of water
resource risks on raw water system performance. Baseline models were developed for existing (2015)
and future (2070) conditions and include currently owned water rights and current operation of Aurora
Water facilities, historical operation of other entities in the source water basins, and all existing water
projects (e.g., reservoirs and storage accounts). Aurora Water’s drought response program was also
included in the Baseline Excel-CRAM model.
Water resources system performance was evaluated using metrics and acceptable levels of service
(LOS). Selected metrics and LOS goals are shown in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2. Key Metrics for Water Resources System Performance Analysis
Metric Name Description Target Acceptable
LOS (1) LOS Narrative
No-Restriction
Frequency
Probability of being in
“Normal Conditions” above
the Stage I threshold
storage level at the
beginning of any May
Stage I storage
level >0.80 (80%)
There will be no additional
outdoor watering restrictions (2)
in a minimum of 8 years in 10;
or, there will be some form of
drought restrictions no more
than 2 years in 10
Reduced
Supply
Reliability
Probability of meeting
reduced customer demands
with drought response
watering restrictions on a
monthly basis
Demands after
reductions
from drought
restrictions
have been
applied
=1.0 (100%)
Will always meet demands that
are reduced due to any level of
drought restrictions
WISE (3)
Supply
Reliability
Probability of meeting WISE
obligations on a monthly
basis
10,000 ac-ft
annual
demand
= 1.0 (100%) Will always meet WISE supply
obligations
(1) Metrics range from 0 to 1.0, where 1.0 indicates the best possible performance and 0 represents the worst possible
performance. Acceptable performance is greater than the acceptable LOS. (2) No additional restrictions beyond the three day per week voluntary watering restrictions that are permanently in
place under “Normal Drought Stage” conditions. (3) Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency (WISE) Partnership.
A water needs assessment was conducted to determine the risks that are critical to Aurora Water’s
system and the years in which new improvements will be necessary. Key identified risks include
demand increases, climate variability, and loss of Colorado River supplies. Aurora Water’s current
system will be unable to meet LOS goals by approximately 2025 if system risks do not occur. If system
risks are applied in the analysis, Aurora Water’s current system will be unable to meet LOS goals in
earlier years.
Portfolios (i.e., collections of individual projects) were created to meet future water needs with the
established LOS goals under the different planning scenarios and at different future dates. Nineteen
potential water resources supply projects (e.g., reservoir storage, gravel lakes, water rights acquisitions,
and agricultural water leases) and seven delivery system improvement projects were selected for
consideration in building water resources portfolios.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 1-9
Figure 1-2 summarizes the water resources portfolios selected across three planning scenarios and
four planning years. The green, blue, orange, or yellow color indicates that the project is needed by
the corresponding future year (2025, 2035, 2050, and 2070, respectively). The gray color indicates that
the project is included in the portfolio but would have been completed at an earlier planning year. The
white color indicates the project is not required for that planning scenario and year.
It was not possible to assemble portfolios from all the available projects to meet the LOS goals in
2070 for Planning Scenarios 2 and 4. A supplemental optimization analysis was performed to
determine how the 2070 Gap could be filled using conceptual, non-specific types of projects such as
additional water rights, groundwater, additional capacity in Prairie Waters, additional storage, and
advanced treatment of Lower South Platte water. The 2070 Base Gap Projects are represented as the
beige color in Figure 1-2.
Figure 1-2. Summary of Water Resources Portfolios for Each Planning Future
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 1-10
The IWMP analyses showed that Aurora Water’s diversified water resources system provides a strong
basis for addressing future challenges. Many options are available for meeting increased demands and
risks in the future. However, all of the options come with implementation challenges.
Aurora Water is adopting strategies to implement the water resources recommendations in the IWMP.
These strategies are based on the need to position the organization to meet its customer water needs
in a growing region with an uncertain future climate, aging infrastructure, and increasing competition
for scarce water supplies. The strategy of continuous planning and adaptation requires Aurora Water
to constantly monitor growth in its service area, water demand, climate variability, and regulations and
legislative initiatives that could affect the ability to manage water and implement projects.
1.4 Water Treatment
Recommended Water Purification Facility (WPF) improvements were based on the 2012 Treated Water
Master Plan (CH2M Hill, 2012) and the 2015 Aurora Water Treatment Capacity Capital Improvements Plan
Review and Update (CH2M Hill, 2015). Table 1-3 summarizes capacities of existing water treatment and
related raw water transmission infrastructure.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 1-11
Table 1-3. Existing Raw Water Supply and Treatment Capacities
(1) Griswold WPF Wemlinger WPF
Binney WPF Total
System Aurora
Reservoir Train South Platte Train
RAW WATER SUPPLY CAPACITY (MGD)
Gravity
Pipelines Rampart: 59/20 (2)
Rampart: 66/50 (3)
Aurora Reservoir: 130/21 (4)
Aurora
Reservoir: 80 (5)
Pumped
Systems
Quincy:
Firm: 5 (6)
Hydraulic: 24
Installed: 36
PW (7) Pipeline: 50
PW Pumps: 20 (8)
Wells Cherry Creek Well
Field: 9
PW Riverbank Filtration: 10.8
PW Aquifer Storage and Recovery: 4-5
Total
Sustainable
Supply
34 (9) 71 80 10.8 195.8
TREATMENT CAPACITY (MGD) (10)
Rated 80 (11) 80 33.3 50
Filtration (one
filter offline) 100 80 33.3 50
Solids Handling 65 (11) 80 Not limiting (12) Not limiting (12)
Peak
Sustainable 65 80 33.3 50
PEAK SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION (MGD)
Peak
Sustainable
Production (13)
34 71 33.3 10.8 149.1
NOTES: (1) These values in the table are for the purpose of achieving total maximum pipeline capacities and do not
represent true supply capacities or limitations to the individual treatment facilities. (2) The Rampart supply to Griswold WPF is limited to 20 MGD if water is also being supplied to Wemlinger WPF.
Otherwise, the supply to Griswold has a maximum of 59 MGD. (3) The Rampart supply to Wemlinger is limited to 50 MGD if water is also being supplied to Griswold WPF. When
Rampart is only supplying raw water to Wemlinger, the capacity is 66 MGD. (4) The hydraulic capacity of the Aurora Reservoir Pipeline is 130 MGD; however, in order to operate properly,
Wemlinger WPF limits the Aurora Reservoir contribution to 30% of the total Wemlinger feed flow. Because the maximum contribution available from Rampart Reservoir is 50 MGD when Griswold is also being supplied, the maximum flow from Aurora Reservoir is 21 MGD and the Wemlinger WPF maximum is 71 MGD.
(5) The pipeline is sized for 80 MGD but the actual capacity depends on the level in Aurora Reservoir. (6) Due to taste and odor events, flow from Quincy Reservoir is generally limited to 15% of total production. (7) PW – Prairie Waters (8) Prairie Waters Pump Stations are designed for expansion to 50 MGD. (9) Total sustained raw water supply to Griswold WPF is 20 MGD from Rampart, 9 MGD from the Cherry Creek
Wells and 5 MGD (i.e., 15% of total production) from Quincy Reservoir. (10) Treatment capacity includes work at Binney WPF that will be completed in 2016 (filters and solids handling). (11) Rated capacity at Griswold WPF is limited by the filter backwash component of the solids handling system;
filters are rated at 100 MGD. (12) Solids Management Project currently under construction will render both AR and SP solids as not limiting. (13) Raw water quality can affect sustainable capacities at Wemlinger and Griswold since they are direct filtration
facilities.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 1-12
The peak day demands for each planning scenario and the year in which the peak day demands are
anticipated to exceed the existing system capacity are shown in Figure 1-3.
Figure 1-3. Peak Day Water Demands by Year and Total Existing WPF Production Capacity
The existing treatment system has sufficient capacity to meet peak day demands for Planning Scenario
2 through 2044. Proposed timing of the projects required to meet peak day demands under Planning
Scenario 2 is presented in Figure 1-4. With all improvements shown below, there will be a treatment
capacity deficit beginning in 2069 for Planning Scenario 2. It should be noted that the timing associated
with the projects presented in Figure 1-4 is based on Treatment requirements for meeting peak day
demands; integrated CIP timing is based on the discipline with the earliest need. Specifically, the Water
Resources CIP Portfolio accelerates the required timing for the Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline
(2035), PWP Expansion 1 (2025), PWP Expansion 2 (2035), and PWP Expansion 3 (2050).
0
50
100
150
200
250
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
De
man
ds/
Cap
acit
y in
MG
D
Scenario 1 Peak Day Demand Scenario 1 Peak Day = Capacity
Scenario 2 Peak Day Demand Scenario 2 Peak Day = Capacity
Scenario 3 Peak Day Demand Scenario 3 Peak Day = Capacity
Scenario 4 Peak Day Demand Scenario 4 Peak Day = Capacity
Peak Sustainable Production Peak Sustainable Production, Binney Offline
Existing Capacity Existing Capacity Reached Reached, Binney Offline
Scenario 1 2056 2021Scenario 2 2044 Already ReachedScenario 3 2036 Already ReachedScenario 4 2046 Already Reached
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 1-13
Figure 1-4. Planning Scenario 2 Project Timing
1.5 Distribution
The T&D projects needed to adequately serve projected population growth and associated demands
up to 2070 were identified in the IWMP and further refined in the T&D CIP Refinement Study
(Refinement Study), conducted by Water Plans, Inc. Projects were developed and verified using the
City’s all pipes distribution system hydraulic model. The demands used for the Refinement Study were
updated demands that utilized more recent water use data. The updated demands were slightly higher
than Planning Scenario 2 demands with a projected max day demand of 266.4 MGD for 2070. To
better reflect anticipated demands from high-use developments, specific model nodes were adjusted
using estimated demands for these developments. The high-use developments collectively have an
estimated max day demand of 8.1 MGD, which would result in a total system max day demand of
274.5 MGD in 2070.
In order to accommodate future growth while utilizing the existing treatment capacity, the capital
improvements focus on conveying supply from Griswold and Wemlinger WTPs to the northeastern
portion of the City’s service area. System improvements include a 60” pipeline conveying flows from
Wemlinger and Griswold northeast along with a new reservoir located in Pressure Zone 3 that will
serve the northeastern portion of the water system.
T&D improvements needed through 2020 aim to reinforce the existing service area while laying the
foundation for future growth in the north. Through 2035, system improvements support the
expansion of the service area and deliver associated demands by reinforcing and building off of the
existing distribution system. By 2070 a significant amount of system improvements are focused on the
eastern and northeastern side of the City to accommodate future growth.
PWP Expansion 1155 MGD in 2045
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline
159 MGD in 2047
PWP Expansion 2172 MGD in 2049 PWP Expansion 3
184 MGD in 2055
PWP Storage Project - Terminal Reservoir
188 MGD in 2060
Holly Street Pump Station
195 MGD in 2061
Griswold Improvements
210 MGD in 2064
Treatment Capacity Exceeded in 2069
Redundant power at the PWP stations,
20150
50
100
150
200
250
300
2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065
De
man
ds/
Cap
acit
y in
MG
DScenario 2 Peak Day Demand Scenario 2 Peak Sustained System Capacity
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 1-14
1.6 Integrated 10 Year CIP Prioritization and Results
An integrated 10 year CIP comprised of water resources, treatment, and T&D projects was prepared.
Projects were prioritized using a multi-criteria analysis approach in which each project was scored
based on consistent triple bottom line criteria in economic, environmental, and social categories as
well as criteria related to project performance in meeting the level of service goals for the associated
discipline (water resources, treatment, or distribution). Criteria, criteria weights, and scores for each
individual project were developed in workshops with Aurora Water staff. Expert Choice software
was used to perform the multi-criteria analysis that resulted in the prioritization of projects.
The 10 year CIP was developed using a portfolio optimization spreadsheet that sequenced projects
based on their benefit score, the year of need, and a capital budget annual limit of $39 million, which
was established by Aurora Water leadership. The prioritized 10 year CIP for the IWMP is summarized
in Figure 1-5 and Figure 1-6.
Note: The updated T&D CIP costs from the Refinement Study are not reflected in this figure. See Section 7 for the updated T&D costs.
Figure 1-5. Aurora Water 10 Year CIP, Spend by Year
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Mill
ion
s
Aurora Water 10 Year CIP | Spend by Year
Water Resources 10-Yr T&D 10-Yr Treatment 10-Yr Water Rights Acquisitions Target Funding Limit
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 1-15
Notes: Blue: Water Resources Projects, Grey: T&D Projects, Green: Treatment Projects. The updated T&D CIP projects from the Refinement Study are not reflected in this figure. See Section 7 for the updated T&D projects.
Figure 1-6. Aurora Water 10 Year CIP Summary Gantt Chart
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 1-16
1.7 Summary
The IWMP for Aurora Water provides an integrated 10 year CIP and a coordinated long range plan
for water resources, water treatment, and distribution system improvements through 2070. The CIP
addresses immediate concerns and opportunities, while the long range plans incorporate contingencies
for uncertainty around the key drivers of growth and climate variability.
Aurora Water plans to update the IWMP at approximately 5 year intervals to address changes in
population and demand forecasts, growth potential in the service area, climate conditions,
conservation effectiveness, new water supply opportunities, and other factors that affect the water
system. The analytical tools developed for the IWMP will facilitate future updates. These include the
DMS for executing the Excel-CRAM model; the project database; the Expert Choice model for
project evaluation; and the portfolio optimization model for building an integrated, prioritized CIP
with projects from all three disciplines.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 2-1
2.0 Project Introduction
2.1 Background
This report presents the IWMP for Aurora Water. The IWMP integrates short-term and long-range
planning across the Water Resources, Treatment, and T&D disciplines within Aurora Water. It utilizes
consistent key assumptions and the same planning horizon for all disciplines, allowing for the
development of an integrated CIP based on prioritization of all water sector projects using the same
criteria.
The IWMP contains integrated plans for Water Resources, Water Treatment, and T&D, and a
combined10 year CIP. It relies heavily on previous master plans and studies as a basis for planning,
and was developed in close cooperation with Aurora Water staff. The focus of the IWMP is primarily
on growth-related factors that impact the water sector, such as population growth and land
development.
2.2 Overview of the Aurora Water System
The City of Aurora covers an area of approximately 154 sq. mi. and has a population in excess of
340,000 with approximately 122,000 households. Annual growth within the city has historically been
between 1.15% and 1.85% and there are many reasons to suggest that Aurora’s growth rate will remain
strong over time, including:
Large areas of developable land;
Potential for significant job growth; and
Extensive infill and/or re-development opportunities.
Aurora has a semi-arid climate receiving a scant 15-18 inches of precipitation a year. Aurora has four
distinct seasons and precipitation is distributed year-round.
Aurora’s raw water system is designed to provide highly reliable service. Diverse and high quality
sources of water supply are derived from three major river basins: the Colorado, the Arkansas, and
the South Platte. Water from both the Colorado and Arkansas basins is delivered to the South Platte
basin via the Otero Pump Station and Pipeline. Prairie Waters is the newest addition to the water
supply portfolio. It captures reusable return flows from Aurora’s wastewater and lawn irrigation return
flows and returns them to the potable water system after treatment.
Aurora Water maintains three water purification facilities (WPFs): Wemlinger WPF and Griswold
WPF, which treat mountain supplies, and Binney WPF, which treats mountain supplies and Lower
South Platte water from the Prairie Waters system.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 2-2
The Aurora Water treated water distribution system consists of a network of approximately 1,500
miles of pipelines, eight pump stations, and nine treated water storage tanks to deliver potable water
to residential, commercial,, and industrial customers. Aurora Water maintains a separate non-potable
water system; that system was evaluated during the IWMP process but is not described in this report.
2.3 Authorization
The IWMP was prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH) under contract 14P0278 dated February
25, 2014. Work was performed in close cooperation with the Aurora Water Planning Department,
technical teams and operations staff for Water Resources, Water Treatment and Transmission &
Distribution.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 3-1
3.0 Demand Planning
This section summarizes the estimate of future water demands and effectiveness of planned water
conservation measures adopted for the IWMP.
3.1 Water Demands
Results from a new demand forecasting model developed by BBC were used for the IWMP. Aurora
Water’s demand forecasts are based on projections of future growth in the service area, and
projections of the intensity with which Aurora Water’s customers will use water.
The demand forecasting model is a multiple regression model that is based on Aurora Water’s
historical water use characteristics. Factors that affect water use by Aurora’s customers include weather
conditions, conservation efforts, water rates, the presence or absence of watering restrictions, and (for
single family residential customers) the characteristics of new homes and households. The model was
developed with the ability to project water use by month and customer type. The model uses a
traditional deterministic framework to forecast demand in a probabilistic manner that explicitly
quantifies uncertainty surrounding the demand projections.
Table 3-1 shows the estimated demand values for different exceedance percentages, representing the
uncertainty surrounding the future demand projections. For example, there is an estimated 5 percent
probability that demands in 2025 will exceed 63,300 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr). In this table, the 90
percent confidence interval around future demands in any of the years is represented by the 5 percent
exceedance level (as the upper bound of the interval) and the 95 percent exceedance level (as the lower
bound). These estimates all assume “average” weather conditions and constant water billing rates
(inflation-adjusted dollars). The estimates also assume a level of water conservation that is consistent
with the 2014 Aurora Water conservation program because that was the effective water conservation
plan at the time of the study. The demand model parameter that has the greatest impact on future
demand estimates is population. Figure 3-1 shows the range of annual demand projections for future
years.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 3-2
Table 3-1. Annual Demand for Future Years by Exceedance Probability
Exceedance Probability
Total Annual Demand (ac-ft/yr)
2015 2025 2035 2050 2070
5% 51,200 63,300 76,000 96,600 132,400
10% 50,900 62,100 74,600 93,900 127,700
20% 50,300 61,000 72,500 90,700 121,800
50% 49,700 58,900 68,700 84,200 111,000
80% 48,800 56,500 65,100 78,400 100,100
90% 48,400 55,300 63,400 75,100 94,500
95% 48,100 54,400 61,900 72,800 90,100
Note: Demands include 3 percent losses through WPFs and assume 2014 conservation measures.
Note: Demands include 3 percent losses through WPFs and assume 2014 conservation measures.
Figure 3-1. Range of Annual Demand Projections
The water demand estimates from the demand model apply to water from Aurora Water’s WPFs.
