Depar tmen t of L a n d Conservat ion and Development 
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 
Salem, OR 97301-2540 
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor (503) 373-0050 
Fax (503) 378-5518 
www.lcd.state.or.us 
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 
August 15, 2008 
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan 
or Land Use Regulation Amendments 
FROM. Mara Ulloa, Plan Amendment Program Specialist 
SUBJECT: City of Grants Pass Plan Amendment 
DLCD File Number 003-08 
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of 
adoption. Due to the size of amended material submitted, a complete copy has not been attached. 
A copy of the adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the 
local government office. 
Appeal Procedures* 
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: September 2, 2008 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review 45 days prior to adoption. Pursuant to 
ORS 197.830 (2)(b) only persons who participated in the local government proceedings leading to 
adoption of the amendment are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals 
(LUBA). 
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals 
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government. 
If you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline. Copies of 
the notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received 
written notice of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be 
served and filed in the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10). 
Please call LUBA at 503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures. 
*NOTE: THE APPEAL DEADLINE IS BASED UPON THE DATE THE DECISION 
WAS MAILED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. A DECISION MAY HAVE 
BEEN MAILED TO YOU ON A DIFFERENT DATE THAN IT WAS MAILED 
TO DLCD. AS A RESULT YOUR APPEAL DEADLINE MAY BE EARLIER 
THAN THE ABOVE DATE SPECIFIED. 
Cc: Gloria Gardiner, DLCD Urban Planning Specialist 
John Renz, DLCD Regional Representative 
Jared Voice, City of Grants Pass 
<paa> ya/ 
Oregon 
1 2 DLCD 
Notice of Adoption 
g n person Q electronic • mailed 
DEPTOF 
AU6 1 1 2008 
LAND CONSERVATION 
THIS FORM M U S T BE MAILED TO DLCD 8 AND DEVELOPMENT 
WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE FINAL DECISION , M | | H H 
PER ORS 197.610, OAR CHAPTER 660 - DIVISION 18 
Jurisdiction: Qrty GwniS Local file number: Q$-HöSOOOOZ-
Date of Adoption: T/lfe/o^ COr.0 /^ ¡ (J tä ( w M ^ Date Mailed: ¡Cg 
Was a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Form 1) mailed to DLCD? Select oneDate: möiWtA H/iWO? 
IS Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment • Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 
• Land Use Regulation Amendment • Zoning Map Amendment 
• New Land Use Regulation • Other: 
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached". 
- U^U&jl Seuer sedW\3 Compressive EJeooe<4 |0 (Mlicfallitt+Genrtcec,) 
- fVenifiil Wofef Sen/icb 9eA/>C& + General Service Co^qWmo Plan p/ioe6 
- M o j W of Uccter anj pUni^ % mferenccj 
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? Please select one 
-Uo p t e we^ r e f a^ i ^ were, o n j U l l j jwpfel ^ 
Plan Map Changed from: to: 
Zone Map Changed from: to: 
Location: A c r e s l n v o l v e d : 
Specify Density: Previous: New: 
Applicable statewide planning goals: 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 
Was an Exception Adopted? • YES M NO 
Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment... 
45-days prior to first evidentiary hearing? K l Yes • No 
If no, do the statewide planning goals apply? • Y e s D N o 
If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediate adoption? • Yes • No 
DLCD fi le No. O O Ô ^ O $ 
(I fcSgfe) 
Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: 
Local Contact: Hùvu Phone: (5n\) H7K2>35 Extension: G3I7 
Address: \ü\ M K Sire dr Fax Number: 54\ 
City: (kss Zip: <\ 7 5 2 k E-mail Address: ^ o i i d S - . ^ 
ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 
This form must be mailed to DLCD within 5 working days after the final decision 
per ORS 197.610, OAR Chapter 660 - Division 18. 
1. Send this Form and TWO Complete Copies (documents and maps) of the Adopted Amendment to: 
ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST 
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 
SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540 
2. Electronic Submittals: At least one hard copy must be sent by mail or in person, but you may also submit 
an electronic copy, by either email or FTP. You may connect to this address to FTP proposals and 
adoptions: webserver.Icd.state.or.us, To obtain our Username and password for FTP, call Mara Ulloa at 
503-373-0050 extension 238, or by emailing mara.ulloa@state.or.us. 
3. Please Note: Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than FIVE (5) working days 
following the date of the final decision on the amendment. 
4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings 
and supplementary information. 
5. The deadline to appeal will not be extended if you submit this notice of adoption within five working 
days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed within TWENTY-ONE (21) days of the date, 
the Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD. 
6. In addition to sending the Notice of Adoption to DLCD, you must notify persons who 
participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. 
7. Need More Copies? You can now access these forms online at http://www.Icd.state.or.us/. Please 
Print on 8-1/2x11 green paper only. You may also call the DLCD Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax 
your request to: (503) 378-5518; or Email your request to mara.ulloa@state.or.us - ATTENTION-
PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST. 
http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/forms.shtml Updated November 27 ,2006 
ORDINANCE NO. 5460 
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 10.20 (WATER SERVICES) AND 10.30 (SEWER 
SERVICES) OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT 10 (PUBLIC FACILITIES AND 
SERVICES), INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL SERVICE POLICIES, 
WATER SERVICE POLICIES AND SEWER SERVICE POLICIES, AND ADOPTING 
RECENT WATER AND SEWER PLANNING DOCUMENTS BY REFERENCE AS PART OF 
THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
WHEREAS: 
1 The Grants Pass and Urbanizing Area Comprehensive Community Development 
Plan was adopted December 15,1982; and 
2. Existing Sections 10.20 (Water Services) and 10.30 (Sewer Services) of Element 10 
of the Comprehensive Plan determined service needs within the Urban Growth 
Boundary through the year 2000; and 
3. The ordinance amends Sections 10.20 (Water Services) and 10.30 (Sewer Services) 
of Element 10 of the Comprehensive Plan, to incorporate information from recent 
water and sewer planning documents that determine service needs through at least 
the year 2020, and repeals existing Comprehensive Plan Sections 10.20 and 10.30; 
and 
4. The ordinance adopts revisions to the Element 10 (Public Facilities and Services) 
General Service Policies, Water Service Policies and Sewer Service Policies; and 
5. The ordinance adopts the following documents by reference as part of the Public 
Facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan: 
a. City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan (West Yost and 
Associates, January 2001) 
b. City of Grants Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, Final Report 
(West Yost and Associates, June 2002) 
c. City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Final Report 
(MHW/Montgomery Watson Harza, April 2004) 
d. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration 
Plant, Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
e. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration 
Plant, Appendices- Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
f. Collection System Master Plan, City of Grants Pass (Parametrix, September 
2004) 
g. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District Engineering Report (Parametrix, 
April 1999, Revised November 1999); and 
6. The ordinance repeals previously-adopted water and wastewater plans which are 
rendered obsolete by adoption of the new plans; and 
7. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 
and 
8. The applicable criteria from the Comprehensive Plan are satisfied, and approval of 
the proposal is recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council. 
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF GRANTS PASS HEREBY ORDAINS: 
Section 1: The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and accompanying Policies 
document, as set forth in Exhibits 'A' and 'B\ which are attached to and incorporated in this 
ordinance as follows, are hereby adopted: 
A. Sections 10.20 (Water Services) and 10.30 (Sewer Services), Comprehensive 
Plan (Exhibit A) 
B. Element 10, Comprehensive Plan Policies (Exhibit B) 
Section 2: Existing Comprehensive Plan Sections 10.20 (Water Services) and 10.30 
(Sewer Services) are hereby repealed. 
Section 3: The water and sewer planning documents listed above are hereby 
adopted by reference. 
Section 4; Any previously-adopted water and wastewater plans which are rendered 
obsolete by adoption of the new plans are hereby repealed. 
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, in regular session this 
16 day of July, 2008. 
/ 
SUBMITTED to and /J / ^ tOS-cpp by the Mayor of the City of Grants Pass, 
Oregon, this / ^ i day of July, 
Len Holzinger, Mtìyor 
ATTEST: 
Finance Director 
Date submitted to Mayor: ' / - i t Û % 
Approved as to Form, Kris Woodburn, City Attorney 
10.00 PUBLIC FACILITIES INDEX 
10.20.0 WATER SERVICES INDEX 
10.30.0 SANITARY SEWER SERVICES INDEX 
10.40.0 STORM DRAINAGE SERVICES INDEX 
10.50.0 SOLID WASTE SERVICES INDEX 
10.60.0 POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES INDEX 
10.70.0 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES INDEX 
10.80.0 SCHOOL SERVICES INDEX 
10- 1 
EXHIBIT Jk 
io CkXr\ar>(£j 
10.20 WATER SERVICES INDEX 
10.20.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT 
• 10.20.1.1 Purpose 
• 10.20.1.2 Intent 
10.20.2 WATER SOURCES 
• 10.20.2.1 Groundwater 
• 10.20.2.2 Surface Water 
10.203 WATER RIGHTS 
10.20.3.1 Rogue River 
10.20.3.2 Long-Term Reliable Yield 
10.20.3.3 Grants Pass Irrigation District 
10.20.3.4 Savage Rapids Diversion Dam 
10.20.3.5 Dam Removal 
10.20.4 CITY OF GRANTS PASS WATER TREATMENT PLANT. DISTRIBUTION 
SYSTEM AND WATER DEMAND 
• 10.20.4.1 System History 
• 10.20.4.2 Service Pressures 
• 10.20.4.3 Fire Protection 
• 10.20.4.4 Booster Pumping Stations 
• 10.20.4.5 Reservoirs 
• 10.20.4.6 System Operation 
• 10.20.4.7 Water Treatment Plant 
• 10.20.4.8 Water Demand Analysis 
• 10.20.4.9 Recent Water Use Statistics 
• 10.20.4.10 Per Capita Water Demand 
• 10.20.4.11 Unaccounted For Water 
• 10.20.4.12 Unit Demand Factors by Land Use Pattern 
• 10.20.4.13 Peak Hourly Demand 
• 10.20.4.14 Historical Peaking Factors 
• 10.20.4.15 Future Water Demand 
10.20.5 CITY OF GRANTS PASS WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 
PROGRAM (CIP) 
10.20.6 PRIVATE WATER UTILITIES 
10.20.7 URBAN SERVICE MASTER PLANS AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS 
FOR WATER 
10- 2 
10.20.8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND 
FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR WATER 
• 10.20.8.1 Water Treatment Plant 
• 10.20.8.2 Water Distribution System 
10.20.9 WATER SERVICE FINDINGS 
• 10.20.9.1 Water Source 
• 10.20.9.2 Water Treatment 
• 10.20.9.3 Water Storage and Distribution 
10- 3 
10.20.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT 
10.20.1.1 Purpose. 
The purpose of this section is to determine the domestic water demand requirements for the build-out 
of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), plus other areas served by municipal water, to assess the 
ability of the existing municipal water system to meet the projected requirements; to determine what 
capital improvements are necessary to serve the UGB at built-out, and to approximate costs; to 
suggest alternative methods for financing the required improvements; and to propose policies for the 
orderly provision of the required improvements. 
Figure 10.20.1 
Grants Pass Urban Growth Boundary 
10- 4 
10.20.1.2 Intent. 
The intent of this section is to enact the following public facilities water system master plans by 
ordinance as an update to the Public Facilities Element of the City of Grants Pass Comprehensive 
Plan: 
1. City of Grants Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, Final Report, West Yost 
and Associates, June 2002. 
2. City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Final Report, MWH/Montgomery 
Watson Harza, April 2004. 
3. City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, West Yost and Associates, 
January 2001. 
NOTE: The Dyer Partnership, Inc. prepared a "Water Master Plan" for Merlin and North Valley 
in April 2001. The recommended alternative was connection to the City of Grants Pass system. 
The "Water Master Plan" was adopted by Josephine County as part of its' Merlin / North Valley 
Community Plan (see Article 101.015 of the Josephine County Rural Land Development Code.) 
The County has not taken steps to implement the plan, and the City of Grants Pass has not 
adopted the plan. The City will continue to provide water service to specific properties through 
individual service agreements; however there are no additional obligations to provide service to 
properties other than those which are currently served (as of2008.) The North Valley Industrial 
Park and some residential uses adjacent to the Merlin Landfill are currently served by City water, 
and facilities have also been extended to serve the Paradise Ranch Development. 
NOTE: Several of the tables within this section contain numbers that have been updated since 
the above-listed plans were completed. The plans are based on data which was available at the 
time they were adopted, and have not been updated based on more recent data. 
10.20.2 WATER SOURCES 
10.20.2.1 Ground Water. 
Within the Grants Pass area, an "alluvial deposit" geologic formation is the only reliable source of 
ground water. In this formation, however, the expected maximum yield from wells of standard 
construction is 50 gallons per minute, which is insufficient for a municipal supply. Due to lack of 
adequate quantity, ground water in the Grants Pass area has no potential for municipal use beyond 
that presently developed. (City of Grants Pass Water System Study, May 1974, Brown and 
Caldwell) 
10.20.2.2 Surface Water. 
In the Grants Pass area, surface waters have been in the past, and will continue to be, the only 
reliable source for large quantities of potable water required for municipal purposes.. (Ibid.) The 
Rogue River is the principal supply of surface water; however, water rights to the Rogue River are 
limited. The Rogue River drains a large watershed extending from the Cascade Mountains to the 
Pacific Ocean. Grants Pass is located at approximately River Mile 100 and there are approximately 
2,460 square miles of watershed area upstream of the City. As a result of this extensive drainage 
area, the Rogue River is a plentiful and reliable source of drinking water for the community. 
10- 5 
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a river gauging station at the Grants Pass water 
treatment plant that provides extensive historical data on the flow characteristics of the Rogue River. 
Because the Lost Creek Reservoir was constructed upstream of Grants Pass in 1977, USGS statistical 
data for the river are typically based on records from 1978 to the present. Based on USGS data for 
this station, Table 10.20.2 presents the average, maximum, and minimum monthly flow rates for the 
Rogue River. Since construction of Lost Creek Reservoir, the lowest daily average flow at Grants 
Pass was 744 cubic feet per second (cfs) on October 10,1994, and the lowest seven-day average flow 
was 799 cfs during the week of September 22,1994. In general, dry weather flows are maintained by 
the combination of snow melt from the Cascades in the early summer and the release of stored water 
from Lost Creek Reservoir in the late summer.1 
Table 10.20.2 Rogue Riyer Average Monthly Flows at Grants Pass 
USGS Data for the 28-Year Period Oct 1978 to Sept 2006 
H B l i l ^ ^ 
January 5,094 16,600 1,348 
February 4,500 10,960 1,250 
March 4,020 8,119 1,099 
April 3,950 6,843 1,211 
May 3,750 6,428 1,857 
June 2,790 4,572 1,549 
July 2,120 3,485 1,059 
August 2,080 3,080 1,620 
September 1,780 2,642 1,333 
October 1,450 2,282 1,008 
November 2,530 7,669 1,160 
December 4,910 17,620 1,557 
Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, June 2002 (Updated 2/25/2008 by Jason Canady from USGS River Data.) 
l Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, June 2002, West Yost and Associates, LLC., page 2-1. 
10- 6 
10.20.3 WATER RIGHTS 
10.20.3.1 Rogue River. 
The City has four separate permits for diverting water from the Rogue River for municipal use. The 
first is a "perfected right" of 12.5 cfs, dated 1888. The second and third are permits for 25 cfs each 
dated 1960 and 1965. The fourth permit, dated 1983, provides for an additional 25 cfs for a total of 
87.5 cfs. The City's present water rights and water permits are shown in Table 10.20.3. 
As water permits and rights are typically subject to cutbacks under conditions of low flow to serve 
parties with prior year rights, stored water can allow jurisdictions to augment flow otherwise cut 
back. Cutbacks during the 1977-78 drought years approached the 1965 level. Without Lost Creek 
Dam, cutbacks in 1981 would have reached back to the early 1900's, as released water accounted for 
50% of stream flow that summer. However, since the City's point of diversion is downstream from 
the Savage Rapids Dam2' and cutbacks are established by law as being those jurisdictions and 
individuals above the dam, there is some question as to whether the City could in fact be cut back, 
even under low water conditions. 
TABLE 10.20.3 
Grants Pass Water Rights r SEÄESäli E 3 K % 
M p M « g a r a 
U o V '„ 
BKmMjI'P^ H H t f l p ^ g j p P i i l 
D15839 1888 Municipal / 
Irrigation 
12.5 cfs High Undefined Good 
S26901 1960 Municipal 25.0 cfs 735 cfs* High Undefined Good 
S45827 1965 Municipal 25.0 cfs High Undefined Good 
S47346 1983 Municipal 25.0 cfs High Undefined Good 
* Restriction that water can be diverted only when flow at the mouth of the Rogue exceeds 735 cfs. 
Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, June 2002 
Each Water Right and Permit has a specific geographical area within which the water may be used. 
The 1888 right stipulates "the city limits," which the City holds to be those city limits as they exist at 
any point in time. The 1960 permit shows an area approximating the City's 1979 Urban Growth 
Boundary (20 year expansion); the 1965 and 1983 permits show an area approximating a 50-year 
expansion. 
10.20.3.2 Long-Term Reliable Yield. 
Due to the nature of the City's surface water supply source, the long-term sustainability of drinking 
water supplies for Grants Pass is generally good. As noted earlier, the large size of the watershed 
drained by the Rogue River typically provides abundant water supplies throughout the year. Even 
during extreme dry weather periods when river flows are at their lowest, the reliable flow rate in the 
Rogue River is approximately 750 cfs or nearly fifty times larger than the highest drinking water 
demand ever experienced in Grants Pass. There are some special circumstances that may affect the 
2 Savage Rapids Dam is slated for removal to resolve anadromous fish passage issues. Dam removal will occur once 
the GPID secures an appropriation of funding from both the federal and state sources. GPID will then pump water 
from the Rogue River and deliver water to its customers, including those within the City of Grants Pass. 
10- 7 
long-term reliable yield for the Rogue River. For example, the listing of the Coho Salmon as an 
endangered species in the Rogue River may influence operational procedures at the Lost Creek 
Reservoir, which in turn may affect dry weather flow levels. Another issue is related to climate 
change and snow pack levels in the Cascade Range. Any reduction in average precipitation or the 
average snow pack will tend to reduce dry weather flow rates in the Rogue River. Since these factors 
are complex in nature, it is difficult to quantify their potential effect on the river's reliable yield at 
this time.3 
10.20.3.3 Grants Pass Irrigation District 
The Grants Pass Irrigation District was organized by the local water users in January 1917. The area 
of the district was then about 6,000 acres. It originally was planned to irrigate by an extension of the 
Gravity Canal of the Gold Hill Irrigation District, which was further upstream on the Rogue River 
and was being organized at the same time. That plan was abandoned in 1920 and the present design 
was adopted to provide for a direct diversion system with permanent pumping units. The original 
works were constructed with private funds. 
The Savage Rapids Diversion Dam was dedicated November 5,1921, marking the beginning of the 
operating history of the district. Settlement and clearing of the undeveloped lands, which constituted 
a high proportion of the district's area, did not develop to the extent of the expectations upon which 
the district was founded and financed. As a result, just over one-half of the irrigable area was in 
production and therefore carried the entire tax burden. 
The Savage Rapids Dam and the Northwest Unit pipeline were badly damaged by a flood in 1927. 
Emergency repairs were made at that time, but lack of sufficient funds prevented satisfactory 
completion of the work. The cost of maintenance on the pipeline had become almost prohibitive by 
1949. 
In 1949, the Bureau of Reclamation was requested to replace the old suspension pipeline and siphon 
with a new buried line under the Rogue River. Several years later Reclamation was asked to 
rehabilitate Savage Rapids Dam. After thorough investigations, both requests were undertaken and 
completed. In 1974, the Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
investigated and prepared a report on anadromous fish passage improvements at Savage Rapids 
Dam. 
On Februaiy 12,1982, the Grants Pass Irrigation District perfected a right to 96.7 cfs with a priority 
date of 1916. In addition, the District "transports" 83 cfs for the Department of Fish and Game after 
use as irrigation water for stream enhancements, and was granted a "non-consumptive" right of 800 
cfs of pass through water needed to drive the water turbines that lift irrigation water to the canals. 
The GPID point of diversion is at Savage Rapids Dam, see photo below. 
3 Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, June 2002, West Yost and Associates, LLC., page 2-2. 
10- 8 
Savage Rapids Dam 
Source: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 
10.203.4 Savage Rapids Diversion Dam. 
The Savage Rapids Diversion Dam is on the Rogue River 5 miles east of Grants Pass. It is about 
456 feet long and consists of a 16-bay spillway section and a hydraulic-driven pumping plant 
section at the right abutment. Maximum height of the spillway section is about 39 feet. The first 
seven bays at the right end of the dam are multiple arches with buttresses on 25-foot centers; the 
remaining nine bays have a concrete gravity section below the gates. Sixteen wooden-faced radial 
gates originally provided spillway control. Each of them constructed 23 feet wide and 10 feet 
high. During rehabilitation, the radial gates were replaced with metal stoplogs, and one double-
gated river outlet with a capacity of 6,000 cubic feet per second was installed at the center of the 
dam. During the irrigation season, the stoplogs are used to raise the reservoir elevation 11 feet. 
The Savage Rapids Diversion Dam diverts water from the Rogue River into the South Main Canal to 
serve the lowlands on the south side of the river. The main pumping plant pumps water from the 
reservoir to the Tokay Canal to serve lands on the north side of the river, and to the South Highline 
Canal to irrigate lands above the gravity-type South Main Canal. There are also four lateral relift 
pumping plants along the canals. 
A study by the Bureau of Reclamation (October, 1979) showed that the District served 400 acres 
zoned exclusive farm use utilized by commercial growers, while serving 7,000 acres of "urban-
suburban" lands to irrigate lawns, gardens and pastures. Diversion of water was between 180 to 220 
cfs. The Bureau of Reclamation Study indicated that urban-suburban development posed a major 
problem for canal maintenance and water distribution, being a prime contributor to the District's loss 
of 2,600 acres of formerly irrigated lands. One of the key factors contributing to maintenance 
problems is the silting up of those parts of the system from winter runoff, as many of the system 
canals and laterals also serve to carry storm drainage. The City's Storm Drainage Master Plan calls 
for a continuance and intensification of this practice, and will require improvements and 
maintenance coordination between the City and the District. As of 2007, no agreement exists 
between the City and GPID. 
Some 15% of the District's 55 miles of major canals are lined or enclosed in pipe, the rest being 
10- 9 
unlined. The Bureau of Reclamation recommended either merger of the City and GPID into a water 
control district (Oregon Revised Statute 553) with both drainage and irrigation services, or some 
combination of improvements to the canal system to maintain or extend the provision of irrigation 
water through the system. 
A1974 Grants Pass Water System Study by Brown and Caldwell estimated that the combined water 
rights of the City and GPID would be sufficient to meet the needs of both the UGB and agricultural 
users outside the Boundary area. 
While discussions with GPID and the Josephine County Water Advisory Board touched on this 
possibility, the present GPID Board policy is to continue to supply water through the irrigation 
delivery system, even though development should occur. The District supplies water to almost all of 
the urbanizing area, and in fact, much of the City, at this time. The District has elected to encourage 
the continued supply of irrigation water to urbanizing land as development proceeds within the UGB. 
The District feels this benefits the developer, as the cost of supplying water through a piped system 
does not often exceed the buy-out cost per acre; benefits the homeowner; and benefits the City, as it 
saves treatment costs for irrigation water, does not require an increase in the size of the distribution 
system piping to carry the additional water demand, and reduces the peak per capita usage of water in 
the summer, thus effectively expanding the capacity of the City's permits. 
10.20.3.5 Dam Removal. 
In 1995, the Bureau of Reclamation filed a Final Planning Report/Draft Environmental Statement to 
enhance the salmon and steelhead populations of the Rogue River by removing Savage Rapids Dam. 
Two pumping plants, one on the north bank and one on the south bank, would be constructed to lift 
water into Grants Pass Irrigation District's canal system. This plan and environmental law suits 
resulted in a court order to remove the dam by 2005. To date, the GPID has secured federal and state 
funding to accomplish dam removal by 2009, including the construction of a new pump station. The 
uncertainty of these mandated changes has the City and GPID uncertain about any future plans or 
agreements. 
10.20.4 CITY OF GRANTS PASS WATER TREATMENT PLANT, DISTRIBUTION 
SYSTEM AND WATER DEMAND 
10.20.4.1 System History. 
The Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant, located at 821 SE"M" Street, was originally built in 1931 
with a single basin and three filters for a designed capacity of approximately 3.5 mgd. The plant has 
undergone several upgrades and expansions through the years to incrementally adjust to a growing 
population and more stringent treatment standards, including: 
• 1950 - Capacity increased to 9 mgd through the addition of second basin and two additional 
filters. 
• 1961 - Minor improvements to treatment process. 
• 1983 - Capacity increased to 20 mgd through addition of third basin and three additional filters, 
construction of a new raw water intake and new chemical feed systems. 
10- 10 
• 1995-2001 - Filter media and gravel support replaced due to suspected gravel/under drain upset 
caused by excessive air in the backwash line. 
• 1997 - Filter-to-waste added for improved CT-removal credit. 
• 1998 - SCADA upgrade; VFD included on BW pump. 
• 1999-2000 - Improvements to the Equalization basin pumping station. 
• 2001 - Liquid sodium hypochlorite system installed to replace gas system. 
• 2001 - Riverbank stabilization adjacent to the intake structure, in cooperation with US Army 
Corps of Engineers. 
• 2002 - New PLC-based SCADA system and new monitoring devices were installed in the plant 
to replace outdated analog transmitters and to allow for more accurate and complete process 
performance monitoring and automated process control. The PLC replaced obsolete analogue 
loop-controllers and chemical feed controllers. 
• 2006 - Installation of one additional booster pump/ replacement of one aging inefficient booster 
pump. Reconstruction of the Intake Structure and complete rebuild of the filters and Surface 
Wash System. 
The City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, 2001 (West Yost & Associates) 
inventories and evaluates the performance of the City's water distribution system for critical service 
standards. This analysis identified system improvements necessary to maintain adequate 
performance through build-out of the UGB. (NOTE: In its' "Future Water Demand" analysis, the 
plan also acknowledges that there are some properties contiguous to the UGB that are likely 
candidates for receiving water in the future, as well as some additional areas within the North Valley-
see Chapter 3 of the 2001 Water Distribution System Master Plan.) These identified improvements 
were developed to either eliminate existing deficiencies in system performance or expand service to 
satisfy community growth. The elements of the water distribution system that were evaluated 
include water treatment plant capacity, treated water storage capacity, booster pumping capacity, and 
pipeline network performance. Table 10.20.4, Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects, presents 
the specific costs of reservoir, pump station, and pipeline projects that are targeted for 
implementation through build-out of the UGB. The costs shown are the City's estimated share of the 
pipeline extensions and do not include the cost which will need to borne by developers. Timing of 
projects is based on the City's review of the expansion plans and reflects developer interest and 
submitted development plans. Some adjustment of timing and priorities should be expected. 
10- 11 
Table 10.20.4 Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost, $1,000 
Period 2005-2010 
Pipelines 1,049 
Pipeline Replacement 1,124 
Total 2,173 
Period 2010-2020 
Treated Water Storage 5,720 
Pipelines 2,042 
Pipeline Replacement 2,248 
Total 10,010 
Period Post 2020 
Treated Water Storage 1,560 
Pump Stations 400 
Pipelines 184 
Total 2,144 
Grand Total 14,327 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
Per the 2001 Water Distribution System Master Plan, the Grants Pass water supply system 
distributes water to developed properties covering an area of more than 3,500 acres. The majority of 
the properties currently connected to the water distribution system are within the present city limits, 
although the City does provide service to some areas outside the city limits, including the Redwood 
and Harbeck-Fruitdale areas within the UGB, as well as parts of North Valley. The overall system is 
composed of a water treatment plant, thirteen booster-pumping stations, eight reservoirs, three 
pressure-reducing valves, five altitude valves, and approximately 160 miles of pipelines ranging in 
size between 1" and 30"(most of which are made of cast iron or ductile iron and range in age up to 
approximately 80 years). 
10.20.4.2 Service Pressures. 
The urban growth boundary for the City of Grants Pass encompasses lands of wide ranging 
elevations. As a result, the water distribution system service area contains eight separate service 
pressure zones serving the UGB and North Valley (See Pressure Zone Map in the City of Grants 
Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, West & Yost & Associates, 2001). Table 10.20.6 
summarizes the service elevations and static range for each pressure zone. The lower end of the 
pressure range is based on reservoirs at 80 percent full and the upper end is based on full reservoirs. 
At this time, there are properties receiving City water service in each of the pressure zones except 
Zone 5. 
In some areas, the pressure zone boundaries are modified slightly from these elevation ranges in 
order to accommodate special service pressure requirements. Pressure Zone 2A is a hybrid between 
Zones 1 and 2, as is the Rogue Community College's Zone 2B. The North Valley service area spans 
pressure Zones 1,2, and 3, serving properties between the elevations of 995 and 1,165 feet. Due to 
the great range of elevations served in the North Valley, this pressure zone requires pressure 
reduction valves at service connections to maintain appropriate service pressures. Table 10.20.5 
displays the water distribution system pipeline sizes and lengths. 
10- 12 
Table 10.20.5 
Water Distribution System Pipeline Network 
Pipe Size (inches) Length (miles) 
2 5.23 
4 1.80 
6 40.89 
8 43.63 
10 7.64 
12 19.49 
14 0.38 
16 7.88 
20 2.40 
24 1.02 
30 0.95 
36 0.01 
131.32 
Table 10.20.6 Pressure Zone Ranges 
Zone Elevation (feet) Pressure (psi) 
1 900- 1,020 3 6 - 9 0 
2 1,020- 1,140 4 1 - 9 5 
2A 960-1,035 6 1 - 9 4 
2B 1 ,000-1,060 3 5 - 6 0 ' 
3 1,140-1,280 3 6 - 1 0 0 
4 1,280-1,420 4 2 - 1 0 4 
5 1,420-1,560 41 - 104 
NV 995 - 1,165 101 - 177 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
10.20.4.3 Fire Protection. 
The Grants Pass Department of Public Safety provides fire protection for properties within the City, 
and some properties with Service and Annexation Agreements within the Urban Growth Boundary. 
Since the water distribution system is an integral part of the City's fire protection system, the 
Department of Public Safety has adopted the Oregon Fire Code recommendations as the required fire 
flows for the various land use classifications within the City. These fire protection requirements are 
discussed in detail in Chapter 4, "Water Distribution System Service Standards, " Grants Pass Water 
Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
10.20.4.4 Booster Pumping Stations. 
The water distribution system includes the water treatment plant pumps and thirteen booster 
pumping stations that transfer water to the higher pressure zones. These pump stations either fill 
the reservoirs that serve these higher pressure zones or pump to maintain a minimum pressure in 
those areas that are not served by reservoirs. On the following page, Table 10.20.7 details the 
technical information for each of the system's pumping stations. 
10- 13 
Table 10.20.7 Existing Booster Pumping Stations 
Pump Station 
Location 
Service 
Level 
Feeds 
Reservoir 
Number of 
Pumps 
Horsepower and RPM Rated 
Capacity 
Rated Head 
CTDH) 
lawnridge 2 Yes(6) 4 1 - 25HP @ 1750 RPM 
2 - 50 HP @ 1750 RPM 
3 - 50 HP @ 1750 RPM 
4 - 100 HP @ 1750 RPM 
400 GPM 
1000 GPM 
1000 GPM 
2000 GPM 
120 TDH 
120 TDH 
120 TDH 
148 TDH 
Madrone 2 Yes (4) 3 1 - 60 HP @ 1750 RPM 
2 - 30 HP @ 1750 RPM 
3 - 40 HP @ 1750 RPM 
2000 GPM 
900 GPM 
1200GPM 
170 TDH 
170 TDH 
170 TDH 
Champion 3 Yes (8) 3 1 - 1 0 0 HP @ 1750 RPM 
2 - 1 5 0 HP @ 1750 RPM 
3 - 50 HP @ 1750 RPM 
1600 GPM 
2300GPM 
800 GPM 
165 TDH 
165 TDH 
165 TDH 
Hefley 3 & 4 Yes (13) 4 1 - 7.5 HP @ 3500 RPM 
2 - 15 HP @ 3500 RPM 
3 - 60 HP @ 3500 RPM 
4 - 60 HP @ 3500 RPM 
40 GPM 
120 GPM 
600 GPM 
600 GPM 
250 TDH 
250 TDH 
300 TDH 
300 TDH 
Starlite 3 No 5 1 - 5 HP @ 3461 RPM 
2 A - 7 . 5 HP @ 3525 RPM 
2B - 7.5 HP @ 3525 RPM 
3 - 60 HP @ 1760 RPM 
4 - 3 0 HP @1760 RPM 
30 GPM 
84 GPM 
84 GPM 
1050 GPM 
450 GPM 
315 TDH 
208 TDH 
208 TDH 
185 TDH 
185 TDH 
North Valley 5 Yes (15) 3 1 - 7.5 HP @ 3500 RPM 
2 - 30 HP @ 3500 RPM 
3 - 30 HP @ 3500 RPM 
70 GPM 
500 GPM 
500 GPM 
170 TDH 
174 TDH 
174 TDH 
Harbeck 2 No 3 1 - 5 HP @ 3600 RPM 
2 - 5 HP @ 3600 RPM 
3 - 50 HP @ 3600 RPM 
90 GPM 
90 GPM 
1200 GPM 
112 TDH 
112 TDH 
125 TDH 
Hilltop 2 No 3 1 - 5 HP@ 3600 RPM 
2 - 7 . 5 HP @ 3600 RPM 
3 - 40 HP @ 3600 RPM 
100 GPM 
150 GPM 
750 GPM 
120 TDH 
120 TDH 
120 TDH 
New Hope 2 No 4 1 - 30 HP @ 3600 RPM 
2 - 30 HP @ 3600 RPM 
3 - 30 HP @ 3600 RPM 
4 - 1 5 0 HP @ 1800 RPM 
5A - 5 HP @ 3600 RPM 
5B - 5 HP @ 3600 RPM 
350 GPM 
350 GPM 
350 GPM 
2000 GPM 
53 GPM 
53 GPM 
212 TDH 
212 TDH 
212 TDH 
200 TDH 
227 TDH 
227 TDH 
Laurel Ridge 3 No 3 1 - 15 HP @ 3500 RPM 350 GPM 127 TDH 
2 - 1 5 HP @ 3500 RPM 
3 - 60 HP @ 3500 RPM 
350 GPM 
1100 GPM 
127 TDH 
160 TDH 
Meadow 2 & 3 No 6* 1 e 7.5 HP @ 3500 RPM 80 GPM 280 TDH 
Wood 2 A - 1 5 HP @ 3500 RPM 
2 B - 6 0 HP © 3 5 0 0 RPM 
2C - 60 HP @ 3500 RPM 
3 - 100 HP @ 3500 RPM 
4 - 7.5 HP @ 3500 RPM 
150 GPM 
500 GPM 
500 GPM 
1500 GPM 
63 GPM 
155 TDH 
275 TDH 
275 TDH 
150 TDH 
341 TDH 
Williams 3 No 2 1 - 5 HP @ 3500 RPM 70 GPM 145 TDH 
Crossing 2 - 5 HP@ 3500 RPM 70 GPM 145 TDH 
Panoramic 3 No 4 1 - 25 HP @ 3600 RPM 70 GPM 316 TDH 
Loop 2 - 10 HP @ 3600 RPM 
3 - 60 HP @ 3600 RPM 
4 - 60 HP @ 1800 RPM 
150 GPM 
1000 GPM 
1000 GPM 
138 TDH 
157 TDH 
157 TDH 
Treatment 1 Yes 6 1 - 2 5 0 HP @ 1780 RPM 3500 GPM 210 TDH 
Plant 2 - 300 HP @ 1775 RPM 
3 - 250 HP @ 1780 RPM 
3 A - 2 5 0 HP @ 1780 RPM 
4 - 250 HP @ 1780 RPM 
5 - 200 HP @ 1780 RPM 
3500 GPM 
3500 GPM 
3500 GPM 
3500 GPM 
2600 GPM 
220 TDH 
210 TDH 
210 TDH 
210 TDH 
210 TDH 
* Pumps 1,2A and 3 service Zone 2 exclusively. Pump 4 services Zone 3 exclusively. Pumps 2B and 2C service both Zones 2 and 3. 
Data source: Jason Canady- City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Supervisor March 2008 
10- 14 
10.20.4.5 Reservoirs. 
There are eight water storage reservoirs within the Grants Pass water distribution system that provide 
a total of 19 million gallons of treated water storage. These reservoirs were constructed between the 
years 1946 and 1999. Design information for these reservoirs is detailed in Table 10.20.8. 
Table 10.20.8 Existing Reservoirs 
Reservoir 
Location 
Reservoir 
Number 
Pressure 
Zone Served 
Year 
Built 
Construction 
Materials 
Capacity 
(mg) 
Bottom 
Elevation (ft) 
Overflow 
Elevation 
(ft) 
500 Block 
Woodson Drive 
3 1 1946 Concrete 3.5 1,089.5 1,108.5 
1500 Block Ridge 
Road 
4 2 1953 Concrete 0.75 1,216 1,240 
1400 Block 
Sherman Lane 
5 1 1983 Concrete 3.5 1,079.5 1,108.5 
2200 Block 
Crown Street 
6 2 1982 Concrete 3.5 1,211 1,240 
Heiglen Loop 
Road 
8 3 1983 Concrete 2.0 1,341 1,370 
1420 Denton 
Trail 
11 1 1999 Concrete 4.5 1,080.1 1,108.5 
1700 Block 
Sunset Lane 
13 4 1980 Concrete 0.08 1,510 1,520 
3900 Block 
Highland Ave. 
15 4 1985 Concrete 1.2 1,374 1,403 
' Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
10.20.4.6 System Operation. 
The general procedures for operation of the Grants Pass water distribution system are discussed in 
the following: 
• The water treatment plant operates as necessary to fill storage reservoirs in the distribution 
system on a daily basis. Therefore, the operating schedule adjusts to seasonal variations in water 
demand. During winter months, the plant generally operates seven days per week for an eight-
hour period. Operational hours are extended during the high demand summer months, when the 
plant must operate up to twenty four hours a day in order to keep the storage reservoirs full. 
• Those booster pumping stations that fill storage reservoirs are automatically controlled to 
maintain preset water levels. When sensors show that the water level of a reservoir has fallen 
below a preset threshold, the lead pump will activate and begin filling the reservoir to a high 
water level. If water demand on the reservoir is such that a single pump cannot maintain the 
water level, a lag pump (or pumps) will activate as necessary until the reservoir fills to a high 
water level. 
• Those booster pumping stations that serve areas without storage reservoirs are automatically 
controlled to maintain a minimum discharge pressure at the pumping stations. When pressure 
sensors show that the discharge pressure has fallen below a preset threshold, the lead pump 
activates and pumps until the discharge pressure exceeds a high pressure level. If water demand 
in the pump station's service area is such that a single pump cannot maintain the pressure level, a 
lag pump (or pumps) will activate as necessary until the system pressure is restored. 
• The reservoirs in the water distribution system are generally maintained between 80 and 100 
percent full. This fluctuating volume represents the operating storage. The remaining storage is 
10- 15 
allocated to providing fire flow requirements and emergency reserves. In the case of Reservoir 
No. 15 in the North Valley, water levels are maintained at a much lower level due to limited 
demand in that portion of the distribution system. Altitude valves control the flow into and out 
of Reservoirs No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, and No. 11. These valves are designed to close when 
the reservoir is full and open when the system pressure drops. The other reservoirs in the 
distribution system float on the system. 
• There are three pressure reducing valve stations in the Grants Pass water distribution system. 
Two of the stations control the flow of water from Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 2A. 
Pressure Zone 2A extends to slightly lower elevations than Pressure Zone 2 and thus requires 
some pressure reduction. Each station contains a single pressure-reducing valve (one is a 10-
inch valve and one is a 6-inch valve). The third pressure reducing valve station on NE Beacon 
Drive reduces Zone 4 water to Zone 3. 
• The City upgraded the water distribution system to a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 
(SCADA) system in 1999. SCADA system monitors reservoir levels, pump operating status, and 
local pressures throughout the system. The central computer system for the man-machine 
interface is located at the water treatment plant. 
10.20.4.7 Water Treatment Plant. 
The City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has successfully met the City's drinking 
water needs for over 70 years. The Rogue River supply is typical of many Pacific Northwest surface 
waters with low mineral content, low pathogen concentrations, and normally low turbidity, but with 
seasonal increases in turbidity due to precipitation and runoff. The Rogue River quality and flow is 
also influenced by the operation of upstream reservoirs including Lost Creak Reservoir and Savage 
Rapids Dam (slated for removal). Peak withdrawals by the WTP to meet demands in the summer 
months coincide with minimum river flows and low turbidities. 
The WTP's main purposes include removal of suspended particulates, removal and inactivation 
of pathogens, and production of non-corrosive, palatable water in accordance with Federal and 
State drinking water regulations. The plant has historically met all regulations and the few 
customer complaints are limited to occasional chlorinous tastes and odors. The plant appears 
well positioned to continue to meet current and future drinking water needs. 
The plant's production has steadily increased over the last decade in response to increasing water 
demands within the City's service area. The City's service area has been expanding as areas 
previously served by small groundwater systems have been incorporated into the City's water 
system. Significant investments have been made to upgrade the distribution and storage systems 
over the past few years. Water production at the plant has increased by approximately 20% since 
1995. In 2007, peak day water production was 11.87 mgd, and the average annual production was 
5.85 mgd. 
The plant has rated maximum capacity of 20 mgd with all raw water and finished water pumps in 
operation. The reliable plant capacity is approximately 15 mgd with one of the largest pumps out of 
service. The plant is operated in a start/stop mode each day, with the hours of production varying 
between 8 to 24 hours per day depending on demands and raw water quality. The plant occasionally 
operates at the peak production rate of 20 mgd (14,000 gpm) during the high demand season. 
10- 16 
Recently the plant has had to increase its operating staff to allow for 24-hour operations, to more 
reliably meet demand during peak summer season. 
The Water Treatment Plant Facilities Plan, April 2004 (WTPFP) provides guidance for improving 
this major element of the City's water system and recommends a capital improvement program 
(CIP) that will meet the City's water treatment needs for 20 to 25 years. Based on a water demand 
increase of 2.5 to 3 percent per year, it is expected that the plant will continue to be able to meet the 
City's water needs for at least the next 20 years, with some modifications and improvements. A 
major plant expansion is not envisioned until the middle to end of decade 2020. Although the 
existing plant site is extremely confined, the plant is capable of being expanded to approximately 30 
mgd with major modifications. The plant expansion to provide 30 mgd of treatment would be 
required in 25 years (on-line by 2028) if demand growth is steady at 2.5 percent per year. The 
expansion would be required in 20 years (on-line by 2023) if demand growth is steady at 3 percent 
per year. The existing plant structures appear to have significant remaining useful life. However, the 
older plant structures are vulnerable to damage during a severe seismic event. 
While the plant has been able to successfully meet the City's water demands and also produce good 
water quality, the Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan identified the following challenging issues 
which have regulatory compliance implications and which create production inefficiencies. Note 
that the WTPFP was adopted in 2004 and since then measures have been taken to address the 
following issues: 
• The existing Rogue River intake does not comply with current Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
regulations to protect juvenile fish including salmonids, due to high approach velocities and 
screen deficiencies. NOTE: This problem has since been fixed. Completed in 2006, the intake 
structure screen was replaced and the intake inlet was increased in size to reduce intake velocity.4 
• The backwash/sludge holding pond is completely full of solids and immediate action is required, 
including development of a long-term solids management plan, to ensure continued compliance 
with the City's NPDES permit for discharge to Skunk Creek. NOTE: A master plan for a long-
term solution to this problem was being developed as of September 2007. Short-term solids 
handling procedures are in place until the plan is completed.4 
• The filter media is in a degraded condition and the plant (specifically the filters and 
sedimentation basins) is operating inefficiently requiring frequent backwashing and excessive 
raw water pumping, resulting in higher operating costs. NOTE: The filter media has been 
upgraded and the resulting operational inefficiency is no longer a problem.4 
• Proposed drinking water regulations, including the Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule 
and the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, have the potential to require 
significant plant modifications depending on the outcome of monitoring programs. NOTE: 
Increased monitoring programs will be underway in the near future. Depending on the outcome 
of these programs, plant modifications may be required to maintain drinking water compliance.5 
4 Per Dave Wright and Joey Wright, City of Grants Pass Public Works Department, September 2 0 0 7 
5 Per Jason Canady, City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Supervisor, September 2 0 0 7 
10- 17 
These and other challenges require the City to implement near-term improvements to the plant. The 
plant also requires a longer-term capital improvement program to ensure reliability and redundancy 
of major equipment, including adding new equipment, replacement/repair of major equipment as it 
becomes less reliable, and to prepare for a major plant expansion. 
1Q.2Q.4.8 Water Demand Analysis. 
Analysis of the City of Grants Pass historic water production and demand data allows for the 
identification of the unique water use patterns that characterize the City and provides a basis for 
estimating future water demand in the community. Additional analysis relates the various measures 
of water demand (maximum monthly demand, maximum daily demand, and peak hour demand) to 
the average annual demand through the use of peaking factors. 
The projection of future water demand is based on unit demand factors developed by land use type 
and corresponding customer classifications. These future demand projections provide the basis for 
assessing the adequacy of the existing water production and distribution system and planning for 
future improvements. 
10.20.4.9 Recent Water Use Statistics. 
There are several measures of water use that are important to analyze during the development of the 
water master plan. Following is a description of the influential water demand factors that will guide 
planning decisions with respect to the Grants Pass water systems: 
• Annual average demand - A measure of the amount of water that must be obtained from the 
available sources of supply on an annual basis. 
• Monthly average demand - Review of monthly average water demand illustrates seasonal 
variations in demand due to such factors as climate, irrigation, industrial production, and 
domestic use patterns. 
• Maximum day demand - The maximum daily water demand is used to size booster pumping 
stations that serve areas with storage reservoirs. This measure of demand is also used along with 
fire demands to size storage reservoirs. 
• Peak hour demand - The peak hour water demand is used to size pipelines and booster pumping 
stations that serve pressure zones without reservoirs. 
Three water usage rate variations are generally used in the design of water system facilities. These 
are the average annual demand, maximum day demand and peak hour demand. The annual average, 
monthly average, and maximum day water demand are calculated from analyzing WTP daily 
operational data. The analysis allows for the identification of annual average, monthly average, and 
maximum day water demand based on the period from 1995 to 1999. The average annual demand 
increased from 3.73 mgd to 4.50 mgd. The highest peak daily demand was 9.47 in August of 1998.6 
10.20.4.10 Per Capita Water Demand. 
Per capita water demand is a useful demand measure that is derived from historical data. 
However, it was not used in determining demand in the 2001 Water Distribution Plan (which 
uses land use-based demand) or 2004 Water Treament Plant Facility Plan (which is based on a 
6 Data excerpted from 2001 Water Distribution System Master Plan. Water use has since increased 
substantially. See Table 10.20.16 for more recent water use data. 
10- 18 
water demand growth rate factor.) Table 10.20.9 presents the population for Grants Pass along 
with the average annual demand during the years 1995 to 1999, which allows for calculation of 
the average demand in gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Ranging from 190 to 215 gpcd, the 
average daily water demand for the years 1995 to 1999 is 202 gpcd. Note that this unit demand 
factor is based on water production and includes all uses: residential, commercial, industrial, 
public/institutional, and unaccounted. The variation in per capita demand for the different years * 
reflects the regular variation in water use patterns caused by seasonal conditions and possible 
changes in end user demand characteristics. 
For reference, an engineering report of the water distribution system, prepared by CH2M Hill in 
1979, identified an average annual demand of 253 gpcd. 
Table 10.20.9 Grants Pass Water Use for 1995 to 1999, gpcd* 
Year Population (City Limits) Average Demand, mgd Average Demand, gpcd 
1995 19,660 3.73 190 
1996 20,255 4.11 203 
1997 20,535 3.97 193 
1998 20,590 4.17 203 
1999 20,935 4.50 215 
2000 23,170 4.55 196 
2001 23,670 4.86 205 
2002 23,870 4.98 209 
2003 24,470 4.81 197 
2004 24,790 5.00 202 
2005 26,085 4.75 182 
2006 30,930 5.26 170 
2007 31,740 5.84 184 
13-Year Average - - 5.66 196 
Source: For years 1995-1999, Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001; 
For years 2000-2007, updated 4/2008 by Jason Canady and Jared Voice using population estimates from Portland 
State University's Population Research Center) 
'Demands include all uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, and public/institutional. 
NOTE: Not all City residents are connected to the municipal water system. There are also users outside of the City limits that 
are not included in the population data in this table. Therefore, although the demand for all users is shown, the per capita 
demand shown likely overstates actual per capita use. 
10.20.4.11 Unaccounted for Water. 
All water distribution systems experience losses of water during transmission from the treatment 
plant to the end user. These losses, known as unaccounted for water, result from many situations 
including un-metered customers, transmission system leaks, main breaks, faulty meters, fire 
fighting activities, system flushing, and other miscellaneous hydrant uses. Thus, the total volume 
of water metered for all end users is always somewhat less than the volume of water produced at 
the WTP. 
Since the City meters water use for all customers, a comparison of water billing records and 
treatment plant production data provides a good estimate of the volume of unaccounted for water 
in the system. Table 10.20.10 shows the estimated volume of unaccounted for water in millions 
of gallons and also as a percentage of total production during the period of 1998 through 2000. 
Since a water loss rate of 10 to 15 percent is considered good, the calculated unaccounted for 
water rate indicates that the distribution system is in good condition. The City is also conducting 
10- 19 
several programs that will reduce the unaccounted for water rate. The programs include 
residential meter replacements, commercial meter upgrades, and improved monitoring of hydrant 
use. 
Table 10.20.10 Unaccounted for Water; 1998-2000 
Year Million Gallons Percent of Total Water Production 
1998 146 9.6% 
1999 190 11.6% 
2000 177 10.9% 
Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan,, June 2002 
10.20.4.12 Unit Demand Factors by Land Use Pattern. 
Water demand factors related to land use patterns are used to analyze water demand in the 
community. Based on historical billing data provided by the City's Utilities Department for 1998 
and 1999, Table 10.20.11 shows water demand within each land use pattern classification: 
commercial, single family residential, and multi-family residential showing the annual average and 
percent of total annual average demand for both years. The commercial classification includes 
general business, industrial, institutional and governmental-public land use categories. As indicated 
in the percentage summary of annual average demand by land use, the single-family residential 
classification accounts for nearly half of the water used in Grants Pass. 
Table 10.20.11 Grants Pass Water Use by Customer Class for 1998 and 1999 
Demand 
Commercial Multi-Family Residential Singe-Family Residential Total 
1998 Annual Average 1.36 0.61 1.80 3.77 
Percent of total annual 
average demand 36.0% 16.2% 47.8% 100% 
1999 Annual Average 1.40 0.67 1.91 3.98 
Percent of total annual 
average demand 35.2% 16.8% 48.0 100% 
Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, June 2002 
To develop a unit demand factor for the three different land use patterns, the water demand data 
presented in Table 10.20.11, above, are combined with estimated areas for each of the land use 
classifications. Table 10.20.12, below, summarizes the acreages by land use classification and. 
pressure zone for all areas receiving water service from the City of Grants Pass, including those 
within the Urban Growth Boundary and North Valley. This summary was derived from analysis 
of a distribution system for Pressure Zones 1 through 4. The acreage for Pressure Zone NV is 
based on an estimate of the properties connected to the system in the North Valley area. The 
quotient of water demand and acreage yields a unit demand factor for each land use classification 
in gallons per acre per day (gpad), as presented in Table 10.20.13 below. Table 10.20.11 above 
does not include unaccounted for water, the calculation of these unit demand factors includes an 
allowance for unaccounted for water. 
10- 20 
Table 1C >.20.12 Land I ise by Pressure Zone (Acres) 
Customer/Class PZ/l PZ/2 PZ/3 PZ/4 PZ/NV Total % 
Commercial 
Residential 
Multi-Family 
924 
1,197 
358 
125 
594 
42 
57 
114 
35 
0 
67 
0 
40 
5 
0 
1,146 
1,977 
435 
32% 
56% 
12% 
Total 2,479 761 206 67 45 3,558 100% 
% 70% 21% 6% 2% 1% 100% 
"The Commercial customer class includes commercial, industrial, and public connections to the system. 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, Januaiy 2001 
Table 10J (0.13 Unit Demand by Customer < riass 
Customer Class 1999 Average 
Demand (mgd) 
Land Use Area 
(Acres) 
Average Unit Demand 
(gal/acre day) 
Commercial/Industrial/Public 
Multi-Family Residential 
Single-Family Residential 
1.56 
0.75 
2.13 
1,146 
435 
1,977 
1,400 
1,700 
1,100 
•The 1999 average demand is based on billing records plus 11.6 percent to reflect unaccounted for water. 
Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, June 2002 
10.20.4.13 Peak Hourly Demand. 
The peak hour demand on the water distribution system typically occurs during the hottest, driest 
period of the year when customers are heavily irrigating landscaped yards and parks. For the City 
of Grants Pass service area, the peak hour demand usually happens in the month of August during 
the peak day demand. In order to evaluate this peak hour demand, hourly water level data was 
collected from each of the reservoirs in the distribution system during the summer of 1999. This data 
was analyzed in combination with the water production rate for the water treatment plant to identify 
the peak hour demand on each day for which data was available. Based on this analysis, the peak 
hour demand is estimated to be 4.5 times the average annual demand. 
10.20.4.14 Historical Peaking Factors. 
The water demands observed over the five years from 1995-1999 can also be expressed as a ratio to 
the annual average demand known as peaking factors. Although peaking factors vary significantly 
from user to user, these historical peaking factors are useful for comparing system-wide water use 
patterns in Grants Pass to other communities and for projecting future water use patterns. Table 
10.20.14 identifies Grants Pass water demand patterns for 1995 to 1999 and shows peaking factors 
based on ratios to annual average demand. The identified peak hour demands for the system are not 
actual measurements, but rather estimates derived from the reservoir level analysis conducted during 
the summer of 1999 as described above. Tables 10.20.14 and 10.20.15 below summarize the 
average peaking factors for the system. These values are fairly typical for a Western Oregon 
community. In general, they are slightly higher than the peaking factors for Corvallis and slightly 
lower than values for Portland. 
10- 21 
Table 10.20.14 Grants Pass Maximum Month, Peak Day, and Peak Hour Demand Ratio 
Year Annual 
Average 
Demand, 
(mgd) 
Maximum 
Month 
Demand, 
(mgd) 
Peak Day 
Demand 
(mgd) 
Peak Hour 
Demand, 
(mgd) 
Ratio of 
Maximum Month 
to Annual 
Average Demand 
Ratio of Peak 
Day to Annual 
Average 
Demand 
Ratio of peak 
Hour to 
Annual 
Average 
Demand 
1995 3.73 6.48 8.32 17.01 1.74 2.23 4.56 
1996 4.11 7.22 9.09 18.60 1.76 2.21 4.52 
1997 3.97 6.82 8.83 18.10 1.72 2.22 4.56 
1998 4.17 7.62 9.47 19.40 1.83 2.27 4.66 
1999 4.50 7.79 9.35 19.20 1.73 2.08 4.26 
5 Yr. Avg. 4.10 7.18 9.01 18.46 1.76 2.20 4.51 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
Table 10.20.15 Peaking Factor Summary 
Description Factor 
Maximum month demand 1.8 
Maximum daily demand Average for city 2.2 
Peak hourly demand Average for city 4.5 
NOTE: The average demand multiplied by the peaking factor yields the respective peak demand. 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
The following table identifies Grants Pass Water demand patterns for the years 1995 through 
2006. The data used in this table was obtained from the City Water Treatment Plant supervisor 
in 2007 to provide updated information that was not included in the previous planning 
documents referenced in this chapter. This more recent data shows that water demand has 
continued to increase since the previous plans were completed. Note that the more recent data 
was not contained in the 2001 Water Distribution System Master Plan, the 2002 Water 
Management Plan or the 2004 Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan. The capital improvement 
and implementation plans developed in these documents and referenced later in this chapter pre-
dated this more recent data. 
10- 22 
Table 10.20.16 Grants Pass Maximum Month, Peak Day and Peak Hour Data, 1995-2006 
i s p v f 
; 
E S -
Annual Average Flow 
(m£d) iÉiÉicasi n i 
Peak Day Demand 
(mgd) 
Finished M ä M ä S ä S I Finished AMMUTÌ, i: . , 
3.93 . i l 8.32 IÖJK7 .- -1.7:69 » ^ j f l i 
4.23 J J I 9.09 |sé'> n'i 9.04 
IPS^f 8 ' 4.03 8.83 mmmssm 
4.24 9.47 : J 
E 5 B 4.56 .. V -VVA.-Ìv-.- - .. -N. — -' ' 9.35 
4.55 I E S I 2 1 9.73 i l i i S M S l l k l E i a mim 4.86 9.25 
MMI 4.98 10.54 
mm 4.81 Ui v. - . 10.31 
K M l 5.00 10.17 
4.75 ^ i S É S È p É f i l 10.52 mmi, 5.27 rmmsan 11.69 
S É H l i 
4.60 l i s ? 
STwCft.«ELUA . 
1 9.77 i l W i i g i 
NOTE: Annual average flow, maximum month demand and peak day demand obtained from Water Treatment Plant data; 
Peak hour demand is an estimate calculated by multiplying the average flow by the actual 1995 to 1999 peaking factor 
average of 4.5 (see Tables 10.20.14 & 10.20.15) 
Data Source: Jason Canady, City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Supervisor 
10.20.4.15 Future Water Demand. 
NOTE: The information presented in this section was excerpted from the Grants Pass Water 
Distribution System Master Plan, prepared by West Yost and Associates in January 2001 
Committed Service Areas. 
The land use demand factors developed in the previous sections provide a basis for projecting future 
water demand in the Grants Pass service area. The land use demand factors can be used in 
conjunction with land development projections to estimate water demand. 
Although the timing of land use development within the UGB is unknown, information is available 
regarding the current zoning designation for all properties within the UGB. Table 10.20.17 
summarizes the acreage of properties with the UGB according to land use, differentiating between 
properties that are were receiving water service as of January 2001 and those that will connect to the 
water distribution system in the future. Using the unit demand factors developed for these land use 
classifications, the table also projects average annual water demand at the UGB build-out condition. 
This analysis assumes the existing mix of residential/commercial properties will stay the same in the 
future. 
10- 23 
Table 10.20.17 Land Use Based Water Demand Projections for UGB Build-Out 
l^ and Use Existing 
Acreage 
Future 
Acreage 
Total 
Acreage 
Unit Demand, 
gallons/acre-day 
Estimated Average Annual 
Demand, mgd 
Commercial 1,146 598 1,744 1,400 2.4 
Single-Family 
Residential 
1,977 2,419 4,396 1,100 4.8 
Multi-Family 
Residential 
435 440 875 1,700 1.5 
Total 3,558 3,457 7,015 4,200 8.7 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
Based on this estimate of the UGB build-out average annual demand, the future maximum 
month, maximum day, and peak hour demand can be estimated using historical peaking factors. 
Table 10.20.18 summarizes water demand at the time of the 2001 Water Distribution System 
Master Plan and projections for the build-out condition. 
Table 10.20.18 Water Demand Summary for Grants Pass 
Current Water Demand, mgd. Future Total Water Demand, mgd 
Average Annual 5.85 9 
Maximum Month 10.13 16 
Maximum Day 11.87 20 
Peak Hour 23.72 40 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 (Updated Jason Canady, 3/08) 
Potential Service Areas Independent of UGB. 
The City has also evaluated its potential to serve properties outside the Urban Growth Boundary, 
mainly related to the existing distribution system serving the Merlin / North Valley area, and 
some additional areas contiguous to the UGB. 
One location with potential for future water system expansion is Merlin / North Valley. A 
portion of this area, including the North Valley Industrial Park and several residents along Merlin 
Road, is being serving by a service connection to the City at NW Highland Ave. near NW Vine 
St. (as of2008.) The North Valley pump station was constructed at this connection to pump 
water from the City's Pressure Zone 3 to fill a 1.2 million gallon reservoir though an 8-inch 
pipeline in Highland Ave. The reservoir is located approximately one mile north of the North 
Valley pump station. The water coming out of the storage tank then feeds the Merlin / North 
Valley system by gravity through a 1.6-mile long 16-inch pipeline. The North Valley pump 
station consists of three booster pumps with a total capacity of 1,070 gallons per minute (gpm). 
The existing North Valley Reservoir and Pump Station have the capacity to accommodate some 
additional demand in the area. Based on a Technical Memorandum issued by West Yost 
Associates in December 2007, in addition to serving existing users, there is adequate capacity to 
serve the airport, Manzanita Rest area, the North Valley schools and Paradise Ranch. To expand 
service beyond these specific users, including adding any additional residential users, would 
require significant upgrades to the system, including pipeline improvements and an upgrade of 
the North Valley pump station. Because of limited space within the existing pump station vault, 
it may be necessary to relocate the pump station to accommodate any expansion. Additionally, 
water storage issues will need to be addressed if the service expansion is large enough. The City 
can continue to provide water service to specific properties within Merlin / North Valley through 
10- 24 
individual service agreements; however there are no additional obligations to provide service to 
properties other than those which are currently served (as of 2008.) 
In addition to properties within the UGB, there are also properties contiguous to the UGB that are 
potential candidates to receive water service in the future. Based on information obtained by 
West Yost Associates from City staff in about 2001, a rough estimate of the area of these 
properties is 400 acres. Assuming that these properties largely fall within the single-family 
residential and industrial land use classifications, the additional acreage would increase the 
annual average demand on the system by approximately 0.5 mgd. 
10.20.5 CITY OF GRANTS PASS WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 
PROGRAM (CIP) 
Based on the evaluation of existing system performance and future expansion requirements presented 
in Section 10.20.4, and upon projected improvements required for ensuring the Water Treatment 
Plant (WTP) continues to serve the City's needs for the next 20 years and beyond, this section 
integrates the projects into a staged Implementation Plan for WTP improvements and Capital 
Improvement Program (CIP) for water distribution system improvements (including pipes, pump 
stations, etc.) 
Table 10.20.19 identifies the WTP facility improvements required to meet the build-out of the City 
of Grants Pass UGB. The Implementation Plan for WTP improvements was initially completed by 
MHW Americas, Inc. in 2004 as part of the City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility 
Plan. The Plan was also included in the Technical Memorandum that was produced by Parametrix 
in March 2005 and adopted by City Council Resolution No. 4954 in May of 2005. 
10- 25 
Table 10.20.19 City of Grants Pass Water System 
Implementation Plan for WTP Improvements (2003 Dollars) 
Fiscal Year Improvements Estimated Project Costs 
($1000) 
2004/2005 Intake Modifications (Engr. And Permitting)* 400 
2005/2006 Intake Modifications (Engr and Construction)* 
Filter Upgrades (Engr. And Construction* 
Basin Modifications (Engr. and Construction) 
500 
200 
200 
2006/2007 Intake Modifications (Construction)* 
Filter Upgrades (Construction)* 
Basin Modifications (Construction) 
700 
400 
400 
2008/2009 Filter Gallery Upgrades (Engr. And Construction) 
Solids Handling 
480 
800 
2009/2010 Filter Gallery Upgrades (Construction) 
Chemical System Upgrades (Engr. And Const.) 
510 
53 
2010/2011 Chemical System Upgrades (Construction) 
Sludge Removal Systems (Engr. And Const.) 
New Storage Building (Engr. And Construction) 
138 
80 
27 
2011/2012 Sludge Removal Systems (Construction) 
New Storage Building (Construction) 
239 
53 
2012/2013 Emergency Generator for 5 mgd (Engr. and Const.) 319 
2024 Expand Capacity to 30 mgd 7,813 
•Completed as of September 2007, per Jason Canady, City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Supervisor 
Source: Capital Improvement Program, Parametrix Technical Memorandum Dated 4/25/2005, 
Adopted By Council Resolution No. 4954, 5/6/2005 
In addition to the capital improvements presented above, the City should also implement the 
following efforts for the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) over the next few years: 
• Continue to explore alternative coagulation options to reduce solids production, improve plant 
performance and reduce operating costs; 
• Continue collecting Cryptosporidium samples from the Rogue River to determine "bin 
classification" according to the LT2ESWTR; 
• Develop a DBP sampling program based on the proposed regulations, in conjunction with State 
of Oregon DHS, to monitor for trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs), to verify 
compliance with the proposed Stage 2 D/DBP Rule; 
• Complete a Seismic Vulnerability Study; and 
• Assess the viability and costs of the sludge handling and disposal program, of which evaluation 
and implementation has been ongoing for several years and is anticipated to continue for the next 
3 to 5 years (as of 2007.) 
As of November 2007, it is anticipated that over the next 2 to 3 years the City will verify that it 
can meet the LT2ESWTR and D/DBP Rule with the existing plant. LT2ESWTR requires 2 years 
of data collection. The data has been collected once and the WTP is currently completing a 
second round to ensure compliance with the rule. The stage 2 D/DBP rule requires extensive 
planning and testing to determine new sampling points before compliance can be determined. If 
compliance is ultimately determined to be unlikely, then the City may have to implement an 
alternative disinfection scheme at the WTP. 
10- 26 
The City should periodically monitor plant performance and water demands over the next 10 years as 
it makes capital improvements and to verify that planned improvements are still required. An update 
of the WTP Facilities Plan should be completed in 5 to 10 years depending on water demands and 
regulations, including a review of plant expansion requirements. 
The WTP is capable of being expanded to approximately 30 mgd with major modifications. Based 
on current growth estimates, the plant expansion will not be required until the middle to end of 
decade 2020. The estimated project cost for a plant expansion to 30 mgd is $7.5 million dollars in 
2003, which minimizes the use of additional footprint on the existing site. It is recommended that 
the City assess available property for a future new plant to expand and partially replace the existing 
plant within the next 50 years. 
The following CIP identifies specific improvements for each of the first five years and for the full 
build-out of the City's service area. For each of the recommended projects, the CIP also presents 
cost estimates based on the unit construction costs identified on pages 7-1 of the Grants Pass Water 
Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001, West Yost & Associates. Cost estimates were 
adjusted by Parametrix in its Technical Memorandum dated March 2005 to reflect 2005 dollar 
amounts. 
10- 27 
Table 10.20.20 City of Grants Pass Water System Capital Improvements 
Project List & Estimated Capital Costs 2000-2005 (2005 Dollars) 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost ($1000) 
Pump Stations 
Hilltop/Harbeck Heights Fire Pumps 60 
Rogue Community College Pump Station 280 
Subtotal 340 
Pressure zone boundary modifications 114 
Pressure reduction valves 149 
P-101 West Harbeck to Allen Creek 62 
P-103 Leonard Street Looping 46 
P-l 04 Lower River Road 86 
P-105 Prospect Avenue Looping 16 
P-l06 Hawthorne to Crescent 427 
P-l07 9th to 10"' at Midland 139 
P-l08 Sherman Lane to Tokay Heights 259 
P-l09 Marion Lane 131 
P-l 10 C St to D St Loop 56 
P-l 13 Bridge to Brownell 325 
P-l 14 Lincoln Rd Looping 95 
P-l 15 10th and Savage Tie-In 8 
P-202 Redwood Ave Looping North 200 
P-203 Redwood Ave Looping South 202 
P-204 Rogue Community College Extension 4,372 
P-207 Williams Hwy Extension 53 
P-220 Southeast North Street Extension 26 
P-221 Shannon Lane Extension 55 
P-222 Lincoln Road Extension 118 
P-223 Ament Road Extension 754 
P-224 Starlite Connector 290 
Subtotal 7,983 
Total 8,323 
Source: Capital Improvement Program, Parametrix Technical Memorandum Dated 4/25/2005, 
Adopted By Council Resolution No. 4954, 5/6/2005; Subtotal and total dollar amounts have 
been adjusted by City staff due to mathematical errors that appear in original document. 
NOTE: Several of the above-listed projects have been fully or partially completed. Uncompleted 
projects will continue to be identified and included in the work plan / budget for completion. 
Table 10.20.21 City of Grants Pass Water System 
Capital Improvements Projects List & 
Estimated Capital Costs 2005-2010 (2005 Dollars) 
Recommended Improvements Capita] Cost ($1000) 
Pipelines 
P-208 Williams Hwy Looping 
P-214 Rogue River Hwy Extension 
P-225 Starlite Extension 
Subtotal 
336 
749 
114 
1,199 
Pipeline Replacement 
12,500 feet total replacement 
Subtotal 
1,124 
1,124 
Total 2,323 
Source: Capital Improvement Program, Parametrix Technical Memorandum Dated 4/25/2005, 
Adopted By Council Resolution No. 4954, 5/6/2005 
10- 28 
Table 10.20.22 City of Grants Pass 
Water System Capital Improvements Projects List & 
Estimated Capital Costs 2010-2020 (2005 Dollars) 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost ($1000) 
Treated Water Storage 
Reservoir No 12 1,955 
Reservoir No. 14 972 
Reservoir No. 16 1,097 
Reservoir No. 17 1,543 
Reservoir No. 13 (replacement) 972 
Subtotal 6,539 
Pipelines 
P-206 Reservoir No. 12 Extension 488 
P-209 Reservoir No. 17 Extension 111 
P-215 Fruitdale Dr Extension 892 
P-216 Cloverlawn Loop 64 
P-218 Cloverlawn to Crestview Loop 162 
P-219 Reservoir No. 16 Extension 207 
P-226 Greenfield Rd Loop 273 
P-229 Reservoir No. 14 Extension 78 
Subtotal 2,275 
Pipeline Replacement 
25,000 feet total replacement 2,248 
Subtotal 2,248 
Total 11,062 
Source: Capital Improvement Program, Parametrix Technical Memorandum Dated 4/25/2005, 
Adopted By Council Resolution No. 4954, 5/6/2005 
Table 10.20.23 City of Grants Pass Water System 
Capital Improvements Projects List and Estimated < Capital Costs 2020 (2005 Dollars) 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost ($1000) 
Treated Water Storage 
Reservoir No. 10 
Subtotal 
1,783 
1,783 
Pump Stations 
Treatment Plant Pumps 
Subtotal 
457 
457 
Pipelines 
P-217 Reservoir No 10 Extension 
Subtotal 
210 
210 
Total 2,450 
Source: Capital Improvement Program, Parametrix Technical Memorandum Dated 4/25/2005, 
Adopted By Council Resolution No. 4954,5/6/2005 
10.20.6 PRIVATE WATER UTILITIES 
All domestic water services within the UGB area that are not served by the City of Grants Pass 
system derive their water supply from wells. Prior to requirements for subdivisions and other 
developments to connect to City water, developments were often served through private water 
systems. Private water companies supply water through small distribution systems mostly to 
subdivisions, motels, and mobile home parks. A list of private water systems and approximate 
populations served by each is available through the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 
Private utility companies have developed various areas within the City's Urban Growth Boundary, 
10- 29 
especially south of the Rogue River. Most remaining systems were constructed prior to requirements 
that they he constructed to municipal system standards. These systems rely upon wells for their 
supply, and their distribution piping systems consist of small diameter pipe and cannot be used 
effectively in the Grants Pass Water System. In order for the City to accept these private systems 
into theirs, the private companies are required to meet or exceed the City's standards. In most cases, 
the private companies cannot afford the capital improvement costs to comply and naturally resist 
connecting with the City System. 
There are three existing private water systems that are scheduled to be connected to the City Water 
System within the next two years. These include Bluegrass Park Water Company, Meadow Creek 
Subdivision and Twilight View Estates7. Per EPA records, the total population served by these three 
private water companies is approximately 245. At least two additional private water systems, 
College Oaks and Willow Glenn, were built to City standards and may eventually be connected in 
the future. However, only the originally-mentioned three systems were planned for connection to 
City water as of September 2007. 
City policy prevents the development of any new private water systems within the UGB. 
10.20.7 URBAN SERVICE MASTER PLANS AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS 
FOR WATER 
1. The Grants Pass City Council prepared the Grants Pass Water Distribution System 
Master Plan, 2001; Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, 2004; and the City of Grants 
Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, 2002 all of which are hereby 
incorporated into the City of Grants Pass Comprehensive Plan by reference and 
furthermore, establish the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and associated costs for 
keeping pace with build-out of the UGB and serving additional areas outside of the UGB, 
including portions of the North Valley. 
2. The City-County Urban Service Policies, adopted with the UGB in August, 1979, require 
a public water system with fire flow capacities to serve urban levels of development. A 
Management Agreement initially adopted January 1981, set out interim development 
standards to determine domestic and fire requirements for utilizing wells and storage 
tanks prior to municipal system extension. On August 8,1998, Josephine County, City 
of Grants Pass, Harbeck-Fruitdale Sewer District and Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service 
District signed an Intergovernmental Agreement for the Orderly Management of the 
Grants Pass Urban Growth Boundary Area. This Intergovernmental Agreement replaces 
each of the earlier agreements. 
3. The City has additional agreements to serve specific properties in the North Valley. 
These include residential properties in the vicinity of the Merlin Landfill; the North 
Valley Industrial Park, and Paradise Ranch. 
7 Per Bob Hamblin and Kathy Mannon, City of Grants Pass Utilities Division, September 2007 
10- 30 
10.20.8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND 
FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR WATER 
Implementation and funding plans for the City of Grants Pass Water System are found in each 
respective Master Plan identified below. 
10.20.8.1 Water Treatment Plant. 
Please refer to the April 2004, City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Chapter 7 -
Implementation Plan, pages 7-1 through 7-8 (MWH). 
10.20.8.2 Water Distribution System. 
Please refer to the City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001, West 
Yost & Associates, Chapter 7 - Cost of Recommended Capital Improvement Program, pages 7-1 
through 7-7 and associated maps locating each improvement. 
10.20.9 WATER SERVICES FINDINGS 
10.20.9.1 Water Source. 
1. Groundwater from the area's alluvial deposit yields a maximum 50 gallons per minute, 
which is insufficient for municipal supply. Problems of salt intrusion and a dropping 
water table further limit the groundwater resource. The only reliable source for the large 
quantities of potable water required for municipal purposes is the Rogue River. 
2. The Rogue River yearly flow is effectively fully subscribed, and can support additional 
subscriptions only by impounding winter flow behind Lost Creek Dam for dry season 
release. 
3. The City has one "perfected right" (priority date 1888) and three permits (priority dates 
1960, 1965, and 1983) for withdrawing 12.5 cubic feet per second (cfs), 25 cfs, 25 cfs 
and 25 cfs, respectively, for a total of 87.5 cfs from the river for municipal purposes. 
4. The following information regarding the Grants Pass Irrigation District (GPID) was 
included in the previously adopted version of this chapter, and should be updated when 
more current information can be obtained from GPID. 
a. The Grants Pass Irrigation District has a "perfected right" of 96.7 cfs with a 1916 
priority date, and in addition has a Fish and Game "transport right" of 83 cfs and an 
"as through" right for the turbine lifts of 800 cfs, also diverted at the Savage Rapids 
Dam Site. The GPID perfected right may be used for municipal purposes. One-third 
of this right could provide for 30,490 persons, and one-half could provide for 45,730 
persons at maximum day demand levels. 
b. The GPID canal and delivery system serves 400 exclusive farm use acres and 7000 
urban-suburban acres. The District has 55 miles of major canals and laterals of 
10- 31 
which 85% are unlined or uncovered. Many of these canals and laterals serve as 
major drain ways of the City and urbanizing area, and have been incorporated into the 
Master Storm Drain Plan of the UGB area. 
c. Some 2600 acres of irrigated lands have passed out of the District over the years, due 
mainly to urban level development and die silting and washout problems associated 
with winter drainage accommodation. The GPID has elected to continue supplying 
water through canals and laterals as development proceeds, citing as rationale that the 
improvements required by development often don't exceed "buy-out" costs, that the 
City's maximum day demand for water in the summer is thereby reduced, and that the 
irrigation water, being untreated and un-pressurized is cheaper for both the user and 
the provider. 
10.20.9.2 Water Treatment. 
5. The City began providing treated water for domestic use in 1931 (3.5/mgd), with 
expansions in 1950 (4.5 mgd), 1961 (11.5 mgd), and 1983 bringing the total current 
capacity to 20 mgd (as of 2007.) The WTP is capable of being expanded to 
approximately 30 mgd with major modifications. Based on a water demand increase of 
2.5 to 3 percent per year, the plant expansion will not be required until the middle to end 
of decade 2020. ITie estimated project cost for a plant expansion to 30 mgd is $7.5 
million dollars in 2003, which minimizes the use of additional footprint on the existing 
site. It is recommended that the City assess available property for a future new plant to 
expand and partially replace the existing plant within the next 50 years 
10.20.9.3 Water Storage and Distribution. 
6. Waters must be stored to allow for hourly fluctuation in demand ("equalizing storage" at 
25% maximum daily demand), must meet fire flow demand when normal consumption is 
at the maximum daily rate ("fire storage" as per ISO tables), and must provide for water 
supply during a major disruption ("reserve storage," at 50% maximum day demand, or a 
12 hour supply under maximum use conditions and 11/3 days supply under average use). 
7. The annual average, monthly average, and maximum day water demand are calculated 
from analyzing WTP daily operational data. The analysis allows for the identification of 
annual average, monthly average, and maximum day water demand based on the period 
from 1995 to 1999. The average annual demand increased from 3.73 mgd to 4.50 mgd. 
The highest peak daily demand was 9.47 in August of 1998. 
8. There are eight water storage reservoirs within the Grants Pass water distribution system 
that provide a total of 19 million gallons of treated water storage. These reservoirs were 
constructed between the years 1946 and 1999. 
10- 32 
10.30 SANITARY SEWER SERVICES INDEX 
10.30.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT 
• 10-20.1.1 Purpose 
• 10.30.1.2 Intent 
10.30.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 
• 10.30.2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils 
• 10.30.2.2 Topography 
• 10.30.2.3 Geology 
• 10.30.2.4 Soils 
• 10.30.2.5 Climate 
• 10.30.2.6 General Climatic Conditions 
• 10.30.2.7 Precipitation 
• 10.30.2.8 Temperature 
• 10.30.2.9 Other Climatic Factors 
• 10.30.2.10 Water Resources 
• 10.30.2.11 Water Quality 
• 10.30.2.12 Water Quantity 
• 10.30.2.13 Flood Potential 
10.30.3 DEMAND FACTORS 
• 10.30.3.1 Population 
o 10.30.3.1.1 Estimate of Population Equivalent for Sewer Service Area 
o 10.30.3.1.2 Projection of Population Equivalent for Sewer Service Area 
• 10.30.3.2 Land Use 
• 10.30.3.3 Grants Pass Irrigation District 
• 10.30.3.4 Hydraulic and Biologic Loading 
10.30.4 CITY OF GRANTS PASS SANITARY SEWER SERVICES 
• 10.30.4.1 Service Area 
• 10.30.4.2 Treatment Plant 
• 10.30.4.3 Treatment Level 
• 10.30.4.4 Biosolids Handling and Disposal 
• 10.30.4.5 Collection System 
• 10.30.4.6 Pump Stations 
o 10.30.4.6.1 City Pump Stations 
o 10.30.4.6.2 RSSSD Pump Stations 
10- 33 
10.30.5 TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 
• 10.30.5.1 Liquid Stream Alternatives 
o 10.30.5.1.1 Upgrades Common to the Liquid Stream Alternatives 
q 10.30.5.1.2 Alternative One - Conventional Expansion 
o 10.30.5.1.3 Alternative Two - Ballasted Sedimentation 
o 10.30.5.1.4 Alternative Three - Zenon Process 
o 10.30.5.1.5 Liquid Stream Alternatives Cost Estimate Comparison 
• 10.30.5.2 Biosolids Disposal and Handling Alternatives 
o 10.30.5.2.1 Alternative One - Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility 
o 10.30.5.2.2 Alternative Two - Dry Creek Landfill 
o 10.30.5.2.3 Alternative Three - Land Applying Class B Biosolids 
o 10.30.5.2.4 Alternative Four-Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment (ATP) 
o 10.30.5.2.5 Biosolids Alternatives Cost Estimate Comparison 
• 10.30.5.3 Miscellaneous Plant Improvements 
10.30.6 PREFERRED TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 
• 10.30.6.1 Biosolids Handling and Disposal 
• 10.30.6.2 Liquid Stream Treatment 
• 10.30.6.3 Capital Improvements Water Restoration Plant 
10.30.7 RECOMMENDED COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 
• 10.30.7.1 Collection System Goals 
• 10.30.7.2 Hydraulic Capacity Improvements 
• 10.30.7.3 Maintenance and Reliability Improvements 
• 10.30.7.4 Estimated Cost of Improvements 
• 10.30.7.5 Collection System Capital Improvement Program 
10.30.8 REGULATORY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES 
• 10.30.8.1 FEDERAL POLICY 
o 10.30.8.1.1 Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act 
o 10.30.8.1.2 Safe Drinking Water Act 
o 10.30.8.1.3 Proposed CMOM Rule 
• 10.30.8.2 STATE POLICY 
o 10.30.8.2.1 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 
o 10.30.8.2.2 Bacterial Control Management Plan 
o 10.30.8.2.3 Groundwater Regulations 
• 10.30.8.3 LOCAL ORDINANCES, POLICY, AND MANAGEMENT 
AGREEMENT 
o 10.30.8.3.1 Grants Pass Municipal Code 
o 10.30.8.3.2 City of Grants Pass Development Code 
o 10.30.8.3.3 Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Policy 
o 10.30.8.3.4 Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement 
10- 34 
10.30.9 FINANCING PLAN 
• 10.30.9.1 Capital Costs 
• 10.30.9.2 Current Funding 
• 10.30.9.3 Capital Funding Mechanisms 
• 10.30.9.4 Projected Cash Flow 
• 10.30.9.5 Conclusion 
10.30.10 SANITARY SEWER SERVICES FINDINGS 
• 10.3 0.10.1 Existing Sewer Capacity 
• 10.30.10.2 Future Need 
10- 35 
1030.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT 
10.30.1.1 Purpose 
The purpose of this section is to identify existing sanitary sewer service facilities and capacities, 
identify areas of immediate concern, project capacities needed through the planning period, present 
financial methods of paying for and regulating the service, and present policies of the orderly 
provision of services. Within and contiguous to the UGB, there are currently three systems 
providing sanitary sewer service: City of Grants Pass, Harbeck-Fruitdale Sanitary Sewer Service 
District, and the Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District. 
1030.1.2 Intent 
The intent of this section is to enact the following public facilities sanitary system master plans by 
ordinance as an update to the Public Facilities Element of the City of Grants Pass Comprehensive 
Plan: 
1. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, Final 
Report (Parametrix, June 2001); 
2. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, 
Appendices - Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
3. Collection System Master Plan, City of Grants Pass (Parametrix, September 2004) 
4. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District Engineering Report (Parametrix, April 1999, 
Revised November 1999) (NOTE: This report evaluated alternatives for either 
upgrading/expanding the Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant, or conveying the waste 
water to the Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant (WRP) for treatment. The preferred 
alternative identified in the report was conveying the waste water to the WRP for treatment, 
and the work has since been completed.) 
10.30.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 
The natural environment includes topography, geology, soils, climate, and water resources of the 
region. This section presents a brief discussion of these items in relation to sanitary sewer collection 
system planning and analysis. The information provided in this section was excerpted from the City 
of Grants Pass Collection System Master Plan, completed by Parametrix in September 2004. 
10.30.2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils 
The topography, geology, and soils of a region can have a significant effect on the design and 
construction requirements of entire sanitary sewer system. Topography can determine the route and 
slope of sewer lines, as well as the need for and location of pumping stations. The geology and soil 
conditions in an area can affect construction costs for pipelines and determine locations for system 
components. 
10.30.2.2 Topography 
Grants Pass lies in the Rogue River Valley in the Klamath Mountain Range of Oregon. The Rogue 
River Valley begins at the base of the surrounding hills and exists as a well-defined stream terrace 
some 10 to 15 feet above the bed of the Rogue River. The valley slopes toward the river at an 
10- 36 
average gradient of 1 to 2 percent. Elevations on the low-lying valley flow range from 880 to 1,100 
feet above sea level. The Rogue River traverses the valley in a general east-west direction on an 
average slope of about 6 feet per mile. Away from the valley floor, the terrain grows steep relatively 
quickly. Beacon Hill (located northeast of the City) and Baldy Mountain (located southeast of the 
City) are 2,117 feet and 2,740 feet in elevation, respectively. The Siskiyou Mountains, part of the 
Klamath Mountains, lie to the south and west of Grants Pass. To the northeast, a spur connects the 
Klamath Mountains to the Cascade Range. 
10.30.2.3 Geology 
The service area contains several major geologic units, including alluvium deposits, diorites and 
granites, ultramafic and metavolcanic rocks, and gneisses and schists. The alluvium deposits, 
between 100 and 150 feet thick, formed the valley floor by eroding away from the surrounding rock 
units. The lava and metavolcanic rock composing Beacon Hill and Baldy Mountain does not 
weather easily. Its ruggedness has limited development in these areas. The softer granite of Dollar 
Mountain to the northwest, and various hills to the south and southwest of the city shows greater 
weathering. The rounded ridges and gentle slopes of these areas have encouraged development. 
10.30.2.4 Soils 
Weathering of the different geologic units has given the soils of this area a wide range of 
characteristics. The soils that underlie the developable portions of the Rogue River Valley are of the 
greatest importance to the collection analysis. Soils with poor drainage can increase the potential for 
infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the collection system, leading to increased flows to the Water 
Restoration Plant (WRP.) A survey conducted by the U.S Department of Agriculture (USD A, 1983) 
identified the soil types found in this area for agricultural purposes. A brief summary of the USDA 
survey with generalized engineering interpretations is presented below. 
The most important soil types in the valley are Newberg fine sandy loam, Barron coarse sandy loam, 
and Clawson sandy loam. Newberg fine sandy loam is principal soil type in the floodplain and 
terraced areas of the valley. It occupies a strip along the Rogue River Valley that is generally about a 
mile in width; however, it narrows to about 2,500 feet at Grants Pass. The soil is well drained and 
presents no major problems for the collection system. Barron coarse sandy loam occupies extensive 
portions of the Rogue River Valley and underlies most of the city west of Gilbert Creek. The soil 
generally occurs upslope from Columbian fine sandy loam and extends as valley fill material into 
most of the minor tributary valleys. This soil has slightly higher clay content than the Newberg 
loam, but does not significantly impact drainage or increase I/I impacts. 
Clawson sandy loam underlies a major portion of the city east of Gilbert Creek. This soil typically 
consists of about 1 foot of smooth-textured silt loam overlying a compact silty loam or clay loam 
subsoil. At a depth of about 30 inches, the subsoil assumes an extremely gritty texture, reflecting 
the presence of coarse granitic material. The subsoil terminates at shallow depths in coarse granitic 
rock. The soil is flat lying and poorly drained. Because of the impervious nature of the shallow 
bedrock, it is waterlogged during the winter and spring months. In some areas, the water table is less 
than 3 feet below the ground level well into the summer. The high groundwater conditions that 
accompany this soil type can be a problem when wastewater pipelines lying in the soil have cracks or 
leaks. Groundwater infiltrates into the cracks and leaks, significantly increasing the flow of liquid to 
10- 37 
theWRP. 
10.30.2.5 Climate 
Precipitation, temperature, and other climatic factors can significantly affect the design and 
construction of wastewater facilities. Rainfall is especially significant, because it can cause large 
flow increases in the collection system due to storm water runoff, illicitly connected roof drains, and 
raised groundwater levels. 
10.30.2.6 General Climatic Conditions 
The climate of Grants Pass is generally mild, although temperatures below freezing and above 100 
degrees Fahrenheit occur for short periods annually. Climate is influenced by the Pacific Ocean, 
which is located about 60 miles west of the city. The intervening coastal mountains modify the 
effect of the marine air masses, causing this portion of the Rogue River Valley to receive less annual 
rainfall and to have fewer cloudy and rainy days than most other portions of Western Oregon. 
Monthly temperature and precipitation data for Grants Pass are summarized in Table 10.30.1. 
Table 10.30.1 Climate Summary* 
Month 
Temperature Degrees Fahrenbeit Precipitation in Inches 
Mean 
Maximum 
Mean 
Minimum 
Mea 
n 
Highest 
Recorded 
Lowest 
Recorded Mean 
Greatest 
Daily 
January 47.4 31.1 39.3 69 13 5.0 3.4 
February 54.1 32.7 43.4 76 12 4.4 2.2 
March 59.8 34.1 47.0 81 22 3.7 2.2 
April 65.6 35.8 50.7 93 24 2.0 1.4 
May 73.1 40.5 56.8 102 26 1.2 1.5 
June 80.8 45.4 63.1 106 33 0.5 1.0 
July 88.8 49.5 69.2 109 39 0.4 1.3 
August 89.0 48.9 69.0 110 36 0.5 0.8 
September 82.7 43.0 62.9 108 29 0.9 2.9 
October 70.4 37.4 53.9 98 20 2.1 1.7 
November 53.3 34.6 44.0 77 12 5.1 4.8 
December 45.7 31.3 38.5 67 -1 5.4 4.0 
Annual 67.6 38.7 53.2 110 -1 31.2 4.8 
"Source: Recordsofthe Oregon Climate Services, 1971-2000 
10.30.2.7 Precipitation 
Nearly 75 percent of annual rainfall in Grants Pass occurs between the months of November through 
March. A majority of the annual precipitation is in the form of rain, although about 4 to 5 inches of 
snow falls each year. Seasonal snowfall rarely exceeds 10 inches, which usually melts immediately. 
10.30.2.8 Temperature 
Temperatures in Grants Pass usually remain moderate through the winter. Subfreezing temperatures 
may persist long enough to freeze water in aboveground facilities; however, it rarely lasts long 
enough to cause freezing in buried facilities. Summers are warm and dry. Temperatures exceed 100 
degrees Fahrenheit on an average of 6 days a year. Nighttime temperatures are generally cool, 
averaging about 51 degrees Fahrenheit during July, the warmest month. 
10- 38 
10-30.2.9 Other Climatic Factors 
Sunshine is usually abundant during the spring, summer and fall, but the area is generally cloudy 
during the winter months. Early morning fog occurs frequently during November, December and 
January. Fog is less common in October and February and rarely occurs during the rest of the year. 
Wind speed and direction are not routinely measured at Grants Pass. The prevailing wind direction, 
however, is from the west, approximately parallel to the axis of the Rogue River Valley. 
1030.2.10 Water Resources 
The principal water resources in the service area are surface water from The Rogue River and its 
tributaries and groundwater from the alluvium covering the river valley. The water resource most 
important for this Plan, the Rogue River, drains 2,460 square miles above Grants Pass before 
traversing the study area. The Rogue River is used for the City's potable water supply, irrigation, 
and recreation. 
A number of individual wells rely on area groundwater. The alluvium is the major aquifer, with 
typical yield of 40 gallons per minute (gpm). Volcanic formations usually yield less water, but in a 
few highly fractured areas wells have yields as high as 60 gpm. Many of the high yields are not 
sustainable, as the aquifers are small and substantial drawdown occurs. 
10.30.2.11 Water Quality 
The 2004 Collection System Master Plan discusses regulatory framework for both existing water 
quality and the quality of water discharged from the Water Restoration Plant. The City's NPDES 
Permit takes into account existing temperature and pollutant loading in setting discharge limits from 
the Water Restoration Plant. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Division 41, Section 340-41-365, 
sets standards for water quality in the Rogue River basin. The rules cover dissolved oxygen 
concentrations, temperature increases, pH values, coliform counts, creation of tastes or odors, toxic 
conditions that harm aquatic life or affect drinking water, and the formation of sludge. The 
regulations and associated water quality information relating to wastewater treatment and disposal 
are discussed in Section 10.30.7. 
10.30.2.12 Water Quantity 
The most recent 30 years of Rogue River flow data collected by the U.S Geologic Survey (USGS) 
are summarized in Table 10.30.2. 
10- 39 
Table 10.30.2 Historical Rogue River Stream Flow Data 
Month 
Monthly Stream Flow Data (1973-2002)* 
Maximum (ftVs) Minimum (ffVs) Mean (ft /s) 
January 16,610 1,348 5,123 
February 10,960 1,162 4,512 
March 10,760 1,099 4,364 
April 8,395 997 4,076 
May 6,428 1,538 3,703 
June 4,572 1,016 2,796 
July 3,484 974 2,060 
August 3,080 878 2,009 
September 2,642 1,098 1,724 
October 2,282 1,008 1,503 
November 9,086 1,160 2,833 
December 17,620 1,386 4,866 
"Data from US Geologic Survey Rogue River Monitoring Station (14361500) at Grants Pass, Oregon. 
Flows in the Rogue River can fluctuate widely from year to year. The largest recorded discharge, 
152,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), occurred during a December 1964 flood. The lowest recorded 
discharge was minimum day of606 cfs during 1968. Reservoirs have since been constructed in the 
Rogue River basin to provide storage of high wet weather flows for release during dry weather 
periods. 
10.30.2.13 Flood Potential 
It is necessary to identify flood-prone areas in order to safely locate wastewater collection and 
treatment system components. A detailed description of the flood history, mapped locations, and an 
evaluation of the degree of hazard are found in the Natural Hazards Element of the City's 
Comprehensive Plan, 1983. The City has adopted Ordinance 4471, which prohibits development in 
the floodway without a certified "No-Rise" Analysis. Development in the floodway fringe is 
permitted provided the main living floor is elevated at least one foot above the 100-year Base Flood 
Elevation, or for nonresidential structures, floodproof construction techniques are utilized. 
10.30.3 DEMAND FACTORS 
Sewerage demand is driven by factors such as population growth, land use, and to a lesser extent, 
infiltration from GPID. This section examines die factors driving demand. Unless otherwise noted, 
the information provided in this section was excerpted from the City of Grants Pass Collection 
System Master Plan. This plan, completed by Parametrix in September 2004, used a planning 
horizon through the year 2020 and a horizon of2060 for sizing the distribution system. 
10.30.3.1 Population 
Consideration of population trends is crucial to long-term sewerage planning. In order to size new 
facilities and expansions, historical population trends must be examined to predict future population 
growth. The Grants Pass area has experienced steady population growth since the 1920s. This 
increase has been in line with the national population trend of people moving to the west and 
10- 40 
southwest from the northeastern and central states and to rural areas from urban areas. The 
population in Josephine County rose during the 1970s (5.11 percent annually), but slowed 
dramatically during the 1980s (0.6 percent annually). The City of Grants Pass grew more rapidly 
than the county during the last decade (1.5 percent annually). 
10.30.3.1.1 Estimate of Population Equivalent for Sewer Service Area 
The 1990 census lists the population of Grants Pass at 17,424. Population within the city limits in 
2003 was estimated at 22,444. This is the base year population estimate used for the 2004 Collection 
System Master Plan. Population estimates completed after the 2004 Collection System Master Plan 
are presented in the Population element of the Comprehensive Plan. 
The population within the sewer service area consists primarily of the population within the city 
limits, and the Harbeck-Fruitdale and Redwood areas outside the city limits. Prior to 2001, the 
City's Water Restoration Plant (WRP) treated sewage only from within the city and Harbeck-
Fruitdale area. The 2004 Collection System Master Plan estimated a 2003 population of4,620 for 
Harbeck-Fruitdale, based on sewer connection and billing records. In addition, the City began 
serving the Redwood Sanitary Sewer Services District (RSSSD) in 2001, and has subsequently 
converted the Redwood Treatment Plan to a pump station and sewage is now pumped to and treated 
at the City's WRP. The 2004 Collection System Master Plan used a 2003 estimated population of 
5,714 for the Redwood area. Based on the estimates for the City, Harbeck-Fruitdale and Redwood, 
the sewer service area population was estimated to be 32,778 in 2003. It is also necessary to take 
into account the commercial and industrial contribution as a form of population equivalent. The 
2004 Collection System Master Plan assumed that commercial/industrial population equivalent is 35 
percent of the total residential population, which equals 11,472. Therefore, the total sewer service 
area population equivalent was estimated to be 44,250 in 2003. 
The 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update projected the future sewerage area to also include 
Merlin / North Valley. This area lies outside the UGB to the north of the city and has largely been 
dependent on on-site sewage treatment systems. The subsequent 2004 Collection System Master 
Plan acknowledged that although this area may begin contracting with the City for wastewater 
services in the future, there are no current plans for service expansion. Therefore, consideration of 
flows from the North Valley area was not addressed in the 2004 Collection System Master Plan. In 
summary, the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update would provide sufficient capacity of the 
WRP to accommodate sewage from Merlin / North Valley. However, the 2004 Collection System 
Master Plan does not plan for facilities to collect and convey sewage from this area to the WRP. 
10.30.3.1.2 Projection of Population Equivalent for Sewer Service Area 
The 2004 Collection System Master Plan developed a future equivalent population projection for 
the service area by applying sub-area growth rates from the City's Comprehensive Plan to the 
base population estimates for the sub-areas and adding 35% to the resulting population for 
commercial/industrial population equivalent. Estimated growth rates were respectively: 1.5% for 
Grants Pass, 1.6% for Harbeck-Fruitdale and 3.1% for Redwood. Maintaining the 
commercial/industrial equivalent as 35% of the population share in 2020 resulted in an estimated 
1.8% growth rate in commercial/industrial equivalent population. As of 2003, the Grants Pass 
WRP was serving an estimated population equivalent of 44,250 (including the 35 percent 
10- 41 
commercial/industrial equivalent.) After applying these growth rates, year 2020 service area 
population equivalent was estimated as 60,157. For years beyond 2003, it is likely that the city 
limits and UGB would have enlarged from what existed in 1997. The Redwood and Harbeck-
Fruitdale populations would probably then be reflected in the city limit population. 
A summary of the population projection used in the 2004 Collection System Master Plan is shown in 
Table 10.30.3. In addition to projections for the years 2020 and 2025, the plan also created a 
projection assuming all available land was at saturation levels of development, which was referred to 
as Year 2060. The 2060 projections provide a good representation of the build-out conditions that 
are typically used to determine the size of long-term infrastructure improvements, such as collection 
system pipelines. 
Area 
1997 
Population 
Average 
growth rate (% 
per year) 
Population Projection 
2003 2020 2025 2060 
City Limits 20,526 1.5 22,444 28,908 31,143 52,440 
Harbeck-Fruitdale 4,200 1.6 4,620 6,053 6,550 11,417 
Redwood 4,758 3.1 5,714 9,600 11,186 32,563 
Commercial / Industrial 
Equivalent 
10,319 1.8 11,472 15,596 17,107 33,747 
Total Service Area 
Population Equivalent: 
39,803 44,250 60,157 65,986 130,167 
Source: City of Grants Pass Collection System Master Plan, Parametrix Inc., 2004 
10.30.3.2 Land Use 
The 2004 Collection System Master Plan used land use estimates to generate wastewater flow 
estimates. These estimates were used to determine the size of long-term collection system 
improvements. However, land use data was not used in determining plant capacity. Plant 
capacity was determined exclusively by utilizing the population projections found in the previous 
section, and applying a 35 percent commercial / industrial equivalency factor. The land use data 
used in developing the flow analysis can be found in Section 2 of the 2004 Collection System 
Master Plan. 
10.30.3.3 Grants Pass Irrigation District 
The Grants Pass Irrigation District was formed in the early 1920s to supply irrigation water to land 
located between the town of Rogue River and the confluence of the Applegate and Rogue Rivers. 
Currently about 7,700 acres of agricultural and residential lands are irrigated. The district has water 
rights to divert up to 150 cfs from the Rogue River during irrigation season. A series of canals 
constructed by the district carries the water from Savage Rapids Dam throughout the area covered by 
the district. Many residents in the sewerage service area use water from the canals to irrigate 
landscaping and gardens. The canals are also used to carry storm water away from these lands. 
The irrigation season typically lasts from about April 15 to October 1. Examination of flows 
received at the treatment plant shows that the influent flows increase during those months, even 
though little precipitation occurs during that period. It appears that one source of infiltration and 
inflow in the Grants Pass sewage treatment plant is irrigation water that has seeped into the ground 
and infiltrated the sewer system. Although there is a court order to remove Savage Rapids Dam 
10- 42 
(now underway), GPID will continue to function as it does now through the installation of pumps 
that will deliver water to the district's canal system. 
1030.3.4 Hydraulic and Biologic Loading 
The 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update made flow projections based on existing wastewater 
flow, plus a typical flow per capita assumed for all future connections. These future flow factors in 
gallons per capita per day (gpcd) are shown in Table 10.30.4. The per capita flow assumed for future 
connections was typical for new construction at the time. Table 10.30.5 shows the wastewater flow 
projections made through the 2020 planning period. NOTE: The population figures shown in Table 
10.30.5 were extracted from the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update and include the Harbeck-
Fruitdale Sewer Service District, the Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District, and the Merlin / 
North Valley area. 
Table 10.30.4 Future Flow Factors 
Flow Type Contribution (gpcd) 
Average Flow 105 
Maximum Month Dry Weather Flow 
(MMDWF) 
100 
Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow 
(MM WWF) 
130 
Peak Day 275 
Peak Wet Weather Flow 360 
Summer Average 85 
Winter Average 125 
Source: Waste Water Facilities Plan Update, Parametrix, 2001 
Table 10.30.5 Wastewater Flow Projections 
YEAR 
Types of Flow 
1999 
(Pop. 42,900) 
2010 
(Pop. 52,200) 
2020 
(Pop. 62,700) 
Calculated 
(mgd) 
Calculated 
(Gal/cap-
day) 
Design 
(mgd) 
Design 
(Gal/cap-
day) 
Design 
(mgd) 
Design 
(Gal/cap-
day) 
Summer Max. Month 7.3 173 8.4 160 9.4 150 
Winter Max. Month 10.8 256 12.2 233 13.5 216 
Peak Day 21.5 514 24.6 471 27.5 438 
PWWF 30.1 715 34.0 652 37.8 603 
Summer Average 5.0 120 6.0 113 6.8 109 
Winter Average 6.4 155 7.80 149 9.1 145 
Annual Average 5.7 137 6.9 131 8.0 127 
Source: Waste Water Facilities Plan Update, Parametrix, 2001 
10- 43 
Table 10J0.6 Organic and Solids Loading (pounds per day) 
Type of Loading 
Year 
1999 2010 2020 
Average BOPs 7,490 9,400 11,400 
Maximum Monthly BOD5 10,985 13,700 16,800 
Average NH3-N 327 390 450 
Maximum Monthly NH3-N 636 760 870 
Average TSS 8,564 10,500 12,700 
Maximum Monthly TSS 11,623 14,300 17,300 
Source: Waste Water Facilities Plan Update, Parametrix, 2001 
Because the Rogue River is used for salmon spawning, fish passage, and rearing Coho, wastewater 
discharge requirements are strict. To properly evaluate upgrading/expanding the Grants Pass WRP, 
an analysis of the facilities wastewater discharge permit limit is necessary. Table 10.30.6 presents 
the anticipated year 2020 BOD5 and TSS treatment requirements as mandated by OAR 340-41 -375. 
These values represent the dry weather season BODs and TSS effluent concentrations that the plant 
should meet monthly. 
Table 10.30.7 Anticipated Year 2020 BOD5 and TSS Treatment Requirements 
Based on OAR 340-41-375 
Flow 
(mgd) 
Effluent Concentration 
(mg/L) 
Mass Discharge, lbs/day 
Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily 
Permit Limits Based on Effluent Quality 
Summer, Dry 
Weather 
8 10 15 - 670 1,000 1,300 
Winter, Wet 
Weather 
10 30 45 - 2,500 3,750 5,000 
L 
Source: Waste Water Facilities Plan Update, Parametrix, 2001 
The DEQ has determined that the Rogue River is a high priority concern for implementing 
management strategies to attain compliance with water quality standards. The first step in this 
process is to develop the total maximum daily load (TMDL) pollutant loading allocations. This 
TMDL will include both point and non-point sources. 
The TMDL process is now underway and is currently scheduled to be completed in the next several 
years. Following TMDL allocation, new discharge permit requirements may be established for the 
Grants Pass WRP that will modify Table 10.30.7. These new permit requirements may also impact 
the capacity of the existing plant.8 
8 Per Steve Gilbert, Parametrix, June 2 0 0 7 
10- 44 
J 
10.30.4 CITY OF GRANTS PASS SANITARY SEWER SERVICES 
10.30.4.1 Service Area 
Situated near the Rogue River, the Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant (WRP) serves the City and 
the Harbeck-Fruitdale area In the fall of2000, the plant began receiving sewage from the Redwood 
area. 
The 2004 Collection System Master Plan estimated that the Grants Pass WRP had a service area 
population equivalent of approximately 44,250 in 2003. With estimated growth rates of 1.5 percent 
for Grants Pass and 1.6 percent for Harbeck-Fruitdale, and the addition of Redwood at a 3.1 percent 
population growth rate, it was estimated that the Grants Pass WRP would be serving an equivalent of 
60,157 people by the year 2020. 
10.30.4.2 Treatment Plant 
Since 1935, the City of Grants Pass WRP has been operating at its current site. Subsequent plant 
additions occurred in 1953 and 1962. In 1974, the treatment plant was renovated and expanded. 
More improvements occurred from 1994-96 in response to the Department of Environmental 
Quality's concerns about the effluent toxicity, and the discharging directly into the Rogue River. The 
improvements consisted of a fourth raw sewage pump, a temporary belt filter press to improve wet 
weather solids disposal, two rectangular primary clarifiers, a computer based supervisory control and 
data acquisition system, and an ultraviolet disinfection system. In January 1999, Brown & Caldwell 
completed a facilities plan for the Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant (WRP). Also in 1999, the 
addition of a second Ultraviolet channel was implemented. This allowed the increase of disinfection 
capacity from 21.5 million gallons per day (mgd) to 43 mgd.9 
10.30.4.3 Treatment Level 
At the time of the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, the Grants Pass WRP treated 4.5 mgd of 
average dry weather flow (ADWF), with a record peak storm flow of 26.5 mgd. More recent data 
has also been compiled. As of April 2008, the WRP treated an ADWF of 5.5 mgd and peak wet 
weather flow of 30.0 mgd. The WRP is comprised of numerous unit treatment processes for both 
liquid and solid streams, a control/laboratory building, and a maintenance shop. There is a 27 mgd 
hydraulic capacity for influent pumping 10, screening, and primary treatment, a 13 mgd hydraulic 
capacity for secondary treatment, and a 43 mgd hydraulic capacity for UV disinfection. Flow 
exceeding the secondary treatment capacity receives only primary treatment and disinfection. This 
occurs only a few days a year during wet weather storm conditions. 
10.30.4.4 Biosolids Handling and Disposal 
Currently, the Grants Pass WRP sends the Class B Biosolids to JO-GRO™, a green waste and 
biosolid waste composting plant. 
To produce Class B biosolids, processing must occur. The process starts with a primary clarifier. 
Solids, which are thickened in the gravity thickener and the gravity belt thickener, are dewatered by 
9 Information from this section was excerpted from the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update. Additional WRP 
upgrades have occurred since that time (see Water Restoration Plant Capital Improvement Plan, Table 10.30.11). 
10 As of January 2008 a project was completed to increase the hydraulic capacity for influent pumping to 45 mgd. 
10- 45 
the secondary clarifier to produce waste activated sludge. The primary and secondary sludge are then 
combined and sent to the 50-foot-diameter anaerobic digester. Dewatered biosolids are loaded into a 
dumpster and hauled to the Merlin Landfill for the JQ-GRO™ composting process. 
10.30.4.5 Collection System 
Per the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, it was believed that prior to 1927 sewer pipes were 
constructed of vitrified clay, although records are not available to confirm this. From 1927 to 1964, 
sewers were constructed of non-reinforced concrete pipe with bell and spigot joints caulked with 
cement mortar. Since 1964, sewers have been constructed of concrete pipe with bell and spigot 
joints and rubber ring gaskets. The concrete pipes are caulked at the joints with cement mortar. 
Over time, the cement caulking dissolves leaving the joints vulnerable to cracking and resulting in 
infiltration of groundwater and penetration of tree roots. 
At the time of the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update the City's collection system consisted of 
approximately 110 miles of gravity sewers, one force main (approximately 2,000 feet long), and 
three pumping stations. As of 1983, three hundred fifty acres of the downtown area were still served 
by vitrified clay pipe installed prior to 1927. The portion of the collection system constructed prior 
to 1964 has shown severe deterioration in both pipe materials and joint integrity. From 1992 to 
2001, the city reported 17 sinkholes due to pipe failure. 
The City of Grants Pass completed a Collection System Master Plan in 1983 (James Montgomery, 
1983). A number of the 1983 recommendations for improving the collection system have been 
implemented. The City has, however, experienced sewer line failures and occasional overflows due 
to sewer line obstructions. The City has also expanded its collection system to include the Redwood 
Sanitary Sewer Service District (RSSSD) collection system located west of the City. The Oregon 
Department of Environmental Quality made completion of an updated Collection System Master 
Plan a provision in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the 
City's Water Restoration Plant, issued in December of 2000. 
The 2004 Collection System Master Plan is the most recent in a series of reports/studies focusing on 
wastewater infrastructure. In 2000, the City commissioned a Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
(Parametrix, 2001) for improvements to the City WRP. The Facilities Plan focused on the WRP but 
also provides some analysis of the existing collection system to assess the impact of infiltration and 
inflow (I/I) on peak flow events at the WRP. Additional collection system analyses that were 
presented in the RSSSD Facilities Plan (prepared in 1999 by Parametrix) assessed the RSSSD 
wastewater collection system. In September 2004, Parametrix prepared the City's latest Collection 
System Master Plan, which provides for the capital improvement programming (see tables 10.30.11, 
10.30.14, and 10.30.15) to accommodate orderly and cost-effective methods to operate, maintain and 
expand the collection system while reducing the risk of system failures. 
10.30.4.6 Pump Stations 
The topography of the City's service area is such that most of the system is operated under gravity 
flow conditions. As such, there are only a few pump stations in the collection system. The Webster 
No. 1 Lift Station, Webster No. 2 Lift Station, and Bridge Street Pump Station are all located in the 
southwestern portion of the city. Under an intergovernmental agreement, the City also operates two 
10-46 
pump stations serving the RSSSD: the RSSSD pump station, located at the site of the abandoned 
RSSSD wastewater treatment plant at 4960 Leonard Road, and the Darneille Pump Station at 3100 
South River Road. 
1030.4.6.1 City Pump Stations: The collection system includes three pumping stations, two of 
which are simply lift stations. Design data for all three pump stations is included in Table 10.30.8. 
The lift stations, Webster Lift Station 1 and Webster Lift Station 2, are both located on Webster Lane 
and serve the mobile home park in the western section of Basin A. Each station is equipped with 
two vertical, non-clog, and centrifugal pumps. The pumps in Station 1 are 7.5 hp pumps, each with a 
capacity of 100 gallons per minute (gpm) at 23 feet total dynamic head (TDH). Station 2 pumps are 
3 hp pumps, each with a capacity of 100 gpm at 10 feet TDH. 
The third station, designated the Bridge Street Station, is located at the intersection of Bridge Street 
and Tami Court. Dual (4- and 8-inch diameter) force mains travel east from the pump station along 
Bridge Street about 1,900 feet and discharge in Manhole B i l l . The station is equipped with two 
submersible non-clog centrifugal pumps. Each of the 20 hp pumps has a capacity of650 gpm at 75 
feet TDH. Air injection is also provided for the force main to control sulfides. A 50 kW natural gas 
fueled engine generator is provided standby power. 
10.30.4.6.2 Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District (RSSDÌ Pump Stations: The Redwood 
Conveyance System, which transfers all flow from the old Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plan 
(WWTP) to the Grants Pass WRP, includes the Redwood Pump Station, the Redwood force main, 
the Darneille force mains and Darneille Pump Station, and a gravity sewer which brings the 
transferred flow to the Grants Pass WRP. The Redwood Pump Station is located at the old Redwood 
WWTP. It is a duplex submersible pump station with a capacity of 0.48 mgd, based on one pump in 
operation. The station has a Bioxide chemical injections system with a 3,000-gallon chemical 
storage tank. From the Redwood Pump Station, flow is routed through approximately 10,300 feet of 
6-inch-diameter force main to an influent manhole at the Darneille Pump Station. 
The Darneille Pump Station accepts the majority of the flow from the RSSSD, as well as the flow 
pumped from the Redwood Pump Station. The Darneille Pump Station has a firm capacity of 4.2 
mgd, based on operation of two of three pumps. The station is a wet well/dry well type station with 
above-grade electrical panels, generator, and chemical feed system. The chemical feed system is 
identical to that provided at the Redwood Pump Station, except that the chemical feed pumps are 
slightly larger. From the Darneille Pump Station, flow is pumped through approximately 17,740 feet 
of dual 12-inch force main and the 1,000 feet of single 14-inch force main. From the pump station, 
the dual force mains are routed south to South River Road; then east through road rights-of-way and 
easements to the south side of the Pedestrian Bridge. The dual 12-inch force mains join into a single 
14-inch force main that crosses the Rogue River on the Pedestrian Bridge and then discharges into a 
gravity sewer, which flows to the WRP. Table 10.30.8 provides pump station data. 
10-47 
Table 10.30.8 Pump Station Data 
Location 
Year 
Built 
No. 
of 
Pumps 
Pump 
Type 
Horsepower 
(hp) 
Drive 
Type 
Capacity/Head 
(gpmV(feet) 
Webster No. 1 
LiH Station: 
East edge of 
Roguelea Estates 
1967 2 Self-priming, vertical close-
coupled, non-clog centrifugal 
7.5 Constant 
Speed 
100/23 
Webster No. 2 
Lift Station: 
All Sports Park 
-Basin A 
1967 2 Self-priming, vertical close-
coupled, non-clog centrifugal 
3 Constant 
Speed 
100/10 
Bridge Street 
Pump Station: 
Bridge Street and 
Tami Court -
Basin A 
1994 2 Submersible, non-clog 
centrifugal 
20 Variable 
Speed 
650/75 
Redwood Pump 
Station: 
4960 Leonard 
Road - RSSSD 
2000 2 Submersible, non-clog, 
centrifugal 
40 Variable 
Speed 
335/163 
Darneille Pump 
Station: 
3100 South River 
Road - RSSSD 
2000 3 Immersible diy-pit, screw 
centrifugal 
110 Variable 
Speed 
1,460/180 
Source: City of Grants Pass Collection System Master Plan, Parametrix Inc., 2004 
1030.5 TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 
In January 1999, Brown and Caldwell (BC) completed a Facilities Plan (FP) for the Grants Pass 
Water Restoration Plant (WRP). A concern regarding the future flow and population projections 
prompted a Value Engineering (VE) Workshop in June 1999. During this VE Workshop with 
Parametrix, Inc. and the City, these projections were recalculated and other treatment alternatives for 
both the liquid and solid streams were conceptualized. Also during the VE Workshop, the projected 
population, flow, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) loadings 
were recalculated. These recalculations and treatment alternatives were incorporated into the 2001 
Grants Pass Wastewater Facilities Plan Update (WFP). 
To select the best method for meeting Grants Pass treatment needs in the year 2020, the WFP 
evaluated three liquid stream alternatives and four solids streams alternatives. The liquid stream 
treatment includes a conventional expansion alternative, a ballasted sedimentation alternative, and a 
Zenon process alternative. The biosolids disposal and handling alternatives propose a Merlin 
Landfill co-compost facility, hauling dewatered biosolids to the Dry Creek Landfill, land application 
of Class B biosolids, and using an Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment (ATP) component. The 
alternatives are summarized below. 
10.30.5.1 Liquid Stream Alternatives 
1030.5.1.1 Upgrades Common to the Liquid Stream Alternatives. All of the liquid stream 
treatment alternatives have several component upgrades in common. At the headworks, an 
10-48 
additional mechanical bar screen would be installed with a 23.5 mgd capacity. This provides 
redundancy and a maximum capacity of 47 mgd, which is well beyond the projected future flows. 
An outfall diffuser would be added to improve and reduce the ammonia toxicity into the Rogue 
River. Several miscellaneous plant improvements, which existed in the Facility Plan, have also been 
included in the value engineering alternatives. These improvements include laboratory upgrades, 
operations building repairs and modifications, and instrumentation and control system expansion. 
1030.5.1.2 Alternative One - Conventional Expansion. Alternative One is the recommended 
improvement from the WFP using a conventional expansion approach. By replicating the existing 
components, this option allows continuing ease of operation due to staff familiarity of the process. 
This alternative has been modified to treat the peak wet weather flow. À summary of the upgrades 
include: 
• Additional mechanical bar screen with a capacity of 23.5 mgd. 
• Removal of the four existing influent pumps and replacement with three 19 mgd 
pumps 
• Additional rectangular primary clarifier. Rehabilitate existing primary clarifiers. 
• Two additional aeration basins. Rehabilitate existing aeration basins. 
• Two additional 115-foot secondary clarifiers. Rehabilitate existing secondary 
clarifiers. 
• Outfall diffuser in the Rogue River. 
• Miscellaneous improvements: laboratory upgrades, operations building and 
modifications, and instrumentation and control system expansion. 
10.30.5.1.3 Alternative Two - Ballasted Sedimentation. Alternative Two uses ballasted 
sedimentation to treat peak flows greater than 13.5 mgd. It is proposed to convert the existing 
gravity thickener into the ballasted sedimentation tank. The peak flows would be conveyed to this 
system and then recombined with the main treatment train to receive UV disinfection. Other 
upgrades to the Grants Pass WRP include: 
• Install additional influent pumping capacity. 
• Additional mechanical bar screen with a 23.5 mgd capacity. 
• Odor containment at the influent pump station and mechanical bar screen area, 
• Converting the circular primary clarifier to a combination primary clarifier/gravity 
thickener. 
• The existing primary clarifiers would be rehabilitated. 
• Addition of a bioselector in the aeration basin to provide filamentous bacteria control, 
which would improve the settling performance in the secondary clarifiers. The aeration 
basin would also be modified with fine bubble diffusers, dissolved oxygen control, and 
motorized gates. 
• Two additional 90-foot secondary clarifiers. Rehabilitate the secondary clarifiers. 
• Outfall diffuser in the Rogue River. 
• Miscellaneous improvements : laboratory upgrades, operations building and modifications, 
instrumentation and control system expansion, plant equipment audit, additional plant 
landscaping, public education program, and yard piping upgrades. 
10-49 
10.30.5.1.4 Alternative Three - Zenon Process. Alternative Three incorporated the use of 
Zenon for secondary treatment. The wastewater can flow directly into the primary clarifiers, 
thereby eliminating the need for secondary clarifiers. Zenon is a microfiltration membrane 
system located in a suspended growth biological reactor. For this alternative, the membranes 
would be placed into the aeration basin to serve as a biological reactor. Other upgrades to the 
Grants Pass WRP for this alternative include: 
• Additional influent pump to meet the projected firm capacity. 
• Additional mechanical bar screen with a 23.5 mgd capacity. 
• Odor containment at the influent pump station and mechanical bar screen area. 
• For peak overflows greater than 13.5 mgd, the existing gravity thickener would be 
converted into a ballasted sedimentation tank. 
• Converting the circular primary clarifier to a combination primary clarifier/gravity 
thickener. 
• The existing primary and secondary clarifiers rehabilitated for enhanced performance. 
• Outfall diffuser in the Rogue River. 
• Miscellaneous improvements include: Laboratory upgrades, operations building and 
modifications, instrumentation and control system expansion, plant equipment audit, 
additional plant landscaping, public education program, and yard piping upgrades. 
10.30.5.1.5 Liquid Stream Alternatives Cost Estimate Comparison. A preliminary cost 
estimate for these liquid stream alternatives is summarized in Table 10.30.9. Engineering, 
administration, and contingency are included in these costs. 
Table 10.30.9 Comparison of Liquid Stream Alternatives 
Alternative Capital Cost (millions) 
One- Conventional Expansion $12.23 
Two- Ballasted Sedimentation $13.59 
Three- Zenon Process $23.96 
Source: City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plan Update, June 2001, Parametrix Inc. 
10.30.5.2 Biosolids Disposal and Handling Alternatives 
The following subsections generally describe the alternatives for biosolids disposal and handling 
proposed at the Merlin Landfill co-compost facility, for hauling dewatered biosolids to the Dry Creek 
Landfill, for applying to land the Class B biosolids, and for using an Aerobic Thermophilic 
Pretreatment (ATP) component. 
10.30.5.2.1 Alternative One- Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility. Alternative One would 
co-compost digested primary and raw secondary biosolids. The existing digester would be 
rehabilitated and used only for digesting primary biosolids. A new component for dewatering 
digested primary biosolids to 15 percent solids would be installed in an existing building located 
on site. The biosolids would be hauled to the co-composting facility located at the Merlin 
Landfill. This facility would produce Class A biosolids, which would be available for public 
purchase. 
10-50 
10.30.5.2.2 Alternative Two- Pry Creek Landfill. Alternative Two hauls raw primary and 
secondaiy dewatered biosolids to the Dry Creek Landfill. These biosolids would be dewatered at the 
Grants Pass WRP to 15 percent solids using a belt filter press (BFP). The existing press and one new 
additional BFP would be installed in an existing building located on site. Extra hauling equipment 
would be required for handling the transport of all the biosolids to the landfill. 
10.30.5.2.3 Alternative Three- Land Applying Class B Biosolids. Alternative Three is the 
recommended alternative from the WFP. It is a continuation of the current biosolids management 
program of long hauling Class B biosolids to be land applied. However, because of an increase in 
future biosolids production, contracting with landowners of large parcels of land in Eastern Oregon 
to expand the land application area would be necessary. Biosolids would be dewatered to 15 percent, 
hauled to the site in large tractor/trailers, and applied with a manure spreader. During the winter, the 
biosolids would be stored near the application site. An additional gravity thickener, gravity belt, 
anaerobic digester, and belt filter press are necessary to meet the future solids production. The 
existing anaerobic digester would need to be rehabilitated. Class A biosolids can be produced by 
adding low cost aeration equipment to the future storage building to create a pilot-scale co-
composting facility. 
10.30.5.2.4 Alternative Four- Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment (ATP). Alternative Four is 
to produce Class A biosolids and distribute them to the public as fertilizer. To accommodate 
increasing loads in the future, an ATP would be installed instead of adding a new digester. To 
reduce, plastics in the biosolids, a Muffin Monster would be added prior to the ATP. The existing 
digester would need to be rehabilitated to enhance performance, increase capacity, and repair 
deficiencies. 
10.30.5.2.5 Biosolids Alternatives Cost Estimate Comparison. Preliminary cost estimates for 
the four biosolids disposal alternatives are in Table 10.30.10. These values include engineering, 
administration, and contingency costs. 
Table 10.30.10 Comparison of Biosolids Disposal and Handling Alternatives 
Alternative Capital Cost (millions) 
One - Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility $3.60 
Two - Dry Creek Landfill $1.40 
Three - Land Apply Class B Biosolids $11.00 
Four - Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment (ATP) $2.30 
Source: City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plan Update, June 2001, Parametrix Inc. 
10.30.5.3 Miscellaneous Plant Improvements 
• Plant Equipment Audit. A full analysis of the existing component conditions would be 
conducted. This audit would analyze the remaining life span of each component and develop 
an operations and maintenance schedule for the 20-year planning period. 
• Additional Plant Landscaping. Currently a substantial amount of landscaping at the 
treatment plant has occurred to promote a good-neighbor environment. However, to 
continue this effort, additional landscaping would be necessary. 
10-51 
10.30.6 PREFERRED TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 
10.30.6.1 Biosolids Handling and Disposal 
For the biosolids handling and disposal, the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update found the 
Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility (Alternative One) to be the preferred alternative. This 
alternative would consist of the existing digester, a new dewatering device, and a co-composting 
facility. Under this solid waste handling system, rehabilitated digesters would be used to treat 
only primary clarifier solids. The secondary clarifier solids would be combined with the digested 
primary solids, dewatered in a new dewatering component, and trucked to the new co-
composting facility located at the Merlin Landfill. 
10.30.6.2 Liquid Stream Treatment 
The 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update found the ballasted sedimentation alternative to be the 
preferred alternative for the liquid stream treatment. Table 10.30.11 lists the anticipated costs and 
time-line of when the components or upgrades would occur at the Water Restoration Plant, and a 
proposed construction schedule follows. Both are excerpted from the 2001 Wastewater Facilities 
Plan Update. 
10.30.6.3 Capital Improvements Water Restoration Plant 
Table 10.30.11 City of Grants Pass 
Construction Schedule 
Project Item Probable Cost 2001-2004 2005-2006 I 2010-2011 
PRELIMINARY AND PRIMARY TREATMENT 
Influent Pumping* $560,000 $560,000 
Raw Sewage Pipeline to Ballasted 
Sedimentation 
$240,000 $240,000 
Screening Odor Control* $390,000 $390,000 
Mechanical Bar Screen No. 2* $230,000 $230,000 
Modify Gravity Thickener to 
Ballasted Sedimentation 
$3,510,000 $3,510,000 
Modify Existing Primary to 
Combination Clarifier/Thickener 
$610,000 $610,000 
Yard Piping* $270,000 $270,000 
SECONDARY TREATMENT 
Aeration Basin Fine Bubble* $530,000 $530,000 
Aeration Basin Selector* $260,000 $260,00 
Blowers and DO Control* $870,000 $870,000 
Rehabilitate Existing Clarifiers* $770,000 $770,000 
New Secondary Clarifiers* $2,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 
10-52 
Yard Piping* $770,000 $400,000 $370,000 
Motorized Gates* $340,000 $340,00 
FINAL TREATMENT 
Outfall Diffuser* $540,000 $540,000 1 1 
OTHER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
Lab Improvements* $100,000 $100,000 
Operation Building Repairs and Office* $130,000 $130,000 
SCADA System Expansion* $670,000 $250,000 $250,000 $170,000 
Equipment Improvements from 
Audit Results* 
$250,000 $100,000 $75,000 $75,000 
Plant Landscaping* $100,000 $40,000 $30,000 $30,000 
Public Education* $50,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 
SOLIDS THICKENING AND DIGESTION 
Rehabilitate Existing Digester* $740,000 $740,000 
Dewatering Centrifuge* $1,000,000 $1,000,000 
SOLIDS HANDLING OFF-SITE 
Co-composting Facility* $1,850,000 $1,850,000 
COLLECTION SYSTEM 
Pine Street* $1,050,000 $1,050,000 
2nd Street $700,000 $700,000 
Western Avenue $580,000 $580,000 
Master Plan* $170,000 $170,000 
TOTALS $19,680,000 $12,030,000 $5,795,000 $1,855,000 
Source: City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plan, June 2001, Parametrix Inc. *(I999-2000 dollars) 
•Item has been completed or partially completed as of April 2008 (Per Public Works Dept.) 
Year 2000 
• Install odor containment and control at the influent pump station and mechanical 
screening areas of the plant. 
• Add an anoxic selector basin to the aeration basin. 
• Modify the existing aeration basin, convert the existing aeration system to fine bubble 
diffusers, and add dissolved oxygen control and motorized gates. This would require 
new or modified aeration blowers. 
• Rehabilitate the existing secondary clarifiers to correct short circuiting and flow 
distribution problems. 
• Add a third secondary clarifier. 
• Begin laboratory upgrades and improvements. 
• Begin operations building repairs and modifications. 
• Begin instrumentation and control system expansion. 
• Conduct a plant equipment audit. 
• Continue to install plant landscaping. 
• Develop and institute a public education program. 
10-53 
Year 2005 
• Install additional influent pumping capacity. 
• Add a second mechanical bar screen. 
• Convert the existing circular primary clarifier to a combination primary clarifier/gravity 
thickener. 
• Modify the existing gravity thickener to a ballasted sedimentation tank to treat peak 
flow. 
Year 2010 
• Add a fourth secondary clarifier. 
1030.7 RECOMMENDED COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 
The recommended collection system improvements presented below are based upon deficiencies in 
the pipeline hydraulic capacity that were identified in the Hydraulic Analysis found in Section 6 of 
the 2004 Collection System Master Plan (Parametrix) and the needed collection system 
improvements that were identified in the Maintenance and Reliability Analysis presented in Section 
7. A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the collection system was developed based on a 
priority analysis of these improvements. 
10.30.7.1 Collection System Goals 
Three goals were used in developing a CIP for the collection system, identifying the improvements 
required and a schedule for implementation. 
• Service to Saturation-Level Populations: All of the needed improvements were selected to serve 
the 2060 populations that could occur in the collection system service area. 
• Attention to Critical Improvements: Attention was given to collection system pipelines and sub-
basin service areas that City staff identified as problems areas. City staff experience in the 
frequency of maintenance of various pipelines and witnessing surcharged pipelines (hydraulic 
capacity deficiencies) have been used, particularly to schedule needed improvements. 
• Distribution of Capital Expenditures: In the selection and scheduling of the required collection 
system improvements, the goal was to develop a CIP that is financially viable for the City of 
Grants Pass. 
10.30.7.2 Hydraulic Capacity Improvements 
Based on the hydraulic analysis conducted on the wastewater collection system serving the City of 
Grants Pass, five capital improvement projects have been identified that need to be completed in the 
next 20 years. These improvements are necessary to maintain adequate conveyance system capacity 
in the collection system and prevent sewer system overflows. These five projects are found in 
Section 8 of the 2004 Collection System Master Plan. 
10-54 
10.30.7.3 Maintenance and Reliability Improvements 
Very old and small pipelines serve the downtown area of Grants Pass. The pipelines are greater than 
60-years-old, and often only 6-inches in diameter. Based on the Maintenance and Reliability 
Analysis conducted on the wastewater collection system, six areas of the City are served by these old 
small-diameter collection lines need further investigation and will likely require repair or 
replacement. These areas are described in Section 8 of the 2004 Collection System Master Plan. 
10-30.7.4 Estimated Cost of Improvements 
By using the gravity sewer pipeline construction cost unit prices, total project costs for each of the 
recommended pipeline improvement projects are listed in the following table. 
Table 10.3 0.12 Cost of Recommended Pipeline Improvement Projects (in SIM) 
Project Length (feet) 
Preliminary 
Diameter 
(inches) 
Construction 
Cost 
($/foot) 
Base 
Construction 
Cost 
Construction 
Contingency 
40% 
Engineering 
Legal and 
Administration 
30% 
Total 
Estimated 
Project 
Cost 
Pine 
- Street* 7,010 24 $200 $1.40 $0.56 $0.59 $2.55 
Western 
Avenue 4,720 18 $170 $0.80 $0.32 $0.34 $1.46 
Mill 
Street 9,140 21 $185 $1.69 $0.68 $0.71 $3.08 
T 
Avenue 4,530 18 $170 $0.77 $0.31 $0.32 $1.40 
Nebraska 2,710 18 $170 $0.46 $0.18 $0.17 $0.81 
Source: City of Grants Pass Collection System Master Plan, Parametrix Inc., 2004 
•Item has been completed or partially completed as of April 2008 (Per Joey Wright, Public Works Dept.) 
Similarly, the total project costs for the recommended structural repair areas have been prepared. A 
minimum diameter of 8-inch sewer pipeline has been assumed to estimate project cost. This is 
because replacing existing 6-inch-diameter sewer pipe with 6-inch does not meet generally accepted 
sewer design criteria. Given that different repair/replacement technologies will be implemented in 
these areas, rather than just assume replacement of all old pipelines with new pipelines to estimate 
the total project costs in each of these areas, it was assumed that total cost would equal the cost to 
replace one-half of all pipelines in these areas. These costs are developed and presented in Table 
10.30.13 below. 
10-55 
Table 10.30.13 Cost of Recommended Structural Repair Areas (in $1M) 
Engineering 
Pipeline Construction Qase Construction (Legal and Total 
Structural Diameter Length Cost Construction Contingency Administration) Estimated 
Repair Area (inches) (feet) (S/foot) Cost 40% 30% Cost* 
Pine Street 8 7,667 $150 
(1completed) 10 402 $150 $1.22 $0.49 $0.51 $1.11 
12 48 $155 
5th Street 8 11,672 $150 
10 1,244 $150 $2.34 $0.94 $0.98 $2.13 
12 2,606 $155 
Street 8 9,326 $150 
10 400 $150 
12 692 $155 $1.61 $0.64 $0.67 $1.46 
18 260 $170 
Subbasin 8 7,409 $150 
B/C 10 945 $150 $1.35 $0.54 $0.57 $1.23 
12 644 $155 
Subbasin H 8 7,919 $150 
10 1,005 $150 $1.34 $0.53 $0.56 $1.21 
Lawnridge- 8 11,362 $150 
Washington 10 612 $150 $1.80 $0.72 $0.76 $1.64 
12 16 $155 
Source: City of Grants Pass Collection System Master Plan, Parametrix Inc., 2004 
•Total of base cost, construction contingency, and engineering divided by two 
10.30.7.5 Collection System Capital Improvement Program 
Using the prioritization of Collection System Improvements described in Section 8.4 of the 2004 
Collection System Master Plan (Parametrix) and the estimated cost of these improvements presented 
in Table 10.30.12 and Table 10.30.13, a recommended Capital Improvement Program for the City 
collection system has been developed and is presented in Table 10.30.14. 
Table 10.30.14 Recommended Capital Improvement Program 
Grants Pass Collection System 
Project Schedule Cost (SIM) 
Pine Street Sewer* 2004-2006 $2.55 
Western Avenue Sewer 2006-2009 $1.46 
Pine Street Structural Repair* 2009-2011 $1.46 
5 th Street Structural Repair 2010-2012 $1.11 
7th Street Structural Repair 2013-2015 $1.46 
Lawnridge-Washington Structural Repair $1.64 
Mill Street Sewer 2016-2018 $3.08 
Sub-basin Structural Repair $1.23 
Nebraska Avenue Sewer 2022-2024 $0.81 
Total Collection System Capital Improvement Program: $18.08 
Source: City of Grants Pass Collection System Master Plan, Parametrix Inc., 2004 
•Item has been completed or partially completed as of April 2008 (Per Joey Wright, Public Works Dept.) 
IO-56 
1030.8 REGULATORY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES 
Federal, state, and local regulatory agency policies and procedures affect the installation, upgrades, 
and operation of the City's wastewater collection system and treatment facility. The impacts of these 
policies and procedures on wastewater management planning in the Grants Pass area are described 
below. The discussion of regulations presented is not exhaustive and is focused on those regulations 
and laws that are relevant to wastewater conveyance and treatment. 
1030.8.1 FEDERAL POLICY 
Federal policies that will affect the planning process include the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act/Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; and the proposed Capacity, Management, Operation 
and Maintenance Rules. 
1030.8.1.1 Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act 
Since its enactment, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act 
(CWA), has formed the foundation for regulations detailing specific requirements for pollution 
prevention and response measures. The CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards 
consistent with federal limitations on pollutant and thermal loading. The standards are to take into 
consideration the use of the waters for public water supplies; propagation of fish and wildlife; 
recreational purposes; and agricultural, industrial, and other beneficial uses. 
The City's collection system conveys wastewater to the City WRP, where it is treated before 
discharge to the Rogue River. State policies specifically regulate pollutant and thermal loading to 
comply with federal policy detailed in the CWA. 
10.30.8.1.2 Safe Drinking Water Act 
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 
set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against contaminants that may be 
found in drinking water. Wastewater flows that are collected in or travel through substandard 
collection systems haVe the potential to contaminate drinking water systems. State and local 
regulations are designed to comply with the SDWA, and prohibit activities that could cause an 
adverse impact on existing or potential beneficial use of groundwater. 
10.30.8.1.3 Proposed Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance Rule 
EPA is proposing rules that will govern the manner in which municipalities and special service 
districts manage and operate wastewater collection systems. The proposed Capacity, Management, 
Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) Rule, depending on its final promulgated form, may have a 
significant affect on collection system development and operation and maintenance (O&M) for the 
City. 
Under the proposed rule, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) would be prohibited unless caused by 
severe natural conditions such as widespread flooding, earthquakes, or other natural disasters. 
Owners of collection systems would be required to provide adequate capacity for peak flows in all 
parts of the system, monitor and report on SSOs, and make the SSO control program and reports 
available for public review. 
10-57 
There are two aspects of the proposed rule that are under close scrutiny of the reviewing community. 
First, satellite sewer systems would be operated under separate NPDES permits. Satellite sewer 
systems are loosely defined in the proposed CMOM rule as any agency that conveys wastewater to 
another agency for additional conveyance and final treatment and discharge. For Grants Pass, the 
RSSSD would be considered a satellite system requiring its own NPDES permit. 
Second, the proposed CMOM rule is vague on the design threshold to which SSOs must be 
controlled. For instance, the proposed rule is silent on the recurrence interval of a storm event above 
which SSOs would be allowed (e.g., would SSOs be permitted during storms greater than l-in-5 year 
event?). As such, EPA offers wastewater agencies little or no clear guidance regarding the amount 
of additional pipeline and pump station construction that would be required under CMOM, nor 
understanding about the amount of additional maintenance effort required to ensure elimination of 
SSOs. 
As of February 2008, the CMOM rule had not yet been implemented. Based on an April 2004 
statement on the EPA SSO web page, "SSO Proposed Rule was with-drawn from publication in the 
Federal Register," the timeline for implementation of the CMOM rule is uncertain. How the CMOM 
rule will eventually be interpreted and applied in Oregon is also uncertain. One possibility is that 
Oregon's "bacteria rule," will be used to set a minimum threshold for SSO prevention. 
10.30.8.2 STATE POLICY 
10.30.8.2.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
Section 402 of the CWA provides the legal basis for the NPDES permit program, which regulates 
point and non-point source discharges. Oregon Department of Environmental Qualtiy (ODEQ) is 
authorized by EPA to administer the NPDES program through Oregon Revised Statute 468B and 
associated OARs. These rules and statutes include regulations for wastewater collection, treatment, 
control, and disposal. Under the conditions of the NPDES permit, permittees are allowed to 
construct, install, modify, or operate these systems only in conformance with the Federal Clean 
Water Act and the above-mentioned State statues that set forth requirements, limitations, and 
conditions for such activities. 
The Grants Pass WRP plant operates under NPDES Permit Number 101985 issued December 29, 
2000. 
10.30.8.2.2 Bacterial Control Management Plan 
As noted previously, EPA is currently considering proposed CMOM rules that will limit the number 
of allowable SSOs. While the proposed CMOM rule is silent on collection system design criteria, 
Oregon has already adopted a rule that addresses the "bacteria rule," therefore, indirectly offers some 
guidance to design engineers and collection system owners. The OAR seeks to protect receiving 
waters and drinking water sources by prohibiting discharge of untreated wastewater to waters of the 
state except during the following conditions: 
10-58 
• During the period November 1 though May 21, except during a storm event greater than the 1 -in-
5-year, 24-hour duration storm. 
• During the period of May 22 through October 31, except during a storm event greater than the 1 -
in-10-year, 24-hour duration storm. 
The State Environmental Quality Commission may approve a change to these rales on a case-by-case 
basis as described in OAR 340-41 -120. Determining the causes and preventing against SSOs usually 
requires a municipality to thoroughly evaluate both the collection and treatment system to determine 
the extent of extraneous weather-related flow, system structural condition and reliability, system 
hydraulic and treatment capacity, and the efficiency of operation and maintenance practices. The 
City has already performed a thorough analysis of the treatment and collection system. 
10.30.8.2.3 Groundwater Regulation 
The Federal SDWA requires that state underground injection control programs be established to 
ensure that underground injection will not endanger drinking water sources. In Oregon, 
groundwater regulations, including regulatory requirements for injection controls, are 
administered by ODEQ. On-site drain fields and septic systems that serve 20 or more persons 
are considered injection wells by ODEQ. The City Development Code requires that all new 
development within the service area be connected to the wastewater collection and treatment 
system. Existing development using septic systems is required to connect to the public sewer 
system at such time as repair or replacement of existing facilities is necessary, if public sewer is 
within 300 feet of the property. 
10.30.8.3 LOCAL ORDINANCES, POLICY, AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 
Local requirements of particular concern to the planning process are related to the City Municipal 
Code, City Development Code, and the Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Policy. 
10.30.8.3.1 City of Grants Pass Municipal Code 
City Ordinances 4861 and 5028 have been adopted by the City as Chapter 8.50 of the City Municipal 
Code. Chapter 8.50 is intended to protect public health and safety; protect the environment; and 
ensure compliance with all applicable state and federal laws as they pertain to wastewater collection, 
conveyance, treatment, and discharge. 
Sewer use requirements set forth in Chapter 8.50 include general and specific prohibited discharge 
standards. The general prohibitions state that no user shall introduce or cause to be introduced into 
the City WRP any pollutant or wastewater which causes pass-through or interference, or which will 
cause the WRP to violate its NPDES permit or harmfully impact the receiving water quality 
standards. Chapter 8.50 also sets forth procedures for the allowance of intentional occurrences, and 
the reporting of unanticipated bypass. 
10.30.8.3.2 City of Grants Pass Development Code 
Title 10 of the City Municipal Code may also be cited as the City Development Code. The purpose 
of the Development Code is to coordinate City regulations governing the development and use of 
land. Standards for sewer and septic systems are set forth in the Development Code to ensure 
compliance with state and federal statutes, policies, and laws designed to prevent harmful impact to 
10-59 
receiving waters. 
10.30.8.3.3 Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Policy. 
Substandard or combined sewer laterals discovered during public sewer, water, or storm drain 
projects are required to be replaced. The City considers the sewer lateral to be the responsibility of 
the private property owner from the point of connection to the main to the building being served. 
Replacement of substandard sewer laterals may often include work within the public right-of-way, 
with the possibility of additional costs such as pavement patching, traffic control, and other 
construction items not usually associated with work within private property boundaries. To assist the 
property owner in the cost of lateral replacement, the City has adopted a Sanitary Sewer Lateral 
Replacement Policy. Under this policy, the City Manager can authorize payment of 50 percent of the 
cost of replacing failed or otherwise substandard laterals. 
10.30.8.3.4 Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement. 
The City-County Urban Service Policies, adopted with the UGB in August 1979, require a public 
sewer system with capacities to serve urban levels of development. On August 8,1998, Josephine 
County, City of Grants Pass, Harbeck-Fruitdale Sewer District and Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service 
District signed an Intergovernmental Agreement for the Orderly Management of the Grants Pass 
Urban Growth Boundary Area. 
10.30.9 FINANCING PLAN 
Various funding alternatives exist for the City of Grants Pass to implement the Capital Improvement 
Plan (CIP). The purpose of this section is to determine the best option for financing. Unless 
otherwise noted, the information from this section was excerpted from the 2001 Wastewater 
Facilities Plan Update. 
As part of the work in developing a financing plan, a computer model was created to assist the City 
in future modifications to both the CIP and operation/maintenance funding. This model is the basis 
for the conclusions presented herein. 
10.30.9.1 Capital Costs 
The CIP includes three major elements: Treatment Plant (liquid treatment), Biosolids, and 
Collection System. The proposed phasing plan is shown in Table 10.30.15. 
Table 10.30.15 Capital Improvement Plan 
YEAR 2001-2004 Year 2005-2006 Year 2010-2011 
Treatment Plant $5,940,000 $5,795,000 $1,855,000 
Biosolids $3,590,000 
Collection System $2,500,000 
TOTAL $12,030,000 $5,795,000 $1,855,000 
Source: City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plan, June 2001, Parametrix Inc. 
10-60 
In addition to capital costs, the City must be able to fund the ongoing cost of operating and 
adequately maintaining its sewer utility. A breakdown of these operation and maintenance costs is 
shown in Table 10.30.16. 
Table 1030.16 Operation and Maintenance Expenses 
(Year 2000 dollars) 
Wastewater Collection Services $333,488 
Wastewater Treatment Services $887,513 
Customer Services $167,910 
General Program Operations $361,393 
TOTAL $1,750,304 
Source: City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plan, June 2001, Parametrix Inc. 
NOTE: Updated operation and maintenance expenses can be obtained from annual city budgets. 
10.30.9.2 Current Funding 
The City of Grants Pass has two main revenue sources: monthly user charges and system 
development charges. The monthly user charge is collected for all system customers, and has 
increased since the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update. 
All new connections to the system pay a Sewer System Development Charge (SSDC). This charge is 
designed so new customers pay their share of wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure 
costs. At the time of the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, SSDCs averaged about $1,000 
per new connection. SSDCs have increased substantially since that time, and vary depending upon 
use and location (properties within the Redwood Sanitary Sewer District are subject to a different 
SDC schedule than other properties connecting to the system.) 
10.30.9.3 Capital Funding Mechanisms 
To fund the CIP, die City will need to consider other funding mechanisms. These other funding 
mechanisms include: Revenue Bonds; Low interest loans - State Revolving Fund (SRF); and, 
Grants. 
A revenue bond is a very common tool to fund capital improvements. Rates are determined by 
market conditions and currently are around 5 to 6 percent. Due to the significant financing cost and 
associated coverage, this funding method is normally a last resort if other funds are no available. 
Grants used to be the only way to finance wastewater treatment improvements. Many of the 
upgrades to secondary treatment across the United States were funded by grants, sometimes up to 75 
percent of the costs. Wastewater construction grants, while still available, are insufficient compared 
with the current demand. 
One of the best governmental programs available is the State Revolving Fund loan program. This 
fund, seeded by money from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is giving state 
governments, including Oregon, funds to loan to municipalities for treatment and collection system 
improvements. These loans, administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 
Wastewater Finance Office, are "low interest" with current rates at less than 4 percent. Unlike 
bonds, normally these loans have a smaller reserve amount and no coverage requirements. Due to 
10-61 
federal funding, cities like Grants Pass seeking SRF funding must comply with EPA requirements 
for a Facility Plan, thus this plan has been developed according to said requirements. The City 
secured approximately $7M in SRF loans in 2003-2004 for work on Phase I of the CIP. The work 
was completed as of July 2004, and the loans were in the process of being repaid as of January 
2008.11 
1030.9.4 Projected Cash Flow 
The major components of both revenue and expenses in a simplified view of the wastewater utility 
are: 
• Revenue: Monthly Sewer Service Charges, SDCs, Loan Proceeds, and Interest 
• Expenses: Operation and Maintenance, Capital Expenditures, Debt Service, and 
Reserve Amounts 
In reality, these revenues and expenses are tracked in separate accounts; however, for the purpose of 
this simplified analysis, all revenue and expenses will be considered as one amount. Table 10.30.17 
projects the annual cash flow for the Grants Pass wastewater utility. This projection is for the period 
of the CIP. With the funding from the SRF, and the current cash on hand (based on the City's 
construction fund only), it appears that the City will be able to fully fund the CIP. In addition, the 
City may be able to fund an ongoing sewer rehabilitation program. This amount, shown in the cash 
flow during non-CIP funded years, is $250,000. It will have to be determined if this amount is 
sufficient to address the long-term needs of the City. 
11 Per Joey Wright, City of Grants Pass Public Works Department, January 2008 
10-62 
Vi ÍS y» 
o 
00 so 
Vi 
vo CM 
Vi 
so Vi M \o >r> I— t 0\ r-4 00 n M 
Vi Vi 
'Sô J 
sj a m a 
O f*> so 
VO 
m SO 0\ •«f o -o o oo n 
•«f <N 
Vi Vi 
oo IN O <N 
Vi 
tu 
s 
SO o 9 o m o vo Cl o VI Tf ^ V» Vi 
g 
o o o 
«N CM m <n m -J- _ « m o 
Vi 
VO r-m <n o O Os «i-
Vi o 
Vi 
o oo fl o* o v-> 00 
Vi »o 
Vi 
V» co m 
^ ^ oo cm Os C\ SO 
* * CM M 
o 
o 
o 
vf> O CM i—t Ov O 
i r-
Vi 
•a m ao c '•3 a Iti 
2 
KA < * «a » tí a •s o 
S 
f r , I-* 
»-• ¿V 
| o 
S -2 
I 
BÈI 
o 
•S 
tí u c B 
1030.9.5 Conclusion. 
The financial situation of the City's wastewater utility is good. Given the ability to secure loans 
from the SRF program, and the sound fiscal management of the utility, the City will be able to fully 
fund the CIP as outlined in the Facilities Plan. 
10.30.10 SANITARY SEWER SERVICES FINDINGS 
1030.10.1 Existing Sewer Capacity 
• At the time of the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, the Grants Pass Water Restoration 
Plant (WRP) treated 4.5 mgd of average dry weather flow (ADWF) to a record peak storm flow 
of 26.5mgd. More recent data has also been compiled. As of April 2008, the WRP treated an 
ADWF of 5.5 mgd and peak wet weather flow of 30.0 mgd. The plant is comprised of 
numerous unit treatment processes for both liquid and solid streams, a control/laboratory 
building, and a maintenance shop. The Grants Pass WRP has a 27 mgd hydraulic capacity for 
influent pumpingl2, screening, and primary treatment. There is a 13 mgd hydraulic capacity for 
secondary treatment. In addition, there is a 43 mgd hydraulic capacity for UV disinfection. Flow 
exceeding the secondary treatment capacity receives only primary treatment and disinfection. 
This occurs only a few days a year during wet weather storm conditions. For the final phase of 
disposal, dewatered biosolids are loaded into a dumpster and hauled to the Merlin Landfill for 
the JO-GRO composting process. 
• The Harbeck-Fruitdale Sewer Service District uses the Grants Pass WRP plant for the processing 
of its waste. The sewer collection system has a capacity that can accommodate the population 
equivalent of approximately 14,000 persons. 
• The Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District uses the Grants Pass WRP for the processing of its 
waste. The sewer collection system has a capacity that can accommodate the population 
equivalent of approximately 16,000 persons. 
10.30.10.2 Future Need 
• The City and County have already established pumping of Redwood's wastewater to Grants Pass 
WRP and are not likely to extend services to the North Valley during this planning period. 
• The 2004 Collection System Master Plan developed a future equivalent population projection for 
the service area by applying sub-area growth rates from the City's Comprehensive Plan to the 
base population estimates for the sub-areas and adding 35% to the resulting population for 
commercial / industrial population equivalent. As of2003, the Grants Pass WRP was serving an 
estimated population equivalent of 44,250. Estimated growth rates are respectively: 1.5% for 
Grants Pass, 1.6% for Harbeck-Fruitdale and 3.1% for Redwood. By the year 2020, it was 
anticipated that the Grants Pass WRP could be serving a total population of60,157. Year 2060 
12 As of January 2 0 0 8 a project was completed to increase the hydraulic capacity for influent pumping to 
45 mgd. 
10-64 
service area population, assumed by the 2004 Collection System Master Plan to represent build-
out, was estimated at approximately 130,167. 
The 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update identified a need for several improvements: At the 
head works, an additional mechanical bar screen to be installed with a 23.5 mgd capacity this 
provides redundancy and a maximum capacity of 47 mgd, which is well beyond the projected 
future flows); An outfall difiuser to be added to improve and reduce the ammonia toxicity into 
the Rogue River; Several miscellaneous plant improvements, which existed in the Facility Plan, 
were also included in the value engineering alternatives. These improvements include laboratory 
upgrades, operations building repairs and modifications, and instrumentation and control system 
expansion. All of these improvements have since been completed. 
Plant Equipment Audit. The 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan recommended that a full analysis 
of the existing component conditions be conducted. This audit would analyze the remaining life 
span of each component and develop an operations and maintenance schedule for the 20-year 
planning period. The audit has since been completed. 
Additional Plant Landscaping. As of the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan, a substantial amount 
of landscaping at the treatment plant had occurred to promote a good-neighbor environment. 
However, to continue this effort, the WFP recognized that additional landscaping would be 
necessary. The installation of additional landscaping has been ongoing. 
The City of Grants Pass continues upgrading its sanitary sewer system facilities to provide the 
appropriate level of services for the impending growth and development of its service area. 
TTrrough its master facility planning, the City is prepared to meet its growth challenges in 
compliance with federal, state and local regulations, provided it continues to implement the 
respective Capital Improvements Plans as scheduled. 
Feasibility for Effluent Reuse, (Chapter 7 - Grants Pass Facilities Plan, Parametrix, 1999) 
concluded that reclaimed water (treated effluent) from the Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
(WRP) could be used beneficially instead of being discharged. Low river levels coinciding with 
the period of peak crop water use make irrigation a potentially feasible alternative for the City of 
Grants Pass and local agricultural water users. Reclaimed water can irrigate agricultural land, 
parks, highway landscaping, and golf courses. It can be used to grow wood fiber for fuel, pulp, 
or lumber. Other potential uses include increased flow to wetlands and storage in reservoirs or 
other impoundments specifically designated for effluent reuse only. 
o An extra incentive to "get out of the river" during the summer months is provided by 
concerns over meeting temperature requirements, potential future nutrient limitations, 
and listing of certain fish species as endangered. Reclaimed WRP effluent can also 
be viewed as a valuable resource that could help bridge the gap created by the 
planned removal of the Savage Rapids Dam. Dam removal has sparked a 
controversy about the availability of irrigation water, and new costs associated with 
pumping irrigation water from the Rogue River. 
10-65 
Effluent reuse is complex and requires further planning to address implementation 
issues of effluent reservoir and storage siting, piping route selection, right-of-way 
acquisition, system ownership, financing and management. 
10-66 
10. PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES 
Goal 
To provide needed facilities and services for the Urban Growth Boundary area in a 
timely, orderly, efficient, economic and coordinated manner. 
Policies 
10.1 General Service Policies 
10.1.1 Urban levels of development shall require urban levels of service, as defined by the 
Implementing Ordinances. 
10.1.2 Those who benefit most from the extension of urban services shall be those who pay 
most of the cost of service extension. Citizens in the developed areas with a full 
range of services already provided should pay little if any of the costs of extending 
urban services. Various techniques should be utilized to mitigate the economic 
impact of service extension to those residents in developing areas who already 
provide certain of their own services, and to mitigate the economic impact of service 
extension to those persons on fixed and/or low incomes. 
10.1.3 Services shall be provided in an orderly and economic manner. Services provided at 
public expense should be provided first to those areas most heavily committed to 
urban development and those areas most actively developing, before extension to less 
committed areas or to those areas less actively developing. The extension of services 
with similar physical and/or programmatic requirements should be coordinated where 
economies will result. The involvement of the private sector is essential in the 
provision of services, and will determine to a great extent the timing, location and 
financing means of service extensions. 
10.1.4 The division of lands and development of property within the Urban Growth 
Boundary shall be in accordance with the phased provision of urban services, as 
provided in the Implementing Ordinances. The type, location and phasing of public 
facilities and services shall be used by the City and County in a coordinated fashion 
as factors to direct urban expansion, and to implement land use policies. 
10.1.5 Neither the City nor the County shall create special districts within the Urban Growth 
Boundary for the provision of water, sewer, storm drainage or street improvement 
services, unless approved by both parties and managed by either the City Council or 
the Board of County Commissioners. Overlapping and competing layers of political 
control of the provision of services shall be discouraged. 
10.1.6 Services shall be resource effective. Services shall not be extended past the carrying 
capacity of the resource base of that service, and shall utilize the resource in the most 
effective way practicable. 
^ Page 10-1 
EXHIBIT J> 
•fc) OnJirWIGO* 
10.1.7 The City and County recognize that the provision of necessary services to 
accommodate the projected growth and land use allocations is a mutual 
responsibility. The City and County will continue to cooperate with other and with 
the private sector in the development and use of financial mechanisms and programs 
that are effective, efficient and equitable. The County recognizes its need to develop 
new techniques and resources for financing urban level public facilities. 
10.1.8 The City and County will develop, adopt and maintain Capital Improvement 
Programs to meet the needs of the service area. These programs will be used as a 
guide in the decision making process regarding the expenditures of local public funds 
on capital projects as well as seeking State and Federal funds. 
10.2 Water Service Policies 
10.2.1 The City and County shall follow the adopted Water Facilities Plan for the Urban 
Growth Boundary area when extending and improving water service. Key factors to 
be utilized in growth management include: 
(a) the number, size, location and approximate costs of water treatment, storage 
and distribution facilities deemed necessary to serve the expected population 
within the Urban Growth Boundary; 
(b) water sources and treatment and distribution modes; 
(c) continued input from all segments of the community; 
(d) implementation and financing strategies for acquiring, developing and 
maintaining needed water treatment, storage and distribution; and 
(e) determination of the areas of greatest need, including techniques of funding 
and prioritization for these areas of need. 
10.2.2 The City and County shall maintain a continuously updated computerized model of 
the municipal distribution system. This model shall be available for use at cost by 
public agencies and private organizations in order to determine questions of service 
capacity, improvement requirements and improvement cost. 
10.2.3 The City and County shall adopt an official Water Facilities Plan Map, showing the 
location, size and type of existing and future water treatment, storage and distribution 
facilities called for by the Water Facilities Plan, and such map shall be keyed to the 
computerized model of the distribution system. 
Element 10 Last Revised 8/1/1984, Ordinance 4518 Page 10-2 
J 
The Development Code shall facilitate these water service policies, and shall contain 
a balanced mix of positive incentives (which may include density transfers, density 
bonuses, rapid review procedures, etc.) as well as exactive requirements (which may 
include dedication or easement requirements, system charges, development 
requirements, etc.) as needed to assure the realization of these policies. 
The City and County shall maintain a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which 
shall include timely and adequate funding to realize the development of facilities 
required by the Water Facilities Plan, and shown on the Water Facilities Plan Map. 
The Water Facilities Plan shall be reviewed and updated periodically as necessaiy, 
with major revisions at five year intervals. 
Urban level development shall require a public water system, or shall meet 
requirements of interim development standards as provided by the Implementing 
Ordinances. Interim development standards shall allow development to proceed in a 
timely and economical manner, prior to full public water system extension, provided 
the requirements of public safety, health and welfare are met, and the future 
extension of the public water system is safeguarded. 
10.3. Sewer Service Policies 
10.3.1 The City and County shall follow adopted Sanitary Sewer Facility and Management 
Plans for the Redwood, Fruitdale-Harbeck and City service districts, including all 
parts of the Urban Growth Boundary area. The Sanitary Sewer Facility and 
Management Plans: 
(a) determine the number, size, location and approximate costs of sanitary sewer 
facilities and improvements deemed necessary to serve the expected 
population within the Urban Growth Boundary; 
(b) base the facilities and improvements determination upon a thorough analysis 
of the Urban Growth Boundary service districts, including present treatment 
plan capacity, treatment levels and Department of Environmental Quality 
requirements, collection system age, construction and function, and 
infiltration and inflow characteristics of the system; 
(c) recommend implementation and financing strategies for acquiring, 
developing and maintaining needed sanitary sewage facilities; 
(d) demonstrate continuity with past sanitary sewer plans, as adopted and 
developed by the City and County; 
(e) provide for adequate coordination between the City and County as needed in 
the expansion and maintenance of the sewer service districts; 
(f) determine the areas of highest priority. 
Page ,0"3 
10.2.4 
10.2.5 
10.2.6 
10.2.7 
10.3.2 The City and County shall maintain an official Sanitary Sewer Facilities Plan Map, 
showing the location, size and type of existing and future collection and treatment 
facilities called for by the Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Management Plan. The map 
shall also show Service District boundaries. 
10.3.3 The Development Code and Development Standards shall act to facilitate these 
sanitary sewer service policies, and shall contain a balanced mix of positive 
incentives (which may include density transfers, public funding of oversized lines, 
rapid review procedures, etc.) as well as exactive requirements (which may include 
dedication or easement requirements, system charges, development requirements, 
etc.) as needed to assure the realization of these policies. 
10.3.4 The City and County shall maintain a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which 
shall include timely and adequate funding to realize the development of facilities 
required by the adopted Sanitary Sewer Facility and Management Plans, and as 
shown on the Sewer Facilities Plan Map. 
10.3.5 The Sanitary Sewer Facility and Management Plans shall be reviewed and updated 
periodically as necessary, with major revisions at five year intervals. The revisions to 
the Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Management Plans shall be used as a basis for 
revising these policies. 
10.3.6 The City and County shall encourage sanitary sewer design that minimizes the cost of 
sanitary service extensions, and that minimizes the cost of maintaining such 
extensions. 
10.3.7 Urban level development shall require a public sanitary sewer system, or shall meet 
the requirements of interim development standards as provided by the Implementing 
Ordinances. Interim development standards shall allow development to proceed in a 
timely and economical manner, prior to full extension of the sanitary sewer system, 
provided the requirements of public safety, health and welfare are met. 
10.4 Storm Drain Service Policies 
10.4.1 The City and County shall follow the adopted Master Storm Drain Facilities and 
Management Plan for the Urban Growth Boundary area when extending the 
improving drainage service. Key factors to be utilized in growth management 
include: 
(a) the number, size, location and approximate costs of storm drainage facilities 
and improvements deemed necessary to serve the expected population within 
the Urban Growth Boundary; 
(b) the analysis of the UGB drainage basins, using generally accepted runoff 
projection techniques, including appropriate computer modeling, if possible; 
Element 10 Last Revised 8/1/1984, Ördinaiice 45Ì 8 Page 10-4 
(c) implementation and financing strategies for acquiring, developing and 
maintaining needed storm drainage facilities; 
(d) maintaining continuity with past drainage plans, as adopted and developed by 
the City and County; and 
(e) determination of the areas of highest priority, including techniques of funding 
and prioritization for these high priority areas. 
10.4.2 The City and County shall adopt an official Storm Drainage Facility Map showing 
the location, size and type of existing and future storm drainage facilities called for 
by the Storm Drainage Plan. The Storm Drainage Map shall be used to determine 
service district jurisdiction, and the location of future storm drainage facilities and 
improvements. 
10.4.3 The Development Code shall act to facilitate these storm drainage policies, and shall 
contain a balanced mix of positive incentives (which may include density transfers, 
public funding of oversized lines, rapid review procedures, etc.), as well as exactive 
requirements, system charges, development requirements, etc.), as needed to assure 
the realization of these policies. 
10.4.4 The City and County shall develop a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) within 12 
months of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, which program shall include timely 
and adequate funding to realize the development of facilities required by the adopted 
Storm Drainage Plan, and shown on the Storm Drainage Facilities Map. 
10.4.5 The Storm Drain Plan shall be reviewed and updated, and revised if necessary, at one 
year intervals, with major revisions at five year intervals. The revisions to the Storm 
Drain Plan shall be used as a basis for revising these policies. 
10.4.6 The City and County working with the Grants Pass Irrigation District shall explore an 
agreement that will ensure that the storm drainage use of, and the necessary repairs, 
improvements and maintenance of the irrigation canal system, are made in a manner 
consistent with the Storm Drain Plan, and in a timely and cost-effective manner. 
10.4.7 The City and County shall encourage storm drainage design that minimizes storm 
water runoff, including retention areas or devised, use of vegetative open space, and 
the preservation of natural waterways. 
10.4.8 The City and County shall coordinate the provision of storm drain facilities with the 
provision of open space called for by the Park Facilities Plan, wherever possible, and 
to the extent practicable. This coordination shall include retaining drainage channels 
as close as possible to their natural state, and the use of plan materials and 
maintenance techniques in storm water retention. 
EÌement'lO LastRòvised8/l/1984, Ordinance 4518 Page 10-5 
10.4.9 Urban level development shall require urban levels of storm drainage, as provided in 
the Implementing Ordinances. Interim Development Standards shall allow 
development to proceed in a timely and economical manner, prior to full extension 
and development of the storm drain system, provided the requirements of public 
safety, health and welfare are met. 
10.5 Solid Waste Service Policies 
10.5.1 The City and County shall encourage the collection of solid waste within the 
Boundary area by private, commercial collection services. 
10.5.2 The City and County Agreements with the commercial franchise service managing 
the solid waste landfill at the Merlin site shall include measures to successfully 
reduce leachate produced at the landfill site, such as uphill trenching and draining, 
and importation of suitable topsoil to reduce erosion and promote revegetation. 
10.5.3 Within 16 months of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City and County shall 
adopt a Solid Waste Management Implementation Plan, including relevant sections 
of the Solid Waste Management Plan (1975), which plan shall include: 
(a) an ongoing assessment of landfill disposal techniques, with provisions for 
correction of those techniques as required. 
(b) a yearly estimate of landfill capacity and the rates of solid waste generation, 
including all areas within the landfill site service district as well as the UGB 
area, and an estimate of when landfill site capacity will be reached. 
(c) a recommendation of financing strategies for adequately maintaining and 
preparing the landfill site, as well as providing for alternative methods of 
solid waste disposal. 
10.6 Police Protection Service Policies 
10.6.1 Urban levels of development shall require urban levels of police protection. As the 
urbanizing area converts from rural to urban levels and intensities of land use over 
time, police protection should be increased to meet the increased service need. 
10.6.2 The City and County shall explore an agreement establishing responsibility for the 
provision of police protection services within the Urban Growth Boundary over time. 
This agreement shall consider the costs and benefits of various methods of providing 
police protection, and shall include financing techniques to mitigate the costs of 
increased service. 
10.7 Fire Protection Service Policies 
10.7.1 Municipal water systems shall provide water at fire flow capacities. 
10.7.2 Urban levels of development shall require urban levels of fire protection as stipulated 
by the Implementing Ordinances. The minimum urban level of fire protection for 
fully developed residential, commercial and industrial areas shall be that qualifying 
for the insurance underwriters relative classification rating of 5. Provision of fire 
protection should be phased over time as urban level development proceed without a 
minimum of a Class 8 rating, nor shall commercial industrial development proceed 
without a minimum of a Class 9 rating. 
10.7.3 The City and County shall explore an agreement establishing responsibility for the 
provisions of fire protection services within the Urban Growth Boundary area over 
time. This agreement shall consider the costs and benefits of various methods of 
providing fire protection, and shall include financing techniques to mitigate the costs 
of increased service. 
10.8 Health Services 
10.8.1 Health services should be provided by the private sector. The City and County shall 
encourage the provision of health services in appropriate locations throughout the 
Boundary area. 
10.9 School Service Policies 
10.9.1 The City and County shall maintain an open, ongoing dialogue with the School 
Districts in a manner that will facilitate the planning efforts of all agencies. 
10.9.2 The City and Coirnty shall notify the respective School Districts of all residential land 
use actions within that district in a timely and complete manner, and make 
development data available to the districts on a regular basis. 
10.9.3 The School Districts shall be notified in a timely manner regarding revisions and 
updates to the Comprehensive Plan that may affect the Districts, and shall be 
encourage to participate in the revision process. 
1 
1 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 
PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT 
FINDINGS OF FACT- CITY COUNCIL 
Procedure Type: Type IV: Planning Commission Recommendation 
and City Council Decision 
Project Number: 08-40500002 
Project Type: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Applicant: City of Grants Pass 
Planner Assigned: Jared Voice / Tom Schauer 
Application Received: April 18, 2008 
Application Complete: April 18, 2008 
Date of Planning Commission 
Staff Report: June 4, 2008 
Date of Planning Commission 
Hearing: June 11, 2008 
Planning Commission 
Findings of Fact: June 25, 2008 
Date of City Council 
Staff Report: July 8, 2008 
Date of City Council Hearing: July 16, 2008 
City Council Findings of Fact: August 6, 2008 
PROPOSAL: 
The purpose of the proposal is to update the water and sewer sections of 
Comprehensive Plan Element 10 (Public Facilities and Services), including the policies 
for each, based on recent water and sewer master plans. 
Additionally, the proposal would adopt the following documents by reference as part of 
the Public Facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan: 
Water 
City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan (West Yost and Associates, 
January 2001) 
City of Grants Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, Final Report (West 
Yost and Associates, June 2002) 
City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Final Report 
(MWH/Montgomery Watson Harza, April 2004) 
Sewer 
1 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, 
Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
2. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, 
Appendices- Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
3. Collection System Master Plan, City of Grants Pass (Parametrix, September 2004) 
4. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Sen/ice District Engineering Report (Parametrix, April 
1999, Revised November 1999) 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - City Council Page 1 of 8 
II. AUTHORITY AND CRITERIA. 
Section 13.5.3 of the Grants Pass and Urbanizing Area Comprehensive Plan provides 
that the City Council may initiate a text amendment. 
Sections 13.5.5 and 13.8 of the Comprehensive Plan provide that joint review by the City 
Council and Board of County Commissioners shall be required for amendment and 
revision to Comprehensive Plan findings, goals, and policies. 
The review shall be in accordance with the procedures of Section 13.8.3 of the 
Comprehensive Plan, which provides for a recommendation hearing by the Urban Area 
Planning Commission prior to a joint hearing of the City Council and Board of County 
Commissioners. 
However, with adoption of the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement, this provision 
requiring a joint hearing is modified with the result that City Council will make the 
decision, and the County will have automatic party status, as summarized below: 
Section III of the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) provides for transfer 
of authority for provision and management of planning services from the County 
to the City for the Urbanizing Area. It provides: 
The City is hereby vested with the exclusive authority to exercise the 
County's legislative and quasi-judicial powers, rights, and duties within the 
Urbanizing Area... 
Section V of the IGA contains provisions pertaining to notification and appeals for 
quasi-judicial and legislative decisions within the Urbanizing Area. For legislative 
decisions, the IGA provides: 
The City agrees to provide written notice of all proposed legislative 
actions to the County at least 45 days prior to the public hearing at which 
the action is first considered. The County shall be deemed to have 
