This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library.

Transcription

1 This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library. For additional information about this document and the document conversion process, please contact WRDS at wrds@uwyo.edu and include the phrase Digital Documents in your subject heading. To view other documents please visit the WRDS Library online at: Mailing Address: Water Resources Data System University of Wyoming, Dept E University Avenue Laramie, WY Physical Address: Wyoming Hall, Room 249 University of Wyoming Laramie, WY Phone: (307) Fax: (307) Funding for WRDS and the creation of this electronic document was provided by the Wyoming Water Development Commission (

2 SUNDANCE MEADOWS WATER SUPPLY-LEVEL STUDY PREPARED FOR: THE WYOMNG WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMSSON SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 PREPARED BY:

3 Sundance Meadows Water Supply - Level Study Prepared For: Wyoming Water Development Commission 6920 Yellowtail Rd. Cheyenne, WY PREPARED BY: Civil [nginaating P'Ofru:!:iomlh:, (nc. 00'6'0 (;hfet/>tige Dtive Cl!g/Jet, Wyomihg '62809 (g07) 288-4g48 (g07) g hlx

4 Table of Contents SECTON NTRODUCTON Report Contents...1 Acknowledgements...2 SECTON WATER SERVCE AREA & DEMAND PROJECTONS Water Service Area...1 Population and Growth Water Demands Water Demand Projections SECTON CONCEPTUAL DESGN AND COST ESTMATES Proposed Water Supply System mprovements...1 Design Considerations...1 Design Constraints...2 Preliminary Design...3 Water System Modeling...8 Land and Right-of-Way Acquisition Needs...11 Permitting and Licensing Requirements...11 Environmental Mitigation...11 Cost Estimates...12 Preferred Alternative...16 SECTON V ECONOMC ANALYSS, PROJECT FNANCNG AND MPLEMENTATON Debt Financing Plans Water System Debt Assessment Annual Operating Budget One Time Connection Costs to Property Owners Summary of Monthly Costs mplementation

5 Table of Contents LST OF FGURES FGURE -1 FGURE -1 FGURE -2 FGURE -3 FGURE -4 VCNTY MAP OPTON NO. 1 WATER SYSTEM PLAN OPTON NO. 2 WATER SYSTEM PLAN TYPCAL 1 METER PT DETAL LNK NODE DESCRPTON OF WATER SYSTEM LST OF TABLES TABLE -1 TABLE -2 TABLE -1 TABLE -2 TABLE -3 TABLE V-1 TABLE V-2 TABLE V-3 TABLE V-4 TABLE V-5 TABLE V-6 POPULATON PROJECTONS FOR SUNDANCE AREA 20-YEAR WATER DEMAND PROJECTONS FOR SUNDANCE AREA WATER SYSTEM MODELNG RESULTS SUMMARY OPTON NO. 1 COST ESTMATE OPTON NO. 2 COST ESTMATE WWDC ONLY FNANCNG PLAN WWDC AND SLB FNANCNG PLAN WWDC AND SRF FNANCNG PLAN WATER SYSTEM BUDGET SUMMARY SUMMARY OF ESTMATED MONTHLY COST PER WET TAP TENTATVE MPLEMENTATON SCHEDULE APPENDX GEOTECHNCAL REPORT ENVRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT PLAN AND PROFLE DRAWNGS

6 Section - ntroduction The Sundance Meadows Water District (hereinafter referred to as the District ) is located in Converse County in east central Wyoming, just south of the City of Douglas (see Figure -1). The District is situated within the South Douglas Addition which was platted in 1920, and originally consisted of 70 lots. n June of 2005, some of the property owners in the South Douglas Addition joined together and petitioned the Converse County Commissioners to form a Water District. The reason for forming the Water District was to become eligible for State, and perhaps Federal funds, to be used to construct a domestic water system to serve the properties in the District. The District was successfully formed in the summer of A map of the lots included in the District boundary is provided in Figure -2. n September of 2005, the District applied to the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) for funding to perform a Level Feasibility Study. [n March of 2006, the Wyoming State Legislature authorized the WWDC to fund the Study. n May 2006, Civil Engineering Professionals, nc. (CEP), was selected by the WWDC to perform the Level Study entitled, Sundance Meadows Water Supply Level Study, hereinafter referred to as the Study.] The purpose of the Study is to determine the feasibility of constructing a domestic water system for the District. The findings and recommendations of the Study are presented in this Report. REPORT CONTENTS This Report is divided into four sections that are summarized below: Section, ntroduction this section provides a brief background about the Study, and acknowledges those persons involved with it s completion. Section, Water Service Area and Demand Projections this section identifies the service area for the District, presents water usage figures for average day, peak day and peak hour demands, and provides projections for the District s population and water usage over the next twenty years. Sundance Level - Final 1 September 28, 2006 ntroduction

7 Section, Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates this section presents the conceptual designs for the proposed water system, identifies the permits easements and rights of way needed, and provides project cost estimates. Section V, Economic Analysis, Project Financing and mplementation this section provides an economic analysis of the project, financing options, and a schedule for implementation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Several people assisted in the preparation and completion of this Report. Listed below are some of those people who provided valuable assistance with the analysis of the water system and successful completion of the Study. Wyoming Water Development Commission: Jon Wade and Chris Abernathy for their assistance with the administration of the contract, cooperation and direction. District: Dr. Jim Morgan, Dr. Mark Murphy, Fred George, Chuck Mangus, and Les Collins for their guidance, knowledge and leadership in pursuit of the water system. Sundance Level - Final 2 September 28, 2006 ntroduction

8 CTY OF 1& ;.. } " " " COWHEp LO'TS fne N WAl En Ol$'lllCl " z~w o~~ SG" FGURE 1-1 VCNTY MAP Sundance Level - Final 3 September 28, 2006 ntroduction

9

10 Section Service Area & Demand Projections This section of the Study identifies the water service area, the service area population, and presents population and water demand projections for the next 20 years. WATER SERVCE AREA For the purpose of this Study, it is assumed the preferred source of supply for the District is the City of Douglas municipal water system. The City water system generally serves the developed lands situated below the topographic elevation of The entire South Douglas Addition, which includes the District, lies within the general water service area of the City of Douglas. The District currently consists of 15 parcels of land (lots). f the City water system is extended to serve the District, there is potential for other currently undeveloped areas to develop. The lands that could potentially develop include the remainder of the South Douglas Addition, plus the areas east and south of the District. POPULATON AND GROWTH Knowing the population and predicting the future growth of the area are important in determining the amount of water needed to serve the current and future populations. There are currently 10 homes in the District, and two of the lots are occupied by barns or similar buildings. Assuming an average occupancy of 3.5 people per dwelling, the current population in the District is estimated to be 35. Typically, growth projections for the State and local communities are made by using estimates and figures published by the Wyoming Department of Administration and nformation (DA) and local Chambers of Commerce. Predicting the population growth in the District and the potential water service area over the next 20 years is difficult because of the relatively small size of the area. The DA estimates project that the population in Converse County and the Town of Douglas will increase at a rate of 1.5-percent per year over the next 20 years. However, if a reliable water supply becomes available to the District, the area may grow at a much greater rate than the county-wide projection of 1.5 percent. Sundance Level - Final Water Service Area 1 September 28, 2006

11 Therefore, for the purpose of this Study, and in order to predict the areas water needs, it is assumed that 50 percent of the lots in the South Douglas Addition area (30 lots) will be developed over the next 10 years and that 80 percent of the Addition (48 lots) will be developed in 20 years. The equivalent growth rate is approximately 8 percent per year. Growth projections developed for this study are shown in Table -1. Table -1 Population Projections for Sundance Area Year Projected Population WATER DEMANDS n order to calculate the current and future water supply needs of the Sundance area, the community s water usage and water demands must be evaluated. There are three water usage figures that are generally used in evaluating water demands. The first is the average day demand, or ADD. ADD is calculated by dividing the total water use in the system throughout the year by the service area population. The ADD for the City of Douglas has been documented in recent WWDC Level studies to be 180 gallons per capita (person) per day (gpcpd). The second water usage figure is peak day demand or PDD. PDD is defined as the highest water usage experienced during a 24-hour period. The PDD usually occurs in the summer when lawn and garden watering is at its peak, and is typically calculated by multiplying the ADD by a peaking factor. Typical peak day factors for communities in Wyoming range from 2 to 4. The smaller the service area, the greater the variation in peaking factors. The small Sundance area is expected to exhibit a peaking factor close to 4. Using recent water consumption data and a PDD peaking factor of 4, the PDD for the area is calculated to be 720 gpcpd. The third water usage figure is the peak hour demand, or PHD. PHD is the highest water usage over a one hour period in time due to daily cyclical water demands. The Sundance Level - Final Water Service Area 2 September 28, 2006

12 PHD is used to size the water transmission lines and distribution system piping. Typical peak hour factors for small communities in Wyoming range from 4 to 8. The peaking factor for the small Sundance area is expected to be closer to 7. Using recent water consumption data and a peak hour factor of 7, the PHD for the area is 1,260 gpcpd. WATER DEMAND PROJECTONS Water demand projections for the area were developed to evaluate future water use and water system needs. The projections were developed using the population projections from the preceding subsection and multiplying them by the demands described previously. The water demand projections used for this Study are presented in Table -2. As an example, the current peak day demand for the area is 17.5 gallons per minute (gpm) and is expected to grow to 84 gpm by year Table Year Water Demand Projections for Sundance Area Average Day Peak Day Demand Peak Hour Demand Estimated Demand Year (720 gpcpd) (1,260 gpcpd) Population (180gpcpd) Gal/Day Gal/Min Gal/Day Gal/Min Gal/Day Gal/Min , , , , , , , , , Sundance Level - Final Water Service Area 3 September 28, 2006

13 Section - Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates This section of the Study provides conceptual designs for the proposed water supply system for the District, and corresponding cost estimates. PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM MPROVEMENTS The plan for obtaining a water supply system for the District is to extend a pipeline from the City of Douglas municipal water system. As discussed in the previous section, the District lies well within the service area for the City water system. The nearest point of connection is a 12-inch diameter pipeline located about a half mile north of the District in Robin Lane. A new supply pipeline would be aligned to provide the shortest possible route to the District boundary, and then routed to best serve the residents of the District. There are two different design approaches (options) for providing a water supply system for the District. Option No. 1 is to design a system capable of providing for fire protection. The water system would be sized large enough to provide flows of at least 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at any fire hydrant in the District. Experience indicates that this type of system is expensive, but may reduce homeowner insurance rates. Option No. 2 would be to design the system as a rural type water system, sized only to provide for domestic needs. Experience indicates that the rural type water system is smaller in size, and less expensive to construct. For the purpose of comparison, both types of water systems were evaluated and priced. The results are presented later in this section. DESGN CONSDERATONS There are several considerations that need to be addressed in the design of the water system regardless of which type of system is selected. Some of these considerations are actual City requirements, and some are Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) requirements. The primary design considerations are listed below: All water supply pipelines should to be constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping with ductile iron fittings with sacrificial anodes. All water lines must be constructed in public rights-of-way, or rights-of-way dedicated to the District. Sundance Level - Final 1 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

14 The City will require a master meter for measuring the water delivered to the District and for subsequent billing functions. Water meters are required for each customer, and are to be installed in a public right-of-way, or in a right-of-way dedicated to the District, in buried meter pits located at the property line. The water meter will be used for measuring the water used by each customer, and subsequent billing by the District. The City will own and operate the 12-inch transmission pipeline from the point of connection on Robin Lane to the master meter located near the northern District boundary. The District will own and operate the water line piping, service lines and meter pits installed in the South Douglas Addition. The property owner will own and be responsible for the service line piping from the meter pit to the home. The water system must be designed to maintain a minimum pressure of 20 psi at ground level at all points in the system under all conditions of flow. The normal working pressure in the system must not be less than 35 psi. solation valves must be provided on water mains so that inconvenience and sanitary hazards will be minimized during repairs. Where fire protection is desired, hydrants should be spaced at 400 to 1,000-foot intervals and all hydrant lead piping must be a minimum of 6-inch diameter. The system should be provided with flushing hydrants installed at locations convenient for maintenance type flushing operations. DESGN CONSTRANTS There are a few design constraints to be considered in the design and subsequent construction of the proposed water supply system. The primary constraints are summarized below: nterstate Highway 25 (-25) poses a constraint to extending a transmission pipeline southward to the District. However, -25 is constructed as an overpass over both rvine Road and the Burlington Northern (BN) Railroad tracks. The railroad has abandoned it s tracks through Douglas; the abandoned right-of-way can be used for constructing the new water transmission pipeline from the Robin Sundance Level - Final 2 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

