Second Water Plant Feasibility Study_12-13-13.pdf

Final Report

Second Water Plant Feasibility Study

Town of Breckenridge

October 4, 2013

Prepared under the responsible charge of

Sarah C. Clark, P.E.

36489

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400

Denver, CO 80202 i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 0.0

Potable Water Demand Projection ......................................................................................................... 6 1.0

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.1

Service Area ................................................................................................................................................. 7 1.2

Service Area Development ............................................................................................................. 7 1.2.1

Service Area Population .................................................................................................................. 7 1.2.2

Permanent Population ............................................................................................................................ 8 1.3

Transient Population ............................................................................................................................ 10 1.4

Non-Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 13 1.5

Day Skiers .......................................................................................................................................... 13 1.5.1

Commuters ........................................................................................................................................ 15 1.5.2

Bulk Water Usage Values ..................................................................................................................... 15 1.6

Population Growth Rate Projections .............................................................................................. 16 1.7

Potable Water Demand ........................................................................................................................ 18 1.8

Historic Treatment Plant Production ..................................................................................... 18 1.8.1

Per Capita Usage ............................................................................................................................. 20 1.8.2

Metered Usage ................................................................................................................................. 22 1.8.3

Potable Water Population Based Demand Projections ........................................................... 23 1.9

Projections Using Breckenridge Historical SFE Approach .................................................. 25 1.10

Alternate Approaches to Unit Demands ............................................................................. 27 1.10.1

Growth Rate of SFEs in the Town .......................................................................................... 28 1.10.2

Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................................... 33 1.11

Plant Size and Treatment Process ........................................................................................................ 35 2.0

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 35 2.1

Existing Water Treatment Plant Capacity .................................................................................... 35 2.2

Second Plant Capacity ........................................................................................................................... 35 2.3

Water Quality Data ................................................................................................................................ 38 2.4

Treatment Process ................................................................................................................................. 43 2.5

Treatment Requirements ............................................................................................................ 44 2.5.1

Rapid Mixing..................................................................................................................................... 44 2.5.2

Iron and Manganese Removal ................................................................................................... 44 2.5.3 ii

Flocculation ...................................................................................................................................... 45 2.5.4

Settling ................................................................................................................................................ 45 2.5.5

Disinfection ....................................................................................................................................... 48 2.5.6

Treatment Options ................................................................................................................................. 49 2.6

Waste Stream Management ............................................................................................................... 56 2.7

Manpower Requirements ................................................................................................................... 59 2.8

Treatment Recommendation ............................................................................................................. 59 2.9

Plant Site Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 60 3.0

Distribution System Improvements .................................................................................................... 60 4.0

Existing Distribution System ............................................................................................................. 60 4.1

Proposed Distribution System .......................................................................................................... 61 4.2

Storage Improvements ................................................................................................................. 61 4.2.1

Pump Station Improvements ..................................................................................................... 71 4.2.2

PRV Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 71 4.2.3

Pipeline Improvements ................................................................................................................ 73 4.2.4

Sequencing of Projects ......................................................................................................................... 74 4.3

Sites 1 and 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 74 4.3.1

Sites 3 and 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 74 4.3.2

Site 5 .................................................................................................................................................... 75 4.3.3

Future Modeling Recommendations............................................................................................... 76 4.4

Estimated Costs, Implementation Schedule and Recommendations ..................................... 77 5.0

Costs Included in Plant Site Evaluation ......................................................................................... 77 5.1

Cost Alternative for 1.5 MGD WTP .......................................................................................... 78 5.1.1

Cost of Distribution System Improvements ................................................................................. 79 5.2

Site Comparison and Recommendation ........................................................................................ 81 5.3

Schedule ..................................................................................................................................................... 84 5.4

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 86 5.5

Financing ........................................................................................................................................................ 87 6.0

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 87 6.1

Financing Sources .................................................................................................................................. 87 6.2

Colorado Authority – DWSRF Low-Interest Loans ............................................................ 87 6.2.1

Rural Development Funding (RD) ........................................................................................... 90 6.2.2

State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG Grants) ............................................................ 90 6.2.3

Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation (WIFIA) Act of 2013 .......................... 92 6.2.4 iii

Municipal Revenue Bond Funding ........................................................................................... 93 6.2.5

Plant Investment Fees (PIF) ....................................................................................................... 93 6.2.6

Utility Rates ...................................................................................................................................... 93 6.2.7

Summary of the Financing Options ......................................................................................... 94 6.2.8

Affordability ............................................................................................................................................. 95 6.3

Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 95 6.4

Wildfire Impacts and Utility Response ............................................................................................... 97 7.0

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 97 7.1

Review of Fire Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 97 7.2

Erosion................................................................................................................................................ 98 7.2.1

Runoff Rates ................................................................................................................................... 100 7.2.2

Water Quality Changes ............................................................................................................... 100 7.2.3

Risk of Fire Occurrence .............................................................................................................. 105 7.2.4

Expected Impacts to Breckenridge’s Source Water from Fire ............................................ 106 7.3

Debris ................................................................................................................................................ 107 7.3.1

