Ashland Basis of Design RPT

Basis of Design Report
(30% Design)
Ashland Water Treatment Plant

Ashland, Oregon
July 22, 2019

Basis of Design Report (30% Design)
Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................... 1
2 Governing Standards .......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 National Primary Drinking Water Standards ............................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products ................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Microbiological Contaminants ...................................................................................... 4
2.1.3 Inorganic Chemicals ..................................................................................................... 6
2.1.4 Organic Chemicals ....................................................................................................... 7
2.2 National Secondary Drinking Water Standards ........................................................................ 9
3 Facility Design Considerations .......................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Phasing and Capacity ............................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Source Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 11
3.2.1 Turbidity ...................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.2 Alkalinity ..................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.3 Hardness .................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.4 Color ........................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.5 Temperature ............................................................................................................... 20
3.2.6 Total Organic Carbon ................................................................................................. 20
3.2.7 pH ............................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.8 Pathogens .................................................................................................................. 22
3.2.9 Iron and Manganese .................................................................................................. 22
3.2.10 Inorganic Compounds ................................................................................................ 23
3.2.11 Synthetic and Volatile Organic Compounds .............................................................. 23
3.2.12 Algae and Cyanotoxins .............................................................................................. 23
3.2.13 Taste and Odor Compounds ...................................................................................... 24
3.3 Treatment Goals and Challenges ........................................................................................... 24
3.3.1 Pathogen Removal ..................................................................................................... 25
3.3.2 Turbidity Removal ...................................................................................................... 26
3.3.3 Alkalinity ..................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.4 Total Organic Carbon ................................................................................................. 26
3.3.5 Algae and Cyanotoxins .............................................................................................. 26
3.3.6 Taste and Odor .......................................................................................................... 26
3.3.7 Chlorine Residual and DBPs ...................................................................................... 27
3.3.8 Future Regulated Compounds ................................................................................... 27
3.4 Site Plan .................................................................................................................................. 27
3.5 Hydraulic Profile ...................................................................................................................... 27
3.6 Process Flow Diagrams .......................................................................................................... 27
3.7 Specifications .......................................................................................................................... 28
4 Water Treatment Processes.............................................................................................................. 29
4.1 Ozone Pipeline Contactor ....................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Pretreatment ............................................................................................................................ 30
4.2.1 Flash Mixing ............................................................................................................... 30
4.2.2 Ballasted Sedimentation ............................................................................................ 31
4.3 Filtration ................................................................................................................................... 33
4.3.1 Number of Filters ........................................................................................................ 34
July 22, 2019 | i

4.3.2 Hydraulic Loading Rate .............................................................................................. 34

4.3.3 Filter Media and L/d Ratio .......................................................................................... 35
4.3.4 Empty Bed Contact Time ........................................................................................... 36
4.3.5 Backwashing and Air Scour ....................................................................................... 36
4.3.6 Future Filtration Optimization ..................................................................................... 37
4.4 Intermediate Pump Station ...................................................................................................... 38
4.5 Clearwell .................................................................................................................................. 38
4.6 Crowson Pump Station............................................................................................................ 39
5 Residuals Handling Process Facilities .............................................................................................. 40
5.1 Backwash Supply System ....................................................................................................... 40
5.2 Backwash Recovery Basins .................................................................................................... 40
5.3 Backwash Recovery Pump Station ......................................................................................... 41
6 Chemical Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 42
6.1 Chemical Feed Facilities ......................................................................................................... 42
6.2 Chemical Storage, Tanks, and Containment .......................................................................... 43
6.3 Soda Ash ................................................................................................................................. 43
6.4 Coagulation ............................................................................................................................. 44
6.4.1 Aluminum Sulfate ....................................................................................................... 44
6.4.2 Settling Aid ................................................................................................................. 45
6.5 Ozone ...................................................................................................................................... 46
6.6 Calcium Thiosulfate ................................................................................................................. 47
6.7 Filter Aid .................................................................................................................................. 47
6.8 Sodium Hypochlorite and Disinfection .................................................................................... 48
6.8.1 Primary Disinfection ................................................................................................... 48
6.8.2 Secondary Disinfection............................................................................................... 50
6.8.3 Sodium Hypochlorite Design Criteria ......................................................................... 50
7 Piping and Valves .............................................................................................................................. 52
7.1 Water and Sewer Piping.......................................................................................................... 52
7.1.1 Existing Pipelines Information .................................................................................... 54
7.1.2 Appurtenances ........................................................................................................... 55
7.1.3 External Pipeline Corrosion Protection ...................................................................... 56
7.1.4 Seismic Resiliency ..................................................................................................... 56
7.1.5 Water Transmission Main Configuration and Operations .......................................... 56
7.1.6 New Pipe Recommendations ..................................................................................... 59
7.1.7 Final Design Considerations ...................................................................................... 60
7.2 Valves ...................................................................................................................................... 61
7.3 Chemical Feed Piping ............................................................................................................. 61
7.3.1 Chemical Piping Systems .......................................................................................... 62
8 Geotechnical Investigation ................................................................................................................ 63
9 Structural Basis of Design ................................................................................................................. 65
9.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 65
9.2 Applicable Codes and Standards ............................................................................................ 65
9.3 Building Concepts ................................................................................................................... 66
9.3.1 Operations Building .................................................................................................... 66
9.3.2 Backwash Recovery Basin and Pump Station ........................................................... 67
9.3.3 Crowson Pump Station............................................................................................... 67
ii | July 22, 2019

9.3.4 Ozone Building ........................................................................................................... 68

9.4 Design Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 68
9.4.1 Risk Category ............................................................................................................. 68
9.4.2 Structural Design Loads ............................................................................................. 68
9.4.3 Impact Loads .............................................................................................................. 69
9.4.4 Materials ..................................................................................................................... 70
9.5 Geotechnical Engineering Design Assumptions ..................................................................... 70
9.5.1 Groundwater and Uplift .............................................................................................. 70
9.5.2 Lateral Earth Pressure ............................................................................................... 70
9.5.3 Bearing Pressure, Settlement, and Sliding Friction ................................................... 70
9.5.4 Safety Factor .............................................................................................................. 71
9.5.5 Frost Depth ................................................................................................................. 71
9.6 Clearwell Tanks ....................................................................................................................... 71
9.6.1 Materials Options for New Reservoirs........................................................................ 71
10 Architectural Basis of Design ............................................................................................................ 72
10.1 Architectural Programming ...................................................................................................... 72
10.1.1 Operations Building Design Approach ....................................................................... 72
10.2 Applicable Related Building Codes ......................................................................................... 73
10.3 Buildings and Facilities ............................................................................................................ 73
10.3.1 Operations Building Construction ............................................................................... 73
10.3.2 Filters Construction .................................................................................................... 74
10.3.3 Crowson Pump Station Construction ......................................................................... 74
10.3.4 Ozone Building ........................................................................................................... 74
10.3.5 Sustainability .............................................................................................................. 74
11 Mechanical/HVAC/Plumbing Basis of Design ................................................................................... 75
11.1 Codes and Standards.............................................................................................................. 75
11.2 HVAC Design Criteria.............................................................................................................. 75
11.2.1 Outdoor Design Conditions ........................................................................................ 76
11.2.2 Indoor Design Criteria ................................................................................................ 76
11.2.3 Ventilation ................................................................................................................... 77
11.2.4 HVAC Components .................................................................................................... 77
11.3 Plumbing Design Criteria......................................................................................................... 77
12 Electrical Basis of Design .................................................................................................................. 79
12.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 79
12.2 Applicable Codes and Standards ............................................................................................ 79
12.3 Electrical Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 80
12.4 General Plant Electrical ........................................................................................................... 81
12.4.1 Electrical Service ........................................................................................................ 81
12.4.2 Standby Power System .............................................................................................. 82
12.4.3 Solar Power Generation ............................................................................................. 83
12.4.4 Power Distribution ...................................................................................................... 83
12.4.5 Motor Control Centers ................................................................................................ 84
12.4.6 Variable Frequency Drives ......................................................................................... 84
12.4.7 Energy Efficiency........................................................................................................ 84
12.4.8 Area and Site Lighting ................................................................................................ 85
12.4.9 Raceways ................................................................................................................... 85
12.4.10 Equipment Enclosure Ratings .................................................................................... 85
12.4.11 Safety Switches .......................................................................................................... 86
12.4.12 Conductors and Cable................................................................................................ 86
12.4.13 Grounding System...................................................................................................... 86
July 22, 2019 | iii

12.4.14 Ancillary Systems ....................................................................................................... 87

13 Instrumentation .................................................................................................................................. 89
13.1 General .................................................................................................................................... 89
13.2 HMI System ............................................................................................................................. 89
13.2.1 HMI Communication Network .................................................................................... 90
13.3 Programmable Logic Controllers ............................................................................................. 90
13.3.1 PLC Control Panels .................................................................................................... 90
13.3.2 Manufacturer Supplied Control Panels ...................................................................... 90
13.3.3 Industrial Network Protocol ........................................................................................ 90
13.4 Telemetry................................................................................................................................. 90
13.5 Control System Features......................................................................................................... 91
13.5.1 Control Hierarchy ....................................................................................................... 91
13.5.2 HMI Interlocks ............................................................................................................ 92
13.5.3 General Equipment Monitoring Requirements ........................................................... 92
13.5.4 Alarm Notification ....................................................................................................... 93
13.5.5 Regulatory Reporting ................................................................................................. 93
14 Site Civil............................................................................................................................................. 95
14.1 General .................................................................................................................................... 95
14.2 Entry Roads, Drive Areas, and Parking .................................................................................. 95
14.2.1 Offsite Roads .............................................................................................................. 95
14.2.2 Entry Roads ................................................................................................................ 95
14.2.3 Drive Areas ................................................................................................................. 96
14.2.4 Parking ....................................................................................................................... 96
14.2.5 Site Grading, Retaining Walls, and Slope Protection................................................. 97
14.3 ADA Site Accessibility ............................................................................................................. 97
14.4 Drainage .................................................................................................................................. 98
14.4.1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................ 98
14.4.2 Design Concept ........................................................................................................ 100
14.4.3 Additional Considerations ........................................................................................ 101
14.5 Erosion Control ...................................................................................................................... 101
15 Solar Power Generation .................................................................................................................. 102
15.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 102
15.1.1 Solar Facility Design Life .......................................................................................... 102
15.1.2 Solar Facility Production Estimates.......................................................................... 102
15.1.3 Laws and Regulations .............................................................................................. 102
15.1.4 Codes and Standards............................................................................................... 102
15.1.5 General ..................................................................................................................... 103
15.2 Operational Considerations ................................................................................................... 104
15.2.1 Reliability and Availability ......................................................................................... 104
15.3 Design Guidelines ................................................................................................................. 105
15.3.1 Roof Plan and System Layout .................................................................................. 105
15.3.2 Electrical Guidelines: ................................................................................................ 106
15.3.3 Structural Guidelines: ............................................................................................... 108
15.3.4 Miscellaneous Guidelines: ....................................................................................... 109
16 . References .................................................................................................................................... 111
iv | July 22, 2019

Tables
Table 2-1. Stage 1 D/DBPR MCLs and MCLGs for DBPs ............................................................................ 3
Table 2-2. Pathogen Removal and Credits for Different Filtration Technologies ......................................... 5
Table 2-3. LT2ESWTR Bin Classifications and Additional Treatment Requirements for Filtered
Systems ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2-4. Regulated Inorganic Chemicals ................................................................................................... 6
Table 2-5. Regulated Synthetic Inorganic Chemicals ................................................................................... 7
Table 2-6. Regulated Volatile Inorganic Chemicals ...................................................................................... 9
Table 2-7. National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations ...................................................................... 10
Table 3-1. Initial Phase Plant Flows ............................................................................................................ 11
Table 3-2. Raw Water Quality Sampling – Monthly Averages .................................................................... 12
Table 3-3. Comparison of TID and WTP Intake Water Quality Parameters ............................................... 13
Table 3-4. Geosmin Sample Results (ng/L) by Location – 2015 ................................................................ 24
Table 3-5. Key Finished Water Quality Goals ............................................................................................. 25
Table 4-1. Ozone Pipeline Contactor Design Criteria ................................................................................. 30
Table 4-2. Flash Mix Design Criteria ........................................................................................................... 31
Table 4-3. Ballasted Sedimentation Design Criteria ................................................................................... 33
Table 4-4. Filters Design Criteria ................................................................................................................ 34
Table 4-5. L/d Ratio Comparison ................................................................................................................ 35
Table 4-6. EBCT by Plant Operating Condition .......................................................................................... 36
Table 4-7. Backwash and Air Scour Design Criteria ................................................................................... 36
Table 4-8. Potential Future Re-Rated Filters Design Criteria ..................................................................... 37
Table 4-9. Intermediate Pump Station Design Criteria ............................................................................... 38
Table 4-10. Clearwell Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 39
Table 4-11. Crowson Pump Station Design Criteria ................................................................................... 39
Table 5-1. Backwash Recovery Basins Design Criteria ............................................................................. 40
Table 5-2. Backwash Recovery Pump Station Design Criteria................................................................... 41
Table 6-1. Water Treatment Chemicals ...................................................................................................... 42
Table 6-2. Water Treatment Chemicals Storage ........................................................................................ 43
Table 6-3. Soda Ash Feed Rates ................................................................................................................ 44
Table 6-4. Soda Ash Design Criteria .......................................................................................................... 44
Table 6-5. Alum Feed Rates ....................................................................................................................... 45
Table 6-6. Alum Design Criteria .................................................................................................................. 45
Table 6-7. Settling Aid Polymer Feed Rates ............................................................................................... 46
Table 6-8. Settling Aid Polymer Design Criteria.......................................................................................... 46
Table 6-9. Ozone Design Criteria ............................................................................................................... 46
Table 6-10. Calcium Thiosulfate Feed Rates.............................................................................................. 47
Table 6-11. Calcium Thiosulfate Design Criteria ........................................................................................ 47
Table 6-12. Filter Aid Polymer Feed Rates ................................................................................................. 48
Table 6-13. Filter Aid Polymer Design Criteria............................................................................................ 48
Table 6-14. Desktop CT Study Results ....................................................................................................... 49
Table 6-15. Minimum Clearwell Operating Levels for Disinfection and Backwash Supply ........................ 50
Table 6-16. Sodium Hypochlorite Feed Rates ............................................................................................ 51
Table 6-17. Sodium Hypochlorite Design Criteria ....................................................................................... 51
Table 7-1 New Water and Sewer Pipelines Basis of Design Criteria ......................................................... 52
July 22, 2019 | v

Table 7-2 Existing Pipeline Data ................................................................................................................. 55

Table 7-3 New Pipe Material Recommendations ....................................................................................... 59
Table 7-4 New Water Mains........................................................................................................................ 61
Table 7-5. Chemical Piping Materials and Delivery Points ......................................................................... 62
Table 9-1. Structural Design Loads ............................................................................................................ 68
Table 9-2. Specified Structural Material Properties .................................................................................... 70
Table 10-1. Operations Building (total 13,990 square feet) ........................................................................ 72
Table 12-1. General Electrical Design Criteria............................................................................................ 80
Table 12-2. Standby Power Load Requirements ........................................................................................ 82
Table 12-3. Material Application Schedule ................................................................................................. 85
Table 13-1. Standard Process Devices HMI Status and Alarm Monitoring ................................................ 93
Table 14-1. Summary of Design Criteria ................................................................................................... 100
Figures
Figure 3-1. Historical Water Supply by Source ........................................................................................... 12
Figure 3-2. Average Monthly Raw Water Turbidity ..................................................................................... 15
Figure 3-3. Maximum Daily Raw Water Turbidity – 2016 ........................................................................... 16
Figure 3-4. Average Monthly Raw Water Alkalinity .................................................................................... 17
Figure 3-5. Average Monthly Raw Water Hardness ................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-6. Average Monthly Raw Water Color .......................................................................................... 19
Figure 3-7. Maximum Daily Raw Water Color – 2016 ................................................................................ 19
Figure 3-8. Average Monthly Raw Water Temperature .............................................................................. 20
Figure 3-9. Monthly Raw Water TOC Data ................................................................................................. 21
Figure 3-10. Average Monthly Raw Water pH Data ................................................................................... 22
Figure 11. Ballasted Sedimentation Process .............................................................................................. 32
Figure 6-1. Proposed Chlorine Dosing System........................................................................................... 49
Figure 7-1. Water Main Flow Diagram ........................................................................................................ 58
Appendices
Appendix A. TID Water Quality Technical Memorandum
Appendix B. Preliminary Drawings
Appendix C. Preliminary Specifications Table of Contents
Appendix D. Technology Alternatives Report
Appendix E. Manufacturer Cut-Sheets
Appendix F. Draft Geotechnical Engineering Report
Appendix G. Exterior Materials
vi | July 22, 2019

Acronyms/Abbreviations
oF degrees Fahrenheit
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AC alternating current
ACI American Concrete Institute
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
AISI American Iron and Steel Institute
alum aluminum sulfate
ANSI American National Standards Institute
AOC assimilable organic carbon
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AWWA American Water Works Association
BMP best management practices
CCTV closed-circuit television
cfm cubic feet per minute
City City of Ashland
CT Contact-time
DBP Disinfection By-Product
D/DBPR Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Product Rule
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
ft feet
fps feet per second
GAC granular activated carbon
GIS geographic information system
gpd gallons per day
gpf gallons per flush
gpm gallons per minute
HAA5 Haloacetic Acid
HMI Human Machine Interface
hp Horsepower
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IES Illuminating Engineering Society
in. inches
In/in/oF inch per inch per degree-Fahrenheit
I/O Input/Output
ksi kips per square inch
kW kilowatts
LED light-emitting diode
MCC motor control centers
MCL maximum contaminant level
MCLG maximum contaminant level goal
July 22, 2019 | vii

MGD million gallons per day

mg/L milligrams per liter
NEC National Electrical Code
NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NGVD29(56) National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (1956)
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation
OEESC Oregon Energy Efficiency Specialty Code
OESC Oregon Electrical Specialty Code
OHA Oregon Health Authority
psf pounds per square foot
psi pounds per square inch
PLC Programmable Logic Controller
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RGS rigid galvanized steel
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
sf square foot
TAP Talent-Ashland-Phoenix
TID Talent Irrigation District
TTHM Total Trihalomethane
THHN thermoplastic high heat-resistant nylon-coated
THWN thermoplastic high water-resistant nylon-coated
TOC total organic cotton
VFD variable frequency drive
UL Underwriters Laboratories
UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply
V volts
VAC volts alternating current
VDC volts direct current
WTP Water Treatment Plant
viii | July 22, 2019

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The City of Ashland (City) owns and operates the Ashland Water Treatment Plant
(WTP). The aging plant is located in a flood zone making operation potentially unreliable
and renovation expensive. The City has retained HDR Engineering (HDR) to design a
new replacement WTP.
1.2 Purpose and Scope

This Basis of Design Report, prepared for Phase 1B under HDR’s Preliminary Design
scope of services dated October 30, 2018, summarizes the following activities from the
Preliminary Design phase:
• Geotechnical analysis of the WTP site.
• Recommendations for abandonment, renovation, or maintenance of existing
infrastructure
• Recommendation for an emergency water intake into Ashland Creek
• Development of preliminary level drawings for major components of the WTP and
infrastructure plan
• Development of structural basis of design, and definition of building codes or
alternative structural loading criteria
• Development of mechanical basis of design for major structures and include
required building codes or alternative design criteria
• Preparation of a list of specifications for major WTP equipment items
• Preparation of preliminary cost estimates, and a workshop to discuss value
engineering and constructability issues and risks, and mitigation measures.
July 22, 2019 | 1

2 Governing Standards
The WTP is designed with the following governing standards, among others:
• Oregon Administrative Rules, Oregon Health Authority, Public Health Division,
Chapter 333, Division 61, Public Water Systems
• Various publications by the American Water Works Association (AWWA)
• Recommended Standards For Water Works (2012 Edition): Policies for the
Review and Approval of Plans and Specifications for Public Water Supplies (Ten
States Standards).
• Studies conducted by the Water Research Foundation
• Requirements by regulatory agencies and approving authorities such as:
o City of Ashland
o Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
o Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
o Jackson County
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the principal federal regulation governing the
quality of water produced and delivered to customers by public water systems. The
SDWA establishes multiple barriers of protection and employs risk prioritization to
balance treatment objectives and ensure the supply of safe drinking water. These
contamination barriers include regulatory standards and requirements related to source
water protection, treatment, distribution, system integrity, and public information.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is authorized to set
drinking water standards and oversee state drinking water programs. The primary
standards of interest are subdivided into the following four categories:
• Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products (D/DBP)
• Microbiological contaminants
• Inorganic chemicals
• Organic chemicals
Primary standards pose a significant compliance challenge because of the complexity of
each individual rule and the difficulty of achieving simultaneous compliance, as rules
tend to be competing (i.e., strict compliance with one of the rules may result in
infringement of another). The following sections summarize some of the critical aspects
of the SDWA.
2 | July 22, 2019

2.1 National Primary Drinking Water Standards

2.1.1 Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products
Disinfection is specifically employed to reduce or eliminate the presence of pathogenic
microorganisms and can be accomplished by applying a variety of chemical or physical
agents. Multiple disinfectants or disinfection steps are commonly used to achieve
compliance with disinfection mandates. Commonly, a relatively reactive disinfectant is
used to accomplish primary disinfection, and a more stable secondary disinfectant is
used to maintain a residual in the transmission and distribution system.
Research demonstrates reactions between source water constituents, principally natural
organic matter, bromide, and chemical oxidants (e.g., chlorine), readily generate a
variety of Disinfection By-Products (DBPs). Epidemiological and toxicological studies
indicate the consumption of DBPs may elevate the risk of cancer and high
concentrations of residual disinfectants (e.g., chlorine, chloramines) may cause adverse
health effects.
The Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Product Rule (D/DBPR) establishes maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) for various DBPs, maximum residual disinfectant levels, and
DBP precursor removal requirements. Table 2-1 summarizes the DBP MCLs and MCL
goals for the various DBPs set by the Stage 1 D/DBPR and describes associated
monitoring and compliance requirements.
Table 2-1. Stage 1 D/DBPR MCLs and MCLGs for DBPs

MCLG MCL
Basis
Disinfection By-Products (mg/L) (mg/L)
TTHMsa N/Ac 0.080 Running annual average (RAA) of

• Chloroform 0.00 quarterly averages for all required
0.00 samples collected in the distribution
• Bromodichloromethane system
0.06
• Dibromochloromethane
0.00
• Bromoform
HAA5b N/Ac 0.060 RAA of quarterly averages for all

• Dichloroacetic acid 0.0 required samples collected in the
0.3 distribution system
• Trichloroacetic acid
Chlorite 0.8 1.0 Average concentration of any three

sample sets taken in the distribution
system
Bromate 0 0.010 RAA of monthly samples computed

quarterly
Source: USEPA; Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products, Final Rule; Federal Register
63:241:69390; (December 16, 1996)
a Total Trihalomethane (TTHM) is the sum of the concentration of chloroform, bromodichloromethane,
dibromochloromethane, and bromoform

b Haloacetic Acid (HAA5) is the sum of the concentrations of mono-, di-, and trichloroacetic acids, and
mono- and dibromoacetic acids.

c N/A: Not applicable. There are no MCLGs for TTHM or HAA5 groups
July 22, 2019 | 3

Stage 1 D/DBPR requires the removal of organic precursors as a means of controlling

the formation of halogenated DBPs of potential public health concern that are not
specifically regulated.
In 2006, the Stage 2 D/DBPR changed DBP from a distribution system wide RAA to a
locational RAA (LRAA) of quarterly samples as opposed to Stage 1, which was based on
an average for the whole system. MCLs must be met at every sampling location and a
regulatory level exceedence requires state notification and operational evaluation to
determine means of reducing DBP concentrations.
2.1.2 Microbiological Contaminants

Various amendments to the SDWA were implemented, oftentimes concurrently with a
stage of the D/DBPR, to ensure that protection against microbiological contaminants is
not compromised by the control of halogenated DBPs. The objective of DBP and
microbiological regulations is to remove or inactivate pathogenic microorganisms while
simultaneously minimizing the formation of DBPs.
2.1.2.1 Total Coliform Rule and Revised Total Coliform Rule

The Revised Total Coliform Rule, and the older Total Coliform Rule that it replaced,
establishes MCLs for total and fecal coliforms based on the percentage of positive
samples collected in the distribution system during a compliance period. Coliforms are
bacteria naturally present in the environment and are used as an indicator that other,
potentially harmful bacteria may be present. The presence of fecal coliform or E. coli may
indicate potential contamination that can cause gastrointestinal illness or other
symptoms. The Revised TCR also promulgates requirements for sample collection,
analysis, reporting, public notification, system investigations, and responses.
The Revised Total Coliform Rule applies to all public water system with the number and
location of samples based on the population served.
2.1.2.2 Surface Water Treatment Rule

The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) focuses on reducing microbiological
contaminants using physical removal (e.g., sedimentation and filtration) and inactivation
(e.g. chlorine disinfection) treatment methods. Specifically, the SWTR requires 3-log
(99.9 percent) and 4-log (99.99 percent) removal and/or inactivation of Giardia lambia
and viruses, respectively. The SWTR states that filtration, as part of conventional
treatment, provides a minimum of 2-log (99 percent) removal of Giardia and 1-log
removal of viruses. The credit awarded for filtration depends on the filtration method and
confirmed filter performance. The SWTR also states that conventional sedimentation
processes provide 2.5-log removal of Giardia and 2-log removal of viruses.
To provide disinfection, the WTR outlines primary and secondary disinfection
requirements. Section 6.8 - Sodium Hypochlorite and Disinfection discusses the
pathogen removal/inactivation requirements and credits given for the new WTP.
Table 2-2 summarizes the credits provided for direct, conventional, and membrane
filtration. It should be noted that while membranes would fully satisfy Giardia removal
4 | July 22, 2019

requirements, OHA mandates that membrane WTPs still provide 0.5-log Giardia
inactivation using chlorine or another disinfectant.
Table 2-2. Pathogen Removal and Credits for Different Filtration

Technologies
Removal Requirements and Credits
Filtration
Technology Cryptosporidium Giardia Viruses
(Need 2.0-log) (Need 3.0-log) (Need 4.0-log)
Direct 2.0 (none) 2.0 (1.0) 1.0 (3.0)
Conventional 2.0 (none) 2.5 (0.5) 2.0 (2.0)
Membrane >2.0 (none) >3.0 (0.5) None (4.0)
Note: First value is credit provided. Second value is log deficit to be made up using chlorination or
another disinfectant.
2.1.2.3 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) helps improve the
removal of microbial pathogens, particularly Cryptosporidium, either by reducing the
concentration of particles in filter effluent or through inactivation by disinfection
processes. The IESWTR specifies a maximum combined filter effluent turbidity of
1 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU) based on a 4-hour monitoring interval and a
combined filter effluent turbidity less than or equal to 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of
samples, thereby superseding the filtration requirement of the SWTR. Effluent turbidity
from each individual filter must be monitored continuously (15-minute monitoring interval)
to identify individual filters not producing water in compliance with the standard.
Cryptosporidium is specifically targeted because it is not susceptible to traditional
chemical disinfectants such as chlorine and chloramines. As a result, Cryptosporidium
control is achieved in conventional treatment processes by physical exclusion and
removal processes (i.e., filtration) rather than inactivation. The IESWTR requires 2-log
removal of Cryptosporidium for systems that practice filtration. The more stringent
turbidity performance criteria and monitoring requirements are designed to enhance
physical removal efficiencies to provide the requisite log reduction in Cryptosporidium
levels.
2.1.2.4 Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

The Long-Term 1 (LT1) ESWTR extended the requirements of IESWTR to public water
systems of fewer than 10,000 persons, thereby improving overall public health protection
by reducing the Cryptosporidium exposure risk in small systems.
2.1.2.5 Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

The Long-Term 2 (LT2) ESWTR employs a risk-based treatment strategy to further
define Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation requirements. All treatment systems
July 22, 2019 | 5

using surface water must monitor source water Cryptosporidium levels to determine the
bin classification and requisite degree of treatment outlined in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3. LT2ESWTR Bin Classifications and Additional Treatment

Requirements for Filtered Systems
Cryptosporidium Alternative
Conventional Slow Sand or
Bin Direct Filtration Filtration
Filtration DE Filtration
Bin Concentration Technologies
1 Crypto < No Additional No Additional No Additional No Additional

0.075/L Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment
2 0.075/L ≤ 1 log 1.5 log 1 log State

Crypto < 1.0/L determined
3 1.0/L ≤ Crypto < 2 log 2.5 log 2 log State

3.0/L determined
4 Crypto ≥ 3.0/L 2.5 log 3 log 2.5 log State

determined
The USEPA and Oregon Health Authority (OHA) developed a set of treatment strategies
called the Microbial Toolbox to assist public water systems determine options to meet
additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements. The existing WTP is designated
Bin 1 and does not require additional treatment requirements. Because the new WTP will
use the same water source as the existing plant, no change in bin classification will
occur.
Filter Backwash Rule

The Filter Backwash Rule (FBR) governs the process of recycling water generated by
backwashing filters. The rule requires systems to collect and retain information on
recycle flows. Recycle flows must be returned at the head of the plant for complete
treatment at a controlled rate not to exceed 10 percent of the raw water flow.
2.1.3 Inorganic Chemicals

Table 2-4 presents a list of regulated inorganic chemicals and associated MCLs as
established by the USEPA and OHA.
Table 2-4. Regulated Inorganic Chemicals

MCL/Action Limit
Contaminant (mg/L)
Antimony 0.006
Arsenic 0.010
Asbestosa 7 million fibers per liter
Barium 2
Beryllium 0.004
6 | July 22, 2019

Table 2-4. Regulated Inorganic Chemicals

MCL/Action Limit
Contaminant (mg/L)
Cadmium 0.005
Chromium 0.1
Copperb 1.3
Cyanide 0.2
Fluoride 4.0
Leadb 0.015
Mercury 0.003
Nitrate (as N) 10
Nitrite (as N) 1
Total Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) 10
Selenium 0.05
Thallium 0.002
Source: Oregon Administrative Rule OHA Chapter 333, Division 61, Public Water Systems
a MFL – million fibers per liter longer than 10 µM
b Action Level (AL) at the 90th percentile from a number of samples.
2.1.4 Organic Chemicals

Table 2-5 and Table 2-6 present the regulated organic chemicals (synthetic and volatile)
and associated MCLs established by the USEPA and OHA.
Table 2-5. Regulated Synthetic Inorganic Chemicals

Contaminant MCL (mg/L)
Antimony 0.006
Arsenic 0.010
Alachlor 0.002
Atrazine 0.003
Benzo(a) pyrene 0.0002
Carbofuran 0.04
Chlordane 0.002
Dalapon 0.2
Dibromochloropropane 0.0002
July 22, 2019 | 7

Table 2-5. Regulated Synthetic Inorganic Chemicals

Contaminant MCL (mg/L)
Dinoseb 0.007
Dioxin(2,3,7,8-TCDD) 0.00000003
Diquat 0.02
Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate 0.4
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.006
Endothall 0.1
Endrin 0.002
Ethylene Dibromide 0.00005
Glyphosate 0.7
Heptachlor 0.0004
Heptachor epoxide 0.0002
Hexachlorobenzene 0.001
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05
Lindane 0.0002
Methoxychlor 0.04
Oxamyl(Vydate) 0.2
Picloram 0.5
Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0.0005
Pentachlorophenol 0.001
Simazine 0.004
Toxaphene 0.003
2,4-D 0.07
2,4,5-TP Silvex 0.05
8 | July 22, 2019

Table 2-6. Regulated Volatile Inorganic Chemicals

MCL
Contaminant (mg/L)
Benzene 0.005
Carbon tetrachloride 0.005
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.07
Dichloromethane 0.005
Ethylbenzene 0.7
Monochlorobenzene 0.1
o-Dichlorobenzene 0.6
p-Dichlorobenzene 0.075
Styrene 0.1
Tetrachloroethylene(PCE) 0.005
Toluene 1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.1
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.005
Vinyl chloride 0.002
Xylenes(total) 10
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.005
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.005
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.07
2.2 National Secondary Drinking Water Standards

The National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (secondary standards) are
guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic or aesthetic effects in
drinking water. The OHA adopted the secondary standards and requires public water
systems meet the fluoride MCL. Table 2-7 presents the secondary standards and notes
the noticeable effect of each contaminant at concentrations above the secondary MCL.
July 22, 2019 | 9

Table 2-7. National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations

Secondary MCL
(mg/L unless noted Effect above Secondary MCL
Name of Contaminant otherwise)
Aluminum 0.05 – 0.20 Colored water
Chloride 250 Salty taste
Color 15 color units Visible tint
Copper 1 Metallic taste; blue-green staining
Corrosivity Non-corrosive Metallic taste; corroded pipes/fixtures; staining
Fluoride 2.0 Tooth discoloration
Foaming Agents 0.5 Frothy, cloudy; bitter taste; odor
Hardness (as CaCO3) 250 Deposits; staining; salty taste
Iron 0.3 Rusty color; sediment; metallic taste; staining
Manganese 0.05 Black to brown color; black staining; metallic

taste
Odor 3 threshold odor Rotten egg, musty, or chemical smell

numbers
pH 6.5 – 8.5 Low pH: bitter metallic taste; corrosion. High

(standard units) pH: slippery feel, soda taste; deposits.
Silver 0.1 Skin discoloration; graying of white part of eye
Sulfate 250 Salty taste
Total Dissolved Solids 500 Hardness; deposits; colored water; staining;

salty
Zinc 5 Metallic taste
10 | July 22, 2019

3 Facility Design Considerations

3.1 Phasing and Capacity
The City determined the new plant capacity during an earlier stage of the project based
on its 2019 water master plan projections. The initial plant capacity will be 7.5 million
gallons per day (MGD) expandable to 10 MGD in the future. Table 3-1 provides the flows
entering the treatment plant as raw water and exiting as finished water.
Table 3-1. Initial Phase Plant Flows

Raw Water Flow Rate a Finished Water Flow Rate
Plant Phase
(MGD) (MGD)
Minimum 1.7 1.5
Initial Average 3.3 3.0
Initial Maximum 8.3 7.5
Future Maximum 11.0 10.0

aIncludes 10% recycle flow rate
The new plant will potentially be expanded in one subsequent phase for a future plant
capacity of up to 10 MGD. Considerations for the future phase were made during the
initial plant design. Space is allocated for proposed equipment and building needs to
support 10 MGD of finished water. Any additional future needs other than increased
capacity will be determined by the City at a later date based on the needs at that time.
3.2 Source Water Quality

The new WTP is primarily supplied with raw surface water from the west and east forks
of Ashland Creek that flow into Reeder Reservoir. Additional raw water is purchased
from the Talent Irrigation District (TID) to supplement flows from Reeder Reservoir.
Water from TID is available during the irrigation season only (April through October) and
pumped from the Ashland Canal to the WTP via the Terrace Street Pump Station. TID
water enters the existing WTP at a raceway prior to entering the existing WTP. The City
will utilize the existing raceway for raw water to the new WTP. A closer connection point
to the TID pipeline will be finalized during the next design phase.
The City also purchases finished water from the Medford Water Commission (MWC) via
the Talent-Ashland-Phoenix (TAP) pipeline. Water from the TAP pipeline blends with
water in the northwestern corner of the distribution system. Figure 3-1 depicts a
breakdown of historical water usage by source. Water losses through the treatment
system are not included.
July 22, 2019 | 11

Figure 3-1. Historical Water Supply by Source
Note: 2018 water supply only includes data through August 2018.
The existing WTP collects raw water data at the plant intake, downstream from where
TID water combines with raw water from Reeder Reservoir. Because the use of TID
water varies, there is no way to distinguish Reeder Reservoir water quality results from
TID data at the raw water collection point. However, the water supply for most months
consists only of water from Reeder Reservoir while summer months may consist of a
Reeder Reservoir and TID blend of water. Previous studies (see Appendix A) reviewed
limited TID data and concluded that the TID is most likely comparable to the City’s supply
from Reeder Reservoir. Table 3-2 provides average water quality data from samples
collected between January 2004 and August 2018.
Table 3-2. Raw Water Quality Sampling – Monthly Averages

Constituent Units Average
Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 38
Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 25
Color Platinum-Cobalt scale units 27
Temperature °C (degrees Celsius) 10
Turbidity NTU 1.0
TOC mg/L 2.85
pH Standard units 7.4
12 | July 22, 2019

Appendix A presents a technical memorandum comparing TID and Reeder Reservoir

water. The comparison of TID water quality per Appendix A is presented in Table 3-4.
Table 3-3. Comparison of TID and WTP Intake Water Quality Parameters
Comparison to WTP Raw Water
TID Water Quality Results
Water Quality Parameter Results
Range: 7.31 – 8.55 Range: 6.8 – 7.9

pH
Average: 7.79 Average: 7.4
Range: 0 NTU – 209 NTU Range: 0.29 NTU – 5.29 NTU

Turbidity
Average: 8.2 NTU Average: 1.0 NTU
Range: 31.9 mV – 338.7 mV

ORP No data
Average: 246.54 mV
Range: 4.7 mg/L – 13.4 mg/L

Dissolved Oxygen No data
Average: 9.3 mg/L
Range: 0 – 0.28 m/sec

Specific Conductivity No data
Average: 0.08 m/sec
Range: 8.1 °C – 24.9 °C Range: 3 °C – 20 °C

Temperature
Average: 17.4 °C Average: 9.3 °C
Range: 27 – 44 mg/L as CaCO3 Range: 22 – 61 mg/L as CaCO3

Alkalinity
Average: 35 mg/L as CaCO3 Average: 38.6 mg/L as CaCO3
Range: 30.3 – 43.6 mg/L as

CaCO3 Range: 13 – 38 mg/L as CaCO3
Hardness
Average: 34.4 mg/L as CaCO3 Average: 25 mg/L as CaCO3
Total Organic Carbon Range: 2.48 – 3.39 mg/L Range: 1.29 – 10.8 mg/L
(TOC) Average: 3.00 mg/L Average: 2.9 mg/L
Range: 0.392 – 0.514 mg/L Limited data indicates little to

Iron
Average: 0.474 mg/L non-detectable concentrations
Range: ND - 0.0488 mg/L Limited data indicates little to

Manganese
Average: 0.0386 mg/L non-detectable concentrations
Range: 20 – 25 CU
Range: 7 – 59 CU
Average: 22 CU Average: 28 CU
Color
Attributable to algae, iron and Attributable to algae
manganese
Zero for Cryptosporidium One positive Cryptosporidium

Pathogens
Two positive for Giardia One positive Giardia
Limited data indicates little to

Fecal Coliform 2420 organisms/100 mL
non-detectable concentrations
Limited data indicates little to

E. Coli 115 organisms/100 mL
non-detectable concentrations
Reeder Reservoir sample as

Range: 0 – 351 cells/mL high as 31.6 million cells/mL in
Toxigenic Cyanobacteria
Average: 152 cells/mL isolated grab samples. None
detected in WTP raw water.
July 22, 2019 | 13

Table 3-3. Comparison of TID and WTP Intake Water Quality Parameters
TID Water Quality Results
Water Quality Parameter Results
Range: 579 – 1067 cells/mL

Non-Toxic Algae No data
Average: 880 cells/mL
Barium and Copper were detected

Nitrate was detected at a level
at minimal levels, 200 times below
IOCs 10 times below EPA limit. No
EPA limit. No other IOCs were
other IOCs were detected.
detected.
VOCs and SOCs Non-detect for all compounds. Non-detect for all compounds
Algae and Geosmin contribute to

T&O Compounds No data
T&O issues
The following sections describe these water quality parameters in more detail, including
information on the TID water quality.
3.2.1 Turbidity
Turbidity is a measurement of particles in water with higher levels of turbidity correlated
to greater levels of pathogenic organisms. Higher turbidity levels can result in increased
headloss through a filtration system as filters remove particles from the process stream.
Figure 3-2 shows the average monthly raw water turbidity values recorded at the existing
WTP intake. Overall turbidity levels are low for surface water supplies with an average
level of 1.0 NTU. Reeder Reservoir acts as a large settling basin and minimizes
variability in turbidity from Ashland Creek. Seasonal spikes in turbidity during the summer
months are reflective of lower reservoir levels, which result in less settling while storm
events in late summer or early fall often result in turbidity spikes.
14 | July 22, 2019

Figure 3-2. Average Monthly Raw Water Turbidity
Figure 3-3 displays 2016 maximum daily turbidity data. Monthly turbidity results provide
an understanding of long-term turbidity trends but do not reflect turbidity spikes
associated with storm events. For example, the average monthly turbidity for January
2016 is 2.9 NTU (Figure 3-2), but the maximum daily turbidity level was a storm-induced
peak of 7.1 NTU on January 18, 2016. Turbidity remains low at less than 1 NTU during
the drier summer months, and spikes later in the year with storm events. The WTP staff
has noted raw water turbidities have been greater than 100 NTU after very severe
storms through Reeder Reservoir. The existing WTP has had to shut down water
production until the high turbidity subsided.
July 22, 2019 | 15

Figure 3-3. Maximum Daily Raw Water Turbidity – 2016
On average, TID water is higher in turbidity with an average level of 8.2 NTU. Turbidity in
the TID water increases during the warmer summer months, which is likely due to algae
in the water. The highest levels of turbidity experienced at the existing plant during
summer months occurred when TID water was used to supplement water from Reeder
Reservoir. TID water also appears to be more susceptible to high turbidity spikes during
storm events.
3.2.2 Alkalinity
Alkalinity measures the buffering capacity of the water and is a key factor for chemical
coagulation and maintaining a stable pH in the distribution system. On average, the
monthly alkalinity level is 38 mg/L as CaCO3. Figure 3-4 shows the average monthly raw
water alkalinity values recorded at the existing WTP intake.
The monthly average alkalinity values in 2014 and 2015 show late summer months (June
through September) results that were consistently higher than other years recorded. As
previously noted, this difference is likely related to the drought and limited snowpack
experienced during this time. The snowmelt that feeds Reeder Reservoir is free of most
minerals and dilutes the alkalinity present in Ashland Creek.
16 | July 22, 2019

Figure 3-4. Average Monthly Raw Water Alkalinity
TID alkalinity samples collected were within the range of the alkalinity levels of Reeder
Reservoir at an average of 35 mg/L as CaCO3.
3.2.3 Hardness
Hardness is a key component in precipitation and scaling issues within the distribution
system. It is also associated with taste complaints and the effectiveness of soap and
detergent usage by businesses and individuals. On average, the monthly hardness level
is 25 mg/L as CaCO3. Figure 3-5 shows the average monthly raw water hardness values
recorded at the existing WTP intake.
Similar to the alkalinity data, the monthly average hardness values in 2014 and 2015
show late summer months (June through September) results that were consistently
higher than other years recorded. The limited snowpack also minimized dilution of
Ashland Creek hardness.
July 22, 2019 | 17

Figure 3-5. Average Monthly Raw Water Hardness
The average TID water hardness of 34.4 mg/L as CaCO3 is higher than the average
Reeder Reservoir water quality.
3.2.4 Color
Color is an aesthetic parameter and is often the result of iron, manganese, and/or
organic matter in the water. Figure 3-6 summarizes the average monthly raw water color
levels. As with turbidity, the average monthly values tend to mask the full range of daily
color episodes. Figure 3-7 presents 2016 daily maximum color values. In general, color
levels decreased from January through October before spiking due to winter
precipitation. The daily color values correlate with turbidity events seen in Figure 3-3 and
likely result from debris washed into Reeder Reservoir coupled with reservoir mixing.
18 | July 22, 2019

Figure 3-6. Average Monthly Raw Water Color
Figure 3-7. Maximum Daily Raw Water Color – 2016
July 22, 2019 | 19

The TID water has high levels of iron that likely contribute to the color of the water.
Samples collected showed levels of color higher than the secondary maximum
contaminant level of 15 Platinum-Cobalt units.
3.2.5 Temperature
Water temperature has a direct impact on coagulation, filtration, and disinfection
processes. Figure 3-8 shows the average temperature of raw water entering the existing
WTP by month. Temperatures range from 3°C (37°F) to 20°C (68°F) with clear warming
and cooling periods associated with the changing seasons. As previously discussed,
2014 and 2015 had higher water temperatures than other periods.
Figure 3-8. Average Monthly Raw Water Temperature
The TID water is warmer than Reeder Reservoir because the water is drawn from a
shallow, long canal only during the late spring to early fall. The temperature ranges from
8.1°C to 24.9°C with an average of 17.4°C.
3.2.6 Total Organic Carbon

TOC is one precursor of DBP formation regulated under the Stage 2 D/DBPR. Removing
TOC is a key consideration in plant treatment to minimize chlorine demand, improve
chlorine maintenance in the distribution system, and reduce the potential for biofilm
growth in the distribution system.
20 | July 22, 2019

TOC samples are taken from raw water as it enters the WTP. Monthly values were
collected from January 2011 to March 2017 and summarized in Figure 3-9. On average,
the TOC level is 2.9 mg/L, with higher levels typically in the winter and spring. Plant staff
recorded a TOC level of 10.8 mg/L in December 2012, which is suspected the result of a
large storm.
Figure 3-9. Monthly Raw Water TOC Data
The level of TOC in TID water is 3 mg/L on average, which is close to the average level
in Reeder Reservoir. Although TID appears to have slightly higher TOC levels than the
reservoir, the range is within the values seen at the plant on an annual basis.
3.2.7 pH
As a water quality parameter, pH can affect coagulation and disinfection efficiency.
Finished water pH is important for the City to manage compliance with the Lead and
Copper Rule. The monthly average pH of the raw water is approximately 7.4, which is
typical for Oregon surface waters. Figure 3-10 shows the average monthly raw water pH
values recorded at the existing WTP intake.
July 22, 2019 | 21

Figure 3-10. Average Monthly Raw Water pH Data
The TID water is typically slightly higher in pH than samples collected from the reservoir,
and ranges from 6.8 to 7.9.
3.2.8 Pathogens
Principal pathogens of concern in drinking water include Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and
viruses. In September 2010, the City performed Round 1 Cryptosporidium sampling as
required under the LT2ESWR and placed in Bin 1 (Table 2-3).
A second round of LT2ESWR was conducted in October 2016. One positive result for
Cryptosporidium was detected on January 24, 2017 with a result of 0.093 oocysts/L.
However, following the completion of sampling, the existing WTP remains in Bin 1.
Limited Giardia testing was conducted and detected only once during monthly testing
from April 2008 to March 2010. Similar to Cryptosporidium, the presence of Giardia is
anticipated limited.
TID water was analyzed for pathogens; no samples detected Cryptosporidium, although
two positive detects were made for Giardia cysts. In general, the TID water has been
observed to have higher quantities of pathogens than water from Reeder Reservoir.
3.2.9 Iron and Manganese

In general, iron and manganese have not been found in notable quantities in raw water
samples at the existing WTP. Iron and manganese testing conducted more than 20 years
ago showed maximum iron concentrations of 0.74 mg/L and maximum manganese
22 | July 22, 2019

concentrations of 0.07 mg/L. In 2012, iron and manganese were tested and results were
below detectable limits.
Iron levels in the TID water have exceeded while levels of manganese are below
secondary maximum contaminant levels.
3.2.10 Inorganic Compounds

A review of the posted water quality data on the OHA website from 1986 through
July 2018 showed nitrate as the only inorganic compound with samples collected above
each compound’s respective detection limit. However, the nitrate results of 0.472 mg/L
were well below the regulatory limit of 10 mg/L.
The TID water samples showed that no inorganic compounds were present in amounts
greater than the EPA limit; most compounds were at levels below detectable limits.
3.2.11 Synthetic and Volatile Organic Compounds

A review of the posted water quality data on the OHA website from 1986 through
July 2018 showed no presence of synthetic or volatile organic compounds at levels
above detection thresholds. The watershed for the WTP lacks the industrial or
commercial activities that are common sources for these compounds.
Similarly, the TID water did not detect any synthetic or volatile organic compounds at
levels above the detectable limit.
3.2.12 Algae and Cyanotoxins

Algae are known sources of taste and odor causing compounds and cyanotoxins.
Reeder Reservoir sampling in 2007 reported blue-green algal species within the
reservoir, including the potentially toxic Anabaena flos-aquae, reaching an extremely
high cell count of 31,570,000 cells/mL at the reservoir surface. The 2007 study also
noted Reeder Reservoir water quality and physical characteristics make it prone to algal
blooms. It is likely the results from 2007 are typical for most years.
Since 2010, regular testing for cyanotoxins based on species was performed. In October
2012, microcystin-LR was reported in initial and confirmation sampling at the Reeder
Reservoir intake tower and existing WTP tailrace. Sampling conducted on the finished
water found no presence of cyanotoxins, indicating the treatment process removed the
microcystin. Subsequent testing detected no cyanotoxins in the raw water, but the
ongoing and high presence of Anabaena indicates that cyanotoxins may be generated in
the future. Finally, the City has been conducting extensive sampling for algal toxins in
response to OHA’s emergency algal toxin rule in 2018. To date, the City has yet to detect
any algal toxins in the raw Reeder Reservoir water. The City also treats the reservoir on
an annual basis with PAK 27, an NSF-60 approved sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate
salt, which reduces algal blooms.
In contrast, the 2017 analysis of TID water found that the water contained more than
900 algal cells/mL in every sample taken and a significant fraction of the algae were
cyanobacteria. Algal toxin analysis was not conducted in the 2017 investigation.
July 22, 2019 | 23

3.2.13 Taste and Odor Compounds

The City conducted a study in 2015 to identify raw water concentrations of taste and odor
causing compounds and determine the effectiveness of the existing WTP at removing
them. The study found geosmin present, but 2-methylisoborneol was not detected.
Geosmin is detectable by the public at concentrations of 5 – 10 ng/L.
The City indicated that taste and odor issues regularly occur in the later part of the
summer when raw water temperatures are highest and Reeder Reservoir is fully
stratified. Samples were collected during this time and are summarized in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4. Geosmin Sample Results (ng/L) by Location – 2015

Reeder Reservoir, Raw Water at Power
Finished Water at WTP
Sampling Date 2 meters below surface House Tailrace
September 28, 2015 73.3 28.9 16.1
October 6, 2015 49.8 24.5 (sample lost)
October 22, 2015 27.4 20.7 9.5
November 2, 2015 23.2 18.0 14.7
November 18, 2015 12.5 10.5 7.8
Testing results showed levels of geosmin in the raw water were several times higher
than the public detection limit. City staff indicated 2015 had higher levels of taste and
odor complaints than normal. The City normally receives taste and odor complaints every
late summer through early fall.
No taste and odor data has been collected from the TID water.
3.3 Treatment Goals and Challenges

The fundamental objective of the WTP is to produce drinking water that meets or
exceeds established finished water quality parameters to provide the consumer with a
desirable and reliable product. The secondary objective of the new WTP is to exceed the
performance of the existing WTP with regard to operational resiliency and redundancy.
Table 3-5 lists the water quality goals of specific interest.
24 | July 22, 2019

Table 3-5. Key Finished Water Quality Goals

Parameter Criteria/Goal
Match or improve existing WTP performance of:

• ≥2.0-log Cryptosporidium removal using filtration only
Pathogen Removal • ≥3.0-log Giardia removal using a combination of filtration
and chlorination
• ≥4.0-log virus removal/inactivation using a combination
of filtration and chlorination

• Turbidity: <0.15 NTU filtered all the time
• All other primary regulated contaminants below
IOCs, SOCs, VOCs regulatory limits
• Total Iron: ≤0.05 mg/L
• Total Manganese: ≤0.01 mg/L
• Total Aluminum: ≤0.05 mg/L

• Finished water color: No more than 1 Platinum-Cobalt
units
Aesthetic Issues
Improve existing WTP performance of:
• Taste-and-odor: Reduce geosmin concentrations to ≤5
ng/L

• TTHMs <60 µg/L at all points in distribution system (75%
Secondary Disinfection and DBP of MCL)
Control • HAA5s <45 µg/L at all points in distribution system (75%
of MCL)
• TOC at entry point ≤3.0 mg/L
At entry point:
Corrosion Control • pH: 7.8 ± 0.2
• Alkalinity: ≥25 mg/L
Improve on existing WTP performance for cyanotoxin removal

Cyanotoxins and consider additional removal if future raw water
concentrations are higher than prior detections.
Consider how new treatment systems can affect PFCs if they

Perfluorinated Compounds
are ever released into the watershed
The following treatment challenges were identified based on historical water quality data.
3.3.1 Pathogen Removal

Based on Table 2-2 and the use of conventional filtration, the plant will need to achieve
0.5-log Giardia removal and 2.0-log virus removal. Although ozone will be added at the
plant, no credit is being requested for ozone so the remaining pathogen removal will be
accomplished via chlorine disinfection. Based on conversations with OHA, all
downstream processes from the ozone addition would need to be protected from animal
July 22, 2019 | 25

or pest intrusion as one of the conditions for a waiver application to OHA’s construction
standards.
3.3.2 Turbidity Removal

The existing WTP is successful in removing turbidity; however, future periods of drought
could result in higher raw water turbidities. The new WTP goal is to exceed current
turbidity removal performance. Lower Reeder Reservoir water levels result in higher raw
water turbidity in part due to reduced settling time. In the future, Reeder Reservoir will be
taken offline for maintenance and the plant will be supplied directly from the East and
West Forks of Ashland Creek. During this time, higher raw water turbidity is expected. An
extended period of drought may also require the City to pump more TID water, which has
higher levels of turbidity. A forest fire in the Reeder Reservoir watershed also could result
in a high turbidity event.
3.3.3 Alkalinity
The existing WTP often requires supplemental alkalinity in the form of soda ash prior to
coagulation. Soda ash addition can also be required on the finished water to boost
alkalinity levels prior to distribution. The new WTP will need to have provisions to adjust
alkalinity on the raw and finished water.
3.3.4 Total Organic Carbon

The goal of the new WTP is to improve the removal of TOC, thereby reducing chlorine
demand and DBP precursors, and improving chlorine residual stability in the distribution
system. In general, the raw water TOC levels are fairly low; however, rainfall events
result in TOC spikes. If not removed, higher levels of TOC likely will result in higher DBP
formation. Following a fire in the watershed, TOC levels would likely increase from the
charred vegetation eroding into Reeder Reservoir.
3.3.5 Algae and Cyanotoxins

Both Reeder Reservoir and TID water can contain high populations of algae including
species that produce cyanotoxins. Although cyanotoxins were not detected in the
finished water, the new WTP will need to have provisions to address algae and
cyanotoxins. The goal of the new WTP is to improve the performance of removing or
mitigating cyanotoxins.
3.3.6 Taste and Odor

The goal of the new WTP is to improve the performance of the existing WTP by reducing
geosmin concentrations to below 5 ng/L. The City regularly receives taste and odor
complaints during late summer through early fall. The existing WTP occasionally
operates a powdered activated carbon system to remove some of these taste and odor
causing compounds.
26 | July 22, 2019

3.3.7 Chlorine Residual and DBPs

In the past five years, the existing WTP exceeded an MCL for regulated DBPs once. The
plant also met all disinfection and entry point chlorine requirements; however, the
potential for higher TOC levels may require closer attention of DBP levels. The goal of
the new WTP is to match or improve the existing WTP performance by maintaining all
DBPs (TTHMs and HAA5s) below 75 percent of the MCL.
3.3.8 Future Regulated Compounds

Revisions to existing regulations or the promulgation of new regulations is a routine
occurrence as new and better information and technology becomes available. For
example, perfluorinated compounds recently became compounds of interest in the water
industry and are a category of man-made carcinogenic compounds. The principal
exposure to the City would be the dumping of old (pre-2015) firefighting chemical foams
in the watershed to combat a fire, with the foam then washing into Ashland Creek and/or
Reservoir. Some water treatment technologies are already effective against many of
these compounds if they are ever released into the Reeder Reservoir watershed.
3.4 Site Plan

The site plan is shown in Appendix B.
3.5 Hydraulic Profile

The hydraulic profile for the WTP is shown in Appendix B. Water from the existing plant
will flow by gravity to the new WTP site using the existing WTP finished water pipeline. A
pressure-reducing valve will be used to break head prior to water entering the treatment
processes. Ozone will be added downstream of the pressure reducing valves, and water
will continue to travel by residual pressure through a large 48-inch pipeline contactor.
Water will flow by gravity through the ballasted sedimentation units and into a settled
water channel. The settled water channel will direct flow to the granular media filters,
which discharge into an intermediate wet well. Pumps in the intermediate wet well will
send water to the clearwell. A pump station will pump water from the clearwell to the
Crowson Reservoir, while water will flow by gravity from the clearwell to the Granite
Street Reservoir. Backwash supply water for the filters will be supplied from the clearwell
by gravity.
Backwash waste from the filters, including water generated during the filter-to-waste
cycle, will flow by gravity to the backwash recovery basins. A floating decanter in each
basin will collect water to be pumped back to the head of the plant. Solids captured from
the ballasted sedimentation process will be sent to the sewer.
3.6 Process Flow Diagrams

The preliminary process flow diagram for the WTP shows the proposed chemical
locations and flow metering points (Appendix B).
July 22, 2019 | 27

3.7 Specifications
Project specifications will follow the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee
(EJCDC) 50 division, six-digit format. A list of the anticipated project specifications is
presented in Appendix C.
28 | July 22, 2019

4 Water Treatment Processes

An evaluation of treatment technologies was conducted to determine treatment
processes for inclusion in the new WTP. The Technology Alternatives Report for the
water treatment plant process evaluation is included as Appendix D. HDR
recommended, and the City accepted the recommendation, the new WTP be a
conventional granular media biofiltration facility. The following sections summarize each
of the selected treatment processes in more detail.
4.1 Ozone Pipeline Contactor

Ozone is an unstable gas that produces the hydroxyl radical, a strong chemical oxidant.
The hydroxyl radical and other intermediates non-selectively react with various water
contaminants to provide the following major benefits:
• Destroys taste and odor causing compounds
• Destroys some algal toxins
• Breaks down organic color-causing molecules
• Satisfies the oxidant demand of the water and reduces the use of downstream
chlorine disinfectant.
Ozone is also often used for destroying waterborne pathogens like Cryptosporidium,
Giardia, and viruses. As noted in Section 3.3.1, the new WTP’s ozone system will also
destroy these pathogens, if present, but the WTP is not currently being designed to meet
the OHA requirements to grant disinfection credit. To receive disinfection credit, all
downstream processes would need to be protected from animal or pest intrusion.
Assimilable organic carbon (AOC) produced by ozonation can contribute to bacterial
regrowth within a transmission or distribution system. Biological filtration will be located
downstream of ozone addition to remove AOC through biological activity.
Ozone will be applied to the raw water downstream of the pressure reducing valves. A
side stream of high-pressure water from the upstream side of the valves will be used to
inject ozone and provide mixing. The ozonated water will continue through a 48-inch
pipeline contactor. The pipeline is sized hydraulically to handle the future plant
production rate of 10 MGD with a contact time of 10 minutes. This contact time is
consistent with recommendations from the Water Research Foundation for mitigating
taste and odor compounds, but will be verified during ozone pilot testing. Due to the
corrosive nature of ozone, the pipeline material will be stainless steel. During the next
project phase, the pipe material and configuration of ozone injection will be finalized.
Due to the large diameter of the pipeline contactor, a blow off valve will be installed on
the downstream side of the pipe. The purpose of this valve is to allow for periodic
maintenance on the pipeline contactor by removing any settled debris. Parameters will
also be made to capture any ozone off-gassing at the end of the pipeline contactor,
which would be sent to the ozone destruct unit. Calcium thiosulfate will be added at the
end of the pipeline to quench any residual dissolved ozone.
July 22, 2019 | 29

Table 4-1 presents the design criteria for the ozone pipeline contactor. Pilot testing will
be conducted in early summer to determine the ozone demand and finalize the ozone
system design criteria. The current maximum ozone dose is based on an anticipated
ozone demand of 1.0 mg/L at future plant conditions.
Table 4-1. Ozone Pipeline Contactor Design Criteria

Item Design Value or Specification
Size of pipeline 48-inches
Volume of pipeline 76,400 gallons
Length of pipeline 815 ft
Initial maximum flow (7.5 MGD) – 14.7 min

Contact time
Future maximum flow (10 MGD) – 10 min
Ozone dose – maximum 1.6 mg/L
Number of ozone gas destruct units 2
4.2 Pretreatment
The pretreatment system consists of flash mixing with chemical injection followed by
parallel pretreatment units. Flocculation and sedimentation are accomplished using a
ballasted sedimentation process. The following sections provide basis of design
information on selected facilities and processes that follow ozone addition and precede
media filtration.
For the initial phase, there will be two parallel pretreatment units with one settled water
channel. The site layout provides the installation of a third pretreatment unit for the future
phase to provide a finished water capacity of up to 10 MGD.
The water from the ballasted sedimentation units is combined in a pipeline before
entering a common settled water channel that conveys the water to the filters. Each
pretreatment process train is designed to handle the following flows during the initial
phase based on a 90 percent overall plant recovery rate assuming the two trains are on-
line:
• Maximum – 4.1 MGD
• Average – 1.7 MGD
• Minimum – 0.8 MGD
4.2.1 Flash Mixing

Various chemicals will be added and thoroughly mixed into the raw water prior to
coagulation. Chemical addition capabilities on the raw water include soda ash,
coagulant, and polymer. More information on the chemical systems can be found in
Section 6 - Chemical Facilities. Following the ozone contact pipeline, soda ash is added
to the water to provide supplemental alkalinity prior to treatment. The coagulant
(aluminum sulfate) will be added via flash mix using a pumped system followed by
30 | July 22, 2019

polymer addition. A flash mixing system contributes little to the overall system headloss,
but provides an efficient mixing system with lower power consumption.
Table 4-2 summarizes the design criteria for the flash mix system.
Table 4-2. Flash Mix Design Criteria

Type In-line Pump Diffusion
Flow – maximum; average 11.0 MGD; 3.3 MGD
Detention time – maximum; average 0.72 sec; 2.40 sec
Velocity Gradient 700 sec-1
Number of Pumps 2 (1 duty +_1 standby)
Water Supply Raw water
Pump Type End suction centrifugal
Pump Capacity 230 gpm at 42.6 ft TDH
Motor horsepower, each 5 hp
Motor Drive Constant speed
Flygt
Proposed Manufacturers Fairbanks-Morse
Flowserve
4.2.2 Ballasted Sedimentation

The ballasted sedimentation process is accomplished with a flocculation/maturation step
followed by a clarification step using lamella plates. The steps within the ballasted
sedimentation process are shown in Figure 11 and summarized below.
July 22, 2019 | 31

Figure 11. Ballasted Sedimentation Process
Source: Veolia
Flocculation is part of the clarification process and introduces velocity gradients (referred
to as G, in units of sec-1) to the water to maximize the contact of particles that join into
larger, more settleable agglomerates known as floc. The flocculation process is preceded
by flash mixing, where chemicals are introduced to the water through high energy mixing.
Following the flocculation process is sedimentation, where the floc is settled and
removed from the water.
Flocculation is the process of building optimum particle size to enhance sedimentation
and capture during subsequent treatment processes. To increase the size of the floc
particles, microsand and polymer are added to the injection tank to increase the settling
velocity of particles in the water. Following the addition of microsand, water will enter the
maturation tank where gentle mixing is used to keep particles in suspension while
avoiding high shear rates that cause particle breakup.
Sedimentation is the process of removing solids and settleable materials formed during
coagulation (i.e., mixing and flocculation) thereby enhancing filter performance and
decreasing filter maintenance requirements.
Lamella plates increase the effective settling area, thereby facilitating higher loading
rates, decreasing detention times, and reducing basin size. Flow enters the clarification
stage following maturation. Water rises up between the inclined plates, through
32 | July 22, 2019

submerged orifices and into the settled water trough. The settled water trough conveys
water to the common effluent pipeline.
The ballasted sedimentation unit also includes a microsand recycle system. Sludge is
pumped from the bottom of the unit to a hydrocyclone. The hydrocyclone separates the
microsand from the sludge, which is sent to the sanitary sewer. The microsand is
returned back to the injection tank to minimize loss within the process.
The ballasted sedimentation process can be constructed within concrete basins or can
be delivered as a package unit within a steel tank. To minimize the footprint of the site,
the package unit was selected for the design basis. The final arrangement of the
ballasted sedimentation process will be determined in the next phase.
Table 4-3 presents the design criteria for the ballasted sedimentation process.
Table 4-3. Ballasted Sedimentation Design Criteria

Number of Tanks – initial; future 2; 3
Size of Tank, each 35 ft x 15 ft
Design flow, each train 4.13 MGD
Veolia Actiflo
Proposed Manufacturers WesTech RapiSand
SUEZ Densadeg XRC
4.3 Filtration
Filtration is accomplished at the WTP by granular media filters. Water from the ballasted
sedimentation units will enter a common settled water channel. A filter aid polymer will be
added in the channel to improve filtration. Valves at each filter will allow water into the
filter and then flow down through the filter media and underdrain system. As the filters
remove particulates from the treatment stream, headloss through the filter will increase.
Solids retained within the filter are removed through backwashing and air scour
processes. The following descriptions provide the general functions and purpose of filter
operating processes:
• Filtration –the normal production mode of the filters. Water will flow by gravity
through the filters. Filter effluent exits each basin at the bottom and continues to
a common filter effluent line before flowing by gravity to the clearwells.
• Backwashing – used as a form of hydraulic cleaning to remove solids. Backwash
pumps draw finished water from the clearwell and pump it upwards through the
filter. Backwash waste flows into the filter troughs and out the filter into the
backwash waste line where it flows by gravity to the backwash recovery basins.
• Air Scour –air is added during different stages of backwash. The combination of
water and air creates strong turbulent and shearing forces to dislodge particles
within the filter bed to both increase backwash effectiveness and reduce water
usage.
July 22, 2019 | 33

• Filter-to-Waste – following a backwash procedure, the filter is placed back into

forward flow operation with filtered water sent to the backwash recovery basins.
The purpose of a filter-to-waste cycle is to waste high turbidity water bleeding
through the filter while the granular media is still ripening immediately after a
backwash.
The filters are designed to operate in biological mode due to the upstream addition of
ozone. Biological activity within the filters may further reduce organics by consuming
AOC produced from ozone addition, improving the finished water quality and minimizing
DBP formation. The filters will also aid in the removal of taste and odor causing
compounds.
Nutrients such as phosphorous may be added prior to filtration to promote biological
activity and optimize operations; space in the chemical area has been provided to add a
chemical for future optimization. The following sections describe the design criteria for
the filters. Table 4-4 summarizes the design criteria for the filters.
Table 4-4. Filters Design Criteria

Number of Filters – initial; future 4; 5
Dimensions, LxW 25 ft x 13 ft
Filter Area 325 sf
Filter Loading Rate 5.5 gpm/sf
Filter-to-Waste duration Up to 7 minutes
12-inch Silica Sand

Effective size: 0.45 – 0.55 mm
Filter Media
48-inch granular activated carbon (GAC)
L/d ratio 1,367
EBCT – initial 5.6 minutes
4.3.1 Number of Filters

Four filters are included in the initial design for the new WTP to provide system
redundancy. Three filters are needed to treat the full plant capacity of the initial phase at
the design hydraulic loading rate with one redundant filter to account for backwashing. A
future fifth filter is planned in the site and equipment layout for when the WTP is
expanded to 10 MGD.
4.3.2 Hydraulic Loading Rate

The hydraulic loading rate is calculated by the flow in each filter divided by the filter
surface area. A filter size of 13 feet by 25 feet was selected for a surface area of
325 square feet. The design hydraulic loading rate for the filters is 5.5 gallons per
34 | July 22, 2019

minute/square foot (gpm/sf). For reference, the existing WTP has filters rated between
3.75 and 4.33 gpm/sf.
4.3.3 Filter Media and L/d Ratio

There is a wide variety in the types and configuration of filter media. As previously
mentioned, the existing plant has a lower loading rate than the design for the new plant.
To provide quality physical filtration at the higher loading rate, the filter bed depth will be
increased when compared to the existing plant. The existing WTP was designed with
12 inches of silica sand and 18 inches of anthracite. To improve filtration and provide a
better environment for biological activity, the plant will have 12 inches of silica sand and
48 inches of GAC. GAC is an excellent media for promoting biologically active filters
because its pore sizes provide areas for biological growth. The GAC will have an
effective size of 1.3 – 1.5 millimeters (mm).
Filter media size affects the pressure drop over the filter, backwashing rates, and
filtration performance. While the pressure drop for a large particle size may be less than
a fine particle, it requires a higher backwashing rate to achieve the same bed expansion.
One measurement of physical filtration efficiency is the ratio between the depth of the
filter and the effective size of the filter media (L/d) ratio. In general, as the filter media
effective size becomes smaller, less filter depth is needed to achieve water with the
same quality. An L/d ratio goal of at least 1,000 is typical for mono-sand/dual-media
beds, and a ratio of at least 1,250 is recommended for tri-media filters (Kawamura 2000).
Table 4-5 presents the current WTP L/d ratio and proposed WTP L/d ratio. Design
includes extra hydraulic capacity so additional GAC can be added in the future as
needed for a future total GAC depth of 60 inches. The new filter configuration will
increase the L/d ratio thereby improving filter performance (Table 4-5).
Table 4-5. L/d Ratio Comparison

Base Layer
Media Sand
Effective Size 0.55 mm
Depth 12-inches
L/d 554
Top Layer
New WTP with

Existing WTP New WTP
Scenario Additional Media
Media Anthracite GAC GAC
Effective Size 1.0 mm 1.3 – 1.5 mm 1.3 – 1.5 mm
Depth 18-inches 48-inches 60-inches
L/d 457 813 1,016

Total L/d 1,011 1,367 1,570
July 22, 2019 | 35

4.3.4 Empty Bed Contact Time

Empty bed contact time (EBCT) is a function of the volume of filter media and the flow
rate through the filter. EBCT represents the amount of time water will be in contact with
the filter media. It is a parameter normally used in design of an adsorption process, such
as GAC contactors, but is important to consider because the filters will be operated in
biological mode. Table 4-6 summarizes the EBCT at various operation conditions. The
initial phase will have an EBCT of 5.6 minutes at maximum plant flow with one filter out
of service; however, typical operating conditions will result in a higher EBCT.
Table 4-6. EBCT by Plant Operating Condition

Condition Filters Operation Flow Rate per Filter (gpm) EBCT (min)
Initial – Minimum Flow 3 online, 1 offline 347 28.0
Initial – Average Flow 3 online, 1 offline 694 14.0
Initial – Average Flow 4 online, 0 offline 520 18.7
Initial – Maximum Flow 3 online, 0 offline 1736 5.6
Initial – Maximum Flow 4 online, 0 offline 1302 7.5
Future – Minimum Flow 4 online, 1 offline 347 28.0
Future – Maximum Flow 4 online, 1 offline 1736 5.6
4.3.5 Backwashing and Air Scour

A backwash rate of about 22 gpm/sf is required for a 30 percent bed expansion at a
water temperature of 13°C. Bed expansion will be higher at warmer water temperatures
and lower at colder water temperatures. The backwash system is sized to handle a
single backwash at a time.
To improve backwash performance an air scour system will be provided at a rate of
4 cubic feet per minute (cfm)/sf. The system includes a blower and associated
appurtenances.
Table 4-7 summarizes the design criteria for the backwash and air scour system. The
backwash water supply is treated water from the WTP clearwell. Information on the
backwash supply pump station can be found in Section 5.1.
Table 4-7. Backwash and Air Scour Design Criteria

Backwash Rate 22 gpm/sf
Air Scour Rate 4 cfm/sf
Number of Blowers 2
Type of Blower Multistage Centrifugal
36 | July 22, 2019

Table 4-7. Backwash and Air Scour Design Criteria

Blower Motor Horsepower 100
Blower Capacity 1,300 cfm at 11.2 psi
Roots
Proposed Manufacturers Hoffman
Gardner Denver
4.3.6 Future Filtration Optimization

To avoid future construction, a re-rate study could be performed to optimize the filters. A
re-rate study would require coordination with OHA on the protocol, pilot and full scale
testing, and OHA review and approval for a new filtration loading rate. A re-rate could
allow the filters to handle additional flow up to the future plant capacity of 10 MGD
without filter area expansion (i.e. increase loading rate on the existing filters without
constructing a fifth filter). Table 4-8 summarizes the potential future re-rated filters design
criteria.
Table 4-8. Potential Future Re-Rated Filters Design Criteria

Number of Filters 4
Dimensions, LxW 25 ft x 13 ft
Filter Area 325 sf
Filter Loading Rate – re-rate 7.1 gpm/sf
Filter-to-Waste duration Up to 7 minutes
12-inch Silica Sand

Filter Media
60-inch GAC
L/d ratio – re-rate 1,570
EBCT – re-rate 5.3 minutes
The plant will be hydraulically designed to accommodate a re-rate without filter

expansion. For EBCT to remain about the same with an increase in the hydraulic loading
rate, an additional 12 inches of media would be required.
July 22, 2019 | 37

4.4 Intermediate Pump Station

Filtered water will enter the intermediate pump station, which is located directly below the
filters. The intermediate pump station will pump filtered water from the filters to the
clearwell. The wet well for the pump station is sized to provide 20 minutes of storage at
the future plant production. Three vertical turbine pumps (two duty and one standby) will
be provided with VFDs; space for an additional future pump will also be provided.
Table 4-9 summarizes the design criteria for the intermediate pump station.
Table 4-9. Intermediate Pump Station Design Criteria

Initial maximum production (7.5 MGD) – 27 minutes

Storage Detention Time
Future maximum production (10 MGD) – 20 minutes
Depth of operating volume 5 ft
Number of pumps 3 (2 duty + 1 standby)
Type of Pump Vertical turbine
Design Capacity, gpm 2,600 gpm
Design Pump Head 78 ft
Motor Drive VFD
Motor Horsepower 75 hp
Fairbanks Morse
Proposed Manufacturers Flowserve
Aurora
4.5 Clearwell
Finished water storage is required to provide buffering capacity for pumping, plant
flexibility, and distribution system storage, and to supply water for filter backwashing.
Filtered water will be pumped to the clearwell with chlorine injection provided on the
pump discharge. The clearwell will include a fill station to fill totes and water trucks as
part of a post-seismic event response.
One clearwell will be built during the initial plant phase and is designed with 240,000
gallons of backwash storage, which represents approximately 2.5 backwashes.
Additional pipe connections will be designed to add a second clearwell in the future to
allow plant staff to take a clearwell offline for maintenance. Table 4-10 summarizes the
design criteria for the clearwell. Section 6.8.1 describes the operating parameters to
achieve disinfection within the clearwell. The clearwell will be baffled with final layout of
baffles determined during final design.
38 | July 22, 2019

Table 4-10. Clearwell Design Criteria

Number of tanks – initial; future 1; 2
Type Aboveground Concrete, Circular
Nominal Volume of Clearwell, each 850,000 gallons
Storage Detention Time – average;

6.8 hours; 2.7 hours
maximum
Clearwell Inside Diameter 60 ft
Maximum Elevation to Overflow 41.5 ft
4.6 Crowson Pump Station

Potable water from the clearwell will be pumped to the Crowson Reservoir. Three end
suction centrifugal pumps (two duty and one standby) are provided at the Crowson pump
station adjacent to the clearwell. Approximately half of the plant production will be sent to
the Crowson Reservoir. However, the final pumping capacity will be coordinated with the
City’s water master plan consultant based on other system improvements that may
occur. Table 4-11 summarizes the design criteria for the Crowson pumps.
Table 4-11. Crowson Pump Station Design Criteria

Number of Pumps 3 (2 duty + 1 standby)
Type of Pump End suction centrifugal
Design Capacity, gpm 1,300 gpm
Motor Drive VFD
Flygt
Proposed Manufacturers Fairbanks-Morse
Flowserve
July 22, 2019 | 39

5 Residuals Handling Process Facilities

The residuals handling facilities are designed to maximize the amount of water recycled
for reuse. The residuals handling system is designed to capture backwash wastewater
and filter-to-waste water; the solids collected in the sedimentation basins will be sent
directly to the sanitary sewer.
5.1 Backwash Supply System

Finished water from the clearwell is used to backwash the filters. Because the clearwell
is located above the filters in terms of hydraulic grade, backwash will be accomplished by
gravity. A flow control valve will be provided to manage backwash supply to the filters.
Calcium thiosulfate will be added to the backwash supply to preserve biological growth
on the filters.
5.2 Backwash Recovery Basins

Backwash recovery basins recover water generated during filter backwash and are
designed to handle the storage of over three filter backwashes every day. The basins are
designed for the future maximum capacity of the plant; additional basins would not be
required during a plant expansion. As discussed in Section 2.1.2.5, recycle flows may not
exceed ten percent of the raw water supply. The amount of flow returned by the basins
will be limited by plant production. In the event that more backwash water is entering the
basin than going out, the excess water will overflow to the sewer. The two basins will be
cast-in-place concrete and allow the plant operator to take a basin out of service for
cleaning to remove solids, while the other basin continues to collect water. Solids from
the basins would be sent to sanitary sewer. A floating decanter in each basin conveys
water to the backwash recovery pump station. Table 5-1 summarizes the design criteria
for the backwash recovery basins.
Table 5-1. Backwash Recovery Basins Design Criteria

Number of Basins 2
Size of Basin, each 28 ft x 28 ft
Side Water Depth 29 ft
Freeboard 2 ft
Volume of Basin, each 170,070 gallons
Number of Backwashes Stored 3.5
Decanter Type Gravity Flow Floating
Flow Rate per decanter, maximum 700 gpm
Decanter Materials 304 stainless steel
40 | July 22, 2019

5.3 Backwash Recovery Pump Station

The backwash recovery pump station pumps decanted water from the backwash
recovery basins and returns it to the head of the plant prior to any treatment. Two
submersible pumps (one duty and one standby) are provided at the pump station, which
is located adjacent to the backwash recovery basins.
Table 5-2. Backwash Recovery Pump Station Design Criteria

Number of Pumps 2 (1 duty + 1 standby)
Type of Pump Submersible
Design Capacity, gpm 764 gpm
Flygt
Fairbanks-Morse
Proposed Manufacturers
Gorman Rupp
Goulds
July 22, 2019 | 41

6 Chemical Facilities
6.1 Chemical Feed Facilities
To optimize the treatment process and meet current regulatory requirements, several
chemicals will be stored on site and introduced into the process at various points.
Table 6-1 lists the chemicals that will be used, their purpose, and feed points. Final
chemical selection will be determined during the next phase.
Table 6-1. Water Treatment Chemicals

Chemical Purpose Feed Point
Soda ash Alkalinity and pH adjustment Raw water pipeline, filtered water
Aluminum sulfate Coagulant Flash mixing system to raw water

pipeline
Coagulant aid polymer Improve coagulation and settling Raw water pipeline
Ozone Taste-and-odor destruction, algal Settled water

toxin destruction, meeting oxidant
demand
Liquid oxygen (LOX) Production of ozone Ozone room
Calcium thiosulfate Quench ozone or chlorine Ozonated water and backwash

residual supply
Filter aid polymer Improve filtration performance Ozonated water
Sodium hypochlorite Disinfection Filtered water
With the exception of soda ash and LOX, all chemicals will be stored in the Operations
Building. Aluminum sulfate and sodium hypochlorite will be stored in high-density
crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) single walled or fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) bulk
storage tanks. The final tank material will be evaluated during final design. Soda ash will
be stored in an outdoor silo, the polymers in totes, and the calcium thiosulfate in a drum.
The LOX will be stored in an outdoors cryogenic tank.
The type and feed rates for the chemicals are mostly based on historical data from the
existing WTP, with the exception of LOX and calcium thiosulfate.
Chemical metering pumps are peristaltic hose pumps and provided within each
containment area on elevated pump stands. Metering pumps are capable of providing
the full design dose capacity at each application point. Standby pumps are provided for
each regular duty feed pump. Where possible, a single standby pump is provided for
multiple feed points.
The chemical room of the Operations Building has large roll up doors so that equipment
can be removed. The building also contains emergency showers and eyewash stations,
personal protective equipment, and safety and data sheets. Detailed design information
for each chemical is provided in subsequent sections.
42 | July 22, 2019

6.2 Chemical Storage, Tanks, and Containment

The final design of chemical storage will be further evaluated during the next phase. Bulk
chemical storage facilities at WTPs should be designed with at least a 15-day supply to
apply chemicals at the maximum dose and average production rate (Kawamura 2000;
Table 6-2). To avoid adding a second bulk storage tank during plant expansion, bulk
tanks are sized to provide storage for the future phase. Bulk tanks are also sized, where
appropriate, to accommodate 1.5 times a full shipment to allow the plant to continue to
feed chemicals while maintaining the ability to receive a full bulk shipment.
Table 6-2. Water Treatment Chemicals Storage

Type of Initial – Days Future – Days of
Volume
Chemical Storage of Storagea Storagea
Soda Ash Silo 25,000 lbs 30 days 22 days
Aluminum Sulfate Bulk tank 6,100 gallons 27 days 20 days
Settling aid Two totes 660 gallons 21 days 15 days

(polymer)
LOX Bulk tank 6,000 gallons 25 days 34 days
Calcium Drum 50 gallons 29 days 21 days

Thiosulfate
Filter Aid One tote 330 gallons 127 days 95 days

(polymer)b
Sodium Bulk tank 6,100 gallons 95 days 71 days

Hypochlorite
a Days of storage is based on maximum dose at average flow conditions
b Days of storage for filter aid is based on average dose at average flow conditions
Chemical feed systems will utilize peristaltic pumps where appropriate to prevent the
siphoning of storage tanks and chemical overfeeding.
The chemical systems will be provided with separate fill stations. Bulk tanks are filled by
fill lines that extend to the appropriate unloading area outside the building. Chemical
delivery trucks will be parked adjacent to the unloading area stations. Bollards will be
provided to protect the fill lines and hose connections located outside the chemical area
of the Operations Building. Chemicals stored in totes will be maneuvered using a forklift.
Containment areas will be provided for all chemicals. The bulk tanks will have a common
secondary concrete containment area with chemical resistant coating as required, and
totes placed on spill pads. The final arrangement of the chemical containment area will
be further evaluated during final design.
6.3 Soda Ash

