Dadt

NID Regional Water Supply Project
Technical Memorandum

Cross River Penstock Predesign
J anuary 2011
Prepared for
Nevada Irrigation District
City of Lincoln
Prepared by
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
3875 Atherton Road
Rocklin, CA 95765
Tel: (916) 773-8100
Fax: (916) 773-8448

Stantec Consulting Services Inc. NID/City of Lincoln
184030120 i Regional Water Supply Project
Contents
NID Regional Water Supply Project - Technical Memorandum
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................. 2
2.0 PIPELINE CORRIDOR ........................................................................................................... 3
3.0 HYDRAULIC DESIGN ........................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Design Flows .......................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Pipeline Diameter, Length, and Design Velocity ................................................... 5
3.3 Hydraulic Control Points (HCP) and Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) ...................... 6
3.4 Internal Working Pressure ...................................................................................... 6
3.5 Surge Control .......................................................................................................... 6
4.0 PROJECT COMPONENTS ...................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Pipeline Materials ................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Design Conditions .................................................................................................. 8
4.3 Methods of Pipeline Support .................................................................................. 8
4.4 Pipeline Design Span Lengths and Stresses ......................................................... 11
4.5 External Loads ...................................................................................................... 12
4.6 Pier Supports ......................................................................................................... 12
4.7 Concrete Anchors ................................................................................................. 12
4.8 Pipeline J oints ....................................................................................................... 12
4.9 Pipeline Appurtenances ........................................................................................ 13
4.9.1 Air and Vacuum Valves ............................................................................ 13
4.9.2 Isolation Valves ........................................................................................ 13
5.0 CONSTRUCTION ZONES AND CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................ 14
5.1 Aerial Truss Crossing- Reach A ........................................................................... 14
5.2 River Bank Crossing- Reach B ............................................................................. 15
5.3 Tie-In to the Combie North Penstock - Combie North Tie-In .............................. 15
5.4 Tie-In to the Combie South Penstock - Combie South Tie-In .............................. 16
6.0 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COSTS ..................................................... 16
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 18
7.1 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 18
7.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 19


184030120 ii Regional Water Supply Project
Tables
Table 1 Engineers Opinion of Probable Project Costs ........................................................ 17

Drawings
Drawing C90 Cross River Penstock Predesign Plan and Profile ..................................................... 4
Drawing C91 Cross River Penstock Predesign Details ................................................................... 9
Drawing C92 Cross River Penstock Predesign Details ................................................................. 10

Appendices
Appendix A Cross River Penstock Alternatives Evaluation TM

184030120 1 Regional Water Supply Project

Prepared For: Nevada Irrigation District and City of Lincoln
Prepared By: Shawn Labanowski, P.E.
Reviewed By: Todd Kotey, P.E.
Date: January 2011
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This section provides information about the overall NID Regional Water Supply Project (Project)
as it relates specifically to the background, purpose, and scope of the intertie between the North
and South Combie penstocks across the Bear River just downstream of the Combie Dam. The
Project team as it relates to this technical memorandum (TM) includes key staff from the Nevada
Irrigation District (NID), the City of Lincoln (City), and the consultant team including, McCall
Engineering (NID representative), C.F. Bradham Consulting Engineer (City representative),
ECO:LOGIC Engineering now Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Ray Toney & Associates
(RTA), Blackburn Consulting, Inc. (BCI), J ames C. Hanson, Bender Rosenthal, Inc (BRI),
Andregg Geomatics, and J . Harrison Public Relations Group.
1.1 BACKGROUND
To address the projected demand for treated water in the City and within the NID service area,
NID and the City joined in a cooperative study to identify a site for a new regional water
treatment plant. ECO:LOGIC Engineering prepared the initial engineering study for the water
treatment plant site evaluation and selection. Robertson-Bryan, Inc. prepared an environmental
constraints analysis to screen the various sites to identify potential constraints or fatal flaws that
would prevent or jeopardize the construction of the facilities. The results were presented in the
Lincoln Area Water Treatment Plant Planning and Site Study by ECO:LOGIC Engineering,
August 2005 (2005 Site Study).
Subsequent to the 2005 Site Study, ECO:LOGIC Engineering was selected to prepare a planning
and predesign study for the Project. This study was commissioned by NID to further investigate
the feasibility of the Project, and to recommend the location, size, and configuration of Project
components. The purpose of the Planning and Predesign Study is to recommend feasible
alternatives to the Project as a whole, as well as alternatives for individual Project components,
and then incorporate these recommendations into a proposed Project Description for use in the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR).

To prepare the Planning and Predesign Study, a series of TMs were developed to discuss the
specific project criteria and components.
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Currently, there are two existing outlet pipes (penstocks) from the 700-foot long concrete gravity
arch dam constructed across the Bear River, the Combie Dam; one on the north side of the Bear
River and the other on the south side. These penstocks convey flow to the Combie North
hydroelectric power generation (HPG) facility, and the Combie South HPG, also known as the
Combie North and Combie South Powerhouses (CNP) and (CSP), respectively.
The recommended Project pipeline corridor, includes a crossing of the Bear River just
downstream of the dam. This element of the Project is called the Cross River Penstock (CRP).
The CRP connects the 60-inch diameter Combie South (CS) Penstock to the 60-inch diameter
Combie North (CN) Penstock and is necessary to provide additional capacity to serve the Project
service area.
In the Cross River Penstock Alternatives Evaluation TM, included in Appendix A, feasible
alternatives for connecting the two penstocks across the Bear River were identified and
evaluated. Because the alternatives available for an above grade installation are different for
certain portions of the CRP corridor, it was divided into two distinct reaches: Reach A and
Reach B. The alternatives for each reach were evaluated with both economic and non-
economic criteria. The detailed evaluation concluded that the best method for installing the
pipeline in Reach A is to use a truss supported aerial pipe installation, and in Reach B to use
an above grade shallow pier supported pipe installation.
The purpose of this TM is to discuss the preliminary pipeline and facility design considerations,
and to provide preliminary layouts and details for both reaches of the CRP within the
recommended proposed corridor.
The scope of work to accomplish this purpose is to:
Provide 10% predesign plan and profile drawings,
Discuss the hydraulic parameters for the anticipated Project demands,
Recommend viable pipeline materials and appurtenances,
Provide predesign drawings of the pipeline tie-ins and pipeline support details,
Provide predesign drawings of the truss crossing and abutment supports,
Discuss construction considerations, and
Provide a planning level opinion of probable construction costs.
Tasks required to complete this scope include:
Review of supplementary Project TMs to verify predesign compatibility with other
Project facilities.

Perform predesign calculations for each major component.
Prepare predesign drawings and details, and
Prepare a planning level opinion of probable construction costs.
References used in preparation of this Predesign TM include TMs prepared as part of the
Project including:
Nevada Irrigation District Combie South Pipeline Project Alternatives Evaluation
Report, Black and Veatch Corporation, J une 2008.
Environmental Constraints Analysis, ECO:LOGIC, October 2009.
Land Use and Water Demands - Revised, ECO:LOGIC, October 2009.
Raw and Treated Water Pipelines Corridor Evaluation, ECO:LOGIC, J anuary 2010.
Cross River Penstock Alternatives Evaluation, ECO:LOGIC, September 2010, see
Appendix A of the TM.
Backup Water Supply Alternatives Evaluation, Stantec, November 2010.
Pipeline and Related Facilities Predesign, Stantec, J anuary 2011.
American Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Plate Engineering Data - Volume 4, Steel
Penstocks and Tunnel Liners.
NID Combie South Hydroelectric Project As-Built Drawings.
2.0 PIPELINE CORRIDOR
As discussed in the Cross River Penstock Alternatives Evaluation TM, the most evident and
economical source of providing additional flows to the Combie conveyance system is making a
connection between the 60-inch CS penstock which feeds the CSP, and the 60-inch penstock
feeding the CNP. The CS penstock is owned and operated by NID and is only used seasonally
for hydroelectric power generation when the run-of-the-river flows exist. The output of a run-of-
the-river HPG facility is highly dependent on natural run-off. Spring melts will create a lot of
energy while dry seasons will create relatively little energy. The dry season, generally the
summer and fall months, is when demands for raw water increase. During that time, both
60-inch penstocks, if tied together, could be utilized to provide additional flow to the Combie
Phase I Canal. By combining the flow from the south and north penstocks, NID can convey
projected demands within the service area.
To make the connection between the CS and CN penstocks, the Bear River must be crossed. The
proposed river crossing pipeline will connect to the existing penstocks downstream of Combie
Dam and upstream of the Combie Powerhouses somewhere within the corridor shown on
Drawing C90. It is the recommended proposed CRP raw water pipeline corridor, upon which the
preliminary design herein is based.
CROSS RIVER PENSTOCK PREDESIGN
PLAN AND PROFILE
C90
1
STA 10+00 to STA 12+99
DATE SCALE
DRAWN
DESIGNED
CHECKED
ECO:LOGIC
Consulting Engineers
Rocklin, California
A C B D
SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER
OF
E G F H
NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
GRASS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA95945
NID REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
1036 WEST MAINSTREET
3
REVISION DESCRIPTION BY APP DATE CITY
DATUM
ELEVATION
DATUM
ELEVATION