Water Quality Changes ............................................................................................................... 107 7.3.2

Impacts to Treatment and Regulatory Issues ........................................................................... 110 7.4

Operational Plan for Treatment after Fire.................................................................................. 113 7.5

Fire Emergency Response ......................................................................................................... 113 7.5.1

Managing Inflow to the Tarn .................................................................................................... 114 7.5.2

Treatment of Fire-Impacted Raw Water ............................................................................. 115 7.5.3

Alternatives for Providing Water after Wildfire .............................................................. 118 7.5.4

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 119 7.6

References ............................................................................................................................................... 119 7.7

8.0 Appendices

Appendix A: Alternative Equipment Information .............................................................................. XXII iv

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Water Service Areas for the Town of Breckenridge (provided by the Town)

Figure 1-2: Permanent Population Annual Growth Rate

Figure 1-3: Permanent versus Transient Population Growth Trends from the Joint Upper Blue Master Plan (JUBMP)

Figure 1-4: Transient Population Annual Growth Trends

Figure 1-5: Number of Breckenridge Skiers per Season from the 2011 Town Overview

Figure 1-6: Wholesale Water Use

Figure 1-7: Seasonal Historic Peak Day Water Treatment Plant Production 2008-

Figure 1-8: Historic Treatment Plant Production and Peak/Average Demand Ratio20

Figure 1-9: 2010 Potable Water Usage

Figure 1-10: Peak Day Demand Projections (Populations)

Figure 1-11: Peak Day Demand Projections (SFE)

Figure 1-12: Comparison of Two Approaches for Predicting Potable Water Demand

Figure 2-1: Map of Water Quality Sample Sites in Breckenridge

Figure 2-2: Algae and Diatom Counts at Goose Pasture Tarn and the UBSD Diversion

Figure 2-3: Typical Paddle Flocculator

Figure 2-4: Typical installation of plate settlers

Figure 2-5: Typical installation of DAF (Ref: Leopold)

Figure 2-6: Relative size ranges of membrane types (Ref: Osmonics)

Figure 2-7: Schematic Diagram of Treatment Option 1

Figure 2-8: Schematic Diagram of Treatment Option 2

Figure 2-9: New Plant Footprint

Figure 2-10: Waste Management Footprint Using Drying Beds

Figure 2-11: Screw Press

Figure 2-12: Schematic Layout of Mechanical Dewatering System

Figure 4-1: Existing Distribution System

Figure 4-2: Existing Distribution System Hydraulic Profile

Figure 4-3: Proposed System Extensions – Distribution System Improvements

Figure 4-4: Proposed Distribution System Hydraulic Profile (South Section)

Figure 4-5: Proposed Distribution System Hydraulic Profile (North Section)

Figure 4-6: Storage Components (from Public Water System Handbook)

Figure 7-1: High Park Fire watershed after 2012 fire (USGS photo)

Figure 7-2: Debris in Strontia Springs Reservoir (Denver Water) after the Hayman Fire in 2002

Figure 7-3: Stream discharge at 5-minute intervals and selected water quality characteristics in 2010-2011 measured in Fourmile Creek, Colorado (USGS, 2012)

Figure 7-4: Fire Danger Risk in January 2013 (NFS web site: http://www.wfas.net/ ) v

Figure 7-5: Map of fuel moisture for large (1000-hour) fuels on February 3, 2013 (from NFS web site: http://www.wfas.net/

Figure 7-6: First Flush Water Samples after Wildfire from (a) Durango, CO Intake on Florida River in July 2002 and (b) Greeley Bellevue WTP Intake on Poudre River in July 2012

Figure 7-7: Cache La Poudre River near Greeley Bellevue WTP Intake, July 2012 .. 109

Figure 7-8: Ash deposits in Cache La Poudre River above Bellevue WTP, early September 2012

Figure 7-9: Bench testing coagulant doses to treat fire-impacted water from Durango WTP intake

Figure 7-10: Chlorine decay curve for Durango’s fire-impacted bench treated water

Figure 7-11: Reservoir topography and estimated thickness of sediment in Goose Pasture Tarn with proposed baffles (Red Lines) for sediment and debris retainage (Bathymetry from Elliott, et al., 2007)

Figure 7-12: Schematic of recommended treatment for fire-impacted water

Figure 7-13: Hooking up two Pall mobile treatment units for temporary treatment at Estes Park, CO, in 2009

List of Tables

Table 0-1: Summary of Estimated Costs for a 3 MGD Water Treatment Plant at Various Sites in Breckenridge

Table 0-2: Summary of Estimated Costs for Distribution System Improvements in Breckenridge

Table 1-1: Permanent Population Summary

Table 1-2: Transient Population Summary

Table 1-3: Estimated Number of Skiers per Year

Table 1-4: Non-Transient Growth Rates

Table 1-5: Wholesale Water Demand as a Percent of Total Yearly Production

Table 1-6: Summary of Projected Population Growth Rates

Table 1-7: Historic Potable Water Production (2008-2012)