To provide supplemental alkalinity at the start of the treatment process, soda ash is
added to the raw water line prior to coagulation. Soda ash can also be added to the
July 22, 2019 | 43

filtered water to boost water pH prior to distribution. The use of soda ash for final pH
adjustment will be further evaluated during final design.
Soda ash is delivered in dry form. The existing WTP receives soda ash in bags they
manually feed into the plant hopper. To reduce labor, the new WTP will have a large silo
with a hopper and slurry tank. Three slurry feed pumps will be provided, two duty and
one standby. The feed pumps will be hose pumps with variable speed drives with
capability to feed the entire range of doses. A carrier water system will be evaluated
during final design for the longer distance from the silo to the filtered water application
point.
Table 6-3. Soda Ash Feed Rates

Flow Dose Total Feed Rate Feed Rate
Condition
(MGD) (mg/L) (PPD) (gal/day)
Minimum 1.32 3.0 33.0 34.6
Average 3.52 13.0 381.6 399.6
Maximum 8.25 28.0 1,926.5 2,017.0
Designa 3.52 13.0 822.0 860.6

a Design dose is based on maximum dose at average flow conditions
Table 6-4. Soda Ash Design Criteria

Number of Tanks 1
Type Silo
Volume of Storage Tank, each 18,000 lbs
Volume of Slurry Tank 1,200 gallons
Number of Feed Pumps 3 (2 duty + 1 standby)
Type Feed Pumps Hose
Transfer Pump Flow Rate, each 0.1 – 7.5 gpm
6.4 Coagulation
Coagulant type chemicals are used as flocculants to clump impurities in the water into
flocs of material that can be removed by the treatment process. To optimize the
treatment process, a polymer will be dosed in addition to a coagulant.
6.4.1 Aluminum Sulfate

Alum will be added via flash mix using a pumped system as a neat colorless solution. It
will be housed in a single wall XLPE tank in the chemical room at the Operations
44 | July 22, 2019

Building. The tank is sized to allow the plant to receive a full delivery from the chemical
supplier with some chemical storage remaining. Metering pumps will be used to dose the
chemical into the side stream injection point.
Table 6-5 shows the minimum, average, design, and maximum alum feed rates. The
components required to feed alum include a bulk storage tank and unloading system,
metering pumps, piping, appurtenances, and controls.
Table 6-6 presents the design criteria for the alum system.
Table 6-5. Alum Feed Rates

Condition
Minimum 1.32 10 110 20
Average 3.52 20 587 109
Maximum 8.25 40 2,752 512
Designa 3.52 40 1,174 218

Table 6-6. Alum Design Criteria

Number of Tanks 1
Type Bulk tank – single wall XLPE/FRP
Volume of Storage Tank, each 6,100 gal
Metering Pump Type Peristaltic hose
Metering Pump Flow Rate, each 0.85 – 28.4 gph
6.4.2 Settling Aid

The existing plant utilizes a labor-intensive process to add polymer. For the new WTP, a
polymer feeder unit will be utilized to activate, mix, and disperse polymer. The polymer
feed system has a two-step mixing process: in the first stage, high energy is applied; in
the second stage, gentle mixing is used to activate the polymer.
Settling aid polymer will be housed between two totes placed on secondary containment
pads inside the chemical room of the operations building. Table 6-7 summarizes the
polymer feed rates and Table 6-8 presents the design criteria for the polymer. A polymer
feed system will be sized by a manufacturer to meet performance requirements.
July 22, 2019 | 45

Table 6-7. Settling Aid Polymer Feed Rates

Condition
Minimum 1.32 0.8 8.8 3
Average 3.52 1.2 35.2 12
Maximum 8.25 3.2 220.2 73
Designa 3.52 3.2 94 31

Table 6-8. Settling Aid Polymer Design Criteria

Number of Totes 2
Volume of Tote, each 330 gal
6.5 Ozone
Ozone will be added to the raw water pipeline. As previously discussed, ozone is a
strong oxidant that can aid in the destruction of algae, algal toxins, and taste and odor
causing compounds. Ozone is generated at the plant site using LOX. LOX is vaporized
and sent to the ozone generator. Due to the corrosive and hazardous nature of ozone,
any additional ozone generated or not used at the ozone contact basins will be
destroyed. Table 6-9 presents the design criteria for the ozone system.
Table 6-9. Ozone Design Criteria

Number of Generators 3
Capacity of generator, each 130 lbs/day
Ozone content 10%
Oxygen Supply LOX
Wedeco
Proposed Manufacturers Primozone
Aqua-Aerobics
The potential for using the ozone system in the future for disinfection will be evaluated
further during final design.
46 | July 22, 2019

6.6 Calcium Thiosulfate

Calcium thiosulfate will be added at the end of the ozone pipeline contactor to quench
any residual ozone. It will also be added to the backwash supply (BWS) pipeline as
needed to dechlorinate the BWS water. Due to the limited amount of chemical needed,
calcium thiosulfate will be housed in a drum.
Table 6-10 shows the minimum, average, design, and maximum calcium thiosulfate feed
rates, and Table 6-11 presents the design criteria.
Table 6-10. Calcium Thiosulfate Feed Rates
Flow Dose Total Feed

Total Feed Total Feed
(Ozone (Ozone Rate (Ozone Flow (BWS) Dose (BWS)
Condition Rate (BWS) Rate
Quenching) Quenching) Quenching) (MGD) (mg/L)
(PPD) (gal/day)
(MGD) (mg/L) (PPD)
Minimum 1.32 0.03 0.3 0.04 0.50 0.2 0.2
Average 3.52 0.05 1.5 0.11 1.00 1.2 1.0
Maximum 8.25 0.10 6.9 0.25 1.50 4.1 4.0
Designa 3.52 0.05 2.9 0.11 1.00 1.8 1.7
Table 6-11. Calcium Thiosulfate Design Criteria

Number of Tanks 1
Type Drum
Volume of Storage Tank, each 50 gal
6.7 Filter Aid

Similar to the settling aid polymer, the filter aid polymer will be applied using a polymer
feed system. For ease of use, a filter aid delivered in liquid form is recommended.
Filter aid polymer will be housed in a tote placed on a secondary containment pad inside
the chemical room of the Operations Building. Table 6-12 summarizes the polymer feed
rates and Table 6-13 presents the design criteria for the polymer.
July 22, 2019 | 47

Table 6-12. Filter Aid Polymer Feed Rates

Condition
Minimum 1.32 0.02 0.2 10.6
Average 3.52 0.09 2.6 126.7
Maximum 8.25 0.2 13.8 660
Designa 3.52 0.09 5.9 281.6

Table 6-13. Filter Aid Polymer Design Criteria

Number of Totes 2
Volume of Storage Tank, each 330 gal
6.8 Sodium Hypochlorite and Disinfection

Disinfection is a crucial water treatment process specifically designed to protect health
through the inactivation of waterborne pathogens by a variety of chemical and/or physical
agents. The requisite level of microbial inactivation at a water treatment facility depends
on raw water quality and the performance of physical removal processes. Because
sedimentation and filtration contribute to microorganism removal, they count towards the
total removal/inactivation requirements of each contaminant. As stated in Section 3.3.1,
2-log virus and 0.5-log Giardia inactivation is considered the disinfection benchmark.
A tracer study plan will be developed and implemented following construction.
6.8.1 Primary Disinfection

To protect consumers from pathogens, primary and residual disinfection regulatory
requirements have been established. Primary disinfection must meet disinfection CT
criteria prior to distribution. The goal of primary disinfection is to inactivate pathogens
before water reaches the first consumer. Free chlorine will be the primary and secondary
disinfectant for the WTP.
A desktop CT study was performed to determine the optimal process confirmation to
meet microbial inactivation mandates. Figure 6-1 illustrates the disinfection strategy
evaluated in the desktop CT study. The process consists of a single disinfection zone
starting at the application of chlorine at the filtered water box downstream of the filters
and ending at the outlet of the clearwell.
48 | July 22, 2019

Figure 6-1. Proposed Chlorine Dosing System
The desktop CT study was conducted under multiple operating conditions. In all
conditions, 240,000 gallons of clearwell storage was designated for backwash purposes
only. The results of the desktop CT evaluation indicate that the available clearwell
volume (total storage minus the backwash storage volume) and more than 300 feet of
30-inch-diameter pipe between the filters and the clearwell is sufficient to achieve 2-log
virus inactivation and 0.5-log Giardia inactivation at future plant flow. Table 6-14 presents
the free chorine residual concentration to achieve 0.5-log Giardia inactivation.
Table 6-14. Desktop CT Study Results

Contact Residual
Giardia Virus
Flow pH / Time – Chlorine CT Inactivation
Condition Inactivation Inactivation
(MGD) Temperature T10 Concentration Value Ratio
(log) (log)
(min) (mg/L)
Cold
Season,
Initial 3.2 7.8 / 3.0°C 49 1.00 48.9 3.0 101.2 6.0
Average
Flow
Cold
Season,
Initial 7.5 7.8 / 3.0°C 49 1.00 48.9 1.28 43.2 2.6
Maximum
Flow
Cold
Season,
Future 10 7.8 / 3.0°C 49 1.00 48.9 0.9 32.4 1.9
Maximum
Flow
July 22, 2019 | 49

Table 6-15 summarizes the minimum water depth required to achieve CT within the
clearwell and maintain 240,000 gallons for backwash supply.
Table 6-15. Minimum Clearwell Operating Levels for Disinfection and

Backwash Supply
Minimum Water Depth Required
Condition
(ft)
Cold Season, Initial Average Flow 18.9
Cold Season, Initial Maximum Flow 30.3
Cold Season, Future Maximum Flow 37.0
As shown in Table 6-15, at the future maximum flow condition the tank would need to be
mostly full. It is recommended that an additional clearwell be installed during the future
phase to provide buffering capacity and improve redundancy.
6.8.2 Secondary Disinfection

The objective of secondary disinfection is to provide a disinfectant residual in the water
distribution system to prevent microbial re-growth. Free chlorine will be used as the
secondary disinfectant. Regulations require the disinfectant residual in the distribution
system be monitored and not drop below 0.2 mg/L free chlorine for a period of not more
than four hours at all points in the distribution system. Regulations also require a
maximum residual disinfectant level of 4 mg/L.
Plant staff successfully met secondary disinfection requirements at the existing plant by
monitoring the chlorine residual downstream of the clearwell. The new WTP will follow
the same approach.
6.8.3 Sodium Hypochlorite Design Criteria

The sodium hypochlorite feed system is configured to receive bulk shipments and feed
directly into the treatment process from the bulk tanks. Sodium hypochlorite will be
housed in a single wall XLPE tank in the chemical room at the Operations Building. The
tank is sized to allow the plant to receive a full delivery from the chemical supplier with
some chemical storage remaining. However, a tank sized to handle a full delivery
provides more than 90 days of storage at the design feed rate. Sodium hypochlorite
degrades over time; therefore, so the final storage volume will be determined during the
next phase. Metering pumps will be used to dose the chemical to the filtered water box.
Table 6-5 shows the minimum, average, design, and maximum alum feed rates. The
components required to feed sodium hypochlorite include a bulk storage tank and
unloading system, metering pumps, piping, appurtenances, and controls.
Table 6-6 presents the design criteria for the sodium hypochlorite system.
50 | July 22, 2019

Table 6-16. Sodium Hypochlorite Feed Rates

Condition
Minimum 1.32 1.3 14 12
Average 3.52 2.0 59 51
Maximum 8.25 2.5 172 150
Designa 3.52 2.5 73 64

Table 6-17. Sodium Hypochlorite Design Criteria

Number of Tanks 1
Type Bulk tank – single wall XLPE/FRP
Volume of Storage Tank, each 6,100 gal
July 22, 2019 | 51

7 Piping and Valves

7.1 Water and Sewer Piping
This section presents the design criteria for water, chemical, and sanitary sewer
pipelines and appurtenances for the new WTP. The list below shows the main pipelines
and Table 7-1 presents the Basis of Design for those water and sewer pipelines.
1. 30-inch raw water transmission main
2. 24-inch finished water transmission main supplying the Crowson Reservoir
3. 24-inch finished water transmission main supplying the Granite Reservoir
4. Future 24-inch TID raw water transmission main
5. Future 24-inch TAP service finished water transmission main
6. 8-inch sanitary sewer gravity line
The pipelines for the plant will cross underneath Ashland Creek except for the sanitary
sewer, which will be routed over the existing culvert.
Table 7-1 New Water and Sewer Pipelines Basis of Design Criteria
New Utility and Parameter Value Notes or Source
1. New 30-inch Raw Water Main
A. Max Flow = 11 MGD WTP maximum treatment capacity

B. Max Velocity = 3.1 fps • Estimated max internal pressure occurs at
C. Est Max Pressure = 104 psi proposed connection to existing 30-inch water
main in Granite Street
• Value is static pressure and does not consider
surge
• Value = Existing WTP Clearwell Overflow
Elevation (2,441.00 ft)
Centerline elevation of existing 30-inch water main at
connection (2,200.75 ft)
• Existing WTP clearwell overflow elevation =
2,441.00 ft
Based on 1949 WTP record drawings, Sheet 11.
Vertical datum not listed in record drawings.
• Approx. ground elevation at existing 30-inch
water main connection = 2,204.00 ft’ [project
vertical datum NGVD29(56)]
• Approx. depth of cover of existing 30-inch water
main at connection = 4 ft
Based on 2004 Main Feeder Pipelines record
drawings
52 | July 22, 2019

2. New 24-inch Finished Water Main supplying Crowson Reservoir
A. Max Flow = 10 MGD WTP maximum treatment capacity:

B. Max Velocity = 4.9 fps • Value shown is the estimated max pressure at
C. Est Max Pressure = 120 psi the lowest elevation of new pipeline and based
on estimated new booster pump station hydraulic
grade line. A surge analysis and actual pipeline
design pressures to be verified in final design
• Estimated new booster pump station hydraulic
grade line criteria:
New clearwell finished floor elevation = 2,210.00 ft
(assumed pump suction elevation)
Crowson Reservoir overflow elevation = 2,425.00 ft
Inclusive of estimated dynamic, pump control valve,
and minor losses
water main connection = 2,206.00 ft
[project vertical datum NGVD29(56)]
main at connection = 4 ft Based on 2004 Main
Feeder Pipelines record drawings
3. New 24-inch Finished Water Main supplying Granite Reservoir
A. Max Flow = 10 MGD WTP maximum treatment capacity:

B. Max Velocity = 4.9 fps • Estimated max internal pressure occurs at
C. Est Max Pressure = 32 psi proposed connection to existing 16-inch water
main in Granite Street
• Value is static pressure and does not consider
surge
• Value = New WTP Clearwell Overflow Elevation
(2,250.00 ft)
Centerline elevation of existing 16-inch water main at
connection (2,177.33 ft)
water main connection = 2,182.00 ft
drawings
main at connection = 4 ft
drawings
July 22, 2019 | 53

4. 8-inch Sanitary Sewer Per City of Ashland, Engineering Design

Standards for Public Improvements, January
2006
A. Est Peak Flowb = 187 gpd Estimated peak flow based on assumptions of 130
B. Peak design water gal/equivalent dwelling unit /day average flow x 0.09
level ratio, d/D = equivalent dwelling unit /person x 4 staff and a peak
C. Min. Velocity = factor of 4.0
0.80
D. Min. Slope = Actual depth, d, to pipe diameter, D
2 fps
For 8-inch-diameter sewers
0.4%
5. Min Cover for all 3 ft c In unimproved areas outside of streets or rights-

Water and Sewer of-way
Pipelines 4 ft Under streets or within rights-of-way
MGD = million gallons per day

fps = feet per second
psi = pounds per square inch
gpd = gallons per day
NGVD29(56) = National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (1956)
a Note: TID water is currently contractually limited to 2 MGD
b Note: Estimated peak flow is for domestic sanitary sewer use; actual peak flow may be different
due to process drains. Final sizing will be further evaluated during final design.
c Note: Final minimum cover will be determined in conjunction with the final geotechnical
recommendations
7.1.1 Existing Pipelines Information

Table 7-2 presents data on the existing pipelines from review of available record
drawings and historical reports for those existing utilities that will be connected under this
project or in the future. Specifically, information on the existing 24-inch TID water main is
included in Table 7-2 as the City may connect to that existing main in the future for
additional raw water supply.
54 | July 22, 2019

Table 7-2 Existing Pipeline Data

Existing Utility Value Notes
30-inch Water Main • Age: 15 years (installed • Existing 30-inch pipeline to be

2004) repurposed and split between
• Ductile iron pipe, Class 50 supplying raw water to the new WTP
and continuing to deliver finished
• Coating: Asphaltic coating water to the Crowson Reservoir and
and polyethylene distribution system.
encasement
• For connections to new 30-inch raw
• Lining: Cement mortar water main and new 24-inch finished
water main supplying Crowson
Reservoir
• Per 2004 Main Feeder and Raw
Water Pipeline record drawings
16-inch Water Main • Age: unknown • For connection to new 24-inch

• Ductile iron pipe, class not finished water main supplying
documented Granite Reservoir
• Coating: Not documented • Per 2004 Main Feeder and Raw
Water Pipeline record drawings
• Lining: Not documented
24-inch TID Water • Age: 42 years (installed • For future connection to new 24-inch
Main 1977) TID water main
• AWWA C200 steel pipe, • Per 1977 TID/Domestic Intertie
10ga wall thickness (0.135 record drawings
inch)
• Coating: Coal tar enamel,
single wrapped outside with
asbestos felt and wrapped in
Kraft paper (AWWA C203)
• Lining: Coal tar enamel
6-inch Sanitary • Age: Unknown • For connection to new 8-inch

Sewer sanitary
• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
schedule or class not • Per 2004 Main Feeder and Raw
documented Water Pipeline record drawings
• From records, the existing sewer
downstream of the new sewer
connection is a smaller diameter
The City has noted the existing sanitary sewer line has capacity limitations. Although the
existing sanitary sewer line can likely accommodate domestic flows and sludge
discharge from the plant, it will not be able to handle significant process discharges. The
impact of the sanitary sewer capacity on the plant will be further evaluated during final
design.
7.1.2 Appurtenances
From the topography, the new WTP, clearwells, and booster pump station will be at high
points with respect to the new pipelines. Where feasible, installing blowoffs of
pressurized mains at the WTP side of Ashland Creek will help facilitate line draining for
maintenance. At a minimum, however, small drains on the exposed pipe can also
July 22, 2019 | 55

provide a convenient means to facilitate maintenance. Blowoff locations and

configurations will be evaluated during final design.
7.1.3 External Pipeline Corrosion Protection

With buried pipe, the City’s standard practice to isolate new pipe from native soils is to
bed and backfill new pipelines with imported ¾-inch minus crushed rock to insulate the
pipeline from native soils. From the City’s experience, however, native soils encountered
within the City’s jurisdiction are not typically corrosive.
The City accepts cathodic protection if local soils data indicates corrosive soils; however,
soil corrosivity testing was not performed at the new WTP site. The City does not prefer
polyethylene encasement.
Other corrosion protection considerations are zinc coating of ductile iron pipe, wax tape,
and sacrificial anodes and test stations. Joint bonding with installed test stations
establishes electrical continuity of the individual ductile iron pipe sections and provides a
means to monitor the pipe in the future.
Exposed ferrous metals are typically epoxy coated for corrosion protection.
7.1.4 Seismic Resiliency

Pipeline seismic resiliency will be reviewed and incorporated based on geotechnical
consultant observations and recommendations that will be documented in the
forthcoming geotechnical report.
7.1.5 Water Transmission Main Configuration and Operations

The new WTP location will continue to deliver finished water by gravity to the Granite
Reservoir, although the distance will be shorter. The new WTP location will pump
finished water to the Crowson Reservoir and distribution system through a combination
of a new 30-inch water main and existing water mains, which is a change from how the
existing WTP currently delivers gravity flow to the Crowson Reservoir
The City’s record drawings, particularly the 2004 Main Feeder and Raw Water Pipeline
project and the City’s utility geographic information system (GIS) data, were reviewed to
understand the City’s water system and conveyance operations, and identify areas that
may be affected by the proposed delivery changes. Figure 7-1 was derived from the data
and understanding of the City’s water transmission system with respect to the existing
and new WTP and Granite and Crowson Reservoirs.
According to these records, there is an existing flow meter, 6-inch motor-operating flow
control valve, and 8-inch altitude valve immediately upstream of the Granite Reservoir.
The City indicated the existing flow meter is no longer functional. There is also an
existing flow meter upstream of the Crowson Reservoir; however, the City indicated it is
also no longer functional.
The City currently controls flow entering both reservoirs by manually throttling the 6-inch
flow control valve upstream of the Granite Reservoir. Limiting flow into the Granite
Reservoir back supplies flow from the existing WTP into the Crowson Reservoir.
56 | July 22, 2019

The records show existing transmission and distribution main turnouts between the WTP
and reservoirs. The City indicated that all of the turnouts depicted on Figure 7-1 are no
longer active.
From the records, both reservoirs have an inlet and outlet, however, it is not clear if the
Crowson inlet pipe is a dedicated (flow one-way) inlet pipe or if bi-directional flows occur
in response to upstream water demands. A dedicated inlet pipe would run through the
tank floor and continue as a riser braced against the interior sidewall of the tank and
terminating above the mid-water level. The purpose of a dedicated inlet pipe is to
produce mixing to enhance water quality and turnover. Alternatively, if the inlet pipe
terminates just above the tank-finished floor, it would provide bi-directional functionality.
This is an important distinction when considering the multiple transmission and
distribution turnouts upstream of the Crowson Reservoir, although the City indicated
none of these turnouts is currently connected and active. It should also be noted there is
also a water line that allows bypass of both reservoirs.
If the existing Crowson inlet pipe is dedicated, it could influence the design and operation
approach of the new booster pump station because the new pump station would pump
both to the Crowson Reservoir and directly into the distribution system.
With respect to the existing transmission system, it is important that pump design and
surge pressures are not excessive to minimize risk of disturbing the existing pipeline
equilibrium and joint restraints. This issue will be evaluated during final design.
July 22, 2019 | 57

Figure 7-1. Water Main Flow Diagram
58 | July 22, 2019

7.1.6 New Pipe Recommendations

Table 7-3 presents new pipe recommendations based on the Basis of Design. The pipe
sizes will be further evaluated for hydraulic performance during final design.
Table 7-3 New Pipe Material Recommendations

New Utility Recommendations
1. New 30-inch Raw Water Main
A. Material • AWWA C150 Ductile iron pipe, min Pressure Class 150 (150
psi rated with 100 psi surge allowance)
B. Joints • All restrained

• Wax tape ferrous hardware for corrosion protection
• Joint bonded and test stations for optional future cathodic
protection
Exposed • Push-on, mechanical, or flanged

• Accommodate for thermal forces
Buried • Push-on or mechanical
C. Coating
Exposed • Shop zinc-coated for corrosion protection

• Insulated for freeze protection
Buried • Asphaltic-coated
D. Lining • AWWA C104 Cement Mortar
2. New 24-inch Finished Water Main supplying Crowson Reservoir

3. New 24-inch Finished Water Main supplying Granite Reservoir
A. Material • AWWA C150 Ductile iron pipe, min Pressure Class 200 (200
psi rated with 100 psi surge allowance)
B. Joints • Same as that recommended for new 30-inch raw water main
C. Coating • Same as that recommended for new 30-inch raw water main
D. Lining • Same as that recommended for new 30-inch raw water main
4. New 8-inch Sanitary Sewer
A. Material • Exposed: Ductile iron pipe, min. Pressure Class 350

• Buried: ASTM D3034 PVC SDR 35 (per City of Ashland
Engineering Design Standards, January 1, 2006)
B. Joints • Exposed: Ductile iron pipe, same as that recommended for

new 30-inch raw water main
• Buried: Bell and spigot push-on with ASTM F477 gaskets
July 22, 2019 | 59

Table 7-3 New Pipe Material Recommendations

New Utility Recommendations
C. Coating • Exposed: Ductile iron pipe, same as that recommended for

new 30-inch raw water main
• Buried: PVC, no coating
D. Lining • Exposed: Ductile iron pipe, AWWA C104 Cement Mortar

• Buried: PVC: no lining
ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials
7.1.7 Final Design Considerations

Final design considerations from reviewing records and deriving the pipelines basis of
design and preliminary design follow:
• According to the 2004 Main Feeder and Raw Water Pipeline Project record
drawings, the existing 30-inch water main at the proposed connection point in
Granite Street is bedded with controlled low-strength material (shown as Class
L1 bedding in the record drawings). There is an existing electrical concrete duct
bank (sized approximately 24 inches x 14 inches) located above the existing
30-inch water main in the same trench. This duct bank will need to be properly
supported and the controlled low-strength material bedding cut and removed to
connect to the existing water main.
Another constraint is the existing 24-inch TID water main is roughly 7 feet
horizontally offset from the existing 30-inch City water main in Granite Street. Both
existing water mains are at roughly 3 and 4 feet of cover per the record drawings.
From these site constraints, the new 30-inch raw water main and the new 24-inch
finished water main supplying the Crowson Reservoir are recommended to cross
under both existing water mains and make connection from the southeast where
there is more open space to facilitate the work.
drawings, the existing electrical concrete duct bank follows above the existing
30-inch water main and above the existing 16-inch water main in the same
trench. Connection of the new 24-inch finished water main supplying Granite
Reservoir to the existing 16-inch water main is recommended. This duct bank will
also require proper support to connect to the existing water main.
• All connections to existing water mains will require thrust restraint. Thrust blocks,
anchors, or restrained joints/frictional resistance will be evaluated as options for
thrust restraint.
• A closer connection point to the existing TID pipeline will be finalized during the
next design phase.
drawings, the existing sanitary sewer in Granite Street is identified as 6-inch
60 | July 22, 2019

PVC. The City’s geographic information system (GIS) files, however, indicate the
gravity sewer is 8-inch PVC.
Verifying the size and available capacity of the existing sewer line in Granite Street
and determining whether the existing sewer has the additional capacity to
accommodate the new WTP flow is recommended.
• Additional field survey and utility investigations are recommended to more
accurately design and complete the proposed water main connections.
7.2 Valves
This section and Table 7-4 present the Basis of Design for new water main valves.
Table 7-4 New Water Mains

Valve Size Valve Type and Pressure Rating
For water mains 12-inch and smaller in • Manually-actuated, AWWA C509 resilient seated gate
diameter valves
• 250 psi rated
For water mains 16-inch and larger in

diameter
A. Working pressures up to 150 psi • Manually-actuated, AWWA C504 Class 150B butterfly
valves
B. Working pressures up to 250 psi • Manually-actuated, AWWA C504, Class 250B butterfly
valves
7.3 Chemical Feed Piping

Several chemicals will be used to treat the raw water source. Most of these chemicals
will be stored in tanks housed in a centrally located building. Chemical piping feed
systems will connect tanks to the specific delivery point in the water treatment
sequencing. Table 7-5 presents the chemical piping materials and their specific delivery
points in the treatment system.
July 22, 2019 | 61

Table 7-5. Chemical Piping Materials and Delivery Points

Chemical Pipe Material Delivery Location(s)
Calcium Thiosulfate PVC Ozone pipeline contactor; backwash supply
Soda Ash PVC Raw water; filtered water
Aluminum Sulfate PVC Raw water
Sodium Hypochlorite CPVC Filtered water
Settling Aid Polymer PVC Raw water
Filter Aid Polymer PVC Upstream of filters
Ozone Stainless Steel Raw water
7.3.1 Chemical Piping Systems

Chemical feed systems are designed where chemical spills can be easily contained and
identified. A pipe chase with single walled piping will be used to convey chemicals from
the chemical room of the Operations Building to the raw water pipeline and filtered water
box. A concrete utility trench with a solid cover provides containment in the event of a
pipe failure. The trench will be sloped to an area with a sump to remove spills. For
chemical piping inside buildings, double wall piping is included for all locations, except for
pipes located inside containment areas.
62 | July 22, 2019

8 Geotechnical Investigation
Geotechnical investigations at the proposed site were performed over two periods. The
first investigation provided conceptual and general site information and the second
investigation targeted specific locations based on the initial 30 percent design layout.
As part of the Phase I program, 12 geotechnical borings and 8 excavating test pits were
performed and included the following:
• Nine borings (approximately 5 to 38 feet deep) below the ground surface using
mud-rotary drilling and HQ-wireline coring techniques at the proposed treatment
plant
• One day of test pit explorations (eight test pits) advanced using a City-provided
backhoe and operator
• Two vibrating wire piezometers measured depth to groundwater during
subsequent site visits
• Three shallow borings (approximately 3 to 6 feet deep) and one Dynamic Cone
Penetration Test between the treatment plant and intersection of Glenview Drive
and Granite Street
As part to the Phase II program, five geotechnical borings and four test pits explorations
with site grading were performed and included the following:
• Five borings (25 and 50 feet deep) below ground surface using mud-rotary and
drilling and HQ-wireline coring techniques
• Four test pit explorations (four test pits) advanced using a backhoe
• Two vibrating wire piezometers measured depth to groundwater during
subsequent site visits.
In addition, downhole televiewer and imaging was performed for selected boreholes. This
provided viewing and recording rock joints for select explorations, and measured
compression and shear wave velocities for the purposes of rock cut design and slope
stability assessments and rock excavatability.
Laboratory testing and analysis resulted in the following:
• The site consists of undocumented fill over weathered rock (quartz
monzodiorite).
• The analysis indicates 1H:1V (45 degrees) permanent cut slopes and 0.5H:1V
(63 degrees) temporary cut slopes of will be stable against a global stability
failure.
• Where cut slopes are not feasible, retaining walls may be used to hold the slope
vertical. Where cut slopes up to 12 feet are performed around treatment plant
structures, a rock dowel wall may be used to support the slope.
• Treatment plant structures should be supported on shallow foundations on
crushed rock over native rock material and not on the undocumented fill
encountered across the site.
July 22, 2019 | 63

The geotechnical report written by Shannon and Wilson is provided in Appendix F and
provides detailed information of the explorations and analysis.
64 | July 22, 2019

9 Structural Basis of Design

This section presents the structural basis of design for the WTP including applicable
codes and standards, building concepts, design criteria, and geotechnical engineering
design assumptions.
9.1 Purpose
This section establishes the structural design criteria to provide a uniform, efficient, and
effective approach to the structural design for the WTP project.
9.2 Applicable Codes and Standards

Design of structural engineering systems for the project will be in accordance with the
laws and regulations of the State of Oregon, City of Ashland ordinances, and industry
standards. The current issue or edition of the documents at the time of design
commencement will apply, unless otherwise noted. In cases where conflicts between the
cited documents exist, requirements of the more conservative document will be used.
The strength, serviceability, and quality for materials and design procedures will meet the
requirements of the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) and its referenced
standards, or the currently adopted version of the OSSC in effect during development of
permit applications in 2019. The editions shown below are the standards referenced by
the 2014 edition of the OSSC:
The following codes and standards have been identified as applicable, in whole or in
part, to structural engineering design and construction of the WTP:
• OSSC (2014)
• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/Structural Engineering Institute
7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
• American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-11 Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete
• ACI 350-06 Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete
Structures and Commentary
• ACI 350.3-06 Seismic Design of Liquid-Containing Concrete
• ACI 543R-00, Design, Manufacture, and Installation of Concrete Piles
• American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Steel Construction Manual, 14th
Edition
• American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/AISC 360-10 Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings
• AISC 341-10 Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings
• American Welding Society Welding Codes D1.1-10, D1.3-08, and D1.4-11
• ANSI/AWWA D100 Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage
July 22, 2019 | 65

• International Conference of Building Officials ES Reports for specific products

• ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts, Specification for Structural Joints
• Aluminum Design Manual 1-05
• ANSI/AWC NDS-2015, wood
• American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) D100-08, AISI S1000-07, Light Gage
Steel Framing
Structural design for project components shall also conform to current applicable industry
standards. Societies, industry groups, organizations, institutes, and agencies issuing
these standards include, but are not limited to, the following:
• ASCE
• International Code Council
• ACI
• AISC
• ANSI
• AISI
• ODOT
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
• ASTM
• AWWA
• Metal Building Manufacturers Association
9.3 Building Concepts

9.3.1 Operations Building
Per Section 10 - Architectural Basis of Design, construction of the Operations Building
will be a two-story pre-engineered metal building with moment-resisting frames, steel
purines, girts with corrugated metal siding, and standing seam metal roofing. Building
frames will be supported on concrete foundations and concrete floor slab. The building
elevations will have single and double height spaces to accommodate the related
functions.
The building will have pre-painted and insulated steel energy efficient overhead garage
and service doors and pre-finished aluminum fixed skylights.
Interior nonbearing walls will be constructed of steel studs and gypsum wallboard. The
office area will utilize acoustic ceilings and gypsum board ceilings in wet areas. Floor and
wall finishes will be as directed by the City.
The building will be approximately 80 feet wide by 153 feet long with a gabled roof and a
ridge height of approximately 34 feet 4 inches. The superstructure roof is assumed to
consist of roof panels supported on secondary framing (purlins), which are then
66 | July 22, 2019

supported by moment frames. Lateral forces are assumed resisted by roof diaphragm
and moment-resisted frames perpendicular to the roof ridge. The roof also will be
designed to support the weight of the solar panels.
The building foundation will be designed to support gravity and lateral loading. The main
building slab shall consist of a 12-inch-thick reinforced concrete slab-on-grade.
Aluminum railing shall be provided as required around openings and at stairs.
Interior finishes include the following:
• Storage areas:
o Exposed walls
o Exposed, painted roof purines
o Sealed concrete floor finish
• Office areas:
o steel stud and gypsum board, painted, non-load bearing walls
o Lay-in acoustic ceilings
o Heavy duty floor finishes (as directed by the City)
• Wet areas:
o Painted gypsum board ceilings
9.3.1.1 Filters and Intermediate Pump Station

The filter and intermediate pump station construction type will be load bearing, concrete
block/cast-in-place concrete exterior walls with open web steel joists spanning without
intermediate support across the narrow dimension. Both exterior and interior finishes will
be painted. The upper story contains aluminum railing as required around openings and
at stairs. The upper area will be designed so the space can be enclosed in the future as
needed. The lower story is composed of multi-celled, cast-in-place, water-bearing basins
with a pipe gallery. The basins will be open and accessible from the upper story.
Aluminum railing shall be provided as required around openings and at stairs.
9.3.2 Backwash Recovery Basin and Pump Station

The Backwash Recovery Basins are buried rectangular tanks composed of cast-in-place
concrete on a concrete mat foundation. The basins are open-air structure with aluminum
railings as required around openings. The Backwash Recovery Pump Station consists of
a circular cast-in-place concrete vault with an adjacent cast-in-place valve box.
9.3.3 Crowson Pump Station

The Crowson Pump Station consists of a concrete mat foundation. The covering for this
pump station will be determined in final design.
July 22, 2019 | 67

9.3.4 Ozone Building

The Ozone Building will also be a pre-engineered building. There are currently no
occupancy requirements for the building.
9.4 Design Criteria

This section presents structural design criteria for WTP, including design and impact
loads.
9.4.1 Risk Category

Risk Category IV per ASCE 7-10 table (below) for Structures part of the WTP.
Source: ASCE
9.4.2 Structural Design Loads

Loads used in the structural design are noted in Table 9-1.
Table 9-1. Structural Design Loads

Load Case Criteria
Dead Self-weight of all structures
Floor Live Loads Vehicle Loading HS20

Electrical Equipment Rooms = 250 psf
Storage Rooms = 200 psf
Process Equipment Rooms = 150 psf + Weight of Equipment
Walkways, Stairs, and Grating = 100 psf
All Other Areas = 150 psf
Dynamic Equipment Vibration characteristics as specified by manufacturers
68 | July 22, 2019

Table 9-1. Structural Design Loads

Load Case Criteria
Impact Loads Cranes and Hoists: 25% of lifted load

Crane Lateral Force: 20% of lifted load
Crane Longitudinal Force: 10% of lifted load
Rotating Equipment: 20% of total machine weight
Reciprocating Equipment: 50% of total machine weight
Forklifts: 25% of wheel loads
Lateral Earth Pressure As recommended by geotechnical report for saturated soils
Liquid Densities and Water = 62.4 pcf

Hydrostatic Loads
Wind Wind Speed = 130 mph (Fig 1609B of Oregon Structural Specialty
Code
Exposure Category = B
Importance Factor, Iw =1.0
Seismic Site Class C

Seismic Design Category D
Short Design Spectral Acceleration SDS = 0.477 (gram)
Long Design Spectral Acceleration SD1 = 0.315 (gram)
Importance Factor, IE = 1.5
Snow Ground Snow Load = 36 psf, Below EL 2000

Roof Snow Load = 25 psf
Minimum Roof Snow Load for Design = TBD
Drifted snow conditions to be checked as necessary
Importance Factor, IS = 1.2
Roof Live 20 psf or 500 pounds concentrated, nonconcurrent
Auxiliary Loads Roofs: 15 psf

Structural Slabs: 20 psf
(Auxiliary loads are to account for electrical, mechanical, fire
protection, etc.)
The design loads for the treatment building structure are summarized in Table 9-1. Live
loads not shown shall be per the 2014 OSSC.
9.4.3 Impact Loads

For structures carrying live loads that induce impact, the assumed live loads shall be
increased as indicated below. Refer to applicable codes previously listed:
• Use AASHTO Standard Specification for highway bridges for impact forces due
to moving vehicular wheel loads.
July 22, 2019 | 69

9.4.4 Materials
Structural materials will be specified to properties noted in Table 9-2.
Table 9-2. Specified Structural Material Properties

Material Material Grade Material Strength
Cast-in-place Concrete - f’c = 4,500 psi at 28 days
Reinforcing steel ASTM A615 fy = 60 ksi
Rolled Steel Wide-Flange Sections ASTM A992 fy = 50 ksi
Steel angles, channels, and plates ASTM A36 fy = 36 ksi
Hollow Structural Sections ASTM A500-B fy = 46 ksi
Structural Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6 fy = 32 ksi
Stainless Steel Type 304 or 316 fy = 30 ksi
ksi = kips per square inch
9.5 Geotechnical Engineering Design Assumptions

The building and clearwell foundation design is right now based on the draft geotechnical
report prepared by Shannon and Wilson Inc. (Appendix F). Conservative assumptions for
soil parameters, such as bearing strength, lateral earth pressure, and soil modulus of
subgrade reaction have been made during the preliminary design phase. The
assumptions will be reviewed once we get the final geotechnical report, and this section
updated accordingly. Assumptions will be are based on the 2014 OSSC. The design
assumes that the existing soil is suitable for use during construction. Suitable is defined
as compactible, free of debris, uncontaminated, and not subject to liquefaction or
excessive settlement.
9.5.1 Groundwater and Uplift

Consistent with the assumed geotechnical soil values, groundwater is assumed to be
well below the foundations, therefore, does not affect the design.
9.5.2 Lateral Earth Pressure

At-rest lateral soil loading of 55 psf per 1 foot of depth will be assumed until the
geotechnical report is prepared. In addition, evaluation of below-grade structures is not
required for dynamic soil loading.
9.5.3 Bearing Pressure, Settlement, and Sliding Friction

The foundation design will be based on conservatively assumed geotechnical soil values,
in accordance with OSSC allowable soil bearing pressures where precise soil-bearing
information is to be provided in the draft geotechnical report (Appendix F). An assumed
allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf will be used for the foundation design.
70 | July 22, 2019

In addition, a soil subgrade modulus of 100 (pounds per cubic inch) will be assumed for
slab on grade and foundation design.
9.5.4 Safety Factor

In accordance with Section 1807 of the OSSC, a safety factor of 1.5 shall be used to
resist overturning and sliding. A safety factor of 1.1 shall be used to resist uplift. All safety
factors are checked against unfactored soil loads. For preliminary design involving
granular soil, a minimum friction factor of 0.40 shall be used for friction between concrete
and subgrade.
Resistance to uplift includes the dead weight of the structure and the column of soil
above the footing extension. The buoyancy weight of soil shall be used below the water
table. Side friction should not be included in uplift resistance calculations unless there
are significant cost implications.
9.5.5 Frost Depth

Frost depth for enclosed project buildings will be assumed 24 inches for one- to two-story
buildings.
9.6 Clearwell Tanks

The current design volume needed to serve the facility is 850,000 gallons and can be
achieved via several material options. The basic tank material options are identified to
meet key project requirements and constraints. These options are summarized below.
9.6.1 Materials Options for New Reservoirs

The two most common construction materials systems for aboveground, circular storage
reservoirs of the size range and sidewall height for the proposed new reservoir(s) are:
• Circular Cast-In-Place Concrete that meets ACI 350-06 Requirements
• Circular Prestressed Wire- and Strand-Wound, Concrete Water Tanks (AWWA
D110)
• Circular Prestressed with Circumferential Tendons Concrete Water Tanks.
(AWWA D115)
• Welded steel (that meets AWWA D100 requirements)
These are the most typical and viable construction methods for larger water reservoirs of
this type of configuration because: 1) they are generally more economical in terms of
cost per gallon capacity; 2) their structural and seismic protection performance is well-
proven; and 3) there are more reservoir suppliers, designers, and construction
contractors that design and build these tanks providing better quality assurance.
For new reservoirs in all four options described above, both welded steel and
prestressed concrete were evaluated. Based on constructibility requirements and initial
capital cost, the decision was made to use steel for the tank.
July 22, 2019 | 71

10 Architectural Basis of Design

10.1 Architectural Programming
10.1.1 Operations Building Design Approach
The architectural approach for development of the Ashland WTP is to provide an
efficient, cost effective building incorporating a refined industrial aesthetic to create a
new and durable facility.
The layout of the site is largely driven by the arrangement of the water treatment
functions. In response, the administrative functions are arranged to accommodate these.
The operations building has been arranged to provide a safe and sustainable workplace
for staff with views of the surrounding forest (Table 10-1).
Table 10-1. Operations Building (total 13,990 square feet)

Room Number Room Name Area
100 Vestibule 490
101 Electrical 860
102 Storage 1,440
103 Filters 3,490
104 Shower 90
105 Lockers 100
106 Pretreatment 3,670
107 Chemical 1,590
200 Landing 700
201 Corridor 1 550
202 Command Room 280
203 Lab 270
204 Office 220
205 Accessible Washroom 90
206 Janitor 50
207 I.T. Closet 50
208 Meeting 540
72 | July 22, 2019

10.2 Applicable Related Building Codes

• 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC)
• Building Classification - 304.1 Business Group B, Building Type VB and
311.2 Moderate Hazard Storage S-1 (no separation required). This classification
and separation to be verified by the authority having jurisdiction.
• Gross Floor Area – 13,990 square feet (Business = 3,430 sf; Storage =
10,560 sf)
• Occupant Load – 4 (by staff count)
• Occupant Load by Classification – 27 + 11 = 38 (Business = 100 sf per person;
Storage = 500 sf per person)
• Water Closets Required – 2 (1 per 25 people for the first 50 people)
• Water Closets Provided – 2 (both accessible)
• Parking Required – 6 + 6 = 12 (Business = 1 per 500 sf area; Storage = 1 per
1,000 sf area)
• Parking Provided – 12
• 2014 Oregon Energy Efficiency Specialty Code (OEESC)
• 2014 Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code (OMSC)
• 2017 Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code (OPSC)
• 2017 Oregon Electrical Specialty Code
• Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 15 (Buildings and Construction)
10.3 Buildings and Facilities

10.3.1 Operations Building Construction
• Construction Type – pre-engineered metal building
• Exterior Finishes – final finishes will be determined during the next phase
(Appendix G).
• Interior Finishes – exposed walls in storage areas; steel stud and gypsum board,
painted, non-load bearing walls in office areas; exposed, painted roof joists in
storage areas; lay in acoustic ceilings in office areas; painted gypsum board
ceilings in wet areas; sealed concrete floor finish in storage areas; heavy duty
floor finishes in office areas as directed by City.
• Building Height – two story with single and double height spaces to
accommodate the related functions.
• Fire Alarm System – per National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code NFPA 72
requirements and City’s requirements
July 22, 2019 | 73

• Locking and Security System – continuous, perimeter, +/- 8 ft tall, chain link
fence access gates with key pad entry; building entry locks to client’s
specification; security system to match existing facility.
• Elevator – passenger elevator with two stops, machine room less, per Oregon
Elevator Safety Code ASME A17, heavy duty interior finishes per the City’s
selection.
10.3.2 Filters Construction

• Construction Type – load bearing, concrete block/cast-in-place concrete exterior
walls with open web steel joists spanning without intermediate support across the
narrow dimension. Painted exterior finish. Painted interior finish. Building is not
conditioned. No occupancy requirements.
10.3.3 Crowson Pump Station Construction

• Construction Type – open air structure with roofed portions to match finish of
Operations Building.
10.3.4 Ozone Building

• Construction Type – pre-engineered metal building. No occupancy requirements.
10.3.5 Sustainability
• Site Development – sediment control; diversion of construction waste from
landfill; light pollution reduction with shielded fixtures and appropriate placement.
• Orientation – majority of glazed openings at eastern and southern elevations.
• Ventilation – operable lights and mechanical units.
• Solar Energy – photovoltaic panels mounted on the sloping roof, oriented for
maximum efficiency for power generation.
• Materials – durable with recycled content; low volatile organic compound
adhesives, sealants and paint; locally fabricated and regionally sourced to the
extent possible.
• Lighting – energy efficient LED fixtures with occupant senor controls, entry
skylight.
• Plumbing – low flow fixtures.
• Envision – Envision is a program for infrastructure projects that provides
guidance on how sustainable approaches can be used to plan, design, construct,
and operate infrastructure projects. The program is organized based on five
categories, including Quality of Life, Leadership, Resource Allocation, Natural
World, and Climate and Risk. The program can be used as a tool to serve as a
road map for sustainability or to seek an Envision award through the verification
process. The use of Envision for the new WTP will be determined during the next
design phase.
74 | July 22, 2019

11 Mechanical/HVAC/Plumbing Basis of
Design
The mechanical basis of design includes applicable codes and standards, outdoor
design conditions, and indoor design criteria for the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) and plumbing systems.
11.1 Codes and Standards

• Building Codes
o 2014 OSSC, based on 2012 International Building Code
o 2014 Oregon Fire Specialty Code, based on 2012 International Fire Code
o 2014 Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code (OMSC), based on 2012
International Mechanical Code
o 2017 Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code (OPSC), based on 2015 Uniform
Plumbing Code
o 2014 Oregon Energy Efficiency Specialty Code (OEESC), based on the
2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
o 2017 Oregon Electrical Specialty Code, based on 2017 National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 70, National Electrical Code
• Applicable Standards
o Air Moving and Conditioning Association
o Associated Air Balance Council
o ANSI
o American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE)
o National Environmental Balancing Bureau
o NFPA
o Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association:
- HVAC Duct Construction Standards, Metal and Flexible
- Round Industrial Duct Construction Standards
11.2 HVAC Design Criteria

Site Elevation: 2,285 feet
The site closest to Ashland with ASHRAE weather data is Medford, Rogue Valley
International Airport (elevation 1,329 feet) approximately 20 miles northwest of the
project site.
July 22, 2019 | 75

11.2.1 Outdoor Design Conditions

Mechanical cooling equipment will be sized based on the ASHRAE 0.4 percent design
criteria and the heating system sized for the 50-year minimum temperature to maximize
freeze protection in all conditions. Additional climatic information is provided for context.
Summer design criteria, cooling dry bulb / mean coincident wet bulb temperatures:
• 0.4%: 98.9 °F / 67.2 °F
• 1%: 95.3 °F / 65.9 °F
Extreme annual summer dry bulb temperatures:
• Mean: 104.2 °F
Winter design criteria, heating dry bulb temperature:
• 99.6%: 22.9 °F
• 99%: 25.7 °F
Extreme annual winter dry bulb temperatures:
• Mean: 18.1 °F
• 5-year: 14.0 °F
• 50-year: 3.1 °F
11.2.2 Indoor Design Criteria

Process areas:
• Cooling: Mechanical cooling will not be provided, ventilation will be provided to
limit the temperature rise to 10 °F above the ambient conditions
• Heating: 45 °F for freeze protection
Administrative and office areas:
• Cooling: 75 °F
• Heating: 68 °F
Electrical rooms with variable frequency drives (VFDs) or control panels:
• Cooling: 75 °F
• Heating: 45 °F
Electrical rooms without VFDs or control panels:
• Cooling: 80 °F
• Heating: 45 °F
Humidification will not be provided.
76 | July 22, 2019

11.2.3 Ventilation
Ventilation will be based on the OMSC ventilation requirements and use the following
general rates:
• Chemical rooms: 1 cubic foot per minute (cfm)/square foot (sf; exhaust)
• Office and administrative spaces: 5 cfm/person plus 0.06 cfm/sf
• Process and Electrical areas: 0.12 cfm/sf
11.2.4 HVAC Components

• Equipment will be located to allow for ease of access and operations.
• Ductwork:
o All ductwork in wet or corrosive areas will be aluminum.
o Ductwork in administrative areas may be galvanized steel.
o All ductwork will be insulated in accordance with the OEESC.
• Process areas requiring continuous ventilation will have makeup air handlers
provided.
o An air-to-air heat exchanger will be evaluated for energy recovery in
100 percent outside air systems.
Electric heating will be provided per City guidelines.
Each HVAC system will have stand-alone controls. Alarms for critical systems will be
reported to the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system.
11.3 Plumbing Design Criteria

The plumbing systems will be designed based on the 2017 OPSC and include potable
hot and cold water, tepid water, and domestic waste and vents.
• Plumbing fixtures will be low-flow type for water and energy savings:
o Water closets: 1.28 gallons per flush
o Urinals: 0.5 gallons per flush
o Lavatories: 0.5 gallons per minute (gpm)
• Plumbing fixtures will have manual flush valves and lavatories/sinks will have
manual wrist-blade handles.
• Emergency fixtures:
o All emergency fixtures will be designed in accordance with ANSI Z358.1.
o Tepid water will be supplied at between 80 and 85 °F.
o All emergency fixtures will have flow switches and be connected to the
SCADA system for alarm monitoring.
July 22, 2019 | 77

o Exterior fixtures located adjacent to conditioned buildings will be through-

the-wall type with the valves inside the building, other exterior fixtures will be
heat-traced.
• The water supply will be protected by a reduced pressure backflow prevention
assembly.
• Wall and yard hydrants will have integral vacuum breakers.
Hot water heaters will be a mix of tank-style hot water heaters and instantaneous hot
water heaters where appropriate. Any location with an emergency shower will be
provided with a tank-style system. A thermostatically controlled recirculation system will
be provided when there are multiple fixtures served by a tank-style water heater.
Pipe materials will be as follows:
• Potable hot, cold, and tepid water: Copper
• Domestic waste and vent: Cast iron soil pipe
• Natural gas or propane (if applicable): Black steel.
78 | July 22, 2019

12 Electrical Basis of Design

The electrical basis of design for the City of Ashland WTP includes applicable codes and
standards, design criteria, and a description of the power supply and distribution system.
12.1 Purpose
The electrical design criteria to provide a uniform, efficient, and effective approach to the
electrical design for the WTP project are provided as design guidelines and preferences.
Alterations will be made based on sound engineering judgment to address specific
project design considerations.
12.2 Applicable Codes and Standards

Design shall conform to the latest edition adopted by the State of Oregon (in effect as of
the anticipated permitting date and in accordance with approved codes and standards) of
the applicable standards and codes listed below:
• NFPA 70 National Electrical Code (NEC) - 2017
• Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) of North America Lighting Handbook - 10th
Edition
• National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), NEMA-MG1, Motors and
Generators
• Life Safety Code, NFPA-101-HB85
• ANSI
• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE 519-2014, IEEE
Recommended Practice and Requirements for Harmonic Control in Electric
Power Systems.
• Insulated Cable Engineers Association
• Occupational Safety and Health Act
• National Electrical Testing Association
• ASTM
• Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
• Oregon Electrical Specialty Code - 2017
• Oregon Energy Efficiency Specialty Code (OEESC) - 2014
• Oregon Solar Installation Specialty Code - 2010
July 22, 2019 | 79

12.3 Electrical Design Criteria

General electrical design criteria for the WTP are listed in Table 9-1.
Table 12-1. General Electrical Design Criteria

No. Design Criteria
1 Equipment sizing:
New electrical system at WTP will be sized for the following condition:
• The connected load of all installed equipment plus anticipated future loads for future
plant capacity of 10MGD as described in Section 4 of this report.
• Maintainability and ease of operation.
2 System Isolation/Separation:
Power and signal/communications/control systems will be designed to maintain separation
where required by good engineering practice or code provisions. In general, the following
systems will be routed through separate conduit and manhole/handhole systems:
• Power:
o 480-volt alternating current (VAC) and below power conduits and circuits
• Signal/Communications/Control Systems:
o 24-volt direct current (VDC) signal and communication circuits
o Security/fire alarm circuits
o Communications, instrumentation, and security conduits
Maintain minimum spacing between parallel conduit and piping runs in accordance with
the following when the runs are greater than 30 feet (ft):
• Between instrumentation and telecommunication: 1 inch (in.)
• Between instrumentation and 125 volts (V), 48 V and 24 VDC, 2 in.
• Between instrumentation and 600 V and less AC power or control: 6 in.
• Between instrumentation and greater than 600 VAC power: 12 in.
• Between telecommunication and 125 V, 48 V and 24 VDC, 2 in.
• Between telecommunication and 600 V and less AC power or control: 6 in.
• Between telecommunication and greater than 600 VAC power: 12 in.
• Between 125 V, 48 V and 24 VDC and 600 V and less AC power or control: 2 in.
• Between 125 V, 48 V and 24 VDC and greater than 600 VAC power: 2 in.
• Between 600 V and less AC and greater than 600 VAC: 2 in.
• Between process, gas, air and water pipes: 6 in.
80 | July 22, 2019

Table 12-1. General Electrical Design Criteria

No. Design Criteria
3 Protection:
All power circuits will be provided with overcurrent protection devices as follows:
• Electronic circuit breakers with adjustable settings for all frames 400 amps and above,
short, long, instantaneous, and ground trip. Arc flash/shock hazards will be minimized
to the best degree possible by clearing faults as fast as possible.
• Fused disconnect safety switches within line of sight of loads where required by Code
or load equipment manufacturer, with auxiliary contacts for wiring to motor starter/drive
control circuit.
• Surge protection devices will be provided at the switchboards, motor control centers
(MCCs), and panelboards. Alarm contact to the plant control system to indicate device
failures. All protective devices shall be rated to withstand the available short-circuit
current at the device; series rated devices shall not be used.
• A Modified Differential Ground Fault protection system will be provided as part of the
electrical design. These systems are used in applications with service equipment
containing multiple sources of electrical power, each of which may have multiple
grounds.
4 Seismic Criteria:
Electrical equipment (including fixtures, devices, raceway, cable trays, and panels)
anchorage, support, and bracing shall be suitable for the designated seismic criteria as
defined in the Section 9 - Structural Basis of Design.
5 Identification:
Comply with City identification standards. Use instrumentation and control system loop tag
numbers for all motors, instrumentation and control system devices, and process
equipment. All electrical equipment and devices will be designated with a unique
equipment identifier (nameplate), including cable and wiring connections (wiring
identification tag).
6 HVAC Equipment:
All HVAC equipment will be provided with a power disconnect safety switch located at the
equipment. Disconnects will be fused if required by the equipment manufacturer to
maintain UL listing of the equipment.
7 Site Elevation:
Because site elevation is 2,280 ft, equipment de-rating is not required for altitude.
12.4 General Plant Electrical

This section presents the basis of design of the power supply and distribution system at
WTP.
12.4.1 Electrical Service

The serving electrical utility for this area is the City of Ashland. The incoming service
requirements will be coordinated with the utility and will include the following:
• Definition of the connected load (by engineer). The connected load is expected to
be approximately 1,300 kilovolts per ampere, including anticipated future loads.
July 22, 2019 | 81

• Definition of utilization equipment special requirements due to utility motor

starting load restrictions (by utility and engineer).
OS Engineering prepared a technical memorandum for the City (dated 03/11/2019)
regarding the proposed source of utility power to the WTP. The City proposes to follow
the recommendation described in the memorandum of implementing a dual source
system in conjunction with a standby generator for the WTP.
An existing 3-phase feeder (Mountain Avenue Substation Morton Feeder) would be
tapped and routed to the site to serve as the primary power source for the WTP. An
existing single-phase feeder (Ashland Substation Business Feeder) would be converted
to a 3-phase circuit and extended toward the WTP to provide a looped redundant source.
These feeders originate from different substations and each substation is served by
different transmission line taps, which greatly reduces the likelihood that both feeders will
be unavailable at the same time. Utility-owned switchgear would be located near the site
to provide automatic transfer between the two sources.
The utility feeder would be routed into the site using underground conduits into a utility
transformer providing 480Y/277VAC, 3PH, 4W power to the facility. The WTP electrical
design proposes a switchboard with MAIN-TIE-STANDBY configuration using open
transition automatic throw-over controls that would allow automatic transfer of the WTP
load from the utility source to standby power when utility service is interrupted.
The Ashland Substation Business Feeder will not be available until after the conversion
to 3-phase power is completed by the City.
12.4.2 Standby Power System

The standby power system is classified as optional as defined in NEC article 702. The
standby power system will be provided to maintain plant production in the event of utility
power interruptions. The generator will be rated to provide power to the WTP as required
to produce 2 MGD flow. The estimated loads for this requirement are provided in
Table 12-2.
Table 12-2. Standby Power Load Requirements

Estimated
QTY Load Description Unit Load
1 Crowson Pump 50 hp
1 Intermediate Pump 75 hp
1 lot Backwash Equalization Basin Equipment 25 hp
1 lot Ozone Equipment 80 KVA
1 lot Sedimentation (Actiflow) Equipment 25 KVA
1 lot Chemical Equipment 15 KVA
1 Filtration Blower 25 hp
1 Air Compressor 20 hp
82 | July 22, 2019

Table 12-2. Standby Power Load Requirements

Estimated
QTY Load Description Unit Load
1 lot Miscellaneous Motor Loads 25 hp
1 lot Plant Control System (UPS) 15 KVA
1 lot Building HVAC Equipment 50 KVA
1 lot Lighting, Receptacle, Misc Loads 60 KVA
hp = horsepower
UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply)
Based on preliminary facility load estimates, the new 480Y/277V, 3-phase, 4-wire genset
will have an approximate 500-kilowatt (kW) capacity and be powered with a diesel
engine. It will be located outdoors near the Operations/Treatment Building and installed
in a weatherproof, skin-tight type enclosure with approximate dimensions of 19 ft (length)
x 7 ft (width) x 9 ft (height). This is a remote site with no neighbors; therefore, an
enclosure and silencer with a high level of sound attenuation is not required.
The entire facility will be connected to the standby power generator; however, when the
facility is operating under standby power, the plant control system will limit the number of
process equipment as required to prevent overloading the generator.
The diesel fuel storage tank will have a minimum capacity to operate the generator at full
load for 72 hours. A 500-kW genset consumes approximately 35 gallons per hour
requiring the storage tank to have a minimum capacity of 2,520 gallons. This size tank is
too large for a genset sub-base fuel tank; therefore, a separately mounted fuel tank is
required. The generator will be provided with an automated fuel filtration system to
remove water and sediment and stabilize the stored fuel. A Convault aboveground,
concrete diesel storage tank with 3,000-gallon capacity has dimensions of approximately
10 ft (length) x 8 ft (width) x 9 ft (height).
12.4.3 Solar Power Generation

As described in the Technology Alternatives Report (HDR 2019) and in Section 15 -
Solar Power Generation of this report, a solar power generation system will be provided
at the facility. The system will include a grid-tied inverter and be connected to the WTP
power system at the WTP Service Entrance Switchboard (SWBD-101). Harmonic filters
will be included in the design of the electrical system to reduce the harmonic content
generated by the inverter. Solar power generation will be disabled when the utility power
to the facility is interrupted.
12.4.4 Power Distribution

The WTP Service Entrance Switchboard (SWBD-101) will be service entrance rated and
receive 480Y/277 VAC feeds from the utility. This switchboard will be located outside the
Operations/Treatment Building and include a NEMA 3R rated enclosure. This
switchboard will feed the WTP Main Switchboard (SWBD-102), which will be located in
July 22, 2019 | 83

the Electrical Room. The WTP main switchboard will be configured as a MAIN-TIE-
STANDBY arrangement to automatically switch between the utility source and standby
engine generator.
The preferred electrical distribution system voltages are 480Y/277 V AC 3-phase and
208Y/120 V AC 3-phase. Power to the site will be distributed via a radial feed system to
dual-ended MCCs.
Clearances will be provided around all electrical equipment per NEC requirements.
UPSs will be provided for key Human-Machine Interface (HMI) systems and
Programmable Logic Controls (PLCs), which will allow for uninterrupted continuous
monitoring and operations of the system and prevent power quality disturbances that
could damage sensitive electrical equipment. The UPS battery run-time is proposed to
be in the range of only 10 minutes since a standby power system will be available upon
loss of utility power.
12.4.5 Motor Control Centers

The MCCs will be dual-ended and fed from the WTP main switchboard using two
feeders. The use of dual-ended gears provides a level of redundancy and flexibility that
allows electricians to perform troubleshooting and maintenance activities on de-
energized gear. The MCCs will include two main breakers and a tie breaker fitted with a
kirk-key interlock system. Constant-speed motors will be powered and controlled by full-
voltage non-reversing combination motor starters in the MCC or included in a package
system control panel. Each motor starter will include a magnetic-only circuit breaker,
motor starter contactor, solid state overload relay and heaters, and dedicated control
power transformer.
All motor controls will include provisions to allow automatic restart of equipment after
interruption of power.
12.4.6 Variable Frequency Drives

VFDs will be housed in the MCC or in NEMA 1-rated, freestanding enclosures. VFD
enclosure doors will include a keypad and display, with provisions for local controls as
described in Section 13 (Instrumentation).
VFD driven pumps with 50-hp or smaller motors will use standard 6-pulse drives. VFD
driven pumps with 60-hp or larger motors will use clean power, 18-pulse drives to limit
negative impacts to the plant from electrical harmonics created by the drives.
12.4.7 Energy Efficiency

As applicable to commercial/industrial facilities, the WTP design will minimize
environmental impacts by selecting light-emitting diode (LED) luminaires and manual and
automated lighting controls with photo sensors that will reduce artificial lighting when
natural light is available. The lighting controls include astronomical time clocks in the
lighting control panel to shut off lights on a schedule, or by the occupancy sensors,
dimmers, manual ON/auto OFF switch, or photo sensors.
84 | July 22, 2019

Other considerations include providing controlled receptacles (plug load controllable

receptacles) in at least 50 percent of all 120-V receptacles installed in code-required
spaces including private offices, open offices, conference rooms, rooms used primarily
for printing and/or copying functions, break rooms, individual workstations, and
classrooms. These receptacles shall be controlled by an occupant sensor that turns
receptacle power off when no occupants are detected for 20 minutes. (Exception:
Receptacles designated for specific equipment requiring 24-hour operation, building
maintenance functions, or specific safety or security equipment do not require an
automatic control device or placement within 72 inches of a controlled receptacle.
Receptacles located in control rooms meet this exception.)
Design of energy efficient devices will be based on energy codes and project
sustainability requirements and will be evaluated further during final design.
12.4.8 Area and Site Lighting

Full cutoff-type fixtures will be used for all outdoor luminaires to limit light pollution and
glare. All fixtures will be LED-type and controlled using an astronomical time clock.
12.4.9 Raceways
Interior exposed conduits will be rigid galvanized steel (RGS). Conduits embedded in
walls and floor slabs, and conduits routed under floor slabs and equipment pads will be
schedule 40 PVC. Exterior exposed conduits will be RGS. Underground concrete-
encased conduits will be schedule 40 PVC, except underground analog circuits, which
will be installed in RGS conduits.
In general, underground conduit will be installed in concrete-encased duct banks
provided with steel reinforcement where installed under roadways.
Conduits used for area/roadway lighting will be direct buried.
12.4.10 Equipment Enclosure Ratings

All electrical equipment, panels and cabinets, lighting fixtures and control/wiring devices,
raceways and boxes, light switches, power and voice/data outlets, and other
appurtenances associated with the electrical systems will be specified for the
environment of each room or area.
Designation of an area will determine the NEMA rating of electrical equipment
enclosures, types and materials of conduits, mounting hardware materials, electrical
equipment support system material, wiring devices, and installation methods to be used
in that area. Table 12-3 provides materials for designated areas.
Table 12-3. Material Application Schedule

NEMA 250
Outlet and Device
Enclosure Type Mounting Hardware
Raceway Material Boxes, Mounting
(including pull and and Support System
Plates, and Fittings
Designation junction boxes)
Wet, Corrosive to 4X, nonmetallic PVC-80 Nonmetallic Nonmetallic

Metals
July 22, 2019 | 85

Table 12-3. Material Application Schedule

NEMA 250
Outlet and Device
Enclosure Type Mounting Hardware
Raceway Material Boxes, Mounting
(including pull and and Support System
Plates, and Fittings
Designation junction boxes)
Hazardous and 7 or 4X, suitable for PVC-coated RGS PVC-coated cast 316 stainless steel
Corrosive Areas classification metal, 304 stainless
steel
Wet, Indoors 4 RGS Cast metal 316 stainless steel
Dry Industrial 12 RGS Cast metal Galvanized
Dry, Indoors, 1 Electrical Metallic Sheet metal Galvanized

Finished Tubing (EMT)
Non-hazardous 3R RGS Cast metal 316 stainless steel

Exterior Areas
Wet, Damp Exterior 4X RGS Cast metal 316 stainless steel

Area
Hazardous Exterior 7 or 4, suitable for RGS Cast metal or 304 316 stainless steel
Areas classification stainless steel
Underground, n/a PVC, except for n/a n/a

Underslab, or specific circuits
Concrete Encased
12.4.11 Safety Switches

NEMA-type HD (heavy duty, quick-make/quick-break, visible blade, non-fused) safety
switches will be used to provide a visible means of disconnecting a load from its source
when the motor disconnect is out of site per the NEC. Table 12-3 provides the required
enclosure rating. Safety switches will be installed at each motor load.
12.4.12 Conductors and Cable

Conductors will be constructed from stranded copper and include a 600 V-type XHHW-2
insulation. Multi-conductor control cables will include No. 14 AWG conductors with
600 V-type XHHW-2 insulation and a common PVC outer jacket. Cables for analog
signals will be a twisted shielded pair-type and include 600 V-type thermoplastic high
heat-resistant nylon-coated/thermoplastic high water-resistant nylon-coated insulation
and aluminum/synthetic polymer shield, drain wire, and PVC outer jacket.
Tray-rated cables will be used where routed through cable trays.
12.4.13 Grounding System

Service equipment and raceways will be grounded in accordance with the requirements
of the NEC, NFPA 70; and the recommendations of Grounding of Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems, IEEE 142; and Powering and Grounding Sensitive
Electronic Equipment, IEEE 1100.
86 | July 22, 2019

The NEC requires low-voltage systems be grounded (with some exceptions) to limit
voltage to ground during normal operation and prevent excessive voltages due to surges.
Generally, a Y-connected transformer secondary grounded at the transformer is
provided.
The preferred location for the required grounding electrode at the structure is in the
footings of the structure (concrete-encased grounding electrode), with ground rods at all
outside corners of the footing. Use of a concrete-encased grounding electrode-type
ground to supplement the water pipe grounding electrode will prevent system grounding
being affected by a disruption to the water pipe. A grounded conductor is used to bond
the system ground to the grounding electrode and is run with the phase conductors.
The service equipment in each structure will be bonded to the concrete-encased
grounding electrode ground at two locations on opposite sides of the structure. All
equipment downstream of the service equipment will be grounded back to the service
equipment ground bus. In addition, all metal enclosures will be grounded to the
grounding electrode. This will minimize the potential voltage differential that can occur
between the metal enclosure and raceways should a fault or surge occur.
Building ground rings will be constructed and consist of bare copper conductors and
ground rings.
12.4.14 Ancillary Systems

12.4.14.1 Telephone System
HDR will coordinate with the City’s information technology supervisor during the design
process to determine the technical requirements for the telephone system.
New phones will be installed at the facility. The phones are to be Internet Protocol-type
(IP-type) and be furnished by the City.
The new WTP site will have a cell phone repeater and antenna since the surrounding
hills currently block service to the site.
12.4.14.2 Data Communications System

HDR will coordinate with the City’s information technology supervisor during the design
process to determine the technical requirements for the data communication system.
The facility will be connected to the City network via a new fiber optic cable connection.
This facility will be integrated into the network to allow remote monitoring.
12.4.14.3 Access Control

The access control system used will match existing systems currently used by the City.
The existing main entrance gate includes a PIN keypad and proximity card reader to
restrict access to the plant.
The WTP buildings will include an access control system that will include card readers,
PIN keypads, and door position switches. The building access control system will not
include motion sensors or glass break sensors.
July 22, 2019 | 87

The new access control system shall be network connected for remote monitoring
services.
12.4.14.4 Video Surveillance

Installation of a video surveillance system is proposed for the WTP. The surveillance
system will include closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, a video monitor, and a
digital video recorder.
The number and placement of CCTV cameras is to be determined during design. The
cameras will be high-resolution, color cameras placed to monitor access points to the
site and building.
Location of the surveillance video monitor and digital video recorder in the Control Room
for monitoring is proposed.
12.4.14.5 Fire Alarm System

The WTP will include a fire alarm system. The construction documents will include
performance specifications for the fire alarm system to be designed by a registered fire
alarm system technician to meet local authority having jurisdiction requirements.
The new fire alarm system shall be network connected for remote monitoring services.
12.4.14.6 Lightning Protection System

The location of the site is reported by the City to be in an area prone to lighting activity. It
is likely that a lightning protection system will be required. A lightning risk assessment
will be performed during design to confirm. If required, construction documents will
include a conceptual design based on input from lightning protection turnkey suppliers.
These systems will include air terminals at high points with down conductors bonded to a
building ground ring.
12.4.14.7 Freeze Protection System

Small water and chemical pipes located outdoors will be provided with freeze protection.
The system will be monitored by the Plant Control System as required to generate an
alarm during a system failure event.
88 | July 22, 2019

13 Instrumentation
The WTP project will require installation of an entirely new control system for automation
and monitoring of the process control equipment. PLC and HMI equipment will be
installed to provide automatic process controls, operator control and supervision,
reporting, and alarm notification.
Criteria used to develop contract documents for the TWP control system and integration
of the new WTP controls with the existing City Public Works HMI network (that both
monitors and controls the City storage and distribution system) are provided in the
following sections.
13.1 General
The instrumentation and control systems installed for project facilities consist of field
mounted control devices and instruments, programmable logic controllers,
communication systems, and the HMI system. Instrumentation and control systems will
be coordinated with the City’s other facilities, including instruments at the dam.
13.2 HMI System

The City has been working with a system integrator, ORPAC Systems located in
Medford, to perform work on the control systems for their water treatment and distribution
systems. The City and ORPAC are determining the HMI software platform that should be
used for the WTP.
ORPAC indicated the HMI software should be installed on a fault-tolerant server (i.e.,
Stratus ftServer) and implement virtualization. Virtualization relies on software to
simulate hardware functionality and create a virtual computer system, allowing a single
server to install multiple operation systems and applications reducing hardware count
and overhead.
The HMI server hardware should be purchased during final system integration and utilize
the latest technology for processor and memory. The server will be installed in a
19-in-wide, freestanding equipment rack. The server hardware and networking
equipment will be powered from a centralized UPS.
Thin client computers for the HMI terminals would operate under Remote Desktop
Services (RDS) to the server. HMI terminals may be installed on desks in offices, control
rooms, or control panels with panel-mounted, touch-screen displays.
ORPAC and the City will work together to establish HMI standards that will be used. The
HMI system shall be designed to prevent staff with inadequate security privileges from
accessing and controlling the WTP. Treatment plant staff should have the ability to
access the HMI screens pertaining to the WTP; however, these screens may be
restricted from the distribution system staff. This could be accomplished by developing
separate application or client profile for distribution system staff.
July 22, 2019 | 89

13.2.1 HMI Communication Network

A local fiber optic cable network dedicated to the plant control system will be installed at
the WTP and configured in a fault-tolerant ring network able to maintain full operation if
one if the fiber optic segments is severed. Radio communication will be used as a
back up to fiber.
13.3 Programmable Logic Controllers

Programming for the automatic process controls will reside completely in the PLC logic.
PLCs will automatically operate the plant even if the HMI system is not operating. The
HMI system is used as a window, or operator interface to the automatic controls residing
in the PLC. Setpoint changes and operator adjustments are made via the HMI displays.
PLC control panels will be located in areas with high concentration of process control
signals. The type and location of the PLC hardware will be examined further during the
design process when facility locations and Input/Output (I/O) requirements are better
known. In general, PLCs and Remote I/O Racks will be used in areas where large
quantities of I/O modules are located and high levels of automation required.
Rockwell Automation ControlLogix PLCs will be used for the process control system.
13.3.1 PLC Control Panels

Control panels will be provided to house the PLC hardware and associated power
supplies, networking hardware, and field terminal strips. The control panels shall be
UL508A (Industrial Control Equipment). Panels will be freestanding and constructed from
either painted steel or stainless steel. The PLC control panels will be powered from a
centralized UPS.
Control power (and signal voltage) will be 24VDC.
13.3.2 Manufacturer Supplied Control Panels

Where vendor/manufacturer supplied control panels are provided with PLC hardware,
use of Allen Bradley ControlLogix or CompactLogix based hardware will be required to
match the existing equipment. This will help simplify spare parts requirements,
troubleshooting, and integration with the plant control system.
13.3.3 Industrial Network Protocol

The PLCs will communicate with VFDs and power meters over the plant control system
Ethernet network using EtherNet/IP protocol.
13.4 Telemetry
The monitoring and controls functions for existing remote facilities will be integrated into
the HMI system. This will provide a single point of monitoring and controls for operators.
Communication paths will be installed to remote sites as follows:
• Four Reservoirs (Crowson, Granite, Fallon, and Alsing)
90 | July 22, 2019

• Four Booster Pumping Stations (Hillview, South Mountain, Park Estates by

named users, and Strawberry)
• Reeder Reservoir
• Terrace Street Pump Station
A Rockwell Automation CompactLogix PLC will systematically poll remote sites to collect
predetermined blocks of data from the offsite facilities.
The City is coordinating with their system integrator to determine the type of
communication path to be used. Radios are currently being used, but replacing this with
communications over fiber optic cables or over cellular communications was discussed.
13.5 Control System Features

This section provides a description of the treatment plant controls features.
13.5.1 Control Hierarchy

In general, each piece of process or mechanical equipment will be provided with controls
at the field equipment and through the HMI system. Manufacturer-provided control
panels for stand-alone equipment shall be considered as local control panels.
Intermediate control panels will not be used.
13.5.1.1 Local Controls

Where feasible, the field-mounted controls adjacent to the controlled equipment will be
provided with a LOCAL-REMOTE selector, a START pushbutton, and a LOCK-OUT-
STOP button in a local control station. In general, no local indicator/status lights will be
provided at a local control station. Other control functions will be provided as applicable
to the equipment. In addition, a local safety switch (disconnect switch) will be provided
for equipment lockout at the motor location.
Valves and similar equipment will be provided with a LOCAL-REMOTE selector, an
OPEN pushbutton/selector, a STOP pushbutton/selector, and a CLOSE
pushbutton/selector to allow local position control when needed. A local disconnect will
be provided for valve lockout at the valve location.
The PLC will monitor and display the position of the LOCAL-REMOTE selector on the
HMI terminals. The PLC will also monitor the VFD SPEED feedback signals from
equipment operated with VFDs, and POSITION feedback signals (analog) from
modulating type flow control valves.
All process transmitters will be furnished with an integrated display. For example, a flow
meter will include a display to indicate the measured flow in engineering units. Local
disconnects will allow isolation of instruments from electrical service for maintenance.
13.5.1.2 Motor Control Center Controls

No MCC-mounted controls will be provided on the full-speed motor starters except for
the standard disconnect and overload reset. If the motor starter is equipped with
July 22, 2019 | 91

interlocks, it will include indicator lights to display the fault status and an associated
RESET pushbutton.
13.5.1.3 Variable Frequency Drive Controls

All VFDs will be provided with the ability to adjust the motor speed, LOCAL-REMOTE
selection, and START/STOP commands from the operator keypad. The VFD cabinet will
be equipped with a speed control potentiometer that will be used to determine the pump
operating speed when started from the local control station (field controls) or VFD
cabinet.
13.5.1.4 HMI Controls

The process motor equipment will be provided with two control modes selectable from
the HMI graphic display: MANUAL and AUTOMATIC. In MANUAL mode, if the local
control mode is in the REMOTE position, equipment can be started and stopped
manually from the graphic display. In AUTOMATIC mode, the equipment will be
controlled according to the PLC automatic control logic programming. If there is no
automatic control logic, then the control will be manual only from the HMI graphic display.
Process operational set points will be adjustable from the HMI graphic displays. HMI
graphics will display process signals (e.g., flow, level) in engineering units. Pump speed
feedback signals from VFDs will be displayed as 0-100 percent signals corresponding to
the motor operating speed between 0 and 60 hertz.
13.5.2 HMI Interlocks

All personnel and equipment interlocks will be implemented through hardwired
connections to the equipment motor control circuits. Interlocking for personnel and
equipment safety will not be done through the PLC or HMI system. Interlocks must be
manually RESET at either the local control station or motor starter.
13.5.3 General Equipment Monitoring Requirements

Operational status of each piece of equipment will be available on the HMI terminals.
The monitored status signals for standard process devices are listed in Table 13-1
below.
92 | July 22, 2019

Table 13-1. Standard Process Devices HMI Status and Alarm Monitoring
Motor-Operated Valve Motor-Operated Flow
Equipment with Constant or Gate with Control Valve
Speed Motor Equipment with VFD Open/Close Control (Modulating)
Remote Status Remote Status Remote Status Remote Status
Run Status Run Status Open Position Valve position signal
Fault Status Fault Status Closed Position --
Run-Time Counter Run-Time Counter Fail to Open Alarm --
Fail to Start Alarm Fail to Start Alarm Fail to Close Alarm --
Fail to Stop Alarm Fail to Stop Alarm -- --
Specific Alarms (if used) Speed Feedback signal -- --
Alarm contacts for equipment interlocking and alarming will be provided as direct input to
the PLC. Alarms will be annunciated on the HMI. Field annunciation panels will not be
used unless they are included in equipment manufacturer’s local control panels. The
control system will include beacons and horns located throughout the plant to alert
operators of active alarm conditions.
13.5.4 Alarm Notification

Alarm notification may be performed using either a software-based (e.g., WIN-911 with
Mobile-911) solution or hardware-based (e.g., Raco or Antx) solution.
Because existing cell phone coverage at the site is poor, Operators may not be able to
receive alarm notification via their mobile devices unless coverage improvements are
made. Audible and visual alarm notification devices will be installed at the site to alert
operators of alarms that have been unacknowledged for an extended period.
13.5.5 Regulatory Reporting

Monitoring and reporting of the water treatment process will be a function of the HMI
system. Logging and recording daily process data into reports configured to meet the
Oregon Health Authority required surface water treatment rules is required.
This type of reporting is usually accomplished in one of two ways:
• Use of reporting software such as Hach WIMS (Water Information Management
Solutions). This reporting mechanism requires investment in the software, but is
generally easy to use and customizable.
• Implementation of a customized Microsoft Excel application to gather information
from the HMI system. This is generally a less expensive alternative; however, it
may have a higher learning curve for making report alterations.
These reports will be developed with the system integrator during construction based on
direction from the City.
July 22, 2019 | 93

The HMI System will include a data historian to efficiently collect and store the WTP
process data from the process control system.
94 | July 22, 2019

14 Site Civil
14.1 General
Site civil work is anticipated to include earthwork, retaining walls, parking and drive
areas, curbs, storm sewer system, stairs, ditching, fencing, entrance gates, and erosion
control measures.
The preliminary site layout consists of two main areas as outlined below (Appendix B):
• The main site contains the Operations Building, backwash recovery system,
Crowson pump station, soda ash silo, diesel fuel and standby generator pad,
LOX storage and vaporizer pad, parking stalls, and truck turning area.
• The upper site contains the clearwell and a hammerhead turn-around for
standard vehicles.
• A 20-foot-wide gated entrance road will provide access to the plant.
• All roads, drives, and parking will be paved with asphalt concrete except for the
access road to the clearwell, which will be gravel.
14.2 Entry Roads, Drive Areas, and Parking

14.2.1 Offsite Roads
Local streets (Granite Street and Glenview Drive), and an existing logging road (Horn
Creek Road) will provide access to the site. No improvements to existing roads are
anticipated.
14.2.2 Entry Roads