3.0 HYDRAULIC DESIGN
3.1 DESIGN FLOWS
A detailed hydraulic analysis of the two existing penstocks and the proposed intertie pipeline has
not been completed at this time. Following CEQA compliance and during Project design, a
thorough analysis will be performed to determine the optimum diameter of the CRP given
pipeline structural properties, system hydraulics, and the economics of power generation and
construction.
3.2 PIPELINE DIAMETER, LENGTH, AND DESIGN VELOCITY
This section provides a discussion of the pipeline diameters and design velocities required to
deliver raw water given the anticipated Project demands, pipeline length, and recommended
maximum velocity.
In this element of the Project there were two distinct segments of the corridor: 1) outside the
100-year floodplain and 2) within the 100-year floodplain. The potential methods for above
grade installation of the pipeline along the river banks outside of the 100-year floodplain
elevation were different and significantly less complex than the potential methods for installing
the pipeline across and within the limits of the 100-year floodplain and/or the OHWM of the
Bear River. For the purposes of evaluating the installation alternatives within the Project
corridor, the corridor was divided into the following areas:
Reach A: the river crossing at or within the limits of the 100-year floodplain
Reach B: the river banks outside of the limits of the 100-year floodplain
As previously discussed in the Cross River Penstock Alternatives Evaluation TM, the
100-year floodplain has been approximated at elevation 1544-feet in elevation and the
OHWM has been approximated at elevation 1524-1526 feet. Both of these elevations should
be verified in detailed design to ensure that permit and prudent engineering requirements are
met. Plan and profile views of the CRP corridor, including the approximate locations of the
reaches and the 100-year floodplain and the OHWM described above are shown on
Drawing C90.
The recommended maximum velocity for the raw water pipeline is 7-feet per second (fps) to
minimize the degree of deterioration of the pipe lining. As previously mentioned, a detailed
hydraulic analysis of the two existing penstocks and the proposed CRP has not been completed at
this time. However, based upon knowledge of the existing facilities, it is estimated that the size of
the proposed pipeline will be between 48 and 60 inches in diameter.
The raw water pipeline from the CS penstock to the CN penstock is approximately 320-feet in
length. In maintaining a design velocity of 7 fps, a 60-inch diameter pipe is suitable for
maximum day demands of 89 MGD (137 cfs), and a pipe size of 48-inch diameter is suitable for
maximum day demands of 57 MGD (88 cfs). Following CEQA compliance and during CRP
design, a thorough analysis will be performed to determine the optimum diameter given pipeline

structural properties, system hydraulics, and the economics of power generation and construction.
In order to provide a predesign for the Project of maximum impact, the following elements of the
predesign, including the cost estimate will assume that the CRP will be a 60-inch diameter
penstock.
The existing CN and CS penstocks are epoxy lined steel pipeline. The CN penstock is above
grade with a paint coating, and in the area of the intertie, the CS penstock is partially buried with
a tape wrap coating. Given the materials of the connecting penstocks, steel pipe was considered
the most likely material to be selected for the relatively short CRP at this time. Although other
pipe types could be considered during final design, it is anticipated that the above grade
installation of the CRP will be epoxy lined and polyurethane coated C200 pipeline, with some
buried or semi-buried sections having cement mortar or tape wrapped coating. This pipe material
and others are described in further detail in the Pipeline and Related Facilities Predesign TM.
3.3 HYDRAULIC CONTROL POINTS (HCP) AND HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE (HGL)
Hydraulic control points (HCP), such as existing open water surface elevations and existing high
point elevations in the topography along the pipeline corridor, are discussed herein. The design
hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevation for the CRP is the high water elevation of Combie
Reservoir, which is 1,605-feet.
A predesign pipeline plan and profile drawing is included on Drawing C90. The dynamic HGL
is not shown on the drawings, because the hydraulic analysis has not been performed on this
segment of pipeline. The pipeline alignment will be finalized during detailed design; therefore,
for the purposes of the predesign drawings, the profile is typically represented along the
centerline of the corridor, which is approximately 100-feet in width.
3.4 INTERNAL WORKING PRESSURE
The internal working pressure in the raw water pipeline corridor is greatest when there is little
flow or when there is only static pressure. Based on the Combie Reservoir maximum spill
elevation HGL of 1,607-feet and assuming an aerial crossing above the 100-year floodplain
elevation of 1544 feet, the internal predesign pressures within the CRP corridor range from
approximately 18 psi to 26 psi.
3.5 SURGE CONTROL
Due to the preliminary nature of this report, a surge analysis was not performed on the CRP. A
detailed surge analysis is recommended during the final design to determine if the calculated
surge pressures are within the allowable range. Results from the surge analysis may dictate the
surge pressures in pipe design are higher than maximum static pressures. High surge pressures
may also result in the addition of a surge tank(s), anticipator valves, or a combination thereof.

4.0 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The following sections provide information on the predesign considerations for major
components such as the pipeline, pipeline appurtenances, tie-ins, anchor blocks, supports, and
truss supported aerial crossing.
4.1 PIPELINE MATERIALS
The recommended pipeline material for the CRP is AWWA C200 (Steel Pipe) - epoxy lined and
polyurethane coated or tape wrapped pipe. However, other pipeline materials may be considered
during final design. Since the recommended alternative, per the Cross River Penstock
Alternatives Evaluation TM, is an above grade installation, the depth of cover over the pipeline is
not a primary design consideration.
If any pipe is buried or semi-buried it may require an external protective coating or cathodic
protection, which should be analyzed during the final design. It may be prudent to isolate the
new CRP from the existing CS penstock, which is partially buried, if the CS penstock is not
currently cathodically protected. The most efficient combination of pipeline coating and cathodic
protection should consider the other facilities connected to the new pipeline and will be
addressed during final design.
AWWA C200 (Steel Pipe) is a flexible pipe manufactured in a wide variety of standard sizes,
with a variety of different linings and coatings, and wall thicknesses making it suitable for the
above grade installation and varying operating conditions on this element of the Project. An
epoxy lining in accordance with AWWA C210, is recommended, since it is light weight and
durable; it protects the steel core from corrosion, and is easily applied to joints and repair sections
in the field. The minimum steel shell thickness will be at least 0.20-inches, which is the
recommended minimum wall thickness for handling. However, there are other criteria to be
address during final design of this above grade pipeline. They include determining the thickness
required for:
Longitudinal stresses,
Circumferential (hoop) stress,
Beam-bending stresses,
Transverse earthquake loads,
External pressures and vacuum conditions,
Span length, i.e. the design distance between supports, and
The use of stiffener rings of the required thickness.
Each of these criteria are discussed in further detail in the following sections. However, final
locations of the supports and the pipeline shell and stiffener ring (if required) design will require
a detailed analysis, which will be completed during final design.

4.2 DESIGN CONDITIONS
In designing an above grade, exposed, or non-embedded penstock there are multiple design
conditions and corresponding allowable stresses to be considered. These conditions and the
appropriate above grade design differs from the design of a buried penstock, with the exception
of the internal pressure considerations. For internal pressures, above grade penstocks are
designed in the same manner as buried penstocks. For the shell of an above grade penstock the
following design conditions and their corresponding allowable stresses must be considered
during final design:
Normal Condition: This occurs when the penstock is under the maximum static head
condition
Intermittent Condition: This occurs during draining and filling of the penstock, or
during an earthquake under normal operations.
Emergency Condition: This occurs when the pipeline is under maximum surge
pressures.
Exceptional Condition: Generally speaking, this occurs during a malfunctioning of
control equipment in the most adverse manner. This condition should not be used as
the basis of design. It should, however, be analyzed to ensure the maximum stress
does not exceed the specified minimum tensile strength.
It is also important to consider the external loads associated with a vacuum condition. Vacuum
relief valves and other appurtenances are discussed in Section 4.9. In most cases, the potential of
a vacuum is eliminated by proper design of vacuum release valves; therefore, the design of
exposed penstocks is governed by the allowable stress under the normal condition of loading.
4.3 METHODS OF PIPELINE SUPPORT
The penstock installed above grade can be supported in several different ways depending upon
site conditions, size, and economics.
The exposed or above grade penstock is usually supported by either concrete saddles or ring
girders. Concrete anchor blocks support the pipeline at points of horizontal and vertical
deflection. When it is installed on concrete piers placed relatively close together the top of the
pier is formed into a saddle support whose contact angle is usually 120 degrees and has a
rubberized polyester fabric pad placed between the pipe and concrete surface of the saddle.
When spans increase, ring girders or support rings are provided to prevent excess deflection of
the pipe cross section over the pier. Rocker assemblies, roller assemblies, or bearing plates are
provided to prevent the transfer of bending or lateral forces to the piers. The CRP predesign
includes details of ring girder and anchor block type supports. The details of the pier supports
are shown on Drawings C91 and C92.
COMBIE SOUTH TIE-IN DETAIL COMBIE NORTH TIE-IN DETAIL TYPICAL ANCHOR BLOCK DETAIL
TYPICAL BRIDGE ABUTMENT DETAIL TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION
DETAILS
C91
2
DATE SCALE
DRAWN
DESIGNED
CHECKED
ECO:LOGIC
Rocklin, California
A C B D
OF
E G F H
3
TYPICAL STEEL PIPE SUPPORT DETAIL TYPICAL CONCRETE PIPE SUPPORT DETAIL TYPICAL CONCRETE ANCHOR BLOCK DETAIL
DETAILS
C92
3
DATE SCALE
DRAWN
DESIGNED
CHECKED
ECO:LOGIC
Rocklin, California
A C B D
OF
E G F H
3