automatic party status regarding all such decisions for the purposes of 
standing for appeals. 
Section 13.8.3 of the Comprehensive Plan provides that notice shall be as provided in 
Section 2.060 of the Development Code for a Type IV procedure. Section 13.8.3 further 
provides that the hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the Legislative Hearing 
Guidelines of Section 9 of the Development Code. 
Therefore, the application was processed through a "Type IV" procedure, with a 
recommendation from the Urban Area Planning Commission and a final decision by City 
Council. The County has automatic party status for appeals. 
The text of the Comprehensive Plan may be recommended for amendment and 
amended provided the criteria in Section 13.5.4 of the Comprehensive Plan are met. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - City Council Page 2 of 8 
III. APPEAL PROCEDURE: 
The City Council's final decision may be appealed to the State Land Use Board of 
Appeals (LUBA) as provided in state statutes. A notice of intent to appeal must be filed 
with LUBA within 21 days of the Council's written decision. 
IV. PROCEDURE: 
A. The application for a Comprehensive Plan text amendment was submitted on 
April 18, 2008. The application was deemed complete on April 18, 2008, and 
processed in accordance with Section 2.060 of the Development Code. 
B. Notice of the proposed amendment and the initial June 11, 2008 public hearing 
was mailed to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 
(DLCD) on April 18, 2008. 
C. Notice of the proposed amendment was mailed to Josephine County on April 23, 
2008 in accordance with the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement for the 
Urbanizing Area. 
D. Notice of the June 11, 2008 Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to 
potentially-interested parties and public agencies on May 21, 2008. 
E. Public notice of the June 11, 2008 Planning Commission public hearing was 
published in the newspaper on June 4, 2008 in accordance with Sections 2.053 
and 2.063 of the Development Code. 
F. A public hearing was held by the Urban Area Planning Commission on June 11, 
2008 to consider the request and make a recommendation to City Council. 
G. Public notice of the July 16, 2008 City Council public hearing was mailed to 
potentially-interested parties and public agencies on June 26, 2008. 
H. Public notice of the July 16, 2008 City Council public hearing was published in 
the newspaper on July 9, 2008 in accordance with Sections 2.053 and 2.063 of 
the Development Code. 
I. A public hearing was held by the City Council on July 16, 2008 to consider the 
request. 
V. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE: 
A. The basic facts and criteria regarding this application are contained in the City 
Council staff report and exhibits, which are attached as Exhibit "A" and 
incorporated herein. 
B. A printed copy of the Power Point presentation given by staff at the July 16, 2008 
City Council hearing is attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - City Council Page 3 of 8 
C. The minutes of the July 16, 2008 public hearing held by the City Council, which 
are attached as Exhibit "C", summarize the oral testimony presented and are 
hereby adopted and incorporated herein. 
VI. GENERAL FINDINGS- BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: 
The proposed new documents will replace the existing Water and Sewer sections of the 
Comprehensive Plan Public Facilities element, which were adopted in 1982 and 
determined service needs within the UGB through the year 2000. 
Work on updating the Water and Sewer sections of the Comprehensive Plan Public 
Facilities element began in 2004, at the request of the City's former Utilities Department 
Director. The updated Comprehensive Plan element was intended to incorporate data 
from several recently-completed water and sewer master plans, and adopt the plans by 
reference. 
In May of 2005, City Council adopted the Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) 
recommended within the recently-completed water and sewer plans (see Resolution 
No's 4954 and 4955, corresponding City Council background sheets and Technical 
Memorandum from Parametrix dated April 25, 2005); however, the plans were not 
adopted by reference in their entirety, nor were updated Comprehensive Plan Water 
Service and Sewer Service sections adopted. The CIPs shown in the technical memo 
(and water and sewer plans) and adopted by Council are identical to those shown in the 
currently-proposed water and sewer section updates. Therefore, adoption of the current 
proposal would not change any of the planned projects for public water and sewer 
facilities over the twenty-year planning period. Note that several of the items identified 
within the CIPs have since been completed. Remaining items will continue to be 
identified for completion within annual budget reports as funds become available. 
The proposal incorporates the previously-listed water and sewer facility plans into the 
Comprehensive Plan, to serve current and future needs within the existing Urban Growth 
Boundary. Additional facility planning is expected to occur as part of the anticipated 
Urban Growth Boundary expansion. The current update does not account for areas 
outside the existing UGB, except for those within special sewer districts (i.e. Redwood 
Sanitary Sewer Service District, Harbeck Fruitdale Sewer Service District) or which are 
already committed or planned to receive City water services (i.e. Paradise Ranch, North 
Valley Industrial Park, etc.) 
Throughout the water and sewer service policies, it is stated that the City and County are 
jointly obligated for managing water and sewer services within the Urbanizing Area (UA). 
However, under the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), the County agreed to 
transfer to the City "all of the County's authority to provide and manage, facility 
financing and development within the UA." Therefore, as long as the IGA is in effect, it is 
the City's responsibility to adopt and maintain public facility and service plans for the UA, 
including water and sewer service plans. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - City Council Page 4 of 8 
VII. FINDINGS OF FACT- CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE CRITERIA: 
For amending the findings, goals, policies, and Land Use Map of the Comprehensive 
Plan, the City Council and Board of County Commissioners shall base their conclusions 
upon, and adopt findings in consideration of, all of the following criteria: 
CRITERION (a): Consistency with other findings, goals and policies in the 
Comprehensive Plan. 
City Council Response: Satisfied. The proposal is consistent with other 
findings, goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 
The existing General Service, Water Service and Sewer Service policies would 
be amended to eliminate language that is out of date, as the "Public Facilities 
and Services" element of the Comprehensive Plan Policies Manual was last 
amended in 1984. All amended policies are consistent with the goal of Element 
10, which is: "To provide needed facilities and services for the Urban Growth 
Boundary area in a timely, orderly, efficient, economic and coordinated matter." 
Other goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan that relate specifically to 
water and sewer facilities include the goal of Element 4: Environmental 
Resource Quality ("To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land 
resources of the area."), Policy 4.3 (d) ("The City and County shall affect water 
quality by increasing the hydraulic capacity of the City's wastewater treatment 
plant.") and the goal of Element 8: Economy ("To improve, expand, diversify and 
stabilize the economic base of the community.") The proposal is consistent with 
these goals and policies. 
CRITERION (b): A change in circumstances, validated by and supported by the data 
base or proposed changes to the data base, which would necessitate a change in 
findings, goals and policies. 
City Council Response: Satisfied. The proposed amendment is necessary 
due to a change in circumstances that is supported by proposed changes to the 
database. The existing water and sewer sections of the Comprehensive Plan's 
public facilities element, and associated policies, were adopted in 1982 and are 
outdated. 
The updated findings and policies are validated by and supported by the updated 
data base. As discussed in the response to the previous criterion, this policy is 
consistent with other findings, goals and policies found in the Comprehensive 
Plan. 
CRITERION (c): Applicable planning goals and guidelines of the State of Oregon. 
City Council Response: Satisfied. The proposed amendment is consistent 
with applicable planning goals and guidelines of the State of Oregon. Applicable 
goals and guidelines include Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement), Goal 2 (Land Use 
Planning), Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality), Goal 11 (Public 
Facilities and Services), ORS 197.712(2)(e) (which requires a city to adopt a 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - City Council Page 5 of 8 
public facility plan for areas within a UGB containing a population of over 2,500) 
and OAR 660, Division 11 (Public Facilities Planning.) 
Goal 1- Citizen Involvement (OAR 660-015-0000(1)): See response to 
Criterion (d) below. 
Goal 2- Land Use Planning (OAR 660-015-0000(2)): Although Goal 2 does 
not specifically address public facility planning, the explanation of Part I 
(Planning) of Goal 2 states the following: "All land-use plans and implementation 
ordinances shall be adopted by the governing body after public hearing and shall 
be reviewed and, as needed, revised on a periodic cycle to take into account 
changing public polices and circumstances. " The existing water and sewer 
sections of the Comprehensive Plan's public facilities element, and associated 
policies, were adopted in 1982 and are outdated. Revisions to these sections 
and the associated policies are necessary to account for circumstances that have 
changed over the past 26 years. Further, subsection (C) of the "Guidelines" for 
Goal 2 states that: "Inventories and other forms of data are needed as the basis 
for the policies and other decisions set forth in the plan", including those for 
"man-made structures and utilities, their location and condition." Existing utilities 
inventories within the current Comprehensive Plan are not useful for any practical 
purpose and must be updated to be in full compliance with Goal 2. 
Goal 6- Air. Water and Land Resources Quality (OAR 660-015-0000(6)): 
Goal 6 states that "all waste and process discharges from future development, 
when combined with such discharges from existing developments shall not 
threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal environmental quality 
statutes, rules and standards." To assure full compliance with Goal 6, an update 
of the City's sewer facility plans is necessary. 
Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services (OAR 660-015-0000(11)) IORS 
197.712(2)(e) / OAR 660-011-0000: Goal 11 requires "a timely, orderly and 
efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for 
urban and rural development." OAR 660, Division 11 interprets Goal 11 
requirements and implements ORS 197.712(2)(e), which requires that a city 
develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within a UGB containing a 
population greater than 2,500. 
OAR 660-011-0005 defines public facilities plan as "a support document or 
documents to a comprehensive plan. The facility plan describes the water, 
sewer and transportation facilities which are to support the land uses designated 
in the appropriate acknowledged comprehensive plans within an urban growth 
boundary containing a population greater than 2,500..." The proposal contains 
three (3) separate supporting water documents and four (4) separate supporting 
sewer documents that would be adopted as supporting documents to the 
Comprehensive Plan. (Note that this proposal amends only the water and 
wastewater / sewer portion of the City's public facilities plan, and that other 
existing elements of the public facilities plan, including the Master Transportation 
Plan (adopted in 1997) and Master Storm Drain Plan (adopted in 1982) are not 
amended by this proposal.) The proposal also includes an update of the 
Comprehensive Plan itself, to reflect the supporting data contained in the 
separate water and sewer facility documents. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - City Council Page 6 of 8 
OAR 660-011-0010 through -0035 outlines the items that must be contained 
within a public facility plan. These include an inventory / assessment of existing 
facilities, a list of projected public facility projects (including rough cost estimates, 
locations, and time estimates for each), applicable urban growth management 
agreements and funding mechanisms. The proposals for both water and sewer 
contain each of these required items. 
The proposed amendment is also consistent with remaining sections of Goal 11 
and OAR 660 Division 11, including OARs 660-011-0045 ("Adoption and 
Amendment Procedures for Public Facility Plans"), 660-011-0060 ("Sewer 
Service to Rural Lands") and 660-011-0065 ("Water Service to Rural Lands"). 
ORS 197.610: Notice of the proposed amendment was mailed to the Oregon 
Department of Land Conservation and Development on April 18, 2008, in 
accordance with ORS 197.610. 
CRITERION (d): Citizen review and comment. 
City Council Response: Satisfied. Notice of the proposed amendment has 
been posted in accordance with the procedure required for a Type IV-B 
procedure. In addition, the agendas and packets for the June 11th, 2008 
Planning Commission meeting and July 16th, 2008 City Council meeting were 
posted on the City's website in advance of the hearing. No written comments 
were submitted by citizens prior to or during the Planning Commission or City 
Council hearings. 
CRITERION (e): Review and comment from affected governmental units and other 
agencies. 
City Council Response: Satisfied. 45-day notice was provided to the 
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in accordance with 
OAR 660 Division 18 and ORS 197.610. OAR 660-18-0035 provides that if 
DLCD is participating in the proceeding, they shall notify the local government 15 
days prior to the first evidentiary hearing. DLCD has not provided notification to 
the City. 
45-day notice was provided to Josephine County in accordance with the 1998 
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Urbanizing Area. The County has replied 
and has no comments regarding the proposal. 
Notice of the proposed amendment was also provided to affected agencies and 
governmental units, including the Oregon DHS Drinking Water Program, the 
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Watermaster 
District 14, and Grants Pass Irrigation District. No additional comments 
regarding the proposal have been received. 
CRITERION (f): A demonstration that any additional need for basic urban services 
(water, sewer, streets, storm drainage, parks, and fire and police protection) is 
adequately covered by adopted utility plans and service policies, or a proposal for the 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - City Council Page 7 of 8 
requisite changes to said utility plans and service policies as a part of the requested 
Comprehensive Plan amendment. 
City Council Response: Satisfied. The proposal does not create the need for 
any additional basic urban services. The proposed utility plans contain facility 
improvements and upgrades necessary to serve the water and sewer needs for 
existing and future residents of the existing Urban Growth Boundary, as well as 
for a limited number of service areas outside the existing UGB, through at least 
the year 2020. 
CRITERION (g): Additional information as required by the review body. 
City Council Response: Satisfied. No additional information was requested by 
the Planning Commission or City Council. 
CRITERION (h): In lieu of item (b) above, demonstration that the Plan as originally 
adopted was in error. 
City Council Response: Not Applicable. Criterion (b) is applicable. The Plan 
was not adopted in error. The proposed amendment is being adopted in 
response to a change in circumstances. See Criterion (b) for discussion of the 
change in circumstances. 
VIII. DECISION AND SUMMARY: 
The City Council found the applicable criteria were satisfied and APPROVED the 
Comprehensive Plan text amendment. The vote was 8-0-0, with Councilors Berger, 
Cummings, Hyde, Kangas, Patterson, Renfro, Richardson and Wendle in favor, and 
none opposed. 
IX. ADOPTED BY THE GRANTS PASS CITY COUNCIL this 6th day of August 2008. 
NOTE: This is a legislative decision. State law does not require that a decision be 
made on the application within 120 days. 
t:\cd\planning\reports\2008\08-40500002_Public Facilities Comprehensive Plan Amendment.jv\City Council Materials\Public 
Facilities.CC.FOF.jv.doc 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - City Council Page 8 of 8 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 
PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT 
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT- TYPE IV 
Procedure Type: Type IV: Planning Commission Recommendation 
and City Council Decision 
Project Number: 08-40500002 
Project Type: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Applicant: City of Grants Pass 
Planner Assigned: Jared Voice / Tom Schauer 
Application Received: April 18, 2008 
Application Complete: April 18, 2008 
Date of Planning Commission 
Staff Report: June 4, 2008 
Date of Planning Commission 
Hearing: June 11, 2008 
Planning Commission 
Findings of Fact: June 25, 2008 
Date of City Council 
Staff Report- July 8, 2008 
Date of City Council Hearing: July 16, 2008 
I. PROPOSAL: 
The purpose of the proposal is to update the water and sewer sections of 
Comprehensive Plan Element 10 (Public Facilities and Services), including the policies 
for each, based on recent water and sewer master plans. 
See Exhibits A and B to adopting ordinance for text of proposed amendments. 
See Exhibit 3 to the Planning Commission Staff Report for legal strike-through 
copy of proposed amendments to Policies Manual. 
See Section VIII of the Planning Commission Findings of Fact (attached as Exhibit 
1 to this document) for changes recommended by Planning Commission, which 
have been incorporated into Exhibit B to the adopting ordinance. 
Additionally, the proposal would adopt the following documents by reference as part of 
the Public Facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan: 
Water 
City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan (West Yost and Associates, 
January 2001) 
City of Grants Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, Final Report (West 
Yost and Associates, June 2002) 
City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Final Report 
/ - s (MWH/Montgomery Watson Harza, April 2004) 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Staff Report - City Council PaEXH1BIT_A 
^ GG for 
Sewer 
1 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, 
Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
2. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, 
Appendices- Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
3. Collection System Master Plan, City of Grants Pass (Parametrix, September 2004) 
4. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District Engineering Report (Parametrix, April 
1999, Revised November 1999) 
NOTE: To conserve resources, the above-listed water and sewer planning documents 
(Exhibits 4 - 9 to the Planning Commission Staff Report) have not been included in the 
Council packet. Please contact Jared Voice at the Community Development 
Department (474-6355, ex. 6317) if you would like copies of these exhibits made for you 
Binders containing these exhibits are available for viewing in the City Administration and 
Community Development offices, located on the second floor of the Municipal Building, 
and will be available at the public hearing. 
Each plan may be viewed in its entirety at the Public Works office, located on the first 
floor of the Municipal Building. Additionally, each plan is available for viewing on the 
City's website at www.grantspassoregon.gov. Follow the links "Your Government" > 
"Public Works" to "Water" or "Wastewater". Please contact Jared Voice (474-6355, ex. 
6317) if you would like assistance in locating the plans on the web. 
il. AUTHORITY AND CRITERIA: 
The authority and criteria are provided in the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact. 
III. APPEAL PROCEDURE: 
The City Council's final decision may be appealed to the State Land Use Board of 
Appeals (LUBA) as provided in state statutes. A notice of intent to appeal must be filed 
with LUBA within 21 days of the Council's written decision. 
IV. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: 
Detailed background and discussion is provided in the Planning Commission's Findings 
of Fact. 
V. CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE CRITERIA: 
Detailed findings of conformance with applicable criteria are provided in the Planning 
Commission's Findings of Fact. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - City Council Page 2 of 8 
VI. RECOMMENDATION: 
The Urban Area Planning Commission finds the applicable criteria are satisfied and 
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the proposal to City Council, which: 
1) amends the sewer and water sections of Comprehensive Plan Element 10 by 
adopting new Comprehensive Plan Sections 10.20 (Water Services) and 10.30 
(Sewer Services), as presented in Exhibit A to the adopting ordinance, and repealing 
existing Comprehensive Plan Sections 10.20 and 10.30, and 
2) adopts revisions to the Element 10 (Public Facilities and Services) General Service 
Policies, Water Service Policies and Sewer Service Policies, as presented in Exhibit 
B to the adopting ordinance, and 
3) adopts the following documents by reference as part of the Public Facilities element 
of the Comprehensive Plan: 
i. City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan (West Yost 
and Associates, January 2001) 
ii. City of Grants Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, Final 
Report (West Yost and Associates, June 2002) 
iii. City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Final Report 
(MHW/Montgomery Watson Harza, April 2004) 
iv. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration 
Plant, Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
v. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration 
Plant, Appendices- Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
vi. Collection System Master Plan, City of Grants Pass (Parametrix, 
September 2004) 
vii. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District Engineering Report (Parametrix, 
April 1999, Revised November 1999); and 
4) repeals previously-adopted water and wastewater plans which are rendered obsolete 
by adoption of the new plans. 
VII. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 
A. Positive Action: 
1. approve the proposal recommended by the Planning Commission. 
2. approve the proposal recommended by the Planning Commission with 
modifications (list): 
B. Negative Action: Deny the request and make no amendment for the following 
reasons (list): 
C. Postponement: Continue item 
1. indefinitely. 
2. to a time certain. 
NOTE: This is a legislative decision. State law does not require that a decision be made on the 
application within 120 days. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - City Council Page 3 of 8 
Vili. INDEX TO EXHIBITS: 
1. Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and the Attached Record 
A. Planning Commission Staff Report 
1. Proposed Water Services Section 10.20 
2. Proposed Sewer Services Section 10.30 
3. Proposed Amended Public Facilities and Services Policies 
4. City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan (West Yost 
and Associates, January 2001)* 
5. City of Grants Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, Final 
Report (West Yost and Associates, June 2002)* 
6 . City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Final Report 
(MHW / Montgomery Watson Harza, April 2004)* 
7. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water 
Restoration Plant, Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001)* 
8. Collection System Master Plan, City of Grants Pass (Parametrix, 
September 2004)* 
9. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District Engineering Report 
(Parametrix, April 1999, Revised November 1999)* 
10. City Council Resolution No. 4954, Adopting Water CIP, 5/9/05 
11 City Council Resolution No. 4955, Adopting Wastewater CIP, 5/9/05 
12. City Council Background Sheet for Water CIP, 5/4/05 
13. City Council Background Sheet for Wastewater CIP, 5/4/05 
14. Parametrix Technical Memo Dated 4/25/2005 
15. E-mail Message from Josephine County Planning Director, 6/3/08 
B. Planning Commission Power Point Presentation 
C. Minutes of 6/11/08 Planning Commission Hearing 
*To conserve resources, Exhibits 4 through 9 to the Planning Commission Staff 
Report (the individual water and sewer planning documents) have not been 
included in the packet. Please contact Jared Voice at the Community Development 
Department (474-6355, ex. 6317) if you would like copies of these exhibits made for you. 
Binders containing these exhibits are available for viewing in the City Administration and 
Community Development offices, located on the second floor of the Municipal Building, 
and will be available at the public hearing. 
Each plan may be viewed in its entirety at the Public Works office, located on the first 
floor of the Municipal Building. Additionally, each plan is available for viewing on the 
City's website at www.grantspassoregon.gov. Follow the links "Your Government" > 
"Public Works" to "Water" or "Wastewater" Please contact Jared Voice (474-6355, ex. 
6317) if you would like assistance in locating the plans on the web. 
t:\cd\planning\reports\2008\08-40500002_Public Facilities Comprehensive Plan Amendment.jv\City Council Materials\Public 
Facilities.CC.sr.jv.doc 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - City Council Page 4 of 8 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 
PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT 
FINDINGS OF FACT- URBAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION 
Procedure Type: Type IV: Planning Commission Recommendation 
and City Council Decision 
Project Number: 08-40500002 
Project Type: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Applicant: City of Grants Pass 
Planner Assigned: Jared Voice / Tom Schauer 
Application Received: April 18, 2008 
Application Complete: April 18, 2008 
Date of Staff Report: June 4, 2008 
Date of Planning 
Commission Hearing: June 11, 2008 
Planning Commission 
Findings of Fact: June 25, 2008 
I. PROPOSAL: 
The purpose of the proposal is to update the water and sewer sections of 
Comprehensive Plan Element 10 (Public Facilities and Services), including the policies 
for each, based on recent water and sewer master plans. 
Additionally, the proposal would adopt the following documents by reference as part of 
the Public Facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan: 
Water 
1 City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan (West Yost and 
Associates, January 2001) 
2. City of Grants Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, Final Report (West 
Yost and Associates, June 2002) 
3. City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Final Report 
(MWH/Montgomery Watson Harza, April 2004) 
Sewer 
1 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, 
Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
2. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, 
Appendices- Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
3. Collection System Master Plan, City of Grants Pass (Parametrix, September 2004) 
4. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District Engineering Report (Parametrix, April 
1999, Revised November 1999) 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - Urban Area Planning Commission Pai EXHIBIT _L 
4o CC Stoff Reparf 
II. AUTHORITY AND CRITERIA: 
Section 13.5.3 of the Grants Pass and Urbanizing Area Comprehensive Plan provides 
that the City Council may initiate a text amendment. 
Sections 13.5.5 and 13.8 of the Comprehensive Plan provide that joint review by the City 
Council and Board of County Commissioners shall be required for amendment and 
revision to Comprehensive Plan findings, goals, and policies. 
The review shall be in accordance with the procedures of Section 13.8.3 of the 
Comprehensive Plan, which provides for a recommendation hearing by the Urban Area 
Planning Commission prior to a joint hearing of the City Council and Board of County 
Commissioners. 
However, with adoption of the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement, this provision 
requiring a joint hearing is modified with the result that City Council will make the 
decision, and the County will have automatic party status, as summarized below: 
Section III of the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) provides for transfer 
of authority for provision and management of planning services from the County 
to the City for the Urbanizing Area. It provides: 
The City is hereby vested with the exclusive authority to exercise the 
County's legislative and quasi-judicial powers, rights, and duties within the 
Urbanizing Area... 
Section V of the IGA contains provisions pertaining to notification and appeals for 
quasi-judicial and legislative decisions within the Urbanizing Area. For legislative 
decisions, the IGA provides: 
The City agrees to provide written notice of all proposed legislative 
actions to the County at least 45 days prior to the public hearing at which 
the action is first considered. The County shall be deemed to have 
automatic party status regarding all such decisions for the purposes of 
standing for appeals. 
Section 13.8.3 of the Comprehensive Plan provides that notice shall be as provided in 
Section 2.060 of the Development Code for a Type IV procedure. Section 13.8.3 further 
provides that the hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the Legislative Hearing 
Guidelines of Section 9 of the Development Code. 
Therefore, the application will be processed through a "Type IV" procedure, with a 
recommendation from the Urban Area Planning Commission and a final decision by City 
Council. The County has automatic party status for appeals. 
The text of the Comprehensive Plan may be recommended for amendment and 
amended provided the criteria in Section 13.5.4 of the Comprehensive Plan are met. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - Urban Area Planning Commission Page 2 of 9 
III. APPEAL PROCEDURE: 
The City Council's final decision may be appealed to the State Land Use Board of 
Appeals (LUBA) as provided in state statutes. A notice of intent to appeal must be filed 
with LUBA within 21 days of the Council's written decision. 
IV. PROCEDURE: 
A. The application for a Comprehensive Plan text amendment was submitted on 
April 18, 2008. The application was deemed complete on April 18, 2008, and 
processed in accordance with Section 2.060 of the Development Code. 
B. Notice of the proposed amendment and the initial June 11, 2008 public hearing 
was mailed to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 
(DLCD) on April 18, 2008. 
C. Notice of the proposed amendment was mailed to Josephine County on April 23, 
2008 in accordance with the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement for the 
Urbanizing Area. 
D. Notice of the June 11, 2008 Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to 
potentially-interested parties and public agencies on May 21, 2008. 
E. Public notice of the June 11, 2008 Planning Commission public hearing was 
published in the newspaper on June 4, 2008 in accordance with Sections 2.053 
and 2.063 of the Development Code. 
F. A public hearing was held by the Urban Area Planning Commission on June 11, 
2008 to consider the request and make a recommendation to City Council. 
V. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE: 
A. The basic facts and criteria regarding this application are contained in the 
Planning Commission staff report and exhibits, which are attached as Exhibit "A" 
and incorporated herein. 
B. A printed copy of the Power Point presentation given by staff at the June 11, 
2008 Planning Commission hearing is attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated 
herein. 
C. The minutes of the June 11, 2008 public hearing held by the Urban Area 
Planning Commission, which are attached as Exhibit "C", summarize the oral 
testimony presented and are hereby adopted and incorporated herein. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - Urban Area Planning Commission Page 3 of 9 
VI. GENERAL FINDINGS- BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: 
The proposed new documents will replace the existing Water and Sewer sections of the 
Comprehensive Plan Public Facilities element, which were adopted in 1982 and 
determined service needs within the UGB through the year 2000. 
Work on updating the Water and Sewer sections of the Comprehensive Plan Public 
Facilities element began in 2004, at the request of the City's former Utilities Department 
Director. The updated Comprehensive Plan element was intended to incorporate data 
from several recently-completed water and sewer master plans, and adopt the plans by 
reference. 
In May of 2005, City Council adopted the Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) 
recommended within the recently-completed water and sewer plans (see Resolution 
No's 4954 and 4955, corresponding City Council background sheets and Technical 
Memorandum from Parametrix dated April 25, 2005); however, the plans were not 
adopted by reference in their entirety, nor were updated Comprehensive Plan Water 
Service and Sewer Service sections adopted. The CIPs shown in the technical memo 
(and water and sewer plans) and adopted by Council are identical to those shown in the 
currently-proposed water and sewer section updates. Therefore, adoption of the current 
proposal would not change any of the planned projects for public water and sewer 
facilities over the twenty-year planning period. Note that several of the items identified 
within the CIPs have since been completed. Remaining items will continue to be 
identified for completion within annual budget reports as funds become available. 
The proposal incorporates the previously-listed water and sewer facility plans into the 
Comprehensive Plan, to serve current and future needs within the existing Urban Growth 
Boundary. Additional facility planning is expected to occur as part of the anticipated 
Urban Growth Boundary expansion. The current update does not account for areas 
outside the existing UGB, except for those within special sewer districts (i.e. Redwood 
Sanitary Sewer Service District, Harbeck Fruitdale Sewer Service District) or which are 
already committed or planned to receive City water services (i.e. Paradise Ranch, North 
Valley Industrial Park, etc.) 
Throughout the water and sewer service policies, it is stated that the City and County are 
jointly obligated for managing water and sewer services within the Urbanizing Area (UA). 
However, under the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), the County agreed to 
transfer to the City "all of the County's authority to provide and manage...facility 
financing and development within the UA." Therefore, as long as the IGA is in effect, it is 
the City's responsibility to adopt and maintain public facility and service plans for the UA, 
including water and sewer service plans. 
VII. FINDINGS OF FACT- CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE CRITERIA: 
For amending the findings, goals, policies, and Land Use Map of the Comprehensive 
Plan, the City Council and Board of County Commissioners shall base their conclusions 
upon, and adopt Findings in consideration of, all of the following criteria: 
CRITERION (a): Consistency with other findings, goals and policies in the 
Comprehensive Plan. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - Urban Area Planning Commission Page 4 of 9 
Planning Commission Response: Satisfied. The proposal is consistent with 
other findings, goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 
The existing General Service, Water Service and Sewer Service policies would 
be amended to eliminate language that is out of date, as the "Public Facilities 
and Services" element of the Comprehensive Plan Policies Manual was last 
amended in 1984. All amended policies are consistent with the goal of Element 
10, which is: "To provide needed facilities and services for the Urban Growth 
Boundary area in a timely, orderly, efficient, economic and coordinated matter." 
Other goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan that relate specifically to 
water and sewer facilities include the goal of Element 4: Environmental 
Resource Quality ("To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land 
resources of the area."), Policy 4.3 (d) ("The City and County shall affect water 
quality by increasing the hydraulic capacity of the City's wastewater treatment 
plant.") and the goal of Element 8: Economy ("To improve, expand, diversify and 
stabilize the economic base of the community.") The proposal is consistent with 
these goals and policies. 
CRITERION (b): A change in circumstances, validated by and supported by the data 
base or proposed changes to the data base, which would necessitate a change in 
findings, goals and policies. 
Planning Commission Response: Satisfied. The proposed amendment is 
necessary due to a change in circumstances that is supported by proposed 
changes to the database. The existing water and sewer sections of the 
Comprehensive Plan's public facilities element, and associated policies, were 
adopted in 1982 and are outdated. 
The updated findings and policies are validated by and supported by the updated 
data base. As discussed in the response to the previous criterion, this policy is 
consistent with other findings, goals and policies found in the Comprehensive 
Plan. 
CRITERION (c): Applicable planning goals and guidelines of the State of Oregon. 
Planning Commission Response: Satisfied. The proposed amendment is 
consistent with applicable planning goals and guidelines of the State of Oregon. 
Applicable goals and guidelines include Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement), Goal 2 
(Land Use Planning), Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality), Goal 11 
(Public Facilities and Services), ORS 197.712(2)(e) (which requires a city to 
adopt a public facility plan for areas within a UGB containing a population of over 
2,500) and OAR 660, Division 11 (Public Facilities Planning.) 
Goal 1- Citizen Involvement (OAR 660-015-0000(1)): See response to 
Criterion (d) below. 
Goal 2- Land Use Planning (OAR 660-015-0000(2)): Although Goal 2 does 
f**- not specifically address public facility planning, the explanation of Part I 
(Planning) of Goal 2 states the following: "All land-use plans and implementation 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - Urban Area Planning Commission Page 5 of 9 
ordinances shall be adopted by the governing body after public hearing and shall 
be reviewed and, as needed, revised on a periodic cycle to take into account 
changing public polices and circumstances..." The existing water and sewer 
sections of the Comprehensive Plan's public facilities element, and associated 
policies, were adopted in 1982 and are outdated. Revisions to these sections 
and the associated policies are necessary to account for circumstances that have 
changed over the past 26 years. Further, subsection (C) of the "Guidelines" for 
Goal 2 states that: "Inventories and other forms of data are needed as the basis 
for the policies and other decisions set forth in the plan", including those for 
"man-made structures and utilities, their location and condition." Existing utilities 
inventories within the current Comprehensive Plan are not useful for any practical 
purpose and must be updated to be in full compliance with Goal 2. 
Goal 6- Air. Water and Land Resources Quality (OAR 660-015-0000(6)): 
Goal 6 states that "all waste and process discharges from future development, 
when combined with such discharges from existing developments shall not 
threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal environmental quality 
statutes, rules and standards." To assure full compliance with Goal 6, an update 
of the City's sewer facility plans is necessary. 
Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services (OAR 660-015-0000(11)) IORS 
197.712(2)(e) I OAR 660-011-0000: Goal 11 requires "a timely, orderly and 
efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for 
urban and rural development." OAR 660, Division 11 interprets Goal 11 
requirements and implements ORS 197.712(2)(e), which requires that a city 
develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within a UGB containing a 
population greater than 2,500. 
OAR 660-011-0005 defines public facilities plan as "a support document or 
documents to a comprehensive plan. The facility plan describes the water, 
sewer and transportation facilities which are to support the land uses designated 
in the appropriate acknowledged comprehensive plans within an urban growth 
boundary containing a population greater than 2,500..." The proposal contains 
three (3) separate supporting water documents and four (4) separate supporting 
sewer documents that would be adopted as supporting documents to the 
Comprehensive Plan. (Note that this proposal amends only the water and 
wastewater / sewer portion of the City's public facilities plan, and that other 
existing elements of the public facilities plan, including the Master Transportation 
Plan (adopted in 1997) and Master Storm Drain Plan (adopted in 1982) are not 
amended by this proposal.) The proposal also includes an update of the 
Comprehensive Plan itself, to reflect the supporting data contained in the 
separate water and sewer facility documents. 
OAR 660-011-0010 through -0035 outlines the items that must be contained 
within a public facility plan. These include an inventory / assessment of existing 
facilities, a list of projected public facility projects (including rough cost estimates, 
locations, and time estimates for each), applicable urban growth management 
agreements and funding mechanisms. The proposals for both water and sewer 
contain each of these required items. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - Urban Area Planning Commission Page 6 of 9 
The proposed amendment is also consistent with remaining sections of Goal 11 
and OAR 660 Division 11, including OARs 660-011-0045 ("Adoption and 
Amendment Procedures for Public Facility Plans"), 660-011-0060 ("Sewer 
Service to Rural Lands") and 660-011-0065 ("Water Service to Rural Lands"). 
ORS 197.610: Notice of the proposed amendment was mailed to the Oregon 
Department of Land Conservation and Development on April 18, 2008, in 
accordance with ORS 197.610. 
CRITERION (d): Citizen review and comment. 
Planning Commission Response: Satisfied. Notice of the proposed 
amendment has been posted in accordance with the procedure required for a 
Type IV-B procedure. In addition, the agenda and packet for the June 11th, 2008 
Planning Commission meeting was posted on the City's website in advance of 
the hearing. No written comments were submitted by citizens prior to or during 
the Planning Commission hearing. 
CRITERION (e): Review and comment from affected governmental units and other 
agencies. 
Planning Commission Response: Satisfied. 45-day notice was provided to 
the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in accordance 
with OAR 660 Division 18 and ORS 197.610. OAR 660-18-0035 provides that if 
DLCD is participating in the proceeding, they shall notify the local government 15 
days prior to the first evidentiary hearing. DLCD has not provided notification to 
the City. 
45-day notice was provided to Josephine County in accordance with the 1998 
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Urbanizing Area. The County has replied 
and has no comments regarding the proposal. 
Notice of the proposed amendment was also provided to affected agencies and 
governmental units, including the Oregon DHS Drinking Water Program, the 
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Watermaster 
District 14, and Grants Pass Irrigation District. No additional comments 
regarding the proposal have been received. 
CRITERION (f): A demonstration that any additional need for basic urban services 
(water, sewer, streets, storm drainage, parks, and fire and police protection) is 
adequately covered by adopted utility plans and service policies, or a proposal for the 
requisite changes to said utility plans and service policies as a part of the requested 
Comprehensive Plan amendment. 
Planning Commission Response: Satisfied. The proposal does not create 
the need for any additional basic urban services. The proposed utility plans 
contain facility improvements and upgrades necessary to serve the water and 
sewer needs for existing and future residents of the existing Urban Growth 
Boundary, as well as for a limited number of service areas outside the existing 
UGB, through at least the year 2020. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - Urban Area Planning Commission Page 7 of 9 
CRITERION (g): Additional information as required by the review body. 
Planning Commission Response: Satisfied. No additional information was 
requested by the Planning Commission. 
CRITERION (h): In lieu of item (b) above, demonstration that the Plan as originally 
adopted was in error. 
Planning Commission Response: Not Applicable. Criterion (b) is applicable. 
The Plan was not adopted in error. The proposed amendment is being adopted 
in response to a change in circumstances. See Criterion (b) for discussion of the 
change in circumstances. 
VIII. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: 
The Urban Area Planning Commission recommends that City Council APPROVE the 
proposal, which: 
1) amends the sewer and water sections of Comprehensive Plan Element 10 by 
adopting new Comprehensive Plan Sections 10.20 (Water Services) and 10.30 
(Sewer Services), attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Planning Commission staff 
report, and repealing existing Comprehensive Plan Sections 10.20 and 10.30, which 
were adopted by Ordinance 4471 in 1982, and 
2) adopts revisions to the Element 10 (Public Facilities and Services) sewer and water 
policies, attached as Exhibit 3 to the Planning Commission staff report, with the 
following revisions: 
i. Un-strike and retain existing Policy 10.2.8 (to become Policy 10.2.7) 
and un-capitalize the words Interim Development Standards, so the 
policy reads as follows: Urban level development shall require a 
public water system, or shall meet requirements of interim 
development standards as provided by the Implementing Ordinances. 
Interim development standards shall allow development to proceed in 
a timely and economical manner, prior to full public water system 
extension, provided the requirements of public safety, health and 
welfare are met, and the future extension of the public water system is 
safeguarded. 
ii. Un-strike and retain existing Policy 10.3.7 and un-capitalize the words 
Interim Development Standards, so the policy reads as follows: 
Urban level development shall require a public sanitary sewer system, 
or shall meet the requirements of interim development standards as 
provided by the Implementing Ordinances. Interim development 
standards shall allow development to proceed in a timely and 
economical manner, prior to full extension of the sanitary sewer 
system, provided the requirements of public safety, health and welfare 
are met.\ and 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - Urban Area Planning Commission Page 8 of 9 
3) adopts the following documents by reference as part of the Public Facilities element 
of the Comprehensive Plan: 
i. City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan (West 
Yost and Associates, January 2001) 
ii. City of Grants Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, Final 
Report (West Yost and Associates, June 2002) 
iii. City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Final Report 
(MWH/Montgomery Watson Harza, April 2004) 
iv. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water 
Restoration Plant, Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
v. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water 
Restoration Plant, Appendices- Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
vi. Collection System Master Plan, City of Grants Pass (Parametrix, 
September 2004) 
vii. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District Engineering Report 
(Parametrix, April 1999, Revised November 1999), and 
4) repeals previously-adopted water and wastewater plans which are rendered obsolete 
by adoption of the new plans. 
The vote was 6-0-0, with Commissioners Arthur, Sackett, Wickham, Kellenbeck, 
Fitzgerald and Fowler in favor, and none opposed. Commissioners Berlant and Fedosky 
were absent. 
IX. ADOPTED BY THE URBAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION this 25th day of June, 
2008. 
Gary Berlant, Chairperson 
Urban Area Planning Commission 
t:\cd\planning\reports\2008\08-40500002_Public Facilities Comprehensive Plan Amendment\Public Facilities.UAPC.FOF.jv.doc 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Findings of Fact - Urban Area Planning Commission Page 9 of 9 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
6.4.1.5 Additional Clearwell Volume 
Additional clearwell volume is required to provide adequate on-site storage for chlorine 
disinfection, flow equalization and backwash pumping capacity. 800,000 gallons of 
additional storage is recommended for the 30 mgd expansion to bring the total clearwell 
volume to 1,250,000 gallons to provide one hour of storage at the peak flow rate. The 
existing 450,000 gallon clearwell volume is barely adequate for the current 20 mgd plant 
flow, but additional volume does not have to be added until the plant capacity is 
expanded, or if future regulations disallow CT credit prior to filtration. 
The new buried clearwell addition can be located in the front of the plant or to the west of 
the existing Basin 3. It should be inter-connected with the existing clearwell to maximize 
chlorine contact time for disinfection and to allow the existing HSPS to be expanded to 
pump the full 30 mgd peak capacity. Approximately 150,000 gallons of the required 
additional volume can be provided underneath the three new filters and filter gallery. 
Care must be taken to ensure that the deep excavation does not undermine the adjacent 
contact basin foundation. Further analysis of locations for additional clearwell volume 
are required during preliminary design. 
If addition of an alternative form of disinfection is required in the future, either for 
Cryptosporidium inactivation or to control DBP formation or both, then the clearwell 
volume for the expanded plant could possibly be reduced. No costs for alternative 
disinfection systems are included in the expansion costs. 
6.4.1.6 New High Service Pumps 
The existing five high service pumps provide a total pumping capacity of 21 mgd and a 
firm, reliable capacity of 16.7 mgd with one large pump out of service. There is currently 
space to add two more pumps for capacity expansion. Assuming neither of these spaces 
is used for a spare backwash pump, then all of the plant's total pumping capacity can 
probably remain located in the existing High Service Pump Room for 30 mgd. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-52 
>0 3456 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
There are a number of options for increasing the pumping capacity. If two additional 5 
mgd pumps are added, then the total installed pumping capacity will be 31 mgd. The 
firm capacity with this arrangement would be 26 mgd +/-. To develop a firm 30 mgd 
pumping capacity, some of the smaller pumps would have to be replaced with larger 
pumps. Upsizing existing pumps requires careful evaluation of the electrical equipment 
and motor control center. The plant currently has two of the high service pumps 
equipped with VFDs and this is adequate for the ultimate pumping capacity. Ideally, the 
two pumps with VFDs will not be replaced with larger pumps for the expansion. 
For planning purposes, it is assumed that two new 5 mgd pumps will be added to the 
High Service Pump Room. As discussed previously, at least one of the new pumps 
should be added prior to the full plant expansion, when demands exceed 15 mgd, to 
provide a firm/reliable pumping capacity of 20 mgd. Based on current growth 
projections, the new raw water pump will be required in the next 10 to 15 years. This 
new pump should be added at the same time as the new raw water pump addition. 
6.4.1.7 Surge Control Improvements 
The existing high service pumps discharge into a 36-inch finished water pipe that exits 
the plant property. At 30 mgd, the velocity in the 36-inch pipe header is approximately 
6.5 feet per second (fps). At this velocity and under the high discharge pressure 
conditions, potential surge damage to the piping system which could be caused due to a 
sudden loss of pumping power. Surge could also damage plumbing system of nearby 
customers if the pressure wave is strong enough. 
The plant discharge piping system is already equipped with a 11,000 gallon buried 
hydropneumatic surge control tank which has served the plant well for the past 20 years. 
At the higher flows for the 30 mgd expansion, the surge tank will likely be required to be 
replaced with a larger tank to provide adequate protection. For planning purposes, it is 
assumed that a new 15,000 gallon tank would be installed to replace the existing tank. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-55 
00 457 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
6.4.1.8 Yard Piping Improvements 
Various yard piping buried around the plant site may need to be modified or replaced or 
relocated as part of the plant expansion project to accommodate new construction 
including the filters and clearwell and basin modifications. Also, additional raw water 
pipe will be required to deliver 15 mgd total to Basin #3. An allowance of $200,000 is 
provided for this work for planning purposes. 
6.4.1.9 Increase Site Electrical Service 
The existing plant transformer is rated at 1,500 kVa and is considered at capacity. The 
service, including the transformer and feeder cable(s) will have to be expanded to supply 
power for the new pumps and other mechanical equipment. 
Normally, the power provider will replace the electrical equipment and cabling to serve a 
higher load without a capital charge to the City. The City's power rate structure might be 
adjusted to account for the larger service equipment. For planning purposes, an 
allowance of $200,000 is provided for this work. 
6.4.1.10 Site Electrical Improvements to Support Expansion 
In addition to the expanded power supply improvements, various site electrical 
improvements are require to support the new electrical, mechanical and control systems 
to be added for the plant expansion. These improvements include new motor control 
centers, feeders and cables, cable trays, ductbanks and terminations. 
6.4.1.11 Instrumentation and Control Improvements for Expansion 
The City will need , to integrate certain features of the plant expansion components into its 
existing WTP SCADA/control system. Specifically, these improvements would integrate 
the new raw water pumps, new basin equipment, filters, and high service pumps. Various 
programming, software and hardware work items will be required. It is also assumed that 
the existing plant SCADA system will be upgraded/replaced due to technology 
advancements. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 p a g e 6-54 
458 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
6.4.1.12 Items Not Included 
Items not included in the lists of recommended improvements and costs presented in 
Table 6-8 are shown below. The City should review this list as it gets closer to 
expanding the plant capacity to verify no additional improvements are required. 
• Alternative disinfection systems for Cryptosporidium inactivation and/or DBP 
formation control (such as UV, ozone, chlorine dioxide, or ammonia for chloramines) 
• Costs for property acquisition for a new WTP site, or for solids disposal site 
• Chemical feed system modifications for lime alternatives 
• Structural modifications to existing basins, filters and control buildings for seismic 
protection, if required 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-55 
00 459 
IO co in rs 
ta m CM o Ol » rs co <M «M CM o» OI o> o> 
s¡ 3 2¡ Ui UJ UJ UI 
! I I 
S r = D \ 
o 
Í 
\ 
M 
\ 
o 
OL « 
fco 
t i t 
n 
IS 
I 
» 
V 
V 
u. 5 S 
»8 £ o 
S 
U) 
i s 
I I 
f s s S 
I 
got . ^ 0» en m o> o> n m o> o> a 0) s Ol 
tu Sí Sí Sí 
ce 
ës 
o g III III 0 o z z III 3 
s 5 
1 o O UI o s 
LU oc 
z o (0 
ILI o 
0 z 
1 
s 
c o •J 
3 • M "O 
«i S í s 
M I 
o * ¡ 
E 
8 
3 
SI 
460 
t w t w i ^ 
9 M 0 8 M M 
a- t, 
si 
SI i J 
i l i ! -c ò ? ! o »sax 
o £ 5 n 
o.) 4 6 1 
"'"'•••«mmuT 
00 )463 
00 )464 
Recommendations and Implementation Plan 
m 465 
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 
7 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N T A T I O N P L A N 
Based on the recommended improvements and facility planning presented in Section 6, 
and after further discussion with the City, the following summarizes the key elements for 
ensuring that the Grants Pass WTP continues to serve the City's needs for the next 20 
years and beyond: 
• Immediate (Tier-one) improvements to maintain capacity, improve and/or optimize 
performance, and continue to meet regulations; 
• Longer-term (Tier-two) improvements to upgrade facilities and to ensure continued 
long-term performance; and 
• Expand plant capacity to 30 mgd in the next 20 to 25 years, depending on growth and 
demands 
These improvements were prioritized and scheduled to fit within the City's budgetary 
constraints. The City will also be implementing some capital improvement projects at the 
WTP, as recommended from the Vulnerability Assessment (VA), over the next few 
years. The VA improvements are not discussed herein. 
7.1 IMMEDIATE (TIER-ONE) PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
The City's WTP is in need of immediate improvements in four areas to ensure that it can 
continue to reliably treat the 20 mgd rated capacity, to optimize performance and to 
continue to meet regulations as described in Section 6. The City should implement these 
projects within the next five years depending on priorities and to meet budgetary 
limitations. The project team discussed, evaluated and rated the improvements and 
developed the following prioritized list in order of implementation: 
1 Solids Handling and Disposal Modifications 
2. Intake Modifications 
3. Filter Modifications 
4. Basin Modifications 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 7-1 
OO M66 
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 
The solids handling and disposal improvements were rated the highest of the Tier-one 
projects because the City needs to remove solids from the lagoon as soon as possible to 
allow the plant to continue successful operations, and to avoid potential NPDES permit 
violations. The City has elected to implement Option 6 as described in Section 6. 
The City intends to purchase a dredge and some "GeoTubes", and also make 
improvements around the existing lagoon to allow immediate and periodic removal of 
solids by City staff. Initially, solids from the lagoon will be dredged and pumped into at 
least two "Geo-Tubes" which will dewater the solids inside the tube via proper selection 
of fabric material and dewatering polymers. The tubes will be located at the perimeter of 
the lagoon and allowed to drain back to the lagoon. As liquid drains through the fabric, 
additional solids will be pumped into the tube until it is full. It is expected that the tubes 
will provide adequate dewatering over the summer period. The dewatered solids will 
then be removed from the tube and hauled to JO-GRO™ or to a landfill. Tubes will be 
re-filled periodically throughout the year and then allowed to dewater over each summer. 
It is initially estimated that the City will perform dredging operations 12 times per year. 
Each tube will be approximately 9.5-feet diameter by 350-feet long (25,000 cf = 185,000 
gallons), which means it can theoretically contain over 1.0 million pounds of 20% solids 
content sludge assuming a 70 lb/cf material density. One tube may be able to contain and 
dewater up to 25% of the total lagoon contents if the dewatering process performs well. 
The City also intends to use Geo-Tubes to dewater the solids removed from the basins 
without discharging them to the lagoon as currently practiced. The solids removed from 
the basins will be diverted to the existing holding basin and mix tank previously used for 
powdered activated carbon (PAC). The solids will remain stirred, and then will be 
pumped into a Geo-Tube on the plant site while also feeding polymer. This approach, if 
successful, should limit solids accumulation in the lagoon and reduce its dredging 
frequency, since a large percentage of the lagoon solids come from cleaning the basins. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 7-2 
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 
Purchasing the dredge also offers the City the ability to pump liquid solids into tanker 
trucks and haul the solids to an off-site location, for possible future storage and 
dewatering, as discussed in Section 6. This allows the City to further consider the 
possibility of discharging these solids at the WRP, or at the Redwood Pump Station Site, 
among other options. This approach significantly reduces the capital investment 
compared to the lagoons/drying beds (Option 1) and may be able to defer major capital 
investments for solids handling and disposal for many years if the process proves 
manageable and reliable. 
The intake modifications were rated the second-highest priority due to the non-
compliance with fish protection (screening) criteria and the inherent risk that this creates 
for the City. The sooner the City begins efforts to bring the intake into compliance, the 
sooner it can also assure itself of getting the intake approved for 30 mgd withdrawal rates 
to firm up its water rights on the Rogue River. This is the only Tier-one project that has a 
significant capacity expansion component since the intake will be sized for 30 mgd. It is 
estimated that one-third of the project cost should be allocated to capacity expansion. 
The filter modifications were determined to be an important improvement since they 
represent the "heart" of the plant and this process requires upgrades within the next few 
years. Filter improvements were rated a higher priority than basin improvements and will 
likely lead to higher year-round improvements in plant production efficiencies, which 
should result in shorter plant operating periods to make the same amount of water 
compared to today's conditions. 
The basin modifications were also determined to be an important improvement. If 
coagulation modifications are successful in lowering alum doses and improving overall 
plant performance, it may be possible to defer the implementation of formal flocculation. 
Also, the City should consider the recommendation for continuous sludge removal in the 
basins as part of Tier-two improvements. 
Each of the Tier-one projects and the recommended timelines are presented below. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 p a g e 7.3 
00 Î468 
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 
7.1.1 Solids Handling and Disposal Improvements 
Due to the urgent nature to remove solids from the lagoon, the City has accelerated this 
project to purchase the new dredge and Geo-Tubes, as well as make improvements at the 
lagoon site, in early 2004. The goal is to remove an adequate amount of solids from the 
lagoon (and into the GeoTubes) in Spring 2004 prior to the high demand season which 
usually begins in May. Solids from the basins will be dewatered with a separate Geo-
Tube located at the plant. The City has allocated approximately $175,000 for this 
project. 
7.1.2 Intake Modifications 
The bulk of the construction work needs to occur during July and August to meet the in-
water work period for the Rogue River. It may take 12 months or more to get the 
proposed intake modifications approved by various regulatory agencies considering their 
current backlogs. Therefore, the earliest likely construction period is summer 2006 
assuming the City begins predesign and permitting efforts in mid-2004. A suggested 
schedule to complete the intake modifications is shown below. 
• Begin predesign and permitting 
• Begin detailed design 
• Begin bid period 
• Issue construction Notice to Proceed 
• Complete shop drawing reviews 
• Delivery of Critical Equipment and Materials by 
• Construction complete 
7.1.3 Filter Upgrades 
Due to funding constraints, the City can not begin design of this project until mid-2005. 
This means that construction can not begin until Fall 2006 because no filters can be out of 
service during the peak demand season. A suggested schedule to complete the filter 
modifications is shown below. 
July 2004 
January 2005 
July 2005 
October 2005 
January 2006 
May/June 2006 
November 2006 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 7-4 
rK> 4 6 9 
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 
Begin design July 2005 
Begin bid period November 2005 
Issue construction Notice to Proceed January 2006 
Complete shop drawing reviews April 2006 
Delivery of Critical Equipment and Materials by September 2006 
Construction complete April 2007 
7.1.4 Basin Modifications 
The City can complete this project in parallel with the filter upgrades. Designing and 
constructing both projects as one "package" will reduce total costs and minimize plant 
disruptions during construction to only one off-season. A suggested schedule to 
complete these improvements is shown below. 
• Begin design 
• Begin bid period 
• Issue construction Notice to Proceed 
• Complete shop drawing reviews 
• Delivery of Critical Equipment and Materials by 
• Construction complete 
July 2005 
November 2005 
January 2006 
April 2006 
September 2006 
April 2007 
7.2 TIER-TWO PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
The Grants Pass WTP requires additional improvements for reliability, long-term 
efficiency, and to meet regulations including: 
• Replacement of all pneumatic valve actuators with electric actuators, with new valves 
• Re-build filter gallery piping for longevity and protection against damage 
• Replace and re-locate filter effluent flowmeters 
• Purchase a spare backwash pump 
• Install continuous sludge removal systems in each basin 
• Relocate lime addition point and modify inter-clearwell piping 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 p a g e 7.5 
m 470 
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 
• Install new coagulant aid feed system 
• Install new flowmeters for Basin #3 influent, raw water and finished water 
• Provide containment around the alum tanks 
• Provide a new storage and maintenance area 
• Install filter effluent particle counters 
• Purchase a new spectrophotometer 
• Implement HVAC upgrades 
• Perform a Seismic Vulnerability Study 
• Install an emergency power generation system for 5 mgd 
As presented in Table 6-7, the estimated total project costs are $1.8 million for these 
improvements. Implementation of these improvements will follow Tier-one 
improvements and will depend on budgeting constraints and other issues. The project 
team discussed, evaluated and rated the Tier-two improvements and developed the 
following prioritized list in order of preferred implementation: 
1. Replace filter gallery valves, actuators, piping and flowmeters 
2. Upgrade/replace chemical feed systems and containment 
3. Install continuous sludge removal systems in basins 
4. Construct a new storage/maintenance building 
5. Emergency generator 
The City will implement the smaller cost items (such as a spare backwash pump, water 
quality analytical equipment, HVAC upgrades and the Seismic Study) as funds are 
available and perhaps via the plant operations budget. 
If additional plant testing identifies that a coagulant aid or alternative coagulant system 
should be implemented, then this project should be accelerated and possibly integrated 
with one of the other Tier-one plant improvement projects (filter or basin improvements) 
to reduce sludge production and reduce operating costs. It may be possible to perform 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 7-2 
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 
this work as part of the operations budget. The City should also consider accelerating the 
lime relocation project if operating budget funds are available. 
7.3 PLANT EXPANSION TO 30 MGD 
The City will need to expand the plant's capacity in approximately 25 years (on-line by 
2028) if demand growth is steady at 2.5% per year. The expansion would be required in 
20 years (on-line by 2023) if demand growth is steady at 3% per year. A plant expansion 
to 30 mgd is estimated to have a project cost of $7.5 million, as presented in Table 6-8. 
The size and scope of this project will require 3 to 4 years to implement. A preliminary 
schedule is indicated below, assuming the increased demand is required prior to the 
summer of 2028. When preliminary design begins, the City will have to decide whether 
to increase the plant capacity by 10 mgd or consider a smaller increment of expansion 
(minimum 5 mgd) which would defer some costs until later, but would be less efficient 
that expanding to 30 mgd at one time. 
• Begin preliminary design July 2025 
• Begin bid period September 2026 
• Issue Construction Notice to Proceed December 2026 
• Construction complete May 2028 
7.4 SHORT-TERM SCHEDULE AND FINANCIAL PLANNING 
Based on the preferred implementation schedule for Tier-one and Tier-two 
improvements, the following summarizes estimated expenditures for the next nine fiscal 
years. Each fiscal year begins July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year. The 
costs shown below have not been adjusted for inflation. 
Fiscal Year 2003/2004 (Current) 
• Solids Handling Improvements = $ 175,000 
Fiscal Year 2004/2005 
• Intake design and permitting = $400,000 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 7-2 
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 
Fiscal Year 2005/2006 
• Intake construction = $500,000 
• Filter upgrades (design and construction) = $200,000 
• Basin improvements (design and construction) = $200,000 
Fiscal Year 2006/2007 
• Intake construction = $700,000 
• Filter upgrades construction = $400,000 
• Basin improvements construction = $400,000 
Fiscal Year 2007/2008 
• None 
Fiscal Year 2008/2009 
• Filter Gallery upgrades (design and construction) = $200,000 
Fiscal Year 2009/2010 
• Filter Gallery upgrades construction = $480,000 
• Chemical System upgrades (design and construction) = $50,000 
Fiscal Year 2010/2011 
• Chemical System upgrades construction = $130,000 
• Continuous sludge removal systems (design and construction) = $75,000 
• New storage/maintenance building (design and construction) = $25,000 
Fiscal Year 2011/2012 
• Continuous sludge removal systems construction = $225,000 
• New storage/maintenance building construction = $50,000 
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 
• Emergency generator for 5 mgd production = $300,000 
The City will need to budget for these recommended improvements. Those projects 
which allow increased capacity, including the intake modifications, should be funded via 
SDC (System Development Charges) mechanisms. It may be possible to have the Corps 
of Engineers participate in the costs of the intake modifications project due to the eddy in 
front of the intake which was created during the riverbank stabilization project in 2001 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 7-8 
'»O 473 
0 0 4 7 4 
GRANTS PASS WATER RESTORATION PLANT 
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE 
Prepared for: 
City of Grants Pass 
10] Northwest A Street 
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 
Prepared by: 
Paramctr ix , Inc. 
1231 Fryar Avenue 
Sumner, Washington 98390 
FMX #216-3416-002 
June 2001 
EXHIB IT _ 7 _ 
Ho ÜAPCJ 
CERTIFICATE OF ENGINEER 
The technical material and data contain«! in the revised sections of this document were prepared 
under the supervision and direction of the undersigned» whose seal» as a professional engineer 
licensed to practice as such, is affixed below. 
sr/ffc/»1 
Prepared by: A prit HbfF 
C ^ h M ^ J -
Reviewed by: Steven C. Gilbert, P.E. 
M -
Checked by: Tom Nielsen, P.E. 
Approved/toy: Doug Berschauer, P.E. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
00G476 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page No. 
; ' « K : * : V ». * 1 •. • * * •••?,) • * * * * • » • p m » . W • «- .* ;_« * » « » • • » » * t * 
CHAPTER 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Background . . . . . . . . . . . » . . 1-1 
Service Area ; 1-1 
Col lec té System . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 
Treatment Plant 1-2 
Future TreaimentRequirement^ . . . . . . . . . - . . . . 1-2 
Treatment Alternatives . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 1-4 
Liquid Stream Alternatives . . . . . . 1-4 
Biosolids Disposal and Handling Alternatives 1-6 
Pre fe r redAt&pi^ 1-7 
| ^ s t JBstimate . . . . . . ... . . . 1-7 
| Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . 1-8 
Collection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8 
Liquid Stream Treatment , . . . . . . . . • 
Biosolids Handling and Disposal 1-10 
Financing Plan ; . . . . . 1-10 
CHAPTER 2. STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS 
Sewerage Study Area . 2-1 
Physical Environment . ^ . . . 2-1 
Topography, Geology, and Soils - 2-2 
Climate . . . . . . . . . > 2-4 
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . * . • • • . • 2-6 
Socioeconomic Environment * . . 2-10 
Population . . . . . ., 2-10 
Land Use 2-11 
| References . . 2-13 
CHAPTER 3. EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 
Plant Design 3-2 
Plant Operation 3-3 
i Revised June 2001 
OOG477 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 
Paee No. 
Laboratory and Personnel Facilities 3-4 
Operator Facilities - i . . . . 3-5 
Laboratory < 3-5 
Maintenance Shop . 3-5 
Office Space . 3-6 
Industrial Pretreatment Program 3-6 
Unit Process Performance and Condition 
Influent Pumping Station 
Primary Sedimentation Basin . . 
Secondary System Bypass . . . . 
Aeration Basin . . . . . . . . . -
Secondary Clarifiers 
Disinfection 
Instrumentation 
Gravity Thickener . , . . . . . . . 
Gravity Belt Thickener . . . . . . 
Anaerobic Digesters . . . . . . . . 
Belt Filter Press 
Outfall Mixing Zone Analysis 
Effluent Bioassay Analysis . . 
Solids Management. . . . 
Biosolids Characteristics . 
Land Application . . . * 
CHAPTER 4. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 
Definition of Terms . . . 
. 3-7 
. 3-7 
. 3-9 
. 3-9 
. 3-9 
3-10 
3-11 
3-11 
3-11 
3-11 
3-11 
3-12 
3-12 
3-13 
3-14 
3-14 
3-16 
4-1 
Current Flows and Loads . . . • 4 - 2 
Wastewater Flows 
Nutrient Loading 4 - 7 
BOD and TSS Loads 4 - 8 
Peaking Factors • • 4 - 1 0 
Wastewater Flow and Load Projections 4-12 
Wastewater Flows 
Organic and Solids Loading . . . 4~14 
Nutrients - 4"*4 
u Revised June 2001 
00 78 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 
Page No. 
CHAPTER 5. WASTEWATER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 
Wastewater Disposal Criteria . . , 5-1 
Design Criteria . . , » 5-1 
Design. Period . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 
Wastewater Treatment Plant Design 5-2 
Evaluation Criteria 5-3 
Ecoaramic Evaluation . . . ^ » . ¥ < , m . - . 5-3 
Npneèònoniie Evaluation ¿. . 5-4 
CHAPTER 6. WASTEWATER TREATMENT CRITERIA 
Regulatory Autììtóiit^ 6-1 
Waste Load Allocation Process . . . . . . * . 6-2 
Rogue River Water Quality . . . . . . . 6-2 
Biological Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 
BiSS*ived Oxygen 6-4 
Temperature 6-8 
l\irbidity and Suspended Solids 6-11 
pH 6-11 
Bacteria 6-12 
Toxic Substances . 6-13 
i f e N ^ . - i b ^ W ^ a 6-15 
Additional Parameters 6-18 
Treatment Criteria . > 6-19 
Current Discharge Permit . . . . 6-19 
Minimum Treatment Requirements, OAR 340-41-375 6-19 
Anticipated Future Treatment Criteria , , 6-20 
| . . . . . . . . > . .„'. . . . . . * 6-25 
| CHAPTER 7. FEASIBILITY FOR EFFLUENT REUSE 
Regulations Governing Effluent Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 
Grants Pass Effluent Characteristics . , . . . . . . . . . 7-3 
Agricultural Constraints 7-4 
Climate 7-5 
•jSétó^ S-"' .%• - » » * * m- r * % » « • • • • • *7~5 
CfeOpS :.: 7-7 
- Woodlots 7-8 
Wetlands 7-8 
/ ' 
ill Revised June 2001 
00C479 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (coni.) 
Page No. 
Preliminary Effluent Reuse System Needs 7-9 
Acreage 7-9 
Storage * 7-10 
Reuse System Configuration 7-10 
Implementation Issues 7-11 
Potential User Interest 7-11 
Summary 7-13 
Rcfcrcnccs • « » « • • » • »•••» • • • • • • •»*• .« » • • » • » • » » * * » » » + • • T*™ 15 
CHAPTER 8. WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM 
Existing Collection System . 8-1 
History and Description 8-1 
Deficiencies • . * 8-3 
Collection System I/I Analysis 8-9 
Updated I/I Projections 8-9 
Structural Repair Projects 8-13 
Collection System Master Plan 8-15 
1983 Sewage Collection System Master Plan 8-15 
Updated Collection System Master Plan . . 8-17 
CHAPTER 9. LIQUID STREAM TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 
Upgrades Common to the Alternatives 9-1 
Alternative One — Conventional Expansion . 9-2 
Similar Upgrades to Alternatives Two and Three 9-2 
Alternative Two - Ballasted Sedimentation 9-6 
Alternative Three - Zenon Process . 9-7 
Operations and Maintenance Costs 9-8 
Preliminary Cost Estimate 9-8 
Preferred Alternative . 9-11 
CHAPTER 10. BIOSOLIDS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES 
Sludge Quantities and Characteristics 10-1 
Current Biosolids Handling and Disposal Plan 10-2 
Alternative One - Merlin Landfill Co-Compost Facility . . . . 10-2 
Alternative Two - Dry Creek Landfill 10-3 
Alternative Three - Land Applying Class B Biosolids . . 10-3 
Alternative Four - Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment (ADP) 10-4 
iv Revised June 2001 
OOG480 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 
Page No. 
Anticipated Cost Estimate for Biosolids Alternatives . 10-4 
Preferred Alternative „ , . . 4 . 10-6 
CHAPTER 11. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 
Liquid Stream Preferred Alternative . 11-1 
Headworks 11-1 
Primary Clarification/Gravity Thickener 11-1 
Aeration Basin l L l 
Secondary Clarifiers 11-2 
Ultraviolet Disinfection 11-2 
K^li^ ^^ Jl.; . . • i t ) • « » • * * • • • • Í 1 "2> 
Miscellaneous Plant Improvements , 11-2 
Biosolids Handling and Disposal Preferred Alternative 11-3 
Co-composting . . . . 11-3 
Construction Schedule . . . , . . . . . . 11-4 
Construction Cost Estimate 11-5 
Environmental Review 11-6 
Introduction 11-6 
No Action Alternative - 11-7 
Preferred Alternative 11-7 
Second Preferred Alternative , 11-8 
Zoning and Land Uses í . . . . . . . . 11-9 
Historic and Cultural Resources . . . * . . . . . . . 11-9 
Economic Considerations 11-10 
Wetlands *,..s . 11-10 
Floodplains ¿ . . . 11-11 
Agricultural Lands . . 11-12 
Wild and Scenic Rivers 11-12 
Fish and Wildlife . 11-13 
Other Unique or Sensitive Environmental Resources 11-17 
Construction Techniques, Best Management Practices, and 
Mitigation of Selected Natural Resource Concerns 11-18 
Public Involvement 11-19 
References 11-21 
v Revised June 2001 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 
CHAPTER 12. FINANCING PLAN 
Costs * • * • * » * r I • > • * » » ' » * • 
Current Funding . i . . ; . . 
Capital finding Mechanisms . . . . ^ - . 
Projected Cash1 Flow 
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . 
APPENDICES 
A Mixing Zone Study 
B Effluent Bioassay Results 
C Long-Term Rogue River Temperature Data 
D Sludge Land Application Regulations 
E Sewer Use Ordinance 
F NPDES Discharge Permit 
G Dissolved Oxygen SAG Spreadsheets, Ammonia Toxicity Spreadsheets, Plant Effluent 
Ammonia Data, and Plant Effluent and Rogue River Temperature Data 
H Value Engineering Study Final Report 
I Public Involvement 
LIST OF TABLES 
ES-1 Wastewater Flow Projections 1-3 
ES-2 Organic and Solids Loading (pounds per day) 1-3 
ES-3 Anticipated Year 2020 BOD5 and TSS Treatment Requirements 
Based on OAJ> 340-41-375 . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . , . . 1-4 
ES-4 Comparison of Liquid Stream Alternatives 1-6 
ES-5 Comparison of Biosolids Disposal and Handling Alternatives . . . . . . . 1-7 
ES-6 City of Grants Pass - Water Restoration Plant Capital 
Improvement Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , r s ^ • • 1-8 
2-1 Climatic Summary for Grants Pass 2-5 
2-2 Average Annual Evaporation 2-6 
2-3 Rogue River Stream Flow at Grants Pass (1966-1996) 2-8 
2-4 Population Growth by Area • * • ^v v 2-31 
2-5 Service Area Land Use Summary . , 2-12 
| 3-1 Design Data . . Follows Figure 3-3 
3-2 Current Discharge Permit Requirements , 3 - 4 
vi Revised June 2001 
Paige No. 
12-1 
12-2 
12-2 
12-3 
12-5 
OÖC482 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 
Page No. 
LIST OF TABLES (cont.) 
3-3 The City of Grants Pass Significant Industrial Users , . 3-6 
3-4 Treatment Process Loading and Performance . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 
3-5 Grants Pass Sludge Quality Nutrient Concentrations, Percent . . 3-15 
3-6 Grants Pass Sludge Quality Metals Concentrations, Percent . . 3-16 
3-7 Grants Pass Cumulative Land Application Sludge Loading Limits 3-16 
3-8 Land Application Sites in Use by the City of Grants Pass 3-17 
4-1 Statistical Rainfall Summary for Grants Pass, 1951 through 1980 4-3 
WL I^tows 4-4 
4-3 Storm Events Used for Peak Day Flow Analysis 4-6 
4-4 Cunetit Wastewater Flows 4-7 
Plant Nutrient Loading 4-9 
4-6 Mcfflthijr Plant Loading 4-11 
4-7 Calculated Wastewater Flow Peaking Factors 4-12 
4-8 Future Flow Factors . , 4-13 
4-9 Wastewater Flow Projections . . . 4-13 
j 4-10 Organic and Solids Loading (pounds per day) 4-14 
6-1 Mean Dissolved Oxygen Values 6-7 
6-2 Effect of Lost Creek Dam on Temperature and DO at Dodge Bridge 6-8 
6*3 T ^ p ^ r a t u i ^ . . . .6-9 
6-4 Current Discharge Permit Requirements 6-20 
6-5 Minimum Treatment Requirements . . . . . 6-20 
6-6 Anticipated Year 2020 BOD and TSS Treatment Requirements 6-21 
7-1 Treatment and Monitoring Requirements for Use of Reclaimed Water 7-2 
7-2 Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant Effluent Analysis 7-4 
7-3 Estimated Monthly Gross Irrigation Requirements for the Dominant 
Crops of the Grants Pass Area . . • - . . . , . . • . 7-7 
7-4 Project Crop Acreage and Reclaimed Water Storage Requirements 7-9 
8-1 lumping Stations Design Data . . . . . . . 8-2 
8-2 Summary of Wastewater Overflows 8-4 
8-3 System Capacity Deficiencies Identified in the 1983 Plan - 8-5 
8-4 Interceptor Capacity Summary - 8-6 
vii Revised June 2001 
00C483 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 
Page No. 
LIST OF TABLES (cont.) 
8-5 Analysis of Potentially Excessive Infiltration . . 8-7 
8-6 Per Capita Wastewater Flows for Selected Communities . . . 8-8 
8-7 System Deficiencies Detected During TV-Inspection 8-8 
8-8 1995 Smoke Testing Observations 8-10 
8-9 Estimated Collection System I/I Distribution 8-11 
8-10 Current Estimated \Jl and Associated Removal Costs - 8-12 
8-11 Estimated Costs and 1(1 Reduction for Structural Repairs 8-13 
8-12 Estimated Costs and lit Reduction for Lateral Repair 8-14 
8-13 Staged Improvement Program . , 8-16 
9-1 Proposed Improvements for Alternative One - Conventional 
Mxp3]!si{)n * w . f • ,> * * « • » * t * * w_. >. .v*' .<n .;•* «-.v. ». » v * • * * « r * • » 9"3 
9-2 Upgrades Common to Alternative Two - Ballasted Sedimentation 
and Alternative Three - The Zenon Process 9-5 
9-3 Proposed Improvements for Alternative Two - Ballasted 
Sedimentation 9-6 
9-4 Proposed Improvements for Alternative Three - Zenon Process . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7 
] 9-5 Capital Costs for Alternative One - Conventional Expansion . . . . . . . . . - • , - 9-8 
9-6 Preliminary Costs for Alternative Two - Ballasted 
Sedimentation 9-9 
j 9-7 Capital Costs for Alternative Three - Zenon Process 9-10 
| 9-8 Capital Costs for Collection System Improvements 9-10 
j 9-9 Comparison of Alternatives 9-11 
9-10 Sunraary of Alternatives •. . 9-11 
9-11 Ballasted Sedimentation Mass Balance Calculations for Year 2020 9-13 
10-1 Biosolids Production (lbs/day) 10-1 
10-2 Coital Cost for Alternative One - Merlin Landfill 
Co-compost Facility 10-4 
| 10-3 Capital Cost for Alternative Two - Dry Creek Landfill . 10-5 
10-4 Capital Cost for Alternative Three - Land Applying 
Class B Biosolids . ... > > . . , 10-5 
10-5 Capital Cost for Alternative Four - Aerobic 
Thermophilic Pretreatment . 10-5 
10-6 Summary of Alternatives 10-6 
11-1 City of Grants Pass - Water Restoration Plant Capital Improvement Plan . . . . 11-5 
12-1 Capital Improvement Plan (Year 2000 dollars) 12-1 
12-2 Operation and Maintenance Expenses (Year 2000 dollars) 12-1 
12-3 Simplified Cash Flow Analysis 12-4 
OOC484 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Follows 
Page No. 
ESil Ps^lired Alternative Site Plan . . 1-7 
2 - 1 S t u % A r e a , , , , 2 - 1 
2-2 Monthly Average Precipitation 2-4 
2-3 Annual Precipitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 
2-4 Rogue River Minimum Monthly Mean Flow , . . . . . . 2-7 
2-5 Rogue River Floodway . . . . . . , , . 7 . 2-7 
2-6 Flood Plain Schematic 2-9 
2-7 Historic arid Projected Grants Pass Population 2-11 
3-1 Site Plan, Existing Plant 3-2 
3-2 Process Schematic 3-2 
3-3 Hydraulic Profile , . 3 - 2 
3-4 Grants Pass Plant Effluent Suspended Solids 3-3 
3-5 Grants Pass Plant Effluent BOD . v 4 3-3 
3-6 Plug Flow Mode 3-10 
3-7 Step Feed M&de . , *•«,. . 3-10 
3-8 Contact Stabilization Mode . . . . • • • • - 3-10 
3-9 Reduced-Aeration Plug Flow Mode - 3-10 
4-1 Da% Mant P i w s 4-2 
4-2 Average Dry Weather Flow . . . 4-5 
4-3 Average Wet Weather Flow . . . . . . 4-5 
4-4 Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow . . * • - • . . . - 4-5 
4-5 December 1996 Flow and Rainfall 4-5 
4-6 Peak Day Flow Analysis 4-6 
4-7 Flow Probability • 4-6 
4-8 Comparison of Actual and Calculated Flows 4-7 
4-9 Influent BOD Concentration 4-10 
4-10 Daily Influent BOD Loading 4-10 
4-11 30-Day-Average Influent BOD Loading 4-10 
4-12 7-Day-Average Influent BOD Loading 4-10 
4-13 Influent TSS Concentrations 4-10 
4-14 Daily Influent TSS Loading 4-10 
4-15 30-Day-Average Influent TSS Loading 4-10 
4-16 7-Day-Average Influent TSS Loading 4-10 
5-1 ENR Construction Cost Index . - 5-3 
6-1 Rogue River • • f j 
6-2 Summer Dissolved Oxygen Saturation - 6-5 
vii Revised June 2001 
00C485 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 
Follows 
Page No. 
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.) 
6-3 Winter Dissolved Oxygen Saturation . . . . . 6-5 
} 6-4 Dissolved Oxygen Saturation at Graiits Pass 6-5 
6-5 Summer Dissolved Oxygen Concentration 6-6 
6-6 Winter Dissolved Oxygen Concentration 6-6 
6-7 Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at Dodge Bridge . 6-6 
6-8 Minimum DO Concentrations at Grants Pass . . . 6-6 
6-9 Summer Temperature 6-9 
6-10 Summer pH «*tm»r* • - • 6-12 
6-11 Winter pH 6-12 
6-12 Nearly pH at Dodge Bridge 6-12 
6-13 Yearly pH at Goldhill 6-12 
6-14 Yearly pH at Robertson's Bridge . 6-12 
\ 6-15 Summer Chlorophyll-a . . . . 6-16 
6-16 Summer Ortho Phosphorus 6-16 
6-17 Summer Inorganic Nitrogen 6-16 
6-18 Nutrient Limitation . ^ . . . . 6-16 
6-19 Yearly Ortho Phosphorus at Dodge Bridge * > . 6-17 
6-20 Yearly Ortho Phosphorus at Gold Hill 6-17 
6-21 Yearly Ortho Phosphorus at Robertson's Bridge . 6-17 
6-22 Yearly Inorganic Nitrogen at Dodge Bridge . 6-17 
6-23 Yearly Inorganic Nitrogen at Goldhill . . . . . ... .. 6-17 
6-24 Yearly Inorganic Nitrogen at Robertson's Bridge . 6-17 
6-25 Chlorpphyll-a Trends k 6-18 
7-1 General Soil Map . . . 7-5 
7-2 Monthly Crop Water Use 7-6 
7-3 Land Zoned For Agriculture and Distance from GPWRP 7-12 
8-1 Collection System Map . . 8-20 
8-2 System Response to Rainfall Event . 8-20 
9-1 Alternative 1 - • 9-2 
9-2 Alternative 2 9-6 
9-3 Alternative 3 9-7 
10-1 Current Sludge Program 10-2 
10-2 Alternative 2 10-2 
10-3 Alternative 3 10-2 
10-t Alternative 4 10-3 
11-1 Preferred Alternative Site Plan 11-1 
11-2 Merlin Landfill Co-composting Facility Site Layout 11-3 
x Revised June 2001 
0 0 0 4 8 6 
PREFACE 
this Grants Pass Facilities Plan Update is a revised edition of the January 1999 Grants Pass 
Facilities Plan (FP) prepared by Brown and Caldwell The puipose of this revision came about 
in a Value Engineering (VE) Workshop held in June 1999. Flow and population projections were 
reevaluated and other treatment alternatives were conceptualized. The proposed liquid andsolids 
treatment alternative by Brown and Caldwell have remained as alternatives. However, because 
of the recalculation of the flow projections, the liquid stream alternatives were adjusted totreat 
the VE workshop calculated peak wet weather flow. The biosolids disposal and handling 
alternative was not affected. 
The sections and chapters that have been revised are indicated in the footer with "Grants Pass 
Facility Plan - Update" and "Revised February 2000." Chapters 1, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were 
completely rewritten by Parametrix, Inc. In Chapters 2 and 4 where sections or sentences have 
been changed from the FP, this is indicated by a vertical bar in the margin. The remaining text, 
tables, and figures have been taken verbatim from the original Brown and Caldwell document. 
r^ ( 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised February 2000 
0 0 0 4 8 7 
1 - t 
CHAPTER 1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
In January 1999, Brownand Caldwell completed a Facilities Plan (FP) for the Grants Pass Water 
Restoration Plant (WRP). A concern regarding the future flow and population projections 
prompted a Value Engineering (VE) Workshop in June 1999, During this VE Workshop with 
Parametria, Inc. and the City, these projections were recalculated and other treatment alternatives 
for both the liquid and solids streams were conceptualized. 
Two reports comprising several other alternatives were produced from the VE, one for the liquid 
stream and one for the solids stream. Based on feasibility and cost-effectiveness for the site, 
alternatives were selected from these reports and have been incorporated into this revised edition 
oftheFP. During the VE Workshop, the projected population, flow, Biological Oxygen Demand 
(BOD), and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) loadings were recalculated Chapters that contain 
these projections have been revised Also, Chapters 9, 10, and 11 have been completely revised 
in accordance with the new alternatives. The alternatives that Brown and Caldwell chose have 
also been included; however, the liquid stream alternative has been adjusted to treat the VE 
projected peak flow of 37.5 mgd. Chapter 12 has been added to address a financial plan model. 
BACKGROUND 
Since 1935, the City of Grants Pass WRP has operated at its current site. The first plant 
expansion occurred in 1953, and in 1962 the plant was upgraded to a secondary treatment facility. 
The present activated sludge process was a part of a major plant renovation and expansion in 
1974. In response to concerns of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regarding 
discharging directly into the Rogue River and effluent toxicity, more plant improvements occuixed 
from June 1994 through 1996. These improvements included a fourth raw sewage pump, a 
temporary belt filter press (BFP) to improve wet weather solids disposal, two new rectangular 
primary clarifiers, a computer-based supervisory control and data acquisition system, and an 
Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system. The most recent upgrade to the Grants Pass WRP was the 
addition of a second UV channel in 1999, which upgraded the disinfection capacity from 21,5 
mgd to 43 mgd. 
SERVICE AREA 
Situated near the Rogue River, the Grants Pass WRP serves the City and the Harbeck-Fruitdale 
area. By the fall of 2000, the plant will be receiving sewage from the Redwood area. In 
addition, the North Valley area that includes the North Valley Industrial Park may be connected 
to the Grants Pass WRP sometime during the next 20 years, since the population and flow are 
low compared to the contribution from the City (less than 4 percent). 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
(}0u488 
1-2 
Currently, a population of 25,500 is being served by the Grants Pass WRP. Estimated growth 
rates of 1.5 percent for Grants Pass and 1.6 percent for Harbeck-Fruitdale could increase the 
population to 34,960 by the year 2020. With the addition of Redwood, at a 3.10 percent 
population growth rate, and a 2 percent growth increase for North Valley, 11,500 additional 
people could be served by the year 2020. 
To calculate the population equivalent for the community and industrial additions, 35 percent (VE 
Workshop, June 1999) of the total population for the four communities was used. By the year 
2020, it is anticipated that the Grants Pass WRP would be serving 62,700 people, 
COLLECTION SYSTEM 
The existing collection system consists of approximately 110 miles of gravity sewers; one force 
main approximately 2,000 feet long; and three pumping stations. 
Three hundred fifty acres of the downtown area arestill serviced by vitrified clay pipe installed 
before 1927. The portion of the collection system constructed prior to 1964 has shown severe 
deterioration in both pipe materials and joint integrity. Since 1992, the City has reported 17 
sinkholes due to pipe failure. Therefore, the City will be conducting a Sewer System Master Plan 
in 2001-02 to analyze the current collection system for future corrections of infiltration and 
inflow. 
TREATMENT PLANT 
Grants Pass WRP currently treats 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of average dry weather flow 
to a record peak storm flow of 26.5 mgd. The plant is comprised of numerous unit treatment 
processes forboth liquid and solid streams, a controMaboratory building, and a fflaaifttenaxice shop. 
The Grants Pass WRP has a 27-mgd peak hydraulic capacity for influent pumping, screening, and 
primary treatment; a 13-mgd hydraulic capacity for secondary treatment; and a 43-mgd capacity 
for UV disinfection, Flow exceeding the secondary treatment capacity receives only primary 
treatment and disinfection. This occurs only a few days a year during wet weather storm 
conditions. 
For final disposal, the Grants Pass WRP land-applies Class B biosolids to farmland near the plant, 
weather permitting When wet weather occurs, the biosolids are dewatered at the plant and 
hauled to the Merlin Landfill. 
FUTURE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS 
To meet future requirements, both population and water quality standards as set forth in 
Chapter 340 of Oregon's Administrative Rules (OAR) must be considered. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Updaie Revised April 2000 
OOC489 
1-3 
Based on 2020 population estimates, future wastewater flow and load estimates were develop«! 
as shown in Table ES-1 and Table ES-2, respectively. Also shown in these tables are flow and 
load conditions that currently exist at the plant. 
Table ES-1, Wastewfcesr J low I N i e ^ o u s 
Year/Population 
1999/42,900 2010/52,200 2020/62,700 
Actual 
(mgd) 
Actual 
(G&t/cap-day)" 
Design, 
(mgd) 
Design 
(Oal/cap-
day>* 
Design 
(mgd) 
Design 
(Gal/cap-day)" 
Summer, Max. Month 7.4 173 8.4 160 9.4 150 
Winter, Max. Month 11.0 256 12.2 233 13.5 216 
Peak Day 
PWWP 
Summer Average 
22.0 
30.7 
5 1 
514 
715 
120 
24.6 
34.0 
6.0 
471 
652 
113 
27.5 
37.S 
6.8 
438 
603 
109 
Winter Average 
Annual Average 
6.6 
5.9 
155 
137 
7.8 
6.9 
149 
131 
9.1 
8,0 
145 
127 
" This figure is arrived at by dividing the actual mgd by the population. 
Table ES-2. Organic and Solids Loading (pounds per day) 
Year 
1999 2010 2020 
Average BOD, 7,490 9,400 11,400 
Maximum Monthly BODs 10,985 13,700 16,800 
AveragcNHj-N 327 390 450 
Maximum Monthly N H r N 636 760 870 
Average TSS 8,564 10,500 12,700 
Maximum Monthly TSS 11,623 14,300 17.300 
Because the Rogue River is used for salmon spawning, fish passage, and rearing of Coho, 
wastewater discharge requirements are strict. 
To properly evaluate upgrading/expanding the Grants Pass WRPr an analysis of the facilities 
wastewater discharge permit limit is necessary. Table ES-3 presents the anticipated year 2020 
BODj and TSS treatment requirements as mandated by OAR 340-41-375. These values 
represent the dry weather season BOD, and TSS effluent concentrations that the plant should 
meet monthly. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
0 0 0 4 9 f t 
1-3 
Table ES-3. Anticipated Year 2020 BODs and TSS Treatment Requirements 
Based on OAR 340-41-375 
Flow 
(mgd) 
Effluent Concentration (mg/L) Mass Discharge, lbs/day 
Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily 
Permit Limits Based on Effluent Quality 
Summer, Dry 
fea ther 
Winter, Wet 
Weather 
8. 
10 
10 15 
30 45 
670 1,000 1,300 
2,500 3,750 5,000 
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 
To select the best method for meeting Grants Pass treatment needs in the year 2020, three liquid 
stream alternatives and four solids stream alternatives were evaluated. The liquid stream 
treatment includes a conventional expansion alternative, a ballasted sedimentation alternative, 
anda Zenon process alternative. The biosolids disposal and handling proposes a Merlin Landfill 
co-compost facility, hauling dewatered biosolids to the Dry Creek Landfill, land applying Class 
B biosolids, and using an ATP component. The alternatives are summarized below. 
Liquid Stream Alternatives 
Alternative One - Conventional Expansion. Alternative One is the recommended 
improvement from the FP using a conventional expansion approach. By replicating the existing 
components, this option allows continuing ease of operation due to staff familiarity of the 
processes. This alternative has been modified to treat the peak wet weather flow calculated in 
the VE Workshop. A summary of the upgrades include: 
• Additional mechanical bar screen with a capacity of 23.5 mgd. 
• Removal of the four existing influent pumps and replacement with three 19 mgd 
pumps. 
• Additional rectangular primary clarifier. Rehabilitate existing primary clarifiers. 
• Two additional aeration basins. Rehabilitate existing aeration basins. 
• Two additional 115-foot secondary clarifiers. Rehabilitate existing secondary 
clarifiers. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
1-6 
• Outfall diffuser in the Rogue River. 
• Miscellaneous improvements: laboratory upgrades, operations building and 
modifications, and instrumentation and control system expansion. 
Alternative Two - Ballasted Sedimentation- Alternative Two uses ballasted sedimentation to 
treat peak flows greater than 13.5 mgd. It is proposed to convert the existing gravity thickener 
into the ballasted sedimentation tank. The peak flows would be conveyed to this system and 
then recombined with the main treatment train to receive UV disinfection. Other upgrades to 
the Grants Pass WRP include: 
* Install additional influent pumping capacity. 
* Additional mechanical bar screen with a 23.5 mgd capacity. 
• Odor containment at the influent pump station and mechanical bar screen area. 
• Converting the circular primary clarifier to a combination primary clarifier/gravity 
thickener. 
* The existing primary clarifiers would be rehabilitated. 
• Addition of a bioselector in the aeration basin to provide filamentous bacteria control, 
which would improve the settling performance in the secondary clarifiers. The 
aeration basin would also be modified with fine bubble diffusera, dissolved oxygen 
control* awl motorized gates. 
• Two additional 90-foot secondary clarifiers. Rehabilitate the secondary clarifiers. 
* Outfall diffuser in the Rogue River. 
• Miscellaneous improvements: laboratory upgrades, operations building and 
modifications, instrumentation and control system expansion, plant equipment audit, 
additional plant landscaping, public education program, ami yard piping upgrades. 
Alternative Three - Zenon Process. Alternative Three incorporates the use of Zenon for 
secondary treatment. The wastewater can flow directly from the primary clarifiers, thereby 
eliminating the need for secondary clarifiers. Zenon is a microfiliration membrane system 
located in a suspended growth biological reactor. For this alternative, the membranes would be 
placed into the aeration basin to serve as a biological reactor. Other upgrades to the Grants Pass 
WRP for this alternative include: 
• Additional influent pump to meet the projected firm capacity. 
• Additional mechanical bar screen with a 23.5 mgd capacity. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised Aprii 2000 
00 ..492 
1-6 
Odor containment at the influent pump station and mechanical bar screen area. 
For peak overflows greater than 13.5 mgd, the existing gravity thickener would be 
converted into a ballasted sedimentation tank. 
Converting the circular primary clarifier to a combination primary clarifler/gravity 
thickener. 
The existing primary and secondary clariflers rehabilitated for enhanced performance. 
Outfall diffuser in the Rogue River. 
Miscellaneous improvements: laboratory upgrades, operations building and 
modifications, instrumentation and control system expansion, plant equipment audit, 
additional plant landscaping, public education program, and yard piping upgrades. 
Cost Estimate. A preliminary cost estimate for these alternatives is summarized in Table ES-4. 
Engineering, adminisirifen» and contingency are included in these costs. 
Table ES-4. Comparison of Liquid Stream Alternatives 
Alternative Capital Cost (millions) 
One - Conventional Expansion $12.23 
Two - Ballasted Sedimentation $13.59 
Three - Zenon Process $23.96 
Biosoiids Disposal and Handling Alternatives 
Four alternatives were evaluated for the solids treatment stream. 
Alternative One - Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility. Alternative One would co-compost 
digested primary and raw secondary biosoiids. The existing digester would be rehabilitated and 
used only for digesting primary biosoiids. A new component for dewatering digested primary 
biosoiids to 15 percent solids would be installed in an existing building located on site. The 
biosoiids would be hauled to the co-composting facility located at the Merlin Landfill. This 
facility would produce Class A biosoiids, which would be available for public purchase. 
Alternative Two - Dry Creek Landfill. Alternative Two hauls raw primary and secondary 
dewaiered biosoiids to the Dry Creek Landfill. These biosoiids would be dewatered at the 
Grants Pass WRP to 15 percent solids using a belt filter press (BFP). The existing press and 
one new additional BFP would be installed in an existing building located on site. Extra hauling 
equipment would be required for handling the transport of all the biosoiids to the landfill. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised Aprii 2000 
0 0 ..493 
1-7 
Alternative Three - Land Applying Class B Biosolids. Alternative Three is the recommended 
alternative from the FP. It is a continuation of the current biosolids management program of 
long hauling Class B biosolids to be land applied. However, because of an increase in future 
biosolids production, contracting with large landowners in Eastern Oregon to expand the land 
application area would be necessary. Biosolids would be dewatered to 15 percent, hauled to the 
site in large tractor/trailers, and applied with a manure spreader. During the winter, the 
biosolids would be stored near the application site. An additional gravity thickener, gravity belt, 
anaerobic digester, and belt filter press are necessary to meet the future solids production. The 
existing anaerobic digester would need to be rehabilitated. Class A biosolids can be produced 
by adding low cost aeration equipment in the future storage building to create a pilot-scale co-
composting facility. 
Alternative Four — Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment (ATP). Alternative Four is to 
produce Class A biosolids and distribute them to the public as fertilizer. To accommodate 
increasing loads in the future, an ATP would be installed instead of adding a new digester. To 
reduce plastics in the biosolids, a Muffin Monster would be added prior to the ATP. The 
existing digester would need to be rehabilitated to enhance performance, increase capacity, and 
repair deficiencies. 
Cost Estimate. Preliminary cost estimates for the four alternatives are in Table ES-5. These 
values include engineering, administration, and contingency costs. 
Table ES-5. Comparison of Biosolids Disposal and Handling Alternatives 
Alternative Capital Cost (millions) 
One - Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility $3.60 
Two - Dry Creek Landfill $1.40 
Three - Land Apply Class B Biosolids $11.00 
Four - Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment (ATP) $2.30 
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION 
To reduce the complexity of evaluating the alternatives for the liquid and solid stream 
treatments, two preliminary screening processes were conducted based on cost and feasibility. 
A list of advantages and disadvantages for each alternative was tabulated to assist in the decision 
making. These tables are located in Chapters 9 and 10. The result of this screening process 
was selection of one liquid and solids stream alternative. 
Cost Estimate 
The preferred alternative for the liquid and biosolids treatment streams and the collection system 
are located in Table ES-6. Ali costs are in the 1999-2000 dollar amounts costs and include 
engineering, administration, and contingency. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised Aprii 2000 
494 
— 
WÄfj 
0 0 )495 
1-8 
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 
Collection System 
Improvements to the collection system will furtfier be investigated in the Sewer System Master 
Planscheduled for 2001-02. However, set improvements include Pine Street, Second Street, 
and Western Avenue.. Costs for these specific locations and the Master Plan have also been 
included in Table ES-6. 
Liquid Stream Treatment 
The ballasted sedimentation alternative is the preferred alternative for the liquid stream 
treatment. Figure ES-1 presents the proposed layout for the Grants Pass WRP. Below is the 
anticipated time line of when the components or upgrades would occur at the Facility. 
Table ES-6. City of Grants P a s s - Water Restoration Plant Capital 
Improvement Plan 
Construction Schedule 
Project Item Probable Cost 2001-2004 2005-2006 2010-2011 
PRELIMINARY AND PRIMARY TREATMENT 
Influent Pumping 
Raw Sewage Pipeline to Ballasted 
Sedimentation 
Screening Odor Control 
Mechanical Bar Screen No. 2 
Modify Gravity Thickener to Ballasted 
Sedimentation 
Modify Existing Primary to Combination 
Clanfïer/Tlnckeher ' 
Yard Piping 
$560,000 
$240.000 
$390,000 
$230.000 
$3,510,000 
S610,000 
$270,000 
5390,000 
5560.000 
$240,000 
$230.000 
53,510,000 
S610,000 
$270,000 
SECONDARY TREATMENT 
Aeration Basin Fine Babble 
Aeration Basin Selector 
Blowers and DO Control 
Rehabilitate Existing Clarifiera 
New Secondary Ckrifiers 
Yard Piping 
Motorized Gates 
5530,000 
5260.000 
$870,000 
S770.000 
52,400,000 
S77Ö.000 
5340,000 
5530,000 
5260,000 
S870.000 
$770,000 
$1,200,000 
$400,000 
$340,000 
$1,200,000 
$370,000 
FINAL TREATMENT 
Outfall Diffuser $540,000 $540.000 
OTHER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
Lab Improvements 
Operation Building Repairs and Office 
SCADA System Expansion 
$100,000 
$130,000 
$670,000 
$100,000 
$130,000 
$250.000 $250,000 $170,000 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
0 0 - 4 9 6 
Table ES-6. City of Grants P a » - Water Restoration Piant Capital 
Improvement Plan 
Project Item Probable Cost 
Construction Schedule 
: 2001-2004 2005-2006 2010-2011 
Equipment Improvements from Audit 
Plant Landscaping 
Public Education Program 
$250.000 
$100,000 
350,000 
$100,000 
$40,000 
$20,000 
$75,000 
$30,000 
$20,000 
$75,000 
$30,000 
$10.000 
SOLIDS TH1CKENING AND DIGESTION 
Rehabilitate Existing Digester 
Dewatering Centrifuge 
$740,000 
$1,000,000 
$740,000 
$1,000,000 
SOIJDS HANDLING OFF-SITE 
Co-composting Facility $1,850,000 $1,850,000 
COLLECTION SYSTEM 
Pino Street 
2nd Street 
Western Avenue 
Master Plan 
SI.050.000 
$700.000 
$580.000 
$170,000 
SI,050.000 
S700.000 
$580,000 
$170,000 
TOTALS $19,680,000 $12,030,000 SS,795,000 $1,855,000 
* 1999-2000 dollars. 
Year 2000 
• Install odor containment and control at the influent pump station and 
mechanical screening areas of the plant. 
• Add an anoxic selector basin to the aeration basin. 
• Modify the existing aeration basin, convert the existing aeration system to 
fme bubble diffusers, and add dissolved oxygen control and motorized 
gates. This would require new or modified aeration blowers. 
• Rehabilitate the existing secondary clarifiers to correct short circuiting and 
flow distribution problems. 
• Add a third secondary clarifier. 
• Begin laboratory upgrades and improvements. 
• Begin operations building repairs and modifications. 
• Begin instrumentation and control system expansion. 
• Conduct a plant equipment audit. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
O O C 4 9 7 
1-10 
Continue to install plant landscaping. 
Develop and institute a public education program. 
Year 2005 
• Install additional influent pumping capacity, 
• Add a second mechanical bar screen, 
• Convert the existing circular primary ciarifier to a combination primary 
clarifier/gravity thickener. 
• Modify the existing gravity thickener to a ballasted sedimentation tank to 
treat peak flow. 
Year 2010 
• Add a fourth secondary ciarifier. 
Biosolids Handling and Disposal 
For the biosolids handling and disposal, the Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility (Alternative 
One) is the preferred alternative. This alternative would consist of the existing digester, anew 
dewatering device, and a co-composting facility. 
Under this solid waste handling system, rehabilitated digesters would be used to treat only 
primary ciarifier solids. The secondary ciarifier solids would be combined with the digested 
primary solids, dewatered in a new dewatering component, and trucked to the new co-
composting facility located at the Merlin Landfill. The existing belt dewatering system would 
remain on ate for standby or emergency use. 
This plan goes into effect immediately, 
FINANCING PLAN 
Various funding alternatives exist for the City of Grants Pass to implement the Capital 
Improvement Plan (CIP). The CEP includes three major elements: Treatment Plant (liquid 
treatment), Biosolids, and Collection System. To fund these elements, the City would be using 
revenue bonds from monthly user charges and system development charges, State Revolving 
j Funds (SRF). and grants. It is projected that the City of Grants Pass will apply for SRF loans 
in the 2001-2002 fiscal years. Therefore, the financial situation of the City's wastewater utility 
is excellent. Given the ability to secure loans from the SRF program and the sound fiscal 
management of the utility, the City will be able to fully fund the CEP as outlined in this Facility 
Plan. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update 
OOC498 
Revised Juue 2001 
2-1 
CHAPTER 2 
STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS 
Development of sound, long-range sewerage plans for the Grants Pass area requires consideration 
of both natural and socioeconomic environmental characteristics. The natural environment, 
inctadj^ and water resources, is the primary determinant of 
development m the study area. Other factors, such as economic activity, population growth, and 
land use, interact with the natural resources of an area aod may profoundly affect the overall 
environment as development continues. This section defines the study area and discusses the 
characteristics of both its physical environment and its economic environment 
A R M 
The area covered by this studyis consistent with the sewer service area described in the May 
1983 Sewage-Collection System Master Plan J The study area follows the urban growth boundary 
(UGB) defined in the Grants Paw Comprehensive Plan for Community Development- and 
inflwfertilseCi^1 of: grants 'Pass and the unincorporated Harbeck-Fruitdale area south of the city. 
TljttiJai&is^ service district that contracts with the City of Grants Pass 
for sewerage services. 
In addition, ^  include the Redwood and North Val ley 
areas. Portions of the unincorporated Redwood area lie outside of the UGB. This area, bordered 
by the Rogue River to the north and Allen Creek tq the east. is served by a separate sewage 
collection and treatment system historically operated by the county. The North Valley, also 
Merlin, lies outside the UGB ^ fee north of the city and has largely been dependent 
on on-site sewage treatment systems. In the near future, these two districts may begin contracting 
with the City of Grants Pass for their sewerage services. Both the sewerage study area and the 
UGB are illustrated on Figure 2-1. 
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 
The physical environment includes the topography, geology, soils, climate, and water resources 
of the region. This section presents a brief discussion of these items as they relate to the 
sewerage planning program. This information has been updated from Brown and Caldwell's 
1985 Facilities Plan, Financial Plan, and Rate Study3 when possible. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
0 0 C 4 9 9 
GRANTS 
Figure 2-1. Study Area 
ÜPC5C0 
^ ^ ^ \ 'S -V S S \ N 
|GRANTS PASS|\ 
V \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ V V:-V'V \ A" A^'-V/V V V 
§ $ $ s s : t r e a t m e n t p l a n 
GRANTS 
URBAN GROWTH 
BOUNDARY 
AfRPORT 
NORTH VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK 
SCALE 1 " = 5 0 0 0 ' 
PASS LANDFILL 
Topography, Geology, and Soils 
The topography, geology, and soils of a region can have a significant effect on the design and 
construction requirements ofsewage works. Topographycan determine the route and slope of 
sewer lines, as well as the need for and location of pumping stations. The geology and soil 
conditions in an area can affect construction costs for pipelines and determine locations for 
sewage works. 
Topography. Grants Pass lies in the Rogue River Valley in the Klamath Mountain Range of 
Oregon. The Siskiyou Mountains, part of the Klamaths, lie to the south and west of Giants Pass. 
To the northeast a spur connects the Klamaths to the Cascade Range. 
Away from the valley floor, the terrain quickly grows steep. The lava and metavolcanic rock 
composing Beacon Hill (elevation 2,117 feet) and Baldy Mountain (elevation 2,740 feet) to the 
northeast and southeast of the city does not weather easily. Its ruggedness has limited 
development in these areas. The softer granite of Dollar Mountain to the northwest and various 
hills to the south and southwest of the city shows greater weathering. Their rounded ridges and 
gentle slopes have generated alluvium, encouraging development in these areas. 
The Rogue River Valley begins at the base of the^  surrounding hills and exists as a well-defined 
stream terrace some 10 to 15 feet above the bed of the Rogue River. The valley slopes toward 
the river at an average gradient of 1 to 2 percent and is composed of relatively flat-lying 
alluvium. Elévations on the 1,100 feet above sea level. 
The Rogue River traverses theyaïïéy in à general east-west direction on an average slope of 
about 6 feet per mile. 
Geology. The Klamath Mountains are composed largely of Paleozoic and Mesozoic metamorphic 
rocks derived from sedimentary and volcanic formations. Intrusions of granitic and ultrabasic 
rocks are common.4 The mixed assemblage is probably responsible for the distinctive mineralogy 
of the region. The presence of golcl, copper, and mercury led to the region's history of mining. 
The Almeda mine, for instance, was located a few miles to the northwest of Grants Pass. 
The study area contains several major geologic units. The large deposits of alluvium which 
constitute the valley floor date from the Pleistocene epoch. At that time, uplifting of the coastal 
areas of the Klamath Mountains reduced the sediment-carrying capacity of the river, thus forming 
the valley floor.5 The alluvium reaches thicknesses of 100 to 150 feet in places near the river.6 
Diorites and granites dating from the Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous occur as irregular 
masses throughout the study area. Dollar Mountain and the Cathedral Hills Park area are two 
places where these granitic intrusive rocks are prominent. Many of these rocks are quite 
weathered. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
Ultramafic intrusive rocks are less common. Small outcroppiflgs occur northeast of the city. 
These serpentines, peridotites, and greenstones were formed during the Upper Jurassic epoch. 
Northeast and southeast of Grants Pass lie the greenstones of the Applegate Group. These 
metavolcanic rocks form Baldy Mountain and are present along both forks of Jones Creek. They 
date from the Upper Triassic. 
Other members of the Applegate Group are gneisses and schists found along Fruitdale Creek and 
forming Beacon Hill. These occur mainly as contact metamorphic zones along intrusive granites. 
Along with the greenstones, they are relatively resistant to Weathering. 
Soils, Weathering of the different geologic units has given the soils of this area a wide range of 
characteristics. 
The soils that underlie the developable portions of the Rogue River Vailey are of the greatest 
importance to the sewerage study. A survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture7 
identified the soil types found in this area for agricultural purposes. A brief summary of the 
study with generalized engineering interpretations is presented here. 
The most important soil types in the valley are Newberg fine sandy loam, Barron coarse sandy 
loam, and Clawson sandy loam. Newberg fine sandy loam is the principal soil type in the 
floodplain and terraccd areas of the valley. It occupies a strip along the Rogue River that is 
generally about a mile in width; however, it narrows to about 2,500 feet at Grants Pass. The soil 
is well-drained and presents no major problems for sewage collection and treatment. 
Barron coarse sandy loam occupies extensive portions of the Rogue River Valley and underlies 
most of Grants Pass west of Gilbert Creek. The soil generally occurs upslope from Columbia 
fine sandy loam and extends as valley fill material into most of the minor tributary valleys. This 
soil has a slightly higher clay content than the Newberg loam. 
Clawson sandy loam underlies a major portion of Grants Pass east of Gilbert Creek. Typically, 
this soil consists of about 1 foot of smooth-textured silt loam overlying a compact silty loam or 
clay loam subsoil. At a depth of about 30 inches, the subsoil assumes an extremely gritty texture, 
reflecting the presence of coarse granitic material. The subsoil terminates at shallow depths in 
coarse granitic rock. The soil is flat-lying and poorly drained, and because of the impervious 
nature of the shallow bedrock, it is waterlogged during the winter and spring months. In some 
areas, the water table stands at less than 3 feet below ground level well into the summer. The 
high groundwater conditions that accompany this soil type can be a problem when sewer pipes 
lying tn the soil have cracks or leaks. Groundwater infiltrates into the cracks and leaks, 
significantly increasing die flow of liquid to the sewage treatment plant 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
Precipitation, temperature, and other climatic factors can significantly affect the design and 
construction of sewerage facilities. Rainfall is especially significant, because it can cause large 
flow increases in sewage collection systems. For example, stormwater runoff may directly enter 
the sewers at manholes or through illicitly connected roof drains. Accumulated rainfall may raise 
groundwater levels in poorly drained areas, allowing entry of water into the sewer system through 
leaks or defective joints. 
Other climatic factors can also affect sewerage planning. Biological treatment processes depend 
on air temperature to a large extent. Temperature, cloud cover, and the rate of evaporation are 
important factors to be considered fat design of sludge lagoons. 
General Climatic Conditions. Grants Pass is considered to have a mild climate, although 
temperatures below freezing and above 100 degrees F occur for short periods annually. The 
climate is influenced by air movement from the Pacific Ocean, located about 60 miles west of 
Grants Pass. However, the intervening coastal mountains modify the ; effect of the marine air 
masses, causing this portion of the Rogue River Valley to receive less annual rainfall and to have 
fewer cloudy and rainy days than most other portions of Western Oregon. 
Precipitation. Nearly 75 percent of annual rainfall in Grants Pass occurs during the months of 
November through March (Figure 2-2). Most of thé annual 32.3 inches of precipitation is in the 
form of rain, although about 4 to 5 inches of snow falls each year. Seasonal snowfalls have 
rarely exceeded 10 inches, and the snow usually melts almost as it falls. Daily, monthly, and 
annual precipitation for Grants Pass is summarized in Table 2-1. Precipitation during the last 2 
years has been above the 60-year average (1937-1996), though it was below the average for the 
prior 10 years (Figure 2-3). 
Temperature. Temperatures in Grants Pass usually remain moderate through the winter. 
Subfreezing temperatures may persist long enough to freeze water in aboveground facilities; 
however, they rarely last long enough to cause freezing in buried facilities. 
Summers are warm and dry. Temperatures exceed 100 degrees F an average of 6 days a year. 
Nighttime summer temperatures are generally cool, averaging about 51 degrees F during July, 
the warmest month. 
Grants Pass has an average growing season of 158 days. The growing season is defined as the 
period between the last 32 degree F temperature reading in the spring and. the first 32 degree F 
temperature reading in the fall. Table 2-1 summarizes statistical temperature information for 
Grants Pass. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
0.00a 
Figure 2-2, Monthly Pmta$ßPrecipitation 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 98 
Figure 2-3. Annual Precipitation 
Table 2-1. Climatic Summary for Grants Pass 
Temperature, °F 
Precipitation, 
inches 
Mean, Mean, Highest Lowest Greatest 
Month maximum minimum • Mean recorded4 recorded1 Mean daily 
January 45.1 31.1 39,6 69 2 5.4 3.4 
February 50.4 38.6 44.1 76 5 4.0 4,3 
March 56.8 44.4 48.2 84 18 3.4 2.3 
April 59.1 46.8 53.1 94 25 1.9 2.0 
May 65.1 52.6 59.2 102 27 1.4 1.6 
June 70,8 59.4 65.1 108 33 0.7 1.5 
July 75.5 63.4 71.0 n o 39 0.3 1.5 
August 7 6 5 65.6 70.2 110 36 0,3 0.8 
September 69.2 59.4 64.6 108 28 0.8 2,9 
October 62.2 50.1 55.0 98 20 2.3 5,3 
November 50.1 37.9 45.0 74 12 4.5 3.2 
December 46.3 34.1 40,2 67 -1 5.9 4.1 
Annual 57.1 5 2 3 54.6 110 -1 30,8 5.3 
Source: Records of theOregon Clirnatological Service, 1928-1996-
4 1934-1990 
Other Climatic Factors. Sunshine is usually abundant during the spring, summer, and fall, but 
the area is generally cloudy during the winter months. Early morning fog occurs frequently 
during November, December, and Jamiaiy. Fog is Jess common in October and February and 
rarely occurs during the rest of the year. Wind speed and direction are not routinely measured 
at Grants Pass. The prevailing wind direction, however, is from the west, approximately 
parallel to the axis of the Rogue River Valley. 
Evaporation data are also not available for the study area. Because evaporation isan important 
clirnatological factor, evaporationdataeollected at the Medfbrd Experimental Station was used. 
We believe ft&^dat&^i^ conditions in the study area because Med ford is 
less than 30 miles away, hasaslmilar mean annual temperature, and has an elevation only 250 
feet higher. Table 2-2 presents a summary of Class A pan evaporation at Medford. The 
evaporation values applicable to large bodies of water such as lakes or ponds can be obtained 
by multiplying the measured values by a pan coefficient of 0.75. Applying this coefficient to 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000505 
2-6 
the measured figure of 44 inches yields an average annual evaporation of 33 inches. Net 
evaporation, which is defined as the annual evaporation minus the annual rainfall, is very close 
to zero. 
Table 2-2. Average Annual Evaporation 
Month Mean, inches Percent of total 
January 0.55 1.3 
February 1.09 2.5 
March 2.27 5.2 
April 3.87 8,8 
May 5.52 12.6 
June &77 15.4 
July 8.81 20.0 
August 7.35 16.7 
September 4,53 10.3 
October 2,04 4,6 
November 0.68 L5 
December 0,49 LI 
Annual 43.97 100,0 
Note: Class A pan evaporation measured at Medford 
Experimental Station. 
Source: U.S. Weather Bureau "Climatic Summary of the 
United States, Supplemental for 1951 through 1960, 
Oregon." 
Water Resources 
The principal water resources in the study area are surface water from the Rogue River and its 
tributaries and groundwater from the alluvium covering the river valley. Hie water resource 
most important for this study, the Rogue River, drains 2,460 square miles above Grants Pass 
before traversing the study area. The Rogue River is used for the city potable water supply, for 
irrigation, and for recreational use. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
00C 5 G 
A number of individual wells rely on the area's groundwater. The alluvium is the major aquifer 
with yields of 40 gallons per minute (gpm) being common. The volcanic formations usually 
yield less water, but in a few highiyfracturedareas wells have yielded 60 gpm. Many of the 
high yields Me not sustainable, asthe aquifers small and substantial drawdown occurs. 
Both the quanti^ and quality of water resources are important to sewage planning. A receiving 
stream must have adequate volume and assimilative capacity to accept discharge of treated 
sewage effluent. Also, the quality of the water must be examined to ensure that it remains safe 
for other uses. This section examines water quantities and water quality issues concerning the 
Rogue River and discusses the Grants,Pass Irrigation District as it relates to sewerage planning. 
Water Quantity. One use of the Rogue River is to receive treated effluent from wastewater 
generated in Grants Pass and other communities in the Rogue and Bear Creek valleys. The river 
must have the capacity to assimilate wastes without adverse effects on the quality of the river. 
The ability of a river to dilute and assimilate wastewater is highly dependent on its stream flow 
characteristics. Strearn Sow characteristics are describedby measurements taken of stream 
discharge over a period of several yfeárs. The U,S, Geological Survey has collected stream flow 
data for a number of years.3 The most recent 30 years of these data are summarized in Table 
2-3. 
The table shows that stream flows in the Rogue River can fluctuate widely from year to year. 
The largest discharge on record, 152,000 cubic feet per second {cfs), occurred during the 
December 1964 flood. The lowest recorded discharge was a minimum day of 606 cfs during 
1968. Reservoirs have sincebeen constructed in the Rogue River basin to provide storage of 
high wet weather flows for release during dry weather periods. With flow augmentation, this 
low flow has not occurred again, although as recently as 1995 a minimum daily flow of 744 cfs 
was recorded. The minimum monthly mean flow has also increased (Figure 2-4). The Rogue 
River Management Pfanlists the minimum regulated river flow at Grants Pass as 1,200 cfs. 
It is necessary to identify flood-prone areas, because any site considered for sewage treatment 
works must be evaluated for the risk of flooding. Section 5.3 of the Grants Pass Comprehensive 
Plan for Community Development describes flood history in the area, identifies flood-prone 
areas, evaluates the degree of hazard from flooding, and describes appropriate safeguards for 
the community. The following formation is summarized from that document. 
A flood insurance m à y was conducted for Grants Pass in 1979, and a similar study was 
performed for Josephine County in 1980. These studies defined the area thai would be affected 
by a 100-year flood. Flood magnitudes are defined by the chance of occurrence of flood of a 
specific stem a 100-year flood has a I percent chance of occurring in a given year, and a 1-year 
flood has a 100 percent chance of occurring. The area affected by the 100-year flood is divided 
into the floodway and the floodway fringe. These areas are illustrated for the Grants Pass area 
on Figure 2-5. 
Grants Pass FaeUities Plan January 1999 
OO C 5 
2500 
Figure 2-4. Rogue River Minumum Monthly Mean Flow 
i >00 508 
tY FRINÌ 
Figure 2-5. Rogue River Floodway 
00C509 
3-8 
Table 2-3. Rogue River Stream Flow at Grants Pass (1966-1996) 
Water 
Year 
Yearly mean flow, 
cfs 
Maximum monthly 
mean flow, cfs 
Minimum inonlhly 
mean flow, cfs 
Minimum doily 
flow, cfs 
1966 2.901 7,795 1,004 796 
1967 3,321 6,782 1.067 1,010 
1968 2,015 6,479 791 606 
1969 3.256 7,125 1,047 721 
1970 3.428 13,360 939 900 
1971 5.305 12,800 1,352 1.020 
1972 5,208 10,410 1,514 1,370 
1973 2.256 4,202 878 836 
1974 6,269 15.170 1,384 1,120 
1975 4,076 9.421 1,305 1.200 
1976 4,449 6,449 1,405 1,200 
1977 1,267 1.538 954 710 
1978 3,233 7,369 1,497 1,380 
1979 2.585 4.862 1,455 1,150 
1980 3,037 . . . . . 7,754 1*333: 1,070 
1981 1,927 2.015 1,515 1,110 
1982 5,047 14.030 1.423 1.190 
1983 4,984 10,960 2,171 1,990 
1984 5,276 12,550 2,282
:' 1,570 
1985 3322 7,669 1,873 . 1,550 
1986 3,288 9,543 1,731 1,470 
1987 2.610 4,429 1,730 1,270 
1988 1,894 3,340 1,160 906 
1989 3,356 7,496 1,128 1,010 
1990 2,059 2.795 1,467 1,220 
1991 2,266 4,119 1,227 959 
1992 1,538 2,406 1.059 941 
1993 3.306 5.916 1,020 876 
1994 1,573 2,549 1,094 808 
1995 3462 5,239 1.008 744 
1996 4,874 10.630 1.530 1,240 
Average 3,325 7,297 1334 • 1,095 
The boundary of a 100-year flood can change as land in the floodplain is developed. New 
structures divert the water, raising the level of the 100-year flood and increasing the amount of 
land that will be inundated by a flood of that magnitude, This is called encroachment. The 
National Flood Insurance Program has developed standards for development within floodplains. 
To assist cities in floodplain management, the program divides the area that would be inundated 
Grants Pass Facilities Pían January 1999 
00€510 
100 Year Flood Plain -
j—Flood elevatio 
/ encroachment 
n before 
Stream ^ 
Channel 
B 
Floodway « < 1 " s r e r ' » * 
Regulatory F loodway 
Encroachment 
Area of flood plain which 
could be used for development 
by raising or filling 
Encroachment 
Line A - B is the flood elevation before encroachment 
Line C - D is the flood elevation after encroachment 
^ Max. rise of 1,0 foot (N.F.I.P. regulations) 
Figure 2-6. Flood Plain Schematic 
6 
3-8 
by a 100-vear flood into two segments: the flood way and the floodway fringe. Figure 2-6 
illustrates the relationships between the floodway and the floodway fringe. The floodway 
includes the actual stream channel and any adjacent areas that must be kept free of encroachment 
(development) to keep from raising the level of the 100-year flood more than 1 foot. The 
floodway fringe includes the area between the defined floodway and the boundary of the 100-
year flood. The floodway fringe is the area that could be completely obstructed without 
increasing the surface water elevation of the 100-year flood more than 1 foot. 
The City has adopted an ordinance regulating development within the 100-year floodplain. As 
described in the Comprehensive Plan,2 land within the floodway is not considered buildable. 
Regulations do allow development in the floodway if the developer can demonstrate that 
floodwater would not be diverted by the new structure in such a way as to adversely affect 
adjacent development in the floodway fringe. However, the stringent regulations generally 
preclude development within urban floodway areas. Development in the floodway fringe is 
permitted, but the first livable floor must be constructed at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood 
elevation. 
Water Quality. Water quality in the Rogue River basin is protected by Oregon law, Oregon 
Administrative Rules, Division 41, Section 340-41-365, sets standards for water quality in the 
Rogue basin. The rules cover dissolved oxygen concentrations, temperature increases, pH 
values, coliform counts, creation of tastes or odors or toxic conditions that harm aquatic life or 
affect drinking water, and the formation of sludges. The regulations relating to sewage 
treatment and disposal are discuss«! in Chapter 6. 
Grants Pass Irrigation District. The Grants Pass Irrigation District was formed in the early 
1920s to supply irrigation water to land located between the town of Rogue River and the 
confluence of the Applegate and Rogue Rivers. Currently, about 7,700 acres of agricultural and 
residential lands are irrigated. The district has water rights to divert up to 150 cfs from the 
Rogue River during irrigation season. A series of canals constructed by the district carries the 
water from the Savage Rapids Dam throughout the area covered by the district. Many residents 
in the sewerage service area use water from the canals to irrigate landscaping and gardens. The 
canals are also used to carry stormwater away from these lands. 
The irrigation season typically lasts from about April 15 to October 1. Examination of flows 
received at the treatment plant shows that the influent flows increase during those months, even 
though little rain falls during that period. It appears that one source of infiltration and inflow 
in the Grants Pass sewage treatment plant is irrigation water that has seeped into the ground and 
infiltrated the sewer system. Although there are currently discussions about removal of the 
Savage Rapids Dam, this report assumes that the Grants Pass Irrigation District will continue 
to function as it does now. Even if the dam were removed, pumps would likely be installed to 
deliver water to the irrigation district's canals. 
Grants Pass Facilities Pían January 1999 
00€512 
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
2-10 
ThesoeioeconomiC environment of an area can profoundlyaffect sewage facility planning. 
RedktentM, commercial, and industrial development patterns are determining factors in the 
location, design, and cost of trunk sewers, while land use and recreation patterns can influence 
siteselection for sewage disposal. Historic and existing land use patterns can be used to make 
projections of future development patterns. These projections are then used to develop design 
criteria for sewage planning. 
Many factors makeup the socioeconomic environment of a community. This section examines 
those which are most important to sewerage planning: population and land use. 
Population 
Consideration of population trends is crucial to long-term sewerage planning. In order to size 
new facilities and expansions, historical population trends must be examined to predict future 
population growth. 
The Grants Pass area has experienced steady population growth since the 1920s. This increase 
Ms been in line; with the national population trend of people moving to die west and southwest 
from the northeastern and central states and to rural areas from urban areas. The population in 
Josephine County rose during the 1970s (5.11 percent annually), but slowed dramatically during 
the 1980s (0.6 percent annually). The City of Grants Pass grew more rapidly than the county 
during the last decade (1.5 percent annually). 
Current Population. Population values for the area within the Grants Pass city limits are well 
documented. The 1990 census lists the population of Grants Pass at 17,424. Current population 
within the city limits is estimated at 20,526. 
The population within the area currently served by sewers consists primarily of the population 
within the city limits and the population within ¿he Harbeck-Fruitdale area. The City keeps 
records of the number of sewer connections for billing purposes. The sewer connections are 
separated into a number of categories, including residential hookups within the city limits and 
the number of hookups within the Harbeck-Fruitdale area. The population of Harbeck-Fruitdale 
can be estimated from the number of sewer hookups. The Josephine County Planning 
Department estimates that there are 2.3 people per residential sewer connection in Harbeck-
} Fruitdale. Therefore, it Is assumed that 80 percent of the hookups within Harbeck-Fruitdale are 
residential, and the current population can be approximated at 4,200. Adding the Harbeck-
Fruitdale population (4,200) to the city population of 20,526 gave an existing sewerage service 
area population of 24,700. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
2 - 1 1 
The future sewerage service area will include the existing service area, the Redwood area, and 
the North Valley area. The 1997 Redwood population is 4,758 and the number of North Valley 
residents is 1.200. Adding these values to the sewer service area population of 24,700 yields 
a population of 30,684. It is also necessary to take into account the commercial and industrial 
contribution as a form of a population equivalent. It is assumed that this value is 35 percent of 
the total residential population, which equals 10,739. Therefore, the total sewer service area 
is 41,423. 
Population Projections, Based on the City's Comprehensive Plan, new population projections 
{ for the future sewerage service area have been developed* It is estimated that the Redwood area 
I will have growth rates of 3.1 percent per year tbatwill produce an estimated population of 9,600 
by year 2020. The North Valley area is projected to grow at a 2 percent per year rate for a year 
] 2020 population of 1,892. 
The futrae sewerage service area population can therefore be approximated as the sum of the city 
| limits, Harbeck-Froitdale, Redwood, and North Valley populations, and the commercial/ 
j industrial equivalent. Year 2020 service area population is estimated as 62,712. A summary 
of the population projections is shown in Table 2-4 and on Figure 2-7. 
Table 2-4. Population Growth by Area 
Area 
1997 
Population 
2020 
Population 
Average growth 
rate, percent/year 
City Limits 20,526 28,908 1.5 
Harbeck-Fruitdale 4,200 6,053 1.6 
Redwood 4,758 9,600 3.1 
North Valley 1,200 1,892 2.0 
Commercial/Industrial Equivalent 10,739 16,259 1.8 
Future Service Area 41,423 62,712 1.8 
f The City and County have already established that pumping of Redwood's wastewater to Grants 
[ Pass WRP will begin in the fall of 2000. However, plans to provide sewer service to the North 
Valley area are less certain. Since the population and flow from North Valley are low compared 
to the contribution from the City (less than 4 percent), it was assumed, that this flow would also 
be directed to the Grants Pass WRP within the planning period. 
Land Use 
The capacity of wastewater treatment facilities is highly dependent not only on the service area 
population, but also on the uses of the land. Land use is divided into three main categories: 
residential, commercial, and industrial. Each of these categories is subdivided based on density, 
type of use, and location. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised June 2001 
0514 
e 
"O 
l i 
o* 9-c o cl a. 
w Si® T S « 
p f i s 
M B I D) W g 
ir X 0 
uoijeindod 
Ì a 
ë 
o C 
* 
il 
1 i 
00C51S 
2-12 
The City planning department keeps records on the amount of land in each zoning category 
within the city limits. The City assigns each land parcel a designation of improved, unimproved, 
or exempt. We assumed that only improved land is currently served by the wastewater treatment 
piant. The planning department estimates that there are approximately 2,912 acres of improved 
land within the city limits. The total amount of improved, unimproved, and exempt land within 
the city limits is 3,986 acres. 
Because Harbeck-Fmitdale is part of the sewer service area, land use in these areas must also 
be considered. Land use records for Harbeck-Fruitdale were unavailable, so land use within 
these areas was estimated. We assumed that the Harbeck-Fruitdale area would be primarily 
residential with minor commercial and industrial land use. We also assumed that the Harbeck-
Fruitdale area is developed to 40 percent of build-out capacity. Total land area within Harbeck-
Fruitdale was determined from city maps and is estimated as 1,900 acres. 
Future land use for each category was estimated as the sum of existing improved, unimproved, 
and exempt land for that category. While it is unlikely that all land within the service area will 
be developed by 2013, annexations of additional land into the service area should offset any 
remaining undeveloped land. 
The Sewerage Collection System Master Piati contained land use estimates for 1980 and 2000. 
Our land use estimates are summarized and compared with the Sewerage Collection System 
Master Plan estimates in Table 2-5. 
Table 2-5. Service Àrea Land Use Summary 
Land use category 
Area, acres 
1980' 1990 2000* 2013 
Residential 1,816 2,746 3,755 4,414 
Commercial 362 591 743 993 
Industrial 464 334 473 477 
Public and semi-public 493 b 776 200" 
Total 3,135 3,671 5,747 5,885 
1 Obtained from Sewerage Collection System Master Plan, James M. Montgomery, 1983. 
b Public and semi-public land area included in other values. 
Grants Pais Facilities Plan January 1999 
'>0€516 
2 - 1 3 
REFERENCES 
1. James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Sewage Collection System Master Plan 
(Draft). Prepared for the City of Grants Pass, Oregon. May 1983. 
2. City of Grants Pass^ (kegßm Gnmts An Urbanizing Area Comprehensive 
Development Plan. Adopted December 15, 1982. Ordinance 4471. 
3. Brown and Caldwell. Facilities Plan, Financial Plan, and Rate Study, Prepared for the 
City of Grants Pass, Oregon. August 1985. 
01 M i l , ivM. Geology of Oregon, Second Edition. 1964. 
5. Young, R. A. "Hydrogeologie Evaluation of the Streamflow Records in the Rogue River 
Basin, Oregon." Open file report of the U.S. Department of the Interior* Geological 
Survey. July 1961. 
6. Robison, J. H* Availability of Ground Water in the Grants Pass Area, Oregon. U.S. 
Geological Survey, November 1971. 
7. Borine, R. "Soil Survey of Josephine County Oregon." U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Soil Conservation Service. 1983. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000517 
CHAPTER 3 
3-8 
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 
An understanding of the condition and performance of the existing wastewater treatment plant 
is essential in order to determine which unit processes can be incorporated into future facilities. 
In this chapter, each unit process is evaluated from an operational standpoint, the capacities are 
examined, performance records are analyzed, and deficiencies are discussed. 
The City of Grants Pass has operated a wastewater treatment plant at the current plant site since 
1935, The original plant consisted of a bar screen, a grit chamber, two rectangular sedimentation 
basins, an anaerobic digester, and a control building. In 1953 a second digester and a third 
sedimentation basin were added to the plant. The plant was upgraded to a secondary treatment 
facility in 1962. The modifications included an influent pumping station, a circular primary 
sedimentation basin, a trickling filter, and conversion of the existing rectangular sedimentation 
basins to secondary clarifiers. The next major plant improvement occurred in 1974. Plant 
capacity was increased and the secondary process was converted from a trickling filter to 
activated sludge. New treatment units included an influent pumping station, comminutors, 
aeration basins, two circular secondary clarifiers, a gravity sludge thickener, an anaerobic digester 
with a control building, a plant control building, and a water analysis laboratory. The trickling 
filter was converted to a chlorine contact basin and the existing influent pumping station was 
retained as a tank drain pumping station. The existing control building, rectangular secondary 
clarifiers, and the original digester were abandoned. 
Several plant improvements were made during 1994 and 1995. These included installation of a 
gravity belt thickener (GBT) for waste activated sludge. This improved the performance of the 
existing gravity thickener by feeding it only primary sludge. A belt filter press (BFP) was also 
installed to dewater digested sludge. This allowed the plant to haul dewatered sludge for landfill 
disposal during wet weather when access for agricultural application was not possible. The BFP 
is a temporary installation until a long-term wet-weather solids handling program is implemented. 
A more significant upgrade was completed in 1996. These improvements, listed below, were in 
response to the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ's) requirement to eliminate plant 
bypassing during high wet weather flows and to eliminate effluent toxicity associated with the 
chlorine residual. 
» 
• A fourth raw sewage pump. 
• New headworks with mechanically cleaned bar screen. 
• Two new, rectangular primary sedimentation basins. 
• Effluent flow meter. 
• Ultraviolet disinfection system. 
The following sections discuss the design and performance of the current plant facilities. 
Grants Pass Facilities Pían January 1999 
00€518 
PLANT DESIGN 
The overall plant layout is presentedas Figure 3-1. A plant schematic and hydraulic profile are 
illustrated in Figures 3-2 and 3-3. The plant design data is summarized in Table 3-1. 
The plant currently has firmraw sewagepumping capacity, screening, and primary treatment 
capacity for a peak flow of 27 million gallons per day (mgd). The secondary treatment process 
has a peak hydraulic capacity of about 13 mgd. All primary effluent flow in excess of 13 mgd 
is conveyed directly to final disinfection. The primary effluent flow to disinfection is controlled 
by a motorized valve modulated to control the maximum level in the secondary clarifier effluent 
troughs. Because of hydraulic limitations of the recently installed UV disinfection equipment, 
peak flow through disinfection is Umittd toabout23 mgd. 
Raw wastewater flows to the plant site, through three influent sewers, combines in the influent 
junction structure, and flows into the influent pumping station wet well. The plant is equipped 
with a raw sewage bypass weir which will allow emergency flows to pass directly to the outfall. 
Emergency flows correspond to stoim conditions that cause sewer flows to exceed the plant's 
hydraulic capacity to treat the onee-in-5-year peak flow of 27 mgd. The influent pumping station 
houses four raw wastewater pumps, three with a capacity of 9 mgd and one which can pump up 
to 12 mgd. Each pump is e<pipjped with a variable-speed drive unit. The wastewater passes 
through a mechanical bar screen which has a peak capacity of 23.5 mgd. A bypass channel with 
a manually-raked bar screen serves as a back up to the mechanical bar screen. 
After screening, the raw sewage flow is split between the two new 108-foot by 21.5-foot 
rectangular primary clarifiers and the 70-foot-diameter circular primary The majority of the 
time, when wastewater flows are loWr only the rectangularprimaries are in service. When flow 
exceeds the 16.4-mgd capacity of therectangular units, a motorized gate opens and automatically 
places the circular primary into service. Sludge from all primaries is pumped continuously to 
degritting cyclones and then directed to a 30-foot-diameter gravity thickener. Thickener overflow 
is returned to the tank drain pumping station and pumped to the headworks. The thickened 
primary sludge is pumped to the anaerobic digester. 
Primary effluent flows into a 112,500-cubic-foot aeration basin for secondaiy treatment. The 
aeration basin is separated into.six bays by baffle walls. The configuration of the return sludge 
piping, feed channel, and aeration bays allows for great flexibility in process operation. The 
system can be operated in plug flow. Step feed, or contact stabilization mode. Activated sludge 
is returned to the aerationbasin bytwovariable-speed pumps, each having a capacity of 3.9 mgd. 
Three 2,500-cubic-feet-per-minute centrifugal blowers provide aeration air to coarse bubble 
diffusers. 
Mixed liquor flows ftom tiie aeration basin into two 75-foot-diameter, 12-foot-deep secondary 
clarifiers. Each clarifier is equipped with a suction-sweep sludge withdrawal mechanism and an 
18-foot-diameter inlet skirt 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
00C519 
3-3 
Secondary effluent is then directed to the ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection system. The UV 
system consists of two lamp banks mounted in a single channel. Each bank contains 48 medium 
pressure lamps. A portion of the disinfected effluent is reclaimed for plant utility water and site 
irrigation. Hypochlorite is fed to the reclaimed water system to control slime growth in the 
piping system. Disinfected effluent is then discharged through a 42-inch-diameter shoreline 
outfall to the Rogue River. 
Waste activated sludge (WAS) is pumped from the return activated sludge (RAS) sump to a 1.5-
meter GBT. Thickener filtrate is returned to the headworks. The thickened WAS is pumped to 
a single 59,000-cubic-foot anaerobic digester. The digester is equipped with a floating cover and 
gas mixing system. Digester gas is burned in the plant boiler for sludge heating and space 
heating. Digested sludge iSifr^tered ipo^l&^^aiRrdtfc digester to a 12,500-cubic foot holding 
tank (known as the No. 2 digester). It is then loaded into a 3,400-gallon truck and hauled for 
agricultural land application. Because land application of sludge is prohibited when there is 
standing water or groundwater within 4 feet of the surface, a belt filter press is available to 
dewater sludge for landfill disposal. This prevents solids from building up in the plant during 
wet weather. The belt filter press was used a total of 27 days in 1996. The 1.2-meter press is 
a temporary, trailer-mounted installation to be used only when needed until a long-term solids 
handling system is implemented. 
A 900-kflowatt diesel-fueled gas turbine-generator provides standby power. The generator has 
adequate capacity to satisfy the entire plant's electrical requirements. 
The 1996 plant improvements included a computer-based supervisory control and data acquisition 
system (SCADA). Currently, this system only controls the new facilities constructed in 1996. 
The long-term plan is to phase out the old hard-wired control panels and move all control to the 
SCADA system as plant improvements are constructed. 
PLANT OPERATION 
The treatment plant operates under the authority of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System permit issued by the Oregon DEQ. The existing permit expired in September 1997, acid 
the plant currently operates under a provisional extension of that permit while a new permit is 
considered. The permit discharge requirements are summarized in Table 3-2. 
Daily plant effluent suspended solids (SS) concentrations for January 1995 through July 1997 are 
shown in Figure 3-4. The high effluent SS values are usually caused by either solids washout 
at high flows or the bulking of filamentous solids. Figure 3-5 indicates that high effluent 
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) concentrations also occur on occasion. The high BOD values 
often coincide with high SS concentrations, indicating that much of the BOD is associated with 
the solids. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
>00 520 
3-15 
Table 3-2. Current Discharge Permit Requirements 
Average effluent concentration, mg/L Mass discharge, lb/day 
Parameter Monthly Weekly 
Monthly 
average 
Weekly 
average 
Daily 
May 1 - October 31 
BOD 20 30 67<f 1,000* 1,300s 
TSS 20 30 670e 1,000e 1,300e 
Fecal eoliförm 200» 400* fc 
November 1 - April 30 
BOD 30 43 i.eoa4 2.400* 3200* " 
TSS 30 45 2,400* 3.2004 
Fecal colifotm 200* 400* « -1 1 
Other parameters : 
1. pH 6.0-9.0 
2. BOD and TSS removal efficiency shailnotbe less thon 85 percent on a monthly average basi?. 
3. The mixing zone shall not exceed the portion of die Rogue River from 10 feet upstream to 300 feet downstream of the 
point of discharge. The zone of immediate dilution shall not exceed 10 percent of the defined mixing zone. 
4. Total chlorine residual concentrations shall not exceed 0.048 tng/L as a daily maximum. 
1 Number per 100 mL. 
k Not applicable. 
1 Based on an ADWF of 4 mgd 
1 Based on an A WWF of 6.4 mgd. 
Historically, raw wastewater bypasses due to hydraulic overloading occurred as many as 
12 times in a year. Upgrades to the head works and primary sedlmMtMoft units brought'on-line 
in August 1996 have increased the plant's hydraulic capacity substantially, iM/^ thai. 
plant can now provide primary sedimentation for up to 27 mgd. Since the upgrade, raw 
wastewater has been bypassed only during two very' high-flow events during the area-wide flood 
events of December 1996 and January 1997. 
The secondary treatment system has a lower hydraulic edacity of 13 mgd, so on a more 
frequent basis the primary effluent control valve opens to allow primary effluent to bypass the 
secondary treatment system. This occurred; for 3 days in November 1996, 16 days in December 
1996, and 4 days in January 1997. Bypassed primary effluent is combined with the secondary 
effluent and disinfected before the plant.¿fffi^-iiRte quality sauipi ing; :p^ 
is included in records of the plant effluent quality. 
LABORATORY AND PERSONNEL FACULTIES 
The condition of the working environment plays a vital role in successful wastewater treatment 
plant operation. The primary areas of concern are the operator facilities, laboratory, 
maintenance shop, and office space. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000521 
1995 1996 1997 
Figure 3-4. Grants Pass Plant Effluent Suspended Solids 
Figure 3-5. Grants Pass Plant Effluent BOD 
000522 
Operator Facilities 
The operations building includes a men's washroom with locker area and a women's washroom. 
"The;1975 operation arid mynfenan^ for the plant. The 
men's locker room is sized to accommodate a staff of 11 if consideration is given for two 
lockers per employee. One locker would be used for clean clothes and a second locker would 
be used for soiled clothes and boots. The facilities are sufficient for existing staff and up to 
three temporary male employees. The existihg facilities comply with the requirements of 
Oregon Administrative Rule 437-112 which outline regulations for water and sanitation. 
Theyramen'sv a rest area, a toilet, and sink. Private shower 
facilities are available. 
A day todm Is provided for breaks, lunches, and group meetings. The day room can 
accommodate staff of about 12 persons. 
Laboratory 
Hie laboratory consists of a n a n d a storage area. The area east 
of the laboratory is used for administrative work. 
Future laboratory neMsd^end i^ that will be performed. 
For routine analyses of biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, nutrients, and other 
process tests, the existing laboratoty is adequate. If the city chooses to perform more 
sigrfrisiieatedanalyses such as atonuc; absoijitliM spec or gas chromatography, additional 
analytical work space will be required. The administrative area east of the laboratory could 
easily be converted to an analytical work area. 
A significant limitation in the existing laboratory is fume hood space. The fume hood is used 
forexhausting fuffies"^ O^iC^ ^^ Su&i-^ lsfltMs^ SBliOEi^ "-!^  =ij0bMBS-sCWL|t2SE«ieii. Various analyses, including chemical 
oxygendemand and total Kjeldahlnitrogenareperformed under the fume hood. The fume hood 
work area should be increased forsafety and convenience reasons. The laboratory counter tops 
have also deteriorated and need to be replaced. 
Maintenance Shop 
Two areas of the plant are^u^. ' far maintenance of instrumentation and equipment. Major 
'gpijntiç&v: ;,is; in a large garage/workshop on the south side of the 
operations building A small instrument work room is located behind the east wall of the MCC 
room. 
Grants Pass Facilities Fia a January 1999 
00C523 
3-6 
Office Space 
The original design included two offices: the director's office and the lab office. These offices 
have been combined into one large work area. The control room is also used as a work area 
for the operations staff 
Office space expansion is necessary; the control room could be subdivided, or part of the porch 
area east of the control room could be enclosed. The control room is approximately 450 square 
feet, while the porch is about 400 square feet. Removal of the chlorination equipment has also 
provided space suitable for conversion to office space. 
INDUSTRIAL PRE TREATMENT PROGRAM 
In 1996, the City of Grants Pass adopted an industrial pretreatment program to meet the Federal 
requirement outlined in 40 CFR 403, and to protect the Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
(WRP) from harmful industrial discharges. The new Sewer Use Ordinance was adopted as 
Chapter 8,50 of the Grants Pass Municipal Code. Approved by the Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality in 1996, the ordinance is included as Appendix F of this Facilities Plan. 
Under the new ordinance, significant industrial sewer users (SIUs) are required to meet the 
national categorical pretreatment standards (40 CFR. Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Parts 405-471) 
specific to each user's industry. Certain discharges (e.g., hazardous materials, foaming agents) 
which could cause damage to the WRP or interfere with WRP operation are prohibited. The 
ordinance clearly outlines procedures for permit application, permit issuance, reporting 
requirements for permittees, compliance monitoring, public information, and enforcement. 
The four SIUs receiving permits under the new plan are described in Table 3-3, One 
electroplating and one metalfinishing facility are strictly regulated in heavy metais and pH 
discharge, while one industrial discharger has been identified as a potential source of oils, 
grease, and glues. 
Table 3-3. The City of Grants Pass Significant Industrial Users 
Business Industrial category 
Estimated flow, 
gpm Potential pollutants 
Wayne Printed Circuits Electroplating 506 gpd Metals-pH 
Swissmetric Metalfinishing 3,343 gpd Metals-pH 
U.S! Forest industries None 117,978 gpd Oils, grease, and glues 
Clear Water CO-OP LCC None 17,060 gpd BOD, TSS, FOG, pH 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000524 
Clear Water Co-op, a licensed septage hauler, is a potential source of fats, oils, greases, BOD, 
total suspended solids, and extreme pH. This new private company began accepting septage 
from many local sources in August 1997. Their on-site treatment process dewaters septage 
sludge, The company hauls the sludge to the landfill, and discharges the liquid filtrate to the 
WRP sewage collection system. During the first month of operation, it added approximately 
13.7 pounds per day (ppd) of BOD to the WRP. This load may increase significantly in the 
future as the company's operations grow. To protect the treatment plant from extreme load 
events ("slugs") which can overwhelm and severely damage its biological treatment system, this 
new, high-strength waste source should be carefully monitored to observe its effects (if any) on 
the plant. If slug loads do occur, the city's industrial discharge ordinance would require 
dischargers to provide equalization to blend slugs with wastewater flow. Likewise, if the BOD 
load leads to adverse effects on the WRP's biological treatment system pretreatment may be 
considered. 
UNIT PROCESS PERFORMANCE AND CONDITION 
Plant operating reports for August 1996 through July 1997 were examined to determine the 
present loading and operating performance for individual treatment unit processes. Loading rates 
for die primary sedimentation basins, aeration basin, secondary clarifiers, gravity thickeners, and 
No. 1 anaerobic digester are summarized in Table 3-4. This section discusses the capacity, 
expansion capability, performance limitations, andoperating and maintenance problems of each 
unit process. 
Influent Pumping Station 
The capacity of the influent pumping station is 27 mgd, assuming one pump is used for standby. 
by replacing one or more existing pumps with pumps 
of greater capacity. 
The new influent pump runs well without clogging. When the older influent pumps are called 
into service at higher flows, they often clog with rags lodging between the impeller and the wear 
fingi Plant maintenance .staff .attist wnboit:; the JfHHp backing plate and raise the impeller to 
provide necessary clearance to remove the rags. 
The mechanical bar screen and screenings compactor have been operating satisfactorily since 
August 1996. 
Wastewater composition is monitored with a flow proportional composite sampler located just 
downstream of the influent pumps. The sampler was installed in 1994. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
300525 
3-8 
Table 3-4. Treatment Process Loading and Performance 
• •' - —" 1 1 W Design Current 
UnitProctsi Value Value 
Primary sediiiieitialkMi 
Hydraulic laatiuig, gallons per day per squire fool* 
Average dry weather CAug-Sep 1996 and Jun-Jul 1997) - 990 
Average wet weather {Oct 1996-May L997) - 730 
Peak wet weather* 3, ISO 
BOD removal, percent 
Average 30 41 
During maximum flow month" IS* 36 
SS renwval, percent (average) 
Average 60 5+ 
During maxurwm How month* 30* 53 
Aeration basins 
Organic loading, lt> BOD per day per 1,000 cubic feei* 49.5 33 
Mean tell residence time, days 
Average 5 4.7 
Observed range of monthly average" - 2.9-7.9 
Sludge yield, pounds SS produced per pound BOD removed 0.7 0.47 
Mixed liquor suspended solids, average, mg/L 2,500 1,500 
Secondary clarification 
Hydraulic loading, gallons per day per sistans foot 
Average _ 645 
Peak wet weather' 3,470 1.585 
Return sludge concentration, average, mg/L 5,400 - 5.130 
Return sludge flow, average, mgd - 2.3 
Gravity thickening of primary sludge 
Solids loading, ppd per square foot 6 4.9 
Thickened sludge concentration, percent 5 
Thickening orsecondsry sludge (WAS) 
Solids loading, (lb/hr, if roil 7 br/d) 700 530 
Thickened sludge coRcentretioa, jerowt 5 5.7 
Aiwterobic digestion 
Volatile solids loading, ppd per cubic foot - - 0,095 
Volatile solids loading, ppd - 5,605 
Detention timfc, days 20 2a 
Volatile 30l»ds reduction, perccnt 55 52 
Sludge disposal, dry tort/yr 606 
Ih» cable calculated from 1 year's data, August 1996 through July 1997. 1 October 1996 through May 1997, twlh rcctanguitr iwuins and the eimtiar basin arc in use. During the resi of the year, only (tie 
rectangular basins were used. 
• Umiteil to 27 rogd, Circular/rectangular primary loading. 
• December 1996. Design performance at peak day flow, 4 Aeration basin modes ignored—calculated iisumiog plug [low. 
• During 12-menili study period August 1996 through My 1997. 
' Limited to 14 mgd. 
Grants Pass Facilities Pían January 1999 
00€526 
3-9 
Primary Sedimentation Basin 
The rectangular primary sedimentation basins have an average hydraulic loading rate of 
990 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sq ft) during the dry weather months (June through 
September). This is well below the maximum capacity (peak wet weather) loading rate of 
3,500 gpd/sq ft- During wet weather (October through May), when flows are high and the 
circular primary sedimentation basin is in service, the hydraulic loading rate on the three basins 
averages 730 gpd/sq ft, also well below the circular basin's maximum capacity (peak wet 
weather) loadipg rate of 2,750 gpd/sq ft. BOD and SS removal in the primary sedimentation 
basins average 41 percent and 54 percent respectively. Because the overflow from the gravity 
thickeners is not included in determining the applied load, the actual BOD and SS removals are 
somewhat greater than the values shown above. Examination of the plant records reveals that 
even during December 1996, the maximum flow month of the study period, the basins removed 
an impressive 36 percent of BOD and 53 percent of SS flowing to them. 
The primary sludge is pumped continuously through a cyclone degritting system. This 
equipment was also installed as pan of the 1996 plant improvements. Grit separation efficiency 
has improved and quantities of grit collected have increased significantly. After degritting, the 
primary sludge is directed to the gravity thickener. 
Secondary System Bypass 
A motorized valve was added in 1996 to limit flow through the secondary treatment system. 
The two circular secondary clarifiers were designed for a flow of up to 13 mgd, and solids 
washout has historically occurred when flows have increased above that level. An automatic 
level sensor now monitors the depth of flow in the secondary clarifier effluent launder. During 
high flow events, when the level reaches a maximum desired launder depth, the primary effluent 
control valve automatically opens. This diverts primary effluent directly to disinfection. When 
flows decrease the launder level drops and the control valve automatically closes, forcing all 
primary effluent to the secondary treatment system. This approach assures that the secondary 
treatment system operates at its maximum hydraulic capacity before primary effluent is diverted 
to disinfection. 
Aeration Basin 
The aeration basin receives an average BOD load of about 3,590 ppd. The secondary process 
has been operated with an average 4.7-day mean cell residence time and an observed Sludge 
yield of 0.47 pounds SS produced per pound BOD removed. These values are about average 
for a typical activated sludge process. The average mixed liquor suspended solids concentration 
of 1,500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) is a bit low, but within the range of expected values. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
OOC527 
3 - 1 0 
Basin Operational Flexibility. The aeration basin is divided into six bays, and feed channels 
run along three perimeter walls. The design of the aeration basin and return sludge piping 
allows for great flexibility in the operation of the secondary process. The basin can be operated 
in any of the most common activated sludge modes: plug flow, step feed, contact stabilization, 
and reduced-aeration plug flow. Selection of the proper operational mode can help prevent 
nitrification, growth of filamentous bacteria, and solids washout. 
Plug flow mode is illustrated in Figure 3-6. Primary effluent (PE) and RAS are mixed prior to 
entering the feed channel. The mixture of PE and RAS, or mixed liquor, flows through the six 
bays and to the secondary clarifiers. The aeration basin is typically operated in plug flow mode 
during dry weather. 
Step feed operation is shown in Figure 3-7, RAS flows into Bay 1, while PE is discharged into 
the feed channels. The feed channels distribute PE into all six bays. Step feed operation 
increases solids storage capacity, thereby producing longer sludge ages than plug flow mode. 
The process may be varied by discharging PE into different combinations of bays. 
Contact stabilization mode is shown in Figure 3-8. RAS flows into Bay I, and PE is discharged 
into Bay 3. Bays 1 and 2 contain RAS, while Bays 3A, 3B, 4, arid 5 contain mixed Liquor. 
Sludge age can be adjusted by discharging PE into different bays. Sludge age is maximized by 
discharging PE into Bay 5. Aeration basin operation can be shifted to contact stabilization mode 
during high flow events to provide solids storage and help prevent solids washout. 
Reduced-aeration plug flow mode is shown in Figure 3-9. PE flows into Bay I. RAS is 
combined with PE in Bay 3A and the mixed liquor is aerated in Bays 3B, 4, and 5. Reduced-
aeration plug flow decreases the solids inventory, sludge age, and aeration basin treatment 
capacity. Little treatment occurs in Bays 1 and 2 because PE does not contain a sufficient 
population of microorganisms to consume large quantities of organic material. 
Operational Problems. In previous years, the secondary treatment process was plagued with 
filamentous sludge and foam forming excessive scum layers on the secondary clarifiers. Recent 
upgrades of the handling facilities have provided the plant staff better control of the solids 
inventory leading to improved secondary process performance and effluent quality. The shorter 
sludge age helps to reduce nitrification and prevent growth of filamentous bacteria. 
Secondary Clarifiers 
The secondary clarifiers have an average hydraulic overflow rate of 645 gpd/sq ft. The 
overflow rate at the design flow of 13 mgd is 1,470 gpd/sq ft. Secondary clarification capacity 
can be increased by adding new clarifiers. 
Both of the clarifiers currently leak in the centerwell seal. This leakage allows mixed liquor to 
dilute the more concentrated RAS. This, in turn, dilutes the waste activated sludge concentration 
and places additional hydraulic load on the gravity belt thickener. The RAS solids concentration 
averages about 5,130 mg/L. Return sludge flow averages 2.3 mgd. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
>0528 
Figure 3-6, Plug i f c p mode 
Figure 3-7. Step Feed Mode 
LEGEND 
.JBL. UtXED UQUOR 
J RETURN ACTIVATED SUJOGE 
, PE PfBUW EFFULSNT 
FEED CHMM. îïîiîjîîïitî 
000529 
Figure 3-8. Contact Stabilization Mode 
Figure 3-9. Reduced-Aeration Plug Flow Mode 
LEGEND 
—MIXED UQUCR 
RETURN ACWÄTED SLUDGE 
• ^ - PKawsnr SFRUEHT 
s»«» 
IßM mo mum. 
O O C 5 3 0 
3 - 1 1 
Disinfection 
The chlorine based disinfection system was replaced with a UV system that started operation in 
August 1996, All of the chlorination equipment has- been ..removed-. f*W:-t&e plant The UV 
system uses medium pressure lamps that are equipped with an automatic cleaning system. This 
was one of the first installations of this type of UV equipment in the northwest. Numerous 
electrical and control problems were encountered during the first year of operation. The 
equipment manufacturer has replaced the failed components and the plant's disinfection 
requirement has been continuously met. 
The UV system was designed for a peak hydraulic capacity of 27 mgd. However, headloss 
measurements indicated that the equipment could only pass about 20 mgd. Recentiy, the 
manufacturer: modified the equipment to reduce headloss and increase peak hydraulic capacity. 
Analysis of recent headloss measurements indicate a peak hydraulic capacity of 23 mgd. 
Instrumentation 
The 1996 plant improvements included a computerized supervisory control and data acquisition 
system, SCADA. It is intended that this system be expanded as ftiture plant improvements are 
made and, eventually, die old control system will be replaced. 
Gravity Thickener 
The gravity thickener receives approximately 3,450 ppd of primary sludge. The current load 
of 4.9 ppd per square foot is 42 percent of the design solids loading capacity. The thickener 
typically produces sludge with a concentration of 4.5 percent, which compares well to textbook 
values. During the day when the plant is staffed, thickened sludge is pumped from the gravity 
thickener to the No. 1 anaerobic digester. 
Gravity Belt Thickener 
The gravity belt thickener receives approximately 3,700 ppd of secondary sludge. The current 
load of 530 pounds per hour is 76 percent of the design solids loading capacity. The thickener 
typically produces sludge with a concentration of 5.7 percent, which compares well to textbook 
values. Polymers are added to the sludge to enhance thickener performance. During the day 
when the plant is staffed, thickened sludge is pumped from the gravity belt thickener to the No. 
1 anaerobic digester. 
Anaerobic Digesters 
The No. 1 digester volatile suspended solids loading rate is approximately 0.095 ppd per cubic 
foot. The average detention time, based on the volume of sludge pumped to the digester, is 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
3-12 
28 days. The No. I digester is currently operating at 84 percent of the design solids loading 
capacity. The addition of the gravity belt thickener for WAS has increased the overall solids 
concentration within the digester and made more efficient use of the available volume. The 
solids concentration inside the digester currently averages 2.2 percent. Digester performance 
is within typical ranges with volatile solids destruction averaging 50 percent. 
The digester needs cleaning, thorough inspection, and rehabilitation. It has not been cleaned 
since it was placed into service in 1975. Significant rag and grit accumulation has very likely 
reduced the useful volume. Inspection of the cover has shown corrosion around the gas dome 
and rainwater is leaking thought the cover roofing material. Significant corrosion was observed 
when the gas mixing compressor was replaced in 1995. The digester will need to be taken out 
of service for cleaning. At that time the cover càn be inspected, sand blasted and recoated, 
roofing replaced, and corroded gas piping replaced. 
Digester 2 is primarily used for sludge storage. It had a significant accumulation of rags and 
grit when it was last cleaned in 1993. 
Belt Filter Press 
During rainy periods when land application of biosolids is not feasible, storage of solids within 
the treatment process created operational problems leading to potential plant upsets. To prevent 
this situation, the city purchased a used trailer-mounted 1.2-meter BFP. This equipment allows 
digested biosolids to be dewatered and hauled to die landfill. Although the BFP is a temporary, 
installation, the plant now has the ability to handle biosolids during all weather conditions. This 
additional operational flexibility has translated to smoother and more reliable plant operations, 
improved performance, and more consistent effluent quality. 
OUTFALL MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS 
Mixing zone tests were performed at the WRP outfall in the Rogue River on July 17, 1991. The 
tests were accomplished by injecting a tracer dye into the effluent at the treatment plant and 
tracking the dyed effluent plume in the river with special instrumentation. The Rogue River 
flow measured at the Grants Pass gauging station was approximately 2,300 cubic feet per second 
(cfs) during the test. The average effluent flow from the WRP during the test was 5.2 mgd 
(8 cfs). 
The effluent plume hugged the right bank after exiting the outfall and remained within 12 feet 
of the shoreline (6 percent of the stream width) for more than 400 feet downstream. The edge 
of the immediate mixing zone was approximately 10 feet from the outfall with a minimum 
effluent dilution of approximately 1.7:1. Within 300 feet, which the DEQ has defined as the 
mixing zone for the Grants Pass outfall, the minimum dilution was 10:1, An outfall diffuser 
would improve near field mixing. 
Appendix A contains the detailed mixing zone study report. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
3-15 
EFFLUENT BIOASSAY ANALYSIS 
Three htoassay test series were performed on WRP effluent in 1996. The October 1996 test was 
a resample from the August 1996 test. Each series consisted of three effluent samples. 
Northwestern AquaticSeienees tan bioassays on the three samples using bath fathead minnows 
and daphnia exposed to various effluent concentrations, in accordance with the bioassay plan 
approved by the DEQ. 
February 1996, Sixty percent of the daphnia died when expos«! to 100 percent effluent for 
48 hours. This constitutes failure of the acute toxicity test. A 7-day exposure chronic toxicity 
test showed that while a concentration of 50 percent effluent allowed daphnia survival, their 
reproduction was significantly reduced. Normal reproduction was observed at concentrations 
at or below 25 percent effluent. Using standard mathematical techniques, the laboratory 
calculated that an exposure concentration of 7.5 to 41 percent would theoretically allow normal 
daphnia survival and reproduction. 
August 1996'. Ail fathead minnows survived when exposed to 100 percent effluent during a 48-
hour acute toxicity test and a 7-day chronic toxicity test. 
The laboratory sent a portion of the August 21 effluent sample to a CH2M Hill laboratory for 
a 96-hour chronic exposure test with green algae. The algae showed no reduction in growth, 
even when grown in full-strength effluent. 
October 1996, Retest for daphnia only; fathead minnows were not tested. Tb^WRP effluent 
passed a 48-hour acute toxicity test (daphnia exposure to 100 percent effluent concentration). 
A 7-day exposure chronic toxicity test showed that while a concentration of 100 percent effluent 
allowed daphnia survival, their reproduction was significantly reduced at all concentrations 
except the 6.25 percent effluent concentration sample. Using standard mathematical techniques, 
the laboratory calculated that an exposure concentration of 2.3 to 8.6 percent would theoretically 
allow normal daphnia survival and reproduction. The report oh the October tests cautions that 
the survival success data just barely satisfied the statistical analysis, and low reproductive 
success was noted in all effluent concentrations. 
Full results of the bioassays are included as Appendix B. 
The bioassay results raise concerns that some aquatic organisms may be adversely affected near 
the point of discharge, depending on the effluent concentration of exposure. The likely culprit 
is thought to be ammonia in the WRP effluent, which ranged from 9 to 25 mg/L in the 
59 samples taken during the period of January 1996 through July 1997. 
We used an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mixing zone data spreadsheet program to 
model ammonia concentrations in the Rogue River near the WRP outfall.1 According to the 
' Background ammonia concentration is taken to be 0.06 nig^L, reported as the average annual Rogue River 
ammonia concentration measured at Cold Hill. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000533 
3-15 
model, when a 1.7:1 dilution factor is applied (measured in the mixing zone analysis a£ the Zone 
of Immediate Dilution) to the available data, ammonia levels are well below acute toxicity 
thresholds throughout all months of the year, reaching a maximum of 48.7 percent of the 
threshold for the month of November. However, chronic toxicity is a tougher standard. The 
model predicts that in July the ammonia concentration at the edge of the mixing zone (measured 
in the mixing zone analysis at a dilution of 10:1) will slightly exceed the chronic toxicity 
threshold, reaching a concentration 102.5 percent of threshold level. 
The ammonia toxicity model therefore predicts that this effluent should not cause acute toxicity 
in the Rogue River at any time during the year, but may exert a chronic toxic effect during the 
month of July. However, the existing dató, consisting Of a few grab samples during some 
months, is not representative of the actual plant effluent Concerns raised by the bioassay and 
modeling results would best be addressed by the implementation of a formal effluent ammonia 
monitoring program. The WRP has recently begun twice per week ammonia samples on a year-
round schedule, which will improve the data A more detailed mixing zone analysts should be 
conducted. This would include Outfall dilution modeling and an effluent sampling plan to fully 
characterize ammonia and temperature variations. 
SOLIDS MANAGEMENT 
Land application of wastewater treatment biosolids (sludge) has been successfully practiced by 
the City of Grants Pass for many years. A number of land application sites are currently 
approved and in use. The focus of the land application program has been the beneficial use of 
biosolids as a partial or complete substitute for commercial fertilizers on agricultural lands. 
Biosolids Characteristics 
The fertilizer value and metals content are two critical parameters that control sludge application 
rates and feasibility. The sludge solids quantity and concentration influence the application 
methods and site area requirements. 
Quantity. The City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant currently generates between 
14,000 and 22,000 gallons of sludge per day. The No. 2 digester, with a capacity of 
133,000 gallons, is used for sludge storage. The sludge is produced, stored, and transported in 
a liquid form. The average solids concentration is approximately 2.2 percent From August 1996 
through July 1997, the plant produced a total of ¿06 dry tons of biosolids, 
Quality, Digested sludge quality is monitored for several distinct purposes. 
1. Nutrient levels are measured to determine appropriate application rates to 
fertilize agricultural lands. 
2. Metal concentrations are monitored regularly to ensure that "clean sludge" 
criteria are met 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000534 
3 - 1 5 
3. If Class A or Class B certification is desired, pathogen reduction and vector 
attraction reduction criteria must be met in addition to the metals criteria. 
Nutrienttest results i r a m i i m s a ^ 2 digester are presented in Table 
3-5. Thesetestresults indicate thetotal nitrogen concentration averages 9.4 percent. Ammonia 
nitrogen is roughly 5.4 percent, nitrate nitrogen is negligible, and the remaining 4 percent is 
organic nitrogen. With thin (lessthan 1/2 inch) surface applications of liquid sludge, 
approximately.half ofthearnomoaia nitrogen wiU be atmosphere through volatilization. 
Approximately 20 percent of the organic nitrogen can be expected to be made available through 
microbial transformation during the course of the first yearfollowing application. This results 
in roughly 70 pounds of projected available nitrogen per dry ton of sludge. Three to 5 percent 
of the organic nitrogen (2.4 to 4 pounds per dry ton) will continue to ttecome available during 
years 2 through 5. 
Table 3-5. Grants Pass Sludge Nutrient Concentrations, Percent 
Nutrient 
Sample date 
9/11/96 11/18/96 2/5/97 4/16/97 6/17/97 Average 
NH3 Nitrogen 6.5 5.86- 3.8 5 5.8 5,392 
NOj Nitrogen 0.009 0.002 0.Q033 0.0022 0,001 0,0035 
TKN 12 11.6 6,7 7,7 8.8 9,36 
Total P 9.4 4.8 9.5 3.4 3.7 6.16 
Potassium 0.882 1.01 0.924 1.1 0.889 0,961 
Nitrogen is but one of the essential plant nutrients available in this material. One dry ton of 
sludge will also provide roughly 123 pounds of phosphorus and 19 pounds of potassium. The 
soils to which this sludge is applied will al«> benefit from the addition of over 1,000 pounds of 
volatile solids per dry ton, which is transformed into soil organic matter by microorganisms. 
This material does contain trace amounts of regulated metals. Metals test results from five 
samples collected from the No. 2 digester are presented in Table 3-6 with the EPA 503.13 limits 
for clean sludge, The comparison shows tot the Giants Pass digested sludge easily meets all 
clean sludge metals criteria. 
Table 3-7 compares these cpn^#F^tipns with the current cumulate limits established by the 
EPA in 40 CFR Part 237 to calculate the land application limits for this sludge. Copper is the 
metal that would limit the total cumulative loading to 505 dry tons per acre (dT/Ac). This 
loading corresponds to a site life of 297 years based on the current annual sludge application of 
1.7 dT/Ac. 
Class A certification is not^  c u r r ^ y being sought by the Grants Pass facility. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000535 
3-16 
Table 3-6. Grants Pass Sludge Quality Metals Concentrations, mg/kg dry solids 
Compound 
EPA 
503.13 
Regulations 
Table 3" 
Sample Date 
9/11/96 11/18/96 2/5/97 4/16/97 6/17/97 Average 
Arsenic 41 ND @ 0.5 N D ® 1 ND <3> 1 ND <® 1 ND @ 1 
Cadmium 39 3.9 3.5 1.7 3.2 2.5 3 
Chromium 1,200 26 22 33 26 20 25 
Copper 1,500 475 485 379 386 480 441 
Lead 300 175 107 95 93 124 119 
Mercury 17 5.43 2.9 2.6 3.96 4.35 4 
Molybdenum 75* ND <3> 10 ND @ 10 ND @ 10 ND @ 10 N D ® 10 
Nickel 420 17.4 20 39 21 21 24 
Selenium 36 ND 01 N D @ 2 ND @ 2 ND @ 2 ND @ 2 
Zinc 2,800 919 894 684 674 868 808 
"Clean sludge" limit. .,>•,,..••..•. 
Ceiling concentration permitted in EPA 503.13 Table 1 regulation for land application. 
Table 3-7. Grants Pass Cumulative l a n d Application Sludge Loading Limits 
Parameter metal 
Sludge concentration, 
mg/kg: 
Cumulative level, 
lb/Ac 
Sludge application to 
reach limit, dT/Ac Site life, years 
Lead 119 1,782 7,489 4,405 
Zinc 808 891 551 324 
Copper 441 445.5 505 297 
Nickel 24 178.1 3,711 2,183 
Cadmium 3 4.5 750 441 
Land Application 
The current sludge application methods and site characteristics are summarized in the following 
section. 
Application Methods. The City of Grants Pass currently has a 3,400-gailon tanker truck and 
a 3,500~gallon tanker truck, each equipped with a spreader bar for direct application of liquid 
sludge in the field. This is suitable under relatively dry soil conditions. During wet weather, 
the truck can cause ruts in the field that interfer with farming. When site soils are too wet to 
safely apply sludge from the truck, an irrigation gun and 3,500 feet of pipe are used. This 
equipment extends the time frame for application. However, regulations prohibit sludge 
application if the depth to permanent groundwater is less than 4 feet and the depth to temporary 
groundwater is less than 1 foot. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
K ) C 5 3 6 
3-17 
The No. 2 digester currently provides sludge storage equivalent to 4 to 6 days of sludge 
production. To keep pace with sludge production, an average of seven truck loads of sludge 
must be land applied each day (based on a5-day work week). The ability to haul seven truck 
loads a day depends on the haul distance to the site and the application method. Spreading 
directly from the truck is faster than using the irrigation gun. Experience has shown that the 
practical maximum, haul distance is approximately 15 miles one way. Haul distances to the 
sludge application sites currently range from 4 to 15 miles. 
Site Management. Eighteen sites totaling 841 acres are approved to receive Grants Pass WRP 
sludge (Table 3-8). Average site size is 47 acres. Annual sludge loading rates are based on the 
available nitrogen content of the sludge and the nitrogen requirement of the crop grown on the 
application site. Pasture land is the most common application site. The average loading rate 
during August 1996 through July 1997 was 1.65 dT/Ac. 
Current Land Application Constraints. The sludge land application program requires careful 
management to ensure that the solids disposal requirements are sadsfied. Available sludge 
storage, sludge solids concentration, and application site haul distances all influence the success 
of the overall solids program. 
Tabli ^ Land Application Sites in Use by tlie City of Grants Pass" 
Stfii Distance, miles" Acres 
Riverbanks 14 187 
Hoover 4 22 
Cohen 9 30 
AVR 12 42 
Aguiar 13 UO 
Pennington 13 50 
Jackson 12 7 
Klose 10 9 
Buddenhager 10 so 
Young 13 26 
Jackson 12 12 
Hill 11 37 
Sorensen 11 45 
Walking J 11 70 
Heisner U 45 
Han 10 60 
Benton 14 12 
Hyde 10 
Approved sites arc subject to change. The sites listed arc those currently used when this 
report was prepared. 
" One-way haul distance. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
3-18 
The plant's current limited storage capacity means that sludge must be hauled almost daily to 
ensure that solids accumulation will not adversely affect plant performance. Daily land 
application is extremely difficult to maintain during the winter. Wet weather severely limits 
application site suitability and the ability to apply sludge. The 2.2 percent average sludge solids 
concentration means that 97.8 percent of each haul trip is devoted to water. Combining this 
with long haul distances severely reduces the efficiency of the overall operation. For example, 
if the solids concentration were increased to 4 percent, only four trips rather than seven would 
be needed to handle the daily sludge production. Similarly, a higher solids concentration would 
also make better use of the plant's available solids storage capacity. In the future when it 
becomes necessary to travel longer distances to find a sufficient number of application sites, the 
solids hauling efficiency will become even more critical. 
A 1991 plant audit by Brown and Caldwell revealed that the 3,400-galion sludge hauling truck 
is near the end of its useful life. Addition of a new, second truck has help«! the situation, but 
the old truck requires frequent repair* With seven sludge hauls per day, two reiiable sludge 
trucks aife. a?.c f^lmfi?;• necessity,, The importance of sludge hauling to the treatment, process: 
suggests that the city should consider replacing the old sludge truck. 
Recognizing these constraints, the current solids management program is successfully meeting 
the plant's sludge handling needs. Sufficient application sites within reasonable hauling distances 
are being used. Sludge has been applied at the proper loading rates. The low sludge metals 
content presents no problems with long-term sludge application. 
Grants Pass Facilities Pian 
> ; > C 5 3 8 
January 1999 