Entry roads (private) will be constructed in accordance with requirements and
recommendations in the project geotechnical report (Appendix F). At this time, the
geotechnical report has not been completed. The following design requirements apply to
entry roads:
• The entry road to the upper site will be 20 feet wide and designed to
accommodate the turning movements of a WB-62 truck, used for bulk delivery to
the upper site.
• A WB-62 truck size is not anticipated for the entry road to the clearwells site, but
the roadway width will be designed to a 20-foot width for consistency.
• Entry roads will be private, and designed to the City’s speed standard for alleys
and private drives at 15 miles per hour (mph). The 15 mph design speed will be
used for horizontal and vertical alignment design.
• The proposed centerline radius for horizontal curve alignments varies between
50 feet and 200 feet. The minimum calculated radius for a 15-mph design speed
using a rate of superelevation emax of 3 percent, and side friction factor fmax of
0.32 is 45 feet (reference AASHTO, Equation 3-8). The design crest and sag k-
July 22, 2019 | 95

values for a 15-mph design speed are 3 and 10, respectively (reference
AASHTO, Tables 3-34 and 3-36).
• Entry roads will be constructed with roadside ditches if site grading and terrain
permit, or concrete curbs if the site is constrained by existing features. Roadside
ditches or concrete curbs, or combination of the two will be utilized to convey
stormwater runoff.
• The preferred maximum longitudinal grade for entry roads will be 12 percent
based on a design speed of 15 mph in rolling terrain conditions. This may be
increased to 17 percent if mountainous conditions exist during design (reference
AASHTO Table 5-2). Roads will be limited to 15 percent grade where possible.
• Driveway approaches will be asphaltic concrete. A concrete valley gutter is
proposed along the main plant road to help convey stormwater runoff and
separate the asphalt driveway approaches from the existing gravel road.
• Driveway longitudinal grades off existing gravel roads will comply with typical
driveway apron transitions of 8.33 percent or less. Short horizontal curves may
be designed to provide a smooth transition.
All other road requirements and standards shall be designed in accordance with the
following standard:
• City of Ashland’s Engineering Design Standards for Public Improvements,
Section II – Design Standards, Subsection 2.02 – Design Standards for Streets,
Bikeways, Access Ways,
https://www.ashland.or.us/Files/Engineering%20Design%20Standards%2001%2
006.pdf
14.2.3 Drive Areas

Drive areas will be constructed in accordance with requirements and recommendations
in the project geotechnical report once completed. The following preliminary design
requirements apply to the drive areas:
• Drive paths where bulk deliveries are expected will be designed to accommodate
the turning movements of a WB-62 truck.
14.2.4 Parking
Parking areas will be constructed in accordance with requirements and
recommendations in the project geotechnical report once completed. The following
preliminary design requirements apply to the parking areas:
• To provide proper drainage, the pavement grades in parking lots will be designed
with 1 percent minimum to 4 percent maximum slopes.
• The entrances to parking areas will have a maximum slope of 8 percent to
prevent vehicles scraping pavement.
• Construction of parking areas is anticipated with asphalt concrete, but may be
constructed with concrete.
96 | July 22, 2019

14.2.5 Site Grading, Retaining Walls, and Slope Protection

A conceptual geotechnical memo has been prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. for the
proposed project (Appendix F). Additional investigation and analysis will need to be
performed, but generally, the site contains areas previously mined for granite and
backfilled with various materials, remaining granite, overburden, and topsoil. All design
for this project will be performed in accordance with the final geotechnical report once
completed.
The three main site areas described earlier will be benched into the hillside. The uphill
areas exposed by construction will be sloped back until the slopes catch existing ground,
or covered/reinforced by retaining walls or slope protection measures. The preliminary
plans show retaining walls only as a placeholder. Final measures will be determined by
safety concerns, cost, feasibility, coordination with subject matter experts, and other
factors.
The preliminary design depicts the worst-case scenario to address elevation differences
between the preliminary grading design and existing topography. Preliminary design is
only intended as a starting point for future design. Further refinements are anticipated
including but not limited to a reduction in retaining wall height (if chosen), reorientation of
buildings and drives, and reductions in site drive areas to the minimum necessary for
bulk delivery truck movements.
Sloping excavations instead of constructing retaining walls or other slope protection
measures would require rock fall protection, along with building setbacks from the
slopes. Methods for slope protection will be determined during future geotechnical
analysis.
Railings, jersey barriers, barricades, or other type of barriers to protect vehicles and
pedestrians along top of fill slopes will be evaluated.
14.3 ADA Site Accessibility

ADA accessible routes will be provided from ADA parking areas to building and structure
areas at the upper site only; the middle and lower site are designated as industrial areas
without visitor access. ADA accessibility between each of the three sites, including along
entry roads, is not feasible due to the topography encountered at the project.
Proposed pedestrian elements such as sidewalks, ADA parking stalls, wheelchair ramps
and handrails within the project area shall conform to current ADA standards and
guidelines. ADA accessibility will be provided in accordance with the following standards:
• 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design,
https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm#titleI
I
July 22, 2019 | 97

14.4 Drainage
14.4.1 Design Criteria
Preliminary design of the stormwater management system for Ashland WTP is based on
the Rogue Valley Stormwater Design Manual (RVSWDM), July 2018 revision, and the City
of Ashland’s Engineering Design Standards for Public Improvements (EDSPI), January
2006 edition. On subjects not covered by the RVSWDM or EDSPI, ODOT's Hydraulics
Manual design standards are used.
14.4.1.1 Water Quality

The RVSWDM requires mitigation of total suspended solids (TSS) and organics (oil and
grease). Target removal rate of TSS is from 20 to 89 percent depending on the influent
concentration (Figure 2.1 in RVSWDM). Maximum concentration of oil/grease discharged
from a site is limited to 10 milligrams per liter (mg/l).
To meet RVSWDM requirements, water quality facilities must treat at least 90 percent of
annual precipitation. RVSWDM states that based on meteorological data for Bear Creek
Valley, a design storm of 1.0-inch for a 24-hour storm will cover over 98 percent of
precipitation events, which is assumed approximately equal to 90 percent of annual
precipitation.
The RVSWDM recommends specific types of best management practices (BMPs) to
provide water quality treatment, including:
• Source BMPs:
o Rooftop systems
o Trees
o Porous pavement
o Contained planter boxes
• Collection BMPs:
o Planter boxes
o Water quality conveyance swales
o Filter strips
o Infiltration trenches
o Extended detention basins
o Underground detention systems
o Constructed and enhanced wetlands
Many of these BMPs can provide both water quality treatment and flow control, and rely
on infiltration to perform their functions. Based on preliminary geotechnical results, site
conditions are not conducive to utilizing infiltration; therefore, per discussion with the City
of Ashland, filtration vaults were considered for water quality treatment in addition to the
BMPs listed above.
98 | July 22, 2019

14.4.1.2 Conveyance
The EDSPI requires storm drains and conveyance structures are sized for a 25-year
storm recurrence interval for drainage areas less than 300 acres. The EDSPI also
requires a complete drainage study for new projects adding impervious area. The study
required by the EDSPI includes a hydrologic study map of the project site, and hydrologic
and hydraulic calculations for storm drains. The EDSPI also requires a minimum full-pipe
velocity of 3 fps.
14.4.1.3 Flow Control

Flow control facilities to prevent an increase in the peak flow from the project site were
designed for a 10-year storm equal to a 24-hour rainfall depth of 3.0 inches using the
Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph (SBUH) method with a Type 1A rainfall distribution.
Many flow control BMPs, including those previously mentioned that also provide water
quality treatment, rely on infiltration to perform their functions. Considering the low
infiltration rates at the site and other site/civil considerations, sub-surface detention pipes
were considered for flow control.
The RVSWDM recommends that low impact development (LID) be implemented where
possible; however, because site conditions are not conducive to using infiltration to
reduce runoff, LID concepts that rely on infiltration are not ideal for this site. Options that
incorporate LID and do not rely on infiltration, such as source control BMPs, will be
considered as the project’s design advances. Examples of these source control BMPs
include:
• Eco-roofs (vegetated roofs)
• Trees
• Porous pavement
• Contained planter boxes (for roof downspouts)
• Planter boxes (for general runoff, similar to a rain garden)
These BMPs will be considered for use at the site, but not all of them may be appropriate.
For example, eco-roofs will conflict with the roof-mounted solar panels and the prior section
already indicated that porous pavement is generally not compatible with the site conditions.
Their inclusion in the design will be coordinated with other design disciplines as the project
progresses.
14.4.1.4 Conveyance Design

The EDSPI provides guidance on conveyance system capacity, structure spacing, and
minimum flow velocities.
Storm drains and structures will be sized to convey a 25-year storm equal to a 24-hour
rainfall depth of 3.25 inches using SBUH method with a Type 1A rainfall distribution. Storm
drains will also be designed to maintain a minimum full-flow velocity of 3.0 fps to prevent
sedimentation and capacity loss.
Maximum inlet spacing was limited to 400 feet.
July 22, 2019 | 99

Off-site runoff from areas above the site will be routed around the site using open
channels behind the proposed retaining walls. Runoff from within the site, or from
portions of Horn Creek Road, will be conveyed under proposed roads using culverts.
Table 14-1 summarizes the design criteria selected for preliminary design of the
stormwater management system.
Table 14-1. Summary of Design Criteria

Category Design Criteria
Water Quality Design Storm 1-inch 24-hour storm
Flow Control Peak Flow Design Storm 10-year 24-hour storm (3.0-inch)
Peak Flow Control Design Storm 25-year 24-hour storm (3.25-inch)
Hydrologic Calculation Method SBUH
Rainfall Distribution Type 1A
Curve Number 98
Water Quality BMP Filter Vault
Flow Control BMP Underground storage pipea

a Not in design manual but selected due to site conditions and constraints.
14.4.2 Design Concept

Site stormwater runoff will be collected and conveyed through a system of inlets,
manholes, and pipes and conveyed to the project water quality facilities. The catch
basins were laid out in locations to minimize sheet flow distance.
The stormwater treatment BMP selected for the project is a cartridge filter vault for the
main site and a cartridge filter manhole for the access road. These facilities use
rechargeable media-filled cartridges to absorb pollutants from stormwater runoff. Sizing
and specifications of the water quality vault are determined by the manufacturer. Flows
greater than the water quality treatment capacity will bypass through a high flow
standpipe inside the vault.
An underground pipe detention system was selected as the project stormwater flow
control BMP. The detention system was sized to keep post-development peak flows for a
10-year storm event equal to or less than the pre-development peak flows. Runoff from
the access road is not mitigated for flow control. This is balanced by over-detention at the
main site detention facility to meet flow control requirements for the project as a whole at
the outfall.
Stormwater will be mitigated for water quality and peak flow control using the system
described above, and discharged to the creek with embankment protection to mitigate
scour.
100 | July 22, 2019

14.4.3 Additional Considerations

Because information from the project geotechnical engineer indicated site soils have
poor infiltration capacity, water quality and flow control BMPs that rely on infiltration were
not selected for the project.
Other treatment and LID BMPs such as infiltration trenches, planter boxes, and
constructed wetlands were also considered in the design process. Due to the infiltration
constraint, planter boxes were not implemented as the primary water quality treatment
BMP in the design concept. Planter boxes may be considered for portions of the parking
lot adjacent to the main building, but they will be difficult to implement for the entire site
due to depth limitations. If stormwater planters are considered for the site, an underdrain
pipe will be provided for this BMP to accommodate low infiltration rates at the site.
Planter boxes or contained planter boxes will be considered during future design phases
and in coordination with the City and design team.
14.5 Erosion Control

The proposed project will disturbed more than 1 acre of land and a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Erosion Control Permit (1200-C permit) from
ODEQ will be required. The team will develop the necessary Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan (ESCP) to accompany the permit document and support the City of Ashland
with the permit request through ODEQ. The ESCP will be developed in accordance with
ODEQ’s Construction Stormwater Erosion and Sediment Control Manual.
The proposed grading and erosion control shall be designed in accordance with following
standards:
• Project geotechnical report.
Section II – Design Standards, Subsection 2.06 – Erosion Control
006.pdf
Section IV – Construction, Subsection 4.04 – Erosion Control
006.pdf
• ODEQ’s Construction Stormwater Permits,
https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/wqpermits/Pages/Stormwater-Construction.aspx
• Construction Stormwater Erosion and Sediment Control Manual,
https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterPermitsDocs/ErosionSedimentControl.pdf
July 22, 2019 | 101

15 Solar Power Generation

15.1 General
15.1.1 Solar Facility Design Life
The Solar Facility will be designed for a minimum life of 25 years with less than
20 percent power output degradation over that period. Production warranty data from
equipment manufacturers will be provided for demonstrating the ability to meet this
requirement.
15.1.2 Solar Facility Production Estimates

PVsyst or approved software will be used to generate an energy model to form the basis
of the design. All model inputs and assumptions will be reviewed and approved prior to a
PVsyst output report and 8760 file including relevant performance values.
• If applicable, shading by trees, HVAC units and other shading obstruction on roof
will be minimized.
• If shading is to occur from obstructions, a complete comprehensive shading
analysis must be presented in conjunction with the design plan layout.
• Shading created by onsite installations such as inverter stations will be
considered in project design engineering, if inverters are to be installed on roof.
• Final layout design with considerations for any shading will be approved by City.
15.1.3 Laws and Regulations

The facility will be designed in compliance with all applicable Laws and Codes. In
particular, the solar facility will comply with all relevant U.S. and environmental and
occupational health and safety regulations.
The solar design will also be designed in compliance with the Power Sales Agreement
between Bonneville Power Administration and the City with no more than 200 kilowatts
generated by solar power.
15.1.4 Codes and Standards

The following codes, standards, and publications of the latest issue that the local County
Authority Having Jurisdiction (Building Official) has adopted and approved and will be
used in the design and installation of the facility.
• American Institute for Steel Construction
• American National Standards Institute
• American Society of Civil Engineers
• American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers
• American Society of Mechanical Engineers
102 | July 22, 2019

• ASTM International
• American Welding Society
• American Water Works Association
• U.S. Code of Federal Regulations
• Electric Power Research Institute
• International Building Code
• Insulated Cable Engineers Association
• International Electrotechnical Commission
• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
• Illuminating Engineers Society
• International Society of Automation
• International Standards Organization
• National Association of Corrosion Engineers
• North American Insulation Manufacturers Association
• National Electric Code
• North American Electric Reliability Corporation
• National Electrical Safety Code
• National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association
• International Electrical Testing Association
• National Fire Protection Association
• National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
• Underwriters Laboratories
15.1.5 General
The solar design must bear stamps/seals from Professional Engineers licensed in the
State for all Civil, Electrical, Structural, and Communication SCADA drawings. All
studies, calculations, drawings, specifications and other design documents must meet all
applicable codes for all jurisdictions involved, and bear similar stamps/seals including all
as-recorded drawings certifying the plant was built as designed at end of project.
Prior to commencing work, identify and understand the complete technical design and
construction permitting requirements of City and applicable permitting agency. An
engineering design will be developed and maintained compliant with City's key project
documents, including but not limited to: Interconnection Agreement (IA), Conditional Use
Permit (CUP), and others as required.
July 22, 2019 | 103

15.1.5.1 System Components

• UL listing or approved Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) testing
certification for all PV system equipment specified.
• SCADA system to meet utility interconnection and City's requirements for
monitoring, curtailment, etc.
• Grounding and bonding system will comply with UL and NEC standards.
• Electrical design and temperature-related correction factors will reference a
widely-recognized historical climate database (i.e., ASHRAE).
• Electrical components such as inverters will be located in electrical room.
Inverters can be installed on roof if approved by City.
• All grounding hardware will be listed and approved for application.
• Racking system will comply with all codes and tunnel wind testing. Racks to be
UL2703 and UL3703 compliant.
15.2 Operational Considerations

15.2.1 Reliability and Availability
15.2.1.1 General
Reliability and availability of the facility operation are prime requirements of the Project.
The design and selection of systems, equipment, materials and components will be
based on their effect on long-term facility reliability and availability.
Systems that can cause an outage if one of its components fails will be designed for high
reliability by:
• Selection of redundant equipment.
• Selection of materials such as bankability PV modules and inverters.
• Use of proven technologies.
• Consideration for ease of maintenance.
The following reliability criteria will be applied to all systems, equipment, and
components:
• Designs will be based on proven design concepts applied successfully in the
solar industry and meet performance expectations under commercial operation
for similar applications.
• The equipment will be of a design that has been in successful, reliable, and
continuous operation for a minimum of three years, unless specifically approved
by City.
104 | July 22, 2019

15.2.1.2 Equipment Redundancy and Design Margins

• Equipment redundancy will ensure that the loss of any single balance of plant or
support system component or item of equipment will not result in a facility
shutdown.
• Equipment and systems with sufficient margin above the calculated maximum
production value to provide a safety margin for successful operation. The margin
specified will be based on prudent engineering, industry experience, and
anticipated loss of efficiency over time.
15.2.1.3 Operability and Accessibility

• The facility will be designed and constructed to allow operation with a minimal
level of operator surveillance/interaction.
• Convenient permanent access, including sufficient clearance, will be provided to
all equipment for both O&M.
• The systems, equipment, and materials will be designed to minimize
maintenance requirements and downtime. The required maintenance intervals
and periods will be compatible with industry practice or equipment
manufacturer’s recommendations.
• During the design phase of the facility and before finalization of the design, the
City will review and approve maintenance access and lay down concepts. These
concepts will be based on minimizing maintenance durations and manpower
input, double handling of equipment and materials, extensive preparatory work in
providing access and setting up lifting equipment, and interferences with other
equipment and materials.
15.3 Design Guidelines

15.3.1 Roof Plan and System Layout
• The City will review and approve setback requirements prior to finalizing the solar
layout.
• Ideally, the plan and layout will be as symmetrical as possible to create an
organized electrical layout with respect to modules and arrays, source circuits,
and output circuits connected to specific inverters.
• Roof plan and layout with field conditions and identify existing shade sources
(HVAC equipment) by location and height.
• Fire department roof accessibility requirements that might affect layout of panels
and other equipment on the roof.
• Roof plan will identify north arrow and provide scale bar.
• Array layout will be designed to maximize the facility capacity and performance.
July 22, 2019 | 105

15.3.2 Electrical Guidelines:

15.3.2.1 DC Project Layout:
• Maximize the array layout with provided rooftop.
15.3.2.2 DC Design:
• The DC Collection System Circuits will be designed to limit electrical losses at
Standard Test Conditions (STC) (Imp) to no more than 1.5 percent.
• Solar power generation will be throttled to stay under the 200 kW generation limit
• DC cable sizing and spacing will be determined based on latest NEC codebook
with ASHRAE temperatures.
• Voltage not to exceed 1,000 Volts Open Circuit (Voc); this number will be
calculated as shown below:
Vmax = n × (Voc + ((TLOW − TREF ) × αVoc ))
• where n is the number of modules per string, TLOW is the ASHRAE Extreme
Annual Mean Minimum Design Dry Bulb Temperature; TREF is the cell
temperature at STC; α is the temperature coefficient of Voc; Voc is the irradiance
adjusted open circuit voltage. EPC to perform this analysis and determine
number of modules per string for 1000V maximum.
• All cable must be rated for outdoor or in conduits and be rated to 90ºC. If any
cables are exposed to sunlight, they must be UV-resistant.
• All DC current carrying conductors will be color-coded or have polarity clearly
identified by some other permanent means.
• Module leads and all open air source circuit conductors will be securely fastened
and protected to the racking structure by a permanent mechanical fastener that is
suitable for the site environment. Cable tray may be an approved option. Covers
will be required for any outdoor cable run trays.
• Where source circuits cannot be protected by the PV module support racking, it
will be routed in conduit that is appropriately sized and rated for the subject
environment. Where any conduit is exposed to sunlight, it will be so rated.
• Where cable zip ties are used, provide long durable zip ties and UV-resistant.
Plastic zip ties are not allowed as they can easily degrade over years.
• All conduit will be electrical grade, appropriately sized, and rated for the subject
environment and where exposed to sunlight rated for UV exposure.
• All conduits will be appropriately supported to meet all codes.
• All conductors smaller than #6 will be copper.
• Source circuits and output circuits will be arranged in a symmetrical pattern
where possible for ease of installation and identification of which modules are
connected to which combiner boxes.
106 | July 22, 2019

• DC design will be optimized by comparing the voltage drop and cost of energy
loss associated with the module circuits to inverter.
• System will have meteorology station including plane of array and global
horizontal pyranometers, wind direction and speed sensor, ambient temperature
sensor, rain gauge and bucket, and module temperature sensors as required.
• PV Modules:
o Modules will have a minimum nominal power rating of 325W or higher.
o Modules to be rated at 1000VDC.
o PV module wiring connectors will be Amphenol or MC4. All PV Modules will
utilize the same brand and model connectors.
o PV modules to be Tier 1 bankability.
o PV modules to have optimizers or smart Tigo device (or approved equal) to
meet the 2017 NEC rapid shutdown.
o Mixtures of different PV module ratings are not allowed in the string or
inverter.
15.3.2.3 Inverter Design

• Inverter design to be incorporated/compatible with electrical configuration.
• Design of inverter will comply with operating temperatures expected at given
location. These temperatures will be as published by ASHRAE, or approved
equivalent.
• Each inverter location will include:
o Inverter station will be installed on wall in the provided electrical room. Refer
to inverter installation manual for reference.
o If applicable, Inverter stations will be suitable for installation in direct sunlight
and without de-rating, and will not require sun shelters unless recommended
by manufacturer.
o Inverter stations will be located such that they do not cause shading on any
PV modules if installed on roof.
o If applicable, inverter Unistrut mounting will have spare racks for customer
use to mount SCADA and furnished weather sensors.
• DC array inputs will be within parameters identified by the manufacturer to
maintain compliance with operating requirements.
15.3.2.4 Labels and Markings

• The system will bear required markings and labeling per applicable code
requirements.
• The design will have safety and rating labels for disconnects and other live gear.
July 22, 2019 | 107

• The design will have numbering system for all field equipment, including
conductors, inverters, AC feeders and DC arrays.
• Signage will be weatherproof, corrosion-proof, UV-stabilized, and fade-resistant
and will be capable to last the duration of the minimum Design Life.
• Signs will be attached using non-corrosive materials.
• All conductors, including DC conductors utilized in the PV Module string circuits
and for conductors between combiners and inverters, will bear permanent cable
labels at each end that uniquely identify the cables and are traceable to the
electrical drawings.
• Each row of PV Module mounting structures will be permanently marked at each
end indicating both strings and source string identification numbers to which that
row is connected.
15.3.2.5 Studies
• The design will have short circuit study for the PV system.
• The study will have breaker settings and coordination for the system.
Coordination with upstream devices is required where applicable.
• The design will have both AC and DC arc flash study for the system including
furnishing and installing arc flash labels per NFPA 70E.
15.3.3 Structural Guidelines:

The Facilities will be designed and constructed in compliance with all state and local
building code requirements. The solar panels contribute an additional 10 pounds per
square foot (psf) to the roof loading.
15.3.3.1 General
• All components will be environmentally resistant to corrosion. Paint is not
acceptable except to touch up scratches or minor cuts made in the field.
• All field welding will be coated to prevent corrosion.
• PV modules will be securely fastened by in compliance with the manufacturer’s
recommendations and listing requirements.
• Any connections between dissimilar metals will have measures for isolation and
fasteners will be corrosion resistant for site conditions.
15.3.3.2 Wind Loads

Wind design will be determined by equipment racking manufacturer. Wind pressures and
shape factors will be applied to racking and foundation design as specified. Wind load
will apply to all system components and exposed equipment, including the racking
system with all PV modules installed.
108 | July 22, 2019

15.3.3.3 Seismic Loads

Seismic design will be determined in accordance with the state and local building code
requirements.
15.3.3.4 Live Loads

Live loads used in the design of buildings and structures will be maximum loads likely to
be imposed by the intended use or occupancy.
15.3.3.5 Snow Loads

Ground snow load and snow design will be determined in accordance with state and
local building code requirements.
15.3.3.6 Ice Loads

Ice loads on the PV rack system will be determined in accordance with state and local
building code requirements.
15.3.3.7 Welding Process Control (If applicable)

Procedure manual that provides written practice for process control to include welding
and weld heat treatment.
15.3.4 Miscellaneous Guidelines:

15.3.4.1 Site Conditions
The solar array layout will comply with the site criteria as previously noted or defined.
Ambient Temperatures
• Design ambient temperatures will be determined for the Facility.
• All equipment, buildings, and devices will be suitable for operation over the
extreme site ambient temperature range.
• Appropriate enclosure, panel, and equipment will be provided to maintain
equipment within manufacturer’s recommended environmental conditions for
operation and/or storage.
15.3.4.2 Debris
All construction related debris will be removed from the premises and disposed of in
accordance with applicable laws off-site.
15.3.4.3 Dust Control

Dust control at the site and will prevent the spread of dust during its operations.
July 22, 2019 | 109

15.3.4.4 Sound Emissions

Sound levels at the site property boundary will be minimized during construction and
operation of the Facility, in accordance with local law.
110 | July 22, 2019

16 . References
City of Ashland
2006 City of Ashland, Engineering Design Standards for Public Improvements. January 1,
2006.
HDR Engineering, Inc.

2019 Technology Alternatives Report – Ashland Water Treatment Plant. March 20, 2019.
Kawamura, Susumu
2000 Integrated Design and Operation of Water Treatment Facilities – Second Edition. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
State of Oregon
2019 Oregon Codes and Standards website: https://www.oregon.gov/bcd/codes-
stand/Pages/adopted-codes.aspx. Accessed May 2019.
United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division

2010 American Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design. September 15, 2010.
July 22, 2019 | 111

Appendix A. TID Water Quality Technical

Memorandum
July 22, 2019

Technical Memorandum
Date: Friday, May 11, 2018
Project: City of Ashland TID Water Quality Analysis
To: Kevin Caldwell, PE, City of Ashland
From: Kelsey Harpham, Pierre Kwan, PE, HDR
Subject: 2017 Water Quality Data Summary
Introduction
The City of Ashland, Oregon (City) has retained HDR as part of another project to investigate
the replacement of the City’s existing Ashland Water Treatment Plant (WTP) with a new facility.
HDR submitted a memorandum to the City in April 2017 requesting additional water quality
data, and prescribing a sampling schedule for May to October of 2017 (Additional Water Quality
Data Gaps and Sampling, April 27, 2017). This current memorandum documents the data
collected during that time and summarizes the results, comparing them to the City’s available
historical data for the raw water qualities from the existing treatment plant. The purpose of this
memorandum is to identify potential water quality parameters that could affect the subsequent
treatment process evaluation and selection for future water treatment.
Water Supply Description

The WTP is primarily supplied surface water from Ashland Creek that flows through and is
stored in Reeder Reservoir prior to entering the WTP. The City also purchases water from the
Talent Irrigation District (TID) to provide additional supply. Water from TID is available during
the irrigation season only, from April to October, and is managed by the Irrigation District. The
City of Ashland has a water right equal to 769 acre-feet (af) per year, which is divided between
public and private irrigation, canal losses, and service to the WTP. Accounting for the losses
and irrigation uses, approximately 223 af of water are available for potable use during a typical
year; however, an increased volume can be directed toward the WTP if necessary (City of
Ashland Water Conservation and Reuse Study, 2011). Historically, TID water has been used
during drought years as a supplement to the Reeder Reservoir supply. The years of 2012, 2013,
2014, and 2015 all saw significant uses of TID water, ranging from 40 to 184 million gallons in a
given year. 2001 and 2009 were also drought years where TID water was used to supplement
the main reservoir supply. When needed, TID water is pumped out of the Ashland Canal to the
WTP at the Terrace Street Pump Station. Water at the Terrace Street Pump station is sourced
only from the TID, and that water is mixed with water from the Reeder Reservoir supply prior to
entering the WTP.
Water Quality Data Collection
In 2009, water samples were taken at the Terrace Street Pump Station, where water is pumped
directly from the TID canal, and it is not yet mixed with Reeder Reservoir supply water. Samples
were analyzed for a suite of inorganic compounds, metals, minerals, and physical
characteristics. These are all critical factors in determining treatment parameters. The results
from these samples were discussed in the Water Quality Data Summary and Review, (April,
2017), and are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Summary of TID Data Grab Sample Results
Water Quality Parameter 2009 Grab Sample Results
Turbidity 3.2 NTU

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 2.9 mg/L
pH Sample exceeded hold time for accurate measurement
Alkalinity 37 mg/L as CaCO3
Hardness Not reported but calculated to be 33 mg/L as CaCO3
Temperature Not analyzed
Pathogens Zero for Cryptosporidium and Giardia
IOCs Non-detect for nitrate, sulfate, fluoride. No data for all other regulated
IOCs or for UCMR3 analytes.
VOCs and SOCs Non-detect for all compounds.
Algae and cyanotoxins 99 counts/mL
T&O Compounds Non-detect for both MIB and Geosmin. 1 TON for odor.
Color 20 PCU
Other
Ammonia Non-detect
Dissolved organic carbon 2.7 mg/L
Dissolved UV-254 absorb. 0.050/cm
Specific conductance 78 umhos/cm
As a result of this limited prior data on the TID water, and a comprehensive analysis of water
quality was performed during the 2017 irrigation season. A Sonde automated water quality
analyzer was used for the collection of continuous data at the Terrace Street pump station, and
additional water samples were taken by City staff and sent to Nielsen labs for analysis of
inorganic, organic, and volatile organic compounds, along with several other water quality
parameters. The potential for increased use of the TID water as a supplementary water supply
for the City creates the need for a comprehensive understanding of the impact of the TID supply
to water treatment.
Sampling frequency varied by the analyte sampled for. Below is a table summarizing the
sampling frequency of the analytes. All sampling frequencies refer to the time period of the
irrigation season, from May 5, 2017 to October 12, 2017.
Table 2: 2017 TID Sampling Frequency
Analyte or Suite of Analytes Sampling Analyte or Suite of Analytes Sampling

Frequency (continued) Frequency
Regulated Primary Inorganic
Alkalinity Monthly Twice
Compounds
All Regulated Synthetic Organic
Hardness Monthly Once
Carbon Compounds
All Regulated Volatile Organic
UV-254 absorbance Monthly Once
Carbon Compounds
Total organic carbon Monthly Aluminum Once
Dissolved organic carbon Monthly Chloride Once
Calcium Monthly Copper Once
Magnesium Monthly Silver Once
Apparent color Monthly Sulfate Once
True color Monthly Total Dissolved Solids Once
Algae counts and enumeration Monthly Zinc Once
Iron, Total Monthly Ammonia Twice
Manganese, Total Monthly Phosphorus, Total Twice
Strontium Once Sulfide, Total Once
Chromium, Hexavalent Once Cryptosporidium Monthly
Chromium, Total Once Giardia Monthly
Silica Once Algal Enumeration Monthly
Water Quality Data Analysis

Water quality data was analyzed in regard to the potential impact on the water treatment
process, and compared to existing data reported in the Ashland Water Quality Summary and
Review Technical Memorandum, April 2017, regarding the Ashland Creek and Reeder
Reservoir water quality.
Sonde Continuous Data Collection

Continuous data was collected for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, Specific Conductivity, oxidation
reduction potential (ORP), and turbidity. The Sonde analyzer collected samples in 15-minute
intervals continuously throughout the collection period of May 10 to October 12. Due to technical
issues, modification of analyte selection request, and auxiliary maintenance requirements, not
all analyte data was collected over the entire time period. Additionally, the data collected for pH,
DO, and ORP shifts slightly throughout the data collection period. Based on the time periods
that the data shifts occur, it is likely that this is due to slight calibration differences that occurred
when data was downloaded from the Sonde instrument. All data remains within a relatively
small overall range and is within expectations for raw water quality characteristics.
pH
pH data was collected from May 10 to June 14, and then from July 5 to October 12. A diurnal
trend in data can be observed throughout the collection period, with pH levels increasing during
the night, reaching a peak at approximately 6:00 pm, and decreasing during the day to a
minimum level at approximately 6:00 am. In May and June, daily fluctuations were
approximately 0.2 units, while swings in July and August were approximately 0.6 units. As days
became shorter and cooled into fall, the diurnal swing returned to approximately 0.2 units. This
suggests that the pH of the TID water is closely tied to presence of algae in the water. As it is a
plant, algae consumes carbon dioxide (which is carbonic acid in water) during the day, and at
night, plant respiration stops and exhalation starts so that the algae is releasing a trace of
carbonic acid into the water. This hypothesis is confirmed by correlating DO data, discussed in
detail in a later section of this report. DO trends generally follow behind pH, increasing with algal
respiration during the daytime hours, and decreasing at night when algae stop producing
oxygen.
Below are two graphs showing the diurnal trends of pH in the TID water. The first is over a short
period of time to demonstrate the clear day and night trends of the pH levels. Daily fluctuations
are approximately over a range of 0.6 units. The second graph is over the entire data collection
period and represents the range of fluctuations that occurred seasonally. The majority of data
points are between 7.40 pH units and 8.60 pH units.
8.60
8.40
8.20
pH (standard units)
8.00
7.80
7.60
7.40
7.20
7/14/17 6:00 AM
7/14/17 6:00 PM
7/15/17 6:00 AM
7/15/17 6:00 PM
7/16/17 6:00 AM
7/16/17 6:00 PM
7/17/17 6:00 AM
7/17/17 6:00 PM
7/18/17 6:00 AM
7/18/17 6:00 PM
7/14/17 12:00 AM
7/14/17 12:00 PM
7/15/17 12:00 AM
7/15/17 12:00 PM
7/16/17 12:00 AM
7/16/17 12:00 PM
7/17/17 12:00 AM
7/17/17 12:00 PM
7/18/17 12:00 AM
7/18/17 12:00 PM
7/19/17 12:00 AM
Figure 1: TID pH data 7/14/17 to 7/19/17

8.60
8.40
8.20
pH (standard units)
pH data
not
8.00 recorded No data
6/14-7/5 recorded
8/22-9/5
7.80
7.60
7.40
7.20
9-May 23-May 6-Jun 20-Jun 4-Jul 18-Jul 1-Aug 15-Aug 29-Aug 12-Sep 26-Sep 10-Oct
Figure 2: TID pH data, May-October 2017

The pH data daily fluctuations are relevant to the treatment because they suggest that frequent
(hourly or more) operator attention will be required to keep track of the coagulants being used
when TID water is a portion of the supply. The TID water is also typically slightly higher in pH
than previous samples taken from Ashland Creek, which ranged from 6.8 to 7.9. When TID
water is incorporated into the supply, it may impact treatment efficiency and require modification
to the treatment process to maintain finished water compliance.
Turbidity
Similar to the diurnal peaks seen in pH and DO, turbidity levels also fluctuate on a daily level.
Fluctuations were generally between 3 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) and 15 NTU, with
higher daily swings observable during the warmer summer months. This diurnal pattern, along
with the seasonal trends, indicates that the turbidity reading is also due to algae in the water.
Algae grow during the daytime hours, and growth slows during the night.
Turbidity has a significant impact on the type of water treatment system chosen. High levels of
turbidity also increase risk for the presence of pathogenic organisms. The TID water turbidity
indicates that conventional sedimentation/media filtration or membrane filtration would be a
better treatment system if new filtration equipment is selected for treating 100 percent TID
water, as 10 NTU is generally regarded as the limit for maximum turbidity level recommended
for treatment by direct filtration, the process at the existing WTP. This issue can also be
addressed by purposely limiting TID water supply to only when blended with Reeder Reservoir
water.
14
12
10
Turbidity (nTu)
2
7/14/17 6:00 AM
7/14/17 6:00 PM
7/15/17 6:00 AM
7/15/17 6:00 PM
7/16/17 6:00 AM
7/16/17 6:00 PM
7/17/17 6:00 AM
7/17/17 6:00 PM
7/18/17 6:00 AM
7/18/17 6:00 PM
7/14/17 12:00 AM
7/14/17 12:00 PM
7/15/17 12:00 AM
7/15/17 12:00 PM
7/16/17 12:00 AM
7/16/17 12:00 PM
7/17/17 12:00 AM
7/17/17 12:00 PM
7/18/17 12:00 AM
7/18/17 12:00 PM
7/19/17 12:00 AM
Figure 3: TID Turbidity data 7/14/17 to 7/19/17

35
30
25
Turbidity (nTu)
20
15
10
data not
recorded
5 8/22-9/5
0
2-Aug
9-Aug
6-Sep
4-Oct
12-Jul
19-Jul
26-Jul
11-Oct
14-Jun
21-Jun
28-Jun
5-Jul
16-Aug
23-Aug
30-Aug
13-Sep
20-Sep
27-Sep
Figure 4: TID Turbidity data, June-October 2017
*Note that at total of 31 results over the sampling period were measured at a turbidity level greater than 35. The graph above captures the majority of
data points and recognizes that these points are outliers.
These levels of turbidity are significantly higher than the typical levels observed in Ashland
Creek. The average monthly turbidity recorded in the WTP raw water is below 1 NTU, with
some higher levels seen during storms and summer months. While some spikes in turbidity
have been observed in historical WTP raw water data during the summer months, these peaks
are less than 6 NTU, while peaks in the TID data are as high as 35 NTU. Further, the highest
levels of turbidity seen in the summer months occurred at times when TID water was used to
supplement the Ashland Creek supply (2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015), potentially
indicating that the TID water is the cause of increased turbidity during these years, rather than
an increase in the Ashland Creek turbidity levels. The monthly treatment Ashland Creek data
does not account for storm events, which could contribute to higher levels of turbidity that what
is seen in the figure below.
Higher levels of turbidity result in increased headloss in filtration systems, as filters clog from
these materials being removed. Additional coagulant use may be required to bind fine colloidal
and/or neutrally buoyant particles that show up as turbidity. The combination of the two would
result in more backwash waste generation.
6
4
Turbidity (NTU)
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 5: WTP Raw Water, Average Monthly Turbidity

Oxidation Reduction Potential
ORP exhibits diurnal swings similar to pH and turbidity. ORP follows the swing of pH directly,
increasing between the hours of 6:00 am and 6:00 pm, and decreasing during the night from
6:00 pm to 6:00 am. This corroborates the pH and turbidity data to suggest that algae are the
main driver of diurnal shifts in water quality parameters. ORP increases as the carbonic acid in
water is consumed during the day and decreases as it is released at night. The changes in ORP
are likely to have an impact on some instrumentation in the WTP, the most significant being the
streaming current monitors. The streaming current monitors are used to automate chemical
dosing in the treatment process. The fluctuations in ORP can easily be overcome, but are
relevant, and both design engineers and operators need to be aware of the daily changes.
200
185
170
ORP (mV)
155
140
125
7/14/17 6:00 AM
7/14/17 6:00 PM
7/15/17 6:00 AM
7/15/17 6:00 PM
7/16/17 6:00 AM
7/16/17 6:00 PM
7/17/17 6:00 AM
7/17/17 6:00 PM
7/18/17 6:00 AM
7/18/17 6:00 PM
7/14/17 12:00 AM
7/14/17 12:00 PM
7/15/17 12:00 AM
7/15/17 12:00 PM
7/16/17 12:00 AM
7/16/17 12:00 PM
7/17/17 12:00 AM
7/17/17 12:00 PM
7/18/17 12:00 AM
7/18/17 12:00 PM
7/19/17 12:00 AM
Figure 6: TID ORP data 7/14/17 to 7/19/17

400
350
300
data not
recorded
8/22-9/5
250
ORP (mV)
200
150
100
50
0
14-Jun 28-Jun 12-Jul 26-Jul 9-Aug 23-Aug 6-Sep 20-Sep 4-Oct 18-Oct
Figure 7: TID ORP data, June-October 2017

No ORP data was available for the WTP raw water, but no indication has been given that it is an
issue at this time. As a result of increased use of TID water, ORP may need to be continually
monitored to ensure that automated chemical dosing is occurring correctly within the treatment
plant.
Dissolved Oxygen
DO levels remained at levels above 6.0 mg/L throughout the summer irrigation season,
revealing water that is well oxygenated and oxidative. DO exhibits similar daily diurnal shifts as
what is seen in pH, turbidity, and ORP, supporting the hypothesis that the behavior is algae
driven. The algae release oxygen during the day as they consume carbonic acid, resulting in a
daily fluctuation in DO of approximately 2.0 mg/L. DO does not directly mirror pH levels, but
rather lags behind; pH levels generally begin to drop off in the late afternoon and evening, while
DO levels begin to reflect the released oxygen beginning at approximately midnight, and
climbing until midday.
10.00
9.50
9.00
8.50
DO (mg/L)
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
7/14/17 6:00 AM
7/14/17 6:00 PM
7/15/17 6:00 AM
7/15/17 6:00 PM
7/16/17 6:00 AM
7/16/17 6:00 PM
7/17/17 6:00 AM
7/17/17 6:00 PM
7/18/17 6:00 AM
7/18/17 6:00 PM
7/14/17 12:00 AM
7/14/17 12:00 PM
7/15/17 12:00 AM
7/15/17 12:00 PM
7/16/17 12:00 AM
7/16/17 12:00 PM
7/17/17 12:00 AM
7/17/17 12:00 PM
7/18/17 12:00 AM
7/18/17 12:00 PM
7/19/17 12:00 AM
Figure 8: TID Dissolved Oxygen data 7/14/17 to 7/19/17
Specific Conductivity
Over the duration of the 2017 irrigation season, specific conductivity was seen to decrease from
approximately 0.115 mS/cm to 0.075 mS/cm. This suggests that the TID water decreases in
salinity over the season. As the water decreases in salinity, the coagulation step becomes more
straightforward, other things being equal. However, the potential operational benefits of
decreasing salinity are likely outweighed by the variance in pH, DO, ORP, and turbidity that is
seen in the TID water.
Temperature
Temperature data was recorded throughout the 2017 irrigation season in the TID canal.
Temperature is relevant to the treatment process as it can impact coagulation, filtration, and
disinfection. Temperatures recorded at TID exhibit an expected seasonal trend, being cooler
May through June and warming in July and August. The temperature ranges from 8.1°C
(46.6°F) to 24.9°C (76.9°F), with an average of 17.4°C (63.2°F). This is somewhat higher than
the existing temperatures recorded in the WTP raw water, which range from 3°C (37°F) in winter
months to 20°C (68°F) in summer months. The TID water is likely warmer since the water is
drawn from a shallow, long canal so solar gain is higher compared to the deep Reeder
Reservoir. Warmer temperatures has affects coagulation processes (faster reaction times),
filter backwashing (higher backwashing flowrates), and chlorine disinfection (less C x T credit).
0.130
0.120
Specific Conductivity (mS/cm)
0.110
0.100
0.090
0.080
0.070 data not

recorded
8/22-9/5
0.060
17-May 31-May 14-Jun 28-Jun 12-Jul 26-Jul 9-Aug 23-Aug 6-Sep 20-Sep 4-Oct
Figure 9: TID Specific Conductivity, May-October 2017

30
25
data not
20
Temperature (C)
recorded
8/22-9/5
15
10
0
17-May 31-May 14-Jun 28-Jun 12-Jul 26-Jul 9-Aug 23-Aug 6-Sep 20-Sep 4-Oct
Figure 10: TID Temperature, May-October 2017

Lab Tested Water Quality Data
Water samples were collected and sent to Neilsen Research Corporation in Medford, OR for
additional analysis.
Alkalinity and Hardness

Alkalinity and hardness are water quality parameters that affect several key treatment and water
quality processes. Alkalinity is a key factor for chemical coagulation and maintaining a stable pH
in the distribution system, while hardness is associated with potential precipitation and scaling
issues in distribution piping and customer plumbing, taste complaints, and impacts the
effectiveness of soap and detergent usage by businesses and individuals.
TID alkalinity and hardness water quality results for five samples taken during the summer or
2017 are plotted below the monthly average data from the intake of the existing WTP. The
range of alkalinity values found in the TID water is within the range of the alkalinity values
already observed at the WTP, although the values are slightly higher than the average at the
WTP in June and July, and slightly lower in September and October. Additionally, in 2014 and
2015, years where TID water supplemented the Ashland Creek water supply, the alkalinity
observed at the WTP was generally higher than seen in other years. The TID water hardness
were also higher than average for what has historically been observed at the WTP intake, as
shown in Figure 12. In 2014, when the highest volume of TID water was used to supplement
water supply, the most elevated levels of hardness were also seen in the WTP raw water.
Hardness was also generally higher than other years in the summer months in 2015, another
year where TID water supplemented the supply. As mentioned in the April 2017 Water Quality
memorandum, this may also be due to the fact that these were drought years with a reduced
snowpack, and thus reduced snowmelt runoff which tends to reduce the concentration of
minerals found in the raw water. This is supported by the fact that in most years, alkalinity and
hardness decrease from May through August, when snowmelt is most prevalent. Future
planning for treatment and water quality processes must consider the impacts to alkalinity and
hardness of both adding TID water and the increased potential for drought years.
70
60
50
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)
40
30
20
10
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TID
Figure 11: Alkalinity - TID and WTP Raw Water Comparison

50
45
40
35
Hardness mg/L
30
25
20
15
10
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TID
Figure 12: Hardness - TID and WTP Raw Water Comparison

Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
TOC is relevant to treatment process selection because it is a key precursor of disinfection
byproducts (DBPs) that are regulated under the Federal State 2 Disinfection/Disinfection
Byproducts Rule. The level of TOC in the finished water is related to the DBP formation
potential of the water, and thus it is critical to understand the TOC content in the raw water.
TOC was measured in five samples during the 2017 irrigation season. The results ranged from
2.90 to 3.39 mg/L. These values are slightly higher than the average summer values observed
at the WTP, however they are within the range of levels of TOC that are typically seen at the
plant on an annual basis. Based on these results, additional consideration of impacts from
increased use of TID water is not necessary for the future plant development.
Iron and Manganese

Water quality samples of TID water revealed the presence of iron and manganese in the water,
as seen in Table 3. Levels of iron exceed the maximum contaminant limit (MCL) set by the
National Secondary Drinking Water Standards. Levels of manganese detected in the TID water
are below the MCL. The presence of iron and manganese in raw water can impact the treatment
process. Both iron and manganese can contribute to membrane fouling, create issues of
scaling, coat activated carbon and thus prevent full capacity organics removal in treatment
equipment. Iron and manganese have not previously been found in notable quantities at the
WTP intake. The increased use of TID water will necessitate treatment considerations for iron
and manganese at the WTP.
Table 3: TID Iron and Manganese Results
Result (mg/L)
Analyte SMCL
6/21/2017 7/24/2017 8/23/2017 9/29/2017 10/9/2017
Iron 0.392 0.452 0.459 0.514 0.469 0.3
Manganese ND 0.0426 0.0488 ND 0.0244 0.05
12
10
Total Organic Carbon, mg/L
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TID
Figure 13: Total Organic Carbon - TID and WTP Raw Water Comparison
Color
Color was analyzed in monthly samples of raw TID water during the irrigation season. Apparent
color was recorded at 20 and 25 platinum-cobalt units (PCU) for all samples during this period.
This is above the secondary maximum contaminant level set at 15 PCU. Color is typically the
result of iron, manganese and/or organic matter in the raw water. Apparent color is for an
unfiltered water sample whereas true color is for samples after 0.45-micron filtration. True color
represents fully dissolved color constituents and the difference between apparent and true color
is the impact of filtration.
Table 4: TID Color Results 2017
Result (PCU)
Analyte SMCL
6/21/2017 7/24/2017 8/23/2017 9/29/2017 10/9/2017
Color
20 25 25 20 20 15
(Apparent)
Color (True) 5 10 5 <1 <1 None
The high levels of iron in the TID water likely contribute to color of the water. The apparent color
observed in the TID data is similar to the apparent color recorded in the WTP intake data during
the summer months, as seen below in Figure 14. The Ashland Creek water does not reveal
levels of iron or manganese that would cause discoloration of the water, and thus organic matter
is the likely cause of the high apparent color values seen in Ashland Creek. Color is regulated
with a secondary maximum contaminant level of 15 PCU. Color will need to be a treatment
consideration in the future, and will need to address both the levels of iron and manganese as
well as the presence of organic matter in the combined raw water.
70
60
50
40
Color (CU)
30
20
10
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TID
Figure 14: Color - TID and WTP Raw Water Comparison

Pathogens
A critical element of surface water treatment is the removal of pathogens that are liable to cause
water-borne illness. Those of primary interest include Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and viruses,
and determining the levels of these pathogens in raw water is essential for determining the most
appropriate treatment process. During the irrigation season, a total of seven TID water samples
were analyzed for Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts. No samples in this time period
detected any Cryptosporidium oocysts. Two samples, both in September, detected Giardia
cysts in the raw water resulting in levels of 0.100 to 3.500 organisms per liter. See the summary
table below for testing results.
Table 5: TID Cryptosporidium and Giardia Results 2017
Cryptosporidium Oocysts Giardia Cysts

no. organisms no. organisms
Date Sampled observed/(organisms/L) observed/(organisms/L)
6/20/2017 0/(0.000) 0/(0.000)
7/11/2017 0/(0.000) 0/(0.000)
7/24/2017 0/(0.000) 0/(0.000)
8/8/2017 0/(0.000) 0/(0.000)
8/22/2017 0/(0.000) 0/(0.000)
9/12/2017 0/(0.000) 35/(3.500)
9/26/2017 0/(0.000) 1/(0.100)
10/9/2017 0/(0.000) 0/(0.000)
One sample was analyzed for Total Coliform and E.coli. Results from this analysis
demonstrated the presence of Total Coliform at a level greater than 2419.6 organisms/100ml,
using the statistical analysis method SM 9223, which returns the number of organisms as a
most probable number with a 95% confidence range. E.coli results revealed the presence of
E.coli at a probable number of 114.5 organisms/100ml. The observed quantities of pathogens in
the TID water are higher than what has historically been recorded at the WTP intake, and thus
may dictate treatment requirements.
Treatment requirements are such that Cryptosporiudium must be reduced by 2.0 log, Giardia by
3.0 log, and viruses by 4.0 log. See the Technical Memorandum on Regulatory Review and QA
goals dated April 21st, 2017. The presence of both Giardia and viruses in some water samples
indicates that a two step treatment process will be required, including both filtration and
disinfection. Direct and conventional media filtration and membrane filtration do provide some
removal of viruses, but further virus removal, such as chlorination, is required.
Algae and cyanotoxins

The presence of algae in the TID raw water likely results in the daily cycles of pH, ORP, and
turbidity observed in the TID results. Algae enumeration and identification was performed on
five samples throughout the summer. Algal counts ranged from 930 to 1178 cells/mL. The
primary bacteria present were Diatoms, Cyanobacteria and Cholorophyta. Four out of five
samples returned populations of toxigenic Cyanobacteria, with the highest levels observed in
June and October. See the summary table below for the composition results of algae present in
the TID water.
Table 6: TID Algae Results 2017
June 21 July 24 August 23 September 26 October 9

Algae Species cells/ cells/ cells/ cells/ cells/
% % % % %
mL mL mL mL mL
Diatoms 67.9 705 73.3 752 58.4 688 31.1 289 49.6 491
Chlorophyta 6.6 69 11.8 121 8.1 96 6.1 57 12.8 127
Cryptophyta 5.1 53 8.9 105 20.2 188 3.0 30
Cyanobacteria 20.3 211 15.0 154 24.5 289 41.0 381 34.5 341
Euglenophyta 1.2 14 1.5 14 0.03 0.3
Charophyta 0.03 0.3
Toxigenic
20.1 209 0 0 9.4 111 37.7 351 8.9 88
Cyanobacteria
Total 1038 1026 1178 930 989
The presence of toxigenic Cyanobacteria is relevant for consideration in treatment. The Reeder
Reservoir water supply has had historical cases of cyanotoxins, but they are not a consistent
issue in the water supply from this source. As the TID becomes a more consistent supply for
drinking water, ensuring that treatment removes all toxigenic cyanobacteria from the raw water
is critical. In addition to toxins, algae and the particulate matter associated with that algae may
also contribute to color, which is relevant to the treatment process selected.
1400
1200
Total Non-toxic Algae
1000
Algae (cells/mL)
800
600
400
200
0
June July August September October
Inorganic Compounds
Twice during the 2017 irrigation season, TID water was sampled for inorganic compounds
(IOCs). No IOCs were present in amounts greater than the EPA limit, and most compounds
sampled for were not-detectable. See the table below for a summary of IOC results.
Table 7: TID IOC Results 2017
Analyte 6/21/2017 9/26/2017 MCL

Antimony ND ND 0.006
Arsenic ND ND 0.01
Barium 0.0138 0.0135 2
Beryllium ND N/A 0.004
Cadmium ND ND 0.005
Chromium (total) ND ND 0.1
Copper 0.00169 0.00596 1.3
Cyanide (as free cyanide) ND ND 0.2
Fluoride ND ND 4
Mercury (inorganic) ND ND 0.002
Nitrate-N ND ND 10
Nitrite-N ND ND 1
Selenium ND ND 0.05
Thallium ND ND 0.002
In existing operations at the Ashland WTP, IOCs have not been a past raw water quality issue.
In a review of data from the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), nitrate was the only IOC at a
concentration that was detectable, and the level was always well below the EPA limit of 10
mg/L. An increase in use of TID water should not have an impact on treatment in regards to the
presence of IOCs.
Volatile and Synthetic Organic Compounds

None of the listed secondary contaminants in the form of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
or Synthetic Organic Contaminants (SOCs) regulated by the EPA were detected in the sampling
performed at the TID canal. The VOC and SOC analysis obtained from the OHA website with
data for the Ashland WTP intake did not detect any VOCs or SOCs at concentrations above the
respective detection limits. The addition of TID water to the existing WTP source should not
contribute to additional consideration of VOCs and SOCs for treatment alternatives.
Summary
Table 8 provides a summary of the water quality data obtained from TID with a comparison to
the existing data from the WTP raw water. The increased use of TID water will require some
additional considerations for water treatment and water quality processes. Below the table is a
summary of the TID water quality data as it will impact exiting and future performance of the
WTP.
Table 8: Summary Comparison of TID and WTP Intake Water Quality Parameters

Water Quality Parameter TID Water Quality Results
Results
Range: 7.31 – 8.55 Range: 6.8 – 7.9
pH
Average: 7.79 Average: 7.4
Range: 0 NTU – 209 NTU Range: 0.29 NTU – 5.29 NTU

Turbidity
Average: 8.2 NTU Average: 1.0 NTU
Range: 31.9 mV – 338.7 mV

ORP No data
Average: 246.54 mV
Range: 4.7 mg/L – 13.4 mg/L

Dissolved Oxygen No data
Average: 9.3 mg/L
Range: 0 - .28 m/sec

Specific Conductivity No data
Average: 0.08 m/sec
Range: 8.1 °C – 24.9 °C Range: 3 °C – 20 °C

Temperature
Average: 17.4 °C Average: 9.3 °C
Range: 27 – 44 mg/L as CaCO3 Range: 22 – 61 mg/L as CaCO3

Alkalinity
Average: 35 mg/L as CaCO3 Average: 38.6 mg/L as CaCO3
Range: 30.3 – 43.6 mg/L as CaCO3 Range: 13 – 38 mg/L as CaCO3

Hardness
Average: 34.4 mg/L as CaCO3 Average: 25 mg/L as CaCO3
Total Organic Carbon Range: 2.48 – 3.39 mg/L Range: 1.29 – 10.8 mg/L
(TOC) Average: 3.00 mg/L Average: 2.9 mg/L
Range: 0.392 – 0.514 mg/L Limited data indicates little to non-

Iron
Average: 0.474 mg/L detectable concentrations
Range: ND - 0.0488 mg/L Limited data indicates little to non-

Manganese
Average: 0.0386 mg/L detectable concentrations
Range: 20 – 25 CU
Range: 7 – 59 CU
Average: 22 CU
Color Average: 28 CU
Attributable to algae, iron and
Attributable to algae
manganese
Zero for Cryptosporidium One positive Cryptosporidium

Pathogens
Two positive for Giardia One positive Giarda
Limited data indicates little to non-

Fecal Coliform 2420 organisms/100mL
detectable concentrations
Limited data indicates little to non-

E.Coli 115 organisms/100mL
detectable concentrations
Water Quality Parameter TID Water Quality Results
Results
Reeder Reservoir sample as high
Range: 0 – 351 cells/mL as 31.6 million cells/mL in isolated
Average: 152 cells/mL grab samples. None detected in
WTP raw water.
Range: 579 – 1067 cells/mL

Non-Toxic Algae No data
Average: 880 cells/mL
Barium and Copper were detected at Nitrate was detected at a level 10

IOCs minimal levels, 200 times below EPA times below EPA limit. No other
limit. No other IOCs were detected. IOCs were detected.
VOCs and SOCs Non-detect for all compounds. Non-detect for all compounds
Algae and Geosmin contribute to

T&O Compounds No data
T&O issues
Summary of key points:
 The overall pH of the TID water is slightly higher than the pH currently found at the WTP,
however it is generally within a range that should not result in significant impact
treatment requirements.
 The TID water has significantly higher levels of turbidity than those currently found at the
WTP. In general, direct filtration facilities, either using granular media or with
membranes, can operate with up to 10 NTU raw water turbidity without an issue. Future
sedimentation processes at the WTP are needed to provide increased turbidity removal
prior to the filters (membrane or granular) to account for the higher peak TID turbidity.
 However, the hourly/daily variability in the pH, turbidity, ORP, and DO exhibited in the
shallower TID water will necessitate more frequent operator attention than currently
takes place in the Reeder Reservoir supply (whose much larger volume buffers much of
the variability) to maintain correct levels of chemical dosing and to ensure that finished
water quality is within compliance limits. This additional effort for monitoring and control
is required regardless of the filtration process selected for the new WTP.
 The specific conductivity of the water is highest in late spring and decreases through the
summer. This suggests a reduction in salinity of the water, which might provide some
benefit to treatment by facilitating coagulation. However, the daily variability of other
water quality factors will likely outweigh this benefit.
 The temperature of the TID water is 8 °C higher on average than the current raw water
at the WTP, but demonstrates similar seasonal trend of warmer temperatures in the late
summer months as the existing raw water. Temperature is an important consideration in
the selection of any treatment process. For granular media filtration, warmer water
means filter backwashing flowrates have to increase, and increases the possibility of
biological growth within the filters and along the filter walls. Membranes are even more
impacted by warmer water temperatures, but positively, as warmer water is easier to
filter than cold water. This results in a potential net production increase with warmer
water through membranes, even taking into consideration backwash and cleaning cycle
water use. (Conversely, membranes have a more difficult time filtering cold water and
requires more membranes [and associated capital and operating] costs).
 The alkalinity values detected in water samples from the TID were similar to those
reported at the WTP, while the hardness values are slightly higher. These values are still
within the range of alkalinity and hardness values for other raw water sources in Oregon.
These values are not different enough to meaningfully affect the selection of one type of
filter versus the other, but it does impact the ability of the future WTP to provide a
consistent water quality in the distribution system.
 The Total Organic Carbon (TOC) present in the TID water quality samples is very similar
to the TOC found in samples in the WTP raw water. No additional consideration is
needed as a result of increasing the volume of TID water treated at the plant.
 Iron was detected at levels above the SMCL in the TID water, and manganese at levels
just below the SMCL. Iron and manganese have previously not been issues at the WTP,
and thus future design should consider if iron and manganese can be removed by the
new WTP. In addition, iron and manganese are serious foulants on membranes that can
result in increasing backwash frequency, greater backwash waste generation, less net
water production, more frequent chemical cleanings, and more system downtime.
 The color detected in the TID water is similar or lower than that found in the WTP raw
water. Color is an important treatment consideration, but additional steps will not be
required as a result of increasing TID water use.
 Fecal coliform and E. Coli were found in the one sample of the TID water. Total coliform
was measured at 2,420 organisms/100mL, and E. Coli at a probable level of 115
organisms/100mL. These are considerably high values and the City should consider
providing greater disinfection than currently used at the existing WTP. Inherently, a
properly operating membrane filtration provides greater removal and public health
protection than media filtration for pathogens. However, OHA may not provide this
disinfection credit if the membrane vendor has not conducted all the required testing and
submitted the documentation for OHA approval.
 TID water was found to contain high levels of algae, including significant numbers of
toxinogenic cyanobacteria. Reeder Reservoir also exhibited algae, including those algae
that can produce cyanotoxins. This issue must be addressed in future design and
operation of the WTP. Specifically, membrane filtration should remove more of this
material than granular media filters. However, algae often exude a viscous biopolymer (a
“slime”) that becomes a problematic membrane foulant requiring chlorine washes to
control. Granular media filters can also clog due to this biopolymer, but the required
amount to cause a problem is several orders of magnitude higher than for membranes.
 Giarda and Cryptosporidium were detected in the TID water in approximately the same
range as the Reeder Reservoir water. There is no indication that TID water would
require increased treatment per LT2ESWTR regulations
 Finally, the presence of IOCs, VOC, and SOCs were not detected at levels that require
additional water quality and treatment process consideration. Barium and copper were
the only detected IOC contaminants, and they were found at levels 200 times below the
EPA contaminant limit. This means the TID water does not require any additional
removal methods for these contaminants compared to the existing WTP.
Summary
The TID water quality sampling and analysis program conducted in the summer and fall of 2017
determined that the TID water quality is generally similar in quality to the Ashland Creek/
Reeder Reservoir water. There are key differences in several parameters, but on the whole, the
data does not suggest that the TID water would be more amenable to granular media filtration
or with membrane filtration. Instead, the overall data indicates that both filtration processes
would be able to successfully treat the raw TID water to all drinking water standards, though
each have different advantages and challenges that needed to be addressed as design
advances. More importantly, the differences in water quality affect the required amount of pre-
and post-filtration treatment regardless of filtration.
References
HDR. 2017, Additional Water Quality Data Gaps and Sampling, April 27, 2017.
HDR. 2017, Ashland Regulatory Review and WQ Goals Technical Memorandum, April 27,2017.
Carollo. 2011, City of Ashland Water Conservation and Reuse Study, June 2011.
HDR, 2017. Water Quality Data Summary and Review, April 21, 2017.
Appendix B. Preliminary Drawings
July 22, 2019

Contract Drawings For
ASTORIA
ST.
HELENS
HILLSBORO
BEAVERTON
26 84
C O L U
THE
M B I A
R I V E R
PENDLETON Ashland Water Treatment Plant

DALLES
TIGARD PORTLAND La
LINCOLN TUALATIN GRANDE
CITY 5
SALEM 97
84
NEWPORT
ALBANY
30% Design Drawings
BAKER
CORVALLIS
EUGENE
BEND ONTARIO
20 20
COOS 5 BURNS
BAY
ROSEBURG
97
O R E G O N
PROJECT
LOCATION Project No. 10136851
GRANTS
PASS
Project Address
395 95
ASHLAND
BROOKINGS Date: July 2019
C:\rvt\2018\ASHLAND G_SHEETS_hafancher.rvt
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

7/19/2019 10:51:56 AM
% & ( ) + , - .
" !
%$
$
&$
!
$
($
$ ' '
' '
' '
$
)$
<13=34>165$5:;
$
<
+ &( &*%/ +#)+#*/
#95:;9&*%.9
"!# $% &$ % * %' &' < $5;6
%*%(,.+% 01234" 56784 &*%/

!!! !!"
( # - ' 2 $
*
* *
+ ,
* * """
#'
* * * ""
+ , * * ("" &
* & #' * #""
0 "" *
+ , -""
'"" *
* 2""
+ ,
* * * $"" *
*
.""
+ & ,
& *
+ , * * &
* ("" "# &
!" *
+ , * **
* *
&
+ ,
* *
+ * * *
,
"#
+ , + ,
+ ,
* # !"
* *
+ , 0
" + ) ,
* + ,
(
& & #
+ , *
-
* '
$
+ ,
. #
*
+ ,
+ ,
& ) * "
*
+ , ( " "
(""
* * * *
+ ,
#$ !"
+ ,
* #
* 0
+ , * *
*
" "
+ ,
* *
( " " # "

* + ,
* * *
%
* + , *
* * *
0
) ) * *
+
,
* / * *
+ ,
* *
+ ,
% *
+ ,
/ *
* *
+ ,
* *
* *
* 1 * * * *
+ , * *
*
* + , 1
!" # *
* + , * *
* 1 1
0 + , / *
( *
/
* 1 /
*
(/ *
0 * + ,/ &
@46A67B4:9/9>?
, ) ) * /
/ /
(, )
/
*
@
- (# (" . - - "
=9>?=(" $=
#!$ %& '% & " ( @ /9?:
" #'$- 345678) 9:;<7 (" . ( !" !!! !!"

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
BACKWASH RECOVERY PUMP STATION BACKWASH RECOVERY BASINS

D
OZONE
BLOWOFF
FROM OFFGAS TO OZONE M

EXISTING DESTRUCT UNIT OVERFLOW TO OVERFLOW TO
PIPELINE SANITARY SANITARY
M
OZONE CONTACT
PIPELINE
CALCIUM
THIOSULFATE
DRAIN TO DRAIN TO
SODA ASH SANITARY SANITARY
FROM TID
PIPELINE BWW & FTW
TO FIRE
SUPPRESSION ALUM
SYSTEM
COAGULANT FLASH
SETTLING AID
POLYMER
BACKWASH RECOVERY
MIX SYSTEM AREA 400
HYDROCYCLONE
TO PLANT C
SOLIDS TO WATER
SANITARY SYSTEM
RW
CROWSON PUMP STATION
ACTIFLO BACKWASH SUPPLY

#1 FILTER AID M
POLYMER M
AUTO
STRAINER
CALCIUM
THIOSULFATE
BWS
SETTLING AID
POLYMER
FTW
FILTER
#1 BWS TO B
SODIUM
OTHER HYPOCHLORITE
FILTERS INTERMEDIATE
ACTIFLO FE PUMP STATION
FILTER
#2 M
#2 SODA ASH
BWW FROM PW
OTHER
FILTERS
EQUIPMENT BY FILTER
HIGH RATE CLARIFICATION
#3 LPA TO
PRETREATMENT FACILITY SYSTEM MANUFACTURER OTHER
FILTERS
AREA 200 CLEARWELL
FILTER #1
FE FROM
#4 OTHER
FILTERS
FILTER LPA
#5 M
(FUTURE)
ALUM SETTLING AID FILTER AID SODIUM SODA CALCIUM OZONE
POLYMER POLYMER HYPOCHLORITE ASH THIOSULFATE
BWW
CLEARWELL
#2
(FUTURE)
AIR
A
SCOUR
BLOWERS M
PW
TO GRANITE
RESERVOIR
CHEMICAL FACILITY
STORAGE FEED SYSTEMS) FILTRATION FACILITY CLEARWELLS AND PUMP STATION
AREA 500 AREA 300 AREA 600
PROJECT MANAGER PIERRE KWAN

CIVIL
Ashland GENERAL
STRUCTURAL
ARCHITECTURAL
PRELIMINARY Water Treatment PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
PROCESS NOT FOR Plant
MECHANICAL
CONSTRUCTION OR C I T Y OF
ELECTRICAL 30% Design Drawings FILENAME 000G006.dwg
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER 10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 SCALE NTS 000G006
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2454.00 OVERFLOW
EL=2366.50
MAX WS
EL=2365.00
ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL
POWERHOUSE
TAILRACE D
POTABLE WATER
MIN WS
EL=2330.00 TO CROWSON
RESERVOIR
TO GRANITE RESERVOIR
CLEARWELL AND BACKWASH SUPPLY
EL=2325.00
C
2295.78 2295.78
2297.00 2297.00
2294.00
EL=2285.00
EL 2282.00
MIXING SETTLING
TANKS TANK FILTERS
2273.00
ACTIFLO
MAX WS
EL=2271.00
MIN WS
EL=2266.00
INTERMEDIATE B
PUMP STATION
C:\pwworking\west01\d0943730\000G007.dwg, PLOT, 7/19/2019 12:55:51 PM, MWAUER
EL=2286.50
MAX WS
EL=2283.00
FTW &
BWW
BACKWASH
WASTE
BACKWASH RECOVERY
BACKWASH RECYCLE
MIN WS TO HEAD OF PLANT
TO SANITARY A
EL=2259.00
LOW POINT
EL=2254.00 BACKWASH
RECOVERY
BASINS
PIERRE KWAN
-
-
-
PRELIMINARY
- NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR
RECORDING 0 1" 2" 000G007.dwg
10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 1" = 10' VERT.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CIVIL MAPPING SYMBOLOGY UTILITY/CIVIL LINE SYMBOLOGY

EMBANKMENT SLOPE (CUT) CO CLEANOUT CB STORM CATCH BASIN PIPELINE FIBER OPTIC
LARGE PIPELINE FUEL OIL

CULVERT END SYMBOL CB STORM ROUND CATCH BASIN
(WITH CULVERT SHOWN BETWEEN SYMBOLS)
UTILITY BENEATH STRUCTURE NATURAL GAS
EMBANKMENT SLOPE (FILL)
D STORM DRAINAGE MANHOLE
X FIRE HYDRANT INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER
RAILROAD
H:V EMBANKMENT SLOPE RIGHT ARROW RIGHT WATER/AIR VENT
SANITARY SEWER D
F FUEL OIL METER CENTERLINE
H:V EMBANKMENT SLOPE LEFT ARROW LEFT W WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTER STORM SEWER
3 F FUEL OIL MANHOLE BOTTOM OF DITCH
12 DOMESTIC WATER
SPOT ELEVATION/POINT # WATER BLOWOFF
PROPERTY LINE
F FUEL OIL VAULT
DOMESTIC WATER NON-POTABLE
SURVEY BENCHMARK W WATER METER EASEMENT
GT GREASE TRAP
CP-X S
LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION
W
O
SURVEY CONTROL POINT WATER SHUTOFF
GC GRIT CHAMBER
ROW
HORIZONTAL CONTROL POINT WS WATER SOFTENER
HEADWALL
EXISTING CONTOUR (MINOR)
VERTICAL CONTROL POINT W WATER VALVE VAULT
I INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER METER 25 EXISTING CONTOUR W/ELEVATION (MAJOR)
SECTION CORNER MONUMENT VALVE
I INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER MANHOLE X X X EXISTING FENCE
SECTION CORNER NO MONUMENT EXISTING VEGETATION/BRUSH LINE

G NATURAL GAS METER
X
IDENTIFICATION AND APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF SOIL TEST HOLE G NATURAL GAS RECEIVER X FENCE - BARB WIRE
FENCE - CHAIN LINK

TEST PIT G NATURAL GAS TRAP
X C
FENCE - FIELD
SOIL BORING G NATURAL GAS LINE VAULT
X X X X FENCE - OTHER
BUOY MW MONITORING WELL FENCE - WOOD
FLOW ARROW POST INDICATOR VALVE XX FENCE - WOVEN WIRE

X
X FLOOD LIMIT (25 YEAR)
WATER LEVEL IN SECTION/PROFILE PS PUMP STATION
FLOOD LIMIT (50 YEAR)
TIDE GAUGE S SANITARY MANHOLE
EXISTING UTILITY POLE ST SEPTIC TANK
X
DOWNGUY TANK BELOW GROUND FLOOD LIMIT (500 YEAR)
X X
J EXTERIOR UTILITY JUNCTION BOX HIGHWAY GUARDRAIL
TANK HORIZONTAL ABOVE GROUND
X LEVEE TOP
XXX INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYMBOL TANK VERTICAL ABOVE GROUND
LEVEE TOE
XXX US HIGHWAY SYMBOL

NEW CONTOUR (MINOR)
B
XXX STATE HIGHWAY SYMBOL 25 NEW CONTOUR (MAJOR)
ROCK BERM
HAY BALE SILT CHECK
SILT FENCE
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
TOE OF SLOPE
PIEZOMETER
X TOP OF SLOPE
R R RAIL SIGNAL
RAIL SWITCH
SIGN
TIRE TREDDLE
In
TRAFFIC ARM WITH CARD READER
TRAFFIC ARM MECHANICAL SWING
GENERAL NOTES:
1. THIS IS A STANDARD CIVIL SYMBOLOGY SHEET. ALL SYMBOLS ARE NOT
NECESSARILY USED ON THIS PROJECT.
2. SCREENING OR SHADING OF WORK IS USED TO INDICATE EXISTING COMPONENTS

OR TO DE-EMPHASIZE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO HIGHLIGHT SELECTED
TRADE WORK. REFER TO CONTEXT OF EACH SHEET FOR USAGE.