In using either saddles or ring girders to support the pipeline, there are two generally accepted
methods of integrating the support and pipeline design. The first method is to support the
penstock on intermediate concrete saddles or piers between concrete anchors with field welded
girth joints. In order to accommodate longitudinal movements, an expansion joint is provided
between anchor points. A second method consists of shop fabricated 40-foot sections that are
field installed using sleeve-type coupled field joints. One end of the section is anchored to a
concrete saddle or pier and the opposite end is designed to slide on the saddle or pier. The
longitudinal movements of the penstock are accommodated by movement within the coupling.
Locations of the anchors and expansion joints are identified on Drawing C90 and details of the
supports and anchors are shown on Drawings C91 and C92.
4.4 PIPELINE DESIGN SPAN LENGTHS AND STRESSES
Span length varies with the method of installation. In the first method, the span length usually
ranges from 60 to 120 feet. However the actual length is largely dictated by economics. Longer
spans result in few piers, but may require substantially heavier support rings or ring girders or a
greater pipeline shell thickness over the supports and at mid span. These factors combined with
any required anchor points due to change in direction or slope or by other field conditions and the
selection of optimum plate widths, will have an direct impact on the span length. With the
second method of installation the span lengths are limited to a maximum of 40-feet between the
sleeve type couplings. The maximum allowable longitudinal movement within a sleeve-type
coupling is set by the coupling manufacturers as 3/8-inches, which is the maximum movement
anticipated for a 40-foot length of pipe allowing for thermal expansion/contraction through 100F
of temperature change.
In designing the pipeline, stresses in the pipeline must be analyzed at the supports as well as
between the supports. Both locations must consider equivalent stress based on the Hencky-Mises
theory of failure.
Stresses considered at the supports include:
Circumferential (hoop) stress in the supporting ring girder due to bending and direct
stresses and tensile stress due to internal pressure.
Circumferential stress in support rings at saddle supports.
Longitudinal stresses in the shell at support due to beam bending, and stresses in the
shell due to longitudinal movement of the shell under temperature changes and
internal pressure.
Bending stresses imposed by the ring girder.
Stresses considered between the supports include:
Longitudinal stresses due to beam bending.
Longitudinal stresses due to longitudinal movement under temperature changes and
internal pressure.

Circumferential stress due to internal pressure.
Circumferential stress in support rings at saddle supports.
Longitudinal stresses in the shell at support due to beam bending, and stresses in the
shell due to longitudinal movement of the shell under temperature changes and
internal pressure.
Bending stresses imposed by the ring girder.
Equivalent stress, based on the Hencky-Mises theory of failure.
Installing stiffener rings can significantly increase the strength of the pipe shell and therefore
reduce the shell thickness required.
4.5 EXTERNAL LOADS
The exposed CRP should be designed to withstand external loads with a 1.5 load factor, such as
the anticipated external pressures in a vacuum condition, maintenance live loads, and dynamic
loads due to wind or seismic loads. An exposed pipe shells ability to resist external pressures
depends upon the thickness/diameter ratio, yield point of the steel, and the length/diameter ratio
between stiffener rings, if present.
4.6 PIER SUPPORTS
The piers should be designed for the vertical reactions at the support, longitudinal forces resulting
from frictional resistance due to longitudinal strain and temperature movements, and lateral
forces caused by wind and earthquake forces.
4.7 CONCRETE ANCHORS
Concrete anchors are required at all points of changes in slope or alignment in an above grade
penstock that has expansion joints or sleeve-type couplings, which is the case for the CRP. The
size of the anchor required is determined by the thrust forces at that anchor. It is preferable that
the base of the anchor be placed on a rock foundation and below the frost line. It is common
practice to provide a nominal size anchor even at points where computations indicate a balance of
forces.
4.8 PIPELINE JOINTS
The typical joint type used for exposed steel pipe should be lap-welded bell and spigot along with
flexible couplings and expansion joints. In a buried pipeline, welded joints are required where
thrust restraint is necessary and where pressures are above 250 psi. However for an above grade
penstock the thrust restraint is resolved in the concrete anchors.
In order to accommodate longitudinal movement of the pipeline due to temperature changes and
circumferential strains due to internal pressure, to allow for vertical movements due to any
anticipated differential settlements or deflections between two structures, and to provide moment
release at the joint; sleeve type couplings are included between anchors in the CRP predesign.

Welded butt strap joints are the recommended joint type at the Combie South and Combie North
Tie-Ins. These tie-ins are shown in detail on Drawing C90 and discussed in Section 5.3 and 5.4.
J oint types should be confirmed during the final design.
4.9 PIPELINE APPURTENANCES
Pipeline appurtenances are necessary to properly maintain and operate water pipelines.
Appurtenances include combination air valves (CAVs), air and vacuum release valves, blowoff
valves (BOVs), access manways, and isolation valves. The ideal design will minimize the use
of these appurtenances and use them only as necessary. Approximate sizing and location of these
appurtenances are included in the CRP predesign drawings, but exact sizes and locations will be
determined during final design.
4.9.1 Air and Vacuum Valves
The above grade penstock must be protected from the potential for vacuum conditions, which can
occur during emergency closure of the gate at the upstream end of the penstock or during normal
draining operations. The existing CS penstock has a venting system on the downstream side of
the Combie South penetration. During final design, calculations should be made to ensure that
the existing venting system will have sufficient capacity to supply the full air requirement for the
slide gate during the closing cycle without decreasing the pressure on the inside of the CRP to
more than 2 or 3 psi below atmospheric pressure. By maintaining a consistently positive or
negative slope, wherever possible, the need for additional air relief valves can be minimized. An
additional combination air and vacuum relief valve is recommended on the upstream side of the
new isolation valve at the Combie North Tie-In, along with a new blowoff valve on the upstream
side of the truss bridge crossing.
4.9.2 Isolation Valves
The CRP predesign includes two new isolation valves. One valve is required along the existing
60-inch diameter CS penstock, just downstream of the new CRP tie-in. This isolation valve is
required to bypass the CSP and provide NID with the ability to route all of the desired flow
through the CRP to the CNP or to the CN penstock and the Combie Ophir 1 canal. This valve
could be placed anywhere along the CS penstock between the Combie South Tie-In and the CSP.
However, it is recommended that the valve be installed just downstream of the new CRP to
minimize any additional excavation and limit demolition of the existing CS penstock to one area.
A second isolation valve is required on the CRP to isolate the Combie North Facilities from the
CRP and the Combie South Facilities, providing NID with the ability to route all of the flow
through the CS penstock, if desired. In order to provide NID with the ability to dewater the CRP
without the need to shut off the CN penstock, it is recommended that this isolation valve be
located at the north end of the CRP just south of the Combie North Tie-In.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION ZONES AND CONSIDERATIONS
There are several areas along the proposed pipeline corridor that require unique methods of
construction due to the terrain and physical barriers. The corridor is broken into the following
zones:
Reach B: the river banks outside of the limits of the 100-year floodplain,
The Combie North Tie-In, and
The Combie South Tie-In.
Construction considerations for each of these construction zones are discussed in the following
subsections.
5.1 AERIAL TRUSS CROSSING- REACH A
An above grade installation with the pipeline above the elevation of 1544-feet necessitates that
the river crossing span the Bear River. There are several ways to aerially span this segment of
the CRP. Due to its ability to avoid the US Army CORPS permits and probably avoid the CDFG
permit, as well as its simplicity, availability, stability, and the ease of access it would provide; the
truss supported alternative is the most desirable of the three aerial crossing alternatives evaluated
in the Cross River Penstock Alternatives Evaluation TM. The primary reasons for using this type
of crossing are that the truss supported crossing:
Can be designed, prefabricated, and delivered to the job site, by a fabricator.
Has the simplest of the three alternative foundation supports to design.
Avoids the OHWM and the 100-year floodplain elevation, so the CWA 404 permit
can be avoided and the CDFG Code Section 1602, and the CWA 401 permits can
probably be avoided.
Provides a high level of stability, and
Can easily include an access way along side the pipeline to provide NID and
authorized staff access and to facilitate maintenance activities.
The Cross River Penstock Alternatives Evaluation TM recommends the truss supported
bridge crossing as the primary proposed method of installing pipeline and the column
supported bridge crossing as the secondary method of installing pipeline above the limits of
the 100-year floodplain (Reach A) of the Bear River within the CRP corridor. As a result,
the truss supported bridge crossing is described, herein, for Reach A. A predesign of the
secondary method could be further evaluated during final design, but is not included in this
TM.
The following information was obtained from Big R Manufacturing LLC, which is one of the
leading manufacturers of the truss supported bridge crossings in the United States. Of the truss