*j i :J¡ 
5IÇ4 ! j 
I i tf> J o 
u F < 
3 « S 
3 w E l/> tu u o fr 
V) i/i < 
Q. 
Vi r~ 
Z < 
<r o 
o 
Si 
5 
li 
: « 5 -
O DC < 
o: £ « 
* o s 
?! 
3 3 
«<3 
P il 
fllüiií 
í Miiííii mm 
ifÉfi! ïiïJiïîf Uiîlî.iiï I! Ulm .-i 
5 S § 11 
a 
1 
Q _) 
B3 
E*Q 
0Ä < 
m u 
eue n i 
i ! 
S s i I i S 
T 
' \ r i f fi ITs 
i — s ¡ — r 
î 10 2° 
y g: o n a: J,0-
a o 
Ig C 1 
( / ) en < 
D -
C/l 
H -
2E < QÍ O 
u , O 
t o 
lï 
11 
_ J V) 
a-ô 
l i 
SS S3 Ui — a: en a . œ y « < % 
ce * O ï 
I» I y 
iiiïjÎÉfli 
l i i f 
tifile • 
n 
w 
O -J 
PÄ -< 
m o 
I I I 
i ! 
">00541 

CHAPTER 4 
4-1 
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 
The design of wastewater treatment and disposal facilities is dependent mainly upon estimates 
of hydraulic and organic loading. Differences in physical and socioeconomic environments cause 
wastewater characteristics to vary among communities. Therefore, wastewater characteristics, 
including volume, strength, and composition, were determined by reviewing historical operating 
records for the Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant (WRP). 
DEFINITION OF TERMS 
As a preface to the review of wastewater characteristics, definitions of the terras used in this 
study are presented below: 
Wastewater. The total fluid flow in a sewerage system. Wastewater may include sanitary 
sewage, industrial wastes, commercial wastes, and infiltration and inflow (I/I). 
Sanitary Sewage. Waterbome waste principally derived from the sanitary conveniences 
of residences and institutions. 
Industrial Wastes. Waterbome wastes produced as the result of manufacturing or 
processing operations. 
Commercial Wastes. Waterbome wastes derived from business establishments. 
Infiltration. Water that enters the sewerage system from the surrounding soil. Common 
points of entry include broken pipe and defective joints in pipe and manhole walls. 
Although generally limited to sewers laid below the normal groundwater level, infiltration 
can also occur when rain or irrigation water soaks into the ground adjacent to residences 
and enters shallow house sewer laterals with defective pipes or joints. 
Base MUtration. Water that enters the sewerage system from the surrounding soil during 
periods of low groundwater. 
Inflow. Stormwater runoff that enters the sewerage system only during or immediately 
after rainfall. Points of entry may include connections with roof and area drains, storm 
drain connections, and holes in manhole covers in flooded streets. 
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). A measure of wastewater strength in terms of the 
quantity of oxygen required for biological oxidation of the organic matter contained in the 
wastewater. The BOD loading imposed on a treatment plant influences both the type and 
degree of treatment that must be provided to produce the required effluent quality. All 
references to BOD in this report are 5-day BOD tests incubated at 20a C. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
0 i ) C 5 4 3 
3-10 
Suspended Solids (SS). A measure of the quantity of suspended material contained in the 
wastewater. The quantity of SS removed during treatment influences the sizing of sludge 
handling and disposal processes as well as the effectiveness of disinfection with chlorine. 
CURRENT FLOWS AND LOADS 
Developing accurate estimates of current plant flows and loads is a critical step in the facilities 
planning process. The current flows and loads serve as the basis for estimating future flows and 
loads; these flow and load projections are in turn used in the sizing of new wastewater treatment 
and conveyance facilities. For this evaluation, we analyzed the Grants Pass WRP records for 
January 1991 through December 1996. 
Wastewater Flows 
Flow rates which are important in the design and operation of WRPs include: 
• The average dry weather flow (ADWF) is the average flow at the plant during the 
dry weather season, usually defined as May through October. The ADWF is often 
used by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for calculating mass 
discharge limits for BOD and total suspended solids (TSS) for the dry weather 
season. 
• The average wet weaiher flow (AWWF) is the average flow at the plant during the 
wet weather season, typically November through April. The AWWF is often used 
for calculating mass discharge limits for BOD and TSS for the wet weather season. 
• The maximum month dry weather flow (MMDWF) is defined by DEQ as the flow 
experienced at the Grants Pass WRP when rainfall quantities are at the I-in-10 year 
probability level for the month of May. MMDWF is important in the design of 
effluent irrigation and storage systems. 
• The maximum month wet weather flow (MMWWF) is defined by DEQ as the flow 
at the Grants Pass WRP when rainfall quantities are at the l-in-5 year probability 
level for the month of January. MMWWF is used in the design of a plant's 
secondary process. 
• The peak day flow is the flow rate at the plant thai corresponds to a I-in-5 year, 24-
hour storm event that occurs during a period of high groundwater and saturated 
soils. 
• The PWWF is expected to occur during the peak day flow. The PWWF is the 
highest flow at the plant sustained for 1 hour. The PWWF dictates the hydraulic 
capacity of the Grants Pass WRP. This flow is also referred to as the peak 
instantaneous flow. 
Historical daily plant flows are depicted in Figure 4-1. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
>0544 
, I il 
Dec-96 
- Sep-96 
Jun-96 
Mar-96 
Dec-95 
Sep-95 
Jun-95 
Mar-95 
Dec-94 
Sep-94 
Jun-94 
Mar-94 
Dec-93 a 
Sep-93 
Jun-93 
Mar-93 
Dec-92 
Ssp*92 
Jun-92 
Mar-92 
Dec-91 
Sep-91 
Jul-91 
Apr-91 
Jan-91 
en 
5 o 
c a 
a. >-
1 a 
T 
O >— 
3 
Ci 
IT 
a o 
CM 
to © 
p6uj 'Moy iuB|d XiiBQ 
in 
000545 
o 
o 
o 
o> 
o «J 
e 
Cj <o 
o tO 
«9 « -
"3' c 
£ 
"Ä 
o 
O 
•«r 
o 
07 
O CVÎ 
o 
5 O 
(U 
JZ 
s 
<33 
5 
<D O 
<0 
> 
< 
CM i 
o 
5 
OÍ 
U-
o 
o 
•JMOV 
0 0 0 5 4 6 
3-10 
Flow Records. In evaluating wastewater flow records, it is necessary 10 first identify any 
limitations in flow measurement or pumping capacity. In addition, any unique or unusual 
conditions wMchcouMaffect historical How records should be ascertained. Two factors must 
be eonsidered when analyzing Grants Pass' peak flow records: 
* Southern Oregon experienced drought conditions from the mid-1980s through the 
mid-1990s. Only In the past 2 years have annual rainfall quantities exceeded 
• Prior to the construction of new primary sedimentation basins in 1996, flows which 
exceededthe capacity of the plant were bypassed to the river. The bypass quantity 
was estimated. 
ftdws^i^: fial^^ by rainfall. Therefore, the 
plant flows require consideration of statistical 
recurrences of rainfall quantities. Table 4-1 is a statistical summary for rainfall in the Grants 
Passarea. 
T f S b j t e S t ifall Summary for Grants Pass, 1951 Through 1980 
l-to-5 Year i-in-10 Year 
Mean rainfall. Greatest monthly Greatest daily recurrence rain fall. recurrence rainfall. 
Month inches rainfall, inches rainfell, inches inches inches 
J^n 6.46 14.20 3.35 9.17 11.36 
Feb 4.21 10.61 4.30 6h15 7.90 
Mar 3.46 8,14 2.23 5.17 6.70 
Apr 1.73 5.32 1.41 2.58 3.34 
May 1*34 4.73 1.43 2,12 2,93 
June ,55 2.09 .91 0,91 1.34 
July 4 1 1.02 .81 0.38 0.63 
Aug .46 3.33 .75 0.79 1.32 
Sept .89 4.19 2.86 1.46 2.10 
Oct 2.47 8.86 1.98 3.92 5,46 
Nov 4.59 15.15 3.20 6.95 9,14 
Dec 5.94 16-06 4.07 8.63 10,90 
Average 32.31 
Maximum 6.46 16.06 4.30 9.17 11.36 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
>547 
4-4 
Monthly Flows. Monthly average flows for January 1991 through December 1996 are presented 
in Table 4-2. The annual average flow for this period was 4.7 million gallons per day (mgd). 
Table 4-2. Monthly Flows 
Month Plant tlow. med Month Plant flow, med 
Jan-91 4 W J an-94 3.82 
Feb-91 5.03 Feb-94 3.95 
Mar-91 6.14 Mar-94 3.67 
Apr-91 3.97 Apr-94 3.36 
May-91 3.61 May-94 3.73 
Jun-91 3.95 Jun-94 4.18 
Jul-91 4.11 Jul-94 4.41 
Aug-91 4.05 Aug-94 4.36 
Sep-91 3.82 Sep-94 4.05 
Oct-91 3.20 Oct-94 3.43 
Nov-91 3.39 Nov-94 4.63 
Dec-91 3.64 Dec-94 4.65 
Jan-92 3.72 Jan-95 8.06 
Feb-92 4.27 Feb-95 5.45 
Mar-92 4.41 Mar-95 6.97 
Apr-92 4.37 Apr-95 5.66 
May-92 4.43 May-95 4.50 
Jun-92 4.79 Jun-95 4.48 
Jul-92 4.96 Jul-95 4.57 
Aug-92 4.73 Aug-95 4.37 
Sep-92 4.45 Sep-95 3.96 
Oct-92 3.97 Oct-95 3.48 
Nov-92 3.79 Nov-95 3.09 
Dec-92 5.41 Dec-95 6.00 
Jan-93 6.69 Jan-96 8.16 
Feb-93 6.29 Feb-96 8.36 
Mar-93 5.43 Mar-96 5.44 
Apr-93 5.81 Apr-96 5.07 
May-93 4.47 May-96 4.49 
Jun-93 4.33 Jun-96 4.40 
Jul-93 4.79 Jul-96 4.49 
Aug-93 4.92 Aug-96 4.14 
Sep-93 4.61 Sep-96 3.87 
Oct-93 4.24 Oct-96 3.42 
Nov-93 3.32 Nov-96 4.50 
Dec-93 4.11 Dec-96 11.89 
Giants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
O0G54S 
4-5 
For most municipalities, the ADWF is relatively unaffected by rainfall. Nevertheless, we 
compared ADWF with May through October rainfall for the past 6 years. As shown on Figure 
4-2 for the Grants Pass WRP, ADWF generally increases as rainfall increases. However, it is 
not a well-defined, linear relationship. Figure 4-2 shows that the flow-rainfall relationship is 
more of a band than a line. This suggests that factors other than rainfall, such as population 
growth, contribute to changes in ADWF. Using the upper boundary of the band and the long-
term-average May through October rainfall of 5.92 inches, the current ADWF is estimated at 
4.5 mgd. 
The DEQ supports using the best-fit line for estimating wastewater flows. Figure 4-2 shows the 
best fit line corresponding to an ADWF of 4.2 mgd. In an effort not to underestimate this key 
flow parameter, we selected to use for planning purposes the higher, more conservative value 
of 4.5 mgd. 
The AWWF is greatly influenced by rainfall. Figure 4-3 plots average flow and total rainfall 
for November through April for the past 6 years. As with ADWF, the relationship between 
flow and rainfall is more of a band than a straight line. Using the upper boundary of the band, 
the long-term-average November through April rainfall of 26.39 inches corresponds to a 
November through April flow of 5.7 mgd. This compares well to the average November 
through April plant flow for the past 2 years of 5.76 mgd. The AWWF corresponding to the 
best-fit line on Figure 4-3 is about 5.0 mgd. This value is significantly lower than the value 
observed for an average rainfall of about 25 inches. Therefore, we selected touse the more 
conservative approach, described by the upper band line, at 5.7 mgd. 
To calculate maximum month flows, DEQ recommends plotting monthly plant flows and 
associated rainfall values lor January through May of the most recent year (Figure 4-4). The 
MMWWF is estimated as the flow at the plant corresponding to the l-in-5 year January rainfall. 
) The l-in-5 year January rainfall is 9.17 inches (Table 4-1), Therefore, from Figure 4-4, the 
MMWWF is taken as 10 mgd. This is supported by the February 1998 monthly average flow 
of 9.4 mgd and total rainfall of 9.1 inches. The highest monthly average flow on record, 11.9 
mgd, occurred in December 1996. Two large storm events occurred in December 1996, The 
total rainfall for the month was 22.2 inches, which far exceeded the previous record of 16.06 
inches associated with the flood of December 1964. Figure 4-5 plots daily flows and rainfall 
for December 1996, Because the 11.9-mgd flow occurred during a month with record rainfall, 
it is reasonable to expect that the l-in-5-year MMWWF would be significantly lower. 
In similar fashion, the MMDWF is approximated as the flow associated with a 1 -in-10 year May 
rainfall (2.93 inches). From Figure 4-4, the MMDWF is 6.7 mgd. 
As with ADWF and AWWF, the DEQ supports estimating MMDWF and MMWWF as values 
corresponding to the best-fit line shown on Figure 44 . This approach would yield a value of 5.3 
mgd for MMDWF and 8.6 mgd for MMWWF. For planning purposes, we selected to use the 
more conservative values as discussed above. 
Peak Flows. The peak flows of interest are the peak day flow, the peak week flow, and the 
PWWF. The peak day flow is estimated as the flow associated with the l-in-5 year, 24-hour 
storm event. For Grants Pass, this storm event is 3.5 inches of rainfall. However, it is also 
important to ensure that the antecedent conditions contribute to maximum I/I to the collection 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan Revised June 2001 
OOCS^S 
pßuj '«OU jeqiBSM }3M aBeJOAV 
00C550 
-O 
CD 
£ 
jQ 
-*—> 
CL 
CD 
Ol 
en 
CD 
£r 
CO 
3 
c 
CO 
: S f * X rto:j^ayrain-'2V93Tn/mönth H ^ J ^ ^ i « ; 
4.00 E_ .1 I . 4,.,.. I L !.. I i , . 
0 .00 
5-yr Jan ram * 319 in/month -
1 ..J I I I 3 
5.00 10.00 15.00 
Monthly rain, inches 
Figure 4-4. Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow 
0 0 ( 5 5 1 
pStu '«olí luejd 
Rain, inches 
0 C 5 5 J 2 
">00553 
3-10 
system. That is, the groundwater level should be high and there should be several days of 
significant rainfall prior to the l-in-5 year, 24-hour storm event to ensure soil saturation. Table 
4-3 summarizes the storm events considered in the peak day flow analysis, while Figure 4-6 
plots these daily flows against rainfall. A first-order regression predicts that during the l-in-5 
year, 24-hour storm event, the daily plant flow will be 20 mgd. In this case, the flow 
corresponding to the best fit line was selected. This value, 20 mgd, was selected because it is 
well supported by two data points corresponding to daily rainfalls of 4.0 and 2.3 inches. 
Table 4-3. Storm Events Used for Peak Day How Analysis 
Date Rain, inches Plant flow, mgd1 
Dec 7, 1996 4.00 18.72 
Dec 30, 1996 2.31 20.2 
Dec 8, 1996 2.26 22.83 
Dec 31, 1996 2.72 24.41 
Jan 9, 1995 1.80 13.6 
Jan 26, 1996 1.60 10.4 
Mar 4, 1991 1.57 11.3 
Mar 19, 1995 1.26 9,8 
Feb 20, 1996 1.19 12.7 
Dec 26, 1996 1.17 12.2 
Jan 11, 1995 1.16 14.4 
Jan 23, 1996 1.15 11,9 
Jan 20, 1996 1.00 11.9 
Notes: 
1 Evaluation limited to storm events where a high groundwater table was 
anticipated and rainfall occurred for several days before storm. 
2 Daily flow includes estimated plant bypass volume. 
DEQ suggests using probability methods to estimate other peak flows. From the above analysis 
of rainfall and historical flow data, three flow rates and their corresponding recurrence 
probability are known: annual average flow, MMWWF, and peak day flow. The annual 
average flow has a recurrence probability of 50 percent. Assuming that the wet weather flows 
of interest all occur during a year with l-in-5 year recurrence probability rainfall, the MMWWF 
has a recurrence probability of 1 month in 12 months, or 8.33 percent. Similarly, the peak day 
flow has a recurrence probability of I day in 365 days, or 0.27 percent. As predicted in the 
DEQ flow calculation guidelines, plotting these three points on log-probability scales 
approximates a straight line (Figure 4-7). 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
>00554 
January 1999 
"G 
O) 
£ 
o H— 
-S 
a. 
Figure 4-7. Flow Probability 
Péa®; week prob » 1.92% t l 
ijui.bi.ijiiij,(ijijj i.iijii.j.j.-i..jjjji.j.j..j i t . I u j i L l l I j I1111.J.1.1..U-
O O O O O Q o O O Ö © O in T-O O O : O 0 0 0 0 O o 10 r;- O O 
Ö Ö O* Oi;: © Ö O «> evi Ö O* Ö Ö 
I** CO 1 0 T f CO CM T -
Probability flow is exceeded, % 
|^akdavftows2Qrntpj 
Peak week flow « f5 mgd 
MMWWF=10mgd 
1 F 
^ 1 t 
Annual avg flow « 5.1 mgd ' I 
,. j. I 
PWWF prob = 0.011%| 
000555 
ij Ii|!lil| 11 I IJlillj !Ill|illljlllljlliljlllljlilijllll|ll 11 jllll j I I I I ]jjll|il |l pjl l l 
* - ---- — s s m n r m K p i ? 
Peak day flow = 20 mgd 
Peak week flow = 15 m< 
Annua! average flow = 5.1 mgd 
_UL11 UiJ. 111J J iJUll^ l.L J jJ J J JLliiJ ! liliuluriluilliHlltl tllui ill J J liti IJ U M M M I M U . I 
<j> m o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o> p p p o p o o p p p o o p p p 
ö» o>oi ojo> oó w> o o o o o o o o o O) 0>0 0> tj> 0> 0> 0> 0C> N <ÖU> CO <M 
o p 
m c\j 
o O - O ' p o p 
*o 
OlO 1-^p 
o o 
p p o d 
o o. 
Probability flow is e x c e e d e d , % 
Figure 4-8. Compa r i son of A c t u a l and Ca lcu la ted Flows 
4-7 
Figure 4-7 can now be used to estimate PWWF and peak week flow. PWWF is defined as the 
peak flow sustained for 1 hour. PWWF has a recurrence probability of 1 hour in 8,760 hours 
<1 year), or 0.011 percent. From Figure 4-7, the current PWWF is about 28 mgd. This 
corresponds well with measured values; the highest instantaneous flow measured between 
January 1991 and December 1996 was 26.5 mgd. 
Peak week flow is estimated in the same manner as PWWF. The peak week flow has a 
recurrence probability of 1 week in 52 weeks (1.92 percent); this corresponds to a flow of about 
15 mgd. 
As a check # the flow estimates, we also analyzed plant flows without consideration of rainfall 
using flow-probability methods. All daily plant flows were sorted and assigned a recurrence 
probability. The actual plant flows are plotted on Figure 4-8 along with the flows estimated 
using DEQ rainfall methods. As shown in the figure, the actual plant flows compare well with 
the calculated flows. 
Current flows for the Grants Pass WRP are summarized in Table 4-4. This table presents 
wastewater flows estimated by both selecting values corresponding to the upper bound of the 
rainfall-flow plots and the values corresponding to the best-fit line on the rainfall-flow plots. The 
only flow conditions where there is a significant difference in these approaches are MMDWF 
and MMWWF. For planning purposes, we selected to use the moreconservative, higher values. 
However, these values may be revisited during predesign and alternate values selected. 
Table 4-4. Current Wastewater Flows 
Description 
Flow, mgd 
Upperbound Best fit 
ADWF 4.5 4.2 
Average annual flow 5.1 4.6 
AWWF 5.7 5.0 
MMDWF 6-7 5.3 
MMWWF 10 8.6 
Peak week flow 15 15 
Peak day flow 20 20 
PWWF 28 28 
Nutrient Loading 
Nitrogen and phosphorus are key nutrients for sustaining a biological treatment system. 
Discharge of high levels of these nutrients can have significant effects on the receiving stream. 
These nutrients enter the treatment process in the raw wastewater and in recycle streams within 
the plant. 
The principal source of phosphorus is sanitary wastes, which include detergents that contain 
phosphorus. Historically, the phosphorus content of the raw wastewater has not been a concern 
to plant operations, and therefore, samples were not taken. A phosphate detergent ban is 
currently in affect. 
Giants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
OOC557 
Influent BOD, mg/L 
co 
w -n 
© 
a. i 
CD 
© 
EL 
CD o 
o 
o 
o 
3 o o 
3 
ÛJ 
Ô 
Jan-91 
Apr-91 
Jul-91 4-
0cl-9l 
Dec-91 4-
Mar-92 
Jun-92 
Sep-92 4-
Dec-92 + 
Mar-93 
Jun-93 t 
Sep-93 
a Dec-93 4 -ri* 9 
Mar-94 4-
Jun-94 
Sep-94 
Dec-94 -f 
Mar-95 
Jun-95 
Sep-95 -f 
Dec-95 
Mar-96 - -
Jun-96 --
Sep-96 - -
Dec-96 • -
en o o o en o 
ro o o 
ro en o 
to w en o 
.b. O o 
• • 
• • • m : 
* 
• • • • 
• • 
• • 
• • • • • n • 
• * • 
0 0 C 5 5 8 
• 
• 
• • 
• * 
• • 
* 
/ 
• 
• • 
• / 
• • 
* • y * 
Y * « * r 
' V • 
n t - • • 
> « i » t 
• i • • 
* H * * * » 
* * * * * 
• A í t ? * 
• 
• 
• • • -
• • • V • A 
• 
• • 
5 3 3 r 
O 
s cvi 
o o o o 
8 o co 
o o o to 
y 96-03Q | 
96-cfeS 
f 96-unp 
96-ivw 
96-oaa 
T S6-d®S 
t S6-unr 
S6-JWJ 
^6-030 
3 
£6-«>a ¿ 
es-unr 
j S6-JBW 
f 26-oea 
26-CÍ9S 
f 36-unp 
T t 6 - P O 
1.6-mr 
1.6-Jdv 
16-uer 
ra c 
'•5 
«J O 
a 
O 
CQ 
OJ 3 
c 
« 
a 
® V. w 
. 05 
o o o 
O O o CM 
pdd ' aoo jusnyuj 
< ^ 0 0 0 5 5 9 
o 
en 
'•5 
ta 
o _i 
Q 
O 
CD 
C <D 
a> C3 CO 
u 
CD > 
- £6-d3S 
-• S6-unp 
< 
§ 
<0 
Q 
-- S6--1PW 
Ó 
O 
-• S6-39Q 
-- 36-ctes 
•• 26-unr 
- • Z6-JBW 
» 
T 
0 
3 
O) 
U-
j i 
y 16-PO 
-- U6-¡nr 
-- (.6-Jdv 
- 1.6-uef 
co tn T co 
Pdd '008 luanuui 86BJ9AB-AB|>-OC 
Vf ^ r o 
O e 
TS CS 
o _l 
Q 
O 
en 
c » 
0 
CS 
<0 © 
> < 
1 
CS 
o 
CM 
( 
<D 
w 3 JD3 
U_ 
pdd 'Q08 iuanuu! aSeiaAe-Äep-z 
0.0 G 5 6 1 
<s> 
C 
_o 
M IM 
c 3) O 
c o 
Ü 
CO 
CO 
- £6-090 § C 03 mm 
- S6-{feS Ç 
86-tinr có 
• S6-JB/.J i 
- Z6-3SQ 0) w ZJ-a> 
- 2 6 - d s s iZ 
- 36-unr 
- 26-JBVS 
- 1-6-230 
- 16-PO 
16-inr 
J 16-UBf 
"l/fiuj 'ssJ. lu9n||U| 
1 t ; c , ' 
Influent TSS, ppd 
—4 —fc 
TI 
CD 
C ® 
J* 
a m 
c ffl 
Z3 
-H 
CO 
CO 
t" o 
S3 
a 
3* 
CO 
0 0 C 5 6 3 
pdd 'ssJL juanyuj a6ejaAe-Äep-oe 
<D 
S6-oaa J 
- 16-uer 
CT 
vj 
CO 
O 
ca 
in 
c o 
3 
© 
CT 
CO 
© 
> < 
I « 
D 
<C 
T © 
3 
O 
O o o o 
o o o o o 
o o o o o o o o o o o « r- io 
o o o T 
O 
Ó o m 
o o o CVI 
o o o 
"1/ßui *ss± l U 3 n U u ! 36eiaAe-Áep-¿ 
m o s e s 
6-13 
Nitrogen in the raw wastewater is primarily in the form of ammonia and organic nitrogen. 
Ammonia typically represents about 60 percent of the total nitrogen load to the plant. Raw 
wastewater ammonia sampling was not required in past years, so historical plant ammonia 
loading data are unavailable. Similarly, nitrate, nitrite, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) levels 
have not been measured. 
The raw wastewater and plant effluent were sampled five times during June 1991 
Table 4-5 summarizes the results of the raw wastewater nutrient sampling. The ammonia-N 
concentration of 11 mg/L is within the range of expected values, while the total phosphorus 
concentration (2.7 mg/L) is somewhat lower than the expected range of 4 to 7 mg/L. The 
limited data allow for rough estimates of plant nutrient loading. Assuming that the data 
represent average conditions, ammonia-N loading is approximated as 328 pounds per day (ppd) 
and total phosphorus loading is about 90 ppd. 
More recently, the plant has started measuring influent and effluent ammonia and nitrate. This 
data, presented in Appendix H, confirms average effluent ammonia concentrations of about 11 
to 12 mg/L. 
BOD and TSS Loads 
For WRPs which provide conventional primary and secondary treatment, two loading factors are 
of principal interest: BOD and TSS 
BOD is a measure of wastewater strength in terms of the quantity of oxygen required for 
biological oxidation of the organic matter contained in the wastewater. The BOD loading 
imposed on a treatment plant influences both the type and degree of treatment that must be 
provided to produce the required effluent quality. Unless otherwise noted, all references to BOD 
in this report are 5-day BOD tests incubated at 20° C. 
TSS is a measure of the quantity of suspended material contained in the wastewater. The 
quantity of TSS removed during treatment influences the sizing of sludge handling and disposal 
processes, as well as the effectiveness of disinfection with ultraviolet light. 
The BOD and TSS loads at a treatment plant affect the following: 
• Secondary process sizing. The design of a secondary process is based on the 
BOD load 
• Aeration system design. The capacity of the aeration system is determined by the 
peak BOD load. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
5 6 6 
Table 4-5. Plant Nutrient Loading 
4-9 
Raw Raw Raw Raw 
Date sample Plant flow. ammonia-N, ammonia-N, nitrite-N, nitrate-N, 
received mgd mg/L ppd mg/L mg/L 
6/13/91 3.8 12.26 389 0.022 0.177 
6/18/91 4.1 11.42 390 0.02 0.25 
6/20/91 4.1 9.52 326 0.01 0.25 
6/26/91 4 11 76 392 0.14 
6/28/91 4 10.75 359 0.012 0.275 
Number 5 5 5 4 5 
Max = 4.1 12.26 392 0.022 0.275 
Min = 3.8 9.52 326 0.01 0.14 
Avg = 4.00 11.14 371 0.02 0.22 
Date sample 
received 
RawTKN, 
mg/L 
Raw total 
phosphorus, 
mg/L1 
Raw total 
phosphorus, 
ppd 
Raw ortho 
phosphorus, 
mg/L1 
Raw ortho 
phosphorus, 
6/13/91 18.36 2.86 91 0.034 1 
6/18/91 11.53 2.69 92 
6/20/91 9.69 2.14 73 0.05 2 
6/26/91 18.48 2.64 88 1.59 53 
6/28/91 18.7 2.93 98 1.73 58 
Number 5 5 5 4 4 
Max = 18.7 2.93 98 1.73 58 
Min = 9.69 2.14 73 0.034 1 
Avg = 15.35 2.65 88 0.85 28 
" Phosphorus data was collected prior to the ban on high phosphorus detergents. 
• Sludge production. BOD and TSS removed by the plant are convened into sludge that 
must be stabilized and disposed. 
• Solids treatment and handling system design. Solids handling facilities, such as digesters 
and thickeners, must be sized to accommodate expected sludge quantities. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
OOC567 
4-10 
This section evaluates current plant BOD and TSS loading. 
BOD and TSS Records. As with plant flows, it is important to identify any limitations or 
irregularities in the historical data. For the Grants Pass BOD and TSS records, it is important 
to note that a new composite influent sampler was installed in August 1993 Measured TSS 
values increased substantially after the installation of the new sampler. 
Monthly Plant Loading* Table 4-6 summarizes influent plant BOD and TSS concentrations and 
loads for January 1991 through December 1996. As discussed above, BOD and TSS values 
reported before September 1993 are not representative of actual plant loading 
For the current sewer service area population of about 25,000, the average BOD load of 
6,000 ppd corresponds to a unit load of 0.24 pounds per capita per day (pcd). This is consistent 
with the textbook value of 0.2 pcd. Dividing the average TSS load of 7,000 ppd by the current 
population results in a unit load of 0.28 pcd—somewhat higher than the textbook value of 
0.2 pcd. 
Peak Plant Loading. Daily influent BOD concentrations and loads are shown in Figures 
4-9 and 4-10, respectively. Figure 4-11 presents the 30-day running average influent BOD load. 
From this plot, the maximum month plant BOD load is estimated at 8,800 ppd. The 7-day 
running average BOD load was used to estimate the peak week BOD of 11,500 ppd 
(Figure 4-12). 
Figures 4-13 through 4-16 are similar plots for influent TSS. From these, the maximum month 
and peak week BOD loads are estimated at 9,500 ppd and 12,000 ppd, respectively. 
PEAKING FACTORS 
A peaking factor is the relationship between current average dry weather flow (ADWF) and 
higher flow conditions. This relationship is characteristic of hydraulic conditions in the system, 
and topographic and 1/1 characteristics. For example, in Table 4-4, data shows that the ADWF 
was 4.5 mgd in 1996, while the PWWF was 28 mgd. From these numbers we calculate a ratio 
of 28/4.5, or a PWWF peaking factor of 6.22. Table 4-7 contains the peaking factors calculated 
from the 1996 data in Table 4-4 for Grants Pass and Harbeck-Fruitdale. Lower peaking factors 
are estimated for Redwood and North Valley, based on newer, tighter sewer construction. 
These factors are also presented in Table 4-7. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
O p C 5 6 8 
4-11 
Table 4-6. Monthly Plant Loading 
Influent wastewater Influent wastewater 
Month Flow, TSS TSS BOD BOD Month Flow, TSS TSS BOD BOD 
mgd mg/L ppd mg/L ppd mgd mg/L ppd mg/L ppd 
Jan-91 4.07 138 4.716 170 5,843 Jan-94 3.82 194 6.158 192 6,063 
Feb-9l 5.03 127 5,293 193 8,002 Feb-94 3.95 169 5.541 142 4,662 
Mar-91 6.14 101 5,027 145 7,686 Mar-94 3.67 158 4.812 176 5.323 
Apr-91 3.97 110 3.616 138 4,483 Apr-94 3.36 194 5,445 184 5.241 
May-9t 3.61 123 3,693 155 4,683 May-94 3.73 216 6,744 200 6,291 
Jun-91 3.95 113 3,716 127 4,196 Jun-94 4.18 193 6.708 194 6.794 
Jul-91 4.11 98 3,361 129 4,484 Jul-94 4.41 163 6.009 140 5,203 
Aug-91 4.05 103 3,498 135 4,802 Aug-94 4.36 199 7,237 204 7,459 
Sep-91 3.82 111 3,517 143 4,496 Sep-94 4.05 184 6.218 162 5,537 
Oct-91 3.20 132 3.491 179 4.662 Oct-94 3.43 210 6,00« 208 5,861 
Nov-91 3.39 123 3.475 146 3,958 Nov-94 4.63 169 6,332 168 6,080 
Dcc-91 3.64 127 3,827 158 4,693 Dec-94 4.65 174 6,699 181 7,069 
Jan-92 3.72 125 3,906 154 4,644 lan-95 8.06 131 7,219 90 5,138 
Feh-92 4.27 114 4,046 138 4,857 Feb-95 5.45 181 7,924 174 7,723 
Mar-92 4.41 103 3,779 130 4,718 Mar-95 6.97 150 7,849 126 7.520 
Apr-92 4.37 115 4.193 152 5.623 Apr-95 5.66 163 7.661 131 6,087 
May-92 4.43 122 4.51« 170 6.452 May-95 4.50 230 8,596 194 7,402 
Jun-92 4.79 109 4,377 121 4.843 Jun-95 4.48 200 7,474 174 6,653 
Jul-92 4.96 120 4,963 144 5.935 Jul-95 4.57 181 6.876 151 5,753 
Aug-92 4.73 117 4,629 170 6,781 Aug-95 4.37 196 7,135 134 4,848 
Sep-92 4.45 128 4,745 159 5,931 Sep-95 3.96 185 6.071 147 4,944 
Oct-92 3.97 149 4,922 178 5.688 Oct-95 3.48 223 6,446 174 5.056 
Nov-92 3.79 124 3.849 165 5.080 Nov-95 3.09 256 6.630 220 5.529 
Dec-92 5.41 98 4,133 124 4,900 Dec-95 6.00 164 7,789 136 6,043 
Jan-93 6.69 91 4,946 117 6,276 J»n-96 8.16 125 8,298 102 6,066 
Fcb-93 6.29 86 4,311 117 5.594 Feb-96 8.36 136 9,216 91 5,947 
Mar-93 5.43 87 3.890 106 4,754 Mar-96 5.44 156 7,089 130 5,696 
Apr-93 5.81 78 3.712 105 4,847 Apr-96 5.07 172 7,148 135 5.464 
May-93 4.47 120 4.481 149 5,703 May-96 4.49 171 6.397 143 5,275 
Jtrn-93 4,33 87 3,152 134 4,808 Jun-96 4.40 215 7.870 178 6,576 
Jul-93 4.79 84 3,211 130 4,916 Jul-96 4.49 219 8,237 173 6,577 
Aug-93 4.92 148 6,085 189 7,749 Aug-96 4.14 183 6.296 179 6,296 
Sep-93 4.61 198 7,636 190 7,373 Sep-96 3.87 158 5,104 153 4,912 
Oct-93 4.24 231 8,126 218 7.818 Oct-96 3.42 168 4,779 165 4,589 
Nov-93 3.32 256 7,131 244 6.719 Nov-96 4.50 153 5.329 165 6,233 
Dcc-93 4.11 207 6,917 201 6.385 Dec-96 11.89 85 8.093 76 6.532 
Maximum 256 9.216 244 7.818 
Minimum 85 4.779 76 4.589 
Average 183 7.000 164 6.000 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
4-12 
Table 4-7. Calculated Wastewater Flow Peaking Factors 
Description Peaking Factor 
GP/F-H Red/NV 
ADWF - -
Average annual flow 1.13 1 13 
AWWF 1.27 1.27 
MMDWF 1.49 1.49 
MMWWF 2.22 2.00 
Peak week flow 3.33 2.60 
Peak day flow 4.44 3.20 
PWWF 6.22 5.00 
WASTEWATER FLOW AND LOAD PROJECTIONS 
Flow and load projections provide a basis for the design of future facilities. Future flows and 
loads reflect expected population growth and any reduction in 1/1 due to improvements in the 
wastewater collection system. 
Wastewater Flows 
Flow to the Grants Pass WRP is expected to increase for three distinct reasons: 
1 Population growth in the existing sewerage service area will generate more flow 
to the plant. 
2, The Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District treatment plant is expected to 
increase flow by about 10 percent to the Grants Pass WRP for treatment by the 
winter of 2000. 
3. The North Valley (Merlin) residential area, which currently depends on on-site 
septic systems, may be sewered in the next few years. This could constitute 
another new source of sanitary flow to the Grants Pass WRP. 
Population Growth in Grants Pass and Harbeck-Fruitdale. The population of Grants Pass 
and Harbeck-Fruitdale will continue to experience steady growth of 1.5 percent and 1.6 percent, 
respectively. Therefore, the 1998 population of 25,101 is predicted to increase to 34,959 by 
year 2020. 
j Redwood District. The Redwood District's population is currently estimated at 4,905 Over 
j the next 20 years, this area is expected to experience a 3.1 percent growth, which will almost 
j double the current population. This growth has put pressure on the District's wastewater 
treatment plant. As houses have been constructed closer and closer to the plant, complaints 
about odors and other concerns have prompted Josephine County's decision to decommission the 
Redwood plant. In the fall of 2000, sewage from the Redwood District will be pumped to the 
Grants Pass WRP for treatment. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised June 2001 
0 0 C 5 7 0 
4-13 
North Valley. Portions of the North Valley area may be sewered in the next 10 years, adding 
its sewage flow to the Grants Pass WRP. Meanwhile, the population of the area will be steadily 
growing. At a 2 percent annual growth rate, the North Valley's 1,200 population is expected 
to grow to 1,900 by the year 2020. At this time it is uncertain how much of the wastewater may 
be conveyed to Grants Pass. 
} Flow Projections. Flow projections are based on existing wastewater flow plus a typical flow 
j per capita assumed for all future connections. These future flow factors in gallons per capita 
j per day (gpcd) are shown in Table 4-8 and were also used in the Redwood Facilities Plan. 
! Although the existing wastewater flow per capita is relatively high, the per capita flow assumed 
| for future connections is typical for newer construction. If new sewer pipes are properly 
\ installed and inspected, these pipes should not allow the amount of I&I flow that the sewers 
j currently experience. Table 4-9 shows the wastewater flow projections for years 2010 and 2020. 
Table 4-8. Future Flow Factors 
Flow Type Contribution (gpcd) 
Average Flow 105 
Maximum Month Dry Weather Flow 100 
(MMDWF) 
Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow 130 
(MMWWF) 
Peak Day 275 
Peak Wet Weather Flow 360 
Summer Average 85 
Winter Average 125 
Table 4-9. Wastewater Flow Projections 
YEAR 
1999 2010 2020 
Calculated 
(tugd) 
Calculated 
(Gal/cap-day) 
Design 
(mgd) 
Design 
(Gal/cap-day) 
Design 
(mgd) 
Design 
(Gal/cap-day) 
Summer, Max 
month 
7.3 173 8 4 160 9.4 150 
Winter, Max month 10.8 256 12.2 233 13.5 216 
Peak Day 21.5 514 24.6 471 27.5 438 
PWWF 30.1 715 34.0 652 37.8 603 
Summer Avg 5.0 120 6.0 113 6.8 109 
Winter Avg 6.4 155 7.80 149 9.1 145 
Annual Avg 5.7 137 6.9 131 8.0 127 
r ^ 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised June 2001 
W 0 5 7 1 
4-14 
To develop the wastewater flow projections presented in Table 4-9, the following process was 
used: 
• Wastewater flows for the Redwood and North Valley service areas were 
calculated using their respective 1997 population data (Table 2-4) multiplied by 
the future flow factors (Table 4-8). 
• Wastewater flows from the Redwood and North Valley service areas were added 
to the current wastewater flows (Table 4-4). The resultant values are presented 
in Table 4-9 as 1999 calculated flows. 
• Future additional wastewater flows from the service population were calculated 
using population growth data (Table 2-4) multiplied by the future flow factors 
(Table 4-8). 
• Future additional wastewater flows were added to the 1999 calculated flows. The 
resultant values are presented in Table 4-9 as 2010 and 2020 design flows. 
Organic and Solids Loading 
| Another important design parameter for wastewater facilities is the load in pounds per day of 
j BOD and TSS. For future connections, wastewater load projections are based on the existing 
wastewater load plus a typical load per capita. A summary of existing and future pollutant load 
estimates is shown in Table 4-10. 
Table 4-10. Organic and Solids Loading 
(pounds per day) 
YEAR 
1999 2010 2020 
Average BOD 7,490 9,400 11,400 
Maximum Monthly BOD 10,985 13,700 16,800 
Average NH3-N 327 390 450 
Maximum Monthly N H r N 636 760 870 
Average TSS 8,564 10,500 12,700 
Maximum Monthly TSS 11,623 14,300 17,300 
Nutrients 
| Ammonia-nitrogen (NH r N) and phosphorous are the two primary nutrients of concern. 
| According to current plant data, the average influent NH3-N is 327 pounds per day (ppd), while 
| the maximum monthly influent NH3-N is 636 ppd. As the population increases, the NH3-N 
| levels will also increase. Table 4-10 has both the current and projected N H r N levels. The 
| future average NH3-N for year 2020 is predicted to be 450 ppd and the maximum monthly is 
\ 870 ppd. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised June 2001 
OC 5 7 2 
CHAPTER 5 
4-11 
WASTEWATER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 
Wastewater and the residuals generated during the treatment of wastewater must be disposed of 
in a way that protects pubiic health and preserves the quality of surface water and groundwater 
resources. The biological, chemical, and physical characteristics of the wastewater and the 
receiving water body are other important factors that can dictate both the degree and type of 
treatment required. 
This chapter presents general design criteria for wastewater treatment and disposal, outlines a 
basis for cost estimating, and economic and nMeeonomie 
comparisons. 
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL CRITERIA 
The two primary disposal criteria are that the public health be protected at all times and that none 
of the current or future beneficial uses of the Rogue River be impaired. Governmental 
regulations concerned with discharge requirements are devised to ensure that the public health 
and beneficial uses areprotected. The nature of the desired beneficial uses has an important 
impact on the strictness of the regulations. 
Regulation of water quality and waste discharges is under the control of the Oregon Department 
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) at the state level and the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) on a national scale. The DEQ has the responsibility for establishing and enforcing 
water quality standards, as well as developing effluent limits for inclusion into National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System permits and water quality certifications. 
DESIGN CRITERIA 
Design flows and loads are presented in Chapter 4. Water quality issues and discharge 
requirements are presented in Chapter 6. The design criteria for the facilities incorporated in the 
alternative plans developed in later chapters are discussed below. 
Design Period 
Selection of the design period is affected by several factors, including population projections, 
future development, and anticipated discharge limitations. A balance between the service life and 
the economic life of the facilities should be reached. Alternative plans for the expansion 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
5-2 
of the wastewater treatment plant are based on providing service for 20 years. Allowing for 
design and construction, initial plant improvements identified in this report would be placed in 
service during the year 2000. Therefore, a 20-year planning period would correspond to year 
2020. 
Wastewater Treatment Plant Design 
While many factors influence the design of wastewater treatment plants, the two most important 
are the required capacity and desired degree of treatment. The plant must have sufficient capacity 
to handle future peak hydraulic flows and organic loads. The degree of treatment necessary is 
governed by the discharge permit requirements. The sections below address other important 
design considerations. 
Flexibility. Flexibility in a wastewater treatment plant implies that portions of unit processes or 
entire unit processes can be bypassed with little effect on effluent quality. Operators should be 
able to take units out of service for maintenance without overloading the units remaining in 
service. Flexibility in design means that future treatment units can be added to the existing units 
with minimum interference in plant operations. 
Reliability. Reliability of unit processes is attained by designing the unit processes with capacity 
to treat peak flows and loads. Pumps and other mechanical equipment are sized conservatively 
to achieve reliability. Redundancy is important to ensure that failure of treatment units or 
mechanical equipment does not seriously affect effluent quality. Unit processes that are less 
complex and more stable are favored over those processes that require significant operator 
attention. 
Automation. Automated process controls are desirable whenever consistent, reliable operation 
is required and a cost saving over manual operation is possible. Complex processes are much 
more Suitable for automation than simple processes, because there is a greater potential for 
reducing operator workload, 
Human Factors. While flexibility, reliability, and automation all contribute greatly to the 
successful operation of a wastewater treatment plant, providing a suitable working environment 
may be even more important- The design of a treatment plant must look at the plant from an 
operational standpoint. Important human factors include convenient access to equipment and 
valves, sufficient lighting, adequate ventilation* proper odor control, noise control, satisfactory 
health and safety arrangements, conveniently located wasKdown areas, and adequate locker and 
shower facilities. Control of the plant should be consolidated in as few locations as possible to 
reduce operator fatigue. Overall plant layout and design of buildings and process units all 
influence the ease of operation of a wastewater treatment plant. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
A ~ r-t-l^ <f 
January 1999 
EVALUATION CRITERIA 
6-6 
The evaluation of alternative plans must consider both economic and noneconomic factors. This 
section describes the process for comparing alternative plans using both economic and 
noneconomic criteria. 
Economic Evaluation 
The economic evaluation is based on a comparison of present worth values for each alternative. 
Present worth is affected by maintenance requirements, energy costs, land purchases, and salvage 
value For this report, the present worth calculations use a discount rate of 8.75 percent and an 
economic life of 20 years. Facilities that have an economic life other than 20 years will incur 
a salvage value. Salyage values are estimated with a straight-line depreciation model. 
CcB^nuctioh costs for each alternative are based on preliminary plant layouts. Cost estimates 
were prepared using construction costs of similar treatment plants, cost curves, and EPA design 
manuals; 
Annual costs are comprised of both fixed and variable expenses. Fixed expenses include interest 
and deprectation. Variable expenses are primarilyoperation and maintenance (O&M) costs. 
O&M costs vary with the amount of wastewater treated and the type of treatment provided, 
O&M costs are based on a labor rate of $30 per hour and electrical costs of $0.05 per kilowatt 
hour. 
Precision of Cost Estimates. The degree to which alternatives are developed influences the 
precision of the cost estimates, • The cost estimates presented in this report are order-of-magnitude 
estimates. Order-of-magnitude estimates are approximate and are obtained with cost-capacity 
curves, scaling factors, and ratios. Order-of-magnitude estimates are expected to be accurate 
within +50 percent to -30 percent. 
Basis for CostsOv^er TQwne. The increased eost of equipment, material, and labor over time will 
have a corresponding effect on the costs presented in this report. The relative cost differential 
between alternative plans, however, should remain valid. 
Costs undergo long-term changes in relation to inflation, interest rates, and the national economy. 
The standard measure of these long-term cost increases is the Engineering News-Record (ENR) 
construction cost index. It is computed- from average costs of labor andsiafêrials and based on 
an ENR index of 100 in 1913. Figure 5-1 shows the increase in the ENR index since 1976. The 
costs in this report are based on an ENR construction cost index of 5839. The ENR cost index 
reached 5850 by the end of 1997 and approached 5950 by the end of 1998. 
Engineering, Administration» and Contingencies. The cost of engineering services for 
wastewater treatment projects includes a predesign study, surveying, a geotechnical investigation, 
preparation of contract drawings and specifications, construction management, start-up services, 
and preparation of operation and maintenance manuals. Engineering costs typically range from 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000 5 7 5 
4-11 
13 to 20 percent of the contract cost. Actual engineering costs depend on the size of the project, 
the complexity of the design, and the extent that existing facilities are remodeled. Engineering 
costs for the Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant project are estimated at 16 percent. 
The City of Grants Pass will incur administrative costs during the construction of any project. 
The administrative activities include planning, budgeting, contract handling and processing, legal 
services, and contacts with regulatory agencies. Administrative costs to the City of Grants Pass 
are estimated to be 4 percent of the contract cost. 
Unforeseen difficulties, such as adverse construction conditions, may tend to increase the final 
construction cost. An allowance of 30 percent is applied to the contract cost to allow for 
contingencies. The total allowance for engineering, administration, and contingencies is 
50 percent of the base construction cost. 
Land Acquisition. Land purchase prices for each alternative were estimated from county tax 
assessor appraisal records or other site-specific information. 
Noneconomic Evaluation 
A comparison of the noneconomic factors is usually somewhat difficult. There is no easy way 
to quantify noneconomic considerations and compare them on an equivalent basis. Noneconomic 
factors include treatment plant performance, environmental issues, and ease of implementation. 
Performance. The overall performance of a treatment plant is determined by many factors, 
including treatment! effectiveness, operability, reliability, flexibility, and energy consumption. 
Any acceptable treatment alternative must produce effluent of the quality required by the 
wastewater discharge permit. Each alternative must have the capacity to treat expected peak 
flows and loads. Ih general, alternatives which are less complex are more desirable. Alternatives 
with lower energy requirements or those that produce energy are preferred. The recommended 
alternative must be easily operable, it should be reliable and have sufficient redundancy so that 
effluent quality is not seriously affected during a system failure. The plant should have enough 
flexibility to adapt to future conditions such as more stringent discharge requirements and 
increased flows and loads. 
Environmental. Environmental criteria include air and water quality, noise, traffic, aesthetics, 
land use compatibility, and reclamation potential. The major air quality concern at wastewater 
treatment plants is odor control. Water quality is governed by the limits set forth in the discharge 
permit. Noise is an issue during both construction and daily operation of equipment. Traffic is 
a concern during construction and can also become a long-term consideration if sludge is hauled 
by truck to distant disposal sites. The aesthetics of a treatment plant are particularly important 
if the plant is visible from residential or recreational areas. Land use compatibility pertains to 
the desire to locate a wastewater treatment plant near industrial or commercial developments and 
away from residential areas. Reclamation potential refers to the ability to use 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
•rK><" 5 7 6 
<D <o o M « o CM t o 
r - r - BO <o » tO ¡O O) en i n en 
o> » a> o CP> O O) Ol Ol o> O) 
T * -*—-
Figure 5-1. ENR Construction Cost Index 
(20-city average) 
0 0 C 5 7 7 
6-6 
sludges as fertilizer on agricultural land and effluent as irrigation water. The reuse of effluent 
for irrigation is particularly attractive in areas that have arid climates or experience frequent water 
shortages. 
Implementation. The ability to implement an alternative is as important as the technical 
evaluation. A plan that cannot be implemented has no value. It is difficult to determine the 
feasibility ofimplementinga plan withanonnal engineering analysis. Political factors influence 
the implementation of an alternative. The recommended plan must be acceptable to the public, 
local governmental agencies, and elected officials. The recommended plan must also be approved 
by local health agencies, the DEQ, and agencies that provide economic assistance. In addition, 
it must be constructable. Construction considerations include the size and complexity of 
structures, the type of soils on site, groundwater levels, and the need to keep existing unit 
processes in operation during construction. The control of liability is a concern during any 
project. The areas of sludge management and effluent reuse require particular attention. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
000 5 7 8 
January 1999 
6-1 
CHAPTER 6 
WASTEWATER TREATMENT CRITERIA 
The City of Grants Pass has long recognized that the Rogue River represents a vital asset for the 
city and surrounding community. The Rogue River provides both an amenity for the local 
residents and, through tourism, a significant contribution to the local economy. Protecting and 
enhancing this resource has always been one of the city's priorities. The community is well 
aware that the river's fish, wildlife habitat, scenic, and recreational opportunities are closely tied 
to water quality. 
This chapter presents a summary of the Rogue River's water quality and identifies the most 
critical water quality aspects. We then set forth anticipated treatment criteria for the Grants Pass 
Water Restoration Plant (WRP). This effluent criteria is designed to protect the river's water 
quality and to secure the benefits that the river offers the community. 
REGULATORY AUTHORITY 
The unique characteristics of the Rogue River were recognized by congress in 1968 in the "Wild 
and Scenic Rivers Act," Public Law 90-542. This legislation designated certain selected rivers 
as possessing outstanding scenic, natural, and recreational values. These rivers would be 
preserved in their free-flowing condition and their water quality protected. The Rogue National 
Wild and Scenic River starts at the mouth of the Applegate River, about 5 miles downstream 
from the Grants Pass WRP It extends about 84 miles downstream to the Lobster Creek Bridge. 
The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service are the designated administrators 
of the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River. In 1972 these agencies published a joint plan for 
the development, operation, and management of the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River.1 
This management plan outlines responsibilities for coordination between the State of Oregon and 
federal and local governments. The responsibility for water quality is addressed as follows: 
"Maintenance of water quality and implementation of water quality standards on the Rogue 
River is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Water 
quality and waste treatment standards for the river were adopted by that Department on July 
24, 1969, and should be instrumental in restoring the river to an unpolluted condition." 
Because of the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ's) administrative responsibility, we 
based the water quality evaluation on the standards set forth in Chapter 340 of the Oregon 
Administrative Rules (OARs). The general policy followed in these rules is one of 
antidegradation of surface waters (OAR 340-41-026). 
T h e purpose of the Antidegradation Policy is to guide decisions that affect water quality 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
- >0C579 
6-6 
such that unnecessary degradation from point and nonpoint sources of pollution is 
prevented, and to protect, maintain, and enhance existing surface water quality to protect 
all existing beneficial uses. The standards and policies set forth in OAR 340-41-120 
through 962 are intended to implement the Antidegradation Policy." 
The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission may designate certain high-quality waterbodies 
in park, wilderness, and scenic areas as Outstanding Resource Waters and impose special 
requirements to protect these waterbodies. Information related to these waterbodies is evaluated 
by the DEQ. If a waterbody is designated as Outstanding Resource Waters, the DEQ is then 
responsible for developing a management plan to preserve the water quality in these areas. 
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION PROCESS 
The DEQ has reviewed water quality data for the Rogue River to assess compliance with 
Oregon's water quality standards. It has been determined that at certain times the river is not in 
compliance with water quality criteria, therefore beneficial uses are not being supported. The 
Rogue River has been listed as water quality limited under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water 
Act. 
The water quality parameters of concern, as indicated on the 303(d) listing, consisted of summer 
temperature and high bacteria levels for the reach including Grants Pass. Downstream from the 
confluence with the Applegate River, listing parameters consisted of pH during all seasons, 
summer temperature, mercury, and bacteria 
Recently, Coho Salmon has been listed as a threatened species. Rogue River water quality must 
support passage, spawning, and rearing for Coho. 
The DEQ has determined that the Rogue River is a high priority concern for implementing 
management strategies to attain compliance with water quality standards. The first step will be 
to develop the total maximum daily load (TMDL) pollutant loading allocation. The TMDL will 
include both point and nonpoint sources. This process is scheduled to start in 1998. The current 
schedule calls for the TMDLs on the tributaries to be completed first The TMDL for the Rogue 
River main stem is not expected to be completed until year 2003. 
Following TMDL allocation, new discharge permit requirements will be established for the Grants 
Pass WRP. A 2- or 3-year implementation period is typically allowed for the plant to be 
upgraded to meet the new permit requirements. 
ROGUE RIVER WATER QUALITY 
Rogue River water quality data were obtained through the DEQ from the STORET database, 
from the USGS Water-Data Reports for Oregon, and from the Grants Pass plant monitoring 
records. Data from six sampling points were used in this analysis: Lobster Creek Bridge (River 
Mile 12), Agness (River Mile 30), Robertson's Bridge (River Mile 86), west of Grants Pass 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000 5 8 0 
6-3 
(River Mile 98), Below Gold Hill (River Mile 117), and Dodge Bridge (River Mile 139). A map 
of the Rogue River showing these locations is presented as Figure 6-1. The period of record used 
for this analysis was determined by the data available and the construction of Lost Creek Dam 
in 1977. The dam has the potential to alter water quality, so records before 1977 are not 
comparable to those after 1977. The period of record used at the station west of Grants Pass was 
1980-1982, since no sampling was performed after 1982. The period of record used for the other 
five sampling points was 1981-1988. 
The WRP contributes a very minor portion of the Rogue River's flow at Grants Pass. Flow 
duration statistics for the 1978-1987 period (published by the USGS in 19902), show that the 
month of lowest flows was October. During this month the flow exceeded 1220 cubic feet per 
second (cfs) 95 percent of the time. In other words, there is only a 5 percent chance of the flow 
being less than 1220 cfs during October. DEQ guidelines recommend considering the 7Q10 flow 
when evaluating the effects of wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges on river water 
quality. The 7Q10 flow is defined as the lowest 7-day average flow that occurs once every 10 
years. For the Rogue River at Grants Pass, the 7Q10 flow is 888 cfs. (The 7Q10 was verified 
by contacting the USGS. Unpublished and provision computer analysis for period of record 
1978-1997 produced a 7Q10 flow at Grants Pass of 895 cfs.) Current average dry weather flow 
(ADWF) from the plant is 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd), or 7 cfs. If this discharge occurred 
during a 7Q10 river flow of 888 cfs, the plant would contribute less than 0.8 percent of the 
river's flow. The projected future ADWF is 8 mgd (12.4 cfs), or 1.4 percent of the river's flow. 
The situations outlined above show that even under worst-case scenarios the plant contributes less 
than 1.5 percent of the Rogue River flow at Grants Pass. This relatively small volume is the 
main reason why the effect of the WRP effluent on Rogue River water quality appears to be so 
limited. 
As required by Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act, the DEQ recently published a list of all 
streams that do not comply with applicable water quality standards. These waterways are referred 
to as water quality limited. The Rogue River is listed as water quality limited for the following 
parameters: 
Fecal coliform year-round 
• Summer dissolved oxygen (DO). 
Summer temperature. 
pH year-round 
Mercury in tissue. 
The temperature listing may require Grants Pass to participate in the development of a 
temperature management plan for the Rogue River basin. It should be noted that the DO listing 
is only for segments of die Rogue well downstream of Grants Pass (from the mouth to the 
confluence with the Illinois River.) 
^ 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
OOC 5 8 1 
6-4 
Water quality listing for pH is due to swings in pH typically caused by excessive algal growth 
or excessive attached periphyton. Growth of algae and periphyton is typically in response to 
excessive nutrients. 
Discussions with DEQ indicate that the Rogue River could be listed as water quality limited for 
other parameters in the future. The water quality parameters of concern include: 
• Flow modification. More data is needed to determine if stream flow alterations are 
a problem. 
• Nutrients. More data is needed to evaluate nutrients and algae growth 
Sediment. More data is needed to evaluate sediment. 
It is unclear at this time if the Rogue River violates the water quality standards for the above 
parameters. 
Biological Criteria 
This rule provides the state with a basic foundation for protecting biological communities 
dependent on water quality. 
Biological Standards. Waters of the state shall be of sufficient quality to support aquatic species 
without detrimental changes in the resident biological communities (OAR 340-41-027). 
Current Rogue River Biological Status. Only scattered and incomplete biological survey 
information exists for die Rogue River. The final rule language does not mention specific 
methods for conducting biological surveys. Draft implementation plans suggest possible methods, 
but final decisions have not been made. 
The other water quality parameters dealt with in this chapter all affect the river's biological 
community. The impact of these other parameters is discussed below. 
Dissolved Oxygen 
Minimum DO concentrations are necessary to protect and enhance aquatic life. Salmonid fish, 
particularly those in the embryonic and larval stages of development, are highly sensitive to low 
levels of DO. 
DO Standards. The DO standards were significantly modified in 1996. Several factors, such 
as the presence of salmonid fish, dictate which portion of the new standard is applicable in a 
given stream segment. For the Rogue River, another important consideration is the life stage of 
the salmonid fish; eggs and fry are highly sensitive to low DO levels. The relevant parts of the 
DO standard for the Rogue River near Grants Pass (OAR 340-41-365 (2)) are: 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
OtK 5 8 2 
January 1999 
U030Q 
3'JPOJ 
5 8 3 
6-5 
* For waterbodies which provide salmonid spawning, during the period from spawning 
to fry emergence, the DO shall not be less than 11 milligrams per liter (mg/L). 
However, if the minimum intergravel dissolved oxygen (IGDO) concentration, 
measured as a spatial median, is 8 mg/L or more, the DO criterion is 9 mg/L. In 
addition, if conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, and temperature preclude 
attainment of the 11 mg/L or 9 mg/L limits, EX) levels shall not be less than 95 
percent of saturation. 
For waterbodies which provide salmonid spawning, during the period from spawning 
to fry emergence, the spatial median IGDO shall not be less than 6 mg/L. 
A spatial median IGDO of 8 mg/L shall be used to identify areas where salmonid 
spawning, egg incubation, and fry emergence may be impaired. 
For water bodies supporting cold-water aquatic life, the DO shall not be less than 8 
mg/L as an absolute minimum. Where conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, 
and temperature preclude attainment of the 8 mg/L limit, DO levels shall not be less 
than 90 percent of saturation. This limit may be modified at the discretion of the 
DEQ to 8 mg/L as a 30-day minimum, 6.5 mg/L as a 7-day minimum, and 6 mg/L 
as an absolute minimum. 
For the Rogue River near Grants Pass, salmonid fish are present year-round; therefore, the river 
supports cold-water aquatic life and must comply with the cold-water DO standard (minimum DO 
concentration of 8 mg/L or 90 percent of saturation) at all times. Steelhead and Coho salmon 
spawn in tributaries to the Rogue River, but not in the main stern, so Steelhead and Coho eggs 
and fry are not present in the main stem of the Rogue River. However, Chinook salmon spawn 
in the main stem—spawning occurs in September. Eggs incubate throughout the winter and fry 
emerge in April. Therefore, the Rogue River must comply with the most stringent DO criteria 
from September through April. 
The IGDO standards were added to the OARs in 1996 in an effort to better protect salmonid 
spawning areas. Because it is a new requirement, very little IGDO information is available. 
With the listing of Coho salmon as an endangered species, DEQ intends to focus their initial 
IGDO sampling work on the Rogue's tributaries, where Coho spawn. Therefore, IGDO sampling 
on the mainstem Rogue River may not occur for several years. Until detailed sampling is 
performed, it will be unclear if the Rogue River complies with the IGDO standards. It should 
be noted that DEQ probably will require that an IGDO survey be completed before approving 
a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) mass discharge increase for a WWTP. 
Current Rogue River Dissolved Oxygen. Average values for the level of DO saturation along 
the river during the summer are shown in Figure 6-2. The shallow, fast-moving river has a large 
capacity for reaeration as indicated by seasonal DO concentrations consistently near saturation. 
Winter values are shown in Figure 6-3 The average levels of DO saturation are above 100 
percent for both the summer (May through October) and winter (November through April) 
months for all sampling points. The sampling station west (downstream) of Grants Pass has the 
highest mean summer and winter DO saturation of the five sampling stations. The average DO 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
S 8 4 
6-6 
of this station was more than 100 percent of saturation during every month of 1980-82, as 
indicated in Figure 6-4. The average monthly DO saturation at the other stations occasionally 
drops below 95 percent. 
The average DO concentrations along the Rogue River are shown in Figure 6-5 for summer 
months and in Figure 6-6 for winter months. In the winter all six stations have mean 
concentrations around 12 mg/L. During the summer, the Grants Pass station (River Mile 98) is 
the only one to average 11 mg/L DO or greater (Table 6-1). The DO concentration at Dodge 
Bridge is almost always above 10.1 mg/L (Figure 6-7), while the minimum DO concentration 
detected west of Grants Pass during 1980 to 1982 was 10.0 mg/L (Figure 6-8). 
The most important factor usually influencing DO concentrations is river temperature. The river 
is supersaturated with DO, and the WRP does not appear to bring DO concentrations below the 
saturation point The importance of temperature is illustrated with a comparison of temperature 
and DO values from the 1970s and 1980s. Table 6-2 shows average summer temperatures and 
DO levels at Dodge Bridge before and after the construction of Lost Creek Dam. Lost Creek 
Dam, built in 1977, provides water storage for the summer months and serves to reduce the 
summer river temperature. The dam decreased temperatures by 2 5 degrees F, which increased 
DO concentrations by 0.5 mg/L. The degree of saturation, however, dropped by 0.7 percent. 
To improve DO concentrations, river temperature must be reduced. 
Effects of Future Discharges on Dissolved Oxygen- The impact of plant effluent on DO was 
estimated using a Streeter-Phelps dissolved oxygen sag model obtained from the Washington 
Department of Ecology. Copies of the spreadsheet output are included as Appendix H. Both 
summer and winter conditions were examined. The summer condition used the 7Q10 river flow 
of 888 cfs, a plant effluent flow of 8 mgd, mass discharge CBOD of 667 pounds per day (ppd), 
and an effluent ammonia concentration of 10 mg/L. To focus only the effect of the plant 
discharge, the background river conditions consisted of saturation level for dissolved oxygen, and 
low values for CBOD and ammonia The model output showed an initial DO depletion of 0.11 
mg/L due to mixing of low DO plant effluent with the river. The critical DO deficit was 0.16 
mg/L. The critical deficit was located about 29 miles downstream. 
The winter condition examined also used die 7Q10 flow. Plant effluent flow was set at 10 mgd, 
mass discharge for CBOD at 2,500 ppd, and effluent ammonia concentration of 10 mg/L, Again, 
to separate out background conditions, the upstream DO was set at saturation, with CBOD and 
ammonia concentrations at low values. In this case, the initial DO depletion due to effluent 
mixing was 0 05 mg/L and the critical DO deficit was 0.22 mg/L. The critical deficit was located 
about 52 miles downstream. 
This model demonstrates that the WRP discharge will have a negligible effect on river DO. The 
DO concentrations are primarily dictated by temperature as it affects oxygen saturation. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000 5 8 5 
Figure 6-2. Summer Dissolved Oxygen Saturation 
a. 9S pwcert Ccrteia Internal (CI) mam taxadMeddaralisai^iuni 
Figure 6-3. Wnter Dissolved Oxygen Saiurafion 
< ^ 0 0 5 8 6 
Lobster Creek 
Agness Grants Pass Dodge Bridge 
60 80 
River MBe 
a. 9S percent Corrfideoce Interval flSJ.) not shown because of Smiled data at this sarrpfing station 
Figure 6-5. Summer Dissolved Oxygen Concentration 
Grants Pass Dodge Bridge 
60 80 
River Mile 
a 35 percent CorfiJence Interval not shown because o( Smied data at the sampfing station 
Figure 6-6, Winter Dissolved Oxygen Concentration 
140 
0 0 C 5 8 7 
Figure 6-7. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at Dodge Bridge 
Figure 6-8. Minimum DO Concentrations at Grants Pass 
0 0C588 
6-7 
Table 6-1. Mean Dissolved Oxygen Values 
DO Saturation % 
River Mile 12 29.7 86 98 117.3 138.4 
Jan 101.0 101.3 100,0 101.8 101.1 98.4 
Feb 107.3 99.9 106.2 108.0 104.6 100.7 
Mar 104.0 101.1 108.6 123.3 108.6 105.4 
Apr 103.0 100.6 106.1 115.5 104.7 102.6 
May 96.0 100.1 114.7 112.5 104.2 104.6 
Jun 101.0 99.8 111.0 109 5 106.1 103.0 
Jul 99.4 99.2 110.1 120.0 104.4 105.6 
Aug 103.6 99.1 112.7 124.0 106.6 109.0 
Sep 93.0 99.6 102.4 118.5 104.0 104.7 
Oct 100.0 98.4 105.3 111-5 104.0 100.6 
Nov 106.7 103.9 101.3 104.5 103.1 93.2 
Dee 99.3 99.0 99.9 103.5 101.8 98.6 
Summer 99.7 99.4 109.4 116.0 104,9 104.6 
Winter 103.6 101.0 103.7 109.4 104.0 99.8 
Annual 101.6 100.2 106.5 112.7 104.4 102.2 
DO Concentration. mg/L 
River Mile 12 29.7 86 98 117.3 138.4 
Jan 12.4 12.6 12.2 12.4 12.5 12.1 
Feb 12.2 12.2 12.6 12.4 12.7 12.5 
Mar 11.6 11.7 12.1 12.8 12.3 12.3 
Apr 10.9 10.6 11.6 11.9 11.5 11.6 
May 10.0 10.5 11,1 10,8 10.7 10.8 
Jun 9.7 9.4 10.5 10.3 10 J 10,8 
Jul 8.7 9.0 9.9 10.6' 9.9 10,5 
Aug 9.4 9.0 10.5 11.2 10.3 10.6 
Sep 9.9 9.8 10.6 11.6 10.7 11.2 
Oct 10.9 10.5 11.3 11.7 11.5 11.5 
Nov 12-4 12.3 11.6 11.9 11.8 11.5 
Dec 11.8 12.1 12.4 12.6 12.6 12.1 
Summer 9.S 9.7 10.6 11.0 10.6 10.9 
Winter It .9 11.9 12.1 12.3 12.2 12.0 
Annual 10.8 10.8 11.4 11.7 11.4 11.5 
r ^ 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
0 0 0 5 8 9 
6-13 
Table 6-2. Effect of Lost Creek Dam on Temperature and DO at Dodge Bridge 
Parameter 1970s1 1980s2 
DO, mg/L 10.4 10.9 
DO, percent saturation 105.4 104.7 
Temperature, degrees F 56.4 53.9 
1 Summer average. 
Temperature 
Water temperature direcdy influences the solubility of dissolved oxygen. Increases in 
temperature result in decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations, which adversely affect aquatic 
life. Young salmonid fish are most susceptible to changes in temperature. 
Temperature Standards. The temperature standard was also updated in 1996. For the Rogue 
River near Grants Pass, the new standard requires that no measurable increase in water 
temperature is allowed if: 
• River temperature exceeds 64 degrees F. 
• River temperature exceeds 55 degrees F during periods of salmonid spawning, egg 
incubation, and fry emergence. 
• The temperature increase would impair the biological integrity of federally listed 
threatened or endangered species. 
• DO levels are within 0.5 mg/L or 10 percent saturation of the water column or 
IGDO criterion. 
However, an exceedanee of the above limits is not considered to be a temperature standard 
violation if it occurs when the air temperature during the warmest 7-day period of the year 
exceeds the 90th percentile of the 7-day average daily maximum air temperature. 
Because the Rogue River is listed as water quality limited for summer temperature, the City of 
Grants Pass, along with other dischargers to the river, may be required to develop and 
implement a temperature management plan. The plan, which will be a part of the next National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, must describe the best management 
practices and control technologies that will be used to reduce the warming trend of the Rogue 
River. The river temperature achieved after all feasible steps have been taken will be the new 
temperature criterion. Once the WRP is in compliance with the temperature management plan, 
it will not be considered as a contributor to Rogue River temperature standard violations. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
5 9 0 
6-13 
Current Rogue River Water Temperature. The temperature of the Rogue River is heavily 
influenced fay Lost Creek Dam, which is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 
The dam's outlet structure allows water to be discharged from four different elevations, 
permitting reasonably accurate temperature control. The Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife (ODFW) provides the COE with a temperature regulation scheme designed to enhance 
anadromous fish management. ODFW has been studying fish runs in the river for more than 
20 years trying to determine how to best operate the dam. ODFW has found that fish survival 
rates are much higher when river temperatures are lowered during spring and fall spawning than 
when they are lowered during the summer. The COE could lower summer river temperatures; 
however, river temperatures during the critical spring and fall months would then increase. We 
compared actual river temperatures to river temperatures requested by ODFW for the years 1987 
through 1991. During the dry weather months, the COE matched the temperatures requested 
by ODFW very precisely. However, during the wet weather season, actual river temperatures 
were 3.6 to 12.6 degrees Fahrenheit above the requested temperatures. 
The average summer (May - October) water temperatures for the five monitoring sites along the 
river are shown in Figure 6-9. The average temperature increases as the water travels 
downstream. The average summer temperature at Dodge Bridge is 53.1 degrees F. The 
temperature increases downstream to 62.5 degrees at Lobster Creek, as shown in Table 6-3. 
Table 6-3. Mean Temperatures 
, Mean river temperature, degrees F 
Station Lobster Robertson's Dodge 
Creek Agness Bridge Grants Pass Gold Hill Bridge 
River mile 12 29.7 S6 98 117.3 138.4 
Jan 44.2 42.5 43.0 42.6 41.1 41,3 
Feb 46 0 44.0 45.2 46.9 43.1 40.7 
Mar 50.8 48.6 50.2 48.5 48.1 45.2 
Apr 57.0 56,0 51.8 53.6 49.6 46.7 
May 57.7 56.5 60.9 56.2 56.0 53.2 
Jun 64.4 64.8 62.8 61.6 58.8 53.8 
Jul 71.9 67.6 63.1 65.2 62-5 58.2 
Aug 68.1 67.6 60.3 64.2 61.3 59.8 
Sep 59.9 61.3 59.0 59.2 55.2 47.6 
Oct 53.2 54.7 53=7 52.9 49.8 45.8 
Nov 48.2 47.9 47.7 46.4 46.3 47.5 
Dec 46,7 45-9 41.9 43.2 41.5 41.1 
Summer" 62.5 62.1 60.0 59.9 57.3 53.1 
Winter* 48.S 47.1 46.6 46.9 45.0 43.7 
Annual 55.7 54.6 53.3 53.4 51.1 48.4 
' The 6-month period May - Octobcr. 
* The 6month period November - April. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
0 0 0 5 9 1 
6-10 
The trend toward increased temperature downstream results from impoundments, discharges 
from wastewater treatment plants, tributary inflows, and irrigation return flows. Exposure to 
direct sunlight also increases water temperature. Plant effluent from the WRP, for instance, is 
typically above 70 degrees F during the summer months. Water from the Applegate River is 
0.5 to 4.0 degrees warmer than that in the Rogue River at Grants Pass. Temperatures in the 
Rogue River increase downstream of these influences. 
In comparing the river temperatures with the new temperature standard, it is necessary to 
distinguish periods of salmonid spawning, egg incubation, and fry emergence. Chinook salmon 
spawn in the mainstem of the Rogue River in September. Their eggs incubate during the winter 
and fry emerge in April Coho salmon and steelhead spawn in tributaries to the Rogue; 
therefore, they are not a factor in determining applicable temperature limits. The Rogue must 
comply with the most stringent temperature limits (those for salmonid spawning, egg incubation, 
and fry emergence—55 degrees F) during September through April. For the remainder of the 
year, the Rogue's temperature must conform to the standards for salmonid fish 
rearing—64 degrees F.A11 sampling stations downstream of Dodge Bridge report periods in 
September through April where the mean river temperature does not comply with the 55 degree 
F standard (Table 6-3). Grants Pass, Agness, and Lobster Creek all report mean river 
temperatures that exceed 64 degrees F in May through August. This comparison shows that 
mean river temperatures often exceed the standards; however, the temperature limits actually 
represent maximum allowable values. Therefore, it is clear that the Rogue River is in violation 
of the new temperature standards. 
Flow in the Rogue River since 1978 has been largely regulated by the Lost Creek Dam and 
mean temperatures have remained relatively constant (Appendix C, Figure 1). Prior to 
completion of the dam, mean temperatures at Grants Pass showed a slow increase from about 
50.5 degrees in 1932 to about 52.5 degrees in 1977 (Appendix C, Figure 2). The dam's greatest 
impact on river temperature, however, has not been on mean temperature, but rather on 
decreasing the peak temperatures. Plotting the average of the ten highest temperatures each year 
from 1932 to 1977 shows an average decrease of nearly 3 degrees F (Appendix C, Figure 3). 
Most of the highest temperatures occurred during July and August. In July 1968, for instance, 
the river temperature reached 78 degrees. The 1980s, on the other hand, have seen mean peaks 
of 69 degrees or less (Appendix C, Figure 4). 
Effects of Future Discharges on River Temperature. Plant effluent and Rogue River 
temperature data are summarized in Appendix H. This data shows that the plant effluent 
temperature ranges from 8 to 17 degrees F warmer than the upstream river temperature. On 
average, the plant effluent is 12.7 degrees F warmer. The projected year 2020 plant ADWF of 
8.0 mgd could increase the average river temperature by about 0.17 degrees F over present 
background temperatures and 7Q10 flows. This temperature change, although technically in 
violation of the water quality standard, is within the practical error tolerance for measuring the 
river temperature. 
The effects of future discharges to the river temperature will be addressed in a Temperature 
Management Plan, to be completed at a later date. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
OC 5 9 2 
Revised Jutta 2001 
Figure 6-9. Summer Temperature 
0 0 C 5 9 3 
4-11 
Turbidity and Suspended Solids 
High levels of turbidity in a water body can adversely affect aquatic life, recreation, and use as 
a domestic water supply. Turbidity and particulate matter affects the ability of fish to locate 
prey, causing a reduction in growth. Turbidity lessens the aesthetic value of a water body, 
making it less desirable for recreational purposes. Turbid waters are more difficult and 
expensive to treat for domestic water uses. 
Turbidity Standards. The current DEQ turbidity standard states that no more than a 10 percent 
cumulative increase in natural stream turbidity (Nephelometric Turbidity Units, NTU) shall be 
allowed, as measured relative to a control point immediately upstream of the turbidity-causing 
activity 
Current Rogue River Turbidity and Suspended Solids. The average turbidity at Dodge 
Bridge is 4.1 NTU This value increases to 5.0 NTU at Gold Hill. The WRP staff collect 
turbidity data for both plant effluent and the river. Plant effluent ranged from 4 to 11 NTU 
whereas monthly average river turbidity ranged from 3 to 137 NTU. Average suspended solids 
concentrations in the Rogue River are also low. Concentrations include 5.1 mg/L at Dodge 
Bridge and 8.4 mg/L at Gold Hill. These values would be still lower except for a few isolated 
storm events which raised suspended solids concentrations for short periods. 
The average 1991 through 1996 suspended solids concentration of the plant effluent is 7.2 mg/L, 
higher than the 2.5 mg/L average value measured by plant personnel in the river upstream from 
the water plant. However, since plant flow averages less than 1 percent of the river flow during 
summer, downstream concentrations only increase 0.07 mg/L, to 2.57 mg/L. During the winter 
the plant flow constitutes an even smaller portion of the river flow, 0.43 percent, and the 
difference between upstream and downstream suspended solids concentrations is less, increasing 
from 10.08 to 10.09 mg/L. 
If the plant discharged at its dry weather permit limit of 20 mg/L during minimum river flow 
when the river suspended solids concentration was at its maximum dry weather value of 
7.0 mg/L, the maximum level of suspended solids after mixing the effluent in the river would 
be less than 7.1 mg/L. 
Effects of Future Discharges on River Suspended Solids. Assuming the Grants Pass WRP 
ADWF increases from 4.5 mgd to 8.0 mgd, the worst-case concentration of suspended solids 
would still be less than 7.2 mg/L. 
pH changes can affect aquatic life and recreation. Although fish are able to handle moderately 
large changes in pH, certain chemicals can be rendered more toxic by changes in pH. 
pH Standards. The current DEQ standard states that pH values shall be between 6-5 and 8.5. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
6-12 
Current Rogue River pH. The pH of the Rogue River fluctuates greatly. Diurnal pH swings 
are typically associated with biological activity associated with algal growth and attached 
periphyton. This effect is amplified when the water has low alkalinity levels. Swings in pH is 
often indicative of excessive algae and periphyton growth due to high nutrient levels. Figure 
6-10 shows that the 95 percent confidence limits for pH during the summer remain between the 
minimum standard of 6.5 and the maximum of 8.5 along the entire length of the Rogue River. 
Winter pH at the most downstream point, Lobster Creek, occasionally falls below 6.5 as shown 
by the 95 percent confidence interval on Figure 6-11. Plant effluent pH generally falls between 
6.4 and 7.5, somewhat lower than that of the river. However, plant effluent alkalinity is three 
to four times that of the river. The additional alkalinity should help to stabilize the pH of the 
river. Under a worst-case scenario, with minimum river and effluent pH during the summer, 
the plant effluent would drop the river pH less than 0.01 percent. 
Effects of Future Discharges on River pH. pH should not be a concern to future water 
quality. In the future, the effluent would still drop the river pH less than 0.01 percent. The 
slighdy acidic effluent is of even less concern when the trend towards increasing pH in the river 
is taken into account (Figures 6-12, 6-13, and 6-14). 
Bacteria 
Pathogenic, or disease-causing, bacteria are deleterious to the beneficial uses of bathing and 
fishing. High levels of pathogenic bacteria can cause gastrointestinal illness in bathers and 
others who come in direct contact with the river water. 
Bacteria Standards. The previous DEQ standard stated that fecal coliform shall not exceed a 
log mean of 200 per 100 milliliters (mL) based on a minimum of five samples in a 30-day 
period. No more than 10 percent of the samples during a 30-day period shall exceed 400 per 
100 mL. 
The newly adopted DEQ standard requires that the 30-day log mean of E. coli, based on a 
minimum of 5 samples, shall not exceed 126 per 100 mL. Single-sample densities shall not 
exceed 406 E. coli per 100 mL. 
Bacteria standards for WWTP effluent are similar to the in-stream limits. However, if the 406 
colonies/100 mL single sample limit is exceeded, then five consecutive resamples shall be taken 
at 4-hour intervals If the log mean of the five resamples is less than 126/100 mL, then the 
single-sample exceedance is not considered a violation. 
To help limit bacteria levels in water bodies, the OARs also restrict the discharge of raw 
sewage. From November 1 through April 30, raw sewage discharges are prohibited except 
during a storm event larger than the one-in-five year, 24-hour storm. From May 1 through 
October 31, raw sewage discharges are prohibited except during a storm event larger than the 
one-in-ten year. 24-hour storm. Cities that have difficulties complying with these requirements 
may apply for exceptions. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
00.. 5 9 5 
River M3e 
Figure 6-10. Summer pH 
Figure 6 - 1 1 . Winter pH 
<^00596 
Ü7Jr 
6.5-
1381 19e2 1963 1964 1985 1966 1967 1963 
Figure 6 -12 . Yea r ly pH a t D o d g e B r i d g e 
1961 1982 1983 1964 1385 1966 1987 1968 
Figure 6 - 1 3 . Yea r ly pH a t GoWhiH 
7.5-
6l5-
95% CJ. 
Mean 
95%C.L 
1982 1S83 1984 1905 1986 1987 
Figure $-14. Yearly pH at Robertson's Bridge 
1988 
< ^ 5 9 7 
6-13 
Because the Rogue River is listed as water quality limited for bacteria, the DEQ can require the 
development and implementation of a bacteria management plan. For the Grants Pass WRP, the 
NPDES permit is considered to be the bacteria management plan. 
Current Rogue River Bacterial Status. The geometric mean of the fecal coliform counts at 
Dodge Bridge is 15 per 100 mL, and the maximum is 240 per 100 mL. Single-sample counts 
occasionally exceed the previous allowable level. The geometric mean of the E. Coli densities 
is 10 per 100 mL, and the maximum is 100 per 100 mL. The Rogue River at Dodge Bridge 
easily meets both die previous fecal coliform and the newly adopted E. Coli monthly average 
standards; however, single-sample standards have been exceeded. 
Fecal coliforms at Gold Hill have a geometric mean of 47 per 100 mL and a maximum of 
460 per 100 mL. The geometric mean of the E. Coli counts is 14 per 100 mL and the 
maximum is 310 per 100 mL. While the geometric means of the fecal coliform and E. Coli 
counts meet previous and newly adopted DEQ standards, the maximum single sample values 
exceed the allowable densities for both indicator organisms. 
The fecal coliform counts for the Grants Pass WRP effluent from 1988 to 1990 have a geometric 
mean of 0.85 per 100 mL and a maximum of 1,000 per 100 mL. This maximum occurred only 
once during the three years; the next highest count was 224 per 100 mL. The plant effluent 
meets the standards for fecal coliforms. Comparing these values with the upstream river fecal 
coliform densities measured by plant personnel shows that the plant effluent actually has a lower 
geometric mean and lower average number of fecal coliforms than does the river. However, 
the maximum of 1,000 per 100 mL is greater than the maximum of 410 per 100 mL found 
upstream. Thus, compared with river samples, the treatment plant effluent shows a lower mean 
but wider variance in fecal coliform concentrations. 
E. Coli have not been routinely measured at the WRP, but we believe that these indicator 
organisms will be present at reasonably low levels. Disinfection capability for E. Coli is very 
similar to fecal coliform. 
Effects of Future Discharges on River Bacteria. Future discharges of bacteria should not be 
a concern, since the plant effluent has lower mean bacteria densities than the Rogue River. 
Toxic Substances 
Toxicity Standards. The DEQ standards state that toxic substances shall not be introduced 
above natural background levels in amounts that may be harmful to public health or aquatic life. 
Levels of toxic substances shall not exceed the criteria established by the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and published in-Quality Criteria for Water (1986). The DEQ may 
allow a mixing zone within which waters shall be free of materials in concentrations that cause 
acute toxicity. Waters outside the boundary of a mixing zone shall be free of materials in 
concentrations that cause chronic toxicity. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
5 9 8 
4-11 
Acute toxicity is defined as lethality to aquatic life as measured by approved bioassay. Lethality 
in 100 percent effluent due to ammonia or chlorine may be allowed when immediate dilution in 
the mixing zone reduces toxicity below acutely toxic levels. The DEQ may, on a case-by-case 
basis, establish a zone of immediate dilution for parameters other than ammonia and chlorine 
if appropriate. 
Current Rogue River Toxics. Over the past ten years, the Rogue River has been sampled for 
heavy metals four times per year. Metals, including cadmium, zinc, and silver, were detected 
at concentrations exceeding the EPA acute toxicity standards on seven occasions. Cadmium was 
measured at 2 micrograms per liter (ug/L) twice—once in 1980 and once in 1989. Silver was 
measured at 4 ug/L in 1984, and at I ug/L in 1987 and 1988. A zinc concentration of 150 ug/L 
occurred in 1982 and one of 58 ug/L occurred in 1984. However, cadmium was below 
detection limits 75 percent of the time and silver was below detection limits 92 percent of the 
time. Toxicity limits were calculated using formulas in EPA's Quality Criteria for Water, 1986. 
These limits are dependent upon water hardness. Because the Rogue River has a relatively low 
water hardness (20 to 40 mg/L), the allowable concentration approaches the detection limit of 
some metals. Since the accuracy of an analytical test is questionable at concentrations near the 
detection limit, and because of a limited amount of available data, it is inconclusive whether a 
heavy-metal toxicity problem exists in the Rogue River. The DEQ current toxicity criteria do 
not include the water hardness dependency on metal toxicity. However, hardness dependent 
criteria will likely be adopted soon. 
The river has also been tested for ammonia. Ammonia toxicity depends on temperature and pH 
as well as ammonia concentration. Both chronic and acute toxicity increase as temperature and 
pH increase. For typical summertime river temperatures (50 to 60 degrees F) and pH levels 
(7.4 to 7.7), acute toxicity corresponds to a total ammonia concentration of about 10.5 to 
12 mg/L. For these same conditions, chronic toxicity corresponds to total ammonia 
concentrations of about 2.0 to 2.2 mg/L. Ammonia concentrations in the Rogue River at all 
three sites are well below the chronic toxicity levels. The ammonia levels at Dodge Bridge 
average 0.025 mg/L, with a maximum value of 0.130 mg/L. The levels are slightly higher at 
Gold Hill, 0.062 mg/L on average and 0.160 mg/L maximum. At Grants Pass, measured values 
are 0.088 mg/L on average and 0.210 mg/L maximum. 
Spreadsheets from the Washington Department of Ecology were used to estimate Water quality 
based discharge permit limits for protection from acute and chronic ammonia toxicity. These 
spreadsheets along with WRP influent and effluent ammonia data are included in Appendix H. 
Dilution factors from the outfall mixing zone study (Appendix A) were applied. The mixing 
available in the zone of immediate dilution is 1.7:1 and at the edge of the mixing zone 10:1 
Both summer and winter conditions were examined. During the summer the waste load 
allocation for the acute (1-hour) condition was estimated at 15.5 mg/L and for the chronic (4-
day) condition 16.2 mg/L. Allowing a 0.6 coefficient of variance for effluent concentration and 
eight effluent samples per month resulted in a daily maximum ammonia permit limit of 15.5 
mg/L. The monthly average ammonia limit was 6.8 mg/L. Under cooler winter conditions the 
waste load allocation for acute toxicity was 16.5 mg/L and for chronic conditions 21.2 mg/L. 
These values corresponded to effluent limits of 16.5 mg/L and 7.3 mg/L for daily maximum and 
monthly average respectively. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
6-15 
Comparing the estimated permit limits to the available WRP effluent ammonia data (presented 
in Appendix H) indicates that the WRP could potentially exceed both the daily maximum and 
monthly average limits during both summer and winter seasons. However, the existing plant 
data consisting of two to eight grab samples per month does not adequately describe the actual 
plant effluent. It is evident that improved dilution would allow for permit conditions that the 
WRP could comply with without the need for nitrification. Additional effluent ammonia data 
should be collected and an outfall diffuser predesign study conducted to determine potential 
mixing available and to establish appropriate ammonia discharge limits. 
Chlorine toxicity is the third class of substances of concern. Since the WRP switched to UV 
disinfection, the plant no longer discharges any chlorine to the Rogue River. 
Effects of Future Discharges on River Toxics. Thorough studies of the mixing zone and the 
plant effluent are needed before future effects can be predicted. However, based on analyses 
at similar plants, only ammonia is expected to be of concern in the future. 
Nuisance Phytoplankton 
Nuisance phytoplankton can diminish the aesthetic value of a water body and also impair fish 
| growth (Welch, 1980). Algae blooms discourage swimming and other recreational activities. 
In extreme cases, algal respiration can deplete DO, harming fish and other aquatic life. 
Typically, nuisance phytoplankton growth is the result of increased nutrient levels in a 
waterbody. The nutrients of concern are phosphorus and nitrogen. Algae require seven times 
as much nitrogen as phosphorus for optimum growth. If the concentration of the two nutrients 
remains above a 7-to-l nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratio, phosphorus is considered die limiting 
nutrient. In other words, more phosphorus must be added before any additional algal growth 
will be seen. If the nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratio drops below 7 to 1, nitrogen becomes the 
limiting nutrient. The existing water quality standards address phytoplankton growth but have 
no provisions for the regulation of nutrient levels. 
Phytoplankton Standards. The current DEQ goal states that average chlorophyll-a values 
should not exceed 15 ug/L in reservoirs, rivers, estuaries, and lakes that do not thermally 
stratify. Chlorophyll-a is a photosynthetic pigment found in algae that is used to estimate the 
concentration of algae in a water body. When allowable chlorophyll-a concentrations are 
exceeded, the DEQ is authorized to conduct studies to describe the present water quality, 
determine impacts on beneficial uses, determine probable causes of the excessive phytoplankton 
growth, and develop a control strategy. If natural conditions are found to be responsible for the 
growth, the allowable chlorophyll-a concentration may be modified. 
Current Rogue River Phytoplankton. Chlorophyll-a concentrations for several stations along 
the Rogue River are shown in Figure 6-15. The highest average summer chlorophyll-a 
concentration is 2.8 ug/L at Lobster Creek. River Mile 12. This value is less than one-fifth of 
the DEQ standard of 15 ug/L. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
0 ( K 6 <jO 
Revised June 2001 
4-11 
Phosphorus is the nutrient that most often limits the growth of algae. Therefore, phosphorus 
removal is typically looked at as the best method of reducing the size of algae blooms. 
Phosphorus levels are expressed in two different ways: total phosphorus and ortho phosphorus. 
Total phosphorus includes all organically and inorganically bound phosphorus, while ortho 
phosphorus is phosphorus bound in simple inorganic phosphates (P04 3) . While total phosphorus 
may be converted to ortho phosphorus in many natural lake and reservoir systems, this process 
is too slow to be a significant factor in most streams (EPA, 1984).1 
Figure 6-16 shows summer ortho phosphorus concentrations for the Rogue River. The highest 
average ortho phosphorus concentration is 0.087 mg/L, occurring at Gold Hill. The average 
summer ortho phosphorus concentration at Grants Pass is 0.069 mg/L. 
The other nutrient of concern, nitrogen, is also contributed by the WRP. The forms of nitrogen 
most readily available to phytoplankton are the inorganic forms: nitrite, nitrate, and ammonia. 
Figure 6-17 shows the average concentrations of inorganic nitrogen occurring during the summer 
along the Rogue River. The highest average, 0.208 mg/L, is found at Grants Pass. 
The inorganic nitrogen-to-ortho phosphorus ratio ranges from 2 to 3 at the Rogue River 
monitoring sites. Nitrogen thus appears to be the limiting nutrient. This is somewhat unusual, 
but not unheard of. Water resources data published by the USGS indicate that the South 
Umpqua River, for instance, has an inorganic nitrogen-to-ortho phosphorus ratio of 3.6.1 If 
nitrogen is limiting, one would expect that blue-green algae might be more numerous than other 
types of phytoplankton because the blue-greens can fix their own nitrogen. Only one analysis 
of algal types on the Rogue has been published. The USGS collected samples In 1980-1981 at 
the Agness station (USGS, 1981).2 They show that during the summer diatoms are the 
dominant phytoplankton, not blue-green algae. 
Figure 6-18 shows the measured and expected chlorophyll-a concentrations at the Rogue River 
sites. The figure, derived from one given in an EPA report (EPA, 1983), clearly shows that 
the nutrient values fall within the nitrogen-limited area, less than a7-to-l nitrogen-to-phosphorus 
ratio. However, the figure also shows that the measured chlorophyll-a values are only a fraction 
of what would be expected. Grants Pass, for instance, would be expected to have average 
chlorophyll-a values of almost 30 ug/L. The observed average is less than 2.5 ug/L. Even the 
maximum chlorophyll-a observed since 1981 at Grants Pass has been only 9.4 ug/L. The other 
sites monitored along the river have similarly low chlorophyll-a maximums during this time 
period. Lobster Creek had 6.3 ug/L, Robertson's Bridge 12.5 ug/L, Gold Hill 10.6 ug/L, and 
Dodge Bridge 8.5 ug/L. Three of the five sites, including Grants Pass, recorded their maxima 
during April. Dodge Bridge chlorophyll-a peaked during May, and Lobster Creek's maximum 
occurred in October. 
USGS. Water Resources Data for Oregon. Volume 2. Western Oregon. Water 
Years 1980-1990. 
USGS OR-80-2. Water Resources Data for Oregon. Volume 2. Western Oregon. 
Water Year 1980. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
Lobster Creek 
Agness 
5 
4.5-
4-
"§> 3.5-
3 
•£ 3-
ffl 
.^2.5H 
JZ 
CL 8 2-O 
JC 
O 1.5-
1-
0.5-
% 
i - i 
Grants 
Robertsons 
Dodge Bridge 
:r I Gold HB i 
I t I 
96% C.I. 
Mean 
95% C J, 
£ lo" 
River MÜe 
a. 95 percent Confidence Intetval (C.L) not shown because of imted date at this sampSng station 
Figure 6-15. Summer Chlorophyll-a 
Lobster Creek 
025H 
'S 
e 
jS Q2r 
t/T 
i ^ 
8 
J E 
CL 
O 0.1-
.c TZ 
O 
0 .05-
tn v* WS i 
H-
95% C.I. 
Oraría Pass Dodge Bodge 
Robertsons | Gold Ha i 
H i t 
20 4 0 100 120 60 80 
River Mile 
a 95 percent Confidence Interval not shown because o< limited data at this sampàng location 
140 
Figure 6-16. Summer Ortho Phosphorus 
0 0 C 6 0 2 
Lobster Creek 
Agness 
0.35-
0.3-
c 0-25-c 
g 0-2-
C 
^ 0.15-o c 
0.1-
0.05-
M W * j 
Hr 
GrartsPass Dodge Bridge 
Robertsons I Goldt9 
95%C.L 
s 
| otdtfiH i 
I I I t 
T-
80 
FSverMHe 
120 140 
a 05 poicent Corfidencc Interval not shcwm because o< faTdcd d.Tta at this sampSng location 
Figure 6-17. Summer Inorganic Nitrogen 
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 
Toted Inorganic Phosphorus (mg/l) 
Figure 6-18. Nutrient Limitation 
Expected 
1 1 Measured 
0 0 C 6 C 3 
4-11 
The iess-than-expected chlorophyll-a concentrations indicate that while nitrogen may be the 
deficient nutrient, some other factor is more important in limiting algal abundance. Some 
preliminary modeling efforts indicate that the limiting factor is the short residence time of the 
algae in the river. It would take the algae four to five days to reproduce enough to use up all 
of the nitrogen present in the river at the upstream stations. By that time, the algae would have 
been swept over 200 miles downstream and out to sea. 
Nutrient uptake by pheriphyton could also explain the low chlorophyll-a concentrations. Since 
pheriphyton are attached to rocks they are not represented by chlorophyll-a sampling data. 
However, we are aware of no data available to demonstrate the extent of pheriphyton growth 
in the Rogue River 
The nutrients present in the river come from a variety of sources. For comparative purposes, 
it was assumed that nutrient concentrations in Grants Pass effluent are similar to those from the 
Medford plant. 
If the concentrations of nutrients in the two effluents are similar, calculations indicate that the 
Grants Pass WRP contributes about 12.5 percent of the phosphorus load present in the river at 
River Mile 98, while the Medford treatment plant is responsible for approximately 39.5 percent 
of the load at this point. A mass balance which considered the Medford plant, Bear Creek, the 
Grants Pass WRP, and natural conditions (phosphorus levels at Dodge Bridge) predicted that the 
annual average total phosphorus concentration below Grants Pass would be 0.092 mg/L; this 
compares to the measured average of 0.122 mg/L. Considering the presence of nonpoint 
sources, these values are in reasonably close agreement. 
Medford plant effluent averages about 10 mg/L ammonia and 10 mg/L nitrate. These 
concentrations indicate that the Grants Pass WRP contributes about 20 percent of the inorganic 
nitrogen load present in the river at RM 98 and the Medford plant about 62.5 percent. A mass 
balance calculation predicted that the annual average nitrogen concentration would be 
0.200 mg/L. This compares to the measured average of 0.208 mg/L. This close fit indicates 
that the mass balance accounts for all the major sources of inorganic nitrogen entering the Rogue 
River. 
Effects of Future Discharges on River Phytoplankton. As plant flow increases, nutrient 
concentrations in the river are likely to increase as well. However, algal concentrations should 
not increase because the residence time appears to be the limiting growth factor. 
Nutrient concentrations since 1981 show some interesting trends (Figures 6-19 to 6-24). 
Average annual ortho phosphorus at Dodge Bridge declined from 1981 to 1984, then rose until 
1988 concentrations were once again similar to those found in 1981. At Gold Hill, ortho 
phosphorus has shown only minor fluctuations since 1981 Ortho phosphorus concentrations at 
Robertson's Bridge, however, have shown a steady increase. They have more than doubled 
since 1981 The trend in nitrogen concentrations is similar. Litde or no upward trend has 
occurred at Dodge Bridge and Gold Hill, while a marked increase has been measured at 
Robertson's Bridge. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
O O C 6 0 4 
6-18 
Inadequate data exist to compare chlorophyll-a trends on a monthly basis, but three of the sites 
have enough data to compare trends based on yearly averages from 1981-1989. As shown in 
Figure 6-25, averages at all three sites, Dodge Bridge, Gold Hill, and Robertson's Bridge, have 
declined since the first year of available data. However, Dodge Bridge and Lobster Creek show 
no clear trend since the first year's decline. Only Gold Hill has shown a relatively consistent 
downward trend, beginning with 5.0 ug/L chlorophyll-a in 1981 decreasing to 1 3 ug/L in 1989. 
Additional Parameters 
Other water quality parameters regulated by the DEQ include liberation of dissolved gases, 
fungi, tastes and odors, sludges and bottom deposits, aesthetics and floating material, 
radioisotopes, concentration of dissolved gases, and total dissolved solids. 
Standards- The current DEQ standards state that the following are not allowed: 
1. The liberation of dissolved gases in sufficient quantities to cause objectionable odors 
or to be deleterious to fish or other uses. 
2. The development of harmful fungi or other growths. 
3. The creation of tastes or odors that affect the potability of drinking water or the 
palatability of fish. 
4. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits harmful to aquatic life, 
public health, recreation, or industry. 
5. Offensive aesthetic conditions, objectionable discoloration, scum, oily sleek, or 
coating of aquatic life with oily films. 
6. Radioisotope concentrations shall not exceed maximum permissible concentrations 
in drinking water, fish, shellfish, wildlife, irrigated crops, livestock, or dairy 
products. 
7. The concentration of total dissolved gas relative to atmospheric pressure shall not 
exceed 110 percent of saturation except when stream flow exceeds the ten-year, 
seven-day average flood. 
8. Total dissolved solids concentrations shall not exceed 500 mg/L. 
Current Rogue River Water Quality. The following are not believed to be problems in the 
Rogue River: 
1 Fungi and other bottom growths. 
2. Undesirable tastes or odors. 
3. Bottom or sludge deposits. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
W C 6 
035-
0.2-
0.15-
acs-
Q5S-
0-2-
c © 
c o an 
0.0& 
95% c.i. Mean 
95% Ci. 
1S61 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1988 
Figure 6-19. Yearly Ortho Phosphorus at Dodge Bridge 
1961 1982 1963 1964 1985 1366 1987 1368 
Figure 6-20. Yearly O r t i » Phosphorus at Gold « 8 
6 0 6 
0L2&-
f °-2H 
c 
0.15-
a aiH 
0.05-
95% CX 
Mean 
95% CJ. 
1962 1983 1964 19e5 1966 1987 13B8 
Figure 6-21. Yearly Ortho Phosphorus at Robertson's Bridge 
95%C.L 
95% C.J. 
1&1 1962 1$63 1984 1985 1966 1387 1S38 
Figure 6-22 Yearly Inorganic Nitrogen at Dodge Bridge 
Figure 6-24. Yearly Inorganic Nitrogen at Robertson's Bridge 
Figure 6-25. Chlorophyll-a Trends 
O O e 6 € 8 
8 -19 
4. Radioisotopes. 
5. The concentration of dissolved gases. 
The concentration of total dissolved solids rarely exceeds 100 mg/L, so the Rogue River does 
not approach the DEQ recommendation of 500 mg/L total dissolved solids. 
Effects of Future Discharges on Water Quality. The following are not expected to create 
problems with Rogue River water quality in the fliture: 
1 Fungi and other growths. 
2. Undesirable tastes and odors. 
3. Bottom or sludge deposits. 
4. Radioisotopes. 
5. Total dissolved solids. 
6. The concentration of dissolved gases. 
TREATMENT CRITERIA 
Minimum treatment requirements for wastewater discharges to the Rogue River are set forth in 
the OAR 340-41-375. The applicability of these requirements depends on a water quality 
evaluation. This section reviews the plant's current discharge permit and the OAR minimum 
treatment requirements and oudines proposed treatment criteria developed to protect the 
receiving stream water quality. 
Current Discharge Permit 
The plant's current discharge permit was issued in October 1992 and expired in 1997. The 
permit renewal is currently in progress. The current permit conditions, summarized in Table 
6-4, are based on the design capacity of the existing treatment plant. The permit in affect may 
be revised when the plant is upgraded or expanded. 
Minimum Treatment Requirements, OAR 340-41-375 
Table 6-5 outlines the minimum treatment requirements set forth in the OAR. These 
requirements indicate that in the future the dry weather monthly average effluent BOD and total 
suspended solids (TSS) will be reduced from the current level of 20 mg/L to 10 mg/L- During 
the wet weather season, when the river's water quality is less sensitive to the plant discharge, 
the treatment criteria call for a minimum of secondary treatment. This means a monthly average 
BOD and TSS concentration of 30 mg/L and a minimum of 85 percent removal. The regulations 
also include the provision that more stringent treatment requirements may be imposed where 
required by special conditions. Maintaining water quality standards and preventing toxicity are 
conditions that often warrant more stringent treatment requirements. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
6 - 2 0 
Table 6-4. Current Discharge Permit Requirements 
Parameter 
Average effluent 
concentrations, mg/L Mass discharge, ppd 
Monthly Weekly Monthly, avg. Weekly, avg. Daily max. 
May 1 — October 31 
BOD 20 30 670 1,000 1.300 
TSS 20 30 670 1.000 1,300 
Fecal coliform 200* 400* b b b 
November 1 — April 30 
BOD 30 45 1.600 2,400 3,200 
TSS 1 30 45 1,600 
2,400 3,200 
Fecal coliform 200* 4001 b b b 
Other parameters: 
1 pH — 6.0 - 9.0. 
2. Average dry weather flow — 4.0 mgd.' Average wet weather flow — 6.4 mgd. 
3. The mixing zone shall not exceed the portion of the Rogue River from 10 feet upstream to 300 feet downstream of 
the point of discharge. 
1 Number per 100 mL 
v Not applicable. 
c The ADWF may be exceeded as long as the effluent conditions are not violated. 
Table 6-5. Minimum Treatment Requirements 
Parameter Requirement 
BOD and TSS 
Effluent dilution 
Disinfection 
May 1 - October 31: monthly average not to exceed 10 mg/L unless more stringent 
limits required by waste load allocations in accordance with TMDL. 
November I - April 30: minimum secondary treatment or equivalent control and 
operation of waste treatment facilities at maximum practicable efficicncy.* 
Effluent BOD divided by the dilution factor1" must not exceed 1. 
Equivalent to a chlorine residual of 1 mg/L after 60 minutes contact. 
* Monthly average 85 percent removal for BOD and TSS. 
b Dilution factor is receiving stream flow divided by plant effluent flow. 
Anticipated Future Treatment Criteria 
This section outlines proposed treatment criteria applicable for the planning year 2020. The 
anticipated treatment criteria are intended to protect the Rogue River's water quality by 
maintaining compliance with the water quality standards outlined in OAR 340-41-375 The 
criteria presented below outline the basis for an increase in wet weather mass discharge limits 
for BOD and SS. In all instances, the anticipated future criteria are more stringent than the 
minimum treatment requirements. 
Grants Pass Faci lides Plan 
0 0 0 6 1 0 
January 1999 
8-611 
Future Criteria: BOD and TSS. The DEQ's antidegradation policy for water quality is 
founded on OAR 340-41-026. This article states that high-quality waters shall be maintained 
and protected, and it is the policy of the Environmental Quality Commission that, unless 
otherwise approved, growth and development be accommodated by increased efficiency and 
effectiveness of waste treatment. 
During the dry weather season, the plant effluent BOD and TSS should meet the monthly 
average concentration required by OAR 340-41-375 and the mass discharge limitations listed in 
the 1992 discharge permit. These criteria call for a monthly average effluent BOD and TSS 
concentration of 10 mg/L and a mass discharge of 670 ppd. The anticipated treatment criteria, 
outlined in Table 6-6, show that the plant would be designed to achieve a monthly average BOD 
and TSS of 10 mg/L and, to meet the mass discharge limit, a weekly maximum level of less than 
15 mg/L. 
Table 6-6. Anticipated Year 2020 BOD and TSS Treatment Requirements 
Condition Row, mgd 
Effluent concentration, mg/L Mass discharge, ppd 
Percent 
removal 
monthly, 
PPd' Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily 
Permit 
May-Oct 8 10 15 - 670 1,000 1,300 
Nov-Apr 10 30 45 „ 2,500* 3,750 5,000 
Treatment criteria 
May-Oct 
ADWF 8 10* - - 670 1,800 
Max. month 11 T - - 670 1,800 
Nov-Apr 
AWWF 10 22* - - 2,500 1,800 
Max. month 16 13* - - 2,500 1,800 
Max. week 24 19* - 3,750 
Max. day 32 - - - 19s 5,000 
• Computed al AWWF of 10 mgd and effluent concentration of 30 mg/L. 
" Percent removal equivalent to current permit mass discharge limit. Computed on the basis of 85 percent 
removal of average BOD load: 12,100 ppd. 
c Concentration limited by mass discharge. 
4 Concentration limited by percent removal requirement 
During the wet weather season, when river flow is high and the water quality is least sensitive 
to the plant discharge, the proposed treatment criteria focus on protecting the river's water 
quality. Our analysis of the water quality data shows that the current plant discharge has 
virtually no effect on the dissolved oxygen levels of the Rogue River. As discussed previously, 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000644 
8 -22 
the Streeter-Phelps oxygen sag model demonstrated that an 7Q10 flow of 888 cfs, a mass 
discharge of 670 ppd BOD would depress the DO about 0.16 mg/L. During wet weather, when 
the stream flows are two to three times greater, the effect of the plant discharge on dissolved 
oxygen would not be measurable. Furthermore, during wet weather the river's dissolved oxygen 
levels always greatly exceed water quality standards. 
Since the river dissolved oxygen levels are at their highest during wet weather and the plant 
discharge has no measurable effect on dissolved oxygen levels, it is appropriate that the 
treatment criteria be based on the secondary treatment requirements set forth in OAR 340-41-
375. The Clean Water Act defines secondary treatment requirements as a monthly average 
concentration for BOD and TSS of 30 mg/L and a weekly average concentration of 45 mg/L. 
The current discharge permit contains these secondary treatment limits for the wet weather 
season. 
The wet weather mass discharge limits in the current discharge permit (Table 6-4) were 
established, in accordance with OAR 340-41-120, on the basis of the plant's average wet weather 
flow (AWWF) and an effluent BOD and suspended solids (SS) concentration of 30 mg/L. OAR 
340-41-120 states that for new or expanded treatment facilities receiving approval after June 30, 
1992, the mass load limits shall be based on the facility capabilities and the highest and best 
practicable treatment to minimize the discharge of pollutants. 
The wet weather treatment criteria outlined in Table 6-6 are limited by both the allowable mass 
discharge limit and the allowable percent removal for BOD and SS. The wet weather mass 
discharge limit presented in Table 6-6 is computed, in the same manner as the current permit, 
on basis of the plant's design AWWF and an effluent concentration of 30 mg/L. 
However, due to the high wastewater flows during wet weather, the plant's required monthly 
average performance is actually dictated by the minimum percent removal requirement for BOD 
and SS. The current permit is based on meeting 85 percent removal. At the year 2020 average 
BOD and SS load, 12,100 ppd and 14,100 ppd, respectively, 85 percent removal would 
correspond to a BOD limit of 1,815 ppd and SS limit of 2,115 ppd. Using the (lower) BOD 
limit to set plant performance, during the maximum month flow of 16 mgd, 85 percent removal 
would correspond to an effluent concentration of 13 mg/L BOD. 
Table 6-6 also summarizes the plant's required performance at more extreme flow conditions. 
At maximum week flow the mass discharge limit corresponds to an effluent concentration of 
19 mg/L. At maximum day flow the mass discharge limit also corresponds to an effluent 
concentration of 19 mg/L. 
The proposed wet weather mass discharge limits exceed those listed in the current permit. OAR 
340-41-026 allow for increases in the mass discharge providing that: 
(A) No other reasonable alternatives exist except to lower water quality; 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
O O C 6 1 2 
6-23 
(B) The action is necessary and justifiable for economic or social development benefits 
and outweighs the environmental costs of lowered water quality; 
(C) All water quality standards will be met and beneficial uses protected. 
The Rogue River is classified by the DEQ as water quality limited for temperature and pH. 
However, during the wet weather season, the dissolved oxygen levels always exceed the water 
quality standards. An increase in BOD mass discharge would have virtually no effect on wet 
weather dissolved oxygen levels, water quality standards, or beneficial uses. Furthermore, the 
current mass discharge levels were not established on the basis of water quality protection, but 
rather on the basis of available treatment technology and wastewater flow. Therefore, to 
accommodate future wastewater flows while protecting water quality, a reasonable increase in 
the wet weather BOD mass discharge is warranted. 
Future Criteria: Nutrients. Currently there is no nutrient limitation imposed in either the 
Grants Pass wastewater treatment plant or any other plant discharging to the Rogue River. The 
purpose of controlling nutrient levels is to prevent the growth of nuisance phytoplankton. The 
water quality standards have established an average of 15 ug/L of chlorophyll-a as an indication 
of excessive algae growth, Chlorophyll-a levels in the Rogue River are well below the water 
quality standard. Our analysis of the water quality data clearly shows that nowhere on the river 
have the average chlorophyll-a levels exceeded 3 ug/L. On only a few isolated days have levels 
been reported that even approach the standard. Also, the data collected since 1981 show no 
clear trend of increasing chlorophyll-a concentrations. Therefore, since the river is 
accommodating the current nutrient load without creating nuisance algal growth, there is no need 
to impose treatment requirements intended to reduce nutrient levels. 
Further examination of the water quality data indicate that the chlorophyll-a levels are actually 
lower than one would expect for the reported nutrient concentrations. This indicates that algal 
growth may be limited by factors other than nutrient concentration. One example could be that 
the short travel time to the river mouth limits the opportunity for algae to grow. On the basis 
of the existing water quality data, we cannot define the relationship between nutrient levels and 
algae growth in the Rogue River. A detailed comprehensive river study would be necessary to 
identify what factors actually limit algae growth and to determine what nutrient levels the river 
can assimilate without detrimental water quality effects. 
Recognizing that the Grants Pass wastewater treatment plant is a major contributor of nitrogen 
and phosphorus to the Rogue River and that it is essential to protect the river's water quality, 
we propose that facilities planning be based on the following approach, 
I No specific nitrogen or phosphorus discharge limits should be imposed for the 
planning period. 
2. Future discharge permits should require that the plant report effluent nitrogen and 
phosphorus concentrations. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
OOC613 
8 - 2 4 
3 Algae levels in the river should be closely monitored for any trend for increasing 
chlorophyll-a levels. A detailed river study and modeling effort should be 
conducted to define the acceptable nutrient load to the river. 
4. The recommended upgrade and expansion plan should anticipate that nitrogen and 
phosphorus removal may be added in the future if further studies indicate that they 
are necessary. 
5. Because the river does not currently approach the chlorophyll-a action limit, the 
plant's current nutrient discharge level should be taken as an acceptable minimum 
discharge level. 
Future Criteria: Toxicity. Residual chlorine and ammonia are constituents that have clearly 
identified toxicity levels. Recent plant modifications have replaced chlorination with UV 
disinfection, eliminating chlorine toxicity in the WRP effluent. 
Ammonia toxicity will also be regulated. However, the city has three options for complying 
with ammonia toxicity standards. Operation of the WRP could be modified to perform 
nitrification, converting ammonia residuals into nitrates. Alternatively, a new outfall could be 
constructed to improve mixing and reduce ammonia concentrations within the mixing zone. 
Or, the city could implement an effluent reuse program, eliminating effluent discharge during 
the summer (see Chapter 7). 
Future Criteria: Disinfection, A new DEQ restriction4 will limit the concentration of E. coli 
bacteria in WRP effluent. The new limit is expected to be a 30-day log mean of 126 organisms 
per 100 mL sample averaged over 5 samples, with no single sample exceeding 406 organisms 
per 100 mL. Very limited data taken in January, February, and March of 1997, immediately 
after the new UY disinfection equipment came on-line is insufficient to determine whether this 
limit is being met. 
Future Criteria: Temperature. The previous water quality analysis illustrated the significant 
effect that river temperature has on the river's dissolved oxygen concentration. Since the river 
temperature routinely exceeds 58 degrees F during warm weather, it is clear that the wastewater 
treatment plant discharge will exceed the water quality standard for temperature rise. Rather 
than imposing a plant effluent temperature standard, we propose that the facility plan address 
the temperature issue by considering alternatives to effluent discharge during warm weather (see 
Chapter 7 on reuse) and by investigating measures that would mitigate the temperature rise, or 
the installation of a new diffiiser to reduce WRP effluent temperature effects. A Surface Water 
Temperature Management Plan, as outlined in a recent DEQ guidance document, may be 
necessary in the future-
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
0 0 C 6 1 4 
January 1999 
6-25 
References 
1 CFR Vol. 37, No. 131. 
2. 1990. Moffat, R.L., et al. Statistical Summaries of StreamflowData in Oregon: Volume 
1-Monthly and Annual Streamflow, and Flow-Duration Values. USGS Open-File Report 
90-118. Portland, Oregon. 
3. EPA-440/4-84-021. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations. 
Book II: Streams and Rivers. Chapter 2: Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts. 
4. August 1996, Bacteria Implementation Guidance for Point Source Discharges, Oregon 
DEQ. 
5. August 1996, Temperature Implementation Guidance for Point Source Discharges, Oregon, 
DEQ. 
6. 1980. Welch, E.B. Ecological Affects of Wastewater. Cambridge University Press, New 
York. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan Revised June 2001 
7-1 
C H A i ï E R 7 
FEASIBILITY FOR EFFLUENT REUSE 
Reclaimed water (treated effluent) from the Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant (WRP) can be 
used beneficially instead of being discharged Low river levels coinciding with the period of 
peak crop water use make irrigation a potentially feasible alternative for the City of Grants Pass 
and local agricultural water users. Reclaimed water can irrigate agricultural land, parks, highway 
landscaping, and golf courses. It can be used to grow wood fiber for fuel, pulp, or lumber. 
Other potential uses include increased flow to wetlands and storage in reservoirs or other 
impoundments. 
An extra incentive to "get out of the river" during the summer months is provided by concerns 
over meeting temperature requirements, potential future nutrient limitations, and listing of certain 
fish species as endangered. Reclaimed WRP effluent can also be viewed as a valuable resource 
which could help bridge a gap created by the planned removal of the Savage Rapids Dam. Dam 
removal has sparked a controversy about the availability of irrigation water, and new costs 
associated with pumping irrigation water from the Rogue River. 
This chapter evaluates quality criteria, legal restrictions, and options available for beneficial use 
of reclaimed water during the summer months. The scale of operations in terms of present and 
future land and storage needs is explored, and land suitable for such irrigation is identified. 
REGULATIONS GOVERNING EFFLUENT REUSE 
Oregon law permits beneficial reuse of effluent from wastewater treatment facilities (Oregon 
Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 55—OAR 340-55). These rules are administered 
through the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and are designed primarily to protect 
public health by minimizing risks of infection and disease transmission. There are also 
safeguards to protect surface water and groundwater resources. 
The quality of plant effluent intended for irrigation depends on chemical and biological 
characteristics. Reclaimed water quality is divided into four levels according to treatment, total 
coliform, and turbidity. The levels are defined as follows: 
* Level I reclaimed water, undergoing only biological treatment, has no limits on total 
coliform or turbidity. No sampling is required for quality monitoring. 
Level Ft reclaimed water must undergo biological treatment and disinfection. Limits 
must be met for total coliform bacteria count but not turbidity. Samples must be 
collected once a week for coliform monitoring. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
()OC 6 1 6 
8-617 
Level III reclaimed water must receive the same treatment processes as Level II, but 
it has stricter coliform limits. Samples must be collected three times a week to 
monitor coliform bacteria 
*• Level IV reclaimed water must receive biological treatment, disinfection, clarification, 
coagulation and filtration to meet strict turbidity as well as coliform limits, Coliform 
samples most fee e j e c t e d once a day, .»«1 hourly turbidity readings are required. 
Production ami use of reclaimed water are alternatives for the WRP. These 
wat^ quality levels ^ ( W Yarioi«<K ti$- Although more expensive because of the stricter 
treatment requirements and quality control, Level IV water is the most desirable for reclaimed 
wateruse, Table 7« J outlines the specific treatment and monitoring requirements and reuse 
restrictions for 
Table f u l . Treatment and Monitoring Requirements for Use of Reclaimed Water 
Category Level 1 Level II Level III Level IV 
Biological treatment X ' X X X 
Disinfection X X X 
Clarification X 
Coagulation X 
Filtratioa X 
Total coliform. organisms/100 mL — 
Two consecutive samples — 240 — — 
7-day median — 25 2.2 2.2 
Maximum — N/L 23 23 
Sampling frequency _ i per week .3 p«r wpek - 1 per day 
Turbidity , NTU 
24-hour mean — - — 2 
5 percent of dine during a 
24-hour period 
— • — 5 
Sampling frequency — — — hourly 
Public acccss Prevented (fences 
gates, locks) 
Controlled (signs, 
rural or nonpublic 
lands) 
Controlled (sigas, 
rural or nonpublic 
lands) 
No direct public 
contact daring 
irrigation cycle 
Buffers for irrigation Surface: 10 ft 
Spray; site specific 
Surface: 10 ft 
Spray: 70 ft 
10 ft None required 
Source; OAR 340-55-015, Table 1. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000644 
6-13 
Level II reclaimed water is suitable for irrigating pasture, alfalfa, and silage corn as long as no 
irrigation is done in the 3 days before harvest, and no animals are in the field during irrigation. 
Crops consumed directly cannot be irrigated with Level II reclaimed water. Surface (furrow or 
flood) irrigation of processed food crops and orchards is allowed providing that the edible 
portion of the crop does not touch the ground, and fruit or nuts are not harvested off the ground. 
Irrigation of golf courses without contiguous residences is allowed as long as warning signs are 
posted, and irrigation water is kept at least 100 feet from food preparation or serving areas and 
drinking fountains. The same restrictions apply to highway medians, cemeteries, and areas with 
limited public access. Irrigation of parks, schoolyards, and golf courses with houses nearby is 
prohibited. A buffer of 70 feet is required between land irrigated with Level U water and other 
fields or property. Impoundments of Level II water are limited to "landscape impoundments," 
which do not allow such activities as boating, fishing, or body-contact recreation. Storage 
lagoons for Level II water would have to be well-secured to prevent unauthorized public access. 
The same crop restrictions and beneficial reuse requirements apply to Level III water with the 
following exceptions: 1) buffer distances are reduced to 10 feet for all types of irrigation; 2) 
fewer liability concerns would be associated with a storage facility containing Level III reclaimed 
water; and 3) impoundments of Level ID reclaimed water may be used for boating, fishing, and 
other nonbody-contact recreational activities [OAR-340-55-G10 (171)]. 
There are few restrictions on the use of Level IV reclaimed water. AH types of crops may be 
irrigated with no restriction on method. Golf courses, schoolyards, and parks also may be 
irrigated. Reclaimed water is restricted from food preparation areas and drinking fountains. 
Signs must be posted in public-access areas to inform the public of the reclaimed water use. In 
addition, impoundments or storage facilities containing Level IV water can be used for 
recreational purposes, including those involving body contact with the water. 
Buffer zones imposed around fields irrigated with Level II water make it the least adaptable 
alternative for effluent reuse. Level IV water is the most flexible and expensive to produce. 
Level III reclaimed water is of similar quality but less expensive to produce than Level IV 
water, and would involve only minor modifications to the WRP facilities which already produce 
Level II water. Short buffer distances and fewer liabilities regarding public access of storage 
impoundments make Level III water the most viable option for reclaimed water use. 
GRANTS PASS EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS 
Current average dry weather flow (ADWF) is 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd) By the year 
2020, the ADWF is expected to reach 8.0 mgd (see Chapter 4). These flow rates, equivalent 
to 13.8 and 24.5 acre-feet per day for the years 1996 and 2020, respectively, have been used 
to estimate the amount of reclaimed water that will be available for beneficial use. 
Twenty-four-hour composite samples of plant effluent were collected on June 13, 18, 20, 26, 
and 28 in 1991 and analyzed by Neilson Research Corporation in Medford, Oregon. The test 
results are given in Table 7-2. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
0 C 6 1 8 
January 1999 
8-14 
Table 7-2. Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant Effluent Analysis 
Test Units 
Sample dates 
Pounds/ 
acre-foot 6 / a m m a m 6/20/91 : 6/26/91 6/28/91 Mean 
Total KjeWahl nitrogen mg/L 12.38 U-37 9,52 13.50 12.21 11.80 32 
NHrnitrogen mg/L 11.26 It.26 9.35 11.76 10.75 10.88 29 
NOrniirogen mg/L 0.09 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 011 0.05 0 
NOj-nitrogcn mg/L 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 0.05 0 
Total phosphorus mg/L 2.40 2.11 1.49 2.93 2.84 2.35 6 
Turbidity NTH 2»0 2.9 4.6 2.6 3.4 3.1 _ 
Na mg/L 39.33 40.20 37.40 39.30 36.36 38.52 104 
K mg/L 6.43 6.97 6.55 6.88 7.12 6.79 18 
Cft mg/L 2.55 2.70 2.56 2.79 1-94 2.51 6 
Mg mg/L 9.11 8,62 8.62 9.39 8.10 8.77 23 
Electrical conductivity mho/em 380 390 375 370 390 381 — 
Sodiam adsorption ratio 2.57 2.68 2.50 2-52 2.54 2.56 — 
BOD-5 day (uninhib) mg/L 38.61 27,18 26.07 28.38 25.43 29.13 79 
Total coliform org/100 mL 17 130 540 920 240 192 — 
Fecal colifonn org/100 mL — • 2 . 'M 33 33 — 
Lowspecific conductivity (381 /tho/cm) and sodium adsorption ratio (2.56) are two reasons why 
the effluent is an excellent irrigation water. Due to low salts or sodium, this effluent should 
have little long-term detrimental effect on soil productivity. The nitrate level (NO rN) is very 
low at 0.05 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Total K j e l d ^ nitisgea is 11JO mg/L, with 92 percent 
in the ammonia form. Respective loading rates of nitrogen and phosphorus at 32 2 Mid 
6.4 pounds per acre-foot of reclaimed water would not limit application to most crops. 
Biochemical oxygen demand of 29 mg/L should not result in odor problems during storage and 
would not limit use as irrigation water. The total coliform data shown do not allow a complete 
comparison with regulatory standards. However, it is likely that some improvements in 
treatment would be needed to meet the requirements for Level II or III effluent routinely. Major 
additional treatment costs would be required to meet the requirements of Level IV treatment. 
AGRICULTURAL CONSTRAINTS 
Use of treated effluent for irrigation is a proven technology with clear benefits for water 
resources conservation. Still, there are several issues that must be addressed regarding the 
feasibility of effluent reuse in the Grants Pass area. These include the suitability of soils and 
topography in the area, local climate, current agricultural practices, and need for supplemental 
irrigation water. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
>} 6 1 9 
8-620 
Climate 
Chapter 2 studies the climate in the Grants Pass area. Growing season conditions, which 
influence crop water use, are a concern in reclaimed water irrigation. Peak crop water use 
occurs during June, July, and August when crops are actively growing and temperatures are the 
hottest. Warm, dry weather prevails from May through September; the mean maximum daily 
temperatures during those months are 65.1, 70.8, 75.5, 76.5, and 69.2 degrees F, respectively. 
Eleven percent of the average annual rainfall occurs during these months, with June, July, and 
August accounting for only four percent of the average. Early in the growing season, 
precipitation and water stored by the soil can meet crop water needs. Later in the season, 
supplemental irrigation water is needed for optimum production. 
Soils 
In general, the soil resources of the Grants Pass area are well-suited for agriculture in areas 
where slope and soil depth are not limiting (Borine, 1984). The chemical nature of most soils 
in agricultural areas is good, and the primary constraint on productivity is the lack of growing 
season water supply. Therefore, this assessment focuses on the water supply, management, and 
soil properties that affect irrigation. 
Once it has been released for beneficial use, discharge of reclaimed water into surface waters 
is prohibited under OAR 340-55-015. Runoff of irrigated reclaimed water must be prevented. 
Runoff control strongly depends on management practices. Slope, soil permeability (the ability 
of the soil to absorb water), and soil drainage are important factors in evaluating land for 
irrigation with reclaimed water. Potential for runoff increases with slope and decreases with soil 
permeability. Level land with rapidly permeable soils has little potential for irrigation water 
runoff. Soil drainage refers to the amount of time a soil remains saturated with water. Poorly 
drained soils tend to pond water and remain saturated, thus increasing the likelihood of runoff. 
Moderately well-drained soils yield maximum crop productivity, hence maximum crop water 
use. Higher crop water use, in turn, reduces the acreage required for reclaimed water use. 
Figure 7-1 is an overview of the soil resources of the Grants Pass area. Agricultural soils 
suitable for reclaimed water irrigation are located in the narrow river valleys of the Rogue River 
and its tributaries, the Applegate River and Jumpoff Joe Creek. For the most part, the local 
agricultural soils are moderately coarse- to medium-textured and moderately well- and well-
drained, with adequate permeability. The dominant soils are Newberg fine sandy loam, Camas 
gravelly sandy loam, Evans loam with smaller amounts of Kerby loam, Central Point sandy loam 
soils and Takilma cobbly loam (Figure 7-1, map units 1 and 2). These soils are deep, well- to 
excessively well-drained, and possess moderately rapid to rapid permeability on 0 to 2 percent 
slopes. They are well-suited for irrigation. 
West of the Grants Pass urban growth boundary (UGB), the floodplain soils are predominantly 
Newberg fine sandy loam soils. Small areas of Camas gravelly sandy loam and Wapato silty 
clay loam are scattered in isolated high and low areas, respectively. At the confluence of the 
Rogue and Applegate rivers is a parcel with large fields of irrigated pasture. The soils are 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000644 
I ' r r | 
JAN FES MAR APR 
-m*. r 
JUN JUL OCT NOV DEC 
FIGURE 7-2 
MONTHLY CROP WATER USE 
GRANTS PASS WATER RESTORATION 
PLANT FACILITIES PLAN 
Grants Pass, Oregon 
September 1991 
CASCADE EARTH SOBiCES, Ud. 
FN 9120524 
621 
7-6 
Newberg sandy loam and Camas gravelly sandy loam adjacent to the riverbanks, with more 
finely textured, well-drained, moderately permeable Evans loam, Kerby loam, and Central Point 
sandy loam toward the interior of the property. The land at Everton Riffle is primarily Kerby 
loam and Evans loam. These are excellent soils for irrigation. 
South of Grants Pass are large areas of somewhat poorly drained Clawson and Jerome sandy 
loam soils with moderately rapid permeability (map unit 3). In the Fruitdale area are well-
drained soils with moderately slow permeability, dominated by Manila loam and Ruch gravelly 
silt loam with slopes of 2 to 12 percent (map unit 4). Although these soils are suitable for 
irrigation, they are more slowly permeable than the soils west of Grants Pass and would require 
more careful management to reduce ponding and runoff during irrigation. 
The soils in the Merlin area are dominated by moderately well-drained, very slowly permeable 
Brockman cobbly clay loam with well-drained, moderately permeable Maui ta loam and well-
drained Abegg gravelly loams with moderately slow permeability (map unit 5). These soils are 
on slopes ranging frpm 2 to 20 percent and require careful management to reduce runoff. The 
Takilma and Foehlin soils along Jumpoff Joe and Louse Creeks are mostly well-drained, 
moderately permeable Takilma cobbly loam and Foehlin gravelly loam. These soils are well-
suited for irrigation. 
In summary, the area's valley bottom and floodplain soils are well-suited for irrigation. Some 
managemént to control surface runoff would be required, especially in areas with more than a 
5 percent slope. Because these soils occur in low-lying areas, groundwater is likely to rise to 
shallow depths in the winter and spring. Controlled irrigation would protect against potential 
groundwater impacts and ensure that groundwater levels do not rise in the local area. 
Crop water use requirements vary with time, depending on temperature, humidity, crop type, 
and crop maturity (Figure 7-2), Most crops in the Grants Pass area require some form of 
irrigation during July and August when irrigation water needs are greatest. The actual length 
of irrigation time varies by crop from 9 months for pasture grass to less than 4 months tor some 
annual crops (Kanalz, 1984). 
Agricultural irrigation needs for the Grants Pass area are supplied by the Grants Pass Irrigation 
District (GPID), Fort Vannoy Irrigation District (FVID), and pumping from wells, creeks, and 
rivers in the area. Several of the larger landholders pump their own water directly from the 
Rogue or Applegate rivers. Irrigation practices are split between sprinkler and surface (flood) 
applications. The type of irrigation often depends on the water delivery system. Piped, 
pressurized delivery systems are necessary for sprinkler irrigation, Private pumped systems in 
the Grants Pass area are often sprinkler systems. GPID and FVID deliver by ditch systems. 
Their users generally practice flood irrigation since water is delivered by nonpressurized gravity 
flow. The planned removal of the Savage Rapids Dam will require the GPID to switch over to 
a pressurized delivery system which will pump water from the Rogue River to irrigated lands. 
The agricultural community of the Grants Pass area consists of many small "hobby" or part-time 
farming operations. Only 12 of the 7,700 members of the GPID have holdings greater than 
40 acres. Few large farms or fields are available. 
Grams Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
r * 1 G 6 2 2 
8-18 
The FVID consists of 700 acres comprised of at least six fields of 20 to 60 acres. Major land 
holdings in the FVID are the Wild River Farms apple orchard and Ken-WaJ Farms. Although 
they are part of the FVID, some or all of these lands are irrigated privately with water pumped 
directly from the Rogue River. 
The predomtnant rpix^of crops in the Grants Pass area is perennial pasture, alfalfa, and silage 
corn. Other cropssuch as orchard crops and flowers are grown in lesser amounts. The most 
desirable option for reclaimed water irrigaiion is hay or pasture crops because of the flexibility. 
Either floodorsprinkler irrigation can be used. Public access to pasture or hay fields generally 
is limited to the land owner, and the crop is not for human consumption. This minimizes health 
concerns and maximizes flexibility in the amount and type of wastewater treatment. 
FurÉtermofe»theperennial pastpre or hay crops consume water throughout a long growing 
season because of their iwel-establlsted: root systems. Assuming 75 percent of the water 
delivered to a farm is available to the crop after evaporative and delivery losses (75 percent 
irrigationefficiency), alfalfa and pastóre grasses require respective applications of approximately 
35 and 29 inches of water per growing season in the Grants Pass area (Table 7-3). Sprinkler 
irrigation typically is 75 percent efficient Tins does not account for losses in the delivery 
system between the treatment plant and the irrigation site. 
Tabic 7-3. Eslipitted^Momfi^ for the 
Dominant Crops of the Grants Pass Area" 
Silage Orchard 
Alfalfa, Pasture, corn, w/cover, 
inches inches inches inches 
April 0.5 0,5 0.0 0,5 
May 4.8 3.8 0.0 4.8 
June 7.4 6.0 4.6 7.4 
July 9.7 8.1 9.1 9,8 
August 8.2 7.0 8.2 8.2 
September 4.4 3.5 0.0 4.5 
October 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Total 35.0 28.9 21.9 35.2 
* Assumes 75 percent irrigation efficiency. 
A<^tedfirom Oregon Engineering Handbook Irrigation Guide (Kanalz, 1984). 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
>'> G23 
7-8 
Use of reclaimed water for irrigating freeway landscape flora or golf courses is an option. 
Irrigation must be managed to minimize the potential of human contact with wastewater, but 
public access is restricted to these areas. 
Woodlots 
Hybrid poplar woodlots are used for wastewater irrigation. This alternative "crop" is fast 
gaining a reputation for high water uptake. In addition, when properly selected and sited, stands 
of poplar provide site screening and a high yield of fiber in the form of sawlogs and/or wood 
pulp or clips in 8- to 15-year harvest cycles. One analysis1 shows net annual return ranging 
between -$7 to $205 per acre (varies with product prices and management strategy). 
Opportunities for marketing poplar fiber in the Grants Pass area have not been researched at this 
time. 
Irrigation requirements vary considerably with site conditions and irrigation methods. Data 
specific to Southern Oregon is currently being gathered, but 42 inches of water per growing 
season is a rough estimate for the Grants Pass area. This uptake is higher than pasture grasses 
or even alfalfa, allowing the employment of fewer acres and a smaller irrigation distribution 
system. However, it must be noted that poplar stands require 3 years to mature into their 
maximum uptake rate, and harvesting activities can take tracts out of irrigation for as much as 
a full year between harvest cycles. 
Poplars have been proposed on a small-scale project to provide some on-site screening at the 
WRP. They would be irrigated with final effluent. A total of approximately 2 acres is under 
consideration. This project may provide a good opportunity to learn more about site-specific 
irrigation requirements, local markets for poplar wood, and ease of maintenance of poplar 
woodlots. Until more data is available, the WRP should focus on other reuse options. 
Wetlands 
Reclaimed water has been successfully used to improve degraded natural wetlands. Most 
developing areas of the United States have lost significant portions of their functioning wetlands 
due to human activities such as damming rivers and dredging, draining, and filling marshes. 
Recent concerns about wetlands losses have caused the formation of countless public/private 
partnerships with the goal of protecting and enhancing remaining wetlands. While an assessment 
of local wetland resources is not within the scope of this Facilities Plan, it may become of 
interest to the city in the future as an alternative WRP effluent reuse strategy. However, current 
Department of Environmental Quality rules do not allow discharge of treated effluent into natural 
wetlands. However, current DEQ rules do not allow discharge of treated effluent into natural 
wetlands. 
1 Heilman, P.E., R.F. Stealer, D.P, Hanley, R.W. Carkner, 1995. High Yield Hybrid Poplar Plantations in the 
Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Extension Bulletin PNW356. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
OOC624 
7-9 
PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT REUSE SYSTEM NEEDS 
The primary objective of the effluent raise system is to eliminate the need to discharge to the 
river when the river temperature standard couid be exceeded or if a future nutrient discharge 
limit is imposed. This period corresponds with the dry-weather season, May I through October 
31. 
Five crop mixes for effluent reuse were developed from typical crop type and acreage patterns 
in the Grants Pass area (Table 7-4). Acreages and storage requirements were calculated for 
100 percent usage on alfalfa or pasture (the predominant local crops) and mixes which also 
included such other crops as silage com and orchard crops. Perennial crops, such as pasture 
grasses, alfalfa, and orchards with ground cover, provide the optimum conditions for reclaimed 
water irrigation. Long annual periods of water use are possible since these crops are well-
established early in the season and continue growing during the fall. High nutrient uptake is due 
to removal of plant material by grazing or haying. 
Table 7-4, Projected Crop Acreage and Reclaimed Water Storage Requirements 
Irrigated crops 1996 
Acreage 
required, 
acres 
1996 
Storage 
required; 
2020 
Aercagc 
• required, 
acres 
• 2020 
- Storage 
required, 
acre-fee» Crop mix 
• Alfalfa, 
percent 
Pasture, ; 
•: percent 
(silage), 
; percent 
; Orchard 
(w/cover). 
percent 
too 870 630 1,500 1,060 
2 100 1.050 640 1;9Ö0 1,100 
3 50 50 960 640 1,700 1,080 
4 30 55 1,030 730 : 1.800 1,200 
5 13 75 io Î 1.050 im : 1.900 1.200 
Based on assumption of 4.5 mgd and 8.0 mgd in 1996 and 2020. respectively. 
The irrigation areas and storage requirement listed til Table 7-4 were developed to provide a 
planning level assessment of the feasibility for effluent reuse. The next step would be to develop 
a detailed water balance showing seasonal Water usage. This information would then be used 
to determine specific flows for sizing pumping stations and pipelines. The information in Table 
7-4 is sufficiently accurate to develop cost estimates for evaluation and comparison of 
alternatives. 
Acreage 
Assuming an average reclaimed water flow of 4.5 mgd, the WRP's total output from May 1 to 
October 31 would be 2,541 acre-feet. The amount of crop acreage needed to use this volume 
of water depends on the crop or mix of crops to be irrigated. If grass pasture is the only crop 
irrigated, 1,050 acres would be required. Irrigation of only alfalfa, which needs more water, 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
fK;>€ 625 
8-10 
would lower the requirement to 870 acres (Table 7-4). Other crop mixes involving silage com 
and orchard (with cover) result in similar acreages. Inclusion of alfalfa in the crop mix reduces 
the estimated acreage required because of its higher water usage. The orchard acreage in the 
Grants Pass area is too small to have a significant effect on land requirements. 
Acreage requirements will increase with reclaimed water output (Table 7-4). Projected 
requirements in the year 2020 for cropland will increase to 1,500 (100 percent alfalfa) or 
1,900 (100 percent pasture) acres for 6 months of reclaimed water use. 
Storage 
As discussed above, the irrigation acreage requirement is dictated by the total annual amount of 
water available for irrigation. During the peak demand months of the irrigation season, the 
irrigation demand will exceed the effluent flow from the plant. Therefore, effluent storage will 
be necessary to match periods of high irrigation demand with the more uniform effluent flow. 
The amount of storage required is equivalent to 42 to 46 days of ADWF, depending on the crop 
mix and timing of reclaimed water flow. Projections indicate the current need is for 630 to 
730 acre-feet of reclaimed water storage. This projection assumes an ADWF of 4.5 mgd from 
May 1 through October 31. In the year 2020, ADWF is expected to rise to 8.0 mgd with 
storage requirements at 1,060 to 1,200 acre-feet. This amount of storage equals an 100-acre, 
15-feet-deep pond. These figures only account for reclaimed water storage. Rainfall estimates 
would have to be included in the final storage pond desigm The storage lagoon also could act 
as a surge pond during times of high flows. 
The irrigation season generally begins in late April or early May and continues through mid-
September. To avoid discharging to the river, plant effluent would be directed to storage from 
mid-September through the end of October. Plant effluent held in storage during the winter 
would be available for irrigation during April. Around the beginning of May, plant effluent 
would be diverted from river discharge to the reuse system. 
Reuse System Configuration 
The effluent reuse system would incorporate three key elements: a transmission pipeline, 
storage reservoir, and a distribution system. The transmission system would consist of a 
pumping station at the wastewater treatment plant and pipeline leading to the storage reservoir. 
The reuse system would be laid out to serve the largest parcels of land suitable for irrigation. 
As shown on the previous figures, these areas lie west of the plant along the north side of the 
Rogue River. To reach sufficient land areas, the reuse system would have to extend beyond the 
Applegate River and also serve areas south of the Rogue River. 
Storage would be provided by a single large reservoir or multiple smaller reservoirs. A single 
reservoir, requiring 100 acres of land, would be difficult to site. Multiple smaller reservoirs 
would be easier to site, more suitable for phased construction, may be more centrally located 
to the irrigation sites, and could make use of natural features to reduce construction costs. Small 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
8-11 
réservoirs may also provide amenities for golf courses, parks, and industrial developments. 
Maintenance would, of course, be more costly for many small reservoirs than for a single large 
reservoir. Reservoir cost would be greatly affected if lining is required. This and other design 
questions would be addressed through predesign studies. 
Because this report is not mtend^ to ^ a reservoir siting study, we assumed, for the purposes 
of developing cost estimates (see Chapter 9), that a single reservoir would be constructed on the 
north side of thè Rogue River near its confluence with the Applegate River. 
The distribution system would deliver waterfrom the storage reservoir to the irrigation sites. 
A low pressure distribution system would be suitable for flood irrigation. Farmers would then 
be responsible for boosting the pressure for spray irrigation. A high pressure distribution 
system, suitable for spray irrigation, would be attractive for potential users. 
Implementation Issues 
There ate many implementation and management issues that would need to be addressed before 
undertaking a reuse program. Reservoir siting, piping route selection, and right-of-way 
acquisition are some of the more obvious issues. Other considerations include system 
ownership, financing, system management, and promotion. 
System ownership and financing are somewhat related issues. Financing through the Bureau of 
Reclamation loan program would be an alternative to city financing. With existing irrigation 
sources becoming more scarce, the Bureau of Reclamation has been loo king favorably at effluent 
reuse projects. Financing through the Bureau of Reclamation loan program could allow an 
irrigation district to construct and own the distribution system. The irrigation users would be 
the loans. The city would only own and operate the transmission and 
storage systems. 
Management of the reuse system is another consideration, A parcel of city-owned agricultural 
land would add flexibility in system operation. The water application rate on the city-owned 
pascei could be adjusted to account for excess or shortfall in water availability. In dry years, 
this would ensure that the irrigation customers have adequate water supplies. In wet years, the 
city would be assured that all of the plant effluent would be reused. 
The above issues illustrate some of the complexities involved in developing an effluent reuse 
system. Strong leadership, thorough planning, and close management are critical for a 
successful effluent reuse program. 
POTENTIAL USER INTEREST 
Large land parcels currently under irrigation are best for establishing a reclaimed water use 
program. Control of the reclaimed water could be maximized and distribution simplified if a 
single large block of suitable land was available. Privately-owned land or city-owned land 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
O O C 6 2 7 
6-12 
would provide the most flexible system. Such irrigated parcels are uncommon in the Grants 
Pass area, but several areas have potential. Figure 7-3 shows the areas with most promise. 
These are lands zoned for agriculture tn the Josephine County Comprehensive Plan. The figure 
also shows straight-line distances from the treatment plant to various pans of the county 
Straight-line distances are shorter than either road travel or pipeline distances. A summary of 
potential reuse areas is as follows: 
1. The most likely areas consist of agricultural properties west of the UGB. Several 
large parcels are located in this area, including an apple orchard (Wild River 
Farms) on Upper River Road with approximately 150 acres and the former "mint 
farm" on Riverbank Road with 400 to 500 irrigated acres. Most other parcels are 
approximately 5 acres in size, with the exception of several dairies west of Grants 
Pass with fields ranging from 30 to 60 acres. Several small orchards are south of 
Grants Pass in the Fruitdale area. Sufficient acreage may be difficult to find 
without complex distribution to many small farms and fields. 
2. The GPID provides water for 7,700 users. Only 12 members have more than 
40 acres of land. The large number of users and small parcels in the district make 
distribution and controlled use difficult under the current ditch delivery system. 
Furthermore, Level ID effluent will not be suitable for many of the current crops 
grown. Lack of control on the final disposition of the water is another drawback. 
Unused water is returned to the Rogue River. Furthermore, discharge to the 
GPID system of canals and ditches is considered by DEQ rules as discharge into 
waters of the state. Therefore, as with discharge into small streams, beneficial 
uses would have to be protected. 
3. The FVTD has water rights from the Rogue River and Vannoy Creek. Water is 
pumped from these sources on an as-needed basis. The district contains 700 acres 
of land. The distribution system consists of 7 to 8 miles of ditches, and unused 
water is returned to the Rogue River and Vannoy Creek. Most of the irrigation 
is flood irrigation. The feasibility of using this system would be difficult due to 
the lack of parcels with significant acreage and the potential for reclaimed water 
discharge to the Rogue River and Vannoy Creek. 
4. The Merlin area has the potential for using reclaimed water. Although only small 
amounts of cropped land exist in the Merlin area, several attempts have been made 
in the name of the Merlin Irrigation District to acquire water rights to irrigate 
9000 acres. A proposed 18-hole golf course near the Josephine County Airport 
would require 300,000 to 400,000 gallons of water per day in addition to the 
reclaimed water available from its own wastewater treatment facility. Although 
the users would be 7 to 10 miles from the WRP, this area could represent an 
opportunity for beneficial reclaimed water use if sufficient parcels of land can be 
found. The possibility also exists for irrigation of the Interstate 5 right-of-way as 
part of a distribution system to the Merlin area. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
< > - 6 2 8 
January 1999 
8-13 
Two key elements for user acceptance of reclaimed water are the availability of water and easy 
use. Removal of die Savage Rapids Dam will end local access to flood irrigation; a pumping 
system from the Rogue River is already planned. At this point in time, irrigators currently 
practicing flood irrigation may be more willing to accept reclaimed water supplied to fields in 
a pressurized pipeline. Although some revision in irrigation practices would be necessary, the 
longer irrigation season and consistent water supply may be attractive. 
Treatment to Level IV standards, while more expensive, would significantly improve the ease 
Of reuse. Public health concerns would be reduced, opening more sites to consideration (e.g., 
public sports flelds). These advantages must be weighed against the cost of the higher level 
treatment. 
SUMMARY 
To use reclaimed water from the WRPdurmg periods of river discharge restriction, sufficient 
cropland must be identified and transmission storage, and distribution facilities must be 
constructed. Irrigation areas would increase from 1,050 acres of pasture needed for 1996 flows 
to 1,900 acres by the year 2020. Land also will be needed for a storage reservoir. A storage 
volume of 650 acre-feet would be required to buffer against fluctuating flow rates and crop water 
use under the year 1996 conditions. Use of local irrigation districts is unlikely without 
modifications to current ditch distribution systems to prevent return flow to surface water bodies. 
Current water quality is good. It would qualify as Level II water under OAR 340-55-015 if 
disinfection were more consistent. Level II Wafer, however, is restricted by wide buffer zones 
around fields and limited crops to which it may be applied. Level III water would be the best 
option for the WRP since buffer zones are reduced or eliminated, and it can be achieved with 
only minor modifications to the current treatment processes. Level IV water may be cost-
effective to produce, depending upon future summer discharge and irrigation restrictions. 
The best land for irrigation with reclaimed water lies west of the UGB along the Rogue River 
and in the Merlin area to the north. Smaller areas of agricultural land lie to the south near 
Fruitdale and along the Applegate River. Soils in these areas are suitable for irrigation. Large 
parcels are the most desirable because water distribution is less complex and pipeline 
construction costs are lower. Large parcels are difficult to find near Grants Pass. West of 
Grants Pass are several large landholders within 5 to 6 miles of the WRP. In the Merlin area 
(7 to 10 miles north) is a proposed golf course, but sufficient additional agricultural land may 
be difficult to locate. 
Effluent reuse with poplar trees has recently received much interest throughout Oregon. For 
example, Woodburn, Oregon, is one community that owns and irrigates a large plantation of 
poplar trees. Limited markets are one reason why poplar trees have been slow to gain 
widespread use. Currently, the Fort James paper mill in Wauna is the only mill in Oregon using 
poplar chips. Hauling distances over 50 miles severely limit any profit margin for private 
growers. However, because of their high water consumption, poplars are being carefully 
considered by many municipalities. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
6 -14 
Depending on climate and planting practices, poplar trees may use 1- to 2-feet-per-year more 
irrigation water than forage crops. This translates to 25 to 40 percent less land area required 
for the reuse system. If poplar trees were used exclusively, the acreage requirement would be 
on the order of 600 to 750 acres at 1996 effluent flows and 1,100 to 1,400 acres for year 2020 
flows. 
In summary, the reclaimed water from the WRP currently is suitable for beneficial reuse by 
irrigation onto cropland. Land lying west, north, and south of the Grants Pass UGB could be 
used for this purpose. Land to the west is the most desirable since it is closest and contains 
some of the largest land parcels; however, adequate land in one location may be difficult to 
locate. The purchase or lease of sufficient land by the City of Grants Pass may need to be 
considered to ensure maximum control over water use and to simplify distribution. 
It is clear that very large land areas would be needed for a reuse program sized to handle all 
summer wastewater flows. An alternative approach would be for the city to examine targets of 
opportunity where reuse may be feasible on a smaller scale. Examples could include producing 
Level IV effluent to irrigate nearby parks, provide supplemental flow into a portion of the 
GPID, or irrigate a demonstration poplar tree project on the plant site. 
The key design data and cost estimate for an effluent reuse system are presented, along with 
other liquid treatment alternatives, in Chapter 9. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
9 0 C 6 3 0 
January 1999 
8 - 1 5 
REFERENCES 
1. Borine, R. 1983. Soil Survey of Josephine County Oregon. U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Portland, Oregon. 
2. Young, W.H. 1985. Rogue River Basin Study. Oregon Water Resource 
Department. Salem, Oregon. 
3. Kanalz, J.P. 1984. Oregon Engineering Handbook Irrigation Guide. U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Portland, Oregon. 
4. Miles, S.D. 1989. Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates, Special 
Report 790. Oregon State University Extension Service. Corvallis, Oregon. 
5. U.S. EPA. 1981. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal 
Waste Water. EPA 625/1-81-013, Cincinnati, Ohio, 
6. Hansen, E.H., O.W. Israelsen andG.E. Stringham. 1979, Irrigation Principles 
and Practices. 4th Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
8-1 
CHAPTER 8 
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM 
An evaluation of the collection system is necessary to identify sewer and pumping station 
capacities and limitations and to ascertain wastewater flow contributions associated, with 
infiltration and inflow (I/I). Once deficiencies and capacities have been identified, effective 
rehabilitation, replacement, and expansion projects can be recommended. 
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM 
The condition and capacity of the wastewater collection system greatly influences the peak flows 
experienced at the Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant (WRP). The collection system was most 
recently evaluated in the May 1983 Sewage Collection System Master Plan (James M. 
Montgomery Consulting Engineers). The following collection system description is based in part 
on the findings of the May 1983 plan. 
History and Description 
The existing collection system consists of approximately 110 miles of gravity sewers, one force 
main, approximately 2,000 feet long, and three pumping stations. A map of the collection system 
divided into 14 basins is shown in Figure 8-1 (This figure is located at the back of the report) 
Gravity Sewers. While records are not available, it is believed that sewers installed prior to 
1927 are vitrified clay pipe with bituminous joints. In 1983, these lines accounted for about 
17 percent of the total collection system and serve about 350 acres of the downtown area. 
The sewers installed from 1927 to 1964 are mainly unreinforced concrete pipe with bell-and-
spigot joints sealed with cement mortar. The cement mortar seal is inflexible and therefore 
cracks and fails if there is slight differential setüement of the pipe. In addition, the cement 
mortar deteriorates over time. Failed joints can allow groundwater to infiltrate into the pipes. 
Many of the sewers installed during this period were manufactured at a plant in Grants Pass. 
City staff have observed pipe deterioration during repair projects and report that the concrete pipe 
manufactured in Grants Pass has been more prone to structural failure than pipe obtained from 
other sources. The concrete lines installed during this period made up about 20 percent of the 
collection system in 1983 
Since 1964, most of the sewers installed in Grant Pass have been concrete with bell-and-spigot 
joints and rubber gaskets. Some asbestos cement and polyvinyl chloride (PVQ pipe was also 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
CHX 6 3 2 
January 1999 
8-2 
used. The bell-and-spigot joints and rubber gaskets are flexible and relatively watertight This 
type of construction accounted for more than 50 percent of the system in 1983. 
Pumping Stations. The collection system includes three pumping stations, two erf which are 
simply lift stations (Figure 8-1). Design data for all three pump stations are included in Table 
8-1 The lift stations, Webster Lift Station 1 and Webster Lift Station 2, are both located on 
Webster Lane and serve the mobile home park in the western section of Basin A. Each station 
is equipped with two, vertical, nonclog, centrifugal pumps. The pumps in Station 1 are 7.5 hp 
pumps each with a capacity of 100 gallons per minute (gpm) at 23 feet total dynamic head 
(TDH). Station 2 pumps are 3 hp pumps, each with a capacity of 100 gpm at 10 feet TDH. 
The third station, designated the Bridge Street Station, is located at the intersection of Bridge 
Street and Tami Court and discharges into a 4-inch-diameter, 1,973-foot-long PVC force main. 
The station is equipped with two submersible nonclog centrifugal pumps. Each of the 20 hp 
pumps has a capacity of 650 gpm at 75 feet TDH. Air injection is also provided for the force 
main to control sulfides. A 50 kW natural gas fueled engine generator is provided for standby 
power. 
Table 8-1. Pumping Stations Design Data 
Webster Webster Bridge Street 
Lift Station 1 Lift Station 2 Pump Station 
Location All Sports Park Webster Lane Bridge Street and 
Tami Court 
Type Duplex Duplex Duplex 
Pump Type Self priming, Self priming, Submersible, 
vertical close vertical close nonclog, centrifugal 
coupled, nonclog, coupled, nonclog, 
centrifugal centrifugal 
Motor Horsepower 7.5 3 20 
Motor Type Constant speed Constant speed Variable speed 
Capacity, each, gpm 100 100 650 
Head, ft 23 10 75 
Each pumping station was inspected for evidence of sulfide corrosion. All wet wells and 
receiving manholes were found to be in good condition. Pump hour meters were reviewed to 
provide an indication of pump usage and remaining capacity. 
During the high rainfall period of December 1996, the pumps.at the Webster Lift Station 1 ran 
about 20 percent of the time and those at Webster Lift Station 2 ran about 15 percent of the time. 
During dry weather, the run times average about 15 to 10 percent for Webster stations 1 and 2, 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000644 
8-3 
respectively. 
The run time meters at the Bridge Street pumping station are not functioning properly. However, 
the plant system staff monitored the station operation and determined that the pumps run about 
20 percent of the time. 
The Webster Lift Station 1 is designed not to overflow. In the event of a power outage, 
wastewater will flow through the lift station and on to the treatment plant. The Webster Lift 
Station 2 is only equipped to be served by a trailer-mounted standby generator. There is no 
overflow point so wastewater would back up within the area served However, city staff believes 
that this station may also flow through at high flows. The Bridge Street pumping station is 
equipped with a natural gas fueled standby generator 
Maintenance Program. The maintenance program is staffed by two full-time people. In 
addition, the collection system supervisor, works half-time on the wastewater collection system 
and half-time on the water distribution system. Maintenance work consists of TV-inspection, 
emergency repair work, a line cleaning program, and a manhole solid lid replacement program. 
The city budgets for 5 percent of the collection system to be TV-inspected each year. This 
includes inspection of all new collection system construction and a 1-year follow-up inspection. 
To date, the majority of lines 8 inches or larger have been inspected. 
One quarter of the collection system is cleaned by city staff each year. In addition, select pipe 
reaches are part of a 6-month cleaning program due to chronic problems with grease and debris 
buildup. 
To reduce inflow, the city began replacing manhole lids 3 years ago to eliminate those with holes. 
The program involves replacement of 200 lids each year and is to continue until complete 
replacement has been achieved. 
Deficiencies 
Wastewater collection systems can have several types of deficiencies: 
Capacity Limitations 
Structural failures 
Excessive LI 
Capacity Limitations. The best indication of inadequate capacity is sanitary sewer overflow 
(SSO) during peak storm events. During the storms experienced in December 1996 and January 
1997, city collection system staff recorded all sewage overflows at manholes and estimated the 
overflow rate (Table 8-2). The locations of the problem manholes are noted on Figure 8-1. It 
should be noted that the period of December 1996 to January 1997 was marked with 
unseasonably high precipitation and substantial localized flooding throughout the Grants Pass 
area 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000644 
8 - 4 
As can be seen in Table 8-2 and Figure 8-1, significant capacity limitations exist in Basins F and 
H. In order to help alleviate this problem and minimize overflows at manholes F69 and F70, 
collection system staff constructed a relief line that allows excess flow in Basin F to overflow 
into Basin E. The relief line is a 6-inch-diameter pipe that connects a cleanout in Basin F to a 
cleanout in Basin E. In March 1988, a I O-inch-diameter sewer was constructed to connect Basin 
F to Basin E. 
Table 8-2- Summary of Wastewater Overflows 
Manhole 
number 
Overflow 
start 
date 
Overflow 
start 
time 
Overflow 
stop 
date 
Overflow 
stop 
time 
Estimated 
flow rate, 
gpm 
F150 12/7/96 12:00 12/9/96 12.00 18 
12/30/96 19:00 12/31/96 6:00 50 
12/31/96 20:30 1/2/97 10:00 50 
F94 12/7/96 12:00 12/9196 12:00 15 
12/30/96 19:00 12/31/96 6:00 50 
12/31/96 20:30 1/2/97 16:00 50 
F70 12/7/96 12:00 12/10/96 17:00 35 
12/29/96 10:00 1/4/97 18:00 35 
F69 12/31/96 20:30 1/2/97 10:00 50 
H139 12/7/96 12:00 12/9/96 12:00 8 
HI 1 12/30/96 19:00 12/31/96 6:00 50 
H6 1/1/97 9:00 1/2/97 10:00 50 
H5 1/1/97 9:00 1/2/97 10:00 50 
B52 12/7/96 12:00 12/9/96 12:00 5 
N3 1/1/97 15:00 1/2/97 10:00 50 
The 1983 plan listed a number of capacity deficiencies, determined by modeling the system using 
flow conditions existing in 1983. Peak wet weather flow in 1983 was estimated at 26 million 
gallons per day (mgd). These deficiencies are listed in Table 8-3 and are shown in Figure 8-1 
Many of the overflow locations noted during December 1996 and January 1997 coincide with the 
undersized lines identified in the 1983 plan. 
f ^ 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
0 0 € 6 3 5 
8-5 
Table 8-3. System Capacity Deficiencies Identified in the 1983 Plan 
Interceptor Reach manholes Length Existing pipe size, inches 
Pine F91-F68 2,400 8-10-12 
F68-C23 1,450 12 
C23-C6 2,550 12 
C2-D22 350 12 
G32-C26 1,000 12 
North G1-D38 650 21 
Greenwood B20-D4 2,450 10-12 
Seventh H1-H7 1,100 12 
G9-H1 2,750 12-18 
Mill J41-119-14 7,900 8-12-15 
I4-D38 1,100 15 
SSOs are receiving heightened attention in recent years with efforts by the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to develop national overflow standards. Current Department of 
Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations, Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 340-41 (13-14), 
prohibit wet season overflows except during the 24-hour, l-in-5-year storm event. Dry season 
overflows are prohibited except during the 24-hour, 1-in-10-year storm. Collection systems that 
have historically experienced SSO problems because of high I/I may be allowed until January 1, 
2010, to comply with the regulation. However, DEQ must have accepted an interim plan 
outlining steps being taken to achieve compliance. 
In addition to evaluating overflows, the capacity of the interceptors near the WRP site were 
calculated. Their capacities are summarized in Table 8-4. The interceptors near the plant site 
appear to have adequate capacity for current peak flows. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
0 0 , - 6 3 6 
Table 8-4. Interceptor Capacity Summary* 
Upstream 
manhole 
Downstream 
manhole 
Pipe length, 
feet 
Pipe diameter, 
inches 
Slope, 
percent 
Capacity,11 
mgd 
D2 Dl 150 30 2.99 45 
D3 D2 80 24 0.40 9 
D4 D3 140 24 0.39 9 
D16 D2 280 30 0.40 17 
D17 D16 249 30 0.40 17 
A3 A1 500 10 0.28 0.75 
A4 A3 560 10 0,28 0.75 
Ml D40 560 30 0.27 14 
M2 Ml 50 30 0.34 15 
Nl M2 340 18 0.38 4.2 
N2 Nl 260 18 0.12 2,4 
N3 N2 293 18 0.12 2.4 
N4 N3 251 18 0.14 2.5 
* Capacity based on sewer invert elevations, lengths, and sizes reported in the May 1983 
Sewage Collection System Master Plan. 
" Assumes no pipeline surcharging except at D2 to Dl. 
Structural Failures- Sewer line defects such as holes, cracks, and corrosion can threaten the 
structural integrity of the pipe. In extreme cases, structural failure can result in the formation of 
sinkholes in streets and alleys. Grants Pass has experienced pipe failure. City staff report that 
17 sinkholes due to sanitary sewer pipeline failures have been repaired since 1992. Figure 8-1 
shows the location of the repaired sinkholes. 
Defects that threaten the structural integrity of a sewer line are most commonly detected during 
TV-inspections. Grants Pass has a TV-inspection program that has identified a number of 
problem areas. Structural defects that have been noted include broken and missing pipe segments 
and heavy root intrusion. 
Excessive I/I. I/I is extraneous wastewater flow in the collection system apart from that 
associated with residential, commercial, or industrial generation. Infiltration is defined as 
groundwater that enters the collection system from the surrounding soil via defects in the sewer 
pipe. Inflow is storm water that enters directly into the system through storm drain cross 
connections, holes in manhole covers, roof drains, and other direct surface to sanitary sewer 
connections. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
0 0 , 6 3 7 
8-7 
Problems associated with I/I include the use of collection system and treatment plant capacity that 
could otherwise be devoted to municipal and industrial growth. During extreme precipitation 
events, high levels of I/I can result in the occurrence of SSOs with adverse environmental and 
human health consequences. Finally, I/I results in increased wastewater treatment and collection 
costs due to higher capacity and energy demands. 
The first step in evaluating I/I is to compare it with excessive criteria. I/I is defined as excessive 
when it is more expensive to convey and treat than it is to eliminate. In federally funded 
projects, the EPA has established guidelines for per capita wastewater flow rates above which the 
cost-effectiveness for I/I removal should be evaluated. The guideline for infiltration is 120 
gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and is based on the highest 7-day-average flow during periods 
of seasonally high groundwater and no precipitation. The EPA guideline for inflow is 275 gcpd, 
and is based on peak flow rates during periods of seasonally high groundwater with associated 
precipitation. The EPA requires further I/I analysis if its I/I standards are exceeded. The study 
must quantify the amount of I/I in the collection system, identify corrective measures, and 
determine the cost-effectiveness of I/I removal over the cost of transporting and treating it. 
The high peak flows experienced at the Grants Pass wastewater treatment plant indicate that the 
collection system has a significant 11 problem. Potentially excessive infiltration, flows greater 
than 120 gpcd, is indicated based on plant flow data for several periods in 1996 (Table 8-5). 
Table 8-5, Analysis of Potentially Excessive Infiltration 
Time period with no rain 
Highest 7-day-average 
flow, mgd Unit flow," gpcd 
Mar 12 - Mar 21, 1996 5.40 216 
Apr 2 - Apr 8, 1996 5.46 218 
Apr 25 - May 11, 1996 4.82 193 
May 23 - May 31, 1996 4.64 186 
1 Based on current service area population of 25,000. 
The collection system may also experience excessive inflow according to the EPA's definition. 
Based on a current service area population of 25,000 and a 1-in-5-year peak day treatment plant 
flow of 20 mgd, the per capita flow rate is 810 gallons per day. This is well above the EPA 
guideline of 275 gpcd. 
In order to compare the infiltration rates seen in Grants Pass with those of other communities 
within Oregon, Table 8-6 contains unit dry weather flows for various communities. As can be 
seen, wastewater flows on a per capita basis is greater for Grants Pass than for any of the other 
towns listed. This is further evidence of high I/I rates in the Grants Pass collection system. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000644 
8-8 
Table 8-6. Per Capita Wastewater Flows for Selected Communities 
Population Average dry weather Unit dry weather 
City served flow, mgd flow, gpcd 
Grants Pass 25,000 4 5 180 
Medford* 77,475 13.2 170 
Klamath Fallsb 17,700 2.9 164 
Gresham* 81,315 8.86 109 
Brookingsd 9,424 1.0 106 
Florence4 6,401 0.68 106 
Ashlandf 17,725 1.72 97 
1 Facilities Plan for the Water Quality Control Plant, 1992, 
b Spring Street Sewage Treatment Plant Wastewater Facilities Plan, 1993. 
e Gres ham Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Plan, 1996. 
d City of Brookings Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Plan Amendment-Draft, 1997. 
e City of Florence Wastewater Facilities Plan—Draft, 1997. 
r City of Ashland Wastewater Facilities Plan, 1995. 
Infiltration sources are most commonly identified through flow monitoring and TV-inspection of 
the collection system. During preparation of the 1983 plan, areas of high I/I were determined 
through flow monitoring of all collection system basins. In addition, the City of Grants Pass has 
TV-inspected multiple sewer reaches to assess the condition of the system. The most significant 
problems are summarized in Table 8-7. 
Table 8-7. System Deficiencies Detected During TV-Inspection 
Basin Description 
A2 Five severe leaks in new pipeline on Balsam Street1 
B3 High infiltration in pipe on Western St. between Jordan and Bridge 
CI 70 percent clay pipe. Root intrusion. 
C2 90 percent clay pipe. Root intrusion. Part of pipeline missing. 
H2 90 percent clay pipes. Root intrusion. 
H3 Concrete pipes with mortar joints have high infiltration 
H4 66 percent clay pipes. Root intrusion. 
H7 Concrete pipes with mortar joints have high infiltration. 
J12 Pipe leaks on N Street 
* Corrected in 1997. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
8-9 
Inflow sources are typically discovered through smoke testing. Smoke testing involves blowing 
artificial smoke into the collection system with fans. While smoke is being injected, the area 
being tested is observed and locations where smoke is escaping from the collection system are 
noted The identified locations are direct connections to the sanitary sewer that can transmit 
stormwater to the collection system. Grants Pass smoke tested its collection system in 1972 and 
again in 1995. Selected results of the 1995 test are summarized in Table 8-8 The city is 
currently working to correct these deficiencies. 
COLLECTION SYSTEtVI I/I ANALYSIS 
Peak per capita wastewater flow in Grants Pass is 810 gpcd based on a peak day flow of 20 mgd 
and a current service population of 25,000. This flow rate exceeds 275 gpcd, which is the level 
defined by EPA below which I/I is considered nonexcessive without a cost-effectiveness analysis 
of I/I removal. Because the Grants Pass per capita flow rates exceed this level, additional 
analysis of the cost-effectiveness of I/I removal was warranted 
Updated I/I Projections 
The first step in the I/I analysis was to re-examine the 1983 Sewage Collection System Master 
Plan that contained an analysis of collection system I/I. The 1983 plan assumed 18 mgd of I/I 
was distributed throughout the collection system as determined through a series of instantaneous 
flow measurements at key manholes within the collection system. Table 8-9 shows a summary 
of the I/I distribution determined in 1983. As indicated in the table, current I/I levels were 
estimated and assigned to the various collection basins according to the same percent levels as 
contained in the 1983 plan. We essentially assumed that the highest I/I contributing basins in 
1983 are still the highest contributors under the current flow conditions. This is a valid 
assumption as extensive rehabilitation work has not been done in the.top identified basins. 
Current I/I within the Grants Pass collection system is estimated to be 22 mgd. This was 
determined by subtracting the peak base wastewater flow rate from the current peak wet weather 
flow (PWWF) for the treatment plant. The peak base flow was determined by assuming a per 
capita flow of 120 gallons per day (gpd), a service population of 25,000, and a peaking factor 
of 2. PWWF for the plant flow is estimated at 28 mgd. 
Table 8-9 contains a ranking of the collection system basins according to gross I/I contribution. 
However, when determining the cost-effectiveness of I/I removal, a more appropriate method of 
comparing the basins is based on the amount of I/I contributed per linear foot of sewer line. 
Table 8-10 contains a list of the basins ranked according to the amount of LI contributed per 
Linear foot of sewer line. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
00C640 
8 - 1 0 
Table 8-8. 1995 Smoke Testing Observations 
Location Description 
504 MV Berry Lane Root' drain connected to sewer 
1333 NE Ninth Street Roof drain connected to sewer. 
1061 Lee Ro2a Lane Roof drain connected to sewer. 
1095 Rogue River Highway Roof dram connected to sewer 
917 SW J Street Roof drain connected to sewer 
407 SE Eighth Street Roof drain connected to sewer. 
NW Savage Street at Gilbert Creek Smoke detected on bridge. 
101 NW Wrightwood Circle Area drain connected to sewer 
402 NW Pleasant View Street Smoke detected in ditch. 
1013 NW Prospect StTeet Smoke detected on ground under bridge. 
SE Mill Street Hole in sewer line. 
722 NW 5th Street Smoke detected in back yard. 
1403 N.W. Lawnridge Smoke at tree stump and crack in street 
955-957-959 N.E Ninth Street Smoke in driveway out of sidewalk area 
2175 N.W. Vine Street Smoke from around cleanout and lean-to in back of house 
702 N.E A Street Hole under pallet Ninth Street side of house 
1774 N.E Wharton Drive Smoke from under back patio area 
1019 N.E. Churchill Smoke from under house pipe exposed 
1029 Madrone Smoke from tinder metal plate in driveway 
459 RE. Flint Smoke out of heat pump 
832 N.E. D Street Smoice out of crack in driveway 
1113 N.W. Bellevue Place House removed, lateral not plugged 
65 S.W. Western Smoke from under sidewalk by front porch 
32 S.W. Western Hole in line under low growing pines in front yard 
1601 S.W. Heather Hole in lateral in front yard 
2072 Rogue River Hwy. Smoke from around foundation 
732 S.E- J Street Smoke from small building and cap missing from cleanout 
275 Fruitdale Old foundation, all plumbing pipes need caps 
301 Canal Lane Smoke coining from under house 
205 S.W. Booth Street Smoke from around power pole in alley 
S.E. Tenth and I Street Vacant lot. Broken lateral line. 
S.E Eighth Street Vacant lot between J and K Street. Service not plugged. 
976 S.E N Street Cap missing on cleanout* 
Vacant lot next to 1340 N.W. Prospect Broken cleanout in field 
925 S.E M Street Cap missing on cleanout* 
1075 S.E. Clarey Street Need new cap on cleanout* 
1635 S.E Rogers Court Need cap on cleanout in front yard" 
1604 N.W. Crescent Drive Broken cleanout cap* 
424 N.W Lawrence Broken cap on cleanout* 
166] N E Terrace Cap missing from cleanout* 
755 N.E Twelfth Street Broken cleanout cap* 
1045 S.W. K Street Broken cleanout cap* 
* Corrected in 1997-1998. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
'K> 641 
8-11 
Table 8-9. Estimated Collection System I/I Distribution 
Basin 
I/I 1983 
(mgd) 
Percent 
distribution 
1/7 1997 
(mgd) 
-G 5.7 32 7 0 
F 2.2 12 2.7 
J 1.9 11 2.4 
C 1.8 10 2.2 
H 1 1 6 14 
K 1.0 5 1.2 
B 0.8 4 1.0 
I 0.8 4 1.0 
M 0.7 4 0.8 
L 0.5 3 0.7 
E 0.5 3 0.6 
N 0.5 3 0.6 
D 0.4 2 0.5 
A 0.2 I 0.2 
Total 18.0 22.0 
The majority of collection system I/I typically originates in faulty service laterals (WEF, 1994, 
Collection System Master Plan, 1983; Metcalf and Eddy, 1981). As a result, 20 percent of the 
estimated I/I was assumed to originate within the sewer main with the remaining 80 percent 
assumed to originate within the service laterals. 
Potential I/I reduction was determined for two cases. The first case was for the replacement of 
the sewer main and all service laterals from the main to 5 feet inside the property line. This case 
was chosen because the current 6th and 7th Street sewer improvement project involved 
replacement of the main and all service laterals between the main and 5 feet inside the property 
line. Of the I/I originating within the sewer main, it was assumed that this method of 
rehabilitation would reduce the I/I by 50 percent. This results in only a 10 percent net reduction 
in I/I for a given length of sewer main. Small reductions in I/I are reasonable for this type of 
rehabilitation work because as leaks within the sewer main and service lateral connections are 
repaired groundwater levels tend to rise. Rising groundwater translates to greater infiltration rates 
through defects in the unrepaired sections of the service laterals The city reports that 
groundwater levels rose by more than 4 feet following replacement of the sewer lines within the 
6th and 7th Street project. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000644 
8-12 
Table 8-10. Current Estimated 1/1 and Associated Removal Costs 
Potential I/f reduction" Cost' 
Basin L'I (gpd/ft) 
Sewer 
length (ft) 
Number of 
laterals* 
Number of 
manholes'' 
Mains* 
(mgd) 
Mains and 
laterals'* 
(mgd) 
Mains' 
($1.000) 
Mains and 
laterals' 
(St ,000) 
G 120 63,450 1,060 210 0,70 5.62 12,660 17.100 
C 80 29,950 500 100 0.22 1 78 5,980 8,070 
J 50 53,500 890 130 0.24 1.89 10.670 ¡4.420 
D 40 13,350 220 40 0.05 0.43 2,600 3,600 
F 40 68,800 1,150 230 0.27 2.18 13.730 18,540 
A 40 5,200 90 20 0.02 0.16 1,040 1,400 
H 40 36^00 600 120 0.14 1.10 7,220 9,760 
E 40 16,250 270 50 0.06 0.48 3,240 4,380 
B 40 28,100 470 90 0.10 0.79 5,610 7,570 
I 40 27,800 460 90 0.10 0.77 5,550 7.490 
K 30 49,450 820 160 0.12 0.96 9,860 13,330 
L 20 28,100 470 90 0.07 0.54 5,610 7,570 
M 20 45,850 760 150 0.08 0.66 9,150 12,360 
N 10 46,400 770 160 0.06 0.48 9,260 12,500 
Total 512,400 8,540 1,710 2.23 17.83 102,220 138,090 
Note: a Assumes one service lateral per 60 ft of sewer main and one manhole per 300 ft of sewer main. 
b 20 percent of I/I is assumed to originate within the sewer main with the remaining 80 percent originating 
within the sewer laterals. 
c Replacement of the sewer main and service laterals to within 5 ft of the property line assumed to eliminate 
20 percent of the I/I originating in the sewer main, 
d Replacement of the sewer main and entire service laterals including that between the property line and the 
structure served is assumed to eliminate 80 percent of the I/I originating in both the main and the service 
laterals. 
e Cost includes replacement of sewer main, service laterals to within 5 ft of the property line, and 50 percent 
of all manholes encountered, 
f Cost includes replacement of sewer main, entire service laterals, and 50 percent of all manholes 
encountered, 
g Estimated costs; 
Sewer main replacement: S30/ft 
Lateral replacement: S70/ft - main to property line 
S60/ft - property line to structure served 
Manhole replacement: 52,500 each 
The second repair method examined was replacement of die sewer main and the entire length of 
all service laterals encountered, including lengths falling inside private property lines. 
Replacement of the entire length of the service laterals will eliminate defects responsible for 
rainfall induced infiltration. It will also reduce or eliminate the potential for infiltration to shift 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
O0 64-n 
8-13 
from the sewer main into the shallow service laterals because of rising groundwater. As a result, 
it was assumed that replacement of both the sewer main and entire lengths of service laterals 
would result in a net reduction in I/I by 80 percent in the areas being rehabilitated This very 
high I/I removal was selected as a conservative value to present service lateral rehabilitation in 
the most favorable light possible. This represents service lateral rehabilitation in the most 
economical and successful approach possible 
Structural Repair Projects 
As will be shown in the cost-effectiveness analysis contained in Chapter 9, collection system 
rehabilitation is not cost-effective based solely on considerations of I/I reduction. As is 
commonly the case, it was determined that it is cheaper to convey and treat 1/1 than it is to 
remove it through rehabilitation of the collection system. However, the collection system has a 
finite life span and requires planned replacement to eliminate danger of structural failures. 
Because of their age and generally poor condition, replacement efforts should begin in areas of 
the collection system containing clay sewer lines. Table 8-11 contains a list of such projects, 
their associated costs, and potential I/I reduction. 
Table 8-11. Estimated Costs and I/I Reduction for Structural Repairs 
Project Basin 
Sewer 
length (ft) 
Number 
of laterals 
Number of 
manholes 
Potential 11 
reduction 
mains (gpd) 
Cost4' 
mains, 
(dollars) 
Unit I/I 
Removal 
Cost (S'gpd) 
Pine Street* C 4,500 75 15 33,400 929,200 28 
2nd Street* F 3,000 50 10 11,900 619,500 52 
Western Avenue* B 2,500 40 9 10,000 507,000 51 
Other clay 90,450 1,508 302 533,300 17,885,000 31 
Note: * Pine Street interceptor is considered to be from manhole D44 to C26 and from C26 to F-t. 
v 2nd Street interceptor is considered to be from manhole from F80 to F105. 
° Western Avenue interceptor is considered from manhole B32 to B60. 
i Includes replacement of service laterals from main to 5 ft inside the property line. 
1 Estimated costs: 
Sewer main replacement: S80/ft 
Lateral replacement: $70/fl main to property line 
S60/ft property line to structure served 
Manhole replacement $2.-500 each 
The Pine Street and 2nd Street projects are recommended based on the large number of 
structural failures reported by the city in recent years. These structural failures have resulted 
in numerous sink holes within Pine Street that are a liability concern for the city. In addition 
to structural concerns, these lines were identified as having capacity deficiencies in the 1983 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
000644 
8 - 1 4 
Sewage Collection System Master Plan. Subsequent to the preparation of the 1983 plan, there 
have been several SSOs within this section of the collection system. Collection system 
modifications constructed in 1997 appear to have corrected the SSO in this area. 
The Western Avenue project is an area where severely deteriorated concrete pipe was observed. 
TV inspection identified high infiltration and severe root intrusion. This line also feeds into a 
capacity limited segment identified in the 1983 Master Plan. 
The potential I/I reduction shown in Table 8-11 is based on replacement of only the sewer mains 
and the sections of the service laterals from the main to 5 feet inside the private property line. 
As was previously discussed, replacement of these iines is not cost-effective on the basis of I/I 
removal but instead are necessitated due to the structural condition of the pipe and potential 
capacity deficiencies within the sections recommended for replacement. 
In sections already requiring replacement because of structural or capacity concerns, replacing 
entire service laterals instead of only a portion of the laterals becomes cost-effective in terms of 
I/I removal. Replacing private service laterals in their entirety can result in a reduction in I/I 
by as much as 80 percent compared to less than 10 percent for repair of the main and service 
connections alone. Replacing service laterals in conjunction with a planned structural repair 
project is potentially cost-effective as a method of I/I reduction. Table 8-12 shows estimated 
costs and potential I/I reduction associated with lateral repair for the structural projects identified 
in Table 8-11. Comparison of the unit I/I removal costs in Tables 8-11 and 8-12 illustrates the 
fact that replacement of laterals provides a significantly more economical means of I/I reduction 
than does replacement of gravity mains alone. A complete I/I removal cost-effectiveness 
analysis will be presented in Chapter 9. 
Table 8-12. Estimated Costs and I/I Reduction for Lateral Repair 
Project Basin 
Sewer 
length (ft) 
Number of 
laterals 
Potential I/I 
reduction 
laterals (gpd) 
Cosr'J 
laterals 
(dollars) 
Unit I/I 
removal cost 
(S/gpd) 
Pine Street* C 4,500 75 233.700 315.000 1.3 
2nd Street" F 3.000 50 83,200 210.000 2.5 
Western Avenue* B 2.500 40 53,800 168,000 3.1 
Other clay C,D,E,F,G,H 90.450 1,508 4,082,900 6,331.500 1.6 
Note: 
* Pice Street interceptor is considered to be from manhole D44 to C26 and from C26 to Fi 
4 2nd Street interceptor is considered to be from manhole F80 to F105. 
' Western Avenue interceptor is considered to be from manhole B32 to B60. 
d Cost is for replacement of service lateral from 5 ft inside the property line to the structure served. 
• Estimated costs: Lateral replacement: $60/ft property line to structure served 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 
8-15 
The large number of sewer line failures and overflows experienced in recent years illustrates the 
need for the development and implementation of an on-going sanitary sewer improvement 
program. The 1983 plan contained recommendations for such a program. However, changes 
have occurred witiiin the collection system that warrant updating of the master plan. 
1983 Sewage Collection System Master Plan 
The 1983 Sewage Collection System Master Plan presented a staged collection system 
improvement program. The report presented system capacity deficiencies identified by actual 
overflow events and through modeling the collection system. Subsequent to 1983, the city has 
acted on several of the report's recommendations. For example, the system has been completely 
smoke-tested and a 6th and 7th Street interceptor project was completed in 1998. 
Master Plan Recommendations. Recommendations included in the 1983 plan were divided into 
three phases based on their priority. Phase I, to be completed by 1987, was to address existing 
1982 capacity deficiencies identified by overflows and system modeling. Phase II, 1987 to 
1992, was to correct deficiencies projected for the 5-year interval following 1987. Finally, 
Phase III recommendations were to address projected capacity deficiencies at full system 
development in the year 2002. 
The 1983 plan included smoke testing, pipeline replacement, rehabilitation projects to reduce I/I, 
and installation of parallel pipelines. Table 8-13 presents the phased recommendations. 
The 1983 plan recommended 28 individual projects for the maintenance and improvement of the 
Grants Pass collection system. To date, two of these projects have been done. The first was 
the system wide smoke testing performed in 1995 Smoke testing identified multiple sources of 
inflow, many of which have been corrected. 
The second project undertaken by the city was the 6th and 7th Street interceptor replacement. 
This project was a Phase II recommendation which entailed replacement of the line between 
manholes G26 and G98 on 6th Street. Approximately 4,500 feet of sewer main was installed, 
replacing the existing lines. The project also included repair of service laterals to reduce system 
I/I. All active non-PVC laterals were replaced from the main sewer to 5 feet inside the property 
line. Fifty percent of the estimated cost was paid by the property owner with the city making 
up the balance of the actual cost. It is estimated that 120 service laterals were uncovered of 
which 75 were active. Abandoned service laterals were disconnected. 
Of special interest during the 6th and 7th Street project has been the discovery of several 
stormwater catch basins connected to the sanitary sewer. One of the connections received runoff 
from approximately 1 acre of impervious area. This may have caused an inflow of 261 gpm 
(0.38 mgd) into the system, assuming a 1-hour storm with a l-in-5-year reoccurrence interval 
for Grants Pass. The city corrected this particular connection by disconnecting the stormwater 
catch basin. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
}0C646 
Table 8-13. Staged Improvement Program 
8 - 1 6 
Description 
Phase 1 
City-wide smoke test program 
Smoke test repair program 
15-inch replacement line—-Second Street (System 101) 
18-inch replacement line—"?" and Booth Streets (System 102) 
18-inch replacement line—Pine Street and Rogue River Drive (System 103) 
15-inch and 30-inch replacement line—Rogue River Drive and Lee Lane (System 104) 
30-inch replacement line—South Seventh Street (System 202) 
12-inch and 15-inch replacement line—Bridge Street to Greenwood Avenue (System 502) 
15-inch replacement line—"A" Street (System 801) 
21-inch replacement line—North Seventh Street (System 802) 
Rehabilitation—Basins Jl, 12, J3 (System 1501) 
Rehabilitation—Basin J4 (System 1502) 
Rehabilitation—Basins 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 (System 901) 
Rehabilitation—Basin N-3 (System 402) 
Plug west outlet of manhole J41 
Phase 2 
15-inch replacement line—Laurel Street and Rogue River Avenue (System 106) 
12-inch replacement line—Western Avenue and Bridge Street (System 501) 
21-inch replacement line—South Seventh Street (System 802) 
12-inch parallel line—McLeam Drive (System 1501) 
10-mch parallel line—Webster Lane (System 1602) 
8-inch parallel line—"B" and " C Streets (MH F15 - MH Fl7) 
8-inch parallel line—Hillside Street (MH F33 - MH F35) 
10-inch and 15-inch replacement line—Prospect Avenue (MH F9I - MH F105) 
10-inch and 12-inch replacement line—Sixth Street (MH G26 - MH G98) 
10-inch and 12-inch replacement line—Hefly Street (MH H7 - MH H49) 
Rehabilitation Program (Multiple Sub-Basins) 
Phase 3 
Rehabilitation, Basin N-2 (System 402) 
10-inch parallel line—Rogue River Drive (System 1501) 
Rehabilitation Program (Multiple Sub-Basins) 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
O O " 6 4 7 
8-17 
Three Skunk Creek crossings and one irrigation canal crossing were also replaced. In each case, 
the old 8-inch clay sewer was deteriorated and had settled to form a belly. It has long been 
speculated that creek crossings could represent a significant inflow source. Prior to the pipe 
replacement, flow in the old sewer was observed to be about 1/4 full upstream of the creek 
crossing and about 1/3 full downstream. 
Upon completion of the 6th and 7th Street sewer project, it has been noted that the groundwater 
level has risen an estimated 4 feet. Prior to construction, the groundwater level was at or below 
the old sewer line. The increased groundwater level may be contributing to greater infiltration 
in other areas of the system. 
Planned Actions. The next project contained in the 1983 plan that the city would like to pursue 
is replacement of the Pine Street interceptor. This project was included in Phase I of the staged 
improvement program. In recent years, structural failures in the Pine Street interceptor have 
resulted in six sinkholes that have required immediate repair. Because of its poor structural 
condition, the 1983 plan recommended high priority be given to the replacement of this 
interceptor. The city may also assess the condition of 6-inch local mains and private service 
laterals that tie into the interceptor to determine the need for additional work within the basin. 
The city plans to take additional steps not included in the 1983 plan for the improvement of its 
collection system. The first of these is the investigation of the 6th Street interceptor in the area 
north of the current replacement project. Stormwater system maps will be consulted to identify 
potential cross connections. Potential connections may be dye tested to verily actual cross 
connection with the sanitary sewer system. TV-inspection will be performed to identify acute 
problem areas and to determine the overall condition of the interceptor and laterals. 
A second step the city wishes to take that was not included in the 1983 plan is to purchase a 
flow meter and a push-type TV camera to bolster its ability to assess system conditions. The 
flow meter will be used to identify problem areas that contribute high I/I flows to the system. 
Purchase of the TV camera will allow inspection of private service laterals. Information gained 
through inspections will assist the city in determining the overall condition of the collection 
system and will be used to evaluate the need for lateral replacement. 
Updated Collection System Master Plan 
Due to the continuing deterioration of the collection system, an updated Master Plan may be 
warranted. Basic goals of a collection system program are the protection of human health, the 
protection of the environment, and the protection of the public's investment in the existing 
collection system. The following project objectives have been developed to ensure that the basic 
goals of the collection system improvement program are attained. 
• Eliminate structural failures 
• Eliminate sanitary sewer overflows 
• Economical wastewater treatment 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
0 9 C 6 4 8 
8 - 1 8 
• Develop planning tools 
• Establish private service lateral policy 
• Determine budget requirements 
Eliminate Structural Failures. The first objective of a collection system improvement program 
would be the elimination of structural failures. Sanitary sewer systems are commonly assigned 
service lives of 50 to 100 years (WEF, 1994). As a system's design life is reached, failures can 
be expected to occur because of pipe deterioration from corrosion, differential settling, and 
loading. An improvement program could be developed such that repair of structurally threatened 
system components is a planned maintenance activity rather than an emergency response to a 
sinkhole caused by a failed pipe. Sinkholes in city streets also present a public safety and city 
liability risk. 
The 1983 Collection System Plan estimated that 26 percent of the collection system is 50 years 
old or older, having been installed between 1900 and 1950. Of this amount, 85,200 feet of clay 
pipe was installed between 1900 and 1930 and has been responsible for the majority of sinkhole 
formation. Concrete sewers constructed since 1930 have also shown serious deterioration. 
There is some evidence that the older concrete pipe may have been poor quality and is rapidly 
deteriorating. Repair effort would focus on the system's oldest and therefore most structurally 
threatened pipe line. 
Following repair of ail components currently threatened with structural failure, an on-going 
maintenance program should be developed. Resources could be allocated for the replacement 
of approximately 1 percent of the total system each year. This assumes a useful service life of 
100 years and will result in planned repair of pipe as it reaches its serviceable life. Thus, 
Grants Pass should rehabilitate approximately 1.1 miles of its 110 tniles of sewer line each year. 
Repair priorities can be determined from existing system knowledge and a continuing program 
of system investigation and evaluation. 
A continuing program of yearly system repair would protect the public's investment in the 
existing collection system. Structural failures impact the performance of the system as a whole, 
not just the individual pipe involved in a failure. 
Eliminate Sanitary Sewer Overflows, Sanitaiy sewer overflows threaten public health and 
environmental quality because of the potential for exposure to untreated wastewater. To limit 
this potential, DEQ has mandated that SSOs are not permitted except during extreme 
precipitation events, OAR 340-41-120 (13-14). Wet season overflows are not permitted except 
during the l-in-5-year storm, and dry weather overflows are only allowed during the 1-in-10-
year event. 
SSO elimination can be achieved in one of two ways. The first is by reducing total peak 
wastewater flows associated with precipitation events. The second method is system design 
resulting in increased total capacity. 
r 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
O O C 6 4 9 
8 - 1 9 
Peak flows during precipitation events are predominantly due to I/I entering the collection 
system. The I/I uses up available system capacity resulting in the occurrence of an overflow. 
80 percent of the systems total peak flow is from I/I. Thus, actions taken to eliminate or reduce 
the amount of I/I will result in the decreased likelihood of overflows. 
The second method of SSO elimination is through system design. Collection system capacity 
can simply be designed to allow for high peak flow rates associated with precipitation. Because 
I/I can never be totally eliminated from collection systems, additional capacity must always be 
included to accommodate the entry of stormwater and groundwater into the system. However, 
at some point it becomes more economical to begin reducing I/I levels, because of the costs 
associated with conveying and treating the excess water. 
Economical Wastewater Treatment. The conveyance and treatment of I/I flows results in 
increased capital spending on additional treatment plant and collection system capacity above 
base domestic and commercial generation. I/I also results in greater energy costs associated with 
treatment of high peak flows. 
An effective collection system program will weigh the cost-effectiveness of I/I removal with that 
of continued conveyance and treatment. Only a certain percentage of I/I can be cost-effectively 
eliminated. À collection system program must evaluate this relationship to ensure economical 
treatment of wastewater. 
Develop Planning Tools. In anticipation of continued municipal growth and development, 
planning tools are a necessary component of an effective collection system program. A 
collection system model is one such tool. Models enable the study of collection system impacts 
resulting from projected growth and associated increases in wastewater generation. Capacity 
deficiencies can be identified and eliminated. This allows accommodation of future growth while 
providing protection from sanitary sewer overflows. 
Additional benefits of collection system modeling may be development of GIS (Geographic 
Information System) data. GIS data is useful in coordinating planning efforts for projected 
municipal growth. Potential applications are infrastructure design, land use planning, and 
zoning. 
The collection system was originally modeled during preparation of the 1983 plan. An updated 
effort could be made including use of extensive flow monitoring data and current population 
projections. The 1983 model projected conditions up to the year 2002 and assumed a build-out 
population of 35,350. Population projections and capacity demands have changed and would 
be reflected in an updated system model Current projections for the wastewater treatment 
system are for the year 2020 with a service population of 44,500. Because recommendations 
of the 1983 plan were based on lower flows, reassessment of the system is necessary to correctly 
size lines for future flows. 
Establish Private Service Lateral Policy. The majority of collection system I/I can originate 
in faulty service laterals (WEF, 1994, Collection System Master Plan, 1983; Metcalf and Eddy, 
1981) One element of I/I is rainfall- induced infiltration. Rainfall-induced infiltration typically 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
>00650 
January 1999 
8 - 2 0 
enters collection systems through service laterals because of their shallow depth and results in 
immediate system response to precipitation events. This behavior is characteristic of the Grants 
Pass system. Figure 8-2 shows total system flow during a dry season storm event that occurred 
in October 1997. The 0.95-inch rainfall event began at 12:00 p.m. and the WRP received a 
rapid increase in flow within 3 hours, peaking only 6 hours after the rain began. 
Assuming that I/I reduction is one objective of the collection system improvement program, steps 
would be taken to repair leaky service laterals. Issues that could be addressed include the city's 
legal authority to mandate lateral repair, liability issues associated with work on private 
property, and assigning payment responsibility for the repairs. 
Approaches taken in Oregon to ensure service lateral repair include the recent 6th and 7th Street 
interceptor project in Grants Pass. In this project, all private service laterals were replaced from 
the main to a point 5 feet within the property line. The property owner bore 50 percent of the 
estimated cost, with the remainder being the responsibility of the city. The cities of Springfield 
and Eugene replace all service laterals from the main connection to the property line bearing the 
full cost of the work during rehabilitation projects. Salem goes one step further bearing the full 
cost and responsibility of total lateral replacement during mainline rehabilitation work. 
Lateral repair may occur during concerted basin rehabilitation efforts or in a more piecemeal 
manner. One such approach is to require testing and repair of service laterals prior to property 
sale. This approach will not result in immediate basin I/I reduction but does provide a valuable 
long-term tool for the maintenance of collection system service laterals. 
Determine Budget Requirements, The final objective of the collection system improvement 
program would be to determine resource allocation required to maintain a viable wastewater 
collection system. Collection systems have finite serviceable lives. In light of this, yearly 
spending is required for the replacement of collection system components. Annual investment 
in component replacement will result in the elimination of structural failures and the need for 
unplanned emergency repairs. 
Because of the age of the Grants Pass collection system, much of the system has reached its 
serviceable life. This is evidenced by the structural failures that have occurred in recent years. 
During the first years of an improvement program, additional resources would be required to 
catch up with the rate of system deterioration. Following an initial catch up period, an on-going 
repair program could be initiated and appropriately funded to maintain the serviceability of the 
system into the future. 
Yearly investment in the repair of system mains and interceptors forms the minimum effort 
required to maintain a functioning collection system. As previously discussed, this will have 
little net effect on the reduction of system I/I. Additional spending would be required to achieve 
real reduction in I/I. The collection system improvement program could include budget 
recommendations for cost-effective removal of I/I from the system. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan January 1999 
' K K 6 5 1 
o 1 1 1 
8:00 AM 2:00 PM 8:00PM 2:00AM 
Time 
N o t e : O c t o b e r 1997 event, prior to s t o r m w a t e r c a t c h basin repair 
F i g u r e 8 - 2 . S y s t e m R e s p o n s e to Rainfal l Event 
0 0 C 6 5 2 
9-1 
CHAPTER 9 
LIQUID STREAM TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 
A Facilities Plan (FP) for Grants Pass WRP completed in January 1999 proposed one alternative 
for the liquid stream treatment. The upgrades designed were based on a peak flow of 49.8 mgd 
using a conventional method of treatment This future flow rate projection was one reason why 
a Value Engineering ÇVE) Workshop1 was held in June 1999. The projections were recalculated 
and other treatment alternatives were conceptualized. Therefore, two of these alternatives 
presented in this chapter are from this VE Workshop. The third alternative is the FP concept, but 
the component construction has been adjusted to treat the peak flow rate of 37.8 mgd. These 
alternatives were then evaluated in order to select the best method for the liquid stream treatment 
for the Grants Pass WRP. 
UPGRADES COMMON TO THE ALTERNATIVES 
All the alternatives have several component upgrades in common. At the headworks, an 
additional mechanical bar screen would be installed with a 23.5-mgd capacity. This provides 
redundancy and a maximum capacity of 47 mgd, which is well beyond the projected future flows. 
An outfall diffuser would be added to improve and reduce ammonia toxicity into the Rogue 
River. Several miscellaneous plant improvements, which existed in the FP, have also been 
included in the VE alternatives. These improvements include laboratory upgrades, operations 
building repairs and modifications, and instrumentation and control system expansion. 
Miscellaneous Plant Improvements. Other miscellaneous plant improvements include: 
Plant Equipment Audit. A full analysis of the existing component conditions would 
be conducted. This audit would analyze the remaining life span of each component 
and develop an operations and maintenance schedule for the 20-year planning period. 
* Additional Plant Landscaping. Currently a substantial amount of landscaping at the 
treatment plant has occurred to promote a good-neighbor environment. However, to 
continue this effort, additional landscaping would be necessary. 
* Public Involvement/Education Program. This program would assist in raising the 
public's knowledge and understanding of the issues that must be considered in 
decisions regarding the City's sewerage system. Better understanding by the public 
of the complexity of the issues and the true implications of decisions, plus the 
variables that must be faced in plant operations would go a long way to minimizing 
public opposition when future events cause impacts on the plant neighbors and the 
public in general. This could include open houses, cooperation with schools, and 
social events to bring the public to a greater sense of understanding and ownership. 
The VE Liquid Stream Workshop is in Appendix H. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
A 0 C 6 5 3 
9-2 
ALTERNATIVE ONE - CONVENTIONAL EXPANSION 
Alternative'One was the proposed alternative from the FP and provides a conventional method 
of treatment. Figure 9-1 presents the flow schematic for this expansion and Table 9-1 
summarizes the existing components and future additions proposed. 
The four existing pumps would be replaced with three 19 mgd capacity pumps to meet a firm 
capacity of 38 mgd. The existing clarifiers and aeration basins would all undergo rehabilitation. 
One additional rectangular primary clarifier, two aeration basins, and two 115-foot diameter 
secondary clarifiers would be constructed to meet the projected flow. 
SIMILAR UPGRADES TO ALTERNATIVES TWO AND THREE 
Alternatives Two arid Three have several similar upgrades to the Grants Pass WRP (see Table 
9-2). At the headworks, it would be necessary to install an additional pump to meet the projected 
future capacity of 38 mgd. An evaluation would also be necessary to determine if the current 
influent pumps are in proper working condition. This examination would determine if one 
additional pump is sufficient, or if all of the pumps need to be replaced. Because the headworks 
are a primary source for odor, it would be necessary to install odor containment at the influent 
pump station and the mechanical screening area. 
Ballasted Sedimentation. These sedimentation tanks are 30 to 40 times smaller than 
conventional primary basins and can remove up to 60 percent BOD3, 90 percent TSS, and 90 
percent phosphorus. Ballasted sedimentation is a process where ehenucaladditioii (alum or ferric 
chloride) and microsand are mixed in a flash-mixing tank. Solids and BOD, are adsorbed onto 
the microsand into a heavy floe that is settled in a clarification tank and removed. The clarified 
water then exits the treated water outlet. The heavy floe is pumped to a hydrocyclone where the 
sand particles are separated from the floe. The sludge would be pumped to the digester and the 
microsand recycled back through the process. 
Both Alternatives Two and Three present the treatment alternative of Ballasted Sedimentation. 
The existing gravity thickener would be converted to the ballasted sedimentation basin. This 
basin would serve as peak overflow treatment for flows greater than 13.5 mgd If conversion of 
this basin is unfeasible, a new ballasted sedimentation basin would be constructed on site. The 
treated effluent would then be recombihed with the main treatment train prior to entering the 
UV-disinfection channel. 
Primary Clarification/Gravity Thickener. The existing 70-foot-circular primary clarifier would 
be converted to a combination primary clarifier/gravity thickener, AH of the sludge from the 
rectangular sedimentation basins would be pumped to this one unit to be thickened before transfer 
to the digester. This conversion would satisfy the need for primary solids thickening well beyond 
the 20-year design period. 
Ultraviolet Disinfection. Based on the flows projected during the VE study, additional UV 
capacity is not anticipated during the 20-year planning period. 
Grants Pass Facilities Ptan - Update Revised April 2000 
OC 654 
± x x 
T T T 
XX JL 
T T T 
I 
_LX X 
.ITTT 
XXX 
T T T 
[ I wjjß^W xV 
» • 
a O' 
:.-.: Or: CO IO 
» i rom 
i l 
< g 
1 4-> «J 
_' G' 
3 <n Oi iE < 
® 
o c» 
I 
ô 
a . S: 
a 
§ 
0 .5 
S 
! 
1 
E 
3 
S 
49 S f 'i»- f^ 
0) o> 
I M X 
Iii 
iNaniJNi 

11-3 
Table 9-1. Proposed Improvements for Alternative One - Conventional Expansion 
UNIT PROCESS 
YEAR 
1999 2020 
INFLUENT PUMPING 
I ••j -c Variable speed centrifugal / 
Number of Pumps 3 -
Capacity each, mgd 9 -
Number o f pumps 1 4 
Capacity each, mgd 12 18 
Total firm capacity, mgd 27 54 
MECHANICAL BAR SCREENS 
Number 1 2 
Capaoity, mgd 23.5 47 
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS 
Circular 
Number 1 1 
Diameter, feet 70 70 
Capacity at PWWF, mgd 10.6 10.6 
Rectangular 
Number 2 2 
Length, feet 108 103 
Width, feet 21.J 21.5 
Capacity at PWWF, mgd 8.2 S.2 
Total primary capacity at PWWF, mgd 27 27 
Number I 
Length, feet 150 
Width, feet 21.5 
Capacity at PWWF, mgd 11.3 
Total primary capacity at PWWF, mgd 38.3 
GRIT REMOVAL (Degrit Primary Sludge) 
Cyclones, number 2 3 
Classifiers, number I 2 
AERATION BASINS 
Number 2 4 
Total Volume, 1,000 cf 112.5 225 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
11-658 
Table 9-1. Proposed Improvements for Alternative One - Conventional Expansion (cont.) 
UNIT PROCESS 
YEAR 
1999 2020 
SECONDARY CLARIFICATION 
Number 2 2 
Diwneter, feet 75 75 
Depth, feet 12.3 12.3 
Number - 2 
Diameter, feet - U$ 
Depth, feet - 18 
UV DISINFECTION 
Type: Medium pressure UV 
Number of channels 2 2 
Modules per channel 2 2 
Total number of lamps 192 192 
PWWFbydraiilic capacity, mgd 43 43 
MISCELLANEOUS PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
Laboratory Upgrades X 
Operations building repairs and modifications X 
SCADA System Expansion X 
Yard Piping X 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update 
000702 
Revised April 2000 
9-5 
Table 9-2. Upgrades Common to Alternative Two - Ballasted Sedimentation and 
Alternative Three — The ¿¿non Process 
YEAR 
UNIT PROCESS 1999 2020 
INFLUENT PUMPING 
Type: Variable speed centrifugal 
Number o f pumps 3 3 
Capacity each, mgd 9 13 
Number of pumps 1 1 
Capacity each, mgd 12 13 
Number of pumps 4 
Total firm capacity, mgd 27 39 
MECHANICAL BAR SCREENS 
Number 1 2 
Capacity, mgd 23.5 47 
BALLASTED SEDIMENTATION 
Number I 
Capacity, mgd 24 
PRIMARY CLARIFICATION/GRAVITY THICKENER 
Number 1» 1* 
Diameter, feet 70 70 
Capacity at PWWF, mgd 10.6 10.6 
UV DISINFECTION 
Type: Medium pressure UV 
Number of channels 2 2 
Modules per channel 2 2 
Total number of lamps 192 192 
PWWF hydraulic capacity, mgd 43 43 
MISCELLANEOUS PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
Laboratory Upgrades X 
Operations building repairs and modifications X 
SCADA System Expansion X 
Plant Equipment Audit X 
Plant Landscaping X 
Public Education Program X 
Yard Piping X 
Existing circular primary clarifier converted to combination primary cUrifici/gravity ihickcnor. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan Revised June 2001 
m-c 
11-5 
ALTERNATIVE TWO - BALLASTED SEDIMENTATION 
Alternative Two is the preferred alternative from the YE Workshop This alternative treats the 
monthly maximum wet weather flow of 13,5 mgd through the existing primary treatment and 
conveys the peak flow to ballasted sedimentation. This alternative eliminates the need for 
additional primary sedimentation basins during this 20-year planning period to meet the future 
flow demand After treatment through the ballasted sedimentation tank, the wastewater would 
be combined with the flow before entering the UV channel for disinfection Figure 9-2 shows 
the flow schematic of this alternative. Table 9-3 presents the preliminary sizing of this 
alternative. 
Table 9-3. Proposed Improvements for Alternative Two - Ballasted Sedimentation 
YEAR 
UNIT PROCESS 1999 2020 
AERATION BASIN 
Aeration basin fine bubble X 
Aeration basin selector X 
Blowers and DO control X 
Motorized gates X 
SECONDARY CLARIFICATION 
Number 2 2 
Diameter, feet 75 75 
Depth, feet 12.3 12.3 
Number - 2 
Diameter, feet 
Depth, feet 
- 90 
14 
Aeration Basin. Currentiy, there are two aeration basins, each segmented into three bays, 
operating in a plug flow mode. These basins are capable of handling the future flows of 13.5 
mgd as long as the secondary clarifier capacity is available. To improve the settling performance 
in the secondary clarifiers, a bioselector installed in the aeration basin would provide an anoxic 
treatment zone to control filamentous bacteria. The smallest bay would be segmented into two 
zones and aerated with coarse bubble diffusers. The rest of the existing aeration basins would 
be modified by the addition of fine bubble diffusers, dissolved oxygen control, and motorized 
gates. Other than providing an anoxic zone and fine bubble diffusers, no other aeration basin 
modifications are needed during the 20-year planning period 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update 
VO G 6 6 0 
Revised April 2000 