15 Lane southward. Construction of the transmission pipeline through the underpass will be somewhat tricky, but is not expected to require extraordinary measures. rvine Road is a county-owned roadway, and it s right-of-way width is 60 feet. The asphalt pavement width is approximately 24 feet. Typically, water lines are constructed within the borrow ditch area along roadways that are already paved in order to avoid disturbing the pavement. There are 15 to 18 feet of space between the pavement and the road right-of-way line, and it appears to be adequate for constructing a pipeline. n addition, the roadway will need to be crossed by the pipeline. t is expected that the road crossing can be constructed by open-cutting the roadway, rather than boring under it. PRELMNARY DESGN The preliminary designs of the two District water system options are presented in Figures -1 and -2. The preliminary design has been developed in accordance with the design considerations and constraints presented earlier in this section. As part of the design process, the proposed pipeline alignments have been surveyed, and existing utilities have been located. n addition, soil borings were performed to determine the subsurface soil conditions. A copy of the Geotechnical Report is included in the Appendix. Some of the significant design elements and features of the preliminary designs are highlighted below: The 12-inch transmission pipeline, designated as line A, will extend from the City s existing 12-inch main located in Robin Lane. The 12-inch transmission pipeline will extend southward along the eastern side of rvine Road, and under the -25 overpass in the old BN Railroad track alignment to the northeast corner of the District. A 12-inch tee with a westward branch will be installed to supply the District and the supply pipeline (8-inch for Option No. 1 or a 6-inch for Option No. 2) will then cross westward under rvine Road in a trenched excavation. The 12-inch tee will have a removable plug on it s south leg to allow for a future southward extension if needed. The roadway can be kept passable by setting up a small detour and closing one lane of the Sundance Level - Final 3 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

16

17

18 roadway at a time. The asphalt disturbed by the pipeline construction along the borrow ditch and at the road crossing will need to be replaced. A master meter will be constructed in a buried concrete vault at the northeastern corner of the District. The vault will be constructed in the roadway right-of-way to eliminate the need for any further land acquisition. Under Option No. 1, an 8-inch pipeline, designated as line B, will extend westward into the South Douglas Addition. Under Option No. 2, line B would be a 6-inch pipeline. Under Option No. 1, 8-inch pipelines would be extended southward in both Hoya and Sierra streets, designated as lines C and D. Under Option No.2, lines C and D are sized as 4-inch pipelines. solation valves are located to provide a minimum of service disruptions during maintenance. Under Option No. 1 and No. 2, flushing hydrants are located at those places that enable flushing to drainages and at the dead-ends of the water mains. Under Option No. 1, fire hydrants would typically be located at about 400 to 1,000-foot intervals. n order to keep costs, down, only fire hydrant leads will be constructed initially, and as the District develops, hydrants can be installed at the end of the leads. Water meters in buried pits are located in public rights-of-way as close to the property line as possible. A radio read meter system will be provided to allow efficient meter reading for the District. A typical meter pit layout is shown in Figure -3. n the graveled roadways, the water line will be constructed under the roadway. All disturbed graveled roadways will be re-graveled following construction. Sundance Level - Final 6 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

19 i ~ _ w(1ljt P"'! Ut. ~ltl a. C'!"OT[!iD:<1f _l FJQ P"ElM[, ajl:lllox SHAJ. B!: UCTm lhh 5" or ~~ FGURE TYPCAL 1" METER PT DETAL RADO READ Sundance Level - Final 7 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

20 WATER SYSTEM MODELNG n an effort to evaluate the capacity of the proposed water system options, a hydraulic model of each of the proposed water system options was developed. An existing model of the City s water system was expanded to include the Districts proposed water system. The expanded hydraulic model utilizes the WaterCAD hydraulic modeling software as developed by Haestad Methods, nc. The WaterCAD model employs the Hazen and Williams equations for analyzing and solving the pipe network system. The WaterCAD model uses a link-node description to develop a skeletal layout of the water system. The links represent pipelines and in general, the nodes represent junctions along the pipelines or water storage tanks. Links can also contain pumps or control valves Figure -4 (pressure sustaining, pressure Link Node Description of Water System reducing, altitude, etc.). Nodes Node occur at tees, crosses, Pipe Junction transitions, fire hydrants, and Node Link Storage Tank at water storage facilities Pipe (tanks or reservoirs). Nodes have defined elevations, and Flow Direction the demands in the system are Link Pipe w/ Pump identified at nodes; these demands can be associated with residential, commercial, park use, or fire flow demands. Figure -4 illustrates a generic link-node description for simple water system components. The hydraulic model for this Study was created to include the 12-inch transmission pipeline from the point of connection to the end of the District s system on Hoya and Sierra Streets. The model was set up assuming eventual water service to all of the lots in the South Douglas Addition area (excluding Tracks No. 5 and 6). t was assumed that the average per lot population was 3.5, for a total customer population of 245 people Sundance Level - Final 8 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

21 (somewhat higher than the 20-year population projected in Section, and therefore somewhat more conservative). Flow Scenarios: Several different flow scenarios are utilized to analyze a water system. The flow scenarios parallel the demand projections described previously in Section 2: average day, peak day, and peak hour. n general, the following rules apply for flow scenarios and their associated use: Average Day Demand (180 gpcpd) is used to analyze system balance for the distribution, storage, and pumping systems. Average day scenarios are used to identify competing components in the water distribution system including water storage and pumping systems, and to balance the system by modifying system operation or configuration. This scenario is also used to evaluate tank replenishment. Peak Day Demand (720 gpcpd) is used to size pumping facilities. Additionally, fire flow analyses are conducted during peak day demands. Most water system design standards, including the American Water Works Association (AWWA), and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) Rules and Regulations, Chapter 12, require system pressures greater than 20 psi during fire flow conditions occurring during peak day demands. Peak Hour Demand (1,260 gpcpd) is used to size distribution and transmission mains. Most water system design standards, including AWWA and the WDEQ rules, require system pressures greater than 35 psi during normal operating conditions. n general, this requirement excludes fire flow conditions. A 35 psi minimum system operating pressure is the critical design consideration for line sizing and service areas in a water system. Peak hour demands are also critical for determining equalization storage volumes for water storage facilities. Fire Flows : Fire flow scenarios were completed for all nodes in the model for Option No.1. Fire flow requirements used for this Study are 1,000 gpm during peak day demands for the residential area. Sundance Level - Final 9 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

22 Modeling Results : The results of the water system modeling for both water system options are summarized in Table -1. The table shows the pressures in the system on average day demand, peak hour demand, and the fire flow capability occurring during peak day demand in gpm at each of the junctions in the model. As shown, the Option No.1 water system is capable of providing over 1,000 gpm at all but three of the junctions modeled. The least fire flow available was 1,248 gpm which is adequate for a residential fire. The Option No.2 water system is not capable of providing fire flows except at junction 9 which is located on the 12-inch transmission pipe line. The Option No.2 water system is only capable of providing fire flows of 250 to 300 gpm at each of the junctions modeled. Table -1 Water System Modeling Results Summary Water System Option 1 8" Distribution with 12" Transmission Avg Day Pressure Pk Hour Pressure (psi) (psi) Fire Flow Capacity Max Day (gpm) J J J J J J Water System Option 2 6" & 4" Distribution with 12" Transmission Avg Day Pressure Pk Hour Pressure (psi) (psi) Fire Flow Capacity Max Day (gpm) J J J J J J Assumptions: 48 Taps 3.5 capita per lot 180 gallons per capita per day Peak Day peaking factor = 4 Peak Hour peaking factor = 7 Sundance Level - Final 10 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

23 LAND AND RGHT-OF-WAY ACQUSTON NEEDS All portions of the water system including the water lines, master meter and meter pits must be constructed in rights-of-way dedicated to the public use, such as roadways, or in easements granted to the District. The alignments proposed for the water lines in both water system options are planned to be in existing public road rights-of-way, or the existing railroad right-of-way close to the homeowners property line. There are no needs for additional land or rights-of-way to construct or operate and maintain the water systems proposed for either of the water system options. PERMTTNG AND LCENSNG REQUREMENTS n order to design and construct either of the water system options, several permits will be required. The permitting needs are highlighted below: All water mains, master meter and meter pits aligned within the County road rights-of-way, or which cross the roadway, require a County Road and Bridge Department permit. The permit must be approved by the County Commissioners and will define how the roads and borrow ditches must be restored following construction. n order for the 12-inch transmission pipeline to be constructed under -25, a license will be required from the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). An application for the license will need to be submitted to WYDOT along with the plans and specifications and support information. Approval is expected to come from the local WYDOT office in Douglas. A Department of Environmental Quality permit to construct will be required to construct the water system. ENVRONMENTAL MTGATON As a part of this Study, an Environment Assessment was performed. Results of the Assessment are highlighted below. The Assessment is included in its entirety in the Appendix. Sundance Level - Final 11 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

24 A cultural resource survey will need to be conducted prior to the ground disturbance activities, in those areas not previously disturbed by development, road construction etc. A wetlands delineation will be need to be conducted to determine the acreage and boundaries of wetlands impacted by construction of the project, and appropriate US Army Corps of Engineers permits obtained prior to commencing construction. However, no wetlands or riparian areas were found in the project area during a site visit. A survey for threatened, endangered, and candidate species as well as for raptor nests will need to be conducted prior to construction activities. f any listed species or raptor nests are found that might be impacted by the project, a mitigation plan will be developed to mitigate impacts. Depletions from the North Platte River will need to be evaluated and the cost calculated for payment to the Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Mitigation efforts will need to be planned for and executed during construction to limit runoff and erosion, control dust, and re-vegetate disturbed lands. COST ESTMATES The estimated costs for designing and constructing the Option 1 and Option 2 water systems are $679, and $608,336.75, respectively. A breakdown of the costs is given in Tables -2 and -3. The costs have been segregated into those portions of the project that are eligible for the various State funding programs as described in Section 4 hereinafter. The construction cost estimates have been developed from other similar recent water projects in the area. Some of the assumptions used in developing the estimates are highlighted below: Mobilization costs include bonds, insurance, and equipment mobilization costs incurred by the Contractor at the initiation of the project. The unit cost for water lines includes the cost of the pipe, fittings, anodes, concrete thrust blocks, and bedding material. t should be noted that PVC Sundance Level - Final 12 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

25 pipe prices vary directly with oil prices, and therefore can be very volatile and unpredictable. The District only needs an 8-inch pipeline to meet it s customers needs, however, the City would like a 12-inch line to be able to serve future growth in the area. The Douglas over-sizing reimbursement of $40,000 is the estimated cost the City would pay as it s share of upsizing to a 12-inch transmission pipeline. All water service connections are sized with 1-inch taps and meters. The service includes the tap on the water main, the service line from the main to the meter pit, a curb stop and box, and the meter pit. Larger meter sizes would cost proportionately more. A 1-inch service saddle is expected to be installed for those properties that plan to connect to the system in the near future, but not at the time of initial project construction (dry tap). Any of the paved roads that are disturbed by construction will be repaired according to the County requirements. The cost estimate includes an asphalt patch on the side of the road where the pipe is constructed. Sundance Level - Final 13 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

26 Table -2 Option No. 1 Cost Estimate Preparation of Final Design and $20, Specifications Permitting and Mitigation $ Legal Fees $5, Acquisition of Access and Right-of-way $1, Construction Costs Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Mobilization and Bonds 1 LS $25, $25, inch PVC Waterline 2,550 LF $114, inch Fittings 5 EA 1, $5, inch Valves 1 EA 1, $1, Douglas Oversizing 1 LS (40,000.00) ($40,000.00) Reimbursement Connect to Existing Pipelines 1 EA 2, $2, Water Master Meter 1 LS 25, $25, inch PVC Waterline 9,300 LF $279, inch Fittings 4 EA $3, inch Valves 4 EA 1, $4, Flushing Hydrant Assembly 3 EA 3, $10, Fire Hydrant Tee & Valve 3 EA $2, inch Service Connection 14 EA 2, $35, inch Service Saddle 6 EA $1, Select Backfill 200 CY $5, Foundation Material 100 CY $4, Grading "W" Base Course 1,200 Tons $18, Asphalt Patching 1 LS 10, $10, Traffic Control 1 LS 10, $10, Construction Cost Subtotal No. 1 $516, Engineering Services During Construction (10%) $51, Construction Cost Subtotal No. 2 $568, Contingency (15% of CCS No. 2) $85, Construction Cost Total $653, TOTAL PROJECT COST $679, Sundance Level - Final 14 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

27 Table -3 Option No. 2 Cost Estimate Preparation of Final Design and $20, Specifications Permitting and Mitigation $ Legal Fees $5, Acquisition of Access and Right-of-way $1, Construction Costs Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Mobilization and Bonds 1 LS $25, $25, inch PVC Waterline 2,550 LF $114, inch Fittings 5 EA 1, $5, inch Valves 1 EA 1, $1, Douglas Oversizing 1 LS (40,000.00) ($40,000.00) Reimbursement Connect to Existing Pipelines 1 EA 2, $2, Water Master Meter 1 LS 25, $25, inch PVC Waterline 1,900 LF $49, inch Fittings 2 EA $1, inch Valves - EA 1, $ inch PVC Waterline 7,400 LF $177, inch Fittings 2 EA $1, inch Valves 4 EA $2, Flushing Hydrant Assembly 3 EA 3, $9, Flushing Hydrant Tee & Valve 3 EA $2, inch Service Connection 14 EA 2, $35, inch Service Saddle 6 EA $1, Select Backfill 200 CY $5, Foundation Material 100 CY $4, Grading "W" Base Course 1,200 Tons $18, Asphalt Patching 1 LS 10, $10, Traffic Control 1 LS 10, $10, Construction Cost Subtotal No. 1 $459, Engineering Services During Construction (10%) $45, Construction Cost Subtotal No. $505, Contingency (15% of CCS No. 2) $75, Construction Cost Total $581, TOTAL PROJECT COST $608, Sundance Level - Final 15 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

