PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORTFinal.pdfREPORT Prepared by: BASTIAN ENGINEERING, INC. 211 POPLAR VALLEY RD. BLAIRSDEN, CA. 96103 (530) 249-0468 [email protected] Project

July 20, 2020

Johnsville Public Utility District Tank Improvement and Liquid Chlorination

Project

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

REPORT Prepared by:

BASTIAN ENGINEERING, INC. 211 POPLAR VALLEY RD. BLAIRSDEN, CA. 96103

(530) 249-0468 [email protected]

Project #: JPUD19-001

Johnsville Water Improvement Project JPUD19-001

i Preliminary Engineering Report July 20,2020

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 5

2 Project Planning Area ................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Location ................................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Water System to be Served ................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Environmental Resources Present ........................................................................................ 8

2.4 Population Trends ............................................................................................................... 15

2.5 Equivalent Dwelling Units ................................................................................................... 15

2.6 Community Engagement ..................................................................................................... 16

3 Existing Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 17

3.1 Location Map ....................................................................................................................... 17

3.2 History ................................................................................................................................. 17

3.3 Condition of Existing Facilities ............................................................................................. 18

3.4 Financial Status of Existing Facilities ................................................................................... 24

4 Need for Project ......................................................................................................................... 25

4.1 Health, Sanitation, and Security .......................................................................................... 25

4.1.1 Storage .......................................................................................................................... 25

4.1.2 Distribution/Meters…………………………………………………………………………………………………28

4.2 Reasonable Growth ............................................................................................................. 28

5 Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................................. 29

5.1 Description .......................................................................................................................... 29

5.1.1 Storage .......................................................................................................................... 29

5.1.2 Liquid Chlorination System ........................................................................................... 30

5.2 Technical Feasibility Evaluation of Alternatives .................................................................. 31

5.2.1 Permits and Agreements .............................................................................................. 31

5.2.2 Groundwater Supply ..................................................................................................... 32

5.2.3 Surface Water Supply ................................................................................................... 32

5.2.4 Compliance Issues / Design Criteria ............................................................................. 32



5.2.5 Map ............................................................................................................................... 32

5.2.6 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................. 32

5.2.7 Land Requirements ....................................................................................................... 32

5.2.8 Potential Construction Problems ................................................................................. 33

5.2.9 Sustainability Considerations – Water Efficiency / Energy Efficiency / Other ............. 33

5.3 Alternative Cost Estimates .................................................................................................. 33

5.3.1 Construction Costs ........................................................................................................ 34

5.3.2 Non-Construction Costs ................................................................................................ 34

5.3.3 Annual Operating and Maintenance (O&M) ................................................................ 34

5.4 Other Alternative Discussions ............................................................................................. 35

6 Selection of an Alternative ......................................................................................................... 35

6.1 Project Cost Evaluation of Alternatives .............................................................................. 35

6.1.1 Project Costs ................................................................................................................. 35

6.2 Non-Monetary Factors Analysis .......................................................................................... 35

7 Proposed Project (Recommended Alternative) ......................................................................... 35

7.1 Description .......................................................................................................................... 35

7.2 Project Schedule .................................................................................................................. 38

7.3 Permit Requirements .......................................................................................................... 38

7.4 Sustainability Considerations: Water and Energy Efficiency .............................................. 38

7.5 Total Project Cost Estimate (Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost) ................................... 38

7.6 Debt Payment ...................................................................................................................... 40

7.7 Annual Operations and Maintenance Budget..................................................................... 40

7.7.1 Income .......................................................................................................................... 41

7.7.2 Annual Water System Income and Expenses ............................................................... 42

7.7.3 Debt Repayments ......................................................................................................... 44

7.7.4 Reserves ........................................................................................................................ 45

8 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 45



List of Tables:

Table 1 – Equivalent Dwelling Unit Calculation Table 2 – Water Rate Structure and User Categories Table 3 – Tank Observations and Related Upgrades Table 4 – Summary of Alternatives Table 5 – Summary of Construction Costs – Alternatives Table 6 – Summary of Total Project Costs - Alternatives Table 7 – New Steel Tank – Recommended Project Table 8 – Chlorination system Table 9 – Projected Milestones Table 10 –Total Project Cost Estimate Table 11 –Potential Debt Payments Table 12 –JPUD Revenue Schedule Table 13 –Financial Summary Table 14 –2018-2019 Operating Budget Per 6/30/2019 Audit Table 15 - Financing and Rate Determination

Exhibits: Exhibit 1 - Location and Vicinity Area Maps Exhibit 2 – Tank, Treatment Plant, Distribution System and Townsite Location Plat


iv Preliminary Engineering Report July 2020, 2020

Appendices: Appendix A – State Water Resources Control Board Inspection Report, 10/2016 Appendix B – Selected LiquiVision Technology Tank Inspection selected still images, 2015 Appendix C – Plumas-Eureka State Park Termination and 2006 Operation Agreement Appendix D – Single Tank Replacement, Cost Opinion 2 Appendix E - General physical, mineral, and inorganic chemical test results Appendix F – USFS Special Use Authorization letter


5 Preliminary Engineering Report July 20, 2020

1 Introduction

1.1 Background The Townsite of Johnsville was first platted in 1876, at the time of the consolidation of gold lode mines on Eureka Peak. Apparently, community water supply was available to the Townsite from the early years, from the same water supply that served the Mammoth Mill - a water flume leading from a diversion on Jamison Creek at Porcupine Falls. The local system water source was from a spring/depression on a plateau on the hillside above Town (where the current tank farm is located), at the end of the flume. The original water supply remained in use until the 1937 flood, which caused widespread destruction throughout the State, and which washed out major portions of the flume on the mountain side. At that time, State aid was obtained; and a water line was constructed from the Townsite, along the La Porte Road, to the "springs" approximately 1/4 mile down-flume from the Falls. This source has remained in continuous use, with substantial reconstruction, modification and upgrading, from that time. With the advent of Plumas Eureka State Park, in the mid-1960's, the State contributed to, and made significant improvements to the source collection, transmission, storage, and disinfection works of the Town system (1975-1977).

The Johnsville water supply system was operated in early times by the Johnsville Water Company, which was succeeded in 1947 by the newly formed Johnsville Public Utility District, which is the current system owner. Graeagle Land & Water Company provides the operation/certification of the system.

The Johnsville water supply qualifies as a pre-1914 appropriative water right. The District applied to the California Water Rights Board for an entitlement for 0.25 cfs (112 gallons per minute [gpm]) in 1950; however, the application was not pursued to conclusion because of the pre-1914 appropriative water right; and because it was determined administratively that there were no available, unappropriated waters in Jamison Creek at that time.

On October 10, 2016, the Division of Drinking Water State Water Resources Control Board determined that the redwood tanks are in disrepair and should be upgraded. In addition, the chlorine gas system used for disinfection requires upgrades to the storage facility as indicated by the Plumas County Department of Environmental Health.

The proposed project addressed in this report is to remove and replace the two 88,000-gallon redwood water tanks with a single steel water storage tank (200,000 gallons) and upgrade the disinfection facilities from gas to solution.



2 Project Planning Area The project planning area is identical to the Townsite’s current water service area. No expansion of service or change in boundaries is contemplated as part of this project.

2.1 Location

The Johnsville Townsite is in Plumas County (Northern California) about 20 miles east of Quincy and 20 miles west of Portola (the Townsite map is included in Exhibit 2 of the Appendix).

The proposed water system storage and treatment improvements are on State property southwest of the Townsite – which is defined as “Premises” in paragraph 1.A. of the attached 2006 Operating Agreement with Plumas Eureka State Park (see Appendix C, and as shown on Exhibit A of said Agreement). Per a April 16, 2012 letter to the Johnsville Public Utility District (see also Appendix C), Scott Nakaji, Northern Division Chief of State Parks, terminated the 2006 JPUD and State Park Operating Agreement pursuant to paragraph 15 of said Agreement, but ultimately negotiated a customer classification for continued Park water service from JPUD. Termination of the Agreement was based on “budgetary reasons”. Arguably, the now-terminated Operation Agreement with the State Park and Johnsville Public Utility District still provides the necessary rights of way for distribution, storage and treatment water facilities. However, JPUD is pursuing grants of easement for the storage tanks, chlorination building and access to ensure legal and acceptable use on the State Park Lands. This JPUD effort to secure said easements has limited the construction options for tank replacement. The State Park has informally approved the Tank Project in concept and has given the District the “green light” to proceed on acquiring the necessary easements.