9-7 
Secondary Liquid Treatment. Rehabilitation of the existing secondary clarifiers would be 
necessary to correct short-circuiting and flow distribution problems. Proposed modifications 
include weir adjustments, additional skimmers, baffle upgrades, and balancing of flow between 
clarifiers. To meet future flow demands, two additional 90-foot secondary clarifiers would be 
constructed, one in year 2010 and the other in year 2020. 
ALTERNATIVE THREE - ZENON PROCESS 
As in Alternative Two, the third alternative incorporates the use of ballasted sedimentation. 
However, instead of traditional secondary treatment, the final clarifiers are replaced with the 
Zenon process. The flow schematic is in Figure 9-3, and Table 9-4 lists the preliminary sizing. 
Table 9-4. Proposed Improvements for Alternative Three — Zenon Frocess 
YÏ ÌAR 
UNIT PROCESS 1999* 2020*+ 
Design Flow, mgd 
Total Volume, t,00Q cf 
13.5 
120,5 
13.5 
120.5 
Existing aeration basins. 
The Zenon membranes would be placcd in the existing aeration basins. 
l i te Zenon Process. The Zenon Process is a suspended growth biological reactor plus a 
micro filtration membrane system. Fbr this alternative, the membranes would be placed into the 
existing aeration basins to serve as the biological reactor. Microorganisms are present which 
consume organic wastes as a source of food. The waste is converted to carbon dioxide, water, 
and chemical intermediates and extra biomass. This membrane separation allows elevated levels 
of biomass to degrade or remove the soluble form of the organic pollutants from the waste 
stream. 
Zenon is a promising process; however, it is Still being developed. Some problems that affect 
the process is that the loading rate (gal/ft2 * h) of the membrane is unpredictable, which affects 
the overall performance of the system. Because the loading rate is time-related, it is necessary 
to adjust the membranes (by addition or removal) by trial-and-error. To prevent trial-and-error 
design, the process can be designed with a conservative loading rate, which greatly increases the 
startup cost. The membranes have also experienced problems with clogging, which can lead to 
higher operation and maintenance costs. 
Despite trying to adjust the loading rate for maximum treatment, the Zenon process has several 
positive aspects. Because of a high BOD, TSS, and microorganism removal rate, the effluent can 
be used for water recharge or water reuse. The membrane process performs treatment at a 
much higher organic loading rate, therefore the size of the tanks can be reduced significantly. 
Secondary clarification is not necessary because the Zenon process achieves tertiary effluent. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
^0CG62 
CHX 6 6 3 
11-9 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 
The current operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the Grants Pass WRP would increase 
with any alternative selection. The conventional expansion and the ballasted sedimentation would 
have a similar increase but in different measures. The conventional expansion would have an 
increase in energy usage because of additional components being on line. The ballasted 
sedimentation would increase O&M costs because of chemical addition to the tank. The Zenon 
process would have the greatest increase to O&M costs because of the frequency of cleaning and 
replacing the membranes. 
For each alternative, a preliminary cost estimate has been prepared and presented in Tables 9-5, 
9-6, and 9-7 for the conventional expansion, ballasted sedimentation, and the Zenon process 
alternatives, respectively. Costs include engineering, administration, and contingency. 
Table 9-5. Capital Costs for Alternative One - Conventional Expansion 
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 
ITEM CGST 
PRELIMINARY AND PRIMARY TREATMENT 
Influent Pumping 
Raw Sewage Pipeline 
Mechanical Bar Screen No. 2 
New Rectangular Primary Clarifier 
Grit Cyclones 
Rehabilitate Existing Primary Clarifier« 
Yard Piping 
SECONDARY TREATMENT 
Aeration Basin Modifications 
Aeration Basin Expansion 
Blowers and DO Control 
New Secondary Clarifiers 
Rehabilitate Existing Clarifiers 
Flow Distribution Structure 
Return Sludge Pumping 
Yard Piping 
OTHER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
Outfall diffuser 
Lab Improvements 
Operation Building Repairs and Office 
SCADA System Expansion 
S530,000 
S1,100,000 
$870,000 
S3,300,000 
S770.000 
$31Q,000 
5340,000 
$770^000 
$650,000 
S4ÛO.OOO 
$230,000 
SI,089,000 
$83,000 
590,000 
S270.000 
$54%000 
5100,000 
S130,000 
$670,000 
TOTAL 512,233,000 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update 
OCX 6 6 4 
Revised April 2000 
11-10 
Table 9-6. Preliminary Costs for Alternative Two - Ballasted Sedimentation 
ITEM COST 
PRELIMINARY AND PRIMARY TREATMENT 
Influent Pumping S560.000 
Row Sewage Pipeline 5240,000 
Mechanical Bar Screen No. 2 S230,000 
Yard Piping $270,000 
Screening Odor Control $390,000 
Modify Gravity Thickencr to Ballasted Sedimentation 53,510,000 
Modify Existing Primary to Combination Clarifier/Thickener 5610,000 
SECONDARY TREATMENT 
Aeration Basin Modifications 5790,000 
Blowers and DO Control $870,000 
New Secondary Clari tiers S2,400,000 
Rehabilitate Existing Clariflers $770,000 
Yard Piping 5770,000 
Motori»*! Gates 5340,000 
OTHER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
Outfall DiffUser 5540,000 
Lab Improvements 5100,000 
Operation Building Repairs and Office $130,000 
SCADA System Expansion 5670.000 
Equipment Replacements &om Audit Results 5250,000 
Plant Landscaping 5100,000 
Public Education Program $50,000 
TOTAL 513,590,000 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
O 0 C 6 6 5 
9-10 
Table 9-7. Capital Costs for Alternative Three - Zenon Process 
ITEM cost' 
PRELIMINARY AND PRIMARY TREATMENT 
kiviht Diimt^ m # tTjc/s nrui miiucra rumpmg 
Raw Sewage Kpeliae $240,000 
Mechanical Bar Screen No. 2 $230,000 
Yard Piping $270,000 
Screening Odor Control $390,000 
Modify Gravity Thickener to Ballasted Sedimentation $3,510,000 
Modify Existing Primary to Combination CLarifier,Thickener $610,000 
SECONDARY TREATMENT 
Zenon $13,380,000 
Aeration Basin Modifications $790,000 
Blowers and DO Control SS70.000 
Yard Piping $770,000 
OTHER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
Outfall Diffiiser 5540,000 
Lab Improvements $100,000 
Operation Building Repairs and Office 5130,000 
SCADA System Expansion 5670,000 
Equipment Replacement from Audit Results $250,000 
Plant Landscaping 5100,000 
Public Education Program $50,000 
TOTAL 523,960,000 
Table 9-8. Capital Costs for Collection System Improvements 
Pine Street SI.050,00 
2nd Street 5700,000 
Western Avenue $530,000 
Master Plan SI70.000 
TOTAL $2.500,000 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update 
0 0 C 6 6 6 
Revised April 2000 
11-667 
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 
The es&lMed cpst M each of the alternatives, as shown in Tables 9-5 through 9-7, was 
compared. Table 9-9 summarizes the capital costs of the alternatives. To further this 
comparison^ the advantages and disadvantages of these alternatives were summarized in 
Table 9-10. 
I M f a SMk Compai1s<to of Alternatives 
CAPITAL COST (Millions) 
One - Conventional Expansion $12.23 
Two ~ Ballasted Sedimentation S13.J9 
Three - Zenon Process $23.96 
Table 9-10. Summary of Alternatives 
. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 
ALTERNATIVE ONE - Conventional Expansion 
Staff fairiiiiar with process. 
Meets water quality standards. 
Uses existing processes. 
Lowest cost alternative. 
Requires major construction on site. 
Requires greatest use of land. 
ALTERNATIVE TWO - Ballasted Sedimentation 
Moderate cost alternative. 
Provides maximum utilization of structures. 
Meets water quality standards. 
j l.iir ml f i tulli h ' ilt| 111 Ulittwtoil 1 il 1111111111 i 1111 Process - training 
would be reqaired. 
Moderately high operation and maintenance cost. 
ALTERNATIVE THREE - Zenon Process 
Produces extremely high effluent quality. 
Provides maximum utilization of structures. 
No need for secondary clariflers. 
Least amount of construction. 
Staff not familiar with the Ballasted Sedimentation Process or Zenon 
Process - training would be required. 
Highest cost alternative. 
Highest operation and maintenance coet. 
Cost not justified unless water is for reuse. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
001; 667 
9-12 
Selection of Preferred Alternative. Alternative Two is the preferred alternative for the Grants 
Pass WRP liquid treatment stream. This selection has been based on the following evaluation: 
The difference in capital cost between preferred Alternative 2 - Ballasted 
Sedimentation and Alternative I - Conventional Expansion (lowest cost alternative) 
is only 10 percent. This is well within the level of accuracy of the overall estimates. 
Therefore, the cost of both alternatives are essentially the same and the cost 
differential cannot be used to disdnguish between them. 
• Alternative 2 - Ballasted Sedimentation has the following major advantages over 
Alternative 1 - Conventional Expansion: 
- Ballasted Sedimentation requires significantly less site construction than 
conventional expansion. 
- Ballasted Sedimentation is not subject to the "biological floe wash-out" problem 
normally associated with peak flow events and the conventional expansion. 
- Ballasted Sedimentation, once constructed, offers an opportunity to use the 
sedimentation process during non-peak flow events. The sedimentation tanks 
could be used to polish final secondary effluent using chemically assisted 
settling (tertiary treatment). 
- Ballasted Sedimentation can be constructed on site with no possible impacts to 
plant operation since it is a separate process. 
- Ballasted Sedimentation maximizes use of the existing treatment structures at 
the plant site. 
Estimated Performance of Ballasted Sedimentation. When Ballasted Sedimentation is used 
for split flow treatment, the combined plant effluent must meet secondary treatment criteria for 
effluent concentration. Mass balance calculations of the combined effluent concentrations are 
presented in Table 9-11 for the year 2020 design flows. Plant data from 1996-2000 was used to 
estimate influent wastewater characteristics and the performance of the existing conventional 
treatment during high flow events. 
The calculations summarized in Table 9-11 indicate that die final effluent concentrations during 
split flow treatment will meet secondary treatment guidelines. The conclusion from this analysis 
is that the Ballasted Sedimentation process operating in parallel with the upgraded conventional 
treatment train will consistently meet secondary effluent criteria during storm events. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan 
O 0 C 6 6 8 
Revised June 2001 
9-13 
Table 9-11. Ballasted Sedimentation Mass Balance Calculations for Year 2020 
J Description Average Best Comments 
} 2020 Peak Wet Weather Flow - mgd 38.0 38.0 From Table 4-9 
j 2020 Peak DayFlow 27.5 27.5 From Table 4-9 
j 2020 Max Month Wet Weather Flow - mgd 13J 13J From Table 4-9 
Maximum Flow to Ballasted Sedimentation - mgd 2 4 J 24.5 Assume all flow above 2020 maximum 
month wet weather flow of 13,5 mgd to BS 
| Peak Day Flow to Ball as led Sedimentation - mgd 14.0 14.0 Assume all flow above 2020 maximum 
month wet weather Dow of 13 J mgd to BS 
Plant Influent BOD - mg/1 
Plant Influent BOD - lb/day 
72 
16,513 
48 
11.009 
Based on 1996-2000 data 
Plant Influent TSS - mg/1 
j Plant Influent TSS - lb/day 
94 
21.559 
49 
11,238 
Based on 1996-2000 data 
Removals in Ballasted Sedimentation 
j BOD Removal 67% 73% Based on Actiflo Results at Tacoma 
| TSS Removal 85% 94% Based on Actiflo Results at Tacoma 
j Ballasted Sedimentation Effluent BOD - mg/1 23.8 13.0 
j Ballasted Sedimentation Effluent BOD - lb/day 2,774 1,513 
j Ballasted Sedimentation Effluent TSS - mg/1 2.9 
| Ballasted Sedimentation Effluent TSS - lb/day 1.646 343 
{ Removals in Conventional Treatment 
j BOD Removal 81% 88% Based on 1996-2000 data 
j TSS Removal 80% 94% Bated on 1996-200 data 
j Secondary Effluent BOD - mg/1 
j Secondary Effluent BOD - lb/day 
13.7 
U40 
5.8 
649 
1 Secondary Effluent TSS - mg/1 
J Secondary Effluent TSS - lb/day 
18.8 
2,117 
2.9 
331 
i Total Effluent BOD - lb/day 
J Total Effluent TSS - lb/day 
4.314 
3,763 
2,162 
674 
1 Total Effluent BOD - mg/1 
| Total Effluent TSS - mg/1 
19 
16 
9 
3 
| Total Effluent BOD Removal 74% 81% 
| Total Effluent TSS Removal 83% 94% 
Notes: Does not account Tor selector and planned improvements in aeration «ad cbitificTs. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan Revised June 2001 
00€ 669 
CHAPTER 10 
11-15 
BIOSOLIDS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES 
A reliable biosolids management program is a critical element in the operation of a wastewater 
treatment plant. For the Grants Pass WRP, several alternatives were analyzed during the 
VÉ Workshop' to determine the best program. Three alternatives were selected from the 
VE Workshop based on economics and feasibility. The fourth alternative is from the FP. 
SLUDGE QUANTITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS 
To ensure proper design of solids treatment components, future biosolids quantities were 
calculated using typical removal efficiencies and yield coefficients based on BOD and TSS, The 
BOD and TSS are proportional to population increase, therefore representing the increase m 
biosolids production. The average and maximum month primary and secondary biosolids 
production is in Table 10*1. 
Because of the lack of heavy industry in the Grants Pass WRP service area, the solids have low 
concentrations of heavy metals. Therefore, if solids are treated to meet Class A criteria, the 
criteria for "Exceptional Quality" (EQ) could be easily met. An EQ rating would allow the end 
product of soiicls processing to be sold to the public without any application requirements. 
Table 10-L Biosolids Production (lbs/day) 
YEAR 1999 2010 2020 
Average Primary 5,100 6,300 7,600 
Max. Month Primary 7,000 8,600 10,400 
Average Secondary 3,700 4,500 5,500 
Max. Month Secondary 5,700 6,500 7,900 
TOTAL AVERAGE 8,800 10,900 13,200 
TOTAL MAX MONTH 12,700 15,100 18,300 
The Biosolids Handling Workshop Document is in Appendix H. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
11-671 
CURRENT BIOSOLÏDS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL PLAN 
Currently, the Grants Pass WRP land applies Class B biosolids to farmland near the plant, 
weather permitting. When wet weather does occur, the biosolids are dewatered at the plant and 
hauled to Merlin Landfill. 
To produce Class B biosolids, several steps occur. The flow schematic for the current process 
is in Figure 10-1. The primary clarifier solids are thickened in the gravity thickener and the 
gravity belt thickener dewaters the secondary clarifier waste activated sludge. The primary and 
secondary sludge are then combined and sent to the 50-foot-diameter anaerobic digester. The 
digester has a capacity of 59,000 cubic feet and an average detention time of 28 days. The 
biosolids are digested to 2 to 4 percent solids and then hauled in two 3,500-gallon tanker trucks 
to be land applied. A short-term holding tank (referred to as the No. 2 digester) can store 
biosolids for 4 to 6 days, if necessary. These biosolids from the storage tank are either land-
applied or dewatered by a belt filter press to 16 to 18 percent solids. Dewatered biosolids are 
loaded into a dumpster and hauled to the Merlin Landfill. 
ALTERNATIVE ONE - MERLIN LANDFILL CO-COMPOST FACILITY 
Alternative One, the preferred alternative from the VE Workshop, would co~eomp0st digested 
primary and raw secondary biosolids. Figure 10-2 presents the flow diagram of this alternative. 
This alternative would consist of the existing digester, a new dewatering device (die existing belt 
filter press would remain on site for standby emergency use), and a co-composting facility. The 
elimination of the Redwood co-composting facility leaves a regional need for co-compost. 
Therefore, this alternative would provide die public the product. If the Class A co-compost 
received an EQ rating, it would have no application restrictions. 
Under this solid waste handling system, the existing digesters would be^used to treat only 
primary clarifier solids. The secondary clarifier solids would be combined with the digested 
solids, dewatered in a new component, and trucked to the new co-composting facility located 
near the center of the 316-acre Merlin Landfill. The new facility would eo-compost green 
wastes (i.e., yard debris, animal manure, and wood waste) from the general public, with the 
biosolids from the Grants Pass WRP using the extended aerated state pile method of co-
composting. 
To determine the dewatering device, the City would pilot-test various devices, such as a 
centrifuge or another belt filter press. Equipment would be tested for solids capacity and 
handling, operator ease and equipment complexity, energy usage, polymer usage, and overall 
performance issues. The device must produce at least 15 percent solids or greater. Based on 
the results of the tests, the City would choose the most feasible equipment for the Grants Pass 
WRP. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
001; 671 

0 0 ü 6 7 3 
IN 
S I 
2 c 
1 1 CD — 
E < 
674 
ALTERNATIVE TWO - DRY CREEK LANDFILL 
11-675 
Alternative Two is to haul dewatered biosolids to the Dry Creek Landfill. Figure 10-3 presents 
the flow schematic for this alternative. Both raw primary and secondary biosolids would be 
dewatered at the plant to 15 percent and hauled approximately 35 miles in trucks. A new belt 
filter press would be installed in the existing chlorine building that would also house the existing 
press. Additional hauling equipment would be required for transporting the biosolids to the 
landfill. 
By hauling the dewatered raw biosolids to the landfill, the grit removal, gravity thickener, 
gravity belt thickener, anaerobic digester, tank trucks, and land irrigation equipment could be 
eliminated. 
A major disadvantage of this alternative would be if future regulatoty requirements restrict the 
disposal of biosolids in the landfill. Therefore, this alternative could never be a sole source for 
biosolids disposal. However, it could be used as a temporary backup for the co-composting 
alternative in the event of an equipment failure or inclement weather. 
ALTERNATIVE THREE - LAND APPLYING CLASS B BIOSOLIDS 
Alternative Three is a continuation of the current biosolids management program of long hauling 
Class B biosolids and land applying. See Figure 10-1 for the flow schematic of this alternative. 
However, because of the projected increase m biosolids, the land application would be expanded. 
The City would contract with large landowners in Eastern Oregon to apply these Class B 
biosolids to farmlands Biosolids would be dewatered to 15 percent, hauled to the site in large 
tractor/trailers, and applied with a manure spreader. During the winter, the biosolids would be 
stored near the application site. 
Additional components would be necessary to meet the demands of the increased biosolids 
production. Several of the existing components would be duplicated, which include the gravity 
thickener, gravity belt, anaerobic digester, and belt filter press. The existing anaerobic digester 
would also need to be rehabilitated. 
A new covered storage building would be built near or at the application site to hold three 
months worth of biosolids. A site for the storage building has not been selected. 
Another consideration is producing Class A biosolids using co-composting. A pilot scale co-
composting facility could occur on site, located in the future biosolids storage building, utilizing 
low-cost aeration equipment. As discussed in Alternative One, the benefits of producing Class 
A biosolids would be the potential to produce "EQ" solids which could be distributed to the 
public. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
001; 675 

11-677 
ALTERNATIVE FOUR - AEROBIC THERMOPHILIC PRETREATMENT (ATP) 
In lieu of another anaerobic digester, this alternative would install an Aerobic Thermophilic 
Pretreatment (ATP) component to accommodate the future load increase, Figure 10-4 presents 
the flow schematic for this alternative. A Muffin Monster would be placed prior to the ATP to 
reduce the size of plastics in the biosolids. 
ATP is a two-stage digestion process that reduces pathogens and conditions the biosolids prior 
to anaerobic digestion. The thermophilic process has a detention time of about 24 hours, thus 
reducing the vessel size and associated footprint. 
Replacing a new anaerobic digester has several advantages, which include: 
• The elimination of heating the digester. 
• The reduction in footprint, which is a reduced capital cost. 
• The ATP produces biosolids listed as "Exceptional Quality," therefore the end 
product can be sold to the public. 
Despite these advantages, the ATP does have high operating costs, which weighs heavily against 
the selection of its use. 
ANTICIPATED COST ESTIMATE FOR BIOSOLIDS ALTERNATIVES 
For each alternative, a preliminary cost estimate was developed. Tables 10-2 through 10-5 list 
Alternatives One through Four, respectively. Although the Dry Creek Landfill alternative is the 
least expensive method, the risk of regulatory change could require re-evaluation of this 
alternative in the future. Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated. While land applying 
Class B biosolids offers staff familiarity with the components, this alternative has the greatest 
cost and was eliminated. The ATP has a lower capital cost; however, because of operational 
complexity and high operating costs, this alternative was eliminated. 
The co-composting facility at Merlin Landfill presents a moderate capital cost and potential for 
a profitable end product that would be sold to the public. 
Table 10-2. Capital Cost for Alternative One - Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility 
Project Item Cost 
Existing Digester Rehabilitation $740,000 
Dewatering Device $1,000,000 
Co-composting Facility $1,850,000 
Subtotal $3,590,000 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
001; 677 
10-5 
Table 10-3. Capital Cost for Alternative Two - Dry Creek Landfill 
Project Item Cost 
New Belt Press installed in existing building and move $811,200 
existing Belt Press 
Hauling Equipment $552,500 
Subtotal $1,363,700 
Table 10-4. Capital Cost for Alternative Three - Land Applying Class B Biosolids 
Project Item Cost 
Belt Thickener $960,000 
New Anaerobic Digester $1,800,000 
Existing Digester Rehabilitation $740,000 
Dewatering BFP $2,730,000 
Land $370,000 
Off-Site Improvements $550,000 
Dewatered Sludge Storage Building 52,950,000 
Biosolids Handling Equipment $550,000 
Co-compost Pilot $370,000 
Subtotal $11,020,000 
Table 10-5. Capta i Cost for Alternative Four - Aerobic ThermophilicPretreatment 
Project Item Cost 
Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment $2,340,000 
Existing Digester Rehabilitation $740,000 
Muffin Monster $78,000 
Subtotal $3,158,000 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
OOJ678 
11-24 
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 
To choose the best alternative for the Grants Pass WRP, both feasibility and cost were analyzed. 
Table 10-6 compares the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. 
Table 10-6. Summary of Alternatives 
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 
ALTERNATWE ONE -MerlinLandfilt Co-compost Facility 
Moderate operatingcost 
Provkfc? «jöS«^^ 
Limits primary biosolids health risk. 
Possible landuse conflicts at landfill. 
Moderately high initial capital cost. 
ALTERNATIVE TWO -¿ Dry CreekLandfill 
Already utilized by plant during winter. 
Least capital cost option. 
Low operating cost. 
No immediate permitting issues. 
Easy to implement. 
Long-term permitting may be an issue from DEQ. 
Tipping fee for public may increase, 
City retains responsibility for possible environmental impacts 
at landfill. 
ALTERNATIVE THREE - Land Applying Class B Biosolids , 
Biosolids used as resource. 
Extensive land available. 
Permitting likely easy. 
Climate reduces environmental concerns. 
Second digester required at plant. 
Contract with property owners uncertain. 
City retains responsibility for possible environmental impacts. 
Hauling difficulties in bad weather. 
ALTERNATIVE FOUR - Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment (ATP) 
Class A product with "Exceptional Quality" 
possible, 
Fertilizer available to community in lieu of 
co-compost"1 
Permitting issues moderate. 
Moderate capital cost. 
Public education necessary on Class A biosolids reuse. 
Market uncertain for final product. 
High operating cost. 
The preferred alternative for Grants Pass is the Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility (Alternative 
One) that co-composts digested primary and raw secondary biosolids. This method presents 
reasonable cost and provides co-compost material to the public. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
C 6 7 9 
11-1 
CHAPTER 11 
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 
This chapter presents the preferred alternatives for both the liquid and solid treatment streams. 
As presented in Chapter 9, the Ballasted Sedimentation alternative (Alternative Two) was the 
preferred liquid stream alternative. The biosolids handling and disposal alternatives were 
presented in Chapter 10, with the Merlin Landfill Co-Compost Facility (Alternative One) being 
the preferred alternative. Figure 11-1 presents the proposed layout of the upgrade of the Grants 
Pass WRP. 
LIQUID STREAM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 
Headworks 
At the headworks, an additional mechanical bar screen would be installed with a 23.5 mgd 
capacity. This would provide redundancy and a maximum capacity of 47 mgd. 
Also at the headworks, it would be necessary to install an additional pump to meet the firm 
capacity of 38 mgd. Additionally, an evaluation would be necessary to determine if the current 
pumps are in proper working condition and if any need to be replaced. 
Due to the plant location and because the headworks are the primaiy source for odor, it would 
be necessary to install odor containment at the influent pump station and the mechanical screening 
area. 
Primary Clarification/Gravity Thickener 
The existing 70-foot circular primary clarifier would be converted to a combination primary 
clarifier/gravity thickener. All of the sludge from the rectangular clarifiers would be pumped to 
this one unit to be thickened before transfer to the digester. This combination offers easier 
control of sludge pumping because it is from only one unit, rather than several units. This 
conversion would satisfy the need for primary solids thickening well beyond the 20-year design 
period. 
Aeration Basin 
Currently, there are two aeration basins, each segmented into three bays, operating in a plug flow 
mode. These basins are capable of handling the future flows of 13.5 mgd as long as the 
secondary clarifier capacity is available. To improve the settling performance in the secondary 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
00ù680 
11-26 
clarifiers and provide filamentous bacteria control, the addition of a bioselector in the basin is 
suggested The smallest bay would be segmented into two equal zones and aerated with coarse 
bubble diffusers. This segmented basin would provide the anoxic treatment zone to control the 
bacteria. The rest of the existing aeration basin would be modified by the addition of fine bubble 
diffusers, dissolved oxygen control, and motorized gates. 
Secondary Clarifiers 
The two 75-foot diameter by 13-foot side water depth (SWD) clarifiers would need to be 
rehabilitated to conrect short-circuiting and flow distribution problems. Proposed modifications 
include weir adjustments, additional skimmers, baffle upgrades, and balancing of flow between 
clarifiers. Each of the existing clarifiers has a flow rating of 10.6 mgd, which is sufficient for 
current flows. However, construction of two additional clarifiers would be necessary to meet 
future flows, one in the year 2010 and the other in the year 2020. These 90-foot diameter by 14-
foot SWD clarifiers would add an additional capacity of 22 to 25 mgd to the plant These new 
clarifiers would be constructed next to the existing clarifiers. 
Ultraviolet Disinfection 
Since the completion of the second UV channel, the plant capacity for disinfection is 43 mgd 
Therefore, no additional UV channel construction during the 20-year planning period is necessary. 
Outfall 
An outfall diffuser would be added to the existing outfall to improve mixing and reduce ammonia 
toxicity in the Rogue River. 
Miscellaneous Plant Improvements 
To update the Grants Pass WRP, several miscellaneous upgrades have been included. These 
improvements include a plant equipment audit, additional plant landscaping, the development of 
a public education program, laboratory upgrades, operations building repairs and modifications, 
and instrumentation and control system expansion. The yard piping would also be upgraded as 
necessary. 
To evaluate any infiltration and inflow problems, a Sewer System Master Plan will be conducted 
in 2000-01 This document would provide the necessary information for collection system 
corrections. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
11-682 
BIOSOLIDS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 
Alternative One, the preferred alternative from the VE Workshop, would co-compost digested 
primary and raw secondaiy biosolids. This alternative consists of rehabilitating the existing 
digester, a new dewatering device, and a co-composting facility. This new biosolids handling 
system increases the capacity to effectively manage biosolids of the Grants Pass WRP. 
Under the preferred biosolids alternative, the existing digesters would be rehabilitated and used 
to treat only primary clarifier solids. Secondary clarifier solids would be combined with the 
primary solids from the digester, dewatered in a new device, and trucked to the new co-
composting facility at the Merlin Landfill. The existing belt dewatering system would remain 
on site for standby use. 
The City would pilot-test a dewatering device, such as a centrifuge or another belt filter press. 
Based on these results, a dewatering device would be selected by the City. 
Co-Composting 
The proposed co-composting facility would be located at the Merlin Landfill property, near the 
center of the 316-acre parcel, and would produce Class A biosolids for sale to die public. Figure 
11-2 is a conceptual diagram of the proposed co-composting operation. 
The new facility would co-compost green wastes (i.e., yard debris, animal manure, and wood 
waste) from the general public with the biosolids from the Grants Pass WRP. The facility would 
also co-compost dewatered septage (70% solids) from Clearwater Co-op. Biosolids from the 
Grants Pass WRP would be approximately 15% solids when delivered to the co-composting 
operation. The green waste and other bulking material would be added to the biosolids at an 
approximate ratio of 3.5 parts green waste to 1 part biosolids (on a volumetric basis). 
The co-composting facility would utilize the Extended Aerated Static Pile (EASP) method of co-
composting. This method uses perforated pipes installed beneath the co-compost pile and 
connected to electric blowers that can either force air into the co-compost pile (positive aeration) 
or draw air through the pile (negative aeration). 
As the co-compost pile is constructed, a 12-inch-thick (minimum) cover of finished co-compost 
would be placed over the new feedstock materials. The cover serves four purposes, including 1) 
a blanket to ensure that all of the materials reach desired temperatures, 2) a moisture barrier to 
maintain the desired moisture content within the pile, 3) a biofilter to remove offensive odors, 
and 4) a vector barrier to control flies, birds, and rodents. 
The aeration system is designed to periodically deliver fresh air into the co-compost pile, with 
the goal of maintaining an oxygen level of at least 8 percent throughout the pile (i.e., aerobic 
conditions). Adjusting the rate of aeration is the principle means of controlling pile temperatures 
and mitigating potentially offensive odors. Oxygen within the pile stimulates microbial activity, 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
000702 
0 0 6 8 3 
Parametrix, Inc. c»y o«sn« p«s fk*g« PBnyjis-iiieoccnsjotAxxs) 
Figure 11-2 
City of Grants Pass 
Merlin Landfill 
Co-Composting Facility 
Site Layout 
0 0 - 6 8 4 
11-4 
optimizes digestion of the compostable materials (i.e., volatile solids), and produces a superior 
compost product. 
The active phase of co-composting (the period during which most of the process heat and 
potentially offensive odors are generated) lasts between 21 and 30 days. The subsequent curing 
phase of co-composting (the period during which the product becomes stable and marketable), 
lasts an additional 45 to 60 days. The curing phase can be accomplished either in the original 
co-compost pile, with adjusted airflow, or in a separate stockpile. The screening process can take 
place either before or following product curing. 
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 
For the proposed liquid stream upgrade, construction would occur in three phases. Below is a 
breakdown of when these modifications would occur. The biosolids handling and disposal plan 
would go into effect immediately. 
Year 2000 
Install odor containment and control at the influent pump station and mechanical 
screening areas of the plant. 
Add an anoxic selector basin to the aeration basin system. 
Modify the existing aeration basin with fine bubble diffusers, and add dissolved 
oxygen control and motorized gates. Provide new aeration blowers. 
» Rehabilitate the existing secondary clarifiers to correct short circuiting and flow 
distribution problems. 
Add a single new secondary clarifier. 
» Begin laboratory upgrades and improvements. 
Begin operations building repairs and modifications. 
Begin instrumentation and control system expansion. 
* Conduct a plant equipment audit 
Continue to install plant landscaping. 
Develop and implement a public education program. 
Year 2005 
Install additional influent pumping capacity. 
• Add a second mechanical bar screen. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
001; 4 
11-5 
Convert the existing circular primary clarifier to a combination primary 
clarifier/gravity thickener-
Modify the existing gravity thickener to a ballasted sedimentation tank to treat peak 
flow. 
Year 2010 
Add a second new secondary clarifier. 
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 
The preliminary cost estimates for the liquid and solids treatment alternatives and the collection 
system improvements are presented in Table 11-1 Costs are presented in 1999-2000 dollar 
amounts and include engineering, administration, and contingency. 
Table 11-1. City of Grants Pass - Water Restoration Plant 
Capital Improvement Plan* 
Implementation Schedule 
Project Item Probable 2001-2004 2005-2006 2010-2011 
PRELIMINARY AND PRIMARY TREATMENT 
Influent Pumping 5560,000 5560,000 
Raw Sewage Pipeline to Accommodate Ballasted 
Sedimentation 
5240,000 5240,000 
Headwords Odor Control 5390,000 5390,000 
Mechanical Bar Screen No. 2 5230,000 $230,000 
Modify Gravity Thickener to Ballasted Sedimentation 53,510,000 53,510,000 
Modify Existing Primary to Combination Clariiler/ $610,000 $610,000 
Yard Piping $270,000 $270,000 
SECONDARY TREATMENT 
Aeration Basin Fine Bubble 5530,000 5530,000 
Aeratiotj Basin Selector 5260,000 5260,000 
Blowers and DO Control 5870,000 5870,000 
Rehabilitate Existing Clarifiers 5770,000 S770.000 
New Secondary Clarifiers 52,400,000 S 1,200,000 51,200,000 
Yard Piping S770.000 $400,000 $370,000 
Motorized Gates 5340,000 $340,000 
FINAL TREATMENT 
Outfall Diffusers 5540,000 5540,000 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
000702 
11-6 
Table 11-1. City of Grants Pass - Water Restoration Plant 
Capital Improvement Plan* (cont.) 
— ¡-¿-i— 1 1 
Implementation Schedule 
Project Item Probable 2001-2004 2005-2006 2010-2011 
OTHER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
Lab Improvements S100,000 5100,000 
Operation Building Repairs and Office 5130,000 $130,000 
SCADA System Expansion $670,000 $250,000 S250,000 5170,000 
Equipment Improvements from Audit Results 5250,000 $100,000 575,000 575,000 
Plant Landscaping 5100,000 $40,000 530,000 $30,000 
Public Education Program $50,000 $20,000 $20,000 510,000 
SOLIDS THICKENING AND DIGESTION 
Rehabilitate Existing Digester $740,000 $740,000 
Dewatcring Centrifuge SI,000,000 $1,000,000 
SOLIDS HANDLING OFF-SITE 
Co-composting Facility $1,850,000 $1,850,000 
COLLECTION SYSTEM 
Pine Street $1.050,000 $1,050,000 
2nd Street 5700,000 S700.000 
Western Avenue 5580,000 $580,000 
Master Plan 5170,000 $170,000 
TOTALS $19,680.000 512.030,000 dmiiiW .in.'ii 1 m 55,795,000 Sl.855.000 
* 1999-2000 dollar amounts. 
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 
Introduction 
The purpose of this environmental review is to summarize the potential adverse impacts 
associated with the No Action Alternative and the two build alternatives evaluated for 
improvements to the Grants Pass WRP and the disposal of biosolids. The Grants Pass Water 
Restoration Plant is owned and operated by the City of Grants Pass. This section includes a 
characterization of the natural and human elements in the study area, economic considerations, 
and a summary of public participation. Natural and human elements considered in this chapter 
include land uses and zoning, historic and cultural resources, wetiands, floodplains, agricultural 
lands, wild and scenic rivers, fish and wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and other 
unique or sensitive environmental resources. The No Action Alternative and the two build 
alternatives are defined below. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
001; 6 
11-7 
No Action Alternative 
Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
The No Action Alternative is defined as continuing operation of the existing Grants Pass WRP 
without any upgrades to the facility. Under this alternative, new connections to the collection 
system sewered by the plant would be prohibited to avoid the plant exceeding the maximum 
permitted capacity. The collection system sewered by the plant serves the Grants Pass Urban 
Growth Area. Additionally, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 
would be issued in 2001, which would likely subject the plant to future violations regarding 
needed outfall modifications and possibly more stringent effluent standards. Therefore, this 
alternative is not considered feasible and has been eliminated from further consideration. 
Biosolids Disposal 
Currendy, biosolids from the Grants Pass WRP are land applied from approximately April to 
October. From approximately November to March, the biosolids are disposed of at the Merlin 
Landfill. However, the Merlin Landfill is closing in October 2000. Once this occurs, the 
RSSSD proposes to dispose of biosolids at the Dry Creek Landfill, approximately 35 miles to 
the southwest, during the rainy season from November through March. During the months of 
April through October, disposal of biosolids would continue to be by land application. Specific 
sites for land application of the biosolids have not been identified. Finding acceptable sites to 
land apply the biosolids is becoming more difficult, and the hauling distances to these sites from 
the Grants Pass WRP continue to increase. 
Preferred Alternative 
Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
The Preferred Alternative proposes modifications and improvements to the existing Grants Pass 
WRP This alternative was selected during a Value Engineering Workshop held in June 1999. 
For the liquid stream primary treatment, the desire is to install odor containment and control at 
the influent pump station and mechanical screening areas of the plant. An additional influent 
pump would be installed to increase capacity. The existing circular primary clarifier would be 
converted to a combination primary clarifier/gravity thickener, while the existing gravity 
thickener would be modified to a ballasted sedimentation tank to treat peak flow. 
For the liquid stream secondary treatment, the existing aeration basin would be modified to 
include fine bubble diffusers, dissolved oxygen control, and motorized gates. An anoxic selector 
would also be added prior to the aeration basin for better filamentous bacteria control. 
Rehabilitation of the existing secondary clarifiers is necessary to correct short-circuiting and flow 
distribution problems. To meet future flow demands, two additional secondary clarifiers would 
be constructed. For the final treatment, the only required plant improvement would be to install 
an outfall diffuser. Other miscellaneous plant improvements include laboratory upgrades and 
improvements, operations building repairs and modifications, and instrumentation and control 
system expansion. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
01688 
11-8 
Biosolids Disposal 
The Preferred Alternative for biosolids handling and disposal would be to rehabilitate the 
existing digester and install a new dewatering centrifuge. A new co-composting facility would 
also be constructed off-site at the Merlin Landfill for biosolids disposal. 
Second Preferred Alternative 
Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
The Second Preferred Alternative proposes more extensive modifications and improvements to 
the Grants Pass WRP This alternative is the recommended alternative identified in a previous 
Facilities Plan for the Grants Pass WRP (January 1999). For the liquid stream primary 
treatment, greater capacity pumps would replace the existing pumps and an additional bar screen 
would improve the headworks to meet future flow demands. Two additional rectangular primary 
sedimentation basins would be constructed and the existing primary circular basin would be 
rehabilitated. The aeration basin, the blowers, and aeration equipment would be upgraded and 
a second aeration basin would be constructed. The existing secondary clarifiers would be 
rehabilitated and three additional secondary clarifiers would be constructed. One additional 
ultraviolet disinfection channel would be constructed to meet the anticipated peak hydraulic 
capacity. An outfall diffuser would also be installed to improve mixing and reduce ammonia. 
Biosolids Disposal 
The Second Preferred Alternative for the biosolids handling and disposal would be to construct 
a second gravity thickener and a second belt thickener to meet future waste activated sludge 
loading. The existing digester would be rehabilitated and a second anaerobic digester would be 
constructed. A permanent dewatering facility would be constructed at the present temporary 
trailer mounted belt filter press and would be relocated in the building. In addition, a new press 
would be added. 
This alternative involves the disposal of biosolids at the Dry Creek Landfill during the rainy 
season from November through March. The biosolids would be transported from the Grants 
Pass WRP to the Dry Creek Landfill facility, which is located approximately 35 miles to the 
southwest. During the months of April through October, disposal of biosolids would be by land 
application although the specific sites have not been identified. 
The disposal of biosolids by land application is regulated by the Department of Environmental 
Quality (DEQ). DEQ regulates land use application of biosolids through the existing NPDES 
permit for the City of Grants Pass. Because the biosolids often contain pathogens, heavy metals, 
nitrogen, phosphorous, and ammonia, there is a potential for significant adverse impacts to 
human health and natural resources. Runoff from land use application would be considered a 
non-point pollution source to nearby streams and wedands. The DEQ has a 100-foot buffer 
requirement from land use application areas to water bodies and a 50-foot buffer to surrounding 
properties. The odor from the land use application is also a concern to the surrounding area. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
0 0 6 8 9 
11-9 
Zoning and Land Uses 
Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
The Grants Pass WRP is located on a parcel that is zoned as moderate density residential with 
an allowable 6,000 sf lot, density (R-l-6). The existing site is occupied by the Grants Pass 
WRP, and the remaining parcel is primarily open undeveloped land. The land has been 
relatively disturbed by the construction of the plant facilities and the various grading, leveling, 
and filling that has occurred. In the northeastern corner of the property, there is an effluent 
experimental treatment test area that has been planted with poplar trees and is artificially 
irrigated. The Grants Pass WRP is bordered on the south by the Rogue River; to the north by 
single family detached residences zoned R-l-6; to the east by open space and by single family 
detached residences, which are zoned R-l-6; and to the west by single family residences and the 
All Sports Park which are zoned low density residential with an allowable 8,000 sf lot, density 
(R-l-8). 
The existing Grants Pass WRP is considered a minor public facility which is a permitted use in 
the R-l-6 zoning district. The proposed improvements in the Preferred Alternative are also 
permitted uses and would require a development permit review by a Type III Procedure. The 
Type III Procedure requires review at a public hearing before the Hearings Officer or the 
Planning Commission. 
Biosolids Disposal 
In the Preferred Alternative, disposal of biosolids at a co-composting facility located on a 5-acre 
parcel within the existing 100-acre Merlin Landfill is proposed. The 100-acre Merlin Landfill 
is an active municipal solid waste landfill. Although closure of the Merlin Landfill is expected 
in October 2000, the co-composting facility would remain in operation. Land uses surrounding 
the landfill are primarily agriculture. This parcel is zoned Woodland Resource (WR). 
Construction of the co-composting facility in this zone would require a Conditional Use Permit 
(CUP). 
Although construction of the co-composting facility may cause temporary traffic impacts on 
adjacent roads, no adverse impacts to land uses are anticipated as a result of the Preferred 
Alternative. If the Preferred Alternative is chosen, than the City of Grants Pass will prepare a 
CUP to build the co-composting facility at the Merlin Landfill. 
Disposing of the biosolids at either Dry Creek Landfill or by land application in the Second 
Preferred Alternative would require transporting the biosolids to locations that are further in 
distance than the Preferred Alternative. Increasing the hauling distance of the biosolids would 
possibly increase traffic on some roadways. This increase is not expected to be significant, and 
no adverse impacts to land uses are anticipated as a result of the Second Preferred Alternative. 
Historic and Cultural Resources 
A pedestrian survey conducted on January 7, 2000, at both the Grants Pass WRP and the 
proposed off-site co-composting facility at the Merlin Landfill did not reveal evidence of either 
prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
>0 6 9 0 
11-10 
Based on the results of the surveys, no additional archaeological research is recommended at 
either location. However, there is always the possibility that ground disturbance during 
construction activities may expose buried cultural material or human burials that were not 
detected during the survey. If such an event should occur, Oregon State law (ORS 97.740, 
97.760, 358.905, 390.235, and 358.955) and various federal laws and regulations, which may 
be applicable to this project, will require that work in the vicinity of such finds be suspended. 
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the appropriate tribes should be notified, and 
a qualified archaeologist would be called in to evaluate the discovery and recommend subsequent 
courses of action in consultation with the tribes and SHPO. 
There are no anticipated adverse impacts to historic and cultural resources for the Preferred 
Alternative or the Second Preferred Alternative. 
Economic Considerations 
The Preferred Alternative would be financed by a combination of funding mechanisms, including 
loans and cash. This $17.5 million project would be constructed when Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan monies become available. Sewer rates would not increase as 
a result of these upgrades; therefore, there would be no adverse economic impact to service area 
users. If rates do increase, it would be a result of inflation. 
The City of Grants Pass is fully funding the co-composting facility which is proposed to be 
located at the Merlin Landfill. The public would contribute monies towards the co-composting 
facility by paying a yard waste drop-off fee and a fee to purchase the compost. 
The construction costs associated with the Preferred Alternative are $12 million less than the 
costs associated with the Second Preferred Alternative. 
Wetlands 
Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
There were no wedands identified within the existing Grants Pass WRP property. Upgrades to 
the existing facilities and the construction of new structures proposed in the Preferred Alternative 
and in the Second Preferred Alternative would have no impact on wedands, and no permitting 
would be required. 
The Rogue River is a designated "Water of the US," which is considered a jurisdictional 
wetland. The placement of an outfall diffuser structure proposed in the Preferred or Second 
Preferred Alternative in the river would require environmental permits from the Oregon Division 
of State Lands (ODSL) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
O O 6 9 1 
11-11 
Biosolids Disposal 
The Preferred Alternative would potentially impact wetiands within the 5-acre portion of the 
proposed co-composting facility. At the time of the site visit in January 2000, a seepage slope 
that drains into an ephemeral stream in the center of the 5-acre site was identified and there was 
no apparent flow into the stream. The seepage slope appeared to collect the surface water 
drainage from the surrounding area and flow down gradient until eventually flowing into the 
stream. There was evidence of wetland characteristics including hydrophytic vegetarion, 
hydrology, and hydric soils in the seepage slope and the ephemeral stream. The three wedand 
criteria have been met and would likely be considered jurisdictional. Any adverse impacts to 
wetlands would require permits from ODSL and Corps. A wedand delineation to identify the 
exact boundary and extent of the wetlands within this 5-acre portion would be recommended. 
Under the Second Preferred Alternative, disposal of biosolids in an already permitted landfill 
facility would have no adverse affect on wedand or stream systems. The land application of 
biosolids could have a significant impact on wedand and stream systems if the run-off contained 
pathogens, heavy metals, nitrogen, phosphorous, and ammonia. 
Floodplains 
Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
The Grants Pass WRP is located in Zone AE, which is considered to be an area of special flood 
hazard (for the 100-year flood)'. The base flood elevation for the Grants Pass WRP parcel is 
approximately 910 feet. The proposed improvements to the plant will comply with the local, 
state, and federal base flood elevation height requirements. 
The Preferred Alternative proposes to install an outfall diffuser for the liquid stream final 
treatment. The outfall diffuser would discharge into the floodway area of Zone AE (Rogue 
River). The average daily flow rate from the Grants Pass WRP in 1997 was 5.10 mgd, and the 
average flow of the Rogue River at the Grants Pass station is 2,135 mgd. In other words, the 
Grants Pass WRP's daily flow rate is .002% of the Rogue River's flow; therefore, addition of the 
proposed improvements to the existing facility should not alter or affect flooding in this area. 
The Second Preferred Alternative also proposes to install an outfall diffuser for the liquid stream 
final treatment. As with the Preferred Alternative, addition of an outfall diffuser should not alter 
or affect flooding in this area. 
' Federal Emergency Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map ( FIRM) community panel #410108 003 C 
Panel 3 of 4, September 27, 1991 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
0 0 0 7 0 2 
11-12 
Biosolids Disposal 
The proposed co-composting facility in the Preferred Alternative is not located within a flood 
zone; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse impacts to floodpiains2 The Second Preferred 
Alternative does not propose to dispose of biosolids in floodpiains; therefore, there are no 
anticipated adverse impacts to floodpiains. 
Agricultural Lands 
Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
The Grants Pass WRP improvements proposed in both the Preferred Alternative and Second 
Preferred Alternative are to an existing facility that is zoned as moderate density residential (R-l-
6). No agricultural activities are conducted on the site; therefore, no disruption of agricultural 
activities or displacements of agricultural land will occur as part of this project 
Biosolids Disposal 
The proposed co-composting facility in the Preferred Alternative would be constructed on a 5-
acre parcel within the existing 100-acre Merlin Landfill, which is zoned Woodland Resource. No 
agricultural activities are conducted on the site; therefore, no disruption of agricultural activities 
or displacements of agricultural land should occur as part of this project 
The Second Alternative proposes to dispose of the biosolids at an existing landfill and land 
applying the biosolids. Disposal of biosolids at the existing landfill would not disrupt any 
agricultural activities. Land application of biosolids is not anticipated to have adverse impacts 
to agricultural lands. 
Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
A section of the Rogue River has been designated as a wild and scenic river under the 1968 Wild 
and Scenic Rivers Act The wild and scenic river designation begins at the confluence of the 
Applegate River and extends approximately 84 miles to the Lobster Creek Bridge. Because the 
project is not located within the wild and scenic area of the Rogue River, neither the Preferred 
Alternative or the Second Preferred Alternative would have impacts to the area designated as a 
wild and scenic river. 
Biosolids Disposal 
The Preferred Alternative proposes biosolids disposal at the proposed co-composting facility at 
the Merlin Landfill. There are no designated wild and scenic rivers within die vicinity of the 
Merlin Landfill; therefore, the Preferred Alternative would have no adverse impacts to any 
designated wild and scenic rivers. 
: Federal Emergency Agcncy (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) community panel #415590 0226 Panel 
226 of 500, September 27, 1991. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
11-13 
The Second Preferred Alternative proposes biosolids disposal through land application from April 
through October, and landfilling from November through March. Land application sites have not 
been identified. Landfill disposal would occur at Merlin Landfill until October 2000, when it 
closes, and then would occur at the Dry Creek Landfill. The Dry Creek Landfill is not located 
near a wild and scenic river, nor would sites that are selected for land application be located near 
a wild and scenic river, therefore, the Second Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to have 
adverse impacts to wild and scenic rivers. 
Fish and Wildlife 
Correspondence with the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (ONHP), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was initiated to identify any 
federally listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered species that may potentially 
occur in the project area. Agency correspondence indicated that the southern Oregon/northern 
California coastal population of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), a federal threatened 
species; the Klamath Mountains province population of steelhead (O. myfass), a federal candidate 
species; and the southern Oregon coast fall-run population of chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), 
a federal proposed threatened species, may be present in the proposed action area. If required 
at a later time, potential impacts to listed species identified in the agency correspondence would 
be addressed in a Biological Assessment (BA), which would be conducted after final design is 
underway. 
Fish - Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
Potential impacts to fish species from both the Preferred Alternative and the Second Preferred 
Alternative are essentially the same. Both alternatives include upgrades to the secondary 
treatment process, which should enable the plant to meet basin-wide discharge standards for 
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS). Since the Rogue River is water 
quality limited, enhancing water quality at the Grants Pass WRP outfall, under either alternative, 
will benefit fish species in the Rogue River. 
Both alternatives also propose to add an outfall diffuser in the Rogue River. The addition of a 
24-inch-diameter outfall diffuser to the Grants Pass WRP will improve habitat for fish species 
by improving effluent mixing, eliminating the existing shore-hugging effluent plume, and 
addressing the potential problems to fish caused by ammonia toxicity within the mixing zone. 
The construction and placement of the outfall diffuser in the streambed at the existing outfall may 
result in short-term direct impacts on salmonid species unless properly mitigated, as described 
below. These potential impacts may include disturbance of spawning adult salmon at the project 
site, disturbance of eggs and alevins due to redd (shallow depression in the stream gravel dug by 
the female salmon before spawning) disruption during construction, excessive sedimentation of 
redds from stream bed disturbance during outfall construction, and disturbance and displacement 
of rearing juveniles from available habitat near the project site during outfall construction. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update 
6 9 4 
Revised April 2000 
11-14 
Fish impacts can be mitigated through timing the in-water construction to occur when no 
salmonids are spawning, incubating, or rearing, however, the loss of the stream bed and fish 
habitat where the outfall would sit cannot be mitigated. The on-shore construction site can be 
mitigated by the use of silt fencing, settling pond, off-site staging area, and spill control plan. 
All in-water work shall be performed during the ODFW preferred in-water work period for this 
reach of the Rogue River (June 15 to August 31). Any in-water work outside of this time frame 
is prohibited unless written permission to change or extend the in-water work period is received 
from the ODFW Rogue River district fisheries biologist, the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
and an ODOT biologist. In-water work is defined as "any work done in, on, under, or within 
the active channel (2-year floodplain)." 
Disturbance of spawning, incubating, or rearing endangered fish species would likely be 
considered a "take" under the Endangered Species Act. It could be a significant adverse impact 
(i.e., "may affect, and is likely to adversely affect" determination) if not properly mitigated. If 
mitigated, it would probably decrease to a "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" BA 
determination. 
Fish - Biosolids Disposal 
Correspondence with the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (ONHP), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was initiated to identify any 
federally listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered species that may potentially 
occur in the project area. Agency correspondence indicated that the southern Oregon/northern 
California coastal population of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), a federal threatened 
species; the Klamath Mountains province population of steelhead (O. myfass), a federal candidate 
species; and the southern Oregon coast fall-run population of chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), 
a federal proposed threatened species, may occur in the proposed action area. If required at a 
later time, potential impacts to listed species identified in the agency correspondence would be 
addressed in a Biological Assessment (BA), which would be conducted after a biosolids handling 
and disposal alternative is chosen and final design is underway. At present, no BA is required 
for the biosolids handling and disposal portions of the project. 
The Preferred Alternative includes a new co-composting facility to be constructed off-site at the 
Merlin Landfill for biosolids disposal. The wet weather storage and co-composting of biosolids 
from the Grants Pass WRP would continue the beneficial reuse of biosolids and reduce the 
reliance on landfilling. In general, the co-composting of biosolids should benefit fish species and 
their habitat in the Rogue River Basin. 
At the Merlin Landfill, there are two surface water drainages near the proposed site: 1) an 
ephemeral stream (with two stormwater detention ponds) which flows in the winter and spring 
across the west side of the landfill, and 2) Louse Creek, a perennial stream that bisects the valley 
approximately 1,700 feet north of the landfill. There is no fish use of the ephemeral stream, 
although it empties to Louse Creek. The reach of Louse Creek downstream of the site does not 
appear to contain much suitable salmonid rearing habitat, but is believed to be used by summer 
and winter steelhead and coho salmon. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
11-15 
The co-composting facility, specifically the co-composting pads and buildings, would create 
additional impervious surface area which, if untreated for stormwater discharge, could result in 
increased peak run-off and erosion from the site. This additional impervious surface would 
consist of 2,200 sf for the access road and utilities, 10,200 sf for an asphalt-paved maneuvering 
area, 33,000 sf for the concrete co-composting pad and roof, and 10,000 sf for the canopy roof 
and concrete pad However, stormwater drainage and sediment from the proposed site are 
planned to be diverted into the existing stormwater detention ponds for treatment. No impacts 
to fish resources in Louse Creek are expected from stormwater discharge or sediment from the 
site, assuming a suitable stormwater drainage plan is developed and implemented. 
Groundwater infiltration from the Merlin Landfill into Louse Creek has been thoroughly studied 
and documented as part of the Ecological Screening Assessment Report prepared by 
EMCON (1999). Due to the effects of natural attenuation and the groundwater treatment system, 
coho salmon in Louse Creek are not expected to be exposed to contaminants in the groundwater 
leachate from the Merlin Landfill at concentrations sufficiently high to pose potential adverse 
effects. Likewise, no risk to fish from any groundwater leachate from the proposed biosolids co-
co-composting facility is expected. 
In the Second Preferred Alternative, disposal of biosolids in an already permitted landfill facility 
would have no adverse affect on plant species. However, impacts to resources would be greater 
than under the Preferred Alternative, since land application of biosolids potentially increases the 
amount of nutrients entering the Rogue River basin. The land application of biosolids could have 
a significant impact on fish and wildlife if the run-off contained pathogens, heavy metals, 
nitrogen, phosphorous, and ammonia. 
Wildlife - Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
Correspondence with the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (ONHP), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was initiated to identify any 
federally listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered species that may potentially 
occur in the project area. Agency correspondence indicated that bald eagles (Haliaeetus 
leucocephalus), a threatened species, may occur in the vicinity. If required at a later time, 
potential impacts to listed species identified in the agency correspondence would be addressed 
in a Biological Assessment (BA), which would be conducted after a Grants Pass WRP alternative 
is chosen and a final design is underway. At present, no BA is required for treatment portions 
of the project 
A FWS representative, John Thiebes, was contacted about the potential of nesting sites and 
critical fish and wildlife habitat within the project area. He reviewed available FWS maps and 
did not identify any nesting sites or critical fish and wildlife habitat. 
Potential impacts to bald eagles from both the Preferred Alternative and the Second Preferred 
Alternative are essentially the same. Both alternatives include upgrades to the Grants Pass WRP 
to increase handling capacity, and should enable the plant to meet basin-wide discharge standards 
for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS). All construction necessary 
for the upgrade would occur within the present boundary of the treatment plant, with the 
exception of constructing a new outfall on the Rogue River shoreline. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
OO -696 
11-16 
Agency correspondence does not indicate nesting, or roosting sites for bald eagles within 2 miles 
of the project area; however, they may use the area while foraging along the Rogue River. They 
frequently use prominent perches that provide open views, and prefer snags along shorelines and 
riverbanks (Stalmaster and Newman 1979). Several prominent trees are present along the Rogue 
River shoreline in the vicinity of the treatment plant, and could potentially be used by foraging 
eagles . 
Potential project impacts include disturbance of eagles, or their prey, during the construction 
phase of the project. However, these potential impacts are considered insignificant for the 
following reasons: 1) the majority of the construction would be away from the shoreline and 
limited to the present facility where there is already a large amount of human activity, and 2) 
prey species in the vicinity are just as likely to move to other locations where they would still 
be readily available to foraging eagles. In addition, the area surrounding the Grants Pass WRP 
has a high level of human activity, which includes a sports park, fairgrounds, and medium income 
residences. It is likely that the construction would result in a beneficial effect to bald eagles, 
since the project would result in an improvement of the habitat for eagle prey by improving water 
quality. 
Based on preliminary review by Parametrix biologists, impacts to listed wildlife species are not 
anticipated. 
Wildlife - Biosolids Disposal 
Correspondence with the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (ONHP), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was initiated to identify any 
federally listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered species that may potentially 
occur in the project area. Agency correspondence indicated that bald eagles (Haliaeetus 
teucocephalus), a threatened species, may occur in the vicinity of the co-composting facility. If 
required at a later time, potential impacts to listed species identified in the agency correspondence 
would be addressed in a Biological Assessment (BA). 
The Preferred Alternative includes a new co-composting facility to be constructed off-site at the 
Merlin Landfill for biosolids disposal. The wet weather storage and co-composting of biosolids 
from the Grants Pass WRP would continue the beneficial reuse of biosolids and reduce the 
reliance on landfilling. In general, the co-composting of biosolids should benefit fish and wildlife 
species and their habitat in the Rogue River Basin. 
Agency correspondence does not indicate nesting, or roosting sites for bald eagles, within 2 miles 
of the project area; however, they may use the area while foraging. Bald eagles are more 
commonly found along shorelines of rivers and large bodies of water where they forage for their 
typical prey of waterfowl and fish (Stalmaster and Newman 1979). The landfill site is not 
located near any water features that are considered suitable foraging habitat for foraging eagles. 
Louse Creek is approximately 0.25 miles north of the site, but is a relatively low-flow creek with 
a maximum flow of 54.2 cubic feet per second and is not considered suitable foraging habitat for 
eagles (Emcon 1999). 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
0 0 0 6 9 7 
11-17 
In addition, the proposed site does not provide any habitat preferred by bald eagles. Dominant 
overstory species at the site are Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) and Oregon white oak 
(Quercus garryana), which provide a reladvely low canopy compared to Douglas-fir-dominated 
stands that are preferred by bald eagles (Anthony and Isaacs 1989). Since the site does not offer 
any suitable habitat for bald eagles, it is unlikely they would use the area and, therefore, they 
would not be impacted by construction or use of the facility. 
In the Second Preferred Alternative, disposal of biosolids in an already permitted landfill facility 
would have no adverse affect on plant species. However, impacts to resources would be greater 
than under the Preferred Alternative, since land application of biosolids potentially increases the 
amount of nutrients entering the Rogue River basin. The land application of biosolids could have 
a significant impact on fish and wildlife if the run-off contained pathogens, heavy metals, 
nitrogen, phosphorous, and ammonia. 
Plant Species - Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
According to the OHNP and FWS, there were no documented occurrences of a listed plant 
species within the Grants Pass WRP property, therefore, there are no adverse impacts resulting 
from the Preferred Alternative and the Second Preferred Alternative. 
Plant Species - Biosolids Disposal 
The Preferred Alternative may impact a federally listed plant species. The ONHP and FWS 
identified one potential listed plant species within the project area. The ONHP correspondence 
identified one documented occurrence of a listed plant species within the Merlin Landfill site. 
The Gentner's Fritillaria (Fritillaria Gentneri) plant species is a federally listed endangered plant, 
and two were identified in May 1982 within a one-mile radius Of the proposed project. The 
5-acre portion of the Merlin Landfill site is relatively undisturbed mature oak and madrone forest, 
which is a potentially suitable habitat for the Gentner's Fritillaria species. A threatened or 
endangered species survey to identify the potential presence of this species is recommended. A 
survey would need to be completed for this species during the flowering period, which is from 
April 15 through June 15. If identified, one mitigation measure would be to relocate the plant 
species. 
In the Second Preferred Alternative, disposal of biosolids in an already permitted landfill facility 
would have no adverse affect on plant species. However, impacts to resources would be greater 
than under the Preferred Alternative, since land application of biosolids potentially increases the 
amount of nutrients entering the Rogue River basin. The land application of biosolids could have 
a significant impact on plant species if the run-off contained pathogens, heavy metals, nitrogen, 
phosphorous, and ammonia. 
Other Unique or Sensitive Environmental Resources 
No other unique or sensitive environmental resources were identified for either alternative. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
11-18 
Construction Techniques, Best Management Practices, and Mitigation of Selected 
Natural Resource Concerns 
In-Water Construction BMPs 
To best avoid direct impacts to spawning, incubating, and rearing salmonids, all in-water 
construction for the new outfall should be performed during the ODFW preferred in-water work 
period for this section of the Rogue River (June 15 to August 31). Fish passage should be 
provided for both adult and juvenile forms of all salmonid species throughout construction and 
placement of the outfall, per ORS 498.268 and 509.605. 
Because it is toxic to fish, any fresh concrete that is in the plastic state used for outfall 
construction should be contained within tight forms or otherwise isolated from the Rogue River 
for 24 hours or more. Anchoring of the outfall to the streambed should be conducted in a 
manner that causes the least disturbance of the streambed in terms of total material removed and 
amount of stream sediment dislodged into the water column. Any turbidity caused by outfall 
construction should not exceed DEQ water quality standards for the Rogue River. Any riprap 
used should be placed "in the dry" wherever possible, or from the top of the bank. Riprap should 
be clean and non-erodible upland rock. If feasible, the use of a temporary work platform on the 
bank would help to minimize stream bank, channel, and riparian zone construction impacts. 
As an avoidance measure, if feasible, no heavy equipment should be permitted within the active 
channel of the river. However, it is recognized that the placement and anchoring of the outfall 
would likely require the use of heavy equipment in the channel. A staging area for heavy 
equipment, petroleum products and hydraulic fluids, and construction materials should be 
designated in an upland site out of the existing 100-year fioodplain. All heavy equipment that 
is used for in-water work should be cleaned of external grease, oil, and dirt before entering the 
water. 
The contractor should develop an appropriate Spill Prevention and Countermeasure or Pollution 
Control Plan (PCP). 
Erosion Control BMPs 
An Erosion Control Plan (ECP) should be prepared and implemented by the contractor, which 
ensures that the project does not exceed DEQ turbidity standards during outfall construction. It 
is assumed that the project will require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) Storm Discharge Permit that would include erosion control, stormwater discharge, and 
construction practices. On the bank, erosion control seeding and mulching, and placement of 
erosion control blankets and jute mats should be completed; and disturbed areas stabilized as soon 
as possible following exposure, but not later than 7 days after exposure. 
The ECP should provide for periodic inspection and maintenance of temporary erosion control 
devices. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
>0 6 9 9 
11-19 
Fisheries Mitigation 
Since the Rogue River is spawning habitat limited for salmonid species, potential fisheries 
mitigation efforts may include the strategic placement of instream structures, such as boulders in 
areas where pool habitat is lacking. This would promote the recruitment of spawning cobbles 
and gravels. Migration efforts would require coordination with ODFW biologists as to the 
timing, location, and type of instream mitigation. However, upstream of the outfall might be a 
suitable location. 
Alternatively, the project budget may include a specific line item for future fisheries mitigation 
efforts to be identified by ODFW biologists, including locations out of the main stem Rogue 
River but within the Rogue River basin. 
Tree/Vegetation Removal Mitigation 
There are currentiy no tree ordinances or replacement requirements for Josephine County 
(telephone conversation with Josephine County Planning Department representative, Dale 
Kellenbeck, January 31, 2000). The co-composting facility is located outside of the City of 
Grants Pass city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary; therefore, the City of Grants Pass 
Development Codes are not applicable. 
A discussion with FWS representative, John Thiebes, indicated they would not require tree 
replacement because the project area is not within 50 feet of a fish bearing stream and is not 
considered critical fish and wildlife habitat (telephone conversation with FWS representative, John 
Thiebes, January 21, 2000.) 
Public Involvement 
Project Press Release and District-wide Project Update 
A project press release was sent to the local newspaper and radio stations, and a District-wide 
project update was sent to ratepayers in the District The purpose of the press release/newsletter 
was to announce a public meeting on February 3, 2000, to discuss the amended plan and the 
future of the Grants Pass WRP 
Newspaper Advertisement 
An advertisement was placed in the Daily Courier announcing the February 3, 2000, meeting's 
purpose, location, date, and time. 
Public Information Meeting on Facilities Plan Update 
A public meeting was held on Thursday, February 3, 2000, regarding the Grants Pass Water 
Restoration Plant Facilities Plan Update. A newsletter was sent to all ratepayers (approximately 
9,000), In addition, a news announcement appeared in the Daily Courier on Wednesday, 
February 2, 2000, and two local radio stations announced the meeting. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
000702 
11-20 
Six people attended the public meeting. A questionnaire was distributed among the attendees for 
feedback. Two surveys were returned, and they are located in Appendix I. Primary concerns and 
questions voiced by the public included the following issues: 
Citizens were concerned with justification for the costs and if rates would rise as a 
result of the upgrades. 
One citizen asked if a green waste transfer station had been considered. The citizen 
was concerned that the new co-composting facility would not receive an adequate 
volume of green waste due to its location. The individual suggested including a 
transfer station in the costs of the upgrade. 
* One citizen lives close to the plant and mentioned a concern of odor from the plant. 
Several citizens commented that they were not given adequate notice to attend the 
meeting. 
To respond to citizen concerns regarding the lack of adequate notice regarding the meeting, the 
City prepared a mailer apologizing for the short meeting notice. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
0 0 1 ; 20 
11-21 
REFERENCES 
Anthony, R_G. and FB. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of Bald Eagle Nest Sites in Oregon. Journal 
of Wildlife Management 53:148-159. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Correspondence 
from Terry Campos to Michele Eccleston, December 22, 1999. 
EMC ON. 1999. Ecological Screening Assessment Report, Merlin Landfill; Josephine County, 
Oregon. Prepared for the City of Grants Pass. August 1999. 
National Marine Fisheries Service, Correspondence from Scott Carlon to Michele Eccleston, 
January 3, 2000. 
Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman, 1979. Perch-site Preferences of Wintering Bald Eagles in 
Northwest Washington. J. of Wildlife Manage. 43:221-224. 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Correspondence from Nancy Lee to Michele Eccleston, 
January 5, 2000. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update 
000702 
Revised April 2000 
12-1 
CHAPTER 12 
FINANCING PLAN 
Various funding alternatives exist for the City of Grants Pass to implement the Capital 
Improvement Plan (CIP). The purpose of this section is to determine the best option for 
financing. 
As part of the work in developing a financing plan, a computer model was created to assist the 
City in future modifications to both the CIP and operation/maintenance funding. This model is 
the basis for the conclusions presented herein. 
Capital Costs 
The CIP includes three major elements: Treatment Plant (liquid treatment), Biosolids, aid 
Collection System. The proposed phasing plan is shown in Table 12-1. 
Table 12-1. Capital Improvement Plan 
(Year 2000 dollars) 
Year 2001-2004 Year 2005-2006 Year 2010-2011 
Treatment Plant $5,940,000 $5,795,000 $1*855,000 
Biosolids $3,590,000 
Collection System $2,500,000 
TOTAL $12,030,000 $5,795,000 $1,855,000 
In addition to capital costs, the City must be able to fund the ongoing cost of operating and 
adequately maintaining its sewer utility. A breakdown of these operation and maintenance costs 
is shown in Table 12-2. 
Table 12-2. Operation and Maintenance Expenses 
(Year 2000 dollars) 
Wastewater Collection Services $333,488 
Wastewater Treatment Services $887,513 
Customer Services $167,910 
General Program Operations $361,393 
TOTAL $1,750.304 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
' > 0 0 7 0 3 
12-2 
Current Funding 
The City of Grants Pass has the following rate and fee structure: 
• Monthly User Charge ($) 
• System Development Charge (SDQ 
The City of Grants Pass has two main revenue sources: monthly user charges and system 
development charges. The monthly user charge is collected from all system customers. In 
addition, those outside the city limits pay an additional surcharge. 
All new connections to the system pay a system development charge. This charge is designed 
so new customers pay their share of wastewater collection and treatment costs. Currently the 
SDC averages $1,000 per new connection. 
Capital Funding Mechanisms 
To fund the CIP, the City will need to consider other funding mechanisms. These other funding 
mechanisms include the following: 
• Revenue Bonds 
• Low interest loans - State Revolving Fund (SRF) 
• Grants 
A revenue bond is a very common tool to fund capital improvements. Rates are determined by 
market conditions and currently are around 5 to 6 percent. Due to the significant financing cost 
and associated coverage, this funding method is normally a last resort if other funds are not 
available* 
Grants used to be the only way to finance wastewater treatment improvements. Many of the 
upgrades to secondary treatment across the United States were funded by grants, sometimes up 
to 75 percent of the cost. Wastewater construction grants, while still available, are insufficient 
compared with the current demand. 
One of the best governmental programs available is the State Revolving Fund loan program. 
This fund, seeded by money from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is giving state 
governments, including Oregon, funds to loan to municipalities for treatment and collection 
system improvements. These loans, administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental 
Quality Wastewater Finance Office, are "low interest" with current rates at less than 4 percent. 
Unlike bonds, normally these loans have a smaller reserve amount and no coverage 
requirements. Due to federal funding, cities like Grants Pass seeking SRF funding must comply 
with EPA requirements for a Facility Plan, thus this plan has been developed according to said 
v requirements. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update 
0 0 0 7 0 4 
Revised April 2000 
11-705 
It is projected that the City of Grants Pass will secure $4M in SRF loans in the 2001-2002 fiscal 
years. Based on the cash flow described below, this money will allow the City to proceed with 
Phase I of the CIP. 
Projected Cash Flow 
The major components of both revenue and expenses in a simplified view of the wastewater 
utility are: 
• Revenue: Monthly Sewer Service Chaiges, SDCs, Loan Proceeds, and Interest 
• Expenses: Operation and Maintenance, Capital Expenditures, Debt Service, and 
Reserve Amounts 
In reality, these revenues and expenses are tracked in separate accounts; however, for the 
purposes of this simplified analysis, all revenue and expenses will be considered as one account. 
Table 12-3 projects the annual cash flow for the Grants Pass wastewater utility for the period 
of the CIP. With the funding from the SRF, and the current cash on hand (based on the City's 
construction fund only), it appears that the City will be able to fully fund the CIP. In addition, 
the City may be able to fund an ongoing sewer rehabilitation program. This amount, shown in 
the cash flow during non-CIP funded years, is $250,000. It will have to be determined if this 
amount is sufficient to address the long-term rehabilitation needs of the City. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
001; 000705 
t Ol 
o 
§ 
•o 
s , 
en-. 
S 
s 
s 
3. : 
""«jiK'j 
ss 
m 
S 
» i 
8 
to" 
s 
a 
I 
s 
S 
I 
3 
8 
S 
1 
.135-
•S 
I 
& s 
r3 
5 
g 
® ao % 
g 
3 
g 
5? 
« 
« 
.îî-
S 
a 
5 
o 
r i 
0 p 
« 
1 
s 
o 
r» 
5Ï 
«n 
«ö 
S 
û 
s S 
€ o 
.a 
•8 
o 
rsl 
I 
S 
«n. 2 (n 
S 
s M 
SO « 
S 
ï 
s 
. •£> 
S 
Y 
3 
g 
S 
'.fi 
s » 
v> : ; 
25 
8 « 
S 
i—« 
V» 
S 
î? 
o vu Oy 
S* 
S: 
< 
«5 
N 
o> 
HP" 
55 
8 
Ö 
g 
' «TV 
a 
1 
a 
S 
oi 
o 
a 
s 
•H 
I V 
3 . 
S M 
t-î 
8 
. l-iPV. 
S vt 
8 
S3 
S 
e 
•S 
s 
53 
tí 
« S 
Si 
3 "o, n O 
<3 
ir 
A O 0 7 0 6 
12-5 
Conclusion 
The financial situation of the City's wastewater utility is good. Given the ability to secure loans 
from the SRF program, and the sound Fiscal management of the utility, the City will be able to 
fully fund the CIP as outlined in this Facilities Plan. 
Grants Pass Facilities Plan - Update Revised April 2000 
0 0 C 7 0 7 
e 0 « 7 0 8 

City of Grants Pass 
Collection System 
Master Plan 
Prepared for 
City of Grants Pass 
101 NW "A" Street 
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 
Prepared by 
Parametrix 
1231 Fryar Avenue 
P.O. Box 460 
Sumner, Washington 98390-1516 
(253) 863-5128 
www.parametrix.com 
September 2004 
Project No. 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
0 0 0 7 1 0 
The technical material and data contained in this document were prepared under the supervision and 
direction of the undersigned, whose seal, as a professional engineer licensed to practice as such, is affixed 
below. 
" 0 9 
c.JXjuJ^ 
t 
W** 
fepared by Steven C. Gilbert, P.E. 
Cheeked by Mike Sailor, P S 
Approved by Ken Black, P.E. 
iuêt 
E L * • — « 
City of Grams Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
0 0 € 7 1 1 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 
1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1 
1.2 PURPOSE 1-1 
2. SERVICE AREA CHARACTERISTICS 2-1 
2.1 COLLECTION SYSTEM SERVICE AREA 2-1 
2.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 2-1 
2.2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils 2-1 
2.2.2 Climate 2-4 
2.2.3 Water Resources 2-5 
2.3 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 2-7 
2.3.1 Population 2-7 
2.3.2 Land Use 2-8 
3. REGULATORY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES 3-1 
3.1 FEDERAL POLICY 3-1 
3.1.1 Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act 3-1 
3.1.2 Safe Drinking Water Act 3-1 
3.1.3 Proposed Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance Rule 3-1 
3.2 STATE POLICY 3-2 
3.2.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 3-2 
3.2.2 Bacterial Control Management Plan...., 3-2 
3.2.3 Groundwater Regulations 3-3 
3.3 LOCAL POLICY AND ORDINANCES 3-3 
3.3.1 City of Grants Pass Municipal Code 3-3 
3.3.2 City of Grants Pass Development Code 3-3 
3.3.3 Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Policy 3-4 
4. EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM 4-1 
4.1 COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPELINES 4-1 
4.2 PUMP STATIONS 4-2 
4.2.1 City Pump Stations 4-2 
4.2.2 RSSSD Pump Stations 4-3 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan I September 2004 
0 0 C 7 1 2 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 
5. EVALUATION CRITERIA 5-1 
5.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 5-1 
5.2 BASIS OF TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 5-1 
5.2.1 Estimated Construction Cost 5-1 
5.2.2 Contingencies 5-1 
5.2.3 Administrative, Engineering, Financial, and Legal Services 5-3 
5.2.4 Land and Right-of-Way Costs 5-3 
5.2.5 Total Project Costs .'. ! 5-3 
5.3 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 5-4 
6. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 6-1 
6.1 FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM 6-1 
6.1.1 Rainfall Data 6-1 
6.1.2 Flow Monitoring Data 6-3 
6.2 WATER RESTORATION PLANT FLOWS 6-6 
6.3 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 6-12 
6.3.1 Model Development 6-12 
6.3.2 Model Calibration 6-14 
6.3.3 Model Simulations and Results 6-14 
7. MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS 7-1 
7.1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PIPELINES 7-1 
7.2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PUMP STATIONS 7-2 
7.2.1 City Pump Stations 7-2 
7.2.2 RSSSD Pump Station 7-5 
8. RECOMMENDED COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 8-1 
8.1 GOALS 8-1 
8.2 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 8-1 
8.2.1 Hydraulic Capacity Improvements 8-1 
8.2.2 Maintenance and Reliability Improvements 8-9 
8.3 PRIORITIZATION OF IMPROVEMENTS 8-13 
8.4 ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS 8-13 
8.5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 8-20 
8.6 IMPLEMENTATION 8-21 
9. REFERENCES 9-1 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan ii September 2004 
0 0 0 7 1 3 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 
LIST OF FIGURES 
ES-1 Key Map of Proposed Pipeline Improvement Projects ES-3 
ES-2 Proposed Structural Repair Areas ES-5 
2-1 Study Area 2-2 
4-1 Major Collection System Components and Service Area 4-4 
4-2 Collection System Drainage Basins 4-5 
4-3 Pipe Age Distribution 4-6 
4-4 Sum of Pipe Length (ft) / Diameter and Installation Date 4-7 
4-5 Existing Diversion Locations 4-8 
4-6 City of Grants Pass Pump Station Service Areas 4-9 
4-7 General Configuration of RSSSD Pump Stations 4-10 
6-1 Flow Monitoring Manholes 6-2 
6-2 Flow Monitoring Data - Manhole CI 19 6-4 
6-3 Flow Monitoring Data - Manhole H5 6-5 
6-4 Flow Monitoring Data - Manhole II 6-7 
6-5 Flow Monitoring Data - Manhole J2 6-8 
6-6 Flow Monitoring Data - Manhole K1 6-9 
6-7 Flow Monitoring Data - Manhole N2 6-10 
6-8 WRP Flow Rates During Flow Monitoring (December 12,2002 to February 14,2003) 6-11 
6-9 Pipelines Included in the Hydraulic Model 6-13 
6-10 Flow Monitoring Data and Hydraulic Model Predicted Flow - Manhole C119 6-16 
6-11 Flow Monitoring Data and Hydraulic Model Predicted Flow - Manhole M5 6-17 
6-12 Flow Monitoring Data and Hydraulic Model Predicted Flow - Manhole II 6-18 
6-13 Flow Monitoring Data and Hydraulic Model Predicted Flow - Manhole J2 6-19 
6-14 Flow Monitoring Data and Hydraulic Model Predicted Flow - Manhole K1 6-20 
6-15 Flow Monitoring Data and Hydraulic Model Predicted Flow - Manhole N2 6-21 
6-16 North Section 2-Foot Minimum Surcharge With All Existing Diversions Active 6-22 
6-17 South Section 2-Foot Minimum Surcharge With All Existing Diversions Active 6-23 
6-18 North Section 2-Foot Minimum Surcharge With All Diversions Removed 6-24 
6-19 South Section 2-Foot Minimum Surcharge With All Existing Diversions Removed 6-25 
7-1 Combined Weighted Maintenance and Structural Scores - North Section 7-3 
7-2 Combined Weighted Maintenance and Structural Scores - South Section 7-4 
O Ö C 7 1 4 
8-1 Key Map of Proposed Pipeline Improvement Projects 8-2 
8-2 Proposed Pine Street Pipeline Improvement Project 8-3 
8-3 Proposed Western Avenue Pipeline Improvement Project 8-5 
8-4 Proposed Mill Street Pipeline Improvement Project 8-6 
8-5 Proposed 7th Street Relief Project 8-7 
8-6 Proposed Nebraska Avenue Pipeline Improvement Project 8-8 
8-7 Proposed Structural Repair Areas 8-10 
8-8 Proposed Structural Repair Areas 8-11 
8-9 Pine Street Structural Repair 8-14 
8-10 Lawnridge-Washington Structural Repair 8-15 
8-11 5th Street Structural Repair 8-16 
8-12 7th Street Structural Repair 8-17 
8-13 Subbasin H Structural Repairs 8-18 
8-14 Subbasin B/C Structural Repairs 8-19 
LIST OF TABLES 
ES-1 Recommended Capital Improvement Plan Grants Pass Collection System ES-4 
2-1 Climate Summary 2-4 
2-2 Historical Rogue River Stream Flow Data 2-6 
2-3 Existing and Future Service Area Populations 2-8 
2-4 Service Area Land Use Summary 2-8 
4-1 Pipeline Length and Age Data by Basin 4-11 
4-2 Collection System Overflows (1997 to Present) 4-12 
4-3 Historical Records Available for Pipe Segments 4-12 
4-4 Pump Station Data 4-13 
5-1 Gravity Sewer Pipeline Construction Cost Unit Prices Used for Estimating Project 
Construction Costs 5-2 
5-2 Percentage of Total Project Cost Components 5-3 
6-1 Flow Monitoring Manhole Location 6-1 
6-2 Population Estimates Used in the HYDRA Model 6-12 
7-1 Weighting Factors for Collection System Improvements 7-2 
8-1 Detailed Pipeline Size and Length for Each Segment 8-12 
8-2 Cost of Recommended Pipeline Improvement Proj ects (in $ 1M) 8-13 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 2-8 September 2004 
> 0 0 0 7 1 5 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 
8-3 Cost of Recommended Structural Repair Areas (in $ 1M) 8-20 
8-4 Recommended Capital Improvement Plan Grants Pass Collection System 8-21 
APPENDICES 
A WRP NPDES Permit 
B Sanitary Sewer Collection System Map 
C Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Policy 
D Pump Station Drawings 
E GIS Database Used in Maintenance and Reliability Analysis 
F Detailed Structural and Maintenance Analysis 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 
0 0 C 7 1 6 
V 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
KEY TERMS 
cfs cubic feet per second 
CIP Capital Improvement Plan 
City City of Grants Pass 
CMOM Capacity, Management, Operation and Maintenance 
CWA Clean Water Act 
EPA Environmental Protection Agency 
fps feet per second 
GIS geographic information system 
gpm gallons per minute 
I/I infiltration and inflow 
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
O&M operation and maintenance 
OAR Oregon Administrative Rules 
ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 
Plan Collection System Master Plan 
RSSSD Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District 
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 
SSOs sanitary sewer overflows 
UGB urban growth boundary 
USDA United States Department of Agriculture 
USGS United States Geological Survey 
WRP water restoration plant 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan vi September 2004 
0 0 0 7 1 7 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTRODUCTION 
The present and future needs of wastewater collection systems are assessed through the preparation of a 
Collection System Master Plan. The plan evaluates the existing system and the operation and 
maintenance of the system. Using growth forecasts for the service area, the plan identifies system 
deficiencies and improvements to address the needs within a designated planning period. 
The last Collection System Master Plan completed by the City of Grants Pass (City) was in 1983. Since 
that time, the City has experienced continued growth and has expanded the City's collection system to 
include the Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District (RSSSD) and its collection system west of the city. 
A new plan is warranted, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality also requires that a new 
plan be completed by the City. 
SERVICE AREA 
The service area covered in this plan follows the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defined in the 1982 
Grants Pass Comprehensive Plan for Community Development, which includes the city and the 
unincorporated Harbeck-Fruitdale area. The service area also includes the RSSSD area. 
The Grants Pass area has experienced steady population growth since the 1920s. Most recently, the area 
has grown at about 1.5 percent annually. Current population within the city limits in 2003 is estimated at 
22,444. Adding the Harbeck-Fruitdale area and the RSSSD area yields a total existing service area 
population of 32,778 in 2003. Also, commercial/industrial flows need to be included, and this component 
is assumed to be equivalent to 35 percent of the total residential service population. 
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM 
The existing collection system is 
comprised of 23 separate drainage 
basins and a total of about 
0.8 million feet of sewer pipelines 
ranging in size from 4 inches to 
42 inches in diameter as shown in 
the figure to the right. Approxi-
mately one-half of these sewers are 
at least 30 years old, with most of 
the old pipes clustered in the 
downtown area. From the late 
1920s through the mid-1960s, most 
sewers were made locally. These 
concrete pipelines were constructed 
from substandard materials and have 
poor long-term performance. 
There are numerous diversion 
structures in the existing system that 
shunt flow from over-capacity 
pipelines to adjacent pipelines. 
These diversions were installed to 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan ES-1 September 2004 
O O C 7 1 8 
prevent sewer overflows during peak rain events. Even with these diversions, however, the system has 
had 10 overflows since 1997, with the most recent in December 2000. The most common cause of these 
overflows was pipe obstructions. 
Since 1986, the City has been compiling sewer condition and maintenance data into a central electronic 
database. These data offer a historical record of a number of structural conditions and maintenance issues 
for individual pipeline segments. These data have been used in a maintenance and reliability analysis of 
the existing collection system. 
There are three existing lift/pump stations in the collection system. These include the Webster No. 1 and 
No. 2 lift stations and the Bridge Street pump station. In addition, a future lift station will likely be 
required at the east edge of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the Rogue River. There are also two 
new pump stations in the Redwood area, the Redwood and Darneille Pump Stations. 
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 
To evaluate the ability of the existing collection system to meet future capacity needs, a hydraulic 
analysis was conducted. Using HYDRA, a computer model of the major sewers serving the service area 
was developed and calibrated. To calibrate the model, a 2-month flow monitoring program was 
conducted in December 2002 to February 2003. Six flow monitors were installed at six manholes that 
best represent flow from major drainage basins with known deficiencies and anticipated growth. 
Collected flow and rainfall data were used in the calibration process. 
The hydraulic model of the collection system was then modified by increasing service area population to 
the year 2025, a 20-year projection, and year 2060, a projection assuming all available land in the service 
area was at build-out condition. The year 2060 projection was used to size future collection system 
pipelines. The total equivalent population in the service area in 2025 was about 65,000 and about 
130,000 in 2060. 
In all, six models were created for the analysis; three models were based on populations from the years 
2003, 2025, and 2060, with the existing diversions retained, and three corresponding models with 
diversions removed. Using a threshold of 2 feet of allowable surcharge for any pipeline during a 5-year, 
24-hour rainfall, collection system hydraulic deficiencies were identified. 
MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS 
To evaluate the structural condition of the existing collection system and identify future 
repair/replacement needs, a maintenance and reliability analysis was conducted. Structural deficiencies 
were identified using available sewer condition and maintenance data and linking these data to a graphical 
representation of the collection system. This analysis included extensive discussions with the City's 
sewer maintenance staff to confirm known areas that require routine maintenance and areas where other 
structural deficiencies had been observed. 
In addition, a condition assessment of all lift and pump stations was conducted. No needed improvements 
to these stations were identified. 
RECOMMENDED COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 
Based on the collection system hydraulic analysis conducted, five capital improvement projects were 
identified that need to be completed in the next 20 years to maintain adequate conveyance system 
capacity. These five projects are shown in Figure ES-1. 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan ES-2 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
co 
co 
<: 
CL! 
co 
I -
z 
£ 
Ol 
LL 
O 
o 
£ co > 
w z 
O £ tu UJ 
o < O S 
« 
E i» 
k. 
£ 
o k-0. 
•a c O m ut g o c 
Q. o o > b. o 
a 
<h 
UJ O- 0) 
£ i= c 
O) f a 
£û 5É CL 
UJ i _ 0:0?: i- uj g 
l u -3 a: 
ui o o a cc ^ 
t - c l P-OT 
t-UJ , --
Ë "J q 
H o 
UJ . 
F uj g 
w o o 
UJ ce ^ 
CL — 
0 0 € 7 2 0 
t0-8SZ09l*CdX :SJ3dX Cf-JSZ09tt'fd :3WVN31IJ u»0t.:u K>/0£/60 :3iva 
The Pine Street sewer has already experienced surcharging during rainfall events and needs to be replaced 
with a larger diameter pipeline as soon as possible. The Western Avenue sewer also has experienced 
surcharging and similarly needs to be a larger diameter pipe to handle future flows on the west side of the 
UGB due to growth. The proposed new Mill Street sewer is needed to provide conveyance capacity for 
growth in the Mill Street area and also to avoid having to improve the existing dual siphons crossing the 
Rogue River and the existing sewer paralleling the Rogue River on the south side. The Mill Street sewer 
will divert flow to available conveyance capacity on the north side of the river. 
The 7th Street relief sewer is needed to divert flow away from the existing 7th Street sewer and avoid 
having to replace this pipeline with a larger diameter pipe. This project diverts flow to the future new, 
larger-diameter Mill Street sewer. In the future, the Nebraska Avenue sewer needs to be replaced with a 
larger-diameter pipeline to accommodate growth south of the Redwood Highway. 
Based on the maintenance and reliability analysis conducted on the existing collection system, six 
structural repair areas were identified and are shown in Figure ES-2. In each of these areas, there are 
numerous very old small-diameter (6-inch) pipelines that exhibit extensive structural defects and severe 
root encroachment. Numerous services calls have been made on these pipelines and the pipelines require 
very frequent, difficult cleaning. Rather than attempt to identify individual pipelines within each of these 
areas that require repair/replacement, these areas first need more detailed investigations and inspections, 
after which specific repair/replacement programs can then be identified and implemented. Steps to be 
followed would include further testing and inspections, evaluation of alternative repair/replacement 
technologies and strategies, and cost evaluations. Upon completion of these steps, a final 
repair/replacement program for each area can then be developed and implemented. 
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 
Using appropriate unit prices for pipeline construction and other project cost components, the total project 
cost for both the five pipeline improvement projects (Figure ES-1) and the six structural repair areas 
(Figure ES-2) have been estimated. For the six structural repair areas, the cost was based on complete 
replacement of one-half of the existing sewers with a minimum pipe diameter of 8 inches per standard 
sewer design criteria. In addition, using the prioritization of the improvements identified in the hydraulic 
and maintenance and reliability analysis, a recommended Capital Improvements Plan has been developed 
and is shown in Table ES-1 
Table ES-1. Recommended Capital Improvement Plan Grants Pass Collection System 
Project Schedule 
Cost 
($1M) 
Pine Street Sewer 2004-2006 $2.55 
Western Avenue Sewer 2006-2009 $1.46 
Pine Street Structural Repair 2009-2011 $1.11 
5th Street Structural Repair 2010-2012 $2.13 
7th Street Structural Repair 
Lawnridge-Washington Structural Repair 
2013-2015 $1.46 
$1.64 
Mill Street Sewer 
Subbasin B/C Structural Repair 
7th Street Relief System 
Subbasin H Structural Repair 
2016-2018 
2019-2021 
$3.08 
$1.23 
$1.40 
$1.21 
Nebraska Avenue Sewer 2022-2024 $0.81 
Total Collection System Capital Improvement Plan: $18.08 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan ES-2 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
0 0 € 7 2 2 
The City of Grants Pass needs to begin to implement this CIP as soon as possible. The Pine Street sewer 
project has already begun and construction is planned for 2005-2006 if funding is available. 
Implementation of further improvements in the CIP is, however, contingent upon funding and the City 
should begin an evaluation of their sewer customer rates in order to provide funding to implement the 
remainder of the CIP-
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 ES-6 
0 0 0 7 2 3 
Introduction 
00€ 7 2 4 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1 BACKGROUND 
The present and future needs of wastewater collection systems are assessed through preparation of 
Collection System Master Plans. These plans evaluate the existing system, its operation and maintenance, 
and growth forecasts for the service area to anticipate potential system deficiencies and prioritize 
collection system needs within the designated planning period. 
The City of Grants Pass (City) last completed a Collection System Master Plan (Plan) in 1983 
(James Montgomery, 1983). A number of the recommended collection system improvements in the 
1983 Plan have been implemented. The City has, however, experienced sewer line failures and 
occasional overflows due to sewer line obstructions. The City has also expanded its collection system to 
include the Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District (RSSSD) collection system located west of the City. 
For these reasons, an update of the existing Plan is warranted. This need was recognized by the Oregon 
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), which included completion of an updated Collection 
System Master Plan as a provision in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permit for the City's Water Restoration Plant (WRP) as shown in Appendix A. 
The updated Plan will be the most recent in a series of recent reports/studies focusing on wastewater 
infrastructure. In 2000, the City adopted a Wastewater Facilities Plan Update (Parametrix, 2000) for 
improvements to the City WRP. The 2000 Facilities Plan updated the information presented in a draft 
Water Restoration Plant Facilities Plan (Brown and Caldwell, 1999). The Facilities Plan focuses on the 
WRP but also provides some analysis of the existing collection system to assess the impact of infiltration 
and inflow (I/I) on peak flow events at the WRP. Additional collection system analyses that were 
presented in the RSSSD Facilities Plan prepared in 1999 by Parametrix (Parametrix, 1999), assessed the 
RSSSD wastewater collection system. Where appropriate, these documents are referenced herein. 
1.2 PURPOSE 
This Collection System Master Plan is an examination of the existing wastewater collection system of the 
City of Grants Pass and the needs of the system throughout the 20-year planning period. (A map of the 
entire wastewater collection system is included in Appendix B.) The Plan is intended to provide the City 
with a tool for implementing orderly, logical, and cost-effective improvements. The Plan will serve as a 
guide to the City for anticipating collection system improvements to accommodate new wastewater flow 
as a result of development and as a guide for creating an efficient framework for improving ongoing 
operation and maintenance of the collection system. By implementing the recommended improvements 
in this plan and properly maintaining the collection system, the risk of sewer line failures and the 
occurrence of system overflows due to sewer line obstructions and/or hydraulic limitations will be 
reduced. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 1 -1 September 2004 
0 0 0 7 2 5 
Service Area 
Characteristics 
t/> <5 < 
Ô o > 
» o 
" f B) 3 
S >o O 
m 
CO 
0 0 € 7 2 6 
2. SERVICE AREA CHARACTERISTICS 
Development of sound, long-range collection system plans for the service area requires consideration of 
both natural and socioeconomic environmental characteristics. The natural environment, including 
topography, geology, soils, climate, and water resources, is the primary determinant of development in 
the service area. Other factors, such as economic activity, population growth, and land use interact with 
the natural resources of an area and may significantly affect the overall environment as development 
continues. This section defines the service area and discusses the characteristics of both its physical and 
economic environment. 
2.1 COLLECTION SYSTEM SERVICE AREA 
The service area covered in this Plan is consistent with the sewer service area described in the 
1983 Sewage Collection System Master Plan (James Montgomery, 1983). The service area follows the 
urban growth boundary (UGB) defined in the Grants Pass Comprehensive Plan for Community 
Development (City of Grants Pass, 1982) and includes the City of Grants Pass and the unincorporated 
Harbeck-Fruitdale area south of the city. The Harbeck-Fruitdale area is a special service district that 
contracts with the City for wastewater services. 
The service area also includes the RSSSD, which is located roughly west of the downtown core of Grants 
Pass and on the south side of the Rogue River from the city. The City recently entered into a service 
agreement with the RSSSD for conveyance and treatment of wastewater generated within the District. 
Note that portions of the unincorporated Redwood area lie outside of the UGB. 
The North Valley, also known as Merlin, lies outside the UGB to the north of the city and has largely 
been dependent on on-site sewage treatment systems. Although this area may begin contracting with the 
City for wastewater services, there are no current plans for service expansion. Therefore, consideration of 
flows from the North Valley area was not addressed in this Plan. 
The service area evaluated in this Plan is as shown in Figure 2-1. 
2.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 
The natural environment includes the topography, geology, soils, climate, and water resources of the 
region. This section presents a brief discussion of these items in relation to collection system planning 
and analysis. When possible, the information provided herein has been updated from the Water 
Restoration Plant Facilities Plan (Brown and Caldwell, 1999). 
2.2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils 
The topography, geology, and soils of a region can have a significant effect on the design and 
construction requirements of the collection system. Topography can determine the route and slope of 
sewer lines, as well as the need for and location of pumping stations. The geology and soil conditions in 
an area can affect construction costs for pipelines and determine locations for system components. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 2 -1 September 2004 
O O C 7 2 7 
ILI I-
05 >-
g * o a: UjUJ 
I OS 
« 
E « w ti a. 
U) O Ui 
se « w 
o a 
M a <r Ui ui K « 
S Q > W cu W uj to OT £ 
> £ 
IS 
É o a p a te 3 o o a. 
H 
ft 
r 4) 
£ > . 
3 T3 0.3 
LL 0) 
• r > 0 0 7 2 8 
I to-sgjosit-tdx :S.J3iJX 
:S30VCI SZ-JSZOgit'fd :3IWN3"IJ wd6s:i *0/6Z/60 :3iVQ 
2.2.1.1 Topography 
Grants Pass lies in the Rogue River Valley in the Klamath Mountain Range of Oregon. The Rogue River 
Valley begins at the base of the surrounding hills and exists as a well-defined stream terrace some 10 to 
15 feet above the bed of the Rogue River. The valley slopes towards the river at an average gradient of 
1 to 2 percent. Elevations on the low-lying valley floor range from 880 to 1,100 feet above sea level. The 
Rogue River traverses the valley in a general east-west direction on an average slope of about 6 feet per 
mile. 
Away from the valley floor, the terrain grows steep relatively quickly. Beacon Hill (located northeast of 
the City) and Baldy Mountain (located southeast of the City) are 2,117 feet and 2,740 feet in elevation, 
respectively. The Siskiyou Mountains, part of the Klamath Mountains, lie to the south and west of Grants 
Pass. To the northeast, a spur connects the Klamath Mountains to the Cascade Range. 
2.2.1.2 Geology 
The service area contains several major geologic units, including alluvium deposits, diorites and granites, 
ultramafic and metavolcanic rocks, and gneisses and schists. The alluvium deposits, between 100 and 
150 feet thick, formed the valley floor by eroding away from the surrounding rock units. The lava and 
metavolcanic rock composing Beacon Hill and Baldy Mountain does not weather easily. Its ruggedness 
has limited development in these areas. The softer granite of Dollar Mountain to the northwest and 
various hills to the south and southwest of the city shows greater weathering. The rounded ridges and 
gentle slopes of these areas have encouraged development. 
2.2.1.3 Soils 
Weathering of the different geologic units has given the soils of this area a wide range of characteristics. 
The soils that underlie the developable portions of the Rogue River Valley are of the greatest importance 
to the collection system analysis. Soils with poor drainage can increase the potential for I/I into the 
collection system, leading to increased flows to the WRP. A survey conducted by the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA, 1983) identified the soil types found in this area for agricultural 
purposes. A brief summary of the USDA survey with generalized engineering interpretations is presented 
herein. 
The most important soil types in the valley are Newberg fine sandy loam, Barron coarse sandy loam, and 
Clawson sandy loam. Newberg fine sandy loam is the principal soil type in the floodplain and terraced 
areas of the valley. It occupies a strip along the Rogue River that is generally about a mile in width; 
however, it narrows to about 2,500 feet at Grants Pass. The soil is well drained and presents no major 
problems for the collection system. 
Barron coarse sandy loam occupies extensive portions of the Rogue River Valley and underlies most of 
the city west of Gilbert Creek. The soil generally occurs upslope from Columbia fine sandy loam and 
extends as valley fill material into most of the minor tributary valleys. This soil has a slightly higher clay 
content than the Newberg loam, but does not significantly impact drainage or increase VI impacts. 
Clawson sandy loam underlies a major portion of the city east of Gilbert Creek. This soil typically 
consists of about 1 foot of smooth-textured silt loam overlying a compact silty loam or clay loam subsoil. 
At a depth of about 30 inches, the subsoil assumes an extremely gritty texture, reflecting the presence of 
coarse granitic material. The subsoil terminates at shallow depths in coarse granitic rock. The soil is flat-
lying and poorly drained. Because of the impervious nature of the shallow bedrock, it is waterlogged 
during the winter and spring months. In some areas, the water table is less than 3 feet below ground level 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 2-8 September 2004 
> 0 0 0 7 2 9 
well into the summer. The high groundwater conditions that accompany this soil type can be a problem 
when wastewater pipelines lying in the soil have cracks or leaks. Groundwater infiltrates into the cracks 
and leaks, significantly increasing the flow of liquid to the WRP. 
2.2.2 Climate 
Precipitation, temperature, and other climatic factors can significantly affect the design and construction 
of wastewater facilities. Rainfall is especially significant, because it can cause large flow increases in the 
collection system due to stormwater runoff, illicitly connected roof drains, and raised groundwater levels. 
2.2.2.1 General Climatic Conditions 
The climate of Grants Pass is generally mild, although temperatures below freezing and above 100°F 
occur for short periods annually. Climate is influenced by the Pacific Ocean, which is located about 60 
miles west of the city. The intervening coastal mountains modify the effect of the marine air masses, 
causing this portion of the Rogue River Valley to receive less annual rainfall and to have fewer cloudy 
and rainy days than most other portions of Western Oregon. Monthly temperature and precipitation data 
for Grants Pass are summarized in Table 2-1 
Table 2-1. Climate Summary3 
Month 
Temperature, °F Precipitation in Inches 
Mean 
Maximum 
Mean 
Minimum Mean 
Highest 
Recorded 
Lowest 
Recorded Mean 
Greatest 
Daily 
January 47.4 31.1 39.3 69 13 5.0 3.4 
February 54.1 32.7 43.4 76 12 4.4 2.2 
March 59.8 34.1 47.0 81 22 3.7 2.2 
April 65.6 35.8 50.7 93 24 2.0 1.4 
May 73.1 40.5 56.8 102 26 1.2 1.5 
June 80.8 45.4 63.1 106 33 0.5 1.0 
July 88.8 49.5 69.2 109 39 0.4 1.3 
August 89.0 48.9 69.0 110 36 0.5 0.8 
September 82.7 43.0 62.9 108 29 0.9 2.9 
October 70.4 37.4 53.9 98 20 2.1 1.7 
November 53.3 34.6 44.0 77 12 5.1 4.8 
December 45.7 31.3 38.5 67 -1 5.4 4.0 
Annual 67.6 38.7 53.2 110 -1 31.2 4.8 
a Records of the Oregon Climate Service, 1971 -2000. 
2.2.2.2 Precipitation 
Nearly 75 percent of annual rainfall in Grants Pass occurs between the months of November through 
March. A majority of the annual precipitation is in the form of rain, although about 4 to 5 inches of snow 
falls each year. Seasonal snowfalls rarely exceed 10 inches, which usually melts immediately. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 2-4 September 2004 
vOC730 
2.2.2.3 Temperature 
Temperatures in Grants Pass usually remain moderate through the winter. Subfreezing temperatures may 
persist long enough to freeze water in aboveground facilities; however, rarely last long enough to cause 
freezing in buried facilities. Summers are warm and dry. Temperatures exceed 100°F an average of 
6 days a year. Nighttime summer temperatures are generally cool, averaging about 51°F during July, the 
warmest month. 
2.2.2.4 Other Climatic Factors 
Sunshine is usually abundant during the spring, summer, and fall, but the area is generally cloudy during 
the winter months. Early morning fog occurs frequently during November, December, and January. Fog 
is less common in October and February and rarely occurs during the rest of the year. Wind speed and 
direction are not routinely measured at Grants Pass. The prevailing wind direction, however, is from the 
west, approximately parallel to the axis of the Rogue River Valley. 
2.2.3 Water Resources 
The principal water resources in the service area are surface water from the Rogue River and its 
tributaries and groundwater from the alluvium covering the river valley. The water resource most 
important for this Plan, the Rogue River, drains 2,460 square miles above Grants Pass before traversing 
the study area. The Rogue River is used for the City's potable water supply, irrigation, and recreation. 
A number of individual wells rely on area groundwater. The alluvium is the major aquifer, with a typical 
yield of 40 gallons per minute (gpm). Volcanic formations usually yield less water, but in a few highly 
fractured areas wells have yields as high as 60 gpm. Many of the high yields are not sustainable, as the 
aquifers are small and substantial drawdown occurs. 
Both the quantity and quality of water resources are important to wastewater system planning. A 
receiving stream must have adequate volume and assimilative capacity to accept discharge of treated 
wastewater effluent. Also, the quality of the water must be examined to ensure that it remains safe for 
beneficial uses. This section examines water quality and water quantity issues concerning the Rogue 
River, flood potential, and the Grants Pass Irrigation District as it relates to collection system planning. 
2.2.3.1 Water Quality 
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Division 41, Section 340-41-365, sets standards for water quality in 
the Rogue River basin. The rules cover dissolved oxygen concentrations, temperature increases, pH 
values, coliform counts, creation of tastes or odors, toxic conditions that harm aquatic life or affect 
drinking water, and the formation of sludges. The regulations relating to wastewater treatment and 
disposal are discussed in Section 3.2. 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 2-5 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
2.2.3.2 Water Quantity 
The most recent 30 years of Rogue River flow data collected by the United States Geological Survey 
(USGS) are summarized in Table 2-2. 
Table 2-2. Historical Rogue River Stream Flow Data 
Monthly Stream Flow Data (1973-2002)8 
Month Maximum (ft3/s) Minimum (ft3/s) Mean (ft3/s) 
January 16,610 1,348 5,123 
February 10,960 1,162 4,512 
March 10,760 1,099 4,364 
April 8,395 997 4,076 
May 6,428 1,538 3,703 
June 4,572 1,016 2,796 
July 3,484 974 2,060 
August 3,080 878 2,009 
September 2,642 1,098 1 724 
October 2,282 1,008 1,503 
November 9,086 1,160 2,833 
December 17,620 1,386 4,866 
Data from United States Geological Survey (USGS) Rogue River Monitoring Station (14361500) at Grants Pass. Oregon. 
Flows in the Rogue River can fluctuate widely from year to year. The largest recorded discharge, 
152,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), occurred during a December 1964 flood. The lowest recorded 
discharge was a minimum day of 606 cfs during 1968. Reservoirs have since been constructed in the 
Rogue River basin to provide storage of high wet weather flows for release during dry weather periods. 
2.2.3.3 Flood Potential 
It is necessary to identify flood-prone areas in order to safely locate wastewater collection and treatment 
system components. The Grants Pass Comprehensive Plan for Community Development (City of Grants 
Pass, 1982) describes flood history in the area, identifies flood-prone areas, evaluates the degree of hazard 
from flooding, and describes appropriate safeguards for the community. 
The City has adopted an ordinance regulating development within the 100-year floodplain. As described 
in City Ordinance 4471, land within the floodway should not be considered for development. Regulations 
do allow development in the floodway if the developer can demonstrate that floodwater will not be 
diverted by a new structure in such a way as to adversely affect adjacent development in the floodway 
fringe. However, the stringent regulations generally preclude development within urban floodway areas. 
Development in the floodway fringe is permitted, but the first livable floor must be constructed at least 
1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation. 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 2-6 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
O O C 7 3 2 
2.2.3.4 Grants Pass Irrigation District 
The Grants Pass Irrigation District was formed in the early 1920s to supply irrigation water to land 
located between the town of Rogue River and the confluence of the Applegate and Rogue Rivers. 
Currently, about 7,700 acres of agricultural and residential lands are irrigated. The district has water 
rights to divert up to 150 cfs from the Rogue River during irrigation season. A system of unlined canals 
carries water from the Savage Rapids Dam throughout the area covered by the District. Many residents in 
the service area use water from the canals to irrigate landscaping and gardens. The canals are also used to 
carry stormwater away from these lands. 
The irrigation season typically extends between April 15 and October 1. Flow at the City WRP increases 
during those months, even though little rain typically falls during that period. It appears that one source 
of groundwater inflow conveyed to the WRP is irrigation water that has seeped into the ground through 
the unlined canals and infiltrated the collection system. Although there are currently discussions about 
removal of the Savage Rapids Dam, this Plan assumes that the Grants Pass Irrigation District will 
continue to function as it does now. Even if the dam were removed, pumps would likely be installed to 
deliver water to irrigation district canals. 
2.3 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
The socioeconomic environment, primarily population and land use, of an area can profoundly affect 
wastewater collection system and treatment facility planning. Residential, commercial, and industrial 
development patterns are determining factors in the location, design, and cost of pipelines, while land use 
and recreation patterns can influence site selection for wastewater disposal. Historic and existing land use 
patterns can be used to make projections of future development patterns. These projections are then used 
to develop planning design criteria. 
2.3.1 Population 
The Grants Pass area has experienced steady population growth since the 1920s. This increase has been 
consistent with the national population trend of people moving to the west and southwest from the 
northeastern and central states and to rural areas from urban areas. The population in Josephine County 
rose during the 1970s (5.11 percent annually), but slowed dramatically during the 1980s (0.6 percent 
annually). Grants Pass grew more rapidly than the county during the last decade (1.5 percent annually). 
The 1990 census lists the population of Grants Pass at 17,424. Current population within the city limits in 
2003 is estimated at 22,444. 
The population within the area currently served by the collection system consists primarily of the 
population within the city limits and the population within the Harbeck-Fruitdale area (approximated at 
4,620 through sewer connection and billing records). The future sewerage service area will include the 
existing service area and the Redwood area. In 2003, the Redwood population was about 5,714. Adding 
this population to the existing sewer service area population yields a population of 32,778 in 2003. It is 
also necessary to take into account the commercial and industrial contribution as a form of a population 
equivalent. This Plan assumes that commercial/industrial population equivalent is 35 percent of the total 
residential population. 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
0 0 0 7 3 3 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 2-7 
Existing service area populations and the total population equivalent served are summarized in Table 2-3. 
Average growth rates assumed for the future population are based upon projections presented in the 
City's Comprehensive Plan (City of Grants Pass, 1982). 
Table 2-3. Existing and Future Service Area Populations 
Area 
1997 
Population 
2003 
Population 
2020 
Population 
Average 
Growth Rate, 
Percent/Year 
City Limits 20,526 22,444 28,908 1.5 
Harbeck-Fruitdale 4,200 4,620 6,053 1.6 
Redwood 4,758 5,714 9,600 3.1 
Commercial/Industrial Population Equivalent 10,319 11,472 15,596 1.8 
Total Service Area Population Equivalent: 39,803 44,250 60,157 
2.3.2 Land Use 
The three main categories of land use are residential, commercial, and industrial. The City planning 
department keeps records on the amount of land in each zoning category within the city limits. The City 
assigns each land parcel a designation of improved, unimproved, or exempt. This Plan assumes that only 
improved land is currently served by the City WRP. The planning department estimates that there are 
approximately 2,912 acres of improved land within the city limits. The total amount of improved, 
unimproved, and exempt land within the city limits is 3,986 acres. 
Land use records for Harbeck-Fruitdale area were unavailable, so land use within these areas was 
estimated. This Plan assumed that the Harbeck-Fruitdale area is primarily residential with minor 
commercial and industrial land use, and is currently developed at 40 percent capacity. Total land area 
within Harbeck-Fruitdale was determined from City maps and is estimated as 1,900 acres. 
Land use estimates are summarized in Table 2-4. Future land use for each category was estimated as the 
sum of existing improved, unimproved, and exempt land for that category. While it is unlikely that all 
land within the service area will be developed by 2013, annexations of additional land into the service 
area should offset any remaining undeveloped land. 
Table 2-4. Service Area Land Use Summary 
Land Use Category 
Area in Acres 
1980" 1990 2000" 2013 
Residential 1,816 2,746 3,755 4,414 
Commercial 362 591 743 993 
Industrial 464 334 473 477 
Public and Semi-Public 493 b 776 200b 
Total: 3,135 3,671 5,747 5,885 
a Obtained from 1983 Sewerage Collection System Master Plan. 
b Public and semi-public land area included in other values. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 2-8 September 2004 
> 0 0 7 3 4 
Issues 
3. REGULATORY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES 
Federal, state, and local regulatory agency policies and procedures affect the installation, upgrades, and 
operation of the City's wastewater collection system and treatment facility. The impacts of these policies 
and procedures on wastewater management planning in the Grants Pass area are described below. The 
discussion of regulations presented is not exhaustive and is focused on those regulations and laws that are 
relevant to wastewater conveyance and treatment. 
3.1 FEDERAL POLICY 
Federal policies that will affect the planning process include the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act/Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; and the proposed Capacity, Management, Operation and 
Maintenance Rules. 
3.1.1 Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act 
Since its enactment, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), 
has formed the foundation for regulations detailing specific requirements for pollution prevention and 
response measures. The CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards consistent with federal 
limitations on pollutant and thermal loading. The standards are to take into consideration the use of the 
waters for public water supplies; propagation of fish and wildlife; recreational purposes; and agricultural, 
industrial, and other beneficial uses. 
The City's collection system conveys wastewater to the City WRP, where it is treated before discharge to 
the Rogue River. State policies specifically regulate pollutant and thermal loading to comply with federal 
policy as detailed in the CWA. 
3.1.2 Safe Drinking Water Act 
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set 
national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against contaminants that may be found in 
drinking water. Wastewater flows that are collected in or travel through substandard collection systems 
have the potential to contaminate drinking water systems. State and local regulations are designed to 
comply with the SDWA, and prohibit activities that could cause an adverse impact on existing or 
potential beneficial use of groundwater. 
3.1.3 Proposed Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance Rule 
EPA is proposing rules that will govern the manner in which municipalities and special service districts 
manage and operate wastewater collection systems. The proposed Capacity, Management, Operation and 
Maintenance (CMOM) Rule, depending on its final promulgated form, may have a significant affect on 
collection system development and operation and maintenance (O&M) for the City. 
Under the proposed rule, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) would be prohibited unless caused by severe 
natural conditions such as widespread flooding, earthquakes, or other natural disasters. Owners of 
collection systems would be required to provide adequate capacity for peak flows in all parts of the 
system, monitor and report on SSOs, and make the SSO control program and reports available for public 
review. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 3-1 September 2004 
0 0 o 7 3 6 
There are two aspects of the proposed rule that are under close scrutiny of the reviewing community. 
First, satellite sewer systems would be operated under separate NPDES permits. Satellite sewer systems 
are loosely defined in the proposed CMOM rule as any agency that conveys wastewater to another agency 
for additional conveyance and final treatment and discharge. For Grants Pass, the RSSSD would be 
considered a satellite system requiring its own NPDES permit. 
Second, the proposed CMOM rule is vague on the design threshold to which SSOs must be controlled. 
For instance, the proposed rule is silent on the recurrence interval of a storm event above which SSOs 
would be allowed (e.g., would SSOs be permitted during storms greater than a l-in-5 year event?). As 
such, EPA offers wastewater agencies neither clear guidance regarding the amount of additional pipeline 
and pump station construction that would be required under CMOM, nor understanding about the amount 
of additional maintenance effort required to ensure elimination of SSOs. 
The CMOM rule has not yet been implemented. Based upon a recent (April 2004) statement on the EPA 
SSO web page, "SSO Proposed Rule was withdrawn from publication in the Federal Register," the 
timeline for implementation of the CMOM rule is uncertain. How the CMOM rule will eventually be 
interpreted and applied in Oregon is also uncertain. One possibility is that Oregon's "bacteria rule," (see 
Section 3.2.2), will be used to set a minimum threshold for SSO prevention. A record of SSOs from the 
City's collection system since 1997 is presented in Section 4.2. 
3.2 STATE POLICY 
3.2.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
Section 402 of the CWA provides the legal basis for the NPDES permit program, which regulates point 
and nonpoint discharges. ODEQ is authorized by the EPA to administer the NPDES program through 
Oregon Revised Statute 468B and associated OARs. These rules and statutes include regulations for 
wastewater collection, treatment, control, and disposal. Under the conditions of NPDES permits, 
permittees are allowed to construct, install, modify, or operate these systems only in conformance with 
the Federal Clean Water Act and the above-mentioned State statutes that set forth requirements, 
limitations, and conditions for such activities. 
The Grants Pass WRP plant operates under NPDES Permit Number 101985 issued December 29, 2000. 
The permit expires November 30, 2005. A copy of the NPDES permit is provided in Appendix A. 
3.2.2 Bacterial Control Management Plan 
As noted previously, EPA is currently considering proposed CMOM rules that will limit the number of 
allowable SSOs. While the proposed CMOM rule is silent on collection system design criteria, Oregon 
has already adopted a rule that addresses sewer overflows as a function of rainfall events. This rule, 
commonly referred to as the "bacteria rule," therefore, indirectly offers some guidance to design 
engineers and collection system owners. The OAR seeks to protect receiving waters and drinking water 
sources by prohibiting discharge of untreated wastewater to waters of the state except during the 
following conditions: 
• During the period of November 1 through May 21, except during a storm event greater than the 
l-in-5-year, 24-hour duration storm. 
• During the period of May 22 through October 31, except during a storm event greater than the 
1-in-10-year, 24-hour duration storm. 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 3-2 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
The State Environmental Quality Commission may approve a change to these rules on a case-by-case 
basis as described in OAR 340-41-120. Determining the causes and preventing against SSOs usually 
requires a municipality to thoroughly evaluate both the collection and treatment system to determine the 
extent of extraneous weather-related flow, system structural condition and reliability, system hydraulic 
and treatment capacity, and the efficacy of operation and maintenance practices. The City has already 
performed a thorough analysis of the treatment system as part of the WRP expansion. This Plan presents 
a parallel analysis of the collection system condition and operation. 
3.2.3 Groundwater Regulations 
The Federal SDWA requires that state underground injection control programs be established to ensure 
that underground injection will not endanger drinking water sources. In Oregon, groundwater regulations, 
including regulatory requirements for injection controls, are administered by ODEQ. On-site drainfields 
and septic systems that serve 20 or more persons are considered injection wells by ODEQ. The City 
Development Code requires that all new development within the service area be connected to the 
wastewater collection and treatment system. Existing development using septic systems is required to 
connect to the public sewer system at such time as repair or replacement of existing facilities is necessary, 
if the public sewer is within 300 feet of the property. 
3.3 LOCAL POLICY AND ORDINANCES 
Local requirements of particular concern to the planning process are related to the City Municipal Code, 
City Development Code, and the Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Policy. 
3.3.1 City of Grants Pass Municipal Code 
City Ordinances 4861 and 5028 have been adopted by the City as Chapter 8.50 of the City Municipal 
Code. Chapter 8.50 is intended to protect public health and safety; protect the environment; and ensure 
compliance with all applicable state and federal laws as they pertain to wastewater collection, 
conveyance, treatment, and discharge. 
Sewer use requirements set forth in Chapter 8.50 include general and specific prohibited discharge 
standards. The general prohibitions state that no user shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the 
City WRP any pollutant or wastewater which causes pass-through or interference, or which will cause the 
WRP to violate its NPDES permit or harmfully impact the receiving water quality standards. 
Chapter 8.50 also sets forth procedures for the allowance of intentional bypass occurrences, and the 
reporting of unanticipated bypass. 
3.3.2 City of Grants Pass Development Code 
Title 10 of the City Municipal Code may also be cited as the City Development Code. The purpose of the 
Development Code is to coordinate City regulations governing the development and use of land. 
Standards for sewer and septic systems are set forth in the Development Code to ensure compliance with 
state and federal statutes, policies, and laws designed to prevent harmful impact to receiving waters. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 3-3 September 2004 
O p G 7 3 8 
3.3.3 Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Policy 
Substandard or combined sewer laterals discovered during public sewer, water, or storm drain projects are 
required to be replaced. The City considers the sewer lateral to be the responsibility of the private 
property owner from the point of connection to the main to the building being served. Replacement of 
substandard sewer laterals may often include work within the public right-of-way, with the possibility of 
additional costs such as pavement patching, traffic control, and other construction items not usually 
associated with work within private property boundaries. To assist the property owner in the cost of 
lateral replacement, the City has adopted a Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Policy. Under this 
policy, the City Manager can authorize payment of 50 percent of the cost of replacing failed or otherwise 
substandard laterals. A copy of the policy is included in Appendix C. 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 3-4 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
0 0 0 7 3 9 
• • • i • - • Existing 
Collection 
System 
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM 
The extent of the City's service area is shown in Figure 4-1 (page 4-4) together with the location of major 
collection system components such as lift stations, pump stations, and the WRP. The service area 
consists of area within the city limits, the Harbeck-Fruitdale area, and the Redwood Sanitary Sewer 
Service District (RSSSD). 
4.1 COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPELINES 
The City's collection system is divided into 23 drainage basins that are denoted alphabetically (in Figure 4-2 
[page 4-5]). Each major drainage basin is further divided into subbasins that are denoted alphanumerically 
(i.e., Subbasins Al, Bl, etc.). Drainage basin boundaries almost always follow topographic features such 
as ridge lines, streams, and rivers. To some extent, subbasin delineations also follow topographic 
features. However, the City set up the subbasin boundaries primarily to aid operation and maintenance 
efforts. 
Pipeline length and age data for each of the drainage basins are presented in Table 4-1 (page 4-11). Age 
data is further presented in Figure 4-3 (page 4-6) as a color-coded map. In addition, a summary of the 
pipeline size, length, and age are presented in Figure 4-4 (page 4-7). 
Approximately one-half of the gravity sewers comprising the City's collection system are at least 30 years 
old and may be nearing the end of their operational life. Most of the older pipelines are clustered in the 
downtown area, with newer pipelines located in the periphery of the City in areas of more recent 
development. Beginning in the late 1920s and extending through the mid-1960s, pipelines were 
constructed of locally made concrete. These pipelines have had poor long-term performance 
characteristics, being prone to corrosion, spalling, collapse, and joint leakage. Some of the most critical 
trunk and mainline pipelines in the collection system were constructed of this substandard material. 
There are numerous diversion structures located throughout the collection system. These diversions are 
shown in Figure 4-5 (page 4-8). Diversions shunt flow from over-capacity pipelines to adjacent pipelines 
and effectively reduce peak flows in the over-capacity pipelines during rain events. Diversions can be an 
operationally effective and economic means of alleviating hydraulic constraints and preventing SSOs. 
However, the diversions were not constructed in accordance with a comprehensive operational strategy. 
Despite diversions, SSOs still have occurred within the collection system. SSOs that have occurred since 
1997 are listed in Table 4-2 (page 4-12). 
Since 1986, the City has been compiling sewer condition and maintenance data into a central electronic 
database. These condition and maintenance data have been linked to the City's geographic information 
system (GIS). The result is a powerful tool for tracking and visualizing collection system data. These 
data offer a historical record of a number of structural conditions and maintenance issues for individual 
pipeline sections. Table 4-3 (page 4-12) is a comprehensive listing of records available for individual 
pipeline sections based on records developed and recorded by City maintenance staff. These GIS data 
have been used in the Maintenance and Reliability Analysis presented in Section 7. 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 4-1 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
4.2 PUMP STATIONS 
The topography of the City's service area is such that most of the system is operated under gravity flow 
conditions. As such, there are only a few pump stations in the collection system (see Figure 4-1 
[page 4-4]). The Webster No. 1 Lift Station, Webster No. 2 Lift Station, and Bridge Street Pump Station 
are all located in the southwestern portion of the city. Under an intergovernmental agreement, the City 
also operates two pump stations serving the RSSSD. The RSSSD pump stations include the Darnielle 
Pump Station, located on South River Road, and the Redwood Pump Station, located at the site of the 
abandoned RSSSD wastewater treatment plant at the end of Leonard Road. 
Pump station operational data are presented in Table 4-4 (page 4-13). 
4.2.1 City Pump Stations 
The service areas of the Webster No. 1 and No. 2 Lift Stations and the Bridge Street Pump Station are as 
shown in Figure 4-6 (page 4-9). The Webster No. 1 and No. 2 Lift Stations are separate wet well/dry well 
type stations, each with a firm capacity of 0.14 million gallons per day (mgd), constructed in 1967 to 
serve the wide, flat Rogue River Valley located generally between Lower River Road and the Rogue 
River from the WRP to the Western edge of the UGB. These lift stations predominately serve mobile 
home parks and All Sports Park. Webster No. 2 Lift Station is located at the east end of Roguelea Estates 
and the west end of Webster Road. Webster No. 1 Lift Station is located within All Sports Park along the 
access road to several sports fields. Both stations contain dual self-priming, vertical close-coupled, 
nonclog centrifugal pumps. Detailed drawings of both Webster No. 1 and No. 2 Lift Stations are included 
in Appendix D. 
The Bridge Street Pump Station is a duplex submersible type station, with a firm capacity of 0.94 mgd, 
constructed in 1994 to serve the area generally between the Lower and Upper River Roads, from the 
eastern edge of All Sports Park to the western edge of the UGB. Construction of this station was very 
difficult because the contractor encountered extensive groundwater and sloughing soil issues. This station 
was planned to serve a very large area west of Leonard and Cottonwood Streets to the western edge of the 
UGB. Due to construction issues at the pump station, however, several shallow sewers were built along 
Lower River Road, which prevent gravity sewer extensions beyond Schaeffers Lane. Several building 
lots in this area are served with individual grinder pump stations and long small-diameter force mains to 
the existing shallow gravity sewer. In the future, a new deep gravity sewer must be constructed to extend 
gravity sewer service to the west edge of the UGB. This new gravity sewer would enable these grinder 
pumps to be eliminated in the future. 
The Bridge Street Pump Station is located at the southeast corner of Bridge Street and Tami Road, and 
dual (4- and 8-inch-diameter) force mains travel east on Bridge Street about 1,900 feet and discharge in 
Manhole Bi l l . Detailed drawings of the Bridge Street Pump Station are included in Appendix D. 
Appendix D also includes a drawing prepared during the design of the Bridge Street Pump Station 
showing the proposed service area of this station and the preliminary design of gravity sewers in its 
service area. 
A future Spalding Lift Station will very likely be required to serve the east edge of the UGB south of 
Northeast "N" Street and east of Shannon Lane. This lift would also serve the area generally east of 
Ament Road that is too low in elevation to be served by the existing sewer in Spalding Avenue and 
Shannon Lane. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 3-1 September 2004 
0 0 o 7 4 2 
The exact location of this lift station has not yet been identified; however, it would probably be located 
near the intersection of Shannon Lane and Portola Drive and discharge into the existing sewer in 
Portola Drive. This lift station could then serve the homes along Inman Lane next to the Rogue River. 
The probable service area of this lift station is shown in Figure 4-6. 
4.2.2 RSSSD Pump Stations 
The Redwood Conveyance System, which transfers all flow from the old abandoned Redwood 
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to the Grants Pass WRP, includes the Redwood Pump Station, the 
Redwood force main, the Darneille Pump Station, the Darneille force mains, and a gravity sewer which 
brings the transferred flow to the Grants Pass WRP. The general configuration of the system is as 
shown in Figure 4-7 (page 4-10). 
The Redwood Pump Station is located at the old Redwood WWTP. It is a duplex submersible pump 
station with a firm capacity of 0.48 mgd, based on one pump in operation. The station has a Bioxide 
chemical injection system with a 3,000-gallon chemical storage tank. From the Redwood Pump Station, 
flow is routed through approximately 10,300 feet of 6-inch-diameter force main to an influent manhole at 
the Darneille Pump Station. 
The Darneille Pump Station accepts the majority of the flow from the RSSSD, as well as the flow pumped 
from the Redwood Pump Station. The Darneille Pump Station has a firm capacity of 4.2 mgd, based on 
operating two of three pumps. The station is a wet well/dry well type station with above-grade electrical 
panels, generator, and chemical feed system. The chemical feed system is identical to that provided at the 
Redwood Pump Station, except that the chemical feed pumps are slightly larger. 
From the Darneille Pump Station, flow is pumped through approximately 17,940 feet of dual 12-inch 
force main and then 1,000 feet of single 14-inch force main. From the pump station, the dual force mains 
are routed south to South River Road; then east through road rights-of-way and easements to the south 
side of the Pedestrian Bridge. The dual 12-inch force mains join into a single 14-inch force main that 
crosses the Rogue River on the Pedestrian Bridge and then discharges into a gravity sewer which flows to 
the WRP. 
Detailed drawings of the Redwood and Darneille Pump Stations are provided in their respective 
Operation and Maintenance Manuals (Parametrix, 2002). 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 4-3 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
0 0 C 7 4 3 
e o e 7 4 4 
00€ 7 4 5 
o , } , 7 4 6 
i.M* 
vggm^ 
H I U W K I m W m n 
R S I ® - ¡ i i | 
"faSHE 
¡ 1 1 1 §m 
• * 
S i m of Pipe Length (ft) I Diameter & Installation 
200,000 
"«JSiiwHraSRi»'' "-'i • I f ! » " S i , 
K'Jt mums«« 
Parametrix DATE: 0S23/04 FILE K:\GRANTSPASS\MXDflGURE 4 - 4 Figure 4 - 4 
Sum of Pipe Length/Diameter 
& Installation Date 
COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
•)<) 7 4 7 
Iii H W >-
w z 
SÍ o a: 
"OP 
i -i to O < O 5 
E M 
a z 
LU O 
UJ 
M 
C O 
<5 
o o 
» ' a 
00^748 
I l O - 8 Ç S 0 9 1 f f d X : S J 3 a X 
:S30V™ 
93 J Ç £ 0 9 l l > t d : 3 Ï W N 3 1 I J t u o s > : g o t O / i Z / 6 0 : 3 i V Q 
5 ul H 
V> 
> 
ÎÎ 
uj y 
Jk O < O 5 
« 
E « 
h. « 
0-
co < 
LU Qi < 
Ul O > 
OC. 
Ui 
<o 
S í 
l i 
* ì C ® 
2 1 •f O ñ 
£ O o. 
3 m E 
ti. H a. 
Ul y 
life 
O < 
OS 
:S.33UX 2 C - J S S 0 9 l t > C d 3WVN31U wd90--£ frO/iJ/60 :31Vd 
: S 3 0 V N ! 
0 0 1 7 5 0 
Sí 
c» $ i¿ 
ss 
« o o - j o t o o f o o 
h C O C O - ^ r - i n N Í O O CO CO CO C*J T- CO Oí tO M O* N Oí <o CT» »-* O) ö N o w i - i - o ì N p i n O) <î N <o o 10 íVí 
« N o w q « iû 
o io « s -í m to ifl o 
O N (O 1- ffl N ' í o" ' 
OJ T O O tO 
CO CO CO CM 
i o co 
W CI) IO <-
»- N-, m <o co ^ co «3 M 
w N m 
Ol O) O N 
m N w i - co 
ffi O lO IÛ - í r - ¡ «> o> ö ö o> 1 N T- co N CVI ! 
- œ n <o; 
u> »- w> r-
<J> 
^Nwswoi f l f f ln O t o r - . ' t r r c M o o c o o w « m o »-. •*t — r-" C¿ C\í CO" 
r - m csí 
f CO O CO io o> co co io to 
5 N N OI 
^ " w O o N (O N W -î IÛ (\J 
( ú o ^ r - T O S m i í 
i. •*, « cu ® ^ tn •O O O f- O CVI ^ I 
OJ OI O PÏ O «O 
^ CO CO evi CM O IO CO W ID K) W ra m io co co 
cm r-. o> co cm co N 11) •» if IO O 
o r- o co 
O ® f - N O r- o i*» t o> q w co <o OÍ (O U) <fl f" 
! oil 2? 
— f-
co o O « ui o « g • V <o 
; co o a> cm 
co io ö t" Ö Ö 
in (o oí ai 
<COO OUJU-CDX 5 z a. œ w > $ X > rsj; £ : « O) ^ 
l i 
Si 
5: 
g 1 
£ 5 
5 
6 .1 
C) OC 7 5 1 
Table 4-2. Collection System Overflows (1997 to Present) 
Date Location Cause 
June 9, 1997 738 NW Amelia Drive Broken Service Line 
July 25, 1997 1044 NW 6th Street Maintenance Accident 
March 23, 1998 NE 9th Street Sewer Obstruction During Storm Event 
April 21 1998 928 NE 12th Street Sewer Obstruction During Storm Event 
April 22, 1998 Treatment Plant Pump Station Power Outage and Backup Generator Failure 
June 29,1998 NW Savage Street Sewer Obstruction 
August 29,1998 2075 Highland Street Support Pillar Dislodged Sewer Pipe at Creek Crossing 
September 18,1998 NW Savage Street Unpermitted Discharge Water Line Flushing Water into 
Collection System 
January 14, 2000 Manzànita Avenue Storm Event 
December 16, 2000 Bellaire Drive Grease Problem 
Table 4-3. Historical Records Available for Pipe Segments 
Structural Data 
(Defect) 
Age Data 
(Year Constructed) 
Maintenance Data 
(Maintenance Effort/Condition) 
Missing Pipe 1920-1939 6-Month Cleaning 
Hole in Pipe 1940-1965 <6 Gallons of Rock Removed 
During Cleaning 
Broken Pipe 1966-1979 3-5 Gallons of Rock Removed 
During Cleaning 
Circumferential Crack 1980-Present 1-2 Gallons of Rock Removed 
During Cleaning 
Longitudinal Crack Heavy Grease 
Crack (Other) Medium Grease 
Light Grease 
Heavy Root Encroachment 
Medium Root Encroachment 
Light Root Encroachment 
! 
, Service Call 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 2-8 September 2004 
>7 5 2 
Table 4-4. Pump Station Data 
Location 
Year 
Constructed 
No. 
of 
Pumps 
Pump 
Type 
Horsepower 
(hp) 
Drive 
Type 
Capacity 
(gpm) 
Head 
(feet) 
Webster No. 1 Lift Station: 
East edge of 1967 
Roguelea 
Estates 
Webster No. 2 Lift Station: 
All Sports Park 1967 
- Basin A 
Bridge Street Pump Station: 
Bridge Street 1994 
and 
Tami Court -
Basin A 
Redwood Pump Station: 
4960 Leonard 2000 
Road-
RSSSD 
Self-priming, 
vertical close-
coupled, 
nonclog 
centrifugal 
Self-priming, 
vertical close-
coupled, 
nonclog 
centrifugal 
Submersible, 
nonclog 
centrifugal 
Submersible, 
nonclog, 
centrifugal 
7.5 
20 
40 
Constant 
Speed 
100 23 
Constant 
Speed 
100 10 
Variable 
Speed 
Variable 
Speed 
650 75 
335 163 
Darneille Pump Station: 
3100 South 2000 
River Road -
RSSSD 
Immersible 
dry-pit, screw 
centrifugal 
110 Variable 
Speed 
1,460 180 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 4-13 
276-3416-025(03/0350) 
September 2004 
0 0 , , 7 5 3 
Evaluation 
Criteria 
5. EVALUATION CRITERIA 
An important activity of this planning effort was to work with the City to develop evaluation criteria. 
These criteria were used to assess the condition and capacity of existing collection system components to 
dependably convey existing and future flows to the Grants Pass WRP. The evaluation and analysis 
criteria were used to develop the weighting factors used in the Maintenance and Reliability Analysis 
presented in Section 7 and to develop the cost estimates for the recommended improvements that are 
shown in the Capital Improvement Plan in Section 8. 
5.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 
Construction costs evaluated in this Plan are based on preliminary layouts of proposed projects. Unit 
prices were then applied to the estimated length of each size of collection system pipeline for each project 
to determine the anticipated construction cost of the project based on 2003 costs. Unit prices applied to 
each size of pipeline are shown in Table 5-1 (page 5-2). Table 5-1 contains unit pricing for each 
component for gravity sewer pipeline construction together with the total unit pricing for pipeline 
installation per linear foot. In considering the estimates, it is important to realize that changes during final 
design and future changes in the cost of materials, labor, and equipment will cause changes in cost 
estimates presented. 
5.2 BASIS OF TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 
The total project cost of a proposed project is defined as the sum of estimated construction cost as 
described in Section 5.1, a project contingency; the cost of administration, engineering, legal, and 
financial services; and the cost for any additional land or right-of-way required for the project, if required. 
Each of these cost components is discussed below. 
5.2.1 Estimated Construction Cost 
Construction cost estimates consist of costs the contractor is expected to charge the City for building 
proposed facilities. Construction costs include the cost of labor, materials, equipment, subcontractors, 
mobilization, overhead and profit, and contingencies. These costs are described in Paragraph 5.1, Basis 
of Estimated Construction Cost. 
5.2.2 Contingencies 
A contingency is an allowance for undefined cost items. This allowance covers work items that will have 
to be performed, or other cost elements that will be incurred, that were not explicitly foreseen at the time 
of the estimate because of lack of complete and accurate information. In this Plan, a contingency of 
40 percent on construction costs was applied to all cost estimates. (Note: The level of accuracy normally 
associated with planning-level cost estimates should not be confused with contingency.) 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 5-1 September 2004 
O O C 7 5 5 
O) ** to O 
O c o 
O 3 k_ 
•*-< (0 C O O 
o 
o w CL O) Ç 
ra 
E 
10 LU 
T3 Q) (0 
co ® o 
c => 
(0 O o 
c 
o 
o 
3 
(0 
c o 
O 
0) 
c 
o a 
a> 
© 
V) 
> 
(0 im. 
O 
in 
a> 
X) ra H 
£ O c ® _ 
»- CL H « - a> o ® -
(A V) < 
o. _ 
ü í t 
OC -
co** m 
« 
CL 
WÔ CM 
a. 
* 
o IO o> IO co 00 o CM co IO o o co co 
<0 co co CM o oó IO IO co Io 
CM 
O _ 
> GT CL _l 
O- _l 
o _ > g: a. _i 
o IO CT) IO CO ra o CM co IO co co 
ri 00 co CM O od IO o CM IO 
o to st CD IO co oo o CM co io co co 
tí* 
aj cò CM p oó IO •t— Io 
o IO CO o co o CD IO a> r*- oo f-; IO IO co 
Tt" co co Ö CO IO T— 
tí* CM T— o IO 
o ^ t i o c o i o c o o c o u ) 0 ¡ N ( 0 f t | i í ) q n Tfcàcir iotr icM"-T— cm oo io 
O Tl-IO O) 
Tf oò co o 
m r- co io co o co co eg lo in co 
ö io cri t-" T- co m 
if; O Ö IO 
CM IO CM to-
ol O T- CO 
r-" cri o> 
0> co co 
«r od io co 
r- O 
T- CO CO co 
<0 co" co co 
o in IO O) r-. 
TT co co 
tí* CM 
o •«í- IO IO co 
oo co 
tí) 1— CM 
o (M on IO CM CT> 
1— CD 
tí* T~ 
00 o 
S r-' 
oo CM o co 
£ 
IO CD •o- o o> co o> r» o 
o CM o in io CM co IO 
<fy 
JZ o e a> a ¿Z <D t- ® 
cm a 
® U E? 
3 00 M V) < 
DL d 
* OO 
> 5 Ol * Ä 
oo o io 
O K io co 
o co 1-; IO 
oó cri T- CM 
co o o o o io o r-; io co o io ri it ni CM 
.c Q. a> Q « 
o 
a> 
E 
CO w < 
to Z3 C 
O <0 m 
"O c CO 
c o « 
o X 
a) 
a. 
CL 
O) c 
t/5 'x UJ 
g O 
CO co LU 
a> </> JL 
o o 
Q- E 5 . » S ® a er z 
<n o o a) a. "o. to o •o 
o c 
a) Q. 
S ° iS C O) œ 
£ H 
(O co CO T-
•a S c 
O O o m c 
rj 
OOv/756 
5.2.3 Administrative, Engineering, Financial, and Legal Services 
Cost of engineering services may include special investigations, surveys, foundation explorations, 
location of interfering utilities, detailed design, preparation of contract drawings and specifications, 
general construction assistance, on-site construction inspection, materials testing, final inspection, 
pumping station start-up services, operator training, and preparation of record drawings. Total costs for 
engineering services typically range from 12 to 30 percent of total construction cost, depending on the 
complexity of the design and the overall construction cost of the project. The lower percentage applies to 
projects relatively simple or repetitive in nature. The higher percentage applies to projects that require a 
great deal of preliminary investigation or permitting or that involve considerable remodel work. 
Other costs directly associated with the cost of constructing facilities include administrative, financial, 
and legal services; costs associated with bond sales; and interest on borrowed money. Administrative and 
legal proceedings can represent a significant cost for the formation of special utility districts, for 
preparation of intergovernmental agreements, and for O&M contracts. Based on past experience, 
allowances for administrative, financial, and legal services range from 5 to 10 percent of construction 
cost. 
5.2.4 Land and Right-of-Way Costs 
Land and right-of-way costs are part of the capital investment the City must account for in implementing 
the recommended plan. The amount of land needed will vary with the specific site identified for a facility 
or the location of a pipeline route. No additional land will be needed for most pipeline alternatives. As a 
general rule, most new gravity sewers will be located in the existing City of Grants Pass, Josephine 
County, or Oregon State rights-of-way. In the case of county and state rights-of-way, the City may need 
to obtain either utility permits for crossings or utility franchises for pipelines paralleling a state road. 
Land and right-of-way costs have not been included in the cost estimates for recommended facilities. 
These costs are important and should be considered at the earliest possible time, both for property 
acquisition and for budgeting purposes. It is recommended that these costs be identified during the 
budget level stage of project development. 
5.2.5 Total Project Costs 
A breakdown of a percentage of total project cost components is shown in Table 5-2. 
Table 5-2. Percentage of Total Project Cost Components 
Cost Item Percent 
Construction 100 
Contingency 40 
Total Construction Cost 130 
Engineering, Legal, and Administration 30 
Total Project Costa b 182 
a Does not include land or right-of-way acquisition costs. 
b Total project costs were calculated by multiplying estimated construction costs by 1.82 to allow for contingencies, engineering, legal, and 
administrative costs. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 6-12 September 2004 
00G757 
5.3 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 
Performance criteria relate to the way each project achieves the City's objectives and how well the project 
is expected to function. Performance factors include reliability, effectiveness, flexibility, and public 
health protection. Each of these criteria was used to develop the weighting factors used in the 
Maintenance and Reliability Analysis presented in Section 7 and also to prioritize the Pipeline 
Improvement and Structural Repair Projects identified in Sections 6 and 7. Each of the criteria is briefly 
described as follows: 
• Reliability - Assurance of design performance is the overall screening consideration for 
reliability. This evaluation considers the relative risk of mechanical failure; susceptibility of the 
alternative to disruption from natural catastrophes; and consequences of functional system 
failures, regardless of cause. The preference is to provide sewer service to new or existing 
customers using new gravity flow sewers. Only in the event that gravity flow sewers cannot be 
made available will consideration be given to either a lift station or pump station with a force 
main(s), in this order of preference. Only as a last resort will consideration be given to individual 
grinder pumps and force mains to provide sewer service. 
• Effectiveness - NPDES compliance is the primary factor to be evaluated under effectiveness. 
The relative ease of achieving compliance is a primary consideration; however, the ratio of 
expected performance to total cost is also considered in this evaluation. 
• Flexibility - Evaluation of flexibility considers responsiveness of the alternative to new land-use 
plans, development patterns, and lifestyle changes such as water and energy conservation. 
• Public Health Protection - Each project was evaluated in terms of potential risk to public health. 
In terms of regulatory requirements that pertain to this study, the Oregon "bacteria rule" has 
special significance in the evaluation of existing and future collection system components. In 
1996, Oregon adopted amendments to the state water quality standard for bacteria that address the 
frequency of SSOs. Those amendments stipulate that SSOs must be prohibited except during 1-
in-5-year, 24-hour-duration storm events (or greater) between November 1 and May 21. During 
the rest of the year, SSOs must be prohibited except during 1-in-10-year, 24-hour-duration storm 
events (or greater). 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 
>00758 
5-4 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
Hydraulic 
Analysis 
6. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 
The hydraulic analysis performed for this Plan consisted of three steps: (1) gathering flow data through a 
flow monitoring program and data collection at the Water Restoration Plant; (2) developing a calibrated 
computer model of the collection system; and (3) analyzing the system hydraulics to identify system 
deficiencies and develop an understanding of the need for collection system improvements during the 
next 20 years. 
6.1 FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM 
A 2-month (December 12, 2002, to February 14, 2003) flow monitoring program was conducted to 
provide accurate flow data for hydraulic model input and to calibrate the model. Six flow monitors were 
installed within the City's service area at six manhole locations (see Figure 6-1 [page 6-2] and Table 6-1) 
selected to best represent flows from major drainage basins, areas of known deficiencies, and areas of 
anticipated growth. The flow monitoring program also included collection of rainfall data by a rain gauge 
located at the City Water Reclamation Plant (Water Treatment Plant, [WTP]). Flow monitoring methods, 
equipment, and results are presented in a report submitted to the City in April 2003 (Geotivity, Inc., 
2003). 
Table 6-1. Flow Monitoring Manhole Location 
Monitored Monitored Pipe Diameter 
Basin Manhole Location Description (inches) 
F C119 Booth Street between F and G Streets 12 
H H5 East of the Intersection of A Street and Dean Drive 12 
1 11 Near intersection of 8th Street and Rogue View Lane 12 
J J2 Near the south end of Belle Aire Drive 18 
K K1 Gold River Lane 18 
N N2 West Park Street 18 
6.1.1 Rainfall Data 
Rainfall data were collected throughout the flow monitoring program from a single rain gauge installed at 
the WTP. The WTP is near the center of the distribution of flow monitoring locations; therefore, any 
potential spatial errors resulting from using a single collection point should be spread fairly equally 
among the flow monitoring sites. 
Rainfall data collection began on December 2, 2002, and extended until February 18, 2003. This data 
collection period followed closely behind a fall season during which rainfall was below average. The two 
most significant rain events occurred during the first month of the monitoring program. A 2-day storm 
(Storm 1) began the day the rain gauge was activated. A more significant storm (Storm 2) occurred about 
10 days later. Storms 1 and 2 measured 2.9 inches and 4.4 inches of rain, respectively. Although 
additional storms were recorded throughout the monitoring period, Storms 1 and 2 produced the most 
significant flow monitoring results. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 6-12 September 2004 
00G760 
Parametr Ix D a l e 09/28/04 10;08am 
SCALE IN FEET 
r ~ L _ j 1 
0 1,250 2,500 
LEGEND 
Flow Monitoring Manhole 
Rain Gauge Location 
(Water Treatment Plant) 
Figure 6 - 1 
Flow Monitoring Manholes 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS 
COLLECTION SYSTEM 
MASTER PLAN 
6.3 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 
6.3.1 Model Development 
The collection system schematic was developed in HYDRA (Pizer Incorporated, 2000), a computer 
model used for the analysis of wastewater collection systems. HYDRA has been used throughout the 
United States to provide useful information regarding the location of hydraulic constrictions, general 
response to rainfall related flow, and reliable guidance on system improvements for analyses such as 
those included in this Plan. 
HYDRA is an analysis tool that automates the extensive, and often tedious, calculations required for 
traditional collection system design. Collection system design data, such as pipeline length, pipeline 
diameter, and manhole elevation, were gathered from the City's GIS database and as-built drawing 
archives. These data were used to develop the model schematic of the collection system. Pipelines 
serving only a local collection role were not included to reduce the effort required to construct the model 
and analyze results. Pipelines included in the model are as shown in Figure 6-9. 
The capacity of each pipeline is determined from the model input data by means of the Manning's 
Equation (open channel flow) and the Hazen & Williams Equation (pressure flow). The pipe capacity is 
then compared to the predicted flow to determine if the existing pipe is adequate for the given conditions 
and desired service area. The HYDRA model also calculates the hydraulic grade line, reports the extent 
of surcharging for over-capacity pipelines, and the upstream impact of limited downstream capacity. 
The population projections used in this work are shown in Table 6-2. Modeled flows were generated 
from the combination of wastewater and rain-related flows. Wastewater flows consisted of separate 
estimates for flow from residences, businesses, and industrial areas that were derived from the land use 
analysis presented in Section 2. Modeled wastewater flows were developed using City GIS data and unit 
flow factors for land use. Current land use was used to build a present day basis for the model which was 
then calibrated using flow monitoring date (see Section 6.3.2). This base model was then modified by 
increasing service area population in accordance with the population projections presented in Table 6-2. 
In addition to population projections for Year 2025, a projection was created assuming all available land 
was at saturation levels of development, and this was referred to as Year 2060. The 2060 projections 
provide a good representation of the build-out conditions that are typically used to determine the size of 
long-term infrastructure improvements, such as collection system pipelines. 
Table 6-2. Population Estimates Used in the HYDRA Model 
Area 1997 
Average 
Growth Rate 
(percent/year) 2003 2025 2060 
City Limits 20,526 1.5 22,444 31,143 52,440 
Harbeck-Fruitdale (ref Area N, M, K) 4,200 1.6 4,620 6,550 11,417 
Redwood 4,758 3.1 5,714 11,186 32,563 
Comm./lnd. Equivalent 10,319 1 8 11,472 17,107 33,747 
Total EQ Population: 39,803 44,250 65,986 130,167 
The distribution of the year 2060 population is shown in Table 6-2; however, at that time, it would be 
likely that the city limits and UGB would have enlarged from today. The Redwood and Harbeck-
Fruitdale populations would probably then be reflected in the city limit population. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 6-12 September 2004 
00G762 
As discussed in Section 3, Oregon has adopted a rule (the "Bacteria Rule") that limits the maximum 
frequency with which SSOs can occur. In general, SSOs must be prevented during wintertime rainfall 
events that are less than the 5-year, 24-hour rainfall event for an area. According to the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) weather atlas for Oregon, the statistical 5-year, 24-hour 
rainfall event for the City is 3.5 inches. This is only about 18 percent higher than the greatest 24-hour 
accumulation that occurred during Storm 2. Therefore, flows occurring during Storm 2 are an important 
measure of collection system capacity under high-flow conditions, especially at the regulatory threshold 
defined by the Bacteria Rule. 
6.1.2 Flow Monitoring Data 
Flow monitoring was generally successful. However, there are several factors that affected the 
interpretation of the flow monitoring program data. These factors include limited lapses in data due to 
equipment failure, diversion manholes within the collection system that dampen peak flows during rain 
events, and low groundwater levels due to abnormally dry periods prior to flow monitoring. The flow 
diversions and low groundwater levels result in data that tends to underestimate peak flows during rain 
events. 
A summary of flow monitoring results is presented below. For a complete discussion on flow monitoring 
results and graphs of all monitored flow, refer to Grants Pass A/V Flow Study Report (Geotivity, 2003). 
6.1.2.1 Basin F (Manhole C119) 
Wastewater flow in Basin F was monitored at Manhole CI 19, and a portion of this flow monitoring data 
is shown in Figure 6-2 (page 6-4). Basin F is one of the most critical (largest and oldest) basins in the 
collection system. While Basin F is fairly well developed, there is still capacity for growth through new 
development on the northern and western margins of the basin, and through urban renewal near the 
downtown core. The City has constructed a pipeline diversion to alleviate SSOs that have occurred in 
Basin F. The extent of pipeline corrosion in the basin is generally high, and some pipe sections have 
collapsed causing sink holes, notably along Pine Street. In general, the City's operations staff spend a 
high level of effort and funds maintaining pipelines in Basin F. 
Manhole CI 19 is actually at the upstream end of Basin C since the manholes at the downstream end of 
Basin F were unsuitable for flow monitoring equipment. Basin F flow data are further impacted by a 
diversion that shunts flow from Basin F to Basin E during high flows. Therefore, measured peak flows 
are lower than would otherwise be observed without the diversion. 
A peak flow of about 11 cfs was recorded during Storm 2. Flow velocity is between 2 and 3 feet per 
second (fps). One would expect that minimum nighttime velocity would approach zero, as occurred for 
the other basins included in the monitoring program. The sustained velocity indicates that there is 
appreciable flow due to infiltration and inflow (I/I). 
6.1.2.2 Basin H (Manhole H5) 
Wastewater flow in Basin H was monitored at Manhole H5 and a portion of this flow monitoring data is 
shown in Figure 6-3 (page 6-5). According to City records, Manhole H5 often surcharges and 
occasionally overflows. Overflows at other manholes immediately upstream from Manhole H5 have also 
been recorded, indicating that there is a hydraulic bottleneck in the vicinity of A Street and Dean Drive 
that is severe enough to influence the hydraulics of the upstream collection system. 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 6-3 
>0 763 
en 
< 
O. 
0 ) 
h-z < 
£ 
o 
u_ o > 
t o 
LU 
I— U) > 
0) 
H-o 
z < 
_J 
CL 
DC 
LU 1X1 
_l H 
_i CO 
O < 
O 2 
X 
r ** 
<U 
E 
ITS 
h. 
2 
(0 •-« 
(0 
O 
o fe 
es, i O 
¿ o « 
D 2 o 
3 5 c 
O) O (0 
u. u. S 
Rainfall, inches/hour 
CM -ïf CO 00 N Í ID B3 O 1- Y-
<0 
c 
•o c (0 
o 
0 
1 
S 
sp 'MOU 
Í CO 
o 
£ 
<M 
OOC764 
(/> (/} < 
£L 
(f> 
H 
Z < 
DC 
O 
IL 
O 
>-
£ 
O 
2 
LU 
H C0 >-
z 
o 
h-
o 
z < 
-1 a. 
CE 
in ai 
- I S 
O < 
O 2 
« « 
a 
o> 
Oio 
ai 
E 
it w 
£ 
X 
a> 
CO c 
to o _ 
<1) S O ± > ^ 
3 > C 
O) O (0 
ulll.SE 
Rainfall, inches/hour 
(0 
<0 oc 
T3 
C (0 
3 o 
IL 
in 
X 
sp 'Moy 
o V) CO o 
!P 
c> 
CO 
CM 
0.0 C 765 
Sewage flow depth data collected at Manhole H5 indicate that pipes connected to the manhole became 
surcharged for a short time during Storm 1 Given the history of this manhole as a source of overflows, it 
is believed that the data collected during Storms 1 and 2 represent a typical Basin H response to high 
rainfall events. 
6.1.2.3 Basin I (Manhole 11) 
Flow monitoring data collected from Manhole II (a portion of data is shown in Figure 6-4, page 6-7) 
indicate inflow or shallow lateral sources, but no significant groundwater infiltration during storm events. 
In general, some infiltration is present at all times, but the basin appears to drain well at depth. 
6.1.2.4 Basin J (Manhole J2) 
Flow monitoring data collected from Manhole J2 (a portion of data is shown in Figure 6-5, page 6-8) 
suggest that groundwater infiltration is not a significant concern for the basin. Inflow and infiltration 
from shallow sources, such as leaking service laterals, likely contribute most of the extraneous flow. 
6.1.2.5 Basin K (Manhole K1) 
Wastewater flow in Basin K was monitored at Manhole K1 and a portion of data is shown in Figure 6-6 
(page 6-9). Data collected from Manhole K1 indicate a strong presence of groundwater in the basin (base 
flow increased rapidly with precipitation). However, the diurnal pattern of flow was relatively unaffected 
by rainfall except for the significant storm events (Storms 1 and 2). This indicates that there are relatively 
few sources of extraneous flow at the surface. This is to be expected since most pipes in the basin are 
relatively new. 
6.1.2.6 Basin N (Manhole N2) 
Basin N was the only basin for which flow was monitored on the south side of the Rogue River (a 
portion of data is shown in Figure 6-7, page 6-10). The data collected from Manhole N2 indicate that the 
system is in good condition since there was little to no nighttime flow recorded. The quick and brief flow 
response to rainfall may be an indication of illegal storm drain connections or leaking service laterals. 
6.2 WATER RESTORATION PLANT FLOWS 
During flow monitoring, the total collection system flows were measured at the WRP using a 48-inch-
diameter ultrasonic flow meter. The flow meter is located at the effluent end of the plant, just upstream of 
the UV disinfection process. The 24-hour average flow, as well as the peak and minimum instantaneous 
flow rates for each day, are recorded by the plant SCADA system. This information is included in 
monthly monitoring reports submitted to ODEQ. These data are shown in Figure 6-8 (page 6-11). 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 6-6 September 2004 
000766 
CO 
CO < 
Q. 
CO 
I -z < 
cc 
o 
LL 
O 
>-
H 
O 
UJ 
h-
0) >-
(0 
z 
o 
H-
O 
z < 
_J 
CL 
£C UJ Ui 
_J I -_J <0 
o < 
o s 
to 
(0 
Q 
O) c 
E 
l a 
£ 
to © 
c — 
o 0} 
o 
D)_o a 
¡ I u . S 
Rainfall, inches/hour 
a C •o 
c (0 
5 
saa-iE 
33Q-6Z 
D3Q-SZ S 
»a-ez 
33Q-R 
330-61 
sp 'mo|j 
Q 
!S 8 
£ cm 
0.0 C 767 
to to < 
0. 
to 
H 
Z < 
DC 
( 3 
UL o 
>-
o 
tu 
b-
(0 >-
< o z 
z < 
o - I f= a 
oar 
Ul LU 
- I H 
_l (0 
O < 
O 2 
«1 
E 
<c 
£ 
ra 
(3 
O 
O) c 
k 
S CM 
I D c " ) 
<b o v 
© S o 
D)_0 (0 
iZ u. "" 
Rainfall, inches/hour 
<s Q 
O) 
c 
c 
o S 
5 
o 
u. 
I 
£ 
sp 'MO|J 
S9 § 
§ 
R CM 
0.0 C 768 
cn 
CO < 
DL 
C/) 
I -z < 
DC 
U 
LL 
O 
>• 
£ o 
UJ 
I -
<0 >-
CO 
z 
o 
h-
o 
z < 
-J 
0. 
cc 
UJ UJ 
o< 
O 2 
Of 
E 
«5 u 
£ 
CO » 
CO 
Q 
O) 
2 
(O O © 
© S o 
3 3 c D > O CO 
i l n S 
Rainfall, inches/hour 
<0 CC •a 
c CO 
s o 
u. • 
X 
CM CO 00 
o d o o o 
t> 
5" 
aaa-te 
saa-TZ 
33Q-6T 
sp '«oy 
o & 
CO 
S5 
8 
R 
CM 
0.0 C 769 
</) 
(f) < 
Q. 
(/) 
I— 
Z < 
cc 
o 
LL 
O 
£ 
o 
ui 
l -
(0 >-
coz 
z < g* 
O t t 
UJ UU 
_l I -
_J CO 
o < 
O S 
(0 
(0 
Q 
o> c 
! CM 
V 
E 
is 
£ 
_cu 
o 
CO o 
©2 
D)_0 eg 
u . u . 2 
Rainfall, inches/hour 
<a 
c 
CD cc 
TJ 
C 
<0 
3 
o 
u. 
4 
CM z 
X 
2 
sp 'mom 
¡q 3 
IP 
£ 
CM 
000770 
co </> < 
Q. 
CO 
I -z < 
cc 
o 
U_ 
>-£ 
o 
s 
UJ 
l -
(0 >-
w z z < g* 
O DC UJ UJ 
_l H 
- I (0 
O < 
o s 
QJ 
E 
(C v 
£ 
CM > ° 
| O 0 CM 
"-CM" 
OJT-
C X. 
•c ® —. 5 X) co 
Q E g 
CO g CM 
-
<5 Q T-
cc >, 
1 = « to ° t 3 
« i t o ^ 
3 0. "P © sLi? c LL 
.PEE ° ~ 
o> c 
c 
o 5 
3 
o 
u. 
O) c 
3 
o 
(0 ® 
IB CC 
3 o 
¡L 
Q. 
DC 
(0 
CO a a 
c 10 w 
O 
1 13-Feb 
6-Feb 
30-Jan 
1 23-Jan 
16-Jan 
£ <o a 
9-Jan 
2-Jan 
26-Dec 
19-Dec 
12-Dec 
p6ui - aieiMoij 
o lo 
s 
50 
8 
CO g 
CM 
0.0 C 771 
s tu H 
</> > 
« z H 
o a LU UJ 
r - i - I <0 
ö| 8 1 
•g a 3 "a 
o o S S 3 « u 
<o o = 
2 â « з. g "a ÌP.S- >< и. o. z 
0 0 0 7 7 2 
f0/¿J/60 ILVO 
"S30VW 
6.3.2 Model Calibration 
Following initial development, the collection system model was calibrated using flow and rainfall 
monitoring data (see Section 6.1). WRP flow records were used to supplement the collected data since 
only a select number of City drainage basins were included in the flow monitoring program. Where 
applicable, peak basin flows were adjusted to match the peak flows that occurred during Storm 2. In 
general, the calibration process consisted of holding the wastewater flow component relatively constant 
while varying rainfall related flow components as necessary to match recorded flow. 
In general, to verify the calibration process, the modeled flows at each flow monitoring manhole were 
compared to actual flow monitoring results. The results of this process are shown in Figures 6-10 through 
6-15 (beginning on page 6-16). Each of the different components of the modeled flow (sanitary, 
infiltration, storm, miscellaneous) is shown in each of these figures. Each of these figures also shows the 
total modeled flow and measured flow for comparison. Based on these comparisons, the hydraulic model 
of the collection system was determined to be sufficiently calibrated so that future flow conditions could 
then be modeled. 
6.3.3 Model Simulations and Results 
The collection system model was modified to better serve as an analysis tool following calibration. 
Modifications included increasing the volume of Storm 2 by 18 percent to match the 5-year, 24-hour 
storm volume for the Grants Pass area and merging projected land use data for years 2025 and 2060 so 
that the effects of growing population could be represented. Modifications also included eliminating 
active diversions (see Section 4.1 and Figure 4-5). Since the goal of this Plan is to provide the City with a 
long-term plan for collection system improvements, it is useful to gauge the impact of removing existing 
diversions and sizing new pipelines on the basis of build-out conditions for each drainage basin. 
In all, six models were created for the analysis in this Plan; a set of three models based on Year 2003, 
2025, and 2060 land use projections for which all existing diversions were continued; and a set of three 
corresponding models with all diversions removed. For each of the six models, a threshold of 
performance was established to be 2 feet of surcharge for any pipeline in the system during wet weather 
conditions simulating a 5-year, 24-hour rainfall event. The 2-foot surcharge criterion was selected to 
provide guidance on which pipelines in the collection system may need replacement while providing 
some factor of safety that was neither too restrictive (thereby resulting in a recommendation to replace too 
many pipelines to assure good performance), or too lax (thereby resulting in recommendations without 
addressing potential inaccuracies in predicted flow). This level of surcharge was deemed an acceptable 
compromise between the SSO constraints set forth in the "Bacteria Rule" and the economic impact of too 
many required collection system improvements. 
Model simulation results are presented in Figures 6-16 through 6-19 for the following situations/ 
assumptions: 
• Figure 6-16 (page 6-21) - North Service Area with all Diversions Active. 
• Figure 6-17 (page 6-22) - South Service Area with all Diversions Active. 
• Figure 6-18 (page 6-23) - North Service Area with Diversions Removed. 
• Figure 6-19 (page 6-24) - South Service Area with Diversions Removed. 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 6-14 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
The coloring convention, identical for Figures 6-16 through 6-19, is a guide for determining when a 
pipeline is modeled to surcharge by 2 feet or more. Pipelines that are colored blue are predicted to 
become surcharged 2 feet or more under existing flow conditions. Similarly, the depth of flow in 
pipelines colored green was modeled to not exceed surcharge criterion until approximately 2025. Finally, 
pipes colored red were modeled to flow with less than 2 feet of surcharge until land use approaches were 
estimated for 2060. 
As expected, removing diversions exacerbates surcharge conditions. The impact of diversion removal 
can be reduced by providing a larger pipeline diameter. Since a significant portion of pipeline 
replacement cost is associated with earthwork, providing a pipeline that is larger by one or two standard 
diameters presents only a marginal increase in construction cost. In some cases, removing diversions can 
avoid new pipeline construction in areas of the city where such construction would be extremely 
disruptive. A good example of this is the removal of the diversion at Manhole F69. This diversion shunts 
high flows from Basin F into Basin E that currently has excess capacity. A new pipeline will be required 
in the Pine Street area of Basin F regardless of the removal or continued operation of the diversion. A 
larger pipeline will be required for Pine Street if the diversion is removed, but continued operation of the 
diversion will eventually require increased pipeline capacity for Basin E. Removing the upstream 
diversion will allow the City to consider repair options for Basin E that do not require extensive and 
disruptive surface excavation. 
The modeled surcharge conditions presented in Figures 6-16 through 6-19 form the basis, along with the 
Maintenance and Reliability Analysis in Section 7, for collection system improvement recommendations 
presented in Section 8. 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 
774 
7-5 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
(/) 
(fi < 
OL 
(fi 
h-
Z < 
OC 
<5 
UL o > 
t o 
2 
ULI 
H 
CO > 
C / ) 2 
Z < g* 
O Π
LU LU 
_J H-
_J CO 
o < o s 
E 
it: 
v. 
£ 
5 o 
u. 
•a ¿= ® 
ra o 
ra "o 
«5 ® ra k. 
O Û. 
O) a) 
"5 o> O T -
o j S f i 
T H O U3 O — 
tu 2 3 ï. ^ " r 
o o >, ra 
¡ I u. X 5 
O © 
o 
O 
o 
§ 
ÌP 
S 
s 
evi 
0.0 C 775 
s 
ULI 
H 
CO >-
co 
z g 
H o 
z < 
_J 
Û 
CC 
HI LU 
o < 
o s 
E 
IC 
hi 
£ 
3 
o 
u. 
c t > co « 
co I 
Q 0. 
•O 
o 
or 
c 
co 
f- ® E ~o 
« ° 
S S " 
c o ~ o ~ CD 
3 "5 S 
3 
co 
— - X3 c o> O CO 
U . U . I 5 
§ co p 
ÎP 
o 
CM 
000776 
s ui 
I -co > co z o 
I -o 
z < 
o. 
te 
LU LU 
=3 
o < 
O S 
E 
IC w 
£ 
3 o 
U. 
TI ? ® c 
«0 O 
ra "D 
« £ 
û a 
CM 
.£ "o 
i; o 
(ó o = œ 2 s g o c o> o >, ra 
i l E X S 
o <o 
co p 
s 
co 
é CM 
00 1777 
LU 
CO >-
CO 
z 
o 
H 
O 
Z < 
û. 
oc LU LU 
o < 
o s 
« E 
IC fe 
£ 
5 o 
u. 
c «o o 
CO "D 
m ® ra u 
Q CL 
.£ "a i- o 
co ... 2 S CM 
V E o <¿ o = ® 
a> 5 2 ö 
3 5 -o c D) O >, ra 
E E X S 
0.0 C 778 
cn < 
Q_ 
c/) 
h -
Z < 
cc 
o 
LL 
O 
> 
t o 
2 
UJ 
H 
( 0 > 
Z < 
o —1 
F a 
o cc 
Ui UJ 
_ l J-
_ l w 
O < 
o 2 
K 
£ 
5 
o 
u. 
c 
to o 
CO T3 « ® 
CO i_ 
O D. 
o>a5 
.E "o 
J- o 
v c o * 
(O o = « 
0>_0 >, (0 
E i l Z S 
Rainfall, inches/hour 
<o 
c 
XI c (0 $ 
o 
u. • 
E V. o 
CO 
<0 
o 
x s 
« 
sp 'MOU 
s cr> 
10 
S 
0.0 C 779 
UJ 
I -
c/î > 
(f) z < 
o < 
o s 
V 
E IC u 
£ 
5 o 
u. 
s i « o 
ra xi 
ra £ 
O OL 
O) v 
S "O 
fe o 
V e o <¿ o = o 
" i 
roo ra ¡ L I L I S 
000780 
CO co < 
Q. co 
H -Z. 
o 
5 Ui l-V) > 
W Z ¡2 
O ce UJ UJ 
8 1 
u o (J 
V E n 
V-n a. 
3 ? O 53 
« ^ 
o S 
«o 2 
¡ 1 
I i -t a s i n O £ c 
3 t O ul J? o u. — U. Z N < 
I l0-aS209lt ' fdX :S.J3í)X 
:S30Vm 
, , , , . . , , . , . n n n f 
l-3SS09lt>Cd :3nVN31U ujoçr :go t-0/¿J/60 :3IV0 
Ul 781 
0.0 C 782 
I lO-SSZCmt'CdX S.J3ÜX 
:S33VW 
6l~dS209lM:d :3WN3"IIJ woçt. :90 t0/¿Z/60 -21VQ 
co co < 
Q. co 
f -
2 < 
a: 
O 
IL 
O 
È o 
u in lü 
2 
LLI 
I -Uì > 
W Z n o a: UJ UJ 
O < O S 
* 
E n k. 
£ 
j - T> 
§ i 0 C 01 O 
2 o c 
¿j 2 
¡ I 
S i -
CO S ~ O) 
r - O = C 
£ -c Ö X 3 t: o ui °> O u. — ¡ l 2 N < 
I tO-89í09H'tdX :S.J3bX 
:S30VW 
9l-JSÎ09llrÇcJ ••WVNÏHJ U J O¿í -90 v 0 / « / 6 O . ; 3 m ] m )783 
s 
LU t-co 
> W Z ¡2 
O K 
I l i LU I h-
-J « O < O 2 
« E i 
K. « 
( L 
o u o 
UJ o 
UJ 
« s 
ff* -c ¡J o e 
3 - S 
co £ 
E > 
O E ° 
« 
2 j: o X OUI O) O u. = Ü OT <M < 
I Í0-8ss09lt-ídx S.J3MX 
:S30vni 
¿l-JSEOSlfríd :3nVN31IJ "'"Se :80 t0/¿S/60 -31VQ 
OÍR, 784 
Maintenance 
and Reliability 
Analysis 
MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS 
The structural condition of a collection system is a critical issue to examine when considering system 
upgrades or expansion: For example, repeated structural failure (such as pipes collapsing or the 
development of sink holes) at various locations along a pipeline alignment will make replacing such a 
pipeline a priority item. Maintenance history should also be considered since a high level of required 
maintenance for a pipeline can be an indicator of potential or pending structural problems. Coupling 
condition and maintenance information with information on hydraulic performance is an informative tool 
for both identifying and prioritizing both new pipeline projects and the need to rehabilitate or replace 
existing pipelines. Analysis of the existing City of Grants Pass collection system was based on an 
examination of condition and maintenance data that the City maintains in a GIS database, and on 
interviews, workshops, and site visits with the City's operations and maintenance staff. For a 
comprehensive review of the GIS database that was used in these interviews and workshops, refer to 
Appendix E. Contained in Appendix E are figures depicting each of the structural and maintenance data. 
7.1 CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PIPELINES 
As noted in Section 4, the City has compiled collection system condition and maintenance data into a 
central electronic database and further linked that data into graphical representation of the City's 
collection system. The analysis and figures presented herein are based on a comprehensive view of this 
data. There are two aspects to note when using the GIS data. First, GIS data is limited to pipelines within 
the city limits and the Harbeck-Fruitdale area south of the Rogue River. Condition data for pipelines 
within the RSSSD collection system were not available and this area was, therefore, excluded from this 
analysis. However, the RSSSD pipelines are relatively new (constructed after 1970) and, according to the 
City and RSSSD representatives, comparatively free of serious defects requiring pipeline replacement. 
Second, the graphical and numerical analyzing of the City's GIS data is limited to manhole-to-manhole 
pipeline reaches. As such, it is often the case that defects at a single point, such as a hole in a pipe, will 
cause a much longer length of sewer to be identified as defective. Point defects, such as holes and cracks 
are often; however, an indication that the general condition of this pipeline section may be compromised. 
Overstating the affected length of pipeline defects should, therefore, not be considered a computational or 
graphical error, but instead should indicate that further investigation into the extent and severity of defects 
may be warranted. 
For ease of evaluation and presentation of the data, the service area was arbitrarily split into north, south, 
and west sections (see Figure 4-1, page 4-4). The north section lies north of the Rogue River and 
comprises a majority of the city. The south section lies south of the Rogue River and represents the 
Harbeck-Fruitdale area. The west section corresponds roughly to the extent of the RSSSD service area. 
Structural and maintenance data were analyzed and evaluated in several day-long work sessions with City 
staff where City maintenance staff and Parametrix tested various weighting factors, for each of the list of 
records available on pipeline sections as shown in Table 4-3 (page 4-12), to score and review the results. 
Based on this review and the performance criteria presented in Section 5.3, the weighting factors 
presented in Table 7-1 were selected to identify needed collection system improvements. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 7-1 September 2004 
00 ,78fi 
Table 7-1. Weighting Factors tor Collection System Improvements 
Structural Data Age Data 
1 
Maintenance Data 
Defect Weight 
Year 
Constructed Weight 
Maintenance 
Effort/Condition Weight Î 
Missing Pipe 10 1920-1939 8 6-Month Cleaning ^ j 
Hole in Pipe 9 1940-1965 6 <6 Gallons of Rock 
Removed During Cleaning 
7 { 
Broken Pipe 8 1966-1979 3 3 - 5 Gallons of Rock 
Removed During Cleaning 
5 ! 
Circumferential 
Crack 
5 1980-Present 0 1 -2 Gallons of Rock 
Removed During Cleaning 
3 I 
X 
Longitudinal Crack 7 Heavy Grease 4 f 
Crack (Other) 6 Medium Grease 2 ! 
Light Grease 
? 
1 ] 
Heavy Root Encroachment 5 Ì 
Medium Root Encroachment 3 ! 
Light Root Encroachment 2 ! 
Service Call 4 
The total score of each pipeline segment using these criteria and weighting factors is an indication of the 
need for repair or improvements. Figures presenting a summary of the available data without applying 
the weighting factors in Table 7-1 for either the total structural data or the total maintenance data are 
presented in Figures F1 through F4 in Appendix F. A combination of these data, without the weighting 
factors, is also shown in Figures F5 and F6 in Appendix F. A compilation of all the available structural, 
age, and maintenance data evaluated in the Maintenance and Reliability Analysis, and using the weighting 
factors in Table 7-1, resulted in scores for individual pipeline segments that are shown in Figures 7-1 
and 7-2. These figures were then used to identify six areas in the collection system that need further study 
and improvements (see Section 8.2.2). 
7.2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PUMP STATIONS 
7.2.1 City Pump Stations 
The City's lift stations and pump stations were inspected as part of the WRP facility planning effort in 
1999. The wet wells for the Webster No. 1 and No. 2 Lift Stations and wet well and force main(s) for the 
Bridge Street Pump Station were inspected and found to be in good condition. Pump run time meters at 
the Webster Lift Stations were analyzed to assess pump operation relative to incoming flow. A review of 
data collected during the high flow events that occurred during December 1996 indicated that Webster 
No. 1 Lift Station ran only about 20 percent of the time. Corresponding run time for the Webster No. 2 
Lift Station was approximately 15 percent. Webster No. 1 and No. 2 Lift Stations run about 15 and 
10 percent of the time, respectively, during dry weather conditions. 
The runtime meters at the Bridge Street Pump Station were not functioning well during the inspection. 
The City estimated, however, that the pumps at this station operate only about 20 percent of the time. The 
Bridge Street Pump Station has air injection for sulfide control and a natural gas fueled generator for 
standby power. 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 7-2 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
00 787 
0.0 C 788 
w 
w 
m 
a. 
Í2 
M 
O 
u. 
O 
È 
Ui 
£5 > 
»S 
a: Ol 
3 S li
'''feu1 
«I 
E 
S 
£ 
I Er m ü ü • 11 -e S i 
11 S 2 
S 3 
'S 
3 T3 
0) CO 
£•0 ,2> s 
g) ra 
3 » 
, "o e 
•1 ® 2 
•®3 £ ¡ 5 E ç O) Q 
IL O 
c o 35 O ¿ 
3 O CO 
X l^ vS: I 
1 -mvliw 
0 r W I 
Ri p ^ l 
% i. 
_ i \ h 
1 i— 
'pfii 
- i- • 
-J i ; 
0.0 C 789 
Webster No. 1 Lift Station is designed not to overflow even during power failure. Wastewater will flow 
through the station and to the WRP in pipelines in the event of a power failure. There is also no 
emergency overflow for Webster No. 2 Lift Station, but the station can be powered by a trailer-mounted 
generator in the event of power failure. Therefore, both of these lift stations can operate during power 
failures. 
Based on these observations and condition assessment, no improvements are needed to the City's pump 
stations. 
7.2.2 RSSSD Pump Station 
As described in Section 4.2.2, both the Redwood and Darneille Pump Stations and their associated force 
mains are very new and include standby emergency generators. Both of these pump stations can operate 
during power failure. No improvements are needed to either station. 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 
000790 
7-5 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
Recommended 
Collection 
System 
Improvements 
K 
3 
a 
S 
at 
S 
791 
8. RECOMMENDED COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 
The recommended collection system improvements presented in this section are based upon deficiencies 
in pipeline hydraulic capacity that were identified in the Hydraulic Analysis discussed in Section 6 and 
the needed collection system improvements that were identified in the Maintenance and Reliability 
Analysis presented in Section 7. A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the collection system has then 
been developed based on a priority analysis of these improvements. 
8.1 GOALS 
Three goals were used in identifying the recommended collection system improvements required and a 
schedule for implementation and developing a CIP for the collection system. 
• Service to Saturation-Level Populations: All of the needed improvements were selected to serve 
the 2060 populations which could occur in the collection system service area. 
• Attention to Critical Improvements: Attention was given to collection system pipelines and 
subbasin service areas that City staff have identified as problem areas. City staff experience in 
the frequency of maintenance of various pipelines and witnessing surcharged pipelines (hydraulic 
capacity deficiencies) have been used, particularly to schedule needed improvements. 
• Distribution of Capital Expenditures: In the selection and scheduling of the required collection 
system improvements, the goal was to develop a CIP that is financially viable for the City of 
Grants Pass. 
8.2 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 
8.2.1 Hydraulic Capacity Improvements 
Based on the hydraulic analysis conducted on the wastewater collection system serving the City of Grants 
Pass, five capital improvement projects have been identified that need to be completed in the next 
20 years. These improvements are necessary to maintain adequate conveyance system capacity in the 
collection system and prevent sewer system overflows. 
These five projects are shown in Figure 8-1 (page 8-2) and described further below. 
8.2.1.1 Pine Street 
The Pine Street sewer, traveling south along 2nd Street, Booth Avenue, and Pine Street, has already 
experienced surcharging during heavy rainfall events. To alleviate the surcharging, a diversion was 
installed at "F ' Street to divert flow to the east. Extending from "A" Street to Centra] Avenue, the Pine 
Street sewer needs to be replaced with a new larger-diameter pipeline. This project is shown in 
Figure 8-2 (page 8-3). 
The hydraulic analysis indicates that this new pipeline should be 18 to 24 inches in diameter, depending 
on its exact slope. Once constructed, the existing diversion at "F ' Street should be removed. The 
beginning of the new Pine Street sewer starts at the end of a recently completed new pipeline in 
Hawthorne Avenue. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 8-1 September 2004 
O i l 
:S30Vni 
0.0 C 793 
Parametrix DATE: 09/24/04 09: LLOM F I X : P34I6025F-23 
SCALE IN FEET 
n _ r 
500' 1000" 
Figure 8-2 
Proposed Pine Street 
Pipeline Improvement Project 
COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
W 794 
8.2.1.2 Western A venue 
Similar to the Pine Street sewer, the existing Western Avenue sewer from "G" Street to Bridge Street, and 
then along Spruce Street to the WRP, needs to be replaced with a new larger-diameter pipeline. The 
existing pipeline serves the area west of Western Avenue between Upper River Road and the Rogue 
River. Increasing wastewater flows in the future are expected in the area due to growth. This sewer also 
receives flow from the Bridge Street Pump Station. This pipeline has already experienced surcharging 
during peak rainfall events. To alleviate existing surcharge conditions, a diversion was installed at Bridge 
Street to divert flow to the east. The hydraulic analysis indicates that a new 18-inch-diameter pipeline, 
approximately 4,700 feet, is required as shown in Figure 8-3 (page 8-5). Once constructed, the diversion 
at Bridge Street should also be removed. 
8.2.1.3 Mill Street 
The proposed Mill Street sewer (Figure 8-4, page 8-6) is the replacement of an existing pipeline with a 
new larger-diameter sewer to provide several benefits. The area north and east of the existing sewer is 
experiencing growth, and this project will provide conveyance capacity for this growth. Also, however, if 
this new sewer were not installed, the existing dual siphons crossing the Rogue River and the existing 
sewer paralleling the river on the south side, would likely reach capacity about Year 2025. 
To avoid construction of a new siphon and sewer on the south side of the Rogue River, the Mill Street 
sewer is necessary. This new pipeline would enable flow from the east to be diverted away from the 
existing sewer in Beacon Drive, which then flows to the dual siphons and would avoid having to 
construct a new siphon. This flow would reach the WRP using an alternate route through the sewer on 
the north side of the river. 
The Mill Street sewer extends the hydraulic capacity of the dual siphons and south river sewer beyond 
Year 2060. 
8.2.1.4 7th Street Relief Sewer 
The 7th Street sewer is expected to experience significant increases in flow from the service area north of 
"A " Street and is expected to reach capacity based on the hydraulic analysis. To avoid replacement of 
this pipeline in 7th Street, which was just recently improved and caused significant traffic disruption, a 
new relief sewer is proposed. This relief sewer is shown in Figure 8-5 (page 8-7). This relief sewer 
would divert flow away from 7th Street and into the new Mill Street sewer once it was constructed. 
The new 18-inch-diameter 7th Street relief sewer carries flow away from 7th Street and avoids 
replacement of the 7th Street sewer until beyond 2060. 
8.2.1.5 Nebraska A venue 
Wastewater flow from the area south of the Redwood Highway is expected to increase significantly 
during the next 20 to 25 years, requiring a new 18-inch-diameter sewer at Nebraska Avenue as shown in 
Figure 8-6 (page 8-8). The area south of West Harbeck Road has already experienced growth and is 
expected to continue to grow. To serve this area in the future, a new 18-inch-diameter Nebraska Avenue 
sewer is necessary. 
City of Grants Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 6-6 September 2004 
795 
BRIDG0 
'ROGTFC RI 
ROGUE RIVER 
CFTJTRAL AVE. 
RIVER RD 
BRIDGE 
Parametrix OA TE 09/24/04 09: Horn FIlX: P34IS025F-2I 
SCALE IN FEET 
r u 
500' 1000' 
00 796 
Figure 8-3 
Proposed Western Avenue 
Pipeline Improvement Project 
COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
r * 
Oi) 797 
GRANTS PASS 
\ SHOPPING 
CENTER 
Parametrix DATE: 09/2«/04 09: Horn m i - P.341602SF-2S 
SCALE IN FEET 
r~L_r 
500' 1000' 
Figure 8-4 
Proposed Mill Street 
Pipeline Improvement Project 
COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
i f e J U I J U U J L SAVAGE 
Parametrlx OAIE: 09/24/04 09: Horn FILE: P34I602ST-2 
SCALE IN FEET 
r u — i 
0 500' 1000' 
Figure 8-5 
Proposed 7th Street 
Relief Project 
COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
00 798 
Parametrix DATE: 09/24/04 09:11am FILE: PJ416025T-22 p j g U f g 8 - 6 
©Proposed Nebraska Avenue Pipeline Improvement Project COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
RESTORATION 
I PLAN " L I * " 
REDWOOI 
^£ST_HARB£C] 
m 733 
8.2.2 Maintenance and Reliability Improvements 
As described in Section 4, much of the downtown area of Grants Pass is served by very old (greater than 
60 years old) small-diameter (often 6-inch-diameter) pipelines. Based on the Maintenance and Reliability 
Analysis conducted on the wastewater collection system as described in Section 7, six areas of the city 
that are served by these old small-diameter collection lines need further investigation and will likely 
require repair or replacement of much of these lines. The six structural repair areas that were identified 
are shown in Figure 8-7 (page 8-8). A summary figure of the size, length, and age of the pipelines in each 
of the six areas is shown in Figure 8-8 (page 8-11). 
The limits of each area were identified with the assistance and guidance of the City's sewer maintenance 
staff and using the Maintenance and Reliability Analysis process described in Section 7. Generally, each 
of these areas exhibit the following identical problems: 
• Extensive 6-inch-diameter (very old) pipelines. 
• Extensive structural defects, including holes in pipes, broken pipes, and cracks. 
• Extensive root encroachment into these pipelines that require very frequent, difficult cleaning and 
numerous service calls to ensure continued operation. 
• Extensive rock removal during routine cleaning and maintenance. 
Rather than attempt to identify individual pipelines within each of these areas that require 
repair/replacement, these areas have been identified as needing more detailed investigations and 
inspections, after which specific repair/replacement programs for each area can then be identified and 
implemented. 
The following steps should be followed to develop a detailed repair/replacement program for each of 
these areas: 
• Investigate existing database information in detail. 
• Conduct further testing and inspections and review all available video inspections. 
• Identify specific pipeline sections requiring repair and/or replacement. 
• Evaluate alternative repair/replacement technologies, including slip lining, cured-in-place (i.e. in 
situ form technologies), pipe-bursting, and fold-and-form pipe repair, together with complete pipe 
replacement. 
• Identify alternative technology costs and select repair/replacement process for each specific pipe 
segment based on cost and other considerations. 
• Develop final repair/replacement program and begin implementation (i.e., design, construction 
award, and construction). 
City of Grams Pass 276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
Collection System Master Plan 8-9 September 2004 
soo 