28 The existing graveled roads that are disturbed by construction will be regraveled with road base after construction is completed. Traffic control will be required for the pipeline construction along and across rvine Road. Ordinarily, the cost to design the project and produce plans and specifications is estimated to be 10 percent of the cost of construction. However since much of the design work and the plans are being completed as part of this Level Study, the cost to finalize the preliminary plans and prepare the specifications is estimated to be $20,000. The permitting and mitigation costs are the estimated costs to perform the cultural surveys, wetlands delineation, and endangered species survey as described previously in the Environmental Mitigation section. The legal costs include the attorney fees associated with legal counseling during the design and construction process. Acquisition of access and right-of-way costs include the costs of surveying, preparing legal descriptions, and the cost of the land covered by the easement. Currently, no easements are expected to be needed, however, a small amount is budgeted just in case something is discovered during Level. The engineering budget of 10 percent of the estimated construction cost is required by the WWDC and includes contract administration, construction monitoring, staking and testing, preparation of record drawings, and an operations and maintenance manual. The cost estimate includes a one-year inflation cost of 4% and assumes construction will begin mid-year in PREFERRED ALTERNATVE The cost estimates provided in the previous subsection indicate there is not a significant cost difference in constructing either of the water system options. However, the Option Sundance Level - Final 16 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

29 No. 1 water system offers several advantages over Option No. 2. The primary advantages include greater flows for fire protection, and more opportunity for expansion if needed in the future. The preferred alternative is therefore Option No. 1, the 8-inch transmission system, and is included in the final design drawings attached in the Appendix. Sundance Level - Final 17 September 28, 2006 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates

30 Section V - Economic Analysis, Project Financing and mplementation This section of the Study presents an economic analysis for the preferred water supply project for the District. The intent of this section is to provide the financial information necessary to determine the end cost to users under the funding scenarios involving Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) assistance, and other State funding. The information presented in this section can be utilized by the District in applications to the various cooperating agencies, including the WWDC, the State Lands and nvestments Board (SLB), and the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF). A final subsection discusses project implementation. DEBT FNANCNG PLANS Currently, three sources of State financing are available for cooperatively financing construction of local rural water projects. The funding agencies and project component eligibility are summarized as follows: Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) provides grant and loan funding for water supply projects. Typically, grants have been available for up to 50 percent of the project eligible costs. Recently, grants have been made for up to 67 percent of the project eligible costs. Loans are currently available at an interest rate of 4 percent for a term of up to 30 years. Eligible water system components include water transmission pipelines, booster stations, water storage tanks and flushing hydrants. Water distribution lines, meter pits, water service lines, and fire hydrants are not WWDC eligible. State Lands and nvestments Board (SLB) typically provides grant and loan funding in a 50:50 loan to grant ratio for all project eligible components. Loans are available at an interest rate of 6 percent for a term of up to 30 years. Usually all components of a water system are eligible for SLB funds, except for private water service lines from the meter pit to the house. SLB funding has been difficult for District s to obtain over the past six to eight years. State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) This is strictly a low interest loan fund which receives it s funds from EPA Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Funds. The program is known as the Wyoming Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, and is Sundance Level - Final 1 September 28, 2006 Economic Analysis

31 administered by the WDEQ and SLB. This loan fund can be used for all components of a water system except for private water service lines from the meter pit to the house. Loans are currently available at an interest rate of 2½ percent for terms up to 20 years. For comparison purposes, this Study provides an evaluation of three typical financing plans for the proposed water system. The first plan is designated as the WWDC-Only plan; the second plan is designated as the WWDC and SLB plan, and; the third plan is the WWDC and SRF plan. Although a WWDC loan can be used, it is assumed that all three of the financing plans will utilize a SRF loan to fund the non-grant and non-wwdc eligible portions of the project. The three financing plans are described below. WWDC Only Financing Plan: This plan assumes that all the transmission and distribution pipelines, and the master meter are eligible for WWDC funding. The water meter pits, service lines, and fire hydrants and the non-grant portion of the project costs would be funded through a 20-year loan from the SRF. A summary of the plan is highlighted below: A WWDC grant for 67 percent of the construction cost of all water transmission and distribution pipelines, and flushing hydrants. The remaining 33 percent will be funded by a SRF loan. A SRF loan for 33 percent of the WWDC grant funded project costs, plus the cost of the non-wwdc eligible portions of the project including all water service taps and meter pits, and fire hydrants. WWDC & SLB Financing Plan: This plan assumes that the 12-inch transmission pipeline (line A) and 8-inch pipeline (line B) and appurtenances are eligible for WWDC funding. The remaining distribution pipelines, meter pits, service lines from main to meter pit, fire hydrants and leads would be funded with a 50 percent grant from the SLB, and a loan for the remaining non-grant funded costs from the SRF. A summary of the plan is highlighted below: A WWDC grant for 67 percent of the costs for the 12-inch transmission pipeline (line A), 8-inch pipeline (line B), and flush hydrants. The remaining 33 percent would be funded with a SRF loan. Sundance Level - Final 2 September 28, 2006 Economic Analysis

32 A SLB grant for 50 percent of the cost of the distribution lines (line C and D), water service taps and meter pits, and fire hydrants. A SRF loan for 33 percent of the cost of the 12-inch and 8-inch pipelines and flush hydrants, and 50 percent of the cost of the distribution lines, meter pits and fire hydrants. WWDC & SRF Financing Plan: This plan is similar to the WWDC & SLB financing plan, but assumes that SLB funding is not available. Under this plan, the 12-inch (line A) and 8-inch (line B) pipelines and flush hydrants are eligible for WWDC funding. The distribution pipelines, meter pits, and fire hydrants with the SRF loan program. A summary of the plan is presented below: A WWDC grant for 67 percent of the costs for the 12-inch transmission pipeline (line A), 8-inch pipeline (line B), and flush hydrants. The remaining 33 percent would be funded by a SRF loan. A SRF loan for 33 percent of the cost of the 12-inch and 8-inch pipelines and flush hydrants, and 100 percent of the cost of the distribution lines, meter pits and fire hydrants. WATER SYSTEM DEBT ASSESSMENT The loan portion of the project cost that the District borrows, must be repaid by the District on an annual basis. Typically, the District holds an election authorizing an assessment on each property in the District which benefits from having a public water system available for use. The District works with the County Assessor to develop an assessment list of properties to be assessed for repayment of the water system debt. The County issues the water system debt assessment and includes it with the annual property tax assessment. The County reimburses the collected assessments to the District on a quarterly basis. The District makes its loan payment from the collected assessments. The debt assessment on any individual property can be paid off in full, if paid before construction is completed, or paid annually over the term of the loan. The estimated debt assessment costs for each of the financing plans are detailed in Tables V-1, V-2 and V-3, beginning on the next page. The assessment costs are calculated Sundance Level - Final 3 September 28, 2006 Economic Analysis

33 using each of the three financing plans discussed above. The assessment calculations are based upon a total estimated project cost of $679, The number of properties benefiting, and therefore subject to the assessment, is assumed to be 14, (wet taps). The comparative debt assessment costs under the all three of the financing plans are also shown in Table V-5. ANNUAL OPERATNG BUDGET Because the District will become an outside-city water customer, the District will own, operate and maintain the water system. n terms of operations, the District will purchase water from the City and sell it to it s customers. The District Board will need to perform or hire employees to perform all the functions needed to operate and maintain the water system. The average monthly operations and maintenance (O&M) cost for the initial 14 customers is estimated to be $ Dry taps are expected to be charged $10 per month toward the O&M costs. An estimated operating budget for the District is shown in the upper portion of Table V-4. Some of the assumptions used in developing the budget are highlighted below: Water usage costs are based on the assumption that each customer will use an average of 8,000 gallons of water per month. The current City water rate includes a basic service fee of $14.90 per month, plus a use charge of $1.44 for each 1,000 gallons used. The average water use cost per customer is estimated to be $26.52 per month. t is assumed the Board will rent a room in a public setting to hold it s monthly meetings. Advertising costs include advertising the annual budget and any changes in the Districts rules and regulations; both are required by state law. The funding agencies will require an annual audit of the District s financial activities. The District will need to hire an outside CPA consultant to perform the audit. The cost shown is a typical cost paid by other similar Districts. Sundance Level - Final 4 September 28, 2006 Economic Analysis

34 Table V- WWDC-Only Financing Plan Preparation of Final Design and Specifications $20, Permitting and Mitigation $ Legal Fees $5, Acquisition of Access and Right-of-way $1, Construction Costs Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Mobilization and Bonds 1 LS $25, $25, inch PVC Waterline 2,550 LF $114, inch Fittings 5 EA 1, $5, inch Valves 1 EA 1, $1, Douglas Oversizing Reimbursement 1 LS (40,000.00) ($40,000.00) Connect to Existing Pipelines 1 EA 2, $2, Water Master Meter 1 LS 25, $25, inch PVC Waterline 9,300 LF $279, inch Fittings 4 EA $3, inch Valves 4 EA 1, $4, Flushing Hydrant Assembly 3 EA 3, $10, NOT WWDC ELGBLE Fire Hydrant Tee & Valve 3 EA $2, NON WWDC 1-inch Service Connection 14 EA 2, $35, NON WWDC 1-inch Service Saddle 6 EA $1, NON WWDC Select Backfill 200 CY $5, Foundation Material 100 CY $4, Grading "W" Base Course 1,200 Tons $18, Asphalt Patching 1 LS 10, $10, Traffic Control 1 LS 10, $10, Construction Cost Subtotal No. 1 $516, Engineering Services During Construction (10%) $51, Construction Cost Subtotal No. 2 $568, Contingency (15% of CCS No. 2) $85, Construction Cost Total $653, TOTAL PROJECT COST $679, WWDC Grant Total Non-WWDC Eligible Unit Price tems $42, WWDC Grant (Total Project Costs less Non-WWDC Eligible * 67%) $427, SRF Loan SRF Loan Amount $252, SRF Loan Annual Loan Payment (20 years at 2½%) $16, Sundance Level - Final 5 September 28, 2006 Economic Analysis

35 Table V-2 WWDC & SLB Financing Plan Preparation of Final Design and Specifications $20, Permitting and Mitigation $ Legal Fees $5, Acquisition of Access and Right-of-way $1, Construction Costs Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Mobilization and Bonds 1 LS $25, $25, WWDC 12-inch PVC Waterline 2,550 LF $114, WWDC 12-inch Fittings 5 EA 1, $5, WWDC 12-inch Valves 1 EA 1, $1, WWDC Douglas Oversizing Reimbursement 1 LS (40,000.00) ($40,000.00) WWDC Connect to Existing Pipelines 1 EA 2, $2, WWDC Water Master Meter 1 LS 25, $25, WWDC 8-inch PVC Transmission 1,900 LF $57, WWDC 8-inch Fittings 2 EA $1, WWDC 8-inch Valves 2 EA 1, $2, WWDC 8-inch PVC Distribution 7,400 LF $222, SLB 8-inch Fittings 2 EA $1, SLB 8-inch Valves 2 EA 1, $2, SLB Flushing Hydrant Assembly 3 EA 3, $10, SLB Fire Hydrant Tee & Valve 3 EA $2, SLB 1-inch Service Connection 14 EA 2, $35, SLB 1-inch Service Saddle 6 EA $1, SLB Select Backfill 200 CY $5, % WWDC; 50% SLB Foundation Material 100 CY $4, % WWDC; 50% SLB Grading "W" Base Course 1,200 Tons $18, % WWDC; 80% SLB Asphalt Patching 1 LS 10, $10, WWDC Traffic Control 1 LS 10, $10, WWDC Construction Cost Subtotal No. 1 $516, Engineering Services During Construction (10%) $51, Construction Cost Subtotal No. 2 $568, Contingency (15% of CCS No. 2) $85, Construction Cost Total $653, TOTAL PROJECT COST $679, WWDC Grant Eligible tems 43% WWDC Grant = 67%*(43% of Total Project Cost) SLB Grant Eligible tems 57% SLB Grant = 50%*(57% of Total Project Cost) WWDC Grant (67%*43%*$679,935.75) $196, SLB Grant (50%*57%*$679,935.75) $193, SRF Loan Amount $290, SRF Loan Annual Loan Payment (20 years at 2½%) $18, Sundance Level - Final 6 September 28, 2006 Economic Analysis