The District previously considered a single 200,000-gallon tank to replace the aging redwood tanks; however, the Plumas Eureka State Park Acquisition and Real Property Services Division will not support a single 200,000-gallon tank proposal and has indicated that the tank replacements be constructed in the same footprint (more or less) as the two 88,000-gallon tanks.

An informal agreement has been struck between the State Park and the District, with formal easement conveyance dependent CEQA and the Grants of Easements preparation/approval. A field survey and the CEQA Preliminary Notice has been completed for the right of way acquisition mentioned. Comments and recommended conditions for the CEQA preliminary Notice are expected by June 12, 2020. The proposed CEQA finding noted in the Preliminary Notice is that the project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections CCR 15302 (Class 2) and 15304 (Class 4) Categorical Exemptions.



The USFS has issued a Special Use Authorization letter (see Appendix F) for the continued use of the District’s water facilities on USFS land.

2.2 Water System to be served

There is only one water system that is served by this project. The Johnsville Public Utility District (JPUD) is the water supply purveyor and the funding applicant for this upgrade project.

JPUD embodies the entirety of the Townsite of Johnsville, together with a large part of the surrounding Plumas Eureka State Park (see Plate 2, Source: LAFCO). The Townsite is limited in its potential for growth; and it has been zoned for exclusive residential use, with the sole restaurant being a legal, non-conforming use. There are currently 46 residential units within the Townsite; 15 lots currently have service available (classified as standby) but are undeveloped; one commercial lot; one commercial building (Iron

Door) and the Plumas Eureka State Park (consisting of: 8 Houses, one standby lot, Museum, maintenance garage and the Jamison Creek restroom).

Residences within the Townsite vary from small to large and yards are somewhat small; although they are often landscaped with defensible space consideration for fire-safe reasons. As such, outdoor water use can be significant. Soils in the Townsite are

coarse-grained lakebeds (very

gravelly loam) from ancient Johnsville Lake (Inville-Woodseye families complex, 10 to

PLATE 2



50 percent slopes).

Map Unit Setting.

Based on the described characteristics and filtration plant data, lot water usage is projected to be 467 gallons per occupied lot per day during the Winter season (November through May); and 1353 gallons per lot per day during the Summer season, when the town is largely populated.

The community water system includes the two storage tanks, watermains, hydrants (both 6", 3 nozzle "standard" connection hydrants, and 2½" riser pipes with single nozzle connection for 1½" fire hose), water filtration and chlorination facilities. Johnsville has no structural fire protection entity but is provided mutual aid from Plumas Eureka CSD and Graeagle FD.

2.3 Environmental Resources

The proposed project is an upgrade of the existing tanks and chlorination facilities which will occur substantially in the same “footprint” of the existing facilities. There will not be additional or new environmental impacts to the access road and tank location.

An evaluation of the existing access road for typical supply truck delivery indicates that the existing road alignment and grades will not facilitate such use without significant improvements. Since the access is located on State Park lands, and the State has indicated a reluctance for such improvements, JPUD proposes no improvements to the access road to ensure acquisition of the access easement from the State Park. All materials and equipment will need to traverse the existing access without improvement and the contract documents will include such a requirement. As such, no cost for road improvements has been included in this report.

The following additional information is intended to aid in the general suitability of the proposed project. It is understood that an environmental document must be prepared for the proposed project.

AESTHETICS

The existing tank farm is the proposed location for this project – which is in the Sierra Nevada mountain range in Plumas Eureka State Park. The area is typical of the mountain range, consisting primarily of mixed conifer forest, fields of ceanothus and manzanita, steep mountains, and narrow canyons. The dominant topographic feature of the tank site itself is Eureka Peak to the west. The tank site is not visible from a distance and difficult to see from the County Road A-14 approach to the Town of Johnsville.



AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

Plumas Eureka State Park is a 6000-acre Sierra Nevada park. The proposed project is in the park. The park contains no agricultural resources.

AIR QUALITY

JPUD is located within the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD). The District is in a rural part of California with little industry or traffic. Normal wind patterns are westerly afternoon flows and calm nights. The general air quality is particularly good in the Plumas Eureka State Park. The project site is in an alpine environment with no known air quality violations.

All JPUD equipment will meet current regulations for emissions and any required permits from the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The Park surrounds Eureka Peak (formally Gold Mountain), the most dominant geographic feature in the park. The elevation range for the park is 4290 feet near Madora Lake to 7447 feet at the top of Eureka Peak.

Vegetation in the park is primarily mixed conifer. Riparian corridors of alder and willow lie in the canyon bottoms along with scattered meadows. Along ridge tops and south-facing slopes extensive brush fields of manzanita grow.

The Park is home to many mammals and bird species with fewer amphibians and reptiles, all typical to the Sierra Nevada mountain range.

The elevation of the tank site is about 5,310 ft., with the general aspect to the east. The tank farm site is covered in mixed conifer forest, shrub vegetation (made up primarily of manzanita and whitethorn). The tank areas have been cleared of such vegetation for years.

A literature and database review for biological resources was conducted. The California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) contains records of only one sensitive species in the area of tank site: Quincy Lupine (Lupinus dalesiae).

No streams or identified migratory corridors appear to be present at the tank site. There are no ordinances protecting biological resources and there are no adopted habitat or conservation plans for the tank site.

Regarding biological elements, Rachel Bauer (District Wildlife Biologist, Plumas National Forest, Beckwourth Ranger District indicated on December 19, 2019:

“Three species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act have been identified as potentially occurring in the Johnsville Water Tank Replacement Project area: California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii, threatened), Sierra Nevada yellow-legged



frog (Rana sierra, endangered), and delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus, threatened). However, the project is outside the range of occurrence for both California red-legged frogs and delta smelt, and therefore there would be No Effect to these species. The project is within the range of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs.

During the removal of an existing water tank and construction of a new water tank, any impact to Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs would likely stem from construction activities in or near any perennial water sources or intermittent streams with perennial pools. The closest suitable habitat is an intermittent drainage approximately 85 meters (279 feet) to the south of the existing water tanks. Other nearby suitable habitat is in Jamison Creek approximately 210 meters (689 feet) west of the existing water tanks. The nearest known occupied habitat is approximately 6.5 miles from the project area, straight line distance.

There is a depression in the ground approximately 20 meters (66 feet) from the tanks that occasionally holds water but does not hold water year-round. During a site visit on October 19, 2019, by a qualified USFS Wildlife Technician, there was no standing water within the depression; however, there were moist soils and riparian vegetation, indicating the presence of sub-surface water. There is an ephemeral drainage leading into and out of the depression. Because the depression does not have perennial water present and is not connected to a perennial or intermittent water source, it is not considered suitable habitat for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs.

It is my determination that the removal of an existing water tank and placement of a new water tank at the existing water tank site will have No Effect to the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.”

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Plumas Eureka State Park protects and interprets a long history of hard rock mining dating back to the mid-1800s. As such, it is hard to go anywhere in the park and not come across artifacts and implements associated with this mining history. Prehistorically, the Maidu people lived in the mountains of Plumas County beginning around 1,000 before present (BP), but possibly much earlier. An archeological reconnaissance of the tank site may need to be conducted as part of the proposed project.

The proposed project will be presented to the appropriate Native American representatives for comment and consultation as required by the Department's Native American Consultation Policy and Senate Bill 18, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004.

The existing tanks are less than 50 years in age. Tank data indicates that they were constructed in the mid-1970s. The chlorination building/facilities are younger than



the tanks. The water treatment building and appurtenances where constructed and operational in 1997.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Plumas Eureka State Park lies within the Sierra Nevada geologic province. The geology of the area is complex, consisting of Quaternary alluvial deposits, Cenozoic volcanic rocks, Mesozoic granitic rocks, and Mesozoic and Paleozoic weakly metamorphosed rocks. The geologic structure is complex due to extensive faulting and folding, igneous intrusive and volcanic activity, and deposition and erosion of sediments. The geology is largely responsible for the area’s physical topography, soil structure and erodibility, slope stability, and stream and hillslope hydrology and geomorphology.

The rock units that occur in the park were deposited in the Nevada Geosyncline which contained an enormous mass of sediment, mostly volcanic. These units are now part of the eastern metamorphic belt, and include, from oldest to youngest, the Shoe Fly formation, Sierra Buttes Formation, Elwell Formation, and the Taylor Formation. These rocks were severely deformed, metamorphosed and intruded during the late Jurassic through the Cretaceous Periods in the Nevadan Orogeny, forming the Ancestral Sierra Nevada Mountains.