Each of these areas is identified in the following six Figures 8-9 through 8-14. The individual pipeline 
segments in each area, that need further investigation and repair and/or replacement, are highlighted in 
red. Table 8-1 contains a detailed breakdown of these pipeline sizes and lengths for each area. 
Table 8-1. Detailed Pipeline Size and Length for Each Segment 
Total Length Total 
Structural Repair Area Project Diameter (feet) Segments 
Pine Street Structural Repair 6.0 7,141.81 18 
8.0 525.00 1 
10.0 402.13 1 
12.0 48.44 2 
Project Group Total: 8,117.38 22 
5th Street Structural Repair 6.0 9,723.05 34 
8.0 1,948.84 8 
10.0 1,243.68 4 
12.0 2,606.26 10 
Project Group Total: 15,521.83 56 
7th Street Structural Repair 6.0 8,728.34 29 
8.0 598.59 3 
10.0 400,58 1 
12.0 692.28 2 
18.0 260.65 1 
Unknown 427.51 1 
Project Group Total: 11,107.95 37 
Subbasin B/C Structural Repair 6.0 1,118.02 4 
8.0 6,291.11 21 
10.0 945.14 3 
12.0 644.20 2 
Project Group Total: 8,998.47 30 
Subbasin H Structural Repairs 8.0 7,918.49 32 
10.0 1,005.18 3 
Project Group Total: 8,923.67 35 
Lawnridge-Washington Repair 6.0 2,496.55 6 
8.0 8,866.53 34 
10.0 612.90 2 
15.0 15.99 1 
Project Group Total: 11,991.97 43 
All Project Groups Total: 64,661.28 223 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 6-14 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
8.3 PRIORITIZATION OF IMPROVEMENTS 
In Figure 8-1 (page 8-2), the five hydraulic capacity improvements recommended were prioritized based 
on the results of the hydraulic model analysis. Improvements based on more immediate hydraulic 
restrictions (existing surcharging) were identified as priority one improvements. Improvements based on 
Year 2025 hydraulic restrictions were generally identified as priority two, and those based on Year 2060 
hydraulic restrictions identified as priority three. 
In Figure 8-7 (page 8-10), the six structural repair areas recommended for further investigation and 
pipeline repair/replacement were also prioritized based on extent of structural and maintenance related 
issues identified during the Maintenance and Reliability Analysis. These prioritizations will be used in 
development of a Capital Improvement Plan for the collection system. 
8.4 ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS 
Using the gravity sewer pipeline construction cost unit prices developed in Section 5 and shown in 
Section 5.1, and the total project cost components shown in Table 5-2 (page 5-3), total project costs for 
each of the recommended pipeline improvement projects were prepared. These costs are developed and 
presented in Table 8-2. 
Table 8-2. Cost of Recommended Pipeline Improvement Projects (in $1M) 
Project 
Length 
(feet) 
Preliminary 
Diameter 
(Inches) 
Construction 
Cost 
($/foot) 
Base 
Construction 
Cost 
Construction 
Contingency 
40% 
Engineering 
(Legal and 
Administration) 
30% 
Total 
Estimated 
Project 
Cost 
Pine Street 7,010 24 $200 $1.40 $0.56 $0.59 $2.55 
Western 
Avenue 
4,720 18 $170 $0.80 $0.32 $0.34 $1.46 
Mill Street 9,140 21 $185 $1.69 $0.68 $0.71 $3.08 
7th Avenue 4,530 18 $170 $0.77 $0.31 $0.32 $1.40 
Nebraska 2,710 18 $170 $0.46 $0.18 $0.17 $0.81 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 8-13 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
00 J804 
OP-
JORDAN 
Structural Repair 
MAJOR DR 
MARY 
AVE . 
ROGUE 
CENTRAL 
CENTRAL 
RIVER OAKS 
Parametrix DATE: Q9/23/04 FILE: KIGRANTSPASSIMXDV^GURE 8-9 pjgyj-g 8 - 9 
©
Pine Street Structural Repair 
Legend 
d p Pine Street structural R e p a ir Priority 1 C O L L E C T I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N 
T i l C ITY OF G R A N T S PASS, O R E G O N 
0.0 C 805 
; ! I l 
Û 
w > 
; < 
PARKER 
S 
H " u 
LYNEL 
CT . ILOUGHRIDGE! 
AVE. 
HXLLCREST 
FRANKLIN 
BLVD. 
u 
> 
< 
j 
Lawnridge-Washington Structural Repair 
I É-» I u j 
j w | 
i Û4 i ( CO i 
o ! 
t 
P L . 04 
! i 
I j • i h 
Co 
.• Jsr 
/ 
co/ 
Q 
S 
0} a. 
iv 
A - • , / 
*c*c 
FETZNER ST 
JOSEPHINE 
ST 
Parametrix 
SCALE IN FEET 
D A T E : 09 /23 /04 F ILE : K : \ G R A N T S P A S S \ M X D \ F I G U R E 8 - 1 0 
300 600 
Legend 
Lawnridge-Washington 
Structural Repair Priority 2 
Figure 8 - 1 0 
Lawnridge-Washington 
Structural Repair 
COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
0 0 ' 8 0 6 
/ / 
/ A 
'S3, 
Parametr ïx D A T E OSŒWW FILE: K I V S R A N T S P A S S M X O N F I G U R E 
S C A L E IN F E E T 
300 6 0 0 
Legend 
5th Street Structural Repair Priority 2 
Figure 8 - 1 1 
5th Street Structural Repair 
COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
0 0 < j 8 0 7 
JOSEPHINE 
ST. 
Parametr îx D A T E : Q 9 / 2 3 / 04 FILE: K : ì G R A N T S P A S S \ M X O \ F I G U R E 8 - 1 2 
SCALE IN FEET 
r ~ i _ r 
0 300 600 
Legend 
I 7th Street Structural Repair Priority 2 
Figure 8 - 1 2 
7th Street Structural Repair 
COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
0 0 ' 8 0 8 
Subbasin 
SAVAGE' 
JOHN 
D R C 
Parametrix D A T E 0 9 / 2 3 / 0 4 F ILE: K : \ G R A N T S P A S S V M X O \ F I G U R E 8 - 1 3 
SCALE IN FEET 
r ~ i _ i 1 
0 300 600 
Legend 
Subbasin H Structural Repairs Priority 3 
Figure 8 -13 
Subbasin H Structural Repairs 
COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
STEIGERi 
HEFLEY ST. 
Structural Repairs 
ST. 
OUTLOOK 
WOOD DR G?"0 ^O-;:::' 
wE 
MEADE 
! EVELYN 
FETZNER ST® 
JOSEPHINE 
ST. 
DUDLEY 
DR.O-" 
/OLIVE 
ST. ADELFJ DR/f^ —1 
DUAKTE 
DR ( '-FALL OR 
W CLYDE PL.! 
" j I GRABLE VICTORIA i 
NO THRU 
MEIER 
G R A N T S P A R S 
o ( ) 8 0 9 
SUNHILIA 
T E R R . S D A W N H I L L 
' C T 
• J . / 
o 
>1 
"F" 
i . •Ì 
<0 
fr J <: r -
s j r 
" / L 
J ! e ce 
Subbasin B/C Structural Repair 
Parametrfx D A T E : 09 /23 /04 F ILE : K : \ G R A N T S P A S S \ M X D \ F I G U R E 8 - 1 4 
SCALE IN FEET 
300 600 
Figure 8 - 1 4 
Subbasin B/C 
Legend Structural Repairs 
Subbasin B/C Structural Repair Priority 3 COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
0 0 8 1 0 
Similarly, the total project costs for the recommended structural repair areas have been prepared. A 
minimum diameter of 8-inch sewer pipeline has been assumed to estimate project cost. This is because 
replacing existing 6-inch-diameter sewer pipe with 6-inch does not meet generally accepted sewer design 
criteria. 
Given that different repair/replacement technologies will be implemented in these areas, rather than just 
assume replacement of all old pipelines with new pipelines to estimate the total project costs in each of 
these areas, it was assumed that total cost would equal the cost to replace one-half of all pipelines in these 
areas. These costs are developed and presented in Table 8-3. 
Table 8-3. Cost of Recommended Structural Repair Areas (in $1M) 
Engineering 
Pipeline Construction Base Construction (Legal and Total3 
Structural Diameter Length Cost Construction Contingency Administration) Estimated 
Repair Area (Inches) (feet) ($/foot) Cost 40% 30% Cost 
Pine Street 8 7,667 $150 
10 402 $150 $1.22 $0.49 $0.51 $1.11 
12 48 $155 
5th Street 8 11,672 $150 
10 1,244 $150 $2.34 $0.94 $0.98 $2.13 
12 2,606 $155 
7th Street 8 9,326 $150 
10 400 $150 
12 692 $155 
$1.61 $0.64 $0.67 $1.46 
18 260 $170 
Subbasin B/C 8 7,409 $150 , 
10 945 $150 $1.35 $0.54 $0.57 $1.23 
12 644 $155 
Subbasin H 8 7,919 $150 
$1.21 $1.34 $0.53 $0.56 
10 1,005 $150 
Lawnridge- 8 11,362 $150 
Washington 10 612 $150 $1.80 $0.72 $0.76 $1.64 
12 16 $155 
Total of base cost, construction contingency, and engineering divided by two. 
8.5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 
Using the prioritization of Collection System Improvements described in Section 8.3 and the estimated 
cost of these improvements presented in Table 8-2 and Table 8-3, a recommended Capital Improvement 
Plan for the City of Grants Pass collection system has been developed and is presented in Table 8-4. 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 8-20 
276-3416-025 (03/0350) 
September 2004 
0 0 8 1 1 
Table 8-4. Recommended Capital Improvement Plan 
Grants Pass Collection System 
' 1 
Cost 
Project Schedule ($1M) 
Pine Street Sewer 2004-2006 $2.55 
Western Avenue Sewer 2006-2009 $1.46 
Pine Street Structural Repair 2009-2011 $1 11 
5th Street Structural Repair 2010-2012 $2.13 
7th Street Structural Repair 2013-2015 $1.46 
Lawnridge-Washington Structural Repair $1.64 
Mill Street Sewer 2016-2018 $3.08 
Subbasin B/C Structural Repair $1.23 
7th Street Relief System 2019-2021 $1.40 
Subbasin H Structural Repair $1.21 
Nebraska Avenue Sewer 2022-2024 $0.81 
Total Collection System Capital Improvement Plan: $18.08 
8.6 IMPLEMENTATION 
The City of Grants Pass needs to begin to implement the CIP presented in Section 8.5 as soon as possible. 
The Pine Street sewer project has already been initiated and is currently in planning and engineering 
design. Construction is currently planned for 2005-2006 if sufficient funding is available. 
Implementation of further improvements is, however, contingent upon developing an adequate funding 
source. The City should begin an evaluation of their sewer customer rate schedule to provide sufficient 
funding in the future to implement the remainder of the CIP. This evaluation should include a review of 
the current sewer rate structure by customer class and consideration of a collection system, system 
development change (SDC). 
City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan 
OO 812 
8-21 
276-3416-025(03/0350) 
September 2004 
1 
>* 
5 ~~^  ~ 
A" 
s 
• iS — 
A DITT 
§ v ® ^ : ... 
w ^ * m 
- • -
1 
i 
-f-
or J,. 
• i 
• V. „ c 
t 
1 -
.. & V. 
: # * 
, ' i f 
Prepared for: 
s p ; : | S J : •- i ... ^ 
City of Grants Pass 
101 Northwest A Street 
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 f 
m\ 
and 
I 1 
r, % 
. : - ifvsSaTjiy a*1- .¿^ ' 4.- ' l.ta, 
1 r m m ' m 1 ^ 
Josephine County 
201 River Heights Way 
Grants Pass, Oregon 97527 
as- j-tlr 
I w*:. * , * 
i s ^ w 
m r : j. 
. -0 fab 
Ji «ii 
1 
If! 
f l f * 
-if . 
i i l 
•ife 
•it 
A " * >. 
% 1 : • 
Prepared by; 
Parametrix, Inc. 
700 NE Multnomah 
Suite 1160 
Portland, OR 97232 
iii 
i ^ . • 
% . " % Jfc '' v 
f* .. . . . - a m i , --••¡oiSii-' • 
K/' 
• 
^ . 
PMX #27-2192-05 
April 1999 
(Revised November 1999) • * T^v 
v 
CERTIFICATE OF ENGINEER 
The technical material and data contained in this document were prepared under the supervision 
and direction of the undersigned, whose seal, as a professional engineer licensed to practice as 
such, is affixed below. 
Checked by: Tom Nielsen, P.E. 
AL 
Approved by: Steven C. Gilbert, P.E. 
m 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 27-2192-05 April 1999 
0 0 1 8 1 4 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Pape 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 
1. INTRODUCTION . „ . 1-1 
1.1 BACKGROUND . 1-1 
1.2 AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE . 1-3 
1.3 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS 1-4 
1.4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1-5 
2. SERVICE AREA 2-1 
2.1 INTRODUCTION I , . . 2-1 
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF AREA . . . . . . . . . . . : 2-1 
2.3 TOPOGRAPHY . 2-1 
2.4 PRECIPITATION . . . . 2-3 
2.5 GRANTS PASS IRRIGATION DISTRICT 2-3 
2.6 LAND USE 2-5 
2.7 EXISTING POPULATION 2-5 
2.8 POPULATION PROJECTIONS . 2-5 
3. EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM 3-1 
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES . „ 3-1 
3.2 MOST RECENT FLOW MONITORING . , . „ , , 3-1 
3.3 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ASSESSMENT . 3-8 
3.3.1 Infiltration , t » t.% > ? «j # » a . •> » - 1 3-8 
3.3.2 Ipflwv g, n, <. t «. ï * i . s .. % ». i * » ¡il > « • t * «. »• * * . » * » 3-9 
3.4 COLLECTION SYSTEM CONDITIONS . . . . . . . 3-9 
3.4.1 Non-Excessive I&I Definition 34) 
3.4.2 Comparison to Measured Flows , < . . . 3-11 
3.5 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW RECOMMENDATION . . . . . 3-12 
C^ost „ < r * * »: * >. 3 • • •» .r * p • 4t '* * * Î< f -M .'*- + • <* * i, « 
4. EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM 4-1 
4.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT . . . 4-1 
4.1.1 Description of Facilities 4-1 
4.2 WASTEWATER FLOW AND LOAD 4-4 
4.2.1 Existing Wastewater Flow 4-5 
4.2.2 Existing Wastewater Load 4-5 
4.3 PLANT REGULATORY LIMITATIONS 4-7 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2/92-OS 
Josephine County i Revised November 1999 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 
Page 
INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTER 5 - FUTURE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS . . 5-1A 
5.3 
5. FUTURE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS 
5.1 WASTEWATER FLOW AND LOAD PROJECTIONS 
5.1.1 Flow Projections 
5.1.2 Impact of Water Conservation 
5.1.3 Load Projections . . . . . . 
REGULATORY TREATMENT CRITERIA . . . . . . 
5.2.1 OAR 340-41-375 
5.2.2 OAR 340-41-026 
RECEIVING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA . . . . . 
5.3.1 Introduction , . ' . ; . ... 
5.3.2 Discharge Description . . . . . . r . . . . . . . 
5.3.3 Receiving Water Conditions 
Water Quality Standards . . 
Mixing Zone Evaluation . . 
Effluent Quality 
Water Quality Analysis . . . 
Recommendations . . 
5.3.4 
5.3.5 
5.3.6 
5.3.7 
5.3.8 . '*>•' i * si ». 
5.4 FUTURE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS f • »V + » * ,. » • SI fr 
* . • . * • 
> • I » 
. 5-1 
• 5-1 
. 5-1 
. 5-2 
. 5-4 
. 5-5 
. 5-5 
. 5-6 
. 5-7 
. 5-7 
. 5-8 
. 5-8 
5-13 
5-16 
5-23 
5-25 
5-34 
.«• s » • « * m * y 
n » * * • il 
tv ,m m 
6. TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES . . . s . . > , . . . . , * m t 
6.1 ALTERNATIVES INVESTIGATED . . 
6.2 ALTERNATIVES 1, 2, AND 3 . . . . . 
ALTERNATIVES 4 AND 5 
6.4 NEW BIOSOLIDS TREATMENT PLAN 
6.4.1 Anaerobic Digestion Process Description 
6.4.2 Preliminary Design Criteria . , . . . . . . . . . 
6.4.3 Site Plan . . . . . «.. , . > . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
6.4.4 Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs . . , 
6.4.5 Preliminary Screening of Alternatives 1 Through 5 
6.5 ALTERNATIVES 6 THROUGH 12 . . 
6.5.1 Design Criteria . . . . . . . . , . . . 
6.5.2 Description of Alternatives 5 Through 12 
6.5.3 Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . i . . . . . 
6.5.4 Preliminary Screening of Alternatives 6 Through 12 
6.6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION 
6.7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 
6.7.1 Introduction 
6.7.2 Zoning and Land Uses 
• « JW 4*' 
6 - 1 
6-1 
6-2 
6-9 
6-13 
6-17 
6-18 
6-18 
6-18 
6-21 
6-22 
6-25 
6-31 
6-31 
6-32 
6-36 
6-36 
6-37 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 
Page 
6.7.3 Historic and Cultural Resources 6-37 
6.7.4 Economic Considerations 6-38 
6.7.5 Wetlands 6-38 
6.7.6 Hoodplains , 6-39 
6.7.7 Agricultural Lands * 6-39 
6.7.8 Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . 6-40 
6.7.9 Fish and Wildlife 6-40 
6.7.10 Threatened and Endangered Species . 6-40 
6.7.11 Other Unique or Sensitive Environmental Resources 6-40 
6.8 CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, BEST MANAGEMENT 
PRACTICES, AND MITIGATION OF SELECTED NATURAL 
RESOURCE CONCERNS . , . . . * 6-41 
6.8.1 Construction Techniques 6-41 
6.8.2 Best Management Practices 6-42 
6.8.3 Mitigation of Selected Natural Resource Concerns . 6-42 
6.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . . 6-42 
6.10 WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE 6-43 
( 6.10.1 District Board Briefing - November 18, 1998 6-43 
6.10.2 Public Meeting/Forum - November 19, 1998 . . . 6-44 
6.10.3 District Board Briefing - December 10, 1998 . . 6-44 
6.10.4 District Board Briefing, Preferred Alternative 
Selected - December 14, 1998 6-44 
6.10.5 District Board Briefing - March 8, 1999 , . 6-44 
6.10.6 District Board Adopts Wastewater Facilities 
Plan Update - April 28, 1999 . . . , , 6-44 
6.11 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION 6-44 
6.11.1 Project Press Release and District-wide Project Update 6-44 
6.11.2 Letter to Affected Property Owners 6-45 
6.11.3 Affected Property Owner Meeting 6-45 
6.11.4 Conveyance Route Field Walk . 6-45 
6.11.5 Property Owner Update/Meeting Announcement and 
Property Owner Meeting 6-45 
6.11.6 Individual Property Owner Meetings 6-45 
6.12 FUTURE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES 6-46 
7. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 7-1 
7.1 PUMP STATION DESIGN CRITERIA 7-1 
7.1.1 RI-25 Pump Station 7-1 
7.1.2 RI-0 Pump Station 7-2 
Redwood Wastewater Faculties Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County W Revised November 1999 
Q O r 8 1 7 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 
7.2 
7.3 
7.4 
FORCE MAIN DESIGN 
7.2.1 RI-25 Pump Station Force Main 
7.2.2 RI-0 Pump Station Force Main 
RELATED ISSUES 
PROJECT SCHEDULE 
7,4.1 Operation During Construction 
* * ->j «. » 
k * * V 
8. FINANCING PLAN 
8.1 BACKGROUND , 
8.2 EXISTING FINANCES 
8.3 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ' 
8.4 FUNDING ALTERNATIVES 
8.5 FINANCING ALTERNATIVES 
8",5,1 Base Case Scenario . . . . . . . 
8.5.2 Alternative One Scenario . . . . 
8.6 PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY . . , . 
* *.• A; *: * R 
« f --?€ '». ' *• 
m * ¿' * .» > 
• * * • • M 
» * » -t w. fc *• 
. * J* 
Page 
. 7-2 
. 7-2 
. 7-3 
. 7-4 
. 7-6 
. 7-7 
. 8-1 
8-1 
8 - 1 
8-3 
8-4 
8-4 
8-4 
8-4 
8-5 
APPENDICES 
APPENDIX A 
APPENDIX B 
APPENDIX C 
APPENDIX D 
APPENDIX E -
APPENDIX F -
APPENDIX G -
APPENDIX H • 
APPENDIX I -
APPENDIX J -
APPENDIX K -
APPENDIX L -
APPENDIX M 
- NPDES PERMIT 
- POPULATION INFORMATION 
- REDWOOD WWTP DAILY MONITOR DATA 
- 1994 CAPACITY ANALYSIS 
 1994 WASTEWATER FLOW ANALYSIS 
 OUTFALL MIXING ANALYSIS, DRAWING, AND DATA 
- WWTP ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES 
- CONVEYANCE ALTERNATIVES COST ESTIMATES 
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 
CONVEYANCE PREDESIGN REPORT 
- PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND EXISTING PUMP STATION 
- FORCE MAIN CALCULATIONS 
- FINANCIAL EVALUATION CALCULATIONS 
1 
IP Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County rè Revised November 1999 
( H H 8 1 8 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Page 
1-1 Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District and Grants Pass 1-2 
2-1 Service Area ¿ 0 
2-2 Yearly Average Precipitation . . . 2-4 
$ $ Monthly Average Precipitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 
2-4 Redwood District Population Projections . 2-6 
3-1 Existing District Wastewater Collection System 3-2 
3-2 Flow Monitoring Results - Manhole Rl-48 . . . . 3-5 
3-3 Flow Monitoring Results - Manhole Rt-26 3-6 
3-4 Flow Mentoring Results - Maa&ote Rl-5 3-7 
3-5 Flow Monitoring Results and Rainfall Data - Manhole Rl-5 3-10 
4nl Process Schematic and Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t . . . . . 4-2 
4-2 Redwood WWTP Average Daily Flow/Month 4-6 
4-3 Redwood WWTP 30-Day Average BOD 4-6 
5-1 Wastewater Flow Projections 5-3 
5-2 Outfall and Vicinity, Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District 5-9 
5-3 Rogue River Cross Section at Outfall . . . . 5-11 
5-4 Rogue River Dissolved Oxygen *• . . . 5-28 
5-5 Rogue River Temperature , . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 5-32 
6--1 Treatment Alternative I - Construct Stabilization with Anoxic Selectors , £ 4 
6*2 Treatment Alternative 2 - Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) 
6-3 Treatment Alternative 3 - Add Biofilter Process « . • • ..., 6-7 
6-4 Treatment Alternative 4, - Complete Mix/Anoxic Selectors with Effluent 
Filtration 6-11 
6-5 treatment Alternative 5 - Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) with Effluent 
6-6 Anaerobic Digestion Flow Schematic 6-14 
6-7 Treatment Option Site Plan . . . : . . . 6-19 
6-8 Rogue River Crossing Cross Section 6-26 
6-9 Treatment Alternatives 6 Through 12 6-29 
6-IÙ Treatment Alternatives 7, 9A, 9B , . . . . . . . 6-33 
7-1 Project Implement Schedule 7-8 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Ban Update 27-2192-0$ 
Josephine County " ÈS-9 Revised November J999 
0 0 , 8 1 9 
LIST OF TABLES 
Page 
ES-1 Wastewater Flow Projections, Year 2020 . . . . . ES-2 
ES-2 Redwood WWTP BOD and TSS Load (lbs/day) ES-3 
ES-3 Anticipated Future BOD and TSS Effluent Limitations Based on 
OAR 340-41-375 * ES-3 
ES-4 Anticipated Future BOD and TSS Efflueflt Limitations Based on 
OAii. 3 1 - 0 2 6 .m, • » «, • i 4 * » • '*-.• -». > • * n -t 1 * * * ES,*"4 
ES-5 Treatment Alternatives 1 through 5 - Estimate of Probable Costs (costs 
in $1,000s) ES-5 
ES-6 Treatment Alternatives 1 through 5 - Annual O&M Costs ES-6 
ES-7 Treatment Alternatives 6 through 12 - Estimate of Probable Cost ES-7 
ES-8 Treatment Alternatives 6 through 12 - Annual O&M Costs . . , , , ES-8 
ES-9 Treatment Alternatives 1, 4, 7, 9A, and 9B - Present Worth Cost Estimates 
(in $1,000s) ES-9 
2-1 Historical Growth * 2-7 
3-1 As-built Components of the District's Existing Wastewater Collection System . . 3 - 1 
3-2 Rainfall During How Monitoring Period (1992) 3-3 
3-3 Rainfall During Flow Monitoring Period (1992-1993) 3-4 
4-1 1998 Plant How Conditions , 4-5 
4-2 1998 Plant BOD Load Conditions (lbs/day) 4-5 
4-3 1998 Plant TSS Load Conditions (lbs/day) 4-7 
4-4 Existing Redwood WWTP NPDES Limits . . . . . 4-7 
5-1 Wastewater How Projects, Year 2020 . . . 5-1 
5-2 Water Conservation Efforts vs. Sewer How 5-2 
5-3 Redwood WWTP BOD and TSS Load (lbs/day) 5-4 
5-4 Anticipated Future BOD and TSS Effluent Limitations Based on 
OAR 340-41-375 . 5 - 6 
5-5 Anticipated Future BOD and TSS Effluent Limitations Based on 
OAR340-41-026 . 5-6 
5-6 Statistical How Summaries for Rogue River After Regulation of 
Lost Creek Lake (1978-1987) 5-10 
5-7 River and Channel Characteristics 5-12 
5-8 Ambient Water Quality Statistics for Rogue River Near Redwood 
Wastewater Treatment Plant 5-14 
5-9 Near- and Far-Field Model Input Parameters . . . 5-22 
5-10 Mixing Model Results 5-23 
5-11 Water Quality Analysis Summary 5-26 
5-12 Compliance Summary 5-27 
5-13 Monitoring Recommendations . . , 5-34 
6-1 Preliminary Sizing Criteria, New Unit Treatment Processes 
Treatment Plant Expansion Alternatives Meeting OAR 340-41-375 6-2 
6-2 Preliminary Sizing Criteria, New Unit Treatment Processes 
Treatment Plant Expansion Alternatives Meeting OAR 340-41-026 6-9 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County vi Revised November 1999 
• 0 C 8 2 0 
LIST OF TABLES (continued) 
Page 
V 
6-3 Anaerobic Digestion Preliminary Design Criteria 6-17 
6-4 Treatment Alternatives 1 through 5 Estimate of Probable Costs (costs in 
$l,000s) . . 6-20 
6-5 Treatment Alternatives 1 through 5 Annual O&M Costs 6-21 
6-6 Treatment Alternatives 6 through 12 Design Flows 6-22 
6-7 Force Main Alternatives Preliminary Cost Estimates 6-31 
6-8 Treatment Alternatives 1, 4, 7, 9A, and 9B Present Worth Cost 
Estimates ($1,000s) 6-32 
6-9 Treatment Alternative Selection Evaluation Criteria and Selection Ranking . . . 6-35 
7-1 Transfer of BOD and TSS Wasteload Capacity (lbs/day) 7-5 
8-1 General District Operating Revenue and Expenses 8-2 
8-2 Base Case Scenario Total Project Funding Capability 8-4 
8-3 Alternative One Scenario Total Project Funding Capability 8-5 
r 
% 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County vìi Revised November 1999 
C X 8 2 1 
. : : 
Parametrix, Inc. 
OOv 8Z2 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
BACKGROUND 
In the late 1960s, the Josephine County Board of Commissioners formed the Redwood Sanitary 
Sewer Service District (District) in an area 4.8 miles southwest of Grants Pass, Oregon. In 
1977-1978, the District constructed a wastewater collection system and treatment plant in the 
service area. Since then, only minor additions or modifications to both the collection system 
and/or treatment plant have been made, with exception of a biosolids composting operation that 
was added to the plant in 1988. 
In 1994, Parametria completed a Wastewater Facilities Plan for the District. The Plan 
recommended that the plant be upgraded and expanded. However, this action was never 
implemented due to litigation tp shut down the biosolids composting operation at the plant in 
1994 and the Oregon Department of Environmental Qiiality (ÓDEQ) taking no action to approve 
the Facilities Plan. 
Because the litigation on the composting operation has now resulted in a judgment requiring the 
compost closure, the existing Facilities Plan is no longer valid. Now the cost of 
upgrading/expanding the Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant (Redwood WWTP) has changed. 
The cost of a new biosolids facility must be added. This meatis that it now appears that the 
preferred treatment alternative may no longer be to upgrade/expand the Redwood WWTP, but 
iather convey wastewater to the Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant (WRP) for treatment. The 
purpose of this report is to re-evaluate the cost of both of these alternatives. 
-y " - M 
SERVICE AREA 
The current limits of the Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District's service area encompass an 
area of approximately 3,480 acres, or 5.4 square miles. The service area lies generally south 
of the Rogue River, westerly of Allen Creek, northerly qf the South Highliné Canal of the 
Grants Pass Irrigation District, and easterly of Rounds Avenue. The service area also includes 
the Rogpe Community College Campus, which lies south of this general area. 
The estimated population served by the Redwood wastewater collection system, as of October 
1998, is 4,905. The average number of persons per equivalent residential unit (ERU) in the 
District is 2.42. To estimate future wastewater loads and flows, projections of the population 
" developed, through a planning period ending irl 2020. 
An annual growth rate of 3.1 percent per year Was used based on a consensus between the 
County and the City of Grants Pass. This resulted in a service area population of 9,600 in 2020. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-OS 
"* ;± ES-1 • Apritl999 
: f 
COLLECTION SYSTEM 
The collection system serving the District consists of approximately 16.2 miles of sewers, 
ranging in size from 8 to 27 inches in diameter. The system experiences very high wastewater 
flow in the winter. Infiltration and inflow appear to be excessive. The District has agreed to 
address annual budget allocations for collection system I/I correction as a part of a Sewer System 
Master Plan to be completed by the District in 2001-02. In the meantime, it is recommended 
that the District budget $25,000 annually to address infiltration and inflow correction. 
TREATMENT PLANT 
The Redwood WWTP is located near the intersection of Leonard Road and Rounds Avenue in 
Josephine County. It is comprised of numerous unit treatment processes, a control/laboratory 
building, blower/sludge pumping building, and biosolids composting operation. 
In 1994, a capacity analysis indicated that the Redwood WWTP's design capacity is 0.6 million 
gallons per day (mgd) with apeak flow capacity of 1.44 mgd. Because these design flows have 
been exceeded oh occasion, continued operation of the plant requires it be upgraded/expanded. 
vi" ' ..v *"" Jjf:'l:" v.. ^ —? ri 
FUTURE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS 
Based on 2020 population estimates, future wastewater flow and load estimates were developed; 
these are shown in Table ES-1 and Table ES-2, respectively. Also shown in these tables are 
flow and load conditions Chat currently exist at the plant. 
1 Table ES-1 
Wastewater Flow Projections, Year 2020 
1996/1998 2020 
Actual 
(mgd) 
1998 Actual 
(Gal/cap-day) 
Design 
(mgd) 
1998-2020 
(Gal/cap-day) 
Summer, Max, Month 0.54 120 1.01 100 
Winter, Max, Month 1.16 240 1.77 130 
Summer Max. Week 0.58 126 1.10 110 
Winter Max. Week 1.20 254 1.90 150 
Summer, Peak Day 0.76 157 1.43 140 
Winter, Peak Day 1.48 364 2.77 275 
Summer Average 0.49 99 0.89 85 
Winter Average 0.63 129 1.22 125 
Annual Average 0.56 114 1.05 105 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County ES-2 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
O O C 8 2 4 
Table ES-2 
Redwood WWTP BOD and TSS Load (lbs/day) 
1996-1998 
Actual 
2020 
Projection 
BOD 
Summer, Max. 30-day average 
Winter, Max. 30-day average 
Annual average 
1,122 
1,589 
1843 
2,400 
3,100 
2.070 
TSS 
Summer, Max. 30-day average 
Winter, Max. 30-day average 
Annual Average 
1,398 
1,116 
879 
2,340 
2,500 
1.980 
To properly evaluate upgrading/expanding the existing Redwood WWTP, an analysis of the 
facility's Wastewater discharge permit limits was also made. Since the Redwood WWTP was 
built in 1978, wastewater discharge requirements have become more strict, particularly in the 
Rogue River that is used for salmon spawning and domestic water supply. r -
i . . . -f "J-. .. •>,. , J -H. -i""' ^ ¥ -'i, T SJK"?. • • J,' -J,'-' - - " v 
The level of treatment required for future wastewater flows and loadings was evaluated based 
on three different requirements: 
• Treatment requirements contained in OAR 340-41-375. 
• Treatment requirements contained in OAR 340-41-026. 
• Treatment requirements based on receiving water quality criteria for the Rogue 
River. 4 
These regulations would limit the BOD and TSS limits for the Redwood WWTP as shown in 
Table ES-3 and Table ES-4. 
Table ES-3 
Anticipated Future BOD and TSS Effluent Limitations 
Based on OAR 340-41-375 
i Flow 
(mgd) 
Effluent Concentration (mg/L) Mass Discharge ( l b s / d a y ) 
Monthly 1 Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily 
Permit Limits Based On Effluent C Quality 
Summer, MMDWF 
Winter, MMWWF 
1.06<" 
1.79® 
10 15 -
30 45 
88 132 
450 675 
176 
900 
(1) Monthly dry weather flow with 5-year recurrence - MMDWF. 
Monthly wet weather flow with 5-year recurrence - MMWWF, 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Ban Update 27-2192-0$ 
Josephine County " ÈS-9 Revised November J999 
0 0 , 8 2 5 
Table ES-4 
Anticipated Future BÓD and TSS Effluent Limitations 
Based on OAR 340-41-026 
(I) Monthly dry weather P> wet 
ear recurrence - MMDWF. 
5-year recDirénce - MMWWF. 
Since the mass discharge limitations based on OAR 340-41-026 are less than those based on 
OAR 340-41-375, the stricter limits would normally apply. The District could, however, 
request ODEQ to allow d M & g e limits based on the OAR 340-41-375 requirements. 
Increases have been accepted by ODEQ, provided that: 
(1) No other alternatives exist except to lower water quality. 
(2) This action is necessary and justifiable for economic or social development 
benefits and outweighs die environmental costs of lowered water quality. 
(3) All water quality standards will be met and beneficial uses protected. 
The District would need to formally apply to ODEQ for a permit modification to increase the 
mass discharge limits to those based on OAR 340-41-375. 
In addition to upgrading the plant to meet the projected flow, load, and new BOD and TSS 
limits, the Redwood WWTP would also need to be modified to achieve ammonia removal and 
eliminate effluent chlorine discharge. 
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 
To evaluate the best method for meeting the District's wastewater treatment needs to the year 
2020, twelve alternatives were analyzed. These alternatives were separated into three groups, 
the first and second of which use the Redwood WWTP for treatment. The third group uses the 
City of Grants Pass WRP for treatment. 
• Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would provide secondary treatment at the existing 
Redwood WWTP with some ammonia removal. These alternatives would meet 
the effluent limitations of OAR 340-41-375 and would require a special discharge 
load limit to the Rogue River by ODEQ. These alternatives included: 
• 
• 
• 
Construct a new contact stabilization with anoxic selectors process 
Construct a new sequencing batch reactor (SBR) process 
Add a trickling filter and modify the existing process 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County ES-4 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
O 
> € 8 2 6 
Alternatives 4 and 5 would provide tertiary treatment at the existing Redwood 
WWTP and would not require a special discharge load limit to the Rogue River. 
These two alternatives would meet the effluent limitations of OAR 340-41-026. 
These alternatives included: 
• 
Construct a new anoxic selector process with effluent filtration 
Construct a new SBR process with effluent filtration 
These five alternatives were the most cost-effective ways to upgrade/expand the Redwood 
WWTP. 
___ i was biosolids treatment. 
Biosolids are a byproduct of wastewater treatment; they are generated by the process during 
removal of pollutants from the wastewater, The biosolids generated at the existing Redwood 
WWTP are currently aerobically digested then further treated in the composting operation. 
. _. i , , » j jaT \ J | | " aSjl^j i l v -
Because of litigation against the composting operation, however, the District must close 
operation of the composting facility this year. Therefore, an alternative biosolids treatment 
method must be included with each of the treatment alternatives using the Redwood WWTP. 
Because the Grants Pass WRP currently uses anaerobic digesters, this alternative was selected. 
Adding new anaerobic digesters to each of the five Redwood WWTP treatment alternatives, 
however, added significant cost to each of these alternatives. The estimated probable cost of 
each of these alternatives are shown in Table ES-5. 
Table ES-5 
Treatment Alternatives 1 through 5 
Estimate of Probable Costs (costs in $l,Q00s) 
Wastewater Process 
Alt. 1 
Contact 
Stabilization 
-• 
Alt. 2 
SBR 
Alt. 3 
Trickling 
Filter 
Alt. 4 
Complex Mix 
Anox Select 
Filter 
Alt. 5 
SBR Klter 
Biofïlters _ f $719 * 1 
Aeration Basin $1,239 T; ;T= ' J.¡ 'lí ¡, —. $1,742 
Secondary Clarifier $513 — $513 $513 4 
SBR Basin $1,717 
iW i 
$1,585 
Biower Building $129 •SB $129 $123 
Primary Sedimentation •V $586 — 
Package Filtration - — $$09 $409 $409 
Effluent EQ $95 ¿w • - $95 
Influent Pump Stn Mods $113 $148 $115 $113 $148 
Head works Mods $121 $161 Ä $121 $161 
UV Disinfection $315 $315 $315 $315 $315 
Site/Civil $72 $72 $72 $72 $72 
Yard Pipe $72 $72 $72 $108 $108 
Electrical $433 $433 $503 $559 $475 
Subtotal $3.008 $3.014 $3,356 $4.082 $3.491 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County ES-10 
27-2192-05 
Revised November ¡999 
0 0 1 " 8 2 7 
Rounded to three significant figures. 
An estimate of the annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of each of these alternatives 
is shown in Table ES-6, together with the annual O&M of the e> 
Tablé ES-6 
Treatment Alternatives 1 through 5 
Annual O&M Costs 
Existing 
Plant 
Contact 
Stabilization 
Alt. 2 
SBR 
Alt. 3 
Biofilter 
Alt. 4 
Comp Mix 
Effluent 
• i f i f a 
Alt. 5 
SBB with 
Effluent 
illter 
Salary and Wages $55,500 $73,800 $73,800 $73,800 $84,300 584,300 I 
Employee Benefits 518,949 j $25,250 / $25,250 ! $25,250 $28,850 $28,850 
Supply and Materia] $24,808 $27,808 $26,400 $29,800 $31,500 . f M M ) 
Services $55,835 $77,235 $76,800 380,500 582,500 \ f $81,500 
• Interfimd and Inter 
| Gov, 
$123,254 $136,700 $135,500 $144,000 $146,000 $145,000 
't : > ' ti 
Capital Replace/ 
Improvements 
$39,870 $49,370 ; j 549,370 $51,400 $55,400 $55,400 ï !" 
" "-4 ^ ; 
H Subtotal $318,216 $390,163 $387,120 $404,750 $428,550 $426,050 
Anaerobic Digestion $193,760 $193,760 $193,760 $193,760 $193,760 $193,760 
[| Total O&M Cost™ $512,000 $584,000 $581,000 $599,000 $622,000 $620,000 J 
tlJ Rounded to three significant figures. 
• Alternatives 6 through 12 provide for pumping and transmission facilities to 
convey all the wastewater to the Grants Pass WRP for treatment. This group of 
alternatives evaluated conveying wastewater to Grants Pass instead of upgrading 
the existing Redwood WWTP. The Grants Pass WRP has adequate treatment 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County ES-6 Revised 
I B £5 ' 
QQ( g 2V 
capacity available. Each of the conveyance alternatives considered a different 
sewer force main route between the existing Redwood WWTP and the Grants 
Pass WRP. These are described as follows: 
Alternative 6: Dual 12-iach force mains would be bored under the Rogue River just north of 
Redwood WWTP, then the force mains would follow the right-of-way of Lower River Road and 
Western Lane to the Grants Pass WRP. 
• J , .F V * 'T 
Alternative 7: A 6-inch force main would be placed in an existing sewer interceptor easement 
between Redwood WWTP and pump station RI-25, From there dud 12-inch mains would be 
bored under the Rogue River. From the Lathrop boat landing, the force mains would follow the 
right-of-way of Lower River Road and Western Lane to the Grants Pass WRP. 
Alternative s: The force main would be placed in the existing sewer interceptor easement between 
Redwood WWTP and the proposed location of the pedestrian bridge near the Grants Pass WRP. 
A 6-inch main would be installed to pump station RI-25, then dual 12-inch mains go from there 
to the Grants Pass WRP. The force mains would be attached to the pedestrian bridge. 
Alternative 9: A 6-inch force main would be placed in the existing sewer interceptor easement 
between Redwood WWTP and pump station RI-25. From there dual 12-inch force mains would 
follow the right-of-way of Leonard Road and Redwood Avenue to the pedestrian bridge, then to 
Atiernative 10: A 6-inch force main would be placed in the right-of-way of Leonard Road up to 
pump Station RI-25. From there dual 12-inch mains would be bored under the Rogue River and 
follow the right-of-way of Lower River Road and Western Lane to the Grants Pass WRP. 
> • " - . >. » - > . . . •%. L L . . . • ... . . . . . . . , , . . 
Alternative 11: A 6-inch force main would be placed in the right-of-way of Leonard Road up to 
pump station RI-25. From there dual 12-inch force mains would be placed in the existing sewer 
interceptor easement to the pedestrian bridge, and then to the Grants Pass WRP. 
Alternative 12: A 6-inch force main would be placed in the right-of-way of Leonard Road up to 
pump station RI-25. From there dual 12-inch force mains would follow the right-of-way of 
Leonard Road and Redwood Avenue to the pedestrian bridge, then to the Grants Pass WRP. 
The estimated probable cost of each of these alternatives are shown in Table 
ES-7, together with their associated force main length and number of anticipated 
easements required. 
Table ES-7 
Treatment Alternatives 6 through 12 
Estimate of Probable Cost 
. ..ii 
Alternative Length /Ease. 
: 
Pipeline 
Contingency 
Engineering 
& Admin. 
25% Total*" 
6 
7 
» 
9 
10 
11 
12 
24,000 
27,000 
29,300 
28.600 
31.100 
33,400 
48 
77 
47 
3 
32 
1 
$3,240,000 
$2.960,000 
$2,780,000 
$3,000,000 
$2,930,000 
$3.080,000 
$3,230,000 
. 
$1,284,000 
$1,284,000 
$1,284.000 
$1,326.600 
$1,273,000 
$U19,200 
51,285,200 
$1,264,200 
$1,309,200 
$1,354.200 
$1.105.500 
$1,061,000 
$1,016,000 
$1,071.000 
$1,053,500 
$1,091,000 
$1,128,500 
$6,850,000 
$6,580,000 
$6.300.000 
$6,640.000 
$6,530,000 
$6,700,000 
$6,700,000 
0) Rounded to three significant figures. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Ban Update 27-2192-0$ 
Josephine County " ÈS-9 Revised November J999 
0 0 , 8 2 9 
Also, an estimate of the annual O&M cost of each of these alternatives is shown in Table ES-8 
(O&M costs for these alternatives are similar). 
1 Table ES-8 
Treatment Alternatives 6 through 12 
Annual O&M Costs 
Conveyance O&M Annual Cost 
Salary and Wages $18,000 
Employee Benefits $6,300 
Chemicals and Material $50,000 
Power $11,000 
Collection System $15,000 
Subtotal: $100,300 
Portion of Grants Pass WWTP O&M Annual Cost 
WWTP O&M Cost $88,500 
Billing Services $22,000 
Customer Service $20,000 
Subtotal: $130,500 
¡1 Grand Total: $230,800 
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION 
In order to reduce the complexity of evaluating twelve different treatment alternatives for the 
District, two preliminary screening processes were initially conducted based on cost and impact 
to residents adjacent to the conveyance pipeline. Treatment Alternatives 1 through 5 were 
screened to Alternative I - Contact Stabilization and Alternative 4 - Complete Mix/Anoxic 
Selector/Filter. Treatment Alternatives 6 through 12 were screened to Alternative 7 -
Easement/Lower River Road and two refinements of Alternative 9, Alternative 9A -
Easement/Leonard Road and Alternative 9B - Easement/South River Road. With these last three 
alternatives, to ensure that the minimum and maximum wastewater flows were properly handled, 
a dual 12-inch-diameter force main system was included. Two of these alternatives (9A and 9B) 
included attaching a force main to the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Rogue River near the 
Grants Pass WRP. Alternative 7 included boring a force main under the Rogue River. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 
0 , 8 3 0 
ES-8 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
Based on preliminary design criteria and estimated O&M costs, present worth cost estimates for 
these five remaining treatment alternatives were developed and are shòwn in Table ES-9. 
Table ES-9 
Treatment Alternatives Conveyance Alternatives 
AlteraatìveJ AJi€ni3,tive 4, 
Complex Mbt 
Eflhieflt Fit ter 
Alternative 7 
Easement/ 
Lower River 
Alternative 9A 
Easement/ 
Leonard Road 
Alternative 9B 
Easement/ 
South River 
Road 
Subtotal Construction 
Engineering and Admin. 
$7,280 
$1,600 
$8,670 
; « $1,910 
f $5,520 
51,060 
$5,600 
$1,160 
& 5 1 0 
$1,150 
Total Project Cost W » $10,580 $6,580 $6,760 $6,660 
Present Worth O&M $6,870 $7.320 $2,710 $2,710 $2,710 
Total Present Worth $15,750 $17,900 $9,280 
* 
$9,370 
(!) Present worth based on 6 percent interest for 22 years. 
For each of the conveyance alternatives, the City of Grants Pass omitted charging the District 
connection charge or System Development Charge (SDC) for treatment at the City's plant. 
However, even if the City had charged a fee, it would not change the least cost alternative. 
As an, example, if the City were to charge District customers the SDC currently collected by the 
District for new developments ($1,966 per ERtJ), approximately four million dollars would be 
added to the capital and present worth cost of each conveyance alternative. For Alternatives 7, 
9A, and 9B the present worth cost would be $13,28, $13.47, and $13.37 million, respectively. 
In comparison, the present worth cost of Treatment Alternatives 1 and 4 are $15.75 and 
$17.9 million, respectively, which are considerably greater. Still, the least cost would be any 
of the conveyance alternatives. 
The next step in the evaluation of these alternatives was to develop a matrix of selection criteria. 
To help determine the preferred alternative, a list of 22 selection criteria were chosen and then 
grouped into four categories: Cost Issues, Environmental Issues, Community Issues, and 
Operation Issues. Two Josephine County representatives, six City of Grants Pass 
representatives, and! the City's attorney made up the committee that ranked each alternative for 
each of the selection criteria. Through consensus of the participants, the two alternatives 
(Alternatives 7 and 9B) were then selected as the best alternatives. 
These two alternatives were then presented to the Grants Pass City Council, acting as the 
governing Board for the District, to make their preferred alternative selection. After careful 
deliberation, the Council selected Treatment Alternative 9B - Easement7South River Road as the 
preferred alternative. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Ban Update 27-2192-0$ 
Josephine County " ÈS-9 Revised November J999 
00,831 
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 
The preferred Treatment Alternative 9B - Easement/South River Road consists of the following 
components which are shown in Figure 1: 
• Retrofit the Redwood WWTP influent pump station (RI-0) into a 0.4 mgd 
capacity submersible pump station and construct a 6-inch force main to RI-25 
which would follow the existing interceptor easement route. 
• Construct a new pump station north of Darneille Lane (near manhole RI-25) with 
a capacity of 4.2 mgd and dual 12-inch force mains which would follow South 
River Road then Leonard Road to the intersection of Leonard Road and Dowell 
Road. From there, the force mains would generally follow the existing 
interceptor easement route to the south end of the proposed new pedestrian 
bridge. 
• Attach a single 14-inch force main to the proposed Rogue River pedestrian bridge 
to be located north of the Josephine County Fairgrounds. 
• Construct dual 12-inch force mains from the north end of the proposed pedestrian 
bridge to the Grants Pass WRP. 
To construct this alternative, the total project cost is estimated at $6.7 million. A project 
schedule to implement this treatment alternative was developed and is shown on Figure 2. The 
new pump stations and force mains could be operational by mid-October 2000. This is also the 
projected completion date for the new pedestrian bridge. 
FINANCING PLAN 
: l i i project funding scenarios ware evaluated to determine the best way for the Districtil 
finance this $6.7 million project. After reviewing several scenarios, a preferred alternative was 
selected. This alternative is to fund the project with approximately $5.4 million of State 
Revolving Fund (SRF) loan money and approximately $1.3 million of available cash from the 
District. The District has an additional $0.7 million cash that will be needed for project 
reserves. With this funding approach, no sewer rates or system development charge increases 
would be necessary in the District in the next several years. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County ES-10 
27-2192-05 
Revised November ¡999 
i 
00(833 
^ 2 = 2 2 2 ¡2 oo ON O •— rS — « m IN m 
« > 
iî a j s 
si o < 
CO 
S = 
E a a> a) n «N ~ <D 
o u t 
Sj ® o 
, 5 > S 2 u. a. a. 
I s da 
cyts 
g s 
I 
I 
£ « 
"I 
9 S 
M Í H . 
SV 
o o r 8 3 4 
i 
• < fe-
l l 
• at 
wmiïÉ&tMtâùi •• v -fevi' 
f ; O i 8 3 5 
• ••••• ^«jfa^W: — — -Il I I . 
Service District 
¿iiate S 
— — -
Parametrix, Inc. 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1 BACKGROUND 
In the late 1960s, the Josephine County Board of Commissioners formed the Redwood Sanitary 
Sewer Service District (District) in an area 4.8 miles southwest of Grants Pass, Oregon 
(Figure 1-1). The Commissioners' action resulted from a publication ("Engineering Report on 
a Preliminary Study of Sewage Collection and Waste Treatment Facilities for the Redwood 
Avenue Area") completed by the County in 1966. 
In 1977-78, the District constructed a wastewater collection system and treatment facility in the 
service district to discharge treated wastewater to the Rogue River. Since 1978, only minor 
additions to the collection system have been made, and the treatment facility has also had only 
minor changes, except for the addition (in 1988) of a biosolids composting facility, located 
adjacent to the plant. 
In June 1992, Josephine County executed an agreement with Parametrix, Inc. to prepare a 
Wastewater Facilities Plan for the District. This action was prompted by a condition in the 
District's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Waste Discharge Permit. 
The NPDES permit stipulated that . . . "As soon as practicable, but not later than two (2) years 
after permit issuance date, the permittee (Districtj shall submit a final facility plan report 
describing growth projections, plant expansion, funding mechanisms, and an implementation 
schedule." 
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) issued Permit Number 100868 on 
March 24, 1992. A copy is included in Appendix A. 
In November 1994, the Wastewater Facilities Plan was completed and submitted for ODEQ 
approval. The Plan recommended that the plant be upgraded and expanded. These actions 
would include the following: construction of a new aeration basin and secondary clarifier; a 
headworks upgrade; the conversion of an existing aeration basin to an aerobic digester; and 
installation of ultraviolet disinfection. 
ODEQ approved this Facilities Plan in July 1995. Following approval, final design of the plant 
upgrade/expansion began. 
In August 1994, neighbors near the treatment plant initiated a court action against the District 
seeking to shut down the biosolids composting portion of the treatment facility. In 1995, the 
Circuit Court for Josephine County (Case No. 94-CV-0209) resolved this complaint in a 
judgment (recorded September5, 1995) against the District requiring that the composting facility 
cease operation. However, the District appealed the judgment. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 1-1 April 1999 
O C K 8 3 6 
« 
û 
o o 
<D 
U> 
® 
O 
(O 
>. 
o co 
(O 
<8 
» " O c r 0 5 ® O Ä c 5 O 
3» "O "a S>® c u. cc «j 
£ 
50. 
IS 3 o 
IJ« ? Já ac* 
O p t 8 3 7 
Meanwhile, in fall of 1995, the final design of the plant upgrade/expansion was proceeding. In 
February 1996, a fifty percent complete design review meeting was scheduled; however, at the 
meeting, instead of reviewing the fifty percent complete design, ODEQ informed the District 
that approval of the Wastewater Facilities Plan was not possible at this time. This action was 
prompted by ODEQ's concern for a proposed mass load increase in the Facilities Plan. Having 
revisited the proposed increase (prior to the meeting), ODEQ believed additional studies were 
necessary to support approval of the increase rather than their original belief that the plan could 
be approved without these studies. Based on this decision, the upgrade/expansion design of a 
Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant (Redwood WWTP) was stopped. 
In 1996, Parametrix completed fbf the District the Biosolids Treatment Evaluation that reviewed 
biosolids treatment options that could be implemented at the treatment plant if the composting 
operation were to be closed. In 1997, Parametrix prepared a Mass Load Increase Evaluation 
Report to document for ODEQ the District's required mass load increase case. Final design 
work was stopped pending the outcome of the District's appeal on compost operation closure and 
pending ODEQ's approval of the District's request for a mass load increase for their treatment 
plant and then reapproval of their Facilities Plan. 
In the fall of 1998, the District's appeal was denied and compost operation was ordered to close 
by October 1999. The District's mass load increase request remains to be reviewed and 
approved by ODEQ, 
1.2 AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE 
One of the alternatives investigated in the original facilities planning process was abandonment 
of the existing Redwood WWTP and wastewater conveyance to the City of Grants Pass Water 
Restoration Plant (WRP). (This alternative was evaluated in a separate report entitled, 
*Feasibility Analysis, Wastewater Conveyance to City of Grants Pass Wastewater Treatment 
Plants prepared by Parametrix, Inc. and dated June 1994.) This concept was not considered 
feasible at that time because it was more costly than upgrading/expanding the Redwood WWTP. 
Because composting is no longer permitted at the Redwood WWTP site, a completely new 
biosolids treatment and disposal process needs to be included in the Redwood WWTP upgrade/ 
expansion cost and estimates. Addition of a new biosolids facility to the Redwood WWTP 
increases the cost of the WWTP upgrade/expansion alternative substantially. It now appears that 
the preferred alternative may be to abandon the Redwood WWTP and convey all wastewater to 
the City of Grants Pass WRP. Abandonment of the Redwood WWTP and conveyance of the 
wastewater to the City of Grants Pass WRP would likely become the least cost alternative and 
the best alternative to implement. 
The purpose of this report is to update the Wastewater Facilities Plan for the District and 
reevaluate the cost of a conveyance alternative compared to the cost to upgrade/expand the 
existing Redwood WWTP. The conveyance alternative would include abandonment of the 
existing Redwood WWTP and construction of a new sewer force main and pump station system 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 1-3 Revised November 1999 
o r 8 3 8 
to convey wastewater to the City of Grants Pass WRP. This system would generally consist of 
two pump stations and pipelines as originally identified in the above-stated 1994 "Feasibility 
Analysis" report as "Alternative 3D." 
The purpose of this report is to also present a detailed predesign study of the preferred 
alternative to clearly identify and resolve any and all potential predesign issues. 
1.3 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS 
During the engineering analysis conducted in this study and during preparation of this document, 
the following studies and reports were used. 
% Parametrix, Inc., August 1997. MassLoadlncreOseEvaluationReport. Sumner, 
Washington 
• Parametrix, Inc., October 1996. Biosolids Treatment Evaluation. Sumner, 
Washington 
• Parametrix, Inc., January 1996. Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant 
Improvements. Redwood Sanitary Sewer District, Josephine County, Oregon. 
• Parametrix, Inc., November 1994. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District 
Wastewater Facilities Plan. Sumner, Washington. 
• Parametrix, Inc., November 1992. Report - Task I Priority Engineering/ 
Financial Analysis. Sumner, Washington. 
• CH2M, June 1996. Engineering Report on a Preliminary Study of Sewage 
Collection and Waste Treatment Facilities for the Redwood Avenue Area. 
• CH2M, February 23, 1970. Letter to Josephine County Board of County 
Commissioners regarding Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District. 
• CH2M, July 1976. Contract documents for the Construction on the Redwood 
Sanitary Sewer Service District Wastewater Collection System and Treatment 
Plant. 
• ADS Environmental Service, 1993. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District 
Assessment of I/I for Facility Planning for Josephine County, Oregon. 
• Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant, 1989-1993. Daily Monitoring Report 
Forms and Wastewater Flow Chart. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 1-4 April 1999 
0 0 C 8 3 9 
• Brown and Caldweü, December 1992. Facilities Plan, City of Grants Pass -
Water Restoration Plant. 
• Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District, 1989. Sludge Management Plan. 
Josephine County, Oregon. 
• Preliminary Feasibility Report for a Yard and Wood Waste Recycling Program 
in Josephine County, Oregon, 1990. 
• Federal Emergency Management Agency, June 1982. Floodway-Flood Boundary 
and Floodway Map, Panel 217 of 500. Josephine County, Oregon. 
• Josephine County Public Works, July 1985. Redwood Service District, Sanitary 
Sewer Collection System Map. 
1.4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
The authors gratefully acknowledge the courtesy and assistance received from the Josephine 
County Public Works staff and the entire staff of the City of Grants Pass who provided 
information essential to the preparation of this report. They also acknowledge the assistance 
received from the District's staff, particularly the treatment plant operators. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 2 6 1-S 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
í^dP^1'-- '/.it M r - ' • 
k --M* m 
Parametrïx, Inc. 
2. SERVICE AREA 
2.1 INTRODUCTION 
Service area characteristics strongly influence the quantity and quality of the wastewater 
generated in that area. Physical characteristics such as the extent of precipitation and 
groundwater influence the quantity of wastewater requiring treatment, and they influence the 
concentration of pollutants in the wastewater. 
Land uses and the types of customers in a service area also influence the type and quantity of 
pollutants in the wastewater. Socioeconomic factors can not only determine whether a service 
area requires expansion to serve additional area and customers, but also when that expansion 
should occur. 
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF AREA 
The District's service area encompasses approximately 3,480 acres, or 5.4 square miles (Figure 
2-1). 
The service area lies south of the Rogue River, west of Allen Creek, north of the South Highline 
Canal of the Grants Pass Irrigation District, and east of Rounds Avenue. The service area also 
includes the Rogue Community College campus, which lies southwest of this general area and 
south of the Redwood Highway. 
In the same drainage basin as the service area but to the south and west are an additional 3,000 
acres, or approximately 4.7 square miles. This area does not have sewer service at present and 
service is not expected in the foreseeable future. The region is not part of the service area at 
this time. 
In addition to the service area boundary shown on Figure 2-1, two other boundaries can be 
found on this figure. Josephine County's Planning Department Urban Growth Boundary Limits 
are also shown as is the service area of the existing wastewater collection system. This latter 
boundary defines the area of the original assessment district. In 1977, properties within this area 
were assessed to finance the original wastewater collection system and treatment plant built in 
1977-78. 
2.3 TOPOGRAPHY 
The District lies in the Rogue River Valley, a broad and relatively flat valley that slopes an 
average of 1 to 2 percent towards the River. Elevations within the district range between 880 
and 1,000 feet above mean sea level. The Rogue River traverses the valley in a general east-
west direction with an average gradient of 6 feet per mile. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 2-1 Aprii j 999 
8 4 2 

2.4 PRECIPITATION 
The nearest National Océanographie and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) station to the 
District is located in the City of Grants Pass. This station records daily rainfall and temperature 
data; it also, stores the data gathered for over 90 years. Annual precipitation rates at this station 
during the past 13 years appear in Figure 2-2; they indicate that nearly 75 percent of the annual 
rainfall occurs between November and March of each year (Figure 2-3). 
Additionally, historical data evaluated by NOAA shows what the following statistical storm 
events occurring in the Grants Pass area will generate in inches of precipitation: 
These data are provided to help evaluate wastewater flows in the collection system during storm 
events. 
2.5 GRANTS PASS IRRIGATION DISTRICT 
The District is located within the Grants Pass Irrigation District. This is significant because the 
irrigation district annually floods the irrigation canals within the sewer district, and this action 
affects local groundwater levels. 
The Grants Pass Irrigation District was formed in the early 1920s to supply irrigation water to 
land located between the town of Rogue River and the confluence of the Applegate and Rogue 
Rivers. Currently, about 7,700 acres of agricultural and residential lands are irrigated. The 
irrigation district has water rights to divert up to 150 cfs from the Rogue River during the 
irrigation season, which normally falls between April 15 and October 1 of each year. 
During this time, canals constructed by the irrigation district are flooded with water from the 
Savage Rapids Dam. Many sewer service area residents use the canal water to irrigate their land 
and garden areas. The canals also convey stormwater away from these adjacent lands, 
The net effect of these irrigation practices is to significantly raise the groundwater table in the 
area of the canals; however, the extent of any irrigation impacts on the groundwater table is not 
defined. Generally, the groundwater table in this area is higher than normal during the irrigation 
season. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Flan Update 27-2192-OS 
Josephine County 2-3 April 1999 
2-year, 24-hour 
5-year, 24-hour 
10-year, 24-hour 
25-year, 24-hour 
50-year, 24-hour 
100-year, 24-hour 
3 inches 
3.5 inches 
4 inches 
5 inches 
5.5 inches 
6 inches 
• 
•
I 
80 1 81 1 82 1 83 1 84 ' 85 1 86 1 87 1 88 1 89 1 90 1 91 1 92 
Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plani 
#27-2192-05 2/09 Figure 2-2 
Yearly Average 
Precipitation 
JAN 1 FEB ' MAR ' APR 1 MAY1 JUN 1 JULY1 AUG 1 SEP 7 OCT1 NOV1 DEC 
•ood Wastewater Treatment Plant 
92-05 2/99 NOTE: MONTHLY AVERAGE PRECIPITATION BASED ON 
NOAA (NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC & ATMOSPHERIC 
ADMINISTRATION) RECORDS FROM 1980 TO 1992 
Figure 2-3 
Monthly Average 
Precipitation 
o c r s 
2.6 LAND USE 
The District currently consists of predominately single- and multi-family residential homes and 
agricultural land use. Such land use is consistent with current land use planning documents 
within the area. Therefore, no change in land use is anticipated other than the continued 
development of single- and multi-family residential units. 
2.7 EXISTING POPULATION 
The current population served by the Redwood wastewater collection system is estimated at 
4,905 (October 1998). This figure was calculated using the number of equivalent residential 
unite (ERUs) or single-family dwelling units served and the average number of persons per 
residential unit. 
Since its origination, the District has issued sewer permits for approximately 2,027 equivalent 
residential units as of October 1998. This figure is based on a review of all sewer permits 
issued. It also includes the Rogue Community College, which was assigned 48 ERUs based on 
one ERU per 18 fixture units. 
Based on census data from the Josephine County Planning Department for the Redwood District 
area, the average number of persons per residential unit in the District is 2.42. 
2.8 POPULATION PROJECTIONS 
To estimate future wastewater loads and flow, population projections in the Redwood District 
service area were developed through a planning period ending 2020 (Figure 2-4). Also, 
projections of ERUs in the service area were developed using 2.42 persons per residential unit. 
Population and ERU projections for four scenarios were made, based on the following varying 
growths: 
The District's Estimate - The District's estimate has been based on two criteria: (1) the 
number of new sewer connections made each year for the last 11 years was evaluated, 
and (2) the increase in student enrollment in School District No. 7 over the last several 
years was evaluated. Data on these criteria appear in Appendix B. The average increase 
in sewer connections was 5.4 percent each year. "Die average increase in school 
enrollment since 1993 was calculated at 3.9 percent each year. The District's population 
estimate was based on an average of these two numbers, or 4.9 percent each year. 
Josephine County Planning Department Estimate ~ In response to comments in a 
December 10, 1998, letter from the ODEQ to William Peterson of the City of Grants 
Pass regarding the District's growth rate, the County Planning Department developed its 
own population growth estimate for the District. A copy of the County's estimate 
worksheet is included in Appendix B. This estimate, based on GIS records documenting 
the number of new homes in the District, projected growth at 3.41 percent per year. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 2-1 Aprii j 999 
8 4 6 
c o 
'•5 w 
m a o 
Q. 
15000 
10000 
20000 
1.5% Growth 
Rate 
3.1% Growth 
Rate 
5.9% Growth 
Rate 
Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant 
#27-2192-05 02/99 Figure 2-4 
Redwood District 
Population Projections 
Although this estimate includes the entire District area, not just the sewered area, it 
should accurately represent the District's growth based on GIS records. 
City of Grants Pass Comprehensive Plan Estimate - Although the City's 
comprehensive plan does not evaluate growth projections specific to the District, it docs 
contain projections i • the urban growth area (UGA). According to the City's 1992 
Comprehensive Plan, the;city's population growth for 1980 to 1990 was 1.5 percent each 
year. The plan's population growth projection to year 2010 was 1.5 percent per year for 
the UGA and 1.4 percent for the existing city limits. Approximately one-half of the 
Redwood District is included in the UGA. 
State of'Oregon Estimate - The State set the County's population growth rate at 1.0 
percent per year for the years from 2000 to 2020. The County and City are obligated 
to use this number for planning or they need to formally appeal to the State to change 
the estimate. According to Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development 
(Griffin 1998 Personal Communication), 1.0 percent per year growth is to be used as a 
county wide average. If plans for one area Of the County are based on a growth rate 
greater than 1.0 percent, then growth must be reduced from somewhere else in the 
County. ODEQ has stated that before the District can proceed with the Wastewater 
Facility Plan, the City and County need to agree on a District growth rate. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 2 6 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
The historical district growth since 1987 is tabulated in Table 2-1, and these data indicate that 
recent growth in the district has been significantly greater than the other estimates quoted above. 
Therefore the high-growth scenario, or the recent rate of sewer connections, could probably not 
be sustained over a long planning period. In addition, since a good portion of the population 
served is made up of retired persons, the rate of student population growth in the school district 
may not be indicative of increases in sewered population. 
Conclusion 
Because the City Comprehensive Plan and the District estimates are not specifically targeted to 
population growth in the District, the County estimate would probably be the best population 
predictor available. In January 1999, City and County representatives agreed to use a value of 
3,1 percent growth rate per year. 
1 
Table 2-1 
Historical Growth 
Year Annual Increased ERUs 
Annual Percent 
Increase Total ERUs 
1987 — — 1,083 
1988 53 4.9% 1,136 
1989 57 5.0% 1.193 
1990 75 6.3% 1,268 
1991 62 4.9% 1,330 
1992 140 10.5% 1,470 
1993 126 8.6% 1,596 
1994 119 7.5% 1,715 
1995 92 5.4% 1,807 
1996 132 7.3% 1,939 
1997 63 3.2% 2,002 
1998 1 1.3% 2,027 
Average Growth Rate - 5.9% 
NOTE: Table based on information from Josephine County 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Ban Update 27-2192-0$ 
Josephine County " ÈS-9 Revised November J999 
0 0 , 8 4 8 

3. EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM 
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES •:jp"-' ' ' -i|l "'nfif- * 
In 1977-78, the District constructed a wastewater collection system and treatment facility. The 
collection system when completed, consisted of approximately 16.2 miles of concrete sewers 
ranging from 8 to 27 inches in diameter. Specifically, the sewers built consisted of the 
following Components (Table 3-1); 
Table 3-1 
As-built Components of the District's 
Existing Wastewater Collection System0' 
Component Interceptor System® Collection System® 
Manholes 
8-inch sewer 
10-inch sewer 
; sewer 
18-inch sewer 
24-ioch sewer 
. 143 
2,606/ft. 
10,041/ft. 
12,315/ft. 
5,076/ft. 
SiPift. 
. i i Ä f c 
132 
37,825/ft. 
Tab 302 and Tab 310, September (1> As shown in the fi 
Ä -, ' . . . . . 
m As identified by either Schedule I Interceptor System ór Schedule C - Collection System in Contract Documents 
Since 1978, the only changes and modifications that have been made to the system added 
approximately 16,800 feet of mostly 8-inch-diameter PVC sewers. These sewers were added 
to serve new residential housing developments. 
Also since then, some existing homes in the District, which were not originally connected to the 
sewer system, have been added. As of October 1998, with these new connections and the 
original system connections, the system now serves an estimated service population of 4,905. 
The existing wastewater collection system serves residential units almost exclusively. 
Essentially, no industry discharges to the system. A collection system layout, showing pipeline 
routes and manholes, is provided in Figure 3-1. 
3.2 MOST RECENT FLOW MONITORING 
Since 1978, only flow monitoring in the wastewater collection system has been performed at the 
wastewater treatment plant. These data were collected by the plant effluent flow meter and 
recorder (Appendix B). These flow data are presented later in this report. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 2 6 3-1 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
OOC 8 5 0 

To better assess the conditions for the wastewater collection system, more detailed flow 
monitoring was conducted. In September, October, and December 1992 and January 1993, 
continuous wastewater flow was measured in three different manholes of the collection system. 
ADS Environmental Services, Inc. measured these flows. 
Hie flow measurements assessed the wastewater collection system inflow and infiltration (I&I) 
conditions. On each occasion, flow was measured during different groundwater and rainfall 
parameters. Differences in the observed wastewater flows could then be used to identify general 
infiltration and inflow sources to the collection system. 
Generally, flow measurements at each occasion were made to assess the following conditions. 
In September 1992, flow was monitored because it was anticipated that rainfall would be 
unlikely and that die groundwater level in the service area would be high due to irrigation 
and canal leakage. The impact of groundwater infiltration into the collection system 
could then be assessed. 
In October 1992, wastewater flows were also measured because rainfall was unlikely and 
groundwater levels were expected to be low. At this time, irrigation had been stopped 
for about 30 days; the canals were dry, and the groundwater levels had probably 
dropped. Wastewater flows at this time would most likely indicate the base sewage flow 
in the system unaffected by infiltration and inflow. 
Although it was believed that October 1992 would have little or no rainfall during the 
flow monitoring period, this did not occur. In fact, a severe rainstorm affected the later 
stages of the flow measurement. Specifically, rain began on October 28 and continued 
through the remaining flow monitoring days. Comparing these data to the historical 
rainfall data presented in Section 2.4 indicates that this storm was less than a 2-year, 24-
.ÄOür storm event. The rainfall during this period is shown in Table 3-2. 
Table 3-2 
During Blow Monitoring Period 
October 24-27 
October 28 
October 29 
October 30 
October 31 
(Inches) 
0.00 
0.02 
0.06 
1.48 
0.66 
From December 1992 to January 1993, flow was monitored because it was anticipated 
that rainfall would be high and the impact of inflow into the collection system could then 
be assessed. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 3-3 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
<>. 8 5 2 
During this flow monitoring, significant rainfall events did, in fact, occur. The seven-
day period with the most precipitation was selected for inflow analysis. The rainfall 
during this period is shown in Table 3-3. 
Table 3-3 
Rainfall During flow Monitoring Period 
1992-1993 Rainfall (laches) 
December 27 0.73 
December 28 IM 
(177 VtLtaiDtl 
December 30 043 
December 31 p e 
January. 1 0.28 
January 2 0.04 
The three manholes chosen to measure flow in the collection system were selected so as to 
i ^ 0 thirds. This approach could then identify the condition(s) in 
particular portions of the system, if possible. 
Flow in each manhole represents roughly the following: 
Manhole RI-48 - Flow measured at point furthest from the treatment plant to represent 
roughly one-third of the collection system. 
Manhole RI-26 - Flow measured at a point representing roughly two-thirds of the system. 
Manhole RI-5 - Flow, measured at a point in the collection system closest to the 
treatment plant, represents roughly the entire system. 
The 
in each 
ADS 
results are shown in Figures 3 - ^ $ ^ a n d 3-4. Flows 
are shown separately. The complete data files appear in the 
| Inc. report, 
1993. 
* 
Redwood Wastewater FadMa Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 3-4 April 1999 
O O L 8 5 3 
i « ! 
Friday 
09/18/92 
Saturday 
09/19/92 
Sunday 
09/20/92 
Monday 
09/21/92 
Tuesday 
09/22/92 
Wednesday 
09/23/92 
TJ 
o> 
E 
0 0 < j 8 5 4 
Figure 3-2 
Flow Monitoring Results 
Manhole RI-48 
1.00 
.Thursday 
1 09/17/92 
Ì Sunday 10/25/92 
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 
10/26/92 10/27/92 10/28/92 10/29/92 10/30/92 
Saturday 
10/31/92 
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 
12/27/92 12/28/92 12/29/92 12/30/92 12/31/93 01/01/93 01/02/93 
w 
Saturday 
09/19/92 
Sunday 
09/20/92 
Figure 3-3 
Flow Monitoring Results 
Manhole RI-26 
0 0 < j 8 5 5 
•o 
CD 
E 
1.00 
-Thursday 
• 09/17/92 
. Sunday 
8 10/25/92 
Sunday 
12/27/92 
Friday 
09/18/92 
Monday 
10/26/92 
Monday 
12/28/92 
Tuesday Wednesday 
10/27/92 10/28/92 
Tuesday Wednesday 
12/29/92 12/30/92 
Monday 
09/21/92 
Thursday 
10/29/92 
Thursday 
12/31/93 
Tuesday 
09/22/92 
Friday 
10/30/92 
Friday 
01/01/93 
Wednesday 
09/23/92 
Saturday 
10/31/92 
Saturday 
01/02/93 
2,00 
9" 
Dl 
£ 
e ffi •3 a 
H i 
PHP 
.Thursday 
1 09/17/92 
Sunday 
10/25/92 
Sunday 
12/27/92 
Friday 
09/18/92 
Monday 
10/26/92 
Monday 
12/28/92 
Saturday 
09/19/92 
Tuesday 
10/27/92 
Tuesday 
12/29/92 
Sunday 
09/20/92 
Wednesday 
10/28/92 
Wednesday 
12/30/92 
Monday 
09/21/92 
Thursday 
10/29/92 
Thursday 
12/31/93 
Tuesday 
09/22/92 
Friday 
10/30/92 
Friday 
01/01/93 
Wednesday 
09/23/92 
Saturday 
10/31/92 
Saturday 
01/02/93 
ood Wasiewaier Treatment Plant 
#27-2102-05 02/99 
Figure 3-4 
Flow Monitoring Results 
Manhole RÍ-5 
O O C 8 5 6 
3.3 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ASSESSMENT 
3.3.1 Infiltration 
The difference in flow measured at each manhole during September and October is significant, 
particularly at Manholes RI-26 and RI-5. It likely indicates that groundwater infiltrates into the 
collection system dining the irrigation season and during extended rainfall events. This is 
apparent, based on the following observations: 
• Tfce lowest flows measured between 3:00 and 5:00 a.m. at Manhole RI-48 
changed from ±0.13 mgd in September to ±0.06 mgd in October. The October 
flows probably represent a base flow without infiltration. The September flows 
probably represent flow with infiltration. Since the September flows are double 
the October flows, the difference is probably only infiltration from high 
groundwater conditions owing to irrigation. 
» Plows measured at Manhole RI-26 were consistently almost 0.10 mgd higher in 
September than in the first four days of October flow measurement. Flow 
conditions at this point "in the system were significantly affected by the high 
groundwater conditions in September, but not by rainfall, since no rainfall 
occur*®! until October 28. The 0.10 mgd difference in flow is therefore probably 
due to infiltration into the collection system. 
• Flows measured at Manhole RI-5 were consistently almost 0.20 mgd higher in 
September than in the first four days, of October flow measurement. As with 
Manhole RI-26* flotf conditions af Maijhole RI-5 were also significantly affected 
by the high .groundwater conditions in September. The 0.20 mgd difference in 
flow is probably attributable to infiltration. 
• During the latter days of October, flow measurements increased as a result of 
rainfall (October 28 to October 31). Flow increased appreciably on October 30, 
the highest rainfall event. Groundwater levels were presumably rising during 
each day of rainfall. This resulted in October flow measurements approaching 
September measurements during October 30 and 31, These flows resulted from 
infiltration of groundwater into the collection system. 
Collection system initiation is significant. Flo^iyieasurements to date indicate that infiltration 
into the collection system may amount to as much as 0.20 mgd during the highest groundwater 
levels. Highest groundwater levels occur either during the irrigation season (summer) becausc 
of irrigation and canal leakage, or during the winter rainy season. Low groundwater levels may 
occur only during the spring, before irrigation, or the fall, after irrigation ends but before 
significant rainfall occurs. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-4)5 
Josephine County 4-3 April 1999 
0 0 C 8 5 7 
3.3.2 Inflow 
The difference in flow measured at each manhole during October and December/January is also 
significant. Substantial differences occurred at all three manholes, likely indicating inflow into 
the collection system during prolonged heavy rainfall. 
Figure 3-5 présents October, December, and January flow measurements at Manhole RI-5 and 
the daily rainfall records. Generally, the greater the daily rainfall, the greater the daily flow 
measurements. Inflow into the collection system is also significant. 
Rainfall increased wastewater flow at all three manholes. All three portions of the collection 
system appear to be equally impacted by rainfall. 
3.4 COLLECTION SYSTEM CONDITIONS 
3.4.1 Non-Excessive I&I Definition 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a publication entitled, I&I Analysis and 
Project Certification dated May 1985 (EPA 1985), sets numerical limits for both non-excessive 
infiltration and inflow based on results of national surveys of sewerage agencies. 
The EPA criteria for non-excéssive I&I are as follows: 
• If the average daily flow per capita (excluding major industrial and commercial 
flows greater than 50,000 gpd each) measured during 7- to 14-day dry periods 
during seasonal high groundwater is less than 120 gallons per capita day (gpcd), 
the collection system infiltration shall be considered non-excessive. 
The EPA criteria: for determining non-excessive infiltration includes the following 
flow components; 
a. 70 gpcd is considered the domestic wastewater base flow. 
b. 50 gpcd is considered the non-excessive infiltration flow. 
The total flow standard of 120 gpcd is based upon these two components. 
• If the average daily flow per capita (excluding major industrial and commercial 
«flows greater than 50,000 gpd each) measured during periods of significant 
rainfall during which the treatment plant does not experience hydraulic overloads 
is less than 275 gpcd, the collection system inflow shall be considered non-
excessive. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 3-9 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
ï^ rwjfieîK-itâi; 
{R)i|3UtU(Hte.«¡íia 
1| 
Ss 
i l 
f i 
« 
I? 
§ 
»s 
ÎI 
ï*< 
II 
P 
I? 
¿I 
U »E 
Se s 
E 
II II 
S| 
II 
s* 
II 
Is 
fS E| 
P 
II 
£ 
CO <D 
l | 
IS* 
cb o .E £ 
t? I l 
0)0 ^ ro 
tZ tu <oS 
||8 
II 
O O C 8 5 9 
The EPA criteria for determining non-excessive inflow includes the following two 
flow components: 
a. 70 gpcd is considered the base domestic wastewater flow. 
b, 205 gpcd is considered the level of non-excessive inflow flow. 5». . iij. ..... . „ ? •• - =p . ft • ,. 11 "" ' «n' - * 
S - ; If ^ "S J * % . -^srvvr- * The total flow standard of 275 gpcd is based upon these two components. 
. . • - . • ' ¿ w - •• - • •« *  •• -
If excessive infiltration and/or inflow is determined, further studies must quantify the excesses 
and evaluate corrective measures. Using the results of these studies, the most cost-effective 
solution is then selected. Possible solutions could include a sewer rehabilitation program, sizing 
of the treatment plant to handle inflow and infiltration, or some combination of these two 
approaches. 
3.4.2 Comparison to Measured Flows 
Infiltration 
During September 1992, the measured seven-day average daily flow at Manhole RI-5 was 0.464 
mgd. If the population served by the plant at that time was 3,775, this flow equates to 122 gpcd 
and is greater than the EPA 120 gpcd criteria. 
It is greater than the criteria, however, only by 2 gpcd. At less than two percent of the 
standard^ it is doubtful whether EPA would conclude the Redwood sanitary sewage collection 
system has excessive infiltration. 
Inflow 
The highest measured instantaneous flow occurred during December/January at Manhole RI-5 
(1.86 mgd) where average daily flow was 1.07 mgd. This flow occurred on December 31, 
1992 
The highest measured flow equates to 493 gpcd and the average daily flow eqdafes to 283 gpcd 
using a service area population of 3,775. Both of these values are more than the EPA criteria 
for excessive inflow. The District's sanitary sewer does appear to have excessive inflow based 
on these data, particularly if rainfall on this date (of the highest measured flow) is considered. 
Even though highest instantaneous flows occurred on December 31, 1992, only 1.73 inches of 
rainfall was measured. This is not a significant event. The 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event is 3.0 
inches (Section 2.4), almost twice the rainfall on December 31, 1992. Had the rainfall been 
greater, undoubtedly the average daily flow at the plant would have been higher. 
.... . ••• \ A l ' * ' : • ¿K^ . -•-- : " " V •iW ¿v- j _ ... . .Tp; . ,. 
Historical plant flow records report flow exceeding 275 gpcd twice during the last five years of 
data; however, these data were recorded by an old flow meter. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 3-11 April 1999 
OGC86O 
because (1) evidence 
excessive; and (2) we 
ollection systems, the 
rreeting infiltration is 
We recommend that the District establish an I&I correc 
indicates that inflow is excessive, whereas infiltration is 01 
understand that the State of Oregon has an understanding u 
that if inflow problems are addressed and corrected in 
infiltration problems, unless severe, do not require coi 
generally not cost-effective. 
3.5 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW RECOMMENDATION 
The collection system exceeded EPA criteria for both I&I during the flow m 
The infiltration criteria was exceeded by only a modest amount, 2 gpcd over 
However, the inflow criteria were exceeded during an event less than a 2-
event. This requires action(s) to correct inflow. 
3.5.1 Cost 
To correct excessive collection system I&I, it is recommended that the District institute an 
annual I&I reduction program budget. Annual expenditures should be integrated into the 
District's financing for capital improvements and operations and maintenance, 
time another evaluation of I&I hTthe 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 3-12 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
0 0 8 6 1 
Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District 
Josephine County, Oregon 
P a r a m e t r i x , I n c . 
I. 
4. EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM 
4.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 
4.1.1 Description of Facilities 
The existing Redwood WWTP is a conventional activated sludge plant with no primary 
sedimentation (Figure 4-1). The plant is located at the west end of the District's service area 
(see Figure 3-1). 
Located at the plant site are the unit treatment processes, a control/laboratory building, the 
blower/sludge pumping building, and biosolids composting operations. The unit treatment 
processes include the following components: 
• Influent pump station 
• Headworks with comminutor 
• Aeration basin 
• Secondary clarifier 
• Chlorine contact chamber 
• Effluent outlet structure and outfall 
• Aerobic digester 
• Biosolids compost facility 
The wastewater enters the treatment plant at the influent pump station, and is pumped to the 
headworks where the solids and debris are shredded by a comminutor or screened through a 
%-inch opening bar screen. This completes primary treatment at the plant. 
Existing Headworks 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-4)5 
Josephine County 4-3 April 1999 
X.H 363 
PROCESS SCHEMATIC 
SITE PLAN 
Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant 
#27-2192-05 02/99 Figure 4-1 
Process Schematic 
and Site Plan 
BICWER 
BUILDING 
0 0 C 8 6 4 
The mixed liquor from the aeration basin is then transferred to the secondary clarifier where the 
biological floe and other solids are separated from the treated wastewater. 
A portion of the solids (referred to as return activated sludge) collected at the bottom of the 
clarifier are recycled back to the headworks to maintain a sufficient level of microorganisms of 
an optimum age to reduce the organic load in the wastewater. The remaining solids are directed 
to the aerobic digester. 
Secondary Clarifier 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-4)5 
Josephine County 4-3 April 1999 
From the headworks, wastewater is directed to the aeration basin, where it undergoes biological 
treatment which results in activated sludge. Wastewater in the basin is aerated using positive 
displacement blowers situated in the blower building. Coarse bubble diffusers are located on 
three (3) air diffuser pipelines submerged in the tank. The wastewater in the aeration basin is 
referred to as "mixed liquor. " 
Existing Aeration Basin and Control Building 
O Ö C 8 6 5 
The solids are treated further in the aerobic digester before being sent to the compost facility for 
final disposal. Supernatant, the clarified liquid that forms on top of the solids in the digester, 
is sent back to the influent pump station for treatment. 
Existing Aerobic Digester 
Treated wastewater is disinfected with chlorine before discharge to the Rogue River, A contact 
chamber provides the time needed for the chlorine to reduce the potential pathogenic bacteria 
to an acceptable number. The effluent is measured prior to discharge. A weir is used to control 
the level of release and the flow rate. 
The plant treats wastewater which is generated from residential homes. There are no known 
industrial discharges to the system, also, the plant does not accept septage from septic tank 
pumpers. 
A detailed plant capacity analysis included in the 1994 District's Wastewater Facility Plan is 
included in Appendix D. The capacity of each portion of the process was analyzed. The 
facilities are capable of handling a maximum month average flow of 0.6 mgd and a peak hour 
flow of 1.44 mgd. 
4.2 WASTEWATER FLOW AND LOAD 
Before the Redwood WWTP capacity requirements can be determined and wastewater treatment 
alternatives evaluated, existing flow and load needed to be reviewed. The flow/load analysis 
was based on wastewater data collected at the Redwood WWTP from September 1995 to August 
1998. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 4-4 Revised November 1999 
o 
e f " 8 6 6 
The solids are treated further in the aerobic digester before being sent to the compost facility for 
final disposal. Supernatant, the clarified liquid that forms on top of the solids in the digester, 
is sent back to the influent pump station for treatment. 
Existing Aerobic Digester 
Treated wastewater is disinfected with chlorine before discharge to the Rogue River. A contact 
chamber provides the time needed for the chlorine to reduce the potential pathogenic bacteria 
to an acceptable number. The effluent is measured prior to discharge. A weir is used to control 
the level of release and the flow rate. 
The plant treats wastewater which is generated from residential homes. There are no known 
industrial discharges to the system; also, the plant does not accept septage from septic tank 
pumpers. 
A detailed plant capacity analysis included in the 1994 District's Wastewater Facility Plan is 
included in Appendix D. The capacity of each portion of the process was analyzed. The 
facilities are capable of handling a maximum month average flow of 0.6 mgd and a peak hour 
flow of 1.44 mgd. 
4.2 WASTEWATER FLOW AND LOAD 
Before the Redwood WWTP capacity requirements can be determined and wastewater treatment 
alternatives evaluated, existing flow and load needed to be reviewed. The flow/load analysis 
was based on wastewater data collected at the Redwood WWTP from September 1995 to August 
1998. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 4-4 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
4.2.1 Existing Wastewater Flow 
Effluent wastewater flow measurements have been taken at the Redwood WWTP since 1978. 
These measurements are based on the water level measured upstream of a 60° V-notch weir at 
the effluent structure. Average monthly flow values for the last 3 years are shown in 
Figure 4-2. A very thorough flow evaluation, made in 1994 as part of the District's Wastewater 
Facility Plan, is included in Appendix E. 
Based on average flow and peak day flow, a summary table of flow conditions was prepared 
(Table 4-1). 
Table 4-1 
1998 Plant Flow Conditions 
Million Gallons Per Day (mgd) 
Max. Month Max. Week Peak Day Average 
Summer - Dry Weather 0.54 0.58 0.76 0.49 
Winter - Wet Weather 1.16 1.20 1.48 0.63 
1 Animal — — — 0.56 
4.2.2 Existing Wastewater Load 
Influent and effluent wastewater Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended 
Solids (TSS) are measured twice per week to quantify the load of pollutants in the wastewater. 
BOD and TSS are normally measured in mg/L of water. Using the BOD concentration and 
wastewater flow measurements, plant influent pounds of BOD per day were calculated. Three 
years of 30-day average BOD lbs/day calculation results are shown on Figure 4-3. Using 
monthly average and peak day BOD lbs/day, a summary table of BOD load conditions was 
prepared (Table 4-2) from data dated January through December of 1995 to 1998. 
Table 4-2 
1998 Plant BOD Load Conditions (lbs/day) 
Max. Month Max. Week Peak Day Average 
Summer - Dry Weather 1,122 1,345 2,488 716 
Winter - Wet Weather 1,589 1,731 4,428 969 
Annual — — — 843 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 4-5 Revised November 1999 
o o c 8 6 8 
T3 «fi s 
£ 0 
1.400 
1.200 
1.000 
0.800 
0.600 
0.400 
0.200 
0.000 
Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant 
#27 2,92"S2/M Figure 4-2 
Redwood WWTP Average 
Daily Flow/Month 
Q O 
CQ 
Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant «7-2192-os 2m Figure 4-3 
Redwood WWTP 30-Day 
Average BOO 
Using the TSS concentration and wastewater flow measurements, plant influent pounds of TSS 
per day were calculated. Table 4-3 is a summary of TSS load conditions. This table used data 
from January through December of 1995 to 1998 to calculate the maximum month and week, 
peak day and average. 
Table 4-3 
I 1998 Plant TSS Load Conditions (lbs/day) 
Max. Month Max. Week Peak Day Average 
Summer - Dry Weather 1,398 1,576 2,455 930 
Winter - Wet Weather 1,116 1.404 3,473 829 
Annual — — — 879 
4.3 PLANT REGULATORY LIMITATIONS 
The regulatory limitations for the Redwood WWTP are documented in the plant's NPDES 
permit. The effluent limitations in this permit vary by time of year (Table 4-4). In addition, 
the plant flow is limited to an average monthly value of 0.48 mgd. 
| Table 4-4 
Existing Redwood WWTP NPDES Limits 
1 Parameter 
Average Effluent 
Concentrations Monthly Average 
lb/day 
Weekly 
Average 
lb/day 
Daily 
Maximum 
lbs Monthly Weekly 
May 1 - October 31 
BOD 
TSS 
FC* per 100 ml 
20 mg/L 
20 mg/L 
200 
30 mg/L 
30 mg/L 
400 
80 
80 
120 
120 
160 
160 
November 1 - April 30 
BOD 
TSS 
FC* per 100 ml 
30 mg/L 
30 mg/L 
200 
45 mg/L 
45 mg/L 
400 
120 
120 
180 
180 
240 
240 
Other Parameters (year-round) Limitations 
pH 
Average percent removal (BOD & TSS) 
Average dry weather flow to the treatment 
facility 
Must be within the range 6.0 - 9.0 
Must be minimum of 85 percent, monthly 
average 
0.48 mgd 
" Fecal Cotijbrms 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 4-7 Revised November 1999 
'>0*870 
F u t u r e T ^ 
Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District 
Josephine County, Oregon 
P a r a r n e t r i x , i n c . 
INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTER 5 
* 
FUTURE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS 
Since the preparation of the 1994 Redwood Facilities Plan Report, several water quality 
standards have been revised. In 1996, new temperature, bacteria, pH, and dissolved oxygen 
standards were affected. 
For the Facilities Plan Update, these parameters would have been reevaluated in Section 5.3 had 
a treatment plant upgrade been the preferred alternative. Since the outcome of this document 
is to convey the wastewater to Grants Pass WRP and abandon the Redwood WWTP, it is 
immaterial to review the new water quality standards. Therefore, Chapter 5 has been extracted 
from thé 1994 Facilities Plan Report and has not been updated to include these revisions. 
However, changes have been made to wastewater flow and load projections to update them from 
year 2012 to year 2020. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 
0 0 0 8 7 2 
5-1A 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
5. FUTURE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS 
5.1 WASTEWATER FLOW AND LOAD PROJECTIONS 
Regardless of whether the District's future wastewater treatment occurs at the Redwood WWTP 
or the Grants Pass WRP, the District's projected waste stream flow and load had to be 
determined. To determine wastewater treatment capacity needs for the District, the existing 
Redwood WWTP flow, load, and population were analyzed. Based on this analysis, wastewater 
flow/load design criteria for year 2020 were developed for presentation in this section of the 
report. Water conservation measures are also evaluated in this section. 
5.1.1 Flow Projections 
Based on the population projections in Subsection 2.8, and existing flow data presented in 
Subsection 4.1» flows were projected for year 2020 (Table 5-1). Flow projections are based on 
existing wastewater flow plus a typical flow per capita assumed for all future connections. 
Although the existing wastewater flow per capita is relatively high, the per capita flow assumed 
for future connections is typical for newer construction. If new sewer pipes are properly 
installed and inspected, thèse pipes should not allow the amount ofl&I flow the District's sewers 
currently experience. 
Table 5-1 
Wastewater Flow Projections, Year 2020 
1996/1998 2020 
Actual 
(mgd) 
1998 Actual 
(Gal/cap-day) 
Design 
(mgd) 
1998-2020 
(Gal/cap-day) 
Summer, Max. Month 0.54 120 1.01 10Ô 
Winter, Max. Month 1.16 240 1.77 130 
Summer Max. Week 0.58 126 1.10 110 
Winter Max. Week 1.20 254 1.90 150 
Summer, Peak Day 0.76 157 1.42 140 
Winter, Peak Day 1.48 364 2.77 275 
Summer Average 0.49 99 0.89 85 
Winter Average 0.63 129 1.22 125 
Annual Average 0.56 114 1.05 105 
Projected flows were developed based on the following assumptions: 
Future flows for maximum month during the summer dry weather were calculated 
using the current maximum month dry weather flow (MMDWF) of 0.59 mgd and 
adding 100 gallons/person/day for future population. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 5-1 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
• Future flows for maximum month during the winter wet weather were calculated 
using the current MMWWF of 1.18 mgd and adding 130 gallons/person/day for 
future population. 
Projected flows for summer and winter conditions aré shown on Figure 5-1. 
5.1.2 Impact of Water Conservation 
In recent years, two factors have influenced Americans' water use habits. This has included, 
on one hand, drought-stricken communities restricting the use of potable water and/or escalating 
water rates in response to increased regulations to protect public health. The District can be 
impacted by both factors in the future. 
To evaluate any potential impacts, it is necessary to review where potable water is used, the 
source of water into the sanitary system, and the Redwood WWTP design criteria. A large 
portion of the potable water is used for irrigation, and this water does not enter the wastewater 
system. Additionally, a significant part of the wastewater flow is inflow and infiltration and this 
is not impacted by water conservation. 
The treatment plant design criteria are based on a number of conditions, both hydraulic and 
organic loads, which occur at different times of the year. Organic loading will not be impacted 
by water conservation. A reduction in wastewater flows does not significantly impact peak flows 
which are highly influenced by inflow and infiltration into the system. 
In the western United States, water conservation programs have been implemented in California 
and Seattle due to drought conditions. California conservation efforts (Table 5-2) had the 
following results: 
Table 5-2 
Water Conservation Efforts vs. Sewer Flow 
Location Reduction in Water Demand 
(%) 
Reduction in Sewer Flows 
(%) 
Marin County 20 to 60 15 to 40 
Santa Barbara 37 34 
Santa Clara 19 17 
An equal wastewater flow reduction cannot be expected in the District because of inflow and 
infiltration. In these California communities inflow and infiltration was negligible; therefore, 
the conservation measures had a greater impact on wastewater flows. In the District, inflow and 
infiltration make a much larger contribution to total wastewater flow. 
A more relevant example of water conservation's effect on wastewater flows can be seen in 
Seattle from 1991 to 1992. The Seattle Water Department, which imposed water restrictions 
for the first time in almost 40 years, witnessed a 17 percent reduction in total system water 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-2 April 1999 
000899 
Year 
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 
Year 
Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant 
#27-2192-05 2/99 _ . 
Figure 5-1 
Wastewater Flow Projections 
1.5 
1 
0.5 
0 
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 
OCX 8 7 5 
demand between 1991 and 1992. The summer demand in the three highest consumption months 
was reduced by a dramatic 33 percent. The sewage flow into Metro's West Point treatment 
plant, however, dropped only 5.8 percent during dry-weather flow. During winter months, 
water consumption dropped only 8 percent. This reduction in winter water usage did not appear 
to have a significant impact on the sewage treatment plant flow or operation. 
Our review suggests that the District could anticipate a reduction in wastewater flows up to 
10 percent annually if an aggressive water conservation program was instituted. To institute 
such a conservation program requires individual water meters, which the District lacks. 
The District is currently served by either individually owned small community water systems 
or by individual wells serving single or multiple residences. Since none of these systems 
measure water usage, an aggressive water conservation program was not considered feasible. 
5.1.3 Load Projections 
Another important design parameter for wastewater facilities is wastewater pollutant 
concentrations or load. Wastewater load projections are based on existing wastewater load plus 
a typical load per capita assumed for all future Connections. A summary of existing and future 
pollutant load estimates is shown in Table 5-3. 
Table 5-3 
Redwood WWTP BOD and TSS Load (lbs/day) 
1996-1998 2020 
Actual Projection 
BOD 
Summer, Max. 30-day average01 1,122 2,400 
Winter, Max. 30-day average® 1,589 3,100 
Annual average*3' 843 2,070 
TSS 
Summer, Max. 30-day average'4' 1,398 2,340 
Winter, Max. 30-day average® 1,315 2,500 
Annual Average® 879 1,980 
(1) Existing BOD load plus 0.27 Ibs/day-capita. 
(2) Existing BOD load plus 0.32 lbs/day-capita. 
<3) Existing BOD load plus 0.2 lbs/day-capita. 
(4> Existing TSS load plus 0.20 Ibs/day-capita. 
<5) Existing TSS load plus 0.25 lbs/day-capita. 
(6> Existing TSS load plus 0.20 lbs/day-capita. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-4 April 1999 
000899 
5.2 REGULATORY TREATMENT CRITERIA 
To evaluate upgrading the existing Redwood WWTP, future NPDES discharge limits needed to 
be determined. This report subsection presents future discharge requirements for the Redwood 
WWTP as set by Oregon Administrative Rules. Because the design flows vary only slightly from 
those used in the 1994 report, the analysis in this section was not revised. 
The existing NPDES permit effluent limitations for the Redwood WWTP are shown in Section 
4.3 of this rqjort. 
The treatment level for future wastewater flows and loadings has been evaluated based on three 
(3) requirements: 
• Treatment Requirements contained in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 
340-41-375. 
• Treatment Requirements contained in OAR 340-41-026. 
• Treatment Requirements based on receiving water quality criteria for the Rogue 
River. 
5.2.1 OAR 340-41-375 
Future criteria for the treatment plant are Subject to the regulations outlined in OAR 340-41-375. 
A summary of those requirements is listed here: 
• Monthly average for BOD and TSS shall not exceed 10 mg/L during "low stream 
flows" (summer period). 
• Treatment shall meet secondary requirements during "high stream flows" (winter 
period). 
• Effluent BOD concentrations in mg/L divided by the dilution factor (ratio of 
receiving stream flow to effluent flow) is not to exceed one (1) unless otherwise 
authorized by ODEQ. This will not apply, however, since the minimum riverflow 
is 1,100 times the peak day discharge. 
• Sixty (60) minutes of contact time will be provided to ensure adequate 
disinfection with 1 mg/L residual. 
Based on these regulations, the anticipated future BOD and TSS effluent limitations for the 
Redwood plant would be as shown in Table 5-4. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 
Josephine County 5-5 
27-2192-05 
Aprii 1999 
Table 5-4 
Anticipated Future BOD and TSS Effluent Limitations 
1 Based on OAR 340-41-375 
n o w 
(mgd) 
Effluent Concentration (mg/L) Mass Discharge (lbs/day) 
Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily 
Permit Limits Based On Effluent ( Quality 
Summer, MMDWF 
Winter, MMWWF 
1.05 
1.80 
10 
30 
15 
45 
— 88 
450 
132 
675 
176 
900 
Permit Limits Based On 85 Percent Removal 
Winter 
AWWF 
MMWWF 
Max. Week 
Max. Day 
1.30 
1.80 
1.85 
2.52 
«> 24 
30 
44 
43 
260 
450 
675 
900 
Summer 
ADWF 
MMDWF 
Max. Week 
Max. Day 
.94 
1.05 
1.12 
1.47 
10 
10 
14 
14 
® 78 
88 
132 
176 
(1; Limit determined by 85 percent removal requirement and minimum influent load condition. 
m Load limitation required by maximum concentration. 
5.2.2 OAR 340-41-026 
In addition to thé regulations noted above, OAR 340-41-026 further requires that growth and 
development be accommodated by increased waste treatment efficiency and effectiveness rather 
than by increased permitted mass discharges. Based on these requirements, the anticipated 
future BOD and TSS effluent limitations for the Redwood WWTP would be as shown in 
Table 5-5. 
Table 5-5 
Anticipated Future BOD and TSS Effluent Limitations 
Based on OAR 340-41-026 
Maximum 
Monthly 
Flow (mgd) 
Effluent Concentration (mg/L) Mass Discharge (lbs/day) 
Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily 
Permit Limits Based On Effluent Quality 
Summer, Dry Weather 1.05'" 9 14 18 80 120 160 
Winter, Wet Weather 1.80® 8 12 16 120 180 240 
Monthly dry weather flow with 5-year recurrence - MMDWF. 
® Monlhly wet weather flow with 5-year recurrence - MMWWF. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 
Josephine County 5-6 
27-2192-05 
Aprii 1999 
Since the proposed mass discharge limitations shown in Table 5-3 exceed those listed in 
Table 5-4, ODEQ approval for increased permitted mass discharges for the Redwood WWTP 
would be required for these effluent limitations to apply to any plant expansion. Otherwise, 
Table 5-4 effluent limitations would apply for any Redwood WWTP expansion. 
Increases have been accepted by ODEQ, provided that: 
(1) No other reasonable alternatives exist except to lower water quality. 
(2) This action is necessary and justifiable for economic or social development 
benefits and outweighs the environmental costs of lowered water quality. 
(3) All water quality standards will be met and beneficial uses protected. 
The suggested increase in the summer period (Table 5-5) is only from 80 to 88 lbs/day, or a 
10 percent increase. This should be acceptable to ODEQ provided the provisions for exceptions 
are met; these will be reviewed in Section 6. This mass increase is based on the maximum 
month dry weather flow. The mass discharge for the average summer flow would not likely 
increase above existing NPDES permit levels. Since the proposed increase is small and would 
only occur for a brief period, it is also not likely to impact water quality (see Section 5.3). 
During the winter period, a significant increase is proposed, due to increases in wastewater 
flows, while maintaining only secondary treatment standards. Allowable mass discharges are 
controlled, however, by the 85 percent removal requirement, as demonstrated in Table 5-5. If 
minimum load is experienced at or near average flows, the mass discharge limitations for the 
plant would be restricted to only 260 lbs/day, just over double the current NPDES permit 
monthly limit. 
r 
5.3 RECEIVING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 
5.3.1 Introduction 
The Redwood WWTP discharges secondary effluent to the Rogue River, which is a valuable 
resource to the region, with beneficial uses downstream of the sewage treatment plant (as listed 
in OAR 340-41-362): 
• Public Domestic water supply 
• Private Domestic Water Supply 
• Industrial Water Supply 
• Irrigation 
• Livestock Watering 
• Anadromous Fish Passage 
• Salmonid Fish Rearing and Spawning 
• Resident Fish and Aquatic Life Habitat 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
00 879 
• Fishing, Boating, and Water Contact Recreation 
• Aesthetic Quality 
• Commercial Navigation and Transportation 
Each of these beneficial uses depends, to varying degrees, on water quality. Local and state 
agencies and the public recognize the need to protect the Rogue River from Anther water quality 
degradation, both from increased point and non-point discharges. The ODEQ has indicated that 
"An expansion of the treatment plant could prompt tighter effluent limits, increased monitoring, 
and possible restrictions on discharge to surface waters (Belsky, D., ODEQ, 1991 Personal 
Communication) " 
Receiving water quality standards are promulgated in Management Plan, Beneficial Uses, 
Policies, Standards, and Treatment Criteria in the Rogue River Basin, OAR 340-41-362 and 
OAR 340-41-365. This section evaluates the ability of the existing and future discharge to meet 
Oregon's receiving water quality standards, thereby assuring protection of beneficial uses. 
5.3.2 Discharge Description 
Figure 5-2 shows the Redwood WWTP outfall from effluent outlet structure to discharge location 
in the Rogue River at river mile 97.7. From the chlorine contact chamber to Manhole #3, the 
outfall consists of 300 feet of 18-inch concrete pipe. From Manhole #3 to the discharge point, 
the outfall consists of 62 feet of 18-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP). The open-ended 
discharge is located approximately 25 feet from the south bank at ordinary low river flows. 
Water depth from water surface to outfall crown is approximately 1.5 feet at ordinary low river 
flows. 
The invert of the 18-inch open-ended discharge pipe is six inches off the river bottom, facing 
offshore and downstream at a horizontal angle of 45 degrees. A riprap apron protects from 
scouring 10 feet downstream of the outfall. Appendix F shows the as-built outfall (CH2M Hill 
May 1974), 
5.3.3 Receiving Water Conditions 
Receiving water conditions, including river flows, channel characteristics, current speed, and 
ambient water quality, are discussed in the subsections that follow. 
5.3.3.1 River Flow 
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) operates a number of river flow gaging stations 
on the Rogue River, including a nearby station at Grants Pass, 0.6 miles upstream from the 
Highway 99 bridge at river mile 101.8 Since February 1977, Rogue River flow has been 
regulated by Lost Creek Dam with slight regulation by Fish Lake and Emigrant Lake. There 
are many water diversions from the Rogue River and its tributaries, the largest being 5.5 miles 
upstream for Savage Rapid Dam of the Grants Pass Irrigation District (USGS 1990). 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-4)5 
Josephine County 4-3 April 1999 
O O f 8 8 0 
Figure 5-2 
Outfall and Vicinity 
Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District 
00C8S1 
Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant 
#27-2192-05 02/99 
River flow statistics (monthly, minimum, maximum, and mean flows) compiled by USGS from 
1978 to 1987 are listed in Table 5-6. As Table 5-6 indicates, the season of lowest river flows 
is late summer to early autumn; during this low-flow period, ambient mixing is least, and 
receiving water quality most impaired. In this report, receiving water impacts will be evaluated 
at these critical low-flow conditions. 
Table 5-6 
Statistical Flow Summaries for Rogue River 
After Regulation of Lost Creek Lake (1978-1987) 
Month Minimum (cfs) 
Maximum 
(cfs) 
Mean 
(cfs) 
Standard 
Deviation (cfs) 
Percent of 
Annual 
Runoff (%) 
October 1,420 2,280 1,720 305 4.1 
November 1,580 7,670 3,400 1,800. 7.9 
December 2,020 14,000 6,200 4,330 14.9 
January 1,710 7,750 4,300 1,900 10.3 
February 2,150 11,000 5,740 3,260 12.6 
March 1,510 8,120 4.340 2,150 10.4 
April 1,750 6,850 4,310 1,920 10.0 
May 1,960 5,590 3,440 1,370 8.3 
June 1,810 4,520 2,530 838 5.9 
July 1,850 3,130 2,340 355 5.6 
August 1,880 3,080 2,260 379 5.4 
September 1,330 2,640 1,930 382 4.5 
Annual 1,930 5,270 3,530 1,160 100.0 1 
The regulatory low-flow for evaluation of water quality impacts is the 7Q10, or the 7-day low-
flow that occurs, on average, once every 10 years (USEPA 1991). Data records are inadequate 
to compute this statistical measure for the Rogue River following flow regulation in 1977; 
however, the Rogue River Management Plan (1972) specifies that a minimum flow of 1,200 cfs 
be maintained. 
5.3.3.2 Channel Characteristics and Current Speeds 
Channel dimensions and water surface elevation near the outfall were measured by cross-section 
survey on November 30, 1993 (Gary Wicks 1993). The surveyed cross section is reproduced 
in Figure 5-3. River flow during the survey was approximately 1,360 cfs (Miller, J., USGS 
1993). 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-10 April 1999 
000899 
0 0 0 8 8 3 
Manning's Equation was used to estimate average river depth and velocity at the regulatory low 
river flow of 1,200 cfs: 
U ^ — R ^ S 1 1 2 (Equation 5.1) 
where: 
U = Average River Velocity 
n = Manning's Roughness Coefficient 
R = Hydraulic Radius (Area/Wetted Perimeter) 
S = River Slope 
R is approximately equal to the river depth, and Equation 5.1 can be rearranged to yield: 
d * 
1.49 WS1/2 
3/5 (Equation 5.2) 
where: 
d = Average River Depth 
Q = River Discharge 
W River Width 
Table 5-7 summarizes channel characteristics and current speeds at field survey conditions and 
estimated at regulatory low-flow conditions. 
Table 5-7 
River and Channel Characteristics 
River 
Discharge 
River 
Width 
River Depth Average 
Current 
Speed Flow Conditimi Average At Outfall 
Nov. 30, 1993 Survey 1,380 cfs 412 ft 2.6 ft 2.8 ft 1.29 ft/s 
Regulatory Low 1,200 cfs 400 ft 2.4 ft 2.6 ft 1.25 ft/s 
5.3.3.3 Ambient Water Quality 
The USGS maintains a database of Rogue River water quality measurements. Approximate 
monthly records for two stations were obtained and analyzed to determine statistical measures 
of water quality parameters (Marxer, L., November 1993, Personal Communication). Sample 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-12 April 1999 
000899 
stations are located 2.5 miles west of Grants Pass, upstream of the Redwood outfall, and at the 
Robertson Bridge, approximately 11 miles downstream of the Redwood outfall. 
A larger record is available at the Robertson Bridge station; however, the Robertson Bridge data 
must be interpreted with caution if used to represent conditions near the Redwood plant because 
the Applegate River contributes to the Rogue River flow upstream of the Robertson Bridge 
sampling station and downstream of the outfall. The annual mean flow of the Applegate River 
is 716 cfs (river mile 7.6), or 20 percent of the Rogue River mean flow. The influence of the 
Applegate River diminishes during the season of lowest river flows. Mean flow of the 
Applegate River is 26 cfs in August and 40 cfs in September, or less than 4 percent of the 
Rogue River flow during these months (USGS 1990). Table 5-8 summarizes water quality 
statistics for the Rogue River at both stations for the period of record since flow regulation 
(August 1977 - March 1993). 
5.3.4 Water Quality Standards 
In September 1991, ODEQ completed its most recent triennial review of State Water Quality 
Standards, as required by the Clean Water Act. The resulting amendments to OAR 340, 
Chapter 41, pertaining to receiving water quality, have profound effects on municipal and private 
dischargers. Amendments include changes in policies involving: 
• Antidegradation 
• Bacteria 
• Mixing Zones 
• Toxic Substances 
• Biological Criteria 
• Turbidity 
ODEQ is implementing new policies to be used both to detect and address potential toxics 
problems. The steps of this policy framework will be executed through the NPDES permitting 
program and will include: 
• Basic Testing and Reporting Program - Includes both chemical analysis and 
biomonitoring. Frequency will be determined through key factors such as dry 
weather design flow, industrial inputs to the treatment system, and quantity of 
sludge produced. 
• Evaluation of Receiving Water - Analyses dilution at the point of discharge and 
at the mixing zone boundary to determine compliance with instream water quality 
standards. 
• Accelerated Testing Program - Initiated basic monitoring program if results 
indicate that water quality standards violations could occur. 
• Effluent Limits - Established when discharges cause an adverse effect on 
beneficial uses by violating water quality standards outside of an authorized 
mixing zone. 
• Implementation Plans and Schedules - When needed to eliminate toxicity 
problems. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 
Josephine County 5-13 
27-2192-05 
Aprii 1999 
Ul 
h 
H 
hi 
s> 
« 
-o 0 
1 T3 
fe. 
I 
i > 
U 
á 
fa 
«S 
3 « 
¿9 -M 
a co £ 
•Ml 
•a a 
O» 
w « 
"8 
£ 
s 
a» Bi 
«o 
0¿ 
d 
^ VO * "i t- s « M k O 
« i\ 1* >-« jt On S * 
• * î o . 
CM R V 
- r- « 
o 
! 92 S I « w s ^ ^ <n 9 » 
O fO 
«o r«' OÑ 
r 
o o ON Ö m 
O 
O co CS 
vi ve 2 
o o 
— «»>• O w 
O v 
a 
s 
U) s 
! U 
Tf *Ü 
2 ^ S Vd « S VO o 
> p 
o\ S s S V o 
q N o\ 
•<é oí 
o O j ó n . i « p O 
«n — vo o 1 o . M ni ^ (S ^ vo W 
co § 
o (S 
^ «N 
«co 
o\ < » 2 8 « ™ N « O V 
w (rt © <s », m »© T—« .—t o L* *—i o H^ » »—« .—c 1 .—I 
tó Cl O Cl ci w w 
S O 2 u z E 
á | B § i 
I 0 
1 
ï 
S 00 
s? O 
co 2 
"S Ë S .O u 
I » = 
'S >>a h o > K < o 
„ i I I I I X p p p o o . O H h h l i 
^ o o o o y-, 
v v v v v v v c n 
V V V V V V V 
V V V V V V V V 
«•> — n 2 X 
V V V ^ V V 
—i <n 
V V 
>o — cN es 
V V V V v v V V V 
v v v v v v v v r ° 
« B l » » l « S T; XJ15 y y y v v v 
n ri » S i t a s - « v v v v v y 
v v y v v v v v v 
v v v v v v v v c n 
O O O O 
v V V V \ / V V m 
v v v v v v W * 
•»Tj-TfTf^-Tj-Tj-TtTr 
oo>oooooooooou->rroo 
ïw (W •U tw U^ Vi C^) 
"Sì» "Sò "Si ~3b "Si) "Sî> "Sï> "ñj 
•a 
e => 
tí Ö '3 o Ö > ^ J 
S 55 co Ñ 
¿ M g 
o oí f2 
S S S 
> >A 
s-
5 £> Ji e 
ö 
i l 
11-
O J t 8 8 6 
The Rogue River, downstream of the confluence with the Applegate River, is designated as a 
Wild and Scenic River under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542). The 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act stipulates that the Rogue River must remain in a free-flowing 
condition without water quality degradation. 
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service administer the Rogue 
River Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In 1972, they published a joint Rogue River Management 
Plan for the development, operation, and management of the Rogue River. The management 
plan outlines the responsibilities of all local, county, and state jurisdictions. The ODEQ is 
responsible for ensuring that water quality and waste treatment standards are met. 
The ODEQ has responded to the need for water quality protection in the Rogue River by 
promulgating OAR 340-41-362 and OAR 340-41-365, outlining specific receiving water criteria 
to be met in the Rogue River Basin. These criteria are discussed here. 
5.3.4.1 Anti-Degradation 
Notwithstanding the water quality standards described below, the highest and best practicable 
treatment and/or control of wastes, activities, and flows shall in every case be provided to 
maintain dissolved oxygen and overall water quality at the highest possible levels and water 
temperatures, coliform bacteria concentrations, dissolved chemical substances, toxic materials, 
radioactivity, turbidities, color, odor, and other deleterious factors at the lowest possible levels. 
5.3.4.2 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 
DO concentrations shall not be less than 90 percent of saturation at the seasonal low flow or less 
than 95 percent of saturation in salmonid fish spawning areas during spawning, incubation, 
hatching, and fry stages. 
5.3.4.3 Temperature 
No measurable temperature increases shall be allowed outside the assigned mixing zone, as 
measured relative to a control point immediately upstream from a discharge when stream 
temperatures are 58 °F or greater; or more than 0.5°F increase due to a single-source discharge 
when receiving water temperatures are 57.5°F or less; or more than 2°F increase due to all 
sources combined when stream temperatures are 56°F or less. 
5.3.4.4 Turbidity 
The measurement standard for turbidity is the Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU) reflecting 
current analytical procedures. No more than a 10 percent cumulative increase in natural stream 
turbidities is allowed, as measured relative to a control point immediately upstream of the 
turbidity causing activity. Some dredging and limited duration activities are exempt. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-15 April 1999 
00C8S7 
5.3.4.5 pH 
The pH levels must not fall outside the 6.5 - 8.5 range. 
5.3.4.6 Bacteria 
Effluent limitations for fecal coliform will remain in effect until permit renewal, or until the 
ODEQ reopens existing permits to include an effluent limit and compliance schedule for 
enterococci [OAR 340-4l-365(2)(e)(D)]. 
The Redwood WWTP is currently monitoring under the fecal coliform standard. The NPDES 
limitation is a monthly geometric mean of 200 fecal coliforms per 100 mL and weekly geometric 
mean of 400 fecal coliforms per 100 mL. The fecal coliform standard is an "end of pipe" 
limitation. The new enterococci bacteria standard in the Rogue River is a monthly average 
geometric mean of 33 per 100 mL, with no sample exceeding 61 per 100 mL. 
5.3.4.7 Total Dissolved Solids 
Total dissolved solids are not to exceed 500.0 mg/L. 
5.3.4.8 Toxic Substances 
Acute and chronic numeric criteria for a wide range of toxicants must be met within the zone 
of immediate dilution (ZID) and authorized mixing zone. Numeric criteria are listed in Table 
20 of OAR 340-41, which is based on Quality Criteria for Water (EPA 1986). Where the 
natural quality parameters of waters of the Rogue River basin are outside the numerical limits 
of the above-assigned water quality standards, the natural water quality shall be the standard. 
5.3.4.9 Ammonia 
Recendy, a standard has been added to the toxicant list in Table 20, OAR 340-41, to 
acknowledge the need for aquatic life protection from un-ionized ammonia. Allowable ammonia 
concentrations are dependent on receiving water temperature and pH, which are most critical 
during the summer low-flow period. 
5.3.5 Mixing Zone Evaluation 
This section outlines the approach and results of hydrodynamic model mixing predictions. 
Section 5.3.5.1 discusses the Redwood WWTP mixing zone. 
5.3.5.1 Authorized Mixing Zone 
The ODEQ has allowed a mixing zone for the Redwood discharge. A mixing zone is defined 
in OAR 340-41-365 as a "designated portion of a receiving water to serve as a zone of dilution 
for wastewaters and receiving waters to mix thoroughly." The department may suspend all or 
part of the water quality standards or set less restrictive standards in the authorized mixing zone. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 
Josephine County 5-16 
27-2192-05 
Aprii 1999 
Redwood WWTP's mixing zone is described in NPDES Permit #100868 as having a radius of 
100 feet from the point of discharge. 
In determining the size of the mixing zone, the department may use appropriate mixing zone 
guidelines to assess the biological, physical, and chemical character of the receiving waters and 
effluent and the most appropriate placement of the outfall to protect instream water quality, 
public health, and other beneficial uses. The mixing zone must also: 
• Be as small as possible. 
• Avoid overlap with any other mixing zones to the extent possible and be less than 
the total stream width as necessary to allow passage of fish and other aquatic 
organisms. 
• Be free of materials in concentrations that cause acute and chronic toxicity to 
aquatic life as measured by an approved bioassay. 
Acute and chronic toxicity is defined in OAR 340-41-365(4) as follows: 
Acute Toxicity - Acute toxicity is lethality to aquatic life as measured by a 
significant difference in lethal concentration between the control and 100 percent 
effluent in an acute bioassay test. Lethality in 100 percent effluent may be 
allowed due to ammonia and chlorine only when it is demonstrated on a case-by-
case basis that immediate dilution of effluent within die mixing zone reduces 
toxicity below lethal concentrations. The department may, on a case-by-case 
basis, establish a 23D if appropriate for other parameters. 
Chronic Toxicity - Chronic toxicity is measured as the concentration that causes 
long-term sublethal effects, such as significantly impaired growth or reproduction 
in aquatic organisms, during a testing period based on test species life cycle. 
The Redwood WWTP NPDES permit does not define die ZID; however, EPA guidance suggests 
a distance 10 percent of the distance to the mixing zone boundary is appropriate. This translates 
to 10 feet with the current Redwood WWTP mixing zone (USEPA 1991). 
Redwood WWTP's current authorized mixing zone may be too restrictive. For comparison, the 
City of Grants Pass WRP, several miles upstream of the Redwood plant, has a mixing zone three 
times that allotted for the Redwood plant, although average discharge is ten times greater than 
the Redwood plant. The Grants Pass mixing zone is defined in the Grants Pass NPDES Permit 
#100989 as follows: 
The allowable mixing zone is that portion of the Rogue River from 10 feet above 
the point of discharge to 300 feet downstream of the discharge point. In addition, 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-17 April 1999 
00C889 
the ZED shall not exceed 10 percent of the defined mixing zone in any direction 
from the point of discharge. 
The current average dry weather design flow for the Grants Pass plant is 4.7 mgd (Brown and 
Caldwell 1992). 
OAR 340-41-365(4) suggests that the size of Redwood WWTP's mixing zone be reevaluated. 
Prior to adjusting mixing zone dimensions, acute and chronic bioassay testing should be 
completed as required for assessing toxicity in the mixing zone. The mixing zone should not 
occupy greater than 25 percent of the river width to allow passage of fish and other aquatic 
organisms. Additional monitoring recommendations are given in Section 5.3.8. 
5.3.5.2 Mixing in Rivers 
A submerged river discharge has two distinct mixing regions: near-field and far-field. Mixing 
in the near-field is vigorous from rapid dissipation of jet momentum. Near-field mixing is 
primarily a function of port size and outlet velocity. Dispersion of effluent in the far-field is 
driven by turbulence in the receiving waters which is a fonction of current speed and channel 
characteristics. Far-field mixing rates are greatly reduced from near-field mixing rates. 
5.3.5.3 Model Methodology 
Several EPA-approved river mixing models are available to predict acute and chronic mixing 
ratios. Those used in the Redwood analysis included: 
• PLUMES (Baumgartner, D.J. ; Frick, W.E.; Roberts, P.J.W., and Bodeen, C.A. ; 
June 1993) 
• Turbulent Advective Dispersion Equation (Fischer 1979) 
Each model is discussed in the sections that follow. 
PLUMES 
The PLUMES Model was used to predict near-field mixing ratios. PLUMES is an interface 
linking the near-field model UM (Updated UMERGE) and a far-field model based on Brooks 
Equation (Fischer 1979). PLUMES is normally run in marine environments; however, the 
model does support shallow river discharges. In the shallow discharge mode, PLUMES is 
constrained to co-flowing jets and weakly or unstratified receiving waters. The Redwood 
discharge fits these criteria. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 
Josephine County 5-18 
27-2192-05 
Aprii 1999 
Turbulent Advective Dispersion Equation 
The turbulent advective diffusion equation is a conservative estimate of dilution since there is 
no consideration for near-field mixing. The turbulent advective diffusion equation in three 
dimensions for a continuous point source (Fischer 1979) is as follows: 
where: 
C = M exp" u y2 + z2 
4x 
(Equation 5.3) 
C = Concentration at Coordinate (x, y, z) 
M = Mass Flux (Concentration x Effluent Discharge) 
x = Downstream Distance from Outfall 
€v = Vertical Turbulent Diffusion Coefficient 
6, = Lateral Turbulent Diffusion Coefficient 
U = Average River Current Speed 
y = Lateral Distance from Outfall 
z = Vertical Distance from Outfall 
Lateral and vertical turbulent diffusion coefficients are a measure of river-induced mixing. A 
larger diffusion coefficient indicates a higher degree of effluent mixing. The lateral turbulent 
diffusion coefficient is calculated as follows (Fischer et al. 1979): 
é, = 0.6du * (Equation 5.4) 
where: 
d = Average River Depth 
g = Acceleration due to Gravity (32.2 ft/sec2) 
S = River Slope 
u* = Shear Velocity = sjgdS 
The vertical turbulent diffusion coefficient is roughly 1/10 the lateral mixing coefficient and is 
calculated as follows: 
e = 0.067du* (Equation 5.5) 
where: 
d and u* are as previously described. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-19 April 1999 
0 0 0 8 9 1 
The three-dimensional form of the advective diffusion equation is used when the discharge 
cannot be considered completely vertically mixed; however, if the plume does become 
completely vertically mixed, the two-dimensional form of Equation 5.5 may be used: 
C = M exp* Uy
2 
Axe. 
(Equation 5.6) 
Complete vertical mixing can be predicted using the following equation (Fischer, 1979). 
L = C'UW2 (Equation 5.7) 
where: 
C' = 0 . 1 (mid-depth discharge) 
U = Average River Current Speed 
W = River Width 
6V = Vertical Turbulent Diffusion Coefficient 
Distance to complete vertical mixing in the Rogue River using Equation 5.7 is 30 feet at 
regulatory low river flow. Actual distance to complete vertical mixing will be somewhat less 
than this prediction due to near-field mixing, which is not taken into account. Complete vertical 
mixing occurs prior to the current authorized mixing zone boundary, 100 feet downstream; 
therefore, Equation 5.6 can be used for far-field mixing predictions. 
When the plume interacts with the river banks, surface, or bottom, image sources must be used 
to compensate for plume spread beyond these boundaries. One image source was used to 
account for near-bank interaction, 25 feet distant. 
Another useful calculation is plume width at a fixed downstream distance: 
where: 
b = 4a = 4 (Equation 5.8) 
1 T 
b = Plume Width 
a - Standard Deviation of Guassian Plume Concentration Profile 
et = Lateral Turbulent Diffusion Coefficient 
x = Downstream Distance 
U = Average River Current Speed 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-20 April 1999 
00G892 
5.3.5.4 Far-Field Model Calibration 
The far-field model was calibrated using the results of the City of Grants Pass Mixing Zone 
Study (Brown and Caldwell 1992). In this mixing zone study, a fluorescent dye tracing study 
was used to measure lateral and vertical mixing of the Grants Pass discharge downstream of the 
outfall. The Grants Pass outfall discharges near the north bank of the Rogue River at river mile 
100.9. 
Each river has particular mixing characteristics, that depend on channel characteristics such as 
roughness, current speed, tortuosity, and depth. Plume width measurements at 250 and 1,000 
feet downstream of the Grants Pass discharge allowed calculation, using Equation 5.8, of the 
lateral turbulent diffusion coefficient (e,) for the Rogue River near Grants Pass. 
The Grants Pass study results were used to determine u* (shear velocity), and Equation 5.4 was 
used to extrapolate e, for application near the Redwood WWTP. The lateral turbulent diffusion 
coefficient for the Rogue River near the Redwood discharge—under regulatory, low-flow 
conditions—is estimated as 0.22 ft2/sec. The vertical turbulent diffusion coefficient is estimated 
as 0.024 ftVsec. 
5.3.5.5 Model Input 
Near- and far-field model input parameters are summarized in Table 5-9. Two statistical 
measures of effluent flows were used in the modeling analysis. Acute mixing ratios are 
calculated at peak day effluent flows to correspond with the short duration exposures leading to 
acute toxicity. Acute criteria are evaluated at the ZID. Chronic mixing ratios are calculated at 
peak month flows to correspond with the longer duration exposures associated with chronic 
toxicity. Chronic criteria are evaluated at the mixing zone boundary. Effluent flow projections 
are discussed in more detail in Section 5.1. 
5.3.5.6 Model Results 
Table 5-10 summarizes near- and far-field model results. The dilution ratio is the inverse of 
percent effluent. Results are given for both the current authorized mixing zone boundaries as 
well as at distances which may be considered for mixing zone expansion. Complete model 
results appear in Appendix F. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 
Josephine County 5-21 
27-2192-05 
Aprii 1999 
Table 5-9 
Near- and Far-Field Model Input Parameters 
Parameter Source 
Near-Field 
Model 
(PLUMES) 
Far-Meld Model 
(Advective 
Dispersion 
Equation) Comment 
PLANT 
Existing Flow Oct. 1992-Sept. 
1993 Daily 
Monitoring Reports 
(DMRs) 
0.54 mgd 
(summer peak 
day) 
0.48 mgd 
(summer peak 
month) 
Future Flow Projected 
(see Section 5.1) 
1.1 mgd 
(summer peak 
day) 
1.0 mgd 
(summer peak 
month) 
Effluent Temperature Estimate 21 "C N/A Mixing not sensitive to 
this parameter 
Effluent Salinity Estimate 0 N/A Mixing not sensitive to 
this parameter 
OUTFALL 
Port Diameter As-built Drawings 
(see Appendix F) 
18" 18" 
Vertical Angle As-built Drawings 
(see Appendix F) 
0° 0° 
Horizontal Angle As-built Drawings 
(see Appendix F) 
Co-Flowing Co-Flowing Actual angle 45° with 
respect to currents 
Contraction Coefficient Estimate 0.95 N/A 
Port Depth November 30, 1993 
Survey (Gary Wicks 
Engineering) 
1.85 ft Mid Level To center of port 
Port Elevation November 30, 1993 
Survey (Gary Wicks 
Engineering) 
1.3 ft Mid Level To center of port 
RECEIVING 
WATERS 
River Flow USGS, 1990 1,200 cfs 1,200 cfs Regulatory low flow 
Average Current Equation 5.1 1.25 ft/s 1.25 ft/s Regulatory low flow 
River Depth November 30, 1993 
Survey (Gary Wicks 
Engineering) 
2.8 ft 
(at outfall) 
2.4 ft 
(average) 
Regulatory low flow 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 
Josephine County 5-22 
27-2192-05 
Aprii 1999 
Table 5-10 
• '• • — 
Mixing Model Results 
Percent Effluent Dilution Ratio 
Mixing Existing® Future® Plume 
Criteria Distance (ft) <%) <%) Existing Future Width (ft) 
Acute 10 24 50 4.2 2.0 7.5 
20 15 36 6.5 2.8 10.6 
30 12 29 8.5 3.4 13.0 
Chronic 100 1.7 3.5 59.8 28.7 23.7 
200 1.2 2.6 80.2 38.5 33.6 
300 1.1 2.3 90.4 43.4 41.1 
(1) At existing summer plant flows (May-November). 
(2) At future summer plant flows (May-November). 
5.3.6 Effluent Quality 
5.3.6.1 Chlorine 
Chlorine residual statistical variability was determined from Discharge Monitoring Reports 
(DMRs) for the period October 1992 to September 1993. The following results were obtained: 
Number of Samples: 365 
Low: 0.0 mg/L 
High: 1.1 mg/L 
Mean: 0.44 mg/L 
5th Percentile: 0.10 mg/L 
50th Percentile: 0.40 mg/L 
95th Percentile: 0.80 mg/L 
5.3.6.2 Fecal Coliforms 
Fecal coliform samples are collected once each week. DMRs for the period January 1992 to 
September 1993 show that permit limits are consistentiy met: 
Number of Samples: 156 
Low: 0/100 mL 
High: 109/100 mL 
Weekly Average: 6/100 mL 
Monthly Average: 7/100 mL 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 
Josephine County 5-23 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
0 0 C 8 9 5 
These results would suggest that the chlorine dose could be reduced and still meet permit limits. 
5.3.6.3 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 
Summer and winter BOD concentrations for the past six-year period are shown in Appendix C. 
Maximum summer month BOD was 25 mg/f (October 1992). 
5.3.6.4 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 
Summer and winter TSS concentrations for the past six-year period are shown in Appendix C. 
Maximum summer month TSS was 20 mg/f (June 1991). 
5.3.6.5 Turbidity and Suspended Solids 
The Redwood WWTP does not sample for turbidity; however, results from the Pullman WWTP 
in Pullman, Washington, can be used to represent typical secondary effluent values. The 
Pullman WWTP uses a process similar to the Redwood WWTP; however, turbidity values for 
the Redwood WWTP may be less than for Pullman, which has a higher summer suspended 
solids effluent limitation of 30 mg/L monthly and 45 mg/L weekly. 
Turbidity of the Pullman effluent was measured three times daily from January 1993 to March 
1993. Results of sampling are given below: 
Average ± Standard Deviation: 3.62 ± 3.04 
Maximum: 18-6 
Minimum: 0.5 
95th Percentile: 9.7 
5.3.6.6 Temperature 
High effluent temperatures are critical for receiving water impacts. At high river temperatures, 
dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations are lowered, which can adversely affect aquatic life. 
Effluent temperature is not measured at the Redwood WWTP; however, records from the Grants 
Pass WRP show effluent temperatures there may reach as high as 76 °F. Similar summer 
effluent temperatures are expected at the Redwood WWTP and will likely periodically exceed 
70°F (Brown and Caldwell 1992). Effluent temperature monitoring at the Redwood WWTP 
should be initiated. 
5.3.6.7 Ammonia, Metals, Cyanide, Phenols 
A grab effluent sample was analyzed for ammonia, metals, cyanide, and phenols in December 
1993 by Nielson Laboratories, Medford, Oregon. Toxicants including pesticides, PCBs, and 
volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) were not tested in the effluent, because they were not likely 
to pose a concern for the primarily municipal influent. 
EPA guidance from the Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control 
(USEPA 1991) requires use of a reasonable potential multiplier to account for effluent variability 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-24 April 1999 
OOv, 8 9 6 
when less than 20 effluent samples have been measured. The multiplier used for evaluating 
water quality standards compliance will be based on a 95th percentile probability basis and 95th 
percentile distribution. A coefficient of variation of 0.6 is assumed unless data are available for 
its calculation. 
No ammonia was detected in the Redwood sample. Typical secondary effluent ammonia 
concentrations are highly variable and depend in part on effluent temperature, pH, hydraulic 
detention time in the plant, and wastewater composition and strength. Each of these parameters 
can vary seasonally. 
To better represent ammonia variability in the Redwood effluent, testing results for the Grants 
Pass WRP will be used in lieu of the single Redwood sample. Results of limited ammonia 
, testing in June 1991 are presented below (Brown and Caldwell 1992): 
5.3.6.8 pH 
Redwood's NPDES permit stipulates that effluent pH be in the range 6.0 to 9.0. Effluent pH 
is measured three times weekly and ranges from 6.7 to 7.8 (January 1992-September 1993). 
5.3.7 Water Quality Analysis 
In this section, the ability of the existing and future Redwood discharge to comply with water 
quality standards is evaluated. Tables 5-11 and 5-12 summarize the water quality analysis and 
compliance determination for each parameter analyzed. Information provided in Table 5-12 
includes: 
Ambient concentrations from STORET data (see Table 5-3). 
Effluent concentrations from DMRs, laboratory effluent scan (see Appendices B 
and D) or are estimated based on typical secondary treatment plant performance 
(i.e., Pullman WWTP and Grants Pass WRP). 
Laboratory detection limits, when not detected. 
Number of samples analyzed. 
Reasonable potential multipliers for toxicants with less than 20 representative 
samples (USEPA 1991). 
Freshwater acute and chronic water quality standards from Table 20, OAR-340-41 
and from numeric criteria in OAR 340-41-365. 
Mixing ratios required to meet water quality standards. 
Number of Samples: 
Low: 
5 
9.5 mg/L 
12.3 mg/L 
11.1 mg/L 
High: 
Average: 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 
Josephine County 5-25 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
0 0 0 8 9 7 
•a 
ä TJ 
h 
6 ° 
I 
1 
i 
u 
] 
O 
r-i ® ' 1 - 00 • 
l i i 2 S 
Í l « f 8 . s 8 
1 1 
§ u 
§ 
! s s •5 «ö pS fl 
5 1 1 
o 
I CM 
M IO 
o\ V 
, (S 
<• (s m <; 2: S <r> vo 2: <« Z Z N n Z - 1 
oo _ 
Tf io t-;^ ON 
c " 
<s 
» < o g r j ÛO ' »y ' y 
2 m f Z —' o> vo 
£ 
2 
(-• CS OO 
tS ON ri r-> m M Tf O 0Û S TT «Ni 
g 
DO 1-1 -H Tf N o m O <r> 
- i n n o —1 , • ^ 
q o " " . 
O CS 
o u i m t N N m o N m 
2 o; T)-' ^ o « « m Oh O 5 «o O m 
a o a a 
i S - a g 
d o* 
vo o vo • • • Ki • vS • "-i1® 
g e e s s e s 
-•''-<<N<S 
VO vo 
<sc*éscscscscscs<s<s 
«O ' VO m 
Sm o o o - V V 
S 6 
es O Tf T-. NO NO<5 
V ° V V v V 
2 Z Z V V V w O Z v v ' v v 
z 
J S3J J 
2P j oo oo 
B 
j j j j j j j j j j 
"£d~do oo eo oo 
S<-o § J¿ ñ ö o s a s S1"® Ö u ü > e 
Oí -3 
a 
o 
f fe ti s-es > 
ss 
ei 
<A 
s-
c 
á 
'G fi 
O £> 2 2 •O 00 M u ,-g rt rt rt rt « U, « 05 
c 
s* ^ -s 0 -c 
1 8-a s; 
í 3 
0 0 1 8 9 8 
Table 5-12 
Compliance Summary 
Scenario'1' 
Current Flow Future Flow 
100' Radius 300' Radius 100' Radius 300' Radius 
Parameter Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic 
CONVENTIONAL 
Dissolved Oxygen — Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Temperature — Yes — Yes — No — Yes 
pH — Yes — Yes — Yes — Yes 
TSS — Yes — Yes — Yes — Yes 
Turbidity — No — Yes — No — No 
Fecal Coliforms Yes N — Yes — Yes — Yes 
TOXICANTS® 
Chlorine No No No Yes No No No No 
Ammonia Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 
Cyanide LDN Yes Yes Yes LDN Yes LDN Yes 
Phenols Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Arsenic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Cadmium LDN Yes Yes Yes LDN Yes LDN Yes 
Chromium (HI) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes H 
Copper No No No No No No No No 
Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Mercury Yes LDN Yes LDN Yes LDN Yes LDN 
Nickel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Selenium Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Silver LDN LDN LDN LDN LDN LDN LDN LDN 
Zinc No No No No No No No No 
All scenarios assume current plant effluent quality. 
<2) Compliance based on detection limits when not detected. 
LDN - Lower effluent detection limits and more effluent samples needed to assess compliance. 
Table 5-11 includes a listing of each parameter and determination of compliance with water 
quality standards at each combination of existing and future predicted summer plant flows and 
current and expanded mixing zone boundaries (100 feet to 300 feet). Compliance is discussed 
for each parameter in the following sections. 
5.3.7.1 Dissolved Oxygen 
Salmonid species are present in the Rogue River and require that 95 percent DO saturation be 
maintained. Figure 5-4 shows mean values and 95th percentile confidence limits of DO 
concentrations and DO saturation for the Rogue River at all STORET ambient monitoring 
stations. Values are also shown separately by month for the Grants Pass station (Brown and 
Caldwell 1992). 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-27 April 1999 
0 0 0 8 9 9 
160 
J 150 
I 140 
*130 
2 1110 
I 100 
190 
Q 80 
70 
20 40 60 80 100 120 
River Mile 
SUMMER DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION 
MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS AT GRANTS PASS DISSOLVED OXYGEN SATURATION AT GRANTS PASS 
rcS-KS^ Trea,ment Ptan' Source: • Reproduced from 
Water Restoration Plant Facilities Figure 5-4 
Plan Draft, City of Grants Pass Rogue River 
(Brown and Caldwell, 1992) Dissolved Oxygen 
WINTER DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION 
River Mile 
WINTER DISSOLVED OXYGEN SATURATION 
1 12 c c 
! " 
J 10.5 
130 
125 
120 
1 
.s 
S 
115 
110 
p 
£105 
0 
? I«» 
1 » 
.a 
Q 90 
85 
80 
River Mile 
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 
River Mile 
SLIMMER DISSOLVED OXYGEN SATURATION 
Grants Pass Dodge Brie GoWHIl 
Average DO saturation values exceed 95 ¡percent in both summer and winter for the entire river 
length. At Grants Pass and Robertson Bridge Stations, annual mean saturation values are in 
excess of 106 percent. The lower 95th percentile confidence limit of both summer and winter 
DO saturation at Grants Pass is over 100 percent. The 95th percentile lower confidence limit 
of DO concentration at Grants Pass is 10.2 mg/L. 
A decreasing downstream trend in DO concentrations and DO saturation levels in the Rogue 
River is apparent from the plots. The decreasing downstream DO trend is a cumulative effect 
of all point and non-point sources, which appears to weigh against natural re-aeration rates. 
Total oxygen demand is composed of both carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 
and nitrogenous biochemical oxygen demand (NBOD). CBOD and NBOD are exerted by 
bacteria and algae breaking down the effluent's waste materials for cellular production and 
metabolism. CBOD and NBOD in the effluent can be estimated using empirical relations found 
in the Revised Section 301 (h) Technical Support Document (EPA 1982). NBOD is based on total 
kjheldal nitrogen (TKN), which is not measured at the Redwood WWTP. In lieu of TKN data, 
Redwood NBOD loadings are based on a conservative effluent ammonia value of 25 mg/L. The 
ratio of TKN to ammonia nitrogen (found in the effluent of the LOTT Secondary Treatment 
Plant in Olympia, Washington), when applied to the Redwood WWTP ammonia estimate, is 
used to obtain TKN concentrations in the Redwood effluent. 
Because initial dilution occurs rapidly (approximately 30 to 60 seconds), BOD exertion (a slow 
process) is negligible during this period. However, an immediate dissolved oxygen demand 
(IDOD) may occur due to rapidly oxidized reduced substances (i.e., sulfides to sulphates). The 
DO concentration following initial dilution can be predicted from Equation VI-7 of the Revised 
Section 301(h) of the Technical Support Document (EPA 1982). This equation with conservative 
input parameters is presented as Equation 5.9. 
DOf = DOa + 
(DOe - IDOD - DOj) (Equation 5.9) 
where: 
Parameter Definition Value Source 
DO, Critical ambient dissolved 
oxygen concentration 
10.2 mg/L 95th percentile lowest observed value at 
Grants Pass (STORET, see Table 5-3) 
IDOD Immediate dissolved oxygen 
demand 
1.0 mg/L Table VI-7 of 301(h) Technical Support 
Document (TSD). Assumes advanced 
primary treatment. 
s, Initial dilution 28.7 Modeling results for future effluent flows 
at current mixing zone (100 feet) 
DOe Effluent DO 4.0 mg/L Low value estimate for secondary effluent. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 5-29 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
()Q G 9 
With this conservative combination of effluent DO, ambient DO, and IDOD, the critical 
10.2 mg/L ambient DO concentration is reduced after initial dilution to: 
9.95 mg/L 
This represents a 2.5 percent decrease in DO at the 100-foot authorized mixing zone boundary. 
With DO saturation at Grants Pass above 100 percent, a 2.5 percent decrease will allow DO 
saturation above 97 percent to be maintained, thereby meeting the 95 percent standard. 
The DO sag at distances farther downstream can be predicted using Equation VI-17 of the 301(h) 
TSD. This equation, with conservative input variables, is presented as Equation 5.10. 
DO(t) = DO, + 
DO f-DO t 
D t 
- ^ U - e - * ) 
(Equation 5.10) 
where: 
Parameter Definition Value Source 
DO, Dissolved oxygen concentration 
at completion of initial dilution 
(100 feet). 
9.95 mg/L Results of Equation 5.9. 
Ds Dilution obtained subsequent to 
initial dilution. 
24.6 Full mixing of 1.1 mgd effluent flow 
with 1,200 cfs river flow. 
Ultimate CBOD concenttation 
above ambient at completion of 
initial dilution (100 feet). 
1.53 mg/L C B O D ^ = 1.46 x BOD5[30 mg/L 
(summer NPDES permit limit)] 
Lfn NBOD concentration above 
ambient at completion of initial 
dilution (100 feet). 
4.50 mg/L N B O D w = 4.57x1.13xNHj [25 mg/L] 
Kc Decay rate for CBOD @ 22°C. 0.60/day Conservative Value from QUAL2E 
(EPA 1987) 
K, Decay rate for NBOD @ 22°C. 0.40/day Conservative Value from QUAL2E 
(EPA 1987) 
t Travel time, in river. 3 days From discharge to mouth of Rogue 
River assuming 2 ft/sec current speed. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-30 April 1999 
0 ^ 9 0 2 
As with Equation 5.9, the least favorable combination of input variables is used. The analysis 
gives the following DO decreases: 
River Mile 50: 0.13 mg/L 
Gold Beach (river mouth): 0.19 mg/L 
This simplistic analysis neglects re-aeration. With typical re-aeration rates of 3 mg/L to 5 mg/L 
per day (EPA 1987), re-aeration will negate the DO impacts from the Redwood discharge. 
Decreases in DO due to BOD exertion are so minimal at future predicted effluent flows that a 
measurable DO decrease outside of the mixing zone could never be attributed to the Redwood 
discharge. 
5.3.7.2 Temperature 
State water quality standards do not allow a measurable increase in receiving water temperature 
outside of the mixing zone When ambient Water temperature is above 58 °F. Mean water 
temperatures at Grants Pass are above 58°F for most of the summer (May-October), as shown 
in Figure 5-5. 
To analyze water quality impacts, it is assumed the maximum difference between effluent and 
receiving water temperature is 10°F. This is a conservative estimate based on DMRs from 
similar secondary treatment plants in which effluent temperature is measured (Parametrix, Inc., 
1993). For example, when the receiving water temperature is 58°F, the effluent temperature 
would be 68 °F. 
The definition of "measurable increase" supported by ODEQ is an increase of 0.25°F at the 
mixing zone boundary (Brown and Caldwell 1992). With this allowance, a mixing ratio of 40 
is required at critical low river flows to assure compliance. This mixing ratio is achieved at 
current summer effluent flows at the current authorized mixing zone boundary; however, at 
increased future summer effluent flows, the mixing ratio is not achieved at mixing zones from 
100 to 200 feet from the outfall. If the mixing zone size were increased to a distance of 300 feet 
from the outfall, the temperature standard would be met. 
Although any increase in temperature is technically a violation, temperature impacts due to the 
discharge are expected to be minimal. Natural temperature fluctuations in the Rogue River are 
expected to mask any apparent increases. 
5.3.7.3 pH 
Redwood WWTP effluent pH ranges from 6.7 to 7.8 (January 1992 to September 1993), 
meeting the standard with no dilution. The buffering capacity of the effluent is anticipated to 
increase river pH when ambient pH is below neutral. This is a benefit when river pH levels are 
below the standard, as has occurred on occasion (see Table 5-8). 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-31 April 1999 
OO 0 9 0 
•..„MM 
r\ 
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 
"Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant 
#27-2192-05 02/99 
Figure 5-5 
Rogue River Temperature 
(at Grants Pass) 
!>Qi>9.CA 
5.3.7.4 Total Suspended Solids 
The TSS standard of 500 mg/L will be met by 
limit. 
5.3.7.5 Turbidity 
virtue of the 30 mg/f summer effluent permit 
Low river turbidities attest to the high clarity of the Rogue River. Critical 95th percentile 
ambient turbidity is less than 1.0 NTU. Using the 95th percentile effluent value of 9.7 NTU 
from the Pullman WWTP (see Section 5.3.6.5), a mixing ratio of 87 would be required to meet 
the turbidity standard, which allows a 10 percent increase. This mixing ratio will not be met 
under current or future discharge scenarios during critical summer river flows. At a median 
river turbidity of 3.0 NTU, the mixing ratio required is lowered to 22.3. This mixing ratio is 
met at the current mixing zone under existing and future summer discharge conditions. 
5.3.7.6 Fecal Coliforms 
Median fecal coliform count of the Rogue River near Grants Pass is 91/100 mL. In the past, 
exceedances above the river coliform standard of 200/100 mL have occurred. Mean effluent 
concentrations are less than median river concentrations; therefore the Redwood discharge, on 
average, reduces river coliform concentrations. Even at the highest observed effluent 
concentration of 109/100 mL, the fecal coliform Standard is met. Current NPDES permit limits 
are adequately protective of water quality. 
5.3.7.7 Chlorine 
At a 95th percentile highest chlorine residual of 0.80 mg/L and current plant flow, acute and 
chronic water quality standards are exceeded. The chronic standard could be met at a 200-foot 
or 300-foot mixing zone. At future predicted effluent flows, the acute and chronic standards 
could not be met, regardless of mixing zone size. 
5.3.7.8 Ammonia 
Acute and chronic ammonia water quality standards are currently met with the assumption that 
effluent ammonia concentrations are similar to the Grants Pass WRP (Brown and Caldwell 
1992). Acute and chronic ammonia standards may not be met at future discharge. Prior to 
assessing compliance at future plant flows, seasonal effluent ammonia measurements are 
required. Testing frequency is discussed in Section 5.3.8. 
5.3.7.9 Cyanide, Phenols, Metals 
With the limited effluent and river data available, copper and zinc are of notable concern. 
Before an adequate compliance assessment can be made, more effluent testing is required. 
Testing frequencies and other monitoring requirements are discussed in Section 5.3.8. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 
Josephine County 5-33 
27-2192-05 
Aprii 1999 
5.3.8 Recommendations 
Based on the receiving water quality criteria analysis, the following treatment and monitoring 
recommendations can be asserted: 
5.3.8.1 Treatment Recommendations 
Lower chlorine doses can be applied yet wastewater can still achieve adequate disinfection. At 
lower effluent residuals, chronic chlorine standards can be met under existing and future effluent 
flows. However, it is highly unlikely that more efficient chlorination or outfall modifications 
would improve compliance within the ZID; therefore, dechlorination is recommended. 
Ammonia removal should be included in this facilities plan; however, final judgment on whether 
ammonia removal is necessary should be reserved until seasonal ammonia sampling results are 
available (see Section 5.3.8.2). 
5.3.8.2 Monitoring Recommendations 
Water quality analysis and compliance determination depends, to a large degree, on the number 
of effluent and receiving water samples collected. With larger numbers of samples, statistical 
uncertainties will be reduced, lowering reasonable potential multipliers and confidence limits. 
Reducing test detection limits will likewise reduce uncertainty. Monitoring recommendations 
for parameters showing a potential to exceed water quality standards are presented in Table 5-13. 
When sample collection is completed, further treatment recommendations can be made, such as 
the need for outfall modifications, pretreatment, or ammonia removal. 
Table 5-13 
Monitoring Recommendations 
Parameter Frequency/Duration 
Location 
Sample Type Effluent Rivern> 
Dissolved Oxygen 2/month for one year X Grab 
Temperature 1/week for one year X X Grab 
Turbidity 1/week for one year X X 24-hr Composite 
Ammonia 1/week for one year X 24-hr Composite 
Bioassay 
Acute 
Chronic 
Quarterly for one year 
X 
X 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-25 April 1999 
O O C 9 0 £ 
J Table 5-13 
Monitoring Recommendations 
Parameter Frequency/Duration 
Location 
Sample Type Effluent River™ 
Toxicants Quarterly, using 3 
Cyanide consecutive days between X X 24-hr Composite 
Cadmium Monday and Friday, X X 24-hr Composite 
Copper inclusive. X X 24-Hr Composite 
Lead X X 24-hr Composite 
Mercury X X 24-hr Composite 
Selenium X X 24-hr Composite 
Silver X X 24-hr Composite 
Zinc X X 24-hr Composite 
(1) Upstream of outfall. 
5.4 FUTURE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS 
This section summarizes the requirements, discussed in Sections 5.1 through 5.3, which 
addressed future wasteload and flow, regulatory treatment criteria, and water quality criteria. 
In addition, the analysis of the existing treatment plant in Section 4 has shown a need for plant 
improvements to increase treatment efficiency and to meet critical needs if this plant continues 
to be used to treat wastewater from thè District. The following is a list of requirements for 
future treatment: 
• If the District's wastewater flow is to be treated by either the Redwood WWTP 
or the City of Grants Pass WRP, either of these facilities should be designed for 
a maximum monthly dry weather flow (MMDWF) of 1.50 mgd, a maximum 
monthly wet weather flow (MMWWF) of 2.36 mgd, and a peak instantaneous 
flow of 4.3 mgd in the year 2020 from the District. 
• Further, if the Redwood WWTP is to be used to treat this flow, it should be 
designed for effluent limitations at the plant for one of two possible situations: 
• Effluent limitations as established by OAR 340-41-375 or as shown in 
Table 5-4. 
• Effluent limitations as established by OAR 340-41-026 or as shown in 
Table 5-5. 
An evaluation of the cost and consequences of each of these effluent 
limitations should be conducted. 
9 Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-35 April 1999 
0 0 C 9 0 7 
Also, if the Redwood WWTP is to be used to treat flow from the District, the plant should be 
upgraded to include the following: 
• Significantly reduce or remove chlorine residual in effluent at all times. 
• Provide for partial ammonia removal in the treatment process as part of any plant 
modifications. 
• Provide automatic composite sampling equipment to assist making data consistent 
and reliable. 
• Provide variable speed controls on the influent pumps to minimize the impacts of 
this pump station on the treatment abilities of the plant. 
• Add blower capacity to maintain adequate oxygen levels in the aeration basin 
during peak loadings. 
To meet these requirements, a number of alternatives have been developed and analyzed. These 
alternatives are presented in Section 6. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-25 April 1999 
5.3.5.4 Far-Field Model Calibration 
The far-field model was calibrated using the results of the City of Grants Pass Mixing Tone 
Study (Brown and Caldwell 1992). In this mixing zone study, a fluorescent dye tracing study 
was used to measure lateral and vertical mixing of the Grants Pass discharge downstream of the 
outfall. The Grants Pass outfall discharges near the north bank of the Rogue River at river mile 
100.9. 
Each river has particular mixing characteristics, that depend on channel characteristics such as 
roughness, current speed, tortuosity, and depth. Plume width measurements at 250 and 1,000 
feet downstream of the Grants Pass discharge allowed calculation, using Equation 5.8, of the 
lateral turbulent diffusion coefficient {e^ for the Rogue River near Grants Pass. 
The Grants Pass study results were used to determine u* (shear velocity), and Equation 5.4 was 
used to extrapolate e, for application near the Redwood WWTP. The lateral turbulent diffusion 
coefficient for the Rogue River near the Redwood discharge—under regulatory, low-flow 
conditions-is estimated as 0.22 ftVsec. The vertical turbulent diffusion coefficient is estimated 
as 0.024 ft2/sec. 
5.3.5.5 Model Input 
Near- and far-field model input parameters are summarized in Table 5-9. Two statistical 
measures of effluent flows were used in the modeling analysis. Acute mixing ratios are 
calculated at peak day effluent flows to correspond with the short duration exposures leading to 
acute toxicity. Acute criteria are evaluated at the ZID. Chronic mixing ratios are calculated at 
peak month flows to correspond with the longer duration exposures associated with chronic 
toxicity. Chronic criteria are evaluated at the mixing zone boundary. Effluent flow projections 
are discussed in more detail in Section 5.1. 
5.3.5.6 Model Results 
Table 5-10 summarizes near- and far-field model results. The dilution ratio is the inverse of 
percent effluent. Results are given for both the current authorized mixing zone boundaries as 
well as at distances which may be considered for mixing zone expansion. Complete model 
results appear in Appendix F. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192 05 
Josephine County 5-21 April 1999 
OGG909 
Table 5-9 
Near- and Far-Field Model Input Parameters 
Parameter Source 
Near-Field 
Model 
(PLUMES) 
Far-Field Model 
(Advective 
Dispersion 
Equation) Comment 
PLANT 
Existing Flow Oct. 1992-Sept. 
1993 Daily 
Monitoring Reports 
(DMRs) 
0.54 mgd 
(summer peak 
day) 
0.48 mgd 
(summer peak 
month) 
Future Flow Projected 
(see Section 5.1) 
1.1 mgd 
(summer peak 
day) 
1.0 mgd 
(summer peak 
month) 
Effluent Temperature Estimate 21 °C N/A Mixing not sensitive to 
this parameter 
Effluent Salinity Estimate 0 N/A Mixing not sensitive to 
this parameter 
OUTFALL 
Port Diameter As-built Drawings 
(see Appendix F) 
18" 18" 
Vertical Angle As-built Drawings 
(see Appendix F) 
0° 0° 
Horizontal Angle As-built Drawings 
(see Appendix F) 
Co-Flowing Co-Flowing Actual angle 45° with 
respect to currents 
Contraction Coefficient Estimate 0.95 N/A 
Port Depth November 30, 1993 
Survey (Gary Wicks 
Engineering) 
1.85 ft Mid Level To center of port 
Port Elevation November 30, 1993 
Survey (Gary Wicks 
Engineering) 
1.3 ft Mid Level To center of port 
RECEIVING 
WATERS 
River Flow USGS, 1990 1,200 cfs 1,200 cfs Regulatory low flow 
Average Current Equation 5.1 1.25 ft/s 1.25 ft/s Regulatory low flow 
River Depth November 30, 1993 
Survey (Gary Wicks 
Engineering) 
2.8 ft 
(at outfall) 
2.4-ft 
(average) 
Regulatory low flow 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 i-'"0^ 
Josephine County 5-22 April 1999 
00 9 1 0 
Table 5-10 
Mixing Model Results 
Percent Effluent Dilution Ratio 
Mixing Existing"1 Future® Plume 
Criteria Distance (ft) (%) (%) Existing Future Width (ft) 
Acute 10 24 50 4.2 2.0 7.5 
20 15 36 6.5 2.8 10.6 
30 12 29 8.5 3.4 13.0 
Chronic 100 1.7 3.5 59.8 28.7 23.7 
200 1.2 2.6 80.2 38.5 33.6 
300 1.1 2.3 90.4 43.4 41.1 
(1) At existing summer plant flows (May-November). 
® At future summer plant flows (May-November). 
5.3.6 Effluent Quality 
5.3.6.1 Chlorine 
Chlorine residual statistical variability was determined from Discharge Monitoring Reports 
(DMRs) for the period October 1992 to September 1993. The following results were obtained: 
Number of Samples: 365 
Low: 0.0 mg/L 
High: 1.1 mg/L 
Mean: 0.44 mg/L 
5th Percentile: 0.10 mg/L 
50th Percentile: 0.40 mg/L 
95th Percentile: 0.80 mg/L 
5.3.6.2 Fecal Coliforms 
Fecal coliform samples are collected once each week. DMRs for the period January 1992 to 
September 1993 show that permit limits are consistently met: 
Number of Samples: 156 
Low: 0/100 raL 
High: 109/100 raL 
Weekly Average: 6/100 mL 
Monthly Average: 7/100 mL 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-23 April 1999 
0 0 0 9 1 1 
These results would suggest that the chlorine dose could be reduced and still meet permit limits. 
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 5.3.6.3 
Summer and winter BOD concentrations for the past six-year period are shown in Appendix C. 
Maximum summer month BOD was 25 mg/f (October 1992). 
5.3.6.4 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 
Summer and winter TSS concentrations for the past six-year period are shown in Appendix C. 
Maximum summer month TSS was 20 mg/f (June 1991). 
5.3.6.5 Turbidity and Suspended Solids 
The Redwood WWTP does not sample for turbidity; however, results from the Pullman WWTP 
in Pullman, Washington, can be used to represent typical secondary effluent values. The 
Pullman WWTP uses a process similar to the Redwood WWTP; however, turbidity values for 
the Redwood WWTP may be less than for Pullman, which has a higher summer suspended 
solids effluent limitation of 30 mg/L monthly and 45 mg/L weekly. 
Turbidity of the Pullman effluent was measured three times daily from January 1993 to March 
1993. Results of sampling are given below: 
Average ± Standard Deviation: 3.62 ± 3.04 
Maximum: 18.6 
Minimum: 0.5 
95th Percentile: 9.7 
5.3.6.6 Temperature 
High effluent temperatures are critical for receiving water impacts. At high river temperatures, 
dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations are lowered, which can adversely affect aquatic life. 
Effluent temperature is not measured at the Redwood WWTP; however, records from the Grants 
Pass WRP show effluent temperatures there may reach as high as 76°F. Similar summer 
effluent temperatures are expected at the Redwood WWTP and will likely periodically exceed 
70°F (Brown and Caldwell 1992). Effluent temperature monitoring at the Redwood WWTP 
should be initiated. 
5.3.6.7 Ammonia, Metals, Cyanide, Phenols 
A grab effluent sample was analyzed for ammonia, metals, cyanide, and phenols in December 
1993 by Nielson Laboratories, Medford, Oregon. Toxicants including pesticides, PCBs, and 
volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) were not tested in the effluent, because they were not likely 
to pose a concern for the primarily municipal influent. 
EPA guidance from the Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control 
(USEPA 1991) requires use of a reasonable potential multiplier to account for effluent variability 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 i-'"0^ 
Josephine County 5 -22 April 1999 
00 9 1 2 
when less than 20 effluent samples hâve been measured. The multiplier used for evaluating 
water quality standards compliance will be based on a 95th percentile probability basis and 95th 
percentile distribution. A coefficient of variation of 0.6 is assumed unless data are available for 
its calculation. 
No ammonia was detected in the Redwood sample. Typical secondary effluent ammonia 
concentrations are highly variable and depend in part on effluent temperature, pH, hydraulic 
detention time in the plant, and wastewater composition and strength. Each of these parameters 
can vary seasonally. 
To better represent ammonia variability in the Redwood effluent, testing results for the Grants 
Pass WRP will be used in lieu of the single Redwood sample. Results of limited ammonia 
testing in June 1991 are presented below (Brown and Caldwell 1992): 
Number of Samples: 5 
Low: 9.5 mg/L 
High: 12.3 mg/L 
Average: 11.1 mg/L 
5.3.6.8 pH 
Redwood's NPDES permit stipulates that effluent pH be in the range 6.0 to 9.0. Effluent pH 
is measured three times weekly and ranges from 6.7 to 7.8 (January 1992-September 1993). 
5.3.7 Water Quality Analysis 
In this section, the ability of the existing and future Redwood discharge to comply with water 
quality standards is evaluated. Tables 5-11 and 5-12 summarize the water quality analysis and 
compliance determination for each parameter analyzed. Information provided in Table 5-12 
includes: 
• Ambient concentrations from STORET data (see Table 5-3). 
• Effluent concentrations from DMRs, laboratory effluent scan (see Appendices B 
and D) or are estimated based on typical secondary treatment plant performance 
(i.e., Pullman WWTP and Grants Pass WRP). 
• Laboratory detection limits, when not detected. 
• Number of samples analyzed. 
• Reasonable potential multipliers for toxicants with less than 20 representative 
samples (USEPA 1991). 
• Freshwater acute and chronic water quality standards from Table 20, OAR-340-41 
and from numeric criteria in OAR 340-41-365. 
• Mixing ratios required to meet water quality standards. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-25 April 1999 
O O b 9 1 3 
! 
E CM 
W 
cj et 
1 1 1 
M * 
u 
•a 
i 
u 
8 "S, 
I I 3 «J 
I I 
' a o a 
a 
o 
— tî "-3 
S s g ja -2 
t s g 
Ü-5 H o a 
£ 
p 
« 
ä cu 
tñ § 
r-
1 — 00 ' 
I I I I I I 
c 
l l ^ ' S - ê S 
3 
V 
I I I I 
<; n v> so 
Z Z r i n Z -
Tf vor^j . 
vo " 
(N 
«1 « «> < q 2 
2 Z On 
VO 
J J 
s 
s 
û H o-H H fe 
(S OO 
r i ov ci co <s 
« rt^oTfionNmh 
•«r © od 2 Tf ri £ T—4 
e ® 
-h oo vo • 
r i ci vi ^ o w-y 
n © —' rf , • VO 
o n 
o«nc<iTrnr>>oOr)t»i 
2 ^ oi re' S °° «« Z: 
O t- O 3 >n O ci 
O 
ö et a a 
ON pì n o o «o >n ON rr rr o 
e s s a e e s 
I <S <N 
VO VO 
r4r»rir»<s<Nr«ririrj 
vo'vovovovovovovo'o^ 
<r> -
VO en 
© m o O oo • ri m 
o 2 w 
« N O t - <N.O N O |0 
° V V v V V 
O t c < v» —• r4 <T) o «n << m © 
I z z V V V " d z v v ^ 
o v V 
z 
J ä t J J 
EP J 00 00 
S a. 00 
6 
¡J J ¡J J ¡J ¡J (J J -3 
"Sô"5i>~£b oh~£ìi"Sb ooi» m oo 
3 -a u, C 3 
"3"S E îi Hô-a i. B e o Ä-O Si ! P i> u » •as g. « g -3 • « > e 
C U U U J S Z M Î Ô N 
•a 
3 
S g 
S o 
§ s 
OI -i 
o 
I ? 
S §; 
1 ? 
es 
I 
3 
55 "8 
U 0. 
a c 
S s c la 
i i 
i §• £ s 
0OC914 
1 
Table 5-12 
Compliance Summary 
Scenario01 
Current Flow Future Flow 
100' Radius 300' Radius 100' Radius 300' Radius 
Parameter Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic 
CONVENTIONAL 
Dissolved Oxygen — Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Temperature — Yes — Yes — No — Yes 
PH — Yes — Yes — Yes — Yes 
TSS — Yes — Yes — Yes — Yes 
Turbidity — No — Yes — No — No 
Fecal Coliforms — Yes — Yes — Yes — Yes 
TOXICANTS® 
Chlorine No No No Yes No" No No No 
Ammonia Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 
Cyanide LDN Yes Yes Yes LDN Yes LDN Yes 
Phenols Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Arsenic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Cadmium LDN Yes Yes Yes LDN Yês LDN Yes 
Chromium (HI) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Copper No No No No No No No No 
Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Mercury Yes LDN Yes LDN Yes LDN Yes LDN 
Nickel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Selenium Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Silver LDN LDN LDN LDN LDN LDN LDN LDN 
Zinc No No No No No No No No 
All scenarios assume current plant effluent quality. 
(2) Compliance based on detection limits when not detected. 
LDN - Lower effluent detection limits and more effluent samples needed to assess compliance. 
Table 5-11 includes a listing of each parameter and determination of compliance with water 
quality standards at each combination of existing and future predicted summer plant flows and 
current and expanded mixing zone boundaries (100 feet to 300 feet). Compliance is discussed 
for each parameter in the following sections. 
5.3.7.1 Dissolved Oxygen 
Salmonid species are present in the Rogue River and require that 95 percent DO saturation be 
maintained. Figure 5-4 shows mean values and 95th percentile confidence limits of DO 
concentrations and DO saturation for the Rogue River at all STORET ambient monitoring 
stations. Values are also shown separately by month for the Grants Pass station (Brown and 
Caldwell 1992). 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 i-'"0^ 
Josephine County 5 -22 April 1999 
00 9 1 5 
SUMMER DISSOLVED OXYGEN SATURATION 
WINTER DISSOLVED OXYGEN SATURATION 
SUMMER DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION 
20 40 60 SO 100 120 140 
River Mile 
WINTER DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION 
20 40 60 80 
River Mile 
13 
12.5 
" > y^i-^ .^' ^ ^ vìl7^" ' ' 
| ) 12 
c 
c 
f j É B r 
I " « H B H j l 
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 
MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS AT GRANTS PASS 
130 
125 
120 
£ 
e 115 
? no 
p> 
1 1 0 5 
•g 100 
1 95 2 
Q 90 
85 
80 
DISSOLVED OXYGEN SATURATION AT GRANTS PASS 
Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant 
#27-2192-05 02/99 
Source: Reproduced from 
Water Restoration Plant Facilities 
Plan Draft, City of Grants Pass 
(Brown and Caldwell, 1992) 
Figure 5-4 
Rogue River 
Dissolved Oxygen 
Grants Pass Dodge Brie 
60 80 100 120 140 
River Mile 
160 
•B 150 
2 
a 140 
§120 
1110 
I 100 
! 9 0 
Q 80 
70 
0 
Grants Pass Dodge Brio 
Robertsons GoUH* 
60 80 100 120 140 
River Mile 
W È K f i . i » i H 
m ; d e q ^ ^ T v - . 
•'••!.•'.•>.--••>• fffi-^r^ ixte&••>.'•>• -••>•• v. v v .-^ «^«^ ^^ SSBKPî-? 
Average DO saturation values exceed 95 percent in both summer and winter for the entire river 
length. At Grants Pass and Robertson Bridge Stations, annual mean saturation values are in 
excess of 106 percent. The lower 95th percentile confidence limit of both summer and winter 
DO saturation at Grants Pass is over 100 percent. The 95th percentile lower confidence limit 
of DO concentration at Grants Pass is 10.2 mg/L. 
A decreasing downstream trend in DO concentrations and DO saturation levels in the Rogue 
River is apparent from the plots. The decreasing downstream DO trend is a cumulative effect 
of all point and non-point sources, which appears to weigh against natural re-aeration rates. 
Total oxygen demand is composed of both carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) 
and nitrogenous biochemical oxygen demand (NBOD) CBOD and NBOD are exerted by 
bacteria and algae breaking down the effluent's waste materials for cellular production and 
metabolism. CBOD and NBOD in the effluent can be estimated using empirical relations found 
in the Revised Section 301 (h) Technical Support Document (EPA 1982). NBOD is based on total 
kjheldal nitrogen (TKN), which is not measured at the Redwood WWTP. In lieu of TKN data, 
Redwood NBOD loadings are based on a conservative effluent ammonia value of 25 mg/L. The 
ratio of TKN to ammonia nitrogen (found in the effluent of the LOTT Secondary Treatment 
Plant in Olympia, Washington), when applied to the Redwood WWTP ammonia estimate, is 
used to obtain TKN concentrations in the Redwood effluent. 
Because initial dilution occurs rapidly (approximately 30 to 60 seconds), BOD exertion (a slow 
process) is negligible during this period. However, an immediate dissolved oxygen demand 
(IDOD) may occur due to rapidly oxidized reduced substances (i.e., sulfides to sulphates). The 
DO concentration following initial dilution can be predicted from Equation VI-7 of the Revised 
Section 301 (h) of thé Technical Support Document (EPA 1982). This equation with conservative 
input parameters is presented as Equation 5.9. 
(DQe - IDOD - DOa) ( E q u a t i o n 5 9 ) 
f a c 
where: 
Parameter Definition Value Source 
DO, Critical ambient dissolved 
oxygen concentration 
10.2 mg/L 95th percentile lowest observed value at 
Grants Pass (STORET, see Table 5-3) 
IDOD Immediate dissolved oxygen 
demand 
1.0 mg/L Table VI-7 of 301(h) Technical Support 
Document (TSD). Assumes advanced 
primary treatment. 
sa Initial dilution 28.7 Modeling results for future effluent flows 
at current mixing zone (100 feet) 
DOc Effluent DO 4.0 mg/L Low value estimate for secondary effluent. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5 -23 April 1999 
0 0 0 9 1 7 
With this conservative combination of effluent DO, ambient DO, and IDOD, the critical 
10.2 mg/L ambient DO concentration is reduced after initial dilution to: 
9.95 mg/L 
This represents a 2.5 percent decrease in DO at the 100-foot authorized mixing zone boundary. 
With DO saturation at Grants Pass above 100 percent, a 2.5 percent decrease will allow DO 
saturation above 97 percent to be maintained, thereby meeting the 95 percent standard. 
The DO sag at distances farther downstream can be predicted using Equation VI-17 of the 301(h) 
TSD. This equation, with conservative input variables, is presented as Equation 5.10. 
DO(t) = DO, + 
DO f-DO l 
D D 
- (1 -e'"*') —(l-e"^') 
D. 
(Equation 5.10) 
where: 
Parameter Definition Value Source 
DOr Dissolved oxygen concentration 
at completion of initial dilution 
(100 feet). 
9.95 mg/L Results of Equation 5.9. 
Ds Dilution obtained subsequent to 
initial dilution. 
24.6 Full mixing of 1.1 mgd effluent flow 
with 1,200 cfs river flow. 
K Ultimate CBOD concentration 
above ambient at completion of 
initial dilution (100 feet). 
1.53 mg/L CBOD™, = 1.46 x BODS[30 mg/L 
(summer NPDES permit limit)] 
NBOD concentration above 
ambient at completion of initial 
dilution (100 feet). 
4.50 mg/L N B O D ™ , = 4.57x1. 13XNH3 [25 mg/L] 
K Decay rate for CBOD @ 22 °C. 0.60/day Conservative Value from QUAL2E 
(EPA 1987) 
K Decay rate for NBOD @ 22°C. 0.40/day Conservative Value from QUAL2E 
(EPA 1987) 
t Travel time, in river. 3 days From discharge to mouth of Rogue 
River assuming 2 ft/sec current speed. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 5-30 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
g 
As with Equation 5.9, the least favorable combination of input variables is used. The analysis 
gives the following DO decreases: 
River Mile 50: 0.13 mg/L 
Gold Beach (river mouth): 0.19 mg/L 
This simplistic analysis neglects re-aeration. With typical re-aeration rates of 3 mg/L to 5 mg/L 
per day (EPA 1987), re-aeration will negate the DO impacts from the Redwood discharge. 
Decreases in DO due to BOD exertion are so minimal at future predicted effluent flows that a 
measurable DO decrease outside of the mixing zone could never be attributed- to the Redwood 
discharge. 
5.3.7.2 Temperature 
State water quality standards do not allow a measurable increase in receiving water temperature 
outside of the mixing zone when ambient water temperature is above 58 °F. Mean water 
temperatures at Grants Pass are above 58°F for most of the summer (May-October), as shown 
in Figure 5-5. 
To analyze water quality impacts, it is assumed the maximum difference between effluent and 
receiving water temperature is 10°F. This is a conservative estimate based on DMRs from 
similar secondary treatment plants in which effluent temperature is measured (Parametrix, Inc.» 
1993). For example, when the receiving water temperature is 58°F, the effluent temperature 
would be 68 °F. 
The definition of "measurable increase" supported by ODEQ is an increase of 0.25°F at the 
mixing zone boundary (Brown and Caldwell 1992). With this allowance, a mixing ratio of 40 
is required at critical low river flows to assure compliance. This mixing ratio is achieved at 
current summer effluent flows at the current authorized mixing zone boundary; however, at 
increased future summer effluent flows, the mixing ratio is not achieved at mixing zones from 
100 to 200 feet from the outfall. If the mixing zone size were increased to a distance of 300 feet 
from the outfall, the temperature standard would be met. 
Although any increase in temperature is technically a violation, temperature impacts due to the 
discharge are expected to be minimal. Natural temperature fluctuations in the Rogue River are 
expected to mask any apparent increases. 
5.3.7.3 pH 
Redwood WWTP effluent pH ranges from 6.7 to 7.8 (January 1992 to September 1993), 
meeting the standard with no dilution. The buffering capacity of the effluent is anticipated to 
increase river pH when ambient pH is below neutral. This is a benefit when river pH levels are 
below the standard, as has occurred on occasion (see Table 5-8). 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-23 April 1999 
0 0 0 9 1 9 
o 
75 
70 
65 
1 60 
c 
S 
sz __ £ 55 
45 
40 
35 
'Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant 
#27-2192-05 02/99 
0 0 0 9 2 0 
Figure 5-5 
Rogue River Temperature 
(at Grants Pass) 
5.3.7.4 Total Suspended Solids 
The TSS standard of 500 mg/L will be met by virtue of the 30 mg/f summer effluent permit 
limit. 
5.3.7.5 Turbidity 
Low river turbidities attest to the high clarity of the Rogue River. Critical 95th percentile 
ambient turbidity is less than 1.0 NTU. Using the 95th percentile effluent value of 9.7 NTU 
from the Pullman WWTP (see Section 5.3.6.5), a mixing ratio of 87 would be required to meet 
the turbidity standard, which allows a 10 percent increase. This mixing ratio will not be met 
under current or future discharge scenarios during critical summer river flows. At a median 
river turbidity of 3.0 NTU, the mixing ratio required is lowered to 22.3. This mixing ratio is 
met at the current mixing zone under existing and future summer discharge conditions. 
5.3.7.6 Fecal Coliforms 
Median fecal coliform count of the Rogue River near Grants Pass is 91/100 mL. In the past, 
exceedances above the river coliform standard of 200/100 mL have occurred. Mean effluent 
concentrations are less than median river concentrations; therefore the Redwood discharge, on 
average, reduces river coliform concentrations. Even at the highest observed effluent 
concentration of 109/100 mL, the fecal coliform standard is met. Current NPDES permit limits 
are adequately protective of water quality. 
5.3.7.7 Chlorine 
At a 95th percentile highest chlorine residual of 0.80 mg/L and current plant flow, acute and 
chronic water quality standards are exceeded. The chronic standard could be met at a 200-foot 
or 300-foot mixing zone. At future predicted effluent flows, the acute and chronic standards 
could not be met, regardless of mixing zone size. 
5.3.7.8 Ammonia 
Acute and chronic ammonia water quality standards are currently met with the assumption that 
effluent ammonia concentrations are similar to the Grants Pass WRP (Brown and Caldwell 
1992). Acute and chronic ammonia standards may not be met at future discharge. Prior to 
assessing compliance at future plant flows, seasonal effluent ammonia measurements are 
required. Testing frequency is discussed in Section 5.3.8. 
5.3.7.9 Cyanide, Phenols, Metals 
With the limited effluent and river data available, copper and zinc are of notable concern. 
Before an adequate compliance assessment can be made, more effluent testing is required. 
Testing frequencies and other monitoring requirements are discussed in Section 5.3.8. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 i-'"0^ 
Josephine County 5-22 April 1999 
00 9 2 1 
5.3.8 Recommendations 
Based on the receiving water quality criteria analysis, the following treatment and monitoring 
recommendations can be asserted: 
5.3.8.1 Treatment Recommendations 
Lower chlorine doses can be applied yet wastewater can still achieve adequate disinfection. At 
lower effluent residuals, chronic chlorine standards can be met under existing and future effluent 
flows. However, it is highly unlikely that more efficient chlorination or outfall modifications 
would improve compliance within the ZID; therefore, dechlorination is recommended. 
Ammonia removal should be included in this facilities plan; however, final judgment on whether 
ammonia removal is necessary should be reserved until seasonal ammonia sampling results are 
available (see Section 5.3.8.2). 
5.3.8.2 Monitoring Recommendations 
Water quality analysis and compliance determination depends, to a large degree, on the number 
of effluent and receiving water samples collected. With larger numbers of samples, statistical 
uncertainties will be reduced, lowering reasonable potential multipliers and confidence limits. 
Reducing test detection limits will likewise reduce uncertainty . Monitoring recommendations 
for parameters showing a potential to exceed water quality standards are presented in Table 5-13. 
When sample collection is completed, further treatment recommendations can be made, such as 
the need for outfall modifications, pretreatment, or ammonia removal. 
Table 5-13 
Monitoring Recommendations 
Parameter Frequency/Duration 
Location 
Sample Type Effluent River® 
Dissolved Oxygen 2/month for one year X Grab 
Temperature 1/week for one year X X Grab 
Turbidity 1/week for one year X X 24-hr Composite 
Ammonia 1/week for one year X 24-hr Composite 
Bioassay 
Acute 
Chronic 
Quarterly for one year 
X 
X 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-23 April 1999 
9 2 2 
Table 5-13 
Monitoring Recommendations 
Parameter Frequency/Duration 
Location 
Sample Type Effluent River"» 
Toxicants Quarterly, using 3 
Cyanide consecutive days between X X 24-hr Composite 
Cadmium Monday and Friday, X X 24-hr Composite 
Copper inclusive. X X 24-hr Composite 
Lead X X 24-hr Composite 
Mercury X X 24-hr Composite 
Selenium X X 24-hr Composite 
Silver X X 24-hr Composite 
Zinc X X 24-hr Composite 
( l ) Upstream of outfall. 
5.4 FUTURE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS 
This section summarizes the requirements, discussed in Sections 5.1 through 5.3, which 
addressed future wasteload and flow, regulatory treatment criteria, and water quality criteria. 
In addition, the analysis of the existing treatment plant in Section 4 has shown a need for plant 
improvements to increase treatment efficiency and to meet critical needs if this plant continues 
to be used to treat wastewater from the District. The following is a list of requirements for 
future treatment: 
• If the District's wastewater flow is to be treated by either the Redwood WWTP 
or the City of Grants Pass WRP, either of these facilities should be designed for 
a maximum monthly dry Weather flow (MMDWF) of 1.50 mgd, a maximum 
monthly wet weather flow (MMWWF) of 2.36 mgd, and a peak instantaneous 
flow of 4.3 mgd in the year 2020 from the District. 
• Further, if the Redwood WWTP is to be used to treat this flow, it should be 
designed for effluent limitations at the plant for one of two possible situations: 
• Effluent limitations as established by OAR 340-41-375 or as shown in 
Table 5-4. 
• Effluent limitations as established by OAR 340-41-026 or as shown in 
Table 5-5. 
An evaluation of the cost and consequences of each of these effluent 
limitations should be conducted. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-23 April 1999 
0 0 0 9 2 3 
Also, if the Redwood WWTP is to be used to treat flow from the District, the plant should be 
upgraded to include the following: 
• Significantly reduce or remove chlorine residual in effluent at all times. 
• Provide for partial ammonia removal in the treatment process as part of any plant 
modifications. 
• Provide automatic composite sampling equipment to assist making data consistent 
and reliable. 
• Provide variable speed controls on the influent pumps to minimize the impacts of 
this pump station on the treatment abilities of the plant. 
• Add blower capacity to maintain adequate oxygen levels in the aeration basin 
during peak loadings. 
To meet these requirements, a number of alternatives have been developed and analyzed. These 
alternatives are presented in Section 6. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 
0 0 C 9 2 4 
5-36 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District 
Josephine County, Oregon 
P U B L I C W O R K S 
Pararnetrix, Inc. 
'Ajr-
9 2 5 
6. TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 
6.1 ALTERNATIVES INVESTIGATED 
To evaluate the best method for meeting the District's wastewater treatment needs to the year 
2020, twelve alternatives were analyzed. These alternatives were separated into three groups, 
the first and second of which use the Redwood WWTP for treatment and are considered 
treatment alternatives. The third group uses the City of Grants Pass WRP for treatment and are 
considered conveyance alternatives. 
• Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would provide secondary treatment at the existing Redwood 
WWTP with some ammonia removal. These alternatives would meet the effluent 
limitations shown on Table 5-4. These alternatives include: 
• Construct a new contact-stabilization activated sludge system. 
• Construct a new Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) treatment system. 
• Modify the existing process to a trickling filter/activated sludge treatment system. 
Each of these alternatives Would provide additional organic removal as well as partial 
ammonia removal at the plant but would require ODEQ approval of an increase in 
permitted mass discharges. The alternatives were investigated because they appear to be 
the most cost-effective and reasonable ways to expand the plant and they would meet the 
effluent limitations established by OAR 340-41-375; however, ODEQ would need to 
grant a special effluent discharge load limit to the Rogue river for any of these 
alternatives to be implemented. 
• Alternatives 4 and 5 would provide tertiary treatment at the existing Redwood WWTP 
and would not require a special discharge load limit to the Rogue River. These two 
alternatives would meet the effluent limitations shown in Table 5-5. These alternatives 
include: 
• Construct a new anoxic selector complete mix activated sludge system with 
effluent filtration. 
• Construct a new sequencing batch reactor (SBR) treatment system with effluent 
filtration. 
Both of these alternatives would also provide additional organic removal as well as 
significant ammonia removal at the plant. They would not require ODEQ approval of 
permitted mass discharge increases and they would meet the effluent limitations 
established by OAR 340-41-026. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-1 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
• Alternatives 6 through 12 provide pumping and transmission facilities to convey all of 
the wastewater to the Grants Pass WRP for treatment. 
This group of alternatives evaluates conveying wastewater to the Grants Pass WRP 
instead of upgrading the Redwood WWTP. The Grants Pass WRP has adequate 
treatment capacity available. Each of the six conveyance alternatives considers a 
different sewer force-main route between the existing Redwood WWTP and the Grants 
Pass WRP. A more detailed description of these conveyance alternatives is presented 
later in Subsection 6.5. 
6.2 ALTERNATIVES 1, 2, AND 3 
Preliminary sizing criteria, for each of the three alternatives investigated that meet the effluent 
limitations established by OAR 340-41-375 (shown in Table 5-4), are presented in Table 6-1. 
A short description of each of these three alternatives follows. 
Table 6-1 
Preliminary Sizing Criteria, New Unit Treatment Processes 
Treatment Plant Expansion Alternatives Meeting OAR 340-41-375 
Unit Process Size Criteria 
Alternative 1 - Contact Stabilization with Anoxic Selectors 
Anoxic Selector Basins 
No. of Trains 2 
No. of Cells 3/Train 
Total Volume 10,200 ft3 
Contact Basins 
No. of Trains 2 
Total Volume 26,400 ft3 
Depth 15 ft 
Stabilization Basins 
No. of Trains 2 
Total Volume 26,400 ft3 
Depth 15 ft 
Secondary Clarified" 
Diameter 60 ft 
Depth 13 ft 
Surface Area (effective) 2,714 ft2 
Anaerobic Digesters 
17,000 ft3 Volume (total of 2) 
Diameter 25' dia. - 20' 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-23 April 1999 
I ( 
0 0 0 9 2 7 
Table 6-1 
Preliminary Sizing Criteria, New Unit Treatment Processes 
Treatment Plant Expansion Alternatives Meeting OAR 340-41-375 
Unit Process Size Criteria 
Alternative 2 - SBR (Sequencing Batch Reactor) 
Sequencing Batch Reactor 
Number 2 
Dimensions 75' X 65' X 17' SWD 
Cycles per Day 5 - summer, 6 - winter 
Anaerobic Digesters 
Volume (total of 2) 17,000 ft3 
Dimensions 25' dia. - 20' SWD 
Alternative 3 - TF/AS (Trickling Filter/Activated Sludge) 
Primary Sedimentation Basins 
Volume 21,000 ft3 
Depth 11 ft 
Biofilters 
Number 2 
Media Depth 15 ft 
Diameter 40 ft 
Secondary Clarifier"» 
Diameter 60 ft 
Surface Area (effective) 2,714 ft2 
Anaerobic Digesters 
Volume (total of 2) 17,000 ft3 
Diameter 25' dia. - 20' SWD 
( ' In Alternatives 1 and 3, the existing secondary clarifier also remains in service. A polymer addition system 
would be provided to improve clarifier performance if the effluent suspended solids limits were not being 
met. 
A new contact stabilization activated sludge process would closely resemble the existing 
conventional activated sludge treatment process at the plant. In this process the activated sludge 
returned from the secondary clarifiers is aerated in a separate basin (the stabilization tank) before 
being mixed with the raw sewage. The combined raw sewage/RAS flow is then aerated using 
standard DO control in the contact tanks. Unaerated selector zones ahead of the contact tanks 
would be used to control filamentous bacteria by recycling nitrate-rich mixed liquor into the raw 
sewage. This alternative would have the least impact to operation and maintenance since the 
staff is accustomed to the processes and control. Waste-activated sludge from the clarifiers 
would be sent to the existing aerobic digester. Also, anaerobic digestion facilities would be 
constructed and are described in Section 6.4. A schematic diagram of this treatment process 
alternative is presented in Figure 6-1. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-3 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
c/î 
OC co 
y co 
r- uj 
C/> o 
S cc a a 
2 
UJ 
3 
J 
U. 
2 
«3 > co > 
o < 
a> 
M 
CO 
0 < 
c 
k. D 
<1> __ 
CC 
1 I 
co < < 
oc 5: 
c 
a) o 
> *3 
"5 .N 
co 
—- 4-> 
< co 
y— * - 4-1 i C U CO a> • 2> E £ i; t; w 3 O C 
.0)0> o 
U. F O 
•n ^ T3 
^ 55 
"U -rj 
® O 
I a 
ào 
i l 
Ï « 
1 1 0 C 9 2 9 
The second alternative considered is a sequencing batch reactor (SBR). Several manufacturers 
offer these as package units where all of the mechanical equipment required is supplied and 
installed in concrete tanks and structures built by the Owner. An SBR completes aeration and 
decanting of the mixed liquor in a single basin in 4- to 6-hour cycles. Two reactors are 
provided so that.while one is filling the other is undergoing aeration and decanting of the 
clarified secondary effluent. The anoxic selector is created by sequencing aeration and idle 
cycles in the basin. A schematic diagram of this treatment process is presented in Figure 6-2. 
The third alternative considered was the construction of trickling filters upstream of the existing 
activated sludge process. Trickling filters have been successfully used as an add-on process to 
provide additional organic and ammonia removal beyond that which can be achieved in the 
conventional activated-sludge process. Placing trickling filters before the existing aeration basin 
would require the installation of a primary clarifier. between the headworks and the trickling 
filters. The existing aeration basin would remain in service, and the aerobic digester would be 
converted to biosolids storage. This alternative would also require the use of filtration for the 
secondary effluent to assure that a 10/10 effluent could consistently be attained. A schematic 
diagram of this treatment process is shown in Figure 6-3. 
In both Alternatives 2 and 3, anaerobic digestion facilities, which are described in Section 6.4, 
would be added. 
The unit processes associated with each of these alternatives and the use of each existing 
structure at the plant are summarized below: 
Alternative 1 Contact Stabilization Basin with Anoxic Zones - New 
Secondary Clarifiers - New and Existing 
Aerobic Digester - Converted to Biosolids Storage 
Aeration Basin - Abandoned 
Anaerobic Digesters - New 
Alternative 2 SBR - New 
Aerobic Digester - Converted to Biosolids Storage 
Aeration Basin - Abandoned 
Anaerobic Digesters - New 
Alternative 3 Primary Clarifier - New 
Trickling Filters - New 
Aeration Basin - Existing 
Secondary Clarifiers - New and Existing 
Aerobic Digester - Converted to Biosolids Storage 
Secondary Effluent Filters - New 
Anaerobic Digesters - New 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 6-5 Revised November 1999 
0 0 € 9 3 0 
oc 
CQ 
CO 
O 
ai u. 
z 
co 
a 
m • UJ .. 
.• <n M 
co 
OC (fj 
y w 
i— m 
c/> o 
111 o 
S5œ 
D Q-
O CO 
m S 
g o 
u¡ w 
< m 
g 1 8 
UJ 
Ü 
Û 
Zi 
<0 
Q 
UJ 
§ 
H 
O < 
UJ 
H 
(/) 
<£ 
I 
<fl 
«Í 
CM g 
0) ® 
"5 r-
S « 
m « £ Cû 
< D> 
CM .E <¿> g O 
2>ÊO 
3 CO CT ö )£ g 
E H en 
\% 
"Í5 S3 
lëo IT5Ò1 
I 
O s 
o 
s 
f* 
UJ 
Cl 
-j 
O 
<3 
K 
CO 
§ 
È 
§ 
01 )0931 
U) 
C CO 
WOÏ 
ti™ O o 
oc 
Q. 
(O o 
Ui o 
5 
o 
m 
S o u3 » 
g o < m 
o « » 
H 
... 
Ui 
o'" - "' 
s, © 
g> O) 
.2 3 
•O -rj £ © 
™ <5 > > 
z ai 
3 
0 < 
c 
3 
<D 
CC 
1 
0 < 
<D 
W 
«J 
1 
c/> 
< á cc 5 
co 
<D « > 0) «3 Û) 
ca o c o 1. k ©Q. 
TZ < ® 
00 
I CD 
a> E 5 i-
3 OtJ 
O) g -o 
LE H < 
C 
4> O 
Q Oj 
1° 
S « 
®<M a « 
I o 
a: 
co 
h-
O 
S 
ÌL 
£ 
-J o 
0 
1 
O) 
§ 
g 
§ 
Ci 
0 1 ) 9 3 2 
In addition to the three plant expansion alternatives above, several plant improvements are 
needed, as suggested in Section 5.4. Other plant improvements are also needed to meet future 
treatment requirements regardless of which of the three expansion alternatives is selected. These 
improvements include: 
• Upgrade the influent pump station to handle future wastewater flows and provide 
variable-speed pumps. This improvement was identified in Section 5.4. 
• Modify the existing headworks to remove the comminutor and install additional 
screening. This will effectively remove rags and plastics and provide the existing 
screen as a backup unit. 
• Provide adequate disinfection for future wastewater flows. 
• Investigate the need for an emergency effluent pump station to provide for 
effluent discharge to the river during high river elevations. 
To reduce the effect of the influent pump operation on downstream treatment processes, it is 
recommended that variable-speed pumps be installed. Originally, there were mechanical devices 
to regulate the flow, but this system no longer functions. Installation of variable-speed pumps 
would allow treatment units at the plant to operate more efficiently. 
It is also recommended that a new screen be installed. Presently, the comminutor is used at the 
headworks, but this merely grinds large solids into a smaller, more manageable size material. 
Unwanted debris, hair, and plastics are still in the wastewater stream. It would be better for 
equipment and the composting operation if these materials could be removed. A screen installed 
in the present headworks would perform this function. The headworks structure would have to 
be modified, however, to accommodate a new screen. This would include raising the outside 
walls to provide for adequate hydraulic capacity. 
To provide for future disinfection, a new ultraviolet disinfection system would be required. 
An emergency effluent pump station may also be a required plant improvement. If required, 
effluent pumps would be sized to match influent pumping capacity. 
Recent Rogue River flood elevation mapping has apparently raised the projected 100-year flood 
elevations in the river at the plant site from those previously identified. At this new higher 
projected elevation, wastewater flows can no longer gravity discharge to the river as suggested 
in the original 1977-78 design. Instead, an effluent pump station would be necessary to ensure 
plant discharge capabilities during extreme river floods. 
During design of any plant improvement, the need for an effluent pump station would be 
carefully evaluated. An analysis of the need for an effluent pump station would be based on the 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-23 April 1999 
000933 
hydraulics of the expanded process which would show the effects of an extreme flood condition 
at the plant. 
6.3 ALTERNATIVES 4 AND 5 
Preliminary sizing criteria for each of the two alternatives investigated which meet the effluent 
limitations established by OAR 340-41-026 (shown in Table 5-5) are presented in Table 6-2. 
Table 6-2 
Preliminary Sizing Criteria, New Unit Treatment Processes 
Treatment Plant Expansion Alternatives Meeting OAR 340-41-026 
Unit Process Size Criteria 
Alternative 4 - Complete Mix/Anoxic Selector with Effluent Filtration 
Anoxic Selector Basins 
No. of Trains 
No. of Cells 
Total Volume 
-
2 
3 
10,300 ft3 
Anoxic Basins 
No. of Trains 
No. of Cells 
Total Volume 
2 
1 
29,800 ft3 
Aeration Basins 
No. of Trains 
No. of Cells 
Total Volume 
2 
2 
121,000 ft3 
Secondary Clarified" 
Diameter 
Depth 
Surface Area (effective) 
60 ft 
13 ft I 
2,714 ft2 
NOTE: Polymer addition system would be provided to 
improve clarificr performance if 10 mgIt suspended 
solids limits were not being met. 
Effluent Filtration System 
Average Daily Loading 
Maximum Daily Loading 
Total Surface Area 
4 gpm/ft2 
6 gpm/ft2 
360 ft2, minimum 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-10 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
Table 6-2 
Preliminary Sizing Criteria, New Unit Treatment Processes 
Treatment Plant Expansion Alternatives Meeting OAR 340-41-026 
Unit Process Size Criteria 
Alternative 5 - SBR with Effluent Filtration 
Sequencing Batch Reactor 
Number 
Dimensions 
Cycles per Day 
Anaerobic Digesters 
Volume (total of 2) 
Dimensions 
Effluent Filtration System 
Average Daily Loading 
Maximum Daily Loading 
Total Surface Area 
2 
75' x 65' x 17' SWD 
5 - summer, 6 - winter 
17,000 ft3 
25' dia. - 20' SWD 
4 gpm/ft2 
6 gpm/ft2 
360 ft3, minimum 
In Alternative 4, existing secondary clarifier remains in service. 
A new anoxic selector complete mix activated-sludge process would closely resemble the existing 
conventional activated-sludge treatment process at the plant but would be much larger. In this 
process, the return activated sludge from the secondary clarifiers would be returned to the anoxic 
selector basins to be combined with raw sewage. Also, mixed liquor would be recycled to the 
anoxic selector to provide for substantial ammonia removal. To meet effluent limitations of 
OAR 340-41-206, effluent filtration would be required. A schematic diagram of this treatment 
process is presented in Figure 6-4. 
The second alternative being considered to meet the effluent limitations of OAR 340-41-026 is 
an SBR with effluent filtration. This alternative is essentially identical to Alternative 3 presented 
in Section 6.1.1, except that it also includes effluent filtration. This alternative also requires a 
flow equalization basin prior to effluent filtration due to flow fluctuations from the SBR process. 
A schematic diagram of this treatment process is presented in Figure 6-5. 
For both Alternatives 4 and 5, anaerobic digestion would be added as described in Section 6.4. 
The unit processes associated with each of these alternatives and the use of each existing 
structure at the plant are summarized below: 
Alternative 4 Anoxic Selector/Anoxic/Aeration Basin - New 
Secondary Clarifiers - New and Existing 
Filtration - New 
Aerobic Digester - Converted to Biosolids Storage 
Aeration Basin - Abandoned 
Anaerobic Digesters - New 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-10 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
z 
o 
K 
o 
UJ 
LL 
z 
<o 
Q 
<0 
y w H UH 
» O 
g o 
S2 oc 
y É oc 
H S 
OC 
ili 
O 
a 
zJ 
<0 
Q 
ai 
§ 
h-
O < 
z 
oc 
ZJ 
h-
UJ 
oc 
UJ 
(5 
Q 
Z) 
_J 
co 
o 
ui 
g 
j— 
o < 
UJ 
H-en < 
oc £ 
© > • 
s (0 c 
k. 
B < 
t ï to a> 
£ E 
3 «S 
en œ 
E l i : 
a 
S. 
S 32 sg 
8 ÍB1 S<? "O CM o aï 
c r S 
0 0 0 9 3 6 
z o § 
oc 
z 
O 
H-
O 
Uj 
LL 
z 
</3 
Q 
U1 
f— z 
ui OI 
2 ¿ ^ 5 
ge t ce 
UJ 
O 
O 
ra 
C/3 
0 
UJ 
1 
i-
o < 
UJ 
f-CO < 
(fi < 
IO 
O > 
(0 c 
k-
<J) < 
to p i G (O © 
£ E Va ÄJ 
3 <0 
O) g 
i l H-
C 
s - I 
© ÍT 
DC 
JC C o o 
co e; 
ffi 
£ £ © 
30C CTm 0) J75 
CO ili-
«S Is 
-o Ol 
QO) 
1? 
I 
O a: 
Vi 
h-
o 
£ 
DC 
UJ 
C 
cc 
-J 
o 
<3 
2: 
I-
co 
s 
• » s 
O 
OOC937 
Alternative 5 SBR - New 
Flow Equalization - New 
Filtration - New 
Aerobic Digester - Convert to Biosolids Storage 
Aeration Basin - Abandoned 
Anaerobic Digester - New 
Similar to the three plant alternatives discussed in Section 6.1.1, several plant improvements are 
also needed as part of Alternatives 4 and 5, as suggested in Section 4. All of these 
improvements are provided in either Alternative 4 or 5. 
6.4 NEW BIOSOLIDS TREATMENT PLAN 
Regardless which of the Alternatives 1 through 5 are evaluated, new biosolids treatment facilities 
will be necessary at the Redwood WWTP. This is because the existing biosolids composting 
operation has been ordered to close in October 1999. 
The District's biosolids composting facility, which has been in operation since 1988, aerobically 
digests sludge and blends it with yard waste, saw dust, lumber waste and livestock bedding to 
produce a material sold as a soil amendment The composting operation is designed as a process 
to further reduce pathogens (PFRP), Sometimes referred to as Class A biosolids treatment. 
Concerns about odor and dust generation from the composting operation are the main reasons 
why composting must be closed in 1999. Wastewater treatment alternatives 1 through 5 
therefore need to include a new biosolids treatment and disposal process. The existing aerobic 
digesters do not have adequate future solids loading capacity nor can they meet PFRP standards. 
The Grants Pass WRP uses anaerobic digesters to treat biosolids before they are land applied. 
For evaluation purposes, it was assumed that the Redwood WWTP would also require new 
anaerobic digesters. The biosolids would then be land applied, which is similar to the biosolids 
handling and disposal plan currently used at the Grants Pass Facility 
6.4.1 Anaerobic Digestion Process Description 
Anaerobic digestion is a biological process that uses bacteria, in an oxygen-free environment, 
to convert volatile solids into carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia. The best suited anaerobic 
digester for the Redwood WWTP would be a mesophilic single-stage, high-rate digester. High-
rate anaerobic digestion combines active mixing and carefully controlled, elevated temperature 
to increase sludge stabilization rate. Figure 6-6 shows a process flow diagram for this system. 
Temperature variations are more critical to the anaerobic digestion process than the aerobic 
digestion process, and careful temperature control is required to avoid process upsets. The 
Redwood WWTP anaerobic digesters would be operated in the mesophilic temperature range of 
30 to 38°C. Gas production, a by-product of anaerobic digestion, is optimized in this range. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-13 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
0 0 0 9 3 8 
LU 
2 < a . 
< co coo 
mÛ0L 
CQ^ jü) 
" O ü 
•388 OC03 
a 
V \ 
\ \ 
A I 
o o 
u-i i 
TL 
a: LU 
J 
O 
o. 
ò?« to Q ¿SOT m û 
Ü39NVH0X3 
lV3H/tí3~ll09 
<fí m 
CD 
Q 
a g 
lu fr 
bc!JW 
Z^zlJJ 
hZMÛ 
a S O X o 
cc^zOa: 
u j O < o c u j <UII—LLC 
05 Π
a. 
c 
o 
1 0 ©.Sì 
•2* «3 Q £ 
<o o © 
¿ ' - g o 
© 2</> 
i: © > 
3 ra g 
o> c o 
¡ I < Li. 
0 
O) 
J2 ra 
( A O (0 
-go 
«to® o ® t» noto 
û û S t i l 
g ö g Ü Q ^ 
O O) •o 
« o » 
« <5 ® sil ¡ ¡ e t 1 3 1 • • i 
CfliQM 
CEZS 
0.3 • 
a o> •o 3 
(0 
•o ® 
4-» 
S** .Ï c •5 a 
(9 £ Q.C 3 a> w o 
3 M 
¿ i i i i t 
S 
s® 
(U ai 
MOl Sin 
SS! 
O r 5« •Oti 
«CM tr* 
0 0 C 9 C 9 
A typical municipal anaerobic digester handling primary and waste-activated sludge should 
produce approximately 15 to 18 cu-ft gas/lb of volatile suspended solids (VSS) destroyed. The 
amount of gas produced is a function of temperature, sludge retention time, and volatile solids 
loading. Methane and carbon dioxide are the two main constituents of digester gas, nitrogen, 
hydrogen, and hydrogen sulfide are found in trace amounts. Methane concentrations range from 
60 to 70 percent by volume. Typical digester gas has a heat content between 500 to 
700 BTU/cu-ft and may be used as a fuel supply for heating incoming sludge or for space 
heating of WWTP buildings. For periods when digester gas production is low, natural gas may 
be used as a supplemental fuel source. 
Two types of covers are available for anaerobic digesters: fixed and floating. Floating covers 
may either directly float on the sludge, or rest on side skirts and float on the gas (gas holder 
type). Floating covers are generally more expensive than fixed types, but provide better safety 
against explosions. The District may wish to consider the benefits of floating covers at a later 
time; however, a fixed cover is used in this analysis. 
Several heating methods have been used with anaerobic digesters, including submerged burners, 
steam injection, internal heat exchangers, and external heat exchangers. External heat 
exchangers are the most popular because of their flexibility and ease of maintenance. This type 
of heat exchanger is recommended for the Redwood WWTP. 
Three general mixing methods have been used in anaerobic digesters: mechanical, pumped, and 
gas recirculation. Mixing the digester Contents minimizes thermal stratification, disperses the 
substrate for better contact with the active biomass, reduces scum and grit buildup, dilutes any 
inhibitory substances or adverse pH and temperature feed characteristics, increases the effective 
volume of the reactor, allows reaction gases to separate more easily, and keeps more inorganic 
material in suspension. A gas recirculation system was chosen for this evaluation. Mechanical 
mixers and pump impellers are subject to wear resulting from grit and debris abrasion. The 
Redwood WWTP has no grit removal facilities, so grit is expected to accumulate in the 
digesters. The digester should be designed with highly sloped floors, several withdrawal ports, 
and easy access though wall openings near the ground to facilitate cleaning and grit removal. 
The first step of this process would be aerated equalization. Equalization prior to thickening 
would facilitate even feeding of the thickening device. Next, sludge is thickened prior to 
anaerobic digestion, which reduces sludge heating and tank volume requirements. Pre-thickening 
the sludge also helps maintain constant feed conditions to the reactor. With dissolved air 
floatation thickening, some grit can be removed prior to digestion. Following thickening to 
approximately 4 percent solids, the sludge is transferred into the anaerobic digesters. Digester 
gas is fed into a boiler. Waste gas in excess of that needed for the boiler and gas mixing 
systems would be flared or alternately stored during periods when gas production is low. A heat 
exchanger transfers heat from the boiler to feed sludge. Following anaerobic digestion, the 
sludge is dewatered in the most cost-effective device, a SOMAT press, and subsequently 
conveyed to a trailer for hauling. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-25 April 1999 
Chemical feed systems may be necessary if changes in alkalinity, pH, sulfides, or heavy metals 
cause process upsets. The ability to feed certain chemicals such as sodium bicarbonate, ferrous 
chloride, ferrous sulfate, lime, and alum should be considered early in the design process. 
Chemical feed equipment would include standby chemical metering pumps, several points of 
application, and associated piping. 
To facilitate process control, all water, sludge, and gas flows should be metered. Sight access 
ports should be provided on the digester tank as well as 36-inch-diameter manholes in the roof 
and on the lower portions of the digester tanks to facilitate cleaning. 
The major advantages of anaerobic digestion include the following: 
• Excess energy over that required by the process is produced. Methane can be 
used to heat and mix the reactor. Excess methane gas can be used to space heat. 
• The quantity of total solids is reduced over the aerobic digestion process. About 
30 to 40 percent of the total incoming solids may be destroyed. 
• The product is a stabilized sludge, that may be free from strong or foul odors. 
The major disadvantages of anaerobic digestion are as follows: 
• The digester is easily upset by unusual or erratic conditions and therefore requires 
increased operator attention; it is also slow to recover. 
• Anaerobic digestion requires more equipment than other processes (i.e., boiler, 
heat exchanger, waste gas flare), and this greatly increases system complexity. 
• Cleaning operations are difficult because the reactors are closed vessels. 
• Grit can accumulate in the reactors, and grit removal facilities are not currently 
part of the Redwood WWTP design. 
• A natural gas main would need to be constructed from the Redwood Elementary 
School to the plant to supplement digester gas when digester gas production is 
low. This gas main may cost the District as much as $50,000 per mile (Ball, E., 
October 17, 1996). 
• There is a possibility of explosion as a result of inadequate operation and 
maintenance, leaks, or operator carelessness. 
• Gas line condensation or clogging can cause major maintenance problems. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-23 April 1999 
0 0 0 9 4 1 
6.4.2 Preliminary Design Criteria 
Factors that govern the design of anaerobic digestion systems include feed characteristics, 
temperature, solids loading, detention time, mixing method, heating requirements, and energy 
recovery. Design parameters were evaluated, and suitable preliminary design criteria and 
equipment selected for an anaerobic digestion system at the Redwood WWTP. Preliminary 
design criteria are listed in Table 6-3. 
Table 6-3 
Anaerobic Digestion Preliminary Design Criteria 
Volatile Suspended Solids Reduction (minimum): 40 - 60% 
Total Solids Reduction: 33 - 50% 
Detention Time: 18 days 
Design Temperature: 35 °C 
Feed Concentration: 4.0% 
Feed Rate (maximum month): 8,540 gpd 
Solids Loading (maximum month): 0.13 lbs VSS/cu-fit/day 
Anaerobic Digesters: 
Number: 
Material: 
Type: 
Volume (each): 
Diameter: 
Height: 
Cover: 
Floor Slope: 
2 
Concrete 
Aboveground 
128,000 gal 
25 feet 
20 feet 
Fixed 
1:6 
Aerated Equalization Tank (existing): 
VSS Reduction: <9% 
Digester Mixing: 
Type: 
Gas Requirement: 
Power Consumption: 
Foam Cutters: 
Gas recirculation 
55 - 75 scfm/compressor 
Vh HP 
Included 
Digester Heating: 
Boiler type: 
Gas Production: 
Methane Content: 
Minimum Incoming Sludge Temperature: 
Recirculating water 
18,000 cu-ft/day 
66.6% 
15°C 
Heat Value of Gas: 
Requirement for Sludge Heating: 
Transfer Losses (tank, floors, walls) 
Net Heat Surplus (deficit): 
+ 7.0 million BTU/day 
- 2.6 million BTU/day 
- 2.1 million BTU/dav 
2.3 million BTU/day 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-10 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
6.4.3 Site Plan 
Figure 6-7 shows how the facilities might be placed on the site. Ample space exists for all 
proposed facilities. The biosolids handling building footprint is based on space requirements for 
a dissolved air floatation thickener and SOMAT press for dewatering device. An integral 
digester operations and control building is located between the two digesters. This building 
would contain the boiler and heat exchanger, process pumps, polymer feed equipment, piping, 
valves, flow meters, and appurtenances. A biosolids pump station adjacent to the equalization 
tank pumps sludge to the thickening device. Gas storage and odor control facilities are not 
included in this evaluation. Facilities are grouped together to minimize site piping. 
6.4.4 Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs 
The estimated cost to construct anaerobic digesters is $3,370,000 ($2,590,000 without 
contingency). A detailed breakdown estimate of probable costs is presented in Appendix G. 
Included in this estimate are two aboveground concrete digester tanks with fixed covers, vessel 
access platforms and ladders, integral operations building, thickened sludge transfer pumps, 
conversion of existing aerobic digester to an aerated sludge equalization tank, equalization 
transfer pumps, yard piping, dedicated trailer for dewatered sludge storage, interconnecting 
piping, valves, and appurtenances, reactor design, installation, start-up and training services. 
Sludge thickening and dewatering facilities are estimated separately. Additional facilities that 
may be needed upon further review, such as polymer feed equipment and waste gas scrubbing 
equipment, are not included in this estimate. It is assumed no natural gas will be used in the 
process. 
Operations and maintenance costs shown in Appendix G include pumping of thickened sludge, 
equalized sludge, and digested sludge; Conveying dewatered sludge; and compressing digester 
gas for mixing requirements. Sludge thickening and dewatering labor requirements, as well as 
polymer costs, are included. Heating energy for the anaerobic digestion process is supplied 
primarily by digester gas recovery. 
6.4.5 Preliminary Screening of Alternatives 1 Through 5 
To reduce the complexity of evaluating twelve different alternatives, a preliminary screening of 
Alternatives 1 through 5 was conducted based on cost. Capital cost estimates for the each of 
these five alternatives, which include the cost of new biosolids treatment, are shown in 
Table 6-4. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix G. Operation and maintenance cost 
estimates for each of these alternatives are summarized in Table 6-5 Also shown in this table 
is the operation and maintenance cost of the existing Redwood WWTP for 1999. 
Based on cost, Alternative 1 - Contact Stabilization and Alternative 4 - Complete Mix/Anoxic 
Selector/Filter were selected for further comparison to Alternatives 6 through 12. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 6-18 April 1999 
OOC943 
0 0 0 9 4 4 
Table 6-4 
Treatment Alternatives 1 through 5 
Estimate of Probable Costs (costs in $l,000s) 
Wastewater Process 
Alt. 1 
Contact 
Stabilization 
Alt. 2 
SBR 
Alt. 3 
Trickling 
Filter 
Alt. 4 
Complex Mix 
Anox Select 
Filter 
Alt. 5 
SBR Filter 
Biofilters - - $719 - -
Aeration Basin $1,239 - , - $1,742 
Secondary Clarifier $513 - - $513 $513 - -
SBR Basin - $1,717 - - - $1,585 
Blower Building $129 - - $129 $123 
Primary Sedimentation - - - $586 - - -
Package Filtration - - - $409 $409 $409 
Effluent EQ - - $95 - - $95 
Influent Pump Stn Mods $113 $148 $115 $113 $148 
Headworks Mods $121 $161 $56 $121 $161 
UV Disinfection $315 $315 $315 $315 $315 
Site/Civil $72 $72 $72 $72 $72 
Yard Pipe $72 $72 $72 $108 $108 
Electrical $433 $433 $503 $559 $475 
Subtotal $3,008 $3,014 $3,356 $4,082 $3,491 
Biosolids Process $2,590 $2,590 $2,590 $2,590 $2,590 
Contingency, 30% $1,679 $1,681 $1,784 $2,002 $1,824 
Subtotal Construction $7,278 $7,285 $7,730 $8,673 $7,906 
Engineering and Admin, 
22% 
$1,601 $1,603 $1,701 $1,908 $1,739 
Total Project Cost0» $8,880 $8,890 $9,430 $10,580 $9,650 
(1) Rounded to three significant figures. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-23 April 1999 
0 0 0 9 4 5 
Table 6-5 
Treatment Alternatives 1 through 5 
Annual O&M Costs 
Existing 
Plant 
Alt. 1 
Contact 
Stabilization 
Alt. 2 
SBR 
Alt. 3 
Biofilter 
Alt. 4 
Comp Mix 
Effluent 
Filter 
Alt. 5 
SBR with 
Effluent 
Filter 
Salary and Wages 555,500 $73,800 $73,800 $73,800 $84,300 $84,300 I 
Employee Benefits $18,949 $25,250 $25,250 $25,250 $28,850 $28,850 
Supply and Material $24,808 $27,808 $26,400 $29,800 $31,500 $31,000 
Services $55,835 $77,235 • $76,800 $80,500 $82,500 $81,500 
Interfund and Inter 
Gov. 
$123,254 $136,700 $135,500 $144,000 $146,000 $145,000 
Capital Replace/ 
Improvements 
$39,870 $49,370 $49,370 $51,400 $55,400 $55,400 
Subtotal $318,216 $390,163 $387,120 $404,750 $428,550 $426,050 J 
Anaerobic Digestion $193,760 $193,760 $193,760 $193,760 $193,760 $193,760 
Total O&M Cost'1' $512,000 $584,000 $581,000 $599,000 $622,000 $620,000 
(1) Rounded to three significant figures. 
6.5 ALTERNATIVES 6 THROUGH 12 
An alternative to upgrading the Redwood WWTP (Alternatives 1 through 5) would be to convey 
all wastewater to the Grants Pass WRP for treatment. This option is evaluated in Alternatives 
6 through 12. Each of these alternatives utilize a slightly different route of conveying 
wastewater between these two points. In each case, a conveyance system consisting of either 
one or two pump stations and associated sewer force mains would be used to transfer all 
wastewater flow from the Redwood WWTP to the Grants Pass WRP, where it would be treated. 
For any of these alternatives, centralized wastewater treatment for the entire Grants Pass area 
is provided at one treatment plant rather than at two plants. This reduces the operation and 
maintenance costs significantly. The following information is presented in this section for each 
of these alternatives. 
• Design criteria 
• Description of alternatives 
• Capital costs estimates 
• Preliminary screening of alternatives 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6 - 1 0 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
6.5.1 Design Criteria 
Based on the existing wastewater flow data presented in Table 4-1 and the wastewater flow 
projections presented in Table 5-1, Alternatives 6 through 12 design criteria are presented in 
Table 6-6. 
Table 6-6 
Treatment Alternatives 6 through 12 
Design flows 
Item 1998 Actual 2020 Estimated 
1 Average Flow, mgd 
Summer 0.49 0.88 
Winter 0.63 1.22 
Annual 0.56 1.05 
Max. Day, mgd 
Summer 0.77 1.43 
Winter 1.79 3.08 
Min. Day» mgd 0.28 0.76 
Pump Stations 
To ensure that the facility has adequate capacity, a peaking factor was applied to maximum daily 
flow to obtain a peak hourly design flow of 4.2 mgd, Designing conveyance facilities that 
would handle such a large range of flow, 0.28 mgd to 4.2 mgd, is not a simple task. The pump 
station would also be required to have standby pumping capacity . State guidelines require that 
pump station capacity be met with the largest pump out of service. 
Alternatives discussed later in this section include either one pump station or two pump stations. 
The larger pump station in the two-station alternative is very similar to that required for the 
single station alternatives. Design of this pump station would be based on the selected pipeline 
route but can be summarized for all alternatives as follows: 
• Three pumps (one stand-by) 
• 1,460 gpm, each pump (2.1 mgd each) 
• Approximate total pumping head: 180 to 200 feet depending on route selection 
• Variable speed drives 
It is recommended that variable speed drives be used on the large pump station because of the 
high head associated with the peak flows. Variable speed drives will result in lower electrical 
costs and more continuous flow to the Grants Pass WRP. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 i-'"0^ 
Josephine County 5-22 April 1999 
00 9 4 7 
To provide the high head required to convey the wastewater five to six miles to the Grants Pass 
WRP, it is necessary for the pump station to either consist of several sets of two pumps in series 
or operate single pumps at higher speed (1,800 rpm). The cost estimates in this report are based 
on 1,800 rpm pumps. This is because the cost to operate two pumps at a slower rpm in series 
would be more expensive than the cost to operate larger single pumps. 
High-head pumping stations with long force mains often experience surge conditions. During 
design, the conveyance system should be analyzed to determine the surge conditions and provide 
appropriate protection as needed. 
If there is only one pump station, it will be located at the same location and depth as the 
Redwood WWTP influent pump station (RI-0). The structure housing the pumps will be 
approximately 23 feet deep. The existing WWTP influent pump station dry well is too small 
and will be replaced with a new dry well large enough for the three pumps. An above-grade 
structure will house the chemical injection system, motor control center, and emergency 
generator. 
It appears that the existing wet well could be used for two pumps. The two existing 12-inch 
suction pipes are adequately sized for the new pumps. 
Alternatives involving two pumping stations locate a small pump station at the existing Redwood 
WWTP (RI-0) and a second larger pump station at manhole RI-25. Manhole RI-25 is near the 
north end of Darneille Lane, and near the west boundary of the designated urban growth area. 
Pump Station RI-0 would accept flow that is collected from the area west of RI-25 and would 
pump it to the larger station through a force main. 
Construction of the small pump station at RI-0 would involve replacing the pumps and some of 
the electrical and mechanical equipment in the existing influent pumping station. The new 
pumps would each be sized for 0.5 mgd (350 gpm) at 40 feet of total pumping head, based on 
a 6-inch force main going to the larger pump station at RI-25. These pumps would likely need 
to be upgraded in year 2020. 
Sewer Force Main 
Because raw wastewater contains grit and other solids, force main flow velocity is a critical 
design factor. If the wastewater velocity in the force main is too fast, the grit and sand can 
prematurely erode the inside of the pipe. If the flow velocities are too slow, solids will settle 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 6-23 Revised November 1999 
0 0 0 9 4 8 
and accumulate in the pipe causing sedimentation and pipe blockage. The design criteria for any 
force main is as follows: 
• Provide minimum pipe scour velocity for the following conditions: 
Noncontínuous flow: 3 feet per second at start-up and ultimate peak flows 
Continuous flow: 2.0 feet per second 
• Keep pump head below 100 feet if possible 
Based on the above criteria, preliminary design is based on the providing twin 12-inch force 
mains with Class 250 pressure rating. 
The advantages to providing the twin force mains would be as follows: 
• Allows for adequate scour velocity at start-up flows while minimizing pumping 
head at ultimate flows. 
• Reduces odor and corrosion problems by reducing detention time in the pipeline 
and providing better scouring action. 
• Allows for maximum pump turn down and optimum pump selection. 
• Reduces initial peak flows to the Grants Pass WRP, by allowing for variable 
speed drives or a smaller lead pump. 
Operating the conveyance system involves selecting the appropriate pipe (or pipes) to provide 
capacity and maintain proper scour velocities. Pipe selection will be done by valve manipulation 
at the pump station, either manually or automatically. In the first five years of operation, only 
one pipe will be used, except during occasional Very high flows, Ultimately, the conveyance 
system valves will be set for continuous use of both pipes. 
Odor and Corrosion Control 
Generally, for long sewage force mains experiencing varying flows and detention times, it is 
necessary to provide odor and corrosion protection. Preliminary design for the conveyance 
system is based on providing the following methods of minimizing odor and corrosion: 
• Two points of chemical injection: One at Pump Station RI-0, and one at a single 
point along the pipeline route (at Pump Station RI-25 for the two station 
alternatives). 
• Activated carbon canisters at any automatic air release valves 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-10 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
The wastewater constituent responsible for most odor and corrosion problems is hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S). Many of the other odor compounds in the wastewater are also reduced by targeting H2S. 
A variety of chemicals have been Used to oxidize H2S. The two most common for wastewater 
force mains are sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide. Sodium hypochlorite injection is 
less costly to operate; however, hydrogen peroxide provides the added benefit of providing 
residual oxygen to limit the reformation of H2S. Another product available for odor control is 
Bioxide™ These three systems should be evaluated during detailed design. 
Automatic air release valves will be provided at any high points in the pipeline. They are a 
potential source of odor, particularly during low summer flows. To minimize these odors, 
activated carbon canisters will be connected at the exhaust of each air release valve. 
6.5.2 Description of Alternatives 6 Through 12 
Seven potential pipeline routes were investigated for this study. The two most critical factors 
in selecting the route are the location and method of crossing the Rogue River and length of 
roadway to be disturbed. 
River Crossing Alternatives 
The following options for crossing the river were investigated: 
• Open cut the river crossing 
• Tunnel (boring) under the river 
• Cross the river at the proposed pedestrian bridge near the Grants Pass WRP 
• Cross the river at the existing bridge for SR 199 
Tunnel crossing or open-cut alternatives would require investigation of geotechnical and 
bathymétrie conditions. There are many potential locations for either of these options, but only 
two of the more feasible locations were evaluated. 
Open Cut Crossing 
A cross section of the river crossing near the Redwood WWTP (Figure 6-8) shows that the depth 
of the water is too shallow for laying the pipe on the river bottom and the pipe would need to 
be buried. In the figure, cover over the pipe is shown at 6 feet. Because of natural resource 
complications, the relatively long time needed to obtain a permit, and the potential for public 
resistance, this option was not further investigated. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-10 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
880 
FLOW IN 
PIPES 
- ' M 
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION 
NOVEMBER 30,1993 (1380 CFS) 
• -v. 
AIR RELEASE 
VALVE — : III ^ 4* COVER 
••••s. 
0 Feet 
PARALLEL 
14" AND 12" PIPES 
Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant 
#27-2192-05 02/99 Figure 6-8 
Rogue River Crossing 
Cross Section 
Tunnel (Boring) Under the River 
Boring a pipeline under the river would be more feasible (from a permitting standpoint) than 
open cut crossing. The likely method would be directional drilling; the advantages and 
disadvantages of this alternative are presented here: 
Advantages: 
• No disruption to river 
• Lower pump head than bridge crossings 
Disadvantages: 
• Requires geotechnical and bathymetric investigation to choose the best location 
for the river crossing 
• Potentially the most expensive type of crossing 
• If large boulders are encountered during the boring, the drill would have to be 
retracted and reset on a different path. 
Use Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Crossing 
A ribbon-type pedestrian bridge to be built about 500 feet west of Grants Pass WRP could be 
adapted to carry the pipeline. The advantages and disadvantages of this alternative are as 
follows: 
Advantages: 
• Least expensive type of crossing 
• No disruption to river; few or no natural resource permits 
Disadvantages: 
Must act quickly to coordinate with the City of Grants Pass to incorporate any 
necessary modifications to pedestrian bridge 
The bridge design has two high points. The force main at these locations will 
require air release valves. 
Provide odor control for the air release valves 
Possibility of a break in the force main at the river crossing releasing raw sewage 
to Rogue River. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 6-27 Revised November 1999 
0 1 ) 9 5 2 
Use of SR 199 Bridge 
This existing bridge carries motor traffic across the Rogue River west of the Redwood WWTP. 
The advantages and disadvantages of this alternative are as follows: 
Advantages: 
• Existing bridge 
• No disruption to river 
• Air release valves can be more easily located 
Disadvantages: 
• Longest route (additional 7,000 feet longer than alternative routes) 
• High cost due to added length 
Because of the high cost of this alternative, it was dropped from further consideration. 
Based on the preceding river crossing evaluation, the two most feasible alternatives that were 
selected for farther cost evaluation are 1) attaching force main(s) to the pedestrian bridge and 
2) boring force main(s) under the river. An estimate of probable costs for both of these options 
is included in Appendix H. 
Force Main Routes 
Once the river crossing alternatives were narrowed down to the two most feasible options, seven 
alternative force-main routes were evaluated. These seven routes are shown on Figure 6-9 and 
designated Alternatives 6 through 12. A brief description of each alternative is as follows: 
Alternative 6: Dual 12-inch force mains would be bored under the Rogue River 
just north of Redwood WWTP, then the force mains would follow 
the right-of-way of Lower River road and Webster Lane to the 
Grants Pass WRP Plant. 
Alternative 7: A 6-inch force main would be placed in an existing sewer 
interceptor easement between Redwood WWTP and pump station 
RI-25. From there dual 12-inch mains would be bored under the 
Rogue River. From the Lathrop boat landing, the force mains 
would follow the right-of-way of Lower River Road and Webster 
Lane to the Grants Pass WRP. 
Redwood Wastewater Plant Facilities Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 5-25 April 1999 