CIVIL
Ashland CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
ARCHITECTURAL
PRELIMINARY Water Treatment LEGEND AND SYMBOLOGY
MECHANICAL
CONSTRUCTION OR C I T Y O F
ELECTRICAL 30% Design Drawings FILENAME 000C001.dwg
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER 10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 SCALE NTS 000C001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
8-FT TALL CHAIN

LINK SECURITY
PERIMETER FENCE
VEHICLE TURN
AROUND AREA
CLEARWELL
12-FT WIDE ACP
DIESEL FUEL CLEARWELL SITE
TANK ACCESS ROAD
PUMP STANDBY
GENERATOR
OZONE C
GENERATOR BACKWASH
(30' x 35') RECOVERY
BASINS
LOX STORAGE
AND VAPORIZERS
8-FT TALL CHAIN

LINK SECURITY PARKING
PERIMETER FENCE STALLS
ADA
PARKING
STALLS
OPERATIONS
BUILDING
B
VEHICULAR
GUARD RAIL
RETAINING WALL
C:\pwworking\west01\d0943730\000C101.dwg, 00C101, 7/19/2019 3:14:33 PM, MWAUER
UTILITY METERING 8-FT TALL CHAIN

VEHICULAR
SWITCHBOARDS LINK SECURITY
GUARD RAIL
PERIMETER FENCE
0 40' 80' 120'
SCALE IN FEET
TRANSFORMERS
NOTES TO REVIEWERS:
DESIGN INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED AT NEXT A
DELIVERABLE
D 20-FT WIDE ACP
ROA
EEK MAIN SITE ACCESS 1. RETAINING WALL PLANS AND PROFILES.
N CR AD)
HOR ING RO ROAD 2. STAIRS PLANS AND PROFILES.
G AD
(LOG O 3. PAVEMENT SECTIONS.
KR ) 20-FT WIDE
EE AD 4. SITE SPECIFIC DETAILS.
N CR RO ENTRANCE GATE 5. AGENCY STANDARD DETAILS.
R NG
HO GGI 6. ROCK FALL PROTECTION MAY BE NECESSARY AT UPHILL
(LO SIDES OF SITES IF REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION.
GRANITE STREET 7. EXISTING LOGGING ROADS IN SITE TO BE ABANDONED.
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR
RECORDING 0 1" 2" 000C101.dwg
10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 1" = 40'

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
INSTALL SECURITY FENCE
SEE SHEET C101 FOR EXTENT OF FENCING
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET _____
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL

SEE SHEET ____ FOR PLAN & PROFILE
INSTALL VEHICLE GUARD RAIL PER ODOT DETAIL XXX,

SHEET _____
PERIMETER DRAINAGE DITCH

(TO BE DESIGNED REFINED AND
DESIGNED AT NEXT DELIVERABLE)
5'
' CLEARWELL
78 R=37'
64'
C
5'
R=5'
32'
19'
82.5'
30'
R=46'
R=34'
ROADSIDE DRAINAGE DITCHES B


(TO BE DESIGNED REFINED AND R=56'
R=44'
38.7' 116' 63.7' 67.3'

0' 20' 40' 60'
SCALE IN FEET
MAIN BUILDING
7'
ACCESS ROAD
SEE SHEET C105
10'
8.5'
FOR PLAN AND
60.6' 40' 20' PROFILE
111.6'
10.3'
11.6'
10'
21.6'
NOTES TO REVIEWERS:
'
.8
5'
49.2'
62
68.7'
TYP
BACKWASH
12'
10
' RECOVERY A
42.7'
BASINS DESIGN INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED AT NEXT

25'
OZONE
.5'
DELIVERABLE
19'
20' TYP
54
GENERATOR
30'
LOX PUMP
(30' x 35')
1. RETAINING WALL PLANS AND PROFILES.
20'
STORAGE
AND ' 2. STAIRS PLANS AND PROFILES.
VAPORIZERS 12 3. PAVEMENT SECTIONS.
4. SITE SPECIFIC DETAILS.
10.7'
25' 30' 5' 35' 12.4' 12.7' 50' 5' 7' 5. AGENCY STANDARD DETAILS.
6. ROCK FALL PROTECTION MAY BE NECESSARY AT UPHILL
SIDES OF SITES IF REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 000C103 INVESTIGATION.
7. EXISTING LOGGING ROADS IN SITE TO BE ABANDONED.
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR
10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 1" = 20'

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 000C102 INSTALL SECURITY FENCE
SEE SHEET C101 FOR EXTENT OF FENCING
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET _____
30' WIDE
DRIVE AISLE CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL
8'
SEE SHEET ____ FOR PLAN & PROFILE
TYP.
ROADSIDE DRAINAGE DITCHES INSTALL VEHICLE GUARD RAIL PER ODOT DETAIL XXX,
12'
46.1'
R=39'
(TO BE DESIGNED REFINED AND SHEET _____
20' TYP
R=51' INSTALL 20' WIDE SWING GATE D
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET ______
30'
R=10'
20' 160' 19' 24.2' 42.7'
80'
136.8'
OPERATIONS AND MAIN BUILDING
R=10'
TREATMENT BUILDING ACCESS ROAD
50'
R=70' SEE SHEET C105
FOR PLAN AND
PROFILE
UTILITY
34'
METERING
SWITCHBOARDS C
20
' MAIN BUILDING
ACCESS ROAD
4'
50' SEE SHEET C104

10' 127.1'
FOR PLAN AND
PROFILE
HO
R
(LO N CR
GG EEK
ING R
RO OAD
AD
)
ROADSIDE DRAINAGE DITCHES
TRANSFORMERS
10'
10'
10'
8'
R=15'
R=135' 0' 20' 40' 60'
AD SCALE IN FEET
O )
R D
E K OA
E R
CR NG R=155'
N I
R GG
O
H (L O
NOTES TO REVIEWERS:
DESIGN INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED AT NEXT A
DELIVERABLE

2. STAIRS PLANS AND PROFILES.
3. PAVEMENT SECTIONS.
5. AGENCY STANDARD DETAILS.
SIDES OF SITES IF REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION.
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR
10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 1" = 20'

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
OPERATIONS AND
TREATMENT BUILDING
0' 20' 40' 60'
SCALE IN FEET
50
5+
PT
4+
98
.51
00
ROAD
CREEK AD)
5+
.10
HORN
GING RO
59
(L OG
PC 4+
PI STA=2+18.92
R=145.00'
T=39.86'
1+00
L=77.80'
4+00 C
6
9.0
1 +7
.86
PI STA=4+79.89
PT 2+56
PC
R=50.00'
3+00 T=20.79'
2 +0 0 L=39.41'
20'
MAIN SITE ACCESS
ROAD CENTERLINE
0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+60 2+80 3+00 3+20 3+40 3+60 3+80 4+00 4+20 4+40 4+60 4+80 5+00 5+20 5+40 5+60 5+80
2310 HP STA = 4+87.03
2310
HP EL = 2280.00
VPI STA = 4+69.03
VPI EL = 2280.00
K = 3.00
36.00' VC
2300 2300
VPT STA 4+87.03

VPC STA 4+51.03
VPC EL 2277.84
VPT EL 2280.00
B
VPI STA 5+67.67

2290 PROPOSED GRADE 2290
EL 2280.00
AT CENTERLINE
LP STA = 1+92.73 EXISTING GRADE
LP EL = 2249.07 AT CENTERLINE
VPI STA = 2+26.08
VPI EL = 2250.85 0.00%
2280 2280
K = 10.00
66.71' VC
VPT STA 2+59.43
VPC STA 1+92.73
VPC EL 2249.07
VPT EL 2254.85
2270 2270
30'
%
12.00
2260 2260
20'
VPI STA 1+00
EL 2244.13
2250 2250 NOTES TO REVIEWERS:
10'
SCALE IN FEET
5.33% A
DESIGN INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED AT NEXT
DELIVERABLE
1. ROAD LEFT & RIGHT EDGE CONTROLLED PROFILES

2240 2240
0'
2. ROAD CROSS SECTIONS
0' 20' 40' 60' 4. SITE SPECIFIC DETAILS.
SCALE IN FEET 6. ROCK FALL PROTECTION MAY BE NECESSARY AT UPHILL
2230 2230 SIDES OF SITES IF REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL
0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+60 2+80 3+00 3+20 3+40 3+60 3+80 4+00 4+20 4+40 4+60 4+80 5+00 5+20 5+40 5+60 5+80 INVESTIGATION.
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR
10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 1" = 20' Horiz., 1" = 10' Vert.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0' 20' 40' 60'
CLEARWELL SCALE IN FEET
0+00
4+00
12'
PC 0+40.98
PC
PI STA=1+22.95
1
+7
7.7
R=45.00' 2+00
8
T=81.97'
L=96.19' PT 3+43
.68
PT
.76
49
1
2+
+3
'
12 C
PR
7.1
7
1+0 PI STA=2+21.62
0
R=50.00' C
T=43.84' 3+00
L=71.98'
PI STA=3+45.22
CLEARWELL R=40.00'
ACCESS ROAD T=95.46'
CENTERLINE L=93.92'
-0+20 0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+60 2+80 3+00 3+20 3+40 3+60 3+80 4+00 4+20 4+40 4+60 4+80
2350 2350
HP STA = 3+90
HP EL = 2324.75
VPI STA = 3+50
VPI EL = 2324.75
K = 5.33
2340 80.00' VC 2340
VPC EL 2318.75
VPT EL 2324.75
VPC STA 3+10
VPT STA 3+90

B
2330 LP STA = 0+10 2330
LP EL = 2285.00
VPI STA = 0+85 0.00%
VPI EL = 2285.00
K = 10.00
150.00' VC
2320 2320
VPC EL 2285.00
VPT EL 2296.25
VPC STA 0+10
VPT STA 1+60
PROPOSED GRADE
2310 2310
30'
AT CENTERLINE
0%
EXISTING GRADE AT 15.0
CENTERLINE
2300 2300
20'
VPI STA 0+00
EL 2285.00
2290 2290
10'
SCALE IN FEET
NOTES TO REVIEWERS:
0.00% A
DESIGN INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED AT NEXT
DELIVERABLE
2280 2280
0'
1. ROAD LEFT & RIGHT EDGE CONTROLLED PROFILES
0' 20' 40' 60' 2. ROAD CROSS SECTIONS
SCALE IN FEET 4. SITE SPECIFIC DETAILS.
2270 2270 SIDES OF SITES IF REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL
-0+20 0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+60 2+80 3+00 3+20 3+40 3+60 3+80 4+00 4+20 4+40 4+60 4+80
INVESTIGATION.
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR
10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 1" = 20' Horiz., 1" = 10' Vert.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
48
23
CUT SLOPE 4 6
1H:1V MAX 23 42
23 38
44 3
23 40 2 334 23
3
2 36 2 30 23 30
26
23 32 23 26
23 8 23
2
23
EL 2324.75
CLEARWELL
PAD ELEV: 2324.75
30
23 326
2
32 C
23 28
26
EL 2324.75
23
28 23
23
EL 2324.75
AREA FOR TURN
AROUND AND PARKING EL 2324.75
-2.00%
EL 2324.75
2324
2322
EL 2324.75
EL 2324.75
20
23
23
38
0%
2324 .0
-2
2320 18
23
2336
2320
6
231
23
30
2310
2314
2332
230
2328
0 231
2 B
0 CUT SLOPE
33
4
1H:1V MAX 23
232
10
2310
20
23
23
23
20
08
16
20
23
23
14
23
2306
CUT SLOPE -2.00
1H:1V MAX 2304 %
2310
2302
2320
23 230
2298
04 0
2304
2294
2294 CUT SLOPE
02 2290
23
23 1H:1V MAX
2296 298
2290
00
2310 96 2286
23
22
2
2286 2302
01
90
22 2286
2294
00
EL 2285.00 23
2292
EL 2285.00 EL 2285.00 EL 2285.00 0' 20' 40' 60'
EL 2285.00 EL 2285.00
23
EL 2285.00
2290
EL 2285.00 8
08
29 SCALE IN FEET
0
2
0
23
23
2288
BACKWASH DIESEL FUEL TANK
40
RECOVERY AND STANDBY 96
23 A
96
00 22
2286
23
BASINS GENERATOR
2298
22
%
NOTES TO REVIEWERS:
0
00
0
OZONE -2.
PUMP
22
GENERATOR
22 290 4
LOX STOR. & 22

2 29
94
96
VAPORIZERS 30'X35' 92
2
22 DESIGN INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED AT NEXT

EL 2285.00 DELIVERABLE
86
EL 2285.00
22
9
1. REFINE YARD GRADING TO ADDRESS SURFACE RUNOFF.
2
92 2. RETAINING WALL PLANS AND PROFILES.
22
229

0
4. RETAINING WALLS AT STAIRS

MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 000C107 5.
6.
SITE SPECIFIC DETAILS.
FINISHED GRADE CONTOURS ON THIS SHEET DO NOT
REFLECT FINAL DESIGN.
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR
10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 1" = 20'

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 000C106
90
229
2 2290
2290
229
6
2288
228
2296
2294
2290
2292
2290
2286
2294
229
0
2290
2286
EL 2285.00
2290 D
CUT SLOPE EL 2285.00 2288
1H:1V MAX
228
2282 0
22
-2
86
.0
228
0%
OPERATION AND 2
TREATMENT BUILDING
22
PAD ELEV: 2285 TOW 2285.00
86
BOW 2285.00
2284
2280
0
230
6
227
228
4
22
84
22
74
22
82
0
82
22
229
78
22
22 74
TOW 2285.00 80 22
2280
70
22
22
UTILITY METERING
66
80
SWITCHBOARD BOW 2277.98 22
RETAINING WALL 62 C
2280 VARYING HEIGHTS 22
EL 2285.00 EL 2285.00
EL 2285.00 TOW 2285.00 -2 227 58
TOW 2285.00 .0 6
0% 22
74
2270 227 22
22
2284 2284 4 74
22 2282 2274
8 2280 2278 2276
22 0
22 22 76 2280 BOW 2273.26
6 0 72 BOW 2285.00
22 22 70
68 72 22
22
70
22
CUT SLOPE 70
22
H 0
(L OR 226
60
1H:1V MAX
22
60 O N
G C
70
G R 22 22
IN E 70
G EK -2 68
R R .0
O O 0%
AD A
) D 2250
22
66
22
0
225
50
6
2240
0
22 226
22
64 0
2 26
22
62 225 40
0
0 22
B
60
22 56
22
0 60 22 2 225
0
225 5
22 48
22 44
22 22
TRANSFORMERS 58
30
22
22
2250
22 40
56
2252
22
22
-2.
50 30
4
00
22
%
22
22
52
2
2250
0
22
04
50
22
22
30
48
22
22
50 20
22
44 22
22
4
0' 20' 40' 60'

6
AD
RO SCALE IN FEET
224
E K AD) 50
E O 22
4
CR G R 2240 22
RN GIN 2220
10
224
HO OG
A
NOTES TO REVIEWERS:
2
(L
40
22 DESIGN INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED AT NEXT
DELIVERABLE
2230 0
223 26
22224 2210 1. REFINE YARD GRADING TO ADDRESS SURFACE RUNOFF.
2
0 4. RETAINING WALLS AT STAIRS
222 2230 222
0
6. FINISHED GRADE CONTOURS ON THIS SHEET DO NOT
0
221 2200 REFLECT FINAL DESIGN.
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR
10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 1" = 20'

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
INSTALL TYPE 3 CATCH BASIN
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET ___
INSTALL CONCRETE MANHOLE WITH INLET

D
MAIN SITE DRAINAGE AREA 1.05 ACRES INSTALL 12 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE
10 FT DEPTH
INSTALL CONCRETE STORM SEWER MANHOLE

INSTALL POLLUTION CONTROL CONCRETE

MANHOLE
INSTALL FLOW CONTROL CONCRETE MANHOLE

60 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 20 FT DEPTH

EMBANKMENT PROTECTION PER ODOT

DRAWING RD317
24 INCH CULVERT PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH
NOTES TO REVIEWERS:
INFORMATOIN TO BE PROVIDED AT NEXT DELIVERABLE:
1. STORM SEWER PROFILES.
2. STRUCTURE DETAILS.
0 20' 40'

CIVIL
Ashland CIVIL DRAINAGE PLAN
STRUCTURAL
ARCHITECTURAL
PRELIMINARY Water Treatment MAIN SITE
MECHANICAL
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER 10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 SCALE 1" = 40' 000C108
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
CLEARWELL SITE DRAINAGE AREA 0.11 ACRES SEE DETAIL ON SHEET ___

D
INSTALL 12 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE
10 FT DEPTH
CLEARWELL ACCESS ROAD DRAINAGE AREA 0.19 ACRES
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 000C108 C
NOTES TO REVIEWERS:
2. STRUCTURE DETAILS.
3. EMBANKMENT PROTECTION DETAILS.
0 20' 40'

CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
ARCHITECTURAL
PRELIMINARY Water Treatment CLEARWELL SITE
MECHANICAL
FIGURE
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION

INSTRUMENTATION
PROJECT NUMBER 10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 SCALE 1" = 40' 000C109
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

D
INSTALL 12 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE
10 FT DEPTH

INSTALL POLLUTION CONTROL CONCRETE

MANHOLE
INSTALL 72" WATER QUALITY FILTER MANHOLE

EMBANKMENT PROTECTION PER ODOT

DRAWING RD317
ED ACCESS ROAD DRAINAGE AREA 0.19 ACRES

PAV
N
,U
O AD B
R
EK
CRE
RN
HO
NOTES TO REVIEWERS:

SS W
X 2. STRUCTURE DETAILS.
W
SS
W 0 20' 40'
SS
X
A
SS
W
SS
X
OUTFALL
MH
SS
SS
SS
X
SS

CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
ARCHITECTURAL
PRELIMINARY Water Treatment ACCESS ROAD
MECHANICAL
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER 10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 SCALE 1" = 40' 000C110
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
39
0
23
0 8
23
70
23
60
23
50
23
40 23
30
D
2 44
CLEARWELL
0
2430
24" FINISHED
W
WATER LINE
W
242
W
0
W W
241
W W
W
AREA FOR TURN
0
W
240
AROUND AND
W
PARKING
0
2390
W
24" FILTERED
238
W
WATER LINE
DIESEL FUEL TANK
0
AND STANDBY
237
W
GENERATOR 12" BACKWASH
0
WASTE LINE
23
OZONE BACKWASH
60
W
W
GENERATION RECOVERY
23
SODA ASH SILO

30'X35' BASINS
50
LOX STOR. & PROPOSED 12-FT

VAPORIZERS WIDE ACCESS ROAD
W
W
WITH 2.5-FT GRAVEL
23 30
SHOULDER AND C
23 20
40
23 10
W ROADSIDE DITCHES
23
232
W
2300
231
0
230
0
229
0
W W W W
2280
0
W W W W W W W
227
SS SS SS SS
226
0
2250
W
W
0
SS
OPERATION AND
W
W
2240
TREATMENT BUILDING W
223
W W W
0
W W
22
W
W
CROWSON
20
W
12" BACKWASH PUMP STATION
RETURN LINE
24" BACKWASH
W
WW
SUPPLY LINE
2290
SS
2280
W
W W W
WW
SS
B
2410
W
WW
SS
2400
24" BACKWASH
W
WASTE LINE
WW
2390
SS
23
W
WW
80 48" OZONE
2270 CONTACT (RW)
SS
0
2 37
W
WW
2360
8" SANITARY 0
226
SS
SEWER LINE
0
235
W
WW
0
234
SS
TRANSFORMERS
30
22
W W
23
50
W
20
23 SS WW
0
2 3 1 00
W
SS W
23 9 0 W
22 80 SS W W
2240
W
22 W W
24" W.M. TO
2230
W
W
SS CROWSON
W
CONNECTION
W
0
227 2220
W
A
0 SS 24" W.M. TO SS
226 GRANITE
0 2210
W
0 40' 80' 120'
225 0 SS
CONNECTION
W
224
W
SS
SCALE IN FEET
W
W
X
0 00 SW
S
223 SS 22 90 W
SS
W
SS
21 SS SS SS
W
MH
X
W
SS W
W
W
MH
W
SS
W
X X X X
20
21
22
80
SS
2210
SS W
W
21X
W
W
80
SS
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR 000C115.dwg
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
1" = 40'
10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
B
C:\pwworking\west01\d0943730\500A101.dwg, Layout1, 7/19/2019 9:36:50 AM, HFANCHER

CIVIL
Ashland ARCHITECTURAL
STRUCTURAL
PRELIMINARY CHEMICAL/OPERATIONS BUILDING
ARCHITECTURAL
Water Treatment MAIN FLOOR PLAN
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL 30% Design Drawings FILENAME 500A101.dwg
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER 10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 SCALE NTS 500A101
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
B
C:\pwworking\west01\d0943730\500A102.dwg, Layout1, 7/19/2019 9:41:56 AM, HFANCHER

CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
PRELIMINARY CHEMICAL/OPERATIONS BUILDING
ARCHITECTURAL
Water Treatment UPPER FLOOR PLAN
MECHANICAL
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
B
C:\pwworking\west01\d0943730\500A201.dwg, Layout1, 7/18/2019 6:38:41 PM, HFANCHER

CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
PRELIMINARY WATER TREATMENT BUILDING
ARCHITECTURAL
Water Treatment ELEVATIONS
MECHANICAL
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
* / 0 1
"
"
"
"
#
" ! "
+
#
"
#
"
"
"
#
#
! "
! " # #
! $
!
"
*! *! &
&
& "
#
#
&
&
() '
() ' "
'
!
$
## !
%
% &
& ! "
% ,
" -
-
. -
& - &
" #
& " &-
" -
&
" *-
. $ $
&
?35@56A398-8=>
# %#
#
&
?
/! *! ' ( /, /,
<
#!$ %& '% &

,<8=>< '
' ? -8>9
' *0 / 234567 89:;6 ' ( % )' !!! !!"

" / !
$ $
&
# $ )$
! # #
$ ' (% ' (
$ $ #
# % # % # &
' $ ( $ #
)$
%
. $ . $ $ #
$
$ &
$ $ $ $ #
$ $ ' $ (
$ $ # $ $ & $
$
'
# $ $ # $ #
(
$ # &
. $
$ $ $ #
. # $ )$ #
&
$ $ # $ .
#
' $
$ # $ &
#
# $ # $ $ $
$ $ # $ # $
&
" $ $ $ #
& $ $
$ $ #
+ & $ $
$ # $
#$ $ # #$ $ $ #
& $ $ #
#$ $ $ $ #$ $ $ $
)$ $ $ #
& ' $ $ $
#$ $ #$ $ $ ' % % (
# ' ( & $ $ # $ $ & ,
)$ '
' $ . , , -
$ ( ', (
. , , -
#$ $ $ $ & # $
$ # ' $ ( $ # ' ( $ # $ % # $
)$
$ $ )$
$
$ $ $ )$
$ # $ + $ $
'# )$ ( $ # +
*
$ $ # % $
$ &
# $ + $ # $ %
'# )$ (
$ # $ $ .
* $ $
$
$ $ $ $ $ # $
$ $ # # % $ $ &
& '# )$ ( $ # $ %
$ . $
$ ' (+
& $
$ )$ $
', ( )$ $ %
$ .
$ & , - $ %
#$ '# ( $
# #$
$ $ $
$ $ #
# $ $ $ $
$ $ '# )$ ( $ $
$
# # )$ $
'# )$ (
$ $ $
)$ $ & # $
$ $
$
+ $ .
$ # )$
$
$ + $ $ # #$ #$
$
$ #
% ' " / (
.
#$ # ' " ( % %
$ %
% # $
#$ # )$ $ .
&
#$ & #
$ $ %
)$ % & %
# # # # # $ %
$ )$ %
% * # # )$
$ $ + )$ . )$
$ $ %
$ $ # # #
#
$ #
$ $ $ $
@24A45B287%7>?
# # )$ $ # )$
#
@
"
#
0 ". ".
$
=
#!$ %& '% & - - @ %7?8

.=7>?=
!!! !!"
"
/ " 123456 789:5 0 -; < -

' % $ ) * + , -
!
!
! !" "
! !"
"
#
"
!"
!"
$ #
%
>02?23@065!5<=
>
"
* %$ %&'. * )* &$
;5<=;%&'-;
#!$ %& '% & & '( %( > !5=6
'&'$+-*' /01234 56783 %&'. '%( 9 ': &( !!! !!"

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FROM UTILITY NOTES:
1 1. AN AUTOMATIC THROWOVER SYSTEM SHALL BE USED TO CONTROL

MAIN BREAKER, TIE BREAKER AND GENERATOR BREAKER. THE MAIN
UTILITY OWNED
SERVICE CIRCUIT BREAKER SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH GROUND FAULT
TRANSFORMER
SENSING ENCIRCLING ALL CIRCUIT BUSES. THE GENERATOR CIRCUIT
XXXX KVA, 3PH, 4W,
BREAKER SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH GROUND FAULT SENSING
XX.XX KV-480/277 3PH, 4W
EQUIPMENT FOR WARNING ALARM AND NOT TRIP THE GENERATOR
FAULT CURRENT XXXXX AMPS
CIRCUIT BREAKER. THE GENERATOR GROUND FAULT INDICATION
SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE PLC SYSTEM. REFER TO DRAWING TBD
FOR ATS PLC POTENTIAL TRANSFORMERS (PT), CURRENT
UTILITY SWBD-101 2
3CT TRANSFORMERS (CT) AND HARDWIRED I/O TO/FROM SWITCHBOARD
METER
WTP SERVICE ENTRANCE BREAKERS. D
SWITCHBOARD
KWH/D 2. AUTOMATIC THROWOVER SYSTEM PLC SHALL ALLOW THE FOLLOWING
(NEMA 3R ENCLOSED)
BREAKER CONTROL SCENARIOS:
(1) MAIN BREAKER CLOSED -

TIE BREAKER CLOSED -
GENERATOR BREAKER CLOSED.
TVSS SURGE GEN-101
SPD PROTECTION
STANDBY, GENERATOR (2) MAIN BREAKER CLOSED -
DEVICE GEN
500 KW, 625 KVA TIE BREAKER CLOSED -
3PT GENERATOR BREAKER CLOSED.
480/277V, 3PH, 4W
SERVICE
BREAKER 400 AF PV SYSTEM (3) MAIN BREAKER CLOSED -
2500 AF 3 300 AT DISCONNECT TIE BREAKER CLOSED -
1600 AT SWITCH (NEMA 4) GENERATOR BREAKER CLOSED.
800 AF 800 AF
750 AT 750 AT 3. THE RESTORATION SEQUENCE WHEN POWER RETURNS ON THE LOST
100% RATED 100% RATED SOURCE SHALL BE OPEN TRANSITION. INITIATION OF RESORATION
480V, 3PH, 4W, 2000A BUS, 65 KAIC SEQUENCE SHALL BE EITHER AUTOMATIC OR MANUAL SELECTABLE AT
AUTOMATIC THROWOVER CONTROLLER.
PHOTOVOLTAIC
SYSTEM CONNECTION 4. MAIN BREAKER, TIE BREAKER, AND GENERATOR BREAKER SHALL BE
DIGITAL
6 N GRID-TIED INVERTER FOR PORTABLE ELECTRICALLY OPERATED AND TIE BREAKERS SHALL BE HARDWIRED
DME METERING 4 LOAD BANK AND PROGRAMMED LOGICAL INTERLOCKED TO PREVENT ALL
EQUIPMENT
BREAKERS FROM BEING CLOSED AT ANY GIVEN TIME. THIS IS AN OPEN
G 5 TRANSITION (BREAK-BEFORE-MAKE) TRANSFER AND RETRANSFER
OPERATION.
C
#4/0 AWG 5. MAIN BREAKERS AND TIE BREAKERS SHALL BE ELECTRICALLY
EQUIPMENT BARE COPPER OPERATED AND TIE BREAKERS SHALL BE HARDWIRED AND
GROUNDS PROGRAMMED LOGICAL INTERLOCKED TO PREVENT ALL TIES AND
MAINS BEING CLOSED AT ANY GIVEN TIME. THIS IS AN OPEN
TRANSITION (BREAK-BEFORE-MAKE) TRANSFER AND RETRANSFER
BLDG METAL
WATER OPERATION.
STEEL
PIPE
6. PROVIDE SOLENOID INTERLOCKS ON THE DRAWOUT POWER CIRCUIT
BREAKERS, PROVIDE ARC FLASH HAZARD MITIGATION AND BREAKER
REMOTE RACKING.
7 KEYNOTES:
7
1. AVAILABLE FAULT CURRENT IS ESTIMATED. PROVIDE LABEL WITH
SWBD-102 CALCULATED FAULT CURRENT PER THE SHORT-CIRCUIT STUDY.
WTP MAIN SWITCHBOARD 2. UTILITY METERING SECTION SHALL MEET ALL CITY OF ASHLAND
GENERATOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE METER BASE IN
BREAKER EXTERIOR SERVICE ENTRANCE METERING SWITCHBOARD. PROVIDE
3 2500 AF
3 ALL COMPONENTS, CONDUITS AND CABLINT TO MEET CITY OF
MAIN ELECTRICALLY 2000 AT ASHLAND REQUIREMENTS.
AUTOMATIC
BREAKER INTERLOCKED EO
THROW-OVER
2500 AF SYSTEM 3. SERVICE ENTRANCE RATED BREAKER.
2000 AT ELECTRICALLY
(PLC)
EO INTERLOCKED 4. CONTINUOUS NEUTRAL BUS. TERMINATE INCOMING NEUTRAL
TIE BREAKER CONDUCTORS ON NEUTRAL BUS.
DISTRIBUTION SECTION BUS "A", 480V, 3PH, 4W, 2000A BUS, 65 KAIC DISTRIBUTION SECTION BUS "B", 480V, 3PH, 4W, 2000A BUS, 65 KAIC B
5. CONTINUOUS GROUND BUS.
2000 AF
1600 AT 6. MAIN BONDING JUMPER.
C:\pwworking\west01\d0943730\000E003.dwg, Layout1, 7/19/2019 11:44:53 AM, HFANCHER
200AF 150A 150A 100A 100A 800AF 800AF 800AF 800AF 150A 150A 100A 200AF
200AT 3P 3P 3P 3P 800AT 800AT 800AT 800AT 3P 3P 3P 200AT 7. PROVIDE MODIFED DIFFERENTIAL GROUND FAULT PROTECTION
DIGITAL SYSTEM (MDGF). REFER TO DWG TBD FOR MDGF SYSTEM WIRING
DME METERING
SCHEMATIC.
EQUIPMENT
TVSS SURGE TVSS SURGE 8. KIRK KEY INTERLOCK SYSTEM.
PROTECTION SPD SPD PROTECTION
DEVICE DEVICE
1011
1011
1011
1011
1011
1011
1011
VFD VFD VFD VFD VFD VFD VFD

8
K
GEN-101
OPS/TREATMENT BUILDING
75 75 50 50 75 75 50
BUS "A" BUS "A"

A
ACTIVE ACTIVE
INTERMEDIATE
INTERMEDIATE
INTERMEDIATE
HARMONIC HARMONIC
8
FILTER FILTER
CROWSEN
CROWSEN
CROWSEN
CROWSEN
(FUTURE)
(FUTURE)
PUMP 4
PUMP 2
PUMP 3
PUMP 1
PUMP 3
PUMP 1
PUMP
MCC-201
OZONE BUILDING

CIVIL
Ashland WATER TREATMENT PLANT
STRUCTURAL
PRELIMINARY SWITCHBOARD
ARCHITECTURAL
Water Treatment ONE-LINE DIAGRAM
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL 30% Design Drawings FILENAME 000E003.dwg
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER 10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 SCALE NTS 000E003
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PRIMARY ELEMENT SYMBOLOGY INSTRUMENT SYMBOLOGY MISCELLANEOUS SYMBOLS VALVES CONTROL SWITCH NOTATION INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION LETTERS
THERMOWELL
XXX
XXX
BALL VALVE
ABBREVIATIONS FIRST LETTER SUCCEEDING LETTERS
ORIFICE PLATE FIELD MOUNTED
XXXX REDUCER XXX MEASURED OR READOUT OR
BUTTERFLY VALVE XXX OUTPUT
THERMAL DISPERSION FLOWMETER XXX INITIATING MODIFIER PASSIVE MODIFIER
XXX FUNCTION
XXX STRAINER ACK ACKNOWLEDGE VARIABLE FUNCTION
MOUNTED ON PANEL FACE
XXXX CONE VALVE ESTOP EMERGENCY STOP
THERMAL DISPERSION ELEMENT FAIL FAILURE A ANALYSIS ALARM
XXX CHECK VALVE FOR FORWARD-OFF-REVERSE
XXX CALIBRATION COLUMN
M MAGNETIC FLOWMETER MOUNTED BEHIND PANEL FR FORWARD-REVERSE BURNER,
XXXX B USER'S CHOICE USER'S CHOICE USER'S CHOICE
FS FAST-SLOW COMBUSTION
DOUBLE-DISK CHECK VALVE
HA HAND-AUTO D
SONIC OR ULTRASONIC FLOWMETER XXX C USERS CHOICE CONTROL CLOSED
XXX HOA HAND-OFF-AUTO
MOUNTED ON AUXILIARY PANEL BALL CHECK VALVE HOR HAND-OFF-REMOTE
XXXX FLEXIBLE HOSE D USERS CHOICE DIFFERENTIAL
PROPELLER OR TURBINE METER LL LEAD-LAG
DIAPHRAGM VALVE LLS LEAD-LAG-STANDBY SENSOR (PRIMARY
XXX E VOLTAGE
XXX LOR LOCAL-OFF-REMOTE ELEMENT)
MOUNTED BEHIND AUXILIARY PANEL
FI ROTAMETER XXXX GATE VALVE LR LOCAL-REMOTE
ACCUMULATOR LS LEAD-STANDBY F FLOW RATE RATIO (FRACTION)
XXX MA MANUAL-AUTO
XXX GLOBE VALVE GLASS,
FLUME INDICATOR LIGHT OAC OPEN-AUTO-CLOSE G USER'S CHOICE VIEWING DEVICE
XXXX OC OPEN-CLOSE
KNIFE GATE VALVE OSC OPEN-STOP-CLOSE
WEIR H HAND HIGH
VFD VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE RJ RUN-JOG
X INTERLOCK, SEE CONTROL DIAGRAMS OR NEEDLE VALVE RJR RUN-JOG-REVERSE CURRENT
I INDICATE
VENTURI TUBE SPECIFICATIONS SIL SILENCE (ELECTRICAL)
PINCH VALVE SS START-STOP
J POWER SCAN
RUPTURE DISK
FLOAT SWITCH MISC INSTRUMENT SYMBOLOGY PLUG VALVE
K
TIME, TIME; RATE OF CONTROL
HEAT EXCHANGER TYPES OF POWER SUPPLY TIME SCHEDULE CHANGE STATION
M PLC OR REMOTE THREE-WAY BALL VALVE L LEVEL LIGHT LOW

MOTOR I/O LEVEL
A PLANT COMPRESSED AIR MIDDLE,
BUBBLER LEVEL TUBE M USER'S CHOICE MOMENTARY
FIELD IA INSTRUMENTATION AIR INTERMEDIATE
THREE-WAY PLUG VALVE
LEVEL ES ELECTRIC SUPPLY
DIAPHRAGM OPERATOR NG N USER'S CHOICE USER'S CHOICE USER'S CHOICE USER'S CHOICE
NATURAL GAS
EXPANSION JOINT HYD HYDRAULIC ORIFICE,
CHEMICAL INJECTOR O USER'S CHOICE
INPUT
INPUT
DIGITAL
DIGITAL
(DISCREET)
(DISCREET)
OUTPUT
OUTPUT
ANALOG
ANALOG
PRESSURE GUAGE RESTRICTION
S
PRESSURE, POINT (TEST)
C
P
ACTUATOR SYMBOLS MIXER

SOLENOID VALVE VALVE TAG VACUUM CONNECTION
Q INTEGRATE,
QUANTITY
TOTALIZE
XX
OPERATOR ABBREVIATIONS:
PUMP AND COMPRESSOR STATIC MIXER
PRESSURE-REDUCING VALVE
R RADIATION RECORD
M OPTIONAL VALVE DESIGNATION:
M = MOTOR
P = PNEUMATIC (SINGLE OR DOUBLE)
SYMBOLS NC = NORMALLY CLOSED S
SPEED,
SAFETY SWITCH
FLOW STRAIGHTENER PRESSURE-REGULATING VALVE NO = NORMALLY OPEN FREQUENCY
S = SOLENOID
H = HYDRAULIC T TEMPERATURE TRANSMIT
XX: FO = FAIL TO OPEN NC
FC = FAIL TO CLOSE CENTRIFUGAL PUMP MUD VALVE U MULTIVARIABLE MULTIFUNCTION MULTIFUNCTION MULTIFUNCTION
THREE-WAY CONTROL VALVE
FLP = FAIL TO LAST POSITION VIBRATION, MECH. VALVE, DAMPER,
V
ANALYSIS LOUVER
FLOAT OPERATOR D DRAIN OR W WEIGHT, FORCE WELL
OR PRESSURE-RELIEF VALVE
SUBMERSIBLE PUMP X UNCLASSIFIED X AXIS UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED
VENT SOLID FILL
LINE TYPES Y EVENT, STATE
OR PRESENCE
Y AXIS RELAY, COMPUTE,
CONVERT
X
AIR-RELEASE VACUUM VALVE
A = AIR RELEASE DRIVER,
NORMALLY CLOSED POSITION, ACTUATOR,
PRIMARY PROCESS LINE VAC = VACUUM
VERTICAL TURBINE OR SUPPRESSOR Z Z AXIS UNCLASSIFIED
DIMENSION
SECONDARY PROCESS LINE PROPELLER PUMP FINAL CONTROL
ELEMENT
AUXILIARY PROCESS LINE NORMALLY OPEN B
SURGE VALVE
FUTURE PROCESS LINE

FLUSHING CONNECTION MISCELLANEOUS INSTRUMENTATION
PERISTALTIC PUMP
FC
ABBREVIATIONS
EXISTING PROCESS LINE
SP
VALVE & EQUIPMENT TAG CROSS REFERENCE
AI ANALOG INPUT O2 OXYGEN (ANALYZER MODIFIER)
SAMPLE PORT
PROCESS OPEN CHANNEL NUMBERS SYMBOLOGY AO
CL2
ANALOG OUTPUT
CHLORINE (ANALYZER MODIFIER)
P&ID
RST
PROCESS AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM
ROTARY SCREEN THICKENER
CENTRIFUGAL CO CARBON MONOXIDE (ANALYZER MODIFIER) SS SUSPENDED SOLIDS (ANALYZER MODIFIER)
BLOWER OR FAN CO2 CARBON DIOXIDE (ANALYZER MODIFIER) TSS TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PNEUMATIC SIGNAL COMB COMBUSTIBLES (ANALYZER MODIFIER) TURB TURBIDITY (ANALYZER MODIFIER)
PROCESS STREAM COND CONDUCTIVITY (ANALYZER MODIFIER) UVT ULTRA VIOLET TRANSMITTANCE
COARSE BUBBLE DIFFUSER
AAA-XX-NZ DEN DENSITY (ANALYZER MODIFIER) UVSC UV SYSTEM CONTROLLER
ELECTRIC SIGNAL, ANALOG
CONNECTION NUMBER DI DIGITAL INPUT WAN WIDE AREA NETWORK
DO DIGITAL OUTPUT
ELECTRIC SIGNAL, DISCRETE COMPRESSOR AAA: EQUIPMENT OR INSTRUMENT TYPE CONTINUATION DO DISSOLVED OXYGEN (ANALYZER MODIFIER)
FILTER DRAWING NUMBER E/P VOLTAGE TO PNEUMATIC
XX: PROCESS AREA DESIGNATION H2S HYDROGEN SULFIDE (ANALYZER MODIFIER)
ELECTRIC POWER HCL HYDROGEN CHLORIDE (ANALYZER MODIFIER)
N: PROCESS SUB-AREA DESIGNATION PI I/O INPUT/OUTPUT
DIAPHRAGM SEAL A 30Y602 PROCESS FROM: I/P CURRENT TO PNEUMATIC
Z: EQUIPMENT OR INSTRUMENT SUFFIX FROM HEADWORKS LEL LOWER EXPLOSION LIMIT
HYDRAULIC SIGNAL NOX NITROGEN OXIDE (ANALYZER MODIFIER)
PDC POWER DISTRIBUTION CENTER
OFFGAS DEMISTER PO4 PHOSPHATE
O O SOFTWARE OR DATA LINK PROCESS ORIGIN OI OPERATOR INTERFACE
AAA-XX-NZ = OWNER FURNISHED
SIGNAL CONNECTION PROCESS STREAM

GENERAL NOTES:
A
CROSSOVER - NO CONNECTION
GATE SYMBOLS CONNECTION NUMBER
1. THIS IS A STANDARD INSTRUMENTATION SYMBOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS SHEET. LISTING OF SYMBOLS AND
CONTINUATION ABBREVIATIONS DOES NOT IMPLY ALL SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS HAVE BEEN USED ON THIS PROJECT.
DRAWING NUMBER
SLUICE STOP PLATE 2. SEE PROCESS, MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING LEGEND SHEET FOR MISCELLANEOUS PIPING SYMBOLS.
X X CAPILLARY TUBE
PE
BUTTERFLY 3. SCREENING OR SHADING OF WORK IS USED TO INDICATE EXISTING COMPONENTS OR TO DE-EMPHASIZE PROPOSED
A 30Y604 PROCESS TO:
T TELEMETRY LINE IMPROVEMENTS TO HIGHLIGHT SELECTED TRADE WORK. REFER TO CONTEXT OF EACH SHEET FOR USAGE.
TO SECONDARY PUMP
FLAP STATION
WEIR GATE 4. VALVE SYMBOLS SHOWN HERE ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAMS. SEE PROCESS, MECHANICAL AND
ULTRASONIC SIGNAL (UNGUIDED)
PLUMBING LEGEND SHEET FOR VALVE SYMBOLS USED ELSEWHERE ON THE SHEETS.
SLIDE GATE
SHEAR
PACKAGED EQUIPMENT PROCESS DESTINATION

CIVIL
Ashland INSTRUMENTATION
STRUCTURAL
ARCHITECTURAL
PRELIMINARY Water Treatment INSTRUMENTATION LEGEND
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL 30% Design Drawings FILENAME 000Y001.dwg
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER 10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 SCALE NTS 000Y001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AWTP MAIN SWITCHBOARD

TO REMOTE
STATIONS
CAT6
CATEGORY 6 ETHERNET CABLE
CUSTOMER DIGITAL FT/6 TO BE
METERING EQUIPMENT DETERMINED
PLC #1
DME DME DME (WTP PROCESS CONTROL) PLC #2 FO
(DATA CONCENTRATOR) FIBER OPTIC PATCH CABLE
D
FT/6
RADIO FIBER OPTIC TRUNK CABLE, 6-STRANDS
COMPACT
CAT6
CAT6
CAT6
CONTROL LOGIX FT/12
LOGIX FIBER OPTIC TRUNK CABLE, 12-STRANDS
CAT6
3/4
5/6
1/2
HW
HARD-WIRED CONTROL SIGNALS
FIBER OPTIC CABLE

CAT6
PATCH PANEL TEL
TELEPHONE CABLE
FO
PRETREATMENT
CAT6
TRAIN #2
CONTROL PANEL FO HMI HMI HMI HMI
CAT6
PRETREATMENT CAT6 CAT6
TRAIN #1
CONTROL PANEL FIRE WALL
SCADA SCADA
1/2
3/4
5/6
TERMINAL #1 TERMINAL #2
CAT6
CAT6 CAT6 C
VFD CAT6
OPERATIONS/TREATMENT
INTERMEDIATE CAT6 BUILDING CONTROL
CAT6
VFD
PUMPS PANEL
CAT6 LCP-101
VFD SCADA
SERVER
(FUTURE)
IT EQUIPMENT RACK
CAT6
VFD
CAT6
VFD FT/12
CROWSEN
PUMPS CAT6
VFD
CAT6
VFD
(FUTURE)
OZONE BUILDING
CONTROL PANEL
CAT6 LCP-201
VFD B
3/4
5/6
1/2
FILTER CAT6
VFD
C:\pwworking\west01\d0943730\000Y002.dwg, Layout1, 7/19/2019 11:39:18 AM, HFANCHER
BLOWERS
SCADA
CAT6 TERMINAL #3
VFD
(FUTURE)
FO
PANEL
MOUNTED
FO
DISPLAY RIO #3
CAT6
CAT6
CONTROL
DIN-RAIL LOGIX
MOUNTED PC
A
OZONE
CAT6 GENERATOR
MASTER
CONTROL PANEL

CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
PRELIMINARY SCADA CONTROL SYSTEM
ARCHITECTURAL
Water Treatment BLOCK DIAGRAM
MECHANICAL
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PLC LEVEL
FW
TO FIRE WATER
SYSTEM
0Z SLOPE OG
A 000Y615 A 000Y616
FROM OZONE TO OZONE OFFGAS
INTRODUCTION SYSTEM TREATMENT
DPSH DPSH
M M
120VAC
AUTO OZONE D03 FUTURE AUTO pH/TEMP STREAMING CURRENT
STRAINER INJECTION AIT STRAINER AIT AIT
C
xxxx xxxx
pH
AE AE AE
xxxx xxxx
OFFGAS DPI DPSH
DEMISTER
M
RW FI
PD PD
AUTO 1/2"-SMP
FROM EMERGENCY D
200-PRV-XX STRAINER
INTAKE TO ???
PI
200-FM-XX xxxx
30"-RW 30"-RW 30"-RW
RW RW
M OZONE CONTACT PIPELINE DPSH A 000Y602
FROM EXISTING PIPELINE TO BALLASTED
200-PRV-XX M SEDIMENTATION TRAIN 1
M
200-BFV-XX
AUTO
RW 200-BFV-XX 200-CV-XX STRAINER
RW
FROM TID PIPELINE B 000Y603
(FUTURE) 200-PRV-XX
200-P-XX TO BALLASTED
SEDIMENTATION TRAIN 2
M B
200-BFV-XX 200-BFV-XX 200-STR-XX
TURB pH/TEMP
AIT AIT
xxxx xxxx
200-CV-XX
AE AE
xxxx xxxx
SAMPLE 200-P-XX
TO LAB 200-IQ-XX
DISPERSION
C:\pwworking\west01\d0943730\000Y601.dwg, Plot, 7/19/2019 1:02:11 PM, MWAUER
PUMPS
PD PD
PD
- -
TO SANITARY
CTH
A 000Y617
FROM CHEMICAL ROOM
BWR 8"-BWR
A 000Y611
FROM BACKWASH RECOVERY
ASH X"-ASH
A 000Y621 A
FROM SODA ASH SILO
ALM X"-ALM
A 000Y619
FROM CHEMICAL ROOM
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR
RECORDING 0 1" 2" 000Y601.dwg
10136851 Ashland, Oregon 2019 NTS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LCP-2100
MCC 2910
MSD
A 000Y604
FROM HYDROCYCLONE
SPC
A 000Y622
FROM CHEMICAL ROOM
HOA 0-100% HOA 0-100%

HS SHK HS SHK
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX B
M M
VFD VFD
SW
A 000Y604
TO SETTLED WATER
C:\pwworking\west01\d0943730\000Y602.dwg, Layout1, 7/19/2019 1:04:51 PM, MWAUER
CHANNEL
RW 200-MX-XXXX 200-MX-XXXX
A 000Y601
FROM RAPID MIX M
COAGULATION TANK MATURATION TANK SETTLING TANK
MSD
A 000Y604
TO MICROSAND
200-MV-XX PUMP SYSTEM 1
200-MV-XX
X"-PD PD
- -
TO SANITARY
BALLASTED SEDIMENTATION
TRAIN 1
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LCP-2100
MCC 2910
MSD
A 000Y605
FROM HYDROCYCLONE
SPC
B 000Y622
FROM CHEMICAL ROOM
HOA 0-100% HOA 0-100%

HS SHK HS SHK
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX B
M M
VFD VFD
SW
A 000Y604
TO SETTLED WATER
CHANNEL
RW 200-MX-XXXX 200-MX-XXXX
A 000Y601
FROM RAPID MIX M
COAGULATION TANK MATURATION TANK SETTLING TANK
MSD
A 000Y605
TO MICROSAND
200-MV-XX PUMP SYSTEM 2
200-MV-XX
X"-PD PD
- -
TO SANITARY
BALLASTED SEDIMENTATION
TRAIN 2
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LCP-2100
OPEN/CLOSE CMD
OPEN/CLOSE CMD
START/STOP CMD
START/STOP CMD
PRESSURE
PRESSURE
D
FLOW
FLOW
AUTO
AUTO
RUN
RUN
MCC 2910
DI DI DO DI DI DO AI AI AI AI DO DO
CD-5 CD-5
MCC-1 MCC-1
480V, STARTER 480V, STARTER
2ARV-XXXX
C
SVW
-- ------
FROM PLANT SERVICE
WATER SYSTEM
2FV-XXXX 2FV-XXXX
FI FI
2FI-XXXX 2FI-XXXX
2FIT
1-60PSI 120V
2PIT XXXX
LOS XXXX 2FE

2HS
M XXXX
XXXX 2FV-XXXX
2CV-XXXX 2SV-XXXX 2SV-XXXX
2CV-XXXX M
2FV-XXXX 2FM-XXXX
2FV-XXXX 2PMP-XXXX
B
MICROSAND
PUMP 1
MSD PD
A 000Y602 -- ------
FROM BALLASTED TO SANITARY SEWER
2FIT
1-60PSI 120V
2PIT XXXX
LOS XXXX 2FE

2HS
M XXXX
XXXX 2FV-XXXX
2CV-XXXX
2CV-XXXX M
2FV-XXXX 2FM-XXXX
2FV-XXXX 2PMP-XXXX
2HC-XXX
MICROSAND
PUMP 2
A
HYDROCYCLONE, TYP
MICROSAND PUMP SYSTEM 1

MSD
A 000Y602
TO COAGULATION TANK
BALLASTED
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LCP-2100
OPEN/CLOSE CMD
OPEN/CLOSE CMD
START/STOP CMD
START/STOP CMD
PRESSURE
PRESSURE
D
FLOW
FLOW
AUTO
AUTO
RUN
RUN
MCC 2910
DI DI DO DI DI DO AI AI AI AI DO DO
CD-5 CD-5
MCC-1 MCC-1
480V, STARTER 480V, STARTER
2ARV-XXXX
C
SVW
-- ------
FROM PLANT SERVICE
WATER SYSTEM
2FV-XXXX 2FV-XXXX
FI FI
2FI-XXXX 2FI-XXXX
2FIT
1-60PSI 120V
2PIT XXXX
LOS XXXX 2FE

2HS
M XXXX
XXXX 2FV-XXXX
2CV-XXXX 2SV-XXXX 2SV-XXXX
2CV-XXXX M
2FV-XXXX 2FM-XXXX
2FV-XXXX 2PMP-XXXX
B
MICROSAND
PUMP 1
MSD PD
A 000Y603 -- ------
FROM BALLASTED TO SANITARY SEWER
2FIT
1-60PSI 120V
2PIT XXXX
LOS XXXX 2FE

2HS
M XXXX
XXXX 2FV-XXXX
2CV-XXXX
2CV-XXXX M
2FV-XXXX 2FM-XXXX
2FV-XXXX 2PMP-XXXX
2HC-XXX
MICROSAND
PUMP 2
A
HYDROCYCLONE, TYP
MICROSAND PUMP SYSTEM 2

MSD
A 000Y603
TO COAGULATION TANK
BALLASTED
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SCADA LEVEL
FILTER HEAD LOSS

FILTER HIGH LEVEL
FILTER TURBIDITY
FILTER TURBIDITY
CD-12 POWER ON
CHANNEL LEVEL
FILTER LEVEL
OPEN/CLOSE
D
CLOSED
OPEN
CMD
PLC LEVEL
DI DI DO AI AI DI DI AI AI AI
LPA X"-LPA
A 000Y610
LOW PRESSURE AIR
300-BFV-XX
LIT EL XX
XXXX X-XXFT LSH
LIT XXXX
XXXX
FPC X"-FPC
A 000Y623
FROM CHEMICAL ROOM M
SW X"-OW
A 000Y602
FROM BALLASTED 300-STR-XX
OW X"-OW
B
A 000Y603 TURB 0-5NTU 0-2500GPM
FROM BALLASTED AIT FIT
SEDIMENTATION TRAIN 2 XXXX XXXX
PIT AE FE
XXXX XXXX XXXX
M
300-BV-XX 300-BV-XX
X"-FW FW
M A 000Y625
TO INTERMEDIATE
300-FM-XX 300-BFV-XX
300-BFV-XX 300-BFV-XX PUMP STATION
300-FIL-01
D
M
BWS X"-BWS
A 000Y625
FROM BACKWASH SUPPLY
300-BFV-XX
M
X"-FTW FTW
A 000Y611
TO BACKWASH RECOVERY A
300-BFV-XX BASINS
X"-BWW BWW
B 000Y611
TO BACKWASH RECOVERY
300-BFV-XX BASINS
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SCADA LEVEL
FILTER HEAD LOSS

FILTER HIGH LEVEL
FILTER TURBIDITY
FILTER TURBIDITY
CD-12 POWER ON
CHANNEL LEVEL
FILTER LEVEL
OPEN/CLOSE
D
CLOSED
OPEN
CMD
PLC LEVEL
LPA X"-LPA
B 000Y610
LOW PRESSURE AIR
300-BFV-XX
LIT EL XX
XXXX X-XXFT LSH
LIT XXXX
XXXX
300-STR-XX
B
TURB 0-5NTU 0-2500GPM
AIT FIT
XXXX XXXX
PIT AE FE
XXXX XXXX XXXX
M
300-BV-XX 300-BV-XX
X"-FW FW
M B 000Y625
TO INTERMEDIATE
300-FIL-02
D
M
BWS X"-BWS
B 000Y625
PUMP STATION
300-BFV-XX
M
X"-FTW FTW
C 000Y611
300-BFV-XX BASINS
X"-BWW BWW
D 000Y611
300-BFV-XX BASINS
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SCADA LEVEL
FILTER HEAD LOSS

FILTER HIGH LEVEL
FILTER TURBIDITY
FILTER TURBIDITY
CD-12 POWER ON
CHANNEL LEVEL
FILTER LEVEL
OPEN/CLOSE
D
CLOSED
OPEN
CMD
PLC LEVEL
LPA X"-LPA
C 000Y610
LOW PRESSURE AIR
300-BFV-XX
LIT EL XX
XXXX X-XXFT LSH
LIT XXXX
XXXX
300-STR-XX
B
AIT FIT
XXXX XXXX
PIT AE FE
XXXX XXXX XXXX
M
300-BV-XX 300-BV-XX
X"-FW FW
M C 000Y625
TO INTERMEDIATE
300-FIL-03
D
M
BWS X"-BWS
C 000Y625
PUMP STATION
300-BFV-XX
M
X"-FTW FTW
E 000Y611
300-BFV-XX BASINS
X"-BWW BWW
F 000Y611
300-BFV-XX BASINS
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SCADA LEVEL
FILTER HEAD LOSS

FILTER HIGH LEVEL
FILTER TURBIDITY
FILTER TURBIDITY
CD-12 POWER ON
CHANNEL LEVEL
FILTER LEVEL
OPEN/CLOSE
D
CLOSED
OPEN
CMD
PLC LEVEL
LPA X"-LPA
C 000Y610
LOW PRESSURE AIR
300-BFV-XX
LIT EL XX
XXXX X-XXFT LSH
LIT XXXX
XXXX
300-STR-XX
B
AIT FIT
XXXX XXXX
PIT AE FE
XXXX XXXX XXXX
M
300-BV-XX 300-BV-XX
X"-FW FW
M D 000Y625
TO INTERMEDIATE
300-FIL-04
D
M
BWS X"-BWS
D 000Y625
PUMP STATION
300-BFV-XX
M
X"-FTW FTW
G 000Y611
300-BFV-XX BASINS
X"-BWW BWW
H 000Y611
300-BFV-XX BASINS
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SCADA LEVEL
START/ STOP
START/ STOP
D
AUTO
AUTO
CMD
CMD
RUN
RUN
FAIL
FAIL
PLC LEVEL
DI DI DI DO DI DI DI DO
300-LCP-XX
HS TIT PIT FIT

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
PI TI PI FI
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
M
300-FV-XX LPA
X"-LPA X"-LPA
A 000Y606
TO FILTER 1
B
300-BLW-XX LPA
B 000Y607
TO FILTER 2
300-LCP-XX LPA
C 000Y608
TO FILTER 3
LPA
D 000Y609
TO FILTER 4
HS
XXXX
PI
XXXX
M
300-FV-XX
300-BLW-XX
A

CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
ARCHITECTURAL
PRELIMINARY Water Treatment LOW PRESSURE AIR
MECHANICAL
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SCADA LEVEL
OPEN/CLOSE
OPEN/CLOSE
D
REMOTE
REMOTE
CLOSED
CLOSED
LEVEL
LEVEL
MODE
MODE
OPEN
OPEN
CMD
CMD
PLC LEVEL
DI DI DO DI AI DI DI DO DI AI
C
FTW
A 000Y606
FROM FILTER 1
FTW
C 000Y607
FROM FILTER 2
400-CV-XX 400-BFV-XX
FTW
E 000Y608
FROM FILTER 3
400-FM-XX
FTW LIT BWR
G 000Y609 BACKWASH M A 000Y601
XXXX RECOVERY BASIN 1
FROM FILTER 4 RAW WATER PIPELINE
400-CV-XX 400-BFV-XX
M
400-DEC-XX
400-BFV-XX
400-MV-XX
400-SLG-XX
BWW
B 000Y606
FROM FILTER 1
B
BWW M
D 000Y607 400-SLG-XX
FROM FILTER 2
BWW 400-SLG-XX 400-P-XX 400-P-XX

F 000Y608
BACKWASH BACKWASH
FROM FILTER 3 400-DEC-XX

RECOVERY PUMP 1 RECOVERY PUMP 2
400-BFV-XX
BWW
LIT
XXXX BACKWASH 400-MV-XX
H 000Y609
RECOVERY
FROM FILTER 4
BASIN 2
DRN
- -
TO SANITARY
A
BACKWASH RECOVERY BASINS BACKWASH RECOVERY PUMP STATION
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SCADA LEVEL
PLC LEVEL
VENT TO
OUTSIDE WITH
GOOSE NECK
AT
-
TSI
ZSO ZSC AE
-
3403A 3403A -
HS
PIT PI PI TE
3403A
- - - - M PIT
- DPI FI
TIT -
ZSO ZSC PI PI PI
-
LIT LI VAPORIZER 3403A 3403A - - -
HS HS
- - LOX TANK TE
3403A 3403A
- M
TSI OZ
ZSO ZSC A 000Y613
-
HS 3403A 3403A TO OZONE GENERATORS
- PI TE
- - 3403A
- - M
FILL STATION
B
LOX FILL VAPORIZER PRESSURE REGULATOR

CONTROL PANEL VAPORIZER STATION
CONTROL PANEL

CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
ARCHITECTURAL
PRELIMINARY Water Treatment LOX STORAGE AND VAPORIZERS
MECHANICAL
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SCADA LEVEL
PLC LEVEL
FI
VENT TO OUTSIDE OF THE

BUILDING MIN. 10 FT. ABOVE AIT S
GROUND FLOOR WITH GOOSE - FEED GAS
NECK AND BIRD SCREEN
AE
-
PROCESS GAS
OZONE
MONITOR
PROCESS GAS SAMPLE TO OZONE

CONCENTRATION MONITOR
VENT TO
OUTSIDE
HS ZSO ZSC TIT FIT WINDOW FIT
C
PSH PIT M PI ZT ZSO ZSC
- - - - - - - - - - - -
TE FE FE
M M
- - -
OZ OZ
OZONE
A 000Y612 T A 000Y615
GENERATOR
FROM PRESSURE TO OZONE
REGULATION STATION INJECTION SYSTEM
HS ZSO ZSC
- - -
TSH
VENT
-
HIGH M
TIT TE POINT
- - OG
C -
TO OZONE
DESTRUCTION SYSTEM
PI
3322A DRAIN D
LOW
VENT POINT
HIGH
POINT PI
3322A
B
HS ZSO ZSC
FIT - - -
3322A
TE TIT M
DRAIN D
LOW - -
POINT
OZONE GENERATOR #1 (OG-1)

SKID BOUNDARY
CW
000Y614 B
CW
TO COOLING WATER
000Y614 D
CHILLER
FROM COOLING WATER
CHILLER
OZONE GENERATOR #2 (OG-2)

SKID BOUNDARY
A
D
OZ
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SCADA LEVEL
PLC LEVEL
PI
-
EXPANSION
TANK
TI
TI
PI PSH - PI PSH
-
OPTIONAL - - TE - -
HS ZSO ZSC
TE
- - - - -
- - -
FROM PLANT SERVICE WATER
M
CW CW
FI
B 000Y613 D 000Y613
FROM OZONE GENERATOR TO OZONE GENERATOR
COOLING WATER CHILLER

CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
ARCHITECTURAL
PRELIMINARY Water Treatment OZONE COOLING WATER SYSTEM
MECHANICAL
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SCADA LEVEL
PLC LEVEL
PIT TIT FIT PIT ZSC

- - - - -
M S
OZ
A 000Y613
FROM OZONE GENERATOR
LSH
LIQUID TRAP LIQUID TRAP
-
PI
-
GAS VALVE
TRAIN MANIFOLD
TE
PI FIT PI PI
- B
PI - - - -
-
M M
M OZ
SVW A 000Y601
- - TO OZONE INJECTION
VENTURI
INJECTOR
500-P-XX
OZONE INJECTION SYSTEM
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SCADA LEVEL
PLC LEVEL
VENT TO
ATMOSPHERE
AIT TIT DPI

VENT TO OUTSIDE
AE TE OF BUILDING WITH
TSH
TIT TIT AIT GOOSE NECK AND
HS ZSO ZSC BIRD SCREEN
3403A
TE
PIT TE TE AE
XX
M
TSH TI
OG X"-OG X"-SS
A 000Y601 FIT
FROM OZONE
TE TE PI
CONTACT PIPELINE
D X"-SS
X"-SS
BLOWER
B
OZONE DESTRUCT SKID 1
D
OZONE DESTRUCT SKID 2
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
KEY NOTES:
1 CONNECT TO 1/2" VENT PIPE.
2 FROM METERING PUMPS VENT PIPES.
SCADA LEVEL
SPEED S/P
SPEED S/P
D
RUNNING
RUNNING
ENABLE
ENABLE
SPEED
SPEED
AUTO
AUTO
LEVEL
LEAK
LEAK
FAIL
FAIL
PLC LEVEL
\
HOA HOA
P-7011 500 P-7021 500
HS-XX HS-XX
VSD VSD
500
ES
LIT-XX
X
X"-VT
X
500
LE-XX C
PIT
CALIBRATION
COLUMN, TYP M
X"-CTH CTH
VENT A 000Y601
TO EXT 1 TO OZONE CONTACT
PIPELINE
500-P-XX
X
X SVW
X"-VT
PIT
X"-VT
M
X"-CTH
500-P-XX
B
X"-VT
2
1/2" DE-GASSING
X"-OF
VALVE, TYP
X"-CTH
X"-CD
X"-CD
500-T-XX
CALCIUM
FI
THIOSULFATE
TOTE
X"-CTH
X"-CTH CTH
C 000Y618
TO METERING PUMPS
X"-PW
X"-D
500 A
PI-XX
X"-SVW X"-SVW SVW
- - D 000Y618
X"-CD
X"-CD
CONTINUED
CALCIUM THIOSULFATE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT ON YXXX
SUMP
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
KEY NOTES:
SCADA LEVEL
SPEED S/P
SPEED S/P
D
RUNNING
RUNNING
ENABLE
ENABLE
SPEED
SPEED
AUTO
AUTO
LEAK
LEAK
FAIL
FAIL
PLC LEVEL
HOA HOA
P-7041 500 P-7051 500
HS-XX HS-XX
VSD VSD
X
X"-VT
C
PIT
CALIBRATION
COLUMN, TYP M
X"-CTH CTH
A 000Y625
TO BACKWASH SUPPLY
1
500-P-XX
X
X
X"-VT
PIT
FI
500-P-XX
B
X"-SVW
CTH
- 000Y617
FROM CTH TOTE
SVW X"-SVW
D 000Y617
X" CD
X"-CD
SUMP
480
CALCIUM THIOSULFATE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PUMP
SUMP
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SPEED S/P
SPEED S/P
RUNNING
RUNNING
ENABLE
ENABLE
LEVEL
AUTO
AUTO
LEAK
LEAK
FAIL
FAIL
SCADA LEVEL
ACKNOWLEDGE
D
ALARM
ALARM
LEVEL
LEVEL
LEVEL
PLC LEVEL
HOA HOA
VSD 500 VSD 500
P-3140 HS-XX P-3150 HS-XX
500 500
LI-XX LAH-XX
ACK
500 500 500
LEVEL
LI-XX HS-XX LAH-XX
LCP-3100A
ALUM FILL STATION 500
X"-ALM LIT-XX
CALIBRATION
COLUMN, TYP
500 PIT
LE-XX
M
X"-ALM
500
PI-XX
500
500-P-XX
PE-XX B
ALUM
X"-OF
METERING PIT
PUMP, TYP
M
X"-ALM ALM
A 000Y601
TO DISPERSION PUMPS
ALUM STORAGE 2"x1 1/2"
TANK NO. 1
500-P-XX
X"-D
X"-CD
FILL STATION
X"-CD
X"-CD
X"-CD
X"-CD
CATCH PAN
X" CD
FILL STATION
X"-CD
SUMP
120
PUMP
ALUM SECONDARY SUMP
CONTAINMENT CD
- -
TO SANITARY

CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
ARCHITECTURAL
PRELIMINARY Water Treatment ALUM SYSTEM
MECHANICAL
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
WATER LOW PRESSURE

SYSTEM RUN REQUEST
SCADA LEVEL
LOW MIX TANK LEVEL

FEED FUNNEL BLOCK
HOPPER LEVEL LOW
D
PLC LEVEL
LCP-3400
(VENDOR SUPPLIED PANEL)
DUST COLLECTOR
SYSTEM M
COMPRESSED C
AIR
SODA ASH SILO
500
PI-XX
B
500
PE-XX M
LSL
500
-
LIT-XX
SVW X"-SOF
- - M
FROM PLANT SERVICE WATER LSL 500
- LE-XX
M
S
M
X"-SVW X" CFW
X"-ASH ASH
A 000Y621
SODA ASH PUMPS
X"-CD
CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
ARCHITECTURAL
PRELIMINARY Water Treatment SODA ASH STORAGE
MECHANICAL
FIGURE
INSTRUMENTATION
RECORDING 0 1" 2"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SPEED S/P
SPEED S/P
RUNNING
RUNNING
ENABLE
ENABLE
AUTO
AUTO
LEAK
LEAK
FAIL
FAIL
SCADA LEVEL
FLOW RATE
SPEED S/P
RUNNING
D
ENABLE
AUTO
LEAK
FAIL
PLC LEVEL
RIO-3100
HOA HOA HOA

VSD 500 VSD 500 VSD 500
P-3440 PDE-XX P-3450 HS-XX P-3450 HS-XX
500
PI-XX
500
PIT
PE-XX
M
X"-ASH C
SODA ASH
METERING
PUMP, TYP
D
X"-ASH 500
PI-XX
ASH
A 000Y620 500
PIT
FROM SODA ASH MIXING PE-XX
SYSTEM
M
X"-ASH
SODA ASH
METERING
PUMP, TYP
D
500
PI-XX
X"-CD
500
PIT
PE-XX
B
M
X"-ASH X"-ASH
SODA ASH
METERING
PUMP, TYP
500 D
PI-XX
500
FIT-XX 500
PE-XX
500
FE-XX
SVW X"-SVW X"-ASH ASH

FI
- - M A 000Y601
FROM PLANT SERVICE WATER TO RAW WATER PIPELINE
X"-ASH ASH
FI
B 000Y625
TO INTERMEDIATE A
PUMP STATION
X"-CD
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
INDICATION
TROUBLE
BFP #1/#2
RUNNING
ENABLED
ENABLED
ENABLED
SELECT
ALARM
SPEED
SPEED
LEVEL
LEVEL
AUTO
HAND
STPT
LOW
LOW
PBU
PBU
OFF
LAL LAL HS YF SC SI MN YI YI YI
SCADA LEVEL HMI
- - I D
PBU # 1 CONTROL
PLC LEVEL
SS SS
HS HS
SPEED INDICATION
SPEED CONTROL
HAND ENABLED
AUTO ENABLED
C
S/S COMMAND
OFF ENABLED
TROUBLE
M M
RUNNING
TOTE TOTE
STORAGE STORAGE X"-SPC
MIXER MIXER (V)

X"-SPC
500-MX-XX 500-MX-XX 120V
X"-SPC X"-SPC SPC
A 000Y602
TO BALLASTED
X"-SPC
POLYMER BLENDING UNIT
500-PBM-XX X"-SPC SPC

B 000Y603
TO BALLASTED
PI SEDIMENTATION TRAIN 2
B
SVW X"-SVW
- -
500-PVC-XX
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
INDICATION
PBU SPEED
TROUBLE
BFP #1/#2
RUNNING
ENABLED
ENABLED
ENABLED
SELECT
ALARM
SPEED
LEVEL
AUTO
HAND
STPT
LOW
PBU
OFF
LAL HS YF SC SI MN YI YI YI
SCADA LEVEL HMI
- - I
D
PBU # 1 CONTROL
PLC LEVEL
SPEED INDICATION
SPEED CONTROL
AUTO ENABLED
C
HAND ENABLED
S/S COMMAND
OFF ENABLED
TROUBLE
RUNNING
HS SS
TOTE
STORAGE (V)
X"-SPC
120V
X"-SPC X"-SPC FPC
LSL
A 000Y606
00001 TO SETTLED WATER
CHANNEL
MIXER
500-MX-XX
PI POLYMER BLENDING UNIT
500-PBM-XX
B
SVW X"-SVW
- -
500-PVC-XX
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
KEY NOTES:
LEVEL
SCADA LEVEL
ACKNOWLEDGE
SPEED S/P
SPEED S/P
D
RUNNING
RUNNING
ENABLE
ENABLE
ALARM
ALARM
LEVEL
SPEED
SPEED
LEVEL
LEVEL
LEVEL
AUTO
AUTO
LEAK
LEAK
FAIL
FAIL
PLC LEVEL
\
HOA HOA
P-7021 500 P-7031 500
HS-XX HS-XX
VSD VSD
500
LIT-XX
X
X"-VT
500 X
LE-XX C
PIT
500 500 VENT
LI-XX LAH-XX (EX) CALIBRATION
COLUMN, TYP M
X"-SHC
ACK
500 500 500
LI-XX HS-XX LAH-XX
500-P-XX
X"-VT
LCP-3100A
HYPO FILL STATION
X"-SHC
X"-VT 1
X"-SHC
2
X"-VT
X
1/2" DE-GASSING
LEVEL VALVE, TYP PIT B
X"-OF
SIGHT
500-T-XX GLASS CALIBRATION
COLUMN, TYP M
SODIUM
HYPOCHLORITE X"-SHC X"-SHC SHC
BULK TANK A 000Y625
TO INTERMEDIATE
X" SVW
PUMP STATION
X"-CD 500-P-XX
FILL STATION
FI
CATCH PAN
X"-D
FILL STATION 500

PI-XX
X" CD
SVW X"-SVW X"-PW
- -
X"-CD
SUMP
120
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PUMP
SUMP
A
CD
- -
TO SANITARY
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CHLORINE RESIDUAL
LEVEL HIGH
D
RIO-6210
CTH X"-CTH
B 000Y618
FROM CHEMICAL ROOM
600 CL2
AIT-XX
600
ASH X"-ASH C
AE-XX
A 000Y621
FROM SODA ASH PUMP
BWS
SHC X"-SHC PD A 000Y606
A 000Y624 VENT TO FILTER 1
FROM CHEMICAL ROOM
ZSC 600
LSH-XX BWS
B 000Y607
TO FILTER 2
X"-SMP
CLEARWELL BWS
TANK 1 C 000Y608
X"-FW X"-PW TO FILTER 3
XXX-ARV-XX
XXX-BFV-XX M
FW X"-FW BWS
A 000Y606 M D 000Y609
FROM FILTER 1 TO FILTER 4
XXX-CV-XX
XXX-ARV-XX
X"-FW XXX-BFV-XX X"-PW

FW PW
B 000Y607 A 000Y626
FROM FILTER 2 X"-FW TO CROWSON PUMPS B
XXX-CV-XX
XXX-ARV-XX
X"-FW XXX-BFV-XX
FW PW
C 000Y608 - --
FROM FILTER 3 POTABLE WATER
XXX-CV-XX
X"-FW LIT
FW
D 000Y609 XXXX
FROM FILTER 4
LE PW
XXXX M - --
EXISTING TO GRANITE RESERVOIR
BYPASS
FUTURE FUTURE X"-PW PW

CLEARWELL M - --
TANK 2 TO GRANITE RESERVOIR
(FUTURE)
X"-FW X"-PW
XXX-P-XX XXX-P-XX XXX-P-XX

X"-OF
INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE
PUMP 1 PUMP 2 PUMP 3 OF A
- --
OVERFLOW
INTERMEDIATE PUMP STATION
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
HIGH ALARM
HIGH ALARM
HIGH ALARM
PRESSURE
PRESSURE
PRESSURE
RIO-6210
PRESSURE
HIGH
ALARM
D
PLANT PLC CNB-1

RIO-6220 o o o o o o o o o o
o
600-VFD-XX 600-VFD-XX
600-VFD-XX
E-STOP E-STOP
E-STOP
600 600 600 600 600 600

HS-XX PLH-XX HS-XX PLH-XX HS-XX PLH-XX
600 600
X"-PW
PSH-XX PI-XX
0-100% HOA
600 600
SHK-XX HS-XX
M
TO FLOOR C
X"-PW DRAIN
HOA
600
HS-XX FUTURE
0-100% 600
600
600
PI-XX PSH-XX
SHK-XX
M
X"-PW
X"-PW
HOA
600
0-100% HS-XX 600
600
600
PI-XX PSH-XX
SHK-XX
M
X"-PW X"-PW
PW X"-FW
600 600
A 000Y625
PI-XX PSH-XX
FROM CLEARWELLS
0-100% HOA
X"-PW SHK 600 B
EXISTING
PI-XX HS-XX
X"-PW X"-PW PW TO
M
M CROWSON
X"-PW RESERVOIR
X"-FW
FUTURE
X"-PW
X"-PD
NOTE:
TO FLOOR * PROVIDE NEW POWER AND SIGNAL
DRAIN WIRING/EQUIPMENT FOR EXISTING FLOW
METER
PIERRE KWAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR

Appendix C. Preliminary Specifications Table of

Contents
July 22, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DIVISION 01 — GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
01 11 00 - SUMMARY OF WORK
01 11 20 - JOB CONDITIONS
01 25 13 - PRODUCT SUBSTITUTIONS
01 29 73 - SCHEDULE OF VALUES (LUMP SUM PROJECTS)
01 30 00 - SPECIAL CONDITIONS
01 31 19 - PROJECT MEETINGS
01 32 17 - CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS SCHEDULE
01 33 00 - SUBMITTALS
01 33 04 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUALS
01 45 25 - TESTING CONCRETE STRUCTURES FOR WATERTIGHTNESS
01 45 26 - INTERFACE FRICTION TESTS
01 45 33 - SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING PROGRAM
01 61 03 - EQUIPMENT - BASIC REQUIREMENTS
01 65 50 - PRODUCT DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND HANDLING
01 73 20 - OPENINGS AND PENETRATIONS IN CONSTRUCTION
01 73 29 - DEMOLITION, CUTTING AND PATCHING
01 74 23 - CLEANING
01 75 00 - FACILITY START-UP
01 81 10 - WIND AND SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA
DIVISION 03 — CONCRETE
03 05 05 - CONCRETE TESTING AND INSPECTION
03 09 00 - CONCRETE
03 11 13 - FORMWORK
03 15 19 - ANCHORAGE TO CONCRETE
03 21 00 - REINFORCEMENT
03 31 30 - CONCRETE, MATERIALS AND PROPORTIONING
03 31 31 - CONCRETE MIXING, PLACING, JOINTING, AND CURING
03 35 00 - CONCRETE FINISHING AND REPAIR OF SURFACE DEFECTS
03 41 33 - PRECAST AND PRESTRESSED CONCRETE
DIVISION 04 — MASONRY
04 01 20 - MASONRY CLEANING
04 05 13 - MASONRY MORTAR AND GROUT
04 05 23 - MASONRY ACCESSORIES
04 05 50 - COLD AND HOT WEATHER MASONRY CONSTRUCTION
04 22 00 - CONCRETE MASONRY
DIVISION 05 — METALS
05 12 00 - STRUCTURAL STEEL
05 52 05 - STEEL RAILINGS
XX XX XX – PV MODULE SUPPORT STRUCTURES
DIVISION 06 — WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 - ROUGH CARPENTRY
06 41 00 - ARCHITECTURAL CABINETWORK (MILLWORK)
06 82 00 - FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC FABRICATIONS
06 85 14 - FRP LAUNDERS, WEIRS AND BAFFLES
10136851 City of Ashland May 13, 2019

Ashland WTP
Table of Contents
00 01 10 - 1
DIVISION 07 — THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION
07 16 16 - CRYSTALLINE CEMENTITIOUS WATERPROOFING

07 19 00 - LIQUID WATER REPELLENT
07 21 00 - BUILDING INSULATION
07 21 31 - SPRAYED POLYURETHANE FOAM (SPF) INSULATION - MEDIUM DENSITY (FLYSHEET)
07 26 00 - UNDER SLAB VAPOR RETARDER
07 42 14 - PREFORMED FACTORY-INSULATED METAL WALL PANELS
07 52 16 - SBS MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING SYSTEM
07 61 13 - METAL ROOFING
07 62 00 - FLASHING AND SHEET METAL
07 72 33 - ROOF HATCHES
07 81 00 - FIREPROOFING
07 84 00 - FIRESTOPPING
07 92 00 - JOINT SEALANTS
07 95 13 - EXPANSION JOINT COVERS
DIVISION 08 — OPENINGS
08 11 00 - HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES
08 15 00 - FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC (FRP) DOORS AND FRAMES
08 31 00 - ACCESS DOORS
08 33 23 - STEEL ROLLING OVERHEAD DOORS
08 41 10 - STOREFRONT
08 51 13 - ALUMINUM WINDOWS
08 70 00 - FINISH HARDWARE
08 81 00 - GLASS AND GLAZING
08 90 00 - LOUVERS AND VENTS
DIVISION 09 — FINISHES
09 22 16 - NON-STRUCTURAL METAL FRAMING
09 29 00 - GYPSUM BOARD
09 30 13 - CERAMIC TILE (CT)
09 51 00 - ACOUSTICAL CEILING MATERIALS (AM) (FLYSHEET)
09 53 00 - ACOUSTIC SUSPENSION SYSTEM
09 65 00 - VINYL COMPOSITION TILE FLOORING AND RESILIENT BASE
09 96 00 - HIGH PERFORMANCE INDUSTRIAL COATINGS
DIVISION 10 — SPECIALTIES
10 14 00 - IDENTIFICATION DEVICES
10 14 23 - SIGNAGE
10 21 13 - METAL TOILET PARTITIONS
10 28 13 - TOILET AND BATH ACCESSORIES
10 41 00 - EMERGENCY ACCESS CABINETS
10 44 33 - FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALTIES
10 51 13 - METAL LOCKERS AND LOCKER BENCHES
DIVISION 11 — EQUIPMENT
11 24 26 - SHOP AND STORAGE EQUIPMENT
11 24 27 - SHOP MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
11 24 28 - MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
11 53 11 - LABORATORY GLASSWARE, EQUIPMENT AND REFERENCES
11 53 12 - LABORATORY CHEMICALS

Ashland WTP
Table of Contents
00 01 10 - 2
DIVISION 12 — FURNISHINGS
12 20 00 - WINDOW TREATMENT
12 35 53 - LABORATORY CASEWORK (METAL)
12 51 00 - OFFICE FURNITURE AND FURNISHINGS (OF)
DIVISION 21 — FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 05 00 - FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
DIVISION 22 — PLUMBING
22 05 48 - VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT
22 15 00 - GENERAL SERVICE COMPRESSED-AIR SYSTEMS
22 20 00 - PLUMBING FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT
22 33 13 - INSTANTANEOUS DOMESTIC WATER HEATERS
DIVISION 23 — HEATING VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING

23 05 48 - VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT
23 05 93 - HVAC SYSTEMS - BALANCING AND TESTING
23 09 23 - INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL (DDC) FOR HVAC SYSTEMS
23 31 00 - HVAC - DUCTWORK
23 34 00 - HVAC - FANS
23 80 00 - HVAC - EQUIPMENT
23 83 00 - RADIANT HEATERS
DIVISION 26 — ELECTRICAL
26 05 00 - ELECTRICAL - BASIC REQUIREMENTS
26 05 19 - WIRE AND CABLE - 600 VOLT AND BELOW
26 05 26 - GROUNDING AND BONDING
26 05 33 - RACEWAYS AND BOXES
26 05 36 - CABLE TRAY
26 05 43 - ELECTRICAL - EXTERIOR UNDERGROUND
26 05 48 - ELECTRICAL SEISMIC RESTRAINT SYSTEMS
26 08 13 - ACCEPTANCE TESTING
26 09 13 - ELECTRICAL METERING DEVICES
26 09 16 - CONTROL EQUIPMENT ACCESSORIES
26 09 43 - LOW VOLTAGE LIGHTING CONTROL SYSTEM
26 22 13 - DRY-TYPE TRANSFORMERS
26 24 13 - SWITCHBOARDS
26 24 16 - PANELBOARDS
26 24 19 - MOTOR CONTROL EQUIPMENT
26 27 26 - WIRING DEVICES
26 28 00 - OVERCURRENT AND SHORT CIRCUIT PROTECTIVE DEVICES
26 28 16 - SAFETY SWITCHES
26 28 17 - SEPARATELY MOUNTED CIRCUIT BREAKERS
26 29 23 - VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES - LOW VOLTAGE
26 32 14 - ENGINE GENERATOR - DIESEL
26 33 53 - STATIC UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
26 36 00 - TRANSFER SWITCHES
26 36 33 - AUTOMATIC THROWOVER SYSTEM
26 41 14 - LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM
26 42 13 - CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM - SACRIFICIAL ANODE
26 42 19 - CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM - ELEVATED STORAGE TANK
26 43 13 - LOW VOLTAGE SURGE PROTECTION DEVICES (SPD)
26 50 00 - INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING
26 99 00 – PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULES

Ashland WTP
Table of Contents
00 01 10 - 3
26 99 01 – STRING COMBINER BOXES
26 99 03 – INVERTERS
26 99 04 – METEOROLOGY STATION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
DIVISION 27 — COMMUNICATIONS
27 10 00 - STRUCTURED CABLING
27 21 00 - TELEMETRY SYSTEMS
DIVISION 28 — ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 30 00 - EMERGENCY ALARM SYSTEM
28 31 00 - FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
DIVISION 31 — EARTHWORK
31 22 00 - SITE GRADING
31 23 17 - ROCK EXCAVATION
31 23 19 - DEWATERING
31 32 19 - GEOTEXTILES
31 63 16 - CAST-IN-PLACE PILING - AUGER CAST
DIVISION 32 — EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 13 13 - CONCRETE PAVEMENT
32 16 23 - CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND STEPS
32 31 13 - CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATES
DIVISION 33 — UTILITIES
33 05 15 - PRECAST CONCRETE UTILITY STRUCTURES
33 05 16 - PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE STRUCTURES
33 05 23 - PIPELINE UNDERCROSSINGS
33 11 13 - WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION
33 12 19 - FIRE HYDRANT
33 16 32 - RESERVOIRS - PRESTRESSED CONCRETE
33 31 11 - GRAVITY SEWER PIPELINE AND MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION
DIVISION 40 — PROCESS INTERCONNECTIONS

40 05 00 - PIPE AND PIPE FITTINGS - BASIC REQUIREMENTS
40 05 07 - PIPE SUPPORT SYSTEMS
40 05 17 - PIPE - COPPER
40 05 19 - PIPE - DUCTILE
40 05 23 - PIPE - STAINLESS STEEL
40 05 24 - PIPE - STEEL
40 05 26 - PIPE - CAST-IRON SOIL
40 05 31 - PIPE - PLASTIC
40 05 32 - PIPE - POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) CHEMICAL WASTE
40 05 33 - PIPE - POLYETHYLENE (HDPE)
40 05 39 - PIPE - REINFORCED CONCRETE
40 05 40 - PIPE - REINFORCED CONCRETE CYLINDER
40 05 51 - VALVES - BASIC REQUIREMENTS
40 05 52 - MISCELLANEOUS VALVES
40 05 59 - FABRICATED STAINLESS STEEL SLIDE GATES
40 05 61 - GATE VALVES
40 05 62 - PLUG VALVES
40 05 63 - BALL VALVES
40 05 64 - BUTTERFLY VALVES

Ashland WTP
Table of Contents
00 01 10 - 4
40 05 65 - GLOBE VALVES
40 05 66 - CHECK VALVES
40 10 15 - FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC DUCT
40 12 00 - COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM
40 20 55 - DOUBLE CONTAINMENT PIPING SYSTEM
40 41 13 - HEAT TRACING CABLE
40 42 00 - PIPE, DUCT AND EQUIPMENT INSULATION
40 61 13 - PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
40 62 16 - COMPUTER NETWORK AND HUMAN MACHINE INTERFACE (HMI) HARDWARE
40 63 43 - PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC CONTROLLER (PLC) CONTROL SYSTEM
40 67 00 - CONTROL SYSTEM EQUIPMENT PANELS AND RACKS
40 71 00 - FLOW INSTRUMENTATION
40 72 00 - LEVEL INSTRUMENTATION
40 73 00 - PRESSURE INSTRUMENTATION
40 75 00 - PROCESS LIQUID ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENT
40 90 05 - CONTROL LOOP DESCRIPTIONS
40 96 52 - CONFIGURATION REQUIREMENTS - HUMAN MACHINE INTERFACE (HMI) AND
REPORTS
40 97 00 - CONTROL AUXILIARIES
DIVISION 41 — MATERIAL PROCESSING AND HANDLING EQUIPMENT

41 22 23 - HOISTS, TROLLEYS, AND MONORAILS
DIVISION 43 — PROCESS GAS AND LIQUID HANDLING, PURIFICATION AND STORAGE

EQUIPMENT
43 11 23 - CENTRIFUGAL MULTI-STAGE BLOWERS
43 21 00 - PUMPING EQUIPMENT - BASIC REQUIREMENTS
43 21 01 - PUMPS - WATER SEAL SYSTEM
43 21 22 - PUMPING EQUIPMENT - SUBMERSIBLE NON-CLOG
43 23 58 - PUMPING EQUIPMENT - POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT (LOBE)
43 24 16 - PUMPING EQUIPMENT - SUMP
43 24 27 - PUMPING EQUIPMENT - VERTICAL TURBINE
43 41 43 - POLYETHYLENE CHEMICAL TANKS
XX XX XX - PUMPING EQUIPMENT – PERISTALTIC TUBE PUMPS
XX XX XX - PUMPING EQUIPMENT – PERISTALTIC HOSE PUMPS
XX XX XX - PUMPING EQUIPMENT - END SUCTION
DIVISION 46 — WATER AND WASTEWATER EQUIPMENT

46 33 11 - CHEMICAL FEED - LIQUID SYSTEMS
46 33 33 - LIQUID POLYMER FEED EQUIPMENT
46 36 09 - CHEMICAL FEED - DRY SYSTEMS
46 61 13 - FILTER MEDIA
46 81 11 - SAMPLING AND MONITORING EQUIPMENT
XX XX XX - FILTER EQUIPMENT
XX XX XX - OZONE STORAGE AND FEED
XX XX XX - GRAVITY FLOW FLOAWTING DECANTER
XX XX XX - SODA ASH STORAGE AND FEED
XX XX XX - HIGH-RATE CLARIFICATION SYSTEM
XX XX XX - INTERMEDIATE BULK CONTAINERS (TOTES)
XX XX XX - RAW WATER STRAINER SCREENS
ODOT SPECIAL PROVISIONS (SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATION)
SECTION 00210 - MOBILIZATION

Ashland WTP
Table of Contents
00 01 10 - 5
SECTION 00220 - ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PUBLIC TRAFFIC
SECTION 00225 - WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL
SECTION 00280 - EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
SECTION 00290 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SECTION 00305 - CONSTRUCTION SURVEY WORK
SECTION 00310 - REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS
SECTION 00320 - CLEARING AND GRUBBING
SECTION 00330 - EARTHWORK
SECTION 00331 - SUBGRADE STABILIZATION
SECTION 00390 - RIPRAP PROTECTION
SECTION 00405 - TRENCH EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL
SECTION 00430 - SUBSURFACE DRAINS
SECTION 00470 - MANHOLES, CATCH BASINS, AND INLETS
SECTION 00480 - DRAINAGE CURBS
SECTION 00596A - MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH RETAINING WALLS
SECTION 00596B - PREFABRICATED MODULAR RETAINING WALLS
SECTION 00596C - CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS
SECTION 00640 - AGGREGATE BASE AND SHOULDERS
SECTION 00641 - AGGREGATE SUBBASE, BASE, AND SHOULDERS
SECTION 00730 - EMULSIFIED ASPHALT TACK COAT
SECTION 00744 - ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
SECTION 01010 - STORMWATER CONTROL, WATER QUALITY STRUCTURES
SECTION 01012 - STORMWATER CONTROL, WATER QUALITY BIOFILTRATION SWALE
SECTION 01030 - SEEDING
SECTION 01040 - PLANTING
SECTION 02450 - MANHOLE AND INLET MATERIALS
SECTION 02510 - REINFORCEMENT
SECTION 02520 - STEEL AND CONCRETE PILES
SECTION 02530 - STRUCTURAL STEEL
SECTION 02560 - FASTENERS

Ashland WTP
Table of Contents
00 01 10 - 6
Appendix D. Technology Alternatives Report
July 22, 2019

Technology Alternatives
Report
Ashland, OR
March 20, 2019

Technology Alternatives Report
Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Design Requirements ................................................................................................................ 1
1.3.1 Flows ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.3.2 Future WTP Treated Water Quality Requirements ...................................................... 2
2 Initial Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Treatment Alternatives Evaluation ............................................................................................ 3
2.1.1 Treatment Alternative I: Plate Settlers with Granular Media Filtration ......................... 6
2.1.2 Treatment Alternative II: Package Treatment Unit ....................................................... 9
2.1.3 Treatment Alternative Evaluation ............................................................................... 11
2.1.4 Treatment Alternative Selection ................................................................................. 12
2.1.5 Pathogen Disinfection ................................................................................................ 13
2.2 Ashland Creek Pipeline and Vehicle Crossings ...................................................................... 15
2.2.1 Current City of Ashland System ................................................................................. 15
2.2.2 Proposed Pipelines for new WTP .............................................................................. 15
2.2.3 Design Assumptions................................................................................................... 16
2.2.4 Pipeline Alternative 1.................................................................................................. 17
2.3 Clearwell Volume and Configuration ....................................................................................... 22
2.3.1 Clearwell Alternative 1: 0.5 MG Underground Clearwell............................................ 24
2.3.2 Clearwell Alternative 2: 2.0 MG Downhill Clearwell ................................................... 25
2.3.4 Clearwell Alternative 4: 1.7 MG Adjacent Clearwell................................................... 27
2.3.6 Initial Clearwell Alternatives Summary ....................................................................... 28
2.4 Initial Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 29
2.5 Initial Recommendation ........................................................................................................... 30
3 Supplemental Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 30
3.1 Current Alternatives................................................................................................................. 30
3.1.1 Clearwell Alternative A (Base Case): 1.7 MG Clearwell at WTP ............................... 31
3.1.2 Clearwell Alternative B: Replace Granite Street Reservoir ........................................ 32
3.1.3 Clearwell Alternative C: Rehabilitate Granite Street Reservoir .................................. 33
3.1.4 Clearwell Alternative D: Smaller Clearwell at WTP .................................................... 34
3.2 Ashland Creek Pipeline and Vehicle Crossing ........................................................................ 35
3.2.1 Clearwell Alternative A (Base Case): 1.7 MG Clearwell at WTP ............................... 36
3.2.2 Clearwell Alternative B: Replace Granite Street Reservoir ........................................ 36
3.2.3 Clearwell Alternative C: Rehabilitate Granite Street Reservoir .................................. 36
3.2.4 Clearwell Alternative D: 0.85 MG Clearwell at WTP .................................................. 36
3.3 Supplemental Evaluation and Recommendation .................................................................... 36
4 Hydropower Energy Recovery .......................................................................................................... 38
4.1 Turbine and Generator Selection Alternatives ........................................................................ 39
4.2 One-unit PAT Arrangement ..................................................................................................... 40
4.3 Three-unit PAT Arrangement .................................................................................................. 42
March 20, 2019 | i