Although the Quaternary Period comprises only the last 2 million years, it has had a profound effect on the shape of the landscape. During this relatively recent period of geologic time, the Sierra Nevada Mountains were uplifted, the fault block ranges and basins to the east were formed, and the mountains were glaciated. The uplift of the Sierra Nevada was on the order of approximately five thousand feet, resulting in the present-day mountain range. Plumas Eureka State Park is near the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The major structures trend northwest, parallel to the crest of the Sierra Nevada.

During the Quaternary, ice accumulated at higher altitudes in the valleys of mountainous regions, forming valley glaciers. Glaciers form U-shaped valleys, including Jamison Creek and Little Jamison Creek. At the heads of glaciers, cirques are formed, shaped like half of a bowl. Wades, Jamison, and Rock Lakes, just to the south of the park, occupy cirques. When the ice melts, the rock fragments contained in the ice are deposited forming till and moraines. Lateral moraines flank both Big and Little Jamison Creeks.

Soils in Plumas Eureka State Park have been mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The soils are generally sandy to gravely loams formed on rock of volcanic or metamorphic origin. The soils are generally moderately to highly erodible, especially those on steep slopes, and may be subject to mass wasting and landslides.



A site visit by Bastian Engineering in November 2017 did not reveal that a Geologic Hazards Report will be required as part of the proposed project.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

A general inspection of the tank site was conducted by Bastian Engineering in November 2017 for hazards and/or hazardous materials. The tanks are uncoated redwood and uncoated steel banding. The tank pads are presumed to be Portland cement concrete. The roofs are comprised of redwood framing and asphalt shingles. No lead paint or asbestos concerns were noted regarding the tank exterior and roofs.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Plumas Eureka State Park is just to the east of the geologic crest of the Sierra Nevada, but it is to the west of the Pacific drainage divide. The park is within the Jamison Creek watershed. The Jamison Creek watershed can be subdivided into several sub-watersheds based on tributaries; Jamison Creek and Eureka Creek are two major streams within the park. Jamison Creek drains to the east and northeast from the crest of the Sierra Nevada, into the Middle Fork of the Feather River (MFFR).

Eureka, Bear and Deer Creeks also drain to the northeast, paralleling Jamison Creek to the north, and eventually flow into Jamison Creek north of the park boundary. The highest point in the watershed is Eureka Peak at 7447 feet. The area averages about 65 inches per year of precipitation, mostly in the form of snow. The highest peak flows are usually associated with rain-on-snow events.

The watersheds of the park have been adversely impacted by mining and logging.

JPUD, 11/2017 88,000 gal Redwood Tank, (source Bastian Engineering)

Redwood Tank, 11/2017



During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s lode claims were mined on the slopes above the creek, and portions of the stream were placer mined. By 1890, adjacent hillsides were nearly de-forested to provide timber for houses and mines. The forests are now slowly growing back.

LAND USE AND PLANNING

The Park is zoned General Forest in the Plumas County General Plan. The tank site is entirely within the State Park, which is mostly surrounded by Plumas National Forest and the Town of Johnsville.

The 1965 Plumas Eureka State Park General Development Study does not indicate any development plans for the area west of the Town of Johnsville (which includes the current tank farm). The natural topography does not lend itself to development in that area. Recent discussions with the State Park also indicate that nothing is planned in the area.

The main paved County road leading to the Johnsville and eventually to the tank site is County Road A-14, which originates in Mohawk/Graeagle Valley and cuts through the Park and Johnsville.

As noted above, the Johnsville Townsite is limited in its potential for growth (see Plate 3 at above); and it has been zoned for exclusive residential use, with the sole restaurant being a legal, non-conforming use. No further development of the Townsite will result from the proposed project.

MINERAL RESOURCES



The tank farm is in Plumas Eureka State Park (per the Agreement noted in Appendix C) and the same site is proposed for the tank upgrade. The chlorine facilities will remain where they are, with upgrades to the existing location, or moved to the treatment building.

There is a rich mining history in the Plumas Eureka State Park area. The early towns and settlement were in direct response to the discovery of gold. Gold- bearing stream alluvium was discovered in the Jamison Creek area around 1849. Subsequent discovery in 1851 of the Eureka quartz veins near the present site of Johnsville initiated lode mining in the district. Although considerable placer gold was produced from surface and drift operations in the Jamison Creek drainage, the major production was derived from the Eureka and Jamison lode mines (estimated at 350,00 to 460,000 troy ounces). These mines exploited quartz veins and complex systems of quartz which were generally located along structural (fault) zones; free gold and gold-bearing pyrite, galena, and other minerals occur locally within the quartz. Mines were located on both Eureka Peak and near Little Jamison Creek. The mines produced ore until approximately 1920 and were worked intermittently until the mid- 1940’s. Placer mining also took place along Jamison Creek, mostly near Johnsville. Plumas Eureka is now a State Park, and mineral resource extraction is not permitted.

NOISE

Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. The effects of noise on people can range from inconvenience or annoyance to temporary or permanent hearing loss. The State of California has adopted the Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) as its noise metric. The proposed project is in Plumas Eureka State Park, which is mostly surrounded by national forest lands. The anticipated noise related to this project will be associated with mobilization, construction, and demobilization.

POPULATION AND HOUSING

Growth in Johnsville is limited to the existing undeveloped lot inventory (i.e. infill) No residences are in the project site (i.e. tank farm) and few are located within view of the project.

PUBLIC SERVICES

The tank farm is accessed from the end of Eureka Road in Johnsville and said road State Park maintained. Eureka Road connects to County Road A-14 in Johnsville. Fire protection in the area is provided by the U.S. Forest Service and mutual aid from nearby fire stations. Public safety is provided by the Plumas County Sheriff's Department, California State Parks, U.S. Forest Service enforcement officers, and the California Highway Patrol. The tanks are serviced by JPUD. The CEQA early consultation response from the Sheriff indicated no concerns with the proposed



project.

RECREATION

Plumas Eureka State Park offers a variety of recreational opportunities to the public. These include hiking, biking, camping, fishing, and skiing in the winter. Thousands of people visit the park each year. The park contains a museum, historic mining interpretation, a ski hill, day-use areas, and a campground. This project proposes to improve the JPUD water storage in an area that is already occupied by two storage tanks.

TRANSPORATION/TRAFFIC

No improvements to County Road A-14 will be required. The tank access road will largely stay unchanged.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

The tanks are relatively self-contained are the servicing utilities are already in place (i.e. telephone lines). The tanks do not rely on a power company for operations. The CEQA early consultation response from Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative indicated no concerns with the proposed project.

2.4 Population Trends

Based on the 2000 and 2010 US Census Bureau data, the population of the JPUD service area was 21 and 20, respectively. Projections of populations from 2016-2035 are based on California Department of Finance (CS DOF) projected population growth for the planning period (2018-2040) as indicated below:

• 2016-2020, 0.4% per year • 2021-2025, 0.4% per year • 2026-2030, 0.3% per year • 2031-2035, 0.1% per year

Considering the unique location and low development characteristics of Johnsville, it would be fair to assume that extraordinarily little change will occur in Townsite population over time as indicated by the CS DOF projections.

2.5 Water Service Area Water service classifications number and type are noted in Table 1, next page.



Table 1. Water Service Area Information USER TYPE # UNITS Estimated

Average Annual Flow, gpd

Residential 46 41,860 1 Commercial Lot 1 74 Commercial Building – Iron Door

1 225

2 Standby Lot 15 600 State Park

Houses 2 1820 Moriarty House 1 910 Houses - Bear Cat Scat 4 3640 Museum 1 750 Maintenance Garage 1 677 Jamison Restroom 3 1420 Stand by Lot 1 40 TOTAL 60 52,016

Total number of water services is 60. 2 All Standby lots are being counted as 1 water service since it is estimated that some water use is attributed to them. A new garage (2019) has been constructed on a standby lot, but occupancy has not been issued. However, in most cases, no service exists at these lots.

1. Total water production in 2017-2018 was 18,732,698 gallons. Backwash use was 218,500 gallons. The net supplied production to the town was therefore 18,514,198 gallons. The average estimated annual residential flow is estimated at 910 gpd (I assumed 1620 gpd summer and 200 gpd in the winter). Average residential flow is therefore 80% of the production. The total estimated average daily flow for all uses noted in the table above is 52,016 gpd or about 18,725,760 gallons per year. 2. The standby lots are charged at a reduced rate (equating to approximately 7% of the revenue stream) for the benefit of “will serve” to the water system facilities, upon request. Standby lots are billed in the same manner as residential lots.