36 Table V-3 WWDC & SRF Financing Plan Preparation of Final Design and Specifications $20, Permitting and Mitigation $ Legal Fees $5, Acquisition of Access and Right-of-way $1, Construction Costs Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Mobilization and Bonds 1 LS $25, $25, WWDC 12-inch PVC Waterline 2,550 LF $114, WWDC 12-inch Fittings 5 EA 1, $5, WWDC 12-inch Valves 1 EA 1, $1, WWDC Douglas Oversizing Reimbursement 1 LS (40,000.00) ($40,000.00) WWDC Connect to Existing Pipelines 1 EA 2, $2, WWDC Water Master Meter 1 LS 25, $25, WWDC 8-inch PVC Transmission 1,900 LF $57, WWDC 8-inch Fittings 2 EA $1, WWDC 8-inch Valves 2 EA 1, $2, WWDC 8-inch PVC Distribution 7,400 LF $222, inch Fittings 2 EA $1, inch Valves 2 EA 1, $2, Flushing Hydrant Assembly 3 EA 3, $10, Fire Hydrant Tee & Valve 3 EA $2, inch Service Connection 14 EA 2, $35, inch Service Saddle 6 EA $1, Select Backfill 200 CY $5, % WWDC Foundation Material 100 CY $4, % WWDC Grading "W" Base Course 1,200 Tons $18, % WWDC Asphalt Patching 1 LS 10, $10, WWDC Traffic Control 1 LS 10, $10, WWDC Construction Cost Subtotal No. 1 $516, Engineering Services During Construction (10%) $51, Construction Cost Subtotal No. 2 $568, Contingency (15% of CCS No. 2) $85, Construction Cost Total $653, TOTAL PROJECT COST $679, WWDC Grant Eligible tems 43% WWDC Grant = 67%*(43% of Total Project Cost) WWDC Grant (67%*43%*$679,935.75) $196, SRF Loan Amount $483, SRF Loan Annual Loan Payment (20 years at 2½%) $31, Sundance Level - Final 7 September 28, 2006 Economic Analysis

37 Legal fees include the board s attorneys occasional attendance at Board meetings and other legal services, at the hourly rate of $120 per hour. The District will need to obtain a bond for it s treasurer in order to receive funds from the State and County. The Board will need to acquire and maintain insurance for it s members. Materials and supplies include stationery, postage, and other office supplies. The District will need to employ a licensed primary water operator and backup operator to be responsible for the water system. t is estimated that the operator will be paid $40 per hour and will need to work 6 to 8 hours per month. t is assumed the operator will also read the meters for billing purposes. The District will hire a bookkeeper to provide billing and bookkeeping services. t is assumed these services will require 2 hours per month at a rate of $50 per hour. ONE-TME CONNECTON COSTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS n addition to the ongoing water service and debt assessment costs, there will be several one-time costs associated with connecting the water system. The one-time costs to each property will vary considerably depending on the service tap size and distance from the home to the water main. These costs can typically range from $4,000 to $8,000. These connection costs are not eligible to be paid through the State grants or loans programs. A summary of the one-time connection costs is given below: City of Douglas Plant nvestment Fee - Each customer connecting to a water line, carrying water from the Douglas water system will need to pay the Douglas Plant nvestment Fee (PF). The PF for a 1-inch meter is currently $2,500. The charge for the meter that goes in the meter pit is $150. Service Line nstallation The property owner will need to install the water service line from the meter pit (located at the property line) to the dwelling. The size of the service line will depend on the flow needed, and the distance from the meter pit to the building. Because most of the homes are situated on large lots and Sundance Level - Final 8 September 28, 2006 Economic Analysis

38 Table V-4 Water System Budget Summary 1. Ongoing Water Service Costs (Water, Operations and Maintenance) Water Usage Costs Basic Service Fee (per month) $14.90 Water Use (assumed gal/month) 8,000 Current User Rate (per 1000 gal) $1.44 Avg. Monthly Water Use Cost Operations and Maintenance Costs Board Meetings $200 Advertising $200 Audit, Accounting $2,000 Legal $1,200 Bonds $500 nsurance $700 Materials Supplies $500 Water Operator $3,600 Billing $1,200 Total Annual Cost $10,100 Total No. Wet Taps 14 Total No. Dry Taps 6 Monthly Cost Per Dry Tap Monthly Operations and Maintenance Cost per Wet Tap Total Monthly Water, Operations and Maintenance Cost (Per Wet Tap) 2. Debt Service Costs (20 Years at 2.5%) WWDC-Only Financing Plan SRF Annual Loan Payment $16,203 Total Wet Taps 14 Annual Assessment Cost per Wet Tap $1,157 Monthly Assessment Cost per Wet Tap = WWDC & SLB Financing Plan SRF Annual Loan Payment $18,614 Total Wet Taps 14 Annual Assessment Cost per Wet Tap $1,330 Monthly Assessment Cost per Wet Tap = WWDC & SRF Financing Plan SRF Annual Loan Payment $31,028 Total Wet Taps 14 Annual Assessment Cost per Wet Tap $2,216 Monthly Assessment Cost per Wet Tap = $26.42 $10.00 $55.83 $82.25 $96.44 $ $ One Time Service Connection Costs Plant nvestment Fee (City of Douglas) $2,500 Meter Charge $150 Service Line on Private Property $3,000 House Plumbing Conversion $500 Total One Time Connection Cost = $6, Sundance Level - Final 9 September 28, 2006 Economic Analysis

39 set back from the roadway, the minimum size for a water service line will be 1- inch, and some may need to be larger. Estimated construction costs for service lines range from $6 to $10 per linear foot. For a home within 300-feet of the water main, the service line installation cost is estimated to be between $1,800 and $3,000, but will also depend on the type of yard restoration required. House Plumbing Conversion The existing plumbing system will need to be connected to the new water service, and the well piping disconnected. Costs will vary depending upon each individual building. For the purpose of this Study, it is assumed the average cost to convert the home plumbing to the new water supply will cost $500. SUMMARY OF MONTHLY COSTS A summary of the estimated monthly costs for each customer is presented in Table V-5. The table presents the monthly costs to the customer under each of the three financing plans. The costs are comparatively high because of the small number of initial users (wet taps). However, as more of the property owners become water system customers, the O&M and debt assessment costs will decrease proportionately. Table V-5 Summary of Estimated Monthly Costs per Wet Tap Financing Plan Water Usage O&M Debt Assessment Total Monthly Cost for Water One Time Construction Costs WWDC-Only (All Pipelines) $26.42 $55.83 $96.44 $ $6, WWDC & SLB (WWDC for Transmission, SLB for Distribution) $26.42 $55.83 $ $ $6, WWDC & SRF (WWDC for 8" and 12" Pipelines, SRF for Distribution) $26.42 $55.83 $ $ $6, MPLEMENTATON The WWDC program consists of three levels: Level is Reconnaissance; Level is Feasibility; and, Level is Design and Construction. This Level Feasibility Study is Sundance Level - Final 10 September 28, 2006 Economic Analysis

40 intended to provide the preliminary design and cost estimates for property owners in the District to determine whether the project is feasible and affordable. Assuming the District chooses to go forward with Level, the Board will need to hold an election for the property owners to authorize the District to go into debt to finance construction of the project. An application for Level funding will need to be submitted to the WWDC on or before August 15, f the funding application is approved by the legislature, the funding should be committed in the spring of Once funding is approved, the Level process can begin around June of The District can then begin the process of hiring a consultant to design the water project, and prepare bidding documents. Because the design drawings have been completed as part of this Level Study, preparation of bidding and contract documents, and permitting should only require 2 to 3 months. Once the bidding documents are approved by the funding and regulatory agencies, the project can be advertised for bids. The bidding process normally requires 45 to 60 days before a construction contract is executed. Once a Contractor is hired, the construction process should require 4 to 6 months to be completed. f all goes according to the above discussion, water service may be available to the District property owners by March of A tentative project schedule is presented in Table V-6. TABLE V-6 TENTATVE MPLEMENTATON SCHEDULE August, 2006 December, 2006 March, 2007 June, 2007 June September, 2007 October, March, 2008 Apply for Level WWDC Funding Apply for SLB Funding WWDC Funding approval by Legislature WWDC Contracts with District Design, Permitting and Bidding Process Complete Construction Sundance Level - Final 11 September 28, 2006 Economic Analysis

41 605 N. Warehouse Road (82601) P. O. Box 2599 (82602) Casper, WY Office: Fax: July 24, 2006 Mr. Tom Brauer, P.E. Civil Engineering Professionals, nc. 355 North Lincoln Street Casper, Wyoming Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study for Sundance Meadows Level Water District Project, Douglas, Wyoming Maxim Project No Dear Mr. Brauer: At your request, we have conducted a subsurface study for the subject project located in Douglas, Wyoming. This report presents the results of the exploratory drilling program, the associated field and laboratory testing, and the requested geotechnical considerations for the subject project. The subsurface soil profile within the project area generally consisted of 0 to 11½ ft of clay and sand. Groundwater was encountered within boring B-1 at a depth of 9 ft below the ground surface at the time of the field exploration. The report which follows summarizes our findings and presents our conclusions and recommendations. f you have any questions regarding this report, please call. Sincerely, MAXM Technologies Brian L. Chandler, P.E. Project Engineer Enclosure n:\final\geo\sundance Meadows Level.wpd

42 605 N. Warehouse Road (82601) P. O. Box 2599 (82602) Casper, WY Office: Fax: GEOTECHNCAL ENGNEERNG STUDY SUNDANCE MEADOWS LEVEL WATER DSTRCT PROJECT DOUGLAS, WYOMNG Maxim Project No Prepared For: Mr. Tom Brauer, P.E. Civil Engineering Professionals, nc. 355 North Lincoln Street Casper, Wyoming Prepared By: MAXM Technologies P.O. Box 2599 Casper, Wyoming July 24, 2006

43 Civil Engineering Professionals, nc. Geotechnical Study, Sundance Meadows Level Water District Project, Douglas, WY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY...1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTON...1 STE CONDTONS...2 FELD EXPLORATON...2 LABORATORY TESTNG...3 SUBSURFACE CONDTONS...3 Silty Sand (SM)...3 Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP)...3 Gravel with Silt and Sand (GP-GM)...4 Lean Clay to Sandy Lean Clay (CL)...4 Silty, Clayey Sand to Clayey Sand (SC)...4 Groundwater...4 ENGNEERNG ANALYSS AND RECOMMENDATONS...4 WATER LNES...4 Trench Backfill...4 Trench Settlement...5 Groundwater...5 Pipe Bedding...6 Excavation...6 Resistivity...6 Water Soluble Sulfates...6 LMTATONS...7 FGURES Figure 1 Location of Exploratory Borings Figure 2 Log of Exploratory Boring B-1 Figure 3 Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-1 Figure 4 Log of Exploratory Boring B-2 Figure 5 Log of Exploratory Boring B-3 Figure 6 Log of Exploratory Boring B-4 Figure 7 Log of Exploratory Boring B-5 Figure 8 Log of Exploratory Boring B-6 Figure 9 Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-6 Figure 10 Log of Exploratory Boring B-7 Figure 11 Log of Exploratory Boring B-8 Figure 12 Log of Exploratory Boring B-9 Figure 13 Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-9 Figure 14 Log of Exploratory Boring B-10 TABLES Table Summary of Laboratory Test Results MAXM Technologies July 24, 2006 Page i

44 Civil Engineering Professionals, nc. Geotechnical Study, Sundance Meadows Level Water District Project, Douglas, WY PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study for the Sundance Meadows Level Water District Project which includes the installation of new water lines from Robin Lane to Sundance Meadows located in south Douglas, Wyoming. The study was conducted to explore the subsurface profile for utility trenching information and to determine the suitability of the on-site soils for use as trench backfill. This study was conducted in accordance with our Agreement for Professional Consulting Services with Civil Engineering Professionals, nc. (CEP), dated June 19, 2006 and our proposal of the same date. Maxim Technologies conducted a field exploration program which consisted of drilling ten exploratory borings to obtain information on subsurface conditions. The exploratory borings were located as noted on Figure 1. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in our laboratory to determine physical and engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop geotechnical recommendations concerning buried utilities. This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this study, and to present our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. A discussion of geotechnical engineering considerations related to construction is included in the report. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTON The proposed construction includes the installation of approximately 2.5 miles new water lines for the Sundance Meadows Water District south of Douglas. The new water line begins at Robin Lane and travels south approximately 0.5 miles to Sundance Meadows then travels west to Sierra. The new water line will also run the length of both Sierra and Hoya Roads. We anticipate that utility depths will range from 5 to 7 ft below existing ground surface elevations. MAXM Technologies July 24, 2006 Page 2

45 Civil Engineering Professionals, nc. Geotechnical Study, Sundance Meadows Level Water District Project, Douglas, WY STE CONDTONS Several lots along Sierra have been or are in the process of being developed with residential construction. Hoya Road has yet to be developed and consists of a residence on either end and an empty field between them. rvine Road is paved and an existing water line is in the right-of-way east of the road. The North Platte River is located approximately 300 ft to the west of Sierra Road. The topography of the site is relatively flat with a gentle slope from east to west toward the North Platte River. Vegetation on the site consists of natural grasses and weeds in areas that have not been developed. FELD EXPLORATON Maxim conducted the field exploration on July 6, Ten borings were drilled to depths of 11½ ft below the existing ground surface to explore the subsurface conditions. Locations of the borings are shown on the Location of Exploratory Borings, Figure 1 The drill crew used a CME 75 truck-mounted drill rig to advance 4-in. diameter solid stem auger through the soils. Auger refusal was not encountered in any of the borings. A Maxim field engineer logged the borings. The drilling field crew obtained samples of the subsurface materials using 1din. inside diameter split barrel samplers. The samplers were driven into the various strata using a 140 lb hammer falling 30 in. The number of blows required to advance the sampler three successive 6 in. increments is recorded. The number of blows required to advance the sampler the last 12 in. is recorded as the penetration resistance value or N value. Sampling with the split barrel sampler was performed in accordance with ASTM D1586, Split Barrel Sampling. Penetration resistance values provide an indication of the relative density or consistency of the soils tested. Depths at which the samples were obtained and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings. Disturbed bulk samples were obtained from auger cuttings. The field crew made measurements of the groundwater within the borings at the time of drilling. All borings were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of each boring. MAXM Technologies July 24, 2006 Page 3