Table 1-8: Seasonal Population

Table 1-9: Per Capita Demands

Table 1-10: Summary of Parameters Used in Monte Carlo Simulation

Table 1-11: Water User Classes for Town of Breckenridge

Table 1-12: Unit Demands from Water Model

Table 1-13: Historical Unit Demand per SFE

Table 1-14: Recent and Projected SFEs Based on Low, Medium and High Build Growth Rates

Table 1-15: SFE Growth Rates

Table 1-16: Build-out SFE projections

Table 1-17: Build-out Demand from SFE Predications

Table 2-1: Capacity Needs at Second WTP

Table 2-2: Added Plant Capacity and SFE’s vi

Table 2-3: Source Water Parameters at Several Locations in Breckenridge

Table 2-4: Source Water Quality at Upper Blue Sanitation District Diversion

Table 2-5: Town of Breckenridge Treatment Objectives

Table 2-6: Design Criteria for Option 1

Table 4-1- Fire Flows and Storage by Building Type

Table 4-2 - Summary of Recommended Storage Improvements

Table 4-3 - Summary of Recommended Pump Station Improvements

Table 4-4 - Summary of Recommended PRV Station Improvements

Table 4-5 - Summary of Recommended Pipeline Improvements

Table 5-1: Summary of Costs for a 3 MGD Water Treatment Plant at Five Potential Treatment Plant Sites

Table 5-2: Cost Summary for Distribution System Improvements

Table 5-3: Site Comparison Matrix for Non-Economic Factors

Table 5-4: Estimated Project Schedule

Table 6-1: Comparison of Potential Debt Financing Opportunities

Table 7-1: Raw Water Characteristics of Pre- and Post-Fire Runoff at Durango WTP Stream Intake

Table 7-2: Raw Water Characteristics of Pre- and Post-Fire Runoff at Salt River

Table 7-3: Raw Water Characteristics of Post-fire Runoff at Santa Barbara, CA

Table 7-4: Water Quality Constituent Levels during the First Year after Forest Fire

Table 7-5: Budget Level Cost Estimate for Treatment of Fire-Impacted Water at Breckenridge vii

List of Abbreviations

Ac Acre AACE American Association for Cost Estimating BAER Burned Area Emergency Response CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment cm centimeter DBP Disinfection byproduct DBPFP Disinfection byproduct formation potential DOC Dissolved organic carbon FKRF Famers Korner Reclamation Facility Fe Iron FEMA Federal Emergency Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps GAC Granular activated carbon gal Gallon gal/day Gallons per Day GIS Geographic Information System gpcpd Gallons per capita per day gpm Gallons per Minute HAA5 Haloacetic acids (five compounds) IHRF Iowa Hill Reclamation Facility JUBMP Joint Upper Blue Master Plan m meter MCL Maximum contaminant level MGD Million Gallons per Day mg/L Milligrams per liter Mn Manganese NTU Nephelometric turbidity units NWCRCOG Northwest Colorado Regional Council of Governments PUD Planned Urban Development SU Standard units THM Triahlomethanes TM Technical Memorandum TN Total nitrogen TOC Total organic carbon TP Total phosphorus USGS United States Geological Survey UBB Upper Blue Basin UBSD Upper Blue River Sanitation District WTP Water treatment plant

Executive Summary 0.0

Water planning is an important tool used to predict future water system needs and justify many different types of capital improvement projects. The Town of Breckenridge undertook this study to evaluate the need for a second water treatment plant and to identify and evaluate plant site alternatives. Included in the study are budget level cost estimates for the new plant and improvements to the water distribution system that are necessary to incorporate the new water plant into the existing infrastructure. The budgetary information can be utilized for future financial planning purposes.

Construction of a new 3 MGD conventional water treatment plant with a raw water intake located near Lake Dillon along the Blue River is recommended and supported by the study results. Major reasons for this recommendation include:

Potable Water Production Capacity

Current water treatment plant design capacity at the existing Gary Roberts Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is 5 MGD. However, the plant has an effective operational capacity of approximately 4 MGD during periods when the raw water experiences high turbidity during late spring and summer runoff. A difference in operational versus rated capacity is not unusual for water treatment plants of all sizes. Raw water variability and the type of treatment process units in the plant can impact the plant production capability. The Town plans to initiate evaluation and rehabilitation of the plant in 2014.

The Town has experienced a peak day water demand of 3.41 MGD in July 2008.

Historically, July has been a peak water demand month in Breckenridge. Given the existing summertime plant operational capacity of approximately 4 MGD, the peak day demand accounts for more than 80% of the plant’s production capacity. Population forecasts indicate that there will be a 10% chance for the 2015 peak day demand to exceed 5 MGD.

Good planning practice dictates that water systems should begin planning and designing capacity expansions when the system reaches 80% of the rated capacity, because it typically takes several years of planning and construction to bring a new treatment plant online.