These demands were used for the Water Treatment and T&D portions of the IWMP. The Water
Resources portion of the IWMP was based on total raw water system demand at the intakes to the
WPFs. To determine these values, the demand estimates from the demand model were adjusted for
WPF losses. The average water treatment losses were assumed to be 3 percent of the finished water
volumes, based on data provided by Aurora Water. The data presented in Table 3-1 includes this
adjustment and represents the demand that must be met by the raw water system.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
20
15
20
20
20
25
20
30
20
35
20
40
20
45
20
50
20
55
20
60
20
65
20
70
An
nu
al D
em
and
Le
vel (
MG
D)
An
nu
al D
em
and
Le
vels
(ka
f)
Year
Median Upper 90% Lower 90%
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 3-3
3.2 Water Conservation
As part of the IWMP, Aurora Water conducted a review of its water conservation program. The
purpose of the review was to identify additional conservation measures that would be cost-effective
to add to the previous program, and to simultaneously prepare a new Water Conservation Plan for
submittal to the State of Colorado. Water conservation analyses were performed by Maddaus Water
Management, Inc.. The analysis included application of the Maddaus water conservation data and
simulation model to estimate the effectiveness and cost of proposed conservation measures. Results
from the water conservation analysis were incorporated into the IWMP planning scenarios and
demand forecasts.
The water conservation program review identified three possible future conservation programs:
Program A – status quo; continue implementing the water conservation measures included
in the plan implemented by Aurora Water in 2014.
Program B – add additional conservation measures that provide the greatest benefit-cost and
can be readily implemented by Aurora Water.
Program C – add all potentially feasible conservation measures.
Program B was adopted as the basis for Aurora Water’s new Water Conservation Plan and for IWMP
planning. Table 3-2 lists the conservation measures included in Program B.
Table 3-2. Conservation Measures Included in Program B
General Measures Residential Measures
(Indoor)
Commercial Measures
(Indoor) Irrigation Measures (Outdoor)
Real Water Loss
Reduction*
Ultra-High-Efficiency
Toilet (UHET) Only
Rebates*
UHET Only Rebates* Irrigation Audits*
Automated Meter
Infrastructure (AMI)
and Leak Notice
Residential Water
Audits*
High-Efficiency (HE) Urinal
Rebates
Residential Landscape
Conversion*
Water Budget
Based Billing
Multi-Family Water
Audits*
Government Building
Fixtures
Large Property (LP) Landscape
Conversion*
School Education* Leak Repair Assistance*
Top Commercial,
Institutional, and Industrial
(CII) Users
Smart Irrigation Controller Rebate
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 3-4
Table 3-2. Conservation Measures Included in Program B (continued)
General Measures Residential Measures
(Indoor)
Commercial Measures
(Indoor) Irrigation Measures (Outdoor)
Prohibit Water Waste*
Pre-Rinse Spray Nozzles Rain Sensor Rebate
Sprinkler Part Replacement*
Require Rain Sensors*
Water Conserving Landscape
Code*
Soil Amendment Requirement*
Tap Fee Credit*
Z Zones*
*These measures are in Program A and were implemented prior to adoption of the new Water
Conservation Plan.
Table 3-3 shows the percent reduction in per capita water use achieved by Program B as compared
to the 2014 per capita water use over the same period. These reductions in per capita water demand
attributable to conservation Program B were applied to the base water demand forecast for the IWMP
to calculate the water demand used for planning in the IWMP.
Table 3-3. Projected GPCD Change with Conservation Program B as Compared to 2014 GPCD
Year 2014 BBC Median Forecast
without Plumbing Code
2014 BBC Median Forecast
with Plumbing Code
Program B with Plumbing
Code
2014 0% 0% 0%
2015 1% 0% 0%
2020 2% -1% -4%
2025 4% -4% -8%
2030 5% -5% -10%
2040 9% -5% -11%
2050 12% -4% -10%
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 4-1
4.0 Planning Framework
4.1 Planning Horizon
The IWMP addresses water needs and planning strategies from 2016 to 2070. The 2070 date was
established by Aurora Water for consistent planning across all technical disciplines. Planning
milestones were set at 2025, 2035, and 2050 to evaluate interim needs and solutions. Greatest attention
was given to the period from 2016 to 2050.
4.2 Planning Scenarios
The concept of a “planning scenario” was adopted for the IWMP to standardize analyses of uncertain
future conditions over each of the major technical disciplines. Five planning scenarios were developed
by the IWMP team to cover a range of population growth, economic growth, future climate, and
future conservation program assumptions. Two planning scenarios had very similar demands, and
thus were consolidated into one for use by the technical disciplines.
The system-wide water demands and water conservation estimates for the IWMP were used to
calculate the net demands at the WPF intakes, including conservation associated with the four
planning scenarios. All the scenarios assume conservation Program B (i.e., the program being
proposed by Aurora Water in the 2015 Water Conservation Plan).
Two climate conditions were used to develop the hydrology necessary for the IWMP planning
scenarios. The first climate condition assumed no change from recent historical conditions. The
hydrologic ensemble (collection of hydrologic time series with similar statistical properties) associated
with this condition is referred to as the “Paleo” hydrology because it was developed by resequencing
historical streamflows based on the paleo-hydrologic record (i.e., tree ring data). The second climate
condition assumed a hotter, drier future climate. The hydrologic ensemble for this condition was
developed by altering streamflows and water right yields based on results of recent climate change
studies for the Front Range region. This hydrologic dataset, referred to as the “Modified Paleo”
hydrology, has a mean annual ensemble flow about 19 percent lower than the Paleo hydrology.
Table 4-1 shows a summary of the assumptions included in each planning scenario and the associated
system-wide raw water demands including the losses through the WPFs. Demand for finished water
from the WPFs is 3 percent lower than the values in the table. Figure 4-1 is a plot of the estimated
system-wide annual raw water demands for the planning scenarios.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 4-2
Table 4-1. IWMP Planning Scenario Characteristics
Planning Scenario
Characteristics Hydrology Ensemble
Annual Demands (ac-ft/year) at WPF Intakes
2015* 2025 2035 2050 2070
1) Baseline Plus
Average growth, weather, and hydrology – enhanced conservation (Program B)
Paleo 49,750 55,172 61,313 75,928 95,332
2) Fast Growth
High growth, average weather, and hydrology – enhanced conservation (Program B)
Paleo 51,290 59,438 68,301 87,194 115,811
3) Fast and Hot
High growth, hot/dry weather, and hot/dry hydrology – enhanced conservation (Program B)
Modified Paleo
57,247 66,429 76,477 98,295 130,158
4) Hot Baseline
Average growth, hot/dry weather, and hot/dry hydrology – enhanced conservation (Program B)
Modified Paleo
55,495 61,620 68,550 85,367 106,972
*Forecast was prepared in 2014; actual 2015 demand was 47,540 ac-ft.
Figure 4-1. System-wide Annual Raw Water Demands at WPF Intakes for IWMP Planning Scenarios
Aurora Water executive management determined that Planning Scenario 2 (Fast Growth) would be
used as the basis for IWMP CIP development.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
An
nu
al D
em
and
Le
vels
(1
,00
0 a
c-ft
/ye
ar)
Year
Baseline Plus Fast Growth Fast and Hot Hot Baseline
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 4-3
4.3 Risk Identification
For the purposes of this risk program, “risk” refers to the threats that can potentially impact Aurora
Water’s water supply requirements. A Risk Management Framework (RMF) was developed as one of
the foundational elements of the IWMP and guided the risk identification, evaluation and analysis of
risks in the water supply system for Aurora Water. The risk identification and assessment approach
included four risk workshops covering Source of Supply (i.e., watersheds that are sources of Aurora
Water raw water supply), Raw Water Infrastructure (i.e., infrastructure associated with the collection,
storage and delivery of raw water), Treatment, and T&D. Risk workshops were carefully designed to
ensure the RMF was followed, and at the same time generating appropriate information through active
participant engagement.
The process for conducting each workshop is shown in Figure 4-2, and includes the pre- and post-
workshop activities.
Figure 4-2. Risk Workshop Process
Workshop participants focused on identifying CIP growth-related mitigation strategies consistent with
the requirements of the IWMP; however, mitigations associated with ‘routine’ asset management and
operations also were identified. While not always directly applicable to the development of the IWMP,
identification and discussion of asset management and operational mitigation strategies proved
valuable for Aurora Water as it now has a greater understanding of how to manage water supply, raw
water infrastructure, treatment, and T&D risks associated with its water supply.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 4-4
In total, 88 risks were identified across all the system components during the workshops. Risk ratings
were assigned by workshop participants based on a combination of consequence and likelihood. Of
the 88 risks identified, 10 where ultimately determined as being CIP or climate related and these are
shown in Table 4-2. These IWMP-specific risks and potential mitigations were captured and
summarized separately in the discipline-specific technical memoranda (TM).
Table 4-2. CIP Growth and Climate Related Risks
CIP Growth and Climate Related Risks
Contamination of surface water in the Upper South Platte basin, from ash/sediment, and debris flow, following wildfire and flood
Contamination of surface water in the Upper Arkansas basin, from ash/sediment, and debris flow, following wildfire and flood
Contamination of surface water in the Upper Colorado basin, from ash/sediment, and debris flow, following wildfire and flood
Change in average annual stream flow, and a shift in earlier peak runoff timing due to hotter, drier climates
Multi-year drought leads to future low stream flows, beyond that seen in the historical record
Curtailment in Colorado River transbasin deliveries due to regulatory measures to compact obligations
Failure of raw water pipelines (with the potential that both Rampart pipelines fail in one location
Loss of North Campus pump stations and North Campus conveyance
Inability to meet rated design capacity for Griswold WTF
Inadequate water flow and/or pressure through the water system
4.4 IWMP Assumptions
Numerous assumptions were required to complete the analyses associated with the IWMP. The
IWMP project team maintained an assumptions log to track assumptions and present them to Aurora
Water for consideration.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-1
5.0 Water Resources
5.1 Introduction
This section presents the results of Aurora Water’s water resources planning efforts conducted as part
of the IWMP. The water resources plan presents an adaptive management strategy for addressing
future water supply needs under alternative growth and climate scenarios for both short-term needs
and long-term (2070) conditions.
The water resources analysis of the IWMP addresses Aurora Water’s raw water supply and
infrastructure system, including water rights, collection facilities, storage reservoirs, and conveyance
facilities “upstream” of Aurora Water’s water purification facilities (WPFs). This report presents a
roadmap for Aurora Water’s future water resources development, with a detailed near-term strategy
and a robust long-term plan that will help Aurora Water to continue providing water reliably to its
growing customer base in a cost-effective manner.
5.2 Basis of Planning
The basis of planning for the water resources portion of the IWMP was described in Sections 3 and
4. In addition, the water resources plan was based on hydrologic data representing potential future
conditions. Simulations of Aurora Water’s water supply system were performed using a Paleo
hydrologic ensemble representing current climate conditions and a Modified Paleo hydrologic
ensemble representing a hotter, drier climate that would result in an approximate 19 percent reduction
in mean streamflow. Each of these ensembles contains 50 different 61-year sequences of hydrology,
representing a variety of drought patterns that could be realized in the future.
5.3 Water Resources Modeling
The Aurora Water supply simulation model (Excel-CRAM) was used to quantify impacts of water
resource risks on raw water system performance. It simulated operation of physically and legally
available flows to meet Aurora’s water demand and other obligations. The IWMP water resources
team developed a data-centered decision support framework integrating the existing Excel-CRAM
model, a Structured Query Language (SQL) database, and a custom data management system (DMS)
that processed and imported data, setup system conditions/scenarios, ran simulations, and calculated
metrics to evaluate system performance under different conditions and solution portfolios for Aurora
Water. Through the DMS interface options and supporting database, the Excel-CRAM model was
dynamically altered to simulate the various future conditions and build portfolios of projects to address
those conditions.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-2
Baseline models were used as the starting point of the water resources analysis and were developed
for existing (2015) and future (2070) conditions. The baseline models include currently owned water
rights and current operation of Aurora Water facilities, historical operation of other entities in the
source basins, and all existing water projects (e.g., reservoirs and storage accounts).
Aurora Water’s drought response program was included in the Baseline Excel-CRAM model used for
the IWMP. This drought response program reduces water demand during years of limited supply or
other emergencies that would reduce effective supply available to the system (e.g., conveyance system
outages). Drought response triggers are tied to system-wide reservoir storage amounts. Three stages
are defined by Aurora Water’s drought response program, as shown in Table 5-1. The amount of
demand reduction for each stage was based on the assumed effectiveness of outdoor watering
restrictions, as provided by Aurora Water. System conditions required to activate the various drought
response stages are defined in Table 5-2.
Table 5-1. Drought Response Stages and Watering Restrictions
Drought Response Stage Watering Restriction(1) Assumed Demand to be Met
Normal Voluntary non-fixed 3-day watering 100% Indoor + 100% Outdoor
Stage I – Severely Dry Mandatory fixed 2-day watering 100% Indoor + 80% Outdoor
Stage II – Exceptionally Dry Mandatory fixed 1-day watering 100% Indoor + 50% Outdoor
Stage III – Emergency Conditions No outdoor watering 100% Indoor only
Table 5-2. Drought Response Stage Thresholds for Current Demand and Storage Conditions
Characteristic Normal Stage I –
Severely Dry
Stage II –
Exceptionally
Dry
Stage III –
Emergency
Conditions
Reservoir System Storage (ac-ft) (1) 156,219 – 95,000 95,000 62,000 24,000
Percentage of Total Reservoir System
Storage 100% -- 59% 59% 39% 15%
Drought Stage Threshold as a Factor of the
Annual Demand (2) 3.09 – 1.88 1.88 1.23 0.48
(1) Reservoir system storage triggers for drought response will increase as annual demand increases. (2) Calculated based on annual demand of 50,500 ac-ft/yr; exceeds 2015 annual demand of 47,540 ac-ft/yr.
To evaluate water resources system performance for the IWMP, Aurora Water adopted metrics that
capture and summarize key behaviors of the water resources system modeled in the Excel-CRAM
model. Multiple frequency-based metrics were necessary to describe system performance under
conditions of future uncertainty. Metrics measured reliability (shortage frequency – how often?),
resiliency (shortage duration – how long?), and vulnerability (shortage magnitude – how severe?).
Three metrics were selected to replace firm yield2 as the basis for water supply planning. Acceptable
1 Assumed regulation to achieve the outdoor demand goal. 2 Aurora Water defines firm yield as the demand that can be met each and every year at the WPFs under historic supply
conditions without allowing total reservoir contents to go below an operating reserve equivalent to 1 year of residential
demands computed using a rate of 135 GPCD.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-3
thresholds, or LOS goals, were established by Aurora Water for each metric. Metric definitions and
LOS goals are summarized in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Key Metrics for Water Resources System Performance Analysis
Metric Name Description Target Acceptable
LOS (1) LOS Narrative
No-Restriction
Frequency
Probability of being in
“Normal Conditions” above
the Stage I threshold storage
level at the beginning of any
May
Stage I storage
level >0.80 (80%)
There will be no additional
outdoor watering restrictions (2) in a minimum of 8 years
in 10; or, there will be some
form of drought restrictions
no more than 2 years in 10
Reduced
Supply
Reliability
Probability of meeting
reduced customer demands
with drought response
watering restrictions on a
monthly basis
Demands after
reductions from
drought
restrictions have
been applied
=1.0 (100%)
Will always meet demands
that are reduced due to any
level of drought restrictions
WISE (3)
Supply
Reliability
Probability of meeting WISE
obligations on a monthly
basis
10,000 ac-ft
annual demand = 1.0 (100%)
Will always meet WISE
supply obligations
(1) Metrics range from 0 to 1.0, where 1.0 indicates the best possible performance and 0 represents the worst possible
performance. Acceptable performance is greater than the acceptable LOS. (2) No additional restrictions beyond the three day per week voluntary watering restrictions that are permanently in
place under “Normal Drought Stage” conditions. (3) Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency (WISE) Partnership.
5.4 Vulnerability and Planning Scenarios Assessment
The vulnerability assessment defined the future conditions under which Aurora Water’s current
system is unable to maintain the LOS goals for the metrics defined above. This analysis was conducted
in two phases:
1) Vulnerability Assessment – Identify and quantify the effects of the key external factors that
could lead to water resources system performance problems now and in the future.
2) Planning Scenarios Assessment – Identify years and levels of demand for which actions
would be required to maintain the desired LOS with Aurora Water’s defined acceptability
thresholds for each planning scenario.
The vulnerability assessment tested the current water resources system’s ability to respond to (a)
changes in demand and/or hydrology and (b) the application of risks to the water supply sources and
water resources infrastructure. The key findings of the vulnerability assessment are summarized below.
Demands could be increased from the current demand of 47,540 ac-ft/year up to 56,000 ac-ft/year and the existing system could still meet the LOS goals for the performance metrics if historical hydrology were to repeat. This demand level of 56,000 ac-ft/year would occur
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-4
around 2025 for Planning Scenario 1 (Baseline Plus), 2022 for Planning Scenario 2 (Fast Growth), and 20153 for Planning Scenarios 3 (Fast and Hot) and 4 (Hot Baseline).
Hydrologic variability without impacts of climate change would result in hydrologic conditions (droughts) for which LOS goals cannot be met by 2025 similar to under historical hydrology.
Climate change of the magnitude depicted by the Modified Paleo hydrologic ensemble (about 19 percent reduction in mean streamflow) would significantly affect the ability of the current system to meet LOS goals by 2025.
Eleven system risks were investigated with the Excel-CRAM model under current and future demands. The risk posing the largest relative loss of performance (i.e., greatest threat) is loss of Colorado River Basin imports over a consecutive five-year period due to a Colorado River Compact curtailment.
The current drought response program effectively mitigates the long-term effects of individual
dry years, allowing the current system to maintain acceptable performance for a total system
demand of about 8,500 ac-ft/year higher than if the drought response program were not in
place.
After the vulnerability assessment, an assessment was performed to further define the future water
needs and evaluate performance of the existing water resources system. For this assessment, the
Baseline Excel-CRAM model (existing infrastructure and water rights) was run under three of the four
IWMP planning scenarios (excluding Planning Scenario 3 [Fast and Hot]). Drought response measures
were included in all simulations. Water needs were evaluated first for future conditions without
occurrence of any system risks, and then for future conditions with the key system risks identified in
the vulnerability assessment.
Results of the planning scenarios assessment are summarized in Figure 5-1. Values in the figure
correspond to the Non-Restriction Frequency under baseline conditions for the three planning
scenarios at multiple future years with and without key system risks applied. With no system risks, the
existing system will fail to meet the acceptable LOS between 2015 and 2025. The loss of Colorado
River supplies for five consecutive years is the most impactful risk. Other system risks have minimal
negative impact on the system.
It was concluded that Aurora Water’s current system will be unable to meet LOS goals by around
2025 if no system risks occur. If system risks are applied in the analysis, Aurora Water’s current system
will be unable to meet LOS goals in earlier years. Because of the uncertainty surrounding many of
these risks, it is important they be considered when developing the near-term water supply planning
strategy.
3 Actual 2015 demand was significantly less than forecasted 2015 demand for IWMP planning.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-5
Note: Acceptable LOS for Non-Restriction Frequency metric is 80 percent.