46 Civil Engineering Professionals, nc. Geotechnical Study, Sundance Meadows Level Water District Project, Douglas, WY LABORATORY TESTNG Samples of the soil encountered during the field exploration were observed and visually classified by a Maxim project engineer in accordance with ASTM D2487, which is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Samples were selected for testing to determine the physical properties in general accordance with ASTM and other procedures. Typical samples were tested for determination of Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D2216), Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D422 and D1140), Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318), water soluble sulfate, and ph/minimum Resistivity. Laboratory test results are presented on the boring logs, the figures following the boring logs, and summarized in Table. SUBSURFACE CONDTONS n general, the subsurface conditions consisted of clay and silty sand. Groundwater was encountered in boring B-1 at a depth of 9 ft below the existing ground surface. The boring logs should be referenced for complete soil classifications and descriptions, material thicknesses, stratum thicknesses, groundwater levels, laboratory test results, and N values. The following are descriptions of each soil type encountered. Silty Sand (SM): Silty sand was encountered at the ground surface in borings B-1, B-2, B-4 and B-5, below the clay in borings B-3, B-5 and B-8 and below the clayey sand in borings B-7 and B-9. The silty sand extended to depths of 5 ft in boring B-1, 7 ft in boring B-2, and to the depths explored in borings B-3, B-4, B-5, B-7, B-8, and B-9, 11½ ft. The relative density of the silty sand was very loose to medium dense as indicated by the N values ranging from 3 to 15. The silty sand was slightly moist to moist in natural moisture content and light brown to brown in color. Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP): Sand with gravel was encountered below the silty sand in boring B-1 and extended to the depth explored, 11.5 ft. The relative density of the sand with gravel was loose to medium dense as indicated by the N values of 9 and 22. The sand with gravel was moist to wet brown in color. Laboratory test results are presented on Figure 3. MAXM Technologies July 24, 2006 Page 4

47 Civil Engineering Professionals, nc. Geotechnical Study, Sundance Meadows Level Water District Project, Douglas, WY Gravel with Silt and Sand (GP-GM): Gravel with silt and sand was encountered below the silty sand in boring B-2 and extended to the depth explored, 11.5 ft. The relative density of the gravel was very dense as indicated by the N value of greater than 50. The gravel was moist and brown in color. Lean Clay to Sandy Lean Clay (CL): Lean clay was encountered at the ground surface or below the topsoil in borings B-3, B-6, B-8 and B-10, and below the silty sand in boring B-5 and again in boring B-6 below the silt. The lean clay extended to depths of 5 ft in boring B-3, 10 ft in boring B-5, 8 ft in boring B-8, and to the depths explored in borings B-6 and B-10. The lean clay was slightly moist to moist and light brown to brown in color. The consistency of the lean clay was stiff to very stiff as indicated by the N values ranging from 9 to 19. Silty, Clayey Sand to Clayey Sand (SC): Clayey sand was encountered below the topsoil in borings B-7 and B-9 and extended to depths of 8 ft in both borings. The clayey sand was dry to slightly moist and light brown to brown in color. The relative density of the clayey sand was loose to medium dense as indicated by the N values ranging from 8 to 17. Silt with Sand (ML): Silt with sand was encountered below the clay in boring B-6 and extended to a depth of 8 ft below the ground surface. The relative density of the silt was loose as indicated by the N value of 8. The silt was slight moist in natural moisture content and light brown in color. Laboratory test results are presented on Figure 9. Groundwater: Groundwater was encountered within boring B-1 at a depth of 9 ft below the existing ground surface at the time of drilling. Numerous factors contribute to fluctuations of water table conditions, and evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this study. ENGNEERNG ANALYSS AND RECOMMENDATONS WATER LNES Trench Backfill: n general, the on-site soils are suitable for re-use as trench backfill. Clay soils were encountered in several of the borings. f the clay soils are re-used as backfill in any of the MAXM Technologies July 24, 2006 Page 5

48 Civil Engineering Professionals, nc. Geotechnical Study, Sundance Meadows Level Water District Project, Douglas, WY project areas, several items must be recognized and addressed during construction. The clay soils may have a wide range of in-place natural moisture contents. The wide range of moisture contents may present difficulties in working and in placing these materials to the required moisture and density conditions. Drying or moisture conditioning of these soils may be required to place these soils to the required controlled moisture and density conditions. The range of soil conditions may present difficulties in obtaining a well mixed, uniform, moisture conditioned fill. Compaction of the trench backfill will be difficult and time consuming unless the materials used for trench backfill are uniform in mixture and moisture content. The clay soils should be separated as much as possible from the sand soils. Selective excavation, stockpiling and backfilling of the excavated materials will be required to ensure a uniform fill for use as backfill. Potential contractors should be advised of and recognize these conditions prior to bidding the construction work. All trench backfill and fill required to achieve rough grade should be placed under controlled moisture and density conditions. We recommend that all fill be placed in thin horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density and within ±2% of the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D698, Standard Proctor. nspection and full time in-place density testing for each vertical one foot of trench backfill must be provided during construction in areas that will be paved. Trench Settlement: Minor trench settlement should be expected even if the trench backfill is properly placed and compacted. The use of an imported select granular backfill material in place of the clay soils will help to reduce potential settlement. Groundwater: Groundwater was encountered in boring B-1 at a depth of 9 ft below the existing ground surface. This groundwater level should be below the planned utility trench depths. However, given the location of the North Platte River in relation to the site and depending on the time of year construction takes place, groundwater could be encountered within excavations in all areas due to seasonal fluctuations. f utility trenches extend to or below the groundwater elevation, soft and saturated soils may be encountered at the bottom of the trench. Stabilization of the bottom of the trenches may be required in these areas. MAXM Technologies July 24, 2006 Page 6

49 Civil Engineering Professionals, nc. Geotechnical Study, Sundance Meadows Level Water District Project, Douglas, WY Pipe Bedding: The requirements for pipe bedding will be dependant upon the type of pipe used and the pipe manufacturer's requirements. Excavation: Excavation of the soil to the depths explored (11½ ft) can be accomplished with conventional heavy duty earth excavating equipment. While it is the responsibility of the contractor to provide safe working conditions and to comply with OSHA standards in connection with underground excavations, the following guidelines are provided for planning purposes. The silty sands and poorly graded sands should be considered an OSHA "Type C" material and the clay soils should be considered an Type B material. Resistivity: A summary of the resistivity testing is presented in the following table: Sample dentification Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm) ph B We recommend a qualified corrosion engineer review the resistivity test results and exploratory boring logs to design an appropriate level of corrosion protection for buried metal. Water Soluble Sulfates: Water soluble sulfate contents of representative soil samples obtained from borings B-5 and B-8 were found to range from 0.01% to 0.02%. This range of concentrations of water soluble sulfates represent a negligible degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to these materials. The degree of attack is based on a range of negligible, positive, severe, and very severe as presented in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Concrete Manual. MAXM Technologies July 24, 2006 Page 7

50 Civil Engineering Professionals, nc. Geotechnical Study, Sundance Meadows Level Water District Project, Douglas, WY LMTATONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure 1 and the proposed construction discussed in this report. The nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until construction. During construction, if fill, soil, rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, this office should be advised at once so that we may re-evaluate the recommendations made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our exploratory information which has not been described or documented in this report. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications of the recommendations presented herein. Any conclusions by a construction contractor or bidder, relating to construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or costs based upon the information provided in this report are independent conclusions by the contractor or bidder and are not the responsibility of Maxim. MAXM Technologies Matt Carlson, E..T. Staff Engineer Brian L. Chandler, P.E. Project Engineer MAXM Technologies July 24, 2006 Page 8

51

52 Project Name: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, Wyoming Borehole Location: Refer to Site Map Borehole Number: Drilling Equipment: Elevation and Datum: Ground: B-1 CME-75 Existing Grade Borehole Diameter (in.): Notes: 4 Driller: Mark Medley Date Started: Logger: Matt Carlson Date Finished: DEPTH (ft) DRLL OPERATON SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATON TEST (blows/ft) SPT MOSTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSTY (pcf) LQUD LMT LL PLASTCTY NDEX P -200 (%) GRAPHC LOG MATERAL DESCRPTON Silty SAND (SM), loose, brown, slightly moist. DEPTH (ft) Poorly graded SAND with gravel (SP), loose to medium dense, brown, moist to wet LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` MAXM CASPER ENGLSH (BOR) 10 Sampler Types: NV NP Split Spoon Shelby Bulk Sample Grab Sample Penetrometer Vane Shear California Test Pit 3 Operation Types: Hand Auger Auger Air Rotary Core Barrel Excavated Pit Bottom of Boring at 11.5 ft While Drilling Time After Drilling Depth To Water (ft) Remarks: WATER LEVEL OBSERVATONS LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORNG B ft Upon Completion of Drilling ft Fig. 2 Revised (MAT)

53 100 U.S. SEVE OPENNG N NCHES U.S. SEVE NUMBERS / /4 3/ HYDROMETER PERCENT FNER BY WEGHT GRAN SZE N MLLMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND coarse fine coarse medium fine SLT OR CLAY Specimen dentification B-1 - (10 - ft) Classification POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SP) LL NV PL NV P NP Cc Cu LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` US GRAN SZE Revised (MAT) Specimen dentification B-1 - (10 - ft) D D D D %Gravel 26 %Sand 71 %Silt GRAN SZE DSTRBUTON Project: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, WY Location: Refer to Site Map Number: Figure No. 3 3 %Clay

54 Project Name: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, Wyoming Borehole Location: Refer to Site Map Borehole Number: Drilling Equipment: Elevation and Datum: Ground: B-2 CME-75 Existing Grade Borehole Diameter (in.): Notes: 4 Driller: Mark Medley Date Started: Logger: Matt Carlson Date Finished: DEPTH (ft) DRLL OPERATON SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATON TEST (blows/ft) SPT MOSTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSTY (pcf) LQUD LMT LL PLASTCTY NDEX P -200 (%) GRAPHC LOG MATERAL DESCRPTON Silty SAND (SM), very loose to loose, brown, moist. DEPTH (ft) NV NP 23 Thin clay lenses starting at 5 ft. 6 GRAVEL with silt and sand (GP-GM), very dense, brown, moist LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` MAXM CASPER ENGLSH (BOR) 10 Sampler Types: /0.5 Split Spoon Shelby Bulk Sample Grab Sample Penetrometer Vane Shear California Test Pit Operation Types: Hand Auger Auger Air Rotary Core Barrel Excavated Pit Bottom of Boring at 10.5 ft While Drilling Time After Drilling Depth To Water (ft) Remarks: WATER LEVEL OBSERVATONS Dry LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORNG B-2 ft Upon Completion of Drilling Fig ft Revised (MAT)

55 Project Name: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, Wyoming Borehole Location: Refer to Site Map Borehole Number: Drilling Equipment: Elevation and Datum: Ground: B-3 CME-75 Existing Grade Borehole Diameter (in.): Notes: 4 Driller: Mark Medley Date Started: Logger: Matt Carlson Date Finished: DEPTH (ft) DRLL OPERATON SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATON TEST (blows/ft) SPT MOSTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSTY (pcf) LQUD LMT LL PLASTCTY NDEX P -200 (%) GRAPHC LOG MATERAL DESCRPTON Sandy lean CLAY (CL), very stiff, brown, moist. DEPTH (ft) Silty SAND (SM), loose, brown, moist LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` MAXM CASPER ENGLSH (BOR) 10 Sampler Types: Split Spoon Shelby Bulk Sample Grab Sample Penetrometer Vane Shear California Test Pit Operation Types: Hand Auger Auger Air Rotary Core Barrel Excavated Pit Bottom of Boring at 11.5 ft While Drilling Time After Drilling Depth To Water (ft) Remarks: WATER LEVEL OBSERVATONS Dry LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORNG B-3 ft Upon Completion of Drilling Fig ft Revised (MAT)

56 Project Name: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, Wyoming Borehole Location: Refer to Site Map Borehole Number: Drilling Equipment: Elevation and Datum: Ground: B-4 CME-75 Existing Grade Borehole Diameter (in.): Notes: 4 Driller: Mark Medley Date Started: Logger: Matt Carlson Date Finished: DEPTH (ft) DRLL OPERATON SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATON TEST (blows/ft) SPT MOSTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSTY (pcf) LQUD LMT LL PLASTCTY NDEX P -200 (%) GRAPHC LOG MATERAL DESCRPTON Silty SAND (SM), very loose to loose, brown, moist. DEPTH (ft) Layer of lean clay from 6.5 to 7 ft LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` MAXM CASPER ENGLSH (BOR) 10 Sampler Types: Split Spoon Shelby Bulk Sample Grab Sample Penetrometer Vane Shear California Test Pit Operation Types: Hand Auger Auger Air Rotary Core Barrel Excavated Pit Bottom of Boring at 11.5 ft While Drilling Time After Drilling Depth To Water (ft) Remarks: WATER LEVEL OBSERVATONS Dry Upon Completion of Drilling LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORNG B-4 ft Fig ft Revised (MAT)