bridge crossings that they manufacture, the most cost effective design for the Reach A crossing is
the Half-Through (H-Section), which is
Available in spans between 80 and 240 feet,
Commonly used when clearance below the deck is not a critical issue, and
Shipped in multiple sections for field bolting
Big R Bridges include the following standard features: weathering steel, Douglas Fir wood
decking, 54-inch high hand rail, and a 4-inch opening in safety railing, which is the maximum
opening allowed by the State of California for the safety railing systems on pedestrian bridges.
Optional features include: painted or galvanized steel, Ipe hardwood decking, concrete deck
forms, decorative railings, vinyl coated chain link, and Ipe hardwood or galvanized steel pipe rub
rails.
Predesign details of the truss supported crossing are shown on Drawing C91. The crossing is
approximately 200-feet in length, 10-feet x 14-feet: a 200 x 10 x 14 pipe bridge. These types
of bridges are typically designed with 40-foot segments, which mean that it will likely be
constructed in five spans. Predesign details of the bridge supports are shown on Drawing C91.
5.2 RIVER BANK CROSSING- REACH B
There are several ways to install pipeline within this segment of the CRP. An above grade
installation is preferred in this reach for the following reasons:
It requires less excavation and less potential blasting than open cutting or using
trenchless methods to install the pipeline.
It minimizes the potential risk to the other infrastructures, especially the existing
Combie Dam.
It is the simplest and most cost effective method of installation for Reach B of the
CRP.
The Cross River Penstock Alternatives Evaluation TM recommends shallow pier supports as the
proposed method of installing pipeline outside the limits of the 100-year floodplain of the Bear
River (Reach B) within the CRP corridor. The piers should be designed as described in
Section 4.6.
5.3 TIE-IN TO THE COMBIE NORTH PENSTOCK - COMBIE NORTH TIE-IN
Under current operating conditions, the Combie conveyance system is fed entirely by the flow
diverted to the CNP (i.e. the headworks for the Combie conveyance system). A 34-inch diameter
penetration through the north abutment of the dam provides these flows. It is anticipated that this
penetration will remain in its current condition. During the recent CNP upgrade, the CN
penstock was increased to 60-inches in diameter immediately downstream of the dam penetration
to minimize headlosses and accommodate higher flows. The new 60-inch diameter penstock
bifurcates into a 60-inch turbine feed/intake and a 60-inch bypass pipeline.

The proposed Combie North Tie-In will be located at the 60-inch penstock upstream of the newly
installed 60-inch by 60-inch wye and the two existing 60-inch butterfly valves. Because the
Combie conveyance system is fed entirely by the flow diverted to the CN penstock (i.e. the
headworks for the Combie conveyance system), construction of the tie-in will result in a
temporary shut down of the Combie North Dam penetration, causing temporary outages in the
system. The Combie North Tie-In details are shown on Drawing C91.
5.4 TIE-IN TO THE COMBIE SOUTH PENSTOCK - COMBIE SOUTH TIE-IN
Under current operating conditions, the CSP is not operated full-time and is only run during the
winter and spring months when there is excess flow that would be spilled to the Bear River. This
water is discharged to the river once it passes through the CSP. The CS penstock is owned and
operated by NID and is only used seasonally and purely for hydroelectric power generation when
the run-of-the-river flows exist. The output of a run-of-the-river HPG facility is highly
dependent on natural run-off. Spring melts will create a lot of energy while dry seasons will
create relatively little energy. The dry season, generally the summer and fall months, is when
demands for raw water increase.
If the Combie South Tie-In is constructed during the dry season, it will not result in any changes
to current operations of the CS penstock nor the CSP. However, if the tie-in is constructed when
run-of-the river flows exist and system demands are low, the CSP would experience a temporary
disruption to service during the construction of the tie-in. The Combie South Tie-In details are
shown on Drawing C91.
6.0 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COSTS
This section provides information on how the engineers opinion of probable costs for the CRP
were determined. All costs are conceptual level estimates, based on 10 percent pipeline and
related facilities design, which assumes the pipeline diameter of 60-inches. A substantial
contingency of 25 percent is included at this conceptual level estimate and can be reduced after
more detail allows quantity and unit price estimates to be refined. Probable costs are based on
contemporary prices and do not contain provisions for inflation of construction costs in the
future. A summary of the engineers opinion of planning level probable project costs, assuming a
truss bridge span of 200 and a soffit elevation of 1,544-feet, is presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Engineers Opinion of Probable Project Costs
Project Component

Opinion of Probable Cost
(a)
Mobilization/Demobilization $70,000
Clearing and Grubbing $3,000
Shoring and Bracing $5,000
Project Schedule $1,000
Miscellaneous Excavation and Soils Stabilization $2,000
Corrosion Control $5,000
60-inch Diameter Welded Steel Pipeline $135,000
Steel Truss Bridge
(c)
$545,000
Setting the Steel Truss Bridge and Pipe on Bridge In Place $113,000
Bridge Approach Stairs $30,000
Concrete Bridge Abutments $55,000
Reinforced Concrete Anchor Blocks including Pier Supports as
needed $118,000
Rock Anchors (10 feet deep) $32,000
Bolted Flexible Couplings and Ring Girder Supports $198,000
60-inch Diameter Butterfly Valves $100,000
Flanged Coupling Adapters $40,000
Combie North Tie-In $10,000
Combie South Tie-In $5,000
Additional Rock Excavation $2,000
Additional Slurry Backfill $1,000
Subtotal $1,470,000
Electrical/Instrumentation $5,000
Subtotal $1,475,000
Engineering, Legal, Administration, and CM Costs (20%) $295,000
Subtotal $1,770,000
Land Purchase/Easements
(b)
$0
Subtotal $1,770,000
Contingency (25%) $442,500
Total Project Construction Cost $2,212,500
(a) At the time of these cost estimates, the ENR 20 Cities CCI was 8,865 (July 2010).
(b) It is assumed that NID already has all of the land required for this element of the Project.
(c) All costs are based upon crossing the Bear River at elevation 1,544-feet.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions and recommendations for the CRP predesign are included in this section.
7.1 CONCLUSIONS
During the final design process, the preliminary findings that are summarized within this TM and
the Cross River Penstock Alternatives Evaluation TM, will need to be refined and confirmed.
Items identified in this report as requiring further analysis during final design include:
1. Conformance of design with findings in Project Final Environmental Impact Report
(Final EIR).
2. Finalize pipeline alignment within the identified corridor.
3. Perform design-level survey; including utility identification.
4. Perform design-level geotechnical investigations, including a seismic study.
5. Perform design-level corrosion control study and develop a detailed corrosion control
plan.
6. Perform design-level surveys and analysis to determine the actual elevation of the
100-year floodplain and OHWM.
7. Confirm hydraulic parameters and pipeline sizes for design.
8. Confirm ultimate HGL elevation.
9. Confirm the minimum bridge elevation and length.
10. Confirm that the design conforms to the State of California Division of Safety of
Dams, Army Corps of Engineers, and/or Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) regulations, if necessary.
11. Complete final pipeline design; including selection of pipeline material(s),
appurtenance sizes and locations, and confirm permanent and temporary construction
easements, and additional staging locations.
12. Perform design-level surge control analysis and determine surge control methods.
13. Analyze construction and project funding phasing.
14. Complete final plans and specifications for construction.
15. Identify and acquire permits as required by NID.
16. Acquire all right of way required for the Project, if necessary.
17. Provide engineers opinion of probable construction cost based on the final plans and
specifications for construction.