Figure 5-1. Non-Restriction Frequency System Performance with Selected System Risks
5.5 Water Resources Projects
Aurora Water and the MWH team developed a list of projects that would be used to construct water
resources portfolios. A long-list of potential projects, programs, and policies was prepared, and
infeasible or undesirable projects were removed by Aurora Water. Nineteen potential water resources
supply projects (reservoir storage, gravel lakes, water rights acquisitions, and agricultural water leases)
and seven delivery system improvement projects were retained for consideration in building water
resources portfolios. These are listed in Table 5-4 and Table 5-5.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-6
Table 5-4. Potential Water Resources Supply Projects for Analysis in the IWMP
No. Project/ Program Source Project Size Earliest Year of
Implementation
Description
Arkansas/Colorado Potential Projects List
1 Eagle River
Memorandum of
Understanding
(MOU) Project
(IPP4)
Gerry Knapp Primary goal of the
ERMOU is 10,000 ac-ft
of yield to Aurora.
2035
The Eagle River MOU Project would be Aurora’s portion of a
multi-party project consisting of Aurora, Colorado Springs
Utilities and west slope partners. Studies by the partners are
ongoing to determine the most feasible project alternatives to
meet the needs of the partners.
2 Box Creek
Reservoir (IPP)
Gerry Knapp Multiple different size configurations are
feasible. Up to 25,000 ac-ft by gravity and up
to 60,000 ac-ft by pumping.
2030 Box Creek Reservoir site is located primarily on City owned
property in Lake County near Twin Lakes. This project would
provide operational flexibility and efficiencies to Aurora ’s water
supply system.
The project could receive all of Aurora’s Colorado and
Arkansas Basin water. For the existing topography, water could
be released by gravity.
Aurora has an agreement with Lake County. Twenty percent of
capacity is held as a minimum pool, accessible only during
drought periods. Twenty percent of the remaining operational
storage space goes to Lake County for its use.
3 Arkansas Basin
Agriculture (Ag)
Leasing
Gerry Knapp 10,000 ac-ft/year in
years lease is executed
(3 in 10)
2020 The objective of intermittent leasing would be to develop a
contractual arrangement between the City and willing
agricultural water lessees The City would obtain the right to
lease water from multiple farms for up to 3 years in each 10
year period.
Project size would be targeted at 10,000 ac-ft of yield per year
when needed. An estimated 7,200 acres of leased irrigated
land would be needed to reach the target of 10,000 ac-ft.
4 Identified Projects and Processes
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-7
Table 5-4. Potential Water Resources Supply Projects for Analysis in the IWMP
No. Project/ Program Source Project Size Earliest Year of
Implementation
Description
4 Post 2047 Ag
Purchase
Gerry Knapp 10,000 ac-ft/year 2047 Current agreements restrict Aurora from purchasing and
permanently transferring additional Arkansas River Basin water
supplies between 2007 and 2047. However, following 2047
potential exists to develop additional agricultural water supplies.
Such purchases may depend upon the successes and reliability
of Alternative Transfer Methods.
6 Trans-Basin
Water Rights
Gerry Knapp 2,500-6,500 ac-ft/year
as annual base supply
2025 Potential purchase of Colorado River supplies could include
acquisition of shares in trans-basin systems should they
become available.
7 Gravel Pit and
Recovery of Yield
(ROY) Storage
Development
Gerry Knapp 5,000-10,000 ac-ft of
storage space for
Aurora
2020 ROY storage would capture flows bypassed by Aurora and
allowed to flow through Pueblo under the 6-Party Regional IGA
to which Aurora is a party. ROY storage is anticipated to
provide approximately 5,000 ac-ft of storage space, which could
be increased to 10,000 ac-ft of storage space when combined
with other gravel pit storage to be developed.
9 Extension of
Pueblo Board of
Water Works
(BOWW) Lease
Gerry Knapp 5,000 ac-ft/year
annually, taken every
year
2025 The City could extend or replace its current lease for 5,000 ac-
ft/year of water beyond the current contract expiration date of
2024.
12 Expanded Otero
Conveyance
Gerry Knapp 150 million gallons per
day (MGD) total
capacity, 75 MGD
capacity for Aurora
(50% increase over
existing capacity)
2040 This project involves a partnership with Colorado Springs to
expand capacity of the existing Homestake Pipeline, which
would result in a 50 percent increase in capacity.
14 Pueblo Reservoir
Enlargement
Gerry Knapp Total enlargement
considered was
75,000 ac-ft Analyze up
to 10,000 ac-ft for
Aurora Water
2040 There could be a potential opportunity for Aurora to expand its
storage in Pueblo Reservoir in the event Pueblo Reservoir is
enlarged. This would be a Bureau of Reclamation project and
would have other partners as well. For the IWMP, this is
assumed to be Long-Term Excess Capacity space. In any case
Aurora would seek about 10,000 ac-ft of additional space.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-8
Table 5-4. Potential Water Resources Supply Projects for Analysis in the IWMP
No. Project/ Program Source Project Size Earliest Year of
Implementation
Description
15 Mountain Storage
– Upper South
Platte (IPP)
2012 CIP
Memo
32,000 ac-ft storage
reservoir
2020 This project includes construction of a 32,000 ac-ft reservoir in
Park County approximately 6 miles upstream from the Spinney
Mountain Reservoir. Homestake Pipeline deliveries could be
made to Mountain Storage – Upper South Platte, minimizing
the potential for spilling Aurora Water’s Upper Arkansas and
Colorado River supplies. This project is also known as
Wildhorse Reservoir.
16 Terminal
Reservoir (IPP)
2012 CIP
Memo
60,000 ac-ft 2030 Terminal Reservoir (or potentially East Reservoir) would be
constructed to provide up to 60,000 ac-ft of terminal storage.
Aurora may not need the full storage volume and could contract
out excess capacity. Terminal Reservoir would be filled with
Prairie Waters System water and available mountain blend
water. The project would include reservoir construction (dam
embankment, outlet works, spillway, and spillway channel), and
water delivery (Prairie Waters Pump Station 3 modifications
and pipeline to the Binney Water Purification Facility [WPF]).
17 Lower South
Platte Storage”
Lisa Darling Up to 10,000 ac-ft of
storage
2040 Lower South Platte storage would be developed on an
appropriate timeline for incorporation into the lower South
Platte system. Operation will be the same as Everist Gravel Pit,
and it could be modelled as an enlargement of Everist Gravel
Pit.
South Platte Gravel Pits – Existing Contracts
18 Lake Clare
Gravel Pit
Storage:
Based on
Aurora Water
Storage
Reservoir List
document
4,050 ac-ft 2030 Lake Clare Gravel Pit storage would provide operational
storage for Prairie Waters System. The 2012 CIP indicated that
storage of 4,050 ac-ft would be available at Lake Clare.
Projects 18, 19, and 20 are simulated as one project.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-9
Table 5-4. Potential Water Resources Supply Projects for Analysis in the IWMP
No. Project/ Program Source Project Size Earliest Year of
Implementation
Description
19 Challenger
Gravel Pit
Storage:
Based on AW
Storage
Reservoir List
document
775 ac-ft 2016 Challenger Gravel Pit storage would provide operational
storage, and is located between the Kirby-Dersham Gravel Pit
to the north and Lake Clare to the south. The 2012 CIP
indicated that storage of 775 ac-ft would be available at
Challenger Gravel Pit. The only infrastructure associated with
Challenger Gravel Pit is an interconnection with Kirby-Dersham
Gravel Pit.
Projects 18, 19, and 20 are simulated as one project.
20 Kirby-Dersham
Gravel Pit
Storage:
Based on
Aurora Water
Storage
Reservoir List
document
1,056 ac-ft 2016 Aurora would pay Hall-Irwin for operational storage in Kirby-
Dersham Gravel Pit, and would design/build a pump station for
the site. The site could be connected to Walker Reservoir
Gravel Pit. Budget for Kirby-Dersham Gravel Pit also includes a
connection to the Challenger Gravel Pit. The 2012 CIP
indicated that storage of 1,056 ac-ft would be available at Kirby-
Dersham Gravel Pit.
Projects 18, 19, and 20 are simulated as one project.
21 Everist Gravel Pit Storage:
Based on
Aurora Water
Storage
Reservoir List
document
Phase I – 2,556 ac-ft
Phase II – 2,836 ac-ft
Phase III – 6,089 ac-ft
Total – 11,481 ac-ft
Phase I – 2015
Phase II – 2019
Phase III – 2034
The Everist Gravel Pit storage project includes paying L.G.
Everist for the storage and existing infrastructure. The Everist
Gravel Pit would be developed in three phases: Phase I (2,556
ac-ft), Phase II (2,836 ac-ft), and Phase III (6,089 ac-ft). Total
cumulative storage would be 11,481 ac-ft Everist Gravel Pit
would serve as an augmentation storage reservoir for Prairie
Waters.
Projects 21 and 22 are simulated as one project.
22 Walker Reservoir
Gravel Pit
Storage:
Based on AW
Storage
Reservoir List
document
3,300 ac-ft 2016 Aurora would construct a pump station and other improvements
to the existing Walker Pit complex. The 2012 CIP indicated that
storage of 3,300 ac-ft would be available at Walker Pit. This
would be operated as augmentation storage.
Projects 21 and 22 are simulated as one project.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-10
Table 5-4. Potential Water Resources Supply Projects for Analysis in the IWMP
No. Project/ Program Source Project Size Earliest Year of
Implementation
Description
24 Water Rights
Acquisitions
Deere and
Ault
Up to 20% increase in
Lower South Platte
water rights (average of
approximately 9,000 ac-
ft per year)
2016 Aurora may acquire and change existing Lower South Platte
agricultural water rights to include municipal use. Water would
be stored in the gravel pit reservoirs described previously, and
then moved through Prairie Waters System to the city. The
yield of the water rights would vary by the associated ditch
company and water right.
25 Denver Basin
Groundwater
Aurora Water
staff
Additional supply of up
to 15,000 ac-ft/year in
dry years (3 of 10)
2025 New Denver Basin groundwater wells could be used as a base
source of supply or just for emergency reserves. The total
adjudicated Denver Basin withdrawal rate for Aurora is 45,000
ac-ft/yr. For the IWMP the total new yield from Denver Basin
groundwater in this project would be up to 15,000 ac-ft/year,
and would be used as a dry-year supply (i.e., 3 years out of 10
years). It was assumed that wells would be screened in the
Arapahoe formation, with an assumed well pumping rate of 300
gallons per minute (GPM). Approximately 6 wells would be
required for a total potential yield of 1,600 ac-ft/year. This can
be scaled up for higher yields.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-11
Table 5-5. Potential Delivery System Improvement Projects for Analysis in the IWMP
No. Project/
Program
Source Project Size Earliest Year of
Implementation
Description
1 Wemlinger
Blended Water
Pipeline
2012 CIP Memo 33 MGD 2019 (based on
current CIP
schedule)
New 60-inch diameter pipeline would be installed along Quincy
Avenue to supply up to 80 MGD of Aurora Reservoir water by gravity
to Wemlinger WPF. This project would allow the simultaneous filling
and drawing of Aurora Reservoir water, provide needed operational
flexibility to maintain Aurora Reservoir levels needed for Binney WTP
operations, and would minimize water quality issues in Aurora
Reservoir. As was assumed for the 2012 Water Treatment Master
Plan (WTMP), this project does not include upgrades to the
Wemlinger WPF.
Prairie Waters System Pipeline Expansion Related Projects
2c Prairie Waters
North Campus
Expansion to
20 MGD
2012 CIP Memo Total 20 MGD 2019 based on 4
years for design,
construction and
procurement
This project includes future well field development for the PW North
Campus Expansion. The expansion would increase the total firm
capacity for PW to 20 MGD from an existing firm capacity of 8.5 MGD.
Key project components would include acquisition of properties for the
East Wellfield, installation of seven new wells in the existing wellfield,
25 new riverbank filtration (RBF) wells (seven in Phase 1 and an
additional 18 in Phase 2) and pipelines to develop the new East
Wellfield, and a river crossing to connect the wellfields.
2d Prairie Waters
North Campus
Expansion to
30 MGD
2012 CIP Memo Total 30 MGD 2019 based on 4
years for design,
construction and
procurement
This project includes future well field development for the PW North
Campus Expansion. Total capacity for PW would increase from a firm
capacity of 20 MDG to 30 MGD. This expansion assumes that RBF
capacity would be increased to 20 MGD prior to this project. Key
project components would include land acquisition for proposed RBF,
construction of a 10 MGD RBF wellfield and connecting pipelines, and
an increase of PW conveyance pumping capacity to 45 MGD.
2e Prairie Waters
North Campus
Expansion to
40 MGD
2012 CIP Memo Total 40 MGD 2019 based on 4
years for design,
construction and
procurement
This project includes future well field development for the PW North
Campus Expansion. Total capacity for the PW would increase from a
firm capacity of 30 MGD to 40 MGD. Key project components would
include land acquisition for proposed RBF, construction of a 10 MGD
RBF wellfield and connecting pipelines (total RBF capacity of 40
MGD), and build out of the PW conveyance pumping to the design
capacity of 50 MGD.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-12
Table 5-5. Potential Delivery System Improvement Projects for Analysis in the IWMP
No. Project/
Program
Source Project Size Earliest Year of
Implementation
Description
Rampart Delivery System and Aurora Reservoir Expansion and Improvement Projects
3 Holly Street
Pump Station
Expansion
WTMP-
CH2MHILL,
2012
Expand to 90 MGD n/a Expansion of the decommissioned Holly Street Pump Station to 90
MGD capacity would provide capacity for increased deliveries from
Rampart Reservoir. Based on information from a workshop conducted
as part of the 2004 Rampart Delivery System Alternatives Evaluation,
the nearly 13,000 linear feet of 54-inch pre-stressed concrete cylinder
pipe that is in poor condition would be replaced with ductile iron pipe.
4 New Rampart
Supply Pipeline
WTMP-
CH2MHILL,
2012
45 MGD increase
Total 125 MGD capacity
n/a A new parallel Rampart Delivery System Pipeline would increase the
Mountain Water System flow rate to the Griswold WPF and
Wemlinger WPF. The project would include a new 72-inch diameter
pipeline that would parallel the existing Rampart Delivery System
pipelines from Rampart Reservoir to State Highway 470, a new 66-
inch diameter pipe from C470 to Quincy Avenue, and new 60-inch
pipe from Quincy to the Griswold and Wemlinger WPFs.
5 Aurora
Reservoir Pump
Station
Expansion
WTMP-
CH2MHILL,
2012
30 MGD expansion
Total 70 MGD capacity
n/a Modifications to the existing Aurora Reservoir Pump Station at the
Quincy Reservoir site to a capacity beyond the current 40 MGD may
allow Aurora Water to capture more mountain water by not spilling at
Strontia Springs Reservoir. The project would include the addition of
four 800 horsepower pumps, the replacement of the existing low flow
pump, new motors and variable frequency drives, and electrical
modifications. The objective would be to increase to a 70 MGD
capacity.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-13
A feasibility engineering assessment and associated cost estimate were prepared for each water resources
project. For most projects, previous cost estimates were used and updated as needed. The following types of
cost were included in the water resources project cost estimates:
Capital construction
Permitting
Engineering
Construction management
Contingency
Land acquisition
Operation and maintenance (O&M)
Energy use
All cost estimates are in 2015 dollars with no adjustment for inflation to a projected construction date.
O&M costs were estimated as a percentage of capital cost, unless more specific information was available.
Energy costs for projects with significant pumping components were also estimated. All annual costs (O&M,
energy, and leasing) were converted to 2015 present worth values using a specified project life. Present worth
values of 50 years of recurring annual costs were added to capital costs to estimate a total project cost.
Cost estimates for water resources supply projects are shown in Table 5-6 and cost estimates for water
resources delivery projects are shown in Table 5-7.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-14
Table 5-6. Cost Estimates for Potential Water Resources Supply Projects
Project/ Program Project Size
(ac-ft or ac-ft/year) Capital Cost Permitting Design Contingency
Construction
Management
Land
Acquisition
O&M Present
Worth (PP) (1)
Energy Costs Present
Worth (PP) (2) Total Project Costs
Water Storage 283,260 $1,218,286,000 $45,500,000 $45,482,000 $267,172,000 $29,207,660 $9,050,000 $268,600,800 $4,179,000 $1,883,927,000
Water Supply Acquisition 23,000 $34,9620,000 $4,884,900 0 $104,886,000 0 0 $0 0 $459,405,000
Water Leasing 7,330 $18,000,000 $180,000 0 $17,630,000 0 0 $49,962,000 0 $85,770,000
Ground Water 1,600 $6,019,000 - $301,000 $1,806,000 $60,190 - $150,200 $444,500 $8,781,000
(1) Present worth based on 50 years of operation and an interest rate of 7.8 percent. (2) Some totals may differ from sum of individual cost elements due to rounding.
Table 5-7. Cost Estimates for Potential Delivery System Improvement Projects
Project/ Program Estimated Project
Size (MGD) Capital Cost Permitting Design Contingency
Construction
Management
Land
Acquisition
O&M Present
Worth (PP) (1)
Energy Costs Present
Worth (PP) (2) Total Project Costs
New or Expanded Conveyance System to South Platte (Otero II) 25 $74,320,000 $2,230,000 $4,459,000 $22,300,000 $4,459,000 - $26,990,000 $23,550,000 $215,500,000
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline 33 $54,950,000 $1,099,000 - - $2,748,000 - $14,720,000 - $73,520,000
PW North Campus Expansion to 20 MGD, PW PS to 20 MGD 10 $14,730,000 $441,900 $736,500 $4,419,000 $736,500 - $5,275,000 $11,490,000 $37,830,000
PW North Campus Expansion to 30 MGD, PW PS to 45 MGD 10 $12,320,000 $369,600 $616,100 $3,696,000 $616,100 $2,805,000 $4,412,000 $11,490,000 $36,330,000
PW North Campus Expansion to 40 MGD; PW PS to 50 MGD 10 $12,320,000 $369,600 $616,100 $3,696,000 $616,100 $2,805,000 $3,309,000 $11,490,000 $35,220,000
Holly Street Pump Station Expansion 27 $12,290,000 - $614,400 $3,687,000 $614,400 - $2,154,000 $9,503,000 $28,860,000
New Rampart Supply Pipeline 52 $195,900,000 $3,918,000 $15,670,000 $19,590,000 $9,794,000 - $45,980,000 $8,266,000 $299,100,000
Aurora Reservoir Pump Station Expansion 30 $6,800,000 - $680,000 $2,040,000 $340,000 - $1,235,000 $10,300,000 $21,400,000
(1) Present worth based on 50 years of operation and an interest rate of 7.8 percent. (2) Some totals may differ from sum of individual cost elements due to rounding. (3) Costs for several projects were updated during the CIP prioritization phase of the IWMP. Costs in this table were used to select projects for water resources portfolios.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-15
5.6 Water Resources Portfolios
With Aurora Water’s vulnerabilities and needs identified, the final step was to develop solutions that
ensure Aurora Water meets the LOS goals for future conditions. To develop these solutions, Aurora
Water assembled portfolios (i.e., collections of individual projects) that meet future water needs under
different planning scenarios and at different future dates. The following assumptions were applied to
the development of water resources portfolios:
The performance of candidate portfolios was measured using the three key system
performance metrics selected for the IWMP: Non-Restriction Frequency, Reduced Supply
Reliability, and WISE Reliability (Table 5-3).