57 Project Name: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, Wyoming Borehole Location: Refer to Site Map Borehole Number: Drilling Equipment: Elevation and Datum: Ground: B-5 CME-75 Existing Grade Borehole Diameter (in.): Notes: 4 Driller: Mark Medley Date Started: Logger: Matt Carlson Date Finished: DEPTH (ft) DRLL OPERATON SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATON TEST (blows/ft) SPT MOSTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSTY (pcf) LQUD LMT LL PLASTCTY NDEX P -200 (%) GRAPHC LOG Silty SAND (SM), brown, dry. MATERAL DESCRPTON DEPTH (ft) 2 Lean CLAY (CL), stiff to very stiff, light brown, dry to slightly moist LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` MAXM CASPER ENGLSH (BOR) 10 Sampler Types: Split Spoon Shelby Bulk Sample Grab Sample Penetrometer Vane Shear California Test Pit Operation Types: Hand Auger Silty SAND (SM), medium dense, brown, moist. Auger Air Rotary Core Barrel Excavated Pit Bottom of Boring at 11.5 ft While Drilling Time After Drilling Depth To Water (ft) Remarks: WATER LEVEL OBSERVATONS Dry LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORNG B-5 ft Upon Completion of Drilling Fig ft Revised (MAT)

58 Project Name: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, Wyoming Borehole Location: Borehole Number: Drilling Equipment: Elevation and Datum: Ground: Refer to Site Map B-6 CME-75 Existing Grade Driller: Mark Medley Logger: Matt Carlson Borehole Diameter (in.): 4 Date Started: Date Finished: Notes: DEPTH (ft) DRLL OPERATON SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATON TEST (blows/ft) SPT MOSTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSTY (pcf) LQUD LMT LL PLASTCTY NDEX P -200 (%) GRAPHC LOG TOPSOL, (6 in. thick). MATERAL DESCRPTON Lean CLAY with sand (CL), stiff, light brown, dry. DEPTH (ft) SLT with sand (ML), loose, light brown, dry NV NP Lean CLAY with sand (CL), stiff, brown, slightly moist LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` MAXM CASPER ENGLSH (BOR) 10 Sampler Types: Split Spoon Shelby Bulk Sample Grab Sample Penetrometer Vane Shear California Test Pit Operation Types: Hand Auger Auger Air Rotary Core Barrel Excavated Pit Bottom of Boring at 11.5 ft While Drilling Time After Drilling Depth To Water (ft) Remarks: WATER LEVEL OBSERVATONS Dry ft Upon Completion of Drilling LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORNG B-6 Fig ft Revised (MAT)

59 100 U.S. SEVE OPENNG N NCHES U.S. SEVE NUMBERS / /4 3/ HYDROMETER PERCENT FNER BY WEGHT GRAN SZE N MLLMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND coarse fine coarse medium fine SLT OR CLAY Specimen dentification B-6 - (5 - ft) Classification SLT with SAND(ML) LL NV PL NV P NP Cc Cu 6079 LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` US GRAN SZE Revised (MAT) Specimen dentification B-6 - (5 - ft) D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay GRAN SZE DSTRBUTON Project: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, WY Location: Refer to Site Map Number: Figure No. 9

60 Project Name: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, Wyoming Borehole Location: Refer to Site Map Borehole Number: Drilling Equipment: Elevation and Datum: Ground: B-7 CME-75 Existing Grade Borehole Diameter (in.): Notes: 4 Driller: Mark Medley Date Started: Logger: Matt Carlson Date Finished: DEPTH (ft) DRLL OPERATON SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATON TEST (blows/ft) SPT MOSTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSTY (pcf) LQUD LMT LL PLASTCTY NDEX P -200 (%) GRAPHC LOG MATERAL DESCRPTON TOPSOL, lean clay with sand, light brown, dry, (6 in. thick). Silty, Clayey SAND (SC-SM), medium dense, light brown, dry to slightly moist. DEPTH (ft) Silty SAND (SM), medium dense, light brown, dry to slightly moist LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` MAXM CASPER ENGLSH (BOR) 10 Sampler Types: Split Spoon Shelby Bulk Sample Grab Sample Penetrometer Vane Shear California Test Pit Operation Types: Hand Auger Auger Air Rotary Core Barrel Excavated Pit Bottom of Boring at 11.5 ft While Drilling Time After Drilling Depth To Water (ft) Remarks: WATER LEVEL OBSERVATONS Dry LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORNG B-7 ft Upon Completion of Drilling Fig ft Revised (MAT)

61 Project Name: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, Wyoming Borehole Location: Refer to Site Map Borehole Number: Drilling Equipment: Elevation and Datum: Ground: B-8 CME-75 Existing Grade Borehole Diameter (in.): Notes: 4 Driller: Mark Medley Date Started: Logger: Matt Carlson Date Finished: DEPTH (ft) DRLL OPERATON SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATON TEST (blows/ft) SPT MOSTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSTY (pcf) LQUD LMT LL PLASTCTY NDEX P -200 (%) GRAPHC LOG MATERAL DESCRPTON TOPSOL, lean clay with sand, light brown, dry, (6 in. thick). Lean CLAY with sand (CL), stiff to very stiff, light brown, dry to slightly moist. DEPTH (ft) Silty SAND (SM), loose, brown, slightly moist LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` MAXM CASPER ENGLSH (BOR) 10 Sampler Types: Split Spoon Shelby Bulk Sample Grab Sample Penetrometer Vane Shear California Test Pit Operation Types: Hand Auger Auger Air Rotary Core Barrel Excavated Pit Bottom of Boring at 11.5 ft While Drilling Time After Drilling Depth To Water (ft) Remarks: WATER LEVEL OBSERVATONS Dry LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORNG B-8 ft Upon Completion of Drilling Fig ft Revised (MAT)

62 Project Name: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, Wyoming Borehole Location: Refer to Site Map Borehole Number: Drilling Equipment: Elevation and Datum: Ground: B-9 CME-75 Existing Grade Borehole Diameter (in.): Notes: 4 Driller: Mark Medley Date Started: Logger: Matt Carlson Date Finished: DEPTH (ft) DRLL OPERATON SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATON TEST (blows/ft) SPT MOSTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSTY (pcf) LQUD LMT LL PLASTCTY NDEX P -200 (%) GRAPHC LOG MATERAL DESCRPTON TOPSOL, sandy lean clay, light brown, dry, (6 in. thick). Clayey SAND (SC), loose, light brown to brown, dry to slightly moist. DEPTH (ft) Silty SAND (SM), loose, brown, slightly moist LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` MAXM CASPER ENGLSH (BOR) 10 Sampler Types: Split Spoon Shelby Bulk Sample Grab Sample Penetrometer Vane Shear California Test Pit Operation Types: Hand Auger Auger Air Rotary Core Barrel Excavated Pit Bottom of Boring at 11.5 ft While Drilling Time After Drilling Depth To Water (ft) Remarks: WATER LEVEL OBSERVATONS Dry LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORNG B-9 ft Upon Completion of Drilling Fig ft Revised (MAT)

63 100 U.S. SEVE OPENNG N NCHES U.S. SEVE NUMBERS / /4 3/ HYDROMETER PERCENT FNER BY WEGHT GRAN SZE N MLLMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND coarse fine coarse medium fine SLT OR CLAY Specimen dentification B-9 - (5 - ft) Classification CLAYEY SAND(SC) LL 22 PL 14 P 8 Cc Cu 6079 LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` US GRAN SZE Revised (MAT) Specimen dentification B-9 - (5 - ft) D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay GRAN SZE DSTRBUTON Project: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, WY Location: Refer to Site Map Number: Figure No. 13

64 Project Name: Sundance Meadows Level Water District Projcet-Douglas, Wyoming Borehole Location: Refer to Site Map Borehole Number: Drilling Equipment: Elevation and Datum: Ground: B-10 CME-75 Existing Grade Borehole Diameter (in.): Notes: 4 Driller: Mark Medley Date Started: Logger: Matt Carlson Date Finished: DEPTH (ft) DRLL OPERATON SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATON TEST (blows/ft) SPT MOSTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSTY (pcf) LQUD LMT LL PLASTCTY NDEX P -200 (%) GRAPHC LOG MATERAL DESCRPTON TOPSOL, lean clay with sand, light brown, dry, (6 in. thick). Lean CLAY with sand (CL), stiff, light brown, dry to slightly moist. DEPTH (ft) Sandy lean CLAY (CL), stiff, brown to light brown, slightly moist LOGS.GPJ ` ` MAT ` MAXM CASPER ENGLSH (BOR) 10 Sampler Types: Split Spoon Shelby Bulk Sample Grab Sample Penetrometer Vane Shear California Test Pit Operation Types: Hand Auger Auger Air Rotary Core Barrel Excavated Pit Bottom of Boring at 11.5 ft While Drilling Time After Drilling Depth To Water (ft) Remarks: WATER LEVEL OBSERVATONS Dry LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORNG B-10 ft Upon Completion of Drilling Fig ft Revised (MAT)

65 TABLE SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Sundance Meadows Level Water District Project Douglas, Wyoming Job No SAMPLE LOCATON BORNG DEPTH (Feet) NATURAL MOSTURE CONTENT (%) NATURAL DRY DENSTY (pcf) ATTERBERG LMTS GRADATON PERCENT PASSNG LQUD LMT (%) PLASTCTY NDEX (%) GRAVEL (%) SAND (%) NO. 200 SEVE OTHER TESTS SAMPLE DESCRPTON/CLASSFCATON B NV NP Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP) B NV NP 23 Silty Sand (SM) B WSS = 0.06% Sandy Lean Clay (CL) B Silty Sand (SM) B-5 0 to 10 ph = 8.1 MR = 2250 ohm-cm Lean Clay (CL) WSS = 0.0% Lean Clay (CL) B NV NP Silt with Sand (ML) B Silty, Clayey Sand (SC) B WSS = 0.02% Lean Clay with Sand (CL) B Clayey Sand (SC) B Lean Clay with Sand (CL) Abbreviation: NV = No Value NP = Non-plastic WSS = Water Soluble Sulfates ph = Soil ph MR = Minimum Resistivity

66 ENVRONMENTAL ASSESMENT FOR SUNDANCE MEADOWS WATER SYSTEM CONVERSE COUNTY WYOMNG Prepared by: Greg Johnson Gretchen Norman Western EcoSystems Technology (WEST), nc Central Ave. Cheyenne, Wyoming September 2006

67 ENVRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Table of Contents 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTON Project Purpose and Need ALTERNATVES Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action AFFECTED ENVRONMENT Description of Planning Area Proposed Alternative ENVRONMENTAL MPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Direct and ndirect mpacts Unavoidable Adverse mpacts MTGATON OF ADVERSE MPACTS PUBLC PARTCPATON REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AGENCES CONTACTED... 5 Sundance Meadows Water System Environmental Assessment 10/4/2006 i

68 SUMMARY PROJECT DENTFCATON Applicant: Sundance Meadows Water District Address: c/o Jim Morgan 26 Sierra Douglas, Wyoming Project: Sundance Meadows Water System CONTACT PERSON Dr. Jim Morgan 26 Sierra Douglas, WY ABSTRACT The Sundance Meadows Water District is located approximately ¼ mile south of Douglas, Wyoming. The Sundance Meadows subdivision has been experiencing poor water quality from their groundwater wells, therefore the residents are proposing to construct a transmission pipeline to the city of Douglas' water system. Sundance Meadows Water District will purchase water from Douglas, but will own and operate their system. The proposed project should not have any significant adverse impacts on the existing environment of the planning area if mitigation measures are implemented. Several issues were raised during the planning stages including: 1) impacts on archaeological or historic sites, 2) erosion control and revegetation in areas disturbed by construction, 3) applicability of Nationwide Permit No. 12 and No. 33 for the ACOE, 4) impacts on nesting raptors and migratory birds, 5) use of Best Management Practices, 6) dust control during construction, and 6) impacts on Federally listed species. Sundance Meadows Water System Environmental Assessment 10/4/2006 ii

69 COMMENT PEROD n conformance with the requirements for the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wyoming Environmental Review Process, this Finding of No Significant mpact (FNS) will be subject to a 30 day public review period. The FNS will be distributed to interested persons and agencies for their review. The FNS will be available for public review at the Casper City Hall, 200 North David Street, Casper, Wyoming All comments received will be given due consideration. Comments should be directed to: Dr. Jim Morgan 26 Sierra Douglas, WY Sundance Meadows Water System Environmental Assessment 10/4/2006 iii