Alternative 8: The force main would be placed in the existing sewer interceptor 
easement between Redwood WWTP and the proposed location of 
the pedestrian bridge near the Grants Pass WRP A 6-inch main 
would be installed to pump station RI-25, then dual 12-inch mains 
from go from there to the Grants Pass WRP. The force mains 
would be attached to the pedestrian bridge. 
Alternative 9: A 6-inch force main would be placed in the existing sewer 
interceptor easement between Redwood WWTP and pump station 
RI-25. From there dual 12-inch force mains would follow the 
right-of-way of Leonard Road and Redwood Avenue to the 
pedestrian bridge, then to the Grants Pass WRP. 
Alternative 10: A 6-inch force main would be placed in the right-of-way of 
Leonard Road up to Pump Station RI-25. From there dual 12-inch 
mains would be bored under the Rouge River and follow the right-
of-way of Lower River Road and Webster Lane to the Grants Pass 
WRP. 
Alternative 11: A 6-inch force main would be placed in the right-of-way of 
Leonard Road up to Pump Station RI-25. From there dual 12-inch 
force mains would be placed in the existing sewer interceptor 
easement to the pedestrian bridge, and then to the Grants Pass 
WRP. 
Alternative 12: A 6-inch force main would be placed in the right-of-way of 
Leonard Road up to Pump Station RI-25. From there dual 12-inch 
force mains would follow the right-of-way of Leonard Road and 
Redwood Avenue to the pedestrian bridge, then to the Grants Pass 
WRP. 
The existing 20-foot-wide interceptor maintenance easement is wide enough to accept the new 
force main but not wide enough for the associated construction activity, deliveries, and staging. 
New temporary construction easements would need to be acquired. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-10 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 

CITY OF GRANTS PASS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 
PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT 
STAFF REPORT-URBAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION 
Procedure Type: Type IV: Planning Commission Recommendation 
and City Council Decision 
Project Number: 08-40500002 
Project Type: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Applicant: City of Grants Pass 
Planner Assigned: Jared Voice / Tom Schauer 
Application Received: April 18, 2008 
Application Complete: April 18, 2008 
Date of Staff Report: June 4, 2008 
Date of Planning 
Commission Hearing: June 11, 2008 
I. PROPOSAL: 
The purpose of the proposal is to update the water and sewer sections of 
Comprehensive Plan Element 10 (Public Facilities and Services), including the policies 
for each, based on recent water and sewer master plans. 
See Exhibit 1 for Water Service and Exhibit 2 for Sewer Service, to replace existing 
sections within Comprehensive Plan Element 10. 
See Exhibit 3 for revisions to Element 10 of Comprehensive Plan Policies Manual. 
Additionally, the proposal would adopt the following documents by reference as part of 
the Public Facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan: 
Water 
1. City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan (West Yost and 
Associates, January 2001) Exhibit 4 
2. City of Grants Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, Final Report (West 
Yost and Associates, June 2002) Exhibit 5 
3. City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Final Report 
(MWH/Montgomery Watson Harza, April 2004) Exhibit 6 
Sewer 
1. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, 
Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) Exhibit 7 
2. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, 
Appendices- Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) See note below 
3. Collection System Master Plan, City of Grants Pass (Parametrix, September 2004) 
Exhibit 8 
4. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District Engineering Report (Parametrix, April 
1999, Revised November 1999) Exhibit 9 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Staff Report - Planning Commission Page 1 of 8 
00 ->057 
NOTE: To conserve resources, copies of the facility plan appendices are not included in the 
packet. Please contact Jared Voice at the Community Development Department (474-6355) if 
you would like copies of the appendices made for you. Each full plan may also be viewed at the 
Public Works office, located on the first floor of the Municipal Building at 101 NW "A" Street. 
II. AUTHORITY AND CRITERIA: 
Section 13.5.3 of the Grants Pass and Urbanizing Area Comprehensive Plan provides 
that the City Council may initiate a text amendment. 
Sections 13.5.5 and 13.8 of the Comprehensive Plan provide that joint review by the City 
Council and Board of County Commissioners shall be required for amendment and 
revision to Comprehensive Plan findings, goals, and policies. 
The review shall be in accordance with the procedures of Section 13.8.3 of the 
Comprehensive Plan, which provides for a recommendation hearing by the Urban Area 
Planning Commission prior to a joint hearing of the City Council and Board of County 
Commissioners. 
However, with adoption of the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement, this provision 
requiring a joint hearing is modified with the result that City Council will make the 
decision, and the County will have automatic party status, as summarized below: 
Section III of the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) provides for transfer 
of authority for provision and management of planning services from the County 
to the City for the Urbanizing Area. It provides: 
The City is hereby vested with the exclusive authority to exercise the 
County's legislative and quasi-judicial powers, rights, and duties within the 
Urbanizing Area. . 
Section V of the IGA contains provisions pertaining to notification and appeals for 
quasi-judicial and legislative decisions within the Urbanizing Area. For legislative 
decisions, the IGA provides: 
The City agrees to provide written notice of all proposed legislative 
actions to the County at least 45 days prior to the public hearing at which 
the action is first considered. The County shall be deemed to have 
automatic party status regarding all such decisions for the purposes of 
standing for appeals. 
Section 13.8.3 of the Comprehensive Plan provides that notice shall be as provided in 
Section 2.060 of the Development Code for a Type IV procedure. Section 13.8.3 further 
provides that the hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the Legislative Hearing 
Guidelines of Section 9 of the Development Code. 
Therefore, the application will be processed through a 'Type I V procedure, with a 
recommendation from the Urban Area Planning Commission and a final decision by City 
Council. The County has automatic party status for appeals. 
The text of the Comprehensive Plan may be recommended for amendment and 
amended provided the criteria in Section 13.5.4 of the Comprehensive Plan are met. 
08-40500002: 
ooWSs~ 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Staff Report - Planning Commission Page 2 of 8 
III. APPEAL PROCEDURE: 
The City Council's final decision may be appealed to the State Land Use Board of 
Appeals (LUBA) as provided in state statutes. A notice of intent to appeal must be filed 
with LUBA within 21 days of the Council's written decision. 
IV. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: 
The proposed new documents will replace the existing Water and Sewer sections of the 
Comprehensive Plan Public Facilities element, which were adopted in 1982 and 
determined service needs within the UGB through the year 2000. 
Work on updating the Water and Sewer sections of the Comprehensive Plan Public 
Facilities element began in 2004, at the request of the City's former Utilities Department 
Director. The updated Comprehensive Plan element was intended to incorporate data 
from several recently-completed water and sewer master plans, and adopt the plans by 
reference. 
In May of 2005, City Council adopted the Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) 
recommended within the recently-completed water and sewer plans (see Resolution 
No's 4954 and 4955, attached as Exhibits 10 and 11, corresponding City Council 
background sheets, attached as Exhibits 12 and 13, and Technical Memorandum from 
Parametrix dated April 25, 2005, attached as Exhibit 14)] however, the plans were not 
adopted by reference in their entirety, nor were updated Comprehensive Plan Water 
Service and Sewer Service sections adopted. The CIPs shown in the technical memo 
(and water and sewer plans) and adopted by Council are identical to those shown in the 
currently-proposed water and sewer section updates. Therefore, adoption of the current 
proposal would not change any of the planned projects for public water and sewer 
facilities over the twenty-year planning period. Note that several of the items identified 
within the CIPs have since been completed. Remaining items will continue to be 
identified for completion within annual budget reports as funds become available. 
The proposal incorporates the previously-listed water and sewer facility plans into the 
Comprehensive Plan, to serve current and future needs within the existing Urban Growth 
Boundary. Additional facility planning is expected to occur as part of the anticipated 
Urban Growth Boundary expansion. The current update does not account for areas 
outside the existing UGB, except for those within special sewer districts (i.e. Redwood 
Sanitary Sewer Service District, Harbeck Fruitdale Sewer Service District) or which are 
already committed or planned to receive City water services (i.e. Paradise Ranch, North 
Valley Industrial Park, etc.) 
Throughout the water and sewer service policies, it is stated that the City and County are 
jointly obligated for managing water and sewer services within the Urbanizing Area (UA). 
However, under the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), the County agreed to 
transfer to the City "all of the County's authority to provide and manage, facility 
financing and development within the UA;" Therefore, as long as the IGA is in effect, it is 
the City's responsibility to adopt and maintain public facility and service plans for the UA, 
including water and sewer service plans. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Staff Report - Planning Commission Page 3 of 8 
> > ; 0 5 9 
V. CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE CRITERIA: 
For amending the findings, goals, policies, and Land Use Map of the Comprehensive 
Plan, the City Council and Board of County Commissioners shall base their conclusions 
upon, and adopt findings in consideration of, all of the following criteria: 
CRITERION (a): Consistency with other findings, goals and policies in the 
Comprehensive Plan. 
Staff Response: Satisfied. The proposal is consistent with other findings, 
goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 
The existing General Service, Water Service and Sewer Service policies would 
be amended to eliminate language that is out of date, as the "Public Facilities 
and Services" element of the Comprehensive Plan Policies Manual was last 
amended in 1984. All amended policies are consistent with the goal of Element 
10, which is: "To provide needed facilities and services for the Urban Growth 
Boundary area in a timely, orderly, efficient, economic and coordinated matter." 
Other goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan that relate specifically to 
water and sewer facilities include the goal of Element 4: Environmental 
Resource Quality ("To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land 
resources of the area."), Policy 4.3 (d) ("The City and County shall affect water 
quality by increasing the hydraulic capacity of the City's wastewater treatment 
plant.") and the goal of Element 8: Economy ("To improve, expand, diversify and 
stabilize the economic base of the community.") The proposal is consistent with 
these goals and policies. 
CRITERION (b): A change in circumstances, validated by and supported by the data 
base or proposed changes to the data base, which would necessitate a change in 
findings, goals and policies. 
Staff Response: Satisfied. The proposed amendment is necessary due to a 
change in circumstances that is supported by proposed changes to the database. 
The existing water and sewer sections of the Comprehensive Plan's public 
facilities element, and associated policies, were adopted in 1982 and are 
outdated. 
The updated findings and policies are validated by and supported by the updated 
data base. As discussed in the response to the previous criterion, this policy is 
consistent with other findings, goals and policies found in the Comprehensive 
Plan. 
CRITERION (c): Applicable planning goals and guidelines of the State of Oregon. 
Staff Response: Satisfied. The proposed amendment is consistent with 
applicable planning goals and guidelines of the State of Oregon. Applicable 
goals and guidelines include Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement), Goal 2 (Land Use 
Planning), Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality), Goal 11 (Public 
Facilities and Services), ORS 197.712(2)(e) (which requires a city to adopt a 
public facility plan for areas within a UGB containing a population of over 2,500) 
and OAR 660, Division 11 (Public Facilities Planning.) 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Staff Report - Planning Commission Paae 4 of 8 
000060 
Goal 1- Citizen Involvement (OAR 660-015-0000(1)): See response to 
Criterion (d) below. 
Goal 2- Land Use Planning (OAR 660-015-0000(2)): Although Goal 2 does 
not specifically address public facility planning, the explanation of Part I 
(Planning) of Goal 2 states the following: "All land-use plans and implementation 
ordinances shall be adopted by the governing body after public hearing and shall 
be reviewed and, as needed, revised on a periodic cycle to take into account 
changing public polices and circumstances..." The existing water and sewer 
sections of the Comprehensive Plan's public facilities element, and associated 
policies, were adopted in 1982 and are outdated. Revisions to these sections 
and the associated policies are necessary to account for circumstances that have 
changed over the past 26 years. Further, subsection (C) of the "Guidelines" for 
Goal 2 states that: "Inventories and other forms of data are needed as the basis 
for the policies and other decisions set forth in the plan", including those for 
"man-made structures and utilities, their location and condition." Existing utilities 
inventories within the current Comprehensive Plan are not useful for any practical 
purpose and must be updated to be in full compliance with Goal 2. 
Goal 6- Air. Water and Land Resources Quality (OAR 660-015-0000(6)): 
Goal 6 states that "all waste and process discharges from future development, 
when combined with such discharges from existing developments shall not 
threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal environmental quality 
statutes, rules and standards." To assure full compliance with Goal 6, an update 
of the City's sewer facility plans is necessary. 
Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services (OAR 660-015-0000(11)) IORS 
197.712(2)(e) I OAR 660-011-0000: Goal 11 requires "a timely, orderly and 
efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for 
urban and rural development." OAR 660, Division 11 interprets Goal 11 
requirements and implements ORS 197.712(2)(e), which requires that a city 
develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within a UGB containing a 
population greater than 2,500. 
OAR 660-011-0005 defines public facilities plan as "a support document or 
documents to a comprehensive plan. The facility plan describes the water, 
sewer and transportation facilities which are to support the land uses designated 
in the appropriate acknowledged comprehensive plans within an urban growth 
boundary containing a population greater than 2,500..." The proposal contains 
three (3) separate supporting water documents and four (4) separate supporting 
sewer documents that would be adopted as supporting documents to the 
Comprehensive Plan. (Note that this proposal amends only the water and 
wastewater / sewer portion of the City's public facilities plan, and that other 
existing elements of the public facilities plan, including the Master Transportation 
Plan (adopted in 1997) and Master Storm Drain Plan (adopted in 1982) are not 
amended by this proposal.) The proposal also includes an update of the 
Comprehensive Plan itself, to reflect the supporting data contained in the 
separate water and sewer facility documents. 
OAR 660-011-0010 through -0035 outlines the items that must be contained 
within a public facility plan. These include an inventory / assessment of existing 
facilities, a list of projected public facility projects (including rough cost estimates, 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Staff Report - Planning Commission Page 5 of 8 
) )061 
locations, and time estimates for each), applicable urban growth management 
agreements and funding mechanisms. The proposals for both water and sewer 
contain each of these required items. 
The proposed amendment is also consistent with remaining sections of Goal 11 
and OAR 660 Division 11, including OARs 660-011-0045 ("Adoption and 
Amendment Procedures for Public Facility Plans"), 660-011-0060 ("Sewer 
Service to Rural Lands") and 660-011-0065 ("Water Service to Rural Lands"). 
ORS 197.610: Notice of the proposed amendment was mailed to the Oregon 
Department of Land Conservation and Development on April 18, 2008, in 
accordance with ORS 197.610. 
CRITERION (d): Citizen review and comment. 
Staff Response: Satisfied. Notice of the proposed amendment has been 
posted in accordance with the procedure required for a Type IV-B procedure. In 
addition, the agenda and packet for the June 11th, 2008 Planning Commission 
meeting was posted on the City's website in advance of the hearing. No written 
comments have been received from citizens as of the date of the staff report. 
CRITERION (e): Review and comment from affected governmental units and other 
agencies. 
Staff Response: Satisfied. 45-day notice was provided to the Department of 
Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in accordance with OAR 660 
Division 18 and ORS 197.610. OAR 660-18-0035 provides that if DLCD is 
participating in the proceeding, they shall notify the local government 15 days 
prior to the first evidentiary hearing. DLCD has not provided notification to the 
City. 
45-day notice was provided to Josephine County in accordance with the 1998 
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Urbanizing Area. The County has replied 
and has no comments regarding the proposal. Exhibit 15 
i 
Notice of the proposed amendment was also provided to affected agencies and 
governmental units, including the Oregon DHS Drinking Water Program, the 
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Watermaster 
District 14, and Grants Pass Irrigation District. No additional comments 
regarding the proposal have been received. 
CRITERION (f): A demonstration that any additional need for basic urban services 
(water, sewer, streets, storm drainage, parks, and fire and police protection) is 
adequately covered by adopted utility plans and service policies, or a proposal for the 
requisite changes to said utility plans and service policies as a part of the requested 
Comprehensive Plan amendment. 
Staff Response: Satisfied. The proposal does not create the need for any 
additional basic urban services. The proposed utility plans contain facility 
improvements and upgrades necessary to serve the water and sewer needs for 
existing and future residents of the existing Urban Growth Boundary, as well as 
for a limited number of service areas outside the existing UGB, through at least 
the year 2020. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Staff Report - Planning Commission 
000062 
Page 6 of 8 
CRITERION (g): Additional information as required by the review body. 
Staff Response: Satisfied Contingent on Review Body Direction. Additional 
information will be provided if requested. 
CRITERION (h): In lieu of item (b) above, demonstration that the Plan as originally 
adopted was in error. 
Staff Response: Not Applicable. Criterion (b) is applicable. The Plan was not 
adopted in error. The proposed amendment is being adopted in response to a 
change in circumstances. See Criterion (b) for discussion of the change in 
circumstances. 
VI. RECOMMENDATION: 
Recommend that City Council approve the proposal, which: 
1) amends the sewer and water sections of Comprehensive Plan Element 10 by 
adopting new Comprehensive Plan Sections 10.20 (Water Services) and 10.30 
(Sewer Services), attached as Exhibits 1 and 2, and repealing existing 
Comprehensive Plan Sections 10.20 and 10.30, which were adopted by Ordinance 
4471 in 1982, and 
2) adopts revisions to the Element 10 (Public Facilities and Services) sewer and water 
policies, attached as Exhibit 3, and 
3) adopts the following documents by reference as part of the Public Facilities element 
of the Comprehensive Plan: 
i. City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan (West 
Yost and Associates, January 2001, Exhibit 4) 
ii. City of Grants Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, Final 
Report (West Yost and Associates, June 2002, Exhibit 5) 
iii. City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Final Report 
(MWH/Montgomery Watson Harza, April 2004, Exhibit 6) 
iv. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water 
Restoration Plant, Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001, Exhibit 7) 
v. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water 
Restoration Plant, Appendices- Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
vi. Collection System Master Plan, City of Grants Pass (Parametrix, 
September 2004, Exhibit 8) 
vii. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District Engineenng Report 
(Parametrix, April 1999, Revised November 1999, Exhibit 9), and 
4) repeals previously-adopted water and wastewater plans which are rendered obsolete 
by adoption of the new plans. 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Staff Report - Planning Commission Page 7 of 8 
>>0063 
VII. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 
A. Positive Action: Recommend approval of the request: 
1. as submitted. 
2. as modified by the Planning Commission with the following revisions (list): 
B. Negative Action: Recommend denial of the request for the following reasons 
(list): 
C. Postponement: Continue item 
1. indefinitely. 
2. to a time certain. 
NOTE: This is a legislative decision. State law does not require that a decision be 
made on the application within 120 days. 
VIII. INDEX TO EXHIBITS: 
1. Proposed Water Services Section 10.20 
2. Proposed Sewer Services Section 10.30 
3. Proposed Amended Public Facilities and Services Policies 
4. City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
(West Yost and Associates, January 2001) 
5. City of Grants Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, Final Report 
(West Yost and Associates, June 2002) 
6. City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Final Report 
(MWH / Montgomery Watson Harza, April 2004) 
7. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, 
Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
8. Collection System Master Plan. City of Grants Pass (Parametrix, September 2004) 
9. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District Engineering Report (Parametrix, April 
1999, Revised November 1999) 
10. City Council Resolution No. 4954, Adopting Water CIP, 5/9/05 
11. City Council Resolution No. 4955, Adopting Wastewater CIP, 5/9/05 
12. City Council Background Sheet for Water CIP, 5/4/05 
13. City Council Background Sheet for Wastewater CIP, 5/4/05 
14. Parametrix Technical Memo Dated 4/25/2005 
15. E-mail Message from Josephine County Planning Director, 6/3/08 
t:\cd\planning\reports\2008\08-40500002_Public Facilities Comprehensive Plan Amendment\Public Facilities.UAPC.sr.jv.doc 
08-40500002: Water and Sewer Facilities Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 
Staff Report - Planning Commission Page 8 of 8 
000064 
10.20 WATER SERVICES INDEX 
10.20.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT 
• 10.20.1.1 Purpose 
• 10.20.1.2 Intent 
10.20.2 WATER SOURCES 
• 10.20.2.1 Groundwater 
• 10.20.2.2 Surface Water 
10.20.3 WATER RIGHTS 
• 10.20.3.1 Rogue River 
• 10.20.3.2 Long-Term Reliable Yield 
• 10.20.3.3 Grants Pass Irrigation District 
• 10.20.3.4 Savage Rapids Diversion Dam 
• 10.20.3.5 Dam Removal 
10.20.4 CITY OF GRANTS PASS WATER TREATMENT PLANT, DISTRIBUTION 
SYSTEM AND WATER DEMAND 
10.20.4.1 System History 
10.20.4.2 Service Pressures 
10.20.4.3 Fire Protection 
10.20.4.4 Booster Pumping Stations 
10.20.4.5 Reservoirs 
10.20.4.6 System Operation 
10.20.4.7 Water Treatment Plant 
10.20.4.8 Water Demand Analysis 
10.20.4.9 Recent Water Use Statistics 
10.20.4.10 Per Capita Water Demand 
10.20.4.11 Unaccounted For Water 
10.20.4.12 Unit Demand Factors by Land Use Pattern 
10.20.4.13 Peak Hourly Demand 
10.20.4.14 Historical Peaking Factors 
10.20.4.15 Future Water Demand 
10.20.5 CITY OF GRANTS PASS WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 
PROGRAM (CIP) 
10.20.6 PRIVATE WATER UTILITIES 
10.20.7 URBAN SERVICE MASTER PLANS AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS 
FOR WATER 
10-1 EXHIBIT _ L _ 
ti. UAPO 
10.20.8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND 
FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR WATER 
• 10.20.8.1 Water Treatment Plant 
• 10.20.8.2 Water Distribution System 
10.20.9 WATER SERVICE FINDINGS 
• 10.20.9.1 Water Source 
• 10.20.9.2 Water Treatment 
• 10.20.9.3 Water Storage and Distribution 
i/00080 
10-2 
10.20.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT 
10.20.1.1 Purpose. 
The purpose of this section is to determine the domestic water demand requirements for the build-out 
of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), plus other areas served by municipal water, to assess the 
ability of the existing municipal water system to meet the projected requirements; to determine what 
capital improvements are necessary to serve the UGB at built-out, and to approximate costs; to 
suggest alternative methods for financing the required improvements; and to propose policies for the 
orderly provision of the required improvements. 
Figure 10.20.1 
Grants Pass Urban Growth Boundary 
10.20.1.2 Intent. 
The intent of this section is to enact the following public facilities water system master plans by 
ordinance as an update to the Public Facilities Element of the City of Grants Pass Comprehensive 
Plan: 
1 City of Grants Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, Final Report, West Yost 
and Associates, June 2002. 
2. City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Final Report, MWH/Montgomery 
Watson Harza, April 2004. 
3. City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, West Yost and Associates, 
January 2001. 
10-3 ;><) 067 
NOTE: The Dyer Partnership, Inc. prepared a "Water Master Plan" for Merlin and North Valley 
in April 2001 The recommended alternative was connection to the City of Grants Pass system. 
The "Water Master Plan" was adopted by Josephine County as part of its' Merlin / North Valley 
Community Plan (see Article 101.015 of the Josephine County Rural Land Development Code.) 
The County has not taken steps to implement the plan, and the City of Grants Pass has not 
adopted the plan. The City will continue to provide water service to specific properties through 
individual service agreements; however there are no additional obligations to provide service to 
properties other than those which are currently served (as of2008.) The North Valley Industrial 
Park and some residential uses adjacent to the Merlin Landfill are currently served by City water, 
and facilities have also been extended to serve the Paradise Ranch Development. 
NOTE: Several of the tables within this section contain numbers that have been updated since 
the above-listed plans were completed. The plans are based on data which was available at the 
time they were adopted, and have not been updated based on more recent data. 
10.20.2 WATER SOURCES 
10.20.2.1 Ground Water. 
Within the Grants Pass area, an "alluvial deposit" geologic formation is the only reliable source of 
ground water. In this formation, however, the expected maximum yield from wells of standard 
construction is 50 gallons per minute, which is insufficient for a municipal supply. Due to lack of 
adequate quantity, ground water in the Grants Pass area has no potential for municipal use beyond 
that presently developed. (City of Grants Pass Water System Study, May 1974, Brown and 
Caldwell) 
10.20.2.2 Surface Water. 
In the Grants Pass area, surface waters have been in the past, and will continue to be, the only 
reliable source for large quantities of potable water required for municipal purposes. (Ibid.) The 
Rogue River is the principal supply of surface water; however, water rights to the Rogue River are 
limited. The Rogue River drains a large watershed extending from the Cascade Mountains to the 
Pacific Ocean. Grants Pass is located at approximately River Mile 100 and there are approximately 
2,460 square miles of watershed area upstream of the City. As a result of this extensive drainage 
area, the Rogue River is a plentiful and reliable source of drinking water for the community. 
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a river gauging station at the Grants Pass water 
treatment plant that provides extensive historical data on the flow characteristics of the Rogue River. 
Because the Lost Creek Reservoir was constructed upstream of Grants Pass in 1977, USGS statistical 
data for the river are typically based on records from 1978 to the present. Based on USGS data for 
this station, Table 10.20.2 presents the average, maximum, and minimum monthly flow rates for the 
Rogue River. Since construction of Lost Creek Reservoir, the lowest daily average flow at Grants 
Pass was 744 cubic feet per second (cfs) on October 10,1994, and the lowest seven-day average flow 
was 799 cfs during the week of September 22,1994. In general, dry weather flows are maintained by 
the combination of snow melt from the Cascades in the early summer and the release of stored water 
from Lost Creek Reservoir in the late summer.1 
1 Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, June 2002, West Yost and Associates, LLC., page 2-1. 
10-4 
i/00080 
Table 10.20.2 Rogue River Average Monthly Flows at Grants Pass 
Month 
Average Monthly 
Flow, cfs 
Maximum Monthly 
Flow, eft 
Minimum Monthly , 
Flow, cfs 
January 5,094 16,600 1,348 
February 4,500 10,960 1,250 
March 4,020 8,119 1,099 
April 3,950 6,843 1,211 
May 3,750 6,428 1,857 
June 2,790 4,572 1,549 
July 2,120 3,485 1,059 
August 2,080 3,080 1,620 
September 1,780 2,642 1,333 
October 1,450 2,282 1,008 
November 2,530 7,669 1,160 
December 4,910 17,620 1,557 
Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, June 2002 (Updated 2/25/2008 by Jason Canady from USGS River Data.) 
10.20.3 WATER RIGHTS 
10.20.3.1 Rogue River. 
The City has four separate permits for diverting water from the Rogue River for municipal use. The 
first is a "perfected right" of 12.5 cfs, dated 1888. The second and third are permits for 25 cfs each 
dated 1960 and 1965. The fourth permit, dated 1983, provides for an additional 25 cfs for atotal of 
87.5 cfs. The City's present water rights and water permits are shown in Table 10.20.3. 
As water permits and rights are typically subject to cutbacks under conditions of low flow to serve 
parties with prior year rights, stored water can allow jurisdictions to augment flow otherwise cut 
back. Cutbacks during the 1977-78 drought years approached the 1965 level. Without Lost Creek 
Dam, cutbacks in 1981 would have reached back to the early 1900's, as released water accounted for 
50% of stream flow that summer. However, since the City's point of diversion is downstream from 
the Savage Rapids Dam2, and cutbacks are established by law as being those jurisdictions and 
individuals above the dam, there is some question as to whether the City could in fact be cut back, 
even under low water conditions. 
2 Savage Rapids Dam is slated for removal to resolve anadromous fish passage issues. Dam removal will occur once 
the GPID secures an appropriation of funding from both the federal and state sources. GPID will then pump water 
from the Rogue River and deliver water to its customers, including those within the City of Grants Pass. 
10-5 
0 0 V Û 6 9 
TABLE 10.20.3 
Grants Pass Water Righ ts 
" -,Lt-.L-.' -,- . jjssäs ; Permitted Available j Availability An afysis 
Permit 
Number 
Priority 
!. Date 
Permitted . 
' --.Use- cfs 
Reliability Impact of 
KSA. 
Water 
Quality 
D15839 1888 Municipal / 
Irrigation 
12.5 cfs High Undefined Good 
S26901 1960 Municipal 25.0 cfs 735 cfs* High Undefined Good 
S45827 1965 Municipal 25.0 cfs High Undefined Good 
S47346 1983 Municipal 25.0 cfs High Undefined Good 
* Restriction that water can be diverted only when flow at the mouth of the Rogue exceeds 735 cfs. 
Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, June 2002 
Each Water Right and Permit has a specific geographical area within which the water may be used. 
The 1888 right stipulates "the city limits," which the City holds to be those city limits as they exist at 
any point in time. The 1960 permit shows an area approximating the City's 1979 Urban Growth 
Boundary (20 year expansion); the 1965 and 1983 permits show an area approximating a 50-year 
expansion. 
10.20.3.2 Long-Term Reliable Yield. 
Due to the nature of the City's surface water supply source, the long-term sustainability of drinking 
water supplies for Grants Pass is generally good. As noted earlier, the large size of the watershed 
drained by the Rogue River typically provides abundant water supplies throughout the year. Even 
during extreme dry weather periods when river flows are at their lowest, the reliable flow rate in the 
Rogue River is approximately 750 cfs or nearly fifty times larger than the highest drinking water 
demand ever experienced in Grants Pass. There are some special circumstances that may affect the 
long-term reliable yield for the Rogue River. For example, the listing of the Coho Salmon as an 
endangered species in the Rogue River may influence operational procedures at the Lost Creek 
Reservoir, which in turn may affect dry weather flow levels. Another issue is related to climate 
change and snow pack levels in the Cascade Range. Any reduction in average precipitation or the 
average snow pack will tend to reduce dry weather flow rates in the Rogue River. Since these factors 
are complex in nature, it is difficult to quantify their potential effect on the river's reliable yield at 
this time.3 
10.20.3.3 Grants Pass Irrigation District. 
The Grants Pass Irrigation District was organized by the local water users in January 1917. The area 
of the district was then about 6,000 acres. It originally was planned to irrigate by an extension of the 
Gravity Canal of the Gold Hill Irrigation District, which was further upstream on the Rogue River 
and was being organized at the same time. That plan was abandoned in 1920 and the present design 
was adopted to provide for a direct diversion system with permanent pumping units. The original 
works were constructed with private funds. 
The Savage Rapids Diversion Dam was dedicated November 5,1921, marking the beginning of the 
operating history of the district. Settlement and clearing of the undeveloped lands, which constituted 
a high proportion of the district's area, did not develop to the extent of the expectations upon which 
3 Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, J u n e 2002, West Yost and Associates, LLC., page 2-2. 
10-6 
i/00080 
the district was founded and financed. As a result, just over one-half of the irrigable area was in 
production and therefore carried the entire tax burden. 
The Savage Rapids Dam and the Northwest Unit pipeline were badly damaged by a flood in 1927. 
Emergency repairs were made at that time, but lack of sufficient funds prevented satisfactory 
completion of the work. The cost of maintenance on the pipeline had become almost prohibitive by 
1949. 
In 1949, the Bureau of Reclamation was requested to replace the old suspension pipeline and siphon 
with a new buried line under the Rogue River. Several years later Reclamation was asked to 
rehabilitate Savage Rapids Dam. After thorough investigations, both requests were undertaken and 
completed. In 1974, the Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
investigated and prepared a report on anadromous fish passage improvements at Savage Rapids 
Dam. 
On February 12,1982, the Grants Pass Irrigation District perfected a right to 96.7 cfs with a priority 
date of 1916. In addition, the District "transports" 83 cfs for the Department of Fish and Game after 
use as irrigation water for stream enhancements, and was granted a "non-consumptive" right of 800 
cfs of pass through water needed to drive the water turbines that lift irrigation water to the canals. 
The GPID point of diversion is at Savage Rapids Dam, see photo below. 
Savage Rapids Dam 
Source: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 
10.20.3.4 Savage Rapids Diversion Dam. 
The Savage Rapids Diversion Dam is on the Rogue River 5 miles east of Grants Pass. It is about 
456 feet long and consists of a 16-bay spillway section and a hydraulic-driven pumping plant 
section at the right abutment. Maximum height of the spillway section is about 39 feet. The first 
seven bays at the right end of the dam are multiple arches with buttresses on 25-foot centers; the 
remaining nine bays have a concrete gravity section below the gates. Sixteen wooden-faced radial 
gates originally provided spillway control. Each of them constructed 23 feet wide and 10 feet 
high. During rehabilitation, the radial gates were replaced with metal stoplogs, and one double-
gated river outlet with a capacity of 6,000 cubic feet per second was installed at the center of the 
dam. During the irrigation season, the stoplogs are used to raise the reservoir elevation 11 feet. 
10-7 
i/00080 
The Savage Rapids Diversion Dam diverts water from the Rogue River into the South Main Canal to 
serve the lowlands on the south side of the river. The main pumping plant pumps water from the 
reservoir to the Tokay Canal to serve lands on the north side of the river, and to the South Highline 
Canal to irrigate lands above the gravity-type South Main Canal. There are also four lateral relift 
pumping plants along the canals. 
A study by the Bureau of Reclamation (October, 1979) showed that the District served 400 acres 
zoned exclusive farm use utilized by commercial growers, while serving 7,000 acres of "urban-
suburban" lands to irrigate lawns, gardens and pastures. Diversion of water was between 180 to 220 
cfs. The Bureau of Reclamation Study indicated that urban-suburban development posed a major 
problem for canal maintenance and water distribution, being a prime contributor to the District's loss 
of 2,600 acres of formerly irrigated lands. One of the key factors contributing to maintenance 
problems is the silting up of those parts of the system from winter runoff, as many of the system 
canals and laterals also serve to carry storm drainage. The City's Storm Drainage Master Plan calls 
for a continuance and intensification of this practice, and will require improvements and 
maintenance coordination between the City and the District. As of 2007, no agreement exists 
between the City and GPID. 
Some 15% of the District's 55 miles of major canals are lined or enclosed in pipe, the rest being 
unlined. The Bureau of Reclamation recommended either merger of the City and GPID into a water 
control district (Oregon Revised Statute 553) with both drainage and irrigation services, or some 
combination of improvements to the canal system to maintain or extend the provision of irrigation 
water through the system. 
A 1974 Grants Pass Water System Study by Brown and Caldwell estimated that the combined water 
rights of the City and GPID would be sufficient to meet the needs of both the UGB and agricultural 
users outside the Boundary area. 
While discussions with GPID and the Josephine County Water Advisory Board touched on this 
possibility, the present GPID Board policy is to continue to supply water through the irrigation 
delivery system, even though development should occur. The District supplies water to almost all of 
the urbanizing area, and in fact, much of the City, at this time. The District has elected to encourage 
the continued supply of irrigation water to urbanizing land as development proceeds within the UGB. 
The District feels this benefits the developer, as the cost of supplying water through a piped system 
does not often exceed the buy-out cost per acre; benefits the homeowner; and benefits the City, as it 
saves treatment costs for irrigation water, does not require an increase in the size of the distribution 
system piping to carry the additional water demand, and reduces the peak per capita usage of water in 
the summer, thus effectively expanding the capacity of the City's permits. 
10.20.3.5 Dam Removal. 
In 1995, the Bureau of Reclamation filed a Final Planning Report/Draft Environmental Statement to 
enhance the salmon and steelhead populations of the Rogue River by removing Savage Rapids Dam. 
Two pumping plants, one on the north bank and one on the south bank, would be constructed to lift 
water into Grants Pass Irrigation District's canal system. This plan and environmental law suits 
resulted in a court order to remove the dam by 2005. To date, the GPID has secured federal and state 
funding to accomplish dam removal by 2009, including the construction of a new pump station. The 
uncertainty of these mandated changes has the City and GPID uncertain about any future plans or 
agreements. 
10-8 
i/00080 
10.20.4 CITY OF GRANTS PASS WATER TREATMENT PLANT, DISTRIBUTION 
SYSTEM AND WATER DEMAND 
10.20.4.1 System History. 
The Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant, located at 821 SE"M" Street, was originally built in 1931 
with a single basin and three filters for a designed capacity of approximately 3.5 mgd. The plant has 
undergone several upgrades and expansions through the years to incrementally adjust to a growing 
population and more stringent treatment standards, including: 
• 1950 - Capacity increased to 9 mgd through the addition of second basin and two additional 
filters. 
• 1961 - Minor improvements to treatment process. 
• 1983 - Capacity increased to 20 mgd through addition of third basin and three additional filters, 
construction of a new raw water intake and new chemical feed systems. 
• 1995-2001 - Filter media and gravel support replaced due to suspected gravel/under drain upset 
caused by excessive air in the backwash line. 
• 1997 - Filter-to-waste added for improved CT-removal credit. 
• 1998 - SCADA upgrade; VFD included on BW pump. 
• 1999-2000 - Improvements to the Equalization basin pumping station. 
• 2001 - Liquid sodium hypochlorite system installed to replace gas system. 
• 2001 - Riverbank stabilization adjacent to the intake structure, in cooperation with US Army 
Corps of Engineers. 
• 2002 - New PLC-based SCADA system and new monitoring devices were installed in the plant 
to replace outdated analog transmitters and to allow for more accurate and complete process 
performance monitoring and automated process control. The PLC replaced obsolete analogue 
loop-controllers and chemical feed controllers. 
• 2006 - Installation of one additional booster pump/ replacement of one aging inefficient booster 
pump. Reconstruction of the Intake Structure and complete rebuild of the filters and Surface 
Wash System. 
The City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, 2001 (West Yost & Associates) 
inventories and evaluates the performance of the City's water distribution system for critical service 
standards. This analysis identified system improvements necessary to maintain adequate 
performance through build-out of the UGB. (NOTE: In its' "Future Water Demand" analysis, the 
plan also acknowledges that there are some properties contiguous to the UGB that are likely 
candidates for receiving water in the future, as well as some additional areas within the North Valley-
see Chapter 3 of the 2001 Water Distribution System Master Plan.) These identified improvements 
were developed to either eliminate existing deficiencies in system performance or expand service to 
satisfy community growth. The elements of the water distribution system that were evaluated 
include water treatment plant capacity, treated water storage capacity, booster pumping capacity, and 
pipeline network performance. Table 10.20.4, Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects, presents 
the specific costs of reservoir, pump station, and pipeline projects that are targeted for 
implementation through build-out of the UGB. The costs shown are the City's estimated share of the 
pipeline extensions and do not include the cost which will need to borne by developers. Timing of 
projects is based on the City's review of the expansion plans and reflects developer interest and 
submitted development plans. Some adjustment of timing and priorities should be expected. 
10-9 
-}0 >073 
Table 10.20.4 Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost, $1,000 
Period 2005-2010 
Pipelines 1,049 
Pipeline Replacement 1,124 
Total 2,173 
Period 2010-2020 
Treated Water Storage 5,720 
Pipelines 2,042 
Pipeline Replacement 2,248 
Total 10,010 
Period Post 2020 
Treated Water Storage 1,560 
Pump Stations 400 
Pipelines 184 
Total 2,144 
Grand Total 14,327 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
Per the 2001 Water Distribution System Master Plan, the Grants Pass water supply system 
distributes water to developed properties covering an area of more than 3,500 acres. The majority of 
the properties currently connected to the water distribution system are within the present city limits, 
although the City does provide service to some areas outside the city limits, including the Redwood 
and Harbeck-Fruitdale areas within the UGB, as well as parts of North Valley. The overall system is 
composed of a water treatment plant, thirteen booster-pumping stations, eight reservoirs, three 
pressure-reducing valves, five altitude valves, and approximately 160 miles of pipelines ranging in 
size between 1" and 30"(most of which are made of cast iron or ductile iron and range in age up to 
approximately 80 years). 
10.20.4.2 Service Pressures. 
The urban growth boundary for the City of Grants Pass encompasses lands of wide ranging 
elevations. As a result, the water distribution system service area contains eight separate service 
pressure zones serving the UGB and North Valley (See Pressure Zone Map in the City of Grants 
Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, West & Yost & Associates, 2001). Table 10.20.6 
summarizes the service elevations and static range for each pressure zone. The lower end of the 
pressure range is based on reservoirs at 80 percent full and the upper end is based on full reservoirs. 
At this time, there are properties receiving City water service in each of the pressure zones except 
Zone 5 
In some areas, the pressure zone boundaries are modified slightly from these elevation ranges in 
order to accommodate special service pressure requirements. Pressure Zone 2A is a hybrid between 
Zones 1 and 2, as is the Rogue Community College's Zone 2B. The North Valley service area spans 
pressure Zones 1,2, and 3, serving properties between the elevations of995 and 1,165 feet. Due to 
the great range of elevations served in the North Valley, this pressure zone requires pressure 
reduction valves at service connections to maintain appropriate service pressures. Table 10.20.5 
displays the water distribution system pipeline sizes and lengths. 
i/00080 
10-10 
Table 10.20.5 
Water Distribution System Pipeline Network 
Pipe Size (inches) Length (miles) 
2 5.23 
4 1.80 
6 40.89 
8 43.63 
10 7.64 
12 19.49 
14 0.38 
16 7.88 
20 2.40 
24 1.02 
30 0.95 
36 0.01 
131.32 
Table 10.20.6 Pressure Zone Ranges 
Zone Elevation (feet) Pressure (psi) 
1 900- 1,020 3 6 - 9 0 
2 1,020-1,140 4 1 - 9 5 
2A 9 6 0 - 1,035 6 1 - 9 4 
2B 1,000-1,060 35 - 60' 
3 1,140- 1,280 3 6 - 1 0 0 
4 1,280-1,420 42 - 104 
5 1,420- 1,560 41 - 104 
NV 995-1 ,165 101 - 177 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
10.20.4.3 Fire Protection. 
The Grants Pass Department of Public Safety provides fire protection for properties within the City, 
and some properties with Service and Annexation Agreements within the Urban Growth Boundary. 
Since the water distribution system is an integral part of the City's fire protection system, the 
Department of Public Safety has adopted the Oregon Fire Code recommendations as the required fire 
flows for the various land use classifications within the City. These fire protection requirements are 
discussed in detail in Chapter 4 , " Water Distribution System Service Standards, " Grants Pass Water 
Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001. 
10.20.4.4 Booster Pumping Stations. 
The water distribution system includes the water treatment plant pumps and thirteen booster 
pumping stations that transfer water to the higher pressure zones. These pump stations either fill 
the reservoirs that serve these higher pressure zones or pump to maintain a minimum pressure in 
those areas that are not served by reservoirs. On the following page, Table 10.20.7 details the 
technical information for each of the system's pumping stations. 
10-11 
i/00080 
Table 10.20.7 Existing Booster Pumping Stations 
Pump Station 
Location 
Service 
Level 
Feeds 
Reservoir 
Number of 
Pumps 
Horsepower and RPM Rated 
Capacity 
Rated Head 
(TDH) 
Lawnridge 2 Yes (6) 4 1 - 25HP @ 1750 RPM 
2 - 50 HP @ 1750 RPM 
3 - 50 HP @ 1750 RPM 
4 - 100 HP @ 1750 RPM 
400 GPM 
1000 GPM 
1000 GPM 
2000 GPM 
120 TDH 
120 TDH 
120 TDH 
148 TDH 
Madrone 2 Yes (4) 3 1 - 60 HP @ 1750 RPM 
2 - 30 HP @ 1750 RPM 
3 - 4 0 HP @ 1750 RPM 
2000 GPM 
900 GPM 
1200 GPM 
170 TDH 
170 TDH 
170 TDH 
Champion 3 Yes (8) 3 1 - 100 HP @ 1750 RPM 
2 - 150 HP @ 1750 RPM 
3 - 50 HP @ 1750 RPM 
1600 GPM 
2300 GPM 
800 GPM 
165 TDH 
165 TDH 
165 TDH 
Hefley 3 & 4 Yes (13) 4 1 - 7.5 HP @ 3500 RPM 
2 - 15 HP @ 3500 RPM 
3 - 60 HP @ 3500 RPM 
4 - 60 HP @ 3500 RPM 
40 GPM 
120 GPM 
600 GPM 
600 GPM 
250 TDH 
250 TDH 
300 TDH 
300 TDH 
Starlite 3 No 5 1 - 5 HP @ 3461 RPM 
2 A - 7 . 5 HP @ 3525 RPM 
2B - 7.5 HP @ 3525 RPM 
3 - 60 HP @ 1760 RPM 
4 - 30 HP @1760 RPM 
30 GPM 
84 GPM 
84 GPM 
1050 GPM 
450 GPM 
315 TDH 
208 TDH 
208 TDH 
185 TDH 
185 TDH 
North Valley 5 Yes (15) 3 1 - 7.5 HP @ 3500 RPM 
2 - 30 HP @ 3500 RPM 
3 - 30 HP @ 3500 RPM 
70 GPM 
500 GPM 
500 GPM 
170 TDH 
174 TDH 
174 TDH 
Harbeck 2 No 3 1 - 5 HP @ 3600 RPM 
2 - 5 HP @ 3600 RPM 
3 - 50 HP @ 3600 RPM 
90 GPM 
90 GPM 
1200 GPM 
112 TDH 
112 TDH 
125 TDH 
Hilltop 2 No 3 1 - 5 HP @ 3600 RPM 
2 - 7.5 HP @ 3600 RPM 
3 - 4 0 HP @ 3600 RPM 
100 GPM 
150 GPM 
750 GPM 
120 TDH 
120 TDH 
120 TDH 
New Hope 2 No 4 1 - 30 HP @ 3600 RPM 
2 - 30 HP @ 3600 RPM 
3 - 30 HP @ 3600 RPM 
4 - 150 HP @ 1800 RPM 
5A - 5 HP @ 3600 RPM 
5B - 5 HP @ 3600 RPM 
350 GPM 
350 GPM 
350 GPM 
2000 GPM 
53 GPM 
53 GPM 
212 TDH 
212 TDH 
212 TDH 
200 TDH 
227 TDH 
227 TDH 
Laurel Ridge 3 No 3 1 - 15 HP @ 3500 RPM 
2 - 15 HP @ 3500 RPM 
3 - 60 HP @ 3500 RPM 
350 GPM 
350 GPM 
1100 GPM 
127 TDH 
127 TDH 
160 TDH 
Meadow 
Wood 
2 & 3 No 6* 1 - 7.5 HP @ 3500 RPM 
2A - 15 HP @ 3500 RPM 
2B - 60 HP @ 3500 RPM 
2 C - 6 0 HP @ 3500 RPM 
3 - 100 HP @ 3500 RPM 
4 - 7.5 HP @ 3500 RPM 
80 GPM 
150 GPM 
500 GPM 
500 GPM 
1500 GPM 
63 GPM 
280 TDH 
155 TDH 
275 TDH 
275 TDH 
150 TDH 
341 TDH 
Williams 
Crossing 
3 No 2 1 - 5 HP @ 3500 RPM 
2 - 5 HP @ 3500 RPM 
70 GPM 
70 GPM 
145 TDH 
145 TDH 
Panoramic 
Loop 
3 No 4 1 - 25 HP @ 3600 RPM 
2 - 10 HP @ 3600 RPM 
3 - 60 HP @ 3600 RPM 
4 - 60 HP @ 1800 RPM 
70 GPM 
150 GPM 
1000 GPM 
1000 GPM 
316 TDH 
138 TDH 
157 TDH 
157 TDH 
Treatment 
Plant 
1 Yes 6 1 - 250 HP @ 1780 RPM 
2 - 300 HP @ 1775 RPM 
3 - 250 HP @ 1780 RPM 
3A - 250 HP @ 1780 RPM 
4 - 250 HP @ 1780 RPM 
5 - 200 HP @ 1780 RPM 
3500 GPM 
3500 GPM 
3500 GPM 
3500 GPM 
3500 GPM 
2600 GPM 
210 TDH 
220 TDH 
210 TDH 
210 TDH 
210 TDH 
210 TDH 
* Pumps I, 2A and 3 service Zone 2 exclusively. Pump 4 services Zone 3 exclusively. Pumps 2B and 2C service both Zones 2 and 3. 
Data source: Jason Canady- City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Supervisor March 2008 
10-12 
i/00080 
10.20.4.5 Reservoirs. 
There are eight water storage reservoirs within the Grants Pass water distribution system that provide 
a total of 19 million gallons of treated water storage. These reservoirs were constructed between the 
years 1946 and 1999. Design information for these reservoirs is detailed in Table 10.20.8. 
Table 10.20.8 Existing Reservoirs 
Reservoir Reservoir Pressure Year Construction Capacity Bottom Overflow 
Location Number Zone Served Built Materials (mg) Elevation (ft) Elevation 
(ft) 
500 Block 3 1 1946 Concrete 3.5 1,089.5 1,108.5 
Woodson Drive 
1500 Block Ridge 4 2 1953 Concrete 0.75 1,216 1,240 
Road 
1400 Block 5 1 1983 Concrete 3.5 1,079.5 1,108.5 
Sherman Lane 
2200 Block 6 2 1982 Concrete 3.5 1,211 1,240 
Crown Street 
Heiglen Loop 8 3 1983 Concrete 2.0 1,341 1,370 
Road 
1420 Denton 11 1 1999 Concrete 4.5 1,080.1 1,108.5 
Trail 
1700 Block 13 4 1980 Concrete 0.08 1,510 1,520 
Sunset Lane 
3900 Block 15 4 1985 Concrete 1.2 1,374 1,403 
Highland Ave. 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
10.20.4.6 System Operation. 
The general procedures for operation of the Grants Pass water distribution system are discussed in 
the following: 
• The water treatment plant operates as necessary to fill storage reservoirs in the distribution 
system on a daily basis. Therefore, the operating schedule adjusts to seasonal variations in water 
demand. During winter months, the plant generally operates seven days per week for an eight-
hour period. Operational hours are extended during the high demand summer months, when the 
plant must operate up to twenty four hours a day in order to keep the storage reservoirs full. 
• Those booster pumping stations that fill storage reservoirs are automatically controlled to 
maintain preset water levels. When sensors show that the water level of a reservoir has fallen 
below a preset threshold, the lead pump will activate and begin filling the reservoir to a high 
water level. If water demand on the reservoir is such that a single pump cannot maintain the 
water level, a lag pump (or pumps) will activate as necessary until the reservoir fills to a high 
water level. 
• Those booster pumping stations that serve areas without storage reservoirs are automatically 
controlled to maintain a minimum discharge pressure at the pumping stations. When pressure 
sensors show that the discharge pressure has fallen below a preset threshold, the lead pump 
activates and pumps until the discharge pressure exceeds a high pressure level. If water demand 
in the pump station's service area is such that a single pump cannot maintain the pressure level, a 
lag pump (or pumps) will activate as necessary until the system pressure is restored. 
• The reservoirs in the water distribution system are generally maintained between 80 and 100 
percent full. This fluctuating volume represents the operating storage. The remaining storage is 
allocated to providing fire flow requirements and emergency reserves. In the case of Reservoir 
10-13 
00 J077 
No. 15 in the North Valley, water levels are maintained at a much lower level due to limited 
demand in that portion of the distribution system. Altitude valves control the flow into and out 
of Reservoirs No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, and No. 11. These valves are designed to close when 
the reservoir is full and open when the system pressure drops. The other reservoirs in the 
distribution system float on the system. 
• There are three pressure reducing valve stations in the Grants Pass water distribution system. 
Two of the stations control the flow of water from Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 2A. 
Pressure Zone 2A extends to slightly lower elevations than Pressure Zone 2 and thus requires 
some pressure reduction. Each station contains a single pressure-reducing valve (one is a 10-
inch valve and one is a 6-inch valve). The third pressure reducing valve station on NE Beacon 
Drive reduces Zone 4 water to Zone 3. 
• The City upgraded the water distribution system to a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 
(SCADA) system in 1999. SCADA system monitors reservoir levels, pump operating status, and 
local pressures throughout the system. The central computer system for the man-machine 
interface is located at the water treatment plant. 
10.20.4.7 Water Treatment Plant. 
The City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has successfully met the City's drinking 
water needs for over 70 years. The Rogue River supply is typical of many Pacific Northwest surface 
waters with low mineral content, low pathogen concentrations, and normally low turbidity, but with 
seasonal increases in turbidity due to precipitation and runoff. The Rogue River quality and flow is 
also influenced by the operation of upstream reservoirs including Lost Creak Reservoir and Savage 
Rapids Dam (slated for removal). Peak withdrawals by the WTP to meet demands in the summer 
months coincide with minimum river flows and low turbidities. 
The WTP's main purposes include removal of suspended particulates, removal and inactivation of 
pathogens, and production of non-corrosive, palatable water in accordance with Federal and State 
drinking water regulations. The plant has historically met all regulations and the few customer 
complaints are limited to occasional chlorinous tastes and odors. The plant appears well positioned 
to continue to meet current and future drinking water needs. 
The plant's production has steadily increased over the last decade in response to increasing water 
demands within the City's service area. The City's service area has been expanding as areas 
previously served by small groundwater systems have been incorporated into the City's water 
system. Significant investments have been made to upgrade the distribution and storage systems 
over the past few years. Water production at the plant has increased by approximately 20% since 
1995. In 2007, peak day water production was 11.87 mgd, and the average annual production was 
5.85 mgd. 
The plant has rated maximum capacity of 20 mgd with all raw water and finished water pumps in 
operation. The reliable plant capacity is approximately 15 mgd with one of the largest pumps out of 
service. The plant is operated in a start/stop mode each day, with the hours of production varying 
between 8 to 24 hours per day depending on demands and raw water quality. The plant occasionally 
operates at the peak production rate of 20 mgd (14,000 gpm) during the high demand season. 
Recently the plant has had to increase its operating staff to allow for 24-hour operations, to more 
reliably meet demand during peak summer season. 
i/00080 
10-14 
The Water Treatment Plant Facilities Plan, April 2004 (WTPFP) provides guidance for improving 
this major element of the City's water system and recommends a capital improvement program 
(CIP) that will meet the City's water treatment needs for 20 to 25 years. Based on a water demand 
increase of 2.5 to 3 percent per year, it is expected that the plant will continue to be able to meet the 
City's water needs for at least the next 20 years, with some modifications and improvements. A 
major plant expansion is not envisioned until the middle to end of decade 2020. Although the 
existing plant site is extremely confined, the plant is capable of being expanded to approximately 30 
mgd with major modifications. The plant expansion to provide 30 mgd of treatment would be 
required in 25 years (on-line by 2028) if demand growth is steady at 2.5 percent per year. The 
expansion would be required in 20 years (on-line by 2023) if demand growth is steady at 3 percent 
per year. The existing plant structures appear to have significant remaining useful life. However, the 
older plant structures are vulnerable to damage during a severe seismic event. 
While the plant has been able to successfully meet the City's water demands and also produce good 
water quality, the Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan identified the following challenging issues 
which have regulatory compliance implications and which create production inefficiencies. Note 
that the WTPFP was adopted in 2004 and since then measures have been taken to address the 
following issues: 
• The existing Rogue River intake does not comply with current Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
regulations to protect juvenile fish including salmonids, due to high approach velocities and 
screen deficiencies. NOTE: This problem has since been fixed. Completed in 2006, the intake 
structure screen was replaced and the intake inlet was increased in size to reduce intake velocity.4 
• The backwash/sludge holding pond is completely full of solids and immediate action is required, 
including development of a long-term solids management plan, to ensure continued compliance 
with the City's NPDES permit for discharge to Skunk Creek. NOTE: A master plan for a long-
term solution to this problem was being developed as of September 2007. Short-term solids 
handling procedures are in place until the plan is completed.4 
• The filter media is in a degraded condition and the plant (specifically the filters and 
sedimentation basins) is operating inefficiently requiring frequent backwashing and excessive 
raw water pumping, resulting in higher operating costs. NOTE: The filter media has been 
upgraded and the resulting operational inefficiency is no longer a problem.4 
• Proposed drinking water regulations, including the Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule 
and the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, have the potential to require 
significant plant modifications depending on the outcome of monitoring programs. NOTE: 
Increased monitoring programs will be underway in the near future. Depending on the outcome 
of these programs, plant modifications may be required to maintain drinking water compliance.5 
These and other challenges require the City to implement near-term improvements to the plant. The 
plant also requires a longer-term capital improvement program to ensure reliability and redundancy 
of major equipment, including adding new equipment, replacement/repair of major equipment as it 
becomes less reliable, and to prepare for a major plant expansion. 
4 Per Dave Wright and Joey Wright, City of Grants Pass Public Works Department, September 2007 
5 Per Jason Canady, City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Supervisor, September 2007 
10-15 
T> >079 
10.20.4.8 Water Demand Analysis. 
Analysis of the City of Grants Pass historic water production and demand data allows for the 
identification of the unique water use patterns that characterize the City and provides a basis for 
estimating future water demand in the community. Additional analysis relates the various measures 
of water demand (maximum monthly demand, maximum daily demand, and peak hour demand) to 
the average annual demand through the use of peaking factors. 
The projection of future water demand is based on unit demand factors developed by land use type 
and corresponding customer classifications. These future demand projections provide the basis for 
assessing the adequacy of the existing water production and distribution system and planning for 
future improvements. 
10.20.4.9 Recent Water Use Statistics. 
There are several measures of water use that are important to analyze during the development of the 
water master plan. Following is a description of the influential water demand factors that will guide 
planning decisions with respect to the Grants Pass water systems: 
• Annual average demand - A measure of the amount of water that must be obtained from the 
available sources of supply on an annual basis. 
• Monthly average demand - Review of monthly average water demand illustrates seasonal 
variations in demand due to such factors as climate, irrigation, industrial production, and 
domestic use patterns. 
• Maximum day demand - The maximum daily water demand is used to size booster pumping 
stations that serve areas with storage reservoirs. This measure of demand is also used along with 
fire demands to size storage reservoirs. 
• Peak hour demand - The peak hour water demand is used to size pipelines and booster pumping 
stations that serve pressure zones without reservoirs. 
Three water usage rate variations are generally used in the design of water system facilities. These 
are the average annual demand, maximum day demand and peak hour demand. The annual average, 
monthly average, and maximum day water demand are calculated from analyzing WTP daily 
operational data. The analysis allows for the identification of annual average, monthly average, and 
maximum day water demand based on the period from 1995 to 1999. The average annual demand 
increased from 3.73 mgd to 4.50 mgd. The highest peak daily demand was 9.47 in August of 1998.6 
10.20.4.10 Per Capita Water Demand. 
Per capita water demand is a useful demand measure that is derived from historical data. However, 
it was not used in determining demand in the 2001 Water Distribution Plan (which uses land use-
based demand) or 2004 Water Treament Plant Facility Plan (which is based on a water demand 
growth rate factor.) Table 10.20.9 presents the population for Grants Pass along with the average 
annual demand during the years 1995 to 1999, which allows for calculation of the average demand in 
gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Ranging from 190 to 215 gpcd, the average daily water demand 
for the years 1995 to 1999 is 202 gpcd. Note that this unit demand factor is based on water 
production and includes all uses: residential, commercial, industrial, public/institutional, and 
6 Data excerpted from 2001 Water Distribution System Master Plan. Water use has since increased 
substantially. See Table 10.20.16 for more recent water use data. 
i/00080 
10-16 
unaccounted. The variation in per capita demand for the different years reflects the regular variation 
in water use patterns caused by seasonal conditions and possible changes in end user demand 
characteristics. 
For reference, an engineering report of the water distribution system, prepared by CH2M Hill in 
1979, identified an average annual demand of 253 gpcd. 
Table 10.20.9 Grants Pass Water Use for 1995 to 1999, gpcd* 
Year Population (City Limits) Average Demand, mgd Average Demand, gpcd 
1995 19,660 3.73 190 
1996 20,255 4.11 203 
1997 20,535 3.97 193 
1998 20,590 4.17 203 
1999 20,935 4.50 215 
2000 23,170 4.55 196 
2001 23,670 4.86 205 
2002 23,870 4.98 209 
2003 24,470 4.81 197 
2004 24,790 5.00 202 
2005 26,085 4.75 182 
2006 30,930 5.26 170 
2007 31,740 5.84 184 
13-Year Average - 5.66 196 
Source: For years 1995-1999, Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001; 
For years 2000-2007, updated 4/2008 by Jason Canady and Jared Voice using population estimates from Portland 
State University's Population Research Center) 
•Demands include all uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, and public/institutional. 
NOTE: Not all City residents are connected to the municipal water system. There are also users outside of the City limits that are 
not included in the population data in this table. Therefore, although the demand for all users is shown, the per capita demand 
shown likely overstates actual per capita use. 
10.20.4.11 Unaccounted for Water. 
All water distribution systems experience losses of water during transmission from the treatment 
plant to the end user. These losses, known as unaccounted for water, result from many situations 
including un-metered customers, transmission system leaks, main breaks, faulty meters, fire fighting 
activities, system flushing, and other miscellaneous hydrant uses. Thus, the total volume of water 
metered for all end users is always somewhat less than the volume of water produced at the WTP. 
Since the City meters water use for all customers, a comparison of water billing records and 
treatment plant production data provides a good estimate of the volume of unaccounted for water in 
the system. Table 10.20.10 shows the estimated volume of unaccounted for water in millions of 
gallons and also as a percentage of total production during the period of 1998 through 2000. Since a 
water loss rate of 10 to 15 percent is considered good, the calculated unaccounted for water rate 
indicates that the distribution system is in good condition. The City is also conducting several 
programs that will reduce the unaccounted for water rate. The programs include residential meter 
replacements, commercial meter upgrades, and improved monitoring of hydrant use. 
10-17 
> W81 
Table 10.20.10 Unaccounted for Water; 1998-2000 
Year Million Gallons Percent of Total Water Production 
1998 146 9.6% 
1999 190 11.6% 
2000 177 10.9% 
Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, June 2002 
10.20.4.12 Unit Demand Factors by Land Use Pattern. 
Water demand factors related to land use patterns are used to analyze water demand in the 
community. Based on historical billing data provided by the City's Utilities Department for 1998 
and 1999, Table 10.20.11 shows water demand within each land use pattern classification: 
commercial, single family residential, and multi-family residential showing the annual average and 
percent of total annual average demand for both years. The commercial classification includes 
general business, industrial, institutional and governmental-public land use categories. As indicated 
in the percentage summary of annual average demand by land use, the single-family residential 
classification accounts for nearly half of the water used in Grants Pass. 
Table 10.20.11 Grants Pass Water Use by Customer Class for 1998 and 1999 
Demand 
Commercial Multi-Family Residential Singe-Family Residential Total 
1998 Annual Average 1.36 0.61 1.80 3.77 
Percent of total annual 
average demand 36.0% 16.2% 47.8% 100% 
1999 Annual Average 1.40 0.67 1.91 3.98 
Percent of total annual 
average demand 35.2% 16.8% 48.0 100% 
Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, June 2002 
To develop a unit demand factor for the three different land use patterns, the water demand data 
presented in Table 10.20.11, above, are combined with estimated areas for each of the land use 
classifications. Table 10.20.12, below, summarizes the acreages by land use classification and 
pressure zone for all areas receiving water service from the City of Grants Pass, including those 
within the Urban Growth Boundary and North Valley. This summary was derived from analysis of a 
distribution system for Pressure Zones 1 through 4. The acreage for Pressure Zone NV is based on 
an estimate of the properties connected to the system in the North Valley area. The quotient of water 
demand and acreage yields a unit demand factor for each land use classification in gallons per acre 
per day (gpad), as presented in Table 10.20.13 below. Table 10.20.11 above does not include 
unaccounted for water, the calculation of these unit demand factors includes an allowance for 
unaccounted for water. 
Table 1C 1.20.12 Land L Lse by Pressure Zone (Acres) 
Customer/Class PZ/l PZ/2 PZ/3 PZ/4 PZ/NV Total % 
Commercial 924 125 57 0 40 1,146 32% 
Residential 1,197 594 114 67 5 1,977 56% 
Multi-Family 358 42 35 0 0 435 12% 
Total 2,479 761 206 67 45 3,558 100% 
% 70% 21% 6% 2% 1% 100% 
*The Commercial customer class includes commercial, industrial, and public connections to the system. 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
10-18 
>-J082 
Table 10.20.13 Unit Demand by Customer Class 
Customer Class 1999 Average 
Demand (mgd) 
Land Use Area 
(Acres) 
Average Unit Demand (gal/acre 
day) 
Commercial/Industrial/Public 1.56 1,146 1,400 
Multi-Family Residential 0.75 435 1,700 
Single-Family Residential 2.13 1,977 1,100 
*The 1999 average demand is based on billing records plus 11.6 percent to reflect unaccounted for water. 
Source: Grants Pass Water Management Plan, June 2002 
10.20.4.13 Peak Hourly Demand. 
The peak hour demand on the water distribution system typically occurs during the hottest, driest 
period of the year when customers are heavily irrigating landscaped yards and parks. For the City 
of Grants Pass service area, the peak hour demand usually happens in the month of August during 
the peak day demand. In order to evaluate this peak hour demand, hourly water level data was 
collected from each of the reservoirs in the distribution system during the summer of 1999. This data 
was analyzed in combination with the water production rate for the water treatment plant to identify 
the peak hour demand on each day for which data was available. Based on this analysis, the peak 
hour demand is estimated to be 4.5 times the average annual demand. 
10.20.4.14 Historical Peaking Factors. 
The water demands observed over the five years from 1995-1999 can also be expressed as a ratio to 
the annual average demand known as peaking factors. Although peaking factors vary significantly 
from user to user, these historical peaking factors are useful for comparing system-wide water use 
patterns in Grants Pass to other communities and for projecting future water use patterns. Table 
10.20.14 identifies Grants Pass water demand patterns for 1995 to 1999 and shows peaking factors 
based on ratios to annual average demand. The identified peak hour demands for the system are not 
actual measurements, but rather estimates derived from the reservoir level analysis conducted during 
the summer of 1999 as described above. Tables 10.20.14 and 10.20.15 below summarize the 
average peaking factors for the system. These values are fairly typical for a Western Oregon 
community. In general, they are slightly higher than the peaking factors for Corvallis and slightly 
lower than values for Portland. 
Table 10.20.14 Grants Pass Maximum Month, Pea t Day, and Pea ( Hour Demand Ratio 
Year Annual Maximum Peak Day Peak Hour Ratio of Ratio of Peak Ratio of peak 
Average Month Demand Demand, Maximum Month Day to Annual Hour to 
Demand, Demand, (mgd) (mgd) to Annual Average Annual 
(mgd) (mgd) Average Demand Demand Average 
Demand 
1995 3.73 6.48 8.32 17.01 1.74 2.23 4.56 
1996 4.11 7.22 9.09 18.60 1.76 2.21 4.52 
1997 3.97 6.82 8.83 18.10 1.72 2.22 4.56 
1998 4.17 7.62 9.47 19.40 1.83 2.27 4.66 
1 1999 4.50 7.79 9.35 19.20 1.73 2.08 4.26 
5 Yr. Avg. 4.10 7.18 9.01 18.46 1.76 2.20 4.51 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
10-19 
Table 10.20.15 Peaking Factor Summary 
Description Factor 
Maximum month demand 1.8 
Maximum daily demand Average for city 2.2 
Peak hourly demand Average for city 4.5 
NOTE: The average demand multiplied by the peaking factor yields the respective peak demand. 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
The following table identifies Grants Pass Water demand patterns for the years 1995 through 
2006. The data used in this table was obtained from the City Water Treatment Plant supervisor 
in 2007 to provide updated information that was not included in the previous planning 
documents referenced in this chapter. This more recent data shows that water demand has 
continued to increase since the previous plans were completed. Note that the more recent data 
was not contained in the 2001 Water Distribution System Master Plan, the 2002 Water 
Management Plan or the 2004 Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan. The capital improvement 
and implementation plans developed in these documents and referenced later in this chapter pre-
dated this more recent data. 
Table 10.20.16 Grants Pass Maximum Month, Peak Day and Peak Hour Data, 1995-2006 
Ye ¡11 Annual Average Flow 
(mSd) 
Maximum Month 
Demand {mgd) 
Peak Day Demand 
(mgd) 
j Peak Hour IK-m:>nd 
Finished Finished Finished ^ Fiiii shed 
1995 3.93 6.1S 8.32 17Ü9 
1996 4.23 7.22 9.09 1904 
1997 • 4.03 6.82 8.83 18.14 
1998 4.24 7.62 9.47 19. ÖS 
4.56 7-79 M M 9.35 •7ft JTT , •• • 
20(H) 4.55 7.82 9.73 20.4^ , 
2001 4.86 7.74 9.25 21.87 -
2(102 4.98 : 8.8S 10.54 22.41 f® 
lDÖ3g 4.81 9 ? l 10.31 2-i,65 
2004 5.00 9.33 10.17 22.50 
motöi 4.75 9 57 • ' 1 10.52 2138 
mm 5.27 9,55 11.69 S 23.72 M 
• 2 -V r -" Ave. 4.60 8.17" 9.77 
NOTE: Annual average flow, maximum month demand and peak day demand obtained from Water Treatment Plant data; 
Peak hour demand is an estimate calculated by multiplying the average flow by the actual 1995 to 1999 peaking factor 
average of 4.5 (see Tables 10.20.14 & 10.20.15) 
Data Source: Jason Canady, City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Supervisor 
10.20.4.15 Future Water Demand. 
NOTE: The information presented in this section was excerpted from the Grants Pass Water 
Distribution System Master Plan, prepared by West Yost and Associates in January 2001. 
Committed Service Areas. 
The land use demand factors developed in the previous sections provide a basis for projecting future 
water demand in the Grants Pass service area. The land use demand factors can be used in 
conjunction with land development projections to estimate water demand. 
10 -20 
i/00080 
Although the timing of land use development within the UGB is unknown, information is available 
regarding the current zoning designation for all properties within the UGB. Table 10.20.17 
summarizes the acreage of properties with the UGB according to land use, differentiating between 
properties that are were receiving water service as of January 2001 and those that will connect to the 
water distribution system in the future. Using the unit demand factors developed for these land use 
classifications, the table also projects average annual water demand at the UGB build-out condition. 
This analysis assumes the existing mix of residential/commercial properties will stay the same in the 
future. 
Table 10.20.17 Land Use Based Water Demand Projections for UGB Build-Out 
Land Use Existing Future Total Unit Demand, Estimated Average Annual 
Acreage Acreage Acreage gallons/acre-day Demand, mgd 
Commercial 1,146 598 1,744 1,400 2.4 
Single-Family 
Residential 
1,977 2,419 4,396 1,100 4.8 
Multi-Family 435 440 875 1,700 1.5 
Residential 
Total 3,558 3,457 7,015 4,200 8.7 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 
Based on this estimate of the UGB build-out average annual demand, the future maximum month, 
maximum day, and peak hour demand can be estimated using historical peaking factors. Table 
10.20.18 summarizes water demand at the time of the 2001 Water Distribution System Master Plan 
and projections for the build-out condition. 
Table 10.20.18 Water Demand Summary for Grants Pass 
Current Water Demand, mgd Future Total Water Demand, mgd 
Average Annual 5.85 9 
Maximum Month 10.13 16 
Maximum Day 11.87 20 
Peak Hour 23.72 40 
Source: Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001 (Updated Jason Canady, 3/08) 
Potential Service Areas Independent of UGB. 
The City has also evaluated its potential to serve properties outside the Urban Growth Boundary, 
mainly related to the existing distribution system serving the Merlin / North Valley area, and some 
additional areas contiguous to the UGB. 
One location with potential for future water system expansion is Merlin / North Valley. A 
portion of this area, including the North Valley Industrial Park and several residents along Merlin 
Road, is being serving by a service connection to the City at NW Highland Ave. near NW Vine 
St. (as of 2008.) The North Valley pump station was constructed at this connection to pump 
water from the City's Pressure Zone 3 to fill a 1.2 million gallon reservoir though an 8-inch 
pipeline in Highland Ave. The reservoir is located approximately one mile north of the North 
Valley pump station. The water coming out of the storage tank then feeds the Merlin / North 
Valley system by gravity through a 1.6-mile long 16-inch pipeline. The North Valley pump 
station consists of three booster pumps with a total capacity of 1,070 gallons per minute (gpm). 
The existing North Valley Reservoir and Pump Station have the capacity to accommodate some 
additional demand in the area. Based on a Technical Memorandum issued by West Yost 
Associates in December 2007, in addition to serving existing users, there is adequate capacity to 
10-21 
o < ) . ms 
serve the airport, Manzanita Rest area, the North Valley schools and Paradise Ranch. To expand 
service beyond these specific users, including adding any additional residential users, would 
require significant upgrades to the system, including pipeline improvements and an upgrade of 
the North Valley pump station. Because of limited space within the existing pump station vault, 
it may be necessary to relocate the pump station to accommodate any expansion. Additionally, 
water storage issues will need to be addressed if the service expansion is large enough. The City 
can continue to provide water service to specific properties within Merlin / North Valley through 
individual service agreements; however there are no additional obligations to provide service to 
properties other than those which are currently served (as of 2008.) 
In addition to properties within the UGB, there are also properties contiguous to the UGB that are 
potential candidates to receive water service in the future. Based on information obtained by West 
Yost Associates from City staff in about 2001, a rough estimate of the area of these properties is 400 
acres. Assuming that these properties largely fall within the single-family residential and industrial 
land use classifications, the additional acreage would increase the annual average demand on the 
system by approximately 0.5 mgd. 
10.20.5 CITY OF GRANTS PASS WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 
PROGRAM (CIP) 
Based on the evaluation of existing system performance and future expansion requirements presented 
in Section 10.20.4, and upon projected improvements required for ensuring the Water Treatment 
Plant (WTP) continues to serve the City's needs for the next 20 years and beyond, this section 
integrates the projects into a staged Implementation Plan for WTP improvements and Capital 
Improvement Program (CIP) for water distribution system improvements (including pipes, pump 
stations, etc.) 
Table 10.20.19 identifies the WTP facility improvements required to meet the build-out of the City 
of Grants Pass UGB. The Implementation Plan for WTP improvements was initially completed by 
MHW Americas, Inc. in 2004 as part of the City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility 
Plan. The Plan was also included in the Technical Memorandum that was produced by Parametrix 
in March 2005 and adopted by City Council Resolution No. 4954 in May of 2005. 
i/00080 
10-22 
Table 10.20.19 City of Grants Pass Water System 
Implementation Plan for WTP Improvements (2003 Dollars) 
Fiscal Year Improvements Estimated Project Costs 
($1000) 
2004/2005 Intake Modifications (Engr. And Permitting)* 400 
2005/2006 Intake Modifications (Engr and Construction)* 
Filter Upgrades (Engr. And Construction* 
Basin Modifications (Engr. and Construction) 
500 
200 
200 -
2006/2007 Intake Modifications (Construction)* 
Filter Upgrades (Construction)* 
Basin Modifications (Construction) 
700 
400 
400 
2008/2009 Filter Gallery Upgrades (Engr. And Construction) 
Solids Handling 
480 
800 
2009/2010 Filter Gallery Upgrades (Construction) 
Chemical System Upgrades (Engr. And Const.) 
510 
53 
2010/2011 Chemical System Upgrades (Construction) 
Sludge Removal Systems (Engr. And Const.) 
New Storage Building (Engr. And Construction) 
138 
80 
27 
2011/2012 Sludge Removal Systems (Construction) 
New Storage Building (Construction) 
239 
53 
2012/2013 Emergency Generator for 5 mgd (Engr. and Const.) 319 
2024 Expand Capacity to 30 mgd 7,813 
•Completed as of September 2007, per Jason Canady, City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Supervisor 
Source: Capital Improvement Program, Parametrix Technical Memorandum Dated 4/25/2005, 
Adopted By Council Resolution No. 4954, 5/6/2005 
In addition to the capital improvements presented above, the City should also implement the 
following efforts for the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) over the next few years: 
• Continue to explore alternative coagulation options to reduce solids production, improve plant 
performance and reduce operating costs; 
• Continue collecting Cryptosporidium samples from the Rogue River to determine "bin 
classification" according to the LT2ESWTR; 
• Develop a DBP sampling program based on the proposed regulations, in conjunction with State 
of Oregon DHS, to monitor for trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs), to verify 
compliance with the proposed Stage 2 D/DBP Rule; 
• Complete a Seismic Vulnerability Study; and 
• Assess the viability and costs of the sludge handling and disposal program, of which evaluation 
and implementation has been ongoing for several years and is anticipated to continue for the next 
3 to 5 years (as of 2007.) 
As of November 2007, it is anticipated that over the next 2 to 3 years the City will verify that it 
can meet the LT2ESWTR and D/DBP Rule with the existing plant. LT2ESWTR requires 2 years 
of data collection. The data has been collected once and the WTP is currently completing a 
second round to ensure compliance with the rule. The stage 2 D/DBP rule requires extensive 
planning and testing to determine new sampling points before compliance can be determined. If 
compliance is ultimately determined to be unlikely, then the City may have to implement an 
alternative disinfection scheme at the WTP. 
The City should periodically monitor plant performance and water demands over the next 10 years as 
it makes capital improvements and to verify that planned improvements are still required. An update 
of the WTP Facilities Plan should be completed in 5 to 10 years depending on water demands and 
regulations, including a review of plant expansion requirements. 
10-23 000087 
The WTP is capable of being expanded to approximately 30 mgd with major modifications. Based 
on current growth estimates, the plant expansion will not be required until the middle to end of 
decade 2020. The estimated project cost for a plant expansion to 30 mgd is $7.5 million dollars in 
2003, which minimizes the use of additional footprint on the existing site. It is recommended that 
the City assess available property for a future new plant to expand and partially replace the existing 
plant within the next 50 years. 
The following CIP identifies specific improvements for each of the first five years and for the full 
build-out of the City's service area. For each of the recommended projects, the CIP also presents 
cost estimates based on the unit construction costs identified on pages 7-1 of the Grants Pass Water 
Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001, West Yost & Associates. Cost estimates were 
adjusted by Parametrix in its Technical Memorandum dated March 2005 to reflect 2005 dollar 
amounts. 
Table 10.20.20 City of Grants Pass Water System Capital Improvements 
Project List & Estimated Capital Costs 2000-2005 (2005 Dollars) 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost ($1000) 
Pump Stations 
Hilltop/Harbeck Heights Fire Pumps 60 
Rogue Community College Pump Station 280 
Subtotal 340 
Pipelines 
Pressure zone boundary modifications 114 
Pressure reduction valves 149 
P-101 West Harbeck to Allen Creek 62 
P-103 Leonard Street Looping 46 
P-104 Lower River Road 86 
P-105 Prospect Avenue Looping 16 
P-106 Hawthorne to Crescent 427 
P-107 9lh to 10th at Midland 139 
P-108 Sherman Lane to Tokay Heights 259 
P-109 Marion Lane 131 
P-l 10 CSt to D St Loop 56 
P-l 13 Bridge to Brownell 325 
P-l 14 Lincoln Rd Looping 95 
P- l 15 10th and Savage Tie-In 8 
P-202 Redwood Ave Looping North 200 
P-203 Redwood Ave Looping South 202 
P-204 Rogue Community College Extension 4,372 
P-207 Williams Hwy Extension 53 
P-220 Southeast North Street Extension 26 
P-221 Shannon Lane Extension 55 
P-222 Lincoln Road Extension 118 
P-223 Ament Road Extension 754 
P-224 Starlite Connector 290 
Subtotal 7,983 
Total 8,323 
Source: Capital Improvement Program, Parametrix Technical Memorandum Dated 4/25/2005, 
Adopted By Council Resolution No. 4954, 5/6/2005; Subtotal and total dollar amounts have 
been adjusted by City staff due to mathematical errors that appear in original document. 
NOTE: Several of the above-listed projects have been fully or partially completed. Uncompleted 
projects will continue to be identified and included in the work plan / budget for completion. 
i/00080 
10-24 
Table 10.20.21 City of Grants Pass Water System 
Capital Improvements Projects List & 
Estimated Capital Costs 2005-2010 (2005 Dollars) 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost ($1000) 
Pipelines 
P-208 Williams Hwy Looping 
P-214 Rogue River Hwy Extension 
P-225 Starlite Extension 
Subtotal 
336 
749 
114 
1,199 
Pipeline Replacement 
12,500 feet total replacement 
Subtotal 
1,124 
1,124 
Total 2,323 
Source: Capital Improvement Program, Parametrix Technical Memorandum Dated 4/25/2005, 
Adopted By Council Resolution No. 4954, 5/6/2005 
Table 10.20.22 City of Grants Pass 
Water System Capital Improvements Projects List & 
Estimated Capital Costs 2010-2020 (2005 Dollars) 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost ($1000) 
Treated Water Storage 
Reservoir No 12 
Reservoir No. 14 
Reservoir No. 16 
Reservoir No. 17 
Reservoir No. 13 (replacement) 
Subtotal 
1,955 
972 
1,097 
1,543 
972 
6,539 
Pipelines 
P-206 Reservoir No. 12 Extension 
P-209 Reservoir No. 17 Extension 
P-215 Fruitdale Dr Extension 
P-216 Cloverlawn Loop 
P-218 Cloverlawn to Crestview Loop 
P-219 Reservoir No. 16 Extension 
P-226 Greenfield Rd Loop 
P-229 Reservoir No. 14 Extension 
Subtotal 
488 
111 
892 
64 
162 
207 
273 
78 
2,275 
Pipeline Replacement 
25,000 feet total replacement 
Subtotal 
2,248 
2,248 
Total 11,062 
Source: Capital Improvement Program, Parametrix Technical Memorandum Dated 4/25/2005, 
Adopted By Council Resolution No. 4954, 5/6/2005 
Table 10.20.23 City of Grants Pass Water System 
Capital Improvements Projects List and Estimated Capital Costs 2020 (2005 Dollars) 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost ($1000) 
Treated Water Storage 
Reservoir No. 10 1,783 
Subtotal 1,783 
Pump Stations 
Treatment Plant Pumps 457 
Subtotal 457 
Pipelines 
P-217 Reservoir No 10 Extension 210 
Subtotal 210 
Total 2,450 
Source: Capital Improvement Program, Parametrix Technical Memorandum Dated 4/25/2005, 
Adopted By Council Resolution No. 4954, 5/6/2005 
10-25 
0-:)jo 89 
10.20.6 PRIVATE WATER UTILITIES 
All domestic water services within the UGB area that are not served by the City of Grants Pass 
system derive their water supply from wells. Prior to requirements for subdivisions and other 
developments to connect to City water, developments were often served through private water 
systems. Private water companies supply water through small distribution systems mostly to 
subdivisions, motels, and mobile home parks. A list of private water systems and approximate 
populations served by each is available through the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 
Private utility companies have developed various areas within the City's Urban Growth Boundary, 
especially south of the Rogue River. Most remaining systems were constructed prior to requirements 
that they be constructed to municipal system standards. These systems rely upon wells for their 
supply, and their distribution piping systems consist of small diameter pipe and cannot be used 
effectively in the Grants Pass Water System. In order for the City to accept these private systems 
into theirs, the private companies are required to meet or exceed the City's standards. In most cases, 
the private companies cannot afford the capital improvement costs to comply and naturally resist 
connecting with the City System. 
There are three existing private water systems that are scheduled to be connected to the City Water 
System within the next two years. These include Bluegrass Park Water Company, Meadow Creek 
Subdivision and Twilight View Estates7. Per EPA records, the total population served by these three 
private water companies is approximately 245. At least two additional private water systems, 
College Oaks and Willow Glenn, were built to City standards and may eventually be connected in 
the future. However, only the originally-mentioned three systems were planned for connection to 
City water as of September 2007. 
City policy prevents the development of any new private water systems within the UGB. 
10.20.7 URBAN SERVICE MASTER PLANS AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS 
FOR WATER 
1. The Grants Pass City Council prepared the Grants Pass Water Distribution System 
Master Plan, 2001; Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, 2004; and the City of Grants 
Pass Water Management and Conservation Plan, 2002 all of which are hereby 
incorporated into the City of Grants Pass Comprehensive Plan by reference and 
furthermore, establish the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and associated costs for 
keeping pace with build-out of the UGB and serving additional areas outside of the UGB, 
including portions of the North Valley. 
2. The City-County Urban Service Policies, adopted with the UGB in August, 1979, require 
a public water system with fire flow capacities to serve urban levels of development. A 
Management Agreement initially adopted January 1981, set out interim development 
standards to determine domestic and fire requirements for utilizing wells and storage 
tanks prior to municipal system extension. On August 8,1998, Josephine County, City 
of Grants Pass, Harbeck-Fruitdale Sewer District and Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service 
7 Per Bob Hamblin and Kathy Mannon, City of Grants Pass Utilities Division, September 2007 
i/00080 
1 0 - 2 6 
District signed an Intergovernmental Agreement for the Orderly Management of the 
Grants Pass Urban Growth Boundary Area. This Intergovernmental Agreement replaces 
each of the earlier agreements. 
3. The City has additional agreements to serve specific properties in the North Valley. 
These include residential properties in the vicinity of the Merlin Landfill, the North 
Valley Industrial Park, and Paradise Ranch. 
10.20.8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND 
FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR WATER 
Implementation and funding plans for the City of Grants Pass Water System are found in each 
respective Master Plan identified below. 
10.20.8.1 Water Treatment Plant. 
Please refer to the April 2004, City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan, Chapter 7 -
Implementation Plan, pages 7-1 through 7-8 (MWH). 
10.20.8.2 Water Distribution System. 
Please refer to the City of Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan, January 2001, West 
Yost & Associates, Chapter 7 - Cost of Recommended Capital Improvement Program, pages 7-1 
through 7-7 and associated maps locating each improvement. 
10.20.9 WATER SERVICES FINDINGS 
10.20.9.1 Water Source. 
1. Groundwater from the area's alluvial deposit yields a maximum 50 gallons per minute, 
which is insufficient for municipal supply. Problems of salt intrusion and a dropping 
water table further limit the groundwater resource. The only reliable source for the large 
quantities of potable water required for municipal purposes is the Rogue River. 
2. The Rogue River yearly flow is effectively fully subscribed, and can support additional 
subscriptions only by impounding winter flow behind Lost Creek Dam for dry season 
release. 
3. The City has one "perfected right" (priority date 1888) and three permits (priority dates 
1960, 1965, and 1983) for withdrawing 12.5 cubic feet per second (cfs), 25 cfs, 25 cfs 
and 25 cfs, respectively, for a total of 87.5 cfs from the river for municipal purposes. 
4. The following information regarding the Grants Pass Irrigation District (GPID) was 
included in the previously adopted version of this chapter, and should be updated when 
more current information can be obtained from GPID. 
1 0 - 2 7 
TÙ A)91 
a. The Grants Pass Irrigation District has a "perfected right" of 96.7 cfs with a 1916 
priority date, and in addition has a Fish and Game "transport right" of 83 cfs and an 
"as through" right for the turbine lifts of 800 cfs, also diverted at the Savage Rapids 
Dam Site. The GPID perfected right may be used for municipal purposes. One-third 
of this right could provide for 30,490 persons, and one-half could provide for 45,730 
persons at maximum day demand levels. 
b. The GPID canal and delivery system serves 400 exclusive farm use acres and 7000 
urban-suburban acres. The District has 55 miles of major canals and laterals of 
which 85% are unlined or uncovered. Many of these canals and laterals serve as 
major drain ways of the City and urbanizing area, and have been incorporated into the 
Master Storm Drain Plan of the UGB area. 
c. Some 2600 acres of irrigated lands have passed out of the District over the years, due 
mainly to urban level development and the silting and washout problems associated 
with winter drainage accommodation. The GPID has elected to continue supplying 
water through canals and laterals as development proceeds, citing as rationale that the 
improvements required by development often don't exceed "buy-out" costs, that the 
City's maximum day demand for water in the summer is thereby reduced, and that the 
irrigation water, being untreated and un-pressurized is cheaper for both the user and 
the provider. 
10.20.9.2 Water Treatment. 
5. The City began providing treated water for domestic use in 1931 (3.5/mgd), with 
expansions in 1950 (4.5 mgd), 1961 (11.5 mgd), and 1983 bringing the total current 
capacity to 20 mgd (as of 2007.) The WTP is capable of being expanded to 
approximately 30 mgd with major modifications. Based on a water demand increase of 
2.5 to 3 percent per year, the plant expansion will not be required until the middle to end 
of decade 2020. The estimated project cost for a plant expansion to 30 mgd is $7.5 
million dollars in 2003, which minimizes the use of additional footprint on the existing 
site. It is recommended that the City assess available property for a future new plant to 
expand and partially replace the existing plant within the next 50 years 
10.20.9.3 Water Storage and Distribution. 
6. Waters must be stored to allow for hourly fluctuation in demand ("equalizing storage" at 
25% maximum daily demand), must meet fire flow demand when normal consumption is 
at the maximum daily rate ("fire storage" as per ISO tables), and must provide for water 
supply during a major disruption ("reserve storage," at 50% maximum day demand, or a 
12 hour supply under maximum use conditions and 1 1/3 days supply under average use). 
7. The annual average, monthly average, and maximum day water demand are calculated 
from analyzing WTP daily operational data. The analysis allows for the identification of 
annual average, monthly average, and maximum day water demand based on the period 
from 1995 to 1999. The average annual demand increased from 3.73 mgd to 4.50 mgd. 
The highest peak daily demand was 9.47 in August of 1998. 
1 0 - 2 8 
i/00080 
facilities called for by the Water Facilities Plan, and such map shall be keyed to the 
computerized model of the distribution system. 
10.2.4 The Development Code shall facilitate these water service policies, and shall contain 
a balanced mix of positive incentives (which may include density transfers, density 
bonuses, rapid review procedures, etc.) as well as exactive requirements (which may 
include dedication or easement requirements, system charges, development 
requirements, etc.) as needed to assure the realization of these policies. 
10.2.5 The City and County shall develop maintain a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 
within 12 months of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, which program shall 
include timely and adequate funding to realize the development of facilities required 
by the Water Facilities Plan, and shown on the Water Facilities Plan Map. 
10.2.6 The Water Facilities Plan shall be reviewed and updated, and revised ifperiodically 
as necessary, at one year intervals, with major revisions at five year intervals. The 
revisions to the Water Facilities Plan shall be used as a basis for revising these 
policies. 
10.2. 7 Within 24 months of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City and County 
working with the Grants Pass Irrigation District shall explore the possibility of the 
municipal use of the Distriot water right, and shall explore the most cost effective 
way, for public agencies and private individuals alike, to provide water to the UGB 
area for all purposes. 
10.2. 8 Urban level development shall require a public water system, or shall meet 
requirements of Interim Development Standards as provided by the Implementing 
Ordinances. Interim Development Standards shall allow development to proceed in a 
timely and economical manner, prior to full public water system extension, provided 
the requirements of public safety, health and welfare are met, and the future 
extension of the public water system is safeguarded. 
10.3. Sewer Service Policies 
10.3.1 Within 12 months of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, The City and County shall follow 
adopted develop and adopt Sanitary Sewer Facility and Management Plans for the Redwood, 
Fruitdale-Harbeck and City service districts, including all parts of the Urban Growth 
Boundary area. The Sanitary Sewer Facility and Management Plans: shall; 
(a) determine the number, size, location and approximate costs of sanitary sewer 
facilities and improvements deemed necessary to serve the expected 
population within the Urban Growth Boundary; 
(b) base the facilities and improvements determination upon a thorough analysis 
of the Urban Growth Boundary service districts, including present treatment 
plan capacity, treatment levels and Department of Environmental Quality 
requirements, collection system age, construction and function, and 
infiltration and inflow characteristics of the system; 
Element 10 Last Revised 8/1/1984, Ordinance 4518 Page 10-3 
(c) recommend implementation and financing strategies for acquiring, 
developing and maintaining needed sanitary sewage facilities; 
(d) demonstrate continuity with past sanitary sewer plans, as adopted and 
developed by the City and County; 
(e) provide for adequate coordination between the City and County as needed in 
the expansion and maintenance of the sewer service districts; 
(f) determine the areas of highest priority. 
10.3.2 Within 12 months of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, The City and County shall adept 
maintain an official Sanitary Sewer Facilities Plan Map, showing the location, size and type 
of existing and future collection and treatment facilities called for by the Sanitary Sewer 
Facilities and Management Plan. The map shall also show Service District boundaries. 
10.3.3 The Development Code and Development Standards shall act to facilitate these sanitary 
sewer service policies, and shall contain a balanced mix of positive incentives (which may 
include density transfers, public funding of oversized lines, rapid review procedures, etc.) as 
well as exactive requirements (which may include dedication or easement requirements, 
system charges, development requirements, etc.) as needed to assure the realization of these 
policies. 
10.3.4 The City and County shall develop maintain a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) within 
12 months of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, which program shall include timely and 
adequate funding to realize the development of facilities required by the adopted Sanitary 
Sewer Facility and Management Plans, and as shown on the Sewer Facilities Plan Map. 
10.3.5 The Sanitary Sewer Facility and Management Plans shall be reviewed and updated, and 
revised if periodically as necessary, at one year intervals with major revisions at five year 
intervals. The revisions to the Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Management Plans shall be used 
as a basis for revising these policies. 
10.3.6 The City and County shall encourage sanitary sewer design that minimizes the cost of 
sanitary service extensions, and that minimizes the cost of maintaining such extensions. 
10.3.7 Urban level development shall require a public sanitary sewer system, or shall meet the 
requirements of Interim Development Standards as provided by the Implementing 
Ordinances. Interim development Standards shall allow development to proceed in a timely 
and economical manner, prior to full extension of the sanitary sewer system, provided the 
requirements of public safety, health and welfare are met. 
10.4 .Storm Drain Service Policies 
10.4.1 The City and County shall follow the adopted Master Storm Drain Facilities and 
Management Plan for the Urban Growth Boundary area when extending the improving 
drainage service. Key factors to be utilized in growth management include: 
Element 10 Last Revised 8/1 /1984, Ordinance 4518 Page 10-4 
There are eight water storage reservoirs within the Grants Pass water distribution system 
that provide a total of 19 million gallons of treated water storage. These reservoirs were 
constructed between the years 1946 and 1999. 
10-29 
00 >093 
000094 
10.30 SANITARY SEWER SERVICES INDEX 
10.30.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT 
• 10.20.1.1 Purpose 
• 10.30.1.2 Intent 
10.30.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 
• 10.30.2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils 
• 10.30.2.2 Topography 
• 10.30.2.3 Geology 
• 10.30.2.4 Soils 
• 10.30.2.5 Climate 
• 10.30.2.6 General Climatic Conditions 
• 10.30.2.7 Precipitation 
• 10.30.2.8 Temperature 
• 10.30.2.9 Other Climatic Factors 
• 10.30.2.10 Water Resources 
• 10.30.2.11 Water Quality 
• 10.30.2.12 Water Quantity 
• 10.30.2.13 Flood Potential 
10.30.3 DEMAND FACTORS 
• 10.30.3 1 Population 
o 10.30.3.1.1 Estimate of Population Equivalent for Sewer Service Area 
o 10.30.3.1.2 Projection of Population Equivalent for Sewer Service Area 
• 10.30.3.2 Land Use 
• 10.30.3.3 Grants Pass Irrigation District 
• 10.30.3.4 Hydraulic and Biologic Loading 
10.30.4 CITY OF GRANTS PASS SANITARY SEWER SERVICES 
• 10.30.4.1 Service Area 
• 10.30.4.2 Treatment Plant 
• 10.30.4.3 Treatment Level 
• 10.30.4.4 Biosolids Handling and Disposal 
• 10.30.4.5 Collection System 
• 10.30.4.6 Pump Stations 
o 10.30.4.6.1 City Pump Stations 
o 10.30.4.6.2 RSSSD Pump Stations 
10.30.5 TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 
• 10.30.5.1 Liquid Stream Alternatives 
o 10.30.5.1.1 Upgrades Common to the Liquid Stream Alternatives 
o 10.30.5.1.2 Alternative One - Conventional Expansion 
o 10.30.5.1.3 Alternative Two - Ballasted Sedimentation 
o 10.30.5.1.4 Alternative Three - Zenon Process 
o 10.30.5.1.5 Liquid Stream Alternatives Cost Estimate Comparison 
E X H I B I T S 
-lb ( W C SWKl&tfSFi 
• 10.30.5.2 Biosolids Disposal and Handling Alternatives 
o 10.30.5.2.1 Alternative One - Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility 
o 10.30.5.2.2 Alternative Two - Dry Creek Landfill 
o 10.30.5.2.3 Alternative Three - Land Applying Class B Biosolids 
o 10.30.5.2.4 Alternative Four - Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment (ATP) 
o 10.30.5.2.5 Biosolids Alternatives Cost Estimate Comparison 
• 10.30.5.3 Miscellaneous Plant Improvements 
10.30.6 PREFERRED TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 
• 10.30.6.1 Biosolids Handling and Disposal 
• 10.30.6.2 Liquid Stream Treatment 
• 10.30.6.3 Capital Improvements Water Restoration Plant 
10.30.7 RECOMMENDED COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 
• 10.30.7.1 Collection System Goals 
• 10.30.7.2 Hydraulic Capacity Improvements 
• 10.30.7.3 Maintenance and Reliability Improvements 
• 10.30.7.4 Estimated Cost of Improvements 
• 10.30.7.5 Collection System Capital Improvement Program 
10.30.8 REGULATORY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES 
• 10.30.8.1 FEDERAL POLICY 
o 10.30.8.1.1 Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act 
o 10.30.8.1.2 Safe Drinking Water Act 
o 10.30.8.1.3 Proposed CMOM Rule 
• 10.30.8.2 STATE POLICY 
o 10.30.8.2.1 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 
o 10.30.8.2.2 Bacterial Control Management Plan 
o 10.30.8.2.3 Groundwater Regulations 
• 10.30.8.3 LOCAL ORDINANCES, POLICY, AND MANAGEMENT 
AGREEMENT 
o 10.30.8.3.1 Grants Pass Municipal Code 
o 10.30.8.3.2 City of Grants Pass Development Code 
o 10.30.8.3.3 Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Policy 
o 10.30.8.3.4 Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement 
10.30.9 FINANCING PLAN 
• 10.30.9.1 Capital Costs 
• 10.30.9.2 Current Funding 
• 10.30.9.3 Capital Funding Mechanisms 
• 10.30.9.4 Projected Cash Flow 
• 10.30.9.5 Conclusion 
10.30.10 SANITARY SEWER SERVICES FINDINGS 
• 10.30.10.1 Existing Sewer Capacity 
• 10.30.10.2 Future Need 
i/00080 
10-2 
10.30.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT 
10.30.1.1 Purpose 
The purpose of this section is to identify existing sanitary sewer service facilities and capacities, 
identify areas of immediate concern, project capacities needed through the planning period, 
present financial methods of paying for and regulating the service, and present policies of the 
orderly provision of services. Within and contiguous to the UGB, there are currently three 
systems providing sanitary sewer service: City of Grants Pass, Harbeck-Fruitdale Sanitary 
Sewer Service District, and the Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District. 
10.30.1.2 Intent 
The intent of this section is to enact the following public facilities sanitary system master plans 
by ordinance as an update to the Public Facilities Element of the City of Grants Pass 
Comprehensive Plan: 
1. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, Final 
Report (Parametrix, June 2001); 
2. Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant, 
Appendices - Final Report (Parametrix, June 2001) 
3. Collection System Master Plan, City of Grants Pass (Parametrix, September 2004) 
4. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District Engineering Report (Parametrix, April 1999, 
Revised November 1999) (NOTE: This report evaluated alternatives for either 
upgrading/expanding the Redwood Wastewater Treatment Plant, or conveying the waste 
water to the Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant (WRP) for treatment. The preferred 
alternative identified in the report was conveying the waste water to the WRP for 
treatment, and the work has since been completed.) 
10.30.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 
The natural environment includes topography, geology, soils, climate, and water resources of the 
region. This section presents a brief discussion of these items in relation to sanitary sewer 
collection system planning and analysis. The information provided in this section was excerpted 
from the City of Grants Pass Collection System Master Plan, completed by Parametrix in 
September 2004. 
10.30.2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils 
The topography, geology, and soils of a region can have a significant effect on the design and 
construction requirements of entire sanitary sewer system. Topography can determine the route 
and slope of sewer lines, as well as the need for and location of pumping stations. The geology 
and soil conditions in an area can affect construction costs for pipelines and determine locations 
for system components. 
10-3 
• > # j f : 9 7 
10.30.2.2 Topography 
Grants Pass lies in the Rogue River Valley in the Klamath Mountain Range of Oregon. The 
Rogue River Valley begins at the base of the surrounding hills and exists as a well-defined 
stream terrace some 10 to 15 feet above the bed of the Rogue River. The valley slopes toward 
the river at an average gradient of 1 to 2 percent. Elevations on the low-lying valley flow range 
from 880 to 1,100 feet above sea level. The Rogue River traverses the valley in a general east-
west direction on an average slope of about 6 feet per mile. Away from the valley floor, the 
terrain grows steep relatively quickly. Beacon Hill (located northeast of the City) and Baldy 
Mountain (located southeast of the City) are 2,117 feet and 2,740 feet in elevation, respectively. 
The Siskiyou Mountains, part of the Klamath Mountains, lie to the south and west of Grants 
Pass. To the northeast, a spur connects the Klamath Mountains to the Cascade Range. 
10.30.2.3 Geology 
The service area contains several major geologic units, including alluvium deposits, diorites and 
granites, ultramafic and metavolcanic rocks, and gneisses and schists. The alluvium deposits, 
between 100 and 150 feet thick, formed the valley floor by eroding away from the surrounding 
rock units. The lava and metavolcanic rock composing Beacon Hill and Baldy Mountain does 
not weather easily. Its ruggedness has limited development in these areas. The softer granite of 
Dollar Mountain to the northwest, and various hills to the south and southwest of the city shows 
greater weathering. The rounded ridges and gentle slopes of these areas have encouraged 
development. 
10.30.2.4 Soils 
Weathering of the different geologic units has given the soils of this area a wide range of 
characteristics. The soils that underlie the developable portions of the Rogue River Valley are of 
the greatest importance to the collection analysis. Soils with poor drainage can increase the 
potential for infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the collection system, leading to increased flows to 
the Water Restoration Plant (WRP.) A survey conducted by the U.S Department of Agriculture 
(USDA, 1983) identified the soil types found in this area for agricultural purposes. A brief 
summary of the USDA survey with generalized engineering interpretations is presented below. 
The most important soil types in the valley are Newberg fine sandy loam, Barron coarse sandy 
loam, and Clawson sandy loam. Newberg fine sandy loam is principal soil type in the floodplain 
and terraced areas of the valley. It occupies a strip along the Rogue River Valley that is 
generally about a mile in width; however, it narrows to about 2,500 feet at Grants Pass. The soil 
is well drained and presents no major problems for the collection system. Barron coarse sandy 
loam occupies extensive portions of the Rogue River Valley and underlies most of the city west 
of Gilbert Creek. The soil generally occurs upslope from Columbian fine sandy loam and 
extends as valley fill material into most of the minor tributary valleys. This soil has slightly 
higher clay content than the Newberg loam, but does not significantly impact drainage or 
increase I/I impacts. 
Clawson sandy loam underlies a major portion of the city east of Gilbert Creek. This soil 
typically consists of about 1 foot of smooth-textured silt loam overlying a compact silty loam or 
clay loam subsoil. At a depth of about 30 inches, the subsoil assumes an extremely gritty 
texture, reflecting the presence of coarse granitic material. The subsoil terminates at shallow 
10-4 
i/00080 
depths in coarse granitic rock. The soil is flat lying and poorly drained. Because of the 
impervious nature of the shallow bedrock, it is waterlogged during the winter and spring months. 
In some areas, the water table is less than 3 feet below the ground level well into the summer. 
The high groundwater conditions that accompany this soil type can be a problem when 
wastewater pipelines lying in the soil have cracks or leaks. Groundwater infiltrates into the 
cracks and leaks, significantly increasing the flow of liquid to the WRP. 
10.30.2.5 Climate 
Precipitation, temperature, and other climatic factors can significantly affect the design and 
construction of wastewater facilities. Rainfall is especially significant, because it can cause large 
flow increases in the collection system due to storm water runoff, illicitly connected roof drains, 
and raised groundwater levels. 
10.30.2.6 General Climatic Conditions 
The climate of Grants Pass is generally mild, although temperatures below freezing and above 
100 degrees Fahrenheit occur for short periods annually. Climate is influenced by the Pacific 
Ocean, which is located about 60 miles west of the city. The intervening coastal mountains 
modify the effect of the marine air masses, causing this portion of the Rogue River Valley to 
receive less annual rainfall and to have fewer cloudy and rainy days than most other portions of 
Western Oregon. Monthly temperature and precipitation data for Grants Pass are summarized in 
Table 10.30.1. 
Table 10.30.1 Climate Summary3 
Temperature, Degrees Fahrenheit 
Precipitation in 
Inches 
Mean Mean Highest Lowest Greatest 
Month Maximum Minimum Mean Recorded Recorded Mean Daily 
January 47.4 31.1 39.3 69 13 5.0 3.4 
February 54.1 32.7 43.4 76 12 4.4 2.2 
March 59.8 34.1 47.0 81 22 3 7 2.2 
April 65.6 35.8 50.7 93 24 2.0 1.4 
May 73.1 40.5 56.8 102 26 1.2 1.5 
June 80.8 45.4 63.1 106 33 0.5 1.0 
July 88.8 49.5 69.2 109 39 0.4 1.3 
August 89.0 48.9 69.0 110 36 0.5 0.8 
September 82.7 43.0 62.9 108 29 0.9 2.9 
October 70.4 37.4 53.9 98 20 2.1 1 7 
November 53.3 34.6 44.0 77 12 5.1 4.8 
December 45.7 31.3 38.5 67 -1 5.4 4.0 
Annual 67.6 38.7 53.2 110 -1 31.2 4.8 
"Source: Records of the Oregon Climate Services, 1971-2000 
10-5 
i/00080 
10.30.2.7 Precipitation 
Nearly 75 percent of annual rainfall in Grants Pass occurs between the months of November 
through March. A majority of the annual precipitation is in the form of rain, although about 4 to 
5 inches of snow falls each year. Seasonal snowfall rarely exceeds 10 inches, which usually 
melts immediately. 
10.30.2.8 Temperature 
Temperatures in Grants Pass usually remain moderate through the winter. Subfreezing 
temperatures may persist long enough to freeze water in aboveground facilities; however, it 
rarely lasts long enough to cause freezing in buried facilities. Summers are warm and dry. 
Temperatures exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit on an average of 6 days a year. Nighttime 
temperatures are generally cool, averaging about 51 degrees Fahrenheit during July, the warmest 
month. 
10.30.2.9 Other Climatic Factors 
Sunshine is usually abundant during the spring, summer and fall, but the area is generally cloudy 
during the winter months. Early morning fog occurs frequently during November, December 
and January. Fog is less common in October and February and rarely occurs during the rest of 
the year. Wind speed and direction are not routinely measured at Grants Pass. The prevailing 
wind direction, however, is from the west, approximately parallel to the axis of the Rogue River 
Valley. 
10.30.2.10 Water Resources 
The principal water resources in the service area are surface water from The Rogue River and its 
tributaries and groundwater from the alluvium covering the river valley. The water resource 
most important for this Plan, the Rogue River, drains 2,460 square miles above Grants Pass 
before traversing the study area. The Rogue River is used for the City's potable water supply, 
irrigation, and recreation. 
A number of individual wells rely on area groundwater. The alluvium is the major aquifer, with 
typical yield of 40 gallons per minute (gpm). Volcanic formations usually yield less water, but 
in a few highly fractured areas wells have yields as high as 60 gpm. Many of the high yields are 
not sustainable, as the aquifers are small and substantial drawdown occurs. 
10.30.2.11 Water Quality 
The 2004 Collection System Master Plan discusses regulatory framework for both existing water 
quality and the quality of water discharged from the Water Restoration Plant. The City's 
NPDES Permit takes into account existing temperature and pollutant loading in setting discharge 
limits from the Water Restoration Plant. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Division 41, 
Section 340-41-365, sets standards for water quality in the Rogue River basin. The rules cover 
dissolved oxygen concentrations, temperature increases, pH values, coliform counts, creation of 
tastes or odors, toxic conditions that harm aquatic life or affect drinking water, and the formation 
of sludge. The regulations and associated water quality information relating to wastewater 
treatment and disposal are discussed in Section 10.30.7. 
10-6 
i X K 1 X O 
10.30.2.12 Water Quantity 
The most recent 30 years of Rogue River flow data collected by the U.S Geologic Survey 
(USGS) are summarized in Table 10.30.2. 
Table 10.30.2 Historical Rogue River Stream Flow Data 
Month 
Monthly Stream Flow Data (1973-2002)8 
Maximum (ftJ/s) Minimum (ft3/s) Mean (ft3/s) 
January 16,610 1,348 5,123 
February 10,960 1,162 4,512 
March 10,760 1,099 4,364 
April 8,395 997 4,076 
May 6,428 1,538 3,703 
June 4,572 1,016 2,796 
July 3,484 .974 2,060 
August 3,080 878 2,009 
September 2,642 1,098 1,724 
October 2,282 1,008 1,503 
November 9,086 1,160 2,833 
December 17,620 1,386 4,866 
a Data from US Geologic Survey Rogue River Monitoring Station (14361500) at Grants Pass, Oregon. 
Flows in the Rogue River can fluctuate widely from year to year. The largest recorded 
discharge, 152,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), occurred during a December 1964 flood. The 
lowest recorded discharge was minimum day of 606 cfs during 1968. Reservoirs have since 
been constructed in the Rogue River basin to provide storage of high wet weather flows for 
release during dry weather periods. 
10.30.2.13 Flood Potential 
It is necessary to identify flood-prone areas in order to safely locate wastewater collection and 
treatment system components. A detailed description of the flood history, mapped locations, and 
an evaluation of the degree of hazard are found in the Natural Hazards Element of the City's 
Comprehensive Plan, 1983. The City has adopted Ordinance 4471, which prohibits development 
in the floodway without a certified "No-Rise" Analysis. Development in the floodway fringe is 
permitted provided the fnain living floor is elevated at least one foot above the 100-year Base 
Flood Elevation, or for nonresidential structures, floodproof construction techniques are utilized. 
10.30.3 DEMAND FACTORS 
Sewerage demand is driven by factors such as population growth, land use, and to a lesser extent, 
infiltration from GPID. This section examines the factors driving demand. Unless otherwise 
noted, the information provided in this section was excerpted from the City of Grants Pass 
Collection System Master Plan. This plan, completed by Parametrix in September 2004, used a 
planning horizon through the year 2020 and a horizon of 2060 for sizing the distribution system. 
10-7 
10.30.3.1 Population 
Consideration of population trends is crucial to long-term sewerage planning. In order to size 
new facilities and expansions, historical population trends must be examined to predict future 
population growth. The Grants Pass area has experienced steady population growth since the 
1920s. This increase has been in line with the national population trend of people moving to the 
west and southwest from the northeastern and central states and to rural areas from urban areas. 
The population in Josephine County rose during the 1970s (5.11 percent annually), but slowed 
dramatically during the 1980s (0.6 percent annually). The City of Grants Pass grew more rapidly 
than the county during the last decade (1.5 percent annually). 
10.30.3.1.1 Estimate of Population Equivalent for Sewer Service Area 
The 1990 census lists the population of Grants Pass at 17,424. Population within the city limits 
in 2003 was estimated at 22,444. This is the base year population estimate used for the 2004 
Collection System Master Plan. Population estimates completed after the 2004 Collection 
System Master Plan are presented in the Population element of the Comprehensive Plan. 
The population within the sewer service area consists primarily of the population within the city 
limits, and the Harbeck-Fruitdale and Redwood areas outside the city limits. Prior to 2001, the 
City's Water Restoration Plant (WRP) treated sewage only from within the city and Harbeck-
Fruitdale area. The 2004 Collection System Master Plan estimated a 2003 population of 4,620 
for Harbeck-Fruitdale, based on sewer connection and billing records. In addition, the City 
began serving the Redwood Sanitary Sewer Services District (RSSSD) in 2001, and has 
subsequently converted the Redwood Treatment Plan to a pump station and sewage is now 
pumped to and treated at the City's WRP. The 2004 Collection System Master Plan used a 2003 
estimated population of 5,714 for the Redwood area. Based on the estimates for the City, 
Harbeck-Fruitdale and Redwood, the- sewer service area population was estimated to be 32,778 
in 2003 It is also necessary to take into account the commercial and industrial contribution as a 
form of population equivalent. The 2004 Collection System Master Plan assumed that 
commercial/industrial population equivalent is 35 percent of the total residential population, 
which equals 11,472. Therefore, the total sewer service area population equivalent was 
estimated to be 44,250 in 2003. 
The 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update projected the future sewerage area to also include 
Merlin / North Valley. This area lies outside the UGB to the north of the city and has largely 
been dependent on on-site sewage treatment systems. The subsequent 2004 Collection System 
Master Plan acknowledged that although this area may begin contracting with the City for 
wastewater services in the future, there are no current plans for service expansion. Therefore, 
consideration of flows from the North Valley area was not addressed in the 2004 Collection 
System Master Plan. In summary, the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update would provide 
sufficient capacity of the WRP to accommodate sewage from Merlin / North Valley. However, 
the 2004 Collection System Master Plan does not plan for facilities to collect and convey sewage 
from this area to the WRP. 
10.30.3.1.2 Projection of Population Equivalent for Sewer Service Area 
The 2004 Collection System Master Plan developed a future equivalent population projection for 
the service area by applying sub-area growth rates from the City's Comprehensive Plan to the 
base population estimates for the sub-areas and adding 35% to the resulting population for 
commercial/industrial population equivalent. Estimated growth rates were respectively: 1.5% for 
10-8 
Grants Pass, 1.6% for Harbeck-Fruitdale and 3.1% for Redwood. Maintaining the 
commercial/industrial equivalent as 35% of the population share in 2020 resulted in an estimated 
1.8% growth rate in commercial/industrial equivalent population. As of 2003, the Grants Pass 
WRP was serving an estimated population equivalent of44,250 (including the 35 percent 
commercial/industrial equivalent.) After applying these growth rates, year 2020 service area 
population equivalent was estimated as 60,157. For years beyond 2003, it is likely that the city 
limits and UGB would have enlarged from what existed in 1997. The Redwood and Harbeck-
Fruitdale populations would probably then be reflected in the city limit population. 
A summary of the population projection used in the 2004 Collection System Master Plan is 
shown in Table 10.30.3. In addition to projections for the years 2020 and 2025, the plan also 
created a projection assuming all available land was at saturation levels of development, which 
was referred to as Year 2060. The 2060 projections provide a good representation of the build-
out conditions that are typically used to determine the size of long-term infrastructure 
improvements, such as collection system pipelines. 
Table 10.30.3 Population Growth by Area 
Area 
1997 
Population 
Average 
growth rate 
(% per year) 
Population Projection 
2003 2020 2025 2060 
City Limits 20,526 1.5 22,444 28,908 31,143 52,440 
Harbeck-Fruitdale 4,200 1.6 4,620 6,053 6,550 11,417 
Redwood 4,758 3.1 5,714 9,600 11,186 32,563 
Commercial / Industrial 
Equivalent 
10,319 1.8 11,472 15,596 17,107 33,747 
Total Service Area 
Population Equivalent: 
39,803 44,250 60,157 65,986 130,167 
Source: City of Grants Pass Collection System Master Plan, Parametrix Inc., 2004 
10.30.3.2 Land Use 
The 2004 Collection System Master Plan used land use estimates to generate wastewater flow 
estimates. These estimates were used to determine the size of long-term collection system 
improvements. However, land use data was not used in determining plant capacity. Plant 
capacity was determined exclusively by utilizing the population projections found in the previous 
section, and applying a 35 percent commercial / industrial equivalency factor. The land use data 
used in developing the flow analysis can be found in Section 2 of the 2004 Collection System 
Master Plan. 
10.30.3.3 Grants Pass Irrigation District 
The Grants Pass Irrigation District was formed in the early 1920s to supply irrigation water to 
land located between the town of Rogue River and the confluence of the Applegate and Rogue 
Rivers. Currently about 7,700 acres of agricultural and residential lands are irrigated. The 
district has water rights to divert up to 150 cfs from the Rogue River during irrigation season. A 
series of canals constructed by the district carries the water from Savage Rapids Dam throughout 
the area covered by the district. Many residents in the sewerage service area use water from the 
canals to irrigate landscaping and gardens. The canals are also used to carry storm water away 
from these lands. 
10-9 
00.103 
6.5.3 Cost Estimates 
A summary of the preliminary cost estimates, force-main length, and easements required of each 
treatment Alternatives 6 through 12 are presented in Table 6-7. 
Table 6-7 
Force Main Alternatives 
Preliminary Cost Estimates 
Key 
Treatment 
Alterna tire 
Pipeline 
Length 
# 
Ease. Pipeline 
Pump 
Station 
Contingency 
30% 
Engineering 
& Admin. 
25% Total« 
Blue 6 26,500 1 $3,240,000 $1,182,000 $1,326,600 $1,105,500 $6,850,000 
Green/ 
Blue 
7 24,000 48 $2,960,000 $1,284,000 $1,273,000 $1,061,000 $6,580,000 
Green 8 27,000 77 $2,780,000 $1,284.000 $1,219,200 $1,016,000 $6,300,000 
Green/ 
Red 
9 29,300 47 $3,000,000 $1,284,000 $1,285,200 $1,071,000 $6,640,000 
Red/ 
Blue 
10 28,600 3 $2,930,000 $1.284,000 $1,064,200 $1,053,500 $6,530,000 
Red1 
Green 
11 31.100 32 $3,080,000 $1,284,000 $1,309.200 $1.091,000 $6,700,000 
Red 12 33,400 1 $3,230,000 $1,284,000 $1,354,200 $1,128.500 $6,700,000 
( 1 ) Rounded to three significant figures. 
Alternative 6 provides a single pump station at the Redwood WWTP. Alternatives 7 through 
12 include two pump stations: One large pump station at the north end of Darneille Lane, at 
manhole RI-25, and a smaller one at the Redwood WWTP (RI-0). One disadvantage of this 
route is that flow in the existing 24-inch-diameter interceptor west of RI-25 would be 
significantly reduced, thereby resulting in poor scouring of the solids in this gravity interceptor 
pipe. The District would need to periodically clean this pipeline, using portable, jet-type 
sprayers. 
Operation and maintenance costs for these alternatives are generally similar. Costs would 
include maintenance of the existing sewer collection system, electrical pumping costs, 
odor/chemical costs and equipment maintenance. Treatment costs at the Grants Pass WRP 
would also be paid by the users. The total probable annual O&M/treatment cost would be 
approximately $230,800. A breakdown of these costs is included in Appendix H. 
6.5.4 Preliminary Screening of Alternatives 6 Through 12 
Similar to the preliminary screening that was completed on Alternatives 1 through 5, a 
preliminary screening of Alternatives 6 through 12 was also conducted based on cost and 
potential impact to residents adjacent to the conveyance pipeline. Based on cost and impact, 
Alternatives 7 and 9 were selected for further comparison to Alternatives 1 and 4. At 
workshops with the District and the City of Grants Pass staff, Alternative 9 was further refined 
into Alternatives 9A and 9B which are described as follows: 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 6-36 Revised November 1999 
000956 
Alternative 9A: The force main would be located along the existing easements to 
RI-25. Then follow the public right-of-way on Leonard Road to 
Dowell Road, then back onto the existing easement to West Park, 
the Pedestrian Bridge, and then to the Grants Pass WRP. From 
Figure 6-10, this alternative is referred to as the "green-red-green" 
route. 
Alternative 9B: Same as above, but the force main would follow the public right-
of-way on South River Road, then to Leonard Road. 
6.6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION 
A final economic evaluation of Treatment Alternatives 1, 4, 7, 9A and 9B was made by 
comparing their present worth costs. The present worth costs include capital costs and operation 
and maintenance costs. Capital and O&M costs for the alternatives were presented earlier in 
Tables 6-5, 6-6, and 6-8, and in Appendix G and H. Annual O&M Costs were converted to a 
present worth cost based on a return rate of 6 percent over a 21-year period (1999 to 2020). 
A summary of present worth costs for these alternatives is presented in Table 6-8. 
Table 6-8 
Treatment Alternatives 1, 4, 7, 9A, and 9B 
Present Worth Cost Estimates (in $l,000s) 
Alternative 1 
Contact 
Stabilization 
Alternative 4 
Complex Mix 
Effluent Fitter 
Alternative 7 
Easement/ 
Lower River 
Ripad 
Alternative 9A 
Easement/ 
Leonard Road 
Alternative 9B 
Easement/ 
South River 
Road 
Subtotal Construction $7,280 $8,670 $5,520 $5,600 $5,510 
Engineering and 
Admin. 
$1,600 $1,910 $1,060 $1,160 $1,150 
Total Project Cost $8,880 $10,580 $6,580 $6,760 $6,660 
Present Worth O&M 
Cost"' 
$6,870 $7,320 $2,710 $2,710 $2.710 
Total Present Worth $15,750 $17,900 $ 9 , 2 8 0 $9 ,470 $9 ,370 
(1) Present worth based on 6 percent interest for 22 years. 
For each of the conveyance alternatives, the City of Grants Pass omitted charging the District 
a connection charge or System Development Charge (SDC) for treatment at the City's plant. 
However, even if the City had charged a fee, it would not change the least cost alternative. 
As an example, if the City were to charge District customers the SDC currently collected by the 
District for new developments ($1,966 per ERU), approximately four million dollars would be 
added to the capital and present worth cost of each conveyance alternative. For Alternatives 7, 
9A, and 9B the present worth cost would be $13.28, $13.47, and $13.37 million, respectively. 
In comparison, the present worth cost of Treatment Alternatives 1 and 4 are $15.75 and 
$17.9 million, respectively, which are considerably greater. Still, the least cost would be any 
of the conveyance alternatives. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-32 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
000957 