Portfolios were developed for IWMP Planning Scenario 1 (Baseline Plus), Planning Scenario
2 (Fast Growth), and Planning Scenario 4 (Hot Baseline). These three planning scenarios were
applied at four future dates (2025, 2035, 2050, and 2070), resulting in a total of 12 future
conditions. Note that it was determined previously by Aurora Water that Planning Scenario 3
(Fast and Hot) would not be used for IWMP planning due to conditions within that scenario
that were considered more severe than necessary for creating a reasonable CIP for the IWMP
(i.e., it fell outside the 90 percent confidence limits of forecasts from the demand regression
model); this scenario could be explored in future iterations of the IWMP.
All portfolios include Base Projects that (1) Aurora Water has already committed to
implement, (2) Aurora Water has executed contracts or agreements to complete, or (3) were
considered time sensitive.
The portfolio development process is summarized in Figure 5-2. This process used a multi-objective
evolutionary algorithm to perform optimization-based searches (OPT-Search) of thousands of
portfolios, developing a tradeoff between performance and cost. These selected portfolios where then
run through a hydrologic robustness analysis to evaluate performance over a greater variety of future
hydrologic conditions, ensuring the robustness of selected portfolios. These portfolios were then
offered as the water resources contribution to the CIP.
Figure 5-2. Overview of Portfolio Development Process
Figure 5-3 summarizes the portfolios selected for the CIP across three planning scenarios and four
planning years. The green, blue, orange, or yellow color indicates that the project is needed by the
corresponding future year (2025, 2035, 2050, and 2070, respectively). The gray color indicates that the
All
Projects
Analysis
OPT-
Search
Sensitivity
Analysis
Hydro
Robust
Analysis
CIP
Portfolios
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-16
project is included in the portfolio but would have been completed at an earlier planning year. The
white color indicates the project is not required for that planning scenario and year.
Figure 5-3. Summary of CIP Portfolios for Each Planning Future
The Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline is shown as coming online in 2035 due to input from Aurora
Water related to its operational benefits; for water supply purposes it could be delayed until later years.
It was not possible to assemble portfolios from all the available projects to meet the LOS goals in
2070 for Planning Scenarios 2 (Fast Growth) and 4 (Hot Baseline). A supplemental optimization
analysis was performed using conceptual, non-specific types of projects to determine how the 2070
Gap could be filled. Table 5-8 shows the results of this analysis. A project concept was developed
called the Lower South Platte Advanced Treatment Project, which would provide treatment of Lower
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-17
South Platte water such that the current requirement for blending with mountain supplies to meet
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) objectives would be significantly reduced. This concept was found to
be highly effective in 2070. 2070 portfolios are shown with and without this project due to uncertainty
over its technical and economic feasibility. These results assume the same acceptable levels of service
adopted for all other planning years. A reduction in the acceptable LOS could be investigated in a
future analysis.
Table 5-8. Balanced Storage/Supply Portfolios for 2070 Gap
Lower South Platte
Advanced Treatment Gap Project Size
Off
South Platte Storage 15,000 ac-ft
Arkansas Water Rights 15,000 ac-ft
Colorado River Water Rights 3,000 ac-ft/year
Denver Basin Groundwater 12,000 ac-ft
Prairie Waters System Additional Capacity 10 MGD
Off
Arkansas Storage 15,000 ac-ft
Terminal Storage 10,000 ac-ft
Prairie Waters System Additional Capacity 25 MGD
Arkansas Water Rights 15,000 ac-ft
Denver Basin Groundwater 6,000 ac-ft
On
South Platte Storage 10,000 ac-ft
Prairie Waters System Additional Capacity 15 MGD
Arkansas Water Rights 3,500 ac-ft/year
Arkansas Storage 15,000 ac-ft
On
Terminal Reservoir 10,000 ac-ft
Prairie Waters System Additional Capacity 15 MGD
Arkansas Water Rights 500 ac-ft/year
Colorado River Water Rights 500 ac-ft/year
NOTES:
(1) Portfolios include specific water resources projects identified by Aurora Water. (2) Project sizes are in addition to the sizes of similar projects included in the CIP portfolios. (3) Million gallons per day (MGD).
5.7 Water Resources Plan
Aurora Water is adopting strategies to implement the water resources recommendations in the IWMP.
These strategies are based on the need to position the organization to meet its customer water needs
in a growing region with an uncertain future climate, aging infrastructure, and increasing competition
for scarce water supplies. Strategies for water resources planning are shown in Figure 5-4.
A 10 year CIP was prepared for the IWMP that included water resources projects that must be
completed between 2017 and 2026. This is described in Section 8.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-18
Figure 5-4. Aurora Water Resources Strategies and Threats
Aurora Water management determined the IWMP should focus on growth-related capital project
needs, which is the focus of the 10 year CIP. Appropriate long-term water resources planning also
must consider the need to address risks to current and future infrastructure and operations that could
jeopardize the ability of the utility to meet its LOS goals.
The water resources vulnerability analysis shows that the Aurora Water system is vulnerable to the
risk of losing 100 percent of Colorado River yields in five consecutive years (which could happen
under a Colorado River Compact curtailment situation), a two-year Otero pipeline or pump station
outage, or a one-year Rampart Pipeline/Strontia Reservoir outage. If these events occur, Aurora Water
may not be able to meet its indoor demands at all times without going to City Council to impose
emergency restrictions more frequently than is considered acceptable (Stage 1 no more than 20 years
in 100, Stage 2 no more than 5 years in 100, and Stage 3 no more than 1 year in 100).
Aurora Water’s two primary strategies for addressing key risks and vulnerabilities are diversification
and redundancy. Aurora Water is well positioned to deal with many risks to its raw water infrastructure
system because of its proactive approach in the past to developing a diversified water portfolio. This
strategy of diversification will be continued in the future, but will be more challenging to achieve due
to constraints on additional Arkansas River Basin water development for Aurora Water and challenges
to Colorado River Basin water development in general for all Front Range entities.
Aging raw water infrastructure will be a growing concern for Aurora Water over time. Additional
investment will be needed in O&M, repair, and replacement as more facilities approach their useful
life. Aurora Water plans to develop an Asset Management Plan when the IWMP is completed to
develop an appropriate strategy for asset management and maintenance.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 5-19
During the process of preparing the IWMP, Aurora Water identified a need to conduct follow-up
studies to refine previous analyses or further investigation for possible water supply options. Possible
follow-up studies include the following:
Feasibility of expanded potable reuse through additional Prairie Waters System treatment
Denver Basin groundwater assessment
WISE modeling improvement
Emergency storage analysis
Drought storage level analysis
Enhanced conservation program options
Level of service changes
Aquifer Storage and Recovery options
Additional climate altered hydrology studies
The strategy of continuous planning and adaptation requires that Aurora Water constantly monitor
growth in its service area, water demand, climate variability, and regulations and legislative initiatives
that could affect the ability to manage water and implement projects (see Figure 5-5). Aurora Water
must be committed to diligently tracking these factors with other Front Range water providers and
adjusting its planning decisions accordingly.
Figure 5-5. Factors to Track for Adaptive Water Supply Planning
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-1
6.0 Treatment
6.1 System Design Requirements
This section summarizes the recommended water purification facility improvements based on the
2012 Treated Water Master Plan (TWMP) (CH2M Hill, 2012) and the 2015 Aurora Water Treatment
Capacity Capital Improvements Plan Review and Update (CIP Update) (CH2M Hill, 2015), as well as the
demand scenarios described previously. The recommended improvements have been evaluated based
on meeting projected demands and do not take into account projects that are necessary in order to
maintain or extend the life of current equipment and infrastructure (i.e., asset management).
6.2 Existing System Demands and Capacity
Existing (2014) system demands are presented in Section 3. Future demands for the water treatment
facilities are summarized in Table 6-2 for the four IWMP planning scenarios.
As part of the WISE agreement, Aurora Water and Denver Water have agreed to supply up to 5,000
acre-feet per year starting in 2016 (Phase-in), increasing to 10,000 acre-feet per year in 2021 (Full
delivery) to the South Metro WISE authority. If the annual supply requirement is averaged throughout
the year, then maximum daily flows could be as high as 4.5 MGD beginning in 2016. The WISE
agreement includes flexibility that allows Aurora Water to supply WISE only when there is excess
capacity in the system (provided that the change in flow in a 24 hour period is less than 5 MGD for
Phase-in and less than 7 MGD for Full delivery).
The expected WISE delivery schedule is the reverse of Aurora Water’s normal monthly demand curve,
as shown in Figure 6-15, and, therefore, no WISE deliveries are expected during peak day. Because
the projects recommended in this section are based on peak day system demands, WISE deliveries are
not included in this evaluation.
5 The Aurora System Demand shown in Figure 6-1 is an idealized demand based on the average weekly
demands from 2002-2013. The WISE deliveries are based on a total yearly delivery of 10,000 acre-feet, with no
deliveries on the peak day and maximum deliveries during the winter months.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-2
Figure 6-1. Ideal Annual System Demand and WISE Distribution
In the TWMP (CH2M Hill, 2012), the capacities of the Aurora Water’s WPFs were identified as
summarized in Table 6-1. The Mountain Water System, which includes the Rampart, Quincy, and
Aurora Reservoirs, provides the main raw water supply to Griswold WPF, Wemlinger WPF, and the
Aurora Reservoir (AR) train of the Binney WPF. The Prairie Waters System provides water to the
South Platte (SP) train of the Binney WPF. The current system capacity can provide a peak sustainable
production of 149 MGD.
The following assumptions and definitions are used in this section:
The total sustainable supply refers to the available raw water delivery capacity that can be
sustainably conveyed to the WPFs relative to existing raw water quality or hydraulic
infrastructure limitations, whichever is the more limiting factor.
The peak sustainable treatment capacity refers to the treatment capacity relative to permit rating,
operational challenges, or hydraulic limitations within the WPF.
The peak sustainable production refers to the effective treatment capacity relative to either the
total sustainable supply or the peak sustainable treatment capacity, whichever is limiting; this
capacity will allow continuous operation throughout the day, in order to meet the peak day
demand.
Peak hour demand will be met by storage in the finished water system.
All three plants are operational during peak day conditions.
All raw water supply and conveyance systems are fully operational during peak day conditions.
0
20
40
60
80
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Flo
w (
MG
D)
Aurora System Demand
WISE Distribution
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-3
Table 6-1. Existing Raw Water Supply and Treatment Capacities
(1) Griswold WPF Wemlinger WPF
Binney WPF Total
System Aurora
Reservoir Train South Platte Train
RAW WATER SUPPLY CAPACITY (MGD)
Gravity
Pipelines Rampart: 59/20 (2)
Rampart: 66/50 (3)
Aurora Reservoir: 130/21 (4)
Aurora
Reservoir: 80 (5)
Pumped
Systems
Quincy:
Firm: 5 (6)
Hydraulic: 24
Installed: 36
PW Pipeline: 50
PW Pumps: 20 (7)
Wells Cherry Creek Well
Field: 9
PW Riverbank Filtration: 10.8
PW Aquifer Storage and Recovery: 4-5
Total
Sustainable
Supply
34 (8) 71 80 10.8 195.8
TREATMENT CAPACITY (MGD) (9)
Rated 80 (10) 80 33.3 50
Filtration (one
filter offline) 100 80 33.3 50
Solids Handling 65 (11) 80 Not limiting (11) Not limiting (11)
Peak
Sustainable 65 80 33.3 50
Peak Sustainable Production (MGD)
Peak
Sustainable
Production (12)
34 71 33.3 10.8 149.1
NOTES: (1) These values in the table are for the purpose of achieving total maximum pipeline capacities and do not
represent true supply capacities or limitations to the individual treatment facilities. (2) The Rampart supply to Griswold WPF is limited to 20 MGD if water is also being supplied to Wemlinger WPF.
Otherwise, the supply to Griswold has a maximum of 59 MGD. (3) The Rampart supply to Wemlinger is limited to 50 MGD if water is also being supplied to Griswold WPF. When
Rampart is only supplying raw water to Wemlinger, the capacity is 66 MGD. (4) The hydraulic capacity of the Aurora Reservoir Pipeline is 130 MGD; however, in order to operate properly,
Wemlinger WPF limits the Aurora Reservoir contribution to 30% of the total Wemlinger feed flow. Because the maximum contribution available from Rampart Reservoir is 50 MGD when Griswold is also being supplied, the maximum flow from Aurora Reservoir is 21 MGD and the Wemlinger WPF maximum is 71 MGD.
(5) The pipeline is sized for 80 MGD but the actual capacity depends on the level in Aurora Reservoir. (6) Due to taste and odor events, flow from Quincy Reservoir is generally limited to 15% of total production. (7) Prairie Waters Pump Stations are designed for expansion to 50 MGD. (8) Total sustained raw water supply to Griswold WPF is 20 MGD from Rampart, 9 MGD from the Cherry Creek
Wells and 5 MGD (i.e., 15% of total production) from Quincy Reservoir. (9) Treatment capacity includes work at Binney WPF that will be completed in 2016 (filters and solids handling). (10) Rated capacity at Griswold WPF is limited by the filter backwash component of the solids handling system;
filters are rated at 100 MGD. (11) Solids Management Project currently under construction will render both AR and SP solids as not limiting;
actual unit process capacity is unknown. (12) Raw water quality can affect sustainable capacities at Wemlinger and Griswold since they are direct filtration
facilities.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-4
6.3 Future System Demands and Capacity Required
The demand projections for the treatment analysis are based on the planning scenarios summarized
in Table 4-1. Specific projections, subdivided by scenario and by year, are summarized in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. Water Demands by Year and Planning Scenario
Table 6-3 summarizes which scenarios can be satisfied by the existing capacity (i.e., current peak
sustainable production) for years 2015, 2025, 2035 and 2070. Based on a peak sustainable production
of 149 MGD, average day demands can be met with existing capacity, but additional capacity is needed
to meet 2070 peak day demands for all scenarios. Peak hour demands require more capacity for all
scenarios; however, this demand will be met through finished water storage. The planning year in
which the peak day demands are anticipated to exceed the existing system capacity is shown in Figure
6-2.
This figure also includes the capacity with Binney WPF offline, demonstrating when the Aurora Water
Treatment system loses redundancy and therefore must operate with only two plants online. At this
point, backup power to the Prairie Waters Pump Station and North Campus riverbank filtration (RBF)
wells is needed to provide redundancy on the Binney WPF source water.
Demand
Paramete
r
Scenario 1
Baseline Plus: average
growth, weather, and
hydrology, enhanced
conservation level
Scenario 2
Fast Growth: higher
growth, average weather
and hydrology, enhanced
conservation level
Scenario 3
Fast and Hot: high
growth, hot/dry weather,
hot/dry hydrology.
Enhanced conservation
level
Scenario 4
Hot Baseline:
Average growth, hot/dry
weather, hot/dry
hydrology, enhanced
conservation level
DEMANDS (MGD) BY YEAR AND SCENARIO
Year 2015 2025 2035 2070 2015 2025 2035 2070 2015 2025 2035 2070 2015 2025 2035 2070
Potable
Average
Day
44 49 55 85 46 53 61 103 51 59 68 116 50 55 61 95
Peak-Day 99 108 118 176 103 117 132 214 115 130 147 239 111 121 132 197
Peak-Hour 159 173 189 282 164 186 211 343 206 234 265 431 200 218 238 355
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-5
Table 6-3. Water Demands Satisfied by Existing Capacity
Scenario 1
Baseline Plus: average
growth, weather, and
hydrology, enhanced
conservation level
Scenario 2
Fast Growth: higher
growth, average weather
and hydrology, enhanced
conservation level
Scenario 3
Fast and Hot: high
growth, hot/dry weather,
hot/dry hydrology.
Enhanced conservation
level
Scenario 4
Hot Baseline:
Average growth, hot/dry
weather, hot/dry
hydrology, enhanced
conservation level
Peak Sustainable Production (MGD)
149.1
Demands (MGD) by Year and Scenario
Year 2015 2025 2035 2070 2015 2025 2035 2070 2015 2025 2035 2070 2015 2025 2035 2070
Potable
Average Day 44 49 55 85 46 53 61 103 51 59 68 116 50 55 61 95
Peak-Day 99 108 118 176 103 117 132 214 115 130 147 239 111 121 132 197
Peak-Hour 159 173 189 282 164 186 211 343 206 234 265 431 200 218 238 355
NOTE: The colors in the table indicate the ability of the system to meet the treated water demands that were developed in
Task 6-2 based on the peak sustained capacity of the Aurora Water System. Green shading denotes sufficient system
capacity, yellow shading indicates marginal system capacity (within 2 MGD), and red shading indicates insufficient capacity
to meet demands.
Figure 6-2. Water Demands by Year and Planning Scenario
0
50
100
150
200
250
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070
De
man
ds/
Cap
acit
y in
MG
D
Scenario 1 Peak Day Demand Scenario 1 Peak Day = Capacity
Scenario 2 Peak Day Demand Scenario 2 Peak Day = Capacity
Scenario 3 Peak Day Demand Scenario 3 Peak Day = Capacity
Scenario 4 Peak Day Demand Scenario 4 Peak Day = Capacity
Peak Sustainable Production Peak Sustainable Production, Binney Offline
Existing Capacity Existing Capacity Reached Reached, Binney Offline
Scenario 1 2056 2021Scenario 2 2044 Already ReachedScenario 3 2036 Already ReachedScenario 4 2046 Already Reached
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-6
6.4 Proposed Capital Projects
The treatment projects proposed for the IWMP CIP are based on the projects described in the TWMP
(CH2M Hill, 2012) and the TWMP CIP Update (CH2M Hill, 2015). The order of projects presented
in this section does not reflect the intended project timing, which is discussed in Section 6.5.
6.4.1 RAMPART RAW WATER SYSTEM
The Rampart Raw Water System includes two pipelines: a 40/42-inch transmission line and a 54-inch
transmission line. This system provides raw water to both Griswold and Wemlinger WPFs, Aurora
Reservoir via Aurora Reservoir Pump Station, and Quincy Reservoir. The maximum capacity of the
Rampart Raw Water System is 70 MGD, assuming 20 MGD supplied to Griswold WPF and 50 MGD
supplied to Wemlinger WPF. The Griswold WPF supply is supplemented by Quincy Reservoir and
the Cherry Creek wells. Griswold WPF has a total sustainable supply of 34 MGD. The Wemlinger
WPF supply is supplemented by Aurora Reservoir, although that supply is limited to 30 percent of the
total flow. As a result, the total sustainable supply for Wemlinger WPF is 71 MGD. By increasing the
raw water available through the Rampart supply system, Griswold and Wemlinger WPFs would be
able to operate at their rated treatment capacities. Two options for conveying additional Rampart
supply are presented below; the options are mutually exclusive.