70 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTON 1.1 Project Purpose and Need The Sundance Meadows Water District is located approximately ¼ of a mile south of the city of Douglas. The residents in a 90 lot subdivision adjacent to Anderson Diary Road, rivine Bridge Road and the North Platte Rive have problems with water quality on their wells and are attempting to construct a transmission pipeline to the city of Douglas water system in Robin Lane. They will purchase water from the city of Douglas and own and operate their own distribution system. Currently, there are approximately 10 active customers in the system, but given the groundwater quality in the area they believe that several people will connect to the system. The system which they are proposing can supply water to nearly all of the lots in the subdivision as shown in the figure provided in Appendix A. 2.0 ALTERNATVES There was only one alternative besides the No Action Alternative considered; the Proposed Action. Most of the roads for the Sundance Meadows subdivision are already present and the only logical choice was to run the pipeline down the existing roads that will service the subdivision. 2.1 Alternative 1 No Action f no action is carried out the existing residents of the subdivision will continue to have problems with water quality. Additionally, the potential development of this area may be limited due to water quality issues. 2.2 Alternative 2 Proposed Action Approximately 0.5 miles of 12 inch and 1.75 miles of 8 inch transmission pipelines are proposed. The proposed alignments were selected to 1) coincide with existing and planned development, 2) parallel or run within existing roadways, and 3) minimize surface impacts. The cost of constructing the distribution system is expected to be $670, AFFECTED ENVRONMENT 3.1 Description of Planning Area The planning area is located south of Douglas in an area that is being developed as a 90 lot subdivision (Appendix A). Land cover types in the area consist of human settlement, exposed rock/soil, irrigated crops, and Wyoming Big Sagebrush according to Wyoming GAP Analysis (Appendix B). Sundance Meadows Water System 1 Environmental Assessment 10/4/2006

71 3.2 Proposed Alternative The proposed alternative will result in construction of approximately 0.5 miles of 12 inch and 1.75 miles of 8 inch water transmission pipeline along existing or proposed roads. The transmission pipeline will branch off of the existing transmission line on Robin Lane in Douglas and travel south along rvine Road to the Sundance Meadows Subdivision. The transmission pipeline will enter the subdivision on the north end on an unnamed future access road. Two transmission lines will branch off of this road to the south to provide water to the subdivision. The first branch will parallel the future Hoya Road, which is only developed at the southern end. The second branch parallels the existing Sierra Road. 3.3 Population and Flow Projections Approximately 35 people lived in the Sundance Meadows during Populations and water demand projections are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Sundance Meadows population and average day demand estimates Year Estimated Population Average Day Demand (180gpcpd) Peak Day Demand (720 gpcpd) Peak Hour Demand (1,260 gpcpd) Gal/Day Gal/Min Gal/Day Gal/Min Gal/Day Gal/Min , , , , , , , , , ENVRONMENTAL MPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 Direct and ndirect mpacts Construction of the Sundance Meadows water distribution system will allow the residents of the subdivision to purchase water from the Douglas municipal water system and not be dependent upon their own wells that generally produce water with poor quality. t is anticipated that this will result in continued growth in the Meadows subdivision The Wyoming State Historic and Preservation Office (SHPO) found that the affected area associated with the proposed action is in an area of previous disturbance and has a low probability of containing historic properties and no further identification efforts are warranted. There is a possibility that buried prehistoric or historic materials may be discovered during the project. f any cultural materials are discovered during construction, work in the area should halt immediately, and SHPO staff be contacted, and the materials be evaluated by an archaeologist or historian meeting the Secretary of the nterior's Professional Qualification Standards (See Appendix C). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) determined that the construction of one of the water mains in the subdivision will cross at least one small tributary to the North Platte River that may be a water of the U.S. and subject to Corps regulatory jurisdiction. Sundance Meadows Water System 2 Environmental Assessment 10/4/2006

72 As described, the construction activities will likely not require processing of an individual permit, but qualify for authorization under Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP 12) for "Utility Line Activities" and Nationwide Permit 33 (NWP 33) for "Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering". The ACOE will be contacted when a final pipeline alignment is chosen and should be provided with a preconstruction notification in accordance with the requirements of the NWP 12 and NWP 33. (See Appendix C) The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), responded that they request an erosion control plan be in place during construction to control any potential wind and/or water erosion. The NRCS requested that a revegetation plan be developed for areas that were disturbed during construction (See Appendix C). The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided a list of threatened, endangered, and candidate species that could be encountered on the project site. The list provided included bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus; Threatened), black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes; Endangered), Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei; Threatened) and Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis; Threatened). Bald eagles generally require areas near open water for nesting and wintering, areas with abundant readily available food sources, and roost sites that have large trees with open canopies. Habitat in the project areas is generally unsuitable for bald eagle nesting or roosting due to lack of large trees and large bodies of open water. f nesting or roosting eagles are found to be present, the USFWS recommends that a disturbance-free buffer zone of 1 mile be maintained around eagle nests and winter roost sites. f this is not practical, then the activity should be conducted outside the February 1 through August 15 nesting period and the November 1 through April 15 winter period. Searches should be conducted to determine whether or not any bald eagle nests or winter roosts occur within 1 mile of proposed construction activities, and is so, USFWS should be contacted to determine if the proposed activity will cause disturbance within nest buffer areas. According to the Casper Wyoming Game and Fish Department, there are no known Bald Eagle nests in the vicinity of the project area. The closest known nest is approximately 10 miles south of Douglas (pers. comm. Justin Binfet August 1, 2006). The project area has been blockcleared of the need to conduct surveys for black-footed ferrets in white-tailed or black tailed prairie dog towns and there are no prairie dog towns or potential ferret habitat in the project area. Preble's meadow jumping mouse has been recently documented in Albany, Laramie, Platte and Converse Counties, and may occur in Goshen County. f a proposed project will result in a disturbance to suitable habitat (lush vegetation along water courses or herbaceous understoires in wooded areas with close proximity to water) within any of these five counties, surveys should be conducted by a knowledgeable biologist trained in conducting these surveys prior to any action. Ute ladies' tresses orchids have the potential to grow in the project area if moist soils, especially sand bars and stream edges, occur in wetlands. f such habitats occur in the project area, surveys should be conducted by trained botanists. Based on a site visit by WEST, nc (Greg Johnson) on June 28, 2006, it was determined that no habitat for Preble s meadow jumping mouse or Ute ladies'-tresses orchid exists within the project area. Sundance Meadows Water System 3 Environmental Assessment 10/4/2006

73 The USFWS requested that potential impacts on migratory birds be considered, and provided a reminder that migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) which prohibits take (capture, killing, possession, or attempt of these actions) of migratory birds, nests, or eggs. Additionally, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) prohibits knowingly taking, or taking with wanton disregard for the consequences of an activity, any bald or golden eagles or their body parts, nests, or eggs, which includes collection, molestation, disturbance, or killing. The USFWS requested that work that could lead to the take of a migratory bird including an eagle, their young, eggs, or nest, should be coordinated with the USFWS before any actions are taken. The USFWS recommends that measures be taken to avoid or minimize impacts to wetland and riparian areas. Measures to compensate for unavoidable losses of riparian areas should be developed and implemented as part of the project. There are no wetlands or riparian areas in the project area according to a site visit made by WEST, nc. (Greg Johnson) on June 28, The USFWS stated that Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be implemented within the project areas wherever possible. (See Appendix C) The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division does not anticipate any adverse air quality impacts associated with the project, with the possible exception of dust problems during construction. Environmental planning for the construction phase should include effective dust control procedures that will ensure compliance with the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 3, Section 2(f). Dusts control measures may include frequent watering and/or chemical stabilization. f asbestos is encountered during this project, standards for handling that material can be found in WAQSR Chapter 3, Section 8 (See Appendix C). 4.2 Unavoidable Adverse mpacts 1. There will be minor, short term increases in noise and ambient air particulate levels and increased traffic in the immediate vicinity of the construction activities. 2. Construction of the project will result in the commitment of resources including capital, manpower, and materials. 3. Some minor short-term increases in sedimentation may result from runoff from soils exposed in the course of construction. 5.0 MTGATON OF ADVERSE MPACTS After an evaluation of anticipated impacts of construction and operation of the proposed facilities, the following mitigation alternatives and recommendations were selected to minimize or eliminate these impacts: 1. f any cultural materials are discovered during construction, work in the area should halt immediately, and SHPO staff be contacted, and the materials be evaluated by an Sundance Meadows Water System 4 Environmental Assessment 10/4/2006

74 archaeologist or historian meeting the Secretary of the nterior's Professional Qualification Standards. 2. A revegetation plan should be developed prior to construction. Vegetation which was disturbed should be re-established in accordance with local land-use type. 3. Review and submission of Nationwide Permit No. 12 and No. 33 for the ACOE. 4. An erosion control plan should be developed prior to construction. Routine mitigation techniques for limiting direct runoff from disturbed areas and dewatering conduits, including berms, sediment traps, and other means which are effective in limiting sediment into water courses. 5. The use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as erosion control devices; adequate and continued maintenance of sediment and erosion control devices to insure their effectiveness; minimization of the construction disturbance area to further avoid streams, wetlands, and riparian areas; location of equipment staging, fueling, and maintenance areas outside of wetlands, streams, riparian areas and floodplains; and re-seeding and re-planting of riparian vegetation native to Wyoming in order to stabilize shorelines and stream banks. 6. Dusts control measures such as frequent watering and/or chemical stabilization may be required if dust from the access road and construction site becomes a nuisance. 6.0 PUBLC PARTCPATON A public meeting will be held at a future date to address public questions and concerns over the project. 7.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Analysis, Wyoming Gap, , Land Cover for Wyoming: University of Wyoming, Spatial Data and Visualization Center, Laramie, Wyoming. Personal Communication. Binfet, Justin, Wildlife Biologist; Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Casper Office. August 1, 2006, 10:50 a.m. 8.0 AGENCES CONTACTED The following agencies were contacted/consulted in the development of the Environmental Assessment. 1. Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS Sundance Meadows Water System 5 Environmental Assessment 10/4/2006

75 4. U.S. Department of the nterior, Fish and Wildlife Service 5. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division Appendix C contains response letters from the listed agencies. Sundance Meadows Water System 6 Environmental Assessment 10/4/2006

76 Appendix A. Proposed Project Location Sundance Meadows Water System Environmental Assessment 10/4/2006

77

78 Appendix B. Map of Land Cover According to Wyoming GAP Analysis Sundance Meadows Water System Environmental Assessment 10/4/2006

79 T32NR71W18 T32NR71W17 T32NR71W16 T32NR71 W20 T32NR71 W21 L nd Cover 32NR7L'O(v GAP 1992)) ~ D '------,----~ Human Settlement rrigated Crops Wyoming Big Sagebrush Exposed rock/soil T32NR71 W29 0~::=~~~~;0~.5:=~~~~~~1 Kilom.. Miles o T32NR71 W28

80 Appendix C. Response Letters from Agencies Sundance Meadows Water System Environmental Assessment 10/4/2006

81 i, :] ARTS. PARKS. HSTORY. Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources WYOMNG STATE HSTORC PRESERVATON OFFCE BARRETT BULDNG, 3 rd FLOOR, 2301 CENTRAL AVE, CHEYENNE, WY Phone: (307) Fax: (307) July 10,2006 Greg Johnson Ecologist/Project Manager WEST, nc Central Ave. Cheyenne, WY Re: State Revolving Fund Loan for the Sundance Meadows Water District (SHPO File # 0706SMC002) Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank youfor consulting with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the above referenced project. Following 36 CFR Part 800, we find that the proposed project is in an area of previous disturbance and has a low probability of containing historic properties, as defined in 36 CFR (1)(1). No further identification efforts are warranted. ~ ~ There is a possibility that buried prehistoric or historic materials may be discovered during the project and we recommend the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) incorporate the following stipulation in the project permit: f any cultural materials are discovered during construction, work in the area should halt immediately, the federal agency and SHPO staffbe contacted, and the materials be evaluated by an archaeologist or historian meeting tbe Secretary of the nterior's Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 22716, Sept. 1983). This letter shonld be retained in your files as documentation of a SHPO concurrence with your finding of no historic properties affected. Please refer to SHPO project #0706SMC002 on any future correspondence regarding this project. f you have any questions, please contact me at Sincerely, ~C1p. Archaeologist Dave Freuden1hal, Governor Milward Simpson, Director

82 ' Reply to Attention of: Wyoming Regulatory Office DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGNEERS, OMAHA DSTRCT WYOMNG REGULATORY OFFCE 2232 DELL RANGE BOULEVARD, SUTE 210 CHEYENNE WY July 11,2006,,,,,,.,. ' 1 Jim Morgan SWdance Meadows Water District 26 Sierra Douglas, Wyoming Dear Mr. Morgan: This in response to a letter dated JWle 27, 2006 that we received on JWle 29 th from Mr. Greg Johnson with West, nc., in Laramie, Wyoming. h his letter, Mr. Johnson described the SWldance Meadows Water District (SMWD) plan to construct a water transmission pipeline from Douglas to a 90 lot subdivision adjacent to Anderson Dairy Road, rvine Road, and the North Platte River about a Y4 mile south of Douglas. Mr. Johnson stated his company has been contracted to prepare an environmental assessment on the project. He stated that money for the project is being obtained tlu'oug!l th\) Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) and the federal funding agency, US EPA Region V. Accordingly, the project must comply with federal requirements and Executive Orders that apply when federal fmancial assistance is involved. He asked for Corps comments on the project relative to our authorities and responsibilities. ~ Based on the information provided, the SWldance Meadows Water District project involves the construction of municipal water supply pipelines within the subdivision described above and a water supply pipeline connecting it to the City of Douglas mlmicipal water supply system. The project is located primarily ill the NB Y4, Section 20, Township 32 North, Range 71 West. Converse COWty, Wyoming. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the placement of dredged and fill material into wetlands and other waters of the United States as authorized primarily by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). The term "waters of the United States" has been broadly defined by, statute, regulation, and judicial interpretation to include all waters that were, are, or could be used in interstate COl1l1lleWe such as rivers, streams (including ephemeral streams), reservoirs, and lakes as well as wetlands adjacent to those areas. The Corps regulations are set forth at 33 CFR Parts 320 through 331. nformation on Section 404 program requirements in Wyoming can be obtained by visiting our web site, at h1tps:llwww.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/od-lwy/wyoming.htin. Wetlands are defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circulllstances do support, a