2.6 Community Engagement

Public participation in the PER is not required. However, in the future a construction loan is required to make the improvements and user rates are increased (from the current rates established in 2018), a public hearing on proposed rates will need to be completed per the requirements of Proposition 218. Currently, the CEQA determination



is that the project is Exempt. Preliminary Notices have been sent to responsible agencies with a deadline of June 12, 2020 for responses. Responses thus far have not requested a different determination. Most responses have been “No Comment.” A public hearing by the JPUD Board of Directors is not anticipated and the final CEQA document will likely be a Notice of Exemption.

3 Existing Facilities

3.1 Location Map

JPUD provides water to residences both inside and outside the Townsite. Exhibit 1 shows the location of the water service boundary and water service area. As noted, Johnsville provides water to a portion of Plumas Eureka State Park, which is essentially limited to the Headquarters Building/Museum, seasonal residential cabins, and incidental landscape irrigation. Exhibits 1 & 2 shows the approximate water storage tanks, treatment, distribution, and hydrant locations, based on a December 2018 orthomosaic photo prepared by Bastian Engineering.

3.2 History Exhibit 2 depicts the schematic layout of the community water supply system to the tanks. The water source is the "springs" at the Bennett Dam and the two concrete catch basins approximately two miles southwest of Town, at elevation 5420'. The water source can be described as surface water or Groundwater under the Influence of Surface Water, since the few underground collection gallery facilities are quite shallow. Flow measurements from the galleries about the time of their construction indicated 15 gpm from the upper springs (1986) and 44 gpm from the Bennett gallery (1988). These spring flows could be somewhat diminished now; however, there are many surface flows that are, or could be, collected at each location.

The water transmission main between the source and the Townsite is a relatively new (1975), 11,000-foot-long, 4" ductile iron pipeline. The difference in elevation between the Springs' source and the tank(s) overflow limits gravity flow to about 90 gpm.

Distribution lines within the Townsite include: 4” steel pipe, 6" PVC pipe; and some 1½" steel pipe. Fire hydrants are as previously mentioned.

Water treatment for the Townsite is composed of a chlorine gas disinfection system, which is in a treatment building on the west side of Main Street at the south end of Town. The inflow line at this point is equipped with a flow meter which measures all flow which is treated, including that which is wasted at the tank overflow. The treatment works are operated by a Class 1 certificated operator employed through Graeagle Land & Water Company by the District.



Water quality for the District system is considered good, given the fact that the source is a surface supply. Appendix E includes recent general physical and mineral and inorganic chemical test results, as well as some organic chemical test results. There have been no positive bacteriological test results in the last several years; and tests are taken once a month, as prescribed by Title 23.

3.3 Condition of Existing Water Storage Facilities The purpose of this project is to address the poor and unreliable water storage tanks and the need to upgrade the existing chlorination facilities.

Domestic water storage for the Townsite is comprised of two redwood tanks of about 88,000 gallons capacity each (176,000 gallons total), located on the hillside immediately west of the Townsite, at about elevation 5286’. The tanks have a manufacture stamp “BY PACIFIC WOOD TANK DIV. SAUERS FOREST PROD. HEALSBURG. CALIF.” Bellagio and Sauers (located at Healsburg, near Santa Rosa, CA). were the individuals that manufactured these tanks. The Bellagio and Sauers method used a series of half-hoops which are put around the straight-sided tanks, joined by a bolt and block assembly, and then tightened, rather than being driven from the top (vs. the European wine barrel method of driving the hoop down over a smaller top). Available literature indicate that these tanks have staves of various widths and the tank’s top and bottom are countersunk into the vertical staves. The staves are about 2 ½ inches thick redwood and may have Flax seed, which swells when it gets wet, between the chine (i.e. the circumference of the tank bottom or top) and the crow (the notch in the staves). Tule reed, which also swells when wet, maybe stapled around the chine, and put between the slats of the tank bottom and top. The slats are said to be held in place by dowels, not nails. A general construction description for a Pacific Wood Tank indicates that once the tank bottom was placed in the crow, the first vertical stave was put up and toe-nailed in place. From then on, additional vertical staves are put up, each were held by a thin strip of wood that was stapled around the outside and removed later. Putting the vertical tank staves up took great care; for if they fell over, they would seriously injure a worker. Once the final stave was placed, the bottom hoop was put on and tightened. Then additional hoops were put on the tank until the tank top was placed in the crow and all the hoops were then tightened.



The tank top is a slat circular redwood “roof” (conical) supported by posts inside the tank. An asphalt-shingled covering was added sometime after initial construction by the District. The tank interior was inspected in 2015.

There was no glue between the staves as they were cut at angles, so they would seal against themselves as the hoops were tightened. There is observed evidence (in 2018) that an effort was made to seal the lower leaks in the tank by injection of an unknown sealant into the staves at

the concrete interface. It does not appear it was successful (see the following photos). The wood stave bottoms are compromised, and the useful life of the tank has been achieved. Dry rot is evident. It is likely that the interior posts are decayed as well. These two tanks are fitted with separate inflow and outflow pipelines, and currently have overflow of unused water to the adjacent lands. The tanks possess significant interpiping, which can provide flexibility in water storage and flow management.

Overhead view of the two-88,000-gallon redwood tanks. Photo Source: Bastian Engineering, 2018.

North interior tank roof



Manufacture Stamp, both tanks, typ. Source: Bastian Engineering, 2018.

Half-hoops put around the straight-sided tank staves, joined by a bolt and block assembly, and then tightened, rather than being driven from the top Photo Source: Bastian Engineering, 2018.



Observed leaking at tank base, typical both tanks. Reason for leak: Dry Rot Decay. Photo Source: Bastian Engineering, 2018.



Observed leaking at tank base, typical both tanks. Reason for leak: Dry Rot Decay. Photo Source: Bastian Engineering, 2018

Observed leaking at tank base, typical both tanks. The dry rot likely extends through the stave and into the tank bottom. Such rot is not repairable. Photo Source: Bastian Engineering, 2018.



Dry rot is wood decay caused by certain species of fungi that digest parts of the wood which give the wood strength and stiffness. It was previously used to describe any decay of cured wood in ships and buildings by a fungus which resulted in a darkly colored deteriorated and cracked condition. The life cycle of dry rot can be broken down into four main stages. Dry rot begins as a microscopic spore which, in high enough concentrations, can resemble a fine orange dust. If the spores are subjected to enough moisture, they will begin to grow fine white strands known as hyphae (note white hyphae in adjacent photo and photo below). As the hyphae germinate, they will eventually form a large mass known as mycelium. The final stage is a fruiting body which pumps new spores out into the surrounding air. Source: Forest Products Laboratory, Wood Handbook - Wood as an Engineering Material. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010.

Dry Rot

Dry Rot

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/utilities/information.php?info_id=2

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/utilities/information.php?info_id=2



Note: lower portions of the redwood staves are compressed at bolt and block assembly pinch-points, indicating the redwood is structurally compromised where hydraulic pressure is the greatest. Racking from a seismic event will most certainly exacerbate the leak and lead to total storage failure.

3.4 Financial Status of Existing Facilities The JPUD approved a new water rate structure as part of the July 2018 Water Rate Study (WRS). Over the next three years JPUD will progressively increase their rates. The rate structure utilizes a uniform rate. The present rate structure established by Resolution 2018-04 (effective July 1, 2018) follows in Table 2:

Table 2. Water Rate Structure and User Categories

Use 2017-2018 Yearly Fixed Water Rate

2018-2019 Yearly Fixed Water Rate



Residential $556.00 $695.00 $869.00 $1,086.00

Commercial $1,112.00 $1,390.00 $1,738.00 $2,172.00

Commercial Lot $368.00 $460.00 $575.00 $719.00

Standby lot $184.00 $230.00 $288.00 $359.00

Park $9,088 $11,360.00 $14,200.00 $17,750.00

Wood compression and leaking



The JPUD receives about $10,168 from Plumas County for property tax sharing and the annual water system income from service charges and other revenue is $48,868 (Audit data ending 6/30/2019) for a total of $59,036 in revenue. The expected revenue in 2020-2021 will be about $76,000. JPUD does not have long-term debt.

4 Need for Project

4.1 Health, Sanitation, and Security

JPUD is now in need of additional improvements to provide secure and sustained water service, especially in the event of a catastrophic event; to keep intact existing key water system components; and to improve water conservation. The proposed water system improvements, detailed in Section 5, are associated with old components that have reached the end of their expected useful life.

The purpose of this project is to mitigate known risks to the water system’s security, reliability, and operations and reduce public health hazards generally by improving the District’s water facility infrastructure.

Research indicates that most homes ignite during a wildfire because of embers or small flames. Johnsville is located in and adjacent to a high fire hazard area and is prone to catastrophic wildfires. A reliable water storage is essential for the safety of the community. The redwood tanks are highly susceptible to wildland fire and would likely be consumed by fire at a time of greatest need.