4.4 Results..................................................................................................................................... 44
4.5 Potential Next Steps ................................................................................................................ 45
4.6 Recommendation .................................................................................................................... 45
5 Solar Energy Generation ................................................................................................................... 45
5.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 46
5.1.1 System Equipment and Production Analysis Assumptions ....................................... 46
5.1.2 Economic Assumptions .............................................................................................. 46
5.1.3 Incentive Assumptions ............................................................................................... 46
5.1.4 Net Metering ............................................................................................................... 47
5.2 Results..................................................................................................................................... 47
5.3 Potential Next Steps ................................................................................................................ 47
5.4 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 48
6 Opinion of Cost .................................................................................................................................. 48
7 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 48
8 References ........................................................................................................................................ 50
Tables
Table 1-1. Treatment Requirements for Future WTP ................................................................................... 2
Table 2-1. October 11, 2018 Workshop Treatment Alternatives – Relative Cost Comparison .................... 4
Table 2-2. Design Flow ................................................................................................................................. 5
Table 2-3. Water Quality – Monthly Averaged Values (2004-2018) ............................................................. 5
Table 2-4. Treatment Alternative I: Plate Settlers with Granular Media Filtration – Conceptual
Design Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2-5. Treatment Alternative II: Package Treatment Unit – Conceptual Design Criteria ....................... 9
Table 2-6. Summary of Treatment Alternative Evaluation Criteria ............................................................. 11
Table 2-7. Summary of Treatment Alternative Capital Costs ..................................................................... 12
Table 2-8. Ozone System Design Criteria .................................................................................................. 13
Table 2-9. Summary of Pathogen Disinfection ........................................................................................... 14
Table 2-10 Pipe Length Breakdown by Type .............................................................................................. 21
Table 2-11. Clearwell Cost Summary from January 22-23 Workshop ....................................................... 28
Table 2-12. Clearwell Alternatives Summary from January 22-23 Workshop ............................................ 29
Table 3-1. Summary of Final Clearwell Alternatives ................................................................................... 37
Table 3-2. Cost Comparison of Final Clearwell Alternatives ...................................................................... 37
Table 4-1. Average Monthly Flows Available for Energy Generation (in MG) ............................................ 38
Table 4-2. One-unit PAT Arrangement Estimated Annual Average Energy Generation ............................ 41
Table 4-3. Three-unit PAT Arrangement Estimated Annual Average Energy Generation ......................... 43
Table 4-4 Summary of Hydroelectric Energy Recovery Results................................................................ 45
Table 5-1. Solar Production Estimates ....................................................................................................... 47
Table 6-1. Selected Alternative Opinion of Cost ......................................................................................... 48
ii | March 20, 2019

Figures
Figure 1-1. Historical Water Supply by Source ............................................................................................. 2
Figure 2-1. Treatment Alternative I: Plate Settlers with Granular Media Filtration – Process Flow
Diagram ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 2-2. Treatment Alternative II: Package Treatment Unit – Process Flow Diagram ........................... 10
Figure 2-3. Projected Distribution System Storage ..................................................................................... 22
Figure 2-4. Clearwell Alternative 0 Layout .................................................................................................. 23
Figure 3-1. Alternative A Clearwell Layout.................................................................................................. 32
Figure 3-2. Alternative B Clearwell Layout.................................................................................................. 33
Figure 3-3. Alternative C Clearwell Layout ................................................................................................. 34
Figure 3-4. Alternative D Clearwell Layout ................................................................................................. 35
Figure 4-1. Turbine Selection Chart ............................................................................................................ 40
Figure 4-2 Schematic of One-Unit PAT Arrangement Installed in Parallel with a Pressure
Reducing Valve .............................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 4-3. One-unit PAT Estimated Monthly Average Energy Performance ............................................ 42
Figure 4-4. Three-unit PAT Arrangement Installed in Parallel with a Pressure Reducing Valve ................ 43
Figure 4-5. Three-unit PAT Estimated Monthly Average Energy Performance .......................................... 44
Appendices
Appendix A. Conceptual Layouts for Alternatives 1 and 2
Appendix B. Pipeline Layouts
Appendix C. Calculations and Helioscope Outputs
March 20, 2019 | iii

Acronyms/Abbreviations
AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering
AWWA American Water Works Association
cfh cubic foot per hour
cfs cubic foot per second
City City of Ashland
DIP Ductile Iron Pipe
DSL Oregon Department of State Lands
EL elevation
GAC granular activated carbon
gpm gallons per minute
HP Hydrogen peroxide
kVA kilovolt-amp
kW kilowatts
LxWxD length times width times depth
LF Linear Feet
LOX liquid oxygen
MCL maximum contaminant level
MGD million gallons per day
mg/L milligrams per liter
MWC Medford Water Commission
MWH megawatt-hour
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PAT pump-as-turbine
PRV pressure reducing bypass valve
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
SBS sodium bisulfite
SCFM Standard cubic feet per minute
sf square feet
TAP Talent Ashland Phoenix Intertie
TID Talent Irrigation District
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
UV Ultraviolet light
VFD variable frequency drives
WTP water treatment plant
iv | March 20, 2019

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The City of Ashland, Oregon (City) owns and operates the Ashland water treatment plant
(WTP). In addition to being located in a flood zone, the existing plant is aging and
requires extensive modifications to meet current and potential future regulations. The
City reviewed treatment alternatives to select the treatment processes for a new
7.5-million gallon per day (MGD) WTP, expandable to 10 MGD.
1.2 Purpose
This report presents treatment process layout alternatives and design criteria, and
provides comparative capital costs for treatment alternatives. Advantages and
disadvantages for each alternative are identified and evaluated based on their reliability,
robustness, and cost.
The report also covers evaluations and recommendations for the following WTP
components:
 Ashland Creek Pipeline and Vehicle Crossing – how vehicles will enter the plant
and if a separate creek crossing is required for the pipelines entering and exiting
the plant.
 Clearwell Volume and Configuration – volume and configuration of the clearwells
to achieve storage and disinfection requirements.
 Energy Generation – options for energy generation at the plant site, either
through solar or hydropower.
 Natural Resource Permitting – permitting steps for plant construction.
1.3 Design Requirements

1.3.1 Flows
The new WTP will have 7.5 MGD capacity, expandable up to 10 MGD. The City’s current
and future WTPs are primarily supplied with raw surface water from the west and east
forks of Ashland Creek that flow into Reeder Reservoir prior to entering the WTP. The
City also purchases additional raw water from the Talent Irrigation District (TID) to
supplement flows from Reeder Reservoir. Water from TID is available during the
irrigation season only (April through October). When requested, TID water is pumped out
of Ashland Canal to the WTP at the Terrace Street Pump Station. TID water is mixed
with water from the Reeder Reservoir supply prior to entering the WTP for treatment. The
City also purchases treated water, conveyed via the Talent-Ashland-Phoenix (TAP)
pipeline, from the Medford Water Commission.
Figure 1-1 depicts a breakdown of historical water supply by source. Water losses
through the treatment system are not included.
March 20, 2019 | 1

Figure 1-1. Historical Water Supply by Source
1,600
1,400
Water (Million Gallons) 1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
Reeder Reservoir TID MWC/TAP
1.3.2 Future WTP Treated Water Quality Requirements

Treated water quality goals for the future WTP must meet all applicable federal, state,
and local drinking water regulations as well as provide a finished water quality that is at
least equal to the existing WTP. Table 1-1 presents a summary of the recommended
treatment goals for the future WTP.
Table 1-1. Treatment Requirements for Future WTP
Parameter Criteria
Pathogen Removal At least match existing WTP performance of:

 ≥2.0-log Cryptosporidium removal using filtration only.
 ≥3.0-log Giardia removal using a combination of filtration and
chlorination
 ≥4.0-log virus removal/inactivation using a combination of filtration and
chlorination
Inorganic Chemicals, At least match existing WTP performance of:

Synthetic Organic  Turbidity: <0.15 NTU filtered all the time.
Compounds, and Volatile
 All other primary regulated contaminants below regulatory limits
Organic Compounds
 Total Iron ≤ 0.05 mg/L
 Total Manganese ≤ 0.01 mg/L
 Total Aluminum ≤ 0.05 mg/L
Aesthetic Issues At least match existing WTP performance of:

 Finished water color: No more than 1 platinum-cobalt unit.
Improve existing WTP performance of:
 Taste and odor: Reduce Geosmin concentrations to ≤5 ng/L.
 Distribution water color: Minimize the use of permanganate.
2 | March 20, 2019

Table 1-1. Treatment Requirements for Future WTP
Parameter Criteria
Secondary Disinfection and At least match existing WTP performance of:

Disinfection By-Products  THMs < 60 μg/L at all points in distribution system (75% of Maximum
Control contaminant level (MCL))
 HAAs < 45 μg/L at all points in distribution system (75% of MCL)
 TOC at entry point ≤ 3.0 mg/L
Corrosion Control  pH at entry point 7.8 +/- 0.2

 Alkalinity at entry point ≥ 25 mg/L
Cyanotoxins At least match existing WTP performance for cyanotoxin removal and
consider additional removal if future raw water concentrations are higher
than prior detections.
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Consider how new treatment systems can affect per- and polyfluoroalkyl
Substances substances if released into the watershed.
2 Initial Analysis
2.1 Treatment Alternatives Evaluation
On October 11, 2018, HDR conducted a workshop with the City to present different
treatment process alternatives for the proposed WTP. The following alternatives were
discussed during the workshop:
 Treatment Alternative 1: Ozonation with Direct Media Filtration and Chlorination.
This alternative is similar to the existing plant (coagulation followed by direct
filtration) except for the addition of ozone to the raw water. While this option has
a low lifecycle cost and can address algal toxins and taste and odor mitigation, it
is not a robust process for handling challenging water quality.
 Treatment Alternative 1A: Ozonation with 2-Stage Filtration and Chlorination.
Ozone will be applied to the raw water prior to entering a two-step filtration
package unit. While similar to direct filtration, the process is slightly more robust
and able to treat water with higher raw water turbidities.
 Treatment Alternative 2: Sedimentation, Powdered Activated Carbon Addition,
Media Filtration, UV Disinfection, and Chlorination. Water would be treated
conventionally with flocculation, sedimentation and filtration, followed by UV
disinfection. This is a robust process able to handle challenging water quality,
and the UV can address algal toxins and disinfection requirements, allowing for a
smaller clearwell. However, the alternative has higher capital costs and the UV
process is energy intensive.
 Treatment Alternative 2A: Ozonation, High Rate Clarifiers, Media Filtration.
Ozone will be applied to raw water and followed with flocculation, high rate
clarification, and filtration. There are three options for high rate clarification: plate
March 20, 2019 | 3

settlers, ACTIFLO, and dissolved air flotation. An additional option would be to

add ozone downstream of the filters for disinfection credits, which could reduce
the size of the clearwell. This alternative is robust and able to handle high raw
water turbidity with ozone providing treatment for algal toxins and taste and odor
compounds.
 Treatment Alternative 3: Membrane Filtration, Granular Activated Carbon (GAC),
UV Disinfection. Pressurized water would enter the membranes followed by GAC
to remove algal toxins and UV disinfection. The membrane system is highly
automated, but unable to handle challenging water quality. It is a complex system
and while GAC can treat algal toxins, the process has a high O&M cost.
Table 2-1 summarizes the high level relative cost comparison presented at the
workshop.
Table 2-1. October 11, 2018 Workshop Treatment Alternatives – Relative Cost
Comparison
Capital Cost Range Annual O&M Cost
Treatment Alternative ($/MGD Capacity) ($/MGD Capacity)
Alternative 1 – Ozonation with Direct Media 3.5 – 4.0 0.15 – 0.20

Filtration and Chlorination
Alternative 1A – Ozonation with 2-Stage 4.0 – 4.5 0.20 – 0.25

Filtration and Chlorination
Alternative 2 – Sedimentation, Powdered 4.5 – 5.0 0.25 – 0.30

Activated Carbon Addition, Media Filtration,
UV Disinfection, and Chlorination
Alternative 2A – Ozonation, High Rate 4.5 – 5.0 0.25 – 0.30

Clarifiers, Media Filtration
Alternative 3 – Membrane Filtration, GAC, 3.5 – 4.5 0.25 – 0.30

UV Disinfection
During the workshop, the City discussed a preference for a process that could handle
spikes in turbidity during flood events. Because Treatment Alternative 1 has similar
processes to the existing plant, it was eliminated as an alternative. Treatment
Alternative 2 utilizes UV for disinfection but still requires chlorination to provide a residual
in the distribution system. In addition to increasing the disinfection system’s complexity,
this option increases the capital costs and electricity O&M costs although chemical costs
are reduced due to the lower chlorination dosage required. These additional system
complexities and costs as well as the large footprint this alternative presents led to the
elimination of this alternative. Based on the City’s pilot testing study carried out in late
2017 (HDR 2018), it was concluded that the complexity of Treatment Alternative 3’s new
membrane system would require extensive re-training of operations staff and hiring of an
additional specialized staff member to oversee the membrane system’s valves,
automation, and performance monitoring. The additional operational requirements, as
well as the required use of GAC for treatment of algal toxins and taste and odor
compounds lead to additional O&M costs not captured in Table 2-1. This is likely to be
the most expensive option to operate, which makes this one of the least desirable
options. Therefore Treatment Alternative 3 was also eliminated from consideration. At
4 | March 20, 2019

the end of the workshop, the following two alternatives remained for further
consideration:
 Treatment Alternative 1A: Ozonation with 2-Stage Filtration and Chlorination
 Treatment Alternative 2A: Ozonation, High Rate Clarifiers, Media Filtration
Table 2-2 summarizes the design flows with an assumed plant recycle rate (the amount
of water captured from process backwash) of 10 percent. The WTP recycle rate will be
further defined during preliminary engineering.
Table 2-2. Design Flow

Raw Water Flow Rate* Finished Water Flow Rate
Plant Phase (MGD) (MGD)
Minimum 1.7 1.5
Average 3.3 3.0
Maximum 8.3 7.5
Ultimate 11.0 10.0
*Includes 10% recycle flow rate
Table 2-3 summarizes water quality data collected from 2004 through August 2018.
Water quality samples were collected at the existing plant.
Table 2-3. Water Quality – Monthly Averaged Values (2004-2018)

Turbidity Alkalinity Hardness
Statistic Temp (°C) pH
(NTU) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Minimum 0.23 19 3.0 6.8 13.0
Average 1.00 38 9.4 7.4 25.4
Maximum 5.29 61 20.0 7.9 38.0
While the Reeder Reservoir is the main source of water for the plant, there may be
operational periods where the reservoir is bypassed or a portion of the water is supplied
by the TID. Based on preliminary information, it is possible alternative water sources will
have much higher turbidity levels than current water quality data shows. The City stated
TID water has turbidity spikes up to 30 NTU and flood events may result in turbidity
levels up to 100 NTU. Likewise, the TID water will contribute to the organic loading at the
plant. However, proper use of the pretreatment system through coagulation and
sedimentation will reduce turbidity and organics prior to filtration.
The following sections describe each treatment alternative in more detail. For both
alternatives, pre-ozonation and chemical addition prior to pretreatment will be
accomplished via flash mix using a pumped system.
The ozone system includes a mass transfer Venturi, booster pumps, modular ozone
generation units, and a cooling, injection, and destruct system. It is anticipated ozone will
March 20, 2019 | 5

be generated from air using an oxygen generation system, but a cryogenic liquid oxygen
(LOX) supply tank and evaporator could be provided if preferred. A sodium bisulfite
(SBS) feed point will be installed downstream of the ozone system to quench any
remaining ozone prior to pretreatment.
2.1.1 Treatment Alternative I: Plate Settlers with Granular Media

Filtration
Water will enter flash mix, flocculation, and plate settler units for clarification prior to
Treatment Alternative I filtration. A flow schematic of this alternative is shown in
Figure 2-1.
Following pre-ozonation, soda ash, coagulant, and coagulant aid will be added to the raw
water. Flow will be split between two flocculation and plate settler trains that can be
expanded for the plant’s ultimate capacity. Flocculation will be achieved by mechanical
flocculation using vertical turbine flocculators with variable frequency drives (VFDs) due
to their flexibility in velocity gradients, low maintenance requirements, low head loss
through the system, and lack of submerged bearings. Tapered flocculation will be
implemented with decreasing energy imparted through each stage to encourage optimal
floc formation.
Following flocculation, water will enter the plate settler basins. Plate settlers use plates
installed at an angle in a basin to increase the settling surface area through which the
water travels. The inclined surface decreases the particle fall distance needed for floc to
contact a surface and reduces the required detention time. As water passes through the
basin, solids are captured on the inclined plates while clarified water flows upward to
collection channels.
Following clarification, water will be sent through the mixed media filters that are
designed similarly to the existing WTP with the same loading rate, media, and bed depth.
Treatment Alternative I design criteria are conceptual and will be updated during
preliminary design for the selected alternative (Table 2-4).
Sludge that collects in the plate settler basin will be pumped to a backwash equalization
basin along with backwash waste and filter-to-waste from the filters. The filters will be
backwashed with both air and water to fully expand and clean the media. Based on three
filter backwashes per day at a flow rate of 20 gpm/sf for 12 minutes and a filter-to-waste
duration of 7 minutes, approximately 287,000 gallons of backwash waste would be
produced per day.
The conceptual site layout including a plan and elevation view for Treatment Alternative I
is provided in Appendix A.
6 | March 20, 2019

Figure 2-1. Treatment Alternative I: Plate Settlers with Granular Media Filtration – Process Flow Diagram
March 20, 2019 | 7

Table 2-4. Treatment Alternative I: Plate Settlers with Granular Media Filtration – Conceptual
Design Criteria
Item Unit Value
Number of trains -- 2
Flow rate of train MGD 4.13
Flocculation
Number of stages -- 3
Detention time minutes 30
Dimension, each stage LxWxD (ft) 11 x 22 x 16
Maximum G-value, Stage 1 Sec-1 at 4°C 60
Plate Settlers
Basin dimension LxWxD (ft) 50 x 22 x 16
Plate loading rate gpm/sf 0.3
Plate area efficiency factor -- 90%
Plate angle -- 55°
Plate material 304 SST
Projected effective plate area per basin sf 9,549
Plate settlers per cartridge 73
Plate cartridges per basin 6 (3 rows x 2 cartridges)
Sludge collectors per basin 1
Sludge flow per collector gpm 150 – 200
Solids removal concentration 0.5 – 1.5%
Filters
Number each 4
Dimensions LxWxD (ft) 23.2 x 15 x 17
Filter loading rate gpm/sf 5.0
Air scour rate scfm/sf 3–5
Backwash rate gpm/sf 20
Filter-to-Waste gpm/sf Up to 4.0
Filter Media – depth inches Silica Sand (0.5 mm) – 12

Anthracite (1.0 mm) – 18
8 | March 20, 2019

2.1.2 Treatment Alternative II: Package Treatment Unit

For Treatment Alternative II, water will enter a package treatment unit that combines both
an adsorption clarifier and a mixed media filter. A flow schematic of Treatment
Alternative II is shown in Figure 2-2.
Following pre-ozonation, soda ash, coagulant, and coagulant aid will be added to the raw
water. Flow will be split between five modular package treatment units that can be
expanded for the plant’s ultimate phase; in the future, only one additional unit will be
required to meet required demand. Flocculation will occur within the unit prior to
clarification. Following clarification, water will pass through the filtration chambers before
continuing to the clearwells.
Design criteria for Treatment Alternative II are conceptual and will be updated during
preliminary design for the selected alternative (Table 2-5). Package treatment unit
information is based on the design provided by WesTech for their Trident TR-840A unit.
Table 2-5. Treatment Alternative II: Package Treatment Unit – Conceptual Design
Criteria
Item Unit Value
Number of trains 5
Flow rate of train MGD 2
Package Treatment Unit – Flocculation/Clarification
Flocculation/clarification type Adsorption contact bed
Design loading rate gpm/sf 10
Media depth ft 4
Cleaning process Air scour and flush
Design flush volume gal 14,000
Package Treatment Unit – Filtration
Type Open gravity, downflow
Filter loading rate gpm/sf 5
Design backwash volume gal 28,000
Filter Media inches Silica + High Density Sand

(0.5 mm) – 12
GAC (1.3 mm) – 24
March 20, 2019 | 9

Figure 2-2. Treatment Alternative II: Package Treatment Unit – Process Flow Diagram
10 | March 20, 2019

Within the package treatment unit, both the clarification and filtration steps are
backwashed. The adsorption clarifier will automatically backwash using raw water and air
to agitate and remove solids from the unit. The filter unit will use clarified water and an air
scour for cleaning. Waste from both cleaning cycles will be directed to the backwash
equalization basin. Approximately 294,000 gallons of backwash and flush waste would
be produced from the system daily. The package unit is typically provided in a steel tank,
but the components can also be installed inside concrete basins.
The conceptual site layout including a plan and elevation view for Treatment
Alternative II is shown in Appendix A.
2.1.3 Treatment Alternative Evaluation

Treatment Alternative II will be split into two options for the cost evaluation: one with
steel tanks and one with concrete basins. The two systems are qualitatively evaluated
based solely on the criteria identified by the City (Table 2-6).
Table 2-6. Summary of Treatment Alternative Evaluation Criteria

Treatment Alternative I:
Treatment Alternative II:
Plate Settlers with Granular
Package Treatment Unit
Criteria Media Filtration
Reliability  History of successful installation  Units are successfully installed in a

of plate settlers wide variety of applications across
 Tapered flocculation is widely the country
used in the industry  Steel tanks require recoating to
prevent corrosion
Simplicity  City is familiar with use of  Unit is provided with fully-automated

granular media filtration controls to address changing
 Plate settlers are simple to influent water quality
operate and have limited moving  Clarification and filtration combined
parts into one unit
 Corners of plate settler basins
may need occasional cleaning in
areas not reached by sludge
collector system
Robustness  Operational flexibility within the  Unit can only handle a raw water
flocculators allows tailored floc turbidity of up to 75 NTU without
formation needing to reduce flow
 Plate settlers able to handle a
wide range of influent turbidity
Expandability  Plate settlers and filter units can  Units are modular
be tested for performance at  Additional units would be needed to
higher loading rates without expand plant capacity
adding more units
Regulatory  Granular media filters can be  Modifications to the unit are limited
Compliance designed for a GAC cap to
remove a wide range of
contaminants
March 20, 2019 | 11

Both systems produce a similar amount of backwash waste and will have similar impacts
to the wastewater system. While Treatment Alternative II has a higher flow rate during
backwashing and produces slightly more backwash waste, the WTP will have an
equalization basin where backwash waste will be collected before either being returned
to the head of the plant or sent to the sanitary sewer.
Based on a review of the qualitative criteria only, the currently recommended treatment
train is Treatment Alternative I for the following reasons:
 City has familiarity with a more conventional treatment process using clarification
and filtration.
 Plate settlers and granular media filtration are robust and proven technologies to
treat a wide range of water quality. Although high turbidity incidents are
anticipated to be infrequent, this alternative gives a wide range in terms of
operation and effectively handling changing water quality.
 The alternative is flexible in terms of its operation and ability to address future
regulations. The plate settler and filter units can be rerated at higher loading
rates depending on demonstration testing results. The filters can be designed to
provide hydraulic capacity for additional or different types of media, such as
GAC, to address future regulations.
Table 2-7 summarizes the cost for each treatment alternative.
Table 2-7. Summary of Treatment Alternative Capital Costs

Alternative Capital Costs
Alternative I: Plate Settlers with Granular $29.8M

Media Filters
Alternative II A: Package Treatment $27.6M

Process (Steel Tanks)
Alternative II B: Package Treatment $28.2M

Process (Concrete Tanks)
As shown in the table, Treatment Alternative I is slightly more expensive than Treatment
Alternatives IIA and IIB.
2.1.4 Treatment Alternative Selection

During the January 23, 2018 workshop with the City, Treatment Alternative I was
selected as the preferred alternative. Despite the cost being slightly higher, Alternative I
presents numerous benefits including process simplicity and familiarity, expandability,
and reliability.
To be granted credit for ozone disinfection, all processes downstream of ozone
disinfection need to be covered. After the January 23, 2018 workshop, it was elected to
remove the structure over the pretreatment basins and filters as part of a cost savings
measure. Subsequent disinfection analysis also showed that credit for ozone disinfection
would not be required at the plant during the initial construction phase. If ozone
12 | March 20, 2019

disinfection credits become necessary in the future, enclosures can be constructed over
these treatment processes. By removing the enclosures, the cost estimate for
Alternative I drops to $24.0M.
2.1.5 Pathogen Disinfection

Ozone
Ozonation is an available technology for taste and odor destruction, as well as the
destruction of algal toxins. When applied downstream of filtration, the State of Oregon
allows disinfection credit with ozonation. Ozone is a strong oxidant used to create
hydroxyl radical, an even stronger oxidant. The oxidation process destroys contaminants,
but it also increases the biodegradability of residual natural organic matter. Left
unchecked, microorganism growth in the distribution system could increase, which would
be undesirable. Ozonation, however, is often coupled with biological filtration to remove
organic matter prior to chlorination. The ozone system design criteria are based on a
modular generation system such as the Primozone system and will be updated during
preliminary design (Table 2-8).
Table 2-8. Ozone System Design Criteria

Item Unit Value
Side Stream Injection Venturi gpm 500

Flow Rate
Ozone concentration - -- 15%

Max Average 10%
Contactor Type -- 42-inch diameter pipeline
Number of stages -- 2 (ozone contact and quench)
Minimum contact time minutes 3.0
Minimum quench time minutes 0.5
Ozone Dosage (max) mg/L 3.5
Air Receiver Size gal 290
Number of Oxygen -- 2: 1 duty, 1 standby

Concentrators
Number of Ozone Generators -- 3: 2 duty, 1 standby
Capacity per unit lb/day 120
Oxygen consumption per unit cfh 350
Generator dimensions LxWxD (inch) 39 x 33 x 80
March 20, 2019 | 13

Ultraviolet Treatment
Ultraviolet light (UV) can be used to inactivate Giardia and Cryptosporidium. It is less
effective for inactivating viruses at typical doses in water treatment. UV’s mode of
inactivation is instantaneous and therefore does not require contact time. It can be
performed under pressure. Several UV disinfection facilities operate in Oregon including
Baker City, City of Springfield, and City of Canby. UV disinfection relies on lamps power
controlled by ballasts. Flow rate, UV intensity, and water UV transmittance readings are
typically incorporated into the control system.
UV has lower day-to-day risk to operations staff because it does not require the handling
of strong oxidizing chemicals. However, UV has an electrical based hazard operators
must be aware of when maintaining the system. UV has higher power costs than sodium
hypochlorite but is not reliant on chemical deliveries; it also has a smaller footprint than
both chlorine and ozone. For the new WTP, UV is a viable alternative to chlorine and
ozone in a specific process approach of membranes and GAC.
The WTP will be designed for 10 MGD firm capacity. The Oregon Health Authority
requirement for treated drinking water is 0.5-log inactivation of Giardia. The UV treatment
system would be designed to provide 1.0-log inactivation of Giardia as the energy
requirement is just marginally higher than for 0.5-log inactivation.
Advanced Oxidation Processes

 UV-Hydrogen Peroxide Treatment - UV coupled with hydrogen peroxide can be
used to create a hydroxyl radical, similar to the ozonation process described
above. However, this process is rarely used in water treatment because the
required UV doses are much higher than typically used solely for disinfection.
The alternative is similar in capital cost to ozonation. Due to the higher long-term
operation and maintenance (O&M) cost and the process stability uncertainty is
not preferred for Ashland.
 UV-Chlorine Treatment - UV irradiation may be combined with chemical
compounds to achieve better disinfection efficiency rather than one being used
alone.
Both these processes will be able to achieve 1.0-log inactivation of Giardia with an
additional 1.0-log reduction of Geosmin in the system.
Table 2-9 summarizes the options for pathogen disinfection.
Table 2-9. Summary of Pathogen Disinfection

Process Advantages Disadvantages
Ozonation  Robust oxidant  Increases biodegradability of

 Can improve organics removal organic matter, which can cause
when applied upstream of filtration growth in the distribution system
UV  Used in several Oregon facilities  Electrical hazard and high power

 Small footprint costs
 Does not require chemical
deliveries
14 | March 20, 2019

Table 2-9. Summary of Pathogen Disinfection

Process Advantages Disadvantages
Advanced  Robust oxidant  Electrical hazard and high power

Oxidation costs
Processes  High capital cost and long-term
maintenance requirements
 Requires higher UV dose than
needed only for disinfection
While all three options will treat algal toxins and mitigate taste and odor causing
compounds, ozonation has the additional benefit of potentially improving the removal of
organics and reducing the overall chlorine demand for maintaining a residual in the
distribution system. Application in the raw water pipeline prior to other treatment
processes is recommended.
2.2 Ashland Creek Pipeline and Vehicle Crossings

Water transmission pipelines associated with the proposed WTP consist of raw water
supply, finished water distribution, and ancillary piping, including sanitary and backwater
discharge pipelines.
2.2.1 Current City of Ashland System

The current Ashland WTP supplies finished water to the City distribution system using a
30-inch-diameter pipeline from the plant site, with the pipeline located within or adjacent
to the private access road leading to the plant. The pipeline continues into Granite Street
and Glenview Drive, and splits to supply the Granite Street Reservoir (overflow Elevation
[EL]. 2,173 feet) through a 16-inch-diameter pipeline, altitude/pressure control valve
(located in a vault), flow control valve, and flow meter. The Crowson Reservoir (overflow
EL 2,425 feet) is served by a 24-inch-diameter pipeline after the flow split. Figure B1 in
Appendix B shows an overall site layout of the existing pipelines in relation with the new
WTP layout
2.2.2 Proposed Pipelines for new WTP

To provide raw water to the new WTP, conversion of the existing 30-inch finished water
pipeline is planned from the existing WTP to a raw water supply pipeline, routing to the
new WTP site. A new connection to the 30-inch-diameter raw water pipeline near the
intersection of Granite Street and Horn Creek Road will be made.
A raw water supply from the TID will be extended from Granite Street to the new WTP
intake structure to provide an additional source to the plant.
The new WTP will provide two separate clearwells (finished floor EL 2,255 feet and
30-foot side water depth), with each clearwell dedicated to a separate reservoir and
pressure zone (Granite and Crowson). Flow of finished water from the clearwell to
March 20, 2019 | 15

Granite Reservoir will be through gravity pipe and pressure reducing/altitude valve; flow
from the clearwell to Crowson Reservoir will be pumped to the reservoir site.
Two additional pipelines are included: a sanitary sewer/backwash line and a TAP supply
pipeline.
Sanitary Sewer/Backwash
A dual-purpose pipeline will be required to service the new WTP; a 6- or 8-inch sanitary
sewer, for sanitary flows and discharged backwash water. This sanitary pipeline will
terminate at the existing 6-inch sewer currently located in Granite Street, adjacent to the
Ashland Creek culvert crossing.
TAPs Supply
In the event of emergency operations, the City is considering utilizing the Granite Street
Reservoir as a forebay to provide water to the Crowson Reservoir. This configuration will
require additional valving and a connection to the Granite Street Reservoir, a booster
pump station to lift water to Crowson pressure zone, a new pipeline to connect to the
existing Crowson Reservoir pipeline, and control valves.
2.2.3 Design Assumptions

General:
 Additional utilities, including communications, electrical service, fiber optic/cable,
and gas lines are not considered in this analysis.
 Plant site piping, including connections between the treatment process and
clearwells are not a part of these pipeline alternatives.
 Crossings of Ashland Creek upstream of the Lower Reservoir will utilize above
grade pipe bridges. Preliminary geotechnical investigation results indicate that
trenchless crossing techniques, such as horizontal directional drilling, tunneling,
or boring will likely encounter boulders, rock, and/or mixed face layers that
present substantial risk. Additionally, open cut installation of pipes in creek
crossings may require significant permitting, mitigation, and armoring of the pipe
crossing against future creek erosion.
Water Pipeline:
 Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP), Class 50, (AWWA C104, C110, C111, C115, C150,
C151) cement mortar lined, asphaltic coated, using manufacture’s restrained
joints for pipe runs and Mega-Lug style restrained fittings for field restraint
 Isolation valves, butterfly, (AWWA C504)
 Standard trench construction and backfill, with a minimum of 6 feet of cover, or
additional protection where not possible
 Improved areas (road surfaces) repaired to match existing
16 | March 20, 2019

Sewer/Sanitary pipeline:
 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) pressure pipe (AWWA C900/901), using restrained joint
fittings
The following sections describe the pipeline alternatives.
2.2.4 Pipeline Alternative 1

Figure B2 in Appendix B provides a conceptual layout of pipeline Alternative 1 with the
following criteria:
Supply:
 30-inch-diameter water line, connecting to existing and re-purposed
30-inch-diameter water line from the existing WTP, crossing Ashland Creek on a
new south pipe bridge at the intersection of Granite Street and Horn Creek Road,
and aligned in Horned Creek Road to the new WTP site.
 24-inch-diameter water line (TID), connecting to the existing TID at the
intersection of Granite Street and Horn Creek Road, crossing Ashland Creek on
a new south pipe bridge at the intersection of Granite Street and Horn Creek
Road, and aligned in Horned Creek Road to the new WTP site.
Distribution:
 Crowson Reservoir: One 24-inch-diameter water transmission pipeline from the
clearwell and pump station, aligned in the new access road and continuing in
Horned Creek Road, crossing Ashland Creek on a new north pipe bridge, with
the new pipeline continuing in Glenview Street to connection point near the
current Granite Street flow meter/flow control assembly and connecting to the
existing 24-inch-diameter pipeline and Crowson Reservoir
 Granite Street Reservoir: One 24-inch-diameter water transmission pipeline from
the clearwell, flowing by gravity and aligned in the new access road and
continuing in Horned Creek Road, crossing Ashland Creek on a new north pipe
bridge and continuing to the existing flow meter/flow control assembly and
Granite Street Reservoir
Sanitary:
 Sanitary and backwash flows are collected at the new WTP site and conveyed by
gravity in Horn Creek Road, crossing Ashland Creek on the north pipe bridge
(Section D, Figure B6 in Appendix B)
TAPs/Granite Street Reservoir:

 24-inch-diameter water transmission main, connection to reservoir, control valves
and booster pump station at Granite Street Reservoir, with the pipeline
constructed parallel to the existing pipeline, and connecting to the Crowson
Reservoir pipeline
March 20, 2019 | 17

Comments:
 This alternative requires one large or two slightly smaller pipe bridges to cross
Ashland Creek.
 This alternative places all pipelines within Horn Creek Road. The existing road
cross section would need to be improved (additional slope protection/grading,
retaining walls, etc.) to accommodate all pipes, as well as any communications,
gas, or other utilities.

following criteria:
Supply:
30-inch-diameter water line from existing WTP, crossing Ashland Creek on a
pipe bridge at the intersection of Granite Street and Horn Creek Road, and
aligned in Horned Creek Road to the new WTP site
a pipe bridge at the intersection of Granite Street and Horn Creek Road, and
aligned in Horned Creek Road to the new WTP site
Distribution:
clearwell pump station, aligned in the new clearwell access road and continuing
down the hillside crossing Ashland Creek on a new pipe bridge north of the
intersection of Granite Street and Horn Creek Road, with the new pipeline
continuing in Glenview Street to connection point near the current Granite Street
flow meter/flow control assembly and connecting to the existing 24-inch pipeline
and Crowson Reservoir
the clearwell, flowing by gravity and aligned in the new clearwell access road and
continuing down the hillside, crossing Ashland Creek on a new pipe bridge north
of the intersection of Granite Street and Horned Creek Road, continuing to the
existing flow meter/flow control assembly and Granite Street Reservoir
Sanitary:
gravity down the hillside, crossing Ashland Creek on a new pipe bridge north of
the intersection of Granite Street and Horned Creek Road, and connecting to the
existing sewer in Granite Street (Section D, Figure B6 in Appendix B)
18 | March 20, 2019


 24-inch water transmission main, connection to reservoir, control valves and
booster pump station at Granite Street Reservoir, with the pipeline constructed
parallel to the existing pipeline, and connecting to the Crowson Reservoir
pipeline.
Comments
 This alternative requires one pipe bridge at the intersection of Granite Street and
Horn Creek Road and a second bridge located north of this intersection.
 This alternative places the supply pipelines within Horn Creek Road, and
transmission and sanitary lines on a separate pipe bridge

following criteria:
Supply:
30-inch-diameter water line from existing WTP, crossing Ashland Creek on a new
pipe bridge north of the intersection of Granite Street and Horn Creek Road, and
aligned Horn Creek Road to the new WTP site
 24-inch-diameter water line (TID), connecting to the existing TID north of the
a new pipe bridge north of the intersection of Granite Street and Horn Creek
Road, and aligned in Horn Creek Road to the new WTP site
Distribution:
 Crowson Reservoir: One 24-inch water transmission pipeline from the clearwell
pump station, south easterly down the hillside crossing Ashland Creek on a new
pipe bridge north of the intersection of Granite Street and Glenview Street,
continuing in Glenview Street to connection point near the current Granite Street
flow meter/flow control assembly and connecting to the existing 24-inch-diameter
pipeline to Crowson Reservoir
the clearwell, continuing easterly down the hillside crossing Ashland Creek north
of the Lower Reservoir and connecting to the Granite Street reservoir pipeline.
Sanitary:
gravity down the hillside, crossing Ashland Creek on a new pipe bridge at the
intersection of Granite Street and Horned Creek Road in Horn Creek Road, and
connecting to the existing sewer in Granite Street (Section D, Figure B6 in
Appendix B)
March 20, 2019 | 19


Reservoir pipeline.
Comments:
 This alternative requires one pipe bridge at the intersection of Granite Street and
Ashland Creek.
 This alternative requires crossing Ashland Creek just downstream of the Lower
Reservoir as well as a new flow monitoring and flow control assembly.

Figure B5 in Appendix B provides a conceptual layout of Pipeline Alternative 4 with the
following criteria:
Supply:
30-inch-diameter water line from existing WTP, crossing Ashland Creek on a new
pipe bridge north of the intersection of Granite Street and Horn Creek Road, and
continuing uphill to Horn Creek Road and the WTP entrance
a new pipe bridge north of the intersection of Granite Street and Horn Creek
Road, and continuing uphill to Horn Creek Road and the WTP entrance
Distribution:
clearwell pump station, aligned in the new clearwell access road and continuing
downhill parallel to the supply lines and crossing Ashland Creek on the pipe
bridge, with the new pipeline continuing in Granite and Glenview Street to
connection point near the current Granite Street flow meter/flow control assembly
and connecting to the existing 24-inch-diameter pipeline to Crowson Reservoir
the clearwell, flowing by gravity and aligned in the new clearwell access road,
continuing downhill parallel to the supply lines and crossing Ashland Creek on
the pipe bridge and the existing flow meter/flow control assembly and Granite
Street Reservoir
Sanitary:
gravity downhill, crossing Ashland Creek on the pipe bridge (Section D,
Figure B6 in Appendix B)
20 | March 20, 2019


Reservoir pipeline
Comments:
 This alternative requires one large pipe bridge to cross Ashland Creek.
Summary:
 Table 2-10 presents a summary of the four alternatives pipe lengths.
Table 2-10 Pipe Length Breakdown by Type

Pipeline 8-inch 30-inch 24-inch 24-inch TAPS 24-inch Total Pipe
Alternative No. Sanitary Raw Water Finished TID Supply Connection (LF)
(LF) (LF) Water (LF) (LF)*
(LF)
1 765 985 3,360 685 310 5,795
2 720 685 3,270 685 310 5,360
3 970 675 2,540 675 310 4,860
4 770 485 3,360 485 310 5,100
* common to all options, not included in total
Pipe Alternative 1 requires two separate pipe bridges spanning Ashland Creek at the
existing traffic crossing and pipes located in narrow access road to the WTP site. It is
likely the road and its cross section will require improvements (retaining walls and slope
grading for additional width, drainage) to provide adequate clearance to construct and
maintain the pipelines. This alternative also requires the most lineal footage of pipe.
Pipe Alternative 2 requires two separate pipe bridges to span Ashland Creek, in two
separate locations. This option requires installation of three of the pipes in the slopes
east of the WTP access road and to cross the creek on a pipe bridge downstream of the
current traffic crossing. The second pipe bridge is required at the current traffic crossing
to convey the TID and raw water supply.
Pipe Alternative 3 requires one pipe bridge crossing of Ashland Creek, adjacent to the
current traffic crossing. Finished water lines utilize two separate routes from the plant.
Installation would be in the slopes east of the new plant site descending to Granite
Street. With the alignment of Ashland Creek, the Granite Street finished water line will
need to cross the creek below the Lower Reservoir, most likely in a trenchless crossing
to minimize permitting. The connection to Crowson Reservoir requires a creek crossing,
probably a bridge crossing on Granite Street to route the pipe to existing Crowson fill
line. This alternative requires the shortest amount of pipe.
Pipe Alternative 4 utilizes one pipe bridge for all supply and raw water and finished water
lines. This bridge is located downstream of the current traffic crossing. Access to the
March 20, 2019 | 21

bridge would be from Granite Street. All pipes would be located in the slopes east of the
plant site.
2.3 Clearwell Volume and Configuration

Finished water storage is required to provide buffering capacity for pumping, plant
flexibility, and distribution system storage, and to supply volume for plant backwashing.
To evaluate the need for distribution system storage, the RH2 Engineering master plan
was reviewed for the future storage excess or deficit in each operating zone. Based on a
scenario where TAP water is included, the Alsing zone is modified and the City achieves
conservation goals; there is an estimated 0.3 MG water surplus within the Granite zone
(Figure 2-3)
Figure 2-3. Projected Distribution System Storage
Source: RH2 Engineering Master Plan
The Granite zone includes the Granite Street Reservoir, which is in need of significant
rehabilitation. The Granite Street Reservoir also is located within the Ashland Creek
floodplain and susceptible to a seismic event. If the City demolished the Granite Street
Reservoir (capacity 2 MG) from their system, it would result in a shortfall of 1.7 MG. A
base case (Alternative 0) for the clearwells was developed to account for this shortfall
and provides some gravity flow from the plant, two basins for O&M flexibility, and
disinfection requirements (see Figure 2-4). The total cost for this alternative is
approximately $6.8M.
22 | March 20, 2019

Figure 2-4. Clearwell Alternative 0 Layout
In January 2019 following review of the initial conceptual cost evaluation, the City
requested HDR evaluate the clearwell base case alternatives to reduce costs and bring
the clearwells closer to the plant site. The following alternatives include:
 Clearwell Alternative 1: 0.5 MG Underground Clearwell
 Clearwell Alternative 2: 2.0 MG Downhill Clearwell
 Clearwell Alternative 4: 1.7 MG Adjacent Clearwell
These clearwell alternatives, along with the base case, were presented at the
January 22-23, 2019 workshop.
As part of the development of these alternatives, disinfection requirements were used to
size clearwells or determine where in the system disinfection would be achieved. A target
of at least 0.5-log of Giardia inactivation was set. Giardia inactivation is heavily
dependent on pH, water temperature, flow rate, and chlorine residual. As the pH
increases and temperature decreases, more contact time between the water and
March 20, 2019 | 23

chlorine is required to achieve disinfection. Contact time requirements were based on the
following two scenarios. Water quality for the two scenarios was based on water quality
data collected from 2004 through August 2018.
Cold Weather Condition (November through April):

 Flow Rate – 3.2 MGD (based on maximum monthly season flow)
 Water Temperature – 3°C (minimum cold season temperature)
 pH – 7.8 (maximum cold season pH)
Warm Weather Condition (May through October):

 Flow Rate – 10 MGD (based on ultimate condition)
 Water Temperature – 7°C (minimum warm season temperature)
 pH – 7.6 (maximum warm season pH)
2.3.1 Clearwell Alternative 1: 0.5 MG Underground Clearwell

In this alternative, the clearwell is sized for minimum capacity to provide water for
backwash supply and pump buffering capacity. The clearwell would be located below the
treatment building and disinfection accomplished elsewhere within the treatment process
(Figure 2-5).
24 | March 20, 2019

Because this clearwell is a minimum capacity, it would require rehabilitation of Granite

Street Reservoir for system hydraulic buffering. The total cost for this alternative is
2.3.2 Clearwell Alternative 2: 2.0 MG Downhill Clearwell

To account for the lost storage from removal of the Granite Street Reservoir, this
alternative includes a 2.0 MG single basin tank downhill from the plant site to provide
gravity flow (Figure 2-6). All disinfection could be achieved at the plant site. The total cost
for this alternative is approximately $6.7M.
March 20, 2019 | 25


This alternative is similar to Alternative 1, but provides a larger clearwell to allow
disinfection within the tank. The clearwell would be located below the operations building
(Figure 2-7). Rehabilitation of Granite Street Reservoir would be necessary to provide
sufficient storage capacity for the Granite zone. The total cost for this alternative is
26 | March 20, 2019

2.3.4 Clearwell Alternative 4: 1.7 MG Adjacent Clearwell

This alternative is similar to the base case but moves the clearwell adjacent to the rest of
the treatment processes (Figure 2-8). Without gravity flow into the two clearwell basins,
an intermediate pump station would be required. The capacity of this clearwell would
provide sufficient storage to allow removal of the Granite Street Reservoir. The total cost
for this alternative is approximately $5.9M, which does not include the cost for an
intermediate pump station.
March 20, 2019 | 27


This alternative is similar to Alternative 4 but places the clearwell underground to allow
gravity flow into the two clearwell basins (Figure 2-9). This alternative would also provide
sufficient clearwell storage to remove Granite Street Reservoir. The total cost for this
alternative is approximately $9.5M.
2.3.6 Initial Clearwell Alternatives Summary

An alternatives cost summary presented at the January 22-23 workshop is provided in
Table 2-11.
Table 2-11. Clearwell Cost Summary from January 22-23 Workshop

Clearwell Size/Configuration Capital Costs
Alternative No. ($M)
0 1.7 MG Dual Basin Downhill Clearwell $6.8
1 0.5 MG Single Basin Underground Clearwell $4.9
2 2 MG Single Basin Downhill Clearwell $6.7
3 1 MG Single Basin Underground Clearwell $6.5
4 1.7 MG Dual Basin Adjacent Clearwell $5.9

+ intermediate PS
5 1.7 MG Dual Basin Adjacent Underground Clearwell $9.5
28 | March 20, 2019

A summary comparing the benefits and disadvantages of the six clearwell options is
presented in Table 2-12.
Table 2-12. Clearwell Alternatives Summary from January 22-23 Workshop

Clearwell Size/Configuration Pros Cons
Alternative
No.
0 1.7 MG Dual Basin Redundancy and flexibility Located away from other
Downhill Clearwell in operation and treatment processes
maintenance
1 0.5 MG Single Basin Small footprint and close Limited maintenance, no

Underground Clearwell to treatment processes redundancy, disinfection
must be accomplished
elsewhere, and requires
below grade construction
2 2 MG Single Basin Full system buffering No redundancy and located

Downhill Clearwell capacity away from other treatment
processes
3 1 MG Single Basin Small footprint and close Limited maintenance, no

Underground Clearwell to treatment processes redundancy, and requires
below grade construction
4 1.7 MG Dual Basin Redundancy, flexibility in Requires intermediate pump

Adjacent Clearwell operations and station
maintenance and close to
treatment processes
5 1.7 MG Dual Basin Redundancy, flexibility in Requires below grade

Adjacent Underground operations and construction
Clearwell maintenance and close to
treatment processes
2.4 Initial Evaluation

The following items were recommended as part of the initial evaluation:
 Treatment Alternatives - The plate settlers with granular media filtration
alternative (Treatment Alternative 1) is more robust by providing better
operational flexibility and ability to handle a wide range of influent turbidity. While
the plate settlers and filter units can be tested for performance at higher loading
rates without adding more units, additional units would be needed to expand
plant capacity in the package treatment unit alternative (Treatment Alternative 2).
It is simpler to modify the granular media filters to meet regulatory compliance
requirements than the package treatment unit, which allows limited modifications.
 Pathogen Disinfection - UV treatment and the advanced oxidation process have
limited use in drinking water applications for pathogen inactiviation. The UV
doses required are much higher than typically used solely for disinfection.
Hydrogen peroxide dosing is sensitive and any residual, unreacted hydrogen
peroxide may cause process control problems with downstream chlorination
systems. Due to these reasons, ozonation treatment is the preferred alternative.
March 20, 2019 | 29

 Pipeline Alternatives - Alternative 4 would impact the roadway least and the
single crossing location would provide good maintenance accessibility.
 Clearwell Volume and Configuration – The initial alternatives need to be refined
to re-evaluate clearwell location based on pipeline crossing locations. Further,
evaluation of alternatives having two clearwells to increase flexibility and
redundancy is required.
2.5 Initial Recommendation

Based on the initial evaluation, the following alternatives are recommended:
Treatment: Treatment Alternative 1: Plate Settlers with Granular
Media Filtration
Pathogen Disinfection: Ozone Treatment
Pipeline: Pipeline Alternative 4: 1.7 MG Adjacent Clearwell
Clearwell: Alternative TBD (Further evaluation needed)
3 Supplemental Analysis
3.1 Current Alternatives
During the January 22-23 workshop, the future of the Granite Street Reservoir and the
City’s need to be able to transfer TAP water between the Granite and Crowson zones
were discussed in detail. The City requested HDR evaluate options for utilizing the
Granite Street Reservoir as the clearwell for the plant with a co-located TAP pump
station that could also be used to deliver water from the plant to the Crowson zone. The
following revised alternatives were developed:
Clearwell Alternative A: (Base Case): 1.7 MG Clearwell at WTP
Clearwell Alternative B: Replace Granite Street Reservoir
Clearwell Alternative C: Rehabilitate Granite Street Reservoir
Clearwell Alternative D: 0.85 MG Clearwell at WTP
In addition to construction costs, these alternatives were evaluated considering:

 Plant buffering capacity – storage volume available for temporary plant
shutdowns
 Backwash supply and operation – each backwash will require approximately
80,000 gallons
 Disinfection process – the WTP needs to achieve at least 0.5-log of Giardia
inactivation
 Impact to Granite Street Reservoir – requirement and timeline for rehabilitating or
removing the tank
30 | March 20, 2019

For the disinfection evaluation, a target of at least 0.5-log of Giardia inactivation was set.
Contact time requirements were based on the cold and warm weather scenarios outlined
in Section 2.3, as well as a third, worst case scenario.
Worst Case Scenario (cold weather temperature and pH with ultimate

flows):
 Flow Rate – 10 MGD (based on ultimate condition)
 Water Temperature – 3°C (minimum cold season temperature)
 pH – 7.8 (maximum cold season pH)
3.1.1 Clearwell Alternative A (Base Case): 1.7 MG Clearwell at WTP

In the Base Case, all finished water would enter a 1.7-MG clearwell located at the plant
site. The volume would provide enough storage for the proposed scenario shown in
Figure 2-3, and be split into two basins to allow the City to take a basin offline for
cleaning while maintaining plant operation. Unlike Clearwell Alternative 0, or the base
case in the initial evaluation, the clearwells are placed closer to the anticipated pipeline
corridor to minimize piping costs.
Figure 3-1 provides a conceptual layout for the clearwell basins. Each basin would be
approximately 60 feet by 65 feet with a side water depth of 30 feet. The clearwell would
serve all phases of the plant and would not need to be expanded at ultimate capacity.
March 20, 2019 | 31

Figure 3-1. Alternative A Clearwell Layout
This scenario would have a pump station at the treatment plant site for backwash supply
water and a second pump station at the Granite Street Reservoir to pump potable water
to the Crowson reservoir and back to the WTP. Combining the two pump stations as a
single pump station located at the plant site can be considered as a cost savings
measure if TAP pumping to the Crowson zone is not included at the Granite Street
Reservoir location. This would provide flexibility with respect to the future use or removal
of the Granite Street Reservoir.
The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $7.2M, which includes the clearwells, the
finished water pump station(s), and rehabilitation of the Granite Street Reservoir.
3.1.2 Clearwell Alternative B: Replace Granite Street Reservoir

In this alternative, the existing 2.0 MG Granite Street Reservoir would be replaced by a
new 1.7-MG tank and act as the plant’s clearwell. The 1.7 MG storage capacity would
provide sufficient storage for the Granite zone based on 2037 projected requirements
(Figure 2-3). Without any storage at the plant site, disinfection would be achieved at the
discharge of the new reservoir, but plant operations would be difficult to maintain (i.e.,
meet disinfection requirements) if the reservoir needed to be taken offline for cleaning or
maintenance.
32 | March 20, 2019

Figure 3-2 provides a conceptual layout for the clearwell configuration. The 1.7 MG
replacement tank would be located at the existing site. The basin’s dimensions would be
finalized during the preliminary design phase.
A single new pump station would be needed at the Granite Street Reservoir site to pump
backwash supply water to the plant, potable water back to the plant, and potable water to
the Crowson Reservoir to supply the Crowson pressure zone. This option limits flexibility
by requiring a long-term commitment to a reservoir at the existing site.
Figure 3-2. Alternative B Clearwell Layout
The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $6.3M, which includes the finished water
pump station(s) and replacement of the Granite Street Reservoir.
3.1.3 Clearwell Alternative C: Rehabilitate Granite Street Reservoir

Similar to the previous alternative, disinfection contact time requirements would be met in
the long transmission pipe to the Granite Street Reservoir and within the reservoir itself.
Instead of replacing the reservoir, the reservoir would be rehabilitated to extend its useful
life and retrofitted with baffles to minimize short circuiting. With no additional storage at
the plant, the plant could not easily maintain operations if the reservoir needed to be
taken offline for cleaning or maintenance. Based on the RH2 Master Plan storage
scenario shown in Figure 2-3, the existing reservoir provides a surplus of storage for the
Granite zone through 2037.
March 20, 2019 | 33

Figure 3-3 provides a conceptual layout for the clearwell configuration. A single new
pump station would be needed at the Granite Street Reservoir site to pump backwash
supply water to the plant, potable water back to the plant, and potable water to the
Crowson Reservoir to supply the Crowson pressure zone. This option also requires a
long-term commitment to a reservoir at the existing site.
The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $4.3M, which includes the finished water
pump station(s) and rehabilitation of the Granite Street Reservoir.
Figure 3-3. Alternative C Clearwell Layout
3.1.4 Clearwell Alternative D: Smaller Clearwell at WTP

Clearwell Alternative D takes a phased approach to the base case. This alternative
would only include constructing one of the two 0.85 MG clearwells, allowing for the
second one to be part of the City’s master plan for full build out. The initial, single
clearwell would provide enough storage volume for disinfection and backwash
requirements; however with only one 0.85-MG basin, the plant could not easily maintain
operations during periods when the basin is offline for cleaning or maintenance and
would not allow for the Granite Street Reservoir to be demolished prior to the second
clearwell’s construction.
Figure 3-4 provides a conceptual layout for the clearwell basin. The basin will be
approximately 60 feet by 65 feet with a side water depth of 30 feet. The second clearwell
can be placed adjacent to the initial clearwell as part of plant expansion.
34 | March 20, 2019

Figure 3-4. Alternative D Clearwell Layout
As with the base case, this alternative would have a pump station at the WTP site for
backwash supply water and a second pump station at the Granite Street Reservoir to
pump potable water to the Crowson reservoir and back to the plant. In the next phase of
the project, combining the two pump stations as a single pump station located at the
plant site can be considered as a cost savings measure if TAP pumping to the Crowson
zone is not included at the Granite Street Reservoir location. This would provide flexibility
with respect to future use or removal of the Granite Street Reservoir.
The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $5.7M, which includes the clearwell, the
finished water pump station(s), and rehabilitation of the Granite Street Reservoir.
3.2 Ashland Creek Pipeline and Vehicle Crossing

At the January 22-23 workshop, the City selected pipeline Alternative 4. While Figure B4
in Appendix B shows the approximate bridge crossing location, the exact crossing
location will be determined during preliminary design. It was also decided that TID water
would enter the raw water supply at the tailrace of the existing plant eliminating the need
for a separate connection for the TID line and minimizing pipeline costs.
March 20, 2019 | 35

For Clearwell Alternatives A through D, it was assumed that all finished water would flow
by gravity to the Granite Street Reservoir where the new pump station would supply then
pump water to the Crowson zone including transferring TAP water from the Granite to
the Crowson zone. Here are the corresponding changes to the selected pipeline
alternative (Alternative 4) for each of the new clearwell alternatives:
3.2.1 Clearwell Alternative A (Base Case): 1.7 MG Clearwell at WTP

 A single, 36-inch transmission line from the plant to Granite Street Reservoir
would replace the dual 24-inch lines dedicated to each reservoir.
3.2.2 Clearwell Alternative B: Replace Granite Street Reservoir

 A 6-inch potable water line would run from the new Granite Street pump station
up to the new WTP.
 A 12-inch backwash supply line would run from the new Granite Street pump
station up to the new WTP.
3.2.3 Clearwell Alternative C: Rehabilitate Granite Street Reservoir

 A 6-inch potable water line would run from the new Granite Street pump station
up to the new WTP.
 A 12-inch backwash supply line would run from the new Granite Street pump
station up to the new WTP.
3.2.4 Clearwell Alternative D: 0.85 MG Clearwell at WTP

3.3 Supplemental Evaluation and Recommendation

A summary of the benefits and disadvantages of each of the final four, clearwell
alternatives presented during a February 7, 2019 phone meeting is provided in
Table 3-1. A summary of their estimated costs are provided in Table 3-2.
36 | March 20, 2019

Table 3-1. Summary of Final Clearwell Alternatives

Clearwell Size/Configuration Benefits Disadvantages
Alternative
A 1.7 MG Clearwell at Redundancy and flexibility in Splits pumping between plant

WTP operation and maintenance; and Granite pump stations;
disinfection achieved at the highest cost alternative
WTP; increase to City’s
distribution system storage
B Replacement of Single pump station located No redundancy; O&M

Granite Street at the Granite Street challenge with clearwell not
Reservoir with Reservoir site located at WTP site
1.7- MG Tank
C Rehabilitation of Requires single pump No redundancy; O&M

Granite Street station located at the challenge with clearwell not
Reservoir Granite Street Reservoir located at WTP site; may
site; lowest cost alternative require large near term
investment at the end of
reservoirs useful life
D 0.85-MG Clearwell at Disinfection achieved at the No redundancy; limited O&M

WTP WTP; flexibility when flexibility prior to build out;
determining future capital splits pumping between plant
investments; increase to and Granite pump stations
City’s distribution system
storage
Table 3-2. Cost Comparison of Final Clearwell Alternatives

Clearwell Alternative Size/Configuration Capital Costs ($M)
A 1.7 MG Clearwell at WTP $7.2
B Replacement of Granite Street $6.3

Reservoir with 1.7-MG Tank
C Rehabilitation of Granite Street $4.3

Reservoir
D 0.85-MG Clearwell at WTP $5.7
Following the February 7, 2019 phone meeting, the City selected to move forward with
the 0.85 MGD clearwell at the WTP site (Alternative D) without a TAP pump station at
this time. It should be noted that the City has an emergency connection point in the
system that could be modified and used for TAP pumping while they determine how to
connect the TAP water supply into the Crowson zone; however, the City does not have
pumps available to utilize this connection point. While TAP pumping will not be included
in the preliminary design, the plant and pipeline designs will assume that future TAP
infrastructure will be needed.
This alternative provides disinfection prior to leaving the WTP, increases the storage
capacity of the distribution system by 0.85 MG following construction, and provides the
most flexibility to determine future capital investments for Granite zone storage. Deferring
March 20, 2019 | 37

the second clearwell at the WTP site provides the City time to determine their plans for
the Granite Street Reservoir and expand their clearwells when it becomes necessary.
Without needing the co-located TAP pump station at the Granite site, it is recommended
the Crowson pump station be moved back to the WTP site and co-located with the
backwash supply pumps. This would move the pump station that feeds the Crowson
Reservoir out of the creek floodplain, reducing risk to the City’s water distribution system.
This would also revert the finished water pipeline selection back to two, 24-inch lines
because water will be pumped directly to Crowson from the WTP.
4 Hydropower Energy Recovery

One or more hydropower turbines can be installed upstream of the WTP and use the
available head and flow in the water supply pipe to generate electricity. Based on
provided site information, the available net head is approximately 130 feet,
corresponding to 140 feet of head available on the upstream side and an assumption of
10 feet of head requirement on the downstream side of the powerhouse, reflecting the
head required to drive downstream processes. Table 4-1 presents the available flow
varies, and average monthly flows from January 2004 to August 2018 based on City-
provided data.
Table 4-1. Average Monthly Flows Available for Energy Generation (in MG)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2004 61.6 58.8 74.6 89.9 111.0 149.0 196.2 174.2 134.4 97.1 61.0 59.1
2005 60.7 57.8 77.2 62.6 77.5 120.8 198.4 213.9 143.7 90.7 69.4 65.4
2006 68.8 58.3 66.3 74.3 132.9 144.7 205.1 194.0 154.5 114.3 67.7 60.4
2007 65.7 54.6 61.9 82.0 140.8 170.0 193.7 180.4 140.6 74.8 56.8 52.5
2008 54.5 52.3 59.8 72.3 129.8 151.9 199.2 182.4 158.9 99.8 57.9 49.0
2009 50.7 43.3 47.3 72.1 119.8 138.1 194.0 183.5 170.2 100.9 53.5 57.5
2010 53.2 46.2 52.5 55.4 67.7 103.0 173.0 168.9 124.4 95.5 62.6 58.1
2011 59.0 54.6 60.2 63.1 75.4 105.7 149.2 163.6 143.8 93.0 62.3 57.2
2012 56.1 52.6 55.7 63.3 107.1 127.6 151.8 167.3 139.5 97.8 57.8 66.7
2013 57.3 48.2 55.2 70.5 114.6 140.8 176.5 164.4 124.6 114.4 97.6 67.2
2014 56.0 51.1 60.3 72.0 102.8 124.2 144.8 136.7 107.1 88.4 58.6 54.4
2015 58.3 52.7 59.5 67.9 97.6 129.6 125.1 104.8 101.8 89.0 58.6 54.5
2016 54.1 50.0 55.2 70.1 98.2 132.0 144.3 160.2 126.1 77.6 58.4 58.0
2017 60.8 52.8 59.3 57.7 93.1 124.6 164.0 169.8 128.7 100.5 59.3 52.2
38 | March 20, 2019

Table 4-1. Average Monthly Flows Available for Energy Generation (in MG)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 51.1 47.6 52.5 63.4 97.1 107.5 165.4 168.9 -- -- -- --
Avg 57.9 52.1 59.8 69.1 104.4 131.3 172.0 168.9 135.6 95.3 63.0 58.0
Power (in kW) is calculated based on the following equation, where  is the efficiency of
the unit, Q is the flow rate (in cfs), and h is the head (in feet):
𝜂𝑄ℎ
𝑃=
11.81
Based on an average annual flow rate of 5.0 cfs (converted from Table 4-1), the
theoretical ( = 1) available power is approximately 55 kW and theoretical annual
average energy generation is approximately 450 MWh. However, not all of this available
power can be used, because the overall turbine and generator efficiency has to be
accounted for, as well as any limitations on turbine operating flow range. The important
selection of an appropriate turbine that matches the expected head and flow variability,
and is also cost effective.
4.1 Turbine and Generator Selection Alternatives

Figure 4-1 shows a typical turbine selection chart based on available flow and head. A
typical commercial turbine applicable for this project would be a Kaplan or maybe a
Pelton turbine. Kaplan turbines are highly adjustable with a wide flow range, but best
suited for flows greater than 100 cfs. Pelton turbines are ideal in high head and low flow
situations, but the available head at this project is likely not sufficient to justify a Pelton
turbine.
Although either of the above turbine types could potentially work, a better choice is likely
a pump-as-turbine (PAT). A PAT is essentially a pump operated in reverse and
connected to a generator. PATs are typically ideal where a reasonably fixed flow rate can
be provided, as their operating flow range is narrow, at constant head differential. PATs
are readily available from many pump manufacturers at low purchase costs with
replacement parts easily accessible and affordable.
Because PATs have a narrow flow range, typically within 80 to 110 percent of the pump
best operating point, a pressure reducing bypass valve (PRV) typically has to be
provided. When the available flow exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the PAT, the excess
flow must be discharged through the PRV. Similarly, if the available flow is insufficient to
drive the pump, the flow must be discharged through the PRV. Therefore, multiple
smaller PATs would have the potential to more efficiently utilize the full range of available
flows than one large PAT, and would consequently be able to recover or generate more
energy.
March 20, 2019 | 39

The pumps would be fixed (or constant) speed if the generators were interconnected to
the grid, which means the generators must operate at a synchronous 60 hz speed. This
means that an induction motor, which is cost effective and requires no governor controls,
could be selected and run as the generator. Induction motors require excitation to
operate, but it is not a concern if the system is interconnected to a utility.
For the purpose of this report, a PAT arrangement has been assumed. The following
sections present one-unit and three-unit arrangement alternatives with associated
estimated energy recovered based on the monthly flow record provided (Table 4-1).
Figure 4-1. Turbine Selection Chart
Source: Colorado Energy Office 2015
4.2 One-unit PAT Arrangement

Figure 4-2 provides a schematic of a one-unit PAT arrangement.
40 | March 20, 2019

Figure 4-2 Schematic of One-Unit PAT Arrangement Installed in Parallel with a

Pressure Reducing Valve
Source: Budris 2009
Assuming the monthly flow record in Table 4-1, a constant net head across the PAT of
130 feet, a best operating point flow of 4.6 cfs, an operating flow range as described
above, and an average efficiency of 0.7, the monthly energy produced can be calculated
using the power generation equation and number of hours in a month.
Table 4-2 results indicate the expected average annual generation with a one-unit PAT
installation is approximately 179 MWh. Compared to the theoretical energy generation of
450 MWh, a one-unit PAT is only able to recover about 40 percent of the available
energy. This is primarily due to the limited flow range of using just one PAT, which
results in a significant volume of bypass flow. Figure 4-3 presents the average monthly
energy recovered showing there is insufficient flow in the winter to run the PAT.
This installation corresponds to a PAT rated at approximately 46 kW, which would need
a generator rated at approximately 51 kVA.
Table 4-2. One-unit PAT Arrangement Estimated Annual Average Energy Generation
Year Average Annual Energy Recovered (MWh)
2004 217
2005 135
2006 201
2007 170
2008 197
2009 196
2010 156
March 20, 2019 | 41

2011 156
2012 191
2013 224
2014 159
2015 150
2016 162
2017 188
Avg 179
Figure 4-3. One-unit PAT Estimated Monthly Average Energy Performance
4.3 Three-unit PAT Arrangement

A three-unit PAT arrangement schematic is presented in Figure 4-4. Its arrangement is
similar to the one-unit arrangement with all the PATs installed in parallel. Multiple units
result in a larger overall operating flow range that increase the energy efficiency of the
installation, although at a higher purchase cost. Power output is maximized by
transitioning to the number of PAT units and control valve setting(s) that provide the
maximum system efficiency at the required system head and flow rate.
42 | March 20, 2019

Figure 4-4. Three-unit PAT Arrangement Installed in Parallel with a Pressure Reducing
Valve
Source: Budris 2009
The expected average annual generation with a three-unit PAT installation is

approximately 312 MWh (Table 4-3) assuming the monthly flow record in Table 4-1; a
constant net head across the three PATs of 130 feet; a best operating point flow for each
pump of 3.2 cfs; an operating flow range for each PAT as described above; and an
average efficiency of 0.7. This represents a 75 percent improvement over the one-unit
PAT arrangement and likely a more cost effective overall solution. Figure 4-4 presents
the average monthly energy generated from this arrangement and shows that the
improved flow range with multiple units results in power being generated in the low flow
winter months.
This installation corresponds to three PATs each rated at approximately 26 kW with a
generator rated at approximately 29 kVA.
A side benefit of having multiple units is that if one unit is off-line for maintenance, the
remaining units can still generate power.
Table 4-3. Three-unit PAT Arrangement Estimated Annual Average Energy Generation
2004 343
2005 335
2006 363
2007 345
2008 330
March 20, 2019 | 43

2009 295
2010 274
2011 294
2012 309
2013 333
2014 286
2015 270
2016 293
2017 304
Avg 312
Figure 4-5. Three-unit PAT Estimated Monthly Average Energy Performance
4.4 Results
Table 4-4 summarizes estimated electricity generation and capital costs.
44 | March 20, 2019

Table 4-4 Summary of Hydroelectric Energy Recovery Results

Arrangement Total Construction Estimated Estimated Estimated
Rated Cost Estimate Average Average Payback
Capacity Annual Energy Energy Period
(kW) Produced Sales1 (years)
(MWh)
One-unit PAT 46 $2.3M 179 $13,900 165
Three-unit PAT 78 >$2.3M 312 $24,300 >95

1Sales based on $94.10/MWh ($0.0941/kWh)
4.5 Potential Next Steps

Completion of an energy recovery and unit selection study that would include:
 Analysis of hourly flow data, or at a minimum daily flow data
 Confirmation of available upstream and downstream pressure requirements
 Estimation of headlosses to determine the system curve
 Detailed evaluation of various applicable turbine unit and generator technologies,
including potential use of variable speed generators, based on estimated system
curve, and recommendation of arrangement
 Request quotes from pump and turbine manufacturers
 Refined equipment supply estimates and installation and construction costs
 A study to evaluate transient pressures in the system and potential solutions to
excessive high pressures in the penstock and/or low pressures in the draft tubes
 Preparation of preliminary drawings sufficient to provide basis for refined
construction cost opinion
4.6 Recommendation
Hydropower Energy Recovery option was eliminated at the January 22-23, 2019
workshop due to the long payback period.
5 Solar Energy Generation

An evaluation was completed to assess feasibility of including solar energy as part of the
facility design and estimate return on investment for inclusion. The evaluation included:
 Developing a general arrangement and one-line drawings (approximately 10
percent design level of effort) reflecting solar facility location, layout, and size on
site for analysis
 Completing modeling to estimate the facility production based on the conceptual
site layout and electrical design
March 20, 2019 | 45

 Preparing conceptual-level (10 percent) equipment, installation, and O&M costs

to identify if further evaluation should be undertaken
Energy estimates were completed during this evaluation and installation costs estimated
from available information regarding solar installations in the region.
5.1 Assumptions
Due to the stage of design, a 30 percent design effort and cost estimate were not
completed. Survey with current terrain along with locations of wells, valves, and any
other ground penetrations need to be obtained for accurate modeling of the solar
generation system via PVSYST modeling. Sufficient information was available to
estimate energy production to assist in a go-no go evaluation. Assumptions made during
the course of this analysis are identified in the following sections.
5.1.1 System Equipment and Production Analysis Assumptions

To develop the nameplate capacity or facility size for estimating purposes, assumptions
were made regarding the available space for panel installation.
 Panels will be mounted with fixed tilt system with a 15-degree angle for modeling
purposes
 Inverters will be located near panels to minimize cable runs
 Current/proposed roads will remain and be sufficient for site access
 Wooded areas will not be considered
 315W panels will be used for installation
5.1.2 Economic Assumptions

Economic assumptions are as follows:
 Rate paid for electricity: $0.0941/kW-hr
 Escalation for electrical rates: 2%/year
 Return Period: 20 years
 Escalation for O&M services: 2%/year
 Annual O&M costs: $0.020 per kW nameplate
 No replacement of major equipment over 20-year life
 Capital Installation Cost: $2.00 per watt nameplate
 Energy production diminishes by 1% per year
5.1.3 Incentive Assumptions

No available incentives are assumed for the facility.
46 | March 20, 2019

5.1.4 Net Metering

Net metering was not considered for the initial analysis. In order to analyze net metering,
monthly power production will require estimating. This can be done using modeling
software upon selection of preferred alternative for further cost evaluation.
5.2 Results
Table 5-1 summarizes estimated electricity generation including estimated capital costs.
Table 5-1. Solar Production Estimates

Location Total Construction Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
Rated Cost Average Average Average Payback
Capacity Estimate Annual Annual Annual Period
(kW) Energy Energy O&M (years)
Produced Sales2,3 Costs2
(MWh)1
Ashland WTP- 233 $466,000 268 $25,200 $4,700 19

Figure A1
(Appendix A)
Ashland WTP- 293 $587,000 337 $31,700 $5,900 19

Figure A2
(Appendix A)
1 Energy production shown are first year values and do not account for annual production decreases.
See Appendix C 8Appendix Cfor full calculations.
2 Values shown are first year values and do not account for annual cost escalations. See Appendix C
for full calculations.