Operational Flexibility

A 3 MGD water treatment plant will provide operational flexibility for the Town’s water system. In the near term, repairs and improvements will be required at the existing water treatment plant to maintain it’s viability over the long-term. Construction of a 3 MGD plant provides the Town with water treatment capacity that will allow portions of the existing plant to be taken off line to complete improvements. Having 3 MGD capacity at the second plant also allows for operational flexibility and the opportunity to have a second source of supply in the case of a wild fire in the Upper Blue River watershed. Planning for future development of a groundwater well as a second source of supply for the proposed plant also increases operational flexibility.

The plant could be constructed in two 1.5 MGD increments and the water demand managed by controlling the number of additional customers added to the system. Regardless of plant size, finished water from the new treatment plant should be delivered to the Town distribution system without restricting the area that the new plant can serve. This will allow the Town to maximize benefits from having a second plant for demand management and water rights flexibility.

Maximizing Water Rights

Construction of a 3 MGD plant can allow for maximizing the Town’s water rights, particularly if the new water plant intake is located below the Blue River Gauge near Dillon.

Based on discussions with Tom Williamsen, the combination of a 3 MGD second plant and the location of the intake on this stretch of the River have significant advantages for flexibility of water storage in the Tarn. Water taken from below the Blue River gauge near Dillon must be augmented at 5 percent. If water production from the second plant is maximized during periods when storage is desired, the overall water requirement is reduced.

HDR recommends that the Town utilize a conventional water treatment process train due to overall treatment reliability along with operational flexibility. Treatment processes included in the proposed conventional water treatment plant are rapid mixing, flocculation, settling using plate settlers, dual media filtration, and disinfection utilizing chlorine. Drying beds are recommended for drying sludge. Due to the concern over space requirements, evaluation of and cost estimates for a packaged treatment system and mechanical dewatering equipment are provided as part of the study. The packaged plant option does not have a significant impact on the footprint required or equipment cost, but the mechanical dewatering equipment option does.

Overall, the mechanical dewatering option saves an acre of space for triple the cost of drying beds.

Depending on the outcome of the property acquisition this may be a beneficial option.

All treatment recommendations in the study require further evaluation at the time of preliminary design based on measurements of seasonal water quality near the intake. Pilot testing of the mechanical dewatering system is necessary to ensure that the Town’s needs are met.

Five of seven sites considered in this study are deemed possible for construction of the water treatment plant. The five sites were evaluated in detail with respect to cost and to non-economic factors. The evaluated sites are identified by a numerical designation (1 through 5) in this report since some of them involve private property and must remain confidential. The least cost sites are Sites 3 and 4. The sites ranking highest with respect to non-economic factors are Sites 2 and 4.

From a distribution standpoint, Sites 3 and 4 are favorable due to their proximity to the North Storage Tank and the ability to deliver water to the Tarn zone with a single finished water pump station.

The study details a distribution system evaluation that recommends improvements to expand the existing system and create new pressure zones to serve additional customers. A majority of the recommended improvements are tied to system expansion to meet future customer needs, so the improvements are the same for each potential second WTP site.

Financing sources for projects of the magnitude of the treatment plant are reviewed and the costs of debt financing are estimated. The impacts of a wildfire in the Upper Blue River watershed on the water utility are reviewed and suggestions are presented for preparation.

The estimated order of magnitude net construction cost of the treatment plant in 2013 dollars, including property acquisition, equipment, buildings, new raw water delivery and distribution system improvements, and site work ranges between $21.5 and $29 million for each of the five sites. The order of magnitude net construction cost estimate in 2013 dollars for the distribution improvements required to increase the capacity of the distribution system to meet the demand from new customers is $43.5 million. These are approximate estimates made without extensive detailed engineering data. According to the American Association for Cost Estimating, this type of estimate is accurate within a range of -30% to +50%.

A summary of the costs for each site that was evaluated in detail is presented in Table 0-1. Each of the sites listed is considered adequate for constructing a new water treatment plant. Low and high range costs are presented for each site due to the broad spectrum of assumptions that are built into the cost estimates.

Table 0-2 presents a summary of the costs for distribution system improvements in each pressure zone. Improvements are grouped by zone because the projects in a single zone are typically hydraulically connected and dependent upon one another, so they should be constructed at the same time.

Table 0-1: Summary of Estimated Costs for a 3 MGD Water Treatment Plant at Various Sites in Breckenridge

Total Cost at Each Potential Site

Item No. Description Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High

1 Treatment Building $ 9,649,000 $ 10,613,900 $ 9,649,000 $ 10,613,900 $ 9,330,000 $ 10,263,000 $ 9,649,000 $ 10,613,900 $ 9,649,000 $ 10,613,900

2 Utilities $ 192,000 $ 211,200 $ 192,000 $ 211,200 $ 192,000 $ 211,200 $ 596,000 $ 655,600 $ 192,000 $ 211,200

3 Site Improvements $ 1,207,000 $ 1,327,700 $ 1,246,000 $ 1,370,600 $ 1,317,000 $ 1,448,700 $ 1,670,000 $ 1,837,000 $ 1,748,000 $ 1,922,800