An important part of the evaluation process was a selection workshop held in Grants Pass on 
December 3, 1998. To facilitate the selection process, a list of selection criteria was generated 
and each criterion weighted in terms of importance. The criteria generally fell into four main 
categories, Cost Issues, Environmental Issues, Community Issues, and Operation Issues. 
Because cost is a major concern, 42 percent of the weighting was placed on this category. 
The selection group was comprised of two representatives from the District, six representatives 
from the City of Grants Pass, and the City's Attorney. Each representative ranked the 
alternatives using an uncompleted version of the matrix shown in Table 6-9. The criteria for 
each alternative were given a rating of 1 to 10 (10 being the higher ranking). After the rankings 
were done individually then, as a group, all participants completed the matrix shown in 
Table 6-9. Because of higher costs, the treatment alternatives ranked much lower than the 
conveyance alternatives. The two top equally ranked alternatives were Alternative 7 - Lower 
River Road (Blue route) and Alternative 9B - South River Road (Red route). 
The results of the selection process were then presented to the Grants Pass City Council, acting 
as the governing Board for the District, on December 14, 1998. Of the top two alternatives, 
the Board selected Alternative 9B - South River Road as the preferred treatment alternative. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-34 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
Table 6-9 
Treatment Alternative Selection Process 
Evaluation Criteria and Selection Ranking 
Alt. 1 Alt. 4 Alt. 7 Alt. 9A Alt. 9B 
Contact Anoxic 
Stab. Select Easement/ Easement/ 
Item without with Lower Easement/ South 
Criteria Weight Filtration Filtration River Road Leonard Road River Road 
Cost Issues - 42% 
Capital Cost 20% 3 1 10 9 10 
Present Worth O&M Cost 18% 3 1 10 10 10 
Traffic Control 1% 10 10 3 7 8 
Probable Utility Conflict 1% 10 10 5 3 4 
Length of Pipeline Route 1% 10 10 3 1 1 
Geologic Condition Rock 1% 10 10 5 10 10 
Environmental Issues - 14% 
Natural Resource 1% 10 10 8 10 10 
Concerns 
River Crossing Risk 5% 10 10 3 5 5 
Permitting Issues 2% 10 10 5 8 8 
Wetland Concerns 1% 10 10 9 8 8 
Community Issues - 24% 
Customer Satisfaction 9% 1 1 5 8 8 
Number of Easements 9% 10 10 7 4 5 
Required 
Schedule of Compliance 7% 1 1 6 5 5 
Flexibility to Meet Future 1% 5 5 5 5 5 
Demands 
Business Impacts 1% 5 5 5 5 5 
Jurisdictional Issues 2% 10 10 9 10 10 
Operation Issues - 20% 
Operator Familiarity 1% 8 8 5 5 5 
Operation of Existing 
Plant 
1% 1 I 9 9 9 
Potential for Odor 10% 5 5 8 5 5 
Constructibility 1% 3 3 6 8 8 
Potential for Noise 2% 1 1 9 9 9 
NPDES Permit Issues 5% 1 3 8 8 8 
Weighted Total (high 100% 4.49 3.83 7.74 7.43 7.74 
score = Preferred 
Alternative) 
t 
Each alternative was given a 1 to 10 rating for each criteria; a "10" being the best rating and "1.0" being the worst. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 6-36 Revised November 1999 
0 0 0 9 6 0 
6.7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 
6.7.1 Introduction 
The purpose of this environmental review is to summarize the potential impacts associated with 
the No Action Alternative and two build alternatives evaluated for improvements to the Redwood 
Sanitary Sewer District Wastewater facility. This section includes a characterization of the 
natural and human elements in the study area, economic considerations, and a summary of public 
participation. Natural and human elements considered in this chapter include land uses and 
zoning, historic and cultural resources, wetlands, floodplains, agricultural lands, wild and scenic 
rivers, fish and wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and other unique or sensitive 
environmental resources. 
During the preparation of this Facilities Plan, 12 improvement alternatives were initially 
evaluated (please refer to sections 6,1 through 6.5 of this chapter). Ten of the 12 alternatives 
were eliminated from further consideration. The remaining two build alternatives were more 
extensively evaluated for potential environmental impacts and the findings are summarized in 
this section. The No Action Alternative and the two build alternatives are defined below, 
6.7.1.1 No Action Alternative 
The No Action Alternative is defined as continuing operation at the existing Redwood WWTP 
as in the past using composting to manage biosolids. Because the District is under court order 
to eliminate the biosolids composting, the No Action Alternative would be in violation of the 
court order and, therefore, is not a feasible alternative. This alternative was eliminated from 
further consideration for this environmental evaluation. 
6.7.1.2 Preferred Alternative 
The Preferred Alternative is shown as Alternative 9B in Figure 6-10. A smaller pump station 
would be located at the Redwood WWTP and would pump into a 6-inch force main in existing 
easements between the Redwood WWTP to RI-25. At RI-25, a second larger pump station 
would pump through dual force mains to the Grants Pass WRP. The force main route follows 
the public right-of-way on South River Road to Leonard Road to Dowell Road, then back on 
existing easements to West Park, then back on public right-of-way on the Pedestrian Bridge to 
the Grants Pass WRP. 
This Alternative was selected by the District Board over the Second Preferred Alternative 
because they felt that the risks associated with crossing the Rogue River with a horizontal boring 
were greater than risks associated with the restricted access on easements east of Dowell Road 
and obtaining easements from property owners. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 6-36 Revised November 1999 
000961 
6.7.1.3 Second Preferred Alternative 
The Second Preferred Alternative is shown as Alternative 7 in Figure 6-10. A smaller pump 
station would be located at the Redwood WWTP and would pump into a 6-inch force main in 
existing easements between the Redwood WWTP to RI-25. At RI-25, a second larger pump 
station would pump through dual force mains to the Grants Pass WRP. The force main crosses 
the Rogue River due north of the RI-25 pump station using a horizontal boring. The route then 
follows public right-of-way on Lower River Road, Lincoln and Webster Roads to the Grants 
Pass WRP. 
6.7.2 Zoning and Land Uses 
Between the Redwood WWTP and Darneille Lane, both alternatives use the same route. This 
route is zoned Rural Residential with 1-acre-minimum lots. The pipeline would be located in 
an existing 20-foot-wide easement that currently runs through property used for residential yards, 
fallow fields, small scale farming, and pastures for horses and cows. 
After Darneille Lane, the Preferred Alternative continues through areas zoned for Rural 
Residential, and Low, Moderate and High Density Residential uses Until the route ends at the 
Grants Pass WRP. All of the proposed pipeline in this section would be located in existing 
public road rights-of-way and easements. This route would cross the Rogue River using a 
pedestrian bridge that is under construction. 
The Second Preferred Alternative turns north at Darneille Lane, crossing the Rogue River and 
continuing east through areas zoned for Rural Residential, Exclusive Farm Use, and Low to 
Moderate Density Residential uses until it ends at the Grants Pass WRP. With the exception of 
where the pipeline crosses the Rogue River, the pipeline would be located entirely within public 
road rights-of-way. A small easement would need to be acquired from the Rogue River to the 
Lower River Road right-of-way. Abutting property in this section of the alignment is used for 
agricultural, residential and recreational uses. This route would require a boring to cross 
underneath the Rogue River. 
The proposed pipeline is a permitted use in all of the zoning districts. The land use 
compatibility requirements are apart of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and 
have been documented in the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan files. Although construction of 
the proposed pipeline may cause temporary impacts, no adverse impacts to land uses as a result 
of operating the pipeline are anticipated. 
6.7.3 Historic and Cultural Resources 
A cultural resource inventory of the area of proposed improvements was conducted. Although 
no evidence of cultural materials or deposits were observed directly, because archaeological sites 
in the immediate vicinity of both alternatives have been previously recorded with the State 
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), it is recommended that an archaeologist review the final 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
00 962 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-37 
project plans showing all anticipated areas of impact. Using the most current plans, 
archaeological monitoring is recommended for specific locations along the project route. 
In addition, there is always die possibility that ground disturbance during construction activities 
along the alignment might expose buried cultural material or human burials that were not 
detected during the survey. If such an event should occur, Oregon State law (ORS 97.740, 
97.760, 358.905, 390.235, and 358.955), and various federal laws and regulations, which may 
be applicable to this project, will require that work in the vicinity of such finds be suspended. 
The SHPO and the appropriate tribes would be notified, and a qualified archaeologist would be 
called in to evaluate the discovery and recommend subsequent courses of action in consultation 
with the tribes and SHPO. 
6.7.4 Economic Considerations 
Various project-funding scenarios were evaluated to determine the best way for the District to 
finance the projected project cost of $6.7 million for the Preferred Alternative. After reviewing 
several scenarios, a preferred funding alternative was to fund the project with approximately 
$5.4 million of State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan money and approximately $1.3 million of 
available cash from the District. The District has an additional $0.7 million cash that will be 
needed for project reserves. No sewer rates or system development charge increases would be 
necessary in the District in the next several years; therefore, there will be no adverse economic 
impact to service area users. The Preferred Alternative is $90,000 less than the Second 
Preferred Alternative in present worth costs. 
6.7.5 Wetlands 
The Preferred Alternative will not impact wetland or stream crossings. The proposed project 
will cross four streams: Sparrow Hawk Creek, Sand Creek, Allen Creek, and Darneille Creek. 
The boring method of construction will be used to avoid impacts to the systems. The staging 
area for construction equipment will be set back 25 feet on either side of the stream crossings 
and will not impact the riparian corridor. 
The Preferred Alternative will not impact the Rogue River. The proposed pipeline will be 
attached to the City of Grants Pass' Pedestrian/Bikeway Bridge, currently under construction. 
A Nationwide Permit for the Pedestrian/Bikeway Bridge was received from the Army Corps of 
Engineers on March 22, 1999. The pipeline connection to the Pedestrian/Bikeway Bridge on 
the north and south sides of the Rogue River were reviewed by a biologist and no wetlands were 
identified. 
The Second Preferred Alternative would cross three stream systems: Sparrow Hawk Creek, Sand 
Creek, and Darneille Creek. Because the boring method of construction would be used, there 
will be no wetland impacts. The staging area for the boring will be located 25 feet on either 
side of the stream crossing and would not impact the riparian corridor of these systems. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-34 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
The Second Preferred Alternative proposes using the boring method under the Rogue River. No 
adverse impacts to the River would be expected from this method of construction. 
6.7.6 Fioodplains 
Between the Redwood WWTP and Darneille Lane, both alternatives use the same route and 
cross flood zones Al l , B, and C. Zone Al l is considered an area of special flood hazard (for 
the 100-year flood). Zone B is considered an area between the limits of the 100-year flood and 
the 500-year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than 
1-foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile; or areas protected by 
levees from the base flood. Zone C is considered an area of minimal flooding. The pipeline 
would be located in an existing 20-foot-wide easement for a gravity sewer. Addition of the 
proposed pipeline to this existing easement will not alter or affect flooding in this area, nor 
would the proposed pipeline be affected by flooding. 
After Darneille Lane, the Preferred Alternative continues through areas with flood zones C, X, 
and AE where the route ends at the Grants Pass WRP. Zone X is considered an area of 500-
year flood; areas of 100-year flood with average depths of less than 1 feet or with drainage less 
than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood. Zone AE is considered 
a special flood hazard area inundated by 100-year flood. All of the proposed pipeline in this 
section would be located in existing public road rights-of-way and easements. This route would 
cross the Rogue River using a pedestrian bridge, which is under construction. Addition of the 
proposed pipeline to this existing easement and the public road rights-of-way will not alter or 
affect flooding in this area, nor would the proposed pipeline be affected by flooding. 
The Second Preferred Alternative turns north at Darneille Lane, crossing the Rogue River and 
continuing east through areas with flood zones B, A l l , A4, and AE where it ends at the Grants 
Pass WRP. Zone A4 is considered an area of special flood hazard by a 100-year flood. With 
the exception of where the pipeline crosses the Rogue River, the pipeline would be located 
entirely within public road rights-of-way. A small easement would need to be acquired from 
the Rogue River to the Lower River Road right-of-way. This route would require boring 
underneath the Rogue River to cross it. Addition of the proposed pipeline to the existing or 
proposed easements and public road rights-of-way will not alter or affect flooding in this area 
nor would the proposed pipeline be affected by flooding. 
Although construction of the proposed pipeline may cause temporary impacts, no adverse 
impacts to land uses as a result of operating the pipeline are anticipated. 
6.7.7 Agricultural Lands 
Between the Redwood WWTP and Darneille Lane, the pipeline would be located in an existing 
20-foot-wide easement that currently runs through property used for residential yards, fallow 
fields, small scale farming, and pastures for horses and cows. Because the pipeline would be 
located within an existing easement for a gravity sewer, construction could cause temporary 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-34 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
disruption of agricultural activities. However, after construction is complete, the operation of 
the proposed pipeline in this section of the route would not disrupt any agricultural activities. 
The Second Preferred Alternative turns north at Darneille Lane, crossing the Rogue River and 
continuing east within public road rights-of-way. Some abutting property in this section of the 
alignment is used for agricultural activities. Construction of the proposed pipeline could cause 
temporary disruption of agricultural activities. However, after construction is complete, the 
operation of the proposed pipeline in this section of the route would not disrupt any agricultural 
activities. 
6.7.8 Wild and Scenic Rivers 
A section of the Rogue River has been designated a wild and scenic river. The wild and scenic 
river designation begins at the confluence of the Applegate River and extends approximately 84 
miles to the Lobster Creek Bridge. Because the project is not located within the wild and scenic 
area of the Rogue River, neither the Preferred Alternative or the Second Preferred Alternative 
will have impacts to the area designated as a wild and scenic river. 
6.7.9 Fish and Wildlife 
Correspondence with the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (ONHP), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was initiated to identify any 
federally listed, proposal, or candidate threatened or endangered species that may potentially 
occur within the project area. Potential impacts to listed species identified in the agency 
correspondence along with the results from the October 1999 fish and wildlife survey will be 
addressed in a Biological Assessment (BA). The BA will be conducted after the route alignment 
is selected and final design is underway. Potential impacts to listed species will be the same for 
the Preferred Alternative and the Second Preferred Alternative. 
6.7.10 Threatened and Endangered Species 
Informal consultation with the NMFS, ONHP, and FWS was initiated as part of this process to 
identify the presence of any federally listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered 
plant or animal species. A BA in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) will be prepared to determine potential effects of the project on listed, proposed, and 
candidate species and their habitats. The BA will be conducted after the route alignment is 
selected and final design is underway. The impacts to listed species will be the same for the 
Preferred Alternative and the Second Preferred Alternative. Based on preliminary review by 
biologists, impacts to listed species are not anticipated. 
6.7.11 Other Unique or Sensitive Environmental Resources 
No other unique or sensitive environmental resources were identified for either alignment 
alternative. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-34 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
6.8 CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AND 
MITIGATION OF SELECTED NATURAL RESOURCE CONCERNS 
6.8.1 Construction Techniques 
The pipelines will be installed at 3- to 6-foot-deep and 3- to 7-foot-wide trench (wider for dual 
pipeline). The pipes will be in a bed of %-inch aggregate. Trenching and pipe installation will 
be done with a track hoe. Surfaces will be restored to match the existing conditions: pastures 
will either have topsoil replaced or hydroseeded (owner's preference), undeveloped areas will 
be hydroseeded, and roads will be gravel/paved. Where the pipeline alignment is near sensitive 
natural features, the construction plans will call for appropriate Best Management Practices. See 
the attached figure for pipeline installation and restoration details. 
Dewatering 
Where groundwater is encountered in excavations, the excavation will be dewatered either with 
a submersible pump or temporary well points established around the perimeter of the excavation. 
Water pumped from these will be sent to a two-stage temporary sedimentation pond. Water will 
flow into the first cell, then through a gravel filter to get into the second cell. From the second 
cell, clarified water will be discharged into the natural drainage system. This method has been 
successfully employed on several projects and is effective in removing turbidity. 
Creek Crossings 
Creeks will be crossed by horizontal borings (see below). The pipeline(s) will be in a steel 
casing, which will start and end 25 feet back from the creek banks, and the top of the pipe will 
be a minimum of 10 feet below the creek bottom. 
Horizontal Borings 
Boring is done using an auger in a steel casing. The casing is driven horizontally, and the auger 
in the casing rotates to bring earth to the bore pit, where it is removed to the surface. The 
casing is advanced using a horizontally oriented hydraulic jack. After the casing is installed, 
the "carrier" pipeline (containing the liquid being piped) is installed in the casing. Bore pits are 
excavated on either side of the obstacle (creek): a driving pit and a receiving pit. The pits are 
from 15 to 30 feet deep, depending on the depth of the creek. The pit excavations will be near 
vertical and steel trench shoring will be used to maintain the sides. The driving pit will contain 
the hydraulic jack. The receiving pit is typically dug only after the casing boring is completed 
to expose the casing and install the carrier pipeline. Fencing is provided around the bore pits 
during non-working hours for safety and erosion control measures are employed around the work 
site. The area around the boring is used to stage casing pipe and typically contains a track hoe 
for removing bored material. Dump trucks travel to and from the site. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 6-41 Revised November 1999 
0 0 1 9 6 6 
Construction Staging 
Equipment and material will be staged at the Redwood WWTP, the RI-25 Pump Station, the 
Josephine County Fairgrounds, and the Grants Pass WRP. 
6.8.2 Best Management Practices 
Erosion Control 
Silt fences (reinforced with wire fencing as required) and straw bales are employed at the 
perimeter of the construction site to isolate it from natural areas. The silt fence must be installed 
to capture surface runoff. It must be inspected daily by the contractor. The engineer's inspector 
checks it upon installation and periodically thereafter for satisfactory condition and performance. 
Water Disposal 
Water removed from dewatering is typically returned to natural drainage. In the event the water 
does not meet standards, it will be discharged to the adjoining sanitary sewer or storm sewer, 
which parallel the entire new pipe alignment. 
6.8.3 Mitigation of Selected Natural Resource Concerns 
Tree Removal and Replacement 
Approximately 20 ornamental cedar trees on the south boundary of All Sports Park will be 
removed and replaced in kind. 
Noise 
The area for the pipeline alignment is rural residential. As such, there is a significant amount 
of farming occurring thus, the sound of tractors operating is not unusual. There are numerous 
residential communities and several new residential developments currently under construction 
along the pipeline route. Thus, the sound of construction equipment is quite common. 
After construction, the pump stations will operate continuously. The noise from the pumps and 
the emergency generator will be less than 45 decibels at the property line of each pump station. 
6.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 
The Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District has involved the public in a variety of ways in 
the process to evaluate alternatives and select a preferred alternative for the Redwood WWTP 
upgrade. The preferred alternative was selected on April 28, 1999, at a Sewer District Meeting. 
Ongoing communication between ratepayers and affected property owners has continued since 
the preferred alternative was selected. Copies of newsletters, meeting minutes, and public 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 6-36 Revised November 1999 
000967 
notices related to this effort can be found in the Appendix I. The following listing identifies 
public participation activities conducted and planned. 
Schedule of Public Involvement Activities 
• Public Meeting Announcement, November.1998 
• District Board Briefing, November 18, 1998 
• Public Meeting, November 19, 1998 
• District Board Briefing, December 10, 1998 
• District Board Briefing/Selection of a Preferred Alternative, December 14, 1998 
• District Board Briefing, March 8, 1999 
• District Board Adopts Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, April 28, 1999 
• Project Press Release, May 21, 1999 
• District-Wide Project Update, Public Meeting Announcement, May 1999 
• Letter to Affected Property Owners, May 24, 1999 
• Affected Property Owner Meeting, June 1, 1999 
• Conveyance Route Field Walk, June 2 and 3, 1999 
• Pipeline Route Walk-Through/Talk with Property Owners, June 2 and 3, 1999 
• Property Owner Update/Meeting Announcement, July 1999 
• Affected Property Owner Meeting, July 20, 1999 
• Individual Property Owner Meetings, July through October 1999 
• District-Wide Project Update, planned for November 1999 
• Public Meeting, To Be Determined 
% j 
Individual Letters to Property Owners 
• Ozust - Information regarding pipe, August 2, 1999 
• Langevin - Information regarding pipe, August 6, 1999 
6.10 WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE 
6.10.1 District Board Briefing - November 18, 1998 
The Grants Pass City Council, acting as the governing board for the District (District Board), 
received a project update and briefing on November 12, 1998. District Board members were 
given a status report on the evaluation of the 12 alternatives being evaluated (5 treatment options 
and 7 conveyance options). District Board members were informed of the November 19, 1998, 
public meeting to solicit public input on the conveyance and treatment alternatives. In addition, 
the District Board was informed of a staff workshop on December 3, 1998, to evaluate 
alternatives. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 6-43 Revised November 1999 
m>968 
6.10.2 Public Meeting/Forum - November 19, 1998 
A public forum and information meeting notice was sent to all ratepayers in the Redwood 
District in November 1998. 
Twenty-eight people attended the District-wide meeting held on November 19, 1998 and the 
alternative solutions were presented. A questionnaire was distributed among meeting attendees 
to determine public comments on a preferred alternative. Written comments or testimony were 
accepted until November 20, 1998. Sixteen questionnaires were returned to the District. Of the 
alternatives presented, the public preferred the conveyance alternatives to the treatment 
alternatives. The rationale for supporting the conveyance option was cost. 
6.10.3 District Board Briefing - December 10, 1998 
District representatives briefed the District Board on December 10, 1998. District 
representatives presented the results of the November 19 public meeting and the December 3 
staff workshop. The results revealed that die public showed a strong preference for the 
conveyance alternatives. Staff members had also selected the conveyance alternatives. The staff 
workshop narrowed the conveyance alternatives to two preferred alternatives. The two 
conveyance alternatives received identical scoring; therefore, a decision by the District Board 
was requested. 
6.10.4 District Board Briefing, Preferred Alternative Selected - December 14,1998 
The District Board selected the preferred alternative at the meeting (open to the public) held on 
December 14, 1998. 
6.10.5 District Board Briefing - March 8, 1999 
A project briefing (open to the public) to the District Board was held to keep the Board and 
public informed of the status of the Wastewater Facilities Plan Update. 
6.10.6 District Board Adopts Wastewater Facilities Plan Update - April 28, 1999 
On April 28, 1999, the District Board adopted the Wastewater Facilities Plan Update. This 
reaffirmed the selection of the Preferred Alternative. 
6.11 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION 
6.11.1 Project Press Release and District-wide Project Update 
A project press release was sent to the local newspaper, and a District-wide project update was 
sent to ratepayers in the District. The purpose of the press release/newsletter was to inform the 
public of the preferred alternative and explain the next steps related to the project. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-34 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
6.11.2 Letter to Affected Property Owners 
A letter to all affected property owners (approximately 70 people) was sent on May 24, 1999. 
The letter explained the Pipeline Project and informed property owners that they would be 
directly impacted by the project. They were invited to attend a public open house on June 1, 
1999, to learn more about the project, schedule, and impacts. In addition, a right-of-entry form 
was included in the letter for property owners to complete and return to the District. The right-
of-entry form would allow surveying and selected field work on private property. 
6.11.3 Affected Property Owner Meeting 
The purpose of the first affected property owner meeting was to explain the project history, 
project purpose, and project plan. Because pipeline construction would occur across easements 
located on private property, the District thought it was necessary to meet with property owners 
and discuss the project. In addition, the meeting set the stage for obtaining right-of-entry forms 
and temporary construction easements. A property owner informational survey was distributed. 
6.11.4 Conveyance Route Field Walk 
On June 2nd and 3rd, District representatives walked the conveyance route to obtain field data 
and talk one-on-one with impacted property owners. District representatives discussed the 
project with approximately 50 percent of the property owners along the route. They also put 
flags in the projected location of the new pipeline. The purpose of the flags was to show 
residents where the new pipeline route and the existing sewer easement are located. In addition, 
the flags included the phone number of a District contact in case property owners had questions 
about the project. 
6.11.5 Property Owner Update/Meeting Announcement and Property Owner 
Meeting 
A second property owner update and meeting announcement was distributed in early July 1999. 
The property owner meeting was held on July 20, 1999. The purpose of the meeting was to 
discuss the issue of temporary construction easements. District representatives explained the 
need for the temporary construction easements and the rate schedule that would be used to 
compensate property owners for granting the temporary easements. The process for obtaining 
easements was also discussed. 
6.11.6 Individual Property Owner Meetings 
From July to October, District representatives spent time meeting with affected property owners 
individually to discuss the project, answer property owner questions, discuss restoration 
requirements, and obtain temporary construction easements. Letters were sent and follow-up 
phone calls were made to individuals who were unable to meet with District representatives. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 6-45 Revised November 1999 
K, .970 
In addition, letters were sent to two separate property owners addressing questions and concerns 
(see letters to Ozust and Langevin). 
6.12 FUTURE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES 
The District plans to send out another District-wide Update in November 1999. A District-wide 
and affected property owner public meeting will be held prior to construction. In addition, the 
District will continue to update ratepayers and property owners of the construction schedule 
when construction begins in April 2000. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-34 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
V " 
j . . . . .. 
lie..' 1. : :: 
phine County, Oregon 
7. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 
A description of Treatment Alternative 9B - South River Road is presented in this chapter. This 
description is divided into the following sections: 
• Pump Station Design Criteria 
• Force Main Design Criteria 
• Related Issues 
Demolition of the Redwood WWTP 
Transfer of Redwood WWTP NPDES Permit 
Easements 
• Project Schedule 
In addition, a more detailed pre-design level presentation of Alternative 9B is contained in 
Appendix J and includes a more detailed description of each of the above topics. 
7.1 PUMP STATION DESIGN CRITERIA 
For Alternative 9B, two pump stations would move the wastewater from the Redwood WWTP 
to the Grants Pass WRP. A pump station near the existing manhole RI-25 would receive 
interceptor flow from all sewers east of this pump station plus flow from a smaller pump station 
(RI-0) to be located at the existing Redwood WWTP. 
7 i i i l RI-25 Pump Station 
as . £ . 
The flow analysis projections presented in Section 5 are the basis of design for the RI-25 pump 
station. The peak-day design flow would be 4.2 mgd for the year 2020 and the minimum design 
flow at current conditions would be 0.28 mgd. Because the flow projections cover 21 years of 
growth, phase construction was considered rather than building a pump station for year 2020 
flows at tiiis time. Based on these parameters, the new RI-25 pump station design criteria would 
be as follows: 
• Peak Flow (Phase 2) 
• Head Based on Dual 12-inch Mains 
• Peak Flow (Phase 1) 
• Head Based on Dual 12-inch Mains 
• Minimum Flow (Existing) 
Pump selection would be based on the ability to meet high-flow conditions. As indicated in 
Section 6.3, variable speed drive control is recommended for the pumps. With variable speed 
drives, the pumps can better match the incoming flow rate. This ensures two things: 1) the 
pumps will cycle on and off less often (thereby prolonging pump life), and 2) flow pumped to 
the Grants Pass WRP would be maintained at a fairly uniform flow rate. A uniform flow would 
make it easier to operate the Grants Pass WRP, particularly during high-flow conditions. 
4.2 mgd 
181 feet 
3.1 mgd 
130 feet 
0.28 mgd 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Flan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 7-1 Revised November 1999 
OO .373 
7.1.2 RI-0 Pump Station 
Sewer flow generated west of RÍ-25 would flow through the existing interceptor to the current 
Redwood WWTP. At this plant, the existing influent pump station would be modified with new 
pumps. The capacity of these pumps would normally be based on available flow data. 
However, since there is no wastewater flow measurement data from this area, pump capacity 
is not yet finalized. The District is currently installing flow monitoring equipment downstream 
of manhole RI-25 and comparing it to Redwood WWTP influent flow to determine flow 
contribution between the two points. Accurate design criteria cannot be established until data 
is available later this year. For this report, however, flow estimates were made based on 
population and zoning. Design criteria for the RI-0 pump station are shown below; 
• Peak flow (Phase 2) 0.4 mgd 
• Head based on one 6-inch main 72 feet 
• Peak flow (Phase 1) 0.3 mgd 
• Head based on one 6-inch main 40 feet 
• Minimum flow (existing) 0.08 mgd 
The existing pump station has two pumps in a dry-well-package-type pump station. The wet 
well for these pumps is manhole RI-0. A drawing of the existing pump station is included in 
Appendix K. Converting the existing pump station into a force main pump station would require 
new pumps, because the existing pumps are not suitable for the new flow and head requirements. 
The most cost-effective approach to meet the new conditions would be to retrofit the existing 
pump station and place two new submersible pumps into RI-0. Each pump would be rated for 
maximum flow. In an extremely high-flow situation, both pumps could then be operated if 
necessary. 
7.2 FORCE MAIN DESIGN 
Based on the pump station design criteria presented in the previous Section, the two propositi 
force main systems to accompany each pump station were evaluated. The criteria for each force 
main system are as follows; 
Provide a minimum scour velocity of 3.0 feet per second at low flow to minimize 
solids buildup in the pipeline. 
• Reduce total force main hydraulic- loss to under 200 feet (ideally 100 feet) at 
peak-design flow. 
7.2.1 RI-25 Pump Station Force Main 
•'VfV 
The range of flows is predicted to vary from a minimum of 0.28 mgd to a maximum of 4.2 
mgd. A force main diameter is selected based on the design velocity limits. For the range of 
flows anticipated, however, two pipelines would be needed to maintain the flow velocities within 
the recommended range and the head below 200 feet. As velocities increase, so does the 
pipeline pressure (head loss). There is an upper practical limit of 150 to 200 feet of head for 
solids-handling centrifugal pumps. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-QS 
Josephine Qmty 7-2 Revised November 1999 
OOi; 974 
Based on these two key criteria, a dual force main system would be the best alternative. To 
provide capacity at peak flow, either a dual 12-inch-diameter force main system could be used 
or a 12- and 14-inch-diameter system. 
A dual 12-inch-force-main system would meet the two key criteria plus have a cost advantage 
over the 12- and 14-inch-force-main system. Since the greater capacity provided by a 14-inch 
main would not be needed and the costs for this alternative is greater, it was not further 
considered. 
Based on a minimum pump station RI-25 wateP.'Surfiace elevation of 870 arid a maximum pipe 
elevation at the pedestrian bridge of 920, the maximum static head for the system would be 
50-feet. During peak flow, the dynamic head loss with both pipes in operation would be 
approximately 122 feet. Adding the static head loss and loss through fittings would give a total 
head requirement of approximately 182 feet. Few available wastewater pumps can meet these 
standards and pass 3-inch solids. For wastewater pumping, this is a relatively high head 
situation. Pumps that could meet this condition could potentially have problems with rags 
getting lodged is their 5-inch discharge piping. The best way to avoid this problem is to use 
Wemco Hidrostal pumps which are not prone to plugging. 
For a more detailed summary of pipeline velocity and head loss calculations, refer to 
Appendix L. 
7.2.2 RI-0 Pump Station Force Main 
The smaller pump station to be located at the existing wastewater treatment plant would serve 
less than 15 percent of the existing service area. The maximum estimated flow capacity for year 
2020 is 350 gpm. Three force-main sizes were considered for this design flow. Because the 
head loss created in a 5-inch force main would be in excess of 400 feet, this option was not 
further considered. An 8-inch force main would require approximately 64 feet of pumping head. 
The major drawback to this option would be reaching a scour velocity. Scour velocity would 
require a flow of 470 gpm. This high flow Would adversely impact downstream pumping arid 
treatment facilities. 
jm g l i 1 ffe. . _ --.JT ' JIL, ' £ ¡¿jS / - . 
Based on problems with the other alternatives, the 6-inch force main would be the best choice 
for this installation. A 6-inch force niairi would require almost 176 feet of pumping head. To 
provide future flexibility at a minimal increase in capital costs, variable speed drives would also 
be included with this alternative. The force main would be constructed in the existing 
interceptor sewer easement. 
Bridge Crossing 
The preferred alternative includes attaching one 14-inch force main to the proposed pedestrian 
bridge over the Rogue River. A preliminary drawing of the pedestrian bridge is included in 
Appendix K, The bridge would be the high point of the entire force main system. The pipe 
would be placed on one side of the bridge with air release valves located at the high points to 
release air when the pipe is being filled. To control odor, the air released would pass through 
carbon filters to scrub the air before it is released. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2192-03 
loSepMefyBhSf ** 7-3 Revised November 1999 
OO„975 
Interceptor Storage Capacity 
The existing interceptor sewer that conveys wastewater from the District to the Redwood WWTP 
is already used occasionally during high flow events to equalize flow when the influent pump 
capacity is exceeded. The last 420 feet of interceptor before the Redwood WWTP is 27-inch-
diameter pipe. The next 1,080 feet of interceptor is 24-inch pipe. If the last 1,500 feet of this 
interceptor pipe were used for flow equalization, there would be approximately 38,000 gallons 
of storage available at RI-0. Based on the projected peak-hour flows for the District , this would 
not be a significant volume of storage. Future flow conveyed through this pipe, however, will 
only come from a small portion of the District and this storage capacity could theoretically hold 
several hours of flow. Selection of the RI-0 pumps will be based on using this volume. 
7.3 RELATED ISSUES 
There are several issues related to the preferred alternative. Three of these issues are discussed 
in this Section. 
Demolition of the Redwood WWTP 
One relatively small cost that should be included with the preferred alternative is the cost of 
abandoning most of the facilities at the existing Redwood WWTP. The facilities that would be 
abandoned are: 
• Influent pump station 
• Headworks 
•*• Aeration basin 
• Chlorine contact chambers 
• Aerobic digester 
• Paved area at compost facility 
The compost building would be dismantled and relocated to a new compost facility planned by 
the City of Grants Pass. 
Although most of the existing facilities would not be used with the preferred alternative, several 
of the facilities could be. The facilities that would be kept for use with the preferred alternative 
would include: 
• Control building 
• Blower/generator building 
• Outfall pipeline 
. I , . j, ••+ -. ' ijl'I;. ^ - - gv.v'-; rffife ,-„• », ' -fe _ ... - ^ 
The control building would be used to provide a restroom and shower for maintenance staff. 
The blower/generator building would be used to house the motor control center and 
instrumentation and controls for the new pumps. The outfall would be used as an emergency 
outfall to the river in the event of a catastrophic pump station failure. None of the existing 
facilities will be used for wastewater storage. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 27-2I92-ÙS t 
Josephine Count} 7-4 Revised November 1999 
00976 
Transfer of Redwood WVVTP NPDES Permit 
The existing Redwood WWTP's NPDES discharge permit includes an allocation for maximum 
lbs/day BOD and TSS loads to the Rogue River. Because wastewater treatment is being 
transferred to the Grants Pass, WRP, this allocation should be transferred to the Grants Pass 
WRP. The existing NPDES permit for the Redwood WWTP includes wasteload BOD and TSS 
limits as shown in Table 7-1. 
|npfi-ianirjgimjiMii^ ww^  a tf " i.- •1 t ' < j.. ...i. rr.1 -• ' •!•!• "L, . • n i •• i'|. 
t ab le 7-1 
| . Transfer of BOD and TSS Wasteload Capacity (lbs/day) J 
H i .zW&s ' Monthly 1 Maximum 
1 Week, 
Maximum 
Day 
May 1 to-October .31 
BOD 160 
160 
November 1 to April 31 
120 • 240 
120 
'T Vi 1 1 
These discharge loads should be transferred by ODEQ to the Grants Pass WRP NPDES permit 
once the preferred alternative is operational. A request for a transfer of mass BOD which 
follows ODEQ administrative procedures will be made later by the City of Grants Pass. 
Before force main final design begins, the final force main route would need to be established. 
Much of the proposed pipeline route lies within the existing gravity collection interceptor 
In general two types of easements are used: 
• Permanent easements to house tie utility. These allow staff access for operation 
and maintenance. 
• Temporary (construction) easements to provide an area for the construction 
contractor to conduct work. 
The existing (permanent) Redwood Intercepter easement is 20 feet wide. This easement is 
sufficient for the one force main between Redwood WWTP and RI-25; however, It Is just barely 
sufficient for thè anticipated dual forcé mains needed between RI-25 and thé Grants Pass WRP. 
:r W 1 • "F ? "" ' -i* ' * 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 6-32 7'5 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
977 
For this reason, we evaluated three different approaches to the installation of dual force mains 
in this area. 
A. 
B. 
a 
Limit construction within the 20-foot existing easement. This is the least 
desirable approach because it will likely cost more money to limit the contractor's 
fhere may be short sections of the project, however, that require 
this approach. " 'Pi:' fl J^gr 
Provide a new 20-foot-wide temporary construction easement adjoining the 
existing permanent easement. This is the preferred approach. 
Provide a new 10-foot-wide permanent easement to install the new pipelines, plus 
provide a new 20-foot-wide temporary construction easement adjoining the new 
permanent easement. This would provide the contractor with the most room to 
w o r k e d $llow more room for future access. However, it would be the most 
costly to the District and disruptive to property owners; therefore, it was not 
evaluated further. 
s I .»yu, 
be used for construction of 
m 
to allow the contractor sufficient room to work, for receipt 
materials. 
The cost of easements can be significant. The costs include not only compensation to the owner 
for the property, Itâ&ifôb fees to engineers, surveyors, real estate negotiators, and attorneys to 
prepare and process needed paperwork. 
7.4 PROJECT SCHEDULE 
Based on the criteria presented in this section for the preferred alternative, a preliminary project 
schedule has been prepared and is shown in Figure 7-1, The main tasks included in the project 
schedule are as follows: 
* Submit facility plan to ODEQ for approval 
Request additional SRF funding 
• Engineering design 
• ODEQ review and approval of design 
• Advertise, review bids, and award construction contract 
• Complete construction and startup force main 
Based on this schedule, the earliest that the new pump stations and force mains could be put into 
operation would be mid-October 2000. This is also the projected completion date for the 
pedestrian bridge over the Rogue River. 
Redwood Wastewater Faculties Plan Update 27-2192-05 
Josephine County 7-6 Aprì! ¡999 
00097s 
7.4.1 Plant Operation During Construction 
The construction process of the preferred alternative should have little or no impact on operation 
of either the Redwood WWTP or Grants Pass WRP, This is because very little, if any, of the 
actual construction activities would occur at either site, 
The only exception to this may be during two construction procedures: 
When the RI-0 pump station modifications are being built, a temporary pump 
station to bypass RI-0 will be required. This would consist of installing a 
temporary submersible putfp ado manhole Rl-1 and using a temporary 
aboveground force main system to the existing headworks. 
When the dual force mains are connected to the Grants Pass WRP influent pump 
station, it may require a short-term shutdown of this station to make the final 
connection 
» 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 7-7 
27-2192-05 
Revised November 1999 
000979 
¡ C 9 8 Q 
— •l'i» 
... "¿i _ 
. - ^ •••••••.-•-•- • • 
O0C981 
8. FINANCING PLAN 
Various project funding alternatives exist for the District to implement the preferred treatment 
alternative. The purpose of this section is to select the best option from those alternatives 
available. This financing plan includes an evaluation of present and future revenues and costs. 
The project construction, engineering, administrative, and operation and maintenance (O&M) 
costs used in the evaluation were taken from Section 5. Revenue projections are based on 
existing rates, system development charges (SDCs), and the population growth projections 
presented in Section 2. 
The financial analysis consists of two parts: 
• Capital Cost Review - We reviewed the capital improvement costs to ensure all 
known, related costs were included. 
• Revenue Requirements Analysis - We analyzed needs of the utility based oh 
current budget and financial information, projected future operating and 
maintenance costs, and ongoing capital outlays. We added to this the cost impact 
of the capital improvement program in terms of direct user charge support and 
debt service support. Alternative financing approaches and combinations were 
then examined. 
8.1 BACKGROUND 
The Wastewater Facility Plan completed in November 1994 included a project financing section. ""V 
The four funding sources included in this evaluation were the State Revolving Fund (SRF), 
Community and Economic Development | | f Farmers Home Administration, and Revenue 
Bonds. A very thorough evaluation of each of these funding alternatives was performed, 
including alternative combinations. The best options were a combination of SRF loans and bond 
funding, or 100 percent SRF project funding. Because there were not enough SRF loan monies 
available to finance the entire project, the conclusion reached was that the SRF loans would be 
augmented with revenue bonds or general obligation bonds. 
Also included in the recommended alternative was an increase in system development charges 
(from $922/ERU to $l,966/ERU), and a gradual increase in monthly sewer rates ($2 to $3 per 
year)s These changes were implemented in 1995 and have been revised on a regular basis. 
8.2 EXISTING FINANCES 
Before discussing the various project financing alternatives, a review of the existing finances and 
costs is presented. A summary of the District's operating revenue and expenses for 1998/1999 
is presented in Table 8-1. Under "revenues," the System Development Charge (SDC) shown 
is for managing the accounts. Most SDC revenues are placed into Account Numbers 594 and 
595. Under "expenses," the intergoverament payments include billing by the City of Grants 
Pass, inspection services, and other services provided by the County. Account Number 596 
expenses are for capital works improvements to the system. The current sewer debt level is very 
low. The total current debt payments per year are only $12,800. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 8-1 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
00U982 
m 
Table 8-1 
General District Operating Revenue and Expenses 
\ Rate of Growth: 3.1%/Year 
Rate of Inflation: 4%/Year 
Operational Cost Increase: 5%/Year 
Budget Projected 
Operating Revenues 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 
Use Fees $515,000 $530,965 $547,425 
Permit Fees 2,240 2,309 2,381 
Connection Fees 5,600 6,005 6,438 
System Development Charges 6,384 6,582 6,786 
Interest 590 13,290 13,702 — 
Fund 594.34 Revenue 20,000 33,908 34,959 ; 
Fund 595.34 Revenue 52,000 103,377 106,582 
Fund 595.34 Revenue 2,000 2 2,126 
Interest 394, 395, and, 396 56,100 57,839 " • : 
Total Revenue $672,614 $756,749 $706,697 
Operating Expenses 
Salary/Wages $111,000 $116,550 $18,558 
Benefits 37,899 39,415 6,495 
Supplies and Chemicals 29,991 31,191 63,510 
Power -r ; 11,341 
Collection System : 62,891 
Services 89,815 93,408 200 
Intergovernment Payment for WWTP 101,540 105,602 91,221 
Fund 594.34 Expend . ; 
Fund 595.34 Expend — — ~ 
Fund 596.34 Expend 103,746 51,873 51,871 
Debt Service 12,800 12,800 12,800 
Total Costs $486,791 $318,886 $278,302 i 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 
27-2192-05 
8-2 April ¡999 
0 0 G 9 8 3 
The last day of compost facility operation will be in October 1999. Currently, the biosolids 
generated at the Redwood WWTP are used as base material for compost generation. The 
current annual JoGro costs for materials, equipment, and services are approximately $40,000. 
For evaluation purposes, it was assumed that these costs would equal the new costs associated 
with transporting the biosolids to the Grants Pass WRP. 
8.3 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 
System Development Changes (SDCs) are billed to new customers so they can pay their share 
of the sewer system capital costs. SDCs are imposed on new customers connecting to the 
system as a condition of service, in addition to any costs to connect the customer. 
The SDC consists of two components: 1) A reimbursement fee that constitutes a buy-in to 
existing facilities already in place, and 2) an improvement fee that represents èie additional cost 
Of system expansion as planned by the utility. Improvement fees can only be used for capacity-
expanding improvements, while reimbursement fees can be used for any planned capital 
improvements. Separate accounts for each fee component and budget-specific expenditures are 
in place. Reimbursement SDCs go to Account Number 594 and Improvement SDCs go to 
Account Number 595. 
One benefit Of this project being delayed from 1994 to 1999 while the compost facility issues 
were being resolved, is that the District has been able to accrue a large cash balance. This cash 
has been set aside until the facility upgrade capital works projects are ready to go. According 
to the District's 1998/1999 budget, the total cash balance from the four sewer accounts is 
approximately $2,050,990. 
8.4 FUNDING ALTERNATIVES 
The ODEQ's Wastewater Finance Office has already approved a $3,040,000 State Revolving 
Fund (SRF) Loan for the District's wastewater project. The District applied for this loan several 
years ago, arid it was approved based on a 20-year payment period at 3.89 percent interest. 
Access to additional SRF funding is considered very likely. Based on this relatively low interest 
rate, and no 25 to 35 percent debt service coverage requirements, the District has decided that 
the project will be totally funded with SRF money. Below is a summary of what SRF funding 
includes: 
State Revolving Fund - This loan program is the successor to the Federal Clean Water 
Act grant program. Federal and State governments provide money to a revolving loan 
pool at a lower than market rate. The loans are for planning, designing, and construction 
of wastewater treatment facilities. 
The District could complete a new SRF loan application for new funding, or they could ask for 
additional funding basai on their approved application. A new funding request would need to 
go through the entire application selection process and compete with all other new applications. 
Applying for additional SRF funding based on their approved loan should be a relatively simple 
process, and would provide the greatest chance of success. Because the District is already 
approved for a $3.04 million loan, they have a high priority for receiving additional funding. 
Although an SRF loan does not require debt coverage like bond funding, a special reserve 
account would be necessary. This reserve money, called a Required Loan Reserve, is placed 
in an account for the entire loan period and is used if the District misses a loan payment. The 
Required Loan Reserve would be equal to the average annual payment over the 20-year period. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 8-3 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
'«000984 
Although this entire amount must be kept on reserve, it could earn interest. SRF loan payments 
are due on June 1 and December 1 of each year. 
8.5 FINANCING ALTERNATIVES 
This section presents a cash flow analysis of two project financing scenarios. The first scenario 
will be based on the same O&M cost and population growth rates used in the previous portions 
of this report. This is called the base case scenario. The second scenario assumes a reduction 
in the cost for wastewater treatment. The capital and O&M costs used for both scenarios were 
taken from Section 6 and assumes no increases in sewer fees or SDCs. 
8.5.1 Base Case Scenario 
The assumptions used for scenario one "Base Case" project finance cash flow spreadsheet are 
as follows: 
• ERU growth rate of 3.1 percent per year 
• An inflation rate of 4.0 percent per year 
• A salary increase of 5 percent per year 
• An SRF loan rate of 3.89 percent paid over a 20-year period 
Based on this scenario, the District would be able to finance a project costing up to $6.79 
million, including loan fees. A summary of the Base Case is presented in Table 8-2. The 
complete spreadsheet is included in Appendix M. 
Table 8-2 
Base Case Scenario 
Total Project Funding Capability 
1 Required Reserve Funds 
District Held Reserves $305,000 
SRF Loan Reserve 398,816 
Total Reserves to be Held1" $703,816 
Available Funds for the Project 
Available Cash $1,347,175 
SRF Loan Proceeds 5,440,000 
Total Available Funding*2' $0,787,175 
( , ) Total cash reserves that shall be held for the entire period. 
® Total funding available to use for project design, construction, administration, etc. 
8.5.2 Alternative One Scenario 
The "Base Case Scenario" used an annual treatment cost of $88,500 to be paid to the City of 
Grants Pass for treatment at the Water Restoration Plant. This cost was based on a ratio of 
District customers to Grants Pass City WRP customers, and assumed all customers would pay 
an equal amount per gallon treated. In the Alternative One Scenario, however, the treatment 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 8-4 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
cost lias been reduced to $38,500. This is the estimated incremental cost increase at the Grants 
Pass WRP to treat District wastewater and is lower than the average cost per gallon treated. 
Under this scenario, the District would be able to finance a project costing up to $7,4 million. 
A summary of the Alternative One Scenario is presented in Table 8-3. 
Table 
Alternative Oi 
Total Project Fun 
8-3 
ne Scenario 
ding Capability 
Required Reserve Funds 
District Held Reserves $225,000 
SRF Loan Reserve 436,938 
Total Reserves to be Held"' $661,938 
Available Funds for this Project 
Available Cash $1,389,052 
SRF Loan S.SSOiOOO 
Total Available Funding® $7,349,052 
(1) Total cash reserves that shall be held for the entire loan period. 
® Total funding available to use for project design, construction, administration, etc. 
8.6 PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY 
Two project financing alternatives were reviewed for the District. In either, the District could 
finance sufficient monies to implement the preferred treatment alternative. The consensus by 
the District Board of Commissioners was, however, that the District's share for wastewater 
treatment costs at the Grants Pass WRP should be $88,500 per year, not $38,500 per year as 
evaluated in the Alternative One Scenario. 
Based on this, the District has already began the process of requesting an additional $2,400,000 
of SRF money. This money will be added to the original $3,040,000 that was approved in 
1995. A preliminary project schedule, included at the end of Section 7, outlines how the 
funding acquisition needs to proceed. 
Redwood Wastewater Facilities Plan Update 
Josephine County 8-5 
27-2192-05 
April 1999 
RESOLUTION NO. 4954 
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRANTS PASS 
ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY'S 
WATER UTILITY. 
WHEREAS: 
1. In January, 2001, a Water Distribution Master Plan was pompleted and in May, 
2004 a Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan was completed; and 
2. Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. and Parametrix, Inc. have reviewed the 
capital improvements recommended by the two plans, and have recommended 
priorities and schedules for construction; and 
3. A technical memorandum has been prepared by Parametrix, Inc. on behalf of the 
City that summarizes the recommended capital improvement plan (CIP) for the 
Water Treatment and Water Distribution divisions; and 
4. The recommended capital improvements must be adopted by Council to allow the 
adoption of new SDCs in the near future. 
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of 
Grants Pass, that the CIP recommended in the attached technical memo be adopted. 
EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its 
passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor. 
ADOP+ED by the Council of the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, in regular 
session this 4th day of May, 2005. 
fl\ X ^ & ^ a / Date Submitted to Mayor 
(aministrative Services Director^/ 
EXHIB T J0__ 
-toOMo W t Ä e i ^ Q R ^ 
' « 0 0 9 8 8 
RESOLUTION NO. 4955 
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRANTS PASS 
ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY'S 
WASTEWATER UTILITY. 
WHEREAS: 
1. In June, 2001 a Wastewater Facilities Plan Update was completed and in September, 
2004 a Collection System Master Plan was completed; and 
2. Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. and Parametrix, Inc. have reviewed the 
capital improvements recommended by the two plans, and have recommended 
priorities and schedules for construction; and 
3. A technical memorandum has been prepared by Parametrix, Inc. on behalf of the City 
that summarizes the recommended capital improvement plan (CIP) for the 
Wastewater Treatment and Collection System divisions; and 
4. The recommended capital improvements must be adopted by Council to allow the 
adoption of new SDCs in the near future. 
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Grants 
Pass, that the CIP recommended in the attached technical memo be adopted. 
EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its 
passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor. 
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, in regular session 
this 4th day of May, 2005. 
this 
UBMITTED to and 
day of May, 2005. 
by the Mayor of the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, 
ATTEST: 
/ K 
dministrative Services Direi 
Date Submitted to Mayor: . 
EXHIBIT II Q 
" 1 . ' r- i 
' « 0 0 9 9 0 
Resolution adopting a capital improvement 
Item: program for the city's water utility. Date: May 4, 2005 
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 
It is recommended the Council adopt the capital improvement program for water utility. 
PROCEDURE: 
Follow procedure for a Resolution. 
BACKGROUND: 
A Water Distribution Master Plan was completed in January, 2001 and a Water 
Treatment Plant Facility Plan was completed in May, 2004. Each plan provides a list of 
capital construction projects and recommends timing for completion of the projects. The 
projects are designed to improve system efficiency, replace worn out and substandard 
equipment and piping, and accommodate service population growth. 
To assure the ability to finance the projects, a study of water user rates and system 
development charges (SDCs) has been completed by Financial Consulting Solutions 
Group, Inc. and Parametrix, Inc. The construction projects have been combined into a 
capital improvement program (CIP), prioritized, and scheduled for construction. This 
information is summarized in a Technical Memorandum prepared by Parametrix, Inc. and 
is attached to this document. 
New SDCs cannot be approved until the City Council adopts an updated CIP. Staff 
recommends adoption of the proposed Water Utility CIP. 
RELATIONSHIP TO COUNCIL GOALS: 
This action directly implements Council Goals of PUBLIC SAFETY and MANAGEMENT 
by providing for the upgrade, efficient operation, and expansion of the City's Water 
Treatment and Distribution System. 
COST IMPLICATION: 
Financing strategy for the Water System CIP will be considered at a future Council 
meeting where new water user rates and SDCs will be recommended for adoption. 
ITEM: 2.b. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 
PROGRAM FOR THE CITY'S WATER UTILITY. 
EXHIBIT o 
0 0 0 9 9 2 
Resolution adopting a capital improvement 
Item: program for the city's wastewater utility. Date: May 4, 2005 
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 
It is recommended the Council adopt the capital improvement program for 
wastewater utility. 
PROCEDURE: 
Follow procedure for a Resolution. 
BACKGROUND: 
The Wastewater Facilities Plan Update was completed in June, 2001 and the 
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan was completed in September, 2004. 
Each plan provides a list of capital construction projects and recommends timing for 
completion of the projects. The projects are designed to improve system efficiency, 
replace worn out and substandard equipment and piping, and accommodate service 
population growth. 
To assure the ability to finance the projects, a study of sewer user rates and system 
development charges (SDCs) has been completed by Financial Consulting Solutions 
Group, Inc. and Parametrix, Inc. The construction projects have been combined into 
a capital improvement program (CIP), prioritized, and scheduled for construction. 
This information is summarized in a Technical Memorandum prepared by Parametrix, 
Inc. and is attached to this document. 
New SDCs cannot be approved until the City Council adopts an updated CIP. Staff 
recommends adoption of the proposed Wastewater Utility CIP 
RELATIONSHIP TO COUNCIL GOALS: 
This action directly implements Council Goals of PUBLIC SAFETY and 
MANAGEMENT by providing for the upgrade, efficient operation, and expansion of 
the City's Wastewater Treatment and Collection System. 
COST IMPLICATION: 
Financing strategy for the Wastewater System CIP will be considered at a future 
Council meeting where new sewer user rates and SDCs will be recommended for 
adoption. 
ITEM: 2.c. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 
PROGRAM FOR THE CITY'S WASTEWATER UTILITY. 
EXHIBIT ft^a 
4a iWr ^ j r r ß E ö P W o 
O 0 Ü 9 9 4 
Parametrix ENGINEERING . PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 
Date: 
To: 
From: 
Subject: 
cc: 
April 25, 2005 
City of Grants Pass 
Steven C. Gilbert, P.E. 
Sewer and Water Utility Capital Programs 
Project Number: 216-3416-028 
Project Name: Sewer and Water Rate Analysis 
INTRODUCTION 
As part of the Sewer and Water SDC and Rate Analysis Task Order No. 21, the Sewer and Water Utility 
Capital Programs need to be identified to determine the appropriate Sewer and Water System 
Development Charge (SDC). The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to present a Capital 
Improvement Program (CIP) for the following components of each of these utilities: 
• Wastewater Treatment Plant, referred to as the "Water Restoration Plant" (WRP). 
• Sewer Collection System, including transmission and pump/lift stations. 
• Water Treatment Plant. 
• Water Distribution System, including reservoirs, transmission mains, and water booster pump 
Much of the information presented has been taken from previous studies conducted by the City of Grants 
Pass on these utilities between 2001 and 2004. These studies will be referenced as the information is 
presented. 
In addition, in order to determine the appropriate SDC for each utility, the ability of the present utility 
(asset value of the utility) to adequately serve the community for 20 years must be determined. Also the 
CIP for each utility must be further defined. For each element of the CIP it must be determined whether 
that element is required to support future growth within the UGB or is required to replace and/or repair 
the existing element due to deterioration. This Technical Memorandum will also document this 
information. 
The sewer utility includes the sewer collection system that collects sewage from homes and commercial 
establishments located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) of the City of Grants Pass. This 
system currently includes a total of about 0.8 million feet of sewer pipelines ranging in size from 4 inches 
stations. 
SEWER UTILITY 
EXHIBIT J U 
4A mC> knCfitouA-
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) 
to 42 inches in diameter, two sewage lift stations (Webster No. 1 and No. 2), and the Bridge Street 
sewage pump station. 
The utility also includes the Water Restoration Plant with a peak capacity of 27 million gallons per day 
(mgd) and a secondary treatment capacity of 16 mgd. This plant treats wastewater collected from the 
U G B and from the Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District located on the west edge of the city. 
Treated wastewater is discharged to the Rogue River. 
The JO-GRO compost facility located at the previous Merlin Landfill site is also part of the sewer utility. 
This facility is used to compost all of the biosolids generated at the Water Restoration Plant, together with 
green waste collected from the Grants Pass community. 
COLLECTION SYSTEM CIP 
In September 2004, the City of Grants Pass completed a Collection System Master Plan (Parametrix, Inc. 
2004) which identified a Capital Improvement Plan for the system for the next 20 years. This plan 
identified $18.08 million dollars ($M) of improvements that were needed in the collection system in the 
next 20 years in order to adequately serve the community. Provided these improvements were completed, 
the existing collection system would be adequate to serve the community for the next 20 years. This 
Capital Improvement Plan is shown in Table 1. 
Table 1. Capital Improvement Plan - Grants Pass Collection System 
Project Schedule 
Cost 
( $ 1 M ) 
Pine Street Sewer 2004-2006 $2.55 
Western Avenue Sewer 2006-2009 $1.46 
Pine Street Structural Repair 2009-2011 $1.11 
5th Street Structural Repair 2010-2012 $2.13 
7th Street Structural Repair 2013-2015 $1.46 
Lawnridge-Washington Structural Repair $1.64 
Mill Street Sewer 2016-2018 $3.08 
Subbasin B/C Structural Repair $1.23 
7th Street Relief System 2019-2021 $1.40 
Subbasin H Structural Repair $1.21 
Nebraska Avenue Sewer 2022-2024 $0.81 
Total Collection System Capital Improvement Plan: $ 1 8 . 0 8 
Two different types of elements were identified in the CIP, individual pipeline improvement projects (as 
an example Pine Street Sewer) and structural repair projects (as an example Pine Street Structural Repair). 
All structural repair projects were required to repair/replace existing sewer pipelines that were severely 
deteriorated in the city. These projects were not required to support growth in the community. 
The individual pipeline improvement projects, on the other hand, were necessary both to repair badly 
deteriorated existing sewer pipelines in the city and also to support growth in the community. To handle 
the additional wastewater f low capacity in the future, the diameter of these new pipelines is larger than 
the existing pipeline. The following table summarizes and rationalizes the cost percentage of each of these 
projects attributable to supporting growth in the community for the next 20 years. 
City of Grants Pass 
Sewer and Water Rate Analysis 5 
216-3416-028 
MarcATO0999 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) 
Table 2. Percentage of Anticipated Project Costs Attributable to Growth 
Collection System Capital Improvement Plan 
Project Cost ($1M) Percentage Rationale 
Pine Street $2.55 54 Increase pipe size from 12 to 21 inches 
Western Avenue $1.46 86 Increase pipe size from 8 to 18 inches 
Mill Street $3.08 70 Increase pipe size from 12 to 18 inches 
7th Street Relief $1.40 86 Increase pipe size from 8 to 18 inches 
Nebraska Avenue $0.81 25 Increase pipe size from 15 to 18 inches 
WATER RESTORATION PLANT CIP 
In April 2000, the City of Grants Pass completed a Facility Plan Update for the Water Restoration Plant 
(Parametrix, Inc., 2000) which identified a Capital Improvement Plan for the plant for the next 20 years. 
This plan identified $17.18M of improvements that were needed at the plant in the next 20 years in order 
to adequately serve the community. This CIP is shown in Table 3. 
Table 3. City of Grants Pass - Water Restoration Plant Capital Improvement Plan 
Construction Schedule 
Project Item Probable Cost 2001/2004 2005/2006 2010-2011 
PRELIMINARY AND PRIMARY TREATMENT 
Influent Pumping $560,000 $560,000 
Raw Sewage Pipeline to Ballasted 
Sedimentation 
$240,000 $240,000 
Screening Odor Control $390,000 $390,000 
Mechanical Bar Screen No. 2 $230,000 $230,000 
Modify Gravity Thickener to Ballasted 
Sedimentation 
$3,510,000 $3,510,000 
Modify Existing Primary to 
Combination Clarifier/Thickener 
$610,000 $610,000 
Yard Piping $270,000 $270,000 
SECONDARY TREATMENT 
Aeration Basin Fine Bubble $530,000 $530,000 
Aeration Basin Selector $260,000 $260,000 
Blowers and DO Control $870,000 $870,000 
Rehabilitate Existing Clarifiers $770,000 $770,000 
New Secondary Clarifiers $2,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 
Yard Piping $770,000 $400,000 $370,000 
Motorized Gates $340,000 $340,000 
FINAL TREATMENT 
Outfall Diffuser $540,000 $540,000 
OTHER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
Lab Improvements $100,000 $100,000 
Operation Building Repairs and Office $130,000 $130,000 
SCADA System Expansion $670,000 $250,000 $250,000 $170,000 
Equipment Improvements from Audit 
Results 
$250,000 $100,000 $75,000 $75.000 
Plant Landscaping $100,000 $40,000 $30,000 $30,000 
Public Education Program $50,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 
(Table Continues) 
City of Grants Pass 
Sewer and Water Rate Analysis 3 
216-3416-028 
March 2005 
000997 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) 
Table 3. City of Grants Pass - Water Restoration Plant Capital Improvement Plan (Continued) 
Construction Schedule 
Project Item Probable Cost 2001/2004 2005/2006 2010-2011 
SOLIDS THICKENING AND DIGESTION 
Rehabilitate Existing Digester ! $740,000 $740,000 
Dewatering Centrifuge ! $1,000,000 $1,000,000 
SOLIDS HANDLING OFF-SITE 
Co-composting Facility $1,850.000 $1.850.000 $ $ 
TOTALS $17,180,000 $9,530,000 $5,795,000 $1,855,000 
Between 2000 and 2004, part of these planned CIP improvements were completed in the Phase 1 Upgrade 
of the Water Restoration Plant (Parametrix, Inc., 2001). However, the remaining planned improvements 
to the plant as shown in the following table were never completed. 
Table 4. City of Grants Pass - Remaining Water Restoration Plant Capital Improvement Plan 
Construction Schedule 
Project Item Probable Cost 2001/2004 2005/2006 - 2010-2011 
PRELIMINARY AND PRIMARY TREATMENT 
Influent Pumping $657,000 $657,000 
Raw Sewage Pipeline to Ballasted 
Sedimentation 
$282,000 $282,000 
Mechanical Bar Screen No. 2 $230,000 $230,000 
Modify Gravity Thickener to Ballasted 
Sedimentation 
$4,121,000 $4,121,000 
Modify Existing Primary to 
Combination Clarifier/Thickener 
$716,000 $716,000 
Yard Piping $317,000 $317,000 
SECONDARY TREATMENT 
Rehabilitate Existing Clarifiers $904,000 $904,000 
New Secondary Clarifiers $1,409,000 $1,409,000 
Yard Piping $434,000 $434,000 
OTHER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
SCADA System Expansion $494,000 $294,000 $200,000 
Equipment Improvements from Audit 
Results 
$313,000 $225,000 $88,000 
Plant Landscaping $90,000 $60,000 $30,000 
Public Education Program $35,000 $ $23,000 $12.000 
TOTALS $10,002,000 $904,000 $6,925,000 $2,173,000 
Amounts shown in Table 3 represent year 2000 cost. In Table 4, the anticipated cost of each remaining 
item to be completed has been increased to reflect year 2005 costs using the Engineering News Record 
(ENR) Construction Cost Index increase between 2000 and 2005. 
In the development of the CIP for the Water Restoration Plant presented above, the impacts to the plant as 
a result of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study of the Rogue River were unknown. At that time, 
the study had not yet been started; however, it was known that this study would be initiated in about 2005 
and that it would result in impacts to the plant. Possible impacts to the plant might include more stringent 
City of Grants Pass 
Sewer and Water Rate Analysis 5 
216-3416-028 
MarcATO0999 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) 
BOD and TSS limitations to the plant effluent and even new nutrient and temperature limitations in the 
plant effluent were possible. Any of these possible impacts were impossible to predict at that time. 
For this reason, any additions or changes in the existing aeration basin at the plant to accommodate these 
more stringent or new limitations were not included in the CIP. 
Recently, however, the T M D L study has been started in 2005. In a meeting with the Oregon Department 
of Environmental Quality, preliminary information on the potential impacts of the TMDL on the Water 
Restoration Plant has now been described to the City of Grants Pass. This information has resulted in a 
need to expand the previous CIP for the Water Restoration Plant as presented in the 2000 Facility Plan to 
include three new projects. Also, a fourth new project for the plant CIP has now been identified regarding 
the JO-GRO Compost Facility that must be added. These additional CIP projects, their cost, and 
anticipated schedule are shown in the following table. Costs shown in this table represent year 2005 
dollars. 
Table 5. Additional Capital Improvement Plan Projects 
Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
Project Item Probable Cost 
Construction Schedule 
2007-2009 Cost 
Aeration Basin Expansion $2,400,000 $2,400,000 
Effluent Filtration $1,700,000 $1,700,000 
Plant Biosolids Improvements $700,000 $700,000 
JO-GRO Expansion $800,000 $800,000 
These projects need to be added to the above Table 4 to provide a complete CIP for the Water Restoration 
Plant for the next 20 years. Together these improvements will provide a wastewater treatment plant 
capable of adequately serving the Grants Pass community for the next 20 years. 
The improvements described in Tables 4 and 5 are all needed to support growth in the city. Certain 
components of the existing plant are also capable of supporting this growth and do not require new or 
additional expansion or upgrade. The components of the existing WRP that can accommodate growth for 
the next 20 years and the cost attributable to this growth are identified in Table 6. 
Table 6. Cost of Existing WRP Treatment Components Attributable to Growth 
Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant 
Project Item Total Cost ($M) 
Cost Attributable to 
Growth ($M) 
WRP Offices and Laboratory $2.5 $0.5 
Biosolids Dewatering $2.0 $0.5 
UV Disinfection $2.5 $1.5 
Outfall Diffuser $1.0 $0.8 
JO-GRO Facility $2.2 $1.0 
The capacity of the existing WRP without the CIP improvements described in Tables 4 and 5 can oniy 
accommodate the growth in the City of Grants Pass for the next 3 to 5 years provided careful attention is 
given to plant operation to maximize treatment removal efficiency. To maximize treatment, removal 
efficiencies may include installing chemical addition to the existing secondary clarifiers. This may be 
needed to enhance solids settling during peak flow and waste load events. 
City of Grants Pass 
Sewer and Water Rate Analysis 5 
216-3416-028 
M a r c A TO0999 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) 
WATER UTILITY 
The water utility includes the Water Treatment (filtration) Plant that treats water pumped from the Rogue 
River for the residential and commercial establishments in the City of Grants Pass. The plant removes 
suspended particulates; removes and inactivates pathogens; and produces a non-corrosive, palatable water 
meeting all regulations and Federal and State drinking water standards. The plant capacity is 18.0 million 
gallons per day (MGD), adequate to serve the community until about the year 2024. O f that capacity, the 
existing customer base uses approximately 10.5 M G D on a peak day basis. 
Solids from the water filtration process are collected and discharged to a settling pond located next to the 
skate board park. 
T h e water utility also includes a water distribution system that consists of about 150 miles of water 
pipelines. The distribution system includes eight reservoirs varying in size from 0.8 million to 1.5 million 
gallons that supply fire storage to customers, four water booster pumping stations which serve eight 
different pressure zones in the system, and 1,378 fire hydrants for fire protection. 
Water Treatment Plant CIP 
In May 2004, the City of Grants Pass completed a Facility Plan for the water treatment plant 
(CDM, 2004) that identified S4.335M in improvements required at the plant. These improvements were 
necessary in order for the plant to supply water to the city for the next 20 years. Provided that these 
improvements are completed, the plant will be adequate to serve the community for 20 years depending 
on the outcome of current monitoring programs. The Capital Improvement Plan identified in this Facility 
Plan is shown in the following table. 
Table 7. Near-Term Implementation Plan for WTP Improvements 
.Fiscal Year Improvements Estimated Project Costs 
2004/2005 1. Intake Modifications (Engr. and Permitting) $400,000 
2005/2006 1. Intake Modifications (Engr. and Construction) $500,000 
2. Filter Upgrades (Engr. and Construction) $200,000 
3. Basin Modifications (Engr. and Construction) $200,000 
2006/2007 1 Intake Modifications (Construction) $700,000 
2. Filter Upgrades (Construction) $400,000 
3. Basin Modifications (Construction) $400,000 
2008/2009 1. Filter Gallery Upgrades (Engr. and Construction) $480,000 
2. Solids Handling $800,000 
2009/2010 1 Filter Gallery Upgrades (Construction) $510,000 
2. Chemical System Upgrades (Engr. and Const.) $53,000 
2010/2011 1. Chemical System Upgrades (Construction) $138,000 
2. Sludge Removal Systems (Engr. and Const.) $80,000 
3. New Storage Building (Engr. and Construction) $27,000 
2011/2012 1 Sludge Removal Systems (Construction) $239,000 
2. New Storage Building (Construction) $53,000 
2012/2013 1. Emergency Generator for 5 mgd (Engr. and Const.) $319,000 
2024 1. Expand Capacity to 30 mgd $7.813.000 
TOTAL $13,312,000 
City of Grants Pass 216-3416-028 
Sewer and Water Rate Analysis 6 March 2005 
l c - o o 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) 
In addition to these improvements, recently the plant has tested a bagged dewatering process to remove 
solids from the settling pond. This process has proven to be very costly and a different approach to 
dewatering solids from the pond is necessary in the near future. It is estimated that the cost of a new 
dewatering process will be $800,000 and this CIP project has been added to the CIP shown in Table 7. It 
is anticipated that a new solids dewatering process will be necessary in the year 2008. 
W a t e r Distr ibut ion System CIP 
In January 2001, the City completed a Water Distribution System Master Plan Update (West Yost and 
Associates, 2001). This plan identified over $20.0M in improvements through the year 2020 to support 
expansion of the distribution system; to replace old, undersized cast iron water mains; and to address 
service areas that do not meet the City 's performance standards. 
The water distribution system CIP from this plan is shown in Tables 8 through 11. Provided these 
improvements are completed in the next 20 years, the distribution system, including reservoirs and 
booster pumping station, is adequate to serve the community. 
Table 8. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects (2001 Dollars) - Period 2000-2005 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost $1,000 
Pump Stations 
Hilltop/Harbeck Heights Fire Pumps 
Meadow Wood Pump Station 
Laurelridge Pump Station 
Rogue Community College Pump Station 
Subtotal 
Pipelines 
Pressure Zone Boundary Modifications $100 
Pressure Reduction Valves 130 
P-101 West Harbeck to Allen Creek 54 
P-102 Ringuette Street 129 
P-103 Leonard Street Looping 40 
P-104 Lower River Road 149 
P-105 Prospect Avenue Looping 54 
P-106 Hawthorne to Crescent 748 
P-107 9th to 10th at Midland 122 
P-108 Sherman Lane to Tokay Heights 227 
P-109 Marion Lane 115 
P-110 C Street to D Street Loop 49 
P-111 Hamilton Lane Looping 134 
P-112 Agness to Gladiola 119 
P-113 Bridge to Brownell 431 
P-114 Lincoln Road Looping 83 
P-115 10th and Savage Tie-In 
(Table Continues) 
$60 
255 
245 
245 
$805 
City of Grants Pass 
Sewer and Water Rate Analysis 
5 216-3416-028 MarcATO0999 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) 
Table 8. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects (2001 Dollars) - Period 2000-2005 (Continued) 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost $1,000 
P-201 Redwood Avenue Extension 370 
P-202 Redwood Avenue Looping North 319 
P203 Redwood Avenue Looping South 221 
P-204 Rogue Community College Extension 577 
P-205 Allen Creek Connector 869 
P-207 Williams Highway Extension 152 
P-210 West Harbeck Road Connector 318 
P-212 Pedestrian Bridge Connector 353 
P-220 Southeast North Street Extension 113 
P-221 Shannon Lane Extension 48 
P-222 Lincoln Road Extension 103 
P-223 Ament Road Extension 660 
P-224 Starlite Connector 290 
P-227 Valley View Road 25 
Subtotal $7,109 
TOTAL $7,914 
Table 9. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects (2001 Dollars) - Period 2005-2010 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost $1,000 
Pipelines 
P-208 Williams Highway Looping $294 
P-214 Rogue River Highway Extension 655 
P-225 Starlite Extension 100 
Subtotal $1,049 
Pipeline Replacement 
12,500 Feet Total Replacement $1,124 
Subtotal $1,124 
TOTAL $2,173 
City of Grants Pass 
Sewer and Water Rate Analysis 
"01002 
8 
216-3416-028 
March 2005 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) 
Table 10. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects (2001 Dollars) - Period 2010-2020 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost $1,000 
Treated Water Storage 
Reservoir No. 12 $1,710 
Reservoir No. 14 850 
Reservoir No. 16 960 
Reservoir No. 17 1,350 
Reservoir No. 13 (replacement) 850 
Subtotal $5,720 
Pipelines 
P-206 Reservoir No. 12 Extension 
P-209 Reservoir No. 17 Extension 
P-215 Fruitdale Drive Extension 
P-216 Cloverlawn Loop 
P-218 Clovertawn to Crestview Loop 
P-219 Reservoir No. 16 Extension 
P-226 Greenfield Road Loop 
P-229 Reservoir No. 14 Extension 
Subtotal 
Pipeline Replacement 
25,000 Feet Total Replacement $2.248 
Subtotal $2,248 
TOTAL $10,010 
$479 
97 
780 
56 
142 
181 
239 
68 
$2,042 
Table 11. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects (2001 Dollars) - Period Post 2020 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost $1,000 
Treated Water Storage 
Reservoir No. 10 $1,560 
Subtotal $1,560 
Pump Stations 
Treatment Plant Pumps $400 
Subtotal $400 
Pipelines 
P-217 Reservoir No. 10 Extension $184 
Subtotal $184 
TOTAL $2,144 
A number of these projects have already been completed since the plan was prepared in 2001. In 
addition, the costs shown in Tables 8 through 11 represent year 2001 construction cost. In Tables 12 
through 15, the projects already completed have been removed and project costs increased to year 2005 
construction cost based again on the ENR Construction Cost Index increase between 2001 and 2005. The 
current Capital Improvement Plan for the water distribution system is shown in Tables 12 through 15. 
City of Grants Pass 
Sewer and Water Rate Analysis 9 
216-3416-028 
March 20flfy f J l . 0 0 .3 
t 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) 
Table 12. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects (2005 Dollars) - Period 2000-2005 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost $1,000 
Pump Stations 
Hilltop/Harbeck Heights Fire Pumps $60 
Rogue Community College Pump Station 280 
Subtotal $305 
Pipelines 
Pressure Zone Boundary Modifications $114 
Pressure Reduction Valves 149 
P-101 West Harbeck to Allen Creek 62 
P-103 Leonard Street Looping 46 
P-104 Lower River Road 86 
P-105 Prospect Avenue Looping 16 
P-106 Hawthorne to Crescent 427 
P-107 9th to 10th at Midland 139 
P-108 Sherman Lane to Tokay Heights 259 
P-109 Marion Lane 131 
P-110 C Street to D Street Loop 56 
P-113 Bridge to Brownell 325 
P-114 Lincoln Road Looping 95 
P-115 10th and Savage Tie-In 8 
P-202 Redwood Avenue Looping North 200 
P203 Redwood Avenue Looping South 202 
P-204 Rogue Community College Extension 4,372 
P-207 Williams Highway Extension 53 
P-220 Southeast North Street Extension 26 
P-221 Shannon Lane Extension 55 
P-222 Lincoln Road Extension 118 
P-223 Ament Road Extension 754 
P-224 Starlight Connector 290 
Subtotal $7,983 
TOTAL $8,288 
Table 13. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects (2005 Dollars) - Period 2005-2010 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost $1,000 
Pipelines 
P-208 Williams Highway Looping $336 
P-214 Rogue River Highway Extension 749 
P-225 Starlite Extension 114 
Subtotal $1,199 
Pipeline Replacement 
12,500 Feet Total Replacement $1,124 
Subtotal $1,124 
TOTAL $2,323 
City of Grants Pass 216-3416-028 
Sewer and Water Rate Analysis 10 March 2005 
0 1 0 0 4 
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) 
Table 14. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects (2005 Dollars) - Period 2010-2020 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost $1,000 
Treated Water Storage 
Reservoir No. 12 $1,955 
Reservoir No. 14 972 
Reservoir No. 16 1,097 
Reservoir No. 17 1,543 
Reservoir No. 13 (replacement) 972 
Subtotal $6,539 
Pipelines 
P-206 Reservoir No. 12 Extension $488 
P-209 Reservoir No. 17 Extension 111 
P-215 Fruitdale Drive Extension 892 
P-216 Cloverlawn Loop 64 
P-218 Cloverlawn to Crestview Loop 162 
P-219 Reservoir No. 16 Extension 207 
P-226 Greenfield Road Loop 273 
P-229 Reservoir No. 14 Extension 78 
Subtotal $2,275 
Pipeline Replacement 
25,000 Feet Total Replacement $2,248 
Subtotal $2,248 
TOTAL $11,062 
Table 15. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects (2005 Dollars) - Period Post 2020 
Recommended Improvements Capital Cost $1,000 
Treated Water Storage 
Reservoir No. 10 $1,783 
Subtotal $1,783 
Pump Stations 
Treatment Plant Pumps $457 
Subtotal $457 
Pipelines 
P-217 Reservoir No. 10 Extension $210 
Subtotal $210 
TOTAL $2,450 
Provided the improvements shown in Tables 12 through 15 are completed in the next 20 years, the 
distribution system, including reservoirs and booster pumping, is adequate to serve the community. 
City of Grants Pass 
Sewer and Water Rate Analysis II 
216-3416-028 
March 2005 _ . 
1 0 0 6 
Subject: 
To: 
CC: 
Date: 
From: "MICHAEL SNIDER" <MSNIDER@co.josephine.or.us> 
"Voice, Jared" <jvoice@grantspassoregon.gov> 
"DeJanvier, Charles" <CDEJANVIER@co.josephine.or.us> 
6/3/2008 2:11 PM 
Re: Public Facilities Plan amendments 
"i 
Jared, 
I talked to Chuck DeJanvier at public works and he says the water and sewer elements are not of direct 
concern to them; they will continue to focus on "surface" issues such as drainage, erosion, road 
improvements, etc., as those issues come up. 
If your willing, you can forward final electronic copies of the elements to our departments when they are 
adopted. 
» > "Jared Voice" <jvoice@grantspassoregon.gov> 6/2/2008 10:09 AM » > 
Nora / Michael: 
Good morning! I just wanted to verify that the County has no comments regarding the updated Water and 
Sewer sections of Grants Pass Comprehensive Plan Element 10 (Public Facilities and Services.) This 
proposal was on the Site Plan Review agenda for April 29, 2008 and is scheduled for hearing at the Urban 
Area Planning Commission on June 11, 2008. 
Please advise me as to whether Josephine County will be providing comment on the proposed 
amendments. 
Thank you-
Jared Voice 
Associate Planner 
City of Grants Pass 
101 NW A Street 
Grants Pass, OR 97526 
jvoice@grantspassoregon.gov 
Thanks, 
Michael 
EXHIBIT^. 
-to o w r . 
001008 
The irrigation season typically lasts from about April 15 to October 1. Examination of flows 
received at the treatment plant shows that the influent flows increase during those months, even 
though little precipitation occurs during that period. It appears that one source of infiltration and 
inflow in the Grants Pass sewage treatment plant is irrigation water that has seeped into the 
ground and infiltrated the sewer system. Although there is a court order to remove Savage 
Rapids Dam (now underway), GPID will continue to function as it does now through the 
installation of pumps that will deliver water to the district's canal system. 
10.30.3.4 Hydraulic and Biologic Loading 
The 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update made flow projections based on existing 
wastewater flow, plus a typical flow per capita assumed for all future connections. These future 
flow factors in gallons per capita per day (gpcd) are shown in Table 10.30.4. The per capita flow 
assumed for future connections was typical for new construction at the time. Table 10.30.5 
shows the wastewater flow projections made through the 2020 planning period. NOTE: The 
population figures shown in Table 10.30.5 were extracted from the 2001 Wastewater Facilities 
Plan Update and include the Harbeck-Fruitdale Sewer Service District, the Redwood Sanitary 
Sewer Service District, and the Merlin / North Valley area. 
Table 10.30.4 Future Flow Factors 
Flow Type Contribution (gpcd) 
Average Flow 105 
Maximum Month Dry Weather Flow 100 
(MMDWF) 
Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow 130 
(MM WWF) 
Peak Day 275 
Peak Wet Weather Flow 360 
Summer Average 85 
Winter Average 125 
Source: Waste Water Facilities Plan Update, Parametrix, 2001 
Table 10.30.5 Wastewater Flow Projections 
YEAR 
Types of Flow 
1999 
(Pop. 42,900) 
2010 
(Pop. 52,200) 
2020 
(Pop. 62,700) 
Calculated 
(mgd) 
Calculated 
(Gal/cap-
day) 
Design 
(mgd) 
Design 
(Gal/cap-
day) 
Design 
(mgd) 
Design 
(Gal/cap-
day) 
Summer Max. Month 7.3 173 8.4 160 9.4 150 
Winter Max. Month 10.8 256 12.2 233 13.5 216 
Peak Day 21.5 514 24.6 471 27.5 438 
PWWF 30.1 715 34.0 652 37.8 603 
Summer Average 5.0 120 6.0 113 6.8 109 
Winter Average 6.4 155 7.80 149 9.1 145 
Annual Average 5.7 137 6.9 131 8.0 127 
Source: Waste Water Facilities Plan Update, Parametrix, 2001 
O O C 1 0 4 
10-10 
Table 10.30.6 Organic and Solids Loading (pounds per day) 
Type of Loading Year 1999 2010 2020 
Average BOD5 7,490 9,400 11,400 
Maximum Monthly BOD5 10,985 13,700 16,800 
Average NH3-N 327 390 450 
Maximum Monthly NH3-N 636 760 870 
Average TSS 8,564 10,500 12,700 
Maximum Monthly TSS 11,623 14,300 17,300 
* Source: Waste Water Facilities Plan Update, Parametrix, 2001 
Because the Rogue River is used for salmon spawning, fish passage, and rearing Coho, 
wastewater discharge requirements are strict. To properly evaluate upgrading/expanding the 
Grants Pass WRP, an analysis of the facilities wastewater discharge permit limit is necessary. 
Table 10.30.6 presents the anticipated year 2020 BOD5 and TSS treatment requirements as 
mandated by OAR 340-41-375. These values represent the dry weather season BOD5 and TSS 
effluent concentrations that the plant should meet monthly. 
Table 10.30.7 Anticipated Year 2020 BOD5 and TSS Treatment Requirements 
Based on OAR 340-41-375 
Flow 
(mgd) 
Effluent Concentration 
(mg/L) 
Mass Discharge, lbs/day 
Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily 
Permit Limits 3ased on Effluent Quality 
Summer, 
Dry Weather 
8 10 15 - 670 1,000 1,300 
Winter, Wet 
Weather 
10 30 45 - 2,500 3,750 5,000 
Source: Waste Water Facilities Plan Update, Parametrix, 2001 
The DEQ has determined that the Rogue River is a high priority concern for implementing 
management strategies to attain compliance with water quality standards. The first step in this 
process is to develop the total maximum daily load (TMDL) pollutant loading allocations. This 
TMDL will include both point and non-point sources. 
The TMDL process is now underway and is currently scheduled to be completed in the next 
several years. Following TMDL allocation, new discharge permit requirements may be 
established for the Grants Pass WRP that will modify Table 10.30.7. These new permit 
requirements may also impact the capacity of the existing plant.1 
Per Steve Gilbert, Parametrix, June 2007 
10-11 
<K> ; i 3 5 
10.30.4 CITY OF GRANTS PASS SANITARY SEWER SERVICES 
10.30.4.1 Service Area 
Situated near the Rogue River, the Grants Pass Water Restoration Plant (WRP) serves the City 
and the Harbeck-Fruitdale area. In the fall of 2000, the plant began receiving sewage from the 
Redwood area. 
The 2004 Collection System Master Plan estimated that the Grants Pass WRP had a service area 
population equivalent of approximately 44,250 in 2003. With estimated growth rates of 1.5 
percent for Grants Pass and 1.6 percent for Harbeck-Fruitdale, and the addition of Redwood at a 
3.1 percent population growth rate, it was estimated that the Grants Pass WRP would be serving 
an equivalent of 60,157 people by the year 2020. 
10.30.4.2 Treatment Plant 
Since 1935, the City of Grants Pass WRP has been operating at its current site. Subsequent plant 
additions occurred in 1953 and 1962. In 1974, the treatment plant was renovated and expanded. 
More improvements occurred from 1994-96 in response to the Department of Environmental 
Quality's concerns about the effluent toxicity, and the discharging directly into the Rogue River. 
The improvements consisted of a fourth raw sewage pump, a temporary belt filter press to 
improve wet weather solids disposal, two rectangular primary clariflers, a computer based 
supervisory control and data acquisition system, and an ultraviolet disinfection system. In 
January 1999, Brown & Caldwell completed a facilities plan for the Grants Pass Water 
Restoration Plant (WRP). Also in 1999, the addition of a second Ultraviolet channel was 
implemented. This allowed the increase of disinfection capacity from 21.5 million gallons per 
day (mgd) to 43 mgd.2 
10.30.4.3 Treatment Level 
At the time of the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, the Grants Pass WRP treated 4.5 
mgd of average dry weather flow (ADWF), with a record peak storm flow of 26.5 mgd. More 
recent data has also been compiled. As of April 2008, the WRP treated an ADWF of 5.5 mgd 
and peak wet weather flow of 30.0 mgd. The WRP is comprised of numerous unit treatment 
processes for both liquid and solid streams, a control/laboratory building, and a maintenance 
shop. There is a 27 mgd hydraulic capacity for influent pumping3, screening, and primary 
treatment, a 13 mgd hydraulic capacity for secondary treatment, and a 43 mgd hydraulic capacity 
for UV disinfection. Flow exceeding the secondary treatment capacity receives only primary 
treatment and disinfection. This occurs only a few days a year during wet weather storm 
conditions. 
10.30.4.4 Biosolids Handling and Disposal 
Currently, the Grants Pass WRP sends the Class B Biosolids to JO-GRO™, a green waste and 
biosolid waste composting plant. 
2 Information from this section was excerpted from the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update. Additional WRP 
upgrades have occurred since that time (see Water Restoration Plant Capital Improvement Plan, Table 10.30.11). 
3 As of January 2008 a project was completed to increase the hydraulic capacity for influent pumping to 45 mgd. 
10-12 
0001C6 
To produce Class B biosolids, processing must occur. The process starts with a primary clarifier. 
Solids, which are thickened in the gravity thickener and the gravity belt thickener, are dewatered 
by the secondary clarifier to produce waste activated sludge. The primary and secondary sludge 
are then combined and sent to the 50-foot-diameter anaerobic digester. Dewatered biosolids are 
loaded into a dumpster and hauled to the Merlin Landfill for the JO-GRO™ composting process. 
10.30.4.5 Collection System 
Per the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, it was believed that prior to 1927 sewer pipes 
were constructed of vitrified clay, although records are not available to confirm this. From 1927 
to 1964, sewers were constructed of non-reinforced concrete pipe with bell and spigot joints 
caulked with cement mortar. Since 1964, sewers have been constructed of concrete pipe with 
bell and spigot joints and rubber ring gaskets. The concrete pipes are caulked at the joints with 
cement mortar. Over time, the cement caulking dissolves leaving the joints vulnerable to 
cracking and resulting in infiltration of groundwater and penetration of tree roots. 
At the time of the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update the City's collection system consisted 
of approximately 110 miles of gravity sewers, one force main (approximately 2,000 feet long), 
and three pumping stations. As of 1983, three hundred fifty acres of the downtown area were 
still served by vitrified clay pipe installed prior to 1927. The portion of the collection system 
constructed prior to 1964 has shown severe deterioration in both pipe materials and joint 
integrity. From 1992 to 2001, the city reported 17 sinkholes due to pipe failure. 
The City of Grants Pass completed a Collection System Master Plan in 1983 (James 
Montgomery, 1983). A number of the 1983 recommendations for improving the collection 
system have been implemented. The City has, however, experienced sewer line failures and 
occasional overflows due to sewer line obstructions. The City has also expanded its collection 
system to include the Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District (RSSSD) collection system 
located west of the City. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality made completion of 
an updated Collection System Master Plan a provision in the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the City's Water Restoration Plant, issued in December 
of2000. 
The 2004 Collection System Master Plan is the most recent in a series of reports/studies focusing 
on wastewater infrastructure. In 2000, the City commissioned a Wastewater Facilities Plan 
Update (Parametrix, 2001) for improvements to the City WRP. The Facilities Plan focused on 
the WRP but also provides some analysis of the existing collection system to assess the impact of 
infiltration and inflow (I/I) on peak flow events at the WRP. Additional collection system 
analyses that were presented in the RSSSD Facilities Plan (prepared in 1999 by Parametrix) 
assessed the RSSSD wastewater collection system. In September 2004, Parametrix prepared the 
City's latest Collection System Master Plan, which provides for the capital improvement 
programming (see tables 10.30.11, 10.30.14, and 10.30.15) to accommodate orderly and cost-
effective methods to operate, maintain and expand the collection system while reducing the risk 
of system failures. 
10-13 000107 
10.30.4.6 Pump Stations 
The topography of the City's service area is such that most of the system is operated under 
gravity flow conditions. As such, there are only a few pump stations in the collection system. 
The Webster No. 1 Lift Station, Webster No. 2 Lift Station, and Bridge Street Pump Station are 
all located in the southwestern portion of the city. Under an intergovernmental agreement, the 
City also operates two pump stations serving the RSSSD: the RSSSD pump station, located at 
the site of the abandoned RSSSD wastewater treatment plant at 4960 Leonard Road, and the 
Darneille Pump Station at 3100 South River Road. 
10.30.4.6.1 City Pump Stations: The collection system includes three pumping stations, two of 
which are simply lift stations. Design data for all three pump stations is included in Table 
10.30.8. The lift stations, Webster Lift Station 1 and Webster Lift Station 2, are both located on 
Webster Lane and serve the mobile home park in the western section of Basin A. Each station is 
equipped with two vertical, non-clog, and centrifugal pumps. The pumps in Station 1 are 7.5 hp 
pumps, each with a capacity of 100 gallons per minute (gpm) at 23 feet total dynamic head 
(TDH). Station 2 pumps are 3 hp pumps, each with a capacity of 100 gpm at 10 feet TDH. 
The third station, designated the Bridge Street Station, is located at the intersection of Bridge 
Street and Tami Court. Dual (4- and 8-inch diameter) force mains travel east from the pump 
station along Bridge Street about 1,900 feet and discharge in Manhole B i l l . The station is 
equipped with two submersible non-clog centrifugal pumps. Each of the 20 hp pumps has a 
capacity of 650 gpm at 75 feet TDH. Air injection is also provided for the force main to control 
sulfides. A 50 kW natural gas fueled engine generator is provided standby power. 
10.30.4.6.2 Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District (RSSD) Pump Stations: The 
Redwood Conveyance System, which transfers all flow from the old Redwood Wastewater 
Treatment Plan (WWTP) to the Grants Pass WRP, includes the Redwood Pump Station, the 
Redwood force main, the Darneille force mains and Darneille Pump Station, and a gravity sewer 
which brings the transferred flow to the Grants Pass WRP. The Redwood Pump Station is 
located at the old Redwood WWTP It is a duplex submersible pump station with a capacity of 
0.48 mgd, based on one pump in operation. The station has a Bioxide chemical injections 
system with a 3,000-gallon chemical storage tank. From the Redwood Pump Station, flow is 
routed through approximately 10,300 feet of 6-inch-diameter force main to an influent manhole 
at the Darneille Pump Station. 
The Darneille Pump Station accepts the majority of the flow from the RSSSD, as well as the 
flow pumped from the Redwood Pump Station. The Darneille Pump Station has a firm capacity 
of 4.2 mgd, based on operation of two of three pumps. The station is a wet well/dry well type 
station with above-grade electrical panels, generator, and chemical feed system. The chemical 
feed system is identical to that provided at the Redwood Pump Station, except that the chemical 
feed pumps are slightly larger. From the Darneille Pump Station, flow is pumped through 
approximately 17,740 feet of dual 12-inch force main and the 1,000 feet of single 14-inch force 
main. From the pump station, the dual force mains are routed south to South River Road; then 
east through road rights-of-way and easements to the south side of the Pedestrian Bridge. The 
dual 12-inch force mains join into a single 14-inch force main that crosses the Rogue River on 
the Pedestrian Bridge and then discharges into a gravity sewer, which flows to the WRP Table 
10.30.8 provides pump station data. 
10-14 
">00112 
Table 10.30.8 Pump Station Data 
Location 
Year 
Built 
No. 
of 
Pumps 
Pump 
Type 
Horsepower 
(hp) 
Drive 
Type 
Capacity/Head 
(gpm)/(feet) 
Webster No. 1 
Lift Station: 
East edge of 
Roguelea Estates 
1967 2 Self-priming, vertical close-
coupled, non-clog centrifugal 
7.5 Constant 
Speed 
100/23 
Webster No. 2 
Lift Station: 
All Sports Park 
-Basin A 
1967 2 Self-priming, vertical close-
coupled, non-clog centrifugal 
3 Constant 
Speed 
100/10 
Bridge Street 
Pump Station: 
Bridge Street and 
Tami Court 
Basin A 
1994 2 Submersible, non-clog 
centrifugal 
20 Variable 
Speed 
650/75 
Redwood Pump 
Station: 
4960 Leonard 
Road - RSSSD 
2000 2 Submersible, non-clog, 
centrifugal 
40 Variable 
Speed 
335/163 
Darneille Pump 
Station: 
3100 South River 
Road -RSSSD 
2000 3 Immersible diy-pit, screw 
centrifugal 
110 Variable 
Speed 
1,460/180 
Source: City of Grants Pass Collection System Master Plan, Parametrix Inc., 2004 
10.30.5 TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 
In January 1999, Brown and Caldwell (BC) completed a Facilities Plan (FP) for the Grants Pass 
Water Restoration Plant (WRP). A concern regarding the future flow and population projections 
prompted a Value Engineering (VE) Workshop in June 1999. During this VE Workshop with 
Parametrix, Inc. and the City, these projections were recalculated and other treatment alternatives 
for both the liquid and solid streams were conceptualized. Also during the VE Workshop, the 
projected population, flow, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), and Total Suspended Solids 
(TSS) loadings were recalculated. These recalculations and treatment alternatives were 
incorporated into the 2001 Grants Pass Wastewater Facilities Plan Update (WFP). 
To select the best method for meeting Grants Pass treatment needs in the year 2020, the WFP 
evaluated three liquid stream alternatives and four solids streams alternatives. The liquid stream 
treatment includes a conventional expansion alternative, a ballasted sedimentation alternative, 
and a Zenon process alternative. The biosolids disposal and handling alternatives propose a 
Merlin Landfill co-compost facility, hauling dewatered biosolids to the Dry Creek Landfill, land 
application of Class B biosolids, and using an Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment (ATP) 
component. The alternatives are summarized below. 
10.30.5.1 Liquid Stream Alternatives 
10.30.5.1.1 Upgrades Common to the Liquid Stream Alternatives. All of the liquid stream 
treatment alternatives have several component upgrades in common. At the headworks, an 
additional mechanical bar screen would be installed with a 23.5 mgd capacity. This provides 
redundancy and a maximum capacity of 47 mgd, which is well beyond the projected future 
flows. An outfall diffaser would be added to improve and reduce the ammonia toxicity into the 
10-15 
O i > , ) 1 0 9 
Rogue River. Several miscellaneous plant improvements, which existed in the Facility Plan, 
have also been included in the value engineering alternatives. These improvements include 
laboratory upgrades, operations building repairs and modifications, and instrumentation and 
control system expansion. 
10.30.5.1.2 Alternative One - Conventional Expansion. Alternative One is the recommended 
improvement from the WFP using a conventional expansion approach. By replicating the 
existing components, this option allows continuing ease of operation due to staff familiarity of 
the process. This alternative has been modified to treat the peak wet weather flow. A summary 
of the upgrades include : 
• Additional mechanical bar screen with a capacity of 23.5 mgd. 
• Removal of the four existing influent pumps and replacement with three 19 mgd 
pumps 
• Additional rectangular primary clarifier. Rehabilitate existing primary clarifiers. 
• Two additional aeration basins. Rehabilitate existing aeration basins. 
• Two additional 115-foot secondary clarifiers. Rehabilitate existing secondary 
clarifiers. 
• Outfall diffuser in the Rogue River. 
• Miscellaneous improvements: laboratory upgrades, operations building and 
modifications, and instrumentation and control system expansion. 
10.30.5.1.3 Alternative Two - Ballasted Sedimentation. Alternative Two uses ballasted 
sedimentation to treat peak flows greater than 13.5 mgd. It is proposed to convert the existing 
gravity thickener into the ballasted sedimentation tank. The peak flows would be conveyed to 
this system and then recombined with the main treatment train to receive UY disinfection. Other 
upgrades to the Grants Pass WRP include: 
• Install additional influent pumping capacity. 
• Additional mechanical bar screen with a 23.5 mgd capacity. 
• Odor containment at the influent pump station and mechanical bar screen area, 
• Converting the circular primary clarifier to a combination primary clarifier/gravity 
thickener. 
• The existing primary clarifiers would be rehabilitated. 
• Addition of a bioselector in the aeration basin to provide filamentous bacteria control, 
which would improve the settling performance in the secondary clarifiers. The 
aeration basin would also be modified with fine bubble diffusers, dissolved oxygen 
control, and motorized gates. 
• Two additional 90-foot secondary clarifiers. Rehabilitate the secondary clarifiers. 
• Outfall diffuser in the Rogue River. 
• Miscellaneous improvements: laboratory upgrades, operations building and 
modifications, instrumentation and control system expansion, plant equipment audit, 
additional plant landscaping, public education program, and yard piping upgrades. 
10.30.5.1.4 Alternative Three - Zenon Process. Alternative Three incorporated the use of 
Zenon for secondary treatment. The wastewater can flow directly into the primary clarifiers, 
thereby eliminating the need for secondary clarifiers. Zenon is a microfiltration membrane 
system located in a suspended growth biological reactor. For this alternative, the membranes 
would be placed into the aeration basin to serve as a biological reactor. Other upgrades to the 
Grants Pass WRP for this alternative include: 
10-16 
OOOllO 
• Additional influent pump to meet the projected firm capacity. 
• Additional mechanical bar screen with a 23.5 mgd capacity. 
• Odor containment at the influent pump station and mechanical bar screen area. 
• For peak overflows greater than 13.5 mgd, the existing gravity thickener would be 
converted into a ballasted sedimentation tank. 
• Converting the circular primary clarifier to a combination primary clarifier/gravity 
thickener. 
• The existing primary and secondary clarifiers rehabilitated for enhanced performance. 
• Outfall diffuser in the Rogue River. 
• Miscellaneous improvements include: Laboratory upgrades, operations building and 
modifications, instrumentation and control system expansion, plant equipment audit, 
additional plant landscaping, public education program, and yard piping upgrades. 
10.30.5.1.5 Liquid Stream Alternatives Cost Estimate Comparison. A preliminary cost 
estimate for these liquid stream alternatives is summarized in Table 10.30.9. Engineering, 
administration, and contingency are included in these costs. 
Table 10.30.9 Comparison of Liquid Stream Alternatives 
Alternative Capital Cost (millions) 
One- Conventional Expansion $12.23 
Two- Ballasted Sedimentation $13.59 
Three- Zenon Process $23.96 
Source: City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plan Update, June 2001, Parametrix Inc. 
10.30.5.2 Biosolids Disposal and Handling Alternatives 
The following subsections generally describe the alternatives for biosolids disposal and handling 
proposed at the Merlin Landfill co-compost facility, for hauling dewatered biosolids to the Dry 
Creek Landfill, for applying to land the Class B biosolids, and for using an Aerobic 
Thermophilic Pretreatment (ATP) component. 
10.30.5.2.1 Alternative One- Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility. Alternative One would 
co-compost digested primary and raw secondary biosolids. The existing digester would be 
rehabilitated and used only for digesting primary biosolids. A new component for dewatering 
digested primary biosolids to 15 percent solids would be installed in an existing building located 
on site. The biosolids would be hauled to the co-composting facility located at the Merlin 
Landfill. This facility would produce Class A biosolids, which would be available for public 
purchase. 
10.30.5.2.2 Alternative Two- Dry Creek Landfill. Alternative Two hauls raw primary and 
secondary dewatered biosolids to the Dry Creek Landfill. These biosolids would be dewatered at 
the Grants Pass WRP to 15 percent solids using a belt filter press (BFP). The existing press and 
one new additional BFP would be installed in an existing building located on site. Extra hauling 
equipment would be required for handling the transport of all the biosolids to the landfill. 
10.30.5.2.3 Alternative Three- Land Applying Class B Biosolids. Alternative Three is the 
recommended alternative from the WFP. It is a continuation of the current biosolids 
management program of long hauling Class B biosolids to be land applied. However, because of 
an increase in future biosolids production, contracting with landowners of large parcels of land in 
10-17 
Oí 
Eastern Oregon to expand the land application area would be necessary. Biosolids would be 
dewatered to 15 percent, hauled to the site in large tractor/trailers, and applied with a manure 
spreader. During the winter, the biosolids would be stored near the application site. An 
additional gravity thickener, gravity belt, anaerobic digester, and belt filter press are necessary to 
meet the future solids production. The existing anaerobic digester would need to be 
rehabilitated. Class A biosolids can be produced by adding low cost aeration equipment to the 
future storage building to create a pilot-scale co-composting facility. 
10.30.5.2.4 Alternative Four- Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment (ATP). Alternative Four 
is to produce Class A biosolids and distribute them to the public as fertilizer. To accommodate 
increasing loads in the future, an ATP would be installed instead of adding a new digester. To 
reduce plastics in the biosolids, a Muffin Monster would be added prior to the ATP. The 
existing digester would need to be rehabilitated to enhance performance, increase capacity, and 
repair deficiencies. 
10.30.5.2.5 Biosolids Alternatives Cost Estimate Comparison. Preliminary cost estimates for 
the four biosolids disposal alternatives are in Table 10.30.10. These values include engineering, 
administration, and contingency costs. 
Table 10.30.10 Comparison of Biosolids Disposal and Handling Alternatives 
Alternative Capital Cost (millions) 
One - Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility $3.60 
Two - Dry Creek Landfill $1.40 
Three - Land Apply Class B Biosolids $11.00 
Four - Aerobic Thermophilic Pretreatment (ATP) $2.30 
Source: City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plan Update, June 2001, Parametrix Inc. 
10.30.5.3 Miscellaneous Plant Improvements 
• Plant Equipment Audit. A full analysis of the existing component conditions would be 
conducted. This audit would analyze the remaining life span of each component and 
develop an operations and maintenance schedule for the 20-year planning period. 
• Additional Plant Landscaping. Currently a substantial amount of landscaping at the 
treatment plant has occurred to promote a good-neighbor environment. However, to 
continue this effort, additional landscaping would be necessary. 
10.30.6 PREFERRED TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 
10.30.6.1 Biosolids Handling and Disposal 
For the biosolids handling and disposal, the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update found the 
Merlin Landfill Co-compost Facility (Alternative One) to be the preferred alternative. This 
alternative would consist of the existing digester, a new dewatering device, and a co-composting 
facility. Under this solid waste handling system, rehabilitated digesters would be used to treat 
only primary clarifier solids. The secondary clarifier solids would be combined with the 
digested primary solids, dewatered in a new dewatering component, and trucked to the new co-
composting facility located at the Merlin Landfill. 
">00112 
10-18 
10.30.6.2 Liquid Stream Treatment 
The 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update found the ballasted sedimentation alternative to be 
the preferred alternative for the liquid stream treatment. Table 10.30.11 lists the anticipated 
costs and time-line of when the components or upgrades would occur at the Water Restoration 
Plant, and a proposed construction schedule follows. Both are excerpted from the 2001 
Wastewater Facilities Plan Update. 
10.30.6.3 Capital Improvements Water Restoration Plant 
Table 10.30.11 City of Grants Pass 
Construction Schedule 
Project Item Probable Cost 2001-2004 2005-2006 2010-2011 
PRELIMINARY AND PRIMARY TREATMENT 
Influent Pumping* $560,000 $560,000 
Raw Sewage Pipeline to Ballasted 
Sedimentation 
$240,000 $240,000 
Screening Odor Control* $390,000 $390,000 
Mechanical Bar Screen No. 2* $230,000 $230,000 
Modify Gravity Thickener to 
Ballasted Sedimentation 
$3,510,000 $3,510,000 
Modify Existing Primary to 
Combination Clarifier/Thickener 
$610,000 $610,000 
Yard Piping* $270,000 $270,000 
SECONDARY TREATMENT 
Aeration Basin Fine Bubble* $530,000 $530,000 
Aeration Basin Selector* $260,000 $260,00 
Blowers and DO Control* $870,000 $870,000 
Rehabilitate Existing Clarifiers* $770,000 $770,000 
New Secondary Clarifiers* $2,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 
Yard Piping* $770,000 $400,000 $370,000 
Motorized Gates* $340,000 $340,00 
FINAL TREATMENT 
Outfall Diffuser* $540,000 $540,000 
OTHER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 
Lab Improvements* $100,000 $100,000 
Operation Building Repairs and Office* $130,000 $130,000 
SCADA System Expansion* $670,000 $250,000 $250,000 $170,000 
Equipment Improvements from 
Audit Results* 
$250,000 $100,000 $75,000 $75,000 
Plant Landscaping* $100,000 $40,000 $30,000 $30,000 
10-19 
0 0.113 
Public Education* $50,000 1 $20,000 ¡ $20,000 1 $10,000 
SOLIDS THICKENING AND DIGESTION 
Rehabilitate Existing Digester* $740,000 $740,000 
Dewatering Centrifuge* $1,000,000 $1,000,000 
SOLIDS HANDLING OFF-SITE 
Co-composting Facility* $1,850,000 $1,850,000 
COLLECTION SYSTEM 
Pine Street* $1,050,000 $1,050,000 
2nd Street $700,000 $700,000 
Western Avenue $580,000 $580,000 
Master Plan* $170,000 $170,000 
TOTALS $19,680,000 $12,030,000 $5,795,000 $1,855,000 
Source: City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plan, June 2001, Parametrix Inc. *(1999-2000 dollars) 
•Item has been completed or partially completed as of April 2008 (Per Public Works Dept.) 
Year 2000 
• Install odor containment and control at the influent pump station and mechanical 
screening areas of the plant. 
• Add an anoxic selector basin to the aeration basin. 
• Modify the existing aeration basin, convert the existing aeration system to fine bubble 
diffusers, and add dissolved oxygen control and motorized gates. This would require 
new or modified aeration blowers. 
• Rehabilitate the existing secondary clarifiers to correct short circuiting and flow 
distribution problems. 
• Add a third secondary clarifier. 
• Begin laboratory upgrades and improvements. 
• Begin operations building repairs and modifications. 
• Begin instrumentation and control system expansion. 
• Conduct a plant equipment audit. 
• Continue to install plant landscaping. 
• Develop and institute a public education program. 
Year 2005 
• Install additional influent pumping capacity. 
• Add a second mechanical bar screen. 
• Convert the existing circular primary clarifier to a combination primary 
clarifier/gravity thickener. 
• Modify the existing gravity thickener to a ballasted sedimentation tank to treat peak 
flow. 
Year 2010 
• Add a fourth secondary clarifier. 
OC 114 
10-20 
10.30.7 RECOMMENDED COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 
The recommended collection system improvements presented below are based upon deficiencies 
in the pipeline hydraulic capacity that were identified in the Hydraulic Analysis found in Section 
6 of the 2004 Collection System Master Plan (Parametrix) and the needed collection system 
improvements that were identified in the Maintenance and Reliability Analysis presented in 
Section 7. A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the collection system was developed based 
on a priority analysis of these improvements. 
10.30.7.1 Collection System Goals 
Three goals were used in developing a CIP for the collection system, identifying the 
improvements required and a schedule for implementation. 
• Service to Saturation-Level Populations: All of the needed improvements were selected to 
serve the 2060 populations that could occur in the collection system service area. 
• Attention to Critical Improvements: Attention was given to collection system pipelines and 
sub-basin service areas that City staff identified as problems areas. City staff experience in 
the frequency of maintenance of various pipelines and witnessing surcharged pipelines 
(hydraulic capacity deficiencies) have been used, particularly to schedule needed 
improvements. 
• Distribution of Capital Expenditures: In the selection and scheduling of the required 
collection system improvements, the goal was to develop a CIP that is financially viable for 
the City of Grants Pass. 
10.30.7.2 Hydraulic Capacity Improvements 
Based on the hydraulic analysis conducted on the wastewater collection system serving the City 
of Grants Pass, five capital improvement projects, have been identified that need to be completed 
in the next 20 years. These improvements are necessary to maintain adequate conveyance 
system capacity in the collection system and prevent sewer system overflows. These five 
projects are found in Section 8 of the 2004 Collection System Master Plan. 
10.30.7.3 Maintenance and Reliability Improvements 
Very old and small pipelines serve the downtown area of Grants Pass. The pipelines are greater 
than 60-years-old, and often only 6-inches in diameter. Based on the Maintenance and Reliability 
Analysis conducted on the wastewater collection system, six areas of the City are served by these 
old small-diameter collection lines need further investigation and will likely require repair or 
replacement. These areas are described in Section 8 of the 2004 Collection System Master Plan. 
10.30.7.4 Estimated Cost of Improvements 
By using the gravity sewer pipeline construction cost unit prices, total project costs for each of 
the recommended pipeline improvement projects are listed in the following table. 
10-21 OxKlls 
Table 10.3 0.12 Cost of Recommended Pipeline Improvemenl Projects (in $1M) 
Project Length (feet) 
Preliminary 
Diameter 
(inches) 
Construction 
Cost 
($/foot) 
Base 
Construction 
Cost 
Construction 
Contingency 
40% 
Engineering 
Legal and 
Administration 
30% 
Total 
Estimated 
Project 
Cost 
Pine 
Street* 7,010 24 $200 $1.40 $0.56 $0.59 $2.55 
Western 
Avenue 4,720 18 $170 $0.80 $0.32 $0.34 $1.46 
Mill 
Street 9,140 21 $185 $1.69 $0.68 $0.71 $3.08 
yth 
Avenue 4,530 18 $170 $0.77 $0.31 $0.32 $1.40 
Nebraska 2,710 18 $170 $0.46 $0.18 $0.17 $0.81 
Source: City of Grants Pass Collection System Master Plan, Parametrix Inc., 2004 
•Item has been completed or partially completed as of April 2008 (Per Joey Wright, Public Works Dept.) 
Similarly, the total project costs for the recommended structural repair areas have been prepared. 
A minimum diameter of 8-inch sewer pipeline has been assumed to estimate project cost. This is 
because replacing existing 6-inch-diameter sewer pipe with 6-inch does not meet generally 
accepted sewer design criteria. Given that different repair/replacement technologies will be 
implemented in these areas, rather than just assume replacement of all old pipelines with new 
pipelines to estimate the total project costs in each of these areas, it was assumed that total cost 
would equal the cost to replace one-half of all pipelines in these areas. These costs are 
developed and presented in Table 10.30.13 below. 
Table 10.30.13 Cost of Recommended Structural Repair Areas (in $1M) 
Structural 
Repair Area 
Pipeline 
Diameter 
(inches) 
Length 
(feet) 
Construction 
Cost 
($/foot) 
Base 
Construction 
Cost 
Construction 
Contingency 
40% 
Engineering 
(Legal and 
Administration) 
30% 
Total 
Estimated 
Cost* 
Pine Street 8 7,667 $150 
(completed) 10 402 $150 $1.22 $0.49 $0.51 $1.11 
12 48 $155 
5lh Street 8 11,672 $150 
10 1,244 $150 $2.34 $0.94 $0.98 $2.13 
12 2,606 $155 
7U| Street 8 9,326 $150 
10 400 $150 
12 692 $155 $1.61 $0.64 $0.67 $1.46 
18 260 $170 
Subbasin B/C 8 7,409 $150 
10 945 $150 $1.35 $0.54 $0.57 $1.23 
12 644 $155 
Subbasin H 8 
10 
7,919 
1,005 
$150 
$150 $1.34 $0.53 $0.56 $1.21 
Lawnridge-
Washington 
8 
10 
12 
11,362 
612 
16 
$150 
$150 
$155 
$1.80 $0.72 $0.76 $1.64 
Source: City of Grants Pass Collection System Master Plan, Parametrix Inc., 2004 
•Total of base cost, construction contingency, and engineering divided by two 
10.30.7.5 Collection System Capital Improvement Program 
Using the prioritization of Collection System Improvements described in Section 8.4 of the 2004 
Collection System Master Plan (Parametrix) and the estimated cost of these improvements 
presented in Table 10.30.12 and Table 10.30.13, a recommended Capital Improvement Program 
for the City collection system has been developed and is presented in Table 10.30.14. 
10-22 
>001.16 
Table 10.30.14 Recommended Capital Improvement Program 
Grants Pass Collection System 
Project Schedule Cost (SIM) 
Pine Street Sewer* 2004-2006 $2.55 
Western Avenue Sewer 2006-2009 $1.46 
Pine Street Structural Repair* 2009-2011 $1.46 
5"1 Street Structural Repair 2010-2012 $1.11 
7th Street Structural Repair 2013-2015 $1.46 
Lawnridge-Washington Structural Repair $1.64 
Mill Street Sewer 2016-2018 $3.08 
Sub-basin Structural Repair $1.23 
Nebraska Avenue Sewer 2022-2024 $0.81 
Total Collection System Capital Improvement Program: $18.08 
Source: City of Grants Pass Collection System Master Plan, Parametrix Inc., 2004 
•Item has been completed or partially completed as of April 2008 (Per Joey Wright, Public Works Dept.) 
10.30.8 REGULATORY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES 
Federal, state, and local regulatory agency policies and procedures affect the installation, 
upgrades, and operation of the City's wastewater collection system and treatment facility. The 
impacts of these policies and procedures on wastewater management planning in the Grants Pass 
area are described below. The discussion of regulations presented is not exhaustive and is 
focused on those regulations and laws that are relevant to wastewater conveyance and treatment. 
10.30.8.1 FEDERAL POLICY 
Federal policies that will affect the planning process include the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act/Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; and the proposed Capacity, Management, 
Operation and Maintenance Rules. 
10.30.8.1.1 Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act 
Since its enactment, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act 
(CWA), has formed the foundation for regulations detailing specific requirements for pollution 
prevention and response measures. The CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards 
consistent with federal limitations on pollutant and thermal loading. The standards are to take 
into consideration the use of the waters for public water supplies; propagation of fish and 
wildlife; recreational purposes; and agricultural, industrial, and other beneficial uses. 
The City's collection system conveys wastewater to the City WRP, where it is treated before 
discharge to the Rogue River. State policies specifically regulate pollutant and thermal loading 
to comply with federal policy detailed in the CWA. 
10.30.8.1.2 Safe Drinking Water Act 
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against contaminants that may 
be found in drinking water. Wastewater flows that are collected in or travel through substandard 
collection systems have the potential to contaminate drinking water systems. State and local 
10-23 
" > 0 0 1 1 2 
regulations are designed to comply with the SDWA, and prohibit activities that could cause an 
adverse impact on existing or potential beneficial use of groundwater. 
10.30.8.1.3 Proposed Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance Rule 
EPA is proposing rules that will govern the manner in which municipalities and special service 
districts manage and operate wastewater collection systems. The proposed Capacity, 
Management, Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) Rule, depending on its final promulgated 
form, may have a significant affect on collection system development and operation and 
maintenance (O&M) for the City. 
Under the proposed rule, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) would be prohibited unless caused by 
severe natural conditions such as widespread flooding, earthquakes, or other natural disasters. 
Owners of collection systems would be required to provide adequate capacity for peak flows in 
all parts of the system, monitor and report on SSOs, and make the SSO control program and 
reports available for public review. 
There are two aspects of the proposed rule that are under close scrutiny of the reviewing 
community. First, satellite sewer systems would be operated under separate NPDES permits. 
Satellite sewer systems are loosely defined in the proposed CMOM rule as any agency that 
conveys wastewater to another agency for additional conveyance and final treatment and 
discharge. For Grants Pass, the RSSSD would be considered a satellite system requiring its own 
NPDES permit. 
Second, the proposed CMOM rule is vague on the design threshold to which SSOs must be 
controlled. For instance, the proposed rule is silent on the recurrence interval of a storm event 
above which SSOs would be allowed (e.g., would SSOs be permitted during storms greater than 
l-in-5 year event?). As such, EPA offers wastewater agencies little or no clear guidance 
regarding the amount of additional pipeline and pump station construction that would be required 
under CMOM, nor understanding about the amount of additional maintenance effort required to 
ensure elimination of SSOs. 
As of February 2008, the CMOM rule had not yet been implemented. Based on an April 2004 
statement on the EPA SSO web page, "SSO Proposed Rule was with-drawn from publication in 
the Federal Register," the timeline for implementation of the CMOM rule is uncertain. How the 
CMOM rule will eventually be interpreted and applied in Oregon is also uncertain. One 
possibility is that Oregon's "bacteria rule," will be used to set a minimum threshold for SSO 
prevention. 
0 0 C 1 1 8 
10-24 
10.30.8.2 STATE POLICY 
10.30.8.2.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
Section 402 of the CWA provides the legal basis for the NPDES permit program, which 
regulates point and non-point source discharges. Oregon Department of Environmental Qualtiy 
(ODEQ) is authorized by EPA to administer the NPDES program through Oregon Revised 
Statute 468B and associated OARs. These rules and statutes include regulations for wastewater 
collection, treatment, control* and disposal. Under the conditions of the NPDES permit, 
permittees are allowed to construct, install, modify, or operate these systems only in 
conformance with the Federal Clean Water Act and the above-mentioned State statues that set 
forth requirements, limitations, and conditions for such activities. 
The Grants Pass WRP plant operates under NPDES Permit Number 101985 issued December 29, 
2000. 
10.30.8.2.2 Bacterial Control Management Plan 
As noted previously, EPA is currently considering proposed CMOM rules that will limit the 
number of allowable SSOs. While the proposed CMOM rule is silent on collection system 
design criteria, Oregon has already adopted a rule that addresses the "bacteria rule," therefore, 
indirectly offers some guidance to design engineers and collection system owners. The OAR 
seeks to protect receiving waters and drinking water sources by prohibiting discharge of 
untreated wastewater to waters of the state except during the following conditions: 
• During the period November 1 though May 21, except during a storm event greater than the 
l -in-5-year, 24-hour duration storm. 
• During the period of May 22 through October 31, except during a storm event greater than 
the 1-in-10-year, 24-hour duration storm. 
The State Environmental Quality Commission may approve a change to these rules on a case-by-
case basis as described in OAR 340-41-120. Determining the causes and preventing against 
SSOs usually requires a municipality to thoroughly evaluate both the collection and treatment 
system to determine the extent of extraneous weather-related flow, system structural condition 
and reliability, system hydraulic and treatment capacity, and the efficiency of operation and 
maintenance practices. The City has already performed a thorough analysis of the treatment and 
collection system. 
10.30.8.2.3 Groundwater Regulation 
The Federal SDWA requires that state underground injection control programs be established to 
ensure that underground injection will not endanger drinking water sources. In Oregon, 
groundwater regulations, including regulatory requirements for injection controls, are 
administered by ODEQ. On-site drain fields and septic systems that serve 20 or more persons 
are considered injection wells by ODEQ. The City Development Code requires that all new 
development within the service area be connected to the wastewater collection and treatment 
system. Existing development using septic systems is required to connect to the public sewer 
system at such time as repair or replacement of existing facilities is necessary, if public sewer is 
within 300 feet of the property. 
10-25 
000-119 
10.30.8.3 LOCAL ORDINANCES, POLICY, AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 
Local requirements of particular concern to the planning process are related to the City 
Municipal Code, City Development Code, and the Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Policy. 
10.30.8.3.1 City of Grants Pass Municipal Code 
City Ordinances 4861 and 5028 have been adopted by the City as Chapter 8.50 of the City 
Municipal Code. Chapter 8.50 is intended to protect public health and safety; protect the 
environment; and ensure compliance with all applicable state and federal laws as they pertain to 
wastewater collection, conveyance, treatment, and discharge. 
Sewer use requirements set forth in Chapter 8.50 include general and specific prohibited 
discharge standards. The general prohibitions state that no user shall introduce or cause to be 
introduced into the City WRP any pollutant or wastewater which causes pass-through or 
interference, or which will cause the WRP to violate its NPDES permit or harmfully impact the 
receiving water quality standards. Chapter 8.50 also sets forth procedures for the allowance of 
intentional occurrences, and the reporting of unanticipated bypass. 
10.30.8.3.2 City of Grants Pass Development Code 
Title 10 of the City Municipal Code may also be cited as the City Development Code. The 
purpose of the Development Code is to coordinate City regulations governing the development 
and use of land. Standards for sewer and septic systems are set forth in the Development Code 
to ensure compliance with state and federal statutes, policies, and laws designed to prevent 
harmful impact to receiving waters. 
10.30.8.3.3 Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Policy 
Substandard or combined sewer laterals discovered during public sewer, water, or storm drain 
projects are required to be replaced. The City considers the sewer lateral to be the responsibility 
of the private property owner from the point of connection to the main to the building being 
served. Replacement of substandard sewer laterals may often include work within the public 
right-of-way, with the possibility of additional costs such as pavement patching, traffic control, 
and other construction items not usually associated with work within private property 
boundaries. To assist the property owner in the cost of lateral replacement, the City has adopted 
a Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Policy. Under this policy, the City Manager can authorize 
payment of 50 percent of the cost of replacing failed or otherwise substandard laterals. 
10.30.8.3.4 Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement 
The City-County Urban Service Policies, adopted with the UGB in August 1979, require a public 
sewer system with capacities to serve urban levels of development. On August 8, 1998, 
Josephine County, City of Grants Pass, Harbeck-Fruitdale Sewer District and Redwood Sanitary 
Sewer Service District signed an Intergovernmental Agreement for the Orderly Management of 
the Grants Pass Urban Growth Boundary Area. 
">00112 
10-26 
10.30.9 FINANCING PLAN 
Various funding alternatives exist for the City of Grants Pass to implement the Capital 
Improvement Plan (CIP). The purpose of this section is to determine the best option for 
financing. Unless otherwise noted, the information from this section was excerpted from the 
2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update. 
As part of the work in developing a financing plan, a computer model was created to assist the 
City in future modifications to both the CIP and operation/maintenance funding. This model is 
the basis for the conclusions presented herein. 
10.30.9.1 Capital Costs 
The CIP includes three major elements: Treatment Plant (liquid treatment), Biosolids, and 
Collection System. The proposed phasing plan is shown in Table 10.30.15. 
Table 10.30.15 Capital Improvement Plan 
(Year 2000 dollars) 
YEAR 2001-2004 Year 2005-2006 Year 2010-2011 
Treatment Plant $5,940,000 $5,795,000 $1,855,000 
Biosolids $3,590,000 
Collection System $2,500,000 
TOTAL $12,030,000 $5,795,000 $1,855,000 
Source: City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plan, June 2001, Parametrix Inc. 
In addition to capital costs, the City must be able to fund the ongoing cost of operating and 
adequately maintaining its sewer utility. A breakdown of these operation and maintenance costs 
is shown in Table 10.30.16. 
Table 10.30.16 Opération and Maintenance Expenses 
(Year 2000 dollars) 
Wastewater Collection Services $333,488 
Wastewater Treatment Services $887,513 
Customer Services $167,910 
General Program Operations $361,393 
TOTAL $1,750,304 
Source: City of Grants Pass Water Restoration Plan, June 2001, Parametrix Inc. 
NOTE: Updated operation and maintenance expenses can be obtained from annual city budgets. 
10.30.9.2 Current Funding 
The City of Grants Pass has two main revenue sources: monthly user charges and system 
development charges. The monthly user charge is collected for all system customers, and has 
increased since the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update. 
All new connections to the system pay a Sewer System Development Charge (SSDC). This 
charge is designed so new customers pay their share of wastewater collection and treatment 
infrastructure costs. At the time of the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, SSDCs 
averaged about $1,000 per new connection. SSDCs have increased substantially since that time, 
10-27 
(MX 121 
and vary depending upon use and location (properties within the Redwood Sanitary Sewer 
District are subject to a different SDC schedule than other properties connecting to the system.) 
10.30.9.3 Capital Funding Mechanisms 
To fund the CIP, the City will need to consider other funding mechanisms. These other funding 
mechanisms include: Revenue Bonds; Low interest loans - State Revolving Fund (SRF); and, 
Grants. 
A revenue bond is a very common tool to fund capital improvements. Rates are determined by 
market conditions and currently are around 5 to 6 percent. Due to the significant financing cost 
and associated coverage, this funding method is normally a last resort if other funds are no 
available. 
Grants used to be the only way to finance wastewater treatment improvements. Many of the 
upgrades to secondary treatment across the United States were funded by grants, sometimes up 
to 75 percent of the costs. Wastewater construction grants, while still available, are insufficient 
compared with the current demand. 
One of the best governmental programs available is the State Revolving Fund loan program. 
This fund, seeded by money from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is giving state 
governments, including Oregon, funds to loan to municipalities for treatment and collection 
system improvements. These loans, administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental 
Quality Wastewater Finance Office, are "low interest" with current rates at less than 4 percent. 
Unlike bonds, normally these loans have a smaller reserve amount and no coverage 
requirements. Due to federal funding, cities like Grants Pass seeking SRF funding must comply 
with EPA requirements for a Facility Plan, thus this plan has been developed according to said 
requirements. The City secured approximately $7M in SRF loans in 2003-2004 for work on 
Phase I of the CIP The work was completed as of July 2004, and the loans were in the process 
of being repaid as of January 2008.4 
10.30.9.4 Projected Cash Flow 
The major components of both revenue and expenses in a simplified view of the wastewater 
utility are: 
• Revenue: Monthly Sewer Service Charges, SDCs, Loan Proceeds, and Interest 
• Expenses: Operation and Maintenance, Capital Expenditures, Debt Service, and 
Reserve Amounts 
In reality, these revenues and expenses are tracked in separate accounts; however, for the 
purpose of this simplified analysis, all revenue and expenses will be considered as one amount. 
Table 10.30.17 projects the annual cash flow for the Grants Pass wastewater utility. This 
projection is for the period of the CIP. With the funding from the SRF, and the current cash on 
hand (based on the City's construction fund only), it appears that the City will be able to fully 
fund the CIP. In addition, the City may be able to fund an ongoing sewer rehabilitation program. 
This amount, shown in the cash flow during non-CIP funded years, is $250,000. It will have to 
be determined if this amount is sufficient to address the long-term needs of the City. 
4 Per Joey Wright, City of Grants Pass Public Works Department, January 2008 
10-28 
19 
Vi 
C S 
T* oo OS 
oo »o 
Vi 
vt ro oo OS SO <N 
Vi 
SO 
a\ 
»o •St fS <N 
Vi 
o o o o o 
t--" Vi 
ao 
.5 „ c o 
00 -3 o> a 
ffl 03 
« C £ § « S S S BS < 
_ <N <N 'ri VI 
"S-r«"> O 
Vi 
SO m o O OS Tt Tf 
Vi O 
o 00 Ol O ^ 00 SO (/i 
oo Os <N <N 00 
Vi 
00 ts r-cT "t fS 
o o o o" o\ <N 
Vi 
sn OS OS co Os SO m «n sn 
Vi m rs 
Vi 
sn o CM Os 
< O T—1 
Vi 
CU o 
o. O 
S 
a •í u m cd 
Vi 03 Í3 CJ Oh X! 2 o 
i -Ö «J 
c3 CQ 
10.30.9.5 Conclusion 
The financial situation of the City's wastewater utility is good. Given the ability to secure loans 
from the SRF program, and the sound fiscal management of the utility, the City will be able to 
fully fund the CIP as outlined in the Facilities Plan. 
10.30.10 SANITARY SEWER SERVICES FINDINGS 
10.30.10.1 Existing Sewer Capacity 
• At the time of the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update, the Grants Pass Water 
Restoration Plant (WRP) treated 4.5 mgd of average dry weather flow (ADWF) to a record 
peak storm flow of 26.5mgd. More recent data has also been compiled. As of April 2008, 
the WRP treated an ADWF of 5.5 mgd and peak wet weather flow of 30.0 mgd. The plant 
is comprised of numerous unit treatment processes for both liquid and solid streams, a 
control/laboratory building, and a maintenance shop. The Grants Pass WRP has a 27 mgd 
hydraulic capacity for influent pumping5, screening, and primary treatment. There is a 13 
mgd hydraulic capacity for secondary treatment. In addition, there is a 43 mgd hydraulic 
capacity for UV disinfection. Flow exceeding the secondary treatment capacity receives 
only primary treatment and disinfection. This occurs only a few days a year during wet 
weather storm conditions. For the final phase of disposal, dewatered biosolids are loaded 
into a dumpster and hauled to the Merlin Landfill for the JO-GRO composting process. 
• The Harbeck-Fruitdale Sewer Service District uses the Grants Pass WRP plant for the 
processing of its waste. The sewer collection system has a capacity that can accommodate 
the population equivalent of approximately 14,000 persons. 
• The Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service District uses the Grants Pass WRP for the processing 
of its waste. The sewer collection system has a capacity that can accommodate the 
population equivalent of approximately 16,000 persons. 
10.30.10.2 Future Need 
• The City and County have already established pumping of Redwood's wastewater to Grants 
Pass WRP and are not likely to extend services to the North Valley during this planning 
period. 
• The 2004 Collection System Master Plan developed a future equivalent population projection 
for the service area by applying sub-area growth rates from the City's Comprehensive Plan to 
the base population estimates for the sub-areas and adding 35% to the resulting population 
for commercial / industrial population equivalent. As of 2003, the Grants Pass WRP was 
serving an estimated population equivalent of 44,250. Estimated growth rates are 
5 As of January 2008 a project was completed to increase the hydraulic capacity for influent pumping to 45 mgd. 
10-30 
OOC124 
respectively: 1.5% for Grants Pass, 1.6% for Harbeck-Fruitdale and 3.1% for Redwood. By 
the year 2020, it was anticipated that the Grants Pass WRP could be serving a total 
population of 60,157. Year 2060 service area population, assumed by the 2004 Collection 
System Master Plan to represent build-out, was estimated at approximately 130,167. 
The 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan Update identified a need for several improvements: At 
the head works, an additional mechanical bar screen to be installed with a 23.5 mgd capacity 
this provides redundancy and a maximum capacity of 47 mgd, which is well beyond the 
projected future flows); An outfall diffuser to be added to improve and reduce the ammonia 
toxicity into the Rogue River; Several miscellaneous plant improvements, which existed in 
the Facility Plan, were also included in the value engineering alternatives. These 
improvements include laboratory upgrades, operations building repairs and modifications, 
and instrumentation and control system expansion. All of these improvements have since 
been completed. 
Plant Equipment Audit. The 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan recommended that a full 
analysis of the existing component conditions be conducted. This audit would analyze the 
remaining life span of each component and develop an operations and maintenance schedule 
for the 20-year planning period. The audit has since been completed. 
Additional Plant Landscaping. As of the 2001 Wastewater Facilities Plan, a substantial 
amount of landscaping at the treatment plant had occurred to promote a good-neighbor 
environment. However, to continue this effort, the WFP recognized that additional 
landscaping would be necessary. The installation of additional landscaping has been 
ongoing. 
The City of Grants Pass continues upgrading its sanitary sewer system facilities to provide 
the appropriate level of services for the impending growth and development of its service 
area. Through its master facility planning, the City is prepared to meet its growth challenges 
in compliance with federal, state and local regulations, provided it continues to implement 
the respective Capital Improvements Plans as scheduled. 
Feasibility for Effluent Reuse, (Chapter 7 - Grants Pass Facilities Plan, Parametrix, 1999) 
concluded that reclaimed water (treated effluent) from the Grants Pass Water Restoration 
Plant (WRP) could be used beneficially instead of being discharged. Low river levels 
coinciding with the period of peak crop water use make irrigation a potentially feasible 
alternative for the City of Grants Pass and local agricultural water users. Reclaimed water 
can irrigate agricultural land, parks, highway landscaping, and golf courses. It can be used to 
grow wood fiber for fuel, pulp, or lumber. Other potential uses include increased flow to 
wetlands and storage in reservoirs or other impoundments specifically designated for effluent 
reuse only. 
o An extra incentive to "get out of the river" during the summer months is provided 
by concerns over meeting temperature requirements, potential future nutrient 
limitations, and listing of certain fish species as endangered. Reclaimed WRP 
10-31 
^06125 
effluent can also be viewed as a valuable resource that could help bridge the gap 
created by the planned removal of the Savage Rapids Dam. Dam removal has 
sparked a controversy about the availability of irrigation water, and new costs 
associated with pumping irrigation water from the Rogue River. 
Effluent reuse is complex and requires further planning to address implementation 
issues of effluent reservoir and storage siting, piping route selection, right-of-way 
acquisition, system ownership, financing and management. 
10-32 
10. PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES 
Goal 
To provide needed facilities and services for the Urban Growth Boundary area in a 
timely, orderly, efficient, economic and coordinated manner. 
Policies 
10.1 General Service Policies 
10.1.1 Urban levels of development shall require urban levels of service, as defined by the 
Implementing Ordinances. 
10.1.2 Those who benefit most from the extension of urban services shall be those who pay 
most of the cost of service extension. Citizens in the developed areas with a full 
range of services already provided should pay little if any of the costs of extending 
urban services. Various techniques should be utilized to mitigate the economic 
impact of service extension to those residents in developing areas who already 
provide certain of their own services, and to mitigate the economic impact of service 
extension to those persons on fixed and/or low incomes. 
10.1.3 Services shall be provided in an orderly and economic manner. Services provided at 
public expense should be provided first to those areas most heavily committed to 
urban development and those areas most actively developing, before extension to less 
committed areas or to those areas less actively developing. The extension of services 
with similar physical and/or programmatic requirements should be coordinated where 
economies will result. The involvement of the private sector is essential in the 
provision of services, and will determine to a great extent the timing, location and 
financing means of service extensions. 
10.1.4 The division of lands and development of property within the Urban Growth 
Boundary shall be in accordance with the phased provision of urban services, as 
provided in the Implementing Ordinances. The type, location and phasing of public 
facilities and services shall be used by the City and County in a coordinated fashion 
as factors to direct urban expansion, and to implement land use policies. 
10.1.5 Neither the City nor the County shall create special districts within the Urban Growth 
Boundary for the provision of water, sewer, storm drainage or street improvement 
services, unless approved by both parties and managed by either the City Council or 
the Board of County Commissioners. Overlapping and competing layers of political 
control of the provision of services shall be discouraged. 
10.1.6 Services shall be resource effective. Services shall not be extended past the carrying 
capacity of the resource base of that service, and shall utilize the resource in the most 
effective way practicable. 
Element 10 Last Revised 8/1/1984. Ordinance 4518 Page 10-1 
EXHIBIT J L _ 
fa 0APC $ t S f O « * 4 2 7 
10.1.7 The City and County recognize that the provision of necessary services to 
accommodate the projected growth and land use allocations is a mutual 
responsibility. The City and County will continue to cooperate with other and with 
the private sector in the development and use of financial mechanisms and programs 
that are effective, efficient and equitable. The County recognizes its need to develop 
new techniques and resources for financing urban level public facilities. 
10.1.8 The City and County will develop, adopt and maintain A six year Capital 
Improvements Programs to meet the needs of the service area, will be developed 
jointly by the City and County by January, 1984, and be maintained on an annual 
basis, thereafter. This These programs will be used as a guide in the decision making 
process regarding the expenditures of local public funds on capital projects as well as 
seeking State and Federal funds. 
10.1.9 Prior to first periodic review, the City and County shall complete a public facilities 
plan for those areas within the Urban Growth Boundary which were not included 
within the adopted facilities plans at the time of acknowledgment. 
10.2 Water Service Policies 
10.2.1 The City and County shall follow the adopted Water Facilities Plan for the Urban 
Growth Boundary area when extending and improving water service. Key factors to 
be utilized in growth management include: 
(a) the number, size, location and approximate costs of water treatment, storage 
and distribution facilities deemed necessary to serve the expected population 
within the Urban Growth Boundary; 
(b) water sources and treatment and distribution modes; 
(c) continued input from all segments of the community; 
(d) implementation and financing strategies for acquiring, developing and 
maintaining needed water treatment, storage and distribution; and 
(e) determination of the areas of greatest need, including techniques of funding 
and prioritization for these areas of need. 
10.2.2 The City and County shall maintain a continuously updated computerized model of 
the municipal distribution system. This model shall be available for use at cost by 
public agencies and private organizations in order to determine questions of service 
capacity, improvement requirements and improvement cost. 
10.2.3 The City and County shall adopt an official Water Facilities Plan Map, showing the 
location, size and type of existing and future water treatment, storage and distribution 
Element 10 Las 18/1/1984, Ordinance 45I8 Page 10-2 
000128 
(a) the number, size, location and approximate costs of storm drainage facilities 
and improvements deemed necessary to serve the expected population within 
the Urban Growth Boundary; 
(b) the analysis of the UGB drainage basins, using generally accepted runoff 
projection techniques, including appropriate computer modeling, if possible; 
(c) implementation and financing strategies for acquiring, developing and 
maintaining needed storm drainage facilities; 
(d) maintaining continuity with past drainage plans, as adopted and developed by 
the City and County; and 
(e) determination of the areas of highest priority, including techniques of funding 
and prioritization for these high priority areas. 
10.4.2 The City and County shall adopt an official Storm Drainage Facility Map showing the 
location, size and type of existing and future storm drainage facilities called for by the Storm 
Drainage Plan. The Storm Drainage Map shall be used to determine service district 
jurisdiction, and the location of future storm drainage facilities and improvements. 
10.4.3 The Development Code shall act to facilitate these storm drainage policies, and shall contain 
a balanced mix of positive incentives (which may include density transfers, public funding of 
oversized lines, rapid review procedures, etc.), as well as exactive requirements, system 
charges, development requirements, etc.), as needed to assure the realization of these 
policies. 
10.4.4 The City and County shall develop a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) within 12 months 
of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, which program shall include timely and adequate 
funding to realize the development of facilities required by the adopted Storm Drainage Plan, 
and shown on the Storm Drainage Facilities Map. 
10.4.5 The Storm Drain Plan shall be reviewed and updated, and revised if necessary, at one year 
intervals, with major revisions at five year intervals. The revisions to the Storm Drain Plan 
shall be used as a basis for revising these policies. 
10.4.6 The City and County working with the Grants Pass Irrigation District shall explore an 
agreement that will ensure that the storm drainage use of, and the necessary repairs, 
improvements and maintenance of the irrigation canal system, are made in a manner 
consistent with the Storm Drain Plan, and in a timely and cost-effective manner. 
10.4.7 The City and County shall encourage storm drainage design that minimizes storm water 
runoff, including retention areas or devised, use of vegetative open space, and the 
preservation of natural waterways. 
10.4.8 The City and County shall coordinate the provision of storm drain facilities with the 
provision of open space called for by the Park Facilities Plan, wherever possible, and to the 
Element 10 Last Revised 8/1 /1984, Ordinance 4518 Page 10-5 
000131 
extent practicable. This coordination shall include retaining drainage channels as close as 
possible to their natural state, and the use of plan materials and maintenance techniques in 
storm water retention. 
10.4.9 Urban level development shall require urban levels of storm drainage, as provided in the 
Implementing Ordinances. Interim Development Standards shall allow development to 
proceed in a timely and economical manner, prior to full extension and development of the 
storm drain system, provided the requirements of public safety, health and welfare are met. 
10.5 .Solid Waste Service Policies 
10.5.1 The City and County shall encourage the collection of solid waste within the Boundary area 
by private, commercial collection services. 
10.5.2 The City and County Agreements with the commercial franchise service managing the solid 
waste landfill at the Merlin site shall include measures to successfully reduce leachate 
produced at the landfill site, such as uphill trenching and draining, and importation of 
suitable topsoil to reduce erosion and promote revegetation. 
10.5.3 Within 16 months of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City and County shall adopt a 
Solid Waste Management Implementation Plan, including relevant sections of the Solid 
Waste Management Plan (1975), which plan shall include: 
(a) an ongoing assessment of landfill disposal techniques, with provisions for 
correction of those techniques as required. 
(b) a yearly estimate of landfill capacity and the rates of solid waste generation, 
including all areas within the landfill site service district as well as the UGB 
area, and an estimate of when landfill site capacity will be reached. 
(c) a recommendation of financing strategies for adequately maintaining and 
preparing the landfill site, as well as providing for alternative methods of 
solid waste disposal. 
10.6 .Police Protection Service Policies 
10.6.1 Urban levels of development shall require urban levels of police protection. As the 
urbanizing area converts from rural to urban levels and intensities of land use over time, 
police protection should be increased to meet the increased service need. 
10.6.2 The City and County shall explore an agreement establishing responsibility for the provision 
of police protection services within the Urban Growth Boundary over time. This agreement 
shall consider the costs and benefits of various methods of providing police protection, and 
shall include financing techniques to mitigate the costs of increased service. 
10.7 .Fire Protection Service Policies 
10.7.1 Municipal water systems shall provide water at fire flow capacities. 
Element 10 Last Revised 8/1/1984*t>rdinance 4518 
00C132 
Page 10-6 
10.7.2 Urban levels of development shall require urban levels of fire protection as stipulated by the 
Implementing Ordinances. The minimum urban level of fire protection for fully developed 
residential, commercial and industrial areas shall be that qualifying for the insurance 
underwriters relative classification rating of 5. Provision of fire protection should be phased 
over time as urban level development proceed without a minimum of a Class 8 rating, nor 
shall commercial industrial development proceed without a minimum of a Class 9 rating. 
10.7.3 The City and County shall explore an agreement establishing responsibility for the provisions 
of fire protection services within the Urban Growth Boundary area over time. This 
agreement shall consider the costs and benefits of various methods of providing fire 
protection, and shall include financing techniques to mitigate the costs of increased service. 
10.8 .Health Services 
10.8.1 Health services should be provided by the private sector. The City and County shall 
encourage the provision of health services in appropriate locations throughout the Boundary 
area. 
10.9 .School Service Policies 
10.9.1 The City and County shall maintain an open, ongoing dialogue with the School Districts in a 
manner that will facilitate the planning efforts of all agencies. 
10.9.2 The City and County shall notify the respective School Districts of all residential land use 
actions within that district in a timely and complete manner, and make development data 
available to the districts on a regular basis. 
10.9.3 The School Districts shall be notified in a timely manner regarding revisions and updates to 
the Comprehensive Plan that may affect the Districts, and shall be encourage to participate in 
the revision process. 
Element 10 Last Revised s7i7l984, Ordinance 4518 Page 10-7 
00C133 
00C134 
Water OtcViWW Made./- Plan (200 0 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
CHAPTER 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Existing System 1-1 
Water Demand 1-1 
Water Distribution System Service Standards 1-2 
Distribution System Modeling 1-2 
System Evaluation and Capital Improvement Plan Recommendations 1-2 
CHAPTER 2. EXISTING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 
Source of Supply 2-1 
Distribution and Storage System 2-1 
Pipeline Network 2-1 
Service Pressures 2-1 
Fire Protection 2-2 
Booster Pumping Stations 2-3 
Reservoirs 2-4 
System Operation 2-4 
Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant 2-4 
Booster Pumping Stations Serving Areas With Reservoirs 2-5 
Booster Pumping Stations Serving Areas Without Reservoirs 2-5 
Reservoirs 2-5 
Pressure Reducing Valves 2-5 
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System 2-5 
CHAPTER 3. WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS 
Existing Water Use 3-1 
Annual Average, Monthly Average, and Maximum Day Water Demand 3-1 
Per Capita Water Demand 3-4 
Unaccounted for Water 3-5 
Unit Demand Factors by Land Use Pattern 3-5 
Peak Hour Demand 3-7 
Historical Peaking Factors 3-8 
Future Water Demand 3-9 
CHAPTER 4. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SERVICE STANDARDS 
Water Service Quality Standards 4-1 
Distribution and Storage System Standards 4-1 
Water Supply and Treatment Capacity 4-2 
System Pressure Requirements 4-2 
System Storage Requirements 4-3 
EXHIBIT 4 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 
Page 
Pipeline Networks 4-6 
Pump Stations 4-6 
Valves 4-7 
Hydrants 4-7 
CHAPTER 5. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODEL 
Computer Modeling Program , 5-1 
Grants Pass CYBERNET Model 5-2 
Model Calibration 5-2 
Calibration Results 5-4 
Reservoir 11 Flow Monitoring 5-7 
Extended Period Analysis - Memorial Day Weekend 2000 5-8 
Calibration Conclusion 5-8 
CHAPTER 6. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION 
Water Treatment Plant Capacity 6-1 
Treated Water Storage Capacity 6-2 
Booster Pumping Capacity 6-4 
Pipeline Network Performance Evaluation.... 6-7 
Peak Hour Demand Analysis 6-7 
Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Analysis 6-8 
Low Demand with Booster Pump Operation 6-9 
Pipeline Network Expansion 6-11 
Pipeline Replacement 6-13 
CHAPTER 7. COST OF RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 
Unit Construction Costs 7-1 
Pipelines 7-2 
Treated Water Storage Tanks 7-2 
Distribution Pumping Plants 7-3 
Engineering Markups and Contingencies 7-3 
Cost of Proposed Improvements 7-4 
Summary of CIP Projects 7-4 
Appendix 1: Uniform Fire Code 
Appendix 2: City Council Resolution 
Appendix 3: System Map 
Appendix 4: Estimated Capital Costs of Pipelines 
ii 
(}0 €136 
CHAPTER 1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
This master plan presents the results of the water distribution system planning effort conducted 
for the City of Grants Pass. The plan summarizes the components of the existing water 
distribution system, analyzes local water demand patterns, evaluates the performance of the 
water system with respect to critical service standards, and identifies the improvement! 
necessary to remedy system deficiencies and accommodate future growth. Based on this 
analysis, the study recommends specific projects for inclusion in the water distribution system 
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). These projects will ensure that the water distribution system 
continues to provide adequate and reliable service to the Grants Pass community. 
Existing System 
The existing water distribution system consists of a water treatment plant, nine booster pumping 
stations, eight reservoirs, two pressure reducing valves, and five altitude valves. The service area 
contains eight pressure zones which are summarized in Table 1-1 along with their respective 
static pressure ranges. 
Table 1-1. Pressure Zone Ranges 
Zone Elevation (feet) Pressure (psi) 
1 900 - 1,020 3 6 - 9 0 
2 1,020- 1,140 4 1 - 9 5 
2A 9 6 0 - 1,035 6 1 - 9 4 
2B 1,000- 1060 35 - 60 
3 1,140- 1,280 36 -100 
4 1,280- 1,420 42 -104 
5 1,420- 1,560 41 -104 
NV 9 9 5 - 1,165 101-177 
Water Demand 
Analysis of historical water production and water demand data allowed for the identification of 
the water use patterns that characterize the City of Grants Pass. These water use patterns 
provided the basis for estimating future water demand in the community when development has 
filled the urban growth boundary (UGB). Table 1-2 summarizes existing water demand in terms 
of average annual, maximum month, maximum day, and peak hour demand and provides 
projections for the UGB build-out condition. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
1-1 512-99-08 
00 137 
Table 1-2. Water Demand Summary for Grants Pass 
Current Water 
Demand, mgd 
Future Total Water 
Demand, mgd 
Average Annual 4.5 9 
Maximum Month 8 16 
Maximum Day 10 20 
Peak Hour 20 40 
Water Distribution System Service Standards 
The City of Grants Pass maintains benchmarks for service quality that are used to measure 
performance of the water utility. These benchmarks include service standards for water quality, 
quantity, and pressure, as well as the minimum supply levels for fire protection. For example, the 
Grants Pass water distribution system was analyzed to ensure that service pressures never fall 
below 35 psi during normal demand scenarios and fire flows (of up to 4,000 gpm) are available 
without dropping system pressures below 20 psi. The service standards set forth in this master 
plan are derived from regulations, rules, and recommendations established by a variety of 
sources including the Oregon State Health Division (OSHD), the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), the American Water Works Association (A WW A), the Insurance Services Office 
(ISO), and the Uniform Fire Code (UFC). 
Distribution System Modeling 
A computer based hydraulic model of the Grants Pass water distribution system was developed 
as part of the master planning effort to evaluate the ability of the system to meet current and 
projected demands. The City's existing model was expanded and updated to simulate both the 
existing and future water distribution system. Field calibration work confirmed that the model 
accurately simulates operation of the water distribution system. The model was used to evaluate 
the existing and future water distribution system under three conditions: 
• Peak hour demand 
• Maximum day demand plus fire flow 
• Low demand during water treatment plant operation 
System Evaluation and Capital Improvement Plan Recommendations 
The Grants Pass water distribution system was analyzed to evaluate its performance and capacity 
under current and future demand conditions relative to critical service standards. This analysis 
identified system improvements necessary to maintain adequate performance through build-out 
of the UGB. These improvements were developed to either eliminate existing deficiencies in 
system performance or expand service to satisfy community growth. The elements of the water 
distribution system that were evaluated include water treatment plant capacity, treated water 
storage capacity, booster pumping capacity, and pipeline network performance. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
1-2 512-99-08 
OOv138 
Table 1-3 presents the specific costs for reservoir, pump station, and pipeline projects that are 
targeted for implementation through build-out of the UGB. These costs account for developer 
participation in the financing of some pipeline expansion projects. Costs shown are the City's 
estimated share of the pipeline extensions and do not include the cost which will need to be 
borne by developers. Figure 1-1 illustrates how the new pump stations and reservoirs will fit into 
the existing hydraulic profile of the water distribution system. Figure 1-2 illustrates the layout of 
the future system including new pipelines, pump stations, and reservoirs. 
Timing of projects is based on the City's review of the expansion plans and reflects developer 
interest and submitted development plans. Some adjustment of timing and priorities should be 
expected. 
Table 1-3. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Project 
Capital Cost, 
Recommended Improvements $1,000 
Period 2000 - 2005 
Pump Stations 805 
Pipelines 7,109 
Total 7,854 
Period 2005 - 2010 
Pipelines 1,049 
Pipeline Replacement 1,124 
Total 2,173 
Period 2010 - 2020 
Treated Water Storage 5,720 
Pipelines 2,042 
Pipeline Replacement 2,248 
Total 10,010 
Period Post 2020 
Treated Water Storage 1,560 
Pump Stations 400 
Pipelines 184 
Total 2,144 
Grand Total 22,181 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
1-1 512-99-08 
00 139 
CHAPTER 2 
EXISTING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 
The Grants Pass water supply system currently distributes water to developed properties 
covering an area of more than 3,500 acres. The majority of the properties currently connected to 
the water distribution system are within the present city limits, although the City does provide 
service to some areas outside the city limits such as Harbeck-Fruitdale and the North Vailey. The 
overall system is composed of a water treatment plant, eight booster pumping stations, eight 
reservoirs, two pressure reducing valves, and five altitude valves. Figure 2-1 illustrates the 
configuration of the Grants Pass water distribution system. The figure depicts all water 
distribution piping twelve inches in diameter and larger. 
SOURCE OF SUPPLY 
The source of supply for the City of Grants Pass is surface water from the Rogue River. The City 
draws water from the river with a pumping station located next to the water treatment plant. The 
treatment plant was originally constructed in 1930 and has undergone many renovations over the 
years. The most recent plant expansion was completed in 1983, bringing the total plant capacity 
to approximately 18 million gallons per day (mgd). Influent pumps deliver river water to the 
plant where the treatment process includes coagulation and sedimentation of suspended solids, 
filtratidn of the remaining particles, and chlorination for disinfection prior to pumping into the 
distribution system. The City has water rights for nearly 57 mgd. 
DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE SYSTEM 
Pipeline Network 
The Grants Pass water distribution pipeline network consists of approximately 130 miles of 
existing pipeline. Table 2-1 details the water distribution system according to pipeline length and 
diameter. These pipelines are made of cast iron or ductile iron and range in age up to 
approximately 80 years. 
Service Pressures 
The urban growth boundary for the City of Grants Pass encompasses lands of wide ranging 
elevations. As a result, the water distribution system service area contains eight.separate service 
pressure zones. Table 2-2 summarizes the service elevations and static pressure range for each 
pressure zone. The lower end of the pressure range is based on reservoirs at 80 percent full and 
the upper end is based on full reservoirs. At this time, there are properties receiving City water 
service in each of the pressure zones except Zone 5. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
2-1 512-99-08 
OOf140 
According to the elevation ranges identified in Table 2-2, Figure 2-2 illustrates the extent of each 
pressure zone. In some areas, the pressure zone boundaries are modified slightly from these 
elevation ranges in order to accommodate special service pressure requirements. Pressure Zone 
2A is a hybrid between Zones 1 and 2, as is the Rogue Community College's Zone 2B. The 
North Valley service area is actually a hybrid between Zones 1, 2, and 3, serving properties 
between the elevations of 995 feet and 1,165 feet. Due to the great range of elevations served in 
the North Valley, this pressure zone requires pressure reduction valves at service connections to 
maintain appropriate service pressures. 
Table 2-1. Water Distribution System Pipeline Network 
Pipe Size Length 
(inches) (miles) 
2 5.23 
4 1.80 
6 40.89 
8 43.63 
10 7.64 
12 19.49 
14 0.38 
16 7.88 
20 2.40 
24 1.02 
30 0.95 
36 0.01 
131.32 
Table 2-2. Pressure Zone Ranges 
Zone Elévation (feet) Pressure (psi) 
1 9 0 0 - 1,020 3 6 - 9 0 
2 1,020- 1,140 4 1 - 9 5 
2A 9 6 0 - 1,035 6 1 - 9 4 
2B 1,000- 1,060 35 - 60a 
3 1,140- 1,280 3 6 - 1 0 0 
4 1,280- 1,420 42 - 104 
5 1,420- 1,560 41 - 104 
NV • 995 - 1,165 101 - 177 
"This pressure range is approximate since construction details are not 
available for the RCC storage tanks. 
Fire Protection 
The Grants Pass Department of Public Safety provides fire protection for properties within the 
City. Since the water distribution system is an integral part of the City's fire protection system, 
the Department of Public Safety has adopted the Uniform Fire Code recommendations as the 
required fire flows for the various land use classifications within the City. These fire protection 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
3-8 512-99-08 
0 0 C141 
requirements are discussed in detail in Chapter 4, "Water Distribution System Service 
Standards." 
Booster Pumping Stations 
The water distribution system includes the water treatment plant pumps and nine booster 
pumping stations that transfer water to the higher pressure zones. These pump stations either fill 
the reservoirs that serve these higher pressure zones or pump to maintain a minimum pressure in 
those areas that are not served by reservoirs. Table 2-3 details the technical information for each 
of the system's pumping stations. 
Table 2-3. Existing Booster Pumping Stations 
Pumping Pressure Number Pump Motor Size Capacity Rated 
Station Zone Reservoirs of and Speed of Each Discharge 
Name Served Served Pumps (hp/rpm) Pump (gpm) Head (feet) 
Treatment Plant 1 No. 3 5 300/1,775 3,500 220 
No. 5 300/1,775 3,500 220 
No. 11 250/1,760 3,500 210 
250/1,760 3,500 210 
200/1,750 2,600 210 
Lawnridge 2 No. 6 4 25/1,750 400 120 
No. 4 50/1,750 1,000 120 
50/1,750 1,000 120 
100/1,750 2,000 148 
Madrone 2 No. 4 3 60/1,750 2,000 170 
No. 6 401,750 1,200 170 
301,750 900 170 
Champion 3 No. 8 3 50/1,750 800 165 
150/1,750 2,300 165 
100/1,750 1,600 165 
Starlite 3 — 4 15/3,500 60 185 
30/1,760 450 185 
60/1,760 1,050 185 
30/1,760 450 185 
Hefley 4 No. 13 4 7.5/3,500 40 250 
15/3,500 120 250 
60/3,500 600 300 
60/3,500 600 300 
North Valley NV No. 15 3 7.5/3,500 70 170 
30/3,500 500 174 
30/3,500 500 174 
Hilltop 2 - 3 5/3,600 100 120 
7.5/3,600 150 120 
40/3,600 750 120 
New Hope 2 — 4 30/3,600 350 212 
30/3,600 350 212 
30/3,600 350 212 
150/1,800 2,000 200 
Harbeck Heights 2 3 5/3,600 90 100 
5/3,600 90 100 
50/3,600 1,200 125 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
2-5 512-99-08 
142 
Reservoirs 
There are eight treated water storage reservoirs within the Grants Pass water distribution system 
that provide a total of 19 million gallons of treated water storage. These reservoirs were 
constructed between the years 1946 and 1999. Design information for these reservoirs is detailed 
in Table 2-4. 
Table 2-4. Existing Reservoirs 
Reservoir 
Location 
Reservoir 
Number 
Pressure 
Zone 
Served 
Year 
Built 
Construction 
Materials 
Capacity 
(mg) 
' Bottom 
Elevation (ft) 
Overflow 
Elevation 
(ft) 
500 Block 
Woodson Dr. 
3 1 1946 Concrete 3.5 1,089.5 1,108.5 
1500 Block 
Ridge Rd. 
4 2 1953 Concrete 0.75 1,216 1,240 
1400 Block 
Sherman Ln. 
5 1 1983 Concrete 3.5 1,079.5 1,108.5 
2200 Block 
Crown St. 
6 2 1982 Concrete 3.5 1,211 1,240 
Heiglen Loop 
Rd. 
8 3 1983 Concrete 2.0 1,341 1,370 
1420 Denton 
Trail 
11 1 1999 Concrete 4.5 1,080.1 1,108.5 
1700 Block 
Sunset Ln. 
13 4 1980 Concrete 0.08 1,510 1,520 
3900 Block 
Highland Ave. 
15 5 1985 Concrete 1.2 1,374 1,403 
SYSTEM OPERATION 
The general procedures for operation of the Grants Pass water distribution system are discussed 
in the following sections. 
Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant 
The water treatment plant operates as necessary to fill storage reservoirs in the distribution 
system on a daily basis. Therefore, the operating schedule varies with seasonal variations in 
water demand. During the winter months, the plant generally operates seven days per week for 
an eight hour period. Operational hours are extended during the high demand summer months, 
when the plant must operate up to twelve hours daily in order to keep the storage reservoirs full. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
2-4 512-99-08 
00 143 
Booster Pumping Stations Serving Areas With Reservoirs 
Those booster pumping stations that fill storage reservoirs are automatically controlled to 
maintain preset water levels. When sensors show that the water level in a reservoir has fallen 
below a preset threshold, the lead pump will activate and begin filling the reservoir to a high 
water level. If water demand on the reservoir is such that a single pump cannot maintain the 
water level, a lag pump (or pumps) will activate as necessary until the reservoir fills to a high 
water level. 
Booster Pumping Stations Serving Areas Without Reservoirs 
Those booster pumping stations that serve areas without storage reservoirs are automatically 
controlled to maintain a minimum discharge pressure at the pumping stations. When pressure 
sensors show that the discharge pressure has fallen below a preset threshold, the lead pump 
activates and pumps until the discharge pressure exceeds a high pressure level. If water demand 
in the pump station's service area is such that a single pump cannot maintain the pressure level, a 
lag pump (or pumps) will activate as necessary until the system pressure is restored. 
Reservoirs 
The reservoirs in the water distribution system are generally maintained between 80 and 100 
percent full. This fluctuating volume represents the operating storage. The remaining storage is 
allocated to providing fire flow requirements and emergency reserves. In the case of Reservoir 
No. 15 in the North Valley, water levels are maintained at a much lower level due to limited 
demand in that portion of the distribution system. 
Altitude valves control the flow into and out of Reservoirs No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, and No. 
11. These valves are designed to close when the reservoir is full and open when the system 
pressure drops. The other reservoirs in the distribution system float on the system. 
Pressure Reducing Valves 
There are two pressure reducing valve stations in the Grants Pass water distribution system. 
These stations control the flow of water from Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 2A. Pressure 
Zone 2A extends to slightly lower elevations than Pressure Zone 2 and thus requires some 
pressure reduction. Each station contains a single pressure reducing valve (one is a 10-inch valve 
and one is a 6-inch valve). 
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System 
The City upgraded the water distribution system SCADA system in 1999. The SCADA system 
monitors reservoir levels, pump operating status, and local pressures throughout the system. The 
central computer system for the man-machine interface is located at the water treatment plant. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
2-5 512-99-08 
144 
CHAPTER 3 
WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS 
This chapter presents the analysis of historic water production and water demand data for the 
City of Grants Pass. Analysis of these historical data allows for identification of the unique water 
use patterns that characterize the City and provides a basis for estimating future water demand in 
the community. Additional analysis relates the various measures of water demand (maximum 
monthly demand, maximum daily demand, and peak hour demand) to the average annual 
demand through the use of peaking factors. 
The projection of future water demand is based on unit demand factors developed by land use 
type and corresponding customer classifications. These future^ demand projections provide the 
basis for assessing the adequacy of the existing water distribution system and planning for future 
improvements. 
EXISTING WATER USE 
There are several measures of water use that are important to analyze during the development of 
the water master plan. Following is a description of the influential water demand factors that will 
guide planning decisions with respect to the Grants Pass water distribution system: 
• Annual average demand - A measure of the amount of water that must be obtained 
from the available sources of supply on an annual basis. 
• Monthly average demand - Review of monthly average water demand illustrates 
seasonal variations in demand due to such factors as climate, irrigation, industrial 
production, and domestic use patterns. 
• Maximum day demand - The maximum daily water demand is used to size booster 
pumping stations that serve areas with storage reservoirs. This measure of demand is 
also used along with fire demands to size storage reservoirs. 
• Peak hour demand - The peak hour water demand is used to size pipelines and 
booster pumping stations that serve pressure zones without reservoirs. 
Annual Average, Monthly Average, and Maximum Day Water Demand 
The Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant operators record water production volumes for each day 
of operation. Analysis of this data allows for the identification of annual average, monthly 
average, and maximum day water demand. Tables 3-1 through 3-5 present historical water 
production data for the past five years, from 1995 to 1999. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
2-4 512-99-08 
00 145 
Table 3-1. Grants Pass Water Use for 1995 
Month Average Daily Demand, mg Peak Daily Demand, mg 
January 2.23 3.84 
February 2.30 3.52 
March 2.38 3.00 
April 2.59 3.61 
May 3.74 5.99 
June 5.03 8.20 
July 5.55 6.73 
August 6.48 8.32 
September 5.36 6.83 
October 3.52 4.94 
November 2.96 3.71 
December 2.63 3.64 
Average 3.73 - -
Peak Day — 8.32 
Table 3-2. Grants Pass Water Use for 1996 
Month Average Daily Demand, mg Peak Daily Demand, mg 
January 2.96 3.24 
February 2.60 3.57 
March 2.57 3.46 
April 2.75 3.93 
May 3.71 5.49 
June 5.80 7.37 
July 7.11 9.09 
August 7.22 8.82 
September 5.27 7.67 
October 3.98 5.50 
November 2.84 3.47 
December 2.57 3.81 
Average 4.11 — 
Peak Day — 9.09 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
3-2 512-99-08 
Table 3-3. Grants Pass Water Use for 1997 
Month Average Daily Demand, mg Peak Daily Demand, mg 
January 2.53 3.55 
February 2.66 3.35 
March 2.69 3.15 
April 3.14 4.17 
May 4.77 6.31 
June 5.54 6.93 
July 6.48 7.47 
August 6.82 8.83 
September 4.30 6.18 
October 3.11 4.44 
November 2.83 3.46 
December 2.72 3.30 
Average 3.97 ~ 
Peak Day — 8.83 
Table 3-4. Grants Pass Water Use for 1998 
Month Average Daily Demand, mg Peak Daily Demand, mg 
January 2.50 3.21 
February 2.62 3.47 
March 2.76 3.11 
April 3.02 4.90 
May 3.33 4.34 
June 5.73 7.52 
July 7.08 9.15 
August 7.62 9.47 
September 6.31 8.63 
October 3.64 5.66 
November 2.65 3.94 
December 2.78 4.06 
Average 4.17 ~ 
Peak Day — 9.47 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
3.3 512-99-08 
147 
Table 3-5. Grants Pass Water Use for 1999 
Month Average Daily Demand, mg Peak Daily Demand, mg 
January 2.80 3.83 
February 2.77 3.87 
March 2.80 3.22 
April 3.25 4.24 
May 4.90 7.60 
June 6.82 8.75 
July 7.79 9.35 
August 6.69 8.30 
September 5.94 6.94 
October 4.27 5.56 
November 2.84 4.54 
December 3.09 4.50 
Average 4.50 — 
Peak Day — 9.35 
From 1995 to 1999, the average annual demand increased from 3.73 mgd to 4.50 mgd. The 
highest peak daily demand was 9.47 mgd in August of 1998. 
Per Capita Water Demand 
Per capita water demand is a useful demand measure that is derived from this historical data. 
Table 3-6 presents the population for Grants Pass along with the average annual demand during 
the past five years which allows for calculation of the average demand in gallons per capita per 
day (gpcd). Ranging from 190 to 215, the average daily water demand is 202 gpcd. Note that this 
unit demand factor is based on water production and includes all uses: residential, commercial, 
industrial, public/institutional, and unaccounted. The variation in per capita demand for the 
different years reflects the regular variation in water use patterns caused by unsteady weather and 
end user demand characteristics. 
Table 3-6. Grants Pass Water Use for 1995 to 1999, gpcd 
Year Population Average Demand, mgd Average Demand3, gpcd 
1995 19,660 3.73 190 
1996 20,255 4.11 203 
1997 20,535 3.97 193 
1998 20,590 4.17 203 
1999 20,935 4.50 215 
Average — — 202 
"Demands include all uses, ine uding residential, commercial, industrial, and public/institutional. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
3-4 512-99-08 
0 0 C 1 4 8 
Unaccounted for Water 
All water distribution systems experience losses of water during transmission from the treatment 
plant to the end user. These losses, known as unaccounted for water, result from many situations 
including unmetered customers, transmission system leaks, main breaks, faulty meters, fire 
fighting activities, system flushing, and other miscellaneous hydrant uses. Thus, the total volume 
of water metered for all end users is alway s somewhat less than the volume of water produced at 
the water treatment plant. 
Since the City of Grants Pass meters water use for all customers, a comparison of water billing 
records and treatment plant production data provides a good estimate of the volume of 
unaccounted for water in the system. Table 3-7 shows the estimated volume of unaccounted for 
water in millions of gallons and also as a percentage of total production during the past two 
years. Since a water loss rate of 10 to 15 percent is considered good, the calculated unaccounted 
for water rate indicates that the distribution system is in good condition. The City is also 
conducting several programs that will reduce the unaccounted for water rate. These programs 
include residential meter replacements, commercial meter upgrades, and improved monitoring of 
hydrant use. 
Table 3-7. Unaccounted for Water; 1998 and 1999 
Million Percent of Total 
Year Gallons Water Production 
1998 146 9.6% 
1999 190 11.6% 
Unit Demand Factors by Land Use Pattern 
Water demand factors related to land use patterns are used to analyze water demand in the 
community. Based on historical billing data provided by the City's Utilities Department for 1998 
and 1999, Tables 3-8 and 3-9 show water demand for each month within three land use pattern 
classifications: commercial, single family residential, and multi-family residential. The 
commercial classification includes general business, industrial, institutional and governmental-
public land use categories. As indicated in the percentage summary of annual average demand by 
land use, the single family residential classification accounts for nearly half of the water used in 
Grants Pass. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
2-4 512-99-08 
0 0 1 4 9 
Table 3-8. Grants Pass Water Use by Customer Class for 1998 
Demand (mgd) 
Multi-Family Single-Family 
Month Commercial Residential Residential Total 
January 0.87 0.44 1.03 2.34 
February 0.94 0.47 1.09 2.50 
March 0.77 0.37 0.88 2.02 
April 0.93 0.46 1.05 2.43 
May 1.04 0.48 1.25 2.76 
June 1.18 0.54 1.62 3.34 
July 1.97 0.84 2.94 5.74 
August 2.37 1.04 3.80 7.22 
September 2.22 0.93 3.28 6.43 
October 1.83 0.75 2.32 4.89 
November 1 17 0.52 1.25 2.94 
December 0.97 0.48 1.11 2.56 
Annual average 1.36 0.61 1.80 3.77 
Percent of total annual 36.0% 16.2% 47.8% 100% 
average demand 
Table 3-9. Grants Pass Water Use by Customer Class for 1999 
Demand (mgd) 
Multi-Family Single-Family 
Month Commercial Residential Residential Total 
January 0.90 0.47 1.09 2.47 
February 0.93 0.49 1.01 2.43 
March 0.81 0.39 0.90 2.10 
April 0.97 0.48 1 12 2.57 
May 1.09 0.51 1.31 2.90 
June 1.73 0.81 2.60 5.13 
July 2.19 0.96 3.50 6.64 
August 2.18 0.97 3.48 6.64 
September 2.19 0.96 3.08 6.23 
October 1.66 0.74 2.35 4.75 
November 1.25 0.74 1.40 3.39 
December 0.92 0.49 1.05 2.47 
Annual average 1.40 0.67 1.91 3.98 
Percent of total annual 35.2% 16.8% 48.0% 100% 
average demand 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
2-1 512-99-08 
To develop a unit demand factor for the three different land use patterns, the water demand data 
presented in Tables 3-8 and 3-9 are combined with estimated areas for each of the land use 
classifications. Table 3-10 summarizes the acreages by land use classification and pressure zone 
for all areas receiving water service in Grants Pass. This summary was derived from analysis of a 
database containing the zoning designations for each parcel of property connected to the water 
distribution system for Pressure Zones 1 through 4. The acreage for Pressure Zone NV is based 
on an estimate of the properties connected to the system in the North Valley area. The quotient of 
water demand and acreage yields a unit demand factor for each land use classification in gallons 
per acre per day (gpad), as summarized in Table 3-11. Since the billing record information 
presented in Tables 3-8 and 3-9 does not include unaccounted for water, the calculation of these 
unit demand factors includes an allowance for unaccounted for water. 
Table 3-10. Land Use by Pressure Zone in Acres 
Customer 
Class3 PZ 1 PZ 2 PZ 3 PZ 4 PZNV Total % 
Commercial 924 125 57 0 40 1,146 32% 
Residential 1,197 594 114 67 5 1,977 56% 
Multi-Family 358 42 35 0 0 435 12% 
Total 2,479 761 206 67 45 3,558 100% 
% 70% 21% 6% 2% 1% 100% 
"The Commercial customer class includes commercial, industrial, and public connections to the water 
distribution system. 
Table 3-11. Unit Demand by Customer Class 
Customer Class 
1999 Average 
Demand3 
(mgd) 
Land Use Area 
(Acres) 
Average Unit 
Demand 
(gal/acre day) 
Commercial/Industrial/Public 
Multi-Family Residential 
Single-Family Residential 
1.56 
0.75 
2.13 
1,146 
435 
1,977 
1,400 
1,700 
1,100 
"The 1999 average demand is based on billing records plus an additional 11.6 percent to reflect 
unaccounted for water 
Peak Hour Demand 
The peak hour demand on the water distribution system typically occurs during the hottest, driest 
period of the year when customers are heavily irrigating landscaped yards and parks. For the City 
of Grants Pass, the peak hour demand usually happens in the month of August during the peak 
day demand. In order to evaluate this peak hour demand, hourly water level data was collected 
from each of the reservoirs in the distribution system during the summer of 1999. These data 
were analyzed in combination with the water production rate for the water treatment plant to 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
3-7 512-99-08 
0 0 
identify the peak hour demand on each day for which data was available. Based on this analysis, 
the peak hour demand is estimated to be 4.5 times the average annual demand. 
Historical Peaking Factors 
The water demands observed over the past five years can also be expressed as a ratio to the 
annual average demand known as peaking factors. Although peaking factors vary significantly 
from user to user, these historical peaking factors are useful for comparing system-wide water 
use patterns in Grants Pass to other communities and for projecting future water use patterns. 
Table 3-12 identifies Grants Pass water demand patterns for the past five years and shows 
peaking factors based on ratios to annual average demand. The identified peak hour demands for 
the system are not actual measurements, but rather estimates derived from the reservoir level 
analysis conducted during the summer of 1999 as described above. Table 3-13 summarizes the 
average peaking factors for the system. These values are fairly typical for a Western Oregon 
community. In general, they are slightly higher than the peaking factors for Corvallis and slightly 
lower than values for Portland. 
Table 3-12. Maximum Month, Peak Day, and Peak Hour Demand Ratio for Grants Pass 
1995 to 1999 
Ratio of 
Maximum Ratio of Ratio of 
Annual Maximum Month to Peak Day Peak Hour 
Average Month Peak Day Peak Hour Annual to Annual to Annual 
Demand, Demand, Demand, Demand, Average Average Average 
Year mgd mgd mgd mgd Demand Demand Demand 
1995 3.73 6.48 8.32 17.01 1.74 2.23 4.56 
1996 4.11 7.22 9.09 18.60 1 76 2.21 4.52 
1997 3.97 6.82 8.83 18.10 1 72 2.22 4.56 
1998 4.17 7.62 9.47 19.40 1.83 2.27 4.66 
1999 4.50 7.79 9.35 19.20 1.73 2.08 4.26 
Average 1.76 2.20 4.51 
Table 3-13. Peaking Factor Summary" 
Description Factor 
Maximum month demand 1.8 
Maximum daily demand 
Average for city 2.2 
Peak hourly demand 
Average for city 4.5 
"The average demand multiplied by the peaking 
factor yields the respective peak demand. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
3-8 512-99-08 
0 0 C 1 5 2 
FUTURE WATER DEMAND 
The land use demand factors developed in the previous sections provide a basis for projecting 
future water demand in Grants Pass. The land use demand factors can be used in conjunction 
with land development projections to estimate water demand. 
Although the timing of land use development within the UGB is unknown, information is 
available regarding the current zoning designation for all properties within the UGB. Table 3-14 
summarizes the acreage of properties within the UGB according to land use, differentiating 
between properties that are currently receiving water service and those that will connect to the 
water distribution system in the future. Using the unit demand factors developed for these land 
use classifications, the table also projects average annual water demand at the UGB build-out 
condition. This analysis assumes the existing mix of residential/commercial properties will stay 
the same in the future. 
Table 3-14. Land Use Based Water Demand Projections for UGB Build-Out 
Land Use 
Existing 
Acreage 
Future 
Acreage 
Total 
Acreage 
Unit Demand, 
gallons/acre-day 
Estimated 
Average Annual 
Demand, mgd 
Commercial 1,146 598 1,744 1,400 2.4 
Single-Family 
Residential 
1,977 2,419 4,396 1,100 4.8 
Multi-Family 
Residential 
435 440 875 1,700 1.5 
Total 3,558 3,457 7,015 8.7 
Based on this estimate of the UGB build-out average annual demand, the future maximum 
month, maximum day, and peak hour demand can be estimated using historical peaking factors. 
Table 3-15 summarizes existing water demand and projections for the build-out condition. 
Table 3-15. Water Demand Summary for Grants Pass 
Current Water 
Demand, mgd 
Future Total Water 
Demand, mgd 
Average Annual 4.5 9 
Maximum Month 8 16 
Maximum Day 10 20 
Peak Hour 20 40 
In addition to properties within the UGB, there are properties contiguous to the boundary that are 
likely candidates for receiving water service in the future. Based on information from City 
planning staff, a rough estimate of the area of these properties is 400 acres. Assuming that these 
properties largely fall within the single family residential and industrial land use classifications, 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
3-9 512-99-08 
"><> 1 5 3 
the additional acreage would increase the annual average demand on the system by 
approximately 0.5 mgd. 
Another location with the potential for future water system expansion is the North Valley/Merlin 
area. The existing North Valley Reservoir and Pump Station have the capacity to accommodate 
additional demand in the area. Based on the existing pumping capacity at the North Valley 
station, this portion of the system can serve a maximum day demand of 570 gpm. Assuming 
similar development patterns to the rest of Grants Pass, this demand rate is equivalent to 
approximately 300 acres of service area. Currently the North Valley system serves 
approximately 45 acres. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
3-10 512-99-08 
O O L 1 5 4 
CHAPTER 4 
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SERVICE 
STANDARDS 
As the provider of water service to the community, the City of Grants Pass needs to establish 
benchmarks for service quality that can be used to measure the performance of the water utility. 
With respect to water distribution system service, customers expect the City to provide water at 
an adequate pressure for a full range of demand conditions. Also, since the water distribution 
network is an integral part of the fire fighting system, customers expect the City to provide 
adequate fire flow supplies to protect buildings and other properties within the community. The 
service standards presented in this chapter are provided as a basis for evaluation of the City's 
existing treated water supply and distribution system, and to guide the planning and design of 
improvements to the system necessary to meet future demands. 
The following discussion presents service standards for water quality, quantity, and pressure, as 
well as the minimum supply levels for fire protection. The standards set forth in this chapter are 
derived from regulations, rules, and recommendations established by a variety of sources 
including the Oregon State Health Division (OSHD), the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Insurance Services Office, Inc. 
(ISO), and the Uniform Fire Code (UFC). 
WATER SERVICE QUALITY STANDARDS 
Water service quality standards largely pertain to protecting public health and consistently 
delivering a satisfactory product to the customer. Most of the water quality considerations are 
related to supply and treatment issues and are not the subject of this plan. In a water distribution 
network, attention to enhancing the reliability of the system under all conditions is an important 
part of maintaining high quality water service. Reliability is achieved through a number of 
system features including adequate storage; redundant pumping, transmission, and rechlorination 
where required; and alternate power supplies. Reliability and water quality are also improved by 
designing looped water distribution pipelines and avoiding dead-end distribution mains 
whenever possible. Proper valve placement is also necessary to maintain reliable system 
operation under normal and abnormal operating conditions. 
DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE SYSTEM STANDARDS 
The water supply distribution and storage system must allow for effective service under normal 
operations as well as during times of system stress, such as maximum day, fire flows, and peak 
hour demands. The following operational performance criteria are used in this Master Plan to 
evaluate the adequacy of the City's existing treated water distribution system, including treated 
water storage facilities. These criteria also provide the basis for development of a program of 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
4-1 512-99-08 
'><> 1 5 5 
improvements that will provide effective service as the City grows in the future. These criteria 
reflect standard water system planning criteria and design guidelines which have been developed 
by various State agencies and other water utilities to evaluate water systems under both normal 
and stressed demand conditions, including maximum day, fire flows, and peak hour demand 
conditions. The criteria used in this Master Plan are recommended to the City as long term 
system performance criteria and are defined below for critical operational conditions impacting 
individual water system components. 
Water Supply and Treatment Capacity 
The following criteria should be used to assess the adequacy of the City's water supply and 
treatment capacity. 
Average Annual Demand. The reliable yield of all sources of supply needs to exceed the projected 
annual demand on the system. The definition of reliable yield of water supplies is that which can be 
delivered to the City during the worst drought. 
Maximum Day Demand. Total potable water production and supply delivery capacity shall be equal 
to or greater than the maximum day demand. It is recommended that the total maximum potable 
supply capacity be at least ten percent greater than the maximum day demand. The treatment plant 
capacity analysis should account for the planned hours of operation if the plant will not be operated 
full time. 
Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow. The water distribution system shall have the capability to 
meet a system demand condition equal to the occurrence of a maximum day demand concurrent with 
a fire flow event. If the supply to an individual pressure zone is from a pumped source, the supply 
requirement shall be met with the largest pump out of service. Since the plant does not operate at all 
times, the fire flow shall be met from treated water storage whenever possible in those pressure 
zones with reservoirs. Fire flow requirements are based on the UFC and are shown in Appendix 1. 
The minimum fire flow in the UFC is 1,000 gallons per minute for single and two-family dwelling 
units with less than 3,600 square feet. 
Peak Hour. Peak hour demand shall be met from supply sources and treated water storage 
reservoirs. 
System Pressure Requirements 
Under normal operating conditions, water pressure in the distribution systems shall range 
between 35 and 100 psi. An analysis of the existing water distribution system indicates that this 
pressure range is generally consistent with the storage facility designs and pressure zone 
designations. The reservoir overflow elevations and pressure zone elevation ranges are such that 
the maximum head (elevation difference between a full reservoir and the lowest service 
connection) does not exceed 240 feet or 104 psi. The use of pressure reducing valves between 
pressure zones is acceptable when approved by the City Engineer. The minimum head (elevation 
difference between the low reservoir operating level and the highest service connection) does not 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-6 512-99-08 
()0 €000156 
fall below 83 feet or 36 psi. Consistent with Oregon Department of Health rules, the minimum 
system pressure under fire flow conditions shall be 20 psi at the property line. 
Some customers are required to install reduced pressure principle backflow preventers to protect 
the water distribution system from potential hazards associated with the customers' water use 
activities. These backflow preventers cause an extra pressure drop prior to delivery of the water 
to the customer. Depending on the location of the customer within the pressure zone, this 
pressure drop may move the service pressure below the service standard minimum. Under such 
conditions, adjustments to the pressure zone boundaries may be necessary to provide adequate 
service pressures. 
System Storage Requirements 
Criteria have also been defined for determining treated water storage capacity needs within the 
distribution system and individual pressure zones to meet diurnal operational peaks and 
emergency conditions. Storage requirements can generally be categorized into the following 
three components: 
• operational storage 
• fire flow storage 
• emergency storage 
A discussion of the typical design characteristics for these three components follows. 
Operational Storage. Over any 24-hour period, water demands will vary. Typically, water 
demands will be high in the morning when people are getting ready to go to work and school, 
then will decline to some nominal baseline level (corresponding to water use patterns of 
commercial/industrial areas). They will then begin to increase again in late afternoon, reaching a 
higher water demand in the early evening as people return home from work. In Grants Pass, the 
water production rate varies as well since the water plant does not operate 24 hours per day. The 
water treatment plant is operated during normal working hours and shuts down at night to reduce 
operator labor costs. The storage volume used during periods when demand exceeds the 
production rate is called operational storage. Analysis of water demand data from the summer of 
1999 indicates that up to 45 percent of daily water demand take place when the plant is not in 
operation. As a result, the effective operating storage used in Grants Pass is up to 45 percent of 
the daily water supply. When a water plant is operating full time and producing water at a rate 
equal to the daily demand, the operating storage is typically equal to 25 percent of daily demand. 
Therefore, the operating storage requirements are generally set at 25 percent of the maximum 
day demand. Since the Grants Pass water plant will most likely extend its hours of operating as 
system demand increases, this lower percentage of operating storage will ultimately become the 
appropriate requirement in this community as well. Based on this information, the current 
operational storage requirement should be 45 percent of the total volume of water used on a 
maximum day in order to be consistent with the current operating strategy. For assessments of 
future storage requirements, the operational storage requirement should be based on 25 percent 
of maximum day demand to account for the prospective longer hours of plant operation. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
4-3 512-99-08 
O 0 C 1 5 7 
Fire Storage. Discussions with Public Safety Department staff indicate that their fire flows 
requirements are based on the UFC. Minimum fire flows are to be met concurrently with a 
maximum day demand condition, while maintaining a minimum residual system pressure of 20 
psi. Fire flows and the expected duration establish treated water fire storage requirements. The 
UFC fire flows and associated duration to be used in this master planning effort are shown in 
Appendix 1 
The storage requirements are based on flow [in gallons per minute (gpm)] requirements for the 
size of building (in square feet) and type of construction (wood frame, metal, masonry, 
installation of sprinklers, etc.). Once the fire flow requirement is established, it is multiplied by 
the required duration. This calculation will provide an estimate of the total volume needed for 
fire flow storage. The highest fire flow requirement for Grants Pass is for school facilities. These 
facilities typically have a UFC fire flow requirement of 4,000 gpm for a duration of four hours. 
The resulting volume needed for fire flow reserve is 960,000 gallons. A typical fire flow 
requirement for a commercial development is 2,000 gpm for a duration of two hours, resulting in 
a storage volume requirement of 240,000 gallons. Another important fire flow value is the 
requirement for residential areas. According to the UFC, typical one- and two-family residential 
areas are required to have two hour duration fire flows of 1,000 gpm for homes less than 3,600 
square feet and 1,500 gpm for homes more than 3,600 square feet. This fire flow requirement 
equates to a storage volume requirement of 120,000 and 180,000 gallons respectively. 
The largest fire flow requirements in Pressure Zones 1 and 2 are for school facilities. The largest 
fire flow requirement in Pressure Zone 3 and the North Valley are for commercial businesses. 
The fire flow requirement for all other pressure zones in the system should be based on a large 
home. Required fire flow volumes must be stored in reservoirs located within the pressure zone 
or readily available by gravity from storage in higher pressure zones. 
Emergency Storage. A reserve of treated water is also required to meet demands during 
emergency outage periods, when normal supply is interrupted. Such conditions may arise due to 
loss of the water plant due to a power failure, loss of raw water supply, pumping equipment or 
pipeline failure, or the need to take facilities out of service for repair. Since the risk of an 
emergency situation is different for every town, the amount of reservoir volume allocated to 
emergency storage is different also. The required emergency storage volume is a function of 
several factors including the diversity of the sources of supply, redundancy and reliability of the 
production facilities, and the anticipated length of the emergency outage. 
The Rogue River is the sole source of supply for the Grants Pass water system. Although the 
reliability and quality of the City's water supply has been excellent, it is vulnerable to temporary 
contamination by chemical spills into the Rogue River. 
Consideration of a specific scenario is useful for preparing the City to manage emergency 
storage supplies during such an emergency event. Following are important issues that the City 
must be prepared to consider with respect to an emergency scenario: 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
4-6 512-99-08 
0 0 C 1 5 8 
• If the Rogue River became contaminated, it is estimated that it would take up to three 
days to allow the contamination to pass by the water treatment plant or to modify the 
process to treat the contaminated water. 
• Immediately following the water treatment plant shutdown, the public must be 
notified and advised to adopt water rationing measures to prolong the availability of 
emergency storage supplies. 
• If the shutdown were to occur during a period of peak day demand, it would take up 
to 12 hours for water rationing measures to be adopted, after which the demand 
would likely drop to one-half the annual average day demand for the remainder of the 
shutdown period. 
• Response to an emergency depends on the ability of the City to reach its citizens with 
the necessary information. An extensive emergency curtailment plan is essential to 
effectively reduce water demand during an emergency. 
Since every city considers a different set of factors in their risk evaluation, the volume of storage 
designated for emergency situations varies significantly from community to community. Review 
of other water system planning criteria for communities with surface water supply situations 
shows that emergency storage volumes vary from 25 percent of maximum day demand to 150 
percent of maximum day demand. A 1998 Grants Pass City Council resolution set the emergency 
storage requirement at 75 percent of maximum daily demand. This resolution is included as 
Appendix 2. 
Reservoir storage volumes must also be carefully selected to preserve high quality water in the 
distribution system. Disinfectant residuals will dissipate over time, so if water is stored for too 
long, there is a risk of bacterial regrowth. The recommended storage capacities should provide 
adequate water reserves without requiring the addition of disinfectant at the reservoir. Proper 
reservoir management plays a large role in ensuring that the average residence time of water 
supplies does not exceed two to three days. When a reservoir does not accomplish adequate 
turnover, the current City policy is to install rechlorination facilities 
Total Water Storage. The minimum treated water storage capacity in the system available by 
gravity flow to each pressure zone should equal the sum of the following: 
• Operational. The storage allocated for meeting diurnal demand peaks should be 
equivalent to 45 percent of the maximum day demand. This storage volume should be 
located within the pressure zone or available by gravity to the pressure zone. The 
operating storage volume can be reduced to 25 percent of maximum day demand 
when the water plant eventually reaches full time operation. 
• Fire Flow. The storage allocated to provide fire flows should be equivalent to the 
maximum fire flow in the pressure zone times the duration the flow rate must be 
maintained. This volume is estimated as 960,000 gallons for Pressure Zones 1 and 2, 
240,000 gallons for Pressure Zone 3, and 180,000 gallons for all other pressure zones. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
4-5 512-99-08 
r ><>•(• 1 5 9 
• Emergency. The minimum emergency storage volume allocated for providing water 
during periods when normal supply is interrupted should be equivalent to 75 percent 
of the City's maximum day demand. 
A table comparing the existing storage volume in the system and the recommended minimum 
storage volume is provided in Chapter 6, "Water Distribution System Evaluation." 
Pipeline Networks 
The pipelines and transmission mains in the City's distribution system will generally be sized 
based on the criteria described below for normal, maximum day and peak hour demand 
conditions. 
• Service pressures shall be maintained between a maximum of 100 psi and a minimum 
of 35 psi. 
• New reservoirs shall be placed so the overflow elevation is 100 feet above the normal 
upper service elevation of the pressure zone it is serving. Most of the existing 
reservoirs satisfy this standard. 
• Fire flows will be provided by storage unless a specific exception is approved by the 
City. Booster stations can be allowed for small areas under the condition that they 
provide adequate flows, pressures, and reliable operation. These small areas will be 
defined as isolated zones with less than approximately 50 connections and where 
elevated storage is not practical. 
• The minimum allowable residual pressure at hydrants located in the immediate 
vicinity of a simulated fire shall be 20 psi or greater during a maximum day demand. 
• The minimum residual pressure during a peak hour demand shall be 35 psi. 
Pump Stations 
As mentioned above, if pumping facilities are to be used to meet the demands of a pressure zone 
with storage, sufficient pumping capacity shall be provided so that the maximum day demand 
can be supplied with the largest pump out of service. The pumping facility shall also be equipped 
with an emergency generator of sufficient capacity to operate the pumping plant at its rated 
capacity. This minimum supply requirement sets the pumping capacity requirement, if the 
pressure zone includes adequate treated water storage at sufficient elevation to allow gravity 
flow to serve the zone. If the pressure zone does not have storage reservoirs, the pump station 
should supply peak hour demand with one pump out of service. The station should also have two 
additional pumps to meet fire flow requirements and should be equipped with hydropneumatic 
tanks. 
Valves 
Valve location and spacing are important considerations in the design of a water distribution 
system. Pipelines must include an adequate number of properly located valves to allow for 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
4-6 512-99-08 
0 0 C 1 6 0 
isolation of pipeline sections in the event of maintenance operations or new construction. ISO 
provides standards for valve spacing as identified in Table 4-1 for pipelines according to their 
function. A general guideline for locating valves in the distribution system is that smaller branch 
mains should be equipped with a valve so that any service problems on the branch pipeline does 
not require a shut off of the major transmission line. Within the distribution grid, placement of a 
valve on all but one leg of tees and crosses will minimize the extent of a service disruption 
during system work. For the same reason of localizing service disruptions, system design should 
always avoid direct service taps into transmission pipelines. Reservoirs shall be equipped with 
seismic valves that prevent drainage after a significant earthquake or a remote controlled shut-off 
valve. 
Table 4-1. ISO Maximum Valve Spacing Standard 
Pipeline Function Maximum Spacing 
Supply pipeline 
Transmission pipeline 
Residential distribution 
Commercial distribution 
1 mile 
XA mile 
800 feet 
500 feet 
Hydrants 
Fire hydrants are dispersed throughout the distribution system to provide the emergency flows 
required for fire protection. The requirements for spacing fire hydrants are defined in the 
Uniform Fire Code and have been modified by the City's development codes as shown in Table 
4-2. Where required fire flows exceed 1,500 gallons per minute, the water supply must be 
provided by more than one hydrant. In addition to the maximum spacing requirements, any parts 
of a residence must be within 500 feet of a fire hydrant or any part of a business must be within 
300 feet of a hydrant. Distances are measured along the route that the fire department will use to 
deploy the fire hose. 
Table 4-2. Uniform Fire Code Hydrant Distribution Requirements 
Maximum Hydrant 
Land Use Category Spacing, feet 
Residential 500 
Commercial, general 300 
Industrial 300 
Schools 300 
Offices 350 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
4-7 512-99-08 
00 161 
CHAPTER 5 
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODELING 
A computer based hydraulic model of the Grants Pass water distribution system was developed 
as part of the master planning effort to analyze the capability of the system to meet current and 
projected demands. Specifically, the model was used for the following types of analysis: 
1. Evaluation of existing water facilities and operating strategies 
2. Identification of current deficiencies in the distribution system 
3. Development of recommended capital improvements 
4. Sizing of system extensions 
In addition to the system analysis work conducted as part of this master plan, the model will also 
be useful to the City in the future for a variety of purposes. The model will be an excellent tool 
for evaluating system planning issues and the effects of different operating strategies. The model 
will also serve as a good predictor of impacts to the system from proposed development projects. 
Computer Modeling Program 
The computer program CYBERNET 3.1 by Haested Methods was used to model the distribution 
system. The program was specifically developed for conducting steady-state and extended period 
analyses of a pressure pipe network. The model provides output in the form of local pressures 
and flows. 
The CYBERNET computer model blends the capabilities of several types of programs (including 
CADD, GIS, database, and a hydraulic analysis engine) to facilitate the analysis and design of a 
water distribution system. The model incorporates all of the important hydraulic features of the 
distribution system including pipelines, pump stations, storage reservoirs, and valves. In addition 
to these hydraulic features, the model also establishes junction nodes at all intersections between 
pipes as well as any other important locations in the distribution system. The model links a 
graphical representation of the water distribution system to a database that describes the physical 
characteristics of each hydraulic feature (i.e. length, diameter, and roughness coefficient for a 
pipeline) and the physical and demand conditions at junction nodes (i.e. ground elevation and 
water demand). 
CYBERNET also includes a scenario manager feature that allows the modeler to quickly 
evaluate a variety of water demand and operating conditions when analyzing the system. Using 
this feature, the modeler can conduct an hydraulic analysis of different combinations of demand 
alternatives, system configuration alternatives, and operating strategy alternatives. For example, 
to evaluate available fire flows in the distribution system, the modeler can create a scenario that 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-6 512-99-08 
()0 €162 
includes the maximum day demand, an 80 percent full storage reservoir configuration, and a 
night time operating strategy. 
Grants Pass CYBERNET Model 
The City of Grants Pass prepared an initial version of the CYBERNET model for the existing 
water distribution system based on their previous system model and updated system maps. The 
initial version of the model included all of the basic system data for pipelines and junction nodes. 
This version of the model was then delivered to West Yost & Associates (WYA) for additional 
refinement to ready the model for the master planning work. The key components of the existing 
system model included the following: 
• The majority of system pipes 6-inches in diameter. 
• All system pipes 8-inches and larger in diameter. 
• All existing pumping stations. 
• All existing storage reservoirs. 
• All existing pressure reducing valves. 
The City also provided a database of property parcels within the Grants Pass urban growth 
boundary that included information on acreage and zoning designation. Each parcel was 
associated with a CYBERNET junction node as a basis for allocating water demand across the 
water distribution system. These parcels were then categorized as either single family residential, 
multi-family residential, or commercial land use in order to be consistent with the demand 
analysis categories developed in Chapter 3. Using the acreage based demand factors developed 
in Chapter 3, each junction node was assigned an average water demand according to the acreage 
and land use designation of parcels drawing water from that node. 
Each junction node in the system has a four number suffix label. The first number in the suffix 
label corresponds to the Pressure Zone in which the node is located. For example, J-1011 is in 
Pressure Zone 1, J-2216 is in Pressure Zone 2, and so on. 
Model Calibration 
The purpose of calibrating the hydraulic model is to confirm that the computer model accurately 
represents the operation of the water distribution system. Hydrant flow testing in the field is an 
important tool for developing measurements of actual system pressures and flows that can be 
compared to model predictions. These tests are useful in evaluating pipeline friction factors 
(specifically Hazen Williams equation coefficients or C-factors) and ensuring that the model 
closely represents actual observed conditions. The hydrant flow tests for this calibration process 
were performed by City water distribution personnel, the City Fire Department, and WYA staff 
on March 28 and 29, 2000. 
The baseline C-factors used in the model were selected based on the material and age of the 
pipelines. The vast majority of pipelines in the distribution system are cast iron and ductile iron; 
minimal amounts of other pipe materials are present. City staff reviewed the available 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
4-7 512-99-08 
00 163 
construction drawings and categorized each pipeline in the model according to the decade in 
which it was installed. According to City records, pipelines installed prior to 1972 were 
predominantly of cast iron construction and pipelines installed after 1972 were predominantly of 
ductile iron construction. C-factors for these materials can range from a low of around 40 for 
unlined cast iron pipes in very poor condition to a high of 140 for newly installed, cement-lined 
pipe. This information was used along with pipeline condition information from the City's 
maintenance staff to assign an appropriate C-factor to each pipeline. Table 5-1 summarizes the 
C-factors selected for each decade of pipeline installation. 
Table 5-1. Pipeline Age-Based C-Factor Summary 
Decade of Hazen Williams 
Pipeline Construction C-Factor 
1920s 65 
1930s 75 
1940s 85 
1950s 95 
1960s 105 
1970s 115 
1980s 125 
1990s 135 
2000 140 1 
After refining the City's hydraulic model, WYA worked with City maintenance staff to select 11 
hydrant flow test sites. Selection of the hydrant test locations was based on pipeline size, age, 
location within the different pressure zones, and configuration of the surrounding pipeline 
system. 
The general testing procedure for a hydrant flow test is outlined below: 
• Measure the static pressures at the designated test hydrant and at each observation 
hydrant. 
• Flow the designated test hydrant and measure the discharge flow and pressure. 
• Measure the residual pressures at the designated test hydrant and at each observed 
hydrant while the test hydrant is flowing. 
In addition to the field measurements taken at the flowing and observation hydrants, other 
important system data were recorded during the hydrant flow tests. Using the water treatment 
plant's SCADA system, plant staff monitored reservoir levels and pump operating status 
throughout the water distribution system during the test period. These data were critical for 
establishing the water system context within which the hydrant flow tests took place. A review of 
plant water production data and analysis of the changes in reservoir levels also allowed for 
calculation of system demand on the flow test days. Water demand during the hydrant flow tests 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
5-3 512-99-08 
0 i H l 6 4 
was approximately 2.85 mgd, approximately two-thirds of the annual average demand in Grants 
Pass. 
Calibration Results. Based on the field and SCADA system data collected on March 28th and 
29th, each hydrant flow test was simulated using the CYBERNET model of the water system. 
CYBERNET predictions were then compared to the field measurements to evaluate the need for 
adjustments to pipeline friction coefficients, ground elevations, or other system variables. 
Overall, the required adjustments to the baseline input data were very minor and calibration of 
the CYBERNET model was readily successful. 
The model's ability to accurately predict head losses in the system during high flow conditions is 
of primary importance. This ability is necessary for verifying the presence of adequate pressures 
in the system during critical fire flow conditions. During a hydrant flow test, these head losses in 
the system correspond to the difference between static and residual pressures at the observed 
hydrants. Tables 5-2 through 5-11 summarize the static, residual, and differential pressures for 
both the field test data and the calibrated model predictions. The goal of our calibration effort 
was to achieve no greater than a 3 to 4 psi difference between the field hydrant test differential 
and the calibrated model differential. This goal was achieved with an average difference in 
differentials of 1.5 psi. 
The static pressures in the system are largely related to the elevation of the test hydrant, pump 
operating status, and reservoir levels. However, the exact nature of local background flows at the 
time of the flow test can also influence the static measurement since they induce a pressure drop 
in the system. The average difference between the measured and modeled static pressures is 2.25 
psi and in general they are well within 5 psi of each other. Otherwise, differences in the modeled 
and actual local background flows or slight pressure gauge calibration problems are the most 
likely explanation for discrepancies in static measurements. 
Table 5-2. Field Test #1 
Ironwood and Webster Rd. 
6", 8", and 12" lines in Pressure Zone 1 - 1990s Installation 
Hydrant Test Flow Rate = 1,540 gpm 
Field Data Modeled Data Comparison 
Static Residual Differential Static Residual Differential Of Differential 
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressures 
Hydrant Node (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) 
I 733 (F) 1411 91 89 
659 1239 87 60 27 90 62 28 1 
1 732 1412 89 60 29 90 62 28 1 
(F) Flowing hydrant 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-5 512-99-08 
><> 1 6 5 
Table 5-3. Field Test # 2 
Fairview Avenue between Agness and Foothill 
8" line in Pressure Zone 1 - 1980s Installation 
Hydrant Test Flow Rate = 1,530 gpm 
Field Data Modeled Data Comparison 1 
Static Residual Differential Static Residual Differential Of Differential 
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressures 
Hydrant Node (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) 
506 (F) 1413 60 58 
505 1417 60 55 5 59 56 3 2 
507 1418 57 50 7 56 52 4 3 
508 1419 50 45 5 52 48 4 1 1 
(F) Flowing hydrant 
Table 5-4. Field Test #3 
Evelyn Ave. and Hawthorne Ave. 
8" and 16" lines in Pressure Zone 1 - 1930s Installation 
Hydrant Test Flow Rate = 1,790 gpm 
Field Data Modeled Data Comparison 
Static Residual Differential Static Residual Differential OfDifferential 
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressures 
Hydrant Node (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) 
109(F) 1420 64 65 
115 1374 65 59 6 62 58 4 2 
116 1421 65 60 5 67 63 4 1 
119 1078 55 51 4 57 53 4 0 
(F) Flowing hydrant 
Table 5-5. Field Test #4 
Forestview and West Harbeck 
8" line in Pressure Zone 1 - 1990s Installation 
Hydrant Test Flow Rate = 1,070 gpm 
Field Data Modeled Data Comparison 1 
Static Residual Differential Static Residual Differential OfDifferential 
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressures 
Hydrant Node (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) 
791 (F) 1000 57 56 
790 1422 60 36 24 60 38 22 2 
709 1423 65 42 23 65 46 19 4 
(F) Flowing hydrant 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
5-5 512-99-08 
Table 5-6. Field Test #5 
Southridge and Harbeck Rd. 
8" line in Pressure Zone 1 - 1980s Installation 
Hydrant Test Flow Rate = 1,410 gpm 
Field Data Modeled Data Comparison J 
Static Residual Differential Static Residual Differential Of Differential 1 
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressures 
Hydrant Node (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) 
610 (F) 1266 52 50 
609 1424 56 44 12 54 41 13 1 
608 1425 60 54 6 59 52 7 1 1 
(F) Flowing hydrant 
Table 5-7. Field Test #6 
Millbanks and M St. 
12" lines in Pressure Zone 1 - 1950s Installation 
Hydrant Test Flow Rate = 1,590 gpm 
I Field Data Modeled Data Comparison 
Static Residual Differential Static Residual Differential OfDifferential 
i Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressures 
1 Hydrant Node (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) , 
206 (F) 1361 75 74 
24 1426 70 65 5 75 72 3 2 
722 1427 75 70 5 73 70 3 2 
611 1428 72 67 5 74 71 3 2 
(F) Flowing hydrant 
Table 5-8. Field Test #7 
Highland Ave. at Sandy 
12" line in Pressure Zone 2 - 1980s Installation 
Hydrant Test Flow Rate = 1,930 gpm 
Field Data Modeled Data Comparison 
Static Residual Differential Static Residual Differential OfDifferential 
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressures 
Hydrant Node (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) 
550 (F) 2159 89 89 
291 2007 84 73 11 87 76 11 0 
548 2158 85 70 15 91 80 11 4 
(F) Flowing hydrant 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
5-6 512-99-08 
)> 167 
Table 5-9. Field Test #8 
Scoville Rd and Ausland 
12" line in Pressure Zone 3 - 1980s Installation 
Hydrant Test Flow Rate = 820 gpm 
Field Data Modeled Data Comparison 
Static Residual Differential, Static Residual Differential Of Differential 
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressures 
Hydrant Node (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) 
535(F) 3047 50 43 
536 3070 55 46 9 52 42 10 1 
537 3071 66 59 7 64 55 9 2 
(F) Flowing hydrant 
Table 5-10. Field Test #9 
Morgan Lane and Candler 
8" lines in Pressure Zone 3 - 1980s and 1990s Installation 
Hydrant Test Flow Rate = 1,960 gpm 
Field Data Modeled Data Comparison 
Static Residual Differential Static Residual Differential Of Differential 
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressures 
Hydrant Node (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) 1 
416(F) 3067 95 95 
765 3072 87 80 7 83 77 6 1 
829 3026 87 80 7 89 81 8 1 1 
(F) Flowing hydrant 
Table 5-11. Field Test #10 
Morgan Lane and Crown 
12" line in Pressure Zone 3 - 1990s Installation 
Hydrant Test Flow Rate = 1,910 gpm 
Field Data Modeled Data Comparison 
Static Residual Differential Static Residual Differential Of Differential 
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressures 
Hydrant Node (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) 1 
831 (F) 3027 72 70 
1 764 3073 82 79 3 75 72 3 0 1 
(F) Flowing hydrant 
Reservoir 11 Flow Monitoring. In addition to the hydrant flow tests that were conducted 
throughout the water distribution system, field measurements of the Reservoir 11 fill rate were 
also compared with CYBERNET predictions as part of an operational strategy assessment for the 
new reservoir. Water treatment plant staff recorded the Reservoir 11 fill rate along with water 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-6 512-99-08 
()0 €000168 
levels in all of the Pressure Zone 1 reservoirs during the week of May 1, 2000. WYA selected the 
field data from the morning of May 3, 2000, during the treatment plant start-up as the basis for 
comparison with the model. At that time, plant staff measured a Reservoir 11 fill rate of 
approximately 1,100 gpm with three pumps in operation. Using the monitored Pressure Zone 1 
reservoir levels and an assumed system demand equal to the average day, the CYBERNET 
model predicted a Reservoir 11 fill rate of 1,060 gpm. This information is summarized in Table 
5-12. 
Table 5-12. Reservoir 11 Flow Monitoring 
Location 
Plant 
Measurement 
(gpm) 
Model 
Prediction 
(gpm) 
Comparison of 
Differential Flow 
Rate (gpm) 
Reservoir 11 1,100 1,060 40 
Extended Period Analysis - Memorial Day Weekend 2000. Finally, the model was used to 
simulate changes in storage reservoir water levels during a 38-hour period while the water 
treatment plant was not operating over Memorial Day Weekend 2000. To account for the 
dynamic conditions in the distribution system over this length of time, the extended period 
analysis required more detailed data inputs than the steady state analyses conducted for the 
hydrant flow tests. The additional information required for an extended analysis include a diurnal 
curve for water demand in the system and pump on/off timing for each distribution system 
booster pump, all of which was available from SCADA system records for this 38-hour period. 
Some redistribution of demand among the pressure zones was also necessary to account for 
increased demand in the residential areas and reduced demand in the commercial areas due to the 
holiday. With these adjustments in place, the model was able to predict the final water levels in 
the reservoirs to within an average of 1.1 feet of their measured level as shown in Table 5-13. 
The largest discrepancies between measured and predicted water levels were for Reservoirs No. 
4 and No. 13. These two reservoirs are the smallest in the system, where the level differences 
represent relatively small volume differences. Given the generalized methodology used to 
distribute demand across the system, the predictions from the 38-hour extended period analysis 
are very accurate. 
Calibration Conclusion. The comparative analysis of field measurements and model 
predictions confirms that the calibrated CYBERNET model is capable of simulating operation of 
the existing water distribution system with a high degree of accuracy. Therefore, the model 
provides an excellent basis for analyzing the adequacy of existing facilities, analyzing proposed 
plans for system expansion and modification projects, evaluating different operational strategies, 
and designing specific improvements to the system. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
5-8 512-99-08 
Table 5-13. Memorial Day Weekend Extended Period Analysis 
Beginning Reservoir Ending Reservoir Ending Reservoir Difference between 
Level at Level at Level CYBERNET CYBERNET 
Plant Shut Down Plant Start-Up Prediction And 
May 28, 16:00 May 30, 06:00 May 30, 06:00 Measured Level 
Reservoir (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) 
3 17.6 2.3 3.2 0.9 
4 18.5 14.7 17.6 2.9 
5 28.3 14.0 12.9 1.1 
6 27.1 21.6 22.2 0.6 
8 27.9 21.0 20.8 0.2 
11 29.6 21.2 19.9 1.3 
13 7.4 7.4 5.3 2.1 
15 14.4 13.4 13.4 0 
Average 1.1 
< > 0 ^ 1 7 0 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
5-9 512-99-08 
CHAPTER 6 
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION 
The Grants Pass water distribution system was analyzed to evaluate its performance and capacity 
under current and future demand conditions relative to the service standards defined in Chapter 
4. This analysis identified system improvements necessary to maintain adequate performance 
through build-out of the urban growth boundary (UGB). These improvements were developed to 
either eliminate existing deficiencies in system performance or expand service to satisfy 
community growth. Each improvement project was assigned a general timing estimate in one of 
the following four future periods: 
• Year 2000 to 2005 
• Year 2005 to 2010 
• Year 2010 to 2020 
• Year Post 2020 
In this manner, the identified improvements and estimated timings form the basis for the 
recommended capital improvement program presented in Chapter 7. 
The elements of the water distribution system evaluated in this chapter include water treatment 
plant capacity, treated water storage capacity, booster pumping capacity, and pipeline network 
performance with respect to current and future demand conditions. These evaluations were based 
on the demand projections presented in Chapter 3 and the results of computer model hydraulic 
analyses. 
WATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY 
The Grants Pass water treatment plant has a maximum treated water production capacity of 18 
mgd. However, as noted later in the pumping capacity analysis, the firm pumping capacity of the 
plant is currently limited to approximately 16 mgd. As specified in Chapter 4, "Water 
Distribution System Service Standards", the available water treatment plant capacity should be 
sufficient to meet anticipated maximum day demand with at least an additional ten percent 
capacity available. The additional ten percent is necessary to allow for backwashing filters, 
meeting drinking water quality standards with difficult raw water, or repairing equipment 
failures. As the single source of supply for the system, the water treatment plant must provide the 
entire required capacity. 
Table 6-1 summarizes the treatment plant capacity evaluation for current and build-out demand 
conditions. The existing water treatment plant has ample capacity relative to current demand. 
This situation allows the City to operate the water plant on a part-time basis even during the 
current water demand peaks in the summertime. Although the plant will eventually require a 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-1 512-99-08 
0 0 0 l 7 t 
capacity expansion of approximately 4 mgd prior to build-out, the existing plant capacity is 
anticipated to be sufficient for the near term future. An extension of the plant operating hours 
will forestall the need for treatment capacity expansions. The future expansion will bring the 
ultimate plant capacity to 22 mgd and will require full-time operation. With extended operating 
hours and a two percent annual water demand growth rate, this plant expansion will not become 
necessary until well after the year 2020. 
Table 6-1. Water Treatment Plant Capacity Evaluation 
Maximum Day WTP Capacity Existing WTP Additional WTP 
Demand, Requirement, Capacity, Capacity Required, 
Period mgd mgd mgd mgd 
Current 10 11 18 None 
UGB Build-Out 20 22 18 4 
TREATED WATER STORAGE CAPACITY 
The Grants Pass water distribution system includes eight treated water reservoirs serving five 
separate pressure zones. As defined in Chapter 4, the treated water storage reservoirs serve three 
principal purposes: operational storage to meet diurnal fluctuations, emergency storage, and fire 
flow storage. The required storage volume for these three purposes is determined individually 
and then combined to identify the total amount of storage volume required within a given 
pressure zone and for the overall system. For added reliability, the storage should be located to 
allow gravity flow into the pressure zone where it is required. This arrangement eliminates the 
need for pumping facilities that require a backup power system during power outages. Storage 
located in higher pressure zones also benefits lower zones by providing a potential source of 
gravity supply through the addition of pressure reducing stations to the system. The following 
treated water storage standards were established in Chapter 4 for evaluating system capacity: 
1 Operational storage equal to 45 percent of maximum day demand for current demand 
and part-time plant operation. Operational storage equal to 25 percent of maximum 
day demand for future demand and full-time plant operation. 
2. Emergency storage equal to 75 percent of maximum day demand. 
3. Fire flow storage based on the largest fire flow requirement in the pressure zone. 
The combination of these three storage components yields the total storage required, which is 
equal to 1.2 times maximum day demand plus fire flow for the current condition and simply 
maximum day demand plus fire flow for the future condition. The fire flow volume is based on a 
4,000 gpm/4 hour fire in Pressure Zones 1 and 2, a 1,500 gpm/2 hour fire in Pressure Zone 4, and 
a 2,000 gpm/2 hour fire in the other pressure zones. 
Table 6-2 summarizes the evaluation of treated water storage requirements for current demand 
conditions. The existing system contains an overall treated water storage capacity of 19 million 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
5-5 512-99-08 
gallons which is ample for overall current levels of demand. The significant volume of storage 
that is available in the system relative to maximum day demand provides ample operating 
storage, thus allowing the water treatment plant to effectively operate on a part-time basis 
without compromising emergency storage or fire flow storage supplies. Existing storage volumes 
are also sufficient for current demand on a zone-by-zone basis except in Pressure Zone 4 where 
only 80,000 gallons of storage volume is available. The existing available storage in North 
Valley is somewhat overstated since only approximately one third of the 1.2 million gallon 
storage volume available in Reservoir 15 is actually utilized due to limited demand in that 
portion of the system. 
Table 6-2. Current Treated Water Storage Evaluation 
Pressure 
Zone 
Current 
Max Day 
Demand, 
mgd 
Required 
Operational 
Storage, 
mg 
Required 
Emergency 
Storage, 
mg 
Required 
Fire Flow 
Storage, 
mg 
Required 
Total 
Storage, 
mg 
Existing 
Available 
Storage, 
mg 
PZ 1 7.0 3.2 5.3 0.96 9.4 11.5 
PZ 2 2.1 0.9 1.6 0.96 3.5 4.3 
PZ 3 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.24 1.0 2.0 
PZ 4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.18 0.5 0.1 
PZ NV 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.24 0.4 1.2 
Total 10.1 4.5 7.6 2.6 14.7 19.0 
Table 6-3 summarizes the treated water storage evaluation for future demand conditions. For thé 
build-out demand condition, the water distribution system will extend to two large areas with 
Pressure Zone 2 elevations and one large area with Pressure Zone 4 elevations. These areas 
(Williams Highway and Meadow Wood areas in southern Grants Pass and Laurelridge in 
northwestern Grants Pass) are isolated from existing portions of the system within the same 
pressure zone range. All three areas will thus require dedicated treated water storage. Table 6-3 
refers to these pressure zones as PZ 2WH, PZ 2MW, and PZ 4LW. As indicated in the table, 
Pressure Zone 4 storage will remain deficient in the future. Otherwise, the only other areas 
requiring additional storage to satisfy build-out development are in Pressure Zone 1. Additional 
Pressure Zone 1 storage is necessary due to substantial expansion of the water distribution 
system on the south side of the Rogue River and would be best supplied from two reservoirs. 
These reservoirs would be located in the southeastern and southwestern extremities of the zone. 
Since some of the existing storage is located in higher pressure zones where it is unavailable to 
the lower zones, the new treated water storage volume required to satisfy build-out demand 
conditions is actually greater than the 4.5 million gallon difference between required and existing 
storage. 
Table 6-4 summarizes the recommended location and volume of future storage tank construction. 
These new storage tanks are located and sized to satisfy system demand through build-out. 
Whenever possible, the reservoir numbers used in this table are consistent with the numbering 
convention used in the 1979 Master Plan. Two reservoirs that were included in the previous 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-3 512-99-08 
l<> 1 7 3 
master plan, Reservoir No. 7 and Reservoir No. 9, are no longer recommended for construction. 
Reservoir No. 7 was eliminated due to scaling back of the UGB in the northeast part of town. 
Reservoir No. 9 was eliminated due to the presence of adequate storage capacity in the other 
Pressure Zone 1 reservoirs. No reservoir construction is necessary in the near term future. 
The proposed Reservoir No. 12 is located on the southwest periphery of Pressure Zone 1. Due to 
the great distance from the water treatment plant to this reservoir, the other relatively closer 
Pressure Zone 1 Reservoirs will fill faster. This fill rate imbalance can be remedied by designing 
the future RCC pump station with the capability to both serve Pressure Zone 2 and fill Reservoir 
No. 12. 
Table 6-3. Build-Out Treated Water Storage Evaluation 
Build-Out Required Required Required Required Existing 
Max Day Operational Emergency Fire Flow Total Available 
Pressure Demand, Storage, Storage, Storage, Storage, Storage, 
Zone mgd mg mg mg mg mg 
PZ 1 14.2 3.5 10.6 0.96 15.2 11.5 
PZ 2 2.8 0.7 2.1 0.96 3.8 4.3 
PZ2MW 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.18 0.6 0.0 
PZ2WH 1.1 0.3 0.8 0.18 1.3 0.0 
PZ 3 1.2 0.3 0.9 0.24 1.4 2.0 
PZ 4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.18 0.5 0.1 
PZ4LW 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.18 0.4 0.0 
PZ NV 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.24 0.4 1.2 
Total 20.4 5.1 15.3 3.1 23.5 19.0 
Table 6-4. Recommended Storage Tank Construction 
Reservoir Location Volume, mg 
Construction 
Timing 
No. 10 Highway 99 East 1.7 Post 2020 
No. 12 Rogue Community College 2.0 2010-20 
No. 14 Valley View West 0.4 2010-20 
No. 16 Meadow Wood 0.6 2010-20 
No. 17 Cathedral Hills 1.3 2010-20 
No. 13 (replacement) Sunset Lane 0.4 2010-20 
Total 6.4 
BOOSTER PUMPING CAPACITY 
There are ten booster pumping stations in the Grants Pass water distribution system. The booster 
pumping facility criteria require that pumping stations are able to supply the maximum day 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
5-5 512-99-08 
I K K 1 7 4 
demand within all dependent pressure zones over a 24 hour period. This criterion assumes that 
there is sufficient treated water storage within the pressure zone to meet the operational, 
emergency, and fire storage criteria. The pumping station should be equipped with a backup 
energy source of sufficient capacity to operate the pumping plant at its rated capacity. The rated 
capacity of a pumping station is based on the largest pump being out of service. This criteria 
does not apply to the small pressure zones which are served by booster pumps with 
hydropneumatic tanks. For these small pressure zones, the pump station should be sized such that 
it can supply peak hour demand with one pump out of service. These stations should also have a 
redundant pump to meet fire flow requirements. 
Table 6-5 summarizes the booster pumping capacity evaluation for the water distribution system 
with current demand levels. Current pump station capacities are adequate for meeting the 
appropriate performance criteria of either maximum day demand or peak hour demand. 
However, the Hilltop and Harbeck Heights pump stations serve isolated areas without storage, so 
these stations should have a redundant fire flow pump. A pipeline linking the two service areas 
would also provide redundancy, but yields no cost savings. The water treatment plant pumping 
capacity is significantly higher than the system-wide maximum day demand, allowing the pumps 
to operate on a part-time basis. Table 6-5 also includes the New Hope Pump Station which was 
recently built to serve Zone 2 developments in the southwest. Although construction is complete, 
the existing connections to the system and associated demand are currently limited. 
Table 6-5. Current Booster Pumping Capacity Evaluation 
Current3 Max Current3 Max Existing 
• Day Demand, Day Demand, Pumping Capacity, 
Pump Station mgd gpm gpm 
Plant" 10 6,940 11,100 
Lawnridge & Madrone 3.1 2,150 4,500 
Champion 1 690 2,400 
North Valley 0.1 70 570 
Hefley0 0.2 140 760 
Starlited 0.08 60 960 
Hilltop6 0.04 30 250 
Harbeck Heightsf 0.04 30 180 
New Hope8 NA NA 1,050 
"Peak hour demand is used for those stations that serve areas without reservoirs. 
bNoted capacity is based on plant operator measurement of the firm capacity for the plant effluent 
pumps. The capacity of the plant influent pumps is 9,600 gpm with one pump out of service. 
The Hefley station has two fire flow pumps with a total capacity of 1,200 gpm. 
dThe Starlite station has a fire flow pump with a capacity of 1,050 gpm. 
eThe Hilltop station has a fire flow pump with a capacity of 750 gpm. 
fThe Harbeck station has a fire flow pump with a capacity of 1,200 gpm. 
EThe New Hope station has a fire flow pump with a capacity of 2,000 gpm. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-5 512-99-08 
><> 175 
Table 6-6 shows the booster pumping capacity evaluation for future demand conditions. Three 
new pump stations will be required for the build-out system in order to serve southeastern and 
southwestern Pressure Zone 2 and 3 and northwestern Pressure Zone 4. Two of these stations are 
already under design: Meadow Wood Pump Station in the southeast and Laurelridge Pump 
Station in the northwest. A third pump station is necessary to serve the Rogue Community 
College campus in the southwest. The Meadow Wood Pump Station is being designed to serve 
both Pressure Zone 2 and a small area of Pressure Zone 3. Since these three pump stations are 
planned to be built to serve areas without adequate reservoir storage for fire flows, the 
recommended pump station capacities allow for the inclusion of fire flow pumps. In addition to 
the new pump stations, booster pumping capacity expansions will be necessary at the water 
treatment plant for Pressure Zone 1 Also, the Hilltop and Harbeck Heights pump stations lack 
redundant fire flow pumps. The Ausland Pump Station, which was identified for future 
construction in the 1979 master plan, is not included in this master plan due to scaling back of 
the UGB in the northeast part of town. The City may still maintain possession of a site for this 
pump station since the UGB may expand to the northeast in the future. 
Table 6-6. Build-Out Booster Pumping Capacity Evaluation 
Pump Station 
Build-out Max 
Day3 Demand, 
mgd 
Build-out Max 
Day3 Demand, 
gpm 
Existing 
Pumping Capacity, 
gpm 
Needed 
Capacity, 
gpm 
Plant 20.4 14,170 11,100 3,070 
Lawnridge & Madrone 4.5 3,120 4,500 NAb 
Champion & Starlite 1.7 1,180 3,360 NA 
North Valley 0.1 70 570 NA 
Hefley 0.3 210 760 NA 
Hilltop3 0.04 30 250 NA 
Harbeck3 0.04 30 180 NA 
New Hope 1 1 760 1,050 NA 
Meadow Wood 0.4 280 0 280 
Laurelridge 0.2 140 0 140 
Rogue Community College 0.1 110 0 110 
"Peak hour demand is used for those stations that serve areas without reservoirs. 
= Not applicable. 
Based on these capacity evaluations, Table 6-7 summarizes the recommended location, capacity, 
and timing of pump station construction or renovation projects through build-out. Two of these 
pump stations, Meadow Wood and Laurelridge, are already under design. In many cases, the 
capacity improvements can be phased to keep pace with demand. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-6 512-99-08 
( ) 0 €176 
Table 6-7. Recommended Pump Station Capacity Improvements 
Construction 
Pump Station Capacity, gpm Timing 
Treatment Plant Effluent Pumps 3,100 Post 2020 
Hilltop Fire Flow Pump 1,000 2000-05 
Harbeck Heights Fire Flow Pump 1,000 2000-05 
Meadow Wood 1,280 2000-05 
Laurelridge 1,140 2000-05 
Rogue Community College 1,110 2000-05 
PIPELINE NETWORK PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 
The CYBERNET computer model was used to evaluate performance of the water distribution 
system pipeline network. Separate models were developed to evaluate the system under existing 
and build-out conditions. The existing system model was developed to reflect the pipeline 
configuration as of the spring of 2000. The build-out system model includes all of the proposed 
pipelines necessary for solving existing system deficiencies as well as expansion of the water 
distribution system to serve all developable land within the urban growth boundary. A map 
showing all existing and proposed pipelines in the Grants Pass water distribution system is 
included in Appendix 3. The specific alignments of the proposed pipelines shown on this map 
are tentative and flexible. The actual alignments will conform to future land use, development 
pattern, easement acquisition, and topographic considerations identified during the design phase 
of project implementation. 
The distribution system was modeled under three scenarios that simulated the critical conditions 
that are most demanding of pipeline network performance capabilities. The three scenarios that 
were modeled include: 
• Peak hour demand 
• Maximum day demand plus fire flow 
• Low demand during water treatment plant operation 
Peak Hour Demand Analysis 
The peak hour demand scenario was modeled as taking place during the afternoon on a summer 
day when the irrigation demands are high. The water treatment plant and booster pump stations 
in the system were operating at their rated capacity during the peak hour and storage reservoir 
levels were set at 80 percent full. 
The service standard for minimum system pressure was used as the criteria for identifying 
deficiencies for the peak hour demand scenario. Table 6-8 summarizes the nodes in the system 
with pressures less than 35 psi during peak hour demand conditions. In each case, the pressure 
deficiency is caused by excessive elevation of the service connection since the location of the 
node is beyond recommended range for the given pressure zone. The top of the elevation range 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-12 512-99-08 
000177 
for Pressure Zone 1 is 1,020 feet and the top of the elevation range for Pressure Zone 2 is 1,140 
feet. Table 6-8 identifies the location, pressure estimate, and recommended corrective action for 
each of the deficient nodes. In addition to the identified low pressures, these nodes are also 
problematic with respect to available fire flows. The majority of the deficiencies can be corrected 
by reconfiguring the pipeline network to modify the local pressure zone boundary. In some areas, 
these modifications to zone boundaries may require the installation of individual pressure 
reduction valves on some service connections. The Woodson Drive pressure deficiency is caused 
by an isolated hilltop which does not easily allow for reconfiguration of the pressure zone 
boundaries. Auxiliary pumping will solve the peak hour low pressure problems on Woodson, 
but fire flow availability will remain a problem. 
Table 6-8. Peak Hour Demand Deficiency Summary 
CYBERNET 
Node Label Location 
Pressure 
Zone 
Elevation 
(feet) 
Pressure 
(psi) 
Recommended 
Corrective Action 
Project 
Timing 
J-1102 Foothill Blvd. PZ 1 1,036 27 Reconfigure PZ 
boundary 
2000*05 
J-1142 Foothill Blvd. PZ 1 1,026 31 Reconfigure PZ 
boundary 
2000-05 
J-1356 Madrone & Beacon PZ 1 1,037 28 Reconfigure PZ 
boundary 
2000-05 
J-1377 Grant and E PZ 1 1,052 24 Reconfigure PZ 
boundary 
2000-05 
J-2067 Valley View Rd PZ 2 1,164 28 Reconfigure PZ 
boundary 
2000-05 
J-2216 Woodson Dr. PZ 2 1,162 21 Auxiliary 
pumping 
2000-05 
Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Analysis 
The maximum day demand plus fire flow scenario was modeled as taking place during the night 
when storage reservoir levels were depleted to 80 percent of their full capacity. Since the water 
treatment plant is typically not operating at night, all of the required fire flow was derived from 
storage sources in those zones with reservoirs. This scenario was modeled to verify the 
availability of minimum fire flows for residential (1,000 pgm), commercial (2,000 gpm), multi-
family (2,000 gpm), and schools (4,000 gpm) at those nodes servicing these land uses. 
As indicated above, minimum fire flow requirements, were used to identify system deficiencies 
for the maximum day demand plus fire flow scenario. The available fire flow at a node is defined 
as the maximum flow available from a given node without reducing pressure anywhere within 
the same zone below 20 psi. The fire flow analysis report from the CYBERNET model was 
reviewed to identify any deficiencies with respect to minimum fire flow requirements. In 
addition to verifying the system-wide minimum fire flow of 1,000 gpm, the available fire flows 
were also reviewed for any violations of the 2,000 gpm minimum fire flow for all nodes serving 
commercial and multi-family developments and the 4,000 gpm minimum fire flow requirement 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-8 512-99-08 
) 0 o l 7 8 
for all nodes serving school facilities. Due to the presence of several areas in the system with 
insufficient looping or extensive networks of 6-inch diameter pipe, there were many nodes that 
did not meet minimum fire flow requirements. Table 6-9 identifies the location, available fire 
flow estimate, required fire flow, and recommended corrective action for each of the deficient 
areas. Although Table 6-9 identifies only one node for each problem area, many of these 
problem areas are actually indicated by a cluster of deficient nodes. The deficiencies identified in 
Table 6-9 provided the basis for the development of capital improvement projects for the existing 
system. 
In order to distinguish pipeline projects in the CIP, each individual project is assigned a 
numerical designation such as P-101, P-102, etc. Since correction of existing deficiencies is a 
high priority, these pipeline projects are targeted for implementation in 2000-05. 
Low Demand with Booster Pump Operation 
The low demand, booster pump operation scenario simulated a time when the pumps were filling 
reservoirs while demand on the system was only at 20 percent of average day. Once again, the 
water level in reservoirs was set at 80 percent of full capacity. 
The service standard for maximum system pressure was used as the criteria for identifying 
deficiencies for the low demand scenario. Table 6-10 summarizes the nodes in the system with 
pressures over 100 psi. In each case, the excessive pressure was caused by nodes with elevations 
below the elevation of the service connection since the location of the node is beyond 
recommended range of service connections for the given pressure zone. In each case, the 
excessive pressure is caused by the low elevation of the service connection since the location of 
the node is beneath the recommended range for the given pressure zone. Although Table 6-10 
identifies only one node for each problem area, many of these problem areas are actually 
indicated by a cluster of excessive pressures. 
In general, the recommended corrective action for high pressure areas is the installation of 
individual pressure reduction valves on service connections. However, the very high pressures in 
the North Valley pressure zone warrant the installation of two pressure reduction stations. Site 
selection for these pressure reduction stations will require a review of the topography in the 
North Valley and consideration of any planned expansion to the service area. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-12 512-99-08 
000179 
Table 6-9. Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Deficiencies 
Location and 
Minimum Node Label 
Pressure 
Zone 
Available 
Fire Flow, 
gpm 
Required 
Fire Flow, 
gpm Recommended Corrective Action 
Pipeline 
Project 
Number 
Residential Land Use Areas 
W. Harbeck Rd 
J-1261 
PZ 1 833 1,000 Provide looping from W. Harbeck Rd. to 
Allen Creek Rd. (600 fit, 8-inch) 
P-101 
Ringuette St. 
J-1246 
PZ 1 704 1,000 Provide looping from Ringuette St. to 
Union Ave. (1,110 ft, 12-inch) 
P-1'02 
B St. and Grant St. 
J-1076 
PZ 1 470 1,000 Reconfigure Pressure Zone 2 boundary NA* 
Leonard St. 
J-1153 
PZ 1 746 1,000 Provide looping from G St. 
(440 ft, 8-inch) 
P-103 
Lower River Rd. 
J-1463 
PZ 1 923 1,000 Provide looping along Lower River Rd. 
(1,660 ft, 8-inch) 
P-104 
Prospect Ave Looping 
J-2500 
PZ2A 732 1,000 Provide looping to Gilbert Way 
(600 ft, 8-inch) 
P-105 
Crescent Dr. 
J-2030 
PZ 2 459 1,000 Provide large diameter transmission line 
into Crescent Dr. from Hawthorne 
(6,000 ft, 12-inch) 
P-106 
10th and Primrose PI. 
J-2051 
PZ 2 904 1,000 Provide looping from 9th St. 
(1,350 ft, 8-inch) 
P-107 
Tokay Heights 
J-2212 
PZ 2 695 1,000 Provide looping from Sherman Ln. 
(1,960 ft, 12-inch) 
P-108 
Starlite PI. 
J-3060 
PZ 3 877 1,000 Reconfigure Pressure Zone 4 boundary NA* 
Commercial and Multi-Family Land Use Areas 
Marion Ln. 
J-1241 
PZ 1 1,374 2,000 Provide looping to Ringuette St. on 
Redwood Hwy. (1,280 ft, 8-inch) 
P-109 
e s t . 
J-1133 
PZ 1 1,281 2,000 Provide looping from D St. 
(550 ft, 8-inch) 
P-110 
Schools 
Fruitdale Elementary 
J-1334 
PZ 1 3,859 4,000 Hamilton Lane looping 
(1,030 ft, 12-inch) 
P - l l l 
Riverside Elementary 
J-1366 
PZ 1 2,467 4,000 Agness to Gladiola connection 
(2,420 ft, 12-inch) 
P-112 
Parkside Elementary 
J-1179 
PZ 1 2,201 4,000 Lincoln Rd. looping and Bridge to 
Brownell Connector (4,430 ft, 12-inch) 
P-114 
Lincoln Elementary 
J-2034 
PZ 2 2,927 4,000 10th and Savage St. tie-in 
(60 ft, 12-inch) 
P-114 
* NA = Not Applicable 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-10 512-99-08 
0 0 - , » 1 8 0 
Table 6-10. Excessive Pressures under Low Demand with Booster Pump Operation 
CYBERNET 
Node Label Location 
Pressure 
Zone 
Elevation 
(feet) 
Pressure 
(psi) 
Recommended 
Corrective Action 
J-2033 10th St. and 
Churchill St. 
PZ2 997 109 Individual pressure 
reduction valves 
J-2129 A St. and 
Piedmont Ave. 
PZ 2 998 119 Individual pressure 
reduction valves 
J-3006 Buddy Lane 
and Hawthorne 
PZ 3 1,081 126 Individual pressure 
reduction valves 
J-3061 7th St and 
Morgan 
PZ3 1,115 116 Individual pressure 
reduction valves 
J-3066 Cook Ave and 
Highland 
PZ 3 1,105 112 Individual pressure 
reduction valves 
J-4019 Beacon Dr. and 
Roseana Dr. 
PZ 4 1,197 139 Individual pressure 
reduction valves 
J-5018 Merlin North 
Valley 
995 174 Pressure reduction valves 
for the pressure zone 
Pipeline Network Expansion 
In addition to the improvement projects designed for correcting deficiencies in the existing 
system, the pipeline network will also require expansion into areas within the UGB that are not 
yet served by the water distribution system. In order to plan for these future expansions of the 
pipeline network, the CYBERNET model was used to size the main transmission lines that will 
be required to extend water service throughout the UGB. The majority of the pipeline network 
expansion projects are located to the south of the Rogue River, although there are also a few 
expansion projects in northern Grants Pass. In a few instances, the expansion projects required 
additional improvements within the existing system. Table 6-11 summarizes the location, size, 
and length of pipelines associated with each expansion project. As with the previous pipeline 
projects, these system expansions are assigned a numerical designation for the CIP such as P-
201, P-202, etc.. This summary includes the main transmission pipelines only and not the smaller 
distribution pipelines. Many smaller distribution pipes were modeled, however, to ensure 
adequate service in peripheral areas. 
Many of the pipeline extensions will allow the integration of existing private water systems into 
the City's water distribution network. In general, the incorporation of private systems does not 
present any problems. However, the Williams Crossing private system in southern Pressure Zone 
2 includes some pipelines that extend beyond the upper elevation limit for that zone. House 
connections at these higher elevations will likely require auxiliary pumping. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-11 512-99-08 
O O C 1 S 1 
Table 6-11. Summary of Pipeline Network Expansion Projects for UGB Build-Out 
Expansion Project Location 
Pipeline 
Project 
Number 
Developer 
Participation 
Pipe Size, 
inches 
Pipe 
Length, 
feet 
Project 
Timing 
Redwood Avenue Extension P-201 No 16 2,660 2000-05 
Redwood Avenue Looping P-202 Yes 12 12,250 2000-05 
North 
Redwood Avenue Looping P-203 Yes 12 8,480 2000-05 
South 8 1,250 
Rogue Community College 
Extension 
P-204 No 16 
12 
2,310 
2,200 
2000-05 
Allen Creek Connector P-205 No 20 5,300 2000-05 
Reservoir No. 12 Extension P-206 No 20 2,920 2010-20 
Williams Highway Extension P-207 Yes 12 5,830 2000-05 
Williams Highway Looping P-208 Yes 12 11,270 2005-10 
Reservoir No. 17 Extension P-209 No 16 700 2010-20 
West Harbeck Road Connector P-210 No 12 2,750 2000-05 
G.I. Lane Extension P-211 Yes 8 1,540 2000-05 
Pedestrian Bridge Connector P-212 No 12 3,050 2000-05 
Canal Lane Looping P-213 Yes 8 880 2005-10 
Rogue River Highway 
Extension: 
P-214 No 12 
8 
4,690 
1,240 
2005-10 
Fruitdale Drive Extension P-215 No 12 5,770 2010-20 
Cloverlawn Loop P-216 Yes 12 
8 
2,130 
5,510 
2010-20 
Reservoir No. 10 Extension P-217 No 20 1,120 Post 2020 
Cloverlawn to Crestview Loop P-218 Yes 12 5,460 2010-20 
Extension: 8 1,920 
Reservoir No. 16 Extension P-219 No 16 1,300 2010-20 
Southeast N St. Extension P-220 Yes 12 4,000 2000-05 
Shannon Ln Extension P-221 Yes 12 1,840 2000-05 
Lincoln Road Extension P-222 Yes 12 5,190 2000-05 
Ament Road Extension P-223 No 12 5,690 2000-05 
Starlite Connector P-224 No 12 2,500 2000-05 
Starlite Extension P-225 Yes 12 3,830 2005-10 
Greenfield Road Loop P-226 Yes 12 9,170 2010-20 
Valley View Rd P-227 Yes 12 940 2000-05 
Laurelridge Development P-228 Yes 8 4,460 2000-05 
Reservoir No. 14 Extension P-229 No 16 490 2010-20 
The extension of a pipeline from Valley View Dr. to Starlite (P-224) will complete connection of 
Pressure Zone 3 areas in northern Grants Pass. With this connection, the City may consider 
taking the Starlite pump station out of service and relying on the Champion pump station to serve 
all of Pressure Zone 3. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-12 512-99-08 
0 0 0 1 8 2 
Developers in Grants Pass are required to cover the basic costs for extending the water system to 
their property. Therefore, many of the system expansion projects will require developer 
participation. This participation typically involves financial contributions to cover the cost of an 
eight-inch distribution pipeline. In the event that a larger diameter pipeline is necessary for 
purposes of allowing water transmission to more distant parts of the system, the City will pay the 
difference between the larger diameter and an eight-inch line. For each pipeline network 
expansion project identified in Table 6-11, the participation of developers in pipeline financing is 
noted. 
Although pipeline expansions into areas outside of the existing UGB are not formally considered 
in this plan, the model was used to confirm the potential of serving adjacent portions of the 
Redwood District, Allen Creek, and Spalding areas that are considered candidates for future 
UGB expansions. The pipeline network within the existing UGB is adequately sized to allow 
significant expansion into these adjacent areas. 
Pipeline Replacement 
The Grants Pass water distribution system contains approximately 28,000 feet of two-inch pipe 
and 10,000 feet of four-inch pipe. These small, old lines tend to create problems with service 
pressures and fire flows in some areas due to excessive head losses. Therefore, the City should 
maintain an ongoing program of annual pipeline replacement to improve service in these areas. 
The small diameter lines should be targeted for replacement within the 20 year planning period 
of this study. Since many small diameter pipelines will be replaced as part of projects designed 
to solve existing system deficiencies, the replacement program included in the CIP will not 
formally begin until the year 2005. At that time, the CIP will budget sufficient funds to replace 
2,500 feet of small diameter pipeline per year. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-13 512-99-08 
000183 
CHAPTER 7 
COST OF RECOMMENDED 
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 
Based on the evaluation of existing system performance and future expansion requirements 
presented in Chapter 6, this chapter integrates the projects into a staged Capital Improvement 
Program (CIP). Specific improvements are identified for each of the first five years of the CIP 
and for the full build-out of the City's service area. For each of the recommended projects, this 
chapter also presents cost estimates based on the Unit construction costs identified below. 
UNIT CONSTRUCTION COSTS 
This section presents the basis for cost estimates including the unit construction costs that are 
used to estimate the cost of recommended water system facility improvements. The unit costs are 
for construction only and do not include cost estimates for land acquisition, contingencies, 
engineering, legal costs, environmental, inspections and/or contract administration. These 
additional costs are added to the unit construction costs as a percentage mark-up to provide the 
City with a budgetary estimate of the total project capital cost for each proposed improvement. 
These unit costs are representative of the construction cost of water system facilities under 
normal construction conditions. Estimation of construction costs for facilities to be constructed 
in areas requiring rock excavation, special foundation considerations or other special conditions 
should be developed based on specific unit cost data matching the expected conditions or 
requirements. 
The unit costs were developed based on cost data supplied by manufacturers, published cost data 
and cost information from previous projects. All construction costs have been adjusted to reflect 
a year 2000 price level using the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News-
Record (ENR). The estimated ENR index for September 2000 is 6,300. These cost data can be 
adjusted to reflect past or future construction costs by multiplying by the ratio of the past/future 
ENR to the base ENR of 6,300. 
Construction cost data presented in this chapter are not intended to represent the lowest prices in 
the industry for each type of construction, but rather to be representative of average or typical 
construction costs. They are order-of-magnitude cost estimates with an expected accuracy of +50 
percent to -30 percent to reflect the variability of costs according to the time of year that the 
work is bid, level of competition within the local economic environment, and future changes in 
the cost of labor and materials. As planning level unit costs, they are intended for guidance in 
evaluating various options and for budgetary purposes only within the context of this master 
planning effort. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-6 512-99-08 
()0 €184 
Pipelines 
Unit costs for cement-mortar lined ductile iron water mains 6- through 36-inches in diameter are 
provided in Table 7-1. These costs include pipe materials, trenching, placing and jointing pipe, 
valves, thrust blocks, fittings, hydrants, placing imported pipe bedding, and native backfill 
material. The table includes costs for both new construction and pipe installations requiring 
asphalt pavement replacement. Asphalt réplacement will be included in all cost estimates unless 
the proposed pipeline alignment will clearly cross unpaved ground. The cost for new or 
reconnected service lines from the pipeline to the property line, for average suburban residential 
development densities, is included in the costs for pipelines up to 18-inches in diameter. Service 
connection costs are not included for larger diameter pipelines which serve primarily as 
transmission lines. Unit costs increase if rock excavation is necessary, typically adding 50 to 200 
percent or more to the baseline installation cost. The cost for any proposed pipelines within 
known rocky areas will be increased by a factor of 2. 
Table 7-1. Construction Costs for Water Mains 
Pipeline Diameter, 
inches 
Construction Cost"'b, 
Dollars Per Lineal Foot 
New Construction 
Construction Cost 
Including Pavement 
Replacement 
8 49 62 
10 56 69 
12 69 80 
14 72 89 
16 76 96 
18 80 104 
20 89 113 
24 106 126 
30 138 173 
36 177 217 
"Costs based on the 20-city average ENR CCI of 6,300. 
bCosts do not include engineering, overhead, and contingency. 
Treated Water Storage Tanks 
Unit costs were developed for the construction of water storage tanks in the size ranges of 0.5, 1, 
2, and 5 million gallons (MG). Table 7-2 lists the estimated construction cost for a ground-level 
pre-stressed concrete storage tank. As previously stated, these costs represent construction under 
normal excavation and foundation conditions and would be significantly higher for special or 
difficult foundation requirements. In addition to these construction costs, an allowance of 
$100,000 is included for land acquisition at each tank site. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
7-2 512-99-08 
O O a 1 8 5 
Table 7-2. Construction Costs for Storage Reservoirs 
Construction Costb 
Tank Volume, Concrete Reservoirs, 
million gallons" $l,000cd 
0.5 525 
1 719 
2 1,080 
5 2,048 
"Costs for volumes not shown may be interpolated. 
bCosts dp not include engineering, overhead, and contingency. 
cCosts based on the 20-city average ENR CCI of 6,300. 
dCosts are based on prestressed concrete tank design. 
Distribution Pumping Plants 
Distribution pumping station costs vary considerably, depending on such factors as architectural 
design, pumping head, and station capacity. Estimated average construction costs for distribution 
pumping stations, as shown in Table 7-3, are based on enclosed stations with architectural and 
landscaping treatment suitable for residential areas. Pumping station cost estimates include 
allowances for a standby pumping unit and auxiliary engine-generator sets. 
Table 7-3. Construction Costs for Distribution Pumping Stations 
Pumping Station Construction Costb, 
Capacity, mgd" $1,000° 
1 150 
2 181 
5 263 
10 368 
"Costs for capacities not shown may be interpolated. 
bCosts do not include engineering, overhead, and contingency. 
"Costs based on the 20-city average ENR CCI of 6,300. 
Engineering Markups and Contingencies 
Engineering services associated with new facilities include preliminary investigations and 
reports, site and route surveys, foundation explorations, preparation of drawings and 
specifications, construction services, surveying and staking, sampling of testing material, and 
start-up services. For this study, engineering costs are assumed to be 10 percent of the 
construction cost estimates after construction contingencies have been applied. 
There are also program implementation costs which cover such items as legal fees, financing 
expenses, administrative costs, and interest during construction. The cost of these items can also 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
7-3 512-99-08 
186 
vary, but for the purpose of this study, it is assumed that these charges will equal approximately 
5 percent of the construction costs after construction contingencies have been applied. 
Construction Management covers such items as contract management and inspection during 
construction. The cost of these items can also vary, but for the purpose of this study, it is 
assumed that construction management charges will equal approximately 10 percent of the 
construction costs after construction contingencies have been applied. 
It is also appropriate to allow for uncertainties unavoidably associated with the preliminary 
layout of projects. Such factors as unexpected construction conditions, the need for unforeseen 
mechanical items, and variations in final quantities are a few of the items that can increase 
project costs for which it is wise to make allowances in preliminary estimates. An allowance of 
20 percent of the base construction cost was included to cover such contingencies. 
Based on these factors, the total cost of all necessary engineering services, construction 
management, contingencies and program implementation is 45 percent of the base construction 
costs for each project. This factor is applied to the construction cost to estimate the total capital 
cost. 
COST OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 
Based on the unit costs and methodology described above, this section summarizes the estimated 
costs associated with each CIP project. The projects are divided into four categories according to 
their anticipated timing: 
• Year 2000 to 2005 
• Year 2005 to 2010 
• Year 2010 to 2020 
• Post 2020 
The post 2020 CIP projects represent the long term phase of projects that will take place between 
the year 2020 and full service area build-out. All of the CIP projects are displayed along with 
the existing water distribution system on the system map enclosed in Appendix 3. 
Summary of CIP Projects 
Tables 7-4 through 7-7 summarize the capital costs for each project in the set of recommended 
improvements according to their anticipated timing. These CIP projects are intended to satisfy 
the system improvement and expansion requirements through build-out of the City's urban 
growth boundary. After the first improvement period, an allowance is also included for the 
annual replacement of 2,500 feet of small pipelines. The reported capital costs account for 
developer participation in the financing of some system expansions. The estimated capital costs 
for pipelines are shown in greater detail in Appendix 4. 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
6-13 512-99-08 
187 
Table 7-4. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects 
Period 2000 - 2005 
Capital Cost, 
| Recommended Improvements $1,000 
I Pump Stations 
Hilltop/Harbeck Heights Fire Pumps 60 
Meadow Wood Pump Station 255 
Laurelridge Pump Station 245 
Rogue Community College Pump Sta. 245 
Subtotal 805 
Pipelines 
Pressure zone boundary modifications 100 
Pressure reduction valves 130 
P-101 West Harbeck to Allen Creek 54 
P-102 RinguetteSt 129 
P-103 Leonard St Looping 40 
P-104 Lower River Road 149 
P-105 Prospect Ave Looping 54 
P-106 Hawthorne to Crescent 748 
P-107 9th to 10th at Midland 122 
P-108 Sherman Ln to Tokay Heights 227 
P-109 Marion Ln 115 
P-110 C St to D St Loop 49 
P-111 Hamilton Ln Looping 134 
P-l 12 Agness to Gladiola 119 
P-113 Bridge to Brownell 431 
P-l 14 Lincoln Rd Looping 83 
P-115 10th and Savage Tie-in 7 
P-201 Redwood Ave Extension 370 
P-202 Redwood Ave Looping North 319 
P-203 Redwood Ave Looping South 221 
P-204 Rogue Community College Ext 577 
P-205 Allen Creek Connector 869 
P-207 Williams Hwy Extension 152 
P-210 West Harbeck Rd Connector 318 
P-212 Pedestrian Bridge Connector 353 
P-220 Southeast N St Extension 113 
P-221 Shannon Ln Extension 48 
P-222 Lincoln Rd Extension 103 
P-223 Ament Rd Extension 660 
P-224 Starlite Connector 290 
P-227 Valley View Rd 25 
Subtotal 7,109 
Total 7,914 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
7-7 512-99-08 
Table 7-5. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects 
Period 2005-2010 
Recommended Improvements 
Capital Cost, 
$1,000 
I Pipelines 
P-208 Williams Hwy Looping 
P-214 Rogue River Hwy Extension 
P-225 Starlite Extension 
Subtotal 
294 
655 
100 
1,049 
Pipeline Replacement 
12,500 feet total replacement 
Subtotal 
1,124 
1,124 
Total 2,173 
Table 7-6. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects 
Period 2010 - 2020 
Capital Cost, 
Recommended Improvements $1,000 
Treated Water Storage 
Reservoir No. 12 1,710 
Reservoir No. 14 850 
Reservoir No. 16 960 
Reservoir No. 17 1,350 
Reservoir No. 13 (replacement) 850 
Subtotal 5,720 
Pipelines 
P-206 Reservoir No. 12 Extension 479 
P-209 Reservoir No. 17 Extension 97 
P-215 Fruitdale Dr Extension 780 
P-216 Cloverlawn Loop 56 
P-218 Cloverlawn to Crestview Loop 142 
P-219 Reservoir No. 16 Extension 181 
P-226 Greenfield Rd Loop 239 
P-229 Reservoir No. 14 Extension 68 
Subtotal 2,042 
Pipeline Replacement 
25,000 feet total replacement 2,248 
Subtotal 2,248 
Total 10,010 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
7-6 512-99-08 
Table 7-4. Estimated Capital Costs for CIP Projects 
Period 2000 - 2005 
1 Recommended Improvements 
Capital Cost, 
$1,000 
Treated Water Storage 
Reservoir No. 10 
Subtotal 
1,560 
1,560 
Pump Stations 
Treatment Plant Pumps 
J Subtotal 
400 
400 
I Pipelines 
P-217 Reservoir No. 10 Extension 
Subtotal 
184 
184 
1 Total 2,144 
Grants Pass Water Distribution System Master Plan 
January 2001 
7-7 512-99-08 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS 
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 
FINAL REPORT 
Prepared by: 
West Yost and Associates, LLC. 
21920 Willamette Drive - Suite 3 
West Linn, Oregon 97068 
June 2002 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
CHAPTER 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Existing Water System 1-1 
Water Demand 1-1 
Water Conservation Measures 1-2 
Water Curtailment Measures 1-3 
Long Range Supply 1-3 
CHAPTER 2. EXISTING WATER SYSTEM 
Source of Water 2-1 
Source Availability and Supply 2-1 
Long-term Reliable Yield 2-2 
Water Rights 2-2 
Intergovernmental Agreements 2-2 
System Capacity, Limitations and Opportunities for Expansion Under Existing Water 
Rights 2-2 
Water Treatment Plant 2-3 
Distribution Pipeline Network 2-3 
Storage Reservoirs 2-4 
Booster Pumping Stations 2-5 
Water System Operation 2-5 
Water Treatment Plant 2-5 
Booster Pumping Stations Serving Areas With Reservoirs 2-5 
Booster Pumping Stations Serving Areas Without Reservoirs 2-5 
Reservoirs 2-5 
Pressure Reducing Valves 2-7 
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System 2-7 
System Capacity Limitations 2-7 
Rogue River Supply Capacity 2-7 
Permitted Water Rights 2-7 
Water Treatment Plant Capacity 2-7 
Treated Water Storage Capacity 2-8 
Booster Pumping Capacity 2-9 
CHAPTER 3. WATER DEMAND 
Population 3-1 
Existing Water Use 3-2 
Average, Maximum Month and Maximum Day Use 3-2 
Per Capita Water Demand 3-2 
Unaccounted for Water 3-3 
Description of Customers Served 3-3 
Water Demand by Customer Classification 3-3 
[ ) 0 c l 9 2 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 
Page 
Water Demand by Land Use 3-4 
System Interconnections 3-5 
CHAPTER 4. WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES 
Existing City Measures ; 4-1 
Evaluation of Additional Conservation Measures 4-3 
Description of Measures 4-7 
Bulk Water Dispensing Stations 4-7 
Inverted Block Water Rates 4-7 
Low Water Use Demonstration Garden 4-7 
Distribute Plumbing Kits 4-7 
Fixture Rebates 4-7 
Water Waste Prohibition 4-7 
Basis of Analysis 4-8 
Analysis Results 4-8 
Recommended Conservation Measures 4-8 
Implementation Schedule 4-9 
CHAPTER 5. WATER CURTAILMENT PLAN 
Frequency and Magnitude of Supply Deficiencies 5-1 
Curtailment Triggers 5-2 
Curtailment Actions 5-2 
Level One Alert - Potential Water Supply Shortage 5-2 
Level Two Alert - Water Supply Shortage 5-3 
Level Three Alert - Critical Water Supply Shortage 5-3 
CHAPTER 6. LONG RANGE WATER SUPPLY 
Future Water Needs 6-1 
Available Sources of Water 6-2 
CHAPTER 7. PLAN UPDATE SCHEDULE 
Plan Update Schedule 7-1 
CHAPTER 8. REFERENCES 
References 8-1 
Appendix A: Water Rights Documentation 
Appendix B: North Valley Service Agreement 
Appendix C: Redwood Service Agreement 
Appendix D: Conservation Pamphlet 
Appendix E: Curtailment Ordinance 
00 193 
CHAPTER 1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The purpose of the Water Management Plan is to identify and analyze the water supply and 
demand issues facing the City of Grants Pass, develop a reasonable approach to resolving the 
issues, and serve as a guide for City water management policies. This plan was developed in 
accordance with Oregon Water Resources Department guidelines and contains a comprehensive 
discussion of the existing water distribution system, current and future development of water 
demand, existing and potential water conservation measures, water curtailment strategies, 
implementation schedules, and long range water supply issues. 
EXISTING WATER SYSTEM 
The City of Grants Pass gets its drinking water from the Rogue River. The Rogue River has 
historically provided a plentiful supply for the City and even at its lowest flows has sufficient 
flow for the City's current demand. Grants Pass holds four water rights on the river, totaling 87.5 
cfs (56 mgd). One right for 12.5 cfs (8 mgd) is perfected. 
The City's water system consists of a water treatment plant, eleven booster pumping stations, 
eight reservoirs, and an extensive water distribution system with over 130 miles of pipeline. Due 
to the extent of the distribution system and the highly varied local topography, the service area 
contains seven separate pressure zones. The overall water system is limited by the capacity of the 
water treatment plant, which is rated at 18 mgd. 
WATER DEMAND 
The water system serves the residents of Grants Pass with a current population of 23,170 and 
surrounding developing areas. Table 1-1 shows current water demand. 
Table 1-1. Current Water Demand 
Current Water 
Condition Demand, mgd 
Average Annual 4.5 
Maximum Month 8 
Maximum Day 10 
A comparison of water sold to water produced shows that the system has an excellent delivery 
record. The unaccounted-for water rate was limited to 10.9 percent in calendar year 2000. A 
breakdown of water demand by customer categories is shown in Table 1-2. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
2-7 512-01-10 
194 
Table 1-2. Water Demand by Customer Category 
Customer Category Percentage 
Commercial 36 
Multi-Family 16 
Single Family 48 
Total 100 
WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES 
The State requires in a Water Management Plan that the City examine the feasibility of six types 
of water conservation measures (WCMs 1-6) and that the City provide an implementation 
schedule for an additional six types of measures (WCMs 7-12). Grants Pass has a number of 
conservation programs in place and an analysis of potential additional conservation programs 
was performed. A list of measures was screened based on a list of criteria including projected 
water savings, cost, political feasibility and legal constraints, consistency with community 
values, and environmental impacts. From this process, six favored programs emerged and a 
detailed cost-benefit analysis was performed. Of these programs, five were recommended for 
implementation. Table 1-3 summarizes existing and recommended conservation programs. 
Table 1-3. Grants Pass Water Conservation Measures 
WCM Program Description Status 
1 Leak reporting program Existing 
2 Low water use demonstration garden Recommended (2002) 
3 SDCs based on meter size Existing 
Separate indoor and outdoor metering Existing 
4 Enforces state building code regulations Existing 
Distribute plumbing kits Recommended (2003) 
5 Inverted block water rates Recommended (2001) 
6 Non potable water used at WWTP Existing 
7 Annual system accounting Existing 
8 Fully metered system Existing 
9 Visual leak inspection Existing 
Customer tracking to spot leaks Existing 
10 Random meter testing Existing 
Customer tracking to spot dead meters Existing 
Commercial meter replacement program Existing 
11 Pamphlet distribution, city newsletter Existing 
Low water use demonstration garden Recommended (2002) 
12 Bulk water dispensing station and fire hydrant Existing 
flow meters • 
Additional bulk water dispensing stations Recommended (2001) 
Water waste prohibition Recommended (2001) 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
1-2 512-01-10 
00 195 
WATER CURTAILMENT MEASURES 
The City has not experienced any supply deficiencies within the last 10 years, but the potential 
exists for service interruption in the event of a supply contamination, treatment plant difficulties, 
transmission or pumping problems or prolonged drought. The City has in place a water 
curtailment ordinance; however, in compliance with OAR 690-086, the ordinance will be 
repealed and replaced with an ordinance that clearly defines three levels of water shortage alerts 
and contains specific water curtailment measures to be implemented at each level of alert. The 
citizens of Grants Pass will be well served to have in place a curtailment plan that defines levels 
of water shortage severity and mechanisms for dealing with the situation. Table 1-4 lists water 
shortage alert levels, operational triggers, and curtailment measure implementation requirements. 
Chapter 5 outlines specific curtailment measures for each alert level. 
Table 1-4. Water Shortage Alert Levels, Triggers, and Curtailment Measure 
Implementation Requirements 
Alert 
Level Description Trigger 
Curtailment 
Measure 
Implementation 
One Potential Water 
Supply Shortage 
A serious drought condition is occurring 
or is likely to occur in the region or 
Rogue River flow rates are measured or 
projected to be below a l-in-10 year low 
flow level, or the County or State has 
declared a drought condition. 
Voluntary 
Two Water Supply 
Shortage 
The City's ability to deliver water is not 
adequate to meet demand due to supply, 
treatment, storage, or pumping 
restrictions, or extended treatment plant 
operation is required and storage cannot 
be maintained. 
Mandatory 
Three Critical Water 
Supply Shortage 
Supply is interrupted Mandatory 
LONG RANGE SUPPLY 
Future demand requirements were developed using land use demand factors and zoning 
information. The rate of development for the area was estimated to continue at 2.8 percent. 
Peaking factors were developed using historical water use data. Resulting future water demand 
requirements are shown in Table 1-5. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
2-7 512-01-10 
000196 
Table 1-5. Future Water Demand Requirements 
Year 
Average Demand, 
mgd 
Maximum Day 
Demand, mgd 
2010 6.1 13 
2020 8.1 18 
Build-out 9.5 21 
Generally, the Rogue River provides an ample and reliable water supply for future water needs 
as Grants Pass expands within the urban growth boundary. It is important to note, however, that 
there are special factors such as the listing of salmon as an endangered species and long-term 
climate change that may impact the future ability of the river to maintain its reliable yield. These 
factors bear watching but at this time are ill defined, so it is difficult to quantify their potential 
effect. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
1-4 512-01-10 
my 1 9 7 
CHAPTER 2 
EXISTING WATER SYSTEM 
SOURCE OF WATER 
Source Availability and Reliability 
The source of supply for the City of Grants Pass is surface water from the Rogue River. The 
Rogue River drains a large watershed extending from the Pacific Ocean to the crest of the 
Cascade Mountains. Grants Pass is located at approximately River ^iile 100 and there are 
approximately 2,460 square miles of watershed area upstream of the City. As a result of this 
extensive drainage area, the Rogue River is a plentiful and reliable source of drinking water for 
the community. 
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a river gaging station near the Grants Pass water 
treatment plant that provides extensive historical data on the flow characteristics of the Rogue 
River. Since the Lost Creek Reservoir storage reservoir was constructed upstream of Grants Pass 
in 1977 to regulate flow, USGS statistical data for the river are typically based on records from 
1978 to present. Based on USGS data for this station, Table 2-1 presents the average, maximum, 
and minimum monthly flow rates for the Rogue River. Since construction of Lost Creek 
Reservoir, the lowest daily average flow at Grants Pass was 744 cubic feet per second (cfs) on 
October 10, 1994, and the lowest seven-day average flow was 799 cfs during the week of 
September 22, 1994. In general, dry weather flows are maintained by the combination of snow 
melt from the Cascades in the early summer and the release of stored water from Lost Creek 
Reservoir in the late summer. 
Table 2-1. Rogue River Average Monthly Flows at Grants Pass 
USGS Data for the 20-Year Period 1978 to 1997 
Average Monthly Maximum Monthly Minimum Monthly 
Month Flow, cfs Flow, cfs Flow, cfs 
January 4,684 16,600 1,575 
February 4,556 10,960 1,641 
March 4,034 8,119 1,099 
April 4,002 6,843 1,211 
May 3,607 5,910 1,857 
June 2,709 4,572 1,549 
July 2,146 3,127 1,059 
August 2,164 3,080 1,620 
September 1,840 2,642 1,333 
October 1,499 2,282 1,008 
November 2,670 7,669 1,160 
December 5,251 17,620 1,557 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
2-7 512-01-10 
000198 
Long-Term Reliable Yield 
Due to the nature of the City's surface water supply source, the long-term sustainability of 
drinking water supplies for Grants Pass is generally good. As noted earlier, the large size of the 
watershed drained by the Rogue River typically provides abundant water supplies throughout the 
year. Even during extreme dry weather periods when river flows are at their lowest, the reliable 
flow rate in the Rogue River is approximately 750 cfs or nearly fifty times larger than the highest 
drinking water demand ever experienced in Grants Pass. There are some special circumstances, 
which may affect the long-term reliable yield for the Rogue River. For example, the listing of 
the Coho Salmon as an endangered species in the Rogue River may influence operational 
procedures at the Lost Creek Reservoir, which in turn may affect dry weather flow levels. 
Another issue is related to climate change and snow pack levels in the Cascade Range. Any 
reduction in average precipitation or the average snow pack will tend to reduce dry weather flow 
rates in the Rogue River. Since these factors are complex in nature, it is difficult to quantify their 
potential effect on the river's reliable yield at this time. 
Water Rights 
The City of Grants Pass has water rights for the withdrawal of 87.5 cfs from the Rogue River. 
Table 2-2 summarizes the details related to these water rights. Documentation for the water 
rights is included in Appendix A. 
Table 2-2. Grants Pass Water Rights 
Permit 
Number 
Priority 
Date 
Permitted 
Use 
Permitted 
Rate, 
cfs 
Available 
Quantity, 
cfs 
Source Availability Analysis 
Reliability 
Impact of 
ESA 
Water 
Quality 
D15839 1888 Municipal/ 
Irrigation 
12.5 High Undefined Good 
S26901 1960 Municipal 25.0 735a High Undefined Good 
S45827 1965 Municipal 25.0 High Undefined Good 
S47346 1983 Municipal 25.0 High Undefined Good 
Restriction that water can be diverted only when flow at the mouth of the Rogue exceeds 735 cfs. 
Intergovernmental Agreements 
The City has no system interties that would provide additional water supply. 
SYSTEM CAPACITY, LIMITATIONS, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXPANSION 
UNDER EXISTING WATER RIGHTS 
The Grants Pass water supply system currently distributes water to developed properties 
covering an area of more than 3,500 acres and serves a population of 23,170 within the City 
limits and several hundred outside the City limits in Harbeck-Fruitdale, Redwood, and North 
Valley. The overall system is composed of a water treatment plant, twelve booster pumping 
stations, eight reservoirs, two pressure reducing valves, and six altitude valves. Figure 2-1 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
2-2 512-01-10 
illustrates the configuration of the Grants Pass water distribution system. The figure depicts all 
water distribution piping twelve inches in diameter and larger and shows future piping 
improvements recommended in the 2000 Water Master Plan including extension of service to the 
urban growth boundary and pipeline looping. 
Water Treatment Plant 
The City draws water from the Rogue River with a pumping station located next to the water 
treatment plant. The treatment plant was originally constructed in 1930 and has undergone many 
renovations over the years. The most recent plant expansion was completed in 1983, bringing the 
total rated plant capacity to 18 million gallons per day (mgd). Influent pumps deliver river water 
to the plant where the treatment process includes coagulation and sedimentation of suspended 
solids, filtration, and chlorination for disinfection prior to pumping into the distribution system. 
Distribution Pipeline Network 
The Grants Pass water distribution pipeline network consists of approximately 130 miles of 
existing pipeline. Table 2-3 details the water distribution system according to pipeline length and 
diameter. These pipelines are made of cast iron or ductile iron and range in age up to 
approximately 80 years. 
Table 2-3, Water Distribution System Pipeline Network 
Pipe Size, Length, 
inches miles 
2 5.23 
4 1.80 
6 40.89 
8 43.63 
10 7.64 
12 19.49 
14 0.38 
16 7.88 
20 2.40 
24 1.02 
30 0.95 
36 0.01 
Total 131.32 
The urban growth boundary for the City of Grants Pass encompasses lands of wide ranging 
elevations. As a result, the water distribution pipeline network contains seven separate service 
pressure zones. Table 2-4 summarizes the service elevations and static pressure range for each 
pressure zone. The lower end of the pressure range is based on reservoirs at 80 percent full and 
the upper end is based on full reservoirs. At this time, there are properties receiving City water 
service in each of the pressure zones except Zone 5. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
2-3 512-01-10 
0 0 0 2 C 0 
Table 2-4. Pressure Zone Ranges 
Zone Elevation, feet Pressure, psi 
1 900-1,020 3 6 - 9 0 
2 1,020-1,140 4 1 - 9 5 
2A 9 6 0 - 1,035 6 1 - 9 4 
3 1,140-1,280 3 6 - 1 0 0 
4 1,280- 1,420 4 2 - 1 0 4 
5 1,420- 1,560 41 - 1 0 4 
NV 995-1,165 101-177 
In some areas, the pressure zone boundaries are modified slightly from these elevation ranges in 
order to accommodate special service pressure requirements. Pressure Zone 2A is a hybrid 
between Zones 1 and 2. The North Valley service area is actually a hybrid between Zones 1, 2, 
and 3, serving properties between the elevations of 995 feet and 1,165 feet. Due to the great 
range of elevations served in the North Valley, this pressure zone requires pressure reduction 
valves at service connections to maintain appropriate service pressures. 
Storage Reservoirs 
There are eight treated water storage reservoirs within the Grants Pass water distribution system 
that provide a total of 19 million gallons of treated water storage. These reservoirs were 
constructed between the years 1946 and 1999. Design information for these reservoirs is detailed 
in Table 2-5. 
Table 2-5. Storage Reservoirs 
Pressure Bottom Overflow 
Reservoir Reservoir Zone Year Construction Capacity, Elevation, Elevation, 
Location Number Served Built Materials Mg feet feet 
500 Block 3 1 1946 Concrete 3.5 1,089.5 1,108.5 
Woodson Dr. 
1500 Block .4 2 1953 Concrete 0.75 1,216 1,240 
Ridge Rd. 
1400 Block 5 1 1983 Concrete 3.5 1,079.5 1,108.5 
Sherman Ln. 
2200 Block 6 2 1982 Concrete 3.5 1,211 1,240 
Crown St. 
Heiglen Loop Rd. 8 3 1983 Concrete 2.0 1,341 1,370 
1420 Denton 11 1 1999 Concrete 4.5 1,080.1 1,108.5 
Trail 
1700 Block 13 4 1980 Concrete 0.08 1,510 1,520 
Sunset Ln. 
3900 Block 15 5 1985 Concrete 1.2 1,374 1,403 
Highland Ave. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
2-4 512-01-10 
000201 
Booster Pumping Stations 
* 
The water distribution system includes the water treatment plant pumps and nine booster 
pumping stations that transfer water to the higher pressure zones. These pump stations either fill 
the reservoirs that serve these higher pressure zones or pump to maintain a minimum pressure in 
those areas that are not served by reservoirs. Table 2-6 details the technical information for each 
of the system's pumping stations. 
WATER SYSTEM OPERATION 
Water Treatment Plant 
The water treatment plant operates as necessary to fill storage reservoirs in the distribution 
system on a daily basis. Therefore, the operating schedule varies with seasonal variations in 
water demand. During the winter months, the plant generally operates seven days per week for 
an eight hour period. Operational hours are extended during the high demand summer months, 
when the plant must operate up to twelve hours daily in order to keep the storage reservoirs full. 
Booster Pumping Stations Serving Areas With Reservoirs 
Those booster pumping stations that fill storage reservoirs are automatically controlled to 
maintain preset water levels. When sensors show that the water level in a reservoir has fallen 
below a preset threshold, the lead pump will activate and begin filling the reservoir to a high 
water level. If water demand on the reservoir is such that a single pump cannot maintain the 
water level, a lag pump (or pumps) will activate as necessary until the reservoir fills to a high 
water level. 
Booster Pumping Stations Serving Areas Without Reservoirs 
Booster pumping stations that serve areas without storage reservoirs are automatically controlled 
to maintain a minimum discharge pressure at the pumping stations. When pressure sensors show 
that the discharge pressure has fallen below a preset threshold, the lead pump activates and 
pumps until the discharge pressure exceeds a high pressure level. If water demand in the pump 
station's service area is such that a single pump cannot maintain the pressure level, a lag pump 
(or pumps) activates until the system pressure is restored. 
Reservoirs 
Reservoirs in the water distribution system are generally maintained between 80 and 100 percent 
full. This fluctuating volume represents the operating storage. The remaining storage is allocated 
to providing fire flow requirements and emergency reserves. In the case of Reservoir No. 15 in 
the North Valley, water levels are maintained at a much lower level due to limited demand in 
that portion of the distribution system. 
Altitude valves control the flow into and out of Reservoirs Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 15. These 
valves are designed to close when the reservoir is full and open when the system pressure drops. 
The other reservoirs in the distribution system float on the system. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
2-5 512-01-10 
Table 2-6. Existing Booster Pumping Stations 
Pumping Pressure Number Pump Motor Size Capacity Rated 
Station Zone Reservoirs of and Speed, of Each Discharge 
Name Served Served Pumps hp/rpm Pump, gpm Head, feet 
Treatment 1 No. 3 5 300/1,775 3,500 220 
Plant No. 5 300/1,775 3,500 220 
No. 11 250/1,760 3,500 210 
250/1,760 3,500 210 
200/1,750 2,600 210 
Lawnridge 2 No. 6 4 25/1,750 400 120 
No. 4 50/1,750 1,000 120 
50/1,750 1,000 120 
100/1,750 2,000 148 
Madrone 2 No. 4 3 60/1,750 2,000 170 
No. 6 401,750 1,200 170 
301,750 900 170 
New Hope 2 — 4 30/3,600 350 212 
30/3,600 350 212 
30/3,600 350 212 
150/1,800 2,000 200 
Meadow 2 — 4 5/3,500 50 240 
Wood 15/3,600 150 155 
60/3,600 500 275 
60/3,600 500 275 
Harbeck 2 — 3 5/3,600 90 100 
Heights 5/3,600 90 100 
50/3,600 1,200 125 
Hilltop 2 — 3 5/3,600 100 120 
7.5/3,600 150 120 
40/3,600 750 120 
Champion 3 No. 8 3 50/1,750 800 165 
150/1,750 2,300 165 
100/1,750 1,600 165 
Starlite 3 — 4 15/3,500 60 185 
30/1,760 450 185 
60/1,760 1,050 185 
30/1,760 450 185 
Hefley 4 No. 13 4 7.5/3,500 40 250 
15/3,500 120 250 
60/3,500 600 300 
60/3,500 600 300 
Laurelridge 4 — 3 15/3,500 300 150 
15/3,500 300 150 
75/3,500 1,000 162 
North Valley NV No. 15 3 7.5/3,500 70 170 
30/3,500 500 174 
30/3,500 500 174 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
2-6 512-01-10 
000203 
Pressure Reducing Valves 
There are two pressure reducing valve stations in the Grants Pass water distribution system. 
These stations control the flow of water from Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 2A. Pressure 
Zone 2A extends to slightly lower elevations than Pressure Zone 2 and thus requires some 
pressure reduction. Each station contains a single 6-inch pressure reducing valve 
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System 
The City upgraded the water distribution system SCADA system in 1999. The SCADA system 
monitors reservoir levels, pump operating status, and local pressures throughout the system. The 
central computer system for the human-machine interface is located at the water treatment plant. 
SYSTEM CAPACITY LIMITATIONS 
The capacity of the Grants Pass water system is dependent on three components: the supply 
source, permitted water rights, and the water supply infrastructure. The limitations of each of 
these components are discussed in the following sections. 
Rogue River Supply Capacity 
As noted earlier, the large size of the watershed drained by the Rogue River typically provides 
abundant water supplies throughout the year. Even during extreme dry weather periods when 
river flows are at their lowest, the reliable flow rate in the Rogue River far exceeds present and 
projected future water demands. Identified, but undefined factors such as the listing of Coho 
Salmon under the Endangered Species Act may impact the amount of water available to the City 
in the future. 
Permitted Water Rights 
The water rights currently held by the City are sufficient for present and future water needs. The 
City holds a perfected water right of 12.5 cfs and three water right permits totaling 87.5 cfs. 
Water Treatment Plant Capacity 
The Grants Pass water treatment plant has a rated water treatment capacity of 18 mgd. However, 
the capacity of the plant is currently limited to 16 mgd by its firm pumping capacity. This limit is 
only relevant in the event one of the influent pumps is out of service. The available capacity is 
sufficient to meet current maximum day demand with at least an additional ten percent capacity 
available. The additional ten percent is necessary to allow for backwashing filters, meeting 
drinking water quality standards with difficult raw water, or repairing equipment failures. 
The existing water treatment plant has ample capacity relative to current demand and will 
continue to be sufficient for the near term future. This situation allows the City to operate the 
water plant on a part-time basis even during the current water demand peaks in the summer. An 
extension of the plant operating hours will forestall the need for treatment capacity expansions. 
With extended operating hours and a two percent annual water demand growth rate, a plant 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
2-7 512-01-10 
000204 
expansion will not become necessary until well after the year 2020. Table 2-7 summarizes the 
treatment plant capacity evaluation for current and build-out demand conditions. 
Table 2-7. Water Treatment Plant Capacity Evaluation 
Maximum Day WTP Capacity Existing WTP Additional WTP 
Demand, Requirement, Capacity, Capacity Required, 
Period mgd mgd mgd mgd 
Current 10 11 18 None 
UGB Build-Out 20 22 18 4 
Treated Water Storage Capacity 
The Grants Pass water distribution system includes eight treated water reservoirs serving five 
separate pressure zones. The treated water storage reservoirs serve three principal purposes: 
operational storage to meet diurnal fluctuations, emergency storage, and fire flow storage. The 
required storage volume for these three purposes is determined individually and then combined 
to identify the total amount of storage volume required within a given pressure zone and for the 
overall system. For added reliability, storage is located to allow gravity flow into the pressure 
zone where it is required. This arrangement eliminates the need for pumping facilities that 
require a backup power system during power outages. Storage located in higher pressure zones 
also benefits lower zones by providing a potential source of gravity supply through the addition 
of pressure reducing stations to the system. The City of Grants Pass maintains the following 
treated water storage standards for evaluating system capacity: 
1. Operational storage equal to 45 percent of maximum day demand for current demand 
and part-time plant operation. Operational storage equal to 25 percent of maximum 
day demand for future demand and full-time plant operation. 
2. Emergency storage equal to 75 percent of maximum day demand. 
3. Fire flow storage based on the largest fire flow requirement in the pressure zone. 
Table 2-8 summarizes the evaluation of treated water storage requirements for current demand 
conditions. The existing system contains an overall treated water storage capacity of 19 million 
gallons which is ample for overall current levels of demand. The significant volume of storage 
that is available in the system relative to maximum day demand provides ample operating 
storage, thus allowing the water treatment plant to effectively operate on a part-time basis 
without compromising emergency storage or fire flow storage supplies. Existing storage volumes 
are also sufficient for current demand on a zone-by-zone basis except in Pressure Zone 4 where 
only 80,000 gallons of storage volume is available. The existing available storage in North 
Valley is somewhat overstated since only approximately one third of the 1.2 million gallon 
storage volume available in Reservoir 15 is actually utilized due to limited demand in that 
portion of the system. Otherwise, the quality of water will degrade due to long-term storage. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
2-2 512-01-10 
Table 2-8. Treated Water Storage Evaluation 
Current Required Required Required Required Existing 
Max Day Operational Emergency Fire Flow Total Available 
Pressure Demand, Storage, Storage, Storage, Storage, Storage, 
Zone mgd mg mg mg mg mg 
1 7.0 3.2 5.3 0.96 9.4 11.5 
2 2.1 0.9 1.6 0.96 3.5 4.3 
3 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.24 1.0 2.0 
4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.18 0.5 0.1 
NV 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.24 0.4 1.2 
Total 10.1 4.5 7.6 2.6 14.7 19.0 
Booster Pumping Capacity 
There are eleven booster pumping stations in the Grants Pass water distribution system. The 
booster pumping facility criteria require that pumping stations are able to supply the maximum 
day demand within all dependent pressure zones over a 24 hour period. This criteria assumes that 
there is sufficient treated water storage within the pressure zone to meet the operational, 
emergency, and fire storage criteria and that the pumping station is equipped with a backup 
energy source of sufficient capacity to operate the pumping plant at its rated capacity. The rated 
capacity of a pumping station is based on the largest pump being out of service. However, for 
small pressure zones, the pump station is sized so that it can supply peak hour demand with one 
pump out of service and includes a redundant pump to meet fire flow requirements. 
Based on these criteria, Table 2-9 summarizes the booster pumping capacity evaluation for the 
water distribution system with current demand levels. The water treatment plant pumping 
capacity is significantly higher than the system-wide maximum day demand, allowing the pumps 
to operate on a part-time basis. Table 2-9 includes the New Hope Pump Station, which was 
recently built to serve Zone 2 developments in the southwest. Although construction is complete, 
the existing connections to the system and associated demand are currently limited. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
2-9 512-01-10 
Table 2-9. Booster Pumping Capacity Evaluation 
Current3 Max Day Current3 Max Day Existing Pumping 
Pump Station Demand, mgd Demand, gpm Capacity, gpm 
Plantb 10 6,940 11,100 
Lawnridge & Madrone 3.1 2,150 4,500 
Champion 1 690 2,400 
North Valley 0.1 70 570 
Hefley0 0.2 140 760 
Starlited 0.08 60 960 
Hilltop® 0.04 30 250 
Harbeck Heightsf 0.04 30 180 
New Hope8 NA NA 1,050 
"Peak hour demand is used for those stations that serve areas without reservoirs. 
bNoted capacity is based on plant operator measurement of the firm capacity for the plant effluent 
pumps. The capacity of the plant influent pumps is 9,600 gpm with one pump out of service. 
The Hefley station has two fire flow pumps with a total capacity of 1,200 gpm. 
dThe Starlite station has a fire flow pump with a capacity of 1,050 gpm. 
The Hilltop station has a fire flow pump with a capacity of 750 gpm. 
fThe Harbeck station has a fire flow pump with a capacity of 1,200 gpm. 
The New Hope station has a fire flow pump with a capacity of 2,000 gpm. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
2-10 512-01-10 
000207 
H i l l 
UUWM- ' -> ->- 'CO 
= = ». » = » * 3 TO 3 
LT) 
Î m 70 
g w 
H -n 73 C 
o 
z 
w 
w 
CHAPTER 3 
WATER DEMAND 
This chapter presents historic water production and water demand data for the City of Grants 
Pass and provides a basis for estimating future water demand in the community. Additional 
analysis relates the various measures of water demand (maximum monthly demand, maximum 
daily demand, and peak hour demand) to the average annual demand through the use of peaking 
factors. 
The projection of future water demand is based on unit demand factors developed by land use 
type and corresponding customer classifications. These future demand projections provide the 
basis for assessing the adequacy of the existing water distribution system and planning for future 
improvements. 
POPULATION 
The most recent population estimate for the City of Grants Pass is 23,170 according to the Year 
2000 National Census report. The 1990 population was 17,503 indicating an annual growth rate 
of 2.8 percent during the 1990s. Table 3-1 presents the Grants Pass population for 1990 and each 
of the past six years. This significant increase between 1999 and 2000 is due to the more 
comprehensive counting techniques used for the 2000 census relative to the estimates prepared 
by Portland State University in intermediate years. 
Table 3-1. Grants Pass Population 
Year Population 
1990 17,503 
1995 19,660 
1996 20,255 
1997 20,535 
1998 20,590 
1999 20,935 
2000 23,170 
The Population Research Center at Portland State University has observed that the counties of 
Southern Oregon in general have been experiencing substantial growth during the 1990s. Many 
communities along the Interstate 5 corridor, including Grants Pass, have experienced steady in-
migration. This trend is expected to continue for Southern Oregon in the future. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
3-1 512-01-10 
O 0 C 2 0 9 
EXISTING WATER USE 
Average, Maximum Month and Maximum Day Use 
The Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant operators record water production volumes for each day 
of operation. Analysis of this data allows for the identification of annual average, maximum 
month, and maximum day water demand. Table 3-2 presents water production data for the past 
six years. 
Table 3-2. Average, Maximum Month, Maximum Day Water Use 
Peaking Factors 
Average Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum 
Year Day, mgd Month, mgd Day, mgd Month Day 
1995 3.73 6.48 8.32 1 74 2.23 
1996 4.11 7.22 9.09 1.76 2.21 
1997 3.97 6.20 8.83 1.72 2.22 
1998 4.17 7.62 9.47 1.83 2.27 
1999 4.50 7.79 9.35 1.73 2.08 
2000 4.45 7.82 9.73 1.76 2.18 
Average ~ — ~ 1.76 2.20 
Per Capita Water Demand 
Per capita demand is a useful measure of household consumption of water. Table 3-3 presents 
the population for Grants Pass along with the average annual demand during the past six years, 
which allows for calculation of the average demand in gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Ranging 
from 190 to 215, the average daily water demand is 200 gpcd. This figure does not take into 
account water users outside the city limits, for which data is not readily available. Inclusion of 
these numbers would slightly decrease the per capita usage rate. 
Table 3-3. Grants Pass Water Use for 1995 to 2000, gpcd 
Year Population3 
Average 
Demand, mgd 
Average 
1995 19,660 3.73 190 
1996 20,255 4.11 203 
1997 20,535 3.97 193 
1998 20,590 4.17 203 
1999 20,935 4.50 215 
2000 23,170 4.45 191 
Average — ~ 200 
"Includes City of Grants Pass population only. 
bDemands include all uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, 
public/institutional, and unaccounted for water. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
3-2 512-01-10 
f - 0 0 2 1 0 
Unaccounted for Water 
All water distribution systems experience losses of water during transmission from the treatment 
plant to the end user. These losses, known as unaccounted for water, result from many situations 
including unmetered customers, transmission system leaks, main breaks, faulty meters, fire 
fighting activities, system flushing, and other miscellaneous hydrant uses. Thus, the total volume 
of water metered for all end users is always somewhat less than the volume of water produced'at 
the water treatment plant. 
Since the City of Grants Pass meters water use for all customers, a comparison of water billing 
records and water treatment plant production data provides a good estimate of the volume of 
unaccounted for water in the system. Table 3-4 shows the estimated volume of unaccounted for 
water in millions of gallons and also as a percentage of total production during the past three 
years. Based on industry standards, a water loss rate of 10 to 15 percent is considered good and 
the City's loss rate indicates that the distribution system is in good condition. 
Table 3-4. Unaccounted for Water; 1998 -2000 
Million Percent of Total 
Year Gallons Water Production 
1998 146 9.6 
1999 190 11.6 
2000 177 10.9 
DESCRIPTION OF CUSTOMERS SERVED 
f 
Water Demand by Customer Classification 
Water demand related to customer class provides information as to the characteristics of water 
demand in the community and help to determine where conservation efforts would be most 
effective. Based on historical billing data provided by the City's Utilities Department for 1998 
and 1999, Table 3-5 shows average water demand within three customer classifications: 
commercial, single family residential, and multi-family residential. There are 1000 commercial 
accounts, 3175 multi-family accounts and 6027 residential accounts. The commercial 
classification includes general business, industrial, institutional, and governmental-public land 
use categories. Single- and multi-family residential users consume 64 percent of the water in 
Grants Pass. The City serves a few industrial users each with consumptive water use comparable 
to commercial users. Seasonal demand for each of these three classifications is shown in Figure 
3-1. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
March 2002 
4-7 512-01-10 
000211 
Table 3-5. Water Use by Customer Classification 
Demand (mgd) 
Commercial 
Multi-Family 
Residential 
Single-Family 
Residential Total 
1998 Annual Average 1.36 0.61 1.80 3.77 
1999 Annual Average 1.40 0.67 1.91 3.98 
Average 1.38 0.64 1.86 3.88 
Percent of Total Demand 36 16 48 100 
Figure 3-1. Seasonal Water Use by Customer Classification* 
3 , 4 
! 3 
a 
S 2 
Ï3 1 
« o 
/ ^ 
Single Family 
- - - • Multi Family 
_ — Ind/Com 
M M J J 
Month 
N D 
* Based on 1999 records 
Water Demand by Land Use 
To develop a unit demand factor for the three different land use patterns, in Grants Pass, the 
water demand data presented in Table 3-5 is combined with estimated areas for each land use 
classification. The resulting demand by land use is shown in Table 3-6 and provides the basis for 
projecting future water demand. 
Table 3-6. Unit Demand by Land Use 
P Average Unit I 1999 Average Land Use Demand, 
Land Use Demand3, mgd Area, Acres gal/acre day 
Commercial/Industrial/Public 1.56 1,146 1,400 
Multi-Family Residential 0.75 435 1,700 
Single Family Residential 2.13 1,977 1,100 
The 1999 average demand is based on billing records plus an additional 11.6 percent to reflect 
unaccounted for water. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
3-4 512-01-10 
0 0 C 2 1 2 
SYSTEM INTERCONNECTIONS 
The City supplies water to two areas outside City boundary through agreements with Josephine 
County. Through the first agreement, the County constructed a 16-inch water line and reservoir 
(Reservoir 15) to serve North Valley. The City has exclusive operating rights to the system and 
will eventually assume ownership of the infrastructure. A copy of the agreement is included in 
Appendix B. 
The City also supplies water to an urbanizing area known as Redwood, outside of the southwest 
City boundary. Under an agreement with the County, the City administers the planning process 
in the area. As the area develops, areas that are currently served by wells will be connected to the 
City water system. A copy of this agreement is included in Appendix C. 
r - Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
512-01-10 3-5 
' > 0 0 2 1 3 
CHAPTER 4 
WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES 
Conservation of resources, including water, is a value that is traditionally held by Oregonians. It 
is consistent with our respect for natural resources and our shared sense of environmental 
stewardship. In keeping with this philosophy and in accordance with OAR 690-086-0140, the 
City is considering feasibility and applicability of the following water conservation measures: 
Table 4-1. Water Conservation Measures (WCM) To Be Considered 
WCM Description 
1 A system-wide leak repair program or line replacement to reduce system leakage to 10 
percent (since system leakage is less than 15 percent). 
2 Programs to encourage low water use landscaping. 
3 Incentive programs to encourage conservation. 
4 Retrofitting or replacement of existing inefficient water-using fixtures. 
5 Adoption of rate structures that support and encourage water conservation. 
6 Water reuse opportunities. 
Further, the City is required to develop an implementation schedule for the following 
conservation measures: 
Table 4-2. Water Conservation Measures To Be Implemented 
WCM Description 
7 An annual audit of all water supplied. 
8 If the system is not fully metered, a program to install meters on all unmetered water 
service connections. The program must begin immediately after the plan is approved 
and must identify the number of meters to be installed each year with full metering 
compliance within five years. 
9 A regularly scheduled program for leak detection for the transmission and distribution 
system. 
10 A meter testing and maintenance program. 
11 A public education program on efficient water use. 
12 Any other conservation measures that would improve water use efficiency. 
EXISTING CITY MEASURES 
While the City has not previously submitted a Water Management Plan, the City has 
implemented several water conservation measures. Many of the existing programs are consistent 
with the water conservation measures listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Table 4-3 lists the City's 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
4-1 512-01-10 
OO€214 
existing water conservation programs and shows how they conform to the state's list of 
recommended and required water conservation measures. 
Table 4-3. Grants Pass Existing Water Conservation Programs 
O 
WCM Existing Programs 
1 The City has a 24-hour emergency number where residents can call to report a water 
leak during non-business hours. 
3 The City has a fully metered system so that all users pay for their water consumption. 
System development charges (SDCs) are based on meter size. In addition, separate 
metering for indoor and outdoor use is available for commercial and industrial 
customers. 
4 The City enforces compliance with state regulations. 
6 Treated effluent (non-potable) water, rather than potable city water, is used at the 
wastewater treatment plant where feasible on all new fixtures. 
7 The City currently provides an annual accounting of water in compliance with the 
measurement standards in OAR 690, Division 85. The City meters water as it is 
diverted and as it leaves the water treatment plant and compares that with metered 
uses. The City tracks usage by category such as residential, industrial, commercial, 
and multi-family. 
8 All service connections are metered. 
9 Staff currently walks the lower elevation portions of the water system annually during 
flushing activities. Staff and citizens report approximately six leaks per year. Leaks 
are repaired immediately upon notification. For customer leaks, the City's finance 
system automatically generates work orders so that customers whose usage is 
substantially higher than the previous billing period are notified of the possibility of a 
leak. As an incentive for timely repair, the City forgives 50 percent of the bill over and 
above normal usage. 
10 The City has standardized on Neptune and Badger meters with 15-year warranties. 
Staff has recently completed replacing older Neptune and Badger residential meters 
with the new meters. As the meters approach their warranty life, staff will randomly 
test hundreds of meters. This practice, when conducted in the past, showed that less 
than 1 percent of the meters are faulty; replacement of the faulty meters is a key 
component to the City's low unaccounted for water rate. Should a meter fail, the 
City's finance system automatically generates work orders for meter checks where 
usage is substantially lower than the previous billing period so that faulty meters can 
be replaced quickly. The City is currently replacing existing compound commercial 
meters with Metron single jet meters, which staff has found to be more dependable. 
11 The City currently distributes water conservation pamphlets in water bills annually. In 
addition, conservation information is distributed in the annual Consumer Confidence 
Report and in the spring City newsletter. Examples are included in Appendix D. 
12 To provide accountability for bulk water users, the City has a bulk water dispensing 
station at the Hillcrest Fire Station. In addition, the City has six 3-inch hydrant flow 
meters for use by area contractors. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
4-2 512-01-10 
£ > 0 0 2 1 5 
EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION MEASURES 
The water conservation screening process began with a review of the available literature and 
Water Management Plans from other Oregon communities. A complete bibliography is given in 
Chapter 8. From this review, a list of water conservation measures was developed. The list 
included the following: 
• Offer rebates for costs of replacement of lawns with alternative landscaping 
• Offer rebates for installation of drip irrigation systems for shrub or tree areas and 
automatic timers or controllers for turf areas 
• Offer rebates for water efficient appliances 
• Require water efficient landscaping in the plan approval process 
• Construct a water-efficient demonstration garden 
• Institute a residential audit program beginning with those single- and multi-family users 
with the highest consumption 
• Distribute free Plumbing Fixture Check-up Kits 
• Distribute free low flow shower heads and faucet aerators 
• Offer rebates for ultra-low flow toilets 
• Retrofit public facilities 
• Adopt rates that support and encourage water conservation 
• Backwash water treatment filters with untreated water 
• Use treated wastewater effluent for irrigation of public areas 
• Install additional bulk water dispensing stations to reduce unauthorized users 
• Hire a firm to electronically detect system leaks 
• Prohibit the wasting of water 
These measures were qualitatively evaluated based on the following criteria. 
• Projected Water Savings - Water savings depend on the applicability of the program to 
the water market. For Grants Pass, residential is the single highest water use category so 
programs that focus on residential conservation will likely be the most effective. Savings 
also depend on user participation and the volume of water saved per participant. Savings 
are also defined as the relative water savings compared to the estimated cost of 
implementation. 
• Supplier Cost - The cost of the measure includes the City's cost to start up, operate, and 
maintain the conservation program. It may also include additional cost to the consumer in 
higher rates or reduced cost in water savings and rebates. Costs were estimated based on 
information from manufacturers, estimated staffing cost, and other communities' 
experiences. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
March 2002 
4-7 512-01-10 
0 0 0 2 1 6 
• Political Feasibility and Legal Constraints - The compatibility of the measure with the 
local political situation is necessary to consider in the evaluation of a measure. Legal 
constraints may include conflicts with existing City or State regulations. 
• Consistency with Community Values - For a measure to be successful, it must be 
compatible with community-held values. For example, users may participate willingly in 
a measure to do their part for the community and environment or they may see it as an 
inconvenience or reduction in service. Consistency with community values was 
determined by discussions with City leaders and staff. 
• Environmental Impacts - Measures may have direct or indirect environmental impacts, 
such as energy conservation, associated with them. 
Two measures were dropped from consideration before the initial screening because they were 
not feasible. The measure that would require using untreated water to backwash filters was 
eliminated because it will threaten public health given the design of the water treatment process. 
The measure that would require using treated wastewater to irrigate public areas is not feasible 
because the City's wastewater treatment plant does not produce effluent of a quality that meets 
the standards for reuse of wastewater, OAR 340-55. 
Table 4-4 shows the result of the preliminary screening of the remaining water conservation 
alternatives. 
Of the thirteen measures that were screened, five resulted in an unfavorable rating. Two of the 
unfavorable measures involved sizable rebates. These measures were judged as too costly 
relative to the water savings. 
The measure that would require water-efficient landscapes through the planning approval 
process is not feasible immediately. The City recently completed the lengthy process of 
updating their code; the update did not include conservation landscaping. However, the code is 
updated periodically and landscaping conservation requirements will be included in a future 
update. 
The fourth measure receiving an unfavorable rating involved hiring a consultant to electronically 
detect leaks in the transmission system. The City's unaccounted for water rate for 2000 was 10.6 
percent. Since this includes system flushing and fire fighting as well as leakage, it is certain that 
the leakage rate is below the 10 percent goal established by the State. Further, the City's capital 
improvement program already includes replacement of the City's oldest pipes, which are the 
most likely to leak. Therefore, the benefit from this measure was seen as minimal and it was 
dropped from further consideration. 
Last, since public facilities are small, retrofitting them was determined to be too costly for the 
actual water that would be saved. They will be retrofitted per the state regulations as fixtures are 
replaced during regular maintenance and any new construction will comply with state regulations 
for low flow fixtures. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
4-4 512-01-10 
0 0 Ü 2 1 7 
The two measures receiving neutral ratings were rebates for efficient irrigation systems and 
residential audits. These measures can be considered in more detail in the future if the top-rated 
measures do not provide expected results or if it is determined that additional measures are 
necessary. 
Six measures received a favorable rating and were subjected to a detailed cost/benefit analysis. 
These measures are described in the following section. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
3-2 512-01-10 
f-00 218 
OD 
.S '2 <u 0) h. 
o c« 
cu i-cc o l-
PH 
s 
et 
t <u WJ e o 
U >-
a> 
-W d 
<u 
IS 
(3 
H 
fr 03 
S 
s 
3 C/3 
O © O • © • • O O • • O • 
En
vi
ro
nm
en
ta
l 
Im
pa
ct
s 
© • O © © • • • O • © • 
C
om
m
un
ity
 