3 Sales based on $94.10/MWh ($0.0941/kWh)
 Calculations and Helioscope outputs are included in Appendix C.

 On-site electricity usage was 468,000 kW-hrs in 2017. With the estimated solar
on-site, the facility could potentially offset between 60 and 80 percent of net
metered energy on-site with the conceptual layouts estimated during this phase.
 Without beneficial net metering or other economic incentives, the solar facility
does not appear to pay for itself until year 19 of operation.
 This evaluation did not assess the carbon reduction or other sustainable benefits
for installation of solar over procurement of electricity from the grid as part of this
work.
 Detailed calculations are included in Appendix C.
5.3 Potential Next Steps

A second round of analysis is recommended to evaluate if existing opportunities to
pursue net metering on site exist. Monthly production will need to be evaluated to match
solar production with site energy use to estimate the amount of energy purchased from
or sold to the interconnecting utility. Demand charges, use fees, and rate for net
metering should be verified and incorporated into the economic model.
March 20, 2019 | 47

Once a revised production estimate is complete, the economics should be re-evaluated

for capital costs and rate of return to allow the City to make a final decision on solar
panel installation.
5.4 Recommendations
Solar Energy Generation is the preferred energy generation alternative.
6 Opinion of Cost
Mortenson Construction was hired by HDR to provide an initial cost opinion
commensurate with an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE)
Class 41 cost estimate for the various alternatives. Throughout the alternatives
development and selection process, feedback from the City and value engineering led to
changes in site configuration and revisions of the cost estimate. Table 6-1 provides the
opinion of cost based on the final recommendations, which are summarized in Section 7.
Table 6-1. Selected Alternative Opinion of Cost

Item Cost (in millions)
Treatment Plant $24.0
Clearwells & Pump Station $4.8
Granite Reservoir Rehab $0.9
Pipelines $2.3
Base Cost $32.0
Backwash Recovery System $2.8
Solar $0.5
Total Cost $35.3
7 Summary
A summary of the final decisions is outlined below:
 Treatment Processes – Plate settlers with granular media filtration (Treatment
Alternative I) was selected at the January 23, 2019 workshop. Ozonation will be
used for taste and odor control.
 Treatment Buildings – To reduce costs, the flocculation and sedimentation basins
as well as the filters will be moved outdoors. If ozone disinfection credits are
1
Approximate expected accuracy range: Low: -15% to -30%; High: +20% to +50%.
48 | March 20, 2019

necessary in the future, enclosures can be constructed over these treatment

processes.
 Clearwells – One 0.85 MG clearwell will be located on the downslope between
the WTP buildings and Ashland Creek (Clearwell Alternative D). Site
development will plan for a second clearwell as part of future build out. The
granite reservoir will be rehabilitated to extend its useful life and provide the City
time to determine future Granite zone storage solutions. Pump stations for the
backwash supply and to supply the Crowson zone (via the Crowson Reservoir)
will be located at the WTP next to the clearwell.
 Pipelines – The pipelines will follow Pipeline Alternative 4 with some
modifications. Alignment across the creek may shift further downstream based
on preliminary design investigations. TID water will enter the raw water system at
the tail race adjacent to the existing WTP and not require a separate pipeline into
the new WTP. The pipeline bridge will support two 24-inch finished water lines,
one 30-inch raw water line, one 8-inch sanitary sewer line, and have the ability to
support one additional 24-inch water line in the future.
 Energy generation – Microhydropower turbines will not be included at the new
WTP. Solar arrays will be installed for energy generation at the new WTP.
March 20, 2019 | 49

8 References
AACE International
2013 Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and
Construction for the Hydropower Industry. Recommended Practice No. 69R-12. January
25, 2013.
AWWA
2007 AWWA C900-07 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe and Fabricated Fittings, 4 In.
through 12 In. (100 mm Through 33 mm), for Water Transmission and Distribution
Budris, A.
2009 Multiple Pumps as Turbine Installations Keep Efficiency High over Wide Flow Ranges.
Published in Waterworld Magazine. August 2009.
Colorado Energy Office

2015 The Small Hydropower Handbook. October 2015.
HDR
2018 Direct Filtration Membrane Pilot Study. May 22, 2018.
50 | March 20, 2019

Appendix A. Conceptual Layouts for

Alternatives 1 and 2
March 20, 2019

2 3 4 7 8
LOWER
RESERVOIR
__.
TO EXISTING WAlER
TREATMENT PLANT
,...._
30 0
SCALE IN FEET
60
PROJECT V1ANAGER Verena Winter

PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
1-)�
ASHLAND ALTERNATIVE 01
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT 1- FIGURE
I
CITY OF 1 FILENAME
01
ISSUE
12/2018
DATE
Phase 1A -Alternatives Evaluation
DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER 10136851
-ASHLAND ��-�---�-�·��r
SCALE As Noted A1
2 3 4 7 8
LOWER
RESERVOIR
__.
TO EXISTING WAlER
TREATMENT PLANT
,...._
30 0
SCALE IN FEET
60

PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
1-)�
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT FILENAME 1- FIGURE
I
CITY OF
-ASHLAND ��-�---�-�·��r
1
01 12/2018
A2
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER 10136851 SCALE As Noted
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
166'-6"
89'-0" 77'-5"
4'
D
4'
22'
PLATE SETTLER 01 FILTER 01 FILTER 02 FILTER 03 FILTER 04 FILTER 05
(FUTURE)
23'-2"
50' 4' 5'-6" 15'-0"
56'-0"
FLOCC 11' C
PLATE SETTLER 02
BASIN
GALLERY
(BELOW)
PRETREATMENT TRAIN
(FUTURE)
PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
B
A
GALLERY
ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROJECT MANAGER Verena Winter

TREATMENT PLANT
WATER TREATMENT
C I T Y OF PLANT 0 1" 2" FILENAME -
FIGURE
01
ISSUE
12/2018
DATE
Phase 1A - Alternatives Evaluation
DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER 10136851 SCALE As Noted A3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
132"-0"
COMPRESSOR ALUM
PLATE
SETTLER
OZONE
STORAGE
SHC
MAINTENANCE C
PLATE
62'-0"
SETTLER SHOP
HVAC
SBS
ELECTRICAL
OFFICE
LOCKER
ROOMS
LAB
POLY
PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

OPERATIONS BUILDING
WATER TREATMENT
FIGURE
01
ISSUE
12/2018
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
212"-0"
OFFICE BLOWER ALUM

LOCKER
ELECTRICAL STORAGE
ROOMS
LAB COMPRESSOR
SHC
SBS
MAINTENANCE
90'-0"
SHOP
HVAC
TREATMENT POLY
PLATE PLATE TREATMENT TREATMENT TREATMENT TREATMENT TREATMENT UNIT 06
SETTLER SETTLER UNIT 01 UNIT 02 UNIT 03 UNIT 04 UNIT 05
(FUTURE)
OZONE
A
PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

OPERATIONS BUILDING
WATER TREATMENT
FIGURE
01
ISSUE
12/2018
DATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
60"-6" 22"-0" 120"-0"
60"-0"
D
22'-0"
REC
BWW BWW PUMP
EQUALIZATION EQUALIZATION STATION
31'-0"
28'-0"
BASIN 01 BASIN 02
28'-0"
65'-0"
CLEARWELL CLEARWELL
(NORTH) (SOUTH)
PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
30'-0"
PUMP
STATION
25"-0"
PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

EQUALIZATION BASINS,
CLEARWELL, AND PUMP STATIONS
ASHLAND
WATER TREATMENT
FIGURE
01
ISSUE
12/2018
DATE
Appendix B. Pipeline Layouts
March 20, 2019

7 8
TO EXISTING
CROWSON RESERVOIR
D
FLOW METER/FLOW
CONTROL VALVE
TO EXISTINGWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
GRANITE ALTITUDE/PRV
STREET
RESERVOIR
SCHEMATIC
SCALE: NTS 0
TO EXISTING WATER
TREATMENT PLANT
LEGE\ID
APPROXIMATE LIMITS JF EXISTING UTILITY CORRIDOR
EXISTING ROADS
PROPOSED ROADS AND PARKING
,...._
60 0
SCALE IN FEET
120

OVERALL SITE PLAN
1-)�
ASHLAND
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT 1-
I
CITY OF 1
FIGURE
�-��---�-�·��r
FILENAME
01
ISSUE
12/2018
DATE
-ASHLAND SCALE As Noted B1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LOWER
\ RESERVOIR
LEGE\JD
- - - - w- EXISTING WATER
EXISTING ROADS
PROPOSED 8"SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED 30' RAW WATER LINE
PROPOSED 24' FINISHED WATER LINE
PROPOSED 24' TID LINE
PROPOSED 42' OZONE CONTACTOR

A
PROPOSED PIPE BRIDGE
,...._
30 0
SCALE IN FEET
60

PIPELINE PLAN
1-)�
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT FIGURE
FILENAME 1-
I
CITY OF 1
01
ISSUE
12/2018
DATE
-ASHLAND �i"'-�---�-�·111111111111111111111111111111111,jf
SCALE As Noted B2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LOWER
\ RESERVOIR
B
LEGE\JD
EXISTING ROADS

A
,...._
30 0
SCALE IN FEET
60

PIPELINE PLAN
1-)�
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT FIGURE
FILENAME 1-
I
CITY OF
�-��---�-�·��r
01 Phase 1A -Alternatives Evaluation
-ASHLAND
1
ISSUE
12/2018
DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER 10136851 SCALE As Noted B3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LOWER
\ RESERVOIR
LEGE\JD
EXISTING ROADS

A
,...._
30 0
SCALE IN FEET
60

PIPELINE PLAN
1-)�
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT FIGURE
FILENAME 1-
I
CITY OF 1
01
ISSUE
12/2018
DATE
-ASHLAND �i"'-�---�-�·111111111111111111111111111111111,jf
SCALE As Noted B4
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LOWER
\ RESERVOIR
LEGE\JD
EXISTING ROADS

A
,...._
30 0
SCALE IN FEET
60

PIPELINE PLAN
1-)�
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT FIGURE
FILENAME 1-
I
CITY OF 1
01
ISSUE
12/2818
DATE
-ASHLAND �i"'-�---�-�·111111111111111111111111111111111,jf
SCALE As Noted B5
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NOTES: NOTES:
1. INSPECT CONDITION OF EXISTING 1. DEPTH OF COVER OVER CULVERT
SANITARY SEWER REPLACE IF THERE INADEQUATE FOR PROPOSED UTILITIES.
ARE CONDITION ISSUES.
'-0 5'-0" 2. PIPE BRIDGE SHOW FOR REFERENCE
VARIES 5 " 2. DUE TO PROXIMW TO SANITARY SEWER, ONLY, SEE PIPELINE PLA% FOR
A JOINTLESS PIPE MATERIAL SUCH AS APPROXIMATE LOCATIOtJ AND LENGTHS.
HDPE MAY BE PREFERRED. D
PIPE BRIDGE,
(SEE NOTE 2)
1 ( w
f-
0
I z
w
w
I (/)
I
I
I EXIST 6"
L ___ _ SANITARY SEWER

(SEE NOTE 1)
PROP 24" C
WATER LINE
(SEE NOTE2)
EXIST
CULVERT
SECTION SECTION
SCALE: l" = S' S:ALE: l" = 5'
NOTES:
1. SECTION SHOWN IS FORREFERENCE ONLY.
PIPES CAN BE ADDED OR REMOVED
DEPENDING ON LOCATICN AND ALTERNATIVE.
- '-_ 0" ___-· -S'

-· -5 - -O_ " ___,_. _ _'5 -0_ " __ • 6'-0" 1'-0"
I 1 I
l
2'-6" 18" 1S"
B
GRATED WALKWAY
BENCH INTO HILLSIDE

TO EXTEND ROADWAY
I I
I
-�
I
EXIST 24"
o TIO LINE
�PRO'S"
SANITARY SEWER PROP 8'
SANITARY SEWER A
;� ::::�Y
WATER SUPPLY � PROP 24" (WHERE SHOWN)
\_
FINISH 'NATER \__ PIPE HANGER
WITH ROLLER
PROP24" / PROP30� PROP 24"
FINISH WATER WATER SUPPLY FINISH WATER
_
SECTION SECTION
SCALE: l" = 5' SCALE: NTS

PIPING SECTIONS
1-)�
ASHLAND
WATER TREATMENT
01
ISSUE
12/2018
DATE
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
PLANT
·-----
0 1" 2"
,
FILENAME 1-
SCALE As Noted
I
FIGURE
B6
Appendix C. Calculations and Helioscope Outputs
March 20, 2019

Job No. 10136851-008 No. A
Project City of Ashland Design of a 7.5-MGD Water Treatment Plant Computed GLD Date 12/20/2018
Subject Alternative Energy Evaluation Checked JM Date 12/20/2018
Task Prduction and Cost Analysis Sheet 1 Of 3
A. Production Analysis Assumptions
Tank Tops
1 Panels will be mounted with unirac or similar roof/ground mount. (15 degree assumed angle)
2 Interconnection costs included in facility cost estimate, simple net meter assumed
3 Standard efficiency panels will be used for installation
Trina Solar TSM-315 PD14 2014_05 (315w) or similar
4 Yaskawa Solectria Solar SGI 500-480 Inverters
5 Electrical connection at building will be a 480 V connection.
6 Figure 1
Three areas for panels - both rooftops and ground around parking area (88.8 kW, 72.8 kW & 71.5 kW)
Total nameplate* DC = 233.1 kW
Annual Production* = 293,838 KWhr
7 Figure 2
Two areas for panels - rooftop and ground around parking area (221.8 kW & 71.5 kW)
Total nameplate* DC = 293.3 kW
Annual Production* = 369,902 KWhr
8 Simple Payback assumes avoided cost at retail rate (rate paid). Does not model net metering scenario. Does not include demand c
*Data from Helioscope estimate. See attached PDF printouts
B. Cost & Simple Payback Analysis Assumptions
Rate paid for electricity (2014) $ 0.0941 kWhr

Escalation for electrical rates 2% per year
Return Period 20 years
Escalation for O&M services 2% per year
O&M costs $ 20.00 per KW nameplate (annual)
Assumes no replacement of major equipment over 20 year life
Capital Installation Cost $ 2.00 per watt
Energy production diminishes by 1% per year
Job No. 10136851-008 No. A
C. Simple Payback - Figure 01
Simple
Annual Payback
Production Electricity Electricity Annual Total Annual Total Savings to based upon
Location Year Capital Cost O&M Cost (kWhr)* Escalation Savings ($) Costs Savings Costs to Date date total costs
Tanks 1 $ 466,200 $ 4,662.00 293,838 $ 0.09 $ 27,650 $ 470,862 $ 27,650 $ 470,862 $ 27,650 0.06
2 0 $ 4,755.24 290,900 0.096 $ 27,921 $ 4,755 $ 27,921 $ 475,617 $ 55,571 0.12
233.1 3 0 $ 4,850.34 287,991 0.098 $ 28,195 $ 4,850 $ 28,195 $ 480,468 $ 83,766 0.17
KW 4 0 $ 4,947.35 285,111 0.100 $ 28,471 $ 4,947 $ 28,471 $ 485,415 $ 112,237 0.23
Nameplate 5 0 $ 5,046.30 282,260 0.102 $ 28,750 $ 5,046 $ 28,750 $ 490,461 $ 140,987 0.29
6 0 $ 5,147.22 279,437 0.104 $ 29,032 $ 5,147 $ 29,032 $ 495,608 $ 170,019 0.34
7 0 $ 5,250.17 276,643 0.106 $ 29,316 $ 5,250 $ 29,316 $ 500,859 $ 199,335 0.40
8 0 $ 5,355.17 273,876 0.108 $ 29,604 $ 5,355 $ 29,604 $ 506,214 $ 228,939 0.45
9 0 $ 5,462.28 271,137 0.110 $ 29,894 $ 5,462 $ 29,894 $ 511,676 $ 258,833 0.51
10 0 $ 5,571.52 268,426 0.112 $ 30,187 $ 5,572 $ 30,187 $ 517,248 $ 289,019 0.56
11 0 $ 5,682.95 265,742 0.115 $ 30,483 $ 5,683 $ 30,483 $ 522,931 $ 319,502 0.61
12 0 $ 5,796.61 263,084 0.117 $ 30,781 $ 5,797 $ 30,781 $ 528,727 $ 350,283 0.66
13 0 $ 5,912.54 260,454 0.119 $ 31,083 $ 5,913 $ 31,083 $ 534,640 $ 381,366 0.71
14 0 $ 6,030.79 257,849 0.122 $ 31,388 $ 6,031 $ 31,388 $ 540,670 $ 412,754 0.76
15 0 $ 6,151.41 255,271 0.124 $ 31,695 $ 6,151 $ 31,695 $ 546,822 $ 444,449 0.81
16 0 $ 6,274.44 252,718 0.127 $ 32,006 $ 6,274 $ 32,006 $ 553,096 $ 476,455 0.86
17 0 $ 6,399.93 250,191 0.129 $ 32,319 $ 6,400 $ 32,319 $ 559,496 $ 508,774 0.91
18 0 $ 6,527.93 247,689 0.132 $ 32,636 $ 6,528 $ 32,636 $ 566,024 $ 541,410 0.96
19 0 $ 6,658.48 245,212 0.134 $ 32,956 $ 6,658 $ 32,956 $ 572,683 $ 574,366 1.00
20 0 $ 6,791.65 242,760 0.137 $ 33,279 $ 6,792 $ 33,279 $ 579,474 $ 607,645 1.05
TOTALS 5,350,586 $ 579,474 $ 607,645
ANNUAL AVERAGE 267,529 $ 30,382
*Initial production estimate in year 1 from HelioScope Estimate

Job No. 10136851-008 No. A
C. Simple Payback - Figure 02
Simple
Annual Payback
Production Electricity Electricity Annual Total Annual Total Savings to based upon
Location Year Capital Cost O&M Cost (kWhr)* Escalation Savings ($) Costs Savings Costs to Date date total costs
Tanks 1 $ 586,600 $ 5,866.00 369,902 $ 0.09 $ 34,808 $ 592,466 $ 34,808 $ 592,466 $ 34,808 0.06
2 0 $ 5,983.32 366,203 0.096 $ 35,149 $ 5,983 $ 35,149 $ 598,449 $ 69,957 0.12
293.3 3 0 $ 6,102.99 362,541 0.098 $ 35,493 $ 6,103 $ 35,493 $ 604,552 $ 105,450 0.17
KW 4 0 $ 6,225.05 358,916 0.100 $ 35,841 $ 6,225 $ 35,841 $ 610,777 $ 141,291 0.23
Nameplate 5 0 $ 6,349.55 355,326 0.102 $ 36,192 $ 6,350 $ 36,192 $ 617,127 $ 177,484 0.29
6 0 $ 6,476.54 351,773 0.104 $ 36,547 $ 6,477 $ 36,547 $ 623,603 $ 214,031 0.34
7 0 $ 6,606.07 348,255 0.106 $ 36,905 $ 6,606 $ 36,905 $ 630,210 $ 250,936 0.40
8 0 $ 6,738.19 344,773 0.108 $ 37,267 $ 6,738 $ 37,267 $ 636,948 $ 288,203 0.45
9 0 $ 6,872.95 341,325 0.110 $ 37,632 $ 6,873 $ 37,632 $ 643,821 $ 325,835 0.51
10 0 $ 7,010.41 337,912 0.112 $ 38,001 $ 7,010 $ 38,001 $ 650,831 $ 363,836 0.56
11 0 $ 7,150.62 334,533 0.115 $ 38,373 $ 7,151 $ 38,373 $ 657,982 $ 402,209 0.61
12 0 $ 7,293.63 331,187 0.117 $ 38,749 $ 7,294 $ 38,749 $ 665,275 $ 440,959 0.66
13 0 $ 7,439.51 327,876 0.119 $ 39,129 $ 7,440 $ 39,129 $ 672,715 $ 480,088 0.71
14 0 $ 7,588.30 324,597 0.122 $ 39,513 $ 7,588 $ 39,513 $ 680,303 $ 519,601 0.76
15 0 $ 7,740.06 321,351 0.124 $ 39,900 $ 7,740 $ 39,900 $ 688,043 $ 559,501 0.81
16 0 $ 7,894.86 318,137 0.127 $ 40,291 $ 7,895 $ 40,291 $ 695,938 $ 599,791 0.86
17 0 $ 8,052.76 314,956 0.129 $ 40,686 $ 8,053 $ 40,686 $ 703,991 $ 640,477 0.91
18 0 $ 8,213.82 311,806 0.132 $ 41,084 $ 8,214 $ 41,084 $ 712,205 $ 681,562 0.96
19 0 $ 8,378.09 308,688 0.134 $ 41,487 $ 8,378 $ 41,487 $ 720,583 $ 723,049 1.00
20 0 $ 8,545.65 305,601 0.137 $ 41,894 $ 8,546 $ 41,894 $ 729,128 $ 764,942 1.05
TOTALS 6,735,659 $ 729,128 $ 764,942
ANNUAL AVERAGE 336,783 $ 38,247
*Initial production estimate in year 1 from HelioScope Estimate

Annual Production Report produced by Quinn Knudsen
A
B
50k
AC System: 0.5%
Inverters: 3.8% Shading: 5.7%

40k
Wiring: 0.3%
30k
kWh
20k Reflection: 3.3%
Mismatch: 7.2%
10k
Soiling: 2.0%
Temperature: 3.8%
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
ç Â
© 2018 Folsom Labs 1/2 December 20, 2018

è

A
B
60k
AC System: 0.5%
Inverters: 3.4% Shading: 6.1%
40k Wiring: 0.4%

kWh
Reflection: 3.3%
20k
Mismatch: 7.1%
Soiling: 2.0%
Temperature: 3.8%
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
ç Â

è

Appendix E. Manufacturer Cut-Sheets
July 22, 2019

Pipe
Shields Heavy Duty,
Inc.
Model
B3000 B3000 Guided Insulated Pipe Support Base Mounted
E 9"
℄PIPE ±1 1/2" MAX.

AXIAL TRAVEL
B.O.P.
1/8" CLR
B TYP
T.O.S.
4"
1/8" CLR STEEL MOUNTING PLATE

TYP WITH RESTRAINTS
C 6"
POLYETHYLENE SLIDE PAD
4"
Contact factory for other dimensional, temperature, load, or axial travel requirements. If lateral load is greater than 20% of vertical load, contact factory. Available in
all insulation thickness.
The load ratings represent average values obtained in accordance with accepted test methods and are subject to normal manufacturing variations.
Dimensions and ratings are subject to change without notice.
Note: For higher load ratings, see: B3100 - For greater axial travel, see: B4000 - For lateral travel, see: B5000.
Pipe Vert. Insul. Thk. = 1" Insul. Thk. = 1-1/2" Insul. Thk. = 2" Insul. Thk. = 2-1/2" Insul. Thk. = 3" Insul. Thk. =4" Insul. Thk. = 5"
Size Load B C E B C E B C E B C E B C E B C E B C E
1/2 140 4 6 3.25 4 6.5 4.375 4 7 5.375 4 8.5 7 6 9 8 6 11 10 8 12.5 12.125
3/4 175 4 6 3.25 4 6.5 4.375 4 7 5.375 4 8.5 7 6 9 8 6 11 10 8 12.5 12.125
1 225 4 6.5 3.875 4 7 4.875 4 7.5 5.937 4 8.5 7 6 9 8 6 11 10 8 12.5 12.25
1 1/2 325 4 6.5 4.375 4 7 5.5 4 8.5 7 4 9 8 6 10 9 6 12 11.25 8 13.5 13.25
2 375 4 7 5 4 7.5 6.0625 4 8.5 7 4 9 8 6 10 9.125 6 12 11.25 8 13.5 13.25
2 1/2 460 4 7 5.5 4 8.5 7.125 4 9 8.125 4 10 9.125 6 11 10.125 6 12.5 12.25 8 14 14.5
3 530 4 7.5 6.062 4 8.5 7.125 4 9 8.125 4 10 9.125 6 11 10.125 6 12.5 12.375 8 14 14.625
4 840 4 8.5 7.25 4 9 8.25 4 10 9.25 4 11 10.25 6 12 11.375 6 13.5 13.375 8 15 15.625
5 1050 4 10 8.25 4 11 9.25 4 12 10.25 4 13 11.375 6 13.5 12.375 6 15 14.875 8 16.5 16.875
6 1275 4 11 9.25 4 12 10.25 4 13 11.375 4 13.5 12.625 6 14.5 13.625 6 16 15.875 8 17.5 17.875
8 1700 4 13.5 11.625 4 14 12.625 4 15 13.625 6 15.5 14.875 6 16.5 15.875 6 18 17.875 8 19 20.125
10 2000 4 15 13.625 4 15.5 14.875 4 16.5 15.875 6 17 16.875 6 18 18.125 6 19 20.125 8 20.5 22.125
12 2200 4 17 16.125 4 17.5 17.125 4 18.5 18.125 6 19 19.125 6 19.5 20.125 6 21 22.125 8 22.5 24.125
14 2500 4 17.5 17.125 4 18.5 18.125 4 19 19.125 6 19.5 20.125 6 20.5 21.125 6 22 23.125 8 23 25.125
16 2900 4 20.5 19.125 4 21 20.125 6 22 21.375 6 22.5 22.375 6 23.5 23.375 8 24.5 25.375 8 26 27.375
18 3200 4 22 21.375 4 22.5 22.375 6 23.5 23.375 6 24 24.375 6 24.5 25.375 8 26 27.375 8 27.5 29.375
20 3400 4 23.5 23.375 4 24 24.375 6 24.5 25.375 6 25.5 26.375 6 26 27.375 8 27.5 29.375 8 29 31.375
24 3600 4 26 27.375 4 27 28.375 6 27.5 29.375 6 28.5 30.375 6 29 31.375 8 30.5 33.375 8 32 35.375
30 4700 4 32.5 33.625 6 33 34.625 6 34 35.625 6 34.5 36.625 6 35 37.625 8 36.5 39.625 8 38 41.625
36 5500 4 36.5 39.625 6 37.5 41.125 6 38 42.125 6 38.5 43.125 6 39.5 44.125 8 41 46.125 8 42.5 48.125
42 6200 4 41 46.125 6 41.5 47.125 6 42.5 48.125 6 43 49.125 6 43.5 50.125 8 45 52.125 8 46.5 54.125
Application: Features: Material Data:
Model B3000 is designed for use on: · All pipe sizes · B3000: Applicable PSI spec. doc.: No. 209
· Hot water · Steam · Insulation: Calcium silicate asbestos-free,
· Easy installation
· Cold water · Air treated with water repellant
· Eliminates welding to pipe · Jackets: Galvanized steel ASTM A-653
· Chilled water · Gas
· Overlapping galvanized sheet metal jacket · Glue: Industrial contact adhesive
· Dual temperature · Vacuum
· Insulating structural inserts for load transfer · Structural Inserts: High-density calcium silicate
· Stainless steel to UHMW polyethylene slide asbestos free, treated with water repellant
Intended for installation on: · Steel Straps/Base: Carbon steel ASTM A-36
· Other I.D.’s and/or O.D.’s available on request
· Flat Surfaces · Fasteners: ASTM A-307 plated
· Factory mounted polyethylene slide pad on steel
· Slide Pad: UHMW Polyethylene (PTFE optional)
Temperature Range: mounting plate
Standard: +40°F to +1200°F CalSil Insulation
· Coating: Primer coated or hot dipped galvanized
Note: Up to 1800°F available upon request. Performance test results on file: Other coatings available upon request
Cryogenic: -275°F to +275°F Urethane Insulation.
Add U after the model number (i.e., B3000U) Available upon request. Formal submittal sheets available
48 www.pipeshields.com/b3000
Appendix F. Draft Geotechnical Engineering

Report
July 22, 2019

SUBMITTED TO:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
1050 SW 6th Avenue, Suite
1800
Portland, Oregon 97204
BY:
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
3990 Collins Way, Suite 100
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
(503) 210-4750
www.shannonwilson.com
DRAFT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
ASHLAND, OREGON
June 6, 2019
Shannon & Wilson No: 100329-001
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
DRAFT Geotechnical Engineering Report
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FOR DOUBLE-SIDED PRINTING
100329-001 June 6, 2019

ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
Submitted To: HDR Engineering, Inc.

1050 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1800
Portland, Oregon 97204
Attn: Contact Name
Subject: DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT, ASHLAND 7.5 MGD

WTP, ASHLAND, OREGON
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson), is pleased to submit this report at the request
of HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR). This report presents geotechnical evaluations and
recommendations for the proposed water treatment plant (WTP) in Ashland, Oregon. This
report also identifies geotechnical issues and assesses the geotechnical-related feasibility of
constructing a new WTP at the proposed site. Shannon & Wilson’s services were performed
in accordance with the scope and services defined in the Task Order signed and executed on
October 31, 2018.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions
concerning this report, or we may be of further service, please contact us.
Sincerely,
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Jerry Jacksha, P.E., G.E. Elliott Mecham, P.E.

Senior Associate | Geotechnical Engineer Associate
Kevin Wood
Senior Engineer, PE
ECM:SCS/las
100329-001 June 6, 2019

6/6/2019-Draft GER Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP_ECM_KJW i
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Scope of Services .............................................................................................................. 1
2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 3
2.1 Site Description................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 3
3 GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC SETTING ..................................................................................... 4
3.1 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................. 4
3.2 Seismic Setting .................................................................................................................. 5
4 GEOTECHNICAL DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................. 6
4.1 Geotechnical Borings and Test Pits................................................................................ 6
4.2 Acoustic and Optical Televiewer Imaging and Full Wave Sonic Logging .............. 7
4.3 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................... 7
5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 8
CONTENTS
5.1 Geotechnical Units ........................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Groundwater..................................................................................................................... 8
6 SEISMIC DESIGN GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS ..................................................... 9
6.1 Strong Ground Motion .................................................................................................... 9
6.2 Fault Rupture .................................................................................................................. 10
6.3 Liquefaction .................................................................................................................... 10
6.4 Seismic Slope Instability ................................................................................................ 10
6.5 Other Hazards ................................................................................................................ 11
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................. 11
8 SITE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 12
8.1 Cut Slopes........................................................................................................................ 12
8.1.1 Kinematic Analysis ........................................................................................... 12
8.1.2 Engineering Properties ..................................................................................... 13
8.1.3 Intact Rock Design Parameters ........................................................................ 14
8.1.4 Equivalent Rock Mass Design Parameters .................................................... 14
8.1.5 Discontinuity Strength ...................................................................................... 15
100329-001 June 6, 2019

ii
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
8.1.6 Limit Equilibrium Analysis ............................................................................. 15

8.1.7 Rockfall Mitigation ............................................................................................ 17
8.2 Rippability ....................................................................................................................... 18
8.3 Retaining Wall Alternatives.......................................................................................... 19
8.4 Foundation Subgrade Preparation .............................................................................. 20
8.4.1 Elimination of Subgrade Hard Spots and Fill Voids .................................... 21
8.4.2 Loose/Fractured Rock ....................................................................................... 21
8.5 Structural Fill .................................................................................................................. 22
8.5.1 Imported Granular Materials........................................................................... 22
8.5.1.1 Underdrain/Leak Detection Systems (Drain Rock) ......................... 22
8.5.2 On-site Material ................................................................................................. 22
8.6 Wet Weather Construction Considerations ................................................................ 23
8.7 Control of Water ............................................................................................................. 23
8.8 Site Drainage ................................................................................................................... 24
CONTENTS
9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRUCTURES ...................................................................... 24

9.1 Buildings, Filtrations and Treatment Plant Structures ............................................. 24
9.2 Clearwell Foundations .................................................................................................. 25
9.3 Pipe Bridge ...................................................................................................................... 25
9.3.1 General ................................................................................................................ 25
9.3.2 Drilled Shaft Axial Resistance ......................................................................... 26
9.3.3 Drilled Shaft Lateral Resistance ...................................................................... 26
9.3.4 Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations.................................................... 27
9.3.4.1 General ................................................................................................... 27
9.3.4.2 Potential Obstructions ......................................................................... 27
9.3.4.3 Shaft Quality Control ........................................................................... 27
10 BURIED PIPELINE DESIGN .................................................................................................. 28
10.1 Modulus of Soil Reaction for Flexible Pipe ................................................................ 28
10.2 Bedding Pipe Zone and Trench Backfill ..................................................................... 28
10.2.1 Bedding ............................................................................................................... 28
10.2.2 Pipe Zone ............................................................................................................ 28
10.2.3 Trench Backfill ................................................................................................... 29
100329-001 June 6, 2019

iii
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
10.3 Thrust Resistance ........................................................................................................... 29

10.4 Seepage Collars............................................................................................................... 29
11 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 30
12 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 31
Exhibits
Exhibit 6-1: Recommended Seismic Design Parameters ................................................................9
Exhibit 6-2: AASHTO LRFD 8th Edition (2017) Seismic Design Guidelines ..............................10
Exhibit 8-1: Intact Rock Properties of Quartz Monzodiorite........................................................14
Exhibit 8-2: Factor of Safety for Analyzed Loading Conditions for Clearwell Site ..................16
Exhibit 8-3: Factor of Safety for Analyzed Loading Conditions for Treatment Plant Site .......17
Exhibit 8-4: Lateral Earth Pressures for Fill Walls* .......................................................................20
Figures
CONTENTS
Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Figure 2: Site and Exploration Plan
Figure 3: Subsurface Profile A-A'
Figure 4: Subsurface Profile B-B'
Figure 5: Subsurface Profile C-C'
Figure 6: Subsurface Profile D-D'
Figure 7: Subsurface Profile E-E'
Appendices
Appendix A: Explorations
Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C: Kinematic Stability
Appendix D: Global Stability
Appendix E: Rockfall Analysis
Appendix F: Drilled Shafts
Important Information
100329-001 June 6, 2019

iv
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview
The City of Ashland (City) currently owns and operates a water treatment plant (WTP)
which was constructed in Ashland Canyon in 1928. Because the WTP is surrounded by the
steep walls of the canyon, it is at risk of damage from flooding, fire, and landslides. The
WTP was damaged during flood events of 1963, 1974, and 1997 when the City's water
supply was disrupted. Additionally, the age of the WTP makes it extremely difficult to
seismically retrofit it against the design seismic event. The City previously completed a
siting study and approved a location that is less susceptible to flooding and has retained the
help of HDR to assist them in designing a new WTP. Shannon & Wilson is subcontracted to
provide geotechnical support to HDR for the project. The current scope of work calls for
taking this report to a 30 percent design level.
1.2 Scope of Services

The purpose of our geotechnical services is to provide geotechnical site characterization
during two different mobilizations to the site and prepare pre-design recommendations
(approximately 30 percent design) for the proposed WTP. Specifically, we performed the
following services and prepared geotechnical recommendations for the following:
▪ Performed a site and geologic reconnaissance with our drilling subcontractors, visited
the site, marked boring locations, called in utility locates, and prepared field exploration
plan for Phase I and Phase II explorations.
▪ As part of the Phase I Exploration Program, conducted up to twelve geotechnical
borings and one day of excavating test pits, which included the following:
- Nine borings to depths of approximately 5 to 38 feet below the ground surface using
mud-rotary drilling and HQ-wireline coring techniques at the proposed treatment
plant;
- One day of test pit explorations (eight test pits) advanced using a back-hoe and
operator provided by the City of Ashland;
- Two vibrating wire piezometers and measured depth to groundwater during
subsequent site visits; and
- Three shallow borings to depths of approximately 3 to 6 feet and one Dynamic Cone
Penetration Test (DCP) between the treatment plant and the intersection of Glenview
Drive and Granite Street.
▪ As part to the Phase II Exploration Program, conducted five geotechnical borings and
one day of test pits explorations and site grading, which included the following:
100329-001 June 6, 2019

1
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
- Five borings to depths of 25 and 50 feet below ground surface using mud-rotary and
drilling and HQ-wireline coring techniques;
- Four test pit explorations (four test pits) advanced using a back-hoe subcontracted to
Shannon & Wilson; and
- Two vibrating wire piezometers and measured depth to groundwater during
subsequent site visits.
▪ Performed downhole (within select boreholes) televiewer and imaging to view and
record rock joints for select explorations, and measured compression and shear wave
velocities for the purposes of rock cut design and slope stability assessments and rock
excavatability.
▪ Performed laboratory testing to refine the field descriptions.
▪ Prepared the geological description and history of the site.
▪ Provided a description of the seismic events and in the project area and evaluated
seismic hazards at the site.
▪ Provided the IBC 2018 seismic spectra parameters for treatment plant structures and
AASHTO LRFD Version 8 ground motion spectra parameters for the 475- and 975-year
return periods for design of the pipe bridge.
▪ Analyzed stability of rock cuts in the hillside.
▪ Provided discussion on methods, equipment, and approach needed to perform
excavations.
▪ Provided recommendations for fill and backfill materials, compaction, and methods of
placement.
▪ Evaluated Feasibility of dewatering the site for construction and recommendations for
site drainage.
▪ Provided recommendations for shallow foundations including the following:
- Design bearing pressures for shallow foundations at the new buildings and basins
with corresponding anticipated settlements;
- Passive soil pressures resisting lateral forces acting on buried foundations;
- Friction value between soil and foundations, considering presence of required
subbase materials;
- Coefficient of sub-grade reaction for mat foundations:
- Minimum plan dimensions for spread footings; and
- Minimum depth of embedment below finished grade.
▪ Provided design recommendations for the pipe bridge including:
- Strength limit, extreme, and service limit state axial resistance;
- Provided LPILE parameters for use in lateral pile analysis at the pipe bridge; and
100329-001 June 6, 2019

2
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
- Construction recommendations.
▪ Provided design recommendations for the pipe line including;
- Pipe bedding and pipe zone backfill; materials and compaction;
- Trench backfill; materials and compaction;
- Modulus of soil reaction (E’); and
- Passive soil lateral bearing values for thrust blocks.
▪ Provided site-specific seismic hazard evaluation, including the peak horizontal
acceleration for 475-year and 975-year return period ground motions, and hazards at the
pipe bridge.
▪ Summarized the results of the geotechnical engineering evaluation and design in this
draft report.
2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Site Description
The proposed site for the new WTP is located north of Horn Creek Road and west of
Granite Street Swim Reservoir (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The proposed site consists of a
former quarry and surrounding mountainside. The quarry was used to mine weathered
granite for roadway construction material. The rock removed from the quarry was used for
roadway construction and met the criteria for general borrow as defined by Oregon
Standard Specifications for Construction (OSSC) 00330.12; however, the rock was not hard
enough for the mined material to meet the requirements for select stone backfill (OSSC
0033.15). After mining activities were terminated at the site, the site was used as a haul site
for fill material generated from a variety of construction projects across the city. The
volume and nature of the fill material changed with time as material was added and
removed up until the summer of 2018. The range of excavated depths, extents, and age of
the fill material are unknown, but it is anticipated that excavations and uncontrolled
backfilling has been ongoing for several decades. with variable fill material that includes
some construction debris, organic material, and soil. The site vicinity map showing the
location of the proposed water treatment plant is presented in Figure 2, Site and Exploration
Plan.
2.2 Project Description

Based on the information provided by the design team, we understand that the plant will
consist of treatment and operation structures (with a footprint of about 17,000 to 19,000
square feet), a BWW equalization basin (about 1,900 square feet), a recirculation pump
100329-001 June 6, 2019

3
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
house (about 500 square feet), a clearwell and pump house (about 8,500 square feet), and a
power house (about 1,200 square feet). The WTP facility is anticipated to have a water
treating capacity of about 7.5 MGD.
The majority of the site development, including the treatment and operation structures will
occur in a flat area around elevation EL 2290 ft that was created through the process of
mining and backfilling. However, the site development plan calls for up to 12-foot-high cut
walls to expand area of the site with approximate ground surface elevation and site grading
resulting in cuts of up to approximately 30 feet in height to create a flat area for the clear
well at an elevation of approximately 2230 feet. Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 present cross
sections of the proposed site improvements relative to the existing site grades and
geotechnical information.
Also included in the project is a pipe bridge over Ashland Creek and approximately 1,500
feet of roadway between the treatment plant (assumed to be located in the fill area at the
base of the slope) and the intersection of Granite Street and Glenview Road).
At the time of this report, we anticipate that the pump station, clearwells and treatment
plant structures will be constructed near the finished grade. Supplemental lateral earth
pressures for buried structures, if needed in the future, can be provided at a later date upon
request. Formal pavement design calculations can also be prepared upon request once the
traffic volume, loads, and other criteria have been determined.
3 GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC SETTING

3.1 Regional Geology
The project area is located within the Klamath Mountains physiographic province of
Southern Oregon and Northern California. Geologically, the area is within the Klamath
Terrane, an elongated north-south trending series of oceanic sediments and crustal blocks
that were accreted to the western portion of the North American Continent during the Late
Jurassic (between 163 and 145 million years ago) (Hotz, 1971). The area of the Klamath
Terrane encompasses portions of the west coast region of southern Oregon and northern
California. These rocks were obducted onto the continent in multiple episodes as the
subduction zone off the west coast of North America would repeatedly become jammed and
fail, causing the zone of subduction to move west, and accrete and uplift the oceanic rocks
and crustal blocks between the continent and the newly formed subduction zone.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

4
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
During the accretion of the Klamath Terrane to the North American Continent, large bodies
of magma intruded into structurally weak areas within the terrane. These magma bodies
solidified to form granitic plutons located throughout the Klamath Mountains.
Geologic mapping data in the project area was most recently compiled by Wiley and others
(2011) and shows the entire project site lying within the Late Jurassic Mt. Ashland Pluton.
Geochemistry work by Gribble and others (1990) distinguished some of the rocks of the Mt.
Ashland Pluton, including rocks in the project area as quartz monzodiorite. Bedrock in the
area has been weathered considerably creating overburden of residual soil and decomposed
bedrock extending to variable depths throughout the site.
Portions of the site were used by the City of Ashland as a borrow area, and significant
excavations have been made into the existing hillsides. The City of Ashland also used the
area as a dump site, and this fill material was observed at the surface containing concrete
debris and other material.
3.2 Seismic Setting

Earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest occur largely as a result of the collision between the
Juan de Fuca Plate and the North American Plate. These two tectonic plates meet along a
mega thrust fault called the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). The CSZ runs approximately
parallel to the coastline from northern California to southern British Columbia. The
compressional forces that exist between these two colliding plates cause the denser oceanic
plate to descend, or subduct, beneath the continental plate. This process leads to volcanism
and contortion and faulting of both crustal plates throughout much of the western regions
of southern British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and northern California. Stress built up
between the colliding plates is periodically relieved through great earthquakes at the plate
interface (CSZ) (Goldfinger and others, 2012).
Within our present understanding of the regional tectonic framework and historical
seismicity, three broad earthquake sources have been identified. These three types of
earthquakes and their maximum plausible magnitudes are as follows:
▪ Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes originate along the CSZ, which is located
approximately 25 miles beneath the coastline. Paleoseismic evidence and historic
tsunami studies indicate that the most recent subduction zone thrust fault event
occurred in 1700, probably ruptured the full length of the CSZ, and may have reached
magnitude 9.
▪ Deep-Focus, Intraplate Earthquakes originate from within the subducting Juan de Fuca
oceanic plate as a result of the downward bending and contortion of the plate in the
CSZ. These earthquakes typically occur at a depth of 28 to 38 miles. Such events could
100329-001 June 6, 2019

5
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
be as large as magnitude 7.5. Examples of this type of earthquake include the 1949
magnitude 7.1 Olympia earthquake, the 1965 magnitude 6.5 earthquake between
Tacoma and Seattle, and the 2001 magnitude 6.8 Nisqually earthquake. The highest
rates of CSZ intraslab activity occur beneath the Puget Sound area, with much lower
rates observed beneath western Oregon.
▪ Shallow-Focus Crustal Earthquakes are typically located within the upper 12 miles of
the continental crust. The relative plate movements along the CSZ cause not only east-
west compressive strain but dextral shear, clockwise rotation, and north-south
compression of the leading edge of the North American Plate (Wells and others, 1998),
which is the cause of much of the shallow crustal seismicity of engineering significance
in the region. The largest known crustal earthquake in the Pacific Northwest is the 1872
North Cascades earthquake with an estimated magnitude of about 7. Other examples
include the 1993 magnitude 5.6 Scotts Mill earthquake and the 1993 magnitude 6
Klamath Falls earthquake.
Shallow crustal faults and folds throughout Oregon have been located and characterized by
the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Mapped fault locations and detailed
descriptions can be found in the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database (USGS, 2017).
The database defines four categories of faults, Classes A through D, based on evidence of
tectonic movement known or presumed to be associated with large earthquakes during
Quaternary time (within the last 1.8 million years). For Class A, there is associated geologic
evidence that demonstrates the existence of Quaternary deformation. Therefore, the faults
are correlated to a higher potential for earthquake generation. Faults defined as Class B
exhibit equivocal geologic evidence of Quaternary deformation or may not extend deep
enough to be considered a source of significant earthquakes.
According to the USGS Fault and Fold database, the nearest mapped Class A faults are the
Sky Lakes fault zone (Personius, 2002), which is approximately 28 miles east and northeast
of the project site. The CSZ itself is approximately 130 miles west of the site, with an
average slip rate of approximately 40 millimeters (1.5 inches) per year and the most recent
deformation occurring about 300 years ago (Personius and Nelson, 2006).
4 GEOTECHNICAL DATA COLLECTION

4.1 Geotechnical Borings and Test Pits
The field explorations for the Phase I and II exploration programs consisted of performing a
total of 12 test pits, 17 geotechnical borings, and one dynamic cone penetrometer test.
Locations of the test pits and geotechnical borings are presented in Figure 2, Site and
Exploration Plan. The test pits are designated TP-01 through TP-12 and were excavated to
100329-001 June 6, 2019

6
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
depths ranging from approximately 3 feet to 18 feet below existing ground surface (bgs).
The geotechnical borings are designated B-01 through B-17 and ranged in depth from
approximately 3 to 50.4 feet bgs. The test pits were performed in two mobilizations, the first
on October 9, 2018, and the second on March 21, 2019. The geotechnical borings were also
completed in two mobilizations, the first between October 31, 2018, and November 7, 2018,
and the second between March 25, 2019 and March 28, 2019. Details of the geotechnical
field explorations, including techniques used to advance and sample the borings, are
presented in Appendix A, Field Explorations.
4.2 Acoustic and Optical Televiewer Imaging and Full Wave Sonic
Logging
Borehole optical and acoustic televiewer surveys were performed by Global Geophysics of
Redmond, Washington, in Borings B-1, B-2, B-3, B-5, B-13, B-15, and B-16 after the
completion of the drilling activities and prior to grouting the holes. The imaging survey
consists of capturing/generating a continuous 360˚ image of the borehole wall using an
acoustic/optical imaging system. The objective of the geophysical survey was to
characterize discontinuities and their orientation in the rock material.
Full wave sonic logging techniques were used to measure compressional (P-wave) and
shear (S-wave) wave velocities along the approximate lengths of bedrock encountered in
borings B-13, B-15, and B-16. The full wave sonic logging was also performed by Global
Geophysics. The purpose of this geophysical logging is to provide seismic velocities for
evaluation of rock mass quality and rippability, particularly in the Mount Ashland Batholith
rock mass. Descriptions of the test procedures are presented in Appendix A. The Global
Geophysical report, including the results of the imaging and full wave sonic logging
surveys, is attached in Appendix A.
4.3 Laboratory Testing

The soil and rock samples collected during our field explorations were transported to the
Shannon & Wilson laboratory for further examination. Representative soil samples were
selected for a suite of laboratory tests including moisture content, Atterberg limits, and
particle-size (gradation). Selected rock core samples were submitted to Northwest Testing,
Inc. (NTI) of Wilsonville, Oregon and GeoTesting Express of Acton, Massachusetts to
perform unconfined compressive strength, and direct shear strength testing. All testing was
performed in accordance with applicable ASTM International standards. Results of the
laboratory tests and descriptions of the test procedures are presented in Appendix B,
Laboratory Test Results.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

7
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
5.1 Geotechnical Units
We grouped the material encountered in our field explorations into five (5) geotechnical
units, as described below. Our interpretation of the subsurface conditions is based on data
from our subsurface explorations and regional geologic information from published
sources. The geotechnical units are as follows:
▪ Fill: medium dense to very dense, Clayey Sand with varying amounts of gravel and
cobbles (SC); medium dense to very dense, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
with varying amounts of cobbles and boulders (SP-SM); very dense, very loose to very
dense Silty Sand with varying amounts of gravel, cobbles and boulders (SM); medium
dense, Poorly Graded Gravel with sand (GP); very dense Poorly Graded Sand with
Gravel (SP-SM); dense to very dense, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM);
medium dense to very dense, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt with varying amounts of
sand and cobbles (GP-GM); including roadway base/sub-base gravel; debris, trash,
stumps, and organic material were encountered in the quarry pit area;
▪ Alluvium: very dense, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GP-GM);
▪ Residual Soil: very dense, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM); very
dense, Sand with Silt (SP-SM); and Clayey Sand with Gravel and cobbles and boulders
(SC); and
▪ Mount Ashland Pluton: Moderately to highly weathered, very weak to medium strong
(R0-R3) Quartz Monzodiorite; fresh, strong to very strong (R4-R5) Pegmatite Dike.
These generalized geotechnical units have been defined by their geologic and material
properties and their distribution in the subsurface. Variations in subsurface conditions exist
between the locations of the borings. Contacts between the units may be more gradational
than shown in boring logs in Appendix A.
5.2 Groundwater
Vibrating wire piezometers (VWPs) were installed in Borings B-1, B-5, B-13, and B-15 for
ongoing measurements of groundwater levels. Details of the VWP installations are
included in Appendix A.
Groundwater readings were taken in Boring B-1 on December 13, 2018 and in Boring B-5 on
December 13, 2018, February 6, 2019 and April 3, 2019. Groundwater readings were taken
in Borings B-13 and B-15 on April 5, 2019. All groundwater readings from the VWPs from
each of the borings were "dry" readings, indicating that groundwater levels were below the
installed depth of the VWPs.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

8
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
However, groundwater levels should be expected to vary seasonally and with changes in
topography and precipitation. Locally, groundwater highs typically occur in the late fall to
spring and groundwater lows typically occur in the late summer and early fall.
6 SEISMIC DESIGN GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS

6.1 Strong Ground Motion
The site is subject to strong ground motion shaking. In accordance with the site
classification criteria presented in the International Building Code (IBC, 2018), we
recommend using a Site Class C for this site. The IBC 2018 parameters for strong ground
shaking are presented below:
Exhibit 6-1: Recommended Seismic Design Parameters
Seismic Parameters Value

Site Class C
Mapped MCE Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.279g
PGA Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.2
Peak Ground Acceleration Corrected for Site Effects, PGAM 0.335
Mapped Short Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 0.597g
Mapped 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.339g
Short Period Site Coefficient, Fa 1.261
1-Second Period Site Coefficient, Fv 1.500
Short Period Design Spectral Acceleration, SDS 0.502g
1-Second Period Design Spectral Acceleration, SD1 0.339g
NOTES:
g = gravity acceleration
We understand that the pipe bridge will be designed using AASHTO LRFD design code.
The AASHTO LRFD design code parameters for strong ground shaking for the 475 and 975-
year return periods are present below.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

9
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
Exhibit 6-2: AASHTO LRFD 8th Edition (2017) Seismic Design Guidelines
Seismic Parameter 475-year Return Period 975-year Return Period
Site Class C C
Site Factor, Fpga 1.283 1.213
Peak Ground (Bedrock) Acceleration, PGA 0.117g 0.188g
Peak Ground Surface Acceleration, AS 0.150g 0.228g
Site Factor, Fa 1.300 1.300
Short Period Acceleration, Ss 0.248g 0.267g
Site Factor, Fv 1.500 1.500
Long Period Acceleration, S1 0.159g 0.267g
SDC B B
NOTES:
g = gravity acceleration
6.2 Fault Rupture

The USGS fault and fold database indicates the closest mapped quaternary aged fault (Fault
with evidence of movement in the last 16,000,000 years) to the site is the Sky Lakes Fault
Zone located approximately 28 miles east and northeast of the site (Personius, 2002). The
Sky Lakes Fault Zone has a Recurrence Interval of 10,000 to 30,000 years (Hawkins et al,
1989) and a slip rate of less than 0.2 milimeters/year. In our opinion the risk of fault rupture
at the site is low.
6.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which excess pore pressure of loose to medium-dense,
saturated, nonplastic to low plasticity silts and granular soils increases during ground
shaking. The increase in excess pore pressure results in a reduction of soil shear strength
and a potentially quicksand-like condition. The soils at the site generally consist of
weathered rock above the permanent ground water table and are not susceptible to
liquefaction. Also, existing subsurface material that is overexcavated will be backfilled with
structural fill that is also not susceptible to liquefaction.
6.4 Seismic Slope Instability

The slopes at the site are subject to strong ground shaking. As discussed in the Cut Slopes
Section (Section 8.1) of this report, our analysis indicates that permanent slopes cut at 1H:1V
are stable against a global failure through the rock mass; however, some localized rock fall
can be expected to occur during a seismic event.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

10
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
6.5 Other Hazards

Due to the location and topography of the site, it is our opinion that the risk for lateral
spread, slope instability, tsunami, or seiche at the site is either very low or not present.
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As discussed in the subsurface conditions section of our report, the site consists of
undocumented fill over weathered rock (quartz monzodiorite). The following summary of
our general conclusions are presented based on the results of our engineering analyses and
evaluations.
▪ Our analysis indicates that permanent cut slopes will be stable against a global stability
failure at 1H:1V (45 degrees). Also, temporary cut slopes of 0.5H:1V (63 degrees) will be
stable against a global stability failure. A detailed discussion of the results are presented
in Section 8.1, Cut Slopes.
▪ As discussed in Section 8.1, Cut Slopes, plane shear and wedge failure rock blocks are
kinematically admissible in cut slopes of 1H:1V (45 degrees) and 0.5H:1V (63 degrees).
During construction, rock cuts should be observed by a qualified engineer or geologist
and rock dowels should be placed in locations where adverse jointing patterns are
observed to prevent rock blocks from failing. A detailed discussion of analysis is
provided in Section 8.1 Cut Slopes.
▪ Ongoing weathering and freeze thaw cycles can cause new rock fall to occur over time.
At the location of the clearwells, we recommend a minimum 8-foot offset between the
edge of the slope and K-Rail (Jersey Barriers) rated at 60,000 lb-feet to protect the
proposed clearwells from rockfall and to allow for slope maintenance and rockfall
removal behind the K-Rail. Rock fall analysis results are presented in Section 8.1.7.
▪ Where cut slopes are not feasible, retaining walls may be used to hold the slope vertical.
Around the treatment plant structures where cut slopes of up to 12 feet may be
performed, a rock dowel wall may be used to support the slope. Further discussion of
retaining walls is provided in "Section 8.3 Retaining Wall Alternatives".
▪ Structures should not be supported on the undocumented fill that was encountered
across the site. We recommend supporting treatment plant structures on shallow
foundations on crushed rock over native rock material. The pipe bridge may be
supported on drilled shafts extending through the undocumented fill into the weathered
rock. Recommendations for structure foundations are provided in Section 9,
"Recommendations for Structures".
100329-001 June 6, 2019

11
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
8 SITE DEVELOPMENT
8.1 Cut Slopes
8.1.1 Kinematic Analysis
Instability of the existing slope and proposed rock cuts may occur via structurally controlled
blocks of rock. A kinematically admissible block is one in which the structures that bound
the block are oriented in directions that allow the block to slide into free space, provided the
forces that drive the block are sufficiently high. Driving forces not considered in kinematic
analyses include hydrostatic, seismic loading, and other external forces.
Modes of instability include sliding along planes of weakness that are adversely oriented or
failure through weak and fractured zones of rock. Modes of instability are commonly
separated into the following types for evaluation:
▪ Circular failures: These occur in highly weathered, altered, or fractured rock masses. In
this failure mode, the rock mass behaves as a soil and shear planes do not follow a single
discrete structure or combination of discrete structures. The slip surface fails through
the rock mass.
▪ Plane shear failures: These consist of a block of rock sliding on a single discontinuity,
such as a joint, bedding plane, geologic contact, or fault dipping into the excavation or
out of the slope. The stability of the slope is dependent upon the orientation of the
discontinuity with respect to the excavation or slope, the shear strength of the
discontinuity, the weight of the block, and the driving forces, generally seismically
induced or water pressure acting on the base of the block or in joints that could form
tension cracks behind the rock face. Note that neither the weight of the block nor
hydrostatic or seismic loading conditions are considered in kinematic analyses.
▪ Wedge failures: These consist of a block of rock sliding on two discontinuities that
intersect such that the intersection of the discontinuities plunges into the excavation or
out of the slope. The stability of the slope is dependent upon the same factors that
determine stability for the plane shear type failure.
▪ Toppling failures: These are formed by blocks of rocks with high angle discontinuities,
such as joints that dip into the slope. Toppling can also occur where overhangs are
created by poor blasting practices or the disintegration and erosion of weak, non-
durable rock within the slope.
In the context of this report, “failure” is used strictly in its engineering sense and means that
the forces acting on a block of rock that result in impending displacement are greater than
the forces that resist the onset of movement. In this sense, a rock block may displace only a
fraction of an inch and still be labeled or referred to as “failed”.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

12
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
Kinematic analyses of the slope area above the treatment plant and around the Clearwell
Pump Station were performed for plane shear, and wedge failure modes. These analyses
were performed for three rock excavation inclinations including vertical, 63 degrees, and 45
degrees.
Kinematic analyses were performed using the computer program Dips v7.010 (Rocscience,
2017). Results of kinematic analyses are presented in Appendix C on lower hemisphere
polar projection stereonets where structure orientations are plotted as poles to the planes (to
evaluate plane shear and toppling) and great circles with intersection contours (to evaluate
wedge failure). To illustrate which structures form kinematically admissible blocks, each
stereonet includes shaded sectors that delineate where the plane shear, wedge, or toppling
failure modes can occur based on slope geometry and the joint friction angle of the
structure. Plane shear and toppling failures are possible where the poles to the planes plot
in the pink sectors, which represent the envelopes of structures that could daylight along the
slope face or topple out of the face. Wedge failures are kinematically admissible where the
great circles representing two structures intersect within the pink or yellow sectors.
For the purpose of the kinematic analyses, the structures are planar, through-going features
with a joint friction angle of 30 degrees, representing an appropriate discontinuity friction
angle for weathered granite (Wyllie & Mah, 2004).
At both the upper and lower sites to prevent isolated blocks of rock from failing during
excavation and to evaluate if our evaluation and characterization of the project site are
correct, we recommend Shannon & Wilson be present during the slope excavation to
recommend determining the need and location for rock dowels to be installed where
adverse joint patterns are observed as the excavation is opened up.
8.1.2 Engineering Properties
Our engineering analysis included an evaluation of rock mass stability in several locations,
including global stability at the upper treatment plant site existing slope with the proposed
excavation and 1H:1V cut slope, and global stability of the lower treatment plant site with
proposed cut slopes for the clearwell foundations. Performing stability analyses requires
the input of rock mass and discontinuity strength parameters. Global stability analyses are
dependent on rock mass shear strength, which is a combination of intact rock strength
parameters and discontinuity shear strength
A rock mass includes both intact rock and discontinuities. The strength of the intact rock,
the strength of the discontinuities, and the spacing and orientation of the discontinuities
collectively affect the overall strength and engineering performance of the rock mass. The
engineering properties of the rock mass were primarily determined from observations made
100329-001 June 6, 2019

13
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
with borehole televiewer survey data, observations of rock core collected during subsurface
explorations, and laboratory testing. Rock mass design parameters were estimated based on
our evaluation of engineering properties and we used these parameters to develop shear
strength values for our design analyses. The discontinuity shear strength values are based
on Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, and the rock mass shear strength values are based on
the Hoek-Brown failure criterion, which considers equivalent rock continuum properties,
accounting for strength contributions from both intact rock and discontinuities throughout
the rock mass. Two different strength envelopes were used for the analyses. For the upper
treatment plant, equivalent Mohr-Coulomb criteria were developed from the Hoek-Brown
input parameters and for the lower clearwell tanks, the Hoek-Brown criteria were input
directly into the stability analysis software.
8.1.3 Intact Rock Design Parameters
The intact rock parameters for the quartz monzodiorite rock encountered in our
explorations are summarized in the table below.
Exhibit 8-1: Intact Rock Properties of Quartz Monzodiorite
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ksi) Density (lbs/ft3)
Min. Max. Avg. Min. Max. Avg.
0.3 11.3 1.5 158 167 163
NOTES:
Avg. = average
ksi = kips per square inch
Lbs/ft3 = pounds per cubic foot
Max. = maximum
Min. = minimum
Average excludes a single sample (11.3 ksi rock at previous pipe bridge location)
Design parameters for unconfined compressive strength and density of intact rock used in
our analyses were approximately 1.5 ksi, which is the average compressive strength of the
rock, after excluding a single sample taken from a boring taken near the proposed pipe
bridge which had an unconfined compressive strength of 11.3 ksi.
8.1.4 Equivalent Rock Mass Design Parameters
Equivalent rock mass properties were evaluated using the Geological Strength Index (GSI)
as described by Hoek and others (2013). This rating system considers the combined
contributions of discontinuities and intact rock within a rock mass. GSI is based upon the
discontinuity surface conditions of roughness and infilling, corresponding to the
interlocking characteristics of the rock mass and the degree of natural fracturing within the
rock mass. GSI ranges from 0 to 100, with a lower rating corresponding to a lower quality
rock mass and a higher rating corresponding to a higher quality rock mass. The GSI
100329-001 June 6, 2019

14
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
calculated in this report is based on Q Index parameters joint roughness (Jr), joint alteration
(Ja), and rock quality designation (RQD) (Hoek and others, 2013) and was calculated for
each core run. Our analyses used the average minus one standard deviation GSI value of 32
for the rock on the project.
8.1.5 Discontinuity Strength
The shear strength along discontinuities was evaluated through direct shear tests along
discontinuities and saw-cut surfaces and is presented in Table 4 (ASTM D5607). In a direct
shear test, normal load is applied perpendicular to a sample of rock containing a
discontinuity and the sample is displaced parallel to the discontinuity or saw-cut surface.
The shear load is measured as the force required to displace the sample of rock. Procedures
for this test are provided in ASTM D5607, Laboratory Direct Shear Strength Test of Rock
Specimens Under Constant Normal Force. The normal stress on the discontinuity and the
shear strength of the discontinuity are obtained by dividing the applied normal load and
applied maximum shear load by the area of discontinuity, respectively. Tests performed on
saw-cut surfaces result in base friction angles. Joint friction angles are then estimated by
adjusting the base friction angle with the measured dilation of the joint.
For this study, Shannon & Wilson evaluated laboratory data from 3 direct shear tests from
core samples taken by Shannon & Wilson and tested at the GeoTesting Express. The
average angle of friction was 62 degrees with a standard deviation of 7 degrees and an
average cohesion intercept of 0 pounds per square foot (psf). This results in a design joint
friction angle of 55 degrees.
8.1.6 Limit Equilibrium Analysis
An evaluation of the overall slope global stability was performed through limit equilibrium
analyses in the computer program Slide 2018 version 8.016 (Rocscience, 2018) to evaluate the
effect the proposed excavation has on the overall slope stability. The analyses were
performed for cross sections at the upper (D-D') and lower sites (B-B'). Through the field
exploration program, discontinuities inclined between 20 and 40 degrees were encountered
at the lower site near the clearwells. The slide model for the lower clearwell tanks used an
anisotropic strength function to simulate the orientation of discontinuities and planes of
weakness within the rock mass. Anisotropic material assumed discontinuity strength
between 20 and 40 degrees of plane inclination, based on kinematic analyses, and rock mass
strength elsewhere. The upper slope assumed Mohr-Coulomb equivalent material
properties for the granitic rockmass. Our analysis considered a 2,500 psf surcharge from the
treatment plan on the slope above the clearwells. We also assumed no surcharge in the area
above the treatment plant as the slope will be undeveloped.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

15
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
Although kinematically admissible, the conditions of the rock mass at the upper slope
would support a circular failure as more likely to occur than a structurally controlled rock
block failure. As such, the limit equilibrium analyses performed at the upper slope assume
a circular failure. The lower slope modeled the kinematically admissible rock wedge
failures as plane shear in the limit equilibrium analyses which produce a more conservative
factor of safety.
Different loading conditions were evaluated within the Slide program: static slope
conditions, and pseudo-static slope conditions (seismic event case). An acceleration of
approximately 0.16g was applied to the slope representing a Kh which is equal to one-half
of the PGA. The target factors of safety used in the analyses are 1.5 for the static case, and
greater than or equal to 1.1 for earthquake load case. The resulting factors of safety for the
lower slope using the Janbu corrected method of slices for the loading conditions are:
Exhibit 8-2: Factor of Safety for Analyzed Loading Conditions for Clearwell Site
Failure Mode Slope Angle Factor of Safety

Plane Shear Static 90 1.2
Plane Shear Seismic 90 0.5
Circular Static 90 0.7
Circular Seismic 90 0.5
100329-001 June 6, 2019

16
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
Exhibit 8-3: Factor of Safety for Analyzed Loading Conditions for Treatment Plant Site
Failure Mode Slope Angle Factor of Safety

These results exceed the target factors of safety for the 63 and 90 degree cut slopes at the
clearwell foundations. The 45-degree slopes will meet the target factor of safety for the
overall excavation.
For the upper slope, the limit equilibrium results were similar, with only a 1H:1V slope (45
degrees) meeting the target factors of safety with a resultant factor of safety of 1.8 for dry
static conditions and 1.4 for seismic conditions. Based on the slope geometry and loading
conditions at the upper site, temporary slopes at the upper site of 0.5H:1V are stable under
short term loading conditions. The factors of safety for the upper slope (treatment plant) are
summarized above in Exhibit 8.3. The results of our limit equilibrium analyses are
presented in Appendix D.
8.1.7 Rockfall Mitigation
The surface of the face of the project site is weathered and no rock joints were visible for
surface mapping. No rockfall was observed at the bases of the slopes. However, as
discussed section 8.1.1 Kinematic Analysis, wedge failures which could result in rockfall are
kinematically admissible. Based on the jointing patterns and rock mass quality, we
analyzed rock fall from 2-, 3-, and 4-foot boulders using Rocsience Rocfall Version 7.003.
The analysis seeded 5,000 rocks from each boulder size across all areas of the cut slope. The
rockfall modelling assumed a lump mass model, with a normal and tangential coefficient of
restitution of 0.5 and a relative minimum and maximum of 0.12 above and below the
average value of 0.5 and a 30-degree fixed friction angle, which is less than the minimum
value obtained during laboratory testing.
Our analysis found that the maximum energy from a boulder impact on a barrier placed at
the toe of the slope is approximately 90,000 ft-lbs. This exceeds the capacity of standard and
readily available concrete K-rail (Jersey) barriers and facilitates the need to set the tanks and
protective barriers back from the slope to allow for energy dissipation of the modeled
rockfall events. Setting the protective jersey barrier 8 feet from the toe of the slope results in
100329-001 June 6, 2019

17
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
a maximum impact energy of 30,000 ft pounds, approximately one-half of the rated capacity
of 60,000 ft-lbs. Additionally, by placing the barrier 8 feet from the toe of the slope, there is
space to get behind the barrier to perform cleanout and maintenance of rock fall or debris
that accumulates.
Slopes of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical are not typically protected by wire mesh systems and in
our opinion the rockfall risk can be mitigated using jersey barriers placed at an appropriate
offset from the slope. However, as previously discussed, a Shannon & Wilson geologist or
engineer should be present during the excavation work to evaluate if the actual slope
conditions meet our design assumptions which may require the installation of support
elements such as rock dowels. Rock dowels should be placed at locations where boulders
greater than 4 feet in diameter may become unstable if left unsupported. Additionally, we
recommend scaling the slope before the placement of rock dowels or anchors. The scaling
should be focused on removal of occasional oversized blocks, discrete zones of particularly
loose rock, and slope preparation necessary for anchor and dowel placement. The results of
our limit equilibrium analyses are presented in Appendix E.
8.2 Rippability
Seismic wave velocities were collected from borehole televiewer logging for borings B-13, B-
15, and B-16 to assess potential rippability and construction equipment capabilities in the
area near the Clearwell Pump Station.
Seismic refraction is the most commonly used geophysical method for rippability
assessment. Seismic refraction surveys are conducted to measure the seismic compression
velocity (P-wave) and estimate the subsurface stratigraphy and relative hardness. However,
the measured seismic velocity is influenced by many factors, such as the presence of
moisture and rock fractures that cannot be identified solely by the seismic refraction without
the borehole control. Additionally, the changes in velocity cannot be distinguished from
instances of fracturing of a uniform rock type or a change in rock type with no variation in
fracturing.
Results from the shear wave velocities were compared with data from the Caterpillar
Handbook of Ripping (2000), which was developed to use rock analysis, site inspection, and
seismic analysis to make approximate predictions of production ripping equipment
performance for a variety of rock and soil conditions. Charts provided in the handbook
compare the performance capabilities of different Caterpillar tractors with soil and rock
types, and seismic velocities. For example, using the chart of Ripper Performance for the
Caterpillar D-9R dozer, a granitic type rock with P-wave velocities ranging from 0 ft/s to
approximately 6800 ft/s are considered rippable. P-wave velocities in a granitic rock
100329-001 June 6, 2019

18
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
ranging from 6800 ft/s to 8000 ft/s are considered marginal, and P-wave velocities above
8000 ft/s are considered non-rippable.
P-wave velocities in boring B-13 ranged from 3574 ft/s to 6691 ft/s. P-wave velocities in
boring B-15 ranged from 4000 ft/s to 6621 ft/s and should be considered rippable. Towards
the base of the exploration the rock approaches the boundary between rippable and
marginally rippable. The seismic velocity data provided for boring B-16 appeared to be
flawed in the case of the P-wave measurements. This may be the result of poor-quality
bedrock in the boring area. Boring B-16 also had extremely poor recovery of core samples
during drilling, which can also indicate poor rock quality. In general, it is our opinion that
the weathered granitic rock mass should be rippable with appropriately sized equipment.
However, the site contains strong, fresh, unaltered bedrock corestones within the weathered
granite, such as the rock encountered in boring B-11. Corestones, where encountered, will
not be rippable. Rock excavation in the areas of strong rock will need to be performed using
mechanical methods of rock removal, such as pneumatic-hammers (breakers) and saw
cutting.
8.3 Retaining Wall Alternatives

Where permanent rock cuts cannot be sloped back at a 1H:1V, or temporary cut slopes
cannot be cut back at a 0.5H:1V, retaining wall support will be required to maintain the
stability of the rock face. Soil nails are considered a feasible retaining wall type at the site.
Construction of soil nail walls involves a “top-down” procedure that generally includes
three steps for each horizontal row of nails: (a) staged excavation and pre-production soil
nail performance tests (verification tests), (b) nail installation and select nail proof testing,
and (c) drainage and facing construction. This sequence of staged excavation, nail
installation, and drainage/facing construction in horizontal rows is repeated until the
excavation and shoring is complete. Soil nails consist of steel bars (typically 3/4- to 13/8-inch
diameter), which are installed by tremie grouting the nail in a predrilled hole.
Soil nails are located in square or rectangular grid patterns (e.g., 4- to 8-foot grid) and are
typically installed at an inclination angle of 15 degrees below horizontal. Drainage is
provided behind these walls by placing vertical rows of geosynthetic drainage composites
between the grids of soil nails before shotcrete application, then connecting the drainage
system to a discharge pipe at the bottom of the wall.
Construction of rock dowel walls is similar to construction of soil nails, except that the face
of the excavation is not covered with a geosynthetic drainage and shotcrete, and drainage of
the slope is completed through installation of weep holes. Weep holes are generally
installed at 5 degrees above horizontal and extend into the slope 5 feet longer than the depth
100329-001 June 6, 2019

19
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
of the rock dowels. Weep holes are installed on a grid, with square spacing equal to or up to
double the spacing of the rock dowels. Based on the condition and strength of the rock at
the site, it is our opinion that rock dowels are feasible at the site in place of soil nails,
provided that an oversized plate is used at the rock face where the dowel enters the slope.
We understand short retaining walls may be required to achieve roadway grades and that
the wall systems could be either gravity cast in place or MSE walls. For walls constructed at
the crest of slopes we recommend consideration be given to using MSE walls to provide
resistance against downslope movement. Fill retaining walls constructed to level paved
areas and roadways should be founded on a thin layer of 3/4 inch leveling coarse aggregate
over stable rock. Fill material behind the wall should consist of crushed rock backfill. An
allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf may be used for retaining walls founded on stable
rock. The allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of
0.4. Retaining walls should be designed for a minimum traffic surcharge of 250 psf. Lateral
earth pressures are provided below.
Exhibit 8-4: Lateral Earth Pressures for Fill Walls*
Seismic
Static Static Surcharge Seismic
Groundwater Pressure
At-Rest Active At-Rest Pressure
Design Non-
Pressure Pressure Pressure Yielding
Conditions Yielding
(psf) (psf) (psf) (psf)
(psf)
Above Water
54H 34H 0.41q 8H 21H
Level
*Assumes Crushed Rock Backfill
In Exhibit 8-4, H is defined as the total height of the buried wall and q is the surcharge load,
with q in units of pounds per square foot. For the static lateral earth pressures, we
recommend active earth pressure be used in the design for the yielding wall if the wall is
allowed to rotate. For the seismic loading condition, the seismic pressure can be applied as
a rectangular distribution for gravity retaining walls and is additive to the static soil and
water pressures (if appropriate). The resultant seismic load for gravity retaining walls acts
at a point above the bottom of the structure that is at the midpoint of the wall. For MSE
walls the pressure can be treated as triangular and applied at a point one third from the base
of the wall.
8.4 Foundation Subgrade Preparation

Based on the information available during the 30 percent design phase, it is our opinion that
the proposed WTP and clearwell foundations can be founded on bedrock material or on
compacted 1-1/2 to 0-inch dense graded aggregate (conforming to Oregon Standard
Specifications for Construction OSSC 02630) founded over bedrock. Beneath foundations a
100329-001 June 6, 2019

20
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
minimum 3-inch-thick layer of 3/4-inch minus leveling coarse should be placed over the
bedrock or the 1-1/2-inch minus crushed rock. The leveling course material should be a
maximum 3/4-inch particle size, well-graded, crushed rock and contain less than 7 percent
passing the No. 200 sieve based on a washed sieve analysis (ASTM D 1140), such as ODOT’s
3/4 to 0-inch Dense-Graded Aggregate (Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction,
Section 02630).
The excavation to the subgrade depth and the subgrade materials should be observed by the
Geotechnical Engineer of Record or their representatives. At the clearwell locations (where
the highest loads are anticipated), any compressible material within the weathered rock
should also be removed. For the purposes of this 30 percent design, non-compressible
material shall be defined as material that cannot be removed using a John Deere 200LC (140
net Horse Power and 46 kip operating weight) or equivalent excavator with conventional
digging teeth. Since a variety of subgrade materials will be encountered, below are
recommended additional subgrade preparation requirements.
8.4.1 Elimination of Subgrade Hard Spots and Fill Voids
The subgrade level could encounter surfaces of fractured, weathered, or sound (non-
rippable) bedrock resulting in an excavation surface that is uneven and may possibly
contain loose rock pieces. We recommend that this surface either be recompacted, loose
pieces or unsatisfactory material removed, or the material be grouted in-place as described
below. In addition, if cobbles, boulders, or portions of the sound rock layer extends
vertically beyond a specified grade elevation into the crushed rock layer, the protruding
material should be removed to eliminate any “hard” spots in the subgrade. The maximum
tolerance of a particle above specific subgrade should not be more than 2 inches. If removal
causes a hole or depression in the subgrade, these holes should be filled with either crushed
rock material, CLSM, or lean concrete to create a relatively uniform foundation support
subgrade. A representative of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record should determine the
depth of removal and appropriate material for filling and leveling. For recompaction, due
to the likely oversized nature of the material, a procedural compaction/proof rolling method
with specified and approved compaction equipment and number of passes (minimum of
two vibratory coverages followed by two coverages with equipment in the static mode) is
recommended.
8.4.2 Loose/Fractured Rock
Based on the boring logs and rock core photos, we anticipate portions of the excavated
subgrade will be loose or fractured, which should be treated as described above. However,
if pieces or blocks of rock are too large to be feasibly over excavated, a stabilizing option
100329-001 June 6, 2019

21
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
would be placement of a thin cement slurry grout layer, such as 1 to 2 inches thick, on the
fractured rock surface to allow infiltration to “lock up” the rock pieces.
8.5 Structural Fill

8.5.1 Imported Granular Materials
We recommend the structural fill material to be a crushed rock material consisting of well-
graded, imported crushed rock, with maximum 1-1/2-or 3/4 inch particle size and contain
less than 7 percent passing the No. 200 sieve based on a washed sieve analysis (ASTM
D1140), such as ODOT’s 1-1/2” to 0” Dense-Graded Aggregate (Oregon Standard
Specifications for Construction, Section 02630). The crushed rock material should be placed
in maximum lift thickness of 9 inches of loose material. The crushed rock material should
be compacted to 95 percent of ASTM D1557 using a “procedural” approach, as described
below. The procedural approach to obtain proper compaction should consist of proof
rolling each lift or placement with a self-propelled compaction equipment weighing at least
10 tons (dead weight) with a minimum of two vibratory coverages followed by two
coverages with equipment in static mode. The exception to this is the procedural
compaction the leveling courses where the vibratory coverages should not be used and only
static coverages, and where membranes are placed beneath leveling coarse. Aggregate base
placed directly above membranes should not be compacted. These procedural approaches
should be witnessed by a competent geotechnical engineer for each lift placed.
8.5.1.1 Underdrain/Leak Detection Systems (Drain Rock)
We recommend the consideration of incorporating an underdrain/leak detection layer

beneath the crushed rock leveling course under water bearing structures. This type layer
should consist of imported, crushed rock, that is clean and relatively open-graded (free-
draining) such as ODOT’s 1½ inches to No. 4 coarse PCC aggregate (Oregon Standard
Specifications for Construction (OSSC) Section 02690), and contain less than 2 percent
passing the No. 200 sieve based on a washed sieve analysis, ASTM D 1140. When this
crushed rock (drain rock) layer is used under water bearing structures, it should be
compacted using a procedural method as described above in Section 7.6.1 Imported
Granular Fill. If this type layer is incorporated into the design, we also recommend
appropriate perforated collector pipes be used to route collected water to a manhole for
observation and monitoring.
8.5.2 On-site Material
We recommend against the reuse of existing fill as structural fill under any of the proposed
WTP structures due to observed debris and organic material during the explorations.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

22
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
However, existing fill material (or native granite removed during site grading), free of
debris and organics, may be used under pavement or non-settlement sensitive structures
provided it is screened to conform to OSSC 0030.12 (Borrow Material) and moisture
conditioned and compacted to 92 percent of the maximum density, as determined by ASTM
D 1557, at a moisture content that is within 2 percent of optimum.
We anticipate significant effort will be required to screen the large organics, over-sized
particles, and deleterious material from the existing undocumented fill. Additionally, full
time construction observations will be required by an experienced geotechnical engineer
during screening, moisture conditioning, placement, and compaction of the material.
Due to the highly variable nature of the on-site fill, an extensive laboratory testing program
may also be required to determine the optimum moisture content and maximum density for
a range of materials. If existing on-site rock is over-excavated and used as fill, it will need to
be crushed and/or sorted such that it is well graded with no particles greater than 4 inches.
8.6 Wet Weather Construction Considerations

The use of granular haul roads or staging areas will be necessary for support of construction
traffic on silty subgrades during the rainy season or when the moisture content of the
surface soil is more than a few percentage points above optimum. A 12- to 18-inch thickness
of imported granular material generally should be sufficient for light staging areas and the
basic building pad, but is generally not expected to be adequate to support heavy
equipment or truck traffic. Haul roads and areas with repeated heavy construction traffic
should be constructed with 18 to 24 inches of stabilization material. Stabilization material
should consist of well-graded crushed gravel, or crushed rock with a maximum particle size
of 4 inches and less than 5 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 Sieve.
Stabilization material should be placed in one lift and compacted.
In addition, we recommend that a non-woven geotextile be placed as a barrier between silty

subgrade materials and imported granular material in areas of repeated construction traffic.
The geotextile should meet the requirements of OSSC Section 02320.20 for soil separation.
8.7 Control of Water

Groundwater was not measured in the piezometers performed in our explorations.
However, we anticipate that perched groundwater, or surface and rain water could exist in
excavations which can be controlled using sump pumps. Site grading and drainage systems
should be used to direct surface water away from excavations.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

23
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
8.8 Site Drainage

Our slope stability analysis assumes the site slope is not saturated and significant ponding
of surface water will not occur after construction. We recommend that all roof drains be
connected to a tightline leading to storm drain facilities. Pavement surfaces and open space
areas should be sloped such that surface water runoff is collected and routed to suitable
discharge points. As discussed above, the recommend underdrain/leak detection systems
beneath significant water bearing structures such as the clearwells should be monitored
such that leaks can be detected before water migrates into the subsurface potentially
creating water pressures in the rock formation that could adversely impact the slope
stability.
9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRUCTURES

9.1 Buildings, Filtrations and Treatment Plant Structures
The project includes construction of a new operations building and treatment structures.
Based on our April 18, 2019 correspondence with HDR, we understand the structures will
be supported on slabs on grade with exterior strip foundations of 4,000 psf and slab
foundation loads of approximately 2,500 psf.
We recommend that the exterior strip foundations of the buildings be founded at a

minimum depth of 18 inches below final grade and have a minimum width of 24 inches.
Any interior footings or thickened slab foundations for columns should be founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches.
Based on our analysis, we estimate total settlement of the buildings to be less than 1-inch.
We estimate differential settlement to be less than 1/2-inch in 50 feet. Support for slab
foundations can be obtained from properly constructed structural fill, and a subgrade
modulus of 250 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used in the design. The allowable
frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4. For the new
structures, the top 12 inches of soil should not be used in calculating passive resistance, as
construction and post-construction activities often disturb this upper material.
Below the slab foundation, 9 inches of open-graded crushed rock capped with a minimum
of 3-inch leveling course should be placed. The open-graded layer is recommended as a
capillary moisture break at buildings and slabs receiving floor coatings. If additional
protection against moisture vapor is desired, a vapor-retarding membrane could be
incorporated into the design as specified by structural engineer or architect.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

24
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
9.2 Clearwell Foundations

We understand that the clearwells will be supported by a concrete ring foundation. Our
geotechnical investigation indicates the reservoir will be supported on weathered rock. For
ring and column foundations prepared as described below, the proposed reservoir can be
designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 6,000 psf, which includes an FS of 3.0. The
maximum differential settlements on opposite sides of the ring wall is anticipated to be less
than 1 inch. Below the ring foundation, we recommend leveling course up to 12 inches in
thickness to protect the ring footing from an uneven rock excavation surface that could
create uneven bearing. The outside edge of the ring foundation should be a minimum of 15
feet horizontally away from the closest crest of slope.
On level ground, we recommend an allowable partial soil passive pressure, 250d psf (where
d is depth of the embedment of the bottom of footing), be used for design of sliding and
overturning resistance. The allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a
coefficient of friction of 0.4. For the new reservoir, the top 12 inches of soil should not be
used in calculating passive resistance, as construction and post-construction activities often
disturb this upper material.
9.3 Pipe Bridge

9.3.1 General
The following sections provide our recommendations for foundations at the proposed pipe
bridge over Ashland Creek to connect the new treatment plant site to existing utilities on
Granite Street. Ashland Creek passes beneath Granite Street in a corrugated metal pipe
culvert. At the time of our original exploration plan in fall of 2018, consideration was being
given to replacing the culvert with a new bridge which could support the utilities. Shannon
& Wilson advanced two borings in the Fall of 2019 (one boring on each side of the culvert).
Subsequently, the plan was modified to construct an independent pipe bridge. The current
plans for the proposed pipe bridge indicate it will be approximately 130 feet in length and
carry up to seven different pipelines, ranging in size from the 30-inch raw water main to a 6-
inch sanitary sewer line.
In March 2019, additional geotechnical explorations were performed closer to the proposed
pipe foundations. Near the east bent of the proposed bridge we encountered approximately
13 feet of fill over residual soil and weathered rock in boring B-16. Near the west bridge
abutment, we encountered approximately 10 feet fill over residual soil and weathered rock.
Supporting the bridge on shallow foundations would require a significant over-excavation
and removal of the fill near the existing creek, and driven piles may have difficulty
penetrating the residual soil and weathered rock. Based on our conversations with HDR's
100329-001 June 6, 2019

25
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
structural engineer on April 30th, we understand that drilled shafts are the preferred
foundation alterative. We evaluated three options; a 2.5-foot-diameter drilled hole with H-
piles inserted, and both 4-foot and 6-foot diameter drilled shafts. The drilled in H-pile is
analyzed and constructed as a 2.5-foot-diameter drilled shaft, but reinforced with a H-pile
instead of a typical rebar cage used in drilled shafts.
9.3.2 Drilled Shaft Axial Resistance
We performed an axial resistance evaluation in general accordance with AASHTO LRFD.