6.4.1.1 Holly Street Pump Station Expansion
The Holly Street Pump Station was originally constructed as an interim capacity improvement to add
16 MGD of capacity to the 40-inch Rampart Supply Pipeline prior to completion of the 54-inch
pipeline. The pump station has not been operational since 1980 following completion of the first
phase of the 54-inch pipeline. The 1997 Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) Water Treatment Master Plan
(CDM, 1997) presented an option to increase the pump station capacity to 85 MGD by opening the
interties and sharing the suction between the 40-inch and 54-inch mains, and closing the discharge
interties and pressurizing the 40-inch pipeline; the 54-inch line would remain a gravity flow line. CDM
did not study a transfer capacity of 90 MGD, but the 2012 TWMP assumes 90 MGD is feasible.
Replacement of approximately 13,000 linear feet of poor condition 54-inch, pre-stressed concrete
cylinder pipe (PCCP) also would be required and has been included in the cost estimate.
6.4.1.2 New Rampart Supply Pipeline
The project would include a new 72-inch diameter pipeline that would parallel the existing Rampart
Delivery System pipelines from Rampart Reservoir to State Highway 470 (C-470), a new 66-inch
diameter pipe from C-470 to Quincy Avenue, and new 60-inch pipe from Quincy to the Griswold and
Wemlinger WPFs. This project would increase the Rampart system capacity to 125 MGD.
6.4.2 GRISWOLD WPF CAPACITY RECOVERY
Griswold WPF is currently unable to operate at its rated capacity of 80 MGD for an extended duration
due to the time required to clean the filters and limited solids handling capacity in the lagoons. These
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-7
issues limit the peak sustained treatment capacity to 65 MGD. Improvements to the backwash and
solids handling systems could increase plant capacity to the rated capacity of 80 MGD.
Capacity could be increased by minimizing the time required for a backwash. The TWMP states that
at 80 MGD, 22 cleans are required per day (one every 65 minutes) and each backwash plus filter-to-
waste (FTW) takes 75 minutes. Two options were included in the TWMP for filter backwash
improvements such that the rated plant capacity can be reliably maintained:
Increase the capacity of backwash and FTW systems such that an entire filter can be cleaned
at one time (the current system is only capable of cleaning one of two cells at a time). This
would reduce the total cleaning time by 22 minutes (53 minutes total).
Separate the backwash supply and FTW header so that one cell can be in FTW while the next
cell is beginning backwash. FTW currently requires at least 20 minutes therefore separating
these process would reduce the total cleaning time to 55 minutes.
If the filter cleaning time is reduced and the plant is able to sustain flow rates of 80 MGD, the lagoons
will likely become the limiting process at Griswold. The lagoons were determined to have sufficient
volume to handle backwash flows at plant operation of 80 MGD (CH2M Hill, 1999), but that
evaluation was completed before FTW was added in 2009. As stated in the TWMP, the FTW volume
may add up to 80,000 gallons of water per backwash event, depending on filter ripening time. At a
minimum, the backwash recycle pipeline that takes decant from the lagoons back to rapid mix is
undersized and needs to be replaced. The backwash recycle pumps are of sufficient size but require
variable frequency drives (VFDs) to optimize recycling of backwash water.
The alternatives suggested in the TWMP for increasing residuals drying capacity include:
Add a fourth lagoon, or
Add a backwash equalization basin/gravity thickener and retrofit one lagoon to act as a sand
drying bed.
Further study of alternative residuals handling also was recommended in the TWMP. For the IWMP,
it is assumed that adding a fourth lagoon will occur with the Lagoon Replacement/Addition project
in 2018.
Prior to implementing these capacity expansion projects, the 2012 TWMP unit filter run volume
assumption should be verified. The goal of implementing these improvements is to allow Griswold
WPF to operate sustainably at its rated capacity of 80 MGD.
6.4.3 BINNEY WPF – SOUTH PLATTE TRAIN BUILD-OUT
The existing capacity at Binney WPF is constrained at two points: raw water supply to the SP train
and dilution of finished SP train water. In order to increase the peak sustained treatment capacity for
the SP train, both of these constraints must be addressed.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-8
Raw water for the SP train is supplied via RBF at the North Campus, which has an existing capacity
of 10.8 MGD. Storage of RBF supply during low demand periods is provided by the Aquifer Recharge
and Recovery (ARR) system. The ARR also was intended to provide additional treatment; however,
the required treated water quality goals are already being met by RBF while sustainable ARR capacity
is lower than anticipated. As a result, no additional ARR development is anticipated; additional storage
will be supplied by gravel lakes, although water quality issues (e.g., potential for algal growth) will need
to be identified and mitigated.
Because the raw water supplied to the SP train at Binney WPF is higher in TDS than the rest of the
Aurora Water System, use of SP water requires a 2:1 blend of finished AR water to finished SP water.
Currently, that dilution is provided by the blend between the AR and SP trains at Binney WPF, but
that limits the production of the SP train to 16.7 MGD as the AR train has a total capacity of 33.3
MGD. In order to utilize the full intended capacity of 50 MGD for the SP train, 33.3 MGD of filtered
SP water will be pumped to Wemlinger WPF (via the Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline) and blended
with raw water from Aurora Reservoir or the Rampart Pipeline before receiving full treatment at
Wemlinger WPF; alternatively, disinfected SP water can be delivered to WISE.
6.4.3.1 Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline and Pump Station
Installation of the Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline will provide the ability to supply up to 80 MGD
of gravity-fed Aurora Reservoir water to the Wemlinger WPF. The pipeline was designed to 90 percent
completion in 2006. The Wemlinger Transfer Pump Station will allow the Blended Water Pipeline to
supply up to 33.3 MGD of filtered Binney SP water6 to the Wemlinger WPF, where it would be
combined with raw Rampart water and Aurora Reservoir water (supplied via the existing 60-inch bi-
directional pipeline) and receive further treatment. The pump station building was built during the
original construction of Binney WPF, but the pumps were not installed at that time.
The blending pipeline and pump station will provide additional raw water capacity to Wemlinger WPF,
helping to maximize the use of North Campus water, with the additional benefit of hardening the
supply. Reducing the Rampart supply to Wemlinger WPF also will result in increased Rampart supply
availability for Griswold WPF.
Supplying either Aurora Reservoir water or filtered SP water to Wemlinger WPF will allow the
simultaneous filling of Aurora Reservoir by the Mountain Water System. Should Wemlinger be fed
only Aurora Reservoir water via the existing 60-inch pipeline and the new blending pipeline
simultaneously, then Aurora Reservoir would be in a drawdown operational mode and cease to be
filled by the Mountain Water System.
6.4.3.2 Prairie Waters System Expansion 1: North Campus to 20 MGD
The North Campus is part of the Prairie Waters System, which was constructed to pre-treat and supply
South Platte water to the Binney WPF. The RBF wells, which provide the pretreatment, have a
6 Water will be collected from the SP train after filtration and before disinfection.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-9
capacity of 10.8 MGD, while the conveyance system has a capacity of 50 MGD in the pipelines and
20 MGD in the pump stations.
Currently, the capacity of the North Campus is limited by the RBF wells. The CIP Update states that
“Potential sites on the East side of the South Platte have been identified to provide an additional
approximate 10 MGD (20 MGD total) of RBF capacity. Key project components include land
acquisition for the East Wellfield, new wells and collection pipelines, a river pipeline crossing to
connect the (existing) west and (future) east wellfield, and installation of Prairie Waters System
conveyance pumping equipment to increase the firm pump capacity by 5 MGD.” With these
improvements, the peak sustainable production of the SP train will be 20 MGD.
6.4.3.3 Prairie Waters System Expansion 2: North Campus to 30 MGD
As stated in the TWMP CIP Update, the expansion of the North Campus to 30 MGD will consist of
“expanding RBF capacity from 20 MGD to 30 MGD, additional ARR capacity, and increased Prairie
Waters System conveyance pumping from 30 MGD to 45 MGD to take advantage of higher RBF
flows during elevated river stage conditions and ARR scalping of RBF flows.” As stated previously,
the ARR also was intended to provide additional treatment; however, the required treated water quality
goals are already being met by RBF while sustainable ARR capacity is lower than anticipated. As a
result, no additional ARR development is anticipated; additional storage will be supplied by gravel
lakes. This expansion will allow the SP train to reliably produce 30 MGD of water.
Due to economies of scale, it may be more cost effective to increase the North Campus capacity from
10.8 MGD to 30 MGD, without the intermediate 20 MGD project.
6.4.3.4 Prairie Waters System Expansion 3: North Campus to 40 MGD
This expansion to the North Campus will increase RBF capacity to 40 MGD and Prairie Waters
System pumping capacity to 50 MGD. This project includes future well field development for the
Prairie Waters North Campus Expansion. Total capacity for Prairie Waters would increase from a
firm capacity of 30 MGD to 40 MGD. Key project components would include land acquisition for
proposed RBF, construction of a 10 MGD RBF wellfield and connecting pipelines (total RBF capacity
of 40 MGD), and build out of the PW conveyance pumping to the design capacity of 50 MGD.
6.4.3.5 Prairie Waters System Storage Project – Terminal Reservoir
In order to operate the Prairie Waters System at the 50 MGD pipeline and pumping capacity, storage
of the RBF water must be provided. Terminal Reservoir, discussed further in the Water Resources Project
Technical Report (MWH, 2016a), will provide sufficient storage throughout the year to allow deliveries
of 50 MGD to the SP train of Binney WPF. Terminal Reservoir is included in the water resources
portfolios and CIP.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-10
6.5 Findings and Recommendations
There are two mutually exclusive options for expanding the Rampart Delivery System capacity: (1)
Holly Street Pump Station Expansion (increases Rampart supply capacity to 90 MGD); and (2)
Rampart Supply Pipeline Replacement (increases Rampart supply capacity to 125 MGD).
A comparative capacity analysis and cost estimates for these two options was conducted. The analysis
indicates that if the Rampart Supply Pipeline is fully replaced, it would provide sufficient raw water to
allow Wemlinger WPF and Griswold WPF to operate at their full capacities of 80 MGD each.7 By
comparison, if the Holly Street Pump Station was expanded, it would provide sufficient raw water to
allow Griswold WPF to operate at full capacity; yet, Wemlinger WPF would have a 27 MGD supply
deficiency. As a result, the Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline and all Prairie Waters System expansion
projects (including Prairie Waters System Storage – Terminal Reservoir) would be required to provide
enough supply for Wemlinger WPF to operate at full capacity. However, the Wemlinger Blended
Water Pipeline and all Prairie Waters System expansion projects are required by the Water Resources
Portfolio CIP; therefore, the additional 90 MGD provided by the Holly Street Pump Station
Expansion will alone be sufficient for treatment needs at both Griswold and Wemlinger WPFs.7
The cost estimates confirm the Holly Street Pump Station Expansion project represents the lowest
total cost option, by an average of $248M, for each of the three planning scenarios considered.8 The
cost evaluation considered costs to Aurora Water beyond capital and operational costs. Specifically,
the results of the capacity analysis were used in conjunction with the historical cost of chemicals,
residuals handling, miscellaneous O&M, energy, and labor at each WPF to determine the overall
corresponding cost of treatment for each option.9
The treatment cost is of interest particularly for the Holly Street Pump Station Expansion, since this
option would result in filtered SP water being conveyed to Wemlinger WPF (via the Wemlinger
Blended Water Pipeline) for further treatment. As expected, the cost evaluation determined treatment
costs for this option to be an average of $22.1M higher than for the Rampart Supply Pipeline option.
However, this difference in treatment cost was not significant enough to offset the substantial
difference in project-specific O&M, energy, and capital costs. Therefore, considering the results of the
capacity analysis and the cost evaluation, only the Holly Street Pump Station Expansion has been
included within the Treatment CIP.
Total capital costs for each proposed project are summarized in Table 6-4. Cumulative capacity
increases resulting from implementation of each proposed project are summarized in Table 6-5. The
maximum system capacity of 210 MGD is defined by the ultimate treatment capacities of the three
7 This assumes that the Griswold Capacity Recovery project has increased the sustainable Griswold capacity
to 80 MGD. 8 Planning Scenario 1 (Baseline Plus) was not considered in the cost evaluation since additional capacity from
the Rampart Delivery System is not required for Treatment to meet peak day demand projections. 9 Aurora Water provided historical cost/MG figures for chemicals, residuals handling, O&M, and labor for each
WPF. Average cost/MG was used for each cost category and assumed to remain constant for the planning period.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-11
WPFs (80 MGD for both Griswold and Wemlinger, 50 MGD for Binney). Projects listed in this table
are representative of the order of projects required to achieve ultimate treatment capacity at each WPF.
Table 6-4. Capital Costs of Proposed Treatment and Water Resources Projects Impacting Capacity
Project Capital Cost
Prairie Waters System North Campus Expansion 20 MGD $21.1
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline and Pump Station $58.8
Prairie Waters System North Campus Expansion 30 MGD $17.6
Prairie Waters System North Campus Expansion 40 MGD $17.6
Prairie Waters System Storage Project – Terminal Reservoir $327.7
Holly Street Pump Station Expansion10 $17.2
Griswold Water Purification Facility Capacity Recovery $5.5
10 Holly Street Pump Station estimated capital cost is based on the 2012 TWPM and also includes replacement
of 13,000 feet of 54 inch PCCP with ductile iron pipe.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-12
Table 6-5. Cumulative Raw Water Supply and Treatment Capacities
Griswold Supply
Gri
sw
old
WP
F C
ap
acit
y
Wemlinger Supply
Wem
lin
ger
WP
F C
ap
acit
y
Binney
AR
Supply
Bin
ney A
R T
rain
Cap
acit
y
Binney
SP
Supply
Bin
ney S
P T
rain
Cap
acit
y
To
tal
Su
sta
ined
Cap
acit
y
Ram
pa
rt P
ipeli
ne
Qu
incy R
eserv
oir
Ch
err
y C
reek W
ell
s
Ram
pa
rt P
ipeli
ne
Au
rora
Re
serv
oir
11
Excess S
P C
ap
acit
y1
2
Au
rora
Re
serv
oir
Pra
irie
Wate
rs
Syste
m
Current Conditions 20 5 9 34 50 21 0 71 80 33.3 10.8 10.8 149
PW Expansion 1 (20 MGD) 20 5 9 34 50 21 0 71 80 33.3 20.0 16.7 155
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline 20 5 9 34 50 22 3 75 80 33.3 20.0 16.7 159
PW Expansion 2 (30 MGD) 27 6 9 42 43 24 13 80 80 33.3 30.0 16.7 172
PW Expansion 3 (40 MGD) 37 8 9 54 33 24 23 80 80 33.3 40.0 16.7 184
PW Storage Project – Terminal
Reservoir (50 MGD) 41 8 9 58 29 24 27 80 80 33.3 50.0 16.7 188
Holly Street Pump Station
Expansion (90 MGD) 46 10 9 65 29 24 27 80 80 33.3 50.0 16.7 195
Griswold Improvements (80 MGD) 61 10 9 80 29 24 27 80 80 33.3 50.0 16.7 210
11 Aurora Reservoir water to Wemlinger WPF is currently supplied by the 60-inch bi-directional Aurora Reservoir pipeline; this conveyance occurs primarily
during the summer months. Following completion of the Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline, Aurora Reservoir water to Wemlinger WPF can be supplied either via
this new pipeline, or via the existing 60-inch pipeline. 12 Treated SP water capacity is limited to 2:1 blending ratio to meet water quality total dissolved solids goal prior to being sent to the potable water system.
This approach limits Binney SP Train capacity to 16.7 MGD. Remaining Prairie Waters System supply capacity (up to 27 MGD) is treated at the SP Train through
filtration and then filtered SP water is conveyed to Wemlinger WPF (via the Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline).
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-13
Seven projects, namely Wild Horse Reservoir, Prairie Waters North Campus Expansion 20 MGD,
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline, Prairie Waters North Campus Expansion to 30 MGD, Prairie
Waters North Campus Expansion to 40 MGD, Terminal Reservoir, and Holly Street Pump Station
Expansion were analyzed by MWH’s Treatment team and the Water Resources team to determine the
need for and timing of the projects. The final timing of the projects for the IWMP is based on the
earliest year the project is needed to meet demands either from the Water Resources or Treatment
perspective.
For Planning Scenarios 1 (Baseline Plus) and 4 (Hot Baseline), only a selection of the proposed options
from past studies will be required. For Planning Scenarios 2 (Fast Growth) and 3 (Fast and Hot),
despite completion of all proposed projects discussed in this section, a capacity deficit will still exist.
These scenarios are discussed in more detail below.
For all planning scenarios, when plant redundancy (i.e., 105 MGD) is lost, a backup power supply
must be added to the Prairie Waters System pump stations and the North Campus RBF wells. The
timing of that project is discussed in the sections below.
For all planning scenarios, the total Rampart supply capacity is dedicated to Griswold and Wemlinger
WPFs during peak day demand conditions. For this one-day period, Aurora Reservoir will cease to be
filled by the Rampart Delivery System. This drawdown is an outcome of maximizing the supply.
6.5.1 PLANNING SCENARIO 1 (BASELINE PLUS)
Proposed timing of the projects required to meet peak day demands under Planning Scenario 1
(Baseline Plus) are presented in Figure 6-3. The existing treatment system has sufficient capacity to
meet peak day demands until 2056. Plant redundancy is lost in 2022; at that time redundant power
will need to be installed at the Prairie Waters System pump stations and the North Campus RBF wells.
In this scenario, the Prairie Waters System would be expanded to 20 MGD by 2056, allowing the SP
train at Binney WPF to operate at its capacity of 16.7 MGD. Four years later, the construction of the
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline and Holly Street Pump Station would allow the excess capacity
from Binney SP Train to be delivered as raw water to Wemlinger (3.3 MGD). This will provide
sufficient system capacity until 2062, at which time the Prairie Waters System would be expanded to
30 MGD. The additional 10 MGD of Binney SP Train capacity also would be delivered as raw water
to Wemlinger (13.3 MGD total). This peak sustained system capacity of 172.3 MGD would be
sufficient for meeting peak day demands through 2070.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-14
Figure 6-3. Planning Scenario 1 (Baseline Plus) Project Timing
6.5.2 PLANNING SCENARIO 2 (FAST GROWTH)
Proposed timing of the projects required to meet peak day demands under Planning Scenario 2 (Fast
Growth) are presented in Figure 6-4. The existing treatment system has sufficient capacity to meet
peak day demands for Planning Scenario 2 (Fast Growth) until 2045.