4 Property Acquisition $ 611,000 $ 672,100 $ - $ - $ 446,000 $ 490,600 $ - $ - $ - $ -

5 Raw and Finished Pipeline and Pump Stations $ 5,030,000 $ 5,533,000 $ 5,382,000 $ 5,920,200 $ 3,886,000 $ 4,274,600 $ 5,031,000 $ 5,534,100 $ 7,376,000 $ 8,113,600

Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $ 16,689,000 $ 18,357,900 $ 16,469,000 $ 18,115,900 $ 15,490,000 $ 16,688,100 $ 16,542,000 $ 18,640,600 $ 18,965,000 $ 20,861,500

Mountain Factor (10%) $ 1,668,900 $ 1,835,790 $ 1,646,900 $ 1,811,590 $ 1,549,000 $ 1,668,810 $ 1,654,200 $ 1,864,060 $ 1,896,500 $ 2,086,150

Total Direct Construction Costs $ 18,357,900 $ 20,193,690 $ 18,115,900 $ 19,927,490 $ 17,039,000 $ 18,356,910 $ 18,196,200 $ 20,504,660 $ 20,861,500 $ 22,947,650

Standard General Conditions (10%) $ 1,835,790 $ 2,019,369 $ 1,811,590 $ 1,992,749 $ 1,703,900 $ 1,835,691 $ 1,819,620 $ 2,050,466 $ 2,086,150 $ 2,294,765

Subtotal NET Construction Cost $ 20,193,690 $ 22,213,059 $ 19,927,490 $ 21,920,239 $ 18,742,900 $ 20,192,601 $ 20,015,820 $ 22,555,126 $ 22,947,650 $ 25,242,415

Overhead and Profit (15%) $ 3,029,054 $ 3,331,959 $ 2,989,124 $ 3,288,036 $ 2,811,435 $ 3,028,890 $ 3,002,373 $ 3,383,269 $ 3,442,148 $ 3,786,362

Estimated NET Construction Cost (2013) $ 23,222,744 $ 25,545,018 $ 22,916,614 $ 25,208,275 $ 21,554,335 $ 23,221,491 $ 23,018,193 $ 25,938,395 $ 26,389,798 $ 29,028,777 Inflation Escalation (19 Months to midpoint of construction at 3.0%) $ 1,103,000 $ 1,213,388 $ 1,089,000 $ 1,197,393 $ 1,024,000 $ 1,103,021 $ 978,000 $ 1,232,074 $ 1,254,000 $ 1,378,867

Estimated NET Construction Cost (2015) $ 24,326,000 $ 26,758,406 $ 24,006,000 $ 26,405,668 $ 22,578,000 $ 24,324,512 $ 23,996,000 $ 27,170,469 $ 27,644,000 $ 30,407,644

Engineering Plans, Studies, and Permit Preparation $ 500,000 $ 550,000 $ 500,000 $ 550,000 $ 500,000 $ 550,000 $ 500,000 $ 550,000 $ 500,000 $ 550,000 Engineering Design, Construction Services, and Legal (20% on 2013) $ 4,645,000 $ 5,351,681 $ 4,583,000 $ 5,281,134 $ 4,311,000 $ 4,864,902 $ 4,604,000 $ 5,434,094 $ 5,278,000 $ 6,081,529

Total Estimated Construction Cost (2015) $ 29,471,000 $ 32,660,087 $ 29,089,000 $ 32,236,801 $ 27,389,000 $ 29,739,414 $ 29,100,000 $ 33,154,562 $ 33,422,000 $ 37,039,173

Table 0-2: Summary of Estimated Costs for Distribution System Improvements in Breckenridge

Item No. Description Total Cost of System

Distribution Improvements

Low High

1 Summit Estates Zone $ 4,852,000 $ 5,337,200

2 Highlands Park Zone $ 3,197,000 $ 3,516,700

3 Airport Zone $ 755,000 $ 830,500

4 High School Zone $ 3,341,000 $ 3,675,100

5 Forest Hill Zone $ 2,119,000 $ 2,330,900

6 High Point Zone

$ 4,029,000 $4,431,900

7 Mt Baldy Zone

$858,000 $943,800

8 Woodmoor 1 Zone

$250,000 $275,000

9 Woodmoor 2 Zone

$2,764,000 $3,040,400

10 Bunker Hill Zone

$4,748,000 $5,222,800

11 Upper Slope Zone $30,000 $33,000

12 White Cloud Zone $30,000 $33,000

13 Tarn Zone $3,948,000 $4,342,800

14 Tarn Pump Station at Gary Roberts WTP $350,000 $385,000

Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $ 31,271,000 $ 34,398,000

Mountain Factor (10%) $ 3,127,100 $ 3,439,800

Total Direct Construction Costs $ 34,398,100 $ 37,837,800

Standard General Conditions (10%) $ 3,439,810 $ 3,783,780

Subtotal NET Construction Cost $ 37,837,910 $ 41,621,580

Overhead and Profit (15%) $ 5,675,687 $ 6,243,237

Estimated NET Construction Cost (2013) $ 43,513,597 $ 47,864,817

Inflation Escalation (19 Months to midpoint of construction at 3.0%) $ 2,067,000 $ 2,274,000