We evaluated axial resistance for service, strength, and extreme event limit states. The
analyses were based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the project borings and
our experience with similar soil and project conditions. We estimated unit side and tip
resistance values based on the average SPT values (N-values) within each unit, laboratory
tests, load tests in similar soil conditions from other projects, and our experience.
Our axial resistance analyses results are presented in Appendix F on Figures F1 through F6.
These results are presented as plots of nominal and factored axial resistance versus depth
for service, strength, and extreme event limit states. Recommended resistance factors for
each limit state are provided in the notes section of each figure. Recommended resistance
factor values could be increased if a load test program is implemented for the project.
No scour study was available at the time of this report. If additional study indicates scour is
a risk at the bent locations, the drilled shaft capacities should be revised to reduce the
resistance from the overburden soils that are susceptible to scour. Estimated capacities per
length are provided in Appendix F. The contact elevation of the weathered rock
encountered during drilled shaft excavation may be variable.
The estimated axial resistance assumes the shafts are spaced at least four shaft diameters
apart (4D), measured center to center, and in a single row. Based on this assumption, shaft
group effects are not considered. If the shaft spacing is less than 4D, the appropriate shaft
efficiency factor must be established and applied, as recommended by the AASHTO LRFD.
9.3.3 Drilled Shaft Lateral Resistance
The drilled shaft foundations will be subjected to lateral loads resulting from live and
seismic loading. We understand that the laterally loaded shaft analyses will be performed
with the aid of the computer program LPILE. Geotechnical input parameters for the LPILE
computer model are provided in Table F1, which is included in Appendix F.
The estimated lateral resistance parameters presented in Table F1 are recommended for
drilled shafts with center-to-center spacing greater than five shaft diameters (5D) and in a
100329-001 June 6, 2019

26
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
single row. Based on this assumption, the shaft group effects are not considered. If the
shaft spacing is less than 5D, the appropriate P-Multiplier must be established and applied,
as recommended by the AASHTO LRFD.
9.3.4 Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations
9.3.4.1 General
The drilled shaft installation procedures should follow the OSSC, Section 00512, with
appropriate project-specific provisions. The selection of equipment and procedures for
constructing drilled shafts should consider shaft diameter and length and subsurface
conditions. The design and performance of drilled shafts can be significantly influenced by
the equipment and construction procedures used to install the shafts.
Generally, drilled shafts are constructed by excavating a cylindrical bore to the prescribed
embedment with a large-diameter auger or other drilling tool. Temporary or permanent
casing is often used, depending on site conditions. Upon completion of drilling and
inspection of the shaft, a steel rebar cage (or H-pile) is placed, and concrete is pumped into
the hole to complete the drilled shaft. We recommend that the drilled shafts be constructed
using temporary casing to the top of the residual soil or weathered rock.
Drilled shaft contractors who participate on this project should be required to demonstrate
that they have suitable equipment for this project and adequate experience in the
construction of shafts with similar subsurface conditions. The contractor should anticipate
that drilling in weathered rock may be difficult and slow.
9.3.4.2 Potential Obstructions
Based on our explorations, occasional cobbles and boulders were encountered in the fill unit
at the site. Strong, fresh rock was also encountered within the Mt. Pluton geologic unit. A
statement should be included in the contract special provisions alerting the contractor to
potential difficulties with cobbles, boulders, and strong rock when installing the drilled
shafts.
9.3.4.3 Shaft Quality Control
We recommend full-time observation of the drilled shafts by a qualified representative from

our firm to observe the contractor’s means, methods, and equipment; and to assist the
drilled-shaft inspector with an understanding of the critical issues for drilled shaft
construction. In addition, the design geotechnical engineer and structural engineer should
make periodic visits. We recommend that cross-hole sonic log (CSL) tubes be installed in
every shaft and that testing be performed on the shafts in accordance with ODOT OSSC and
100329-001 June 6, 2019

27
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
the project special provisions. CSL testing cannot be performed on 2.5-foot cast in place H-
pile foundations.
10 BURIED PIPELINE DESIGN

10.1 Modulus of Soil Reaction for Flexible Pipe
The modulus of soil reaction, E’, for flexible pipeline design, characterizes the stiffness of the
pipe zone backfill placed at the sides of buried flexible pipelines. E’ is an empirical
parameter (Spangler’s Iowa formula) that is dependent on the deflection and the pressure
developed at the spring line of the pipe. Variables also depend on the depth of the pipe, the
type and density of the backfill, the thickness of compacted pipe zone backfill between the
pipe and the trench wall, and the type of native soil. The “composite” E’ that considers the
variables described above, should be developed by the HDR design team. Based on Table 6
from the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Method for Prediction of
Flexible Pipe Deflection, Manual 25, 3rd Edition, and the relative consistency (density) of the
soils encountered in the field explorations, Shannon & Wilson recommends an En’ value of
4,000 psi for the in situ weathered rock. This value should be used to determine a composite
En’ based on the variables described above.
10.2 Bedding Pipe Zone and Trench Backfill

10.2.1 Bedding
The pipe bedding zone in the trench should be constructed with imported, well-graded,
clean crushed rock material suitable for compaction and allowing for flexible joints. The
bedding material should consist of imported, 3/4-inch-minus crushed aggregate, as specified
in Oregon Standard Specification for Construction (OSSC 2018), Item 00405.12, Bedding.
Provided that the subgrade soil is competent, and is not disturbed by the excavation
equipment, the minimum thickness of granular bedding below the invert of the pipeline
should be a minimum 4 inches in accordance with the City of Ashland Standard Design
Detail CD302. Where the pipeline is routed through rock, a thicker bedding layer will be
required to account for an uneven rock surface and to fill areas where the rock comes out in
blocks resulting in overbreak that extends more than 4 inches below the plan pipe invert.
10.2.2 Pipe Zone
For the pipe zone material, bedding material specified in OSSC 2018, Item 00405.12, should
be used for flexible pipes. Typically, the pipe zone materials should extend at least 6 inches
above the top of the pipe, but we assume the pipe zone definition will be developed by the
100329-001 June 6, 2019

28
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
HDR design team, with considerations of pipe manufacturer recommendations and other
factors. Pipe zone material should be firmly compacted.
10.2.3 Trench Backfill
Above the pipe zone, the pipelines and buried structures can be backfilled with select native
material, except in areas where long-term settlement of backfill could be an issue. Use of the
rock will require mechanically breaking the rock in to pieces with maximum particular sizes
of 2 inches or less.
In locations where backfill is placed in settlement-sensitive areas, such as under water

bearing structures, select native material should not be used. Instead, we recommend the
use of 1-inch-minus crushed aggregate, with less than 5 percent by dry weight passing a
U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve, and it should meet OSSC 2018 00405.14 (Class B Backfill) under
paved areas. We recommend the backfill be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density, as determined by AASHTO T 99. Above the subgrade, directly
beneath the pavement, the crushed rock should be compacted to 100 percent of maximum
density as determined by AASHTO T 99.
10.3 Thrust Resistance

Pipe forces may be mitigated by friction along the pipe and the passive resistance from
thrust blocks. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.3 for steel pipe on crushed rock
backfill can be used. An allowable coefficient of 0.15 for HDPE pipe on crushed rock backfill
may also be used. A partial passive resistance equivalent fluid pressure of 300H psf may be
used for thrust blocks in native weathered rock, and a partial passive resistance of 250H psf
may be used backfilled with structural fill, where H is the depth range of the thrust block.
The passive resistances provided assume that the movement of the pipe block will be less
than 1 inch.
10.4 Seepage Collars

To intercept the potentially large volume of water flowing along the pipe bedding and pipe
zone material (since portions of the pipeline inverts could be on slopes within rock), we
recommend seepage collars be installed along the pipe alignment. Typically, these types of
seepage collars are designed by the civil and/or structural engineer on the project team.
However, we recommend the consideration of controlled strength, low-density material
(CSLM) for the seepage collar.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

29
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
11 LIMITATIONS
The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
conditions as they presently exist, and further assume that the explorations are
representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site; that is, the subsurface
conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the
explorations. If subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations
are encountered or appear to be present during construction, Shannon & Wilson should be
advised at once so that these conditions can be reviewed, and the recommendations
reconsidered, where necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between the
submission of this report and the start of construction at the site, or if conditions have
changed because of natural forces or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, it is
recommended that Shannon & Wilson review this report to determine the applicability of
the conclusions and recommendations.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the analyses, conclusions, and
recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally
accepted professional geotechnical engineering principles and practice in this area at the
time this report was prepared. Shannon & Wilson makes no other warranty, either express
or implied. These conclusions and recommendations were based on Shannon & Wilson’s
understanding of the project as described in this report and the site conditions as observed
at the time of our explorations.
Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined
by merely taking soil samples from test borings. Such unexpected conditions frequently
require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project.
Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra
costs.
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of HDR and the City of Ashland for the new
Ashland Water Treatment Plant. Only the data portion of this report should be provided to
the Contractors for project factual information and that can be used as a basis of Contractor
bidding. However, this report contains interpretations and conclusions, and this portion of
the report should be provided to the Contractors for reference only and not as a basis of
Contractor bidding, and not as an evaluation of differing conditions during construction.
Also, since this report contains interpretations and conclusions, it should not be construed
as a warranty of subsurface conditions.
The scope of Shannon & Wilson’s present work did not include environmental assessments
or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands, or hazardous or toxic
100329-001 June 6, 2019

30
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
substances in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air, on or below or around this site, or
for the evaluation or disposal of contaminated soils or groundwater should any be
encountered.
Shannon & Wilson has prepared and attached to this report “Important Information About
Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report” to assist you and others in understanding the use
and limitations of our reports.
12 REFERENCES
Caterpillar Inc., 2000, Handbook of Ripping. Twelfth Edition. Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL, 33
p.
Goldfinger, C., Nelson, C.H., Morey, A., Johnson, J.E., Gutierrez-Pastor, J., Eriksson, A.T.,
Karabanov, E., Patton, J., Gracia, E., Enkin, R., Dallimore, A., Dunhill, G., and
Vallier, T., 2012, Turbidite Event History: Methods and Implications for Holocene
Paleoseismicity of the Cascadia Subduction Zone: USGS Professional Paper 1661-
F, 184 p.
Gribble, R. F., Barnes, C. G., Donato, M. M., Hoover, J. D., Kistler, R. W., 1990, Geochemistry
and Intrusive History of the Ashland Pluton, Klamath Mountains, California and
Oregon; Journal of Petrology, vol. 31, issue 4, p. 883-923.
Hawkins, F.F., Foley, L.L., and LaForge, R.C., 1989, Seismotectonic study for Fish Lake and
Fourmile Lake Dams, Rogue River Basin Project, Oregon: U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation Seismotectonic Report 89-3, 26 p., 2 pls.
Hoek, E.; Carter, T. G.; and Diederichs, M. S., 2013, Quantification of the geological strength
index chart, in 47th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco,
Calif., 2013, Proceedings: Alexandria, Va., American Rock Mechanics Association,
paper 13-672, 8 p.
Hotz, P. E., 1971, Plutonic Rocks of the Klamath Mountains, California and Oregon; United
States Geological Survey Professional Paper 684-B, 20 p.
Personius, S.F., compiler, 2002, Fault number 844, Sky Lakes fault zone, in Quaternary fault
and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website,
https://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed 10/24/2018 09:46 AM.
Personius, S.F., and Nelson, A.R., compilers, 2006, Fault number 781, Cascadia subduction
zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological
Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed 04/11/2019
04:02 PM.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

31
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
Rocscience, Inc., 2017, Dips v7.010: Toronto, Ontario, Rocscience, Inc.
Rocscience, Inc., 2018, Slide 2018 v8.016: Toronto, Ontario, Rocscience, Inc.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2017, Quaternary fault and fold database for the United
States, accessed 6 December 2018, from USGS website:
http//earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/
Wells, R. E., Weaver, C. S., and Blakely, R. J., 1998, Fore arc migration in Cascadia and its
neotectonic significance; Geology, v. 26, p. 759-762.
Wiley, T.J., McClaughry, J.D., and D’Allura, J.A., 2011, Geologic Database and Generalized
Geologic Map of Bear Creek Valley, Jackson County, Oregon: Oregon Department
of Geology and Mineral Industries, Open File Report O-11-11, scale 1:63,360.
Wyllie, D. C. and Mah, C. W., 2004, Rock slope engineering - civil and mining (4th ed.):
London, Spon Press, 431 p.
100329-001 June 6, 2019

32
Washington
Idaho
Site Location
!
(
California Nevada
T
AF SITE
Login: ath
LOCATION
!
(
Date: 12/4/2018
R
Filename: T:\Projects\PDX\100000s\100329_Ashland WWTP\Avmxd\VicinityMap.mxd
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,

USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Sources:
Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),
NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
£
Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP (#10136851)
Ashland, Oregon
VICINITY MAP
0 0.5 1 2
June 2019 100329
Scale in Miles FIG. 1
Filename: T:\Projects\PDX\100000s\100329_Ashland WWTP\Avmxd\SitePlan_10.3.mxd Date: 6/3/2019 Login: kjw
£
40 2370
23 50 2380
23 60
23 21 215
60 0
21
8 0 21
9 0
2240
2250
23
3
22 0
0
22
80
21
9
7
0
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
B-01 D
D D
D
/
@
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
TP-05
D
D
D
D
D
E D
TP-01 E'
D
D
D
2410
TP-08 D
E D
D
TP-02
D
D
E D
D
D
B-02
D
D
E
A
D
@
A TP-03 D
D
B-06 D
E B-15
D
B-12 TP-04
23 00
D
@ B-06A
23 0
D
E
80
D
9
TP-07 A
70
/
24
E
60
@
A
D
2350
23
TP-06
23 D
@
A B-03
D
E B B-05
40
23
2320
2310
D
B-14
T
D
E B-04
0
D /
230
@
A @
A
D
D
@
A @
A
D
70
21 A'
D
D
TP-10
D
B-13
D
D
2270
D
E
D
D
/
2260
'
@
A
D
D
2230
D
D
AF
0
TP-12 0
222
D
B'
D
221
00
TP-11
D
D
E 22 22 D
C'
D 5 0 Glenview
D
E Drive
D
B-10
D
2360
TP-09
D
D
D
E @
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
treet
D
D
Granite S
D
D D D
2180
D D
B-07
D D
D D D
D
D
D D
D
D D
D
@
A
D
D D D
D
D
235
D
236
D
0
0
D
R
D
D
B-09
D
@
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
B-16
D
D
@
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
2350 2360
D
B-17
D
2370
2380 @
A
2390
2400 B-11
2410 B-08 @
A
242
0 @
A
0
243 24
2210
40
2450
2230
2220
B-01
LEGEND 0 50 100 200
@
A Designation and Approximate Location of Boring
B-05 Designation and Approximate Location of Boring Scale in Feet
/
@
A with Piezometer
TP-01
D
E Designation and Approximate Location of Test Pit Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP (#10136851)
A A' Section_B-B' Ashland, Oregon
Designation and Location of Subsurface Profile
or Analysis Model
NOTES
1. Aerial imagery obtained through Google Maps Satellite. SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
FIG. 2
2. Existing contours and features adapted from file

x_Survey.dwg, provided by HDR, Inc., on April 8, 2019.
Vertical datum is NGVD29/56. June 2019 100329
FIG. 2
3. Proposed features adapted from file x_Site%20Design.dwg,
provided by HDR, Inc., on May 30, 2019.
A A'
2300 2300
Existing Ground Surface

2280 2280
Approximate Clearwell
2260 2260
T
Footprint
Approximate Elevation in Feet (NGVD29/56)

B-15
(Proj. 37' SW)
2240 2240
4
18
AF
50/6'' B-14 Proposed Ground Surface
50/1st 3'' (Proj. 9' SW)
Author: kjw
0/0
2220 Interpreted Top of Rock or 44/64

50/1st 6'' 2220
Boring / Test Pit Refusal, 32/48
50/1st 2''
50/1st 1''
See Note 4
Date: 06-06-2019
50/1st 3''
36/40
37/60
80/100 82/94
2200 84/100 50/94 2200
98/98
03-26-19
97/100 REV 2
File: I:\EF\PDX\100000s\100329 City of Ashland\DRAFTING\Subsurface Profiles\Subsurface Profiles.dwg
03-27-19
REV 2
2180 2180
2160
0+00 R 1+00 2+00
Distance in Feet
3+00
2160
4+00
D
LEGEND
NOTES
B-01 1. Existing ground surface generated from x_Survey.dwg,
0 25 50 provided by HDR on April 8, 2019.
(Proj. 22' SW) Designation and Projection of
Exploration to Profile Line 2. Proposed ground surface generated from
Soil or Rock Type Symbol
Vertical Scale in Feet x_Surface_FG_Main_Bldg.dwg, provided by HDR on May
Sample and Penetration Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP (#10136851)
41 30, 2019.
27 Resistance in Blows/Foot or 0 50 100 3. Approximate building footprints based on file Ashland, Oregon
50/1st 5''
Blows/Inches Driven
x_Site%20Design.dwg, provided by HDR on May 30,
50/1st 4'' Bag Sample
91/99 Core Sample
2019.
Horizontal Scale in Feet
Core RQD/Recovery 4. Boring and test pit refusal indicates the depth at which SUBSURFACE PROFILE A-A'
100/100
Vertical Exaggeration = 2x drilling / excavation techniques and equipment, used at
10-31-18 Bottom of Exploration the time of the exploration, could not penetrate feasibly.
Date of Completion 5. See Appendix A for complete exploration logs and June 2019 100329
explanations of symbols.
6. See Figure 2 for profile location. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
B B'
2300 2300
B-05
(Proj. 42' SW)
2280 2280
50/1st 4''
50/1st 2''
0/0
20/44
88/96
Approximate Clearwell
2260 2260
Footprint
T
90/100

11-02-18
REV 2 B-13
(Proj. 20' SW)
2240 Interpreted Top of Rock or 2240
Boring / Test Pit Refusal, 10
97/8'' Proposed Ground Surface
AF
See Note 4 50/ 1st 3''
0/85
Author: kjw
94/100
2220 0/60 2220
76/100
Date: 06-06-2019
94/98
100/100
2200 80/100
2200
70/100
B-10
(Proj. 23' NE)
87/100
03-26-19
REV 2 /52
2180 /0 2180
2160
0+00 1+00
R 2+00
Distance in Feet
3+00 4+00
11-05-18
REV 2
2160
5+00
D
LEGEND
NOTES
41 30, 2019.
50/1st 5''
Blows/Inches Driven
91/99 Core Sample
2019.
Core RQD/Recovery 4. Boring and test pit refusal indicates the depth at which SUBSURFACE PROFILE B-B'
100/100
C C'
2350 2350
B-01
(Proj. 22' SW)
T
2330 2330

41
27
50/1st 5''
50/1st 5'' Approximate Building Footprint Approximate Building Footprint
50/1st 4'' Treatment Facility Operation Building
91/99
2310 TP-08 2310
100/100
AF
(Proj. 19' SW) B-02
B-06 TP-06
10-31-18 Proposed Ground Surface
Author: kjw
REV 2 (Proj. 20' SW) (Proj. 19' SW)

B-04
TP-11
Interpreted Top of Rock or 10-09-18 (Proj. 21' SW)
2290 REV 2
38
5
(Proj. 27' NE) TP-12 2290
Boring / Test Pit Refusal, 50/2nd 3''
(Proj. 10' SW)
Date: 06-06-2019
50/1st 2'' 7
See Note 4 71/87 24
76 95/8''
84/96 50/1st 3'' 50/1st 2.5''
50/1st 1''
96/100 11-01-18
11-02-18
REV 2 10-09-18 REV 2
2270 82/100 REV 2 03-21-19 2270
REV 2 03-21-19
11-01-18 REV 2
REV 2
2250
0+00 1+00
R 2+00
Distance in Feet
3+00 4+00
2250
5+00
D
LEGEND
NOTES
41 30, 2019.
50/1st 5''
Blows/Inches Driven
91/99 Core Sample
2019.
Core RQD/Recovery 4. Boring and test pit refusal indicates the depth at which SUBSURFACE PROFILE C-C'
100/100
D D'
2350 2350
B-01
(Proj. 10' NE) Existing Ground Surface

2330 2330
41
Approximate Building Footprint
T
27
50/1st 5''
50/1st 5'' Treatment Facility Approximate Building Footprint
50/1st 4'' Operation Building
91/99
2310 TP-01 2310
100/100
(Proj. 34' SW)
TP-02
10-31-18 TP-03
REV 2 (Proj. 15' SW)
(Proj. 12' SW)
AF
Interpreted Top of Rock or
Author: kjw
2290 B-05 2290

Boring / Test Pit Refusal,
See Note 4
Proposed
10-09-18 10-09-18
REV 2 Ground
REV 2 10-09-18
Date: 06-06-2019
50/1st 4''
50/1st 2'' Surface
REV 2 0/0
2270 2270
20/44
88/96
90/100
11-02-18
2250 REV 2 2250

0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00
R Distance in Feet
D
0 25 50
LEGEND
Vertical Scale in Feet NOTES
B-01 0 50 100 1. Existing ground surface generated from x_Survey.dwg,
(Proj. 22' SW) Designation and Projection of provided by HDR on April 8, 2019.
Soil or Rock Type Symbol Horizontal Scale in Feet x_Surface_FG_Main_Bldg.dwg, provided by HDR on May
41 Vertical Exaggeration = 2x 30, 2019.
27 Resistance in Blows/Foot or 3. Approximate building footprints based on file Ashland, Oregon
50/1st 5''
Blows/Inches Driven
91/99 Core Sample
2019.
Core RQD/Recovery 4. Boring and test pit refusal indicates the depth at which SUBSURFACE PROFILE D-D'
100/100
drilling / excavation techniques and equipment, used at
E E'
2330 2330
Approximate Building Footprint

Treatment Facility
Existing
Ground
2310 2310
T
TP-07 Surface
B-12 (Proj. 10' SE) TP-02
B-03 B-06 Proposed
(Proj. 13' SE) (Proj. 7' SE)
(Proj. 23' NW) (Proj. 18' NW) Ground
Surface
2290 50/1st 1'' 5
2290
50/1st 5.5''
11-07-18 50/1st 2''
7
REV 2 24
AF
10/40 76
10-09-18 50/1st 3''
10-09-18
Author: kjw
42/52 REV 2 50/1st 1''

40/100
REV 2
11-02-18
2270 44/100 REV 2 2270
Interpreted Top of Rock or
11-01-18
REV 2 Boring / Test Pit Refusal,
Date: 06-06-2019
See Note 4
2250 2250
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00
Distance in Feet
R
D
0 25 50
LEGEND
Vertical Scale in Feet NOTES
B-01 0 50 100 1. Existing ground surface generated from x_Survey.dwg,
(Proj. 22' SW) Designation and Projection of provided by HDR on April 8, 2019.
Soil or Rock Type Symbol Horizontal Scale in Feet x_Surface_FG_Main_Bldg.dwg, provided by HDR on May
41 Vertical Exaggeration = 2x 30, 2019.
27 Resistance in Blows/Foot or 3. Approximate building footprints based on file Ashland, Oregon
50/1st 5''
Blows/Inches Driven
91/99 Core Sample
2019.
Core RQD/Recovery 4. Boring and test pit refusal indicates the depth at which SUBSURFACE PROFILE E-E'
100/100
drilling / excavation techniques and equipment, used at
Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP
Appen dix A: Field Expl orat ions
Appendix A
Field Explorations
CONTENTS
A.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................. A-1
A.2 DRILLING .............................................................................................................................. A-1
A.2.1 Disturbed Sampling ................................................................................................. A-1
A.2.2 Continuous Coring................................................................................................... A-2
T
A.3 TEST PITS ............................................................................................................................... A-2
A.4 BOREHOLE IMAGING AND FULL WAVE SONIC LOGGING .................................. A-3
APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATIONS
A.5 INSTRUMENTATION AND BOREHOLE ABANDONMENT ..................................... A-3

AF
A.6 MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS .............................................................................................. A-4
A.7 EXPLORATION LOGS ......................................................................................................... A-4
A.8 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST ..................................................................... A-4
Figures
Figure A1: Soil Description and Log Key
Figure A2: Rock Classification and Log Key
Figure A3: Exploration Log of B-01
R
D

100329-001 June 6, 2019

6/6/2019-Appendix A_Text june2 A-i
Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP
Figures (continued)
Figure A20: Log of Test Pit TP-01
T

AF
Figure A32: Boring B-01 Core Photographs
R
Figure A42: DCP-1 Test Data
D
Attachments
▪ Global Geophysics Report, dated November 14, 2018
▪ Global Geophysics Report, dated March 30, 2019
100329-001 June 6, 2019

6/6/2019-Appendix A_Text june2 A-ii
Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP
A.1 GENERAL
The current field exploration program consisted of performing a total of 17 geotechnical
borings designated B-01 through B-17, 12 test pits designated TP-01 through TP-12, and one
dynamic cone penetrometer test designated DCP-1. Completed boring locations were
measured in the field and are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Shannon &
Wilson engineering and geology staff were present during the drilling of the geotechnical
borings and test pit excavations to locate the drilling and test pit sites, log the material
encountered, and collect disturbed soil samples for laboratory testing.
T
This appendix describes the techniques used to advance and sample the borings, presents
the boring and test pit logs of the materials encountered as well as photographs of the rock
core obtained.
A.2 DRILLING
AF
The geotechnical borings were performed in two mobilizations, the first between October
31, 2018, and November 7, 2018, and the second between March 25, 2019 and March 28,
2019. The borings were drilled by Western States Soil Conservation Inc. out of Hubbard,
Oregon using a track mounted CME-850 drilling rig.
A.2.1 Disturbed Sampling
Disturbed samples were collected in the borings at 2.5-foot intervals to a depth of

R
approximately 15 feet bgs and at 5-foot intervals thereafter to the completion depths of the
borings or until bedrock was encountered. Samples were collected using a standard 2-inch
outside diameter split spoon sampler in conjunction with Standard Penetration Testing. In a
Standard Penetration Test (SPT), ASTM International (ASTM) D1586, the sampler is driven
18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches. The number of blows
D
required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches is defined as the standard penetration
resistance, or N-value. The SPT N-value provides a measure of in situ relative density of
cohesionless soils (nonplastic silt, sand, and gravel), and the consistency of cohesive soils
(plastic silt and clay). All disturbed samples were visually identified and described in the
field, sealed to retain moisture, and returned to the Shannon & Wilson laboratory for
additional observation and testing.
SPT N-values can be significantly affected by several factors, including the efficiency of the
hammer used. Automatic hammers generally have higher energy transfer efficiencies than
cathead driven hammers. Based on information we received from Western States, the
100329-001-001 June 6, 2019

A-1
Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP
energy efficiency of the hammer used on the track-mounted CME-850 drill rig averaged 84.3
percent, when last measured in December of 2017. For reference, cathead hammers are
typically assumed to have an average energy efficiency of 60 percent. All N-values
presented in this report are in blows per foot, as counted in the field. No corrections of any
kind have been applied.
An SPT was considered to have met refusal, where more than 50 blows were required to
drive the sampler six inches. If refusal was encountered in the first 6-inch interval (for
example, 50 for 1.5 inches), the count is reported as 50/1st 1.5”. If refusal was encountered
in the second 6-inch interval (for example, 48, 50 for 1.5 inches), the count is reported as
T
50/1.5”. If refusal was encountered in the last 6-inch interval (for example, 39, 48, 50 for 1.5
inches), the count is reported as 98/7.5”.
A.2.2 Continuous Coring
AF
Continuous HQ3-wireline coring was used in borings B-01, B-02, B-03, B-05, B-07, B-08, B-11,
B-13, B-14, B-15, and B-16 to advance through and sample bedrock. Core samples were
measured, visually described, boxed, and photographed in the field, and then transported to
the Shannon & Wilson laboratory for further examination. The rock core recovery
(presented on the Exploration Logs) was calculated by dividing the length of core recovered
in the barrel by the length of the total drilled run. This ratio is expressed as a percent.
The rock quality designation (RQD), also presented on the Exploration Logs, is a modified
core recovery percentage including only the total length of the specimens of intact rock
more than 4 inches in length, divided by the total length of the core run. The smaller pieces
R
are considered to be the result of close jointing, fracturing, or weathering in the rock mass
and are excluded from the determination. Difficulties such as distinguishing natural
fractures in the rock core from mechanical breaks due to drilling operations restrict the use
of the RQD in evaluating in situ rock properties. However, it does provide a subjective
estimate of rock mass quality and a comparison of rock quality in the borings.
D
A.3 TEST PITS

Test pits TP-01 through TP-08 were performed on October 9, 2018, and advanced to depths
ranging from approximately 3.0 to 18.0 feet below ground surface (bgs). Test pits TP-09
through TP-12 were performed on March 21, 2019 and advanced to depths ranging from
approximately 4.5 to 10.0 feet bgs. Test pits TP-01 through TP-08 were performed by MSI
Construction, LLC, (MSI), out of Medford, Oregon, using a John Deere 200C LC excavator
and were contracted through the City of Ashland. Test Pits TP-09 through TP-12 were
excavated using a Caterpillar 315 excavator from Western States Soil Conservation under
100329-001-001 June 6, 2019

A-2
Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP
contract with Shannon & Wilson. After soil sampling was completed, the test pits were
backfilled with the excavated material and tamped in place with the excavator bucket
without any placement or compaction control.
A.4 BOREHOLE IMAGING AND FULL WAVE SONIC LOGGING

Borehole optical and acoustic televiewer surveys were performed in Borings B-1, B-2, B-3, B-
5, B-13, B-15, and B-16 after the completion of the drilling activities and prior to grouting the
holes. The imaging survey consists of capturing/generating a continuous 360˚ image of the
borehole wall using an acoustic/optical imaging system, which was performed by Global
T
Geophysics, out of Redmond, Washington. The objective of the geophysical survey was to
characterize discontinuities and their orientation in the rock material.
Fullwave sonic logging techniques were used to measure compressional (P-wave) and shear
AF
(S-wave) wave velocities along the approximate lengths of bedrock encountered in borings
B-13, B-15, and B-16. The logging was also performed by Global Geophysics, out of
Redmond, Washington. The purpose of this geophysical logging is to provide seismic
velocities for evaluation of rock mass quality and rippability, particularly in the Mount
Ashland Pluton rock mass. The Global Geophysical report, including the results of the
imaging and geophysical surveys, are attached to this appendix.
A.5 INSTRUMENTATION AND BOREHOLE ABANDONMENT

To allow ongoing groundwater level measurements, vibrating wire piezometers (VWPs)
R
(Geokon model 4500S) were installed in borings B-1, B-5, B-13 and B-15. A VWP measures
pressure using a pressure-sensitive diaphragm with a vibrating wire element attached to it.
A cable runs from the instrument to the ground surface, where a readout device or
datalogger can be attached. Pressure acting on the outside face of the diaphragm causes it
to deflect, which changes the tension of the wire element and the frequency of its vibration.
D
The readout device or datalogger measures the frequency of the induced vibration, which is
converted to pressure, or head of groundwater above the VWP.
The VWPs were grouted into place in the boreholes and prior to insertion, initial “zero”
readings were taken at “zero” head. With the VWPs and inclinometer casings in place, the
holes were tremie grouted from the bottom up. Cables leading up from the VWPs were
protected at the surface in a flush monument. Each VWP was attached to a single channel
Installation details for the VWPs are indicated on the Exploration Logs along with the
highest water level, if encountered, measured in each boring.
100329-001-001 June 6, 2019

A-3
Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP
Geotechnical borings, not equipped with a VWP, were backfilled in accordance with Oregon
Department of Water Resources regulations, using bentonite cement or bentonite chips.
A.6 MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS

Soil were described and identified in the field in general accordance with ASTM D2488, the
Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure).
The rock core was described in the field based on International Society for Rock Mechanics
(ISRM) methods. The specific terminology used is defined on the Rock Description and Log
Key, Figure A1. After drilling was completed, we reviewed the soil and rock core
T
specimens and modified our descriptions where necessary. Rock strength descriptions were
further refined using the results of the laboratory testing (Appendix B).
A.7 EXPLORATION AND TEST PIT LOGS

AF
Summary logs of the geotechnical borings and test pits are presented in Figures A3 to A31.
Material descriptions and interfaces on the logs are interpretive, and actual changes may be
gradual. The left-hand portion of the log shows our description, identification, and
geotechnical unit designation for the materials encountered, as well as discontinuity data
observed in the core. The middle portion of the log presents all available borehole
televiewer images and the true dip and azimuth of discontinuities derived from the images.
The right-hand portion of the log shows test data, RQD and recovery, and estimates of ISRM
strength index, weathering, and geological strength index. Photographs of the rock core
specimens are presented in Figures A32 through A41, Core Photographs.
R
Due to the accumulation of minor depth offsets between the logged core and the televiewer
data, which occur due to factors such as core loss, the discontinuities apparent in the images
may not align directly with the logged discontinuities in all cases.
D
A.8 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST

Pavement subgrade testing was conducted near Boring B-09 using a Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer (DCP). Two additional DCP tests were planned and were attempted near
Borings B-07 and B-10 but could not be performed due to the gravelly nature of the near
surface soils. The DCP is a device used to determine in-situ strength properties of base
materials and subgrade soils. The four main components of the DCP include the cone, rod,
anvil, and hammer. The cone tip is attached to one end of the DCP rod while the anvil and
hammer are attached to the other end. Energy is applied to the cone tip through the rod by
dropping a 17.64-pound hammer a distance of 22.6-inches against the anvil. The diameter
100329-001-001 June 6, 2019

A-4
Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP
of the cone is 0.16 inches larger than the rod to ensure that only tip resistance is measured.
The number of blows required to advance the cone into the subsurface materials is
continuously recorded. The DCP index is the ratio of the depth of penetration to the
number of blows of the hammer. This can be correlated to a variety of material properties,
including California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Resilient Modulus. DCP testing was
performed and documented by a Shannon & Wilson geologist. The DCP Test Data is
presented in Figure A42.
T
AF
R
D
100329-001-001 June 6, 2019

A-5
PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS
DESCRIPTION SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil
identification system modified from the Unified Soil FINES < #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)
Classification System (USCS). Elements of the
USCS and other definitions are provided on this SAND
Fine #200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.)
and the following pages. Soil descriptions are Medium #40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.)
based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM Coarse #10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.)
D2488) and laboratory testing procedures (ASTM
D2487), if performed. GRAVEL
Fine #4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.)
S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS Coarse 3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)
COARSE-GRAINED
2 FINE-GRAINED SOILS
CONSTITUENT 1 SOILS COBBLES 3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)
(50% or more fines) 1
(less than 50% fines)
Silt, Lean Clay, BOULDERS > 12 in. (305 mm)
4
Major Elastic Silt, or Sand or Gravel
3
Fat Clay RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY
Modifying COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS
30% or more More than 12%
(Secondary)
coarse-grained: fine-grained:
T
Precedes major 4 3 N, SPT, RELATIVE N, SPT, RELATIVE
Sandy or Gravelly Silty or Clayey
constituent BLOWS/FT. DENSITY BLOWS/FT. CONSISTENCY
15% to 30% 5% to 12%
coarse-grained: fine-grained: <4 Very loose <2 Very soft
with Sand or with Silt or 4 - 10 Loose 2-4 Soft
Minor 4 3
10 - 30 Medium dense 4-8 Medium stiff
with Gravel with Clay
Follows major
30% or more total 30 - 50 Dense 8 - 15 Stiff
constituent
coarse-grained and 15% or more of a > 50 Very dense 15 - 30 Very stiff
1
2
3
4
5
lesser coarse-
grained constituent
is 15% or more:
with Sand or
with Gravel
5
AF second coarse-
grained constituent:
with Sand or
with Gravel
5
All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve.

The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor.
Determined based on behavior.
Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.
Whichever is the lesser constituent.
WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS
Bentonite
Cement Grout
Bentonite Grout
Bentonite Chips
> 30
Surface Cement
Seal
Hard
Asphalt or Cap
Slough
MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS Silica Sand Inclinometer or
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry Non-perforated Casing
to the touch Gravel
Vibrating Wire
Moist Damp but no visible water Perforated or Piezometer
Screened Casing
R
Wet Visible free water, from below 1, 2
water table PERCENTAGES TERMS
Trace < 5%
2013_BORING_CLASS1 100329 GINT.GPJ SW2013LIBRARYPDX.GLB SWNEW.GDT 5/15/19
Few 5 to 10%
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
SPECIFICATIONS Little 15 to 25%
Some 30 to 45%
Hammer: 140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.
Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead Mostly 50 to 100%
2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm
D
1
Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as
Sampler: 10 to 30 inches long organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume.
Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches 2
Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for
Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright
Barrel O.D. = 2 inches ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A
copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International,
N-Value: Sum blow counts for second and third www.astm.org.
6-inch increments.
Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or
less; 10 blows for 0 inches. Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP (#10136851)
NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on Ashland, Oregon
boring logs are as recorded in the field and
have not been corrected for hammer
efficiency, overburden, or other factors.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
AND LOG KEY
May 2019 100329

FIG. A1
Sheet 1 of 3
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)
(Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488)
GROUP/GRAPHIC
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS
Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded

GW Gravel with Sand
Gravel
(less than 5%
fines) Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded
Gravels GP Gravel with Sand
(more than 50%
of coarse fraction
retained on No. 4
sieve) GM Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand
Silty or Clayey
Gravel
(more than 12%
COARSE- fines)
GRAINED GC Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand
SOILS
(more than 50%
retained on No. Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand
SW
T
200 sieve) Sand with Gravel
(less than 5%
fines) Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded
Sands SP Sand with Gravel
(50% or more of
coarse fraction
passes the No. 4 SM Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel
sieve) Silty or Clayey
Sand
(more than 12%
AF
Silts and Clays
(liquid limit less
than 50)
fines)
Inorganic
SC
ML
CL
Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel
Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or

Gravelly Silt
Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or

Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay
Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay

FINE-GRAINED Organic OL with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly
SOILS Organic Silt or Clay
(50% or more
passes the No. 200
sieve) Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or
MH Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt
Inorganic
Silts and Clays
Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;
(liquid limit 50 or CH
R
Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay
more)
Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay
Organic OH with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly
Organic Silt or Clay
HIGHLY- Primarily organic matter, dark in PT

Peat or other highly organic soils (see
ORGANIC SOILS color, and organic odor ASTM D4427)
Placed by humans, both engineered and The Fill graphic symbol is combined with
FILL nonengineered. May include various soil the soil graphic that best represents the
D
materials and debris. observed material
NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in.
NOTES
1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, i.e., SP-SM, Sand with

Silt) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the
liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP (#10136851)
plasticity chart.
2. Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CL/ML, Lean Ashland, Oregon
Clay to Silt; SP-SM/SM, Sand with Silt to Silty Sand) indicate that the
soil properties are close to the defining boundary between two groups.
3. The soil graphics above represent the various USCS identifications (i.e.,
GP, SM, etc.) and may be augmented with additional symbology to
SOIL DESCRIPTION
represent differences within USCS designations. Sandy Silt (ML), for AND LOG KEY
example, may be accompanied by the ML soil graphic with sand grains
added. Non-USCS materials may be represented by other graphic May 2019 100329
symbols; see log for descriptions.
FIG. A1
Sheet 2 of 3
GRADATION TERMS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Poorly GradedNarrow range of grain sizes present or,
within the range of grain sizes present, ATD At Time of Drilling
one or more sizes are missing (Gap approx. Approximate/Approximately
Graded). Meets criteria in ASTM
D2487, if tested. Diam. Diameter
Well-Graded Full range and even distribution of grain Elev. Elevation
sizes present. Meets criteria in ASTM ft. Feet
D2487, if tested.
1
FeO Iron Oxide
CEMENTATION TERMS gal. Gallons
Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or Horiz. Horizontal
slight finger pressure HSA Hollow Stem Auger
Moderate Crumbles or breaks with considerable
finger pressure I.D. Inside Diameter
Strong Will not crumble or break with finger in. Inches
pressure lbs. Pounds
2
PLASTICITY MgO Magnesium Oxide
APPROX. mm Millimeter
PLASITICTY MnO Manganese Oxide
INDEX NA Not Applicable or Not Available
T
DESCRIPTION VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA RANGE
Nonplastic A 1/8-in. thread cannot be rolled at < 4% NP Nonplastic
any water content. O.D. Outside Diameter
Low A thread can barely be rolled and a 4 to 10% OW Observation Well
lump cannot be formed when drier
than the plastic limit. pcf Pounds per Cubic Foot
Medium A thread is easy to roll and not 10 to PID Photo-Ionization Detector
much time is required to reach the 20% PMT Pressuremeter Test
plastic limit. The thread cannot be
High
AF
rerolled after reaching the plastic
limit. A lump crumbles when drier
than the plastic limit.
It take considerable time rolling and
kneading to reach the plastic limit. > 20%
A thread can be rerolled several
times after reaching the plastic
limit. A lump can be formed
without crumbling when drier than
the plastic limit.
ppm
PVC
psi
rpm
SPT
USCS
VWP
qu
Parts per Million
Pounds per Square Inch
Polyvinyl Chloride
Rotations per Minute
Standard Penetration Test
Unified Soil Classification System
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Vibrating Wire Piezometer
Vert. Vertical
ADDITIONAL TERMS
WOH Weight of Hammer
Mottled Irregular patches of different colors.
WOR Weight of Rods
Bioturbated Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or Wt. Weight
animals.
1
STRUCTURE TERMS
R
Diamict Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel
in silt and/or clay matrix. Interbedded Alternating layers of varying material or color with
layers at least 1/4-inch thick; singular: bed.
Cuttings Material brought to surface by drilling. Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color with
layers less than 1/4-inch thick; singular:

Slough Material that caved from sides of lamination.
borehole. Fissured Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little
resistance.
Sheared Disturbed texture, mix of strengths. Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy;
1 sometimes striated.
PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE TERMS Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small
D
Angular Sharp edges and unpolished planar angular lumps that resist further breakdown.
surfaces. Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such
Lensed as small lenses of sand scattered through a
Subangular Similar to angular, but with rounded mass of clay.
edges. Same color and appearance throughout.
Homogeneous
Subrounded Nearly planar sides with well-rounded
edges.
Rounded Smoothly curved sides with no edges. Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP (#10136851)
Ashland, Oregon
Flat Width/thickness ratio > 3.
Elongated Length/width ratio > 3.

1
Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for SOIL DESCRIPTION
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the AND LOG KEY
complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.
2
Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for May 2019 100329
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A1
complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sheet 3 of 3
BASED ON INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ROCK MECHANICS (ISRM) ROCK CLASSIFICATION METHODSR
FABRIC TERMS STRENGTH
APPROXIMATE RANGE OF
SEDIMENTARY ROCKS UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE
GRADE DESCRIPTION FIELD IDENTIFICATION
MASSIVE - Rock without STRENGTH
significant structure (MPa) (psi)
BEDDED - Regular layering R0 Extremely Weak Rock Indented by thumbnail 0.25 to 1 36 to 145
from sedimentation
FISSILE - Tendency to break Crumbles under firm blows with point of geological
along laminations R1 Very Weak Rock 1 to 5 145 to 700
hammer, can be peeled by a pocket knife
METAMORPHIC ROCKS Can be peeled by a pocket knife with difficulty, shallow

R2 Weak Rock indentations made by firm blow with point of geological 5 to 25 700 to 3,600
FOLIATED - Parallel hammer
arrangement or distribution of Cannot be scraped or peeled by a pocket knife,
minerals R3 Medium Strong Rock specimen can be fractured with single firm blow of 25 to 50 3,600 to 7,200
geological hammer
SCHISTOSE - Parallel
arrangement of tabular Specimen requires more than one blow of geological
R4 Strong Rock hammer to fracture it 50 to 100 7,200 to 14,500
minerals giving a planar fissility
GNEISSOSE - Segregation of
Specimen requires many blows of geological hammer
minerals into bands R5 Very Strong Rock 100 to 250 14,500 to 36,250
T
to fracture it
CLEAVAGE - Tendency to
Specimen can only be chipped with geological
Login: Seth Sonnier
split along secondary, planar

R6 Extremely Strong Rock >250 >36,250
textures or structures hammer
VESCULARITY WEATHERING
Slightly Vesicular 1 to 10% TERM DESCRIPTION
Moderately Vesicular 10 to 30% AF Fresh
No visible signs of rock material weathering: perhaps slight discoloration on major discontinuity
Date: 01-02-2019
Highly Vesicular 30 to 50% surfaces.

Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material
Scoriaceous >50% Slightly Weathered may be discolored by weathering and somewhat weaker than in its fresh condition.
Less than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored
Moderately Weathered
JOINT ROUGHNESS rock is present either as a continuous framework or as corestones.
More than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored
SMALL SCALE INTERMEDIATE SCALE Highly Weathered rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones.
Rough Stepped
Layout: Layout1
Completely Weathered All rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. The original mass is still largely intact.
Smooth Undulating
All rock material is converted to soil. The mass structure and material fabric are destroyed. There is a
Slickensided Planar Residual Soil
large change in volume, but the soil has not been significantly transported.
DISCONTINUITY TERMS STRUCTURE SPACING TERMS

FRACTURE - Collective term for any natural break excluding shears, shear zones, and STRATIGRAPHIC SPACING DISCONTINUITY *
Filename: I:\EF\PDX\100000s\100329 City of Ashland\DRAFTING\Rock Classification - Log Key.dwg
faults
Extremely Thick > 20 ft. (> 6 m) Extremely Wide
R
JOINT (JT) - Planar break with little or no displacement
Very Thick 6 to 20 ft. (2 to 6 m) Very Wide
FOLIATION JOINT (FJ) or BEDDING JOINT (BJ) - Joint along foliation or bedding Thick 2 to 6 ft. (0.6 to 2 m) Wide
INCIPIENT JOINT (IJ) or INCIPIENT FRACTURE (IF) - Joint or fracture not evident until Medium 8 to 24 in. (0.2 to 0.6 m) Moderate
wetted and dried; breaks along existing surface Thin 2.5 to 8 in. (60 to 200 mm) Close
RANDOM FRACTURE (RF) - Natural, very irregular fracture that does not belong to a set Very Thin 1 to 2.5 in. (20 to 60 mm) Very Close
Laminated: Thickly 0.25 to 1 in. (6 to 20 mm) Extremely Close
BEDDING PLANE SEPARATION or PARTING - A separation along bedding after
Laminated: Thinly <0.25 in. (<6 mm) Extremely Close
D
extraction from stress relief or slaking

* Refers to apparent spacing along core axis unless measured
FRACTURE ZONE (FZ) - Planar zone of broken rock without gouge orthogonal to discontinuity; should then report for each set
R Reference: Brown, E.T., ed., 1981, Rock Characterization Testing and Monitoring ISRM
MECHANICAL BREAK (MB) - Breaks due to drilling or handling; drilling break (DB),
Suggested methods. New York, International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM).
hammer break (HB)
SHEAR (SH) - Surface of differential movement evident by presence of slickensides,

striations, or polishing
SHEAR ZONE (SZ) - Zone of gouge and rock fragments bounded by planar shear
surfaces Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP (#10136851)
Ashland, Oregon
FAULT (FT) - Shear zone of significant extent; differentiation from shear zone may be
site-specific
ROCK CLASSIFICATION
AND LOG KEY
May 2019 100329
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A2
EXPLORATION LOG OF B-01
Sheet 1 of 2
Start Date: 10/31/2018 Total Depth: 22.5 ft Northing: ~ 195,221 ft Vert. Datum: NGVD29/56 Plunge: 90° Drill Method: Mud Rotary Logged By: DSJ
Finish Date: 10/31/2018 Top Elevation: ~ 2328 ft Easting: ~ 4,319,734 ft Horiz. Datum: OR83-SIF Trend: N/A Drill Company: Western States Hole Diameter: in
Ashland, Oregon
Discontinuity Data Downhole Imaging Test Data SPT (blows/ft)
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Strength Weathering Strength
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
BORING B-01 Material Description
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Optical 3D Index 6
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Medium dense to dense, brown, gray and tan to
light red, Clayey Sand (SC), moist; trace fine to
coarse, subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
medium plasticity fines. (FILL)
2330.0 2 2
S-1
T
2332.0 4 4
S-2
2334.0 6 6
AF
7.0
Very dense, brown, tan, and gray, Poorly Graded
Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM); moist; fine to
S-3
50/1st 5''
REV 2 - Log in Progress
2336.0 coarse subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; 8 8

nonplastic fines; relict bedrock texture.
(RESIDUAL SOIL)
2338.0 10 10
S-4
50/1st 5''
ROCK_LOG_UNIFIED 100329 - SEA.GPJ SHAN_WIL.GDT 5/15/19 Logged By: DSJ Reviewed By: CKS Typed By: DSJ
2340.0
R 12
56 214
12
S-5
50/1st 4''
12.9 1 3 -30
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: very weak to weak 60
10
(R1-R2); white, black, and pink; close to widely
spaced; smooth to rough, undulating, low to
2342.0 14 14
moderate (10° to 60°) angle joints with clay
D
infilling 1- to 3-mm thick; highly weathered.
(MOUNT ASHLAND PLUTON)
R-1
54.6
2344.0 16 16
6 225
7 289
3 3 MB 0
2346.0 18 18
IJ 50
30 100
62 135
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Notes: Contact depths are approximate and transitions may be gradual. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials. The locations of the discontinuties shown on the boring logs
are approximate. For clarity, not all of the discontinuties are shown. * Depth as measured along the length of the boring. Elevations have been corrected for borehole inclination. FIG. A3
Sheet 2 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Optical 3D Index 6
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
20.0
R-2
5 CL 60
49 83
Geokon 4500S-350kPa VWP SN:1839152 63 332

installed at 22.5 feet; measured dry on 12/13/18.
13 MB 10
22 22
Completed: October 31, 2018
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
T
AF
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 1 of 2
Start Date: 11/1/2018 Total Depth: 27 ft Northing: ~ 195,063 ft Vert. Datum: NGVD29/56 Plunge: 90° Drill Method: Mud Rotary Logged By: DSJ
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Optical 3D Index 6
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Dense, gray, white and black, Poorly Graded
coarse subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines. (FILL)
2296.0 2 2
S-1
T
2298.0 4 4
S-2
50/2nd 3''
2300.0 6.0 6 6
Very dense, gray, white, black and pink, Poorly
AF
Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM);
moist; fine subangular gravel; fine to coarse
sand; low plasticity fines; relict bedrock texture.
S-3
7.7
50/1st 2''
(RESIDUAL SOIL)
2302.0 8 8
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: very weak to weak 2 3 13 MB
MB
0
-10
19 38 156
(R1-R2); black, white, and pink; very close to 17 -15
10
wide spaced; smooth to rough, undulating, low to
high (0° to 70°) angle joints with clay infilling 1- to
13 0
3-mm thick, and slight iron oxide staining; highly
R-1
2304.0 10 10
weathered. (MOUNT ASHLAND PLUTON) 7.1 45 151
40 168
2306.0
2308.0
1
R 3
19
17
13
13
13
0
-15
0
-30
0
-20
12
14
47
19
19
179
231
258
12
14
D
R-2
16.8
11 -60
61 186
30 90
2310.0 16 16
43 201
19 -20
19 -20
3 3 19 MB -20
0 31 173
2312.0 7 FE 65 18 18
17 255
45 252
77 281
9 -30
9 30
63 197
R-3
3.2
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 2 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Optical 3D Index 6
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
69 60
35 354
7 CL 45
49 140
1 3 13 MB 0 22 62 303 22
9 20
9 15
9 0
68 77
T
19 15 24 24
60 76
R-4
12.3
5 -20
25 89
7 -20 26 26
AF
9 15
Completed: November 1, 2018

25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 1 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Optical 3D Index 6
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Very dense, gray, white and pink, Clayey Sand
(SC); moist; fine to coarse, subangular to
subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand; low to
medium plasticity fines; trace organics. (FILL)
2292.0 2 2
S-1
50/1st 5.5''
T
2294.0 4.0 4 4
Very dense, gray, white and pink, Poorly Graded
coarse subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
S-2
5.2 50/1st 2''
nonplastic fines; relict bedrock texture.
(RESIDUAL SOIL)
2296.0 6 6
AF
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: weak to medium
strong (R2-R3); gray, white, black and pink; close
to moderately spaced, smooth to rough,
undulating, low to high (0° to 65°) angle joints
R-1
with clay infilling 1- to 3-mm thick, and slight iron

2298.0 8 8
oxide staining; slightly to moderately weathered. 2 1.5 11 0
-15
11
(MOUNT ASHLAND PLUTON) 5 FE -15
-55
0.4 9 10
15 20
5 CL, M -60 51 164
19 0
2300.0 15 10 10 3 235 10
14 347
18 82
2302.0
2
R 3 17 -20
12 59
70
19
215
12
R-2
9 -10 44 313
15 10
9 -20 45 307
4.2
12 168
2304.0 5 -10 14 14
D
59 288
2 1 -20
9 FE, CL 10
9 FE, CL 55 49 290
R-3
1.0 15 FE 10 17 286
2306.0 11 FE -20 16 16
9 FE, CL 30
3 3 MB -50
15
11 FE 0
-30
15 Associated -10
Rubble
9 FE -20
15 FE 5
2308.0 18 18
15 FE 20
11 M -55
9 M -10
9 10
R-4
9 0
0.7 15
IJ
0
15 M 0
15 15
9 0
11 -45
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 2 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Optical 3D Index 6
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
0
66 92
7 -20
9 -10
Completed: November 1, 2018 7
MB
30
0
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
T
AF
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Ashland, Oregon
Discontinuity Data Test Data SPT (blows/ft)
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Angle
c (psi)
(0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Very dense, gray, white and black, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine to coarse, subangular to
subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand; low plasticity fines. (FILL)
2 2
S-1
95/8''
T
4 4
4.5
Very dense, light gray to black, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM); moist; fine to coarse,
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; low plasticity fines; relict bedrock texture. (RESIDUAL SOIL)
S-2
50/1st 2.5''
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
AF
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 1 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Optical 3D Index 6
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Very dense, gray, white, and pink, Silty Sand
(SM); moist; trace fine to coarse subangular
gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines.
(FILL)
2280.0 2 2
S-1
50/1st 4''
T
2282.0 4.0 4 4
Very dense, gray, white, black and pink, Poorly
Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM); moist; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; relict bedrock
S-2
5.2 50/1st 2''
texture. (RESIDUAL SOIL)
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: very weak to weak
2284.0 6 6
AF
(R1-R2); white, black, gray and pink; close to
moderate spaced, smooth to rough, undulating, R-1
low to moderate (10° to 60°) and high (80° to 90°)
angle joints with clay and secondary mineral
infilling 1- to 3-mm thick, and slight iron oxide 58 286
2286.0 8 8
staining; moderately weathered. (MOUNT 15 157
40 94
ASHLAND PLUTON)
52 280
63 290
11 206
71 274
R-2
2288.0 10 53 271 10
2 3 15 CL -60
15 -10
11 -60
11 -55
2290.0
2292.0
1
R1.5
11
15
11
9
CL, M
-30
-10
-20
0
-40
30
12
14
69
40
66
86
91
115
75
91
12
14
D
9 -20
46 126
R-3
27 51
2294.0 13 40 16 16
5 CL, M -10
79 259
10 149
68 249
70 261
2 3 11 -10 71 252
19 211
13 0
2296.0 18 79 238 18
9 50
11 40
53 137
7 CL, M 30
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 2 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Optical 3D Index 6
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
R-4
15 M -70 31 165
Geokon 4500S-350kPa VWP SN:1839153
installed at 21.5 feet; measured dry on 4/3/19. 57 186
22 22
Completed: November 2, 2018 11 CL 0
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
T
AF
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Angle
c (psi)
(0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Loose, gray, Silty Sand with Gravel and Cobbles and Boulders (SM); moist; fine to coarse, subangular
to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand; low plasticity fines. (FILL)
2 2
S-1
T
4 4
S-2
6 6
AF
7.0
Medium dense, gray, white, pink and black, Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP); moist, fine to
coarse, subangular to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand. (FILL)
8 8
S-3
9.5
Very dense, gray, white, pink and black, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel; moist; fine to coarse,
subangular to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. (FILL) 10 10
S-4
R S-5
12
14
12
14
50/1st 3''
D
S-6
50/1st 1''
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Angle
c (psi)
(0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Gravel Fill
0.5
Very dense, gray, white, pland and pink Silty Sand (SM); moist; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines;
relict bedrock texture. (RESIDUAL SOIL)
2 2
S-1
50/1st 5''
T
4 4
S-2
50/1st 4.5
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
AF
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 1 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Medium dense to dense, gray to white, Silty Sand with Cobbles (SM); moist; trace fine to coarse
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic to low plasticity fines. (FILL)
2222.0 2 2
S-1
T
2224.0 4 4
S-2
2226.0 6 6
AF
7.0
Dense to very dense, gray, white and black Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM); moist to
wet; fine to coarse subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; low plasticity fines; with boulder at 9.5 ft.
2228.0 (FILL) 8 8
S-3
2230.0 10 10
S-4A
11.0
S-4B
Very dense, gray, brown, pink and black, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt, Sand, and Cobbles (GP-GM);
2232.0
2234.0
trace organics. (FILL)
R
moist to wet; fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines;
S-5BS-5A
12
14
12
14
50/3''
D
S-6
50/3''
2236.0 16 16
17.5
Very dense, gray, pink and black, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GP-GM); moist; fine to
2238.0 coarse subangular to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; with boulder at 19 ft. 18 18
(ALLUVIUM)
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 2 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
S-7
50/1st 4''
R-1
22.0 1 1 13 -40 22 22
PEGMATITE DIKE: strong to very strong (R4-R5); white and pink; close spaced, smooth to rough,
13 -35
undulating, moderate angle (35° to 40°) joints; fresh. (MOUNT ASHLAND PLUTON) 1 1
22.8
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: very weak to weak (R1-R2); pink, gray, black and white; very close to close
spaced, smooth to rough, undulating, low to high angle (0° to 90°) joints with clay and secondary
T
mineral infilling 1- to 5-mm thick, and slight iron oxide staining; moderately weathered. (MOUNT
24 24
ASHLAND PLUTON)
R-2
26 26
AF
2 3
9 -5
13 0
13 -15
28 28
R-3
30 30
3 3 17 0
17 0
19 10
15 10
11 FE, M 60
R 3 3
13
13
13
11
13
13
13
11
13
13
15
-20
-20
-20
60
-5
-10
-10
0
-10
-10
50
32
34
32
34
D
15 0
13 CL, M 60
13 CL, M 60
R-4
11 30
11 50
36 36
9 40
9 FE 30
37.2 1 1 9 FE 20
PEGMATITE DIKE: strong to very strong (R4-R5); white and pink; fresh. (MOUNT ASHLAND PLUTON) 30
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Angle
c (psi)
(0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Gravel Fill
0.5
DCP performed at 0.5 feet
Very loose, dark gray to black, Silty Sand (SM); moist; trace fine to coarse subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; trace to few organics and wood debris; slight petroleum odor. (FILL)
2 2
S-1
T
4 4
S-2
6 6
AF
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Angle
c (psi)
(0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Very dense, gray, pink, black and white, Silty Sand with Gravel and Cobbles (SM); moist; fine to coarse,
subangular to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic to low plasticity fines. (FILL)
2 2
S-1BS-1A
T
4 4
SPT sample at 5 feet encountered a cobble
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
AF
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 1 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Medium dense to very dense, gray, pink, black and white, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
(SP-SM); moist; fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines;
trace organics and wood debris. (FILL)
2216.0 2 2
S-1
T
2218.0 4 4
S-2
2220.0 6 6
AF
7.0
Medium dense to very dense, gray, pink, black and white, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt, Sand and
Cobbles (GP-GM); moist; fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand;
2222.0 nonplastic fines; with small boulder at 7.5 ft. (FILL) 8 8
S-3
Apprx. 55 gallons drilling mud loss at 7.5 feet
2224.0 10 10
S-4
Apprx. 55 gallons drilling mud loss at 10 feet 50/1st 3''
2226.0 12.0
2228.0
R
Dense, white, gray, pink and black, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GP-GM); wet; fine to
coarse, subangular to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. (FILL)
Apprx. 55 gallons drilling mud loss at 12 feet
S-5
12
14
12
14
D
S-6
2230.0 16 16
17.5
Very dense, white, gray, pink and black, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GM-GM); wet; fine to
2232.0 coarse, subangular to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. (ALLUVIUM) 18 18
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 2 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
S-7
22.0 22 22
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: strong (R4); black, white, gray and pink; close to moderate spaced, smooth
to rough, undulating, low to high angle (10° to 70°) joints; fresh. (MOUNT ASHLAND PLUTON)
T
24 24
R-1 S-8
1 1 11 10 50/1st 0''
9 -25
11321
1 1 11 -5
15 -30 26 26
AF R-2
15 60
1 1 13 55
28 28
11 10
R-3
15 -10 30 30
15 -70
15 40
R 1 1
13
13
11
-5
0
-15
32
34
32
34
D
R-4
7 10
7 10
13 10 36 36
9904
13 10
9 10
Completed: November 6, 2018 13 -5
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Angle
c (psi)
(0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Gravel Fill
1.5
Very dense, brown, white and tan, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM); moist; fine to
coarse, subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. (RESIDUAL SOIL) 2 2
S-1
50/1st 1''
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
T
AF
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 1 of 3
Start Date: 3/25/2019 Total Depth: 50 ft Northing: ~ 194,920 ft Vert. Datum: NGVD29/56 Plunge: 90° Drill Method: Mud Rotary Logged By: RAW
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Acoustic Optical 3D Index 6
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Loose to medium dense; brown; Clayey Sand; SC; wet; trace
fine to coarse subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
medium plasticity fines. (FILL)
2240.0 2 2
S-1
T
2242.0 4 4
4.5
Very dense; brown, tan, and gray; Poorly Graded Sand with
Silt and Gravel; SP-SM; moist; fine to coarse subangular
gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; relict bedrock
S-2
97/8''
2244.0
texture. (RESIDUAL SOIL) 6 6
AF
7.0
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: very weak to weak (R1-R2); light
gray to black; extremely close to closely spaced, rough,
S-3
50/ 1st 3''
2246.0 undulating, low to high angle (0° to 80°) joints with clay and 8 8
white mineral infilling 1- to 4-mm thick and iron oxide
staining; moderately to completely weathered. (MOUNT
ASHLAND PLUTON)
2248.0 3 13 10 10
ROCK_LOG_UNIFIED 100329 - SEA.GPJ SHAN_WIL.GDT 5/15/19 Logged By: RAW Reviewed By: SCS Typed By: DSJ
3 11 FE. RF 20
R-1
3 15 FE, RF 10
2250.0
2252.0
R 3
3
8
11 FE, RF 20
12
14
12
14
D R-2
65 296
2254.0 16 16
3 5 FE 20
4 5
2256.0 18 18
4 5 CL 70
4 5 FE, CL -80
23 73
R-3
56 87
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 2 of 3
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
31 168
2260.0 3 6 22 38 140 22
2 7 FE 40
52 174
15 210
T
3 5 FE, RF 50
2262.0 4 5 CL -40 24 24
4 7 RF 30 47 280
R-4
4 5 CL, FE 0
24.6
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: weak to medium strong (R2-R3);
light gray to black; extremely close to closely spaced, rough,
undulating, low to high angle (10° to 85°) joints with iron
990
2264.0 oxide staining; slightly to moderately weathered. (MOUNT 26 26
AF
ASHLAND PLUTON) 3 9 RF -30
R4: UCS=990psi
3 8 5 RF -60
3 43 292
2 11 20
2266.0 28 28
2 11 50
4 9 RF 30
R-5
2 7 RF -10
2268.0 30 30
70 319
2 7 RF 60 31 52
2270.0
2272.0
R 3
3
7
5
RF
FE
-60
40
32
34
24
5
74
204
32
34
D
7 RF -30 62 122
R-6
38 254
9 276
3 9 RF -30
2274.0 36 51 57 36
35 146
2 9 FE 40 80 301
2 7
31 60
2276.0 38 16 188 38
2 5 FE 30
2 7 FE 20
31 77
3 9 RF 20
2 9 FE 20
R-7
3 7 FE, RF 30 27 199
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 3 of 3
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
3 7 FE, RF 85
33 214
2 3 FE 70
3 3 RF -70
32 215
2 11 FE -30
18 253
3 8 42 42
1136
2 9 FE 20
78 203
23 339
R8: UCS=1136psi 2 7 FE -30
2 7 FE 40
T
63 274
44 68 183 44
2 7 FE 80
R-8
25 163
2 3 FE -30
Geokon 4500S-350kPa VWP SN:1905342 installed at 45.0

26 149
feet; measured dry on 4/5/19.
3 9 FE, RF 85
3 7 FE, RF 0 46 46
AF
7 FE, RF -10
3
3 9 FE, RF -60 50 31
63 229
3 11 FE, RF 40
2 8 9 FE 10
2
48 48
R-9 2 9 FE 80
3 5 FE, RF 80
3 5 FE, RF 80
2 11 FE 20
Completed: March 25, 2019

50 50
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 1 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Very dense; gray, tan, and brown; Poorly Graded Sand with Silt; (SP-SM); moist; trace fine to coarse
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. (RESIDUAL SOIL)
2224.0 2 2
S-1
50/1st 6''
T
2226.0 4 4
S-2
50/1st 2''
2228.0 6 6
AF
7.0
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: very weak (R1); white, pink, and black; extremely close to closely spaced,
S-3
rough, undulating, low to high angle (10° to 85°) joints with white mineral infilling 1- to 5-mm thick and 50/1st 1''
2230.0 iron oxide staining; moderately to highly weathered. (MOUNT ASHLAND PLUTON) 8 8
2232.0 10 10
S-4
50/1st 3''
2234.0
2236.0
R 12
14
12
14
D
4 9 7 FE 20
2
6 9 RF 40
2238.0 6 9 RF 30 16 16
3 9 RF -30
3 9 RF -30
3 9 RF -30
R-1
2240.0 18 18
280
R1: UCS=280psi
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 2 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
3 8
2 7 FE, M -60
3 9 FE, RF -85
3 9 FE, RF -30
3 9 RF -10
22 22
3 9 FE, RF -85
R-2
3 9 FE, RF -40
T
3 7 FE, RF -30 24 24
6 5 RF 50

25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
AF
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 1 of 3
Start Date: 3/27/2019 Total Depth: 50.4 ft Northing: ~ 195,024 ft Vert. Datum: NGVD29/56 Plunge: 90° Drill Method: Mud Rotary Logged By: RAW
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Very loose to loose; brown, tan, and gray; Clayey Sand;
(SC); wet; trace fine to coarse subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; medium plasticity fines; trace organics. (FILL)
2242.0 2 2
S-1
T
2244.0 4 4
4.5
Medium dense to very dense; gray to brown; Poorly Graded
Sand with Silt; (SP-SM); moist; trace, fine to coarse,
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; low plasticity fines;
S-2
2246.0
relict bedrock texture. (RESIDUAL SOIL) 6 6
AF
S-3
2248.0 8 8 50/6''
8.4
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: extremely weak to weak 52 135
(R0-R2); light gray, white, and black; extremely close to

medium spaced, rough, undulating and planar, low to
moderate angle (10° to 40°) joints; moderately to highly
2250.0 10 10
S-4
weathered. (MOUNT ASHLAND PLUTON) 50/1st 3''

2252.0
2254.0
R 12
14
6 341
12
14
D R-1
42 79
2256.0 16 16
35 157
4 8
6 7 RF 20
3 7 RF -30
2258.0 2 7 -40 18 18
461
R2: UCS=461psi
R-2
3 9 RF -20
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 2 of 3
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
21 185
2262.0 4 9 22 22
6 9 RF -10
3 9 RF -30
9 Rubble -20
6 7 RF 30 14 73
6
3 9 RF 30
T
2264.0 24 24
MB
R-3
2266.0 26 26
AF
34 179
5 8 11 RF 20
6 9 RF 30
6 5 FE -30
2
2268.0 28 28
MB
47 211
R-4
2270.0 30 30
33 162
60 106
2272.0
R 6
6
3
6
9
9
RF
10
-60
32
63 339
32
R-5
6 7 Rubble 20 34 142
27 118
2274.0 34 34
D
35.0 3 10
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: weak to medium strong (R2-R3); 66 287
light gray to black; extremely close to closely spaced, rough,
3 11 RF 30
undulating, low to high angle (10° to 85°) joints with iron
R-6
2276.0 36 36
oxide staining; slightly to moderately weathered. (MOUNT 2 9 -50
31 133
ASHLAND PLUTON)
3 8
2278.0 2 7 20 38 62 132
38
64 126
8 322
R-7
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 3 of 3
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
2 9 -10
9 -50
2 69 168
3 9 RF 10
7 RF 10
3
3 7 RF -60
3 9 42 42
14 34
4192
R8: UCS=4,192psi
T
44 44
3 7 CL -10
R-8
81 155
Geokon 4500S-350kPa VWP SN:1905343 installed at 45.0

feet; measured dry on 4/5/19.
46 46
AF
2 11 80
19 108
26 108
5 6
6 7 RF -20 48 48
R-9 6 7 RF -20
2 5 -50
5 83
50 50
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 1 of 3
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Very dense; brown, tan, and gray; Silty Sand (SM); moist;
trace to few fine to coarse subangular gravel; fine to coarse
sand; nonplastic fines. (FILL)
2234.0 2 2
S-1
T
2236.0 4 4
4.5
Dense to very dense; brown, tan, and gray; Clayey Sand;
(SC); moist; trace fine to coarse subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; medium plasticity fines. (FILL) 28 174
S-2
2238.0 6 6
AF
22 167
22 322
2240.0 8 8
S-3
2242.0 10 10
S-4
2244.0
2246.0
12.5
Very dense; brown to gray; Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel, with cobbles and boulders; (SP-SM); moist; fine to
coarse subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic
fines; relict bedrock texture. (RESIDUAL SOIL)
R 12
14
12
14
D
15.0
S-5
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: extremely weak to very weak 50/1st 4''

(R0-R1); gray, white, and black mottled; highly to completely
2248.0 weathered. (MOUNT ASHLAND BATHOLITH) 16 16
6 11 RF 0
2250.0 18 18
56 173
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 2 of 3
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
S-6
50/1st 3''
2254.0 22 22
T
2256.0 24 24
R-1
Poor rock core recovery from 22 to 42 feet
2258.0 26 26
AF
2260.0 28 28
59 186
R-2
2262.0 30 30
43 133
2264.0
2266.0
R 32
34
32
34
D R-3
65 186
2268.0 36 36
70 180
R-4
2270.0 38 38
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 3 of 3
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Azimuth
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Recovery (%)
Angle
c (psi)
Image RQD (%) (0-6) (0-100)
180°
270°
180°
270°
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Dip
90°
90°
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
R-5
42 42
R-6
T
Completed: March 27, 2019 44 44
S-7
50/1st 2''
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
AF
R
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 1 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Angle
c (psi)
(0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Medium dense; brown to gray; Silty Sand (SM); moist; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. (FILL)
2214.0 2 2
S-1
T
2216.0 4 4
4.5
Medium dense; brown to gray; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel; (SP-SM); moist; trace to few fine to
coarse subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. (FILL)
S-2
2218.0 6 6
AF
7.0
Medium dense; brown to gray; Silty Sand with Gravel; (SM); moist; fine to coarse subangular gravel;
fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. (FILL)
2220.0 8 8
S-3
9.5
Very dense; brown to gray; Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel, with cobbles and boulders;
2222.0 (SP-SM); moist; fine to coarse subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; relict bedrock 10 10
ROCK_LOG_UNIFIED 100329 - SEA.GPJ SHAN_WIL.GDT 5/15/19 Logged By: RAW Reviewed By: SCS Typed By: SCS
texture. (RESIDUAL SOIL)
S-4
2224.0
2226.0
R 12
14
12
14
D
S-5
50/1st 1"
2228.0 16 16
2230.0 18 18
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Sheet 2 of 2
Ashland, Oregon
ISRM Geological
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Depth* (ft)
Water Content, %
Elev. (ft)
Inclinometer
Plastic Liquid
Ground
Symbol
Roughness3
UCS (psi)
1
BST (psi)
Limit Limit
Alteration3
Index 6
Symbol
K (cm/s)
(1-6) Index
Infilling
Water
Runs
Angle
c (psi)
(0-6) (0-100)
 (°)
Joint
JRC4
Joint
Q' 3
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
50/4"
S-6
22 22
23.0
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: extremely weak to very weak (R0-R1); gray, white, and black mottled;
highly to completely weathered. (MOUNT ASHLAND BATHOLITH)
T
24 24
S-7
50/1st 2"
26 26
AF
28 28
30 30
S-8
50/1st 2"
ROCK_LOG_UNIFIED 100329 - SEA.GPJ SHAN_WIL.GDT 5/15/19 Logged By: RAW Reviewed By: SCS Typed By: SCS
R S-9
32 32
25 50
50/1st 2"
75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
D
25 50 75 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20 40 60 80
Total Depth: 15 ft. Northing: ~ 195,128 ft. Drilling Method: Test Pit Hole Diam.: ~
Top Elevation: ~ 2298 ft. Easting: ~ 4,319,881 ft. Drilling Company: MSI Rod Type: ~
Vert. Datum: NGVD29/56 Station: ~ Drill Rig Equipment: John Deere 200CLC Hammer Type: ~
Horiz. Datum: OR83-SIF Offset: ~ Other Comments:
SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION RESISTANCE, N
Depth, ft.
(blows/ft.)
Samples
Symbol
Ground
Elev.
Water
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification Depth
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries (ft.)
between soil types, and the transitions may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 80 100
Dark brown and gray, Silty Sand (SM); moist;
fine to coarse sand; nonplastic to low plasticity
fines; trace organics and wood debris.
S-1
FILL
T
2293.0 5
Dark brown and gray, Silty Sand with Cobbles 5.0
and Boulders (SM); moist; trace fine to coarse
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; low to
medium plasticity fines; trace organics and
wood debris.
AF S-2
Typ: NMV
10
Rev: CKS
Log: RXJ
S-3
2283.0 15
R
Completed: October 9, 2018 15.0
MASTER_LOG_E 100329 GINT.GPJ SW2013LIBRARYPDX.GLB SHANWIL_PDX.GDT 6/6/19
0 20 40 60 80 100
LEGEND
Bag Sample
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

Natural Water Content

Ashland, Oregon
NOTES
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-01
3. Group symbol is based on visual-manual identification and selected lab testing.
May 2019 100329
4. The hole location and elevation should be considered approximate.

REV 2
Total Depth: 10.5 ft. Northing: ~ 195,083 ft. Drilling Method: Test Pit Hole Diam.: ~
Depth, ft.
(blows/ft.)
Samples
Symbol
Ground
Elev.
Water
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the Hammer Wt. & Drop: lbs / inches
Gray and brown, Poorly Graded Gravel with 2291.5
Sand (GP); dry. 0.5
Dark brown to gray, Clayey Sand to Silty Sand

with Cobbles (SC/SM); moist; trace fine to
coarse, subangular to subrounded gravel; fine
to coarse sand; low to medium plasticity fines;
trace organics and wood debris. S-1
T
5
FILL S-2
AF
Typ: NMV
S-3
10
2281.5
Refusal on bedrock at 10.5 feet
Rev: CKS
10.5
Log: RXJ
15
R
0 20 40 60 80 100
LEGEND
% Fines (<0.075mm)
Bag Sample
% Water Content

Ashland, Oregon
NOTES
May 2019 100329

REV 2
Depth, ft.
(blows/ft.)
Samples
Symbol
Ground
Elev.
Water
Brown to dark gray, Poorly Graded Sand with
Silt, Cobbles and Boulders (SP-SM); moist;
trace fine to coarse, angular to subrounded
gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic to low
plasticity fines; trace tree trunks, wood debris,
metal fragments and rubber tires.
S-1
T
5 NP
FILL
S-2
AF
Brown and gray, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt,
Gravel, Cobbles and Boulders (SP-SM); moist;
2282.0
8.0
Typ: NMV
fine to coarse, angular to subrounded gravel; S-3

fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; trace 10
wood debris and metal fragments.
Rev: CKS
2278.5
Refusal on bedrock at 11.5 feet 11.5
Log: RXJ
15
R
0 20 40 60 80 100
LEGEND
% Fines (<0.075mm)
Bag Sample
% Water Content

Ashland, Oregon
NOTES
May 2019 100329

REV 2
Depth, ft.
(blows/ft.)
Samples
Symbol
Ground
Elev.
Water
Dark brown and dark gray, Silty Sand with
Gravel, Cobbles and Boulders (SM); moist;
fine to coarse, angular to subrounded gravel;
fine to coarse sand; nonplastic to low plasticity
fines; trace wood debris, tree trunks, metal
debris and rubber tires.
T
5
FILL
S-1
AF
Typ: NMV
10
Rev: CKS
2276.0
Dark brown and gray, Clayey Sand to Silty 12.0
Log: RXJ
Sand with Cobbles and Boulders (SC/SM);

moist; fine to coarse, angular to subrounded
gravel; fine to coarse sand; low plasticity fines.
S-2 15
R
2270.0
D
0 20 40 60 80 100
LEGEND
Bag Sample


Ashland, Oregon
NOTES
May 2019 100329

REV 2
Depth, ft.
(blows/ft.)
Samples
Symbol
Ground
Elev.
Water
Brown, Silty Sand (SM); moist; trace fine to
coarse, angular to subrounded gravel; fine to
coarse sand; low plasticity fines; trace rootlets
and organic debris. S-1
FILL
2293.0
Dark brown to brown, Clayey Sand (SC); dry to 3.0
moist; fine to coarse sand; low to medium
plasticity fines; moderate to strong
T
cementation. 5
RESIDUAL SOIL
S-2
2288.5
Completed: October 9, 2018AF
Typ: NMV
10
Rev: CKS
Log: RXJ
15
R
0 20 40 60 80 100
LEGEND
Bag Sample


Ashland, Oregon
NOTES
May 2019 100329

REV 2
Depth, ft.
(blows/ft.)
Samples
Symbol
Ground
Elev.
Water
Dark brown and dark gray, Poorly Graded
Sand with Silt and Gravel, with Cobbles and
Boulders (SP-SM); moist; fine to coarse,
angular to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse
sand; nonplastic fines; trace wood debris.
FILL
T
5
S-1
AF
Typ: NMV
10
Rev: CKS
2279.0
Dark brown to gray, Silty Sand with Gravel to 11.0
Silty Gravel with Sand, with Cobbles and
Boulders (SM/GM); moist; fine to coarse,
Log: RXJ
angular to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse

sand; nonplastic fines; trace wood debris,
S-2
metal fragments and rebar.
2275.0 15
R
0 20 40 60 80 100
LEGEND
% Fines (<0.075mm)
Bag Sample
% Water Content

Ashland, Oregon
NOTES
May 2019 100329

REV 2
Depth, ft.
(blows/ft.)
Samples
Symbol
Ground
Elev.
Water
Dark brown, Silty Sand with Cobbles and
Boulders (SM); moist; trace to few, fine to
coarse, angular to subrounded gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic to low plasticity fines;
trace organics, fabric, metal and wood debris.
S-1
FILL
T
5
2288.0
Dark brown to dark gray, Silty Sand with 6.0
Gravel, Cobbles and Boulders (SM); moist;
fine to coarse, angular to subrounded gravel;
fine to coarse sand; low plasticity fines; trace
organics, rubble and wood debris.
AF S-2
Typ: NMV
10
Rev: CKS
2282.5
Log: RXJ
15
R
0 20 40 60 80 100
LEGEND
Bag Sample


Ashland, Oregon
NOTES
May 2019 100329

REV 2
Depth, ft.
(blows/ft.)
Samples
Symbol
Ground
Elev.
Water
Dark brown, Clayey Sand with Gravel,
Cobbles and Boulders (SC); dry to moist; fine
to coarse, angular to subrounded gravel; fine
to coarse sand; medium plasticity fines; weak
to moderate cementation. S-1
RESIDUAL SOIL 2295.0
3.0
Refusal on bedrock at 3 feet
T
5
AF
Typ: NMV
10
Rev: CKS
Log: RXJ
15
R
0 20 40 60 80 100
LEGEND
Bag Sample


Ashland, Oregon
NOTES
May 2019 100329

REV 2
Top Elevation: ~ 2250 ft. Easting: ~ 4,320,119 ft. Drilling Company: Western States Rod Type: ~
Vert. Datum: NGVD29/56 Station: ~ Drill Rig Equipment: CAT 315 Excavator Hammer Type: ~
Depth, ft.
(blows/ft.)
Samples
Symbol
Ground
Elev.
Water
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the Hammer Wt. & Drop:
Brown, Silty Sand (SM); moist; fine to coarse
sand; nonplastic to low plasticity fines;
micaceous.
RESIDUAL SOIL
2245.5
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: Extremely weak 4.5 5
2245.0
to weak (R0-R2), brown and white to gray and 5.0
white, phaneritic, moderately weathered
T
MOUNT ASHLAND BATHOLITH
Refusal on bedrock at 5 feet
10
AF
Typ: CKS
15
Rev: CKS
Log: CKS
20
R
25
0 20 40 60 80 100
LEGEND


Ashland, Oregon
NOTES
May 2019 100329

REV 2
Depth, ft.
(blows/ft.)
Samples
Symbol
Ground
Elev.
Water
Brown, Clayey Sand (SC); moist; fine to
coarse sand; low ot medium plasticity fines;
micaceous.
FILL
2298.0
QUARTZ MONZODIORITE: Extremely weak 4.0
2297.5 5
to very weak (R0-R1), brown and black to 4.5
white and black, slight to moderately
T
weathered
MOUNT ASHLAND BATHOLITH
Refusal on bedrock at 4.5 feet
10
AF
Typ: CKS
15
Rev: CKS
Log: CKS
20
R
25
0 20 40 60 80 100
LEGEND


Ashland, Oregon
NOTES
May 2019 100329

REV 2
Depth, ft.
(blows/ft.)
Samples
Symbol
Ground
Elev.
Water
Brown and dark brown, Clayey Sand with
Cobbles and Boulders (SC); moist to wet;
trace to few, angular to rounded cobbles and
boulders; trace fine to coarse, angular to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; low to
medium plasticity fines; few organics and
wood debris; trace brick debris and plastic 5
garbage.
T
FILL
Moderate seepage and test pit caving at 5.5
feet
2272.0 10
Completed: March 21, 2019 10.0
AF
Typ: CKS
15
Rev: CKS
Log: CKS
20
R
25
0 20 40 60 80 100
LEGEND


Ashland, Oregon
NOTES
May 2019 100329

REV 2
Depth, ft.
(blows/ft.)
Samples
Symbol
Ground
Elev.
Water
Brown, Clayey Sand with Cobbles (SC); moist;
trace cobbles; trace fine to coarse, angular to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
medium plasticity fines; few organics and
wood debris; trace brick debris and plastic
garbage.
2275.0 5
FILL 5.0
Dark brown to black, Clayey Sand with
T
Cobbles and Boulders (SC); moist to wet;
trace to few, angular to rounded cobbles and
boulders; trace fine to coarse, angular to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
2270.0 10
medium plasticity fines; few organics and 10.0
wood debris; trace plastic fragments.
Completed: March 21, 2019 AF
Typ: CKS
15
Rev: CKS
Log: CKS
20
R
25
0 20 40 60 80 100
LEGEND


Ashland, Oregon
NOTES
May 2019 100329

REV 2
T
AF
Author: SCS
Date: 05-15-2019
File: I:\EF\PDX\100000s\100329 City of Ashland\DRAFTING\Core Photos\Phase 1 Core Box Photos.dwg
R
D

Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-01
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
May 2019 100329
T
AF
Author: SCS
Date: 05-15-2019
R
D

Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-02
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
May 2019 100329
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants (Sheet 1 of 2)
T
AF
Author: SCS
Date: 05-15-2019
R
D

Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-02
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
May 2019 100329
T
AF
Author: SCS
Date: 05-15-2019
R
D

Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-03
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
May 2019 100329
T
AF
Author: SCS
Date: 05-15-2019
R
D

Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-05
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
May 2019 100329
T
AF
Author: SCS
Date: 05-15-2019
R
D

Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-08
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
May 2019 100329
T
AF
Author: SCS
Date: 05-15-2019
R
D

Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-11
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
May 2019 100329
File: I:\EF\PDX\100000s\100329 City of Ashland\DRAFTING\Core Photos\Core Photographs_Wood Boxes.dwg Date: 05-15-2019 Author: SCS
DEPTH
(feet)
Box 1
10.0
to 17.0
T
AF
Box 2
17.0 to
27.0
Box 3
27.0 to
37.0
R
D
Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-13
FIG. A38
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
(Sheet 1 of 2)
May 2019 100329

DEPTH
(feet)
Box 4
37.0 to
47.0
T
AF
Box 5
47.0 to
50.0
R
D
Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-13
FIG. A38
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
(Sheet 2 of 2)
May 2019 100329

DEPTH
(feet)
Box 1
15.0 to
T
25.0
AF
R
D
Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-14
FIG. A39
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
May 2019 100329
DEPTH
(feet)
Box 1
12.0
to 27.0
T
AF
Box 2
27.0 to
37.0
Box 3
37.0 to
47.0
R
D
Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-15
FIG. A40
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
(Sheet 1 of 2)
May 2019 100329

DEPTH
(feet)
Box 4
47.0 to
T
50.4
AF
R
D
Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-15
FIG. A40
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
(Sheet 2 of 2)
May 2019 100329

DEPTH
(feet)
Box 1
22.0 to
T
44.0
AF
R
D
Ashland, Oregon
BORING B-16
FIG. A41
CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
May 2019 100329
DCP-1 TEST DATA
Project: Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP (#10136851) Date: 6-Nov-18

Location: DCP-1 (near B-9) Soil Type(s): Silty Sand (SM)
Hammer Soil Type
10.1 lbs. CH
17.6 lbs. CL
Both hammers used All other soils
No. of Accumulative Type of CBR

Blows Penetration Hammer 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
(mm) 0 0
0 95 1
T
6
5 200 1
127
5 457 1 12
5 640 1
5 702 1 18 254
5 799 1
24
5 1273 1 381
DEPTH, mm
30
DEPTH, in.
5 1664 1
AF 36
42
48
54
60
508
635
762
889
66
72 1016
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
BEARING CAPACITY, psf

R
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0 0
Based on approximate interrelationships
6 of CBR and Bearing values (Design of
Concrete Airport Pavement, Portland 127
12 Cement Association, page 8, 1955)
18 254
24
D
381
DEPTH, mm
DEPTH, in
30
36 508
42
635
48
54 762
60
889
66
72 1016
0 14 28 42 56 69 83
BEARING CAPACITY, psi
FIG. A42
Global Geophysics
P. O. Box 2229
WA, 98073‐2229
Tel: 425‐890‐4321
Fax: 206‐582‐0838
November 14, 2018 Our ref: 108-1105.000

T
Attention: Mr. Rani Jaafar
RE: REPORT FOR OPTICAL TELEVIEWER LOGGING AT ASHLAND

QUARRY, ASHLAND, OREGON
AF
This report presents the results of the geophysical surveys performed by Global
Geophysics. The borehole optical televiewer surveys were carried out in four vertical
holes on November 5, 2018 at Ashland Quarry, Ashland, OR. The objective of the
geophysical survey was to characterize discontinuities and their orientations in the rock.
GEOPHYSICAL METHOD AND FIELD PROCEDURE
Optical/Acoustic Televiewer
This instrument generates a continuous oriented 360° image of the borehole wall using an
R
acoustic/optical imaging system. The tool includes a full orientation device consisting of
a precision 3-axis magnetometer and two accelerometers. This arrangement provides a
means to obtain accurate borehole deviation data during the logging run, and for
determining precise orientation of the image during data processing. The video image
will be continuously recorded and displayed on a laptop computer, as the probe is moved
in the borehole. During post-processing the video image will be unwrapped and
displayed as a simulated core sample that could be rotated on the screen and analyzed for
D
fractures.
The optical/acoustic televiewer, made by Robertson Geologging, was used for this
project.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Borehole logging results
The televiewer and sonic data was analyzed in WellCad. The interpreted depth, dipping
direction and dip angle of each fracture/joint in the rock are presented in the tables below.
Global Geophysics
Mr. Rani Jaafar November 14, 2018
Ashland Quarry 2 108-1105.000
The structure logs were corrected from borehole tilt and deviation. The dipping direction
is referenced to magnetic north. The images of the borehole walls are included in the
Appendix A.
Table 1: B1 fracture/joint information

Depth Dip
(ft) Azimuth (degree) (degree) Type
6.78 214.55 55.65 2
12.35 225.95 5.5 5
12.62 289.65 6.64 5
15.02 100.63 29.51 2
15.15 135.45 61.81 2
T
16.03 83.34 48.5 2
16.8 332.01 62.82 2
Fracture/joint types: 1-major open joint/fracture; 2-minor open joint/fracture;

3-partially open joint/fracture; 4-sealed joint/fracture; 5-bedding/banding/foliation
Depth
(ft)
5.47
7.09
7.58
151.58
168.91
AF
Dip
Azimuth (degree) (degree)
156.29 38.28
45.11
40.36
Type
2
5
2
8.35 179.09 47.14 2
10.06 231.71 18.78 4
10.35 258.27 19.29 4
11.96 186.78 61.47 5
R
12.4 90.09 29.99 2
13.34 201.12 42.72 5
14.1 173.44 31.24 5
15.27 255.98 16.85 5
15.59 252.6 44.89 5
15.85 281.21 76.64 5
D
16.31 197.6 62.81 5

17.44 60.26 68.9 5
18.64 354.02 35.19 5
18.86 140.44 49.48 5
18.92 303.54 62.21 5
20.42 77.82 68.06 5
21.26 76.87 60.09 5
22.93 89.74 25.11 5
Global Geophysics

Depth Dip
4.48 164.23 50.97 2
5.04 235.5 3.01 2
5.61 347.91 13.55 2
6.12 82.88 17.86 2
7.02 19.42 59.16 2
7.13 215.36 69.52 2
7.82 313.9 43.58 2
T
8.47 307.38 45.21 2
8.91 168.44 12.08 2
9.52 288.38 59.26 5
10.56 290.89 49.11 5
10.61
15.24
286.53
92.31
AF 16.7
65.78
5
5

Depth Dip
5.85 286.52 57.77 5
6.22 157.62 14.78 5
6.36 94.78 39.95 2
6.94 280.31 52.22 5
R
7.25 290.66 62.82 5
7.38 206.81 11.01 5
7.74 274.76 71.04 5
8.11 271.89 53.28 5
9.98 91.19 69 5
D
10.18 115.83 40.12 2

10.43 75.45 66.27 5
11.65 91.44 86.38 5
12.81 126.03 46.12 5
13.48 51.86 26.89 5
14.55 259.44 78.94 5
15.09 149.37 9.88 5
15.1 249.36 68.29 5
15.19 261.91 70.08 5
15.31 252.62 70.73 5
Global Geophysics
15.86 211.46 19.06 5
15.94 238.48 78.94 5
17.56 137.51 52.85 5
19.01 165.02 30.96 5
19.77 186.77 57.4 5
CLOSURE
Global Geophysics services will be conducted in a manner consistent with the level of
care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the geophysical community
T
currently practicing under similar conditions subject to the time limits and financial and
physical constraints applicable to the services. However, borehole imaging is a remote
sensing geophysical method that may not detect all subsurface conditions.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project, and we hope that you
find the results of the geophysical survey useful to your investigation. If you have any
AF
questions regarding this report, please call the undersigned at 425-890-4321. We look
forward to providing you with additional geophysical services in the future.
Sincerely,
Global Geophysics.
John Liu, Ph.D., R.G.