In this scenario, the Prairie Waters System would be expanded to 20 MGD by 2045, allowing the SP
train at Binney WPF to operate at its capacity of 16.7 MGD. Two years later, the construction of the
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline and Pump Station would allow the excess capacity from Binney
SP Train to be delivered as raw water to Wemlinger (3.3 MGD). In 2049, Prairie Waters Expansion 2
would be required to increase capacity to 30 MGD. Six years later, Prairie Waters Expansion 3 will
increase RBF capacity to 40 MGD and the Prairie Waters System pumping capacity to 50 MGD which
will provide sufficient capacity until 2060 at which point the Terminal Reservoir and Holly Street
Pump Station projects would be implemented. Griswold improvements to the backwash and solids
handling systems would be required in 2064, resulting in the maximum system capacity of 210 MGD
based on the ultimate treatment capacities of the three WPFs (80 MGD for both Griswold and
Wemlinger, 50 MGD for Binney). With all improvements shown below, there will be a treatment
capacity deficit in 2069. Plant redundancy was lost in 2015; backup power supplies need to be installed
at the Prairie Waters System pump stations and the North Campus RBF wells.
Terminal Reservoir and Holly Street Pump Station were analyzed by both the treatment and water
resources teams; based on water resources requirements, Terminal Reservoir and Holly Street Pump
Station would be needed in 2050. Final timing of the projects for the IWMP are based on the earliest
year the project is needed to meet demands either from the water resources or treatment perspective.
PWP Expansion 1155 MGD in 2056
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline
159 MGD in 2060PWP Expansion 2172 MGD in 2062
Redundant power at the PWP stations,
20220
50
100
150
200
250
300
2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065
De
man
ds/
Cap
acit
y in
MG
DScenario 1 Peak Day Demand Scenario 1 Peak Sustained System Capacity
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-15
Figure 6-4. Planning Scenario 2 (Fast Growth) Project Timing
6.5.3 PLANNING SCENARIO 3 (FAST AND HOT)
Proposed timing of the projects required to meet peak day demands under Planning Scenario 3 (Fast
and Hot) are presented in Figure 6-5. The existing treatment system has sufficient capacity to meet
peak day demands for Planning Scenario 3 (Fast and Hot) until 2036.
In this scenario, the Prairie Waters System would be expanded to 20 MGD by 2036, allowing the SP
train at Binney WPF to operate at its capacity of 16.7 MGD. Three years later, the construction of the
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline and Pump Station would allow the excess capacity from Binney
SP Train to be delivered as raw water to Wemlinger (3.3 MGD). In 2041, the Prairie Waters System
Expansion 2 would be required to increase capacity to 30 MGD. Six years later, the Prairie Waters
System Expansion 3 will increase RBF capacity to 40 MGD and the Prairie Waters System pumping
capacity to 50 MGD, which will provide sufficient capacity until 2052, at which point the Terminal
Reservoir and Holly Street Pump Station projects would be implemented. Griswold improvements to
the backwash and solids handling systems would be required in 2056 resulting in the maximum system
capacity of 210 MGD based on the ultimate treatment capacities of the three WPFs (80 MGD for
both Griswold and Wemlinger, 50 MGD for Binney).
With all improvements described above, there will be a treatment capacity deficit in 2061. Plant
redundancy is already lost; backup power supplies need to be installed at the Prairie Waters System
pump stations and the North Campus RBF wells.
PWP Expansion 1155 MGD in 2045
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline
159 MGD in 2047
PWP Expansion 2172 MGD in 2049 PWP Expansion 3
184 MGD in 2055
PWP Storage Project - Terminal Reservoir
188 MGD in 2060
Holly Street Pump Station
195 MGD in 2061
Griswold Improvements
210 MGD in 2064
Treatment Capacity Exceeded in 2069
Redundant power at the PWP stations,
20150
50
100
150
200
250
300
2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065
De
man
ds/
Cap
acit
y in
MG
DScenario 2 Peak Day Demand Scenario 2 Peak Sustained System Capacity
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-16
Figure 6-5. Planning Scenario 3 (Fast and Hot) Project Timing
6.5.4 PLANNING SCENARIO 4 (HOT BASELINE)
Proposed timing of the projects required to meet peak day demands under Planning Scenario 4 (Hot
Baseline) from a treatment capacity perspective are presented in Figure 6-6. The existing treatment
system has sufficient capacity to meet peak day demands for Planning Scenario 4 (Hot Baseline) until
2047.
In this scenario, the Prairie Waters System would be expanded to 20 MGD by 2047, allowing the SP
train at Binney WPF to operate at its capacity of 16.7 MGD. Three years later, the construction of the
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline and Pump Station would allow the excess capacity from Binney
SP Train to be delivered as raw water to Wemlinger (3.3 MGD). In 2052, the Prairie Waters System
Expansion 2 would be required to increase capacity to 30 MGD. Seven years later, the Prairie Waters
System Expansion 3 will increase RBF capacity to 40 MGD and the Prairie Waters System pumping
capacity to 50 MGD, which will provide sufficient capacity until 2065, at which point the Terminal
Reservoir and Holly Street Pump Station projects would be implemented. Griswold improvements to
the backwash and solids handling systems would be required in 2069, resulting in the maximum system
capacity of 210 MGD based on the ultimate treatment capacities of the three WPFs (80 MGD for
both Griswold and Wemlinger, 50 MGD for Binney). Plant redundancy is already lost; backup power
supplies need to be installed on the Prairie Waters System pump stations and the North Campus RBF
wells.
PWP Expansion 1155 MGD in 2036
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline
159 MGD in 2039
PWP Expansion 2172 MGD in 2041
PWP Expansion 3184 MGD in 2047
PWP Storage Project - Terminal Reservoir
188 MGD in 2052
Holly Street Pump Station
195 MGD in 2053
Griswold Improvements
210 MGD in 2056
Treatment Capacity Exceeded in 2061
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065
De
man
ds
/ C
apac
ity
in M
GD
Scenario 3 Peak Day Demand Scenario 3 Peak Sustained System Capacity
Redundant power at the PWP stations, Install now
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 6-17
Figure 6-6. Planning Scenario 4 (Hot Baseline) Project Timing
PWP Expansion 1155 MGD in 2047
Wemlinger Blended Water Pipeline
159 MGD in 2050
PWP Expansion 2172 MGD in 2052
PWP Expansion 3184 MGD in 2059
PWP Storage Project - Terminal Reservoir
188 MGD in 2065
Holly Street Pump Station
195 MGD in 2066
Griswold Improvements
210 MGD in 2069
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065
De
man
ds/
Cap
acit
y in
MG
DScenario 4 Peak Day Demand Scenario 4 Peak Sustained System Capacity
Redundant power at
the PWP stations, Install now
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 7-1
7.0 Distribution
7.1 System Design Requirements
The T&D projects needed to adequately serve projected population growth up to 2070 were identified
in the IWMP and further refined in the T&D CIP Refinement Study (Refinement Study), conducted
by Water Plans, Inc. Projects were developed and verified using the City’s all pipes distribution system
hydraulic model and projected growth rates as estimated in a workshop attended by various
departments throughout the City.
The Refinement Study demands were updated using up to date water use data. The updated demands
were slightly higher than Planning Scenario 2 demands with a projected max day demand of 266.4
MGD for 2070.
A Population and Employment Allocation Tool (PEAT) was used to project the timing and location
of growth throughout the City. System demands were then distributed to model nodes throughout
the service area. To better reflect anticipated demands from high-use developments, specific model
nodes were adjusted with estimated demands for these developments. The high-use developments
include Niagara Bottling, Veterans Administration Hospital, Gaylord Resort, Fitzsimons Master Plan
Area and Buckley Air Force Base. The high-use developments collectively have an estimated max day
demand of 8.1 MGD, which would result in a total system max day demand of 274.5 MGD in 2070.
In order to accommodate future growth while utilizing the existing treatment capacity, the capital
improvements focus on conveying supply from Griswold and Wemlinger WPFs to the northeastern
portion of the City’s service area. The system improvements include a 60” pipeline conveying flows
from Wemlinger and Griswold northeast along with a new reservoir located in Pressure Zone 3 that
will serve the northeastern portion of the water system.
The Refinement Study also evaluated system pumping and storage capacity. The system pumping
capacity was analyzed to determine if the pump stations have adequate capacity to meet future
demands and redundancy requirements, the ability to provide the maximum pumping demand of the
system with the largest pump out of service. The storage capacity was evaluated to ensure the system
has adequate capacity to serve fire flow suppressions and meet emergency and equalization needs.
All projects are listed with Class 5 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC). The T&D
projects are listed in Table 7-1, Table 7-2, and Table 7-3. Pump station and storage improvement
projects are shown in Table 7-4 and Table 7-5. Near-term projects phased from 2017 through 2020
are presented in Section 7.2, with remaining projects phased through 2070 described in Section 7.3.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 7-2
Table 7-1. 2020 T&D Improvement Projects
Project Number
Phase Diameter Length (ft) Zone Project Name Description Aurora Water/ Developer
Construction Cost
Design 10% Permitting 5%
Total Project Cost
101 2020 36 10,700 3 Gun Club 36": 38th - 56th New 36''pipe, approximately 10700ft long, Parallel to
Gun Club, from E 38th Ave to E 56th Ave AW $10,039,000 $1,506,000 $11,545,000
101B 2020 36 5,200 3 Gun Club 36": 56th - 64th New 36''pipe, approximately 5200ft long, Parallel to
Gun Club, from E 56th Ave to E 64th Ave AW $4,879,000 $732,000 $5,611,000
102 2020 24 10,400 3, 3C Painted Prairie - 56th Ave 24": Himalaya - Picadilly New 24''pipe, approximately 10400ft long, Along E 56th Ave from Picadilly Rd to N Himalaya Rd, then
north along Himalaya Rd to E 64th Ave Painted Prairie $5,720,000 $858,000 $6,578,000
102B 2020 24 5,300 3 56th Ave 24": Picadilly - Gun Club New 24''pipe, approximately 5300ft long, Along E
56th Ave from Picadilly Rd to Gun Club Rd AW $3,915,000 $587,000 $4,502,000
103 2020 24 9,900 3 64th Ave 24": E-470 - Jackson Gap New 24''pipe, approximately 9900ft long, Along E
64th Ave from E-470 to N Jackson Gap St AW $6,445,000 $967,000 $7,412,000
103B 2020 24 2,500 3 64th Ave 24": Picadilly - E-470 New 24''pipe, approximately 2500ft long, Along E
64th Ave from E-470 to N Jackson Gap St Developer $1,375,000 $206,000 $1,581,000
104 2020 16 2,500 3C Painted Prairie - 60th Ave 16": Himalaya New 16''pipe, approximately 2500ft long, Along E
60th Ave east of Himalaya Rd Painted Prairie $920,000 $138,000 $1,058,000
105 2020 12 5,300 3C Painted Prairie 12": 56th - 64th New 12''pipe, approximately 5300ft long, Parallel to Himalaya Rd, between E 56th Ave and E 64th Ave
Painted Prairie $1,343,000 $201,000 $1,544,000
106 2020 24 15,300 5, 6, 7 Kings Point N - E-470 24": Dry Creek - Parker New 24''pipe, approximately 15300ft long, Parallel to
E470, from E Dry Creek Rd to S Parker Rd Kings Point
Development $8,415,000 $1,262,000 $9,677,000
107 2020 12 5,300 6, 7 Kings Point N & S 12" New 12''pipe, approximately 5300ft long, Pipe
segments off Project 106 Kings Point
Development $2,040,000 $306,000 $2,346,000
109 2020 12 6,900 8 Rocking Horse - Allens Park 12" New 12''pipe, approximately 6900ft long, Along E
Allens Park Pl, connecting to E Rocking Horse Pkwy Rocking Horse Development
$1,748,000 $262,000 $2,010,000
112 2020 16 15,100 3 6th Ave 16": Himalaya - Gun Club New 16''pipe, approximately 15100ft long, Localized
project near E 6th Pkwy and Picadilly Rd Developer $6,257,000 $939,000 $7,196,000
113 2020 12 7,700 4 Rome Way 12": Jewell - Gun Club New 12''pipe, approximately 7700ft long, Along S
Rome Way north of E Jewell Ave up to S Gun Club Rd
Developer $2,648,000 $397,000 $3,045,000
114 2020 60 7,000 3 Gun Club 60": 6th Ave - Colfax New 60''pipe, approximately 7000ft long, Along N
Gun Club Rd, north of E 6th Ave up to E Colfax Ave, then east parallel to I70
AW $13,723,000 $2,058,000 $15,781,000
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 7-3
Table 7-2. 2035 T&D Improvement Projects
Project Number
Phase Diameter Length (ft) Zone Project Name Description Aurora Water/
Developer Construction
Cost Design 10%
Permitting 5% Total Project Cost
108 2035 12 3,700 8A Kings Point S Prusse 12" New 12''pipe, approximately 3700ft long, Localized
project AW $938,000 $141,000 $1,079,000
201 2035 66 900 3 Griswold 66" New 66''pipe, approximately 900ft long, Griswold
WTP exit pipe, connecting to the transmission system
AW $1,576,000 $236,000 $1,812,000
202 2035 60 9,400 3 Yale Ave 60": Chambers - Tower New 60''pipe, approximately 9400ft long, Along E
Yale Ave from S Chambers Rd to S Tower Rd AW $14,897,000 $2,235,000 $17,132,000
202-U 2035 60 4,900 3 Yale Ave 60": Griswold - Chambers Upgrade existing pipe to 60'', approximately 4900ft long, Along E Yale Ave from Project 201 up to S
Chambers Rd AW $7,766,000 $1,165,000 $8,931,000
203 2035 60 38,500 3 Yale Ave 60": Tower - 6th & Gun Club
New 60''pipe, approximately 38500ft long, From E Linvale Dr and S Ventura St north upto Vassar Pl, then west up to S Telluride St, then south along S Sterling Hills Pkwy up to E Jewell Ave, then east to 1,500ft east of E470, then north 2,500 ft, then west crossing E 470, then north parallel to the highway,
up to E Mississippi Ave, then east up to S Gun Club Rd, then north up to E 6th Ave
AW $63,645,000 $9,547,000 $73,192,000
204 2035 48 23,500 3 Colfax Ave 48": Harvest - Hayesmount &
Alameda
New 48''pipe, approximately 23500ft long, Parallel to Colfax Ave, from N Harvest Rd east to N
Hayesmount Rd, then south to E Alameda Ave AW $31,122,000 $4,668,000 $35,790,000
204B 2035 60 2,800 3 Colfax Ave 60": Gun Club - Harvest New 60''pipe, approximately 2800ft long, Parallel to Colfax Ave, from N Gun Club Rd east to N Harvest
Rd AW $4,438,000 $666,000 $5,104,000
205 2035 30 21,500 3, 4 I70 Hwy 30": Hayesmount - Quail Run New 30''pipe, approximately 21500ft long, Parallel to E I70 Hwy, from N Hayesmount Rd to N Quail
Run Rd AW $16,770,000 $2,516,000 $19,286,000
206 2035 36 27,000 3 Hayesmount 36": I70 Hwy - 64th Ave New 36''pipe, approximately 27000ft long, Along N
Hayesmound Rd, from E I70 Hwy to E 64th Ave AW $25,333,000 $3,800,000 $29,133,000
207 2035 24 20,700 3, 4 Quail Run 24": I70 Hwy - 56th Ave New 24''pipe, approximately 20700ft long, Along N
Quail Run Rd from E I70 Hwy to E 56th Ave AW $11,385,000 $1,708,000 $13,093,000
208 2035 12 21,300 3 56th Ave 12": Hayesmount - Quail Run New 12''pipe, approximately 21300ft long, Along E 56th Ave from N Hayesmount Rd to N Quail Run
Rd Developer $5,397,000 $810,000 $6,207,000
209 2035 24 13,900 3 56th Ave 24": Jackson Gap - Hayesmount New 24''pipe, approximately 13900ft long, Along E 56th Ave from N Jackson Gap St to N Hayesmount
Rd AW $7,645,000 $1,147,000 $8,792,000
210 2035 12 10,600 3 Harvest 48": I70 Hwy - 38th Ave New 48''pipe, approximately 10600ft long, Along N
Harvest Rd from E I70 Hwy to E 38th Ave AW $2,686,000 $403,000 $3,089,000
211 2035 16 5,000 3 26th Ave 16": Gun Club - Harvest New 16''pipe, approximately 5000ft long, Along E 26th Ave from N Gun Club Rd to N Harvest Rd
AW $1,840,000 $276,000 $2,116,000
212 2035 24 7,000 3 Colfax Ave 24": Picadilly - Gun Club New 24''pipe, approximately 7000ft long, Parallel to Colfax Ave from N Picadilly Rd to N Gun Club Rd
AW $4,850,000 $728,000 $5,578,000
213 2035 12 4,700 3 38th Ave 12": Picadilly – Gun Club New 12''pipe, approximately 4700ft long, Along E
38th Ave from N Picadilly Rd to E 470 Developer $1,191,000 $179,000 $1,370,000
214 2035 36 21,000 3 38th Ave 36": Gun Club - 48th & Monaghan New 36''pipe, approximately 21000ft long, Along E
38th Ave from Gun Club to N Harvest Rd, then north to E 48th Ave, then east to N Monaghan Rd
AW $19,703,000 $2,956,000 $22,659,000
214-U 2035 36 30 3 38th Ave 36": Gun Club A 30 ft long pipe that will be upsized from 24” to
36”. AW $28,000 $4,000 $32,000
215 2035 12 10,400 3 26th Ave & 38th Ave 12": Harvest - Powhaton New 12''pipe, approximately 10400ft long, Parallel
lines along E 26th Ave and E 38th Ave from N Harvest Rd to N Powhaton Rd
Developer $2,635,000 $395,000 $3,030,000
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 7-4
Table 7-2. 2035 T&D Improvement Projects