4.1.1 Storage

Tank inspections by the State Water Resource Control Engineer and JPUD Engineer (Bastian) concur that both redwood tanks need to be replaced, with associated appurtenances (i.e. foundation, access, piping, etc). Health of the water system users and security of the tank facilities are a potential risk. The inspections revealed the need for many safety upgrades due to there not being safety provisions and/or due to changes in safety codes. Table 3 below combine recommendations from the District Engineer investigation. Common recommendations further substantiate and confirm the need for certain improvements and an overall replacement of both tanks. Major maintenance work and safety upgrades are recommended.



Table 3. Tank Observations and Potential Upgrades (typical both tanks) Deficient Item District Engineer Comments

1. Redwood tank is leaking and has evidence of Dry Rot. Wood staves (lower portions) are compromised

Remove and Replace the tanks.

2. Lightning protection is not adequate (assuming a steel tank replacement)

Electrically ground the tank for lightning protection. Insert sacrificial cathodic protection rods, radially every 15-feet, beneath the floor of the tank, and to prevent corrosion

3. Confined Space Entry Signs not adequate

Place Confined Space Entry signs on primary and secondary shell and roof manways.

4. No acceptable shell access ladder (Exterior)

Install an approved, skid- resistant, shell access ladder complete with standoffs every 10' on center. Install a cable type ladder safety climb device. install the lockable ladder guard. Post a Fall Protection Required sign. Ladders should have knurled surface or be treated with a skid-resistant material

5. Relocate overflow pipe Disconnect the pipe, replace the overflow system with a properly sized exterior overflow system, complete with a weir box, standoffs every 10-feet on center, and fitted with a flapper valve and screen.

6. Fencing Security fencing is recommended.

7. No Roof handrails Provide high handrail system around the circumference of the tank roof, complete with a toe board, an intermediate rail, and a swing gate at the junction of the shell-to-roof access ladder and tank roof. The railing should be extended around all four sides of the hatch



Deficient Item District Engineer Comments

8. Add safety chain in handrail opening

A safety chain should be added to comply with OSHA standards for fall protection.

9. Interior ladder is redwood Install an approved, anti-skid rung equipped, interior access ladder complete with standoffs every 10' on center. Install a cable type ladder safety climb device. Ladders should have knurled surface or be treated with a skid-resistant material.

10. Replace Level indicator Replace the existing liquid level indicator, the cable, and the target board, then adjust and calibrate the unit

11. Provide Roof vent. Install center roof vent with a vacuum/pressure, frost proof vent and screen

12. No adequate lock on existing roof manway

Install new lock on future steel roof manway

13. Cathodic protection enhancements recommended (assuming steel tank replacement)

Install a passive cathodic protection system

The completion of the recommended items will help ensure storage continues to provide safe and reliable service with a service life anticipated to extend over 40 years. Timely maintenance on the tank, as proposed, will prolong their useful service life and sustain structural integrity.

Based on review of AWWA D100-11 the following are comments specific to certain recommendations for the District’s information and consideration when embarking on an improvement project. It should be noted that the AWWA standards are industry standards and should be utilized as a good reference to follow when designing new or upgraded facilities. However, the AWWA standards do not carry the force of law and owners are not strictly obligated to follow them as they would a building code. Most water system owners choose to follow most provisions of the AWWA standards.

• Overflow Pipe. 7.3, “unless otherwise specified, the overflow may be external or internal.” Whether internal or external, the important factor is where and how the pipe exits the tank. During a seismic event, the drainpipe exiting from the bottom may shear apart, likely then draining the tank completely. Thus, the District Engineer’s recommendation to continue the overflow pipe placement



on the shell”. • Interior Shell Ladder. 7.4.2.4, “Inside tank ladder. When specified, an inside

tank ladder shall be provided for access from the roof to the bottom of the tank.” This statement implies an interior ladder is not required unless otherwise specified but an outside tank ladder “shall” be provided (7.4.2.2).

4.1.2 Distribution / Meters The distribution pipeline system is presently not at risk from any health, safety, or regulatory shortcomings. However, the system is old, and the District has been working over the past several years to replace main pipe and install hydrants.

The District has an unmetered system at the services. The additional cost to install individual water meters would be an economic detriment to the community for following reasons:

• The estimated cost to install new water meters is $5,000 each (based on the average of Caltrans Cost Data for relocating water meters for the years 2013, 2016, 2018 and 2019). The total construction cost for installing such meters would be approximately $375,000 for all services. Additional soft costs could be as high as $50,000 for design, staking and inspection.

• Based on a recent mainline water project experience, the existing soil conditions are highly variable with large rock likely. Most services are not located deep enough for adequate frost protection and lowering the existing services would likely introduce conflicts with rock. Such conflicts could add significantly to the estimated expense noted above (see also “GEOLOGY AND SOILS” paragraph, page 10).

• Relocating the services into County Right of Way would be likely for many parcels. Such relocations could involve many temporary construction and access easements that would add to the overall cost.

The District cannot afford the cost of installing new meters and there is no State law that requires such for a district this small (the Census shows that the yearlong residents is 20).

(Section 110 of the California Water Code indicates that metering “…does not apply to a community water system which serves less than 15 service connections used by yearlong residents or regularly serves less than 25 yearlong residents…” In this case, JPUD is not required to have water meters per California Code).

4.2 Reasonable Growth

The proposed improvements are based on current needs and are not planned to accommodate future growth projections; however, the future growth is essentially



limited. This project is not needed to serve new water users. Instead, the replacement of the tanks/chlorination treatment is critical for maintaining safe and reliable service and fire protection to the existing customers.

5 Alternatives Considered This section will describe the alternatives that were considered to meet the needs identified earlier.

5.1 Description

The project consists of two separate system upgrades that are needed in Johnsville to continue to provide reliable, safe, and affordable water to the service area. Each of the parts: storage and disinfection are broken out in detail below. The storage part of the Project consists of replacing the redwood tanks and installing safety improvements. The disinfection part includes removing the chlorine gas disinfection system and installing a hypochlorite liquid system.

5.1.1 Storage

There are three alternatives associated with the tanks:

Alternative 1: Do nothing. Continue to monitor their condition.

Alternative 2:

Replace one redwood tank with a 100,000-gallon steel tank to provide optimum construction flexibility with continual water service demand. Ensure safety upgrades to the new tank. Continue to monitor the remaining redwood tank.

Alternative 3: Replace both tanks with two steel tanks (100,000 gallons each), construct a new tank foundations for said tanks and performing necessary code upgrades, including but not limited to: • Install Lightning Protection • Install Exterior Ladder • Replace the overflow system

with an exterior overflow system • Install a Fall Prevention System

per current Codes and standards

• Install New Interior Ladder

• Replace the existing roof vent • Install a passive cathodic

protection system • Install exterior coating

system • Install interior coating

system

5.1.2 Liquid Chlorination System



An operator of a stationary source that has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance (see Tables 1-3, Title 19 § 2770.5) in a process (100 lbs. for chlorine gas, in this case) must have a Risk Management Plan (RMP). An RMP is a document prepared by the operator of a stationary source containing detailed information including, but not limited to:

• Regulated substances held onsite at the stationary source. • Offsite consequences of an accidental release of a regulated substance. • The accident history at the stationary source. • The emergency response program for the stationary source. • Coordination with local emergency responders. • Hazard review or process hazard analysis. • Operating procedures at the stationary source. • Training of the stationary source’s personnel. • Maintenance and mechanical integrity of the stationary source’s physical plant. and • Incident investigation

Currently, JPUD uses 95 lbs. chlorine gas bottles, therefore no RMP is required; however, movement between a new bottle and a partial bottle could exceed the threshold requirement and trigger an RMP. The District does not have the funding to maintain the administrative workload associated with the regulations.

There are two alternatives associated with dealing with meeting the chlorine gas system RMP issue.

Alternative 1:

Do nothing and leave the current disinfection system as-is. The on-site chlorine gas storage cannot exceed 100 pounds at any time. The procedure for compliance would continue to wait until a bottle is empty before it is swapped for a new bottle. With this alternative, there is a risk that the residual chlorine in the system could go lower than an acceptable level and will require careful coordination and timing with the chlorine gas storage.