83 prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are characterized by growth of vegetation such as buhush, cattails, rushes, sedges, and willows. Wetlands not only provide wildlife habitat but also improve water quality by holding sediment and taking up nutrients. n many cases, wetlands decrease flooding by storing surface water and recharging ground water in flood plains.. "1 Based on the infoimation provided by Mr. Johnson, we have determined that portions of. proposed project may require authorization from the Corps of Engineers. As described above, any option and/or activity involving the placement of fill material into waters of the U.S. (WUS), including wetlands, will require authorizf\tion from the Corps. The Sundance Meadows Water District Project involves the proposed construction of new waterlines to be connected to the City of Douglas ml1lllcipal water supply system. t appears as though one of the new water mains in the subdivision will cross at least one small tributary to the North Platte River that may be a water ofthe U.S. and subject to Corps regulatory jurisdiction. Our experience with similar pipeline projects in Wyoming has been that ahnost all qualify for authorization under Nationwide Permit No. 12 (NWP 12) for "UtilitY Line Activities" and Nationwide Permit No. 33 (NWP 33) for "Temporary Constmction Access and Dewatering". nformation on NWP 12 and NWP 33 can be obtained by visiting our web site at the location described above. Please note that the NWP's currently in effect are scheduled to expire on March ll,2007. However, we do not anticipate any substantial changes in NWP 12 at this time. We recommend this office be contacted in the future and provided with project specific infonnation when a final pipeline alignment is chosen. At such time this office should be provided with a preconstmction notification in accordance with the requirements of the aforen:ientioned NWP's and any changes in them that may talee place with their expected re-issuance in This letter is considered a preliminary jurisdictional determination by this office. t does not eliminate the requirement to obtain any other applicable federal, state, tribal, or local permits that may be required. f you have any questions regarding this deternrination, please contact me at (307) and reference file No )9PY FlU'nished: V Greg Johnson WEST,nc Central Avenue Cheyenne, Wyoming q. Matthew A. Bilodeau Program Manager Wyoming Regulatory Office 2.

84 Natural Resources Conservation Servicc lledcral Building 100 East B Street, Room 3124 P.O. Box Casper, WY Date: July 17, 2006 West, nc Central Ave. Cheyenne, Wyoming (),ll L.. Dear Mr. Johnson, The Natural Resources Conservation Service has reviewed the Sundance Meadows Water District Proposal. The only comments that we have is that a plan for erosion control during constrnction needs to be developed and a revegetation plan for those areas disturbed during constrnction needs to be in place prior to imy constrnction work. rfyou have any questions, or need to discuss this comment with us, please contact either myself at or please contact Doug Gasseling, Conservation Agronomist, Cheyenne, Wyoming, at , ext Sincerely, ~ '- ADOLFO PEREZ State Conservationist. The Natural Resources Conservation Service works hand-in-hand with the American people to conserve natural resouroes 011 privatelands. USDA S AN EQUAL OPPORTUNTY PROVDER AND EMPLOYER

85 ,,, :,- '~ ", J n Reply Refer To: ES, 6l4111W.99WY06SL0130 Greg Johnson, Project Manager WEST,nc Central Avenue Cheyenne, WY Dear Mr. Johnson: United States Department of the nterior FSH AND WLDLFE SERVlP=\ JUL Thank you for your letter received by our office on June 28, 2006, regarding the proposed Sundance Meadows Water District Supply Line Project. You have requested that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) review the proposed project'for any potential concerns. n response to your request, the Service is providing you with information on (1) threatened and endangered species, (2) migratory birds, and (3) wetlands and riparian areas. The Service provides recommendations for protective measures for threatened and endangered species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C et seq.). Protective measures for migratory birds are provided in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.c. 703 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668., Wetlands are afforded protection under Executive Orders (wetland protection) and (floodplain management), as well as section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The following threatened and endangered species may be present in or near the project area. n order for the Service to advise you of any concerns we may have, as you have requested, we ask that you provide information on the current status of each of these species within the project area. Species Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) Status Threatened Endangered Threatened Habitat Found throughout state Prairie dog towns Riparian habitats east of Laramie Mts. and south of the N. Platte River

86 a Ute ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Threatened Seasonally moist soils and wet meadows of drainages below 7000 feet Bald eagle: While habitat loss and human disturbance remains a threat to the bald eaglc's full recovery, most expelis agree that its recovery to date is encouraging. Adult eagles establish lifelong pair bonds and build large nests in the tops of large trees near rivers, lakes, marshes, or other wetland areas. During winter, bald eagles gather along open water to forage and night roost in large mature trees, usually in secluded locations that offer protection from harsh weather. Bald eagles often return to use the same nest and winter roost year after year. Because bald eagles are particularly sensitive to human disturbance at their nests and communal roosts, protective buffers should be implemented around these areas [Buehler et al. 1991, Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group (GYBEWG) 1996, Montana Bald Eagle Working Group (MBEWG) 1994, Stalmaster and Newman 1978, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1986]. n Wyoming, bald eagle nest buffer recommendations include avoiding project-related disturbance and habitat alteration within 1 mile of bald eagle nests. The nesting season occurs from February 1 to August 15 and bald eagle nest buffers should receive maximum protection during this time period. For some activities (construction, seismic exploration, blasting, and timber harvest), a home range buffer may includc potential foraging habitat for 2.5 miles from the nest (GYBEWG 1996). We recommend that you contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the potential impact of your activity to nesting bald eagles if your project will cause disturbance within one of these nest buffer areas. A communal roost is defined as an area where six or more eagles spend the night within 100 meters (328 feet) of each other (GYBEWG 1996). For bald cagle communal winter roosts, we recommend that disturbance be restricted within mile of known communal winter roosts during the period of November 1 to April 1. Additionally, we recommend avoiding disturbance and habitat alteration within 0.5 mile of active roost sites year round. Disturbance sensitivity of roosting and nesting bald eagles may vary between individual eagles, topography, density of vegetation and intensity of activities. The buffers and timing stipulations, as described above, should be implemented unless site-specific information indicates otherwise (Stalmaster and Newman 1978, USFWS 1986). Modification of buffer sizes may be permitted where biologically supported and in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Black-footed ferret: Black-footed ferrets may be affected if prairie dog towns are impacted. Please be aware that black-footed ferret surveys are no longer recommended in black-tailed prairie dog towns statewide or white-tailed prairie dog towns except those noted in our enclosed February 2, 2004, letter. However, we encourage the federal agency to protect all prairie dog towns for their value to the prairie ecosystem and the myriad of species that rely on them. We further encourage you to analyze potentially disturbed prairie dog towns for their value to future black-footed ferret reintroduction. 2

87 . i ~ ~ f white-tailed prairie dog towns or complexes greater than 200 acres will be disturbed, surveys for ferrets may be recommended in order to determine if the action will result in an adverse effect to the species. Surveys are recommended even if only a portion of the white tailed prairie dog town or complex, as identified in om' enclosed hitter, will be disturbed. According to the Black-Footed Ferret Survey Guidelines (USFWS 1989), a prairie dog complex consists of two or more neighboring prairie dog towns less than 7 km (4.3 miles) from each other. f a field check indicates that prairie dog towns may be affected, you should contact this office for guidance on ferret surveys. Preble's meadow jumping mouse: The Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Preble's) is a small rodent in the Zapodidae family and is 1 of 12 recognized subspecies of the species Z. hudsonius, the meadow jumping mouse. The diet of the Preble's consists of seeds, fruits, fungi and insects. Hibernation occurs from October to May in small underground burrows. Nests are made of;,. grass, leaves or woody material in burrows the mouse excavates several centimeters underground. Preble's are primarily noctmnal or crepuscular, but have been observed during. daylight. They occur in low undergrowth consisting of grasses, forbs, or a mix of both, in wet meadows and riparian corridors, or where tall shrubs and low trees provide adequate cover. Additionally, Preble's exhibits a preference for lush vegetation along watercourses or herbaceous. understories in wooded areas with close proximity to water. n Wyoming, Preble's has been. recently documented in Albany, Laramie, Platte and Converse Counties, and may occur in Goshen County. f a proposed project will result in a disturbance to suitable habitat within any of these five counties, surveys should be conducted prior to any action. Due to the diffieultyin identifying the })reble's, surveys should be conducted by knowledgeable biologists trained in conducting these surveys. Ute ladies'-tresses: Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthesdiluvialis) is a perennial, terrestrial orchid; 8 to 20 inches tall, with white or ivory flowers clustered into a spike arrangement at the top of the stem. S. diluvialis typically blooms from late July through August; however, depending on.;.' location and climatic conditions, it may bloom in early July or still be in flower as late as eady October. S. diluvialis is endemic to moist soils near wetland meadows, springs, lakes, and perennial streams where it colonizes early successional point bars or sandy edges. The elevation range of known occurrences is 4,200 to 7,000 feet in alluvial substrates along riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, and moist to wet meadows. Soils where S. diluvialis have been found typically range from fine silt/sand, to gravels and cobbles, as well as to highly organic and peaty soil types. S. diluvialis is not found in heavy or tight clay soils or in extremely saline 01' alkaline soils. S. diluvialis seems intolerant of shade and small scattered groups are found primarily in' areas where vegetation is relatively open. Surveys should be conducted by knowledgeable botanists trained in conducting rare plant surveys. S. diluvialis is difficult to survey for primarily due to its unpredictability of emergence of flowering parts and subsequent rapid desiccation of specimens. The Service does not maintain a list of "qualified" surveyors but can refer those wishing to become familial' with the orchid to experts who can provide training or services. Migratory Birds: Please recognize that consultation on listed species may not remove your obligation to protect the many sp(~cies of migratory birds, including eagles and other raptors 3

88 i ] ~ protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA),16 U.S.C. 703 and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 U.S.C TheMBTA, enacted in 1918, prohibits the taking of any migratory birds, their parts, nests, or eggs except as permitted by regulations and does not require intent to be proven. Section 703 of the MBT A states, "Unless and except as permitted by regulations... it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any mauner, to... take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, or possess.., any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird... " The BGEP A, prohibits knowingly taking, or taking with wanton disregard for the consequences of an activity, any bald or golden eagles or their body parts, nests, or eggs, which includes collection, molestation, disturbance, or killing. Work that could lead to the take of a migratory bird including an eagle, their young, eggs, or nests (for example, if you are going to erect new well sites, roads, or power lines in the vicinity of a nest), should be coordinated with our office before any actions are taken. Removal or destruction of such nests, or causing abandonment of a nest could constitute violation of one or both of the above statutes. Removal of any active migratory bird nest or nest tree is prohibited. For golden eagles, inactive nest permits are limited to activities involving resource extraction or human health and safety. Mitigation, as detennined by the local U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service field office, may be required for loss of these nests. No pennits will be issued for an active nest of any migratory bird species, unless removal of an active nest is necessary for reasons of human health and safety. Therefore, if nesting migratory birds are present on, or near the project area, timing is a significant <;onsideration and needs to be addressed in project planning. f nest manipulation is proposed for this project, the project proponent should contact the Service's Migratory Bird Office in Denver at to see if a pennit can be issued for this project. No nest manipulation is allowed without a pennit. f a permit cannot be issued, the project may need to be modified to ensure take of a migratory bird or eagle, their young, eggs or nest will not occur. Wetlands/Riparian Areas: Based on the information provided, it is unclear whether or not wetlands may be impacted by the proposed project. Wetlands perform significant ecological functions which'include: () providing habitat for numerous aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species, (2) aiding in the.dispersal of floods, (3) improving water quality through retention and assimilation of pollutants from storm water runoff, and (4) recharging the aquifer. Wetlands also possess aesthetic and recreational values. The Service recommends measures be taken to avoid and minimize wetland losses in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Executive Order (floodplain management) as well as the goal of "no net loss ofwetlands!' f wetlands may be destroyed or degraded by the proposed action, those wetlands in the project area should be inventoried and fully described in tenns of their functions and values. Acreage of wetlands, by type, should be disclosed and specific actions should be outlined to avoid, minimize, and compensate for all unavoidable wetland impacts. Riparian or streamside areas are a valuable natural resource and impacts to these areas should be avoided whenever possible. Ripmian areas are the single most productive wildlife habitat type in North America. They support a greater variety of wildlife than any other habitat. Ripmian vegetation plays an important role in protecting stremns, reducing erosion and sedimentation as 4