R
Principal Geophysicist
D
Global Geophysics
Appendix A
T
AF
R
D
Global Geophysics
P.O. Box 2229
Global Geophysics Redmond, WA, 98073-2229
Tel: 425-890-4321
Email: JLiu@GlobalGeophysics.com
CLIENT Shannon & Wilson, Inc. DATE November 5, 2018
WELL B-1 LOCATION Ashland Quarry
FIELD Optical Televiewer
COUNTRY STATE Oregon
T
Depth 3D Unwrapped image Structure
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
6.0
AF
R
8.0
D
Page 1
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
10.0
T
12.0
AF
14.0
R
D
16.0
Page 2
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
18 0
T
AF
R
D
Page 3
P.O. Box 2229
Tel: 425-890-4321
T
Depth 3D Unwrapped Image Structure
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
6.0
AF
R
8.0
D
Page 1
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
10.0
T
12.0
AF
14.0
R
D
16.0
Page 2
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
18.0
T
20.0
AF
R
22.0
D
Page 3
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
24 0
T
AF
R
D
Page 4
P.O. Box 2229
Tel: 425-890-4321
T
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
AF
6.0
R
D
8.0
Page 1
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
10.0
T
12.0
AF
R
14.0
D
16.0
Page 2
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
T
18 0
AF
R
D
Page 3
P.O. Box 2229
Tel: 425-890-4321
T
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
5.5
6.0
AF
6.5
7.0
R
7.5
8.0
D
8.5
9.0
9.5
Page 1
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
10.0
10.5
11.0
T
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
AF
13.5
14.0
R
14.5
15.0
D
15.5
16.0
16.5
Page 2
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
17.0
17.5
18.0
T
18.5
19.0
19.5
20.0
AF
20.5
R
D
Page 3
Global Geophysics
P. O. Box 2229
WA, 98073‐2229
Tel: 425‐890‐4321
Fax: 206‐582‐0838
March 30, 2019 Our ref: 109-0327.000

T
Attention: Mr. Elliott Mecham
RE: REPORT FOR OPTICAL TELEVIEWER, ACOUSTIC

TELEVIWER AND FULLWAVE SONIC LOGGING AT ASHLAND
AF
QUARRY, ASHLAND, OREGON
This report presents the results of the geophysical surveys performed by Global
Geophysics. The borehole optical televiewer surveys were carried out in three vertical
holes on March 28, 2019 at Ashland Quarry, Ashland, OR. The objective of the
geophysical survey was to characterize discontinuities and their orientations in the rock,
and rock rippability.
GEOPHYSICAL METHOD AND FIELD PROCEDURE
Optical/Acoustic Televiewer
R
This instrument generates a continuous oriented 360° image of the borehole wall using an
acoustic/optical imaging system. The tool includes a full orientation device consisting of
a precision 3-axis magnetometer and two accelerometers. This arrangement provides a
means to obtain accurate borehole deviation data during the logging run, and for
determining precise orientation of the image during data processing. The video image
will be continuously recorded and displayed on a laptop computer, as the probe is moved
D
in the borehole. During post-processing the video image will be unwrapped and
displayed as a simulated core sample that could be rotated on the screen and analyzed for
fractures.
The optical/acoustic televiewer, made by Robertson Geologging, was used for this
project.
Global Geophysics
Mr. Elliott Mecham March 30, 2019
Fullwave Sonic Logging
The piezoelectric transmitter is stimulated by a high-voltage pulse and radiates a high-

frequency acoustic wave through the borehole fluid and formation to each receiver. An
accurate quartz clock measures the first arrival transit time.
In compensated sonic mode, three receivers are used. The probe measures the time of the
first compressional arrival at each receiver. The difference in arrival times between each
pair of receivers allows determination of formation velocity independent of the borehole
fluid path.
In Full-wave sonic mode, the probe records the full sonic wave-train at all receivers
simultaneously. This can be displayed either as a variable-density log (VDL) or as a
T
waveform (wiggle trace). The waveform data may be exported to packages such as
WellCAD™ for calculation of compressional and shear velocities.
Full-wave triple sonic probe made by Robertson Geologging was used for this project.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Borehole logging results

AF
The televiewer and sonic data were analyzed in WellCad. The interpreted depth, dipping
direction and dip angle of each fracture/joint in the rock are presented in the tables below.
The dipping direction is referenced to magnetic north. The images of the borehole walls
are included in the Appendix A.

Depth Azimuth Dip Depth Azimuth Dip
R
(ft) (degree) (degree) Type (ft) (degree) (degree) Type
11.84 296.04 64.85 4 31.52 276.26 9.09 2
15.91 73.75 23.03 4 32.57 57.36 51.12 2
16 87.69 56.31 4 32.97 146.93 35.17 2
18.35 168.79 30.54 2 33.03 301.38 80.38 2
18.52 140.88 38.12 2 33.9 60 30.96 2
D
19.18 174.73 51.86 4 34.59 188.57 15.64 2

20.03 210.43 15.06 4 35.12 77.14 30.96 2
20.74 280.88 46.67 4 36.3 199.33 27.41 2
23.85 292.13 43.12 2 36.69 214.73 32.64 2
26.78 319.78 69.88 2 37.91 215.6 31.8 2
27.25 52.28 31.01 2 38.12 253.85 17.74 2
28.65 74.55 24.11 2 39.13 203.12 77.72 2
29.52 204.51 5.33 2 39.41 339.72 22.7 2
30.75 122.44 62.18 2 40.16 274.23 63.1 2
30.9 254.71 38.05 2 40.54 183.04 68.14 2
Global Geophysics
Depth Azimuth Dip Depth Azimuth Dip
(ft) (degree) (degree) Type (ft) (degree) (degree) Type
41.18 163.3 24.68 2 42.99 31.3 50.07 2
41.89 149.23 26.05 2 43.04 229.45 62.73 2

Table 2: B-15 fracture/joint information

Depth Azimuth Dip
(ft) (degree) (degree) Type
T
8.64 135.16 51.84 2
11.39 341.44 6.02 2
15.82 79.78 41.99 2
16.9 157.58 34.99 2
21.09 185.14 20.94 2
22.9
26.87
29.09
30.9
31.09
32.65
73.85
179.34
211.8
162.72
106.15
339.22
AF
13.5
33.82
47.03
32.98
59.83
63.09
2
2
5
5
2
2
33.64 142.3 33.62 2
33.86 118.51 26.56 5
35.35 287.57 66.49 2
36.6 133.85 30.96 2
R
38.13 132.14 62 2
38.5 126.42 63.79 2
39.28 322.42 7.97 2
40.42 168.47 68.5 2
42.94 34.41 13.97 2
44.49 155.08 81.32 2
D
46.62 108.28 19.47 2

46.72 108.98 26.1 2
49.09 83.08 4.57 2

Global Geophysics
Table 3: B-16 fracture/joint information
Depth Azimuth Dip
(ft) (degree) (degree) Type
5.62 174.43 28.37 3
7.14 167.58 21.91 3
7.95 322.95 22.27 3
19.2 173.03 56.26 2
29.25 186.55 59.1 2
31.12 133.19 43.23 2
35.69 186.57 64.56 2
37.2 180.35 69.79 2
T
The fullwave sonic data were collected in the portions of the borehole below the water
table. The calculated p-wave and s-wave velocity are listed in the table below.
Depth
(ft)
31.52
P-wave
AF
Table 4: B-13 P and S wave velocities
velocity (ft/s)
3573.84
S-wave velocity
(ft/s)
1771.82
32.02 3835.34 1817.91
32.52 4398.57 2016.01
33.02 4765.12 2184.01
33.52 5072.55 2364.65
R
34.02 5072.55 2409.95
34.52 5469.53 2588.46
35.02 5770.61 2676.58
35.52 5824.04 2676.58
36.02 5469.53 2588.46
36.52 5469.53 2347
D
37.02 5072.55 2238.42

37.52 5072.55 2238.42
38.02 5241.63 2329.61
38.52 5666.63 2567.33
39.02 6048.04 2620.82
39.52 6227.68 2642.84
40.02 6227.68 2620.82
40.52 6484.5 2783.17
41.02 6691.45 2833.32
41.52 6621.01 2833.32
Global Geophysics
P-wave S-wave velocity

Depth
velocity (ft/s) (ft/s)
(ft)
33.88 4000 1978.02
34.38 4249.97 2588.46
34.88 4398.57 2665.24
35.38 4249.97 2699.55
35.88 4084.39 2665.24
36.38 4193.31 2676.58
T
36.88 4337.9 2676.58
37.38 4193.31 2665.24
37.88 4193.31 2505.96
38.38 4249.97 2476.36
38.88 4525.15 2546.54
39.38
39.88
40.38
40.88
41.38
41.88
AF
5072.55
5770.61
6227.68
6484.5
5155.7
4765.12
2783.17
2939.23
3276.02
3098.5
2722.93
2699.55
42.38 5155.7 2746.71
42.88 5933.92 2898.6
43.38 6621.01 3024.02
43.88 5933.92 2872.13
44.38 5933.92 2872.13
R
44.88 5770.61 2872.13
45.38 5330.47 2808.02
45.88 5330.47 2808.02
46.38 5666.63 2783.17
D
Global Geophysics

P-wave S-wave P-wave S-wave
Depth Depth
velocity (ft/s) velocity (ft/s) velocity (ft/s) velocity (ft/s)
(ft) (ft)
12.52 4780.22 2109.89 24.52 5031.97 2312.49
13.02 5031.97 2287.26 25.02 5031.97 2287.26
13.52 5031.97 2304.01 25.52 5031.97 2304.01
14.02 5031.97 2304.01 26.02 5031.97 2312.49
14.52 5031.97 2329.61 26.52 5031.97 2347
15.02 5031.97 2329.61 27.02 5031.97 2329.61
T
15.52 5031.97 2238.42 27.52 5031.97 2304.01
16.02 5031.97 2287.26 28.02 5031.97 2329.61
16.52 5031.97 2373.57 28.52 5031.97 2304.01
17.02 5031.97 2329.61 29.02 5031.97 2304.01
17.52 5031.97 2287.26 29.52 5072.55 2347
18.02
18.52
19.02
19.52
20.02
20.52
AF
5031.97
5031.97
5031.97
5031.97
5031.97
5031.97
2230.48
2238.42
2347
2347
2364.65
2364.65
30.02
30.52
31.02
31.52
32.02
32.52
5072.55
5031.97
5072.55
5072.55
5072.55
4952.72
2312.49
2287.26
2304.01
2312.49
2270.74
2304.01
21.02 5031.97 2373.57 33.02 5072.55 2329.61
21.52 5031.97 2391.62 33.52 5072.55 2329.61
22.02 4952.72 2364.65 34.02 5031.97 2304.01
22.52 5031.97 2364.65 34.52 5072.55 2287.26
23.02 5031.97 2312.49 35.02 5031.97 2312.49
R
23.52 5031.97 2287.26 35.52 4952.72 2304.01
24.02 5031.97 2312.49
D
Global Geophysics
CLOSURE
Global Geophysics services will be conducted in a manner consistent with the level of
care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the geophysical community
currently practicing under similar conditions subject to the time limits and financial and
physical constraints applicable to the services. However, borehole imaging and sonic
logging are remote sensing geophysical methods that may not detect all subsurface
conditions.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project, and we hope that you
find the results of the geophysical survey useful to your investigation. If you have any
questions regarding this report, please call the undersigned at 425-890-4321. We look
T
forward to providing you with additional geophysical services in the future.
Sincerely,
Global Geophysics.
John Liu, Ph.D., R.G.

Principal Geophysicist
AF
R
D
Appendix A
Global Geophysics
P.O. Box 2229
Tel: 425-890-4321
CLIENT Shannon & Wilson, Inc. DATE March 28, 2019
WELL B-13 LOCATION Ashland
T
Depth 3D Unwrapped Image Structure-Tadpole
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
Structure
5.0
5.5
AF
0° 90° 180° 270° 0°
6.0
R
6.5
7.0
D
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
Page 1
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
Structure
0° 90° 180° 270° 0°
9.5
10.0
T
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
AF
12.5
13.0
R
13.5
14.0
D
14.5
15.0
15.5
Page 2
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
Structure
0° 90° 180° 270° 0°
16.0
16.5
17.0
T
17.5
18.0
18.5
19.0
AF
19.5
R
20.0
20.5
D
21.0
21.5
22.0
22.5
Page 3
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
Structure
0° 90° 180° 270° 0°
23.0
23.5
T
24.0
24.5
25.0
25.5
AF
26.0
26.5
R
27.0
27.5
D
28.0
28.5
29.0
Page 4
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
Structure
0° 90° 180° 270° 0°
29.5
30.0
T
AF
R
D
Page 5
P.O. Box 2229
Tel: 425-890-4321
FIELD Acoustic Televiewer
T
Depth 3D Amplitude Structure-Tadpole P-wave velocity
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90 0 8000
Structure S-wave velocity
30.0
30.5
AF
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 ft/s 8000
31.0
31.5
R
32.0
32.5
D
33.0
33.5
34.0
Page 1
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90 0 8000
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 ft/s 8000

34.5
35.0
35.5
T
36.0
36.5
37.0
37.5
AF
38.0
R
38.5
39.0
D
39.5
40.0
40.5
41.0
Page 2
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90 0 8000
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 ft/s 8000
41.5
42.0
T
42.5
43.0
43.5
44.0
AF
44 5
R
D
Page 3
P.O. Box 2229
Tel: 425-890-4321
WELL B-15 LOCATION Asland
T
Depth 3D Unwrapped image Structure-Tadpole
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
Structure
5.5
6.0
AF
0° 90° 180° 270° 0°
6.5
7.0
R
7.5
8.0
D
8.5
9.0
9.5
Page 1
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
Structure
0° 90° 180° 270° 0°
10.0
10.5
11.0
T
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
AF
13.5
R
14.0
14.5
D
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
Page 2
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
Structure
16.5 0° 90° 180° 270° 0°
17.0
17.5
T
18.0
18.5
19.0
19.5
AF
20.0
R
20.5
21.0
21.5
D
22.0
22.5
23.0
Page 3
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
Structure
0° 90° 180° 270° 0°
23.5
24.0
T
24.5
25.0
25.5
26.0
AF
26.5
27.0
R
27.5
28.0
D
Page 4
P.O. Box 2229
Tel: 425-890-4321
FIELD Acoustic televiewer
T
Depth 3D Amplitude Structure-Tadpole p-wave velocity
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90 0 ft/s 8000
Structure s-wave velocity
28.5
29.0
AF
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 ft/s 8000
29.5
R
30.0
30.5
D
31.0
31.5
32.0
32.5
Page 1
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90 0 ft/s 8000
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 ft/s 8000
33.0
33.5
T
34.0
34.5
35.0
35.5
AF
36.0
36.5
R
37.0
37.5
D
38.0
38.5
39.0
Page 2
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90 0 ft/s 8000
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 ft/s 8000
39.5
40.0
40.5
T
41.0
41.5
42.0
42.5
AF
43.0
R
43.5
44.0
D
44.5
45.0
45.5
46 0
Page 3
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90 0 ft/s 8000
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 ft/s 8000

46.0
46.5
47.0
T
47.5
48.0
48.5
49.0
AF
49.5
R
50 0
D
Page 4
P.O. Box 2229
Tel: 425-890-4321
T
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
Structure
AF
0° 90° 180° 270° 0°
6.0
R
D
8.0
Page 1
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90
Structure
0° 90° 180° 270° 0°
10.0
T
12 0
AF
R
D
Page 2
P.O. Box 2229
Tel: 425-890-4321
FIELD Acoustic Televiewer
T
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90 0 ft/s 6000
11.0
11.5
AF
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 ft/s 6000
12.0
R
12.5
13.0
D
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
Page 1
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90 0 ft/s 6000
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 ft/s 6000
15.5
16.0
T
16.5
17.0
17.5
18.0
AF
18.5
19.0
R
19.5
20.0
D
20.5
21.0
21.5
Page 2
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90 0 ft/s 6000
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 ft/s 6000
22.0
22.5
23.0
T
23.5
24.0
24.5
25.0
AF
25.5
R
26.0
26.5
D
27.0
27.5
28.0
28.5
Page 3
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90 0 ft/s 6000
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 ft/s 6000
29.0
29.5
T
30.0
30.5
31.0
31.5
AF
32.0
32.5
R
33.0
33.5
D
34.0
34.5
35.0
Page 4
1ft:10ft -0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 90 0 ft/s 6000
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0 ft/s 6000
35.5
36.0
T
36.5
37.0
37.5
38.0
AF
38.5
R
D
Page 5
Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP
DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
Appen dix B: Laborat ory Tes ting
Appendix B
Laboratory Testing
CONTENTS
B.1 General..................................................................................................................................... B-1
B.1.1 Soil Testing ................................................................................................................. B-1
B.1.1.1 Moisture (Natural Water) Content ......................................................... B-1
B.1.1.2 Atterberg Limits ........................................................................................ B-1
T
B.1.1.3 Particle-Size Analyses .............................................................................. B-2
B.1.2 Rock Testing ............................................................................................................... B-2
APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TESTING
B.1.2.1 Uniaxial Compressive Strength .............................................................. B-2
Figures
Figure B1:
Figure B2:
AF
B.1.2.2 Direct Shear Strength................................................................................ B-2
Atterberg Limits Results

Grain Size Distribution Results
Attachments
Northwest Testing, Inc. Technical Report, dated December 4, 2018
GeoTesting Express Inc. Technical Report, dated April 22, 2019
R
GeoTesting Express Inc. Technical Report, dated April 26, 2019
D
100329-001 June 6, 2019

6/6/2019-Appendix B - Laboratory Test Results B-i
Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP
B.1 GENERAL
Representative soil and rock samples obtained during the field exploration activities were
described and identified in the field by Shannon & Wilson. Physical characteristics of the
collected samples were noted, and field descriptions and identifications were modified, as
necessary, in accordance with the terminology presented in Appendix A, Figure A1. During
the review, representative soil samples were selected for further testing. The material
descriptions and identifications were refined/revised, as necessary, based on the results of
the laboratory tests. The soil testing program included natural moisture content, Atterberg
T
limit testing, and particle size analyses performed by Shannon & Wilson. Laboratory tests
on rock core specimens were performed by Northwest Testing, Inc. (NTI) of Wilsonville,
Oregon, and GeoTesting Express of Acton, Massachusetts. All laboratory tests were
performed in accordance with applicable ASTM International (ASTM) standards.
B.1.1 Soil Testing

AF
B.1.1.1 Moisture (Natural Water) Content
Natural moisture content determinations were performed in accordance with ASTM

D2216, on selected soil samples. The natural moisture content is a measure of the amount of
moisture in the soil at the time of exploration. It is defined as the ratio of the weight of
water to the dry weight of the soil, expressed as a percentage. The results of moisture
content determinations are presented in the Test Pit Logs, but are not included in the
Exploration Logs in Appendix A.
R
B.1.1.2 Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limits were determined for select samples in accordance with ASTM
D4318. This analysis yields index parameters of the soil that are useful in soil identification,
as well as in a number of analyses, including liquefaction analysis. An Atterberg limits test
D
determines a soil’s liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL). These are the maximum and
minimum moisture contents at which the soil exhibits plastic behavior. A soil’s plasticity
index (PI) can be determined by subtracting PL from LL. The LL, PL, and PI of tested
samples are presented on Figure B1, Atterberg Limits Results. The results are also shown
graphically on the Test Pit Logs but are not shown in the Exploration Logs in Appendix A.
For the purposes of soil description, Shannon & Wilson uses the term nonplastic to refer to
soils with a PI less than 4, low plasticity for soils with a PI range of 4 to 10, medium
plasticity for soils with a PI range of 10 to 20, and high plasticity for soils with a PI greater
than 20.
100329-001-001 June 6, 2019

B-1
Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP
B.1.1.3 Particle-Size Analyses
Particle-size analyses were conducted in accordance with ASTM D1140. For select
samples, a wet sieve analysis was performed to determine the percentage (by weight) of
each sample passing the No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve. Results of the particle-size analyses are
presented in Figure B2, Grain Size Distribution Results. The results are presented in the Test
Pit Logs, but not included in the Exploration Logs in Appendix A.
B.1.2 Rock Testing
T
B.1.2.1 Uniaxial Compressive Strength
Selected rock core samples from boring B-11 were tested by NTI and samples from
borings B-13, B-14, and B-15 were tested by GeoTesting Express using ASTM D7012-14
AF
(Method C), the Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens. The test
consists of placing a trimmed rock core specimen between two bearing plates and applying
and measuring an axial load which increases at a constant rate until failure. During the
application of increasing axial load, strain of the core sample is continuously measured with
a dial indicator placed between the two bearing blocks, measuring the decreasing length of
the rock core. The highest load achieved, and the length of the rock core at failure, are
recorded. Measurements made during the test are used to calculate the uniaxial
compressive strength, in pounds per square inch (psi). Results are presented on the boring
logs in Appendix A, and in the NTI and GeoTesting Express reports attached to the end of
this appendix.
R
B.1.2.2 Direct Shear Strength
Selected rock core samples from Borings B-13, and B-15 were tested by GeoTesting
Express using ASTM D5607, the Direct Shear Strength of intact rock core. The test consists
of placing a trimmed rock core specimen into a hydraulic load frame and then applying and
D
maintaining a constant force normal to the nominal shear plane of the specimen, while
increasing an external shear force along the designated shear plane to cause shear
displacement. During the test, shear strength is determined at various applied stresses
normal to the shear plane and at various shear displacements. All tests had three points
individually prepared for each sample. The results for the prepared samples are included as
an attachment to this appendix.
100329-001-001 June 6, 2019

B-2
ATT_MAIN 100329 GINT.GPJ SHAN_WIL.GDT 6/6/19
70
60
T
CH
50
PLASTICITY INDEX - PI (%)
NOTES
CL 1) Atterberg limits tests were
performed in general accordance
AF
40 with ASTM D4318 unless
otherwise noted in the report.
2) Group Name and Group

Symbol are in accordance with
ASTM D2488 and are refined in
30 accordance with ASTM D2487
where appropriate laboratory
tests are performed.
3) Plasticity adjectives used in

20
sample descriptions correspond
to plasticity index as follows:
- Nonplastic (NP) (< 4%)
MH or OH - Low Plasticity (4 to 10%)
- Medium Plasticity (10 to 20%)
- High Plasticity (> 20%)
10
CL-ML
R ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT - LL (%)
BORING AND DEPTH GROUP GROUP LL PL PI NAT. FINES

D
SAMPLE NO. (feet) SYMBOL2 NAME2 % % %3 W.C. % %
Ashland, Oregon
TP-03, S-2 5.0 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt NP NP NP 9 14
ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS

FIG. B1
May 2019 100329

FIG. B1
GSA_MAIN 100329 GINT.GPJ SHAN_WIL.GDT 6/6/19
ASTM D2487 where appropriate laboratory tests are performed.
2) Group Name and Group Symbol are in accordance with ASTM D2488 and are refined in accordance with
performed in general accordance with ASTM D1140 unless otherwise noted in the report.
were performed in general accordance with ASTM D422, and amount finer than #200 sieve analyses were
1) Sieve analyses were performed in general accordance with ASTM D6913, sieve with hydrometer analyses
NOTES:
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIZE OF MESH OPENING IN INCHES NO. OF MESH OPENINGS PER INCH, U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
1 1/2
.001
.008
.006
.004
.003
.002
100
200
3/4
5/8
1/2
3/8
1/4
.06
.04
.03
.02
.01
20
12
10
40
60
6
4
100 0
90 10
T
80 20
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT

70 30
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
60 40
AF
50 50
40 60
30 70
20 80
10 90
0
R 100
.001
8
1
80
60
40
30
20
10
.8
.6
.4
.3
.2
.1
300
200
100
.08
.06
.04
.03
.02
.01
.008
.006
.004
.003
.002
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

COBBLES FINES: SILT OR CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
DRY
D
BORING AND DEPTH GROUP GROUP GRAVEL SAND FINES NAT.
SAMPLE NO. (feet) SYMBOL2 NAME2 % % % W.C. %
DENSITY Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP (#10136851)
PCF
Ashland, Oregon
B-01, S-2 5.0 SC Clayey Sand - - 33 14
B-05, S-1 2.5 SM Silty Sand - - 17 12
B-06B, S-3 7.5 GP Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 58 37 5 10
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
B-07, S-1 2.5 SM Silty Sand - - 17 10
FIG. B2
B-08, S-2 5.0 SM Silty Sand 4 77 19 13

May 2019 100329
B-08, S-4A 10.0 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel 26 62 13 11
B-11, S-2 5.0 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel 31 57 12 9 SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
FIG. B2
Sheet 1 of 2
GSA_MAIN 100329 GINT.GPJ SHAN_WIL.GDT 6/6/19
ASTM D2487 where appropriate laboratory tests are performed.
2) Group Name and Group Symbol are in accordance with ASTM D2488 and are refined in accordance with
performed in general accordance with ASTM D1140 unless otherwise noted in the report.
were performed in general accordance with ASTM D422, and amount finer than #200 sieve analyses were
1) Sieve analyses were performed in general accordance with ASTM D6913, sieve with hydrometer analyses
NOTES:
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIZE OF MESH OPENING IN INCHES NO. OF MESH OPENINGS PER INCH, U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
1 1/2
.001
.008
.006
.004
.003
.002
100
200
3/4
5/8
1/2
3/8
1/4
.06
.04
.03
.02
.01
20
12
10
40
60
6
4
100 0
90 10
T
80 20
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT

70 30
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
60 40
AF
50 50
40 60
30 70
20 80
10 90
0
R 100
.001
8
1
80
60
40
30
20
10
.8
.6
.4
.3
.2
.1
300
200
100
.08
.06
.04
.03
.02
.01
.008
.006
.004
.003
.002
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

COBBLES FINES: SILT OR CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
DRY
D
BORING AND DEPTH GROUP GROUP GRAVEL SAND FINES NAT.
SAMPLE NO. (feet) SYMBOL2 NAME2 % % % W.C. %
DENSITY Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP (#10136851)
PCF
Ashland, Oregon
TP-02, S-1 2.5 SC/SM Clayey Sand to Silty Sand - - 35 10
TP-03, S-2 5.0 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt - - 14 9
TP-06, S-1 5.0 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel - - 13 7
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FIG. B2
May 2019 100329

FIG. B2
Sheet 2 of 2
TECHNICAL REPORT
Report To: Mr. Elliott Mecham Date: 12/4/18
3990 S.W. Collins Way, Suite 203 Lab No.: 18-355
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
Project: 1
Laboratory Testing – Ashland Water Treatment Plan Project No.: 2966.1.1
Report of: Compressive strength of rock
T
Sample Identification
NTI completed compressive strength of rock testing on samples delivered to our laboratory on November
28, 2018. Testing was performed in accordance with the standards indicated. Our laboratory test results
are summarized on the following pages.
AF
R
D
Copies: Addressee
This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of Northwest Testing, Inc.
SHEET 1 of 3 REVIEWED BY: Bridgett Adame
TECHNICAL REPORT
\\192.168.1.197\Laboratory\Lab Reports\2018 Lab Reports\2966.1.1 Shannon & Wilson\18-355 UC Rock.docx
TECHNICAL REPORT
Project: 1
Laboratory Testing
Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens
T
(ASTM D 7012 Method C)
Uniaxial
Rate of
Diameter Height Compressive
Sample ID Loading
(inches) (inches) Strength
(lbs/s)
(psi)
B-11 R- 2 @ 25.8 – 26.8 ft. 2.38 4.78 100 11,321
12000
10000
AF
8000
Stress (psi)
R
6000
4000
D
2000
0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00%
Strain (in/in)
TECHNICAL REPORT
TECHNICAL REPORT
Project: 1
Laboratory Testing
Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens
T
(ASTM D 7012 Method C)
Uniaxial
Rate of
Diameter Height Compressive
Sample ID Loading
(inches) (inches) Strength
(lbs/s)
(psi)
B-11 R- 4 @ 36.4 – 37.1 ft. 2.39 4.79 100 9904
12000
10000
AF
8000
Stress (psi)
R
6000
4000
D
2000
0
0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70% 0.80%
Strain (in/in)
TECHNICAL REPORT
Client: Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
Project: Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP
Location: Ashland, OR Project No: GTX-309838
Boring ID: --- Sample Type: --- Tested By: tlm
Sample ID: --- Test Date: 04/22/19 Checked By: jsc
Depth : --- Test Id: 500488
Bulk Density and Compressive Strength

of Rock Core Specimens by ASTM D7012 Method C
Boring ID Sample Depth Bulk Compressive Failure Meets ASTM Note(s)

Number Density, strength, Type D4543
pcf psi
T
B13-UCS-1 R4 25.64-26.09 161 990 3 No ---
ft.
B13-UCS-2 R8 42.25-42.70 163 1136 3 Yes ---

ft.
B14-UCS-1
B15-UCS-1
R1
R2
AF
18.60-19.04
ft.
18.63-19.08
ft.
167
158
280
461
2
3
No
No
---
---
B15-UCS-2 R8 43.16-43.61 167 4192 2 No ---

ft.
R
D
Notes: Density determined on core samples by measuring dimensions and weight and then calculating.
All specimens tested at the approximate as-received moisture content and at standard laboratory temperature.
The axial load was applied continuously at a stress rate that produced failure in a test time between 2 and 15 minutes.
Failure Type: 1 = Intact Material Failure; 2 = Discontinuity Failure; 3 = Intact Material and Discontinuity Failure
(See attached photographs)
printed 4/22/2019 3:34:19 PM

Client: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Test Date: 4/19/2019
Project Name: Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP Tested By: jck
Project Location: Ashland, OR Checked By: jsc
GTX #: 309838
Boring ID: B13-UCS-1
Sample ID: R4
Depth: 25.64-26.09 ft
Visual Description: See photographs
UNIT WEIGHT DETERMINATION AND DIMENSIONAL AND SHAPE TOLERANCES OF ROCK CORE SPECIMENS BY ASTM D4543
BULK DENSITY DEVIATION FROM STRAIGHTNESS (Procedure S1)

1 2 Average
Specimen Length, in: 5.48 5.49 5.49 Maximum gap between side of core and reference surface plate:
Specimen Diameter, in: 2.37 2.38 2.38 Is the maximum gap < 0.02 in.? YES
Specimen Mass, g: 1033.38
Bulk Density, lb/ft3 162 Minimum Diameter Tolerence Met? YES Maximum difference must be < 0.020 in.
Length to Diameter Ratio: 2.3 Length to Diameter Ratio Tolerance Met? YES Straightness Tolerance Met? YES
END FLATNESS AND PARALLELISM (Procedure FP1)

END 1 -0.875 -0.750 -0.625 -0.500 -0.375 -0.250 -0.125 0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875
Diameter 1, in 0.00120 0.00110 0.00100 0.00090 0.00060 0.00050 0.00040 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00010 -0.00040 -0.00040 -0.00060 -0.00100 -0.00110
T
Diameter 2, in (rotated 90o) 0.00120 0.00100 0.00080 0.00080 0.00060 0.00050 0.00050 0.00000 -0.00010 -0.00010 -0.00030 -0.00030 -0.00050 -0.00060 -0.00070
Difference between max and min readings, in:
0° = 0.00230 90° = 0.00190
END 2 -0.875 -0.750 -0.625 -0.500 -0.375 -0.250 -0.125 0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875
Diameter 1, in 0.00140 0.00140 0.00130 0.00100 0.00090 0.00090 0.00050 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00040 -0.00040 -0.00070 -0.00120 -0.00110 -0.00110
Diameter 2, in (rotated 90o) -0.00090 -0.00100 -0.00100 -0.00080 -0.00030 -0.00040 -0.00030 0.00000 0.00010 0.00010 0.00050 0.00070 0.00070 0.00040 0.00060
AF
0° = 0.0026 90° = 0.0017
Maximum difference must be < 0.0020 in. Difference = + 0.00130
Flatness Tolerance Met? NO
y = -0.00133x + 0.00014 y = -0.00109x + 0.00019

End 1 Diameter 1 End 1 Diameter 2 DIAMETER 1
0.00200 0.00200 End 1:

Slope of Best Fit Line 0.00133
Dial Gage Reading, in
0.00100 0.00100 Angle of Best Fit Line: 0.07612
End 2:
0.00000 0.00000
Angle of Best Fit Line: 0.09626
-0.00100
-0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00
Diameter, in
0.25 0.50 0.75
R
1.00
-0.00100
-0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00
Diameter, in
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Maximum Angular Difference:
Parallelism Tolerance Met?

Spherically Seated
0.02014
NO
D
y = 0.00106x - 0.00011
End 2 Diameter 1 y = -0.00168x + 0.00017 End 2 Diameter 2 DIAMETER 2
0.00200 0.00200 End 1:


0.00000 End 2:
0.00000
-0.00100 -0.00100
Maximum Angular Difference: 0.00180
-0.00200 -0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Diameter, in Parallelism Tolerance Met? YES
Diameter, in
Spherically Seated
PERPENDICULARITY (Procedure P1) (Calculated from End Flatness and Parallelism measurements above)
END 1 Difference, Maximum and Minimum (in.) Diameter (in.) Slope Angle° Perpendicularity Tolerance Met? Maximum angle of departure must be < 0.25°
Diameter 1, in 0.00230 2.375 0.00097 0.055 YES
Diameter 2, in (rotated 90o) 0.00190 2.375 0.00080 0.046 YES Perpendicularity Tolerance Met? YES
END 2
Diameter 1, in 0.00260 2.375 0.00109 0.063 YES
Diameter 2, in (rotated 90o) 0.00170 2.375 0.00072 0.041 YES
Project Name: Ashland 7.5 MGD WTP
Project Location: Ashland, OR
GTX #: 309838
Test Date: 4/19/2019
Tested By: jck
Checked By: jsc
Sample ID: R4
Depth, ft: 25.64-26.09 ft.
T
AF
After cutting and grinding
R
D
After break
GTX #: 309838
Boring ID: B13-UCS-1 Tolerance measurements were performed using
a machinist straightedge and feeler gauges to
Sample ID: R4
ASTM specifications.
Depth (ft): 25.64-26.09
BEST EFFORT END FLATNESS TOLERANCES OF ROCK CORE SPECIMENS TO

ASTM D4543
END FLATNESS
END 1
Diameter 1 Is the maximum gap < +0.001 in.? YES
Diameter 2 (rotated 90o) Is the maximum gap < +0.001 in.? YES
T
END 2
End Flatness Tolerance Met? YES

AF
R
D
GTX #: 309838
Sample ID: R8
Depth: 42.25-42.70 ft

1 2 Average

END 1 -0.875 -0.750 -0.625 -0.500 -0.375 -0.250 -0.125 0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875
Diameter 1, in 0.00030 0.00010 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00000 0.00000 0.00010 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020
T
Diameter 2, in (rotated 90o) 0.00050 0.00060 0.00060 0.00060 0.00060 0.00040 0.00020 0.00000 0.00010 0.00030 0.00050 0.00040 0.00040 0.00040 0.00040
0° = 0.00030 90° = 0.00060
END 2 -0.875 -0.750 -0.625 -0.500 -0.375 -0.250 -0.125 0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875
Diameter 1, in 0.00000 -0.00010 -0.00020 -0.00010 -0.00010 -0.00010 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00020 -0.00020 -0.00020 -0.00020 -0.00020
Diameter 2, in (rotated 90o) -0.00010 -0.00020 -0.00010 -0.00010 -0.00010 -0.00010 -0.00010 0.00000 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010
AF
0° = 0.0002 90° = 0.0003
Flatness Tolerance Met? YES
y = -0.00000x + 0.00017 y = -0.00012x + 0.00040

0.00200 0.00200 End 1:

End 2:
0.00000 0.00000
-0.00100
-0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00
Diameter, in
0.25 0.50 0.75
R
1.00
-0.00100
-0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00
Diameter, in
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

Spherically Seated
0.00409
YES
D
y = -0.00007x - 0.00011 y = 0.00018x - 0.00001
0.00200 0.00200 End 1:


0.00000 End 2:
0.00000
-0.00100 -0.00100
-0.00200 -0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Diameter, in Parallelism Tolerance Met? YES
Diameter, in
Spherically Seated
Diameter 1, in 0.00030 2.380 0.00013 0.007 YES
END 2
Diameter 1, in 0.00020 2.380 0.00008 0.005 YES
GTX #: 309838
Tested By: jck
Checked By: jsc
Sample ID: R8
Depth, ft: 42.25-42.70
T
AF
R
D
After break
GTX #: 309838
Sample ID: R1
Depth: 18.6-19.04 ft

1 2 Average

END 1 -0.875 -0.750 -0.625 -0.500 -0.375 -0.250 -0.125 0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875
Diameter 1, in 0.00100 0.00100 0.00080 0.00050 0.00040 0.00030 0.00030 0.00000 -0.00050 -0.00040 -0.00040 -0.00050 -0.00100 -0.00160 -0.00170
T
Diameter 2, in (rotated 90o) 0.00230 0.00220 0.00210 0.00150 0.00130 0.00120 0.00070 0.00000 0.00010 0.00010 -0.00010 -0.00040 -0.00050 -0.00100 -0.00160
0° = 0.00270 90° = 0.00390
END 2 -0.875 -0.750 -0.625 -0.500 -0.375 -0.250 -0.125 0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875
Diameter 1, in 0.00220 0.00220 0.00150 0.00140 0.00100 0.00080 0.00040 0.00000 -0.00060 -0.00100 -0.00110 -0.00110 -0.00120 -0.00130 -0.00140
Diameter 2, in (rotated 90o) 0.00260 0.00240 0.00230 0.00180 0.00160 0.00110 0.00080 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00030 -0.00060 -0.00090 -0.00100 -0.00110 -0.00170
AF
0° = 0.0036 90° = 0.0043
y = -0.00212x + 0.00053
End 1 Diameter 1 y = -0.00149x - 0.00012 End 1 Diameter 2 DIAMETER 1
0.00200 0.00400 End 1:

End 2:
0.00000 0.00000
-0.00100
-0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00
Diameter, in
0.25 0.50 0.75
R
1.00
-0.00200
-0.00400
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00
Diameter, in
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

Spherically Seated
0.04665
NO
D
y = -0.00230x + 0.00012 y = -0.00253x + 0.00047
0.00400 0.00400 End 1:


0.00000 End 2:
0.00000
-0.00200 -0.00200
-0.00400 -0.00400
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Diameter, in Parallelism Tolerance Met? NO
Diameter, in
Spherically Seated
Diameter 1, in 0.00270 2.370 0.00114 0.065 YES
END 2
Diameter 1, in 0.00360 2.370 0.00152 0.087 YES
GTX #: 309838
Tested By: jck
Checked By: jsc
Sample ID: R1
Depth, ft: 18.60-19.04
T
AF
R
D
After break
GTX #: 309838
Sample ID: R1
Depth (ft): 18.60-19.04 ft.

ASTM D4543
END FLATNESS
END 1
T
END 2

AF
R
D
GTX #: 309838
Sample ID: R2
Depth: 18.63-19.08 ft

1 2 Average

END 1 -0.875 -0.750 -0.625 -0.500 -0.375 -0.250 -0.125 0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875
Diameter 1, in -0.00100 -0.00090 -0.00080 -0.00020 -0.00020 -0.00020 0.00000 0.00000 0.00010 0.00020 0.00020 0.00030 0.00070 0.00100 0.00100
T
0° = 0.00200 90° = 0.00190
END 2 -0.875 -0.750 -0.625 -0.500 -0.375 -0.250 -0.125 0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875
Diameter 1, in -0.00150 -0.00150 -0.00110 -0.00090 -0.00070 -0.00060 -0.00050 0.00000 0.00030 0.00070 0.00090 0.00100 0.00100 0.00100 0.00120
Diameter 2, in (rotated 90o) 0.00100 0.00060 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00020 -0.00040 0.00000 -0.00010 -0.00010 -0.00010 -0.00040 -0.00060 -0.00070 -0.00100
AF
0° = 0.0027 90° = 0.002
y = 0.00106x + 0.00001 y = -0.00115x + 0.00033

0.00200 0.00200 End 1:

End 2:
0.00000 0.00000
-0.00100
-0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00
Diameter, in
0.25 0.50 0.75
R
1.00
-0.00100
-0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00
Diameter, in
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

Spherically Seated
0.03798
NO
D
y = 0.00172x - 0.00005 y = -0.00094x - 0.00001
0.00200 0.00200 End 1:


0.00000 End 2:
0.00000
-0.00100 -0.00100
-0.00200 -0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Diameter, in
Spherically Seated
Diameter 1, in 0.00200 2.380 0.00084 0.048 YES
END 2
Diameter 1, in 0.00270 2.380 0.00113 0.065 YES
Client: Shannon Wilson, Inc.
GTX #: 309838
Tested By: jck
Checked By: jsc
Sample ID: R2
Depth, ft: 18.63-19.08 ft.
T
AF
R
D
After break
GTX #: 309838
Sample ID: R2
Depth (ft): 18.63-19.08

ASTM D4543
END FLATNESS
END 1
T
END 2

AF
R
D
GTX #: 309838
Sample ID: R8
Depth: 43.16-43.61 ft

1 2 Average

END 1 -0.875 -0.750 -0.625 -0.500 -0.375 -0.250 -0.125 0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875
Diameter 1, in -0.00080 -0.00050 -0.00050 -0.00040 -0.00030 -0.00020 -0.00010 0.00000 0.00020 0.00050 0.00070 0.00100 0.00110 0.00110 0.00120
T
0° = 0.00200 90° = 0.00090
END 2 -0.875 -0.750 -0.625 -0.500 -0.375 -0.250 -0.125 0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875
Diameter 1, in -0.00150 -0.00150 -0.00140 -0.00120 -0.00080 -0.00070 -0.00060 0.00000 0.00010 0.00030 0.00040 0.00060 0.00090 0.00100 0.00100
Diameter 2, in (rotated 90o) 0.00040 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00010 -0.00030 -0.00030 -0.00030 -0.00030 -0.00050
AF
0° = 0.0025 90° = 0.0009
y = 0.00120x + 0.00020 y = -0.00055x - 0.00002

0.00200 0.00200 End 1:

End 2:
0.00000 0.00000
-0.00100
-0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00
Diameter, in
0.25 0.50 0.75
R
1.00
-0.00100
-0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00
Diameter, in
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

Spherically Seated
0.02554
NO
D
y = 0.00164x - 0.00023 y = -0.00046x - 0.00001
0.00200 0.00200 End 1:


0.00000 End 2:
0.00000
-0.00100 -0.00100
-0.00200 -0.00200
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Diameter, in
Spherically Seated
Diameter 1, in 0.00200 2.380 0.00084 0.048 YES
END 2
Diameter 1, in 0.00250 2.380 0.00105 0.060 YES
GTX #: 309838
Tested By: jck
Checked By: jsc
Sample ID: R8
Depth, ft: 43.16-43.61 ft.
T
AF
R
D
After break
GTX #: 309838
Sample ID: R8
Depth (ft): 43.16-43.61

ASTM D4543
END FLATNESS
END 1
T
END 2

AF
R
D
GTX #: 309838
Start Date: 4/24/2019
End Date: 4/25/2019
Tested By: tlm
Checked By: mpd
Boring ID: B-13 S-3
Sample ID: 7
Depth, ft: 39.6-40.2
Visual Description: Rock Core
Direct Shear Test of Rock by ASTM D5607
20.75 psi 41.54 psi 62.32 psi
T
500 500
450 450
400 400
350 Peak 350
Shear Stress, psi

Shear Stress, psi
300 300
250
200
150
100
50
AF Post-Peak 250
200
150
100
50
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Normal Stress, psi Shear Displacement, in
Test No.: DS-1 DS-2 DS-3

R
Specimen Diameter, in: 2.37 2.37 2.37 20.75 psi 41.54 psi 62.32 psi
Specimen Length, in: 2.59 1.68 1.44

Specimen Mass, grams: 486 307 263 0.40
Specimen Area, in2: 4.42 4.43 4.41
Specimen Bulk Density, pcf 162 157 157 0.30
Shear Plane Area, in2 4.42 4.43 4.41
Normal Stress, psi: 21 42 62 0.20
Normal Displacement, in
Peak Shear Stress, psi: 64 232 344

D
Post Peak Shear Stress, psi: 43 46 99 0.10

Horiz. Displacement Rate, in/min: 0.005 0.005 0.005
0.00
Peak Friction Angle: 81.5
Peak Cohesive Intercept, psi: 0
Post-Peak Friction Angle: 53.2 -0.10
Post-Peak Cohesive Intercept, psi: 7.1
JRC Roughness 10-12 10-12 10-12 -0.20
Notes: Specimen cut to length using diamond tipped saw -0.30

blade.
Tested at as-received moisture content and density. -0.40
'Hydro-Stone Super X' encapsulating compound used 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
to mount specimen in test rings.
Actual strength parameters may vary and should be
Shear Displacement, in
determined by an engineer for site-specific
conditions.
Page 1 of 2
GTX #: 309838
End Date: 4/25/2019
Tested By: tlm
Checked By: mpd
Boring ID: B-13 S-3
Sample ID: 7
Depth, ft: 39.6-40.2
Point 1
T
Normal Stress, psi:
20.7506
AF Pre-Test Post-Test
Point 2
Normal Stress, psi:
41.5359
R
Pre-Test Post-Test
D
Point 3
Normal Stress, psi:
62.3212
Pre-Test Post-Test
Page 2 of 2
GTX #: 309838
End Date: 4/25/2019
Tested By: tlm
Checked By: mpd
Boring ID: B-15 S-1
Sample ID: 1/7/1900
Depth, ft: 37-39.9
20.02 psi 40.08 psi 60.14 psi
T
500 500
450 450
400 400
350 Peak 350
Shear Stress, psi

Shear Stress, psi
300 300
250
200
150
100
50
AF Post-Peak
250
200
150
100
50
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

R

0.40
Specimen Bulk Density, pcf 164 163 164
Shear Plane Area, in2 4.45 4.45 4.44 0.30
Normal Stress, psi: 20 40 60
Peak Shear Stress, psi: 257 303 265 0.20

D
Post Peak Shear Stress, psi: 81 86 119

Horiz. Displacement Rate, in/min: 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.10
0.00
Peak Cohesive Intercept, psi: 267 -0.10
Post-Peak Friction Angle: 43.1
Post-Peak Cohesive Intercept, psi: 57.8 -0.20
JRC Roughness 8-10 10-12 10-12
-0.30
Notes: Specimen cut to length using diamond tipped saw
-0.40
blade.
determined by an engineer for site-specific
conditions.
Page 1 of 2
GTX #: 309838
End Date: 4/25/2019
Tested By: tlm
Checked By: mpd
Boring ID: B-15 S-1
Sample ID: 7
Depth, ft: 37-39.9
Point 1
T
Normal Stress, psi:
20.0219
Point 2
Normal Stress, psi:
40.0785
R
Pre-Test Post-Test
D
Point 3
Normal Stress, psi:
60.1351
Pre-Test Post-Test
Page 2 of 2
GTX #: 309838
End Date: 4/26/2019
Tested By: tlm
Checked By: mpd
Boring ID: B-15 S-2
Sample ID: 9
Depth, ft: 48-48.6
25.12 psi 50.28 psi 75.44 psi
T
500 500
Peak 450
400 400
350
Shear Stress, psi

Shear Stress, psi
300 300
200
100
AF Post-Peak
250
200
150
100
50
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

R

0.40
Specimen Bulk Density, pcf 166 165 165
Shear Plane Area, in2 4.46 4.45 4.45 0.30
Normal Stress, psi: 25 50 75
Peak Shear Stress, psi: 262 424 398 0.20

D
Post Peak Shear Stress, psi: 46 121 125

Horiz. Displacement Rate, in/min: 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.10
0.00
Peak Cohesive Intercept, psi: 225 -0.10
Post-Peak Friction Angle: 57.4
Post-Peak Cohesive Intercept, psi: 18.8 -0.20
JRC Roughness 12-14 14-16 14-16
-0.30
Notes: Specimen cut to length using diamond tipped saw
-0.40
blade.
determined by an engineer for site-specific conditions.
Page 1 of 2
GTX #: 309838
End Date: 4/26/2019
Tested By: tlm
Checked By: mpd
Boring ID: B-15 S-2
Sample ID: 9
Depth, ft: 48-48.6
Point 1
T
Normal Stress, psi:
25.1228
Point 2
Normal Stress, psi:
50.2803
R
Pre-Test Post-Test
D
Point 3
Normal Stress, psi:
75.4378
Pre-Test Post-Test
Page 2 of 2
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
Appendix C: Kinematic Stability

Appendix C
Kinematic Stability
CONTENTS
▪ Kinematic Analysis Lower Clearwell Tanks
▪ Kinematic Analysis Upper Slope
T
APPENDIX C: KINEMATIC STABILITY
AF
R
D
100329-001 June 6, 2019

C-i
N
Symbol BORING Quantity
B-13 34
B-15 24
B-16 8
Color Density Concentrations

0.00 - 0.90
0.90 - 1.80
T
1.80 - 2.70
2.70 - 3.60
3.60 - 4.50
4.50 - 5.40
5.40 - 6.30
6.30 - 7.20
7.20 - 8.10
8.10 - 9.00
Contour Data Pole Vectors
AF
Maximum Density 8.70%
Contour Distribution Fisher
W E Counting Circle Size 1.0%
Kinematic Analysis Planar Sliding

Slope Dip 45
Slope Dip Direction 115
Friction Angle 30°
Lateral Limits 20°
Critical Total %
Planar Sliding (All) 0 66 0.00%
Plot Mode Pole Vectors

Vector Count 66 (66 Entries)
Hemisphere Lower
R Lower Clearwell Tanks
Projection Equal Angle
S
D
N
B-13 34
B-15 24
B-16 8
Symbol Feature
Critical Intersection
T
0.00 - 0.90
0.90 - 1.80
1.80 - 2.70
2.70 - 3.60
3.60 - 4.50
4.50 - 5.40
5.40 - 6.30
6.30 - 7.20
AF
7.20 - 8.10
8.10 - 9.00
W E Maximum Density 8.70%

Contour Distribution Fisher
Counting Circle Size 1.0%
Kinematic Analysis Wedge Sliding

Slope Dip 45
Slope Dip Direction 115
Friction Angle 30°
Critical Total %
Wedge Sliding 104 2145 4.85%

R Intersection Mode
Intersections Count
Hemisphere
Grid Data Planes
2145
Lower
Lower Clearwell Tanks

S
D
N
B-1 7
B-2 21
B-3 13
B-5 24
T
0.00 - 0.70
0.70 - 1.40
1.40 - 2.10
2.10 - 2.80
2.80 - 3.50
3.50 - 4.20
4.20 - 4.90
4.90 - 5.60
AF
5.60 - 6.30
1:45 deg 6.30 - 7.00
W E Contour Distribution Fisher

Kinematic Analysis Planar Sliding

Slope Dip 45
1:45 deg Slope Dip Direction 120
Friction Angle 20°
Lateral Limits 30°
Critical Total %
Planar Sliding (All) 5 65 7.69%
Planar Sliding (Set 6) 5 6 83.33%
R Plot Mode
Vector Count
Pole Vectors
65 (65 Entries)
Hemisphere Lower
Upper Slope
S
D
Project
Analysis Description
Drawn By Company
Date File Name

DIPS 7.010
1/15/2019, 4:12:26 PM Borings B-1, B-2, B-3 & B-5.dips7
N
B-1 7
B-2 21
B-3 13
B-5 24
T
0.00 - 0.70
0.70 - 1.40
1.40 - 2.10
2.10 - 2.80
2.80 - 3.50
3.50 - 4.20
4.20 - 4.90
4.90 - 5.60
AF
5.60 - 6.30
1:45 deg 6.30 - 7.00
W E Contour Distribution Fisher

Kinematic Analysis Wedge Sliding

Slope Dip 45
1:45 deg Slope Dip Direction 120
Friction Angle 20°
Critical Total %
Wedge Sliding 250 2080 12.02%

R Hemisphere
Projection
Lower
Equal Angle
Upper Slope
S
D
Project
Drawn By Company
Date File Name

DIPS 7.010
1/15/2019, 4:12:26 PM Borings B-1, B-2, B-3 & B-5.dips7
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
Appendix D: Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Appendix D
Limit Equilibrium Analysis

CONTENTS
▪ Clearwell Section B-B’
▪ Upper Site Section D-D’
T
APPENDIX D: LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS
AF
R
D
100329-001 June 6, 2019

D-i
Safety Factor Circular Failure
0.0
2300
0.3 Clearwell Section B-B'

0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
T
2.3
2250
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3 0.7
3.5
3.8
AF
4.0
4.3
4.5
2200
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
2150
R
2100
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Project
SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program
Drawn By Scale Company

1:450
Date File Name
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.016
4/26/2019, 4:10:47 PM Alignment B - Circular - Copy.slmd
0.0
2300
0.3 Clearwell Section B-B' 0.16

0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
T
2.3
2250
2.5
2.8
3.0 0.5
3.3
3.5
3.8
AF
4.0
4.3
4.5
2200
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
2150
R
2100
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Project

1:450
Date File Name
4/26/2019, 4:10:47 PM Alignment B - Circular.slmd
2350
Safety Factor Plane Shear Failure

0.0
0.3
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2300
2.0
T
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
AF
4.0
2250
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5 1.2
5.8
6.0+
2200
R
2150
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Project

1:450
Date File Name
4/26/2019, 4:10:47 PM Alignment B.slmd
2350

0.0
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2300
2.0
T
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
AF
4.0
4.3
2250
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5 0.5
5.8
6.0+
2200
R
2150
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Project

1:450
Date File Name
0.0
2300

0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
T
2.3
2250
2.5
2.8
3.0 0.8
3.3
3.5
3.8
AF
4.0
4.3
4.5
2200
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
2150
R
2100
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Project

1:450
Date File Name
0.0
2300

0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
T
2.3
2250
2.5
2.8
3.0 0.6
3.3
3.5
3.8
AF
4.0
4.3
4.5
2200
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
2150
R
2100
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Project

1:450
Date File Name
0.0
0.5
2350
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
T
2.3
2.5
2300
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
AF
4.0
1.6
4.3
4.5
2250
4.8 48.951
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
2200
R
2150
D
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Project

1:547
Date File Name
0.0
0.5
2350
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
T
2.3
2.5
2.8
2300
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
AF
4.0
4.3
4.5 1.1
4.8
5.0
2250
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
2200
R
2150
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Project

1:450
Date File Name
0.00
2300

0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00 1.54
T
2.25
2250
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
AF
4.00
4.25
4.50
2200
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00+
2150
R
2100
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Project

1:450
Date File Name
0.0
2300

0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0 1.1
T
2.3
2250
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
AF
4.0
4.3
4.5
2200
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
2150
R
2100
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Project

1:450
Date File Name
0.0
0.5
2350
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
T
2.3
2.5
2.8
2300
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
AF
4.0
4.3
4.5 1.6
4.8
5.0
2250
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
40°
2200
R
2150
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Project

1:450
Date File Name
0.0
0.5
2350
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
T
2.3
2.5
2300
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
AF
4.0
1.1
4.3
2250
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3 35°
5.5
5.8
6.0+
2200
R
2150
D
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Project

1:545
Date File Name
Upper Site Section D-D'
2450
Unit Weight Cohesion Phi Water

Material Name Color Strength Type
(lbs/ 3) (psf) (deg) Surface
T
Fill Material 120 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 30 None
2400
Material 2 166 Mohr‐Coulomb 1000 30 None
AF
2350
3.7
2300
2250
R
2200
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Project

1:600
Date File Name
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM Profile B-B' (R1 Grade).slmd
2450
Unit Weight Cohesion Phi

Material Name Color Strength Type Water Surface
(lbs/ 3) (psf) (deg)
Fill Material 120 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface
Material 2 166 Mohr‐Coulomb 1000 30 Water Surface
T
2400
2.8
AF
2350
W
2300
W
2250
R
2200
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Project

1:600
Date File Name
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM Profile B-B' with high groundwater (R1 Grade).slmd
2450

T
2400
1.8
AF
2350
45°
2300
2250
R
2200
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Project

1:600
Date File Name
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM Profile B-B'- 1H to 1V (45 deg.) - Alt. 1 (R1 Grade).slmd
2450

T
2400
1.3
AF
2350
45°
2300
W
2250
R
2200
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Project

1:600
Date Profile
File Name B-B'- 1H to 1V (45 deg.) - Alt. 1 with grounwater (R1
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM
Grade) slmd
2450

T
2400
AF
2350
1.6
53°
2300
2250
R
2200
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Project

1:600
Date File Name
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM Profile B-B'- 0.75H to 1V (53.13 deg.) - Alt. 1 (R1 Grade).slmd
2450

T
2400
AF
2350
W 1.1
53°
2300
W
2250
R
2200
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Project

1:600
Date Profile
File Name B-B'- 0.75H to 1V (53.13 deg.) - Alt. 1 (R1 Grade) with
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM
groundwater slmd
2450

T
2400
AF
2350
1.4
63°
2300
2250
R
2200
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Project

1:600
Date File Name

2450

T
2400
AF
2350
W 0.9
63°
2300
W
2250
R
2200
D
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Project

1:600
Date Profile
File Name B-B'- 0.5H to 1V (63.4 deg.) - Alt. 1 with grounwater (R1
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM
Grade) slmd
2500

0.1674
2450

T
2.4
2400
AF
2350
2300
R
2250
D
2200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Project

1:600
Date File Name
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM Profile B-B' (R1 Grade).slmd
2500

0.1674
2450

T
1.7
2400
AF
2350
W
2300
W
R
2250
D
2200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Project

1:600
Date File Name
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM Profile B-B' with high groundwater (R1 Grade).slmd
2500

0.1674
2450

Material Name Color
T
Strength Type

2400
AF
1.4
2350
45°
2300
R
2250
D
2200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Project

1:600
Date File Name
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM Profile B-B'- 1H to 1V (45 deg.) - Alt. 1 (R1 Grade).slmd
2500

0.1674
2450

T

2400
AF
1.0
2350
45°
2300
W
R
2250
D
2200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Project

1:600
Date Profile
File Name B-B'- 1H to 1V (45 deg.) - Alt. 1 with grounwater (R1
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM
Grade) slmd
2500

0.1674
2450

T

2400
AF
1.3
2350
53°
2300
R
2250
D
2200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Project

1:600
Date File Name
2500

0.1674
2450

T

2400
AF
0.9
2350
53°
2300
W
R
2250
D
2200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Project

1:600
Date Profile
File Name B-B'- 0.75H to 1V (53.13 deg.) - Alt. 1 (R1 Grade) with
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM
groundwater slmd
2500

0.1674
2450

T

2400
AF
1.1
2350
63°
2300
R
2250
D
2200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Project

1:600
Date File Name
2500

0.1674
2450

T

2400
AF
0.7
2350
63°
2300
W
R
2250
D
2200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Project

1:600
Date Profile
File Name B-B'- 0.5H to 1V (63.4 deg.) - Alt. 1 with grounwater (R1
1/3/2019, 11:11:04 AM
Grade) slmd
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
Appendix E: Rockfall Analysis

Appendix E
Rockfall Analysis
CONTENTS
▪ Rockfall Analysis Results
T
APPENDIX E: ROCKFALL ANALYSIS
AF
R
D
100329-001 June 6, 2019

E-i
2300
T
2280
2260
AF
2240
Toe of slope (collector 2)

2220
8ft setback (collector 1)
8.036
R
2200
2180
D
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Project
Drawn By Company
Date File Name

ROCFALL 7.003
5/3/2019, 8:56:54 AM RocFall Model1.fal7
ROCFALL 7.003
Page 1 of 3
RocFall Analysis Information

Project Summary
File Name RocFall Model1
File Version 7.003

Date Created 5/3/2019, 8:56:54 AM

Project Settings
General Settings:
T
Engine Lump Mass
Units Imperial Foot‐Pounds (ft, lb, ft‐lb)
Rock Throw Mode Number of rocks controlled by seeder

Engine Conditions:
Friction Angle
Consider Angular Velocity
Maximum time per rock
Maximum steps per rock
Normal velocity cutoff
Stopped velocity cutoff
5s
20000
AF
Use friction angle from material editor
Yes
0.33ft/s
0.33ft/s
Maximum timestep 0.01s
Switch Velocity ‐3.3e‐009ft/s

Random Number Generation:
R
Sampling Method Monte‐Carlo
Random Seed Pseudo‐random seed: 12345234

Slope Geometry
D
RocFall Model1.fal7 5/3/2019, 8:56:54 AM

ROCFALL 7.003
Page 2 of 3
Vertex X Y X Std.Dev. Y Std.Dev.

1 0 2281.31
2 16.935 2281.21
3 30.6831 2281.21
4 33.5067 2279.59
5 36.0832 2278
6 37.0222 2277.46
7 39.7637 2276
8 51.726 2269.14
9 66.2612 2260
10 68.1679 2259.07
11 69.8691 2258
12 72.5184 2256.78
13 79.0864 2253.83
14 85.5896 2252
T
15 95.8211 2250
16 101.107 2248.82
17 103.827 2247.8
18 109.061 2242.44
19 140.983 2210
20 225.334 2210

Slope Material Assignment

Material
Bedrock Outcrops
From Vertex To Vertex
1 20
AF
Material Properties
Bedrock Outcrops
"Bedrock Outcrops" Properties
R
Color
Mean Distribution Std.Dev. Rel. Min Rel. Max
Normal Restitution 0.5 Normal 0.04 0.12 0.12
Tangential Restitution 0.5 Normal 0.04 0.12 0.12
Friction Angle (°) 30 None
Slope Roughness (°) Normal 0 0 0
D
Seeders
Seeder 1

ROCFALL 7.003
Page 3 of 3
Seeder Properties
Name Seeder 1
Location (103.827, 2247.8)

Rocks to Throw
Number of Rocks 1000 Per Rock Type
Rock Types 3ft rock, 4ft rock, 2ft rock

Initial Conditions
Horizontal Velocity (ft/s) 1 None
Vertical Velocity (ft/s) 0 None
Rotational Velocity (°/s) 0 None
Initial Rotation (°/s) 0 Uniform 0 360

T
Rock Types
3ft rock
Properties

Name
Color

Mass (lb)
3
3ft rock
___
AF
2383 None
Density (lb/ft ) 168.56 None
4ft rock
Properties
Name 4ft rock
Color ___
R

Mass (lb) 5648.5 None
3 168.56 None
Density (lb/ft )

2ft rock
D
Properties
Name 2ft rock
Color ___

3 168.56 None
Density (lb/ft )


Total Kinetic Energy on Collector 2
100
90
T
80
70
Cumulative Frequency [%]
60
AF
50
Total Kinetic Energy
40
30
20
10
R
0
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000
Total Kinetic Energy [ft-lb]
D
Total number of rocks on Collector 2: 3000
Total Kinetic Energy: min = 10387, max = 86045.4
Project
Drawn By Company
Date File Name

ROCFALL 7.003
100
90
T
80
70
60
AF
50
40
30
20
10
R
0
0 10000 20000 30000
D
Total Kinetic Energy: min = 115.684, max = 29202.6
Project
Drawn By Company
Date File Name

ROCFALL 7.003
230
2280
T
2260
AF
2240
Toe of slope (collector 2)
45°
2220
8ft setback
(collector 1)
7.800
R
2200
D
2180
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Project
Drawn By Company
Date File Name

ROCFALL 7.003
ROCFALL 7.003
Page 1 of 3
RocFall Analysis Information

Project Summary
File Name RocFall Model2
File Version 7.003

Date Created 5/3/2019, 10:08:59 AM

Project Settings
General Settings:
T
Engine Lump Mass
Units Imperial Foot‐Pounds (ft, lb, ft‐lb)
Rock Throw Mode Number of rocks controlled by seeder

Engine Conditions:
Friction Angle
Consider Angular Velocity
Maximum time per rock
Maximum steps per rock
Normal velocity cutoff
Stopped velocity cutoff
5s
20000
AF
Use friction angle from material editor
Yes
0.33ft/s
0.33ft/s
Maximum timestep 0.01s
Switch Velocity ‐3.3e‐009ft/s

Random Number Generation:
R
Sampling Method Monte‐Carlo
Random Seed Pseudo‐random seed: 12345234

Slope Geometry
D

ROCFALL 7.003
Page 2 of 3
Vertex X Y X Std.Dev. Y Std.Dev.

1 0 2276.26
2 3.8666 2277.52
3 4.5133 2278
4 10.0762 2278.02
5 14.4274 2278.22
6 22.7289 2278.13
7 23.4714 2278
8 42.8297 2270
9 44.4948 2269.34
10 46.499 2268.96
11 47.6977 2268.8
12 50.745 2268.5
13 54.5933 2268.66
14 69.452 2268.06
T
15 84.2368 2267.86
16 87.3151 2266
17 89.5147 2264.74
18 90.0374 2264
19 99.7327 2251.59
20 116.188 2246.82

21
22
153.2
185.169
Slope Material Assignment
Material
2210
2210
From Vertex To Vertex
AF
Bedrock Outcrops 1 22

Material Properties
R
Bedrock Outcrops
"Bedrock Outcrops" Properties
Color
Normal Restitution 0.5 Normal 0.04 0.12 0.12
Tangential Restitution 0.5 Normal 0.04 0.12 0.12
D
Friction Angle (°) 30 None
Slope Roughness (°) None

Seeders
Seeder 1

ROCFALL 7.003
Page 3 of 3
Seeder Properties
Name Seeder 1
Location (116.188, 2246.82)

Rocks to Throw
Number of Rocks 1000 Per Rock Type
Rock Types 3ft rock, 2ft rock, 4ft rock

Initial Conditions
Horizontal Velocity (ft/s) 0.5 None
Vertical Velocity (ft/s) 0 None
Rotational Velocity (°/s) 0 None
Initial Rotation (°/s) 0 Uniform 0 360

T
Rock Types
3ft rock
Properties

Name
Color

Mass (lb)
3
3ft rock
___
AF
2383 None
Density (lb/ft ) 168.56 None
2ft rock
Properties
Name 2ft rock
Color ___
R

3 168.56 None
Density (lb/ft )

4ft rock
D
Properties
Name 4ft rock
Color ___

3 168 None
Density (lb/ft )


ROCFALL 7.003
Page 1 of 1
100
90
80
T
70
AF
60
50
40
R
30
20
D
10
0
20000 40000 60000 80000


ROCFALL 7.003
Page 1 of 1
100
90
80
T
70
AF
60
50
40
R
30
20
D
10
0
0 10000 20000 30000


ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
Appendix F: Drilled Shafts

Appendix F
Drilled Shafts
CONTENTS
▪ Table F1: Recommended LPILE Input Parameters for Bridge Foundations
▪ Figures F1 – F6: Estimated Axial Shaft Resistance Figures
T
APPENDIX F: DRILLED SHAFTS
AF
R
D
100329-001 June 6, 2019

F-i
Table F1: Static/Seismic LPILE Geotechnical Input Parameters for Bridge Foundations
Approximate p-y
Depth1 (feet) Soil Effective Friction
Soil Modulus
Boring p-y Model Unit Weight Angle
Upper Lower Description k
(pcf)2 (deg)3
Bound Bound (pci)4
T
V. dense Silty/Clayey Sand Sand
0 15 125 37 180
(Fill) (Reese)
Boring B-16
R0-R1 Weathered Quartz Sand
15 Base 140 40 225
(Mount Ashland Pluton) (Reese)
Med. dense Silty Sand Sand
0 4.5 120 30 50
AF
(Fill) (Reese)
Med. dense Poorly Graded Sand Sand
4.5 7 125 33 80
(Fill) (Reese)
Med. dense Silty Sand Sand
Boring B-17 7 12.5 120 31 50
(Fill) (Reese)
V. dense Poorly Graded Sand Sand
12.5 23 125 38 180
(Residual Soil) (Reese)
R0-R1 Weathered Quartz Sand
23 Base 140 40 225
(Mount Ashland Pluton) (Reese)
1Based on existing ground surface elevation
2pcf = pounds per cubic foot
3deg = degrees
4pci = pounds per cubic inch
5psf = pounds per square foot
R
6Comp. strength = unconfined compressive strength
7psi = pounds per square inch
D
100329-001
6/4/2019-GDM_DS_axial_v1.4_B-16 2.5 Drilled in H-Piles.xlsm mfc/hjs
ASSUMED SUBSURFACE SERVICE LIMIT STRENGTH LIMIT EXTREME EVENT LIMIT

PROFILE NOMINAL RESISTANCE (tons) NOMINAL RESISTANCE (tons) NOMINAL RESISTANCE (tons)
Based on Nearby Explorations:
B-16 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
0 0 0
0'
Nominal Side: 0.5-inch Settlement
Nominal Side Nominal Side
Silty Sand (SM)
Nominal Base: 0.5-inch Settlement
Nominal Base Nominal Base
4.5' Factored Total: 0.5- inch Settlement
Factored Compression Total Factored Compression Total
Nominal Side: 1-inch Settlement
Nominal Base: 1-inch Settlement

Clayey Sand (SC)
10 Factored Total: 1-inch Settlement 10 10
Add Downdrag Loads to Other

12.5' Foundation Loads
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (see Extreme Event Limit Note 2)
DRILLED SHAFT BASE DEPTH (feet)

and Gravel (SP‐SM)

15'
20 20 20
Weathered Quartz
Monzodiorite (R0‐R1)
30 30 30
Boring Extends to 44.2 feet 40 40 40
SERVICE LIMIT NOTES: STRENGTH LIMIT NOTES: EXTREME EVENT LIMIT NOTES:
1. Recommended resistance factors per ODOT GDM are 1.0 for both side 1. Recommended compression resistance factors per ODOT GDM are 0.55 1. Recommended resistance factors per ODOT GDM for both side and base
and base resistance. and 0.5 for side and base resistance, respectively. resistance are 1.0 for compression and 0.8 for uplift.
2. Settlement is based on a single shaft. No group action is considered. 2. Shaft uplift resistance can be estimated by using the nominal side 2. Unfactored downdrag force is estimated to be 0 tons. Per the ODOT GDM, a
resistance shown above and a recommended resistance factor of 0.35 load factor of 1.25 is recommended to determine factored downdrag force.
(per ODOT GDM). Downdrag force is recommended to be applied with post-earthquake loading.
GENERAL NOTES City of Ashland

1. The analyses were performed based on guidelines included in the ODOT Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM) and local experience. The analyses are based on a Water Treatment Plant
single shaft and do not consider group action of closely spaced shafts (closer than 4 diameters, center to center). Ashland, OR
2. Factored total shaft resistance shown on plots is determined by adding its nominal side and base resistances multiplied by the appropriate resistance factors as
noted above. ESTIMATED AXIAL SHAFT RESISTANCE
3. Estimated shaft resistance assumes that if casing is used, it will be removed after the shaft installation. If, however, the casing is left in place, grouting should be
2.5 Ft Drilled-in-Piles
used to fill all potential voids around the casing and the estimated resistance given above should be re-evaluated. Pipe Bridge West Bent
4. Estimated shaft resistance assumes that the drilled shafts will be installed after construction of the approach embankments. Downdrag loads due to potential fill June 2019 100329
embankment settlement have not been included.
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. F1
5. Per the ODOT GDM, potential liquefaction below a depth of 75 feet was not considered in the calculations Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
6/4/2019-West Bent 4 ft shaft.xlsm mfc/hjs

B-16 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
0 0 0
0'
Silty Sand (SM)

Clayey Sand (SC)



15'
20 20 20
Weathered Quartz
30 30 30

4 Foot Diameter Drilled Shaft
6/4/2019-West Bent 6 ft shaft.xlsm mfc/hjs

B-16 0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500
0 0 0
0'
Silty Sand (SM)

Clayey Sand (SC)



15'
20 20 20
Weathered Quartz
30 30 30

6 Foot Diameter Drilled Shaft
6/4/2019-East Bent 2.5 Foot H-Piles.xlsm mfc/hjs

B-17 0 200 400 600 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 200 400 600 800
0 0 0
0'
Silty Sand (SM) Nominal Side: 0.5-inch Settlement
4.5' Nominal Base: 0.5-inch Settlement
Clayey Sand (SC) Nominal Base Nominal Base
7' Factored Total: 0.5- inch Settlement
Silty Sand (SM) Nominal Side: 1-inch Settlement
12.5' Nominal Base: 1-inch Settlement Foundation Loads
(see Extreme Event Limit Note 2)
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
23'


Weathered Quartz
20 20 20
Bottom of Boring at 33.0 feet
30 30 30
40 40 40
resistance shown above and a recommended resistance factor of 0.35 (per load factor of 1.25 is recommended to determine factored downdrag force.
ODOT GDM). Downdrag force is recommended to be applied with post-earthquake loading.

2.5 Foot Diameter Drilled in H-Pile
used to fill all potential voids around the casing and the estimated resistance given above should be re-evaluated. Pipe Bridge East Bent
6/4/2019-East Bent 4 Foot Shafts.xlsm mfc/hjs

B-17 0 200 400 600 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 200 400 600 800
0 0 0
0'
23'


Weathered Quartz
20 20 20
30 30 30
40 40 40

4 Foot Diameter Drilled Shafts
6/4/2019-East Bent 6 Foot Shafts.xlsm mfc/hjs

B-17 0 500 1000 1500 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0 0
0'
23'


Weathered Quartz
20 20 20
30 30 30
40 40 40

6 Foot Diameter Drilled Shafts
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
About Your Geotechnical Report
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
100329-001 June 6, 2019

II-i
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR

SPECIFIC CLIENTS.
Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for
a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer.
Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for
the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose
without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other
than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant.
THE CONSULTANT’S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS.

A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider
a unique set of project-specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include the general
nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and
practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by
scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant
to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the
recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used
(1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be
erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an
unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or
configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed
project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site.
Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after
factors that were considered in the development of the report have changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.

Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a
geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface
exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been
affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction
starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or
groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy
of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events
and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.
MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.

Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points
where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied
judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between
materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas
not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent
such situations, you and your consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining
100329-001 June 6, 2019

II-1
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in

this respect.
A REPORT’S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.

The conclusions contained in your consultant’s report are preliminary, because they must be based
on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of
actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during
earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide
conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background
information needed to determine whether or not the report’s recommendations based on those
conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations.
The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy
of the report’s recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction.
THE CONSULTANT’S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.

Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on
misinterpretation of a geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems, the
consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals to explain relevant
geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of
their plans and specifications relative to these issues.
BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED

FROM THE REPORT.
Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled
by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data.
Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports.
These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or
other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be
given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or
authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise
contractors of the report’s limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons
for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of
the specific purposes for which it was prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge
from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with your
consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data
specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken
impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always
insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps
prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a
disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.

Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is
far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims
100329-001 June 6, 2019

II-2
ASHLAND 7.5 MGD WTP
being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a
number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports, and other documents. These responsibility
clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant’s liabilities to other parties;
rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant’s responsibilities begin and end.
Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate
action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged
to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your
questions.
The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE/Association of
Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland
100329-001 June 6, 2019

II-3
Appendix G. Exterior Materials
July 22, 2019

Pre-finished Standing Seam Metal Roofing
Fire Resistant Blackened Wood
Lithium-based glazed brick feature (color to be determined)
2 | July 22, 2019

Ashland Basis of Design RPT

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

Ashland Basis of Design RPT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basis of Design Report

Ashland Water Treatment Plant

July 22, 2019

July 22, 2019 | i

4.3.2 Hydraulic Loading Rate .............................................................................................. 34

ii | July 22, 2019

9.3.4 Ozone Building ........................................................................................................... 68

July 22, 2019 | iii

12.4.14 Ancillary Systems ....................................................................................................... 87

iv | July 22, 2019

July 22, 2019 | v

Table 7-2 Existing Pipeline Data ................................................................................................................. 55

vi | July 22, 2019

July 22, 2019 | vii

MGD million gallons per day

viii | July 22, 2019

1.2 Purpose and Scope

July 22, 2019 | 1

2 | July 22, 2019

2.1 National Primary Drinking Water Standards

Table 2-1. Stage 1 D/DBPR MCLs and MCLGs for DBPs

TTHMsa N/Ac 0.080 Running annual average (RAA) of

HAA5b N/Ac 0.060 RAA of quarterly averages for all

Chlorite 0.8 1.0 Average concentration of any three

Bromate 0 0.010 RAA of monthly samples computed

dibromochloromethane, and bromoform

mono- and dibromoacetic acids.

July 22, 2019 | 3

Stage 1 D/DBPR requires the removal of organic precursors as a means of controlling

2.1.2 Microbiological Contaminants

2.1.2.1 Total Coliform Rule and Revised Total Coliform Rule

2.1.2.2 Surface Water Treatment Rule

4 | July 22, 2019

Table 2-2. Pathogen Removal and Credits for Different Filtration

Direct 2.0 (none) 2.0 (1.0) 1.0 (3.0)

Conventional 2.0 (none) 2.5 (0.5) 2.0 (2.0)

Membrane >2.0 (none) >3.0 (0.5) None (4.0)

2.1.2.3 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

2.1.2.4 Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

2.1.2.5 Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

July 22, 2019 | 5

Table 2-3. LT2ESWTR Bin Classifications and Additional Treatment

1 Crypto < No Additional No Additional No Additional No Additional

2 0.075/L ≤ 1 log 1.5 log 1 log State

3 1.0/L ≤ Crypto < 2 log 2.5 log 2 log State

4 Crypto ≥ 3.0/L 2.5 log 3 log 2.5 log State

Filter Backwash Rule

2.1.3 Inorganic Chemicals

Table 2-4. Regulated Inorganic Chemicals

Asbestosa 7 million fibers per liter

6 | July 22, 2019

Table 2-4. Regulated Inorganic Chemicals

Total Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) 10

b Action Level (AL) at the 90th percentile from a number of samples.

2.1.4 Organic Chemicals

Table 2-5. Regulated Synthetic Inorganic Chemicals

Benzo(a) pyrene 0.0002

July 22, 2019 | 7

Table 2-5. Regulated Synthetic Inorganic Chemicals

Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate 0.4

Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.006

Ethylene Dibromide 0.00005

Heptachor epoxide 0.0002