Alternative 2:

Replace the chlorine gas disinfection system with a sodium hypochlorite system. A sodium hypochlorite system would provide the equivalent disinfection capabilities of a chlorine gas system with no Federal regulated substances threshold quantity for accidental release. The “solution” system would disinfect the raw water and maintain chlorine residual in the distribution system. The chlorination process



would utilize a 12.5% sodium hypochlorite solution in bulk storage and diaphragm metering pumps to deliver the chlorine solution to the system. A chlorine residual analyzer that uses the DPD colorimeter method for detection of either free or total chlorine would be required. The analyzer would be installed by the Contractor at the water treatment plant. The analyzer will be used to control the dosing rate of the sodium hypochlorite chemical metering pump. The chlorine analyzer should meet the requirements shown below:

Chlorine Analyzer Performance Criteria Measures Free or Total Chlorine Measurement Range 0 -20.0 mg/L Accuracy 2% or 0.01 mg/L Minimum Detection Limit 0.005 mg/L Measuring Interval Continuous Communications Plug and Play with Digital Controller

Table 4. Summary of Alternatives

Proposed Project Component Alternatives Considered

Storage:

1. Do nothing.

Redwood Tanks: 2. One Tank Replacement with Steel Tank. 3. Two Tank Replacement with Two Steel Tanks

Chlorine Gas System:

1. Do nothing. Chlorine Gas system to remain.

2. Replace chlorine gas system with a 12.5% sodium hypochlorite solution in bulk storage and diaphragm metering pumps to deliver the chlorine to the system.

5.2 Technical Feasibility Evaluation of Alternatives

5.2.1 Permits and Agreements

An updated water permit from the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water will be required. JPUD is identified as Public Water System No. 3200505.

As noted in Section 2.1, JPUD is seeking easements for the new tanks, chlorination



facility and access to both. An informal Agreement has been made by the California State Park Acquisition and Real Property Services Division. The Agreement is dependent on CEQA compliance and the preparation of the easement documents.

Environmental review under CEQA and NEPA most likely will not result in required mitigation (as noted in the section 2.3). However, some minor mitigation measures may be required to be incorporated into the design and construction phase of the project.

The USFS has issued a Special Use Permit for the water facilities on USA land (see Appendix F).

5.2.2 Groundwater Supply

The project does not include any elements with the potential to impact groundwater supply.

5.2.3 Surface Water Supply

The project does not include any elements with the potential to impact surface water supply.

5.2.4 Compliance Issues / Design Criteria

No specific compliance issues bear on the tanks; however, the State Water Resources Control Board October 10, 2016 onsite inspection noted that the District should pursue tank replacement.

Regulations associated with the storage of chlorine gas are considered with this report.

5.2.5 Map

A map of the entire water system is included in Exhibit 1. A 40-scale map of the water tank and treatment facility is included in Exhibit 2.

5.2.6 Environmental Impacts

Bastian Engineering reviewed a recent technical environmental study in the area (i.e. Plumas Eureka Ski Bowl Improvement Project, Plumas Eureka State Park Mitigated Negative Declaration, 8/2006) and the proposed improvement sites. The project does not appear to pose significant environmental impacts. The largest factor contributing to this determination is that all proposed improvements are substantially within the limits of previously disturbed land.

5.2.7 Land Requirements



The tank project and chlorination upgrades will require easements on State property An informal agreement has been struck between the State Park and the District, with formal easement conveyance dependent on CEQA compliance and the Grants of Easements preparation/approval the State. The State has approved the selected alternative in concept.

5.2.8 Potential Construction Problems

No unusual or significant construction problems have been identified relative to the tank/chlorination work. A summer construction schedule for the tank site work will help to minimize the possibility that the contractor will encounter soft subgrade or poor construction weather. Design documents will be prepared sufficient for any groundwater condition that the future geotechnical report anticipates.

Large quantities of subsurface rock are not expected to be encountered as the tank site is in previously disturbed material and access to the site already exists. The access will limit the size of trucks and material loads, but such limitations will be addressed in the construction documents.

A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will not be required since the tank site does not exceed one acre in size.

5.2.9 Sustainability Considerations – Water Efficiency / Energy Efficiency / Other

All alternatives are similar with regard to sustainability considerations; therefore, sustainability is not a factor in selecting the best apparent alternative. With the installation of new tank, water loss will be reduced.

5.3 Alternative Cost Estimates

Below are construction cost opinions for each Alternative. Cost opinions include contingencies that are consistent with the level of information and design detail prepared to date. It is assumed that the District will use the cost opinions for making final decisions on project elements that are to be included and for making application to USDA (and perhaps other sources) for design and construction funding. Detailed cost breakdowns are found in the Appendix.



5.3.1 Construction Costs Table 5. Summary of Construction Costs – Alternatives

Storage:

1. Redwood Tanks:

2.

3.

Do Nothing

One Tank Reconstruction

Two Tank Reconstruction

$0

$240,113

$566,559

Chlorine Gas:

1. Disinfection system:

2.

Do Nothing

Sodium Hypochlorite

$0

$64,515

5.3.2 Non-Construction Costs Typical non-construction costs include legal fees; environmental compliance mitigation; engineering services during pre-design, design, bidding, and construction (management and inspection); and agency permitting. For purposes of this report, non-construction costs were based as follows:

• Storage: Typical costs were based on 40% of the total estimated construction cost.

• Disinfection System: Typical costs were based on 40% of the total estimated construction cost.

5.3.3 Annual Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Storage. Pre-project O&M will be the same as post-project O&M. The completion of Alternatives 1 or 2 tank improvements will reduce future O&M.

Disinfection System. O&M comparisons for disinfection alternative was not made due to the alternative being similar to the current gas chlorine system; both having relatively similar O&M costs. A new sodium hypochlorite system will assure compliance with State regulations on Risk Management, but costs should not change measurably.

Construction Cost

Alternative Project Component



5.4 Other Alternative Discussions The “do nothing” alternatives will not satisfy the State Water Resources Division of Drinking Water recommendation to replace the redwood tanks nor Plumas County Environmental Health’s recommendation that the chlorine gas system be replaced with a sodium hypochlorite (liquid) system.

6 Selection of an Alternative

6.1 Project Cost Evaluation of Alternatives

No evaluation is provided, as the “do nothing” alternatives speak for themselves. In the opinion of the engineer, the District leadership, and the State Water Resources Control Board staff (as represented by correspondence), reconstruction of both tanks is warranted. Life Cycle Cost Analyses of an unaltered storage and chlorination system are therefore not included in this report.

6.1.1 Project Costs

Table 6. Summary of Total Project Costs – Alternatives

Storage:

1. Redwood Tanks:

2.

3.

Do Nothing

One Tank Reconstruction

Two Tank Reconstruction

$0

$423,294

$802,559

Chlorine Gas:

1. Disinfection system:

2.

Do Nothing

Sodium Hypochlorite

$0

$64,515

1Includes construction and non-construction costs

6.2 Non-Monetary Factors Analysis There are no significant non-monetary factors to consider for the storage improvements and disinfection system.

7 Proposed Project (Recommended Alternative)

7.1 Description

The recommended project includes the following components: • Remove and reconstruct the two redwood tanks with two steel tanks .

Project Component Alternative Total Project Cost1



• Replace the gas chlorine system with a sodium hypochlorite (liquid) system. Incorporate conditioned storage facilities and equipment to accomplish the change.

Tables 7 and 8 provide additional details about each component of the recommended project.

Table 7. Construct Two New Steel Tanks (Option 3) – Recommended Project (Two Tank Replacement)

Deficient Item Recommendation Commentary

1. Lightning protection Electrically ground the tank for lightning protection as recommended.

2. Shell access ladder (Exterior)

Install an approved, skid- resistant, shell access ladder as recommended.

3. Roof handrails The railing should be extended around all four sides of the hatch as recommended.

Installation of handrail around the entire perimeter of the tank is not needed or required.

4. Handrail safety chain Add safety chain in handrail opening

5. Interior shell ladder Install an approved, anti-skid rung ladder as recommended.

Per AWWA D100-11 7.4.2.4 an inside ladder is not required.

6. Level indicator Include in design.

7. Roof vent Install roof vent as required.

8. Existing roof manway Install lock on existing roof manway.

9. Cathodic protection Install a passive cathodic protection system.

10. Exterior painting Coat entire exterior as required. Trim tree, as necessary.

11. Interior liner Coat interior as required.



12. Seismic reinforcement ties if recommended

Install seismic reinforcement ties throughout the reservoir if recommended.