Project Number
Phase Diameter Length (ft) Zone Project Name Description Aurora Water/
Developer Construction
Cost Design 10%
Permitting 5% Total Project Cost
216 2035 12 20,800 3 Powhaton Rd & Monaghan Rd 12": 56th Ave -
38th Ave
New 12''pipe, approximately 20800ft long, Parallel lines along N Powhaton Rd and N Monaghan Rd
from E 56th Ave to E 38th Ave Developer $5,271,000 $791,000 $6,062,000
218 2035 24 5,200 4 6th Ave 24": Powhaton - Monaghan New 24''pipe, approximately 5200ft long, Along E 6th Ave from N Powhaton Rd to N Monaghan Rd
AW $2,860,000 $429,000 $3,289,000
219 2035 12 32,200 4 Monaghan Rd 12": Alameda - 38th Ave &
Powhaton
New 12''pipe, approximately 32200ft long, Along N Monaghan Rd from E Alameda Ave to E 38th Ave and two parallel lines along E 26th Ave and E 38th
Ave from N Monaghan Rd to N Powhaton Rd
Developer $8,857,000 $1,328,000 $10,185,000
220 2035 24 5,100 3 56th Ave 24": Gun Club - Harvest New 24''pipe, approximately 5100ft long, Along E
56th Ave from N Gun Club Rd to Harvest Rd Developer $2,805,000 $421,000 $3,226,000
221 2035 24 17,400 3 64th Ave 24": Jackson Gap - Hayesmount New 24''pipe, approximately 17400ft long, Along E 64th Ave from N Jackson Gap St to N Hayesmount
Rd, and then north to E 68th Ave AW $9,570,000 $1,436,000 $11,006,000
222 2035 16 10,600 3 Watkins 16": 56th Ave - 72nd Ave New 16''pipe, approximately 10600ft long, Along N
Watkins Rd from E 56th Ave up to E 72nd Ave AW $3,901,000 $585,000 $4,486,000
223 2035 12 21,100 3, 4 38th Ave 12": Quail Run - Schumaker New 12''pipe, approximately 21100ft long, Along E 38th Ave from N Quail Run Rd to N Schumaker Rd
AW $5,347,000 $802,000 $6,149,000
224 2035 12 2,000 8A Kings Point S Prusse2 12" New 12''pipe, approximately 2000ft long, Segment
at the end of Project 108 Developer $507,000 $76,000 $583,000
225 2035 12 11,600 8 Butterfield Trails 12" New 12''pipe, approximately 11600ft long, Loop
east of S Monaghan Rd, north of E County Line Rd Developer $2,939,000 $441,000 $3,380,000
226 2035 8 23,300 8 Powhaton & Smoky Hill 8" New 8''pipe, approximately 23300ft long, Localized projects east and west near S Powhaton Rd and E
Smoky Hill Pkwy Developer $3,319,000 $498,000 $3,817,000
227 2035 24 8,300 7 Arapahoe 24": Powhaton - Aurora Pkwy New 24''pipe, approximately 8300ft long, Along E
Arapahoe Rd between S Powhaton Rd and S Aurora Pkwy
AW $5,565,000 $835,000 $6,400,000
228 2035 12 4,200 7 Southshore 12" New 12''pipe, approximately 4200ft long, Localized project east of E Euclid Dr and E South Shore Pkwy
Developer $1,064,000 $160,000 $1,224,000
229 2035 12 3,200 6 Belleview & Whitaker 12" New 12''pipe, approximately 3200ft long, Pipe
extension west of E Belleview Ave and E Whitaker Dr
Developer $811,000 $122,000 $933,000
233 2035 16 13,800 3, 4 Powhaton 16": Colfax - 38th Ave New 16''pipe, approximately 13800ft long, Along N
Powhaton Rd from E I70 up to E 38th Ave AW $5,778,000 $867,000 $6,645,000
234 2035 36 5,300 3 Gun Club 36": 26th Ave - 38th Ave New 36''pipe, approximately 5300ft long, Along Gun
Club Rd from 26th Ave to 38th Ave AW $4,973,000 $746,000 $5,719,000
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 7-5
Table 7-3. 2070 T&D Improvement Projects
Project Number Phase Diameter Length (ft) Zone Project Name Description Aurora Water/
Developer Construction Cost
Design 10% Permitting 5%
Total Project Cost
301 2070 48 15,700 5 Quincy 48": Powhaton - Private Quincy & Yale New 48''pipe, approximately 15700ft long, East from E Quincy Ave and S Powhaton Rd up to E Private Quincy Ave, then North up to E Yale Ave
AW $19,523,000 $2,928,000 $22,451,000
302 2070 16 1,600 3 Alameda & Gun Club 16" New 16''pipe, approximatelly 1600ft long, east
from S Gun Club Rd and E Alameda Ave AW $589,000 $88,000 $677,000
302B 2070 12 8,800 3 Alameda & Gun Club 12" New 12''pipe, approximatelly 8800ft long, looped
east from S Gun Club Rd and E Alameda Ave AW $2,230,000 $334,000 $2,564,000
303 2070 60 22,900 4 Powhaton 60": Jewell - Alameda & Hayesmount
New 60''pipe, approximately 22900ft long, North/northwest from E Jewell Ave and E Yale Ave, up to S Powhaton Rd, then north up to E
Alameda Ave, then east up to S Hayesmount Rd, then north to the Proposed Tank (Alameda
Reservoir)
AW $36,293,000 $5,444,000 $41,737,000
304 2070 16 22,600 4 Harvest 16": Jewell - Alameda
New 16''pipe, approximately 22600ft long, Parallel (west) of S Powhaton Rd, from E Jewell Ave up to E Alameda Ave, and pipes along E Mississippi Ave
and S Haleyville St from S Harvest Rd and S Powhaton Rd
AW $8,317,000 $1,248,000 $9,565,000
305 2070 16 18,400 4 Monaghan Rd 16": Alameda - Jewell & Powhaton
New 16''pipe, approximately 18400ft long, Along E Jewell Ave from 1,000ft west of E Yale Ave, up to S Monaghan Rd, then north up to E Alameda Ave,
pipe segment from S Monaghan Rd, along S Haleyville St to connect with Project 304
AW $6,771,000 $1,016,000 $7,787,000
306 2070 16 8,000 4 Monaghan Rd 16": Alameda - 6th Ave New 16''pipe, approximately 8000ft long, Parallel
to S Monaghan Rd (east), from E Alameda Ave up to E 6th Ave, then west up to N Monaghan Rd
AW $2,944,000 $442,000 $3,386,000
307 2070 30 25,500 4 Hayesmount 30": Alameda - Colfax & Imboden
New 30''pipe, approximately 25500ft long, From proposed tank (Alameda Reservoir) along S
Hayesmount Rd north up to E Colfax Ave, then east parallel to E I70 Hwy up to N Imboden Rd
AW $20,990,000 $3,149,000 $24,139,000
308 2070 12 5,100 3, 4 I70 Hwy 12": Monaghan - Hayesmount New 12''pipe, approximately 5100ft long, Parallel to E I70 Hwy (south) from N Monaghan Rd to N
Hayesmount Rd AW $1,292,000 $194,000 $1,486,000
309 2070 12 29,800 3 Hudson Rd 12": I70 Hwy - 71st Ave New 12''pipe, approximately 29800ft long, Along N
Hudson Rd from E I70 Hwy up to E 71st Ave AW $7,551,000 $1,133,000 $8,684,000
310 2070 12 10,500 3 64th Ave 12": Hayesmount - Watkins New 12''pipe, approximately 10500ft long, Along E 64th Ave from N Hayesmount Rd up to N Watkins
Rd AW $2,661,000 $399,000 $3,060,000
311 2070 24 12,200 3 72nd Ave 24": Hayesmount - Watkins
New 24''pipe, approximately 12200ft long, Parallel (south) to E 72nd Ave from N Hayesmount Rd up
to N Hudson Rd, then north up to E 72nd Ave, then east up to N Watkins Rd
AW $6,710,000 $1,007,000 $7,717,000
312 2070 12 5,400 3 Valleyhead St 12": 56th Ave - 64th Ave New 12''pipe, approximately 5400ft long, Along N Valleyhead St from E 56th Ave up to E 64th Ave
AW $1,368,000 $205,000 $1,573,000
313 2070 12 26,900 3, 4 38th Ave 12": Monaghan - Quail Run New 12''pipe, approximately 26900ft long, Along E 38th Ave from N Quail Run Rd to N Monaghan Rd
AW $6,817,000 $1,022,000 $7,839,000
314 2070 12 32,000 3, 4 26th Ave 12": Monaghan - Cavanaugh New 12''pipe, approximately 32000ft long, Along E 26th Ave from N Cavanaugh Rd to N Monaghan
Rd AW $8,109,000 $1,216,000 $9,325,000
315 2070 36 26,700 3 48th Ave 36": Monaghan - Quail Run Rd New 36''pipe, approximately 26700ft long, Along E 48th Ave from N Monaghan Rd up to N Quail Run
Rd AW $25,052,000 $3,758,000 $28,810,000
316 2070 16 5,300 3 Watkins 16": 48th Ave - 56th Ave New 16''pipe, approximately 5300ft long, Along N
Watkins Rd from E 56th Ave up to E 48th Ave AW $1,950,000 $293,000 $2,243,000
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 7-6
Table 7-3. 2070 T&D Improvement Projects
Project Number Phase Diameter Length (ft) Zone Project Name Description Aurora Water/
Developer Construction Cost
Design 10% Permitting 5%
Total Project Cost
317 2070 30 15,400 3 Watkins 30": I70 Hwy - 48th Ave New 30''pipe, approximately 15400ft long, Along N
Watkins Rd from E I70 Hwy to E 48th Ave AW $12,012,000 $1,802,000 $13,814,000
318 2070 12 20,800 3, 4 Imboden 12": I70 Hwy - 56th Ave New 12''pipe, approximately 20800ft long, Along N
Imboden Rd from E I70 Hwy to E 56th Ave AW $5,271,000 $791,000 $6,062,000
319 2070 24 21,200 3 48th Ave 24": Quail Run - Schumaker New 24''pipe, approximately 21200ft long, Along E 48th Ave from N Quail Run Rd to N Schumaker Rd
AW $11,660,000 $1,749,000 $13,409,000
320 2070 24 21,300 4 I70 Hwy 24": Quail Run - Schumaker New 24''pipe, approximately 21300ft long, Parallel
to E I70 Hwy from N Quail Run Rd to N Schumaker Rd
AW $11,715,000 $1,757,000 $13,472,000
321 2070 24 15,700 3, 4 Schumaker 24": I70 Hwy -48th Ave New 24''pipe, approximately 15700ft long, Along N
Schumaker Rd from E I70 Hwy to E 48th Ave AW $8,635,000 $1,295,000 $9,930,000
322 2070 12 20,800 3, 4 Cavanaugh 12": I70 Hwy - 56th Ave New 12''pipe, approximately 20800ft long, Along N
Cavanaugh Rd from E I70 Hwy to E 56th Ave AW $5,271,000 $791,000 $6,062,000
323 2070 16 20,900 3, 4 Manila 16": I70 Hwy - 56th Ave New 16''pipe, approximately 20900ft long, Along N
Manilla Rd from E I70 Hwy to E 56th Ave AW $7,691,000 $1,154,000 $8,845,000
324 2070 12 20,900 3, 4 Peterson Rd 12": I70 Hwy - 56th Ave New 12''pipe, approximately 20900ft long, Along N
Peterson Rd from E I70 Hwy to E 56th Ave AW $5,296,000 $794,000 $6,090,000
325 2070 12 26,500 3 56th Ave: Quail Run - 48th Ave & Schumaker New 12''pipe, approximately 26500ft long, From N
Quail Run Rd along E 56th Ave up to N Schumaker Rd and then south to E 48th Ave
AW $6,715,000 $1,007,000 $7,722,000
326 2070 24 21,600 3 Colfax 24": Tower - 38th Ave & Picadilly
New 24''pipe, approximately 21600ft long, From N Tower Rd east along E Colfax Ave up to N
Picadilly Rd, then north along N Picadilly Rd, up to E 38th Ave
AW $12,880,000 $1,932,000 $14,812,000
327 2070 12 3,900 6 Powhaton & Yale 12" New 12''pipe, approximately 3900ft long, Localized
project west of S Powhaton Rd and E Yale Ave AW $988,000 $148,000 $1,136,000
328 2070 12 16,000 4 26th Ave 12": Cavanaugh - Schumaker New 12''pipe, approximately 16000ft long, Along E
26th Ave from N Cavanaugh Rd up to N Schumaker Rd
AW $4,054,000 $608,000 $4,662,000
329-U 2070 60 10,800 3 Tower 60": Quincy - Yale
Upgrade existing pipe to 60'', approximately 10800ft long, Along S Tower Rd, from Wemlinger
Treatment Plant up to proposed Valve Station on E Yale Ave and E LinVale Dr
AW $17,116,000 $2,567,000 $19,683,000
330 2070 24 400 4 Powhaton 24": Colfax New 24''pipe, approximately 400ft long, South of I-
70 and N Powhaton Rd AW $220,000 $33,000 $253,000
330-U 2070 24 4,000 4 Powhaton 24": 6th Ave - Colfax Upgrade existing pipe to 24'', approximately 4000ft long, Along N Powhaton Rd from E 6th Ave up to
E Colfax Ave AW $2,200,000 $330,000 $2,530,000
331-U 2070 36 5,500 8 Powhaton 36": County Line - Smoky Hill Upgrade existing pipe to 36'', approximately 5500ft long, Along S Powhaton Rd, from Blackstone Tank
north up to E Smoky Hill Pkwy AW $5,160,000 $774,000 $5,934,000
332-U 2070 54 800 4 Binney 54" Upgrade existing pipe to 54'', approximately 800ft
long, Discharge line at Binney Treatment Plant Pump Station
AW $1,130,000 $170,000 $1,300,000
333 2070 36 5,300 4 Powhaton 36": Alameda - 6th Ave New 36''pipe, approximately 5300ft long, Along N
Powhaton Rd from E Alameda Ave up to E 6th Ave AW $4,973,000 $746,000 $5,719,000
334 2035 30 10,400 5 Yale 30": Powhaton - Hayesmount New 30''pipe, approximately 10400ft long, Along E
Yale Ave, from S Powhaton Rd up to S Hayesmount Rd
AW $8,112,000 $1,217,000 $9,329,000
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 7-7
Table 7-3. 2070 T&D Improvement Projects
Project Number Phase Diameter Length (ft) Zone Project Name Description Aurora Water/
Developer Construction Cost
Design 10% Permitting 5%
Total Project Cost
335 2035 24 14,400 5 Hayesmount 24": Yale - Monaghan & Jewell
New 24''pipe, approximately 14400ft long. Along E Jewell Ave from S Powhaton Rd to S Hayesmount Rd and along Hayesmount Rd from Jewell Ave to
Yale Ave
AW $7,920,000 $1,188,000 $9,108,000
336 2035 16 11,100 5 Monaghan 16": Yale - Jewell New 16''pipe, approximately 11100ft long, Pipes
off Project 231 (on E Jewell Ave), along S Monaghan Rd and S Hayesmount Rd
AW $4,085,000 $613,000 $4,698,000
Table 7-4. Pump Station Improvement Projects
Project Number Phase Description Justification Pressure
Zone
Proposed Replacement Unit
Capacity (gal)
Proposed Replacement Unit
Capacity (HP)
Construction Cost ($)
Design 10% Permitting 5%
Total Project Cost
501 2020 Eagle Bend PS Upgrade - Phase 1, replacement of existing 1,165 gpm unit with a 2,000 gpm unit.
Upgrade to meet performance criterion - redundancy requirements
8A 2,000 120 $600,000 $90,000 $690,000
502 2070 Eagle Bend PS Upgrade - Phase 2, replacement of existing 225 gpm unit with a 1,000gpm unit
Upgrade to meet performance criterion - redundancy requirements
8A 1,000 60 $300,000 $45,000 $345,000
503 2020 Gun Club Zone 6 PS - Phase 1, replacement of existing 500 gpm unit with 2,800 gpm unit
Upgrade to meet performance criterion - redundancy requirements
6 2,800 120 $600,000 $90,000 $690,000
504 2070
Gun Club Zone 6 PS - Phase 2, replacement of existing 2,000 gpm units with 4,000 gpm units and add a new 4,000gpm unit to station. Verify if there is room for another unit.
Upgrade to meet performance criterion - redundancy requirements
6 12,000 500 $2,500,000 $375,000 $2,875,000
505 2070 Powhaton PS Upgrade, replacement of 450gpm unit with a 4,000gpm unit.
Upgrade to meet performance criterion - redundancy requirements
8 4,000 190 $950,000 $143,000 $1,093,000
Table 7-5. Storage Improvement Projects
Project Number Phase Description Justification Pressure
Zone Total Volume
(gal) Construction
Cost
Design 10% Permitting
5%
Land Acquisition
Costs
Total Project Cost
401 2035 Additional Zone 7 Tank near Blackstone Meet storage requirements 7 4,200,000 $8,400,000 $1,260,000 $5,920,000 $15,580,000
402 2070 Additional Tank at Robertsdale Reservoir
Meet storage requirements 4 5,000,000 $10,000,000 $1,500,000 $0 $11,500,000
403 2035 New storage reservoir at Alameda and Hayesmount
Meet storage requirements 3 12,000,000 $24,000,000 $3,600,000 $4,800,000 $32,400,000
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 7-8
7.2 Near-Term Projects
This section will summarize the capital improvement projects identified through 2020. Improvements
needed through 2020 aim to reinforce the existing service area while laying the foundation for future
growth in the north.
Several capital improvements for 2020 are located in the northern part of the City near the High Point
area, which is currently experiencing significant growth. Gaylord, one of the high water users identified
in Section 7.1, is located in this area and is currently under construction. In order to meet the projected
demands in this area and provide system redundancy, Projects 101 through 105 have been included.
One of the major near-term capital improvements is project 101 and 101 B, a 36” pipeline along Gun
Club from 38th Ave to 64th Ave. This pipeline will provide redundancy by creating a second feed to
the northern part of the City. Projects 102, 104, and 105 reinforce the infrastructure for the Painted
Prairie, Single Tree, and Moffitt developments, which are located just south of High Point. The
pipelines for these projects range from 12” to 24”. Projects 102, 104 and 105 will be constructed by
the Painted Prairie development while Project 102B will be constructed by Aurora Water and cost
shared with the developers adjacent to the pipeline.
Also located in the northern part of the City are Projects 103 and 103 B, a 24” pipeline along 64th from
Picadilly Rd to Powhaton. This pipeline will connect with the existing 24” pipeline along Jackson Gap
St creating a looped system that will provide a second feed to the Porteos development.
On the southern side of the City, Projects 106 and 107 have been identified to serve the Kings Point
developments and will be constructed by Kings Point as the area is developed. Project 109 has also
been identified to meet the demands in the Rockinghorse development and will be installed by
Rockinghorse as the development continues to grow.
Projects located in the central part of the City include Projects 112 and 113, 16” and 12” lines
respectively, that will be needed to support future growth located just east of Buckley Air Force Base.
These projects are expected to be the responsibility of developers in the area.
Project 114 is another capital project located in the central part of the City. It is a 60” pipeline along
N Gun Club Rd north of 6th Ave. This pipeline is part of the backbone infrastructure needed to
reinforce the existing infrastructure and help convey flows to the northeastern parts of the City.
The pump station improvements needed by 2020 include an upgrade at Eagle Bend PS (Project 501)
and Gun Club Zone 6 PS (Project 503). The upgrades are needed so the pump stations can meet
redundancy requirements.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 7-9
7.3 Long-Term Projects
The balance of the projects were phased for completion in 2035 and 2070. Through 2035, system
improvements support the expansion of the service area and deliver associated demands by
reinforcing and building off of the existing distribution system. By 2070 a significant amount of system
improvements are focused on the eastern and northeastern side of the City to accommodate future
growth.