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the preliminary analysis of the pipeline and may
change during the final design as more detailed information is gathered. A summary of the
pipeline design recommendations as discussed within this TM are as follows:
1. Pipeline diameter to be carried forward through the EIR is 60-inches.
2. Design should be based on the preferred material, as determined by NID and the
engineer in final design. For purposes of preparing the cost opinions, AWWA C200
was assumed as the proposed pipeline material as called out on the drawings.
3. Maximum operating and test pressures not to exceed 150 psi to maintain use of
AWWA 150 fittings, valves, and other pipeline appurtenances.
4. Design the penstock and supports in accordance with USBR Design Standards for
exposed steel penstocks.
5. Pipeline Appurtenances:
Install standard CAVs within the corridor at high points or changes from positive
to negative slopes, and on the downstream side of isolation valves
Install BOVs at defined low points and on the uphill side of isolation valves
located on a slope to allow dewatering of the pipeline;
Install an access manway within the CRP at least 10-feet from either side of an
isolation valve to allow access into the pipeline;
Install isolation valves, i.e. butterfly valves, at the locations shown on the
drawings.
6. Install anchor blocks at all locations of change in horizontal or vertical alignment.
7. Install expansion joints to permit longitudinal movement and transverse deflection, at
a maximum of 40 foot intervals.
8. Verify that the existing venting system(s) can provide the sufficient capacity to supply
the full air requirement for the slide gate during the closing cycle without decreasing
the pressure on the inside of the CRP to more than 2 or 3 psi below atmospheric
pressure.
9. Install fiber optic cable within as needed to provide transmission of telemetry data to
and from the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) instrumentation.

Appendix A
Cross River Penstock Alternatives Evaluation TM


Cross River Penstock Alternatives Evaluation
September 2010
Prepared for
Nevada Irrigation District
City of Lincoln
Prepared by
ECO:LOGIC

ECO:LOGIC Engineering NID/City of Lincoln
NVID07-001 i Regional Water Supply Project
Contents
NID Regional Water Supply Project - Technical Memorandum
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................ 2
2.0 INITIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ............................................................................. 5
2.1 Geotechnical Considerations ........................................................................................ 5
2.2 Engineering Considerations .......................................................................................... 6
2.3 Environmental Considerations ..................................................................................... 6
2.4 Operation and Maintenance Considerations ................................................................. 7
3.0 ABOVE GRADE INSTALLATION EVALUATION ................................................................... 8
3.1 Reach A (Aerial River Crossing) ............................................................................... 10
3.2 Reach B (River Bank Crossing) ................................................................................. 12
4.0 PRELIMINARY COST COMPARISONS ............................................................................... 12
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 14
5.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 14
5.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 16

Tables
Table 1 Non-Economic Considerations ................................................................................ 11
Table 2 Reach A Alternative Preliminary Cost Comparisons
(a)
.......................................... 13
Table 3 Reach B Alternative Preliminary Cost Comparisons
(a)
........................................... 13

Figures
Figure 1 Existing Facilities ...................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 Cross River Penstock Corridor Preliminary Plan and Profile .................................... 9

NVID07-001 1 Regional Water Supply Project

Prepared For: Nevada Irrigation District and City of Lincoln
Prepared By: Mariska Chuse, E.I.T.
Shawn Labanowski, P.E.
Reviewed By: Todd Kotey, P.E.
Gerry LaBudde, P.E.
Date: September 2010
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This section provides information about the overall NID Regional Water Supply Project (Project)
as it relates specifically to the background, purpose, and scope of the intertie between the Combie
North (CN) and Combie South (CS) penstocks across the Bear River just downstream of the
Combie Dam. The Project team as it relates to this technical memorandum (TM) includes key
staff from the Nevada Irrigation District (NID), the City of Lincoln (City), and the consultant
team including, McCall Engineering (NID representative), C.F. Bradham Consulting Engineer
(City representative), ECO:LOGIC Engineering, Ray Toney & Associates (RTA), Blackburn
Consulting, Inc. (BCI), James C. Hanson, Bender Rosenthal, Inc (BRI), Andregg Geomatics, and
J. Harrison Public Relations Group.
1.1 BACKGROUND
To address the projected demand for treated water in the City and within the NID service area,
NID and the City joined in a cooperative study to identify a site for a new regional water
treatment plant. ECO:LOGIC Engineering prepared the initial engineering study for the water
treatment plant site evaluation and selection. Robertson-Bryan, Inc. prepared an environmental
constraints analysis to screen the various sites to identify potential constraints or fatal flaws that
would prevent or jeopardize the construction of the facilities. The results were presented in the
Lincoln Area Water Treatment Plant Planning and Site Study by ECO:LOGIC Engineering,
August 2005 (2005 Site Study).

Subsequent to the 2005 Site Study, ECO:LOGIC was selected to prepare a planning and
predesign study for the Project. This study was commissioned by NID to further investigate the
feasibility of the Project, and to recommend the location, size, and configuration of Project
components. The purpose of the Planning and Predesign Study is to recommend feasible
alternatives to the Project as a whole, as well as alternatives for individual Project components,
and then incorporate these recommendations into a proposed Project Description for use in the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR).
To prepare the Planning and Predesign Study, a series of TMs were developed to discuss the
specific project criteria and components.
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Currently, there are two existing outlet pipes (penstocks) from the 700 foot long concrete gravity
arch dam constructed across the Bear River, the Combie Dam; one on the north side of the Bear
River and the other on the south side. These penstocks convey flow to the Combie North
hydroelectric power generation (HPG) facility, and the Combie South HPG, also known as the
Combie North and Combie South Powerhouses (CNP) and (CSP), respectively.
The recommended Project pipeline corridor, includes a crossing of the Bear River just
downstream of the dam. This element of the Project is called the Cross River Penstock (CRP).
The CRP connects the 60-inch diameter CS penstock to the 60-inch CN penstock and is
necessary to provide additional capacity to serve the Project service area. The purpose of this
TM is to first identify and evaluate the feasible alternatives for the connecting the two penstocks
across the Bear River; and second to recommend a component of the proposed Project to be
considered during the Project Draft EIR development. A preliminary design of the recommended
alternative shall be included in the Cross River Penstock Predesign TM.
The CNP serves as the headworks for the Combie Phase I Canal and was just recently upgraded.
The flow diverted through the CNP is either conveyed to the Combie Phase I Canal and/or is
spilled into the Bear River. The CSP is not operated full-time and is only run during the winter
and spring months when there is excess flow that would be spilled to the Bear River. This water
is discharged to the river once it passes through the CSP.
The current design maximum flow of the Combie Phase I Canal is 200 cfs. The canal
infrastructure is in need of improvements or replacement due to age, which is addressed in the
Draft Combie South Pipeline Project Alternatives Report (Black and Veatch, June 2008). As
stated in this report, the desired ultimate design flow is 265 cfs, which includes 65 cfs for the
Project demands. The main purpose of the CRP is to provide additional capacity, which cannot
be provided through the 34-inch penetration (outlet) on the north side of the Combie Dam.
Figure 1, shows the existing facilities in the area of the Project, immediately downstream the
Combie Dam. Additionally, the CRP will improve system reliability and flexibility, and improve
efficiencies at the CNP.
Combie North
Powerhouse
Combie Phase I C
a
n
a
l
Bear R
iv
e
r
Combie South
Powerhouse
New 60 0 Combie North
Penstock
South Penetration
(48 0, Inv. El. 1,586)
100-foot wide
Cross River Penstock
Pipeline Corridor
Combie Dam
(Spill El. 1,600)
Combie
Reservoir
North Penetration
(34 0, Inv. El. 1,545)
54 0 Combie South Penstock
Figure 1
Existing Facilities
u
:
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
/
N
e
v
a
d
a

I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
/
N
V
I
D
0
7
-
0
0
1
/
C
o
m
b
i
e

R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
/
N
V
I
D
0
7
-
0
0
1

A
e
r
i
a
l

C
o
m
b
i
e
.
a
i

1
0
/
1
3
/
1
0

c
m
s

Under current operating conditions, the Combie conveyance system is fed entirely by the flow
diverted to the CNP (i.e. the headworks for the Combie conveyance system). A 34-inch diameter
penetration through the north abutment of the dam provides these flows. It is anticipated that this
penetration will remain in its current condition. Water flow velocities in the 34-inch penetration
can reach 24 feet per second under existing demands of 150 cfs. Velocity will reach 42 feet per
second at ultimate design flow of 265 cfs. Current and anticipated velocities exceed generally
accepted criteria for this type of installation.
During the recent CNP upgrade, the CN penstock was increased to 60-inches in diameter
immediately downstream of the dam penetration to minimize headlosses and accommodate
higher flows. The new 60-inch diameter penstock bifurcates into a 60-inch turbine feed/intake
and a 60-inch bypass pipeline. With these recent upgrades, the CN penstock and turbine will
accommodate the designed capacity of 265 cfs; however, the 34-inch penetration remains
undersized.
The most evident and economical source of providing additional flows to the Combie
conveyance system is making a connection between the 60-inch CS penstock that feeds the CSP
and the 60-inch penstock that feeds the CNP. The CS penstock is owned and operated by NID
and is only used seasonally and purely for hydroelectric power generation when the run-of-the-
river flows exist. The output of a run-of-the-river HPG facility is highly dependent on natural
run-off. Spring melts will create a lot of energy, while dry seasons will create relatively little
energy. The dry season, generally the summer and fall months, is when demands for raw water
increase. During that time, the two 60-inch penstocks, if tied together, would compensate for the
undersized 34-inch penetration; thereby providing additional flow to the Combie Phase I Canal.
By combining the flow from the south and north penstocks, NID can convey projected demands
within the service area.
To make the connection between the CN and CS penstocks, the Bear River must be crossed. The
proposed river crossing pipeline will connect to the existing penstocks downstream of Combie
Dam and upstream of the powerhouses somewhere within the corridor shown on Figure 1.
A detailed hydraulic analysis of the two existing penstocks and the proposed intertie pipeline has
not been completed at this time. However, based upon knowledge of the existing facilities, it is
estimated that the size of the proposed pipeline will be between 48 and 60 inches in diameter.
Following CEQA compliance and during Project design, a thorough analysis will be performed
to determine the optimum diameter given pipeline structural properties, system hydraulics, and
the economics of power generation and construction.
There is access to both the north and south ends of the Project site via existing roads currently
used to access the powerhouses and the dam. However, due to the rough and confined terrain
there is little room for equipment and construction staging areas. Ground and aerial crossings
will both be challenging due to the confined workspace, existing infrastructure, and
environmental issues. The tie-in location on the south side will be between the dam and the
existing powerhouse. The tie-in location on the north side is upstream of the 60-inch wye just