Table 8. Chlorination System (Option 2)

Deficient Item Recommendation Commentary

1. Gas Chlorination Remove gas chlorination assembly

2. Sodium Hypochlorite Containment

Construct separate storage and containment building for the liquid disinfection system

3. Piping Install disinfection piping

4. Meter pump Install meter pump in Water Treatment Plant

5. Exterior path of travel

Construct all-weather access to chlorination building



7.2 Project Schedule

Table 9. Projected Milestones

Milestone Estimated Completion Dates

USDA RD Approval of PER July 2020

Project Funding Obtained September 2020

Begin Design October 2020

Environmental Clearances Obtained June 2020

Final Design Complete February 2021

USDA RD Approval of Final Design April 2021

Advertisement to Bid / Contract Award May 2021

Final Construction Complete October 2021

7.3 Permit Requirements The anticipated permits and agreements for the project were summarized in Section 5.2.1.

7.4 Sustainability Considerations: Water and Energy Efficiency

The tank replacement will provide operational simplicity by appropriately using new storage to minimize water loss.

7.5 Total Project Cost Estimate (Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost)

Table 10 summarizes the probable project costs including construction and non-construction costs.



Table 10. Total Project Cost Estimate (Option 3) Item Subtotal Total

State Park Agreement $0 Easement Acquisition / Right of Way $20,000

Bond Counsel $0

Legal Counsel $5,000

Interest / Refinancing Expense $10,000

Administration $15,000 RCAC Finance Amount (5%) for 1 year $21,500

Sub-Total Administrative Costs: $71,500 Environmental Services

CEQA Environmental Document $5,000

NEPA Environmental Document

Environmental Mitigation Contract Services (Tech Studies) $0

Sub-Total Environmental Costs: $5,000 Engineering Services

Basic Services - Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) $25,000 - Preliminary and Final Design Phase Services $65,000 - Bidding / Contract Award Phase Services $21,500 - Construction and Post-Construction Phase Services $12,000 - Resident Project Representative Services $15,000

Additional Services

- Permitting $1,000 - Regulatory Compliance Reports $2,000 - Environmental Mitigation Services (Construction Phase) $5,000 - Easement Acquisition / ROWs Services (Construction

Phase) $0

- Surveying Services (Construction Phase) $3,000 - Operation and Maintenance Manuals(s) $2,000 - Geotechnical Services $5,000 - Materials Testing Services (Construction Phase) $3,000 - Other Services (describe) $0

Sub Total – Engineering Services:

$159,500

Equipment / Materials (Direct purchase) $0 Construction Cost Estimate

- Redwood Tank Demolition $20,000 - Site Grading and Foundation $60,000 - Two 100,000 gal. (nominal) Steel Tanks $375,000 - Security Fencing (350’) $25,000 - Sodium Hypochlorite Disinfection System $55,000 - State Park Road Gate $3,000

Total – Construction Cost: $538,000



Item Subtotal Total Contingency (15% of construction cost estimate) 80,700

Sub-Total Construction with contingency = $618,700 Escalation (2% per year for 1 year) = $12,374

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $867,074 Note: Project cost estimates are based on the understanding that American Iron & Steel requirements will apply to the project.

7.6 Debt Payment Based on the Estimated Project Cost above, the average monthly debt payments are estimated in Table 11 below for a low interest direct loan of 2.00% over 39 years. The monthly debt payment per active service (60) shown below is not necessarily a suggested user rate increase, but rather an indication of how much of the user rate would go towards debt payoff.

Table 11. Potential Debt Payments 39 Year Loan Annual Payment per Service (60) $523.23 Average Monthly Debt

Payment per Service for Full Project $43.60

The District recently raised water rates to cover ongoing operational costs and future capital improvement projects (including the new steel tank and chlorination facilities) as shown in Table 12. Option 2 analysis, for a single redwood tank replacement with a steel tank, is provided in Appendix D. The results indicate a more favorable debt service for the current rate structure. Option 2 Potential Debt Payment 39 Year Loan Annual Payment per User $302.28 Average Monthly Debt

Payment per User $25.19

7.7 Annual Operations and Maintenance Budget The annual operations and maintenance budget for the District will be unchanged for the storage and disinfection improvements included in this project.



7.7.1 Income Income to the District is derived from water service charges and ad valorem tax. A water rate was prepared by the District for the purpose of recommending new rates consistent with the present and future financial needs of the District. The rate schedule developed presented a four-year escalating rate plan, this being the first year of the plan. The financial goal of the District is to have a net revenue greater than or equal to the projected new debt service, a 10% debt service reserve, and a short-lived asset reserve. The District’s revenue schedule is shown in Table 12.

Table 12. JPUD Revenue Schedule

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Connections 2018-2019 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 Residential 46 $556 $695 $869 $1,086 Commercial 1 $1,112 $1,390 $1,738 $2,172 Commercial lot 1 $368 $460 $575 $719 Standby Lot 15 $184 $230 $288 $359 State park 1 $9,088 $11,360 $14,200 $17,750 County Tax $10,168 $9,500 $9,500 $9,500 TOTAL $49,324 $58,130 $70,307 $85,482

The District is seeking project funding from USDA Rural Development's Rural Utility Services Program. The District will need to reconsider the income and expenditures within its water fund along with the new debt service obligations required to repay any loan obtained. With a few exceptions, the major public works infrastructure funding programs expect an agency's monthly water bill to be at least 1.5 percent of MHI. USDA Rural Development has indicated they will utilize the MHI as determined by Census Tract 2.01. Block Group 1, which is $54,334. Using the 1.5 percent threshold for the MHI, the JPUD’s monthly water rate would need to be at least $67.92 per month per service before qualifying for grant funding. The JPUD’s current water residential rate (2019-2020) is $72.42 per month per service. Therefore, the monthly water rate complies for potential grant funding. The goal for funding the recommended project will be to secure a long-term, low-interest loan with debt service obligations up to 1.5 percent of MHI. Then, attempt to acquire grant funding for the amount beyond the loan amount.



7.7.2 Annual Water System Income and Expenses According to financial information provided by the District, Table 13 summarizes their past financial history and includes the current years’ budget.

Table 13. Financial Summary Year Revenues Expenses

FY 13-14 $66,605 $56,312

FY 14-15 $47,561 $38,301

FY 15-16 $50,661 $69,237

FY 16-17 $47,764 $60,137

FY 17-18 $49,324 $81,869

FY 18-19 $59,037 $92,128

According to the June 30,2019 audit, the Districts’ 2018-2019 operating budget, as shown on Table 14, water fund generated about $59,000 in user fee revenue and miscellaneous income. During this same period, the District incurred about $92,128 of expenses, including capital outlay. Thus, it appears the District needs a small rate increase just to fund its current operations. However, a significant rate increase will be required to cover future debt service obligations (O&M expenses for the proposed project are estimated at 3%/year). The average O&M expenses for the last 4 years is $49,559 (for 3% inflation/yr to the time of project implementation in 2023, the estimated O & M will be $54,200). For the proposed preferred project cost and JPUD’s average annual expense, the annual cost will be $54,200 + $30,780 = $84,980. The water service charge for JPUD will need to increase in 2023 to cover the added debt service expense.

Table 14. 2018-2019 OPERATING BUDGET PER 6/30/2019 AUDIT REVENUE Property Tax, Secured $10,233 Interest $1,523 Water Service Charge $47,281 TOTAL $59,037 EXPENSES (6/30/2019) Wages $3,257 Payroll Taxes $221 Workers Compensation Insurance $893 General Insurance $3,141 General Maintenance $28,471 Maintenance of Water System $728



Table 14. 2018-2019 OPERATING BUDGET PER 6/30/2019 AUDIT Office Expense $341 Professional Services $0 Special Department Tax Fee $3,439 Utilities $6,676 Capital Improvements $44,961 TOTAL $92,128

Table 15 shows a breakdown of potential grant amount, loan financing costs, and resulting monthly water rates, assuming a $500,000 USDA Rural Development loan and $367,000 grant for funding the recommended project. As indicated, the total monthly cost of the project, reflecting debt service and O&M obligation, is about $97,110 per year.

Table 15. FINANCING AND RATE DETERMINATION Johnsville PUD MHI ($/year) = $54,334 Minimum Grant Monthly Eligibility Rate = $67.92 Existing JPUD Water Rate = $72.42

PROJECT COSTS LOAN GRANT DISTRICT 1 Total Estimated Project Cost $500,000 $367,000 2 3 TOTAL $500,000 $367,000 O&M 4 Personnel (Salary, benefits, Payroll Tax, Training) $3,900 5 Administration Costs, Memberships $1,300 6 Insurance $4,600 7 Utilities $6,600 8 Contract Services (GL&W Co). $21,600 9 Maintenance $4,900 10 State Fees $6,700 Total $49,600

Estimated O & M in 2023 (for 3% inflation at project completion)

$54,200

11 Monthly Cost Per Service (60) $75.28 FINANCING TERMS 12 Loan Term 39 13 Interest Rate 2.00% 14 Loan Amount $500,000 15 Grant Amount $367,000



PROJECT COSTS LOAN GRANT DISTRICT 16 Grant Percentage 43.5% DEBT SERVICE AND SHORT-LIVED ASSETS 17 Annual Debt Service $18,586 18 Annual Debt Service Reserve @ 10% $1,859 19 Total Annual Debt Service Obligation $20,445 20 Monthly Debt Service (60 Services) $28.40 21 Short Lived Asset Reserve (see Table 16, 7.7.4.2) $13,167 22 Monthly Short-Lived Asset Reserve (60 services) $18.29 23 ADDITIONAL MONTHLY WATER RATE $46.69 24 TOTAL MONTHLY WATER RATE (23 + 11) $121.97 25 PERCENTAGE OF MHI 2.69

7.7.3 Debt Repayments The District’s water system has no long-term debt.

7.7.4 Reserves

This section will describe the existing and proposed loan obligation reserve requirements for the anticipated debt service.