Significant 2035 capital improvement projects include the 60” pipeline designed to convey flows from
Wemlinger and Griswold northeast (Projects 201 through 203) and the new 10 MG storage reservoir
located in Pressure Zone 3 (Project 403). This infrastructure will be critical for the system to be able
to meet demands in the northeastern part of the City.
The majority of the remaining 2035 projects are focused on conveying flows to the northern parts of
the City. These projects range from 12” to 48” and will primarily be located in areas that are currently
undeveloped. The projects will serve demands as far northeast as the Transport development and as
far north as the City limits. Some of the larger infrastructure includes a 48” pipeline (Project 210 and
214) along Harvest from Colfax Ave to 48th Ave, which will help convey additional flows to the north;
a 36” pipeline (Project 206) along Hayesmount Rd from I-70 to 64th Ave, which will also serve
demands in the northern part of the City; and a 60” (Project 204B) that turns into a 48” (Project 204)
and then a 30“ (Project 205) along I-70 from Harvest to Quail Run Rd, which will serve the Transport
development.
There are also capital improvements located in the eastern part of the City around the Cottonwood
Creek development, and the southern part of the City in the Southshore and Butterfield Trails
developments.
In addition to the new 10MG storage reservoir located in Pressure Zone 3 (Project 403) a new 3.5
MG Zone 7 tank will be needed by 2035 located in the Blackstone area.
The 2070 improvements are primarily focused on conveying flows to the northeastern and eastern
parts of the City. By 2070 Wemlinger will be connected to the 60” pipeline designed to convey flows
to the northeast with its own 60” branch of infrastructure (Project 329). There will also be a 60”
pipeline along Powhaton Rd from Jewell Ave to Alameda and along Alameda from Powhaton Rd to
Hayesmount Rd (Project 303) that will convey flows to and from the new 10 MG storage reservoir.
Other key improvements include a 36” pipeline along 48th Ave from Monaghan Rd east to the
Transport development (Projects 315 and 319). The remaining 2070 T&D proposed infrastructure
will serve developments such as ACRE, Transport and Eastern Hills.
In addition to the T&D infrastructure, an additional 4.1 MG tank will be needed at Robertsdale Pump
Station. The Eagle Bend PS, Gun Club Zone 6 PS, and Powhaton PS will also need to be upgraded
to meet redundancy requirements.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 7-10
7.4 Capital Improvement Plan
The CIP is comprised of both Aurora Water funded projects and those anticipated to be built and financed by developers. The 2020 projects that are expected to be funded by Aurora Water are labeled “AW” in Table 7-1. For the purposes of the IWMP, it is assumed that about 50% of the 2035 and 2070 T&D projects would be the financed by developers and the other 50% would be funded by Aurora Water. The pump station and storage improvements are assumed to be financed by Aurora Water. The total Class 5 OPCC along with design and permitting cost allocated at 10% and 5% of capital costs respectively are summarized in Table 7-6.
Table 7-6. Distribution CIP Total Cost by Year and Project Category
Year Item Capital Cost Design and Permitting
Total Cost
2020 Transmission and Distribution Main $39,001,000 $5,850,000 $44,851,000
Pump Station and Storage $1,200,000 $180,000 $1,380,000
Subtotal $40,201,000 $6,030,000 $46,231,000
2035 Transmission and Distribution Main $143,706,000 $21,559,000 $165,265,000
Pump Station and Storage $32,400,000 $4,860,000 $47,980,000
Subtotal $176,106,000 $26,419,000 $213,245,000
2070 Transmission and Distribution Main $151,136,000 $22,671,000 $173,807,000
Pump Station and Storage $13,750,000 $2,063,000 $15,813,000
Subtotal $164,886,000 $24,734,000 $189,620,000
Grand Total $381,193,000 $57,183,000 $449,096,000
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 8-1
8.0 CIP Prioritization and Results
8.1 CIP Prioritization
The last step in the IWMP was to prepare an integrated CIP by prioritizing capital projects across the
technical disciplines including water resources, treatment, and T&D projects.
The most successful CIP prioritization frameworks share three important characteristics:
They are well-understood and supported by all levels of the organization (not just
engineering/planning)
The amount of rigor required to power the framework and related models, in terms of data
collection and use (e.g., estimating cost, determining return on investment [ROI], measuring
benefits), is well understood and “right-sized” for the process
They are powered by proven decision-support methodologies that account for both qualitative
and quantitative factors
To support each of these characteristics, the CIP prioritization approach engaged Aurora Water
stakeholders at all levels, integrated holistic triple bottom line (TBL) criteria data, and leveraged “multi-
criteria decision analysis” (MCDA) decision support best practices to produce a prioritized portfolio
of CIP projects.
Over the course of multiple planning sessions and workshops, MWH and Aurora Water outlined a
CIP prioritization process summarized in the following sections.
8.2 Approach
8.2.1 OVERVIEW
A work flow was established that ensured all relevant components of the initial proposed prioritization
process were integrated into the CIP effort and that all key methodologies could be incorporated. The
initial proposed decision framework is detailed in Figure 8-1; however, given the nature of decision
support analyses and modeled output, emphasis was placed on the ability to iterate and flex the process
to accommodate new insights derived from the method. The over-arching aim of the initial process
was to deliver a decision support framework that enabled selection of the most appropriate portfolio
of projects for Aurora Water’s 10 year CIP horizon.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 8-2
Figure 8-1. Initial Prioritization Process
There are a number of different methodologies available to score and prioritize projects when
determining their relative value in a portfolio. In Aurora Water’s case, it was determined that a more
holistic project valuation approach should be utilized where not only financial benefits are considered,
but also broader social, economic, and environmental considerations.
Expert Choice was used as the project prioritization tool. Although Expert Choice served the primary
prioritization process needs, auxiliary tools also were required to facilitate a successful decision support
deployment at Aurora Water. This included a project database to facilitate project data management
and controls and supplementary Excel files to allocate weighted scores to projects and analyze the
outputs from Expert Choice.
8.2.2 CRITERIA DETERMINATION, WEIGHTING, AND SCORING
One of the first major steps in the prioritization process was the development of the framework’s
decision criteria. This process required input from all stakeholders and was imperative to the
framework’s overall success for a number of reasons, including:
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 8-3
1. Helping ensure capital projects align with organizational objectives and overall strategy
2. Integrating public/stakeholder values into project selection
3. Removing business unit bias or “noise” from decision process
4. Incorporating diverse benefit streams (beyond purely monetized benefits) into capital
decisions
5. Increasing transparency and defensibility in capital decision process
To ensure quality and differentiation in portfolio prioritization outputs, the measures were given
significant attention and vetted by both the MWH and Aurora Water prioritization participants in the
process. A mix of rating scales and utility curves13 were used to apply the most applicable and accurate
approach towards measuring the relative project values against each criterion. The resulting output
from related workshops and meetings was a final list of criteria and respective measures (Table 8-1).
13 Utility curve refers to a simple linear distribution feature available in Expert Choice software and can be used to
translate a range of quantitative values into a max/min distribution
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 8-4
Table 8-1. Final TBL Prioritization Criteria
Aurora IWMP Criteria Definitions
ECONOMIC CRITERIA Tier 3 Measure Lowest Rating (0) (0.25) (0.50) (0.75) Highest Rating (1) Definitions:
Growth & Economic Development Revenue Impact Scale 0 MGD,
0 people
Up to 2 MGD, 6,000 people >2-6 MGD, 6,001-8,000
people
>6-10 MGD, 8,001-30,000
people
>10-20 MGD, 30,001-60,000+
people
Impacts expanding the customer base and / or increasing
revenues
Operational Efficiencies OPEX savings relative to
Status Quo
Estimated <1% cost savings
over status quo
Estimated cost savings of 1-
5% over status quo
Estimated cost savings of 6-
10% over status quo
Estimated cost savings of 11-
20% over status quo
Cost savings approximated
to be 21%+ over status quo
Improves cost efficiencies due to enhanced staffing,
processes, equipment usage, chemical usage, fuel usage,
power usage, etc.
Long-Term Financial Impacts Financial Impact Scale -
TOTEX/Estimated Useful
Asset Life
Highest Financial Impact
Value
Lowest Financial Impact
Value
Impacts long-term financial viability.
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA Tier 3 Measure Lowest Rating (0) (0.25) (0.50) (0.75) Highest Rating (1) Definitions:
Regulatory Compliance Compliance Scale Negative Impacts to
Regulatory Compliance
No Impacts to Compliance
Requirements
Indirect positive impacts Direct Positive Impacts to
Regulatory Compliance
Direct Impact- Required to
Maintain Regulatory
Compliance
Impacts compliance with Federal, State, local or internal
requirements.
City Sustainability Initiatives Sustainability Scale Negative Impact to
Multiple City Sustainability
Initiatives
Negative Impact to a City
Sustainability Initiative
No Impact to City
Sustainability Initiatives
Positive Impact to a City
Sustainability Initiative
Positive Impact to Multiple
City Sustainability
Initiatives
Impacts alignment with Aurora Water’s sustainability
initiatives.
Environmental Risk Management Environmental Risk
Management Scale
Increases One or More High
Priority Environmental
Risks
No Impact on High Priority
Environmental Risks
Partially or Fully Addresses
One or More High Priority
Environmental Risks
Impacts the management of environmental risks not
covered under Regulatory Compliance
Permitting Requirements Permitting
Requirements Scale
Introduces Multiple
Significant Permitting
Complexities and/or
Requirements
Introduces a Significant
Permitting Complexity
and/or Requirement
Introduces Multiple
Moderate Permitting
Complexities and/or
Requirements
Introduces One Moderate
or Multiple Slight
Permitting Complexities
and/or Requirements
No Permitting Complexities
and/or Requirements
Impacts the management of permitting requirements
and/or complexities
SOCIAL CRITERIA Tier 3 Measure Lowest Rating (0) (0.25) (0.50) (0.75) Highest Rating (1) Definitions:
Levels of Service Core LoS Scale No Impact to Core Service
Levels
Positive Impact to a Core
Service Level
Positive Impact to Multiple
Core Service Levels
Impacts Aurora Water agreed levels of service
Customer Benefit Customer Benefit Scale No Impact to Customers Positive Impacts to 0-500
Customers
Positive Impacts to 501-
10,000 Customers
Positive Impacts to 10,001-
100,000 Customers
Positive Impact to more
than 100,000 Customers
Impacts customer benefits such as public health & safety
System Performance Single system score Lowest Project Rating Highest Project Rating Impacts system reliability, resiliency, and redundancy
Social Benefit Social Benefit Scale Significantly Increases One
or More Social Risks
Increases One or More
Social Risks
No Impact on Social Risks
and/or Benefits
Partially Improves One or
More Social Benefits
Significantly Improves One
or More Social Benefits
Impacts management of social risks/benefits, specifically:
Reputation with peers, customers, constituents and/or
political benefits
Contractual Obligations Compliance Scale Introduces Significant
Contractual Complexity
Introduces Minor
Contractual Complexity
Neither Introduces Nor
Solves Contractual
Issues/Complexity
Addresses Minor
Contractual Requirements
Addresses Significant
Contractual Requirements
Impacts compliance with legal, contractual, regional, and
other requirements that are not covered under
Regulatory Compliance
<---------- Linear Distribution ---------->
<---------- Linear Distribution ---------->
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 8-5
The project scoring process utilized to assess projects for the IWMP CIP prioritization was robust
and required participation from a number of project stakeholders. The scoring measures across the
twelve criteria were composed of a mix of qualitative rating scales and two quantitative measures.
Qualitative measures used were designed to differentiate projects at logical progression points based
on stakeholder expertise. For example, the Levels of Service criterion was structured such that the
lowest rating on the scale (0) was assigned to a project that had no impact to Aurora Water’s core
levels of service, 0.50 was assigned to projects that had positive impacts to a single core level of service
while 1 (highest score) was given to projects that had multiple positive impacts to core levels of service
(Table 8-1). To decrease objectivity on some of the qualitative rating scales used, the team also
employed numeric ranges to assess certain criteria.
8.2.3 ADDITIONAL PRIORITIZATION ANALYSES – SCHEDULE OPTIMIZATION
Aurora Water determined that the CIP would be based on project requirements and sequencing
required under Planning Scenario 2 (Fast Growth). This was believed to represent a reasonable
tradeoff between cost and management of uncertain future growth and other risks.
Once IWMP project portfolios were developed for Planning Scenario 2 (Fast Growth) and Aurora
Water was presented the optimization approaches available, the decision to pursue multi-year schedule
optimization was made. A multi-year schedule optimization model was built out in Expert Choice and
used as the primary tool for developing multiple iterations and optimization runs through the
modeling process.
After analyzing and considering the initial optimization outputs and funding scenarios, Aurora Water
management opted to set a maximum annual CIP budget of $39M/year, as this resonated best with
business objectives. As such, further QA/QC and review was conducted, further updates to projects
were incorporated into the portfolio where necessary, and modeling of the revised $39M/year CIP
scenario was performed.
In designing and leveraging this decision framework, MWH and Aurora Water were able to deliver a
prioritization process that accomplished a number of key success targets. In all, this framework and
process included participation from all levels of Aurora Water’s organization, incorporated robust data
development and integration into the modeling and decision support effort and leveraged progressive,
best in class decision methodologies. It provided a background of data and modeling work enabling
better transparency into the decision process while aligning capital planning with Aurora Water
organizational objectives through use of a well-defined decision framework.
8.3 CIP Results
After final revisions and reviews were held, Aurora Water proposed the 10 year CIP presented in
Figure 8-2 through Figure 8-4 and Table 8-2. The final 10 year CIP accounts for a total of $395.9M
in anticipated capital spending. The spend for this CIP is broken down as follows: $213M for Water
Resources projects, $102M for T&D, $30M for Treatment, and $51M for water rights acquisitions
over the 10 year term (Figure 8-2). Excluding water rights acquisitions, the total 10 year CIP amounts
to $344.5M.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 8-6
Note: The updated T&D CIP costs from the Refinement Study are not reflected in this figure. See Section 7 for the updated T&D costs.
Figure 8-2. Aurora Water 10 Year CIP, Total by Discipline
Note: The updated T&D CIP costs from the Refinement Study are not reflected in this figure. See Section 7 for the updated T&D costs.
Figure 8-3. Aurora Water 10 Year CIP, Spend by Year
Figure 8-4 presents a summary-level Gantt chart outlining the planned project scheduling over the
10 year CIP term. An allocation to water rights acquisitions is budgeted when the sum of the budgets
for Water Resources, Treatment, and T&D projects do not exceed the targeted $39M threshold per
year. In total, the planned 10 year CIP is very close to the targeted $390M value, only exceeding this
target by $5.9M over the period.
215
104
30
51
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
Water Resources 10-Yr T&D 10-Yr Treatment 10-Yr Water Rights Acquisitions Total 10-Yr CIP
Mill
ion
s
Aurora Water 10 Year CIP | Total By Discipline
54%
26%
7%
13%
Total =$399.8M
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Mill
ion
s
Aurora Water 10 Year CIP | Spend by Year
Water Resources 10-Yr T&D 10-Yr Treatment 10-Yr Water Rights Acquisitions Target Funding Limit
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 8-7
Note: The updated T&D CIP projects from the Refinement Study are not reflected in this figure. See Section 7 for the updated T&D projects.
Figure 8-4. Aurora Water 10 Year CIP Summary Gantt Chart
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 8-8
Table 8-2. Aurora Water 10 Year CIP Cash Flow Summary*
*Note: The updated T&D CIP costs from the Refinement Study are not reflected in this table. See Section 7 for the updated T&D costs
Discipline: 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total:
Water Resources 17,252,667$ 17,502,667$ 17,861,228$ 30,893,147$ 38,787,742$ 23,660,406$ 24,978,588$ 20,033,357$ 15,405,535$ 6,838,201$ 213,213,538$
T&D 1,426,500$ 12,745,245$ 6,532,111$ 8,676,265$ 2,092,500$ 13,021,704$ 13,153,000$ 18,623,000$ 11,711,500$ 13,720,000$ 101,701,825$
Treatment -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,730,000$ 13,942,500$ 13,942,500$ 29,615,000$
Water Rights Acquisition20,320,833$ 8,752,088$ 14,606,661$ -$ -$ 2,317,890$ 868,412$ -$ -$ 4,499,299$ 51,365,183$
Total: 39,000,000$ 39,000,000$ 39,000,000$ 39,569,412$ 40,880,242$ 39,000,000$ 39,000,000$ 40,386,357$ 41,059,535$ 39,000,000$ 395,895,547$
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 9-1
9.0 References
AMEC, 2014. Approach for Developing IWMP Hydrology Scenarios, AMEC, October.
Aurora, 2015. 2015 Municipal Water Efficiency Plan, Aurora Water, City of Aurora, Colorado.
BBC Research and Consulting, 2015. Water Demand Forecasts for Integrated Water Master Plan,
prepared for Aurora Water and MWH Global, Inc., February.
CDM, 1997. Water Treatment Master Plan. Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM).
CH2M Hill, 2012. Treated Water Master Plan, CH2M Hill.
CH2M Hill, 2015. Aurora Water Treatment Capacity Capital Improvements Plan Review and Update
(CIP Update), CH2M Hill.
Maddaus Water Management, 2014. Water Conservation Technical Analysis, Technical
Memorandum, prepared for Aurora Water and MWH Global, Inc., December.
MWH, 2014a. Description of Baseline Conditions for Water Resources Modeling, MWH Global, Inc.,
Denver, Colorado, June.
MWH, 2014b. Planning Scenarios for Technical Disciplines, Technical Memorandum, MWH Global,
Inc., Denver, Colorado, October.
MWH, 2014c. Integrated Water Master Plan Risk Framework Report, MWH Global, Inc., Denver,
Colorado.
MWH, 2014d. Integrated Water Master Plan Risk Management Report, MWH Global, Inc., Denver,
Colorado.
MWH, 2014e. Water Resources Risk Vulnerability Technical Report, MWH Global, Inc., Denver,
Colorado. December.
MWH, 2015. Draft Water Needs Assessment Technical Report, MWH Global, Inc., Denver,
Colorado. March.
MWH, 2016a. Draft Water Resources Project Technical Report, MWH Global, Inc., Denver,
Colorado. March.
CITY OF AURORA//Integrated Water Master Plan
MWH FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017//PAGE 9-2
MWH, 2016b. Draft Water Resources Project Portfolios, MWH Global, Inc., Denver, Colorado.
April.
MWH, 2016c. Aurora Watershed Management and Source Water Protection Plan, MWH Global, Inc.,
Denver, Colorado, April.
MWH, 2016d. 2070 Gap Analysis, Technical Memorandum, MWH Global, Inc., Denver, Colorado.
April.
MWH, 2016e. Transmission and Distribution, MWH Global, Inc., Denver, Colorado. April.
MWH, 2016f. Aurora Integrated Water Master Plan, MWH Global, Inc., Denver, Colorado. May 4.
MWH, 2016g. Integrated Water Master Plan Draft Report, MWH Global, Inc., Denver, Colorado.
May.
Recommended