upstream of the CNP. The total cross-river distance between the CN penstock to the CS penstock
is approximately 320 feet.
This TM includes:
Identification of alternative methods of constructing the CRP,
Evaluation of these alternatives, and
Recommendation of the alternative method of constructing the CRP for which a
preliminary design shall be established in the Cross River Penstock Predesign TM.
2.0 INITIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
There are two fundamental alternatives for installing the CRP. Those options are to either install
it above ground or underground, and there are multiple construction methods to consider for each
basic methodology.
The three alternatives initially identified for installing the CRP are:
open cut installation,
trenchless installation, and
above grade/aerial installation.
The criteria identified for the initial evaluation are:
Geotechnical
Engineering,
Environmental, and
Operation and Maintenance
Each criteria and the specific considerations used to identify the recommended alternative(s) to
be carried forward for further evaluation are as follows:
2.1 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The surface soils in the area appear to be fairly weathered rock underlain by bedrock a few feet
below. Excavating the hard soils and rock in this area could require blasting and/or more
powerful equipment for excavation. Considering the proximity of the new CRP to the existing
dam structure and powerhouses, blasting is not ideal. These types of soil and rock make an open
cut or trenchless installation more difficult and costly than conventional cut-and-cover
installation. The hard soils and rock provide an ideal foundation for shallow above grade
supports.

2.2 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
Trenchless installation and open cut excavation in hard soils at the base of a 700-foot long
concrete dam is not ideal and has the potential to be unacceptable to or trigger scrutiny from the
California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). In addition, the
location of this element of the Project is difficult to access with major equipment. Therefore, a
method of construction requiring a minimal mobilization effort is desirable. Compared to open
cut or trenchless construction, above grade construction requires relatively shallow excavation,
which will require smaller equipment. Trenchless excavation requires larger specialize
equipment capable of trenching hard rock and blasting large volumes of rock for the deep boring
and receiving pits.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The highest potential for environmental impacts from this Project is within the limits of the
100-year floodplain which includes the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Bear River.
From an environmental perspective, the alternative that would require fewer permits, has the least
costs relative to permits, and has the least impact to the Bear River is preferred. In order to
establish the recommended method for installing the penstock across the river, potential impacts
to the following should be considered: water quality, fisheries, riverine habitat, special-status
species, cultural resources, streambed, riparian area, and floodplain. The Bear River is a US
Army CORPS jurisdictional waters of the US and is regulated under CWA Section 404. The US
Army CORPS CWA 404 permit requires the following three prerequisite permits.
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) 401 Certification (CWA 401).
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Compliance
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) Section 7 Consultation
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Streambed Alteration Permit (CDFG
Code Section 1602) is required for any open cut or trenchless installation within the 100-year
floodplain. Of the potential permits required, the CWA 404 permit takes the most time and is the
most costly to acquire. However, the CWA 404 permit is required only if the Project is located
below the OHWM or entails a federal action, such as federal permit or federal funding. There are
costs associated with obtaining these permits, but the timeline and ultimately the hours required
to obtain these permits from federal and state regulatory agencies can vary greatly from project to
project.
In comparing the three alternatives, an open cut buried installation has the highest overall
environmental impact, such as water quality impacts, fisheries, riverine habitat, endangered
species, and potential cultural resource impacts. It would also require all permits to be acquired,
including the US Army CORPS Section 404 permit; because there would be disturbance below
the OHWM elevation. Although its impacts are high, they are likely considered temporary;
because after construction the river bed will be restored to pre-existing conditions.

For a trenchless installation, the environmental impacts would be slightly less than those for the
open cut installation, including fewer water quality impacts, fewer impacts to special-status
species, and an avoidance of an US Army CORP CWA 404 permit. However, there are still
potential impacts to cultural resources and potential for seepage of bentonite through fractures in
rock, known as frac outs, during the drilling process. A CDFG streambed alteration permit is,
therefore, still required.
For an aerial crossing that avoids the placement of dredge or fill material within the limits of the
OHWM of the Bear River, a US Army CORPS CWA 404 permit would not be required. If the
aerial crossing is above the 100-year floodplain elevation, there is potential to avoid a CDFG
streambed alteration permit, so long as the riparian habitat is avoided. An aerial crossing also
reduces impacts to both water quality and cultural resources. The area is relatively devoid of
riparian vegetation, so placement of structural elements above or below the OHWM will have
minimal impacts to the riparian habitat. One disadvantage to the aerial crossing is the aesthetic
impacts. However, due to the numerous other structures in the vicinity, these impacts would
likely be considered negligible. Including a pedestrian crossing with the aerial pipe crossing
would eliminate the need for an additional pedestrian crossing and provide the potential to
remove the existing pedestrian bridge crossing near the SCP and downstream of the proposed
CRP. Abandoning the existing pedestrian bridge and combining the two crossings into a single
crossing would minimize aesthetic impacts; as well as reduce future costs associated with
maintaining the existing pedestrian walkway, such as repairs and painting.
2.4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS
An above grade pipeline has operational and maintenance advantages and disadvantages
compared to buried pipeline. The primary advantage is that the pipeline, joints, and
appurtenances are easy to access, may be visually inspected, and are less difficult to maintain.
The primary disadvantage is that because it is exposed, there is greater opportunity for it to be
damaged, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Although the initial criteria did not include costs, excavation and backfill costs typically make up
about half of overall pipeline construction costs for a typical open cut installation. Generally,
trenchless installation is typically four times the cost of open cut installation per linear foot,
exclusive of the jacking and receiving pits. There is less excavation and backfill efforts required
for an above ground or semi-buried installation, compared to a typical buried or trenchless
installation. However, the reinforced concrete anchor blocks used to provide thrust restraint in an
above grade or semi buried installation can be a significant element of the cost. In addition, an
above grade installation in the section of the CRP that crosses the Bear River will require a
relatively expensive supporting structure. Therefore, pipeline installation costs are highly
dependent upon the specific type of crossing considered, above grade or below grade, and the
economic climate at the time of construction. In an effort to identify the potential cost
advantages to the various alternatives evaluated, an engineers opinion of preliminary
comparative construction costs is included in Section 4.0.