7.7.4.1 Debt Service Reserve

The District will be required to set-aside one-tenth (1/10) of the annual payment, for the first 10 years of the loan, or $1,828 per year (for i=2.00%, n=40 yrs., PW=$500,000, see row 18 of Table 15), while also maintaining enough levels of working capital reserves. Currently the District has about $45,000 as a reserve for operations and maintenance (the goal is 6 months of O & M costs, or $46,000 for 2019 audit).



7.7.4.2 Short-Lived Asset Reserve It will be required that the District accumulate and maintain a reserve balance for replacement of short-lived assets that will require replacement within 15 years (i.e. tank coating, chlorination facilities, etc.) Assets that are anticipated to have useful lives in excess of 15 years are not considered short lived (i.e. such as the new tank) but are planned to be replaced using capital replacement funds.

Likewise, maintenance work such as labor required to maintain the system such as inspection work, etc. are examples of costs not attributable to assets.

Table 16 below is a summary of short-lived assets anticipated to require replacement within the next 15-years. The tank is expected to have a useful life of 50+ years; therefore, it is not included in the short-lived asset reserve. The suggested annual reserve is equal to the anticipated replacement cost divided by the useful life.

Table 16. Short-Lived Asset Reserve

Equipment Useful Life (years)

Replacement Cost Annual Reserve

Tank Coating 15 $120,000 $8,000

Chlorination Equipment 15 $55,000 $3,667

Turbidimeters (4) 15 $10,000 $667

Chlorine Analyzer 15 $2,500 $167

Flow Meter 15 $10,000 $667

Replacement Reserve (see row 21 on Table 15)

$13,167

8 Conclusions and Recommendations The recommended project, Option 3 for the tanks and Option 2 for the chlorination facility, is relatively straightforward and will result in significant improvements to the water system. The Johnsville Public Utility District is anxious to make the recommended upgrades so that they can bolster their system reliability, fire protection, security, and longevity. Because of the District’s foresight and implementing the step rate increases over the next few years, the District is in a better financial position to maintain their current system, but it is not able fund the $867,074 needed for this capital project. The District is seeking assistance from USDA Rural Development for project funding (loan plus grant). For the current estimates, the average annual O & M costs for the District over the last four



years is $49,559. The estimated O & M cost is $54,200/year at the time of project implementation. The long-term debt for this project would be about $20,106 (see row 19 Table 15) annually, resulting in an estimate total annual expense of $74,306/year. The estimated revenue for fiscal year 2020-2021 is $85,482. The short-lived asset reserve requires $13,167 per year, bringing the needed estimated annual revenue requirement to $87,473.

It is recommended that the District pursue a loan/grant from the USDA in order fund and implementation of the Project outlined above and implement a $46.69/month/service increase in the water rates to service the loan debt.



APPENDIX A



APPENDIX B

North tank stave-to-concrete foundation gap (screw driver easily penetrates about 4”.) White material was placed sometime in the past to seal the stave-to-concrete joint and in no longer effective.

Crack being filled with hydrophilic organic material (2015). Tank inspector also noted that the wood was “soft” with evidence of white hyphae.



APPENDIX C

































APPENDIX D Option 2 – Replace One Tank with a 100,000-gallon steel. Leave one redwood tank in place and monitor condition.

Item Subtotal Total State Park Agreement $0 Easement Acquisition / Right of Way $20,000

Bond Counsel $0

Legal Counsel $5,000

Interest / Refinancing Expense $10,000

Administration $15,000 Sub-Total Administrative Costs: $50,000

Environmental Services CEQA Environmental Document

$5,000

NEPA Environmental Document

Environmental Mitigation Contract Services (Tech Studies) $0

Sub-Total Environmental Costs: $5,000 Engineering Services

Basic Services - Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) $25,000 - Preliminary and Final Design Phase Services $65,000 - Bidding / Contract Award Phase Services $21,500 - Construction and Post-Construction Phase Services $12,000 - Resident Project Representative Services $15,000

Additional Services

- Permitting $1,000 - Regulatory Compliance Reports $2,000 - Environmental Mitigation Services (Construction Phase) $5,000 - Easement Acquisition / ROWs Services (Construction

Phase) $0

- Surveying Services (Construction Phase) $3,000 - Operation and Maintenance Manuals(s) $2,000 - Geotechnical Services $5,000 - Materials Testing Services (Construction Phase) $3,000 - Other Services (describe) $0

Total – Engineering Services: $159,500 Equipment / Materials (Direct purchase) $0 Construction Cost Estimate

- 100,000 gal. (nominal) Steel Tank $150,000 - State Park Road Gate 3,000 - Security Fencing (350’) $25,000 - Sodium Hypochlorite Disinfection System $55,000

Total – Construction Cost: $233,000



Item Subtotal Total

Contingency (15% of construction cost estimate) $34,950 Sub-Total = $267,950

Escalation (2% per year for 1 year) = $5,359 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $487,809

Debt Payment Based on the Estimated Project Cost above, average monthly debt payments per water service are estimated below for a low interest direct loan of 2.0% over 39 years. The monthly debt payment per connection shown below is not necessarily a suggested user rate increase, but rather an indication of how much of the user rate would go towards debt payoff.

Potential Debt Payments 40 Year Loan Annual Payment per User $302.28 Average Monthly Debt

Payment per User $25.19

The District recently raised water rates to cover ongoing operational costs and future capital improvement projects (including the new steel tank and chlorination facilities) as shown in Table 12.

Annual Operations and Maintenance Budget The annual operations and maintenance budget for the District will be unchanged for the storage and disinfection improvements included in this project.

Income Income to the District is derived from water service charges and ad valorem tax. A water rate was prepared for the purpose of recommending new rates consistent with the present and future financial needs of the District. The rate schedule developed presented a four-year escalating rate plan, this being the first year of the plan. The financial goal of the District is to have a net revenue greater than or equal to the projected new debt service, a 10% debt service reserve, and a short-lived asset reserve. The District’s revenue schedule is shown in Table 13.



Reserves

This section will describe the existing and proposed loan obligation reserve requirements for the anticipated debt service.

Debt Service Reserve

The District will be required to set-aside one-tenth (1/10) of the annual payment, for the first 10 years of the loan, or $1,859 per year (for i=2.0%, n=39 yrs., PW=$487,809), while also maintaining enough levels of working capital reserves.

Short-Lived Asset Reserve

It will be required that the District accumulate and maintain a reserve balance for replacement of short-lived assets that will require replacement within 15 years (i.e. tank coating and chlorination facilities). Assets that are anticipated to have useful lives in excess of 15 years are not considered short lived (i.e. the new tank) but are planned to be replaced using capital replacement funds.

Likewise, maintenance work such as labor required to maintain the system as well as painting and coatings, inspection work, etc. are examples of costs not attributable to assets.

Table 14 below is a summary of short-lived assets anticipated to require replacement within the next 15-years. The tank is expected to have a useful life of 50+ years; therefore, it is not included in the short-lived asset reserve. The suggested annual reserve is equal to the anticipated replacement cost divided by the useful life.

Table 14. Short-Lived Asset Reserve

Equipment Year Useful Life (years)

Replacement Cost Annual Reserve

Tank Coating 15 $60,000 $4,000

Chlorination facilities 15 $47,103 $3,140

Turbidimeters (4) 15 $10,000 $667

Chlorine Analyzer 15 $2,500 $167

Flow Meter 15 $10,000 $667

Replacement Reserve (see row 21 on Table 15)

$13,167





APPENDIX E

























APPENDIX F

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2



Documents

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORTFinal.pdfREPORT Prepared by: BASTIAN ENGINEERING, INC. 211 POPLAR VALLEY RD. BLAIRSDEN, CA. 96103 (530) 249-0468 [email protected] Project