Estimated NET Construction Cost (2015) $ 45,580,597 $ 50,138,817

Engineering Design, Construction Services, and Legal (20% on 2013) $ 9,116,119 $ 10,027,763

Total Estimated Construction Cost (2015) $ 54,697,000 $ 60,167,000

Potable Water Demand Projection 1.0

Introduction 1.1

Water planning is an important tool used to predict future water system needs and justify many different types of capital improvement projects. State and federal government entities typically require a water system plan prior to providing funding. The Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems (Sections 1.3.4 and 1.3.5) requires that designs for new facilities include estimated average and maximum day water demands and projected populations for a twenty year planning horizon. The Town of Breckenridge (Town) has included a demand projection requirement in the Town’s Second Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study to assist in determining the need for a second water treatment plant, to plan for the appropriate size of a second plant if it is to be built, and to be incorporated in any future funding applications for system improvements.

Several methods can be used to predict future water demand and a good water plan will often use multiple approaches in order to verify the predictions. Detailed information on the current system demands, land use, zoning and existing population are key to adequately predicting future demands. Predictions made with land use, population, unit demands, number and type of connections are widely accepted approaches in the industry.

All demand projections inherently contain uncertainty because they are based on a number of assumptions. This potable water demand projection utilizes two approaches to predict future water requirements.

1. The first approach uses a standard population based approach, which utilizes current and future population estimates and historical water treatment plant production to determine per capita demands (gallons per person per day). This prediction applies a range of uncertainty to estimates of population, growth rate and unit demands to provide peak day water use estimates. The population based demand projection is anchored in time, which allows the Town to understand when a second plant should be built and how its construction can mesh with needs for upgrade or improvements at the existing water treatment plant. Using a statistical method (Monte Carlo simulation) that provides an estimate of the uncertainty of the prediction, the results are presented in terms of the likelihood that the predictions may be exceeded. The Town can then understand the level of risk associated with decisions that are made with regard to a second plant.

2. The second approach uses a method which has historically been used by the Town of Breckenridge and incorporates a unit of measure that the Town terms the SFE (single family equivalent). The Town’s SFE is defined as being equal to 270 gallons/day of water usage. This unit of measure is applied in a number of ways by the Town in managing the water system. Each building unit in the Town is assigned a number of SFEs for billing purposes. Previous water demand planning work has been based on the number of SFEs in the current water system and the number of predicted SFEs in areas that are planned for water service in the future. Using these values, an estimated total volume of water can be calculated for the service area based on the total number of current and predicted SFEs.

This number does not take into account the variability that could occur in daily water demands as a result of variability in the population of people using water and it is not fixed in time as the rate of growth is not included.

Service Area 1.2

The Upper Blue Basin (UBB) lies in the southern end of Summit County and extends from Lake Dillon south to include Hoosier Pass. The Town of Breckenridge is located in the center of the UBB and is served by the Breckenridge water system. The Breckenridge water system currently serves the population of the Town of Breckenridge, a portion of the Town of Blue River below the Goose Pasture Tarn, and parts of the surrounding unincorporated County development within the UBB. A map of the service area is shown in Figure 1-1. Although the majority of the system’s customers are within Town limits the system also serves many neighborhoods just outside of the Town limits, and could serve additional neighborhoods in the future which are identified in green. With the potential for water service area expansion, the population and development characteristics of the entire basin are taken into account in this study.

Service Area Development 1.2.1

Approximately 78 percent of the UBB is managed by the U.S. Forest Service and another 6 percent is owned by the Town or the County. According to the most recent Joint Upper Blue Master Plan, a large majority of the remaining 16 percent of privately owned land suitable for high density developments is currently developed. The remaining developable area is predominately suited for single family residences with a 1 to 2 units per acre density. Although the lower density areas, which are on the outer edges of the limits of the UBB, may not be served by the Breckenridge water system in the future, a review of the area as a whole helps to better understand the potential for future development.

Service Area Population 1.2.2

The Town of Breckenridge is labeled as a unique micro-urban development with a ski resort that draws a large population of skiers in the winter months. The population found in this unique Basin can be divided into three categories: permanent, transient, and non-transient. All three of these categories contribute to an average demand per person on the system. The Town has kept records of the population within the entire UBB Plan and has divided these population categories into specific areas for planning purposes including: the Town of Breckenridge, the Town of Blue River and Unincorporated Summit County. This information is essential to project future water demands as part of this study.

Population growth is generally based on future development as it is tied to planned land uses within the service area. In the Town, the growth is based on the number of expected new units for residential and square footage for commercial development. In addition, the total population in the entire UBB is highly dominated by the transient population numbers, to the extent that the transient population is nearly a factor of 10 larger than the permanent and non-transient populations. The transient population consists largely of second home owners, while the non-transient population is dominated by day skiers in the winter and visitors in the summer. The growth predictions of this very large transient population is complicated as the number of visitors may change significantly due to such things as the availability of snow for skiing, efforts by the ski resort to encourage visitors, and unpredictable economic factors.