Based upon the non-economic criteria above, all three methods of installation are viable
alternatives. Due to the environmental impacts and the potential impacts to the other structures
in the vicinity, the above grade alternative is considered superior to the open cut, semi-buried,
and trenchless installation alternatives. Therefore, the initial evaluation resulted in the
recommendation of further evaluation and identification of specific above grade installation
alternatives.
3.0 ABOVE GRADE INSTALLATION EVALUATION
In evaluating the specific method of above grade installation of the CRP, it was evident that there
were two distinct segments of the corridor in this element of the Project: 1) outside the 100-year
floodplain and 2) within the 100-year floodplain. The potential methods for above grade
installation of the pipeline along the river banks outside of the 100-year floodplain elevation were
different and significantly less complex than the potential methods for installing the pipeline
across and within the limits of the 100-year floodplain and/or the OHWM of the Bear River. For
the purposes of evaluating the installation alternative for this area of the Project, the corridor was
divided into the following areas:
Reach B: the river banks outside of the limits of the 100-year floodplain
Before comparing above grade alternatives, it was important to identify the total span of the
crossing, by establishing the 100-year floodplain elevation. FEMA maps delineate the area below
the Combie Dam as Zone A, which is the 100-year inundation area. However, the maps do not
indicate the specific elevation of the Zone A boundary. Therefore, the clearance of the 100-year
floodplain elevation was determined based upon conversations with NID staff and field visits.
The SC HPG facility turbines are mounted on a slab at approximately 1544-feet in elevation.
NID staff indicated that when the water surface elevation in the Combie Reservoir exceeded the
maximum height of the Combie Dam in 1986, 1997, and 2005; the turbines in the SC HPG
facility turbines remained above the high water mark. Therefore, it was concluded that the
bottom of the structure, be it pipeline or truss, should remain at or above that same elevation of
1544-feet. The pipeline would need to span approximately 200-feet to be at or above elevation
1544-feet.
Based upon the location of the scour lines, water staining, lower edge of the vegetative layer
along the channel, and the location of the lower edge of the riparian tree zone; the OHWM
was identified by Project environmental staff to be approximately 1524-1526 feet.
Plan and profile views of the CRP corridor, including the approximate locations of the
reaches and the 100-year floodplain and the OHWM described above are shown on Figure 2.
Cross River Penstock Corridor
Preliminary Plan and Profile
Figure 2
DATE SCALE
DRAWN
DESIGNED
CHECKED
ECO:LOGIC
Rocklin, California
A C B D
1
2
E G F
3
4
H
5
GRASS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 95945
1036 WEST MAIN STREET
DATUM
ELEVATION
DATUM
ELEVATION
100 Foot Wide
Pipeline Corridor
Approximate Ordinary
High-Water Mark
(OHWM)
Reach B Reach A
OHWM
Reach B
Approximate Original
Grade at Centerline of
Corridor
Combie Dam
Spill El 1600
Approximate 100-Year Floodplain
5
4
P
e
n
sto
c
k
(E
)
S
o
u
t
h
C
o
m
b
ie
P
o
w
e
r
h
o
u
s
e
B
e
a
r
R
i
v
e
r
A
p
p
r
o
x
i m
a
t
e
1
0
0
-
Y
e
a
r
F
l
o
o
d
H
i
g
h
-
W
a
t
e
r
M
a
r
k
North Combie
Powerhouse
6
0
P
e
n
s
t
o
c
k
(
E
)
Combie Dam
Combie Dam
u
:p
r
o
je
c
t-
g
r
a
p
h
ic
s
/N
e
v
a
d
a
Ir
r
ig
a
tio
n
D
is
tr
ic
t/N
V
ID
0
7
-
0
0
1
/C
o
m
b
ie
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
ir
/F
ig
u
r
e
2
C
r
o
s
s
R
iv
e
r
P
e
n
s
to
c
k
.a
i 6
/8
/1
0
c
m
s

3.1 REACH A (AERIAL RIVER CROSSING)
An above grade installation with the pipeline above the elevation of 1544-feet, necessitates that
the river crossing span the Bear River. There are several ways to aerially span this segment of
the CRP. The three aerial crossing alternatives evaluated are a cable stay supported pipeline, a
truss supported pipeline, and a column supported pipeline.
The Bear River is a US Army CORPS jurisdictional waters of the US. Therefore, depending
upon the method used to cross it; a CWA 404 permit could be required if the width of the
OHWM cannot be avoided. Of all of the environmental permits, the CWA 404 permit requires
the most time and the most money to acquire. Consequently, environmental impacts and costs
are very important factors in recommending one alternative method over another. The
environmental benefit to the suspension and truss type crossings is that they can both span the
entire OHWM length. However, in order to evaluate the column supported alternative, it was
necessary to determine whether column supports could practically be placed to avoid the OHWM
and therefore minimize environmental impacts and costs.
For a column supported installation, AWWA M11, Steel Pipe - A Guide for Design and
Installation, identifies a 200-foot span length to be a Type 3 supported span, with each end span
being no more than 80 percent of the length of the center span. If construction of the two center
supports avoids the placement of dredge or fill material in the Bear River within the OHWM, the
US Army CORP CWA 404 permit will be avoided; however, the CDFG 1602 and CWA 401
permits will not be avoided. Placing two center supports on either side of the OHWM at
elevation 1529-feet gives a clear center span of approximately 80-feet in length, with both end
span lengths of approximately 60-feet in order to clear the 100-year floodplain. The two end
span lengths are less than 80 percent of the center span length.
The primary non-economic considerations used to compare the three alternative methods for
aerially crossing the Bear River above the100-year floodplain are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1
Non-Economic Considerations
Support
Type
Engineering Environmental Operation and Maintenance
Truss Designed, prefabricated, and
delivered to the job site, by a
fabricator. The foundation
supports are the simplest to
design of the three alternatives.
Because it avoids the OHWM
and the 100-year floodplain
elevation, the CWA 404 permit
can be avoided, with potential
to also avoid the CDFG Code
Section 1602, and the CWA
401 permits.
Provides a high level of
stability, and it includes an
access way along side the
pipeline to make NID and
authorized staff access easier
and beneficial to maintenance
activities.
Suspension Requires two steel pylon
supports of approximately
40-feet in height to adequately
provide both vertical and lateral
support with cables and
anchors into hillside. The
foundation supports and cable
stays require the most
structural engineering design of
the three alternatives.
Because it avoids the OHWM
and the 100-year floodplain
elevation, the CWA 404 permit
can be avoided, with potential
to also avoid the CDFG Code
401 permits. However, these
tall steel pylons and cables are
aesthetically least desirable.
Less stability makes NID and
authorized staff access more
difficult. Therefore, this
alternative is less beneficial to
operation and maintenance
activities, and would not
provide a stable pedestrian
crossing.
Column Requires two cast-in-place pier
wall supports approximately
15-feet above grade, under the
pipeline. These supports will
require footings, be adequately
anchored to the bedrock, and
designed to support lateral and
vertical loads. This design has
a moderate level of structural
design required.
The concrete pier wall supports
will be outside the limits of the
OHWM, but within the 100-year
floodplain elevation. Therefore,
the CWA 404 permit can be
avoided, but the CDFG Code
401 permits cannot be avoided.
Column supports under the
pipeline, minimizes aesthetic
impacts.
More stable than the cable stay
alternative. There is potential to
construct a pedestrian access
bridge along the side of the
pipeline that would be
supported by the same pier wall
supports that the pipeline is on.
The pedestrian access could
make NID and authorized staff
access easier, which is more
beneficial to maintenance
activities than the suspension
supported method.

Based upon the non-economic criteria above, all of the crossings are viable alternatives. Due to
its ability to avoid both the US Army CORPS permits and likely avoid the CDFG permit, as well
as its simplicity, availability, stability, and the easy access it would provide; the truss supported
alternative is the most desirable aerial alternative. However, as stated in the initial evaluation,
construction costs are dependent upon the type of structure used. Therefore, prior to a final
recommendation, a preliminary opinion of relative installation costs must be established to
compare the costs of the aerial structures alternatives with the open cut and trenchless installation
costs. Those costs are discussed in Section 4.0.

3.2 REACH B (RIVER BANK CROSSING)
Avoiding deep excavation and in this area is the primary consideration to determining the best
method of installation along the river bank. Due to the shallow excavation and smaller
equipment required for an exposed or above grade installation, the recommended method for
installing this portion of the corridor is an above grade installation.
The only elevation criteria is that the invert of the pipeline be above the 100-year floodplain
elevation. All of the existing topography in this reach appears to meets this criteria. Elevating
the pipeline on piers above what is minimally required to accommodate existing topography in
this reach would increase the costs of the foundation supports. For this reason, a shallow pier
supported installation is the most desirable above grade alternative for Reach B of the CRP.
Nevertheless, prior to a final recommendation, a preliminary opinion of relative installation costs
should be established to compare the costs of the above grade shallow supported pier alternative
with the open cut installation costs. Those costs are discussed in Section 4.0.
4.0 PRELIMINARY COST COMPARISONS
The initial evaluation identified that the superior alternative is an above grade installation. The
detailed evaluation identified two distinctly different reaches of the CRP and discussed three
methods of supporting the pipeline across the Bear River above the 100-year floodplain
(Reach A), and discussed supporting the pipeline on piers along the river banks (Reach B). The
non-economic evaluation did not however compare the cost differences associated with each
alternative. While the non-economic criteria are important, it is also important to compare the
costs associated with each of the alternatives. Since excavation costs and trenchless installation
costs are typically anywhere from two to four times the cost of the pipeline material costs, an
above grade installation has the potential to be more cost effective . However, structural concrete
costs associated with anchor blocks and pier supports along with the structure required to cross
the river could significantly increase construction costs for the CRP. As a result, each of the
alternatives were evaluated for the two reaches of the CRP.
All costs are based upon a 48-inch diameter CRP. The costs were established, solely to identify
the costs of one alternative relative to another alternative. They include construction costs and
the structural engineering design costs of the pier abutments. Because pipeline material costs for
the entire penstock as well as the construction costs for the tie-ins at both the CN and CS
penstocks are similar for each alternative, the costs in Tables 2 and 3 do not include pipeline
material costs, appurtenance costs, tie-in construction costs, nor civil engineering costs. It is also
assumed that the native soils are on the surface, weathered rock underlain with bedrock. An
engineers opinion of preliminary costs for the recommended alternative, including material, tie-
in, and engineering costs; shall be included in the Cross River Penstock Predesign TM.
Comparative costs in Table 2, were established based upon preliminary structural designs. Those
designs estimated the height and location of the pylons and supports, the materials required for
those supports, as well as the design hours required for the alternative abutment designs. In

addition to those preliminary designs, costs were established based upon discussions with both
manufacturers and contractors who have recent experience with a very similar project in a
neighboring county.
Table 2
Reach A Alternative Preliminary Cost Comparisons
(a)