Future population growth rates can be difficult to predict using historic growth rates if the historic rates are not consistent, as is the case for the UBB. Demand projections include high, medium and low population growth rates to account for this variability. The range of future demands is established by applying the historic per capita demand to the future population. By applying a range of uncertainty, the projection accounts for a range of changes such as water conservation efforts or a large influx of visitors. Four categories of population are used in this projection:

• Permanent population – people who reside full-time within the water service area

• Transient population – 2nd home owners and other visitors who come to Breckenridge and stay overnight

• Non-transient population – the people who come to Breckenridge daily to work or to ski but do not stay overnight

• Bulk customers - water customers who purchase water in bulk amounts

A typical potable water demand projection is based on estimated population growth during the period of peak seasonal water demands which occurs in the summer irrigation months in Breckenridge. This area is unique due to the large influx of population reported in detail for the winter ski season, and not during the summer season when the peak water demand occurs. To capture the seasonal variability in population and create a correlation between winter peak population and summer peak demand a range of high, medium and low seasonal populations was established for the population based demand projection.

Permanent Population 1.3

The historic permanent population of the Town and the UBB is best-reflected in the population numbers from the U.S Census Bureau. Table 1-1 summarizes the recorded population numbers and population estimates for the Town of Breckenridge and Summit County residents. The permanent resident population in the Town of Breckenridge and in unincorporated Summit County was provided by the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Census. Table 1-1 shows the census data and annual percent growth for these entities.

Table 1-1: Permanent Population Summary

Year Town of

Breckenridge(2)

Percent Annual Change

Summit County(2) Percent Annual Change

State of Colorado

(1K) (2)

Percent Annual Change

1950 296 - 1,135 - 1,325 -

1960 393 2.9% 2,073 6.2% 1,754 2.8%

1970 548 3.4% 2,665 2.5% 2,225 2.4%

1980 818 4.1% 8,848 12.7% 2,908 2.7%

1990 1285 4.6% 12,881 3.8% 3,303 1.3%

2000 2,408 6.5% 23,548 6.2% 4,301 2.7%

2010 4,540 6.5% 27,994 1.7% 5,029 1.6%

Notes:

(1) Percent Annual Change example calculation for the Town of Breckenridge in 1960 = [(296/393)^(1/(1960- 1950))]-1 = (0.025)

(2) Populations from the U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 1-1: Water Service Areas for the Town of Breckenridge (provided by the Town)

As shown in Figure 1-2, the Town experienced 4.5 to 6.55 percent growth between 1990 and 2010, while the County growth was more volatile with rates ranging from 1.7 to 6.2 percent. The 2010 Census information estimates the 2010 Town population to be 4,540 in the Town itself and 27,994 in the County, while the County reports roughly 28,555 people within the County, 8,704 people within the UBB and 4,631 of that group within the Town of Breckenridge itself. Growth rate trends for this region, although more volatile than overall state growth rates, are continuing to climb. However, there is the potential for a deceleration in growth in the future as the area reaches the build-out potential for the basin.

Transient Population 1.4

One of the primary attractions to the area in the winter months is the Breckenridge Ski Resort.

The resort is open most of the year for summer and winter activities. However, the majority of visitors come into the area between the months of November and April for alpine skiing and other winter related activities. These recreational opportunities also attract second home owners to the area. According to the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, (NWCCOG), 71 percent of homes in the Town and 60 percent in the surrounding County are owned by second home owners.

This population appears in the Town’s and County’s reported peak population (Table 1-2:).

Figure 1-2: Permanent Population Annual Growth Rate

Table 1-2: Transient Population Summary

End

Breckenridge Peak(1)

Percent Annual Change

UBB Peak(1) Percent Annual Change

Summit County Peak(1)

Percent Annual Change

1995 23,033 - 35,456 - 99,085 -

1999 26,127 3.2% 41,279 3.9% 117,577 4.4%

2000 27,892 6.8% 43,526 5.4% 123,430 5.0%

2001 29,972 7.5% 48,126 10.6% 138,278 12.0%

2002 33,291 11.1% 50,525 0.2% 141,709 2.5%

2003 33,828 1.6% - - - -

2004 34,386 1.6% - - - -

2005 35,026 1.9% - - - -

2006 36,157 3.2% - - - -

2007 37,814 4.6% - - - -

2008 38,624 2.1% 54,627 1.3% 137,687 -0.5%

2009 37,036 -4.1% 52,521 -3.9% 137,887 0.1%

2010 37,679 1.7% 53,481 1.8% 139,056 0.8%

Notes:

(1) Peak Populations from the Town of Breckenridge Overview 2011

(2) Percent Annual Change example calculation for the Town of Breckenridge in 1995 = [(26,127/23,033)^(1/(1999-

1995))]-1 = (0.032)

The transient population in this area can equate to as much as 8 to 10 times the permanent population within the Town of Breckenridge and roughly 6 times the population within the UBB (Figure 1-3). This group of people along with the volatility of the transient population growth rates can skew population demand projections, so it is important to verify these rates with other trends in the area. The transient population in the Town fluctuates from year to year, with the percent change ranging from as low as -4 percent to as high as 11 percent. This fluctuation can be attributed to many different factors, including but not limited to economic factors and yearly snow accumulations. Similar to the Town, the peak transient population also fluctuates in the County and the UBB area as shown in Figure 1-4. Growth rates for the region during the past 15 years have shown extreme variability. Some of this variability can be attributed to a new approach in the estimating method used by the Town Planning Department and adopted in 2008. The new approach to estimating population within the Town and the Basin led to what looks like a decrease in population as shown in Figure 1-4:.