Installation Alternative
Typical Relative
Installation Costs
Approximate
Unit Installation
Cost
Approximate
Total
(d)

Permits Required to Cross
the Bear River
Open Cut, Buried w/ Cement
Slurry Backfill
(b)

3 times the cost of the
pipe materials
$550/lf $110,000
CDFG Code Section 1602
CWA 401
CWA 404
Trenchless with a 30x30 foot
jacking pit and a 30x15 foot
receiving pit
9 times the cost of
pipe materials plus
pits
$1500/lf plus
$250,000 for pits
$550,000
CWA 401
Truss Supported Aerial
Crossing
(c)

23 times the cost of
the pipe materials
$3500/lf $700,000 Likely None
(e)

Cable Stay Supported Aerial
Crossing
(c)

the pipe materials
$3025/lf $600,000 Likely None
(e)

Column Supported Aerial
Crossing
(c)

the pipe materials
$2875/lf $575,000
CWA 401
(a) All Reach A alternatives are assumed to have a 200-foot linear distance.
(b) Assumed that rock blasting is required for entire length
(c) Aerial crossings costs include structural design costs for foundations and bridge support of the pipeline, however,
any additional stairs or walkways needed for maintenance access is not included in the cost.
(d) Costs do not include pipeline material nor appurtenance costs.
(e) A US Army CORPS CWA 404 permit would not be required. If the aerial crossing is above the 100-year floodplain
elevation, there is potential to avoid a CDFG streambed alteration permit, so long as the riparian habitat is avoided.
This would be assessed upon the establishment of the final alignment during final design.

Table 3
Reach B Alternative Preliminary Cost Comparisons
(a)

Installation Alternative
Typical Relative
Installation Costs
Approximate
Unit Installation
Costs
Approximate
Total
(c)

Permits Required to Cross
the Bear River
Above Grade w/ Anchor
Blocks, Flexible Couplings,
and Shallow Pier Supports
7 times the cost of
pipeline material
costs
$1330/lf $160,000 NA
Open Cut, Semi Buried w/
Cement Slurry Backfill,
Flexible Couplings and Anchor
Blocks
(b)

8.5 times the cost of
the pipe materials
$1530/lf $184,000 NA
Open Cut, Buried w/ Cement
Slurry Backfill
(b)

3 times the cost of the
pipe materials
$550/lf $66,000 NA
(a) All Reach B alternatives are assumed to have a 120-foot total linear distance.
(b) Assumed that rock blasting is required for entire length
(c) Costs do not include pipeline material nor appurtenance costs.


5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions and recommendations regarding alternative methods of installing the CRP are
included in this section.
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions drawn from the analysis include:
1. The Combie Conveyance System is currently supplied with raw water from Combie
Reservoir solely through the 34-inch diameter penetration on the north side, which
then either goes through or bypasses the new Combie North HPG facility and then into
the Combie Phase 1 Canal or partially spilled to the Bear River. Due to the relatively
small diameter of the north side penetration, a supplemental inlet connection should be
considered.
2. Connecting the north side facilities to the south side outlet facilities provides the
potential to supply additional water to the CNP and Combie Phase I Canal that the
north penetration cannot, primarily in the summer/fall months when demands are
greatest and the SCP is not in use. As a result, it is recommended that the CRP be
installed to provide additional supply. It will also provide increased reliability and
redundancy to the Combie Conveyance System as a whole. By combining the
capacity of the north and south penstocks, suitable pipeline cross-sectional area will
provide for more efficient use of the CNP and will provide adequate conveyance of
the Project design flow.
3. Three primary construction methods for interconnecting the CN and the CS penstocks
are open cut installation, trenchless installation, and above grade installation.
4. The three primary construction methods were initially evaluated to determine the
superior method(s) to be carried into a further evaluation. One method, above grade
installation, was found to be superior to the other methods for the following reasons.
a. The hard soils make both trenchless and open cut excavation difficult and
expensive, but they provide an ideal foundation support for an above grade
shallow supported alternative.
b. Buried installation will likely require blasting, which increases potential for
damage to the Combie Dam or other facilities in the area.
c. Minimizing excavation, including trenchless excavation, in and around Bear
River minimizes the environmental impacts and environmental permitting
required.
d. Keeping the infrastructure above grade is advantageous with respect to
conducting operation and maintenances activities on pipeline, joints, valving,
or other facilities.
5. Because the alternatives available for an above grade installation are different for
certain portions of the CRP corridor, it was divided into two distinct reaches: Reach A
and Reach B. The alternatives for each reach were evaluated with both economic and
non-economic criteria.

6. The detailed evaluation concluded that the best method for installing the pipeline in
Reach A is to use a truss supported aerial pipe installation, and in Reach B to use an
above grade shallow pier supported pipe installation. This was concluded for the
following reasons:
a. Reach A (Aerial Crossing of the Bear River)
A truss supported and cable stay supported crossing of the Bear River,
which is a waterway of the U.S., are the two alternatives that will avoid
the US Army CORPS CWA 404 permit, as well as potentially avoid
CDFG permits.
Because an aerial crossing requires less excavation and less potential
blasting than open cutting or using trenchless methods to install the
pipeline, it minimizes the potential risk to the other infrastructure,
especially the existing 700-foot long concrete gravity arch dam, i.e.
Combie Dam.
The costs associated with an aerial river crossing are $500,000 to
$600,000 more than open cutting the Bear River. However, the cost
differential is less significant than the environmental permits, their
timelines, the interface with other regulatory agencies that could be
require; as well as the risks and ultimately the potential for damage to the
Combie Dam, resulting from construction activities associated with open
cut and blasting operations.
The only two above grade alternatives that can span the entire length
without having supports within the 100-year floodplain, are the truss and
the cable stay suspension supported crossings. Although, the truss is
17 percent more expensive than the cable stay suspension support, it
provides accessibility to the operations staff to cross the Bear River and
to maintain the pipeline and appurtenances and the cable stay alternative
does not. The tall pylon supports required for constructing the cable stay
suspension alternative are more aesthetically impacting than the close to
existing grade concrete abutments required for the low profile truss
supported alternative. In addition, the truss can be designed and
prefabricated by a supplier like Big R Manufacturing or Contec
Construction Products, Inc. Therefore, the truss is superior to the cable
stay alternative.
b. Reach B (Banks of the Bear River)
This reach is above the 100-year floodplain of the Bear River. Therefore
none of the alternatives require the CWA 404, the CDFG Code Section
1602, nor the CWA 401 permits.
A shallow pier supported pipeline requires less excavation and less
potential blasting than open cutting or using trenchless methods to install
the pipeline. Use of shallow piers minimizes the potential risk to the
other infrastructure, especially the existing Combie Dam.

The shallow pier supported pipeline installation is the simplest and most
effective way to install the CRP in Reach B. Although it is not the least
expensive method, it will require lighter construction equipment; and will
provide a pipeline that is easy to access for operation and maintenance
purposes, which can provide future savings to NID. Therefore, it is the
superior alternative for that reach.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations from the analysis for the CRP include:
1. The truss supported bridge crossing is the primary proposed method of installing
pipeline and the column supported bridge crossing is the secondary method of
installing pipeline above the limits of the 100-year floodplain (Reach A) of the Bear
River within the CRP corridor.
2. Shallow pier supports is the proposed method of installing pipeline outside the limits
of the 100-year floodplain of the Bear River (Reach B) within the CRP corridor.
3. NID submit a letter to the DSOD informing the agency of the CRP and requesting
their guidelines, recommendations, and criteria for submitting an application for this
element of the Project.
4. Develop additional bridge, pipeline, appurtenance, support, and tie-in details during
the predesign analysis to be presented in the Cross River Penstock Predesign TM.
5. Base the Project description for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on
the Cross River Penstock Predesign TM.
6. Complete environmental surveys in the summer of 2010 on the proposed parcels and
use for the CEQA process.
7. Investigate and address in the EIR, issues required in the CWA 404, CDFG Code
Section 1602, and the CWA 401 permits.
8. Following CEQA compliance and during Project design, perform a thorough analysis
to determine the optimum diameter given pipeline structural properties, system
hydraulics, and the economics of power generation and construction.
9. Following certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, perform additional
site work including topographic surveys, detailed geotechnical evaluation, and
establishment of the both 100-year floodplain high water mark and the OHWM
elevation, and any FEMA requirements for the height of the crossing, in preparation of
the detailed design of the facilities.
10. Conduct preliminary discussions with the local land owners to provide Project status
updates and findings.

Dadt

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dadt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NID Regional Water Supply Project

You might also like