Figure 1-3: Permanent versus Transient Population Growth Trends from the Joint Upper Blue

Master Plan (JUBMP)

Another source of information used for validating the transient population is the pillow count completed by the Town Planning Department. As of 2010, the Town estimated lodging to be able to accommodate 25,000 people a night. The Breckenridge Resort Chamber of Commerce refers to this as “25,000 pillow tops” since various lodging units can accommodate different numbers of guests. This estimate includes rental condos, hotels and time shares. During the winter holidays and New Year season, the lodging accommodations are typically at capacity. Large lodging expansions are planned for the areas near Peaks 7 and 8 in Breckenridge.

4,619 10,223 11,2455,513 8,633 12,498

25,324

39,531 48,600

35,456

58,387

72,343

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1995 Estimate 2010 Estimate Build-Out

P o p u la ti o n

Upper Blue Basin Population

Day Skiers & Visitors Permanent Residents 2nd Home Owners/Overnight Visitors Total

Figure 1-4: Transient Population Annual Growth Trends

Notes:

(1) The Town Planning Department adopted a new approach in the population estimate method in 2008.

Non-Transient Population 1.5

The non-transient population is comprised largely of day skiers in the winter who come to the Town only to ski and do not stay overnight. In the summer, day visitors come to enjoy recreational events in the Town. The micro-urban area also brings in workers who commute into Town year round. These groups will have similar water use patterns as they are only in Town during the daytime.

Day Skiers 1.5.1

The Breckenridge Ski Resort has reported as many as 23,000 skiers on one of their peak days. This group of skiers is comprised of both day skiers and overnight visitors. According to the yearly financial reports from the Vail Resort Management Company, daily ski pass sales have been in flux over the last 5 years due to seasonal variations and other factors. Vail Resorts indicates that the statistical average of these variations in the Rocky Mountain region suggests a slight decrease in skiers, but an increase in the length of their stay. This rate is in contrast to those rates described previously (Figure 1-5), which estimates the number of day skiers to increase to as much as 11,245 at build-out, which is a 10 percent increase from the average recorded in 2010.

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

A n n u a l

P e rc e n t

G ro w th

Year

Town of

Breckenridge

Summit County

Figure 1-5: Number of Breckenridge Skiers per Season from the 2011 Town Overview

The general growth tend extrapolated from historical records of day skiers shown in Figure 1-5:

reflects a growth rate of roughly 2.3 percent. If this growth rate remains constant it could add another 0.5 million skiers in a season by the year 2040 or roughly 3,700 additional skiers on an average day. This increase is much larger than the predicted 11,245 day skiers predicted by the JUBMP at build-out. Table 1-3 shows the historical annual growth has quite a bit of variability.

Table 1-3: Estimated Number of Skiers per Year

Skiers at

Breckenridge each year (Millions)

% annual growth

1997 1.333 -

1998 1.301 -2%

1999 1.386 7%

2000 1.444 4%

2001 1.423 -1%

2002 1.469 3%

2003 1.425 -3%

2004 1.402 -2%

2005 1.471 5%

2006 1.620 10%

2007 1.650 2%

2008 1.630 -1%

Skiers at

Breckenridge each year (Millions)

% annual growth

2009 1.528 -6%

2010 1.614 6%

2011 1.630 1%

Note: From the Town of Breckenridge Overview 2011

Commuters 1.5.2

The majority of employers in the area are associated with the service industry and tourism, so the largest numbers of commuters into the area are likely to correlate with the days that have increased day visitors. HDR met with the Town’s Planning Department to discuss commuter population projections. The Planning Department provided a preliminary number of 3,800 people per day that currently commute into Town. Since a portion of this population is directly tied to the service industry, their projected growth rates are assumed to be similar to those associated with the day skiers and visitors.

To capture the limited capacity of the ski resort without overestimating the impact of the non-transient population and to capture the yearly variability in day skiers a range of high, medium and low growth rates for the non-transient population were established as shown in Table 1-4.

These growth rates are utilized in the population based demand projection.

Table 1-4: Non-Transient Growth Rates

Probability Annual Percent Growth

Low -3.0

Medium 0.3

High 2.3

Bulk Water Usage Values 1.6

The Town provides wholesale water to four bulk wholesale customers. In the years leading up to 2012, the bulk wholesale volume was low in relation to the yearly plant production, averaging roughly 1,100 gallons per day as shown in Figure 1-6: . This trend increased in 2012 to 3,600 gallons per day; however, this increase still equates to less than 1 percent of the total water produced in 2012 (Table 1-5).