V
al
ue
s 
o • O • O • • O • © • O • 
Po
lit
ic
al
/L
eg
al
 
Fe
as
ib
ili
ty
 
o O O • © • © O • © © © 
Su
pp
lie
r 
C
os
t 
o O © • © © © o 0 • © o • 
W
at
er
 
Sa
vi
ng
s 
• • • © O © • © o • • o © 
Pr
og
ra
m
 
R
eb
at
e 
fo
r 
la
w
n 
re
pl
ac
em
en
t 
R
eb
at
e 
fo
r e
ff
ic
ie
nt
 ir
rig
at
io
n 
sy
st
em
s 
R
eq
ui
re
 w
at
er
 e
ff
ic
ie
nt
 la
nd
sc
ap
es
 
C
on
st
ru
ct
 d
em
on
st
ra
tio
n 
ga
rd
en
 
C
on
du
ct
 re
si
de
nt
ia
l 
au
di
ts
 
j D
is
tri
bu
te
 p
lu
m
bi
ng
 f
ix
-u
p 
ki
ts
 
J R
eb
at
es
 f
or
 s
ho
w
er
 h
ea
ds
 a
nd
 fa
uc
et
 a
er
at
or
s 
R
eb
at
es
 f
or
 u
ltr
a-
lo
w
 f
lo
w
 to
ile
ts
 
R
et
ro
fit
 p
ub
lic
 f
ac
ili
tie
s 
A
do
pt
 ra
te
s 
to
 e
nc
ou
ra
ge
 c
on
se
rv
at
io
n 
In
st
al
l a
dd
iti
on
al
 b
ul
k 
w
at
er
 d
is
pe
ns
er
s 
H
ire
 a
 f
ir
m
 to
 e
le
ct
ro
ni
ca
lly
 d
et
ec
t l
ea
ks
 
Im
pl
em
en
t a
 w
at
er
 w
as
te
 p
ro
hi
bi
tio
n 
e <L> 
e 
(D OD CS c 03 
<s o O O ' 
S s O (N 
et tri 
<ü « 
£ 
00 M cd 
Oh 
g V-i 
o 
VO I 
JÜ 
03 
l-< O 
«I C 
3 
o 
b 
3 1) C 
II © 
JD C3 fcH 
> 
' >000219 
Description of Measures 
Additional Bulk Water Dispensing Stations. Although this measure is not strictly a 
conservation measure in that it does not reduce water use, it is important in reducing the quantity 
of unaccounted-for water in the system. Installing bulk water dispensers where water use would 
be metered and sold for a nominal fee would reduce unauthorized use of water. The City 
proposes installing up to three stations. For the analysis, it was assumed that water would be sold 
for an amount that would cover the operation of the stations. The cost of producing the water, 
$0.04/100 gallons according to City staff, was income previously lost and would be recouped to 
pay back the capital cost of the stations. 
Inverted Block Water Rates. Currently the City has a uniform water rate. Customers are 
charged a flat monthly rate for the first 500 cubic feet of water and a flat commodity charge by 
customer class for water over and above 500 cubic feet. A surcharge is added for higher pressure 
zones. The City's Bill Equalizer Payment Plan allows residents to pay an average monthly rate 
year round. While this allows residents to more easily budget for their utility bills, it does not 
encourage conservation, particularly in the high-use summer months. An inverted block rate 
would establish increasing prices for successive consumption blocks. This rate structure will 
effectively reduce summer usage and if the rate is structured correctly, maintain current levels of 
water department funding. 
Low Water Use Demonstration Garden. The City proposes constructing a demonstration 
garden at the water treatment plant. The garden would showcase drought tolerant plants and 
efficient irrigation practices and equipment. With the garden, literature would be made available 
to further educate citizens on the advantages of low water use landscaping. 
Distribute Plumbing Kits. Plumbing kits are available for distribution to single- and multi-
family residential customers. For this analysis, it was assumed that over a period of two years, 
the City would distribute up to 1,500 plumbing kits to residents who requested them. The 
plumbing kits would include a low flow showerhead, a faucet aerator, and dye tablets to detect 
leaks. According to literature, the kits will reduce indoor water use up to 12.5 gpcd in the 
households where they are installed. 
Fixture Rebates. As a follow-up program to the plumbing kit distribution, the City could offer 
rebates for low flow showerheads and faucet aerators. The City could initiate the program by 
itself, or in partnership with the power utility. It was assumed for this analysis that the program 
would be operated by the City and that 100 of the showerheads and aerators would be sold. 
Pacific Power and Light recently offered rebates on plumbing fixtures along with high-efficiency 
light bulbs. 
Water Waste Prohibition. This measure has no capital cost associated with it; nor does it have 
a definable water savings associated with implementation. However, implementation of this 
measure is important because it defines the City's values as to the use of water as a limited 
resource. It is therefore included as a proposed water conservation measure. The measure would 
consist of passing an ordinance with a specific enforcement component. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
March 2002 
4-7 512-01-10 
000220 
Basis of Analysis 
For each measure listed in this section, an estimate was made of implementation costs and the 
amount of water that would be conserved. The estimated amount of water conserved was based 
on the experiences of similar programs cited in the available literature. The financial benefit of 
implementing each measure could be calculated as the reduced operation cost to produce the 
water and delayed or eliminated capital projects due to lower water use. However, the reduced 
operation cost is offset by revenue lost by not selling the water (with the exception of the bulk 
water dispensing station). In addition, the capital projects listed in the Grants Pass Distribution 
System Water Master Plan are related to growth and system performance and would not be 
affected by reduced water consumption. Therefore, the programs were evaluated strictly on their 
cost per unit of water saved. 
Analysis Results 
Table 4-5 summarizes the estimated cost for each 100 gallons of water saved for the proposed 
conservation measures. 
Table 4-5. Conservation Measure Analysis Summary 
Measure $/l 00 gallons saved 
Bulk Water Dispensing Stations 0.16 
Inverted Block Water Rates 0 
Low Water Use Demonstration Garden 0.10 
Distribute Plumbing Kits 0.10 
Showerhead and Faucet Aerator Rebates 0.29 
Water Waste Prohibition 0 
Table 4-5 shows that implementing new water rates to discourage high water use is the most 
cost-effective conservation measure. The demonstration garden, plumbing kit distribution, and 
bulk water dispensing stations are moderately affordable and the rebate for showerheads and 
faucet aerators is the most expensive conservation measure considered. 
RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION MEASURES 
As a result of the evaluation described above, five conservation measures are recommended for 
implementation. Table 4-6 presents the results of the evaluation along with the State's WCM 
category for each measure: 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
March 2002 
4-8 512-01-10 
O.) ¿Z1 
Table 4-6. Water Conservation Program Recommendations 
WCM 
Category Program Description Recommendation 
12 Additional Bulk Water Dispensing Stations Recommended 
5 Inverted Block Water Rates Recommended 
2,11 Low Water Use Demonstration Garden Recommended 
4 Distribute Plumbing Kits Recommended 
4 Showerhead and Faucet Aerator Rebates Not Recommended 
12 Water Waste Prohibition Recommended 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 
Table 4-7 shows an implementation schedule for the recommended conservation programs. The 
schedule shows that three measures (a new water rate structure, a water waste prohibition, and 
bulk water dispensing stations) be implemented immediately and that the remaining programs be 
implemented in following years. 
Table 4-7. Recommended Conservation Program Implementation Schedule 
Program Description Implementation Schedule 
Additional Bulk Water Dispensing Stations 2001 
Inverted Block Water Rates 2001 
Low Water Use Demonstration Garden 2002 
Distribute Plumbing Kits 2003 
Water Waste Prohibition 2001 
^ Îcî 2 
4-9 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
March 2002 
512-01-10 
CHAPTER 5 
WATER CURTAILMENT PLAN 
OAR 690-086 requires that the Water Management Plan include a description of water supply 
deficiencies that have occurred within the last 10 years and a discussion of the ability of the 
water supplier to maintain delivery during long-term drought or short-term shortages. Also 
required is a water curtailment plan that includes a list of three or more stages of alert for 
potential shortage or water service difficulties, a description of predetermined levels of severity 
of shortage or water service difficulties that would trigger curtailment actions under each stage of 
alert, and a list of specific standby water use curtailment actions for each stage of alert. 
The City has an existing water curtailment ordinance, Section 8.04.070, Emergency Water 
Conservation Procedures. The ordinance authorizes the Mayor to declare a water conservation 
emergency and gives the City Manager or his designee the authority to implement a water 
conservation program. The ordinance outlines conditions under which an emergency could be 
declared and lists measures that could be implemented to reduce water consumption. To comply 
with OAR 690-086, the existing ordinance will be repealed and a new ordinance will be 
implemented to conform to the stages of alert and definitions of triggers outlined in the plan. A 
copy of the new ordinance is included as Appendix E. 
FREQUENCY AND MAGNITUDE OF SUPPLY DEFICIENCIES 
There have been no supply deficiencies over the last 10 years. The City's source, the Rogue 
River, provides ample supply even in the driest conditions according to historical flow data. 
Water production is limited to 18 mgd by the capacity of the water treatment plant, which is 
much higher than current levels of demand. Peak day use in 2000 was 9.7 mgd, just 54 percent of 
the plant capacity. Available storage in the existing distribution system is summarized in Table 
5-1. 
Table 5-1. Available Storage 
Type of Storage Available Storage, mg 
Operational 6.5 
Emergency 9.9 
Fire Flow 2.6 
Total 19.0 
Since Grants Pass relies solely on the Rogue River for its supply, the City is vulnerable to 
contamination of the river. It is estimated that it would take three days for a contaminant plume 
to pass the City's intake or for the treatment process be modified to neutralize the contaminant. 
Emergency storage will provide three days of storage if demand is reduced to about 70 percent of 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
5-1 512-01-10 
000223-
the annual average demand, which is achievable with restrictions. The storage would last even 
longer if use were restricted to essential needs only. 
CURTAILMENT TRIGGERS 
Although the City has been fortunate not to have experienced a water shortage, the potential 
exists for a situation where the water supply cannot meet demand for a time. The shortage could 
be City-wide due to source contamination, treatment difficulties, prolonged drought, pumping, or 
transmission problems. The shortage could be localized to a pressure zone due to distribution, 
pumping, or storage problems. Whatever the situation, the City will be well served to have in 
place a curtailment plan that defines levels of water shortage severity and mechanisms for 
dealing with the situation. 
The City will institute three levels of water supply alert. The alert levels and their operational 
triggers are summarized in Table 5-2. 
Table 5-2. Water Shortage Alert Levels and Triggers 
Alert Level Description Trigger 
One Potential Water Supply Shortage A serious drought condition is occurring or is 
likely to occur in the region or Rogue River 
flow rates are measured or projected to be 
below a l-in-10 year low flow level, or the 
County or State has declared a drought 
condition. 
Two Water Supply Shortage The City's ability to deliver water is not 
adequate to meet demand due to supply, 
treatment, or pumping restrictions, or 
extended treatment plant operation is required 
and storage cannot be maintained. 
Three Critical Water Supply Shortage The supply is interrupted. 
CURTAILMENT ACTIONS 
For each level of alert, actions appropriate to the situation will be implemented to curtail water 
consumption. The following sections identify curtailment actions for the different alert levels. 
Level One Alert - Potential Water Supply Shortage 
The City Manager has the authority to activate some or all of the following voluntary curtailment 
actions listed below until the reasons for a Level One Alert have passed: 
1) Restrict watering based on odd/even address numbers for residential and business 
customers, and governmental agencies. No watering will be allowed on 
Wednesdays. The schedule will apply to all lawn watering and all nonessential 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
March 2002 
4-7 512-01-10 
224 
water uses with exceptions as specified by the Manager. Watering hours will be 
restricted to before 6 a.m. and after 9 p.m. 
2) Distribute brochures regarding conservation measures. 
3) Implement a media outreach program. 
4) Notify major water users asking for reductions in use or moving nonessential use 
to off-peak hours. 
5) Cease operation of non-recirculating fountains. 
6) Restrict hydrant and water line flushing. 
Level Two Alert - Water Supply Shortage 
The City Manager has the authority to mandate any or all of the following actions until the 
reasons for the Level Two Alert have passed: 
1) Any Level One Alert actions. 
2) No watering or lawn irrigation will occur unless the following specific uses are approved 
by the City Manager: 
a) New lawn, grass, or turf that has been seeded or sodded after March 1 of the current 
calendar year 
b) Athletic fields frequently used for organized play 
c) Golf course tees and greens 
d) Park and recreation areas of particular value to the community 
3) City water will not be used to clean, fill, or maintain levels in decorative fountains. 
4) City water will not be used to clean sidewalks, walkways, streets, driveways, parking 
lots, or other hard surfaces except where necessary for public health and safety. 
5) City water will not be used to wash vehicles including automobiles, trucks, trailers, trailer 
houses, motorcycles, boats, or other type of mobile equipment. 
6) Limitations may be placed on industrial and commercial water consumption. 
7) Hydrant and water main flushing will be done in emergencies only. 
Level Three Alert - Critical Water Supply Shortage 
The City Manager has the authority to mandate any or all of the following actions until the 
reasons for the Level Three Alert have passed. 
1) Any Level One Alert actions. 
2) Any Level Two Alert actions. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
March 2002 
4-7 512-01-10 
000225 
3) No City water will be used for watering of landscaping or irrigating of lawns, grass, turf, 
athletic fields, golf course tees and greens, or parks and recreation areas. 
4) No City water will be used to fill or maintain levels in scenic or recreational ponds and lakes, 
or other structures making similar use of water. 
5) No City water will be used to fill, refill, or add to any swimming pools. 
6) No City water will be used to wash the outside of buildings. 
7) No City water will be used on construction projects. 
8) No City water will be served to restaurant customers unless requested. 
9) Residential use will be limited to health and safety uses only. 
10) Limitations will be placed on industrial and commercial users up to and including 
interruption of supply with the exception of health and safety uses only. 
226 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
March 2002 
4-7 512-01-10 
CHAPTER 6 
LONG RANGE WATER SUPPLY 
FUTURE WATER NEEDS 
Land use demand factors for the City of Grants Pass were developed using zoning information 
from the local comprehensive plan and historical water use data. The land use demand factors are 
shown in Table 3-6. Although the timing of land use development within the UGB is unknown, 
information is available regarding the current zoning designation for all properties within the 
UGB. Table 6-1 summarizes the acreage of properties within the UGB according to land use, 
differentiating between properties that are currently receiving water service and those that will 
connect to the water distribution system in the future. Using the unit demand factors developed 
for these land use classifications, the table also projects average annual water demand at the 
UGB build-out condition. This analysis assumes the existing mix of residential and commercial 
properties will stay the same in the future. 
Table 6-1. Land Use Based Water Demand Projections for UGB Build-Out 
Land Use 
Existing 
Acreage 
Future 
Acreage 
Total 
Acreage 
Unit Demand, 
gallons/acre-day 
Estimated 
Average Day 
Demand, mgd 
Commercial 1,146 598 1,744 1,400 2.4 
Single-Family 
Residential 
1,977 2,419 4,396 1,100 4.8 
Multi-Family 
Residential 
435 440 875 1,700 1.5 
Redwood and 
North Valley3 
0.8 
Total 3,558 3,457 7,015 9.5 
"North Valley and the Redwood district, portions of which are adjacent to but not currently within the 
UGB, are expected to continue using Grants Pass water, adding 0.3 and 0.5 mgd, respectively, to the 
build-out demand. 
Grants Pass experienced an annual growth rate of 2.8 percent from 1990 to 2000. The Grants 
Pass Distribution System Water Master Plan predicted a build-out population of 45,000. 
Assuming a current population of 23,170 and a conservative consumption rate of 200 gpcd, a 
straight line projection allows for the interpolation of water requirements for intermediate years 
2010 and 2020. Future maximum day demands can be developed using the peaking factor 
developed in Table 3-2. Future water requirements are summarized in Table 6-2. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
6-1 512-01-10 
000227 
Table 6-2. Estimated Future Water Demand 
Average Day Maximum Day 
Year Demand, mgd Demand, mgd 
2010 6.1 13 
2020 8.1 18 
Build-out 9.5 21 
AVAILABLE SOURCES OF WATER 
As discussed in Chapter 2, the Rogue River provides an ample and reliable water supply for the 
City of Grants Pass as it expands to the limits of its urban growth boundary. The City holds four 
water rights totaling 87.5 cfs (56.4 mgd). The listing of salmon as an endangered species and 
long-term climate change potentially may have an effect on the reliable yield of the river in the 
future. These issues warrant attention, but are ill defined at this time. It can be concluded that the 
City's supply can meet near and long-term future water needs. Historically, development 
surrounding the City has relied on groundwater supplies. Wells in the region either have not 
been reliable or productive or have had groundwater quality issues associated with them which 
has led to the extension of service by the City. The North Valley system is an example where 
alternative sources of water were not able to meet development demands. 
228 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
March 2002 
4-7 512-01-10 
I CHAPTER 7 
PLAN UPDATE SCHEDULE 
The City will monitor water production and metered sales and report its findings to the Water 
Resources Department as a part of the annual water use reporting program under OAR 690-85. 
This report will include a summary of the results of the water conservation measures 
implemented in the past year and note any significant changes in growth projections, per-capita 
water use, or community water needs. 
The City will update this Water Management Plan five (5) years after it is approved by the Water 
Resources Department. The update will include recent water consumption data, system 
improvements, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the conservation measures implemented 
as a result of this plan. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
7-1 512-01-10 
00 2 2 9 
CHAPTER 8 
REFERENCES 
BMP Costs and Savings Study, California Urban Water Conservation Council, July, 2000. 
City of Wilsonville Water Management Conservation Plan 
City of Jacksonville Water Management and Conservation Plan 
City of Salem Water Curtailment Plan (www.open.org/spubwork/water/curtailment.htm) 
accessed 4/16/01 
Deoreo, William B., et. al., Retrofit Realities, Journal AWWA, 93:3:58. 
Oregon Water Resources Department, Example Water Management Plan 
(www.wrd.state.or.us/publications/pdfs/model.mamtplan.pdf) accessed April, 2001. 
Oregon Water Resources Department, Proceedings form the 4th Annual Municipal Water 
Management and Conservation Workshop, November, 2000. 
Pekelney, David M., et. al.. Guidelines to Conduct Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Best 
Management Practices for Urban Water Conservation. California Urban Water Conservation 
Council, September, 1996 
Piatt, Jennifer, and Delforge, Marie Cefalo, The Cost-Effectiveness of Water Conservation, 
Journal AWW A, 93:3:73 
Water Conservation Guidebook for Small and Medium-Sized Utilities. American Water Works 
Association, Pacific Northwest Section, August, 1993. 
Grants Pass Water Management Plan 
June 2002 
512-01-10 8-1 
00 230 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
W A T E R T R E A T M E N T P L A N T 
F A C I L I T Y P L A N 
Final Report 
MAY 2004 
EXHIBIT fi 
-to U Ì V G S B P M 3 1 
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON 
WATER TREATMENT PLANT 
FACILITY PLAN 
MAY, 2004 
PREPARED BY: 
MWH AMERICAS, INC. 
111 SW 5TH AVENUE, SUITE 1770 
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 
PHONE: (503)226-7377 
FAX: (503) 226-0023 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1-1 
1.1 W T P AND ROGUE RIVER SUPPLY BACKGROUND 1 - 2 
1.2 KEY ISSUES 1-6 
2 HISTORICAL PLANT PERFOMANCE 2-1 
2.1 PLANT FLOW 2-1 
2.1.1 PLANT PRODUCTION 2-2 
2 . 2 RAW WATER QUALITY 2 - 4 
2.2.1 TURBIDITY 2-4 
2.2.2 TEMPERATURE 2-5 
2.2.3 PH 2-5 
2.2.4 ALKALINITY 2-6 
2.2.5 ORGANIC CONTENT 2-6' 
2 . 3 CHEMICAL USAGE 2 - 8 
2.3.1 ALUM 2-9 
2.3.2 POLYMER (FILTER AID) 2-10 
2.3.3 LIME 2-11 
2.3.4 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 2-12 
2.3.5 ADDITIONAL CHEMICALS 2-12 
2 . 4 PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA 2 - 1 3 
2.4.1 COAGULATION PERFORMANCE 2-14 
2.4.2 SEDIMENTATION BASIN PERFORMANCE 2-14 
2.4.3 FILTER PERFORMANCE 2-19 
2 .5 SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS 2 - 3 1 
3 REGULATORY REVIEW 3-1 
3.1 EXISTING DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 3-1 
3.1.1 MICROBIAL CONTAMINANTS 3-5 
3.1.2 DISINFECTANTS AND DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS ....3-16 
3.1.3 LEAD AND COPPER 3-21 
3.1.4 INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS 3-22 
3.1.5 ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS 3-24 
3.1.6 RADIOLOGIC CONTAMINANTS 3-24 
3.1.7 FEDERALLY MONITORED UNREGULATED CONTAMINANTS 3-25 
3 . 2 FUTURE DRINKING WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS 3 - 2 7 
3.2.1 ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE 3-27 
3.2.2 STAGE 2—DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS RULE 3-31 
3 .3 OTHER COMPLIANCE ISSUES 3 - 3 3 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 . Page»» 
00 233 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
3.3.1 NPDES DISCHARGE PERMIT 3-33 
3.3.2 INTAKE AND SCREEN 3-34 
3 .4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 - 3 4 
4 CAPACITY REVIEW 4-1 
4 .1 HYDRAULIC CAPACITY EVALUATION 4 - 1 
4.1.1 EXISTING HYDRAULIC PROFILE 4-2 
4.1.2 INTAKE AND RAW WATER PUMPING CAPACITY 4-3 
4.1.3 RAW WATER PIPELINE/CHANNEL CAPACITY TO THE BASINS 4-4 
4.1.4 BASINS AND FILTER INFLUENT CHANNEL 4-7 
4.1.5 FILTERS AND FILTER EFFLUENT PIPING 4-8 
4.1.6 CLEARWELL 4-9 
4.1.7 HIGH SERVICE PUMP STATION 4-11 
4.1.8 FINISHED WATER PIPELINE 4-12 
4.1.9 BACKWASH PIPING AND PUMPING 4-13 
4.1.10 SOLIDS AND WASHWATER HANDLING 4-14 
4.1.11 SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC CAPACITY EVALUATION 4-15 
4 . 2 PROCESS CAPACITY EVALUATION 4 - 1 7 
4.2.1 CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEMS 4-17 
4.2.2 COAGULATION PERFORMANCE 4-23 
4.2.3 BASINS 4-26 
4.2.4 FILTRATION 4-28 
4.2.5 CLEARWELL 4-28 
4.2.6 DISINFECTION/DBP FORMATION 4-29 
4.2.7 WASHWATER AND SOLIDS HANDLING SYSTEM 4-30 
4.2.8 SUMMARY OF PROCESS CAPACITY EVALUATION 4-31 
5 FACILITIES REVIEW 5-1 
5.1 PLANT EQUIPMENT INVENTORY 5-1 
5.1.1 RAW WATER INTAKE AND PUMP STATION 5-1 
5.1.2 CHEM ICAL SYSTEMS 5-2 
5.1.3 SEDIMENTATION BASINS 5-3 
5.1.4 FILTERS 5-3 
5.1.5 CLEARWELL 5-4 
5.1.6 HIGH SERVICE PUMP STATION 5-5 
5.17 FLOWMETERS 5-6 
5.1.8 MAJOR VALVES AND ACTUATORS 5-6 
5.1.9 AIR COMPRESSOR SYSTEM 5-6 
5.1.10 WASHWATER AND SOLIDS HANDLING 5- 7 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 . Page»» 
00 234 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
5.1.11 WATER QUALITY TESTING AND MONITORING FACILITIES 5-7 
5.1.12 INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS 5-8 
5.1.13 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 5-8 
5.1.14 CONTROL BUILDING 5-9 
5.1.15 OTHER CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUES 5-9 
5.1.16 INTEGRATION OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 5-10 
5.1.17 SUMMARY OF FACILITIES REVIEW 5-10 
6 FACILITIES PLANNING FOR THE GRANTS PASS WTP 6-1 
6.1 CONCLUSIONS A N D RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PLANT EVALUATION 6 - 1 
6.1.1 PLANT CAPACITY 6-2 
6.1.2 TREATMENT PROCESSES 6-3 
6.1.3 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE 6-5 
6.1.4 SUPPORT FACILITIES 6-6 
6.1.5 MONITORING AND CONTROL. 6-8 
6.1.6 INTEGRATION OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 6-8 
6.2 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FOR CRITICAL PROCESS ISSUES 6 - 8 
6.2.1 FILTER MODIFICATIONS 6-9 
6.2.2 BASIN MODIFICATIONS 6-18 
6.2.3 SOLIDS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL 6-21 
6.2.4 INTAKE MODIFICATIONS 6-33 
6 . 3 IMPROVEMENTS TO MAINTAIN EXISTING CAPACITY 6 - 3 4 
6.3.1 TIER-ONE IMPROVEMENTS 6-36 
6.3.2 TIER-TWO IMPROVEMENTS 6-40 
6 . 4 IMPROVEMENTS TO INCREASE CAPACITY 6 - 4 8 
7 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 7-1 
7.1 IMMEDIATE (TIER-ONE) PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 7 - 1 
7.1.1 SOLIDS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL IMPROVEMENTS 7-4 
7.1.2 INTAKE MODIFICATIONS 7-4 
7 .1 .3 FILTER UPGRADES 7-4 
7.1.4 BASIN MODIFICATIONS 7 - 5 
7 . 2 TIER-TWO PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 7 - 5 
7 . 3 PLANT EXPANSION TO 3 0 MGD 7 - 7 
7 . 4 SHORT-TERM SCHEDULE AND FINANCIAL PLANNING 7 - 7 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 . Page»» 
00 235 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
APPENDIX A 
APPENDIX B 
APPENDIX C 
APPENDIX D 
APPENDIX E 
- REGULATORY COMPLIANCE INFORMATION 
- PREVIOUS PLANT STUDIES 
- LAB RESULTS 
- REVIEW OF ROGUE RIVER INTAKE AND PUMP STATION (MWH, 2003) 
- JAR TEST RESULTS 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 
236 
Page iv 
LIST OF TABLES 
T A B L E E S - 1 : NEAR-TERM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR W T P IMPROVEMENTS 4 
T A B L E E S - 2 : IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR LOWER-PRIORITY W T P IMPROVEMENTS 4 
T A B L E 2 - 1 : SUMMARY OF W T P PRODUCTION 2 - 3 
T A B L E 2 - 2 : BASIN DESIGN CRITERIA 2 - 1 6 
T A B L E 2 - 3 : ORIGINAL FILTER DESIGN CRITERIA 2 - 2 1 
T A B L E 2 - 4 : MINIMUM FILTER RUN LENGTH TO ACHIEVE 5 , 0 0 0 GAL/SF U F R V 2 - 2 5 
T A B L E 2 - 5 : FILTER MEDIA ANALYSIS RESULTS 2 - 2 8 
T A B L E 2 - 6 : BACKWASH SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA AND OPTIMAL RATES FOR EXISTING MEDIA 
CONFIGURATIONS 2 - 3 1 
T A B L E 3 - 1 : MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS AND ACTION LEVELS 3 - 3 
T A B L E 3 - 2 : WATER QUALITY AND FLOW RANGES CONSIDERED FOR "WORST-CASE" C T 
ANALYSIS 3 - 1 4 
T A B L E 3 -3 : STAGE 1 D / D B P RULE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS 3 - 1 7 
T A B L E 3 - 4 : T O C REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS (PERCENT) 3 - 1 7 
T A B L E 3 -5 : SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL T O C SAMPLING RESULTS 3 - 1 9 
T A B L E 3 -6 : AVERAGE PLANT OPERATIONAL DATA DURING RECENT D B P SAMPLING 3 - 2 0 
T A B L E 3 -7 : UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING RULE MONITORING LIST 3 - 2 6 
T A B L E 3 -8 : L T 2 E S W T R TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENTIONAL PLANTS 3 - 2 8 
T A B L E 3 - 9 : L T 2 E S W T R BIN CLASSIFICATION FOR GRANTS PASS 3 - 3 0 
T A B L E 3 - 1 0 : RECENT RESULTS FROM T T H M / H A A 5 MONITORING, Q A A AND L R A A RESULTS 3 - 3 2 
T A B L E 3 - 1 1 : ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS 3 - 3 6 
T A B L E 4 - 1 : RAW WATER PIPELINE VELOCITIES AND HEADLOSS 4 - 5 
T A B L E 4 - 2 : FINISHED WATER PIPELINE VELOCITIES AND HEADLOSS 4 - 1 3 
T A B L E 4 - 3 : ALUM PUMPING AND STORAGE CAPACITY AT VARIOUS FLOWS 4 - 1 8 
T A B L E 4 - 4 : HYPOCHLORITE PUMPING AND STORAGE CAPACITY AT VARIOUS FLOWS 4 - 2 0 
T A B L E 4 - 5 : SUMMARY OF COAGULATION ALTERNATIVES 4 - 2 4 
T A B L E 4 - 6 : "OPTIMAL" FLOCCULATION/SEDIMENTATION DESIGN CRITERIA 4 - 2 7 
T A B L E 4 - 7 : SLUDGE PRODUCTION ESTIMATE BASED ON CURRENT ALUM USAGE 4 - 3 0 
T A B L E 5-1 : EXISTING W T P INVENTORY 5 - 1 3 
T A B L E 6 - 1 : COMPARISON OF ROTATING ARM AND FIXED GRID SURFACE WASH SYSTEMS 6 - 1 6 
T A B L E 6 - 2 : COMPARATIVE PLANNING-LEVEL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR FILTER 
MODIFICATION ALTERNATIVES 6 - 1 7 
T A B L E 6 - 3 : PROPOSED BASIN DESIGN CRITERIA AT 3 0 MGD 6 - 2 0 
T A B L E 6 - 4 : PLANNING-LEVEL COSTS FOR COMPARISON OF LONG-TERM SOLIDS HANDLING 
ALTERNATIVES 6 - 3 0 
T A B L E 6 - 5 : COMPARISON OF LONG-TERM SOLIDS HANDLING ALTERNATIVES 6 - 3 1 
T A B L E 6 - 6 : RECOMMENDED TIER-ONE PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS 6 - 3 6 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page v 
r)0 237 
LIST OF TABLES 
T A B L E 6 - 7 : RECOMMENDED TIER-TWO PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS 6 - 3 6 
T A B L E 6 - 8 : RECOMMENDED PLANT EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS (TO 3 0 MGD) AND COSTS 6 - 4 9 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page vi 
00C238 , 
LIST OF FIGURES 
F I G U R E E S - 1 : GRANTS PASS W T P SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR NEXT 1 0 YEARS 8 
F I G U R E E S - 2 : GRANTS PASS W T P SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR PLANT EXPANSION TO 3 0 MGD 9 
F I G U R E 1-1: GRANTS PASS W T P SYSTEM OVERVIEW 1-7 
F I G U R E 1-2: GRANTS PASS W T P PLAN-VIEW LAYOUT 1 - 8 
F I G U R E 1-3 : GRANTS PASS W T P PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC 1 - 9 
F I G U R E 2 - 1 : AVERAGE DAILY RAW AND FINISHED WATER FLOWS 2 - 3 5 
F I G U R E 2 - 2 : DAILY AVERAGE RAW WATER TURBIDITY AND PRECIPITATION 2 - 3 6 
F I G U R E 2 - 3 : DAILY AVERAGE RAW WATER TEMPERATURE 2 - 3 7 
F I G U R E 2 - 4 : DAILY AVERAGE RAW AND FINISHED WATER PH 2 - 3 8 
F I G U R E 2 - 5 : 2 0 0 2 MONTHLY RAW AND FINISHED WATER T O C AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 2 - 3 9 
F I G U R E 2 - 6 : ROGUE RIVER GEOSMIN LEVELS BETWEEN LOST CREEK DAM AND CITY OF ROGUE 
RIVER 2 - 4 0 
F I G U R E 2 - 7 : DAILY AVERAGE ALUM AND FILTER AID POLYMER DOSE 2 -41 
F I G U R E 2 - 8 : DAILY AVERAGE LIME AND PERMANGANATE D O S E F I G U R E 2 - 9 : DAILY AVERAGE 
MIXED WATER AND EFFLUENT CHLORINE RESIDUALS 2 - 4 2 
F I G U R E 2 - 9 : DAILY AVERAGE MIXED WATER AND EFFLUENT CHLORINE RESIDUALS 2 - 4 3 
F I G U R E 2 - 1 0 : DAILY AVERAGE SEDIMENTATION BASIN EFFLUENT TURBIDITIES 2 - 4 4 
F I G U R E 2 - 1 1 : SEDIMENTATION BASIN TURBIDITY PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS 2 - 4 5 
F I G U R E 2 - 1 2 : TYPICAL FILTER CROSS-SECTIONS 2 - 4 6 
F I G U R E 2 - 1 3 : DAILY AVERAGE FINISHED WATER TURBIDITY 2 - 4 7 
F I G U R E 2 - 1 4 : FINISHED WATER TURBIDITY PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION 2 - 4 7 
F I G U R E 2 - 1 5 : INDIVIDUAL FILTER EFFLUENT AND COMBINED FINISHED WATER TURBIDITY 
PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS (5-MINUTE S C A D A AVERAGES) 2 - 4 7 
F I G U R E 2 - 1 6 : LIMITING U F R V AND U B W V FOR FILTER PERFORMANCE 2 - 4 8 
F I G U R E 2 - 1 7 : WEEKLY AVERAGE FILTER PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY AND BACKWASH VOLUME 2 - 4 8 
F I G U R E 2 - 1 8 : FILTER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - BACKWASH TURBIDITY PROFILES 2 - 4 9 
F I G U R E 2 - 1 9 : FILTER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - FLOC RETENTION PROFILES 2 - 5 0 
F I G U R E 3 - 1 : HISTORICAL C T COMPLIANCE 3 - 3 7 
F I G U R E 3 - 2 : C T REQUIREMENTS - WORST CASE WINTER CONDITIONS 3 - 3 8 
F I G U R E 3 - 3 : C T REQUIREMENTS - WORST CASE SPRING/FALL CONDITIONS 3 - 3 9 
F I G U R E 3 -4 : C T REQUIREMENTS - WORST CASE SUMMER CONDITIONS 3 - 4 0 
F I G U R E 4 - 1 EXISTING W T P HYDRAULIC PROFILE 4 - 3 3 
F I G U R E 6 - 1 : RECOMMENDED FILTER MODIFICATIONS 6 - 5 6 
F I G U R E 6 - 2 : RECOMMENDED IMMEDIATE AND FUTURE BASIN IMPROVEMENTS 6 - 5 7 
F I G U R E 6 - 3 : RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM SOLIDS HANDLING IMPROVEMENTS 6 - 5 8 
F I G U R E 6 - 4 : RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO MAINTAIN EXISTING CAPACITY 6 - 5 9 
F I G U R E 6 - 5 : RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO INCREASE CAPACITY TO 3 0 M G D 6 - 6 0 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page vii 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
MWH expresses its gratitude to the City of Grants Pass for their interest, cooperation and 
assistance while conducting the Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan. We extend special 
thanks to the following individuals: 
City of Grants Pass 
City Manager 
Utilities Director 
Water Treatment Plant Supervisor 
Treatment Plant Specialist 
Treatment Plant Specialist 
William A. Peterson, Jr. 
Rohel W. Amundson.... 
Jason Canady 
Mary Wytcherley 
Jeff Thompson 
MWH Team 
Pete Kreil, P.E 
Jude Grounds 
Susumu Kawamura, PhD, P.E. 
Dennis Dorratcague, P.E 
Kathryn Mallon, P.E 
Aaron Poresky 
Brian Schultz 
Leslie Lara-Moore 
Project Manager 
Project Engineer 
Water Treatment Specialist 
Hydraulics Engineer 
Technical Review 
Staff Engineer 
Staff Engineer 
....Administrative Assistant 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 
O O f 2 4 0 
Page viii 
ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 
In order to conserve space and improve readability, the following abbreviations and 
acronyms have been used throughout this report: 
°c degrees centigrade 
Hg/L micrograms per liter 
pm micrometers 
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 
BAT Best Available Technology 
BW backwash 
CI cast iron (pipe) 
CIP cast iron pipe 
CMU concrete masonry unit 
CT product of concentration (C) and contact time (T) 
D/DBPR Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule 
DBP disinfection by-product 
DHS Oregon Department of Human Services, Drinking Water Program 
DI ductile iron (pipe) 
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 
ESWTR Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 
fps feet per second 
ft foot 
FTW filter-to-waste 
gal/sf gallons per square feet 
gph gallons per hour 
gpm gallons per minute 
gpm/sf gallons per minute/square feet 
HAA haloacetic acid 
HAAs sum of 5 HAA compound concentrations 
HDPE high density polyethylene 
hp horsepower 
I&C instrumentation and control 
ICR Information Collection Rule 
IDSE Initial Distribution System Evaluation 
IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 
IOC inorganic contaminants 
LCR Lead and Copper Rule 
LRAA Locational Running Annual Average 
MCC motor control center 
MCL maximum contaminant level 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page ix 
ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 
MCLG maximum contaminant level goal 
MG million gallons 
mgd million gallons per day 
mg/L milligrams per liter 
mm millimeter 
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit 
O&M operations and maintenance 
PE plant effluent 
PGE Portland General Electric 
PLC programmable logic controller 
ppd pounds per day 
psi pounds per square inch 
RCP Reinforced concrete pipe 
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 
scfm standard cubic feet per minute 
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 
sf square foot 
SOC synthetic organic chemicals 
SOW Scope of Work 
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule 
TCR Total Coliform Rule 
TDH total dynamic head 
THM trihalomethane 
THMR Trihalomethane Rule 
TOC total organic carbon 
TSS total suspended solids 
TTHM total trihalomethanes 
UBC Uniform Building Code 
UBWV unit backwash volume 
TJCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 
UFC Uniform Fire Code 
UFRV unit filter run volume 
UPS uninterruptible power supply 
UV ultraviolet 
VFD variable frequency drive 
VOC volatile organic chemicals 
WTP water treatment plant 
WRP water restoration plant 
WWW waste washwater 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 
242 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
E S E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 
The City of Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has successfully met the City's 
drinking water needs for over 70 years. The Rogue River supply is typical of many 
Pacific Northwest surface waters with low mineral content, low pathogen concentrations, 
and normally low turbidity, but with seasonal increases in turbidity due to precipitation 
and runoff. The Rogue River quality and flow is also influenced by the operation of 
upstream reservoirs including Lost Creek Reservoir and Savage Rapids Dam. Peak 
withdrawals by the WTP to meet demands in the summer months coincide with minimum 
river flows and low turbidities. 
• 
The WTP's main purposes include removal of suspended particulates, removal and 
inactivation of pathogens, and production of non-corrosive, palatable water according to 
Federal and State drinking water regulations. The plant has historically met all 
regulations and the few customer complaints are limited to occasional chlorinous tastes 
and odors. The plant appears well-positioned to continue to meet current and future 
drinking water regulations. 
The plant's production has steadily increased over the last decade in response to 
increasing water demands within the City's service area. The City's service area has 
been expanding as areas previously served by small groundwater systems have been 
incorporated into the City's water system. Significant investments have been made to 
upgrade the distribution and storage systems over the past few years. Water production 
at the plant has increased by approximately 20% since 1995. In 2003, peak day water 
production from the WTP was 10.3 mgd, peak week production was 9.6 mgd, peak 
month production was 9.2 mgd, and the average annual production was 5.1 mgd. 
The plant has a rated maximum capacity of 20 mgd with all raw water and finished water 
pumps operating. The reliable plant capacity is approximately 15 mgd with one of the 
largest pumps out of service. The plant is operated in a start/stop mode each day, with 
the hours of production varying between 8 to 15 hours per day depending on demands 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 PageES-1 
0,0 C 243 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
and raw water quality. The plant normally operates at the peak production rate of 20 mgd 
(14,000 gpm) part of each day during the high demand season. As demands have 
increased each year, the daily plant operating duration has also increased. Eventually, the 
plant will have to increase its operating staff to allow 24 hour per day production during 
the peak demand season. 
The Water Treatment Plant Facilities Plan (WTPFP) provides guidance for improving 
this major element of the City's water system and recommends a capital improvement 
program (CIP) that will meet the City's water treatment needs for the next 20 to 25 years. 
Initial efforts for the WTPFP included the following elements that represent a "situation 
audit" according to planning guidelines for water treatment plants: 
• Review of current and future water demands; 
• Review of historical water quality and WTP performance; 
• Review of current and future drinking water regulations and compliance; 
• Review of hydraulic and process capacity; 
• Detailed investigation of the filter media and alternative coagulation schemes; and 
• Review of plant facilities and systems, for performance and code compliance 
At the current rate of growth, it is expected that the plant will continue to be able to meet 
the City's water needs for at least the next 20 years, with some modifications and 
improvements. A major plant expansion is not envisioned until the middle to end of 
decade 2020. Although the existing plant site is extremely confined, the plant is capable 
of being expanded to approximately 30 mgd with major modifications. The existing 
plant structures appear to have significant remaining useful life. However, the older plant 
structures are vulnerable to damage during a severe seismic event. 
While the plant has been able to successfully meet the City's water demands and also 
produce good water quality, this facilities planning effort determined that some 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page ES-2 
> 0 0 2 4 4 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
challenges exist which have regulatory compliance implications and which create 
production inefficiencies including: 
• The existing Rogue River intake does not comply with current Endangered Species 
Act (ESA) regulations to protect juvenile fish including salmonids, due to high 
approach velocities and screen deficiencies; 
• The backwash/sludge holding pond is completely full of solids and immediate action 
is required, including development of a long-term solids management plan, to ensure 
continued compliance with the City's NPDES permit for discharge to Skunk Creek; 
• The filter media is in a degraded condition and the plant (specifically the filters and 
sedimentation basins) is operating inefficiently, thereby requiring frequent 
backwashing and excessive raw water pumping, resulting in higher operating costs 
and longer operating durations; and 
• Proposed drinking water regulations, including the Disinfectants/Disinfection By-
products (D/DBP) Rule and the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment 
Rule (LT2ESWTR), have the potential to require significant plant modifications 
depending on the outcome of current monitoring programs. 
These challenges require the City to implement near-term improvements to the plant. 
The plant also requires a longer-term capital improvement program (CIP) to ensure 
reliability and redundancy of major equipment, including adding new equipment, 
replacement/repair of major equipment as they age and become less reliable, and to 
prepare for a major plant expansion. 
Based on a prioritization and budgetary constraint assessment, Table ES-1 presents the 
recommended near-term CIP for the WTP with estimated costs in year 2003 dollars: 
Table ES-2 lists lower priority improvements to be completed starting in the fiscal year 
2008/2009. Some of these projects might be completed earlier and/or broken into smaller 
elements as the plant's operating budget allows. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page ES-3 
O0C245 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
T A B L E ES-1 : NEAR-TERM IMPLEMENTATION FLAN FOR W T P IMPROVEMENTS 
; 
Fiscal Year 
„ 
• • • • 
• s ^ 1[ = . • '-"-L & f< • J 
Improvements 
• H 9 m m m 
f^jiErf V 
rcosts ' J ; 
Current 1. Solids Handling Improvements $175,000 
2004/2005 1. Intake Modifications (Engr. and Permitting) $400,000 
2005/2006 
1 Intake Modifications (Engr and Construction) 
2. Filter Upgrades (Engr. and Construction) 
3. Basin Modifications (Engr. and Construction) 
$500,000 
$200,000 
$200,000 
2006/2007 
1. Intake Modifications (Construction) 
2. Filter Upgrades (Construction) 
3. Basin Modifications (Construction) 
$700,000 
$400,000 
$400,000 
1 All costs presented in Year 2003 dollars. Costs should be escalated at an appropriate rate to determine cost for future 
years. 
T A B L E ES-2: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR LOWER-PRIORITY W T P IMPROVEMENTS 
-Fìsca! Year 
P • I I v, -
l l w l 
fs ï îmated 
l u H H I 
mmc> f j 
2008/2009 1. Filter Gallery Upgrades (Engr. and Construction) $200,000 
2009/2010 
1. Filter Gallery Upgrades (Construction) 
2. Chemical System Upgrades (Engr. and Const.) 
$480,000 
$ 50,000 
2010/2011 
1. Chemical System Upgrades (Construction) 
2. Sludge Removal Systems (Engr. and Const.) 
3. New Storage Building (Engr. and Construction) 
$130,000 
$ 75,000 
$ 25,000 
2011/2012 
1. Sludge Removal Systems (Construction) 
2. New Storage Building (Construction) 
$225,000 
$ 50,000 
2012/2013 1. Emergency Generator for 5 mgd (Engr. and Const.) $300,000 
All costs presented in Year 2003 dollars. Costs should be escalated at an appropriate rate to determine cost for future 
years. 
In addition to the capital improvements presented above, the City should also implement 
the following efforts for the WTP over the next few years: 
• Continue to explore alternative coagulation options to reduce solids production, 
improve plant performance and reduce operating costs; 
• Continue collecting Cryptosporidium samples from the Rogue River to determine 
"bin classification" according to the LT2ESTR, 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page ES-4 
0 0 C 2 4 6 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
• Develop a DBP sampling program based on the proposed regulations, in conjunction 
with State of Oregon DHS, to monitor for trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic 
acids (HAAs), to verify compliance with the proposed Stage 2 D/DBP Rule; 
• Complete a Seismic Vulnerability Study; and 
• Assess the viability and costs of the sludge handling and disposal program currently 
being implemented. 
In the next 5 to 10 years, the City will need to verify that it can meet the LT2ESWTR and 
the D/DBP Rule with the existing plant. Current limited monitoring data suggests that 
compliance with both rules is likely. If compliance is ultimately determined to be 
unlikely, then the City may have to implement an alternative disinfection scheme at the 
WTP. The lowest cost approaches include UV irradiation and/or chloramines. 
The City should periodically monitor plant performance and water demands over the next 
10 years as it makes capital improvements and to verify that planned improvements are 
still required. An update of the WTP Facilities Plan should be completed in 5 to 10 years 
depending on water demands and regulations, including a review of plant expansion 
requirements. 
As mentioned above, the plant is capable of being expanded to approximately 30 mgd 
with major modifications. Based on current growth estimates, the plant expansion will 
not be required until the middle to end of decade 2020. The estimated project cost for a 
plant expansion to 30 mgd is $7.5 million, in 2003 dollars, which minimizes the use of 
additional footprint on the existing site. It is recommended that the City assess available 
property for a future new plant to expand/partially replace the existing plant within the 
next 50 years. 
Figure ES-1 presents a site plan of proposed plant improvements and upgrades for the 
next 10 years. Figure ES-2 presents a site plan indicating improvements to expand the 
plant to 30 mgd. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page ES-5 
00,248 
0 0 C 2 4 9 
ìMi'innJKiKiBaBMmm 
Introduction and Background 
' > 2 5 0 
I N T R O D U C T I O N A N D B A C K G R O U N D 
1 I N T R O D U C T I O N A N D B A C K G R O U N D 
The purpose of the Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan (WTPFP) is 
threefold: 
1) Define the ability of the existing plant to reliably continue serving the City's water 
needs, 
2) Develop a list of prioritized Capital Improvements to upgrade the plant to improve 
operations, to meet increasing demands, and to meet existing and future drinking 
water regulations, and 
3) Prepare a plan for water treatment needs within the 20 year planning horizon. 
The WTPFP summarizes current and historic performance and design features of the 
Grants Pass Water Treatment Plant (WTP), provides guidance for improving this major 
element of the City's water system, and recommends a capital improvement program 
(CIP) that should meet the City's water treatment needs for the next 20 to 25 years. The 
report includes basic information and supporting materials to allow preliminary 
engineering analyses for upgrade and improvement options. 
The work effort for the plant evaluation includes a Performance Evaluation, Regulatory 
Review, Capacity Review and Facilities Review. Each review is summarized in separate 
sections of this report. The reviews and analyses offer insights into possible 
improvements which may be required for a number of reasons including: maintaining 
existing capacity, increasing capacity, optimizing performance, meeting future drinking 
water regulations, ensuring a long remaining useful life, safety, and operational 
efficiency. 
Following the plant evaluation, improvement alternatives are compared. Recommended 
improvements are presented, along with planning level cost estimates, according to 
priority. Sections 6 and 7 of this report present costs and a recommended schedule of 
improvements over the 20-year planning period. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 1-1 
0 > 251 
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 
1.1 W T P AND ROGUE RIVER SUPPLY BACKGROUND 
The City has been experiencing steady growth over the past decade and has also assumed 
the water supply needs of neighboring communities. This has resulted in increasingly 
higher water demands for both baseflow demands in the non-peak season (November 
through May), as well as higher demands during peak season (June through October). In 
1995, the City's peak month and peak day production were 6.5 mgd and 8.3 mgd, 
respectively. The peak month and peak day demand in 2003 was 9.2 mgd and 10.3 mgd, 
respectively. Hence, peak demands in the City have increased 2.5% to 3% per year, or 
over 20% during the past 8 years. Due to these higher demands, the plant has been 
experiencing some operational challenges which historically have not been an issue, 
including low production efficiency, increased sludge management problems and higher 
operating costs. The City recently completed a Water Distribution System Master Plan 
(West Yost & Associates, January 2001) to address impacts of the growing demands on 
the distribution system. 
The Grants Pass WTP, located at 821 SE "M" Street, was originally built in 1931 with a 
single basin and three filters for a designed capacity of approximately 3.5 mgd. The plant 
has undergone several upgrades and expansions through the years to incrementally adjust 
to a growing population and more stringent treatment standards, including: 
• 1950 - Capacity increased to 9 mgd through the addition of second basin and two 
additional filters. 
• 1961 - Minor improvements to treatment process. 
• 1983 - Capacity increased to 20 mgd through addition of third basin and three 
additional filters, construction of a new raw water intake and new chemical feed 
systems. 
• 1995 to 2001 - Filter media and gravel support replaced due to suspected 
gravel/underdrain upset caused by excessive air in the backwash line. 
• 1997 - Filter-to-waste (FTW) added for improved CT-removal credit. 
• 1998 -SCADA upgrade; VFD included on BW pump. 
• 1999-2000 - Improvements to the Equalization basin pumping station 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 1-2 
OÌW252 
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 
• 2001 - Liquid sodium hypochlorite system installed to replace gas system. 
• 2001 - Riverbank stabilization adjacent to the intake structure, in cooperation with 
US Army Corps of Engineers 
• 2002 - New PLC-based SCADA system and new monitoring devices were installed 
in the plant to replace outdated analog transmitters and to allow for more accurate and 
complete process performance monitoring and automated process control. The PLC 
replaced obsolete analogue loop-controllers and chemical feed controllers 
The 1983 expansion required extensive internal remodeling of the original building as 
well as bank stabilization around the new intake structure. However, the original 
structure has been preserved and is currently listed on the American Water Works 
Association's (A WW A) National Historic Water Landmarks. 
The plant draws water from an adjacent intake on the Rogue River. The City has been 
drawing water from the Rogue since 1888, and currently has a total water right of 82 cfs 
(53 mgd). The river is prone to turbidity events and yearly fluctuations in temperature 
and pH which create seasonal challenges to plant operations. The river flow and quality 
are also influenced by upstream dam operations, most notably the Lost Creek Reservoir 
and Savage Rapids Dam. The WTP is operated as a conventional filtration plant 
although it lacks formal flocculation prior to sedimentation in its basins. Solids from the 
basins, as well as backwash and filter-to-waste water, are transferred to a settling lagoon 
which overflows to Skunk Creek. Following cleaning in 2000, the lagoon is now foil; a 
long-term solids management plan needs to be developed. 
Figure 1-1 is an photographic overview of the City's Water Treatment System; Figure 1-
2 provides a plan-view layout of the WTP in its current configuration. Figure 1-3 is a 
Process Flow Schematic of the plant indicating key processes, chemical addition points 
and sample locations. 
Major facilities and structures at the Grants Pass WTP include 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 1-3 
^ 253 
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 
• Raw water intake and screening facility, including a dual compartment intake 
structure complete with two stationary bar screens and one traveling screen. 
• Raw water pumping station (4 pumps total, all with 75 Hp motors), flowmeter, and 
36" static mixer 
• One mixing basin (not currently in use) servicing Basins 1 and 2. 
• Three sedimentation basins with total surface area of 18,800 square feet and total 
volume of 1,835,300 gallons. 
• Eight mixed media gravity filters (18-22 inches media depth, not including support 
gravel) for a total of 2,493 square feet of surface area. 
• A 433,000 gallon baffled clearwell. 
• One 200 Hp backwash pump with VFD, 16" backwash pipeline and flow meter. 
• A high service pumping station (5 pumps total, 2 constant speed pumps with 300 Hp 
motors, one constant speed pump with 250 Hp motor, two VFD pumps'with 250 Hp 
motors). 
• One 36-inch finished water transmission pipeline with flowmeter. 
• One hydropneumatic surge tank (volume = 11,300 gallon) located on the finished 
water line. 
• Chemical storage, metering and rapid mixing systems for liquid alum (50%), liquid 
sodium hypochlorite (12.5%), hydrated lime, dry (filter aid) polymer, dry potassium 
permanganate (KMn04), and powdered activated carbon (not currently in operation). 
Alum is used as the primary coagulant, filter aid polymer is added to the basin 
effluent to improve filter performance. Disinfection is achieved through both pre-
and post-chlorination by sodium hypochlorite. Potassium permanganate is used to 
control taste and odor in the finished water. Lime is used to increase pH which 
reduces internal pipe corrosion within the distribution system. 
• One 116,000 gallon equalization basin for backwash wastewater, filter-to-waste and 
sedimentation basin wastewater. 
• Equalization basin pumping station (3 pumps total, two smaller pumps (30 hp each) 
with a combined capacity of 2,100 gpm at TDH = 42-feet, and one larger pump (60 
hp), rated at 1750 gpm at TDH = 60-feet). 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 1-4 
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 
• One sludge lagoon (Medco Mill Pond) which discharges decant/overflow into Skunk 
Creek and eventually into the Rogue River. 
Included in the operations building is a water quality laboratory for treatment process 
monitoring and control, the plant's electrical distribution equipment, main control board 
and other instrumentation/control equipment. Also included are office and administrative 
spaces, a lunchroom, workshop and meeting area. 
The plant and raw and finished water pumping stations typically operate between 8 and 
15 hours per day depending on system demands. During the peak demand months of July 
and August, the plant is operated up to 15 hours per day to meet peak day demands. The 
plant is staffed at all times when operating and employs two and one-half (2 V2) full-time 
employees (FTE) and one and two-fifths (12/s) maintenance personnel; operators are 
rotated between the water and wastewater treatment plant, except for the plant supervisor. 
This Facility Plan was completed for a number of reasons including: 
• Document the existing plant capacity and project the expected remaining useful life, 
• Determine required improvements, if any, to meet current and possible future 
drinking water regulations, 
• Determine required improvements, if any, to meet other current or planned future 
regulations for public facilities, 
• Determine improvements to replace or improve existing plant equipment, and systems 
to keep pace with current technology where there is a need, 
• Evaluate options to improve the plant's overall production efficiency to help 
minimize required production time and reduce/optimize operations costs, 
• Evaluate options to minimize solids production, improve handling capacity and 
develop a long-term plan for solids handling, 
• Recommend alternatives to increase the plant's capacity in preparation for future 
water treatment needs. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 1-5 
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 
A list of improvements, categorized and prioritized (according to purpose and relative 
importance) along with estimated costs, was developed as part of this planning effort. 
This list of recommended improvements will assist the City in identifying its short-term 
and mid-term water treatment improvements, allowing the City to prepare for the next 10 
years of operation, as well as longer-term improvements that will better prepare the City 
for 20+ years. 
1.2 KEY ISSUES 
Key issues to be addressed in the City's WTP Facility Plan are summarized below: 
• Regulatory Compliance, including existing and pending water quality regulations, 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements and National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit compliance. 
• Treatment Optimization to ensure optimal plant performance, improve overall plant 
efficiency and to minimize operating costs associated with pumping and chemical 
usage, as well as sludge production. 
• Reliability/Redundancy for primary and subordinate treatment facilities and 
associated ancillary equipment to ensure reliable plant production. 
• Equipment Replacement/Repair for operational and maintenance purposes. 
• Possible Capacity Expansion to meet future water treatment needs. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 
00C256 
Page 1-6 
O O C 2 5 7 
00 (' 258 
cu o ->,£«>»- a. o — >. G o «-
U S e O r» 
a. o — >» E u u 
OS 
S 
I—« 
.S 
CQ 
« S e O • 
tN 3fc 
£3 CQ 
m oo 
m 
.S ; m 1 ca 
CQ 
L}-
f s ' 
S. £b O > 
cd 
(/D 
3 
Q o H 
a 
tw a, 
£ m 
nntí 
3 J E 
o 
Ö 
£ H U-, 
£ 
£ 
£ 
c o 
l i - g 
w S CQ 
a* 
P4 
r 
c <D 3 
C 
» ¿P « 
I § S & £ J 
,<D 00 *+-< CL, 
-a a <u 
WD a> 1-4 
WD 
S 
•u 
£ 
<u 
£ 
-a D 
(O cd 
£ -O U 
•S u I » _ tó M fc 
0) 
ni 
£ 
•a u 
"I ë 
S 
I" « 
S c S ~ • s « g a. S en M "S -s i -S3 t — o « in £!« .» 
E o ¡ * 
ë « § S ï j h £ 
00 259 
00 (' 260 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
2 H I S T O R I C A L P L A N T P E R F O R M A N C E 
Historic operating data for the Grants Pass WTP are reviewed and analyzed in this 
section of the report. The purpose of this data review is to assist in determining the 
performance of the existing WTP processes for operational efficiency and regulatory 
compliance. 
All available information relevant to the plant's current condition and performance was 
reviewed for this evaluation. Plant performance data dating back to January 1995 was 
provided by the City, however, this performance review focuses on more recent data. 
Four and one-half years of data and information, from January 1999 to July 2003 were 
reviewed, including plant flow information, selected raw, finished and distribution 
system water quality parameters, basin performance, chemical usage data, and overall 
filter performance indicators. Discussions with plant operators were used to supplement 
and verify this information. 
2 . 1 PLANT FLOW 
The Grants Pass WTP measures and records raw and finished water flows through the 
plant on a daily basis. Raw water flow is measured using a differential pressure type 
flowmeter located on the influent line prior to chemical addition. Finished water flow is 
measured using another differential pressure type flowmeter located on the WTP effluent 
line just downstream of the HSPS. Backwash flowrate is measured in the backwash 
supply line, but backwash flows were not recorded consistently prior to the SCADA 
improvements in 2002. Filter-to-waste (FTW) flows are discharged upstream of the filter 
effluent flow meters, and therefore have not been historically measured or recorded since 
the installation of FTW in 1997. 
There was a significant increase (approx. 3%) in recorded values for flowrates (both raw 
and finished water) between 2001 and 2002 coinciding with, and possibly resulting from, 
the installation of the new SCADA system. As part of the SCADA upgrade, the analog 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-17 
O O f 2 6 1 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
system was rerouted, eliminating several analog signal converters on the influent and 
effluent flow meters. It is the opinion of the plant staff that the old signal converters may 
have inadvertently dampened the flow signal, reducing the measured value through each 
of the flowmeters by as much as 10% (compared to current SCADA readings), though 
validation of this theory is no longer feasible. Fortunately, this possible discrepancy does 
not impact the analysis of historical production efficiencies, as both the raw and finished 
water flowmeters were likely impacted proportionally. However, historical calculations 
of chemical dosage and system demands, which are dependent on raw water and finished 
water flow measurements, respectively, may be slightly inaccurate; estimates of chemical 
usage prior to installation of the SCADA system in 2002 may be 10% higher than actual 
reported dosages. 
2.1.1 Plant Production 
Figure 2-1 presents the historic average daily raw water flows and finished water flows 
from January 1999 to December 2003. Table 2-1 presents a summary of this data, 
including annual average flow, average peak and off-season flows, minimum and 
maximum monthly average flows and maximum weekly and daily flows. The City has 
been experiencing increasing water demands over the past decade. Average day 
production has increased approximately 2 percent per year since 1999 (from 4.5 mgd in 
1999 to 4.9 mgd in 2003). This increase may result from differences in measured flows 
through the plant before and after the SCADA improvements in 2002. A maximum peak 
day flow from the Grants Pass WTP of 10.5 mgd was observed on July 1, 2002. The 
highest average maximum monthly flow of 9.2 mgd was observed in July 2003. 
Increasing demands can be attributed to steady growth in the area, in addition to the 
City's recent incorporation of the urban growth boundary previously not served. As 
previously mentioned, the transition from the old analog transmitters to the new SCADA 
system may be partially responsible for the apparent increases in demand. 
The flow data presented in Table 2-1 was used to develop peaking factors that are useful 
in water supply planning efforts. The primary peaking factor is the ratio of peak day flow 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 P a g e 2-31 
£>262 
if: Kl 
¡3 
Q § 
Pu 
0-
H 
£ 
1* 
O 
D Cfl 
tì 
hj P3 c 
H 
Q 
ü 
S 
z 
O 
F o 3 . Q O OC CL 
a. 
0) 
•<J- F— N IO CO 
A 
— » O) cri CJ) ö ö T— 
E 
R E 
X Ä> 00 o oo re . re CM CO T— CM 
• ? Ü fi òo s fi 
•' it 
íj J-., :•! 
; ; I 
1 
00 IO CO •<fr CO 
« 00 oo 00 OÍ ai 
® o > 
5 'S? Uft 
E S; -
3 > 
7/
28
-7
/3
 CO o 
E < 
X m 
s 
' r e 
7/
28
-7
/3
 
co 
S3 • 
Ci 1 
•c— 
s 1 o 
co 
2 
•• * t* 
û 7/
28
-7
/3
 
CO U/ CO r-fs 
ÇM 
r-
A> 
S 2 00 00 N; o> CM -- s C I? h-' co cri o a> > S CD 
C E = ® 
D > 
E < 0 O • -M _J _> "x re S 
C o 
.S 
R> =) 3 < < -I -1 
• 
re 
00 00 r»- N- f-
JC * -i--1 re <N CM CN¡ CM" CM C «X 
I s 
I I 
> 
1 =» ï 
E < 
f o 
CO z O z z 
c LU < ai < < 
S 
H 
Li. —> a -J —} 
« a> C -0) 
5 5> 2 00 CM 
R> co CO T— O ra ? 00 co co co' CO ai > CO < 
i .. 
'I- ,T..:' 03 ^ 'Te 
« s m CO co co CO « co co co s-' ü. a) > W < 
a ra o o o " ' C" S IO IO CT) - < -4-» c . ® io" cri 
< 
—r 
CT> o CM co ra CT) o o o o a> Ol o o o o 
>- CN CM CM CM 
O) 2 
TJ C TO 
ra" TO T> 
fe 
xi 
E 
g 
.g 
t-TO 
5 X! <D LL 
kl CO 
o CO 2 o J: 
o ai CM je P 
£ 
p r. 
s a> m —3 V H k-c 3 CD £ O 0) </) 
c 
-z. ut XI n¡ 
in > m O en TO Cl) 
TO 0) w TO to X3 ra (/3 te O 
a. O 2 
(S (U 
00 « 
Ou 
1 U, 
CU H 
£ 
O •5t O 
o 
o es & & 
5 2 
00(263 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
to annual average flow; this value ranged between 2.09 in 1999 to 2.14 in 2002. Another 
important peaking factor is the ratio of peak month flow to annual average flow. For the 
City, this value ranged from 1 73 in 1999 to 1 75 in 2002. These values are consistent 
with those used for demand forecasting in the City's Water Distribution System Master 
Plant (West Yost, 2001), where peaking factors of 2.2 and 1.8 were used for peak day and 
peak month, respectively. Additionally, based on recent studies, maximum day peaking 
factors for systems in the Pacific Northwest typically vary from approximately 2.0 to 2.5. 
The peaking factors for the City system are consistent with these regional numbers. 
2 . 2 RAW WATER QUALITY 
Four raw water quality parameters were analyzed: turbidity, temperature, pH, alkalinity 
and organic content. These parameters are typically of most importance when evaluating 
a treatment plant's overall performance. 
2.2.1 Turbidity 
Raw water turbidity is probably the single most important water quality parameter when 
evaluating plant performance and alternative process design criteria. Turbidity is a 
measure of light penetration through a water sample and is indicative of the relative 
amount of particulate matter in the sample. Water with lower turbidity is typically easier 
to treat and usually requires lower chemical doses for optimum coagulation and filtration. 
High turbidity levels can reduce the effectiveness of disinfection treatment processes and 
can provide a medium for the growth of microorganisms. 
The raw water turbidity from the Rogue River has historically been low and moderately 
variable during the majority of the year. High rainfall events generally correspond to an 
increase in River turbidity. Additionally, dam operations also affect turbidity in the 
River. Figure 2-2 presents the average daily raw water flow rates, turbidity, as well as 
the observed daily precipitation between January 1999 and July 2003. The lowest 
turbidity periods occur during the warmer, drier months and the highest turbidity periods 
occur during the wet weather months. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-31 
£>264 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
Average turbidities were generally less than 5 NTU from May to October; minimum 
turbidities were as low as 1.0 NTU during these months. Between September and April, 
average turbidities were typically 8 NTU, with average maximums approaching 200 
NTU. The highest average day raw water turbidity was reached in December 2001 when 
average daily turbidities of 176 NTU were observed in the raw water. Raw water 
turbidities approaching 1,000 NTU were recorded during the winters of 1995 through 
1997 according to plant staff. 
2.2.2 Temperature 
Temperature plays an important role in water treatment because it affects the rate of 
chemical reactions (including disinfection), floe settling and filter performance. Higher 
temperature water typically requires lower chemical doses and offers better floe 
formation, settling, filtration and disinfection characteristics. An increase in optimal 
filter backwash rates also results from an increase in water temperature due to the 
decreased viscosity of the warmer water. 
The temperature of the raw water entering the WTP varies by season, as shown in Figure 
2-3. During the 4/4 year period of record considered for this evaluation, wintertime low 
average temperatures were approximately 45°F (7°C) and summertime high average 
temperatures were approximately 61°F (16°C). The lowest observed temperature was 
40°F (4.4°C) in February 2002. The highest observed temperature was 74°F (23°C), 
measured in July 2001. 
2.2.3 pH 
pH is a measure of the acidic or basic nature of a water sample and can also be indicative 
of whether or not a water is corrosive. A pH of 7.0 represents neutral conditions, and pH 
values in excess of this are considered acceptable for corrosion control. pH values less 
than 7.0 usually indicate corrosivity, which can lead to leaching of toxic metals into the 
water system and degradation of conveyance facilities. pH is also important in water 
treatment because of its impacts on coagulation performance and chemical disinfection. 
A pH in the range of 6.5 to 7.0 is considered optimum for alum coagulation and for 
chemical disinfection. In plants lacking ability to adjust pH at several points throughout 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-17 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
the treatment process, corrosion control typically governs the pH, with some sacrifice in 
coagulation and disinfection performance. 
Figure 2-4 presents the historical raw water pH values between January 1999 and July 
2003; trendlines have been included to help highlight seasonal variability in pH. As 
shown in the figure, the pH of the raw water from the River typically varies between 7.3 
and 8.0 throughout the year, with average values between 7.5 and 7.9. Historically, pH 
peaks twice each calendar year with the most pronounced peak occurring in the mid-
spring and a secondary peak occurring in the early fall, corresponding to algal activity in 
the river. Historic minimums occur in the winter months, presumably due to heavy 
rainfall events. The lowest observed raw water pH was 7.30 in June 2000. The highest 
observed pH was 8.50 in March 2001. pH is also affected by algae throughout the 
summer, with diurnal swings that can vary between 7.5 to 8.5. 
2.2.4 Alkalinity 
Alkalinity is important in water treatment because of its impact on coagulation 
performance as well as its impact on corrosivity and pH stability. Alkalinity above 20 
mg/L as CaCC>3 is generally considered adequate for alum coagulation and improved pH 
stability in the distribution system. Alkalinity can also impact TOC removal 
requirements, depending on raw water organic concentrations. 
Alkalinity is not measured regularly at the Grants Pass WTP; however, some data was 
collected from 1999 to 2003. Raw water alkalinity typically ranges from 30 to 45 mg/L 
as CaCC>3. The highest observed alkalinity was 49.3 mg/L as CaC03 in April 2001 Raw 
water alkalinity has not been measured with enough frequency to establish seasonal 
alkalinity trends, however, it is expected that alkalinity would decrease in the winter 
(corresponding to the rainy season) and increase in the summer. 
2.2.5 Organic Content 
The natural level of organic matter in the raw water can affect its treatability as well as 
other parameters, including chlorine demand and disinfection by-product (DBP) 
formation and taste and odor. Organic content can be derived from the natural decay of 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-6 
OOf266 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
plant life, as in humic and fulvie acids, or the presence of algae. As the concentration of 
organic matter in the water increases, the requirement for chemicals that react with the 
organic matter (alum and chlorine, for example) also typically increases. Since DBPs 
result from chlorine's reaction with organic matter, higher concentrations of organic 
matter in raw water usually result in higher levels of DBPs in the distribution system. 
Elevated algae concentrations can sometimes create difficult treatment conditions such as 
interference with coagulation, filter clogging and nuisance tastes and odors, depending 
upon the type and concentration of the algae. 
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is a general measure of the natural organic matter (NOM) 
present in the raw water. This parameter is sometimes used as an indicator of DBP 
formation potential. TOC is also important as existing regulations intended to minimize 
DBP formation require the removal of a fraction of the overall raw water TOC through 
the treatment process, depending on the raw water TOC concentration and alkalinity. 
The Grants Pass WTP staff recently began a monitoring program for to determine TOC 
concentrations in the raw and finished water. Quarterly TOC sampling was performed 
throughout 2001; monthly sampling was performed throughout 2002. Results from this 
sampling effort are presented in Figure 2-5. The data suggest that the TOC 
concentrations in the raw water are comparable to other U.S. surface water supplies, 
typically ranging between 0.5 to 5 mg/L, and slightly higher than other similar Pacific 
Northwest surface water supplies, which range between 0.5 to 3.0 mg/L. Five samples 
taken between November 2001 and March 2002, measured concentrations of TOC above 
2.0 mg/L, the current "trigger" concentration for TOC removal requirements under 
existing regulations. Further discussion of required TOC removal efficiencies and other 
regulatory issues associated with TOC are discussed in Section 3-Regulatory Review. 
More data is required to better understand the seasonal variability of TOC in the raw 
water. Grants Pass should continue to monitor raw TOC on a monthly basis. Settled 
and/or finished water TOC should also be monitored to demonstrate TOC removal 
through the basins and through the plant. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-7 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
Because TOC analysis is expensive and labor intensive, the City should consider 
purchasing a bench-top ultraviolet (UV) spectrophotometer, and incorporating daily UV 
absorbance monitoring at the WTP as a surrogate for TOC. Dissolved and soluble 
organic carbon absorbs UV light at a wavelength of 254 nm; a spectrophotometer 
measures the percentage of UV absorbance, a value directly proportional to TOC. Once 
calibrated, U V 2 5 4 readings can be correlated to TOC concentrations. UV254 sampling will 
a relatively inexpensive, simple and accurate alternative to lab analyses of TOC. 
2.2.5.1 Taste and Odor 
According to plant staff, the Rogue River experiences occasional seasonal taste and odor 
events during the warmer summer months (August and/or September). Rigorous 
monitoring of these events has identified the source as geosmin, a naturally occurring 
organic compound resulting from algae metabolism. Geosmin is capable of imparting an 
objectionable odor at very low concentrations (0.010 ug/L); geosmin levels below 0.008 
ug/L are considered acceptable. 
Figure 2-6 presents results of geosmin sampling along the Rogue River, downstream of 
the Lost Creek Reservoir, performed by the Medford Water Commission. As shown in 
the figure, concentrations of the compound decrease downstream of the reservoir, likely 
resulting from tributary dilution. The Medford Water Commission recently installed pre-
ozonation to address seasonal taste and odor events. Though concentrations in Grants 
Pass may be considerably lower than those measured upstream, treatment provisions for 
taste and odor causing compounds may still be warranted at the WTP. Plant staff have 
received several customer complaints during "heavy" taste and odor events in the river, 
but most taste and odor complaints are usually due to chlorine. 
2 .3 CHEMICAL USAGE 
Chemical usage at the Grants Pass WTP was analyzed to determine any seasonal trends 
that may offer insight into the overall treatment process performance. The five major 
chemicals currently used at the plant are aluminum sulfate (alum), filter aid polymer, 
hydrated lime, liquid sodium hypochlorite, and dry potassium permanganate. Liquid 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-8 
O O C 2 6 8 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
alum is used as the primary coagulant. The polymer is used to condition the water 
entering the filters for improved filter performance. Lime slurry is currently added to the 
settled water leaving Basin #2 to increase the pH for corrosion control. Sodium 
hypochlorite is added to the raw water and finished water as a disinfectant, and potassium 
permanganate is added to the raw water and to two of the three sedimentation basins to 
control taste and odor. 
2.3.1 Alum 
Liquid alum is stored as a 50 percent solution (by weight) and fed via metering pump to 
the raw water pipeline upstream of the static mixer, prior to the flow split to the basins. 
The addition of alum to the raw water destabilizes (neutralizes) negatively charged 
suspended particles, thereby allowing the formation of insoluble floe particles via 
coagulation and flocculation, and their subsequent removal via sedimentation and 
filtration. The alum feed is continuous using carrier water; the carrier water flow rate is 
estimated at 15 gpm. Alum dose is manually adjusted based on raw water turbidities, 
pilot filter turbidities, previous experience and results from jar tests. On average, alum is 
diluted approximately 40:1 with carrier water, resulting in an alum concentration of 
approximately 1.25% in the chemical injection stream. Mixing occurs through an in-line, 
36-inch diameter static mixer, downstream of the chemical addition vault. 
Figure 2-7 shows the annual trends in alum usage between January 1999 and July 2003. 
The required alum dose varies throughout the year; typical fall and winter alum doses 
average 25 mg/L (as dry alum) while spring and summer alum doses average 17 to 18 
mg/L (as dry alum). The highest alum doses are typically above 50 mg/L (as dry alum) 
in the fall and winter because of high turbidity events. The minimum daily alum dose 
varies slightly throughout the years, ranging from 13 mg/L to 20 mg/L (as dry alum) 
between June and October. 
These alum doses are considered relatively high, especially when the river turbidity is 
very low (1 to 2 NTU) during most of the summer. Alum is known to produce floe 
which is less resistant to shear and retention within filter media, and does not settle as 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-9 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
well as other coagulant floes. Also, alum does not perform as well during colder water 
conditions as the floe takes longer to form. Alum sludge does not dewater as easily as 
other chemical sludge. While the use of alum as the primary coagulant has historically 
been effective in producing good-quality water, there are concerns that continued use 
may not be able to meet performance expectations (i.e. low sludge production, long filter 
run lengths) as the plant production demands increase. Higher alum doses also increase 
solids production, exacerbating solids management issues at the plant. 
2.3.2 Polymer (Filter Aid) 
The Grants Pass WTP currently uses a nonionic polymer (Magnifloc 990N) as a filter aid. 
The dry polymer is mixed and aged with water, then fed via metering pump and carrier 
water to the filter influent; flows are split 8-ways to each filter using rotameters. Filter 
aid polymer is used continuously throughout the year and total daily usage is monitored 
and recorded. The polymer's role in improving overall turbidity removal at the Grants 
Pass WTP is important. When introduced to the settled water, the polymer helps make 
the alum floe that carries out of the sedimentation basins "stickier". This property helps 
the filters retain the floe better and minimizes turbidity "breakthrough" If the filter aid 
were not added, the filtered water turbidity would be higher, and filter run lengths 
significantly shorter due to premature breakthrough (i.e. the filters would have to be 
backwashed more frequently). 
As previously discussed, alum floe is known to be fairly weak in terms of its resistance to 
the shear forces typically found within a filter. A weak floe will not be retained well 
within filter media, resulting in turbidity "leakage" and premature turbidity breakthrough. 
Its shear resistance also decreases with lower water temperatures. Consequently, the 
need for filter aid polymer would be expected to increase in the winter and decrease in 
the summer, typical of many plants using alum as a primary coagulant. 
Figure 2-7 presents the historic average daily filter aid polymer dosages from January 
1999 through July 2003. Filter aid polymer dosages tend to increase in the winter when 
water temperatures are low and decrease in the summer and early fall when the water is 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-10 
00' 270 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
warmer. The average daily polymer dose was 0.025 mg/L during the summer, increasing 
to approximately 0.050 mg/L in the winter and as high as 0.20 mg/L during winter's most 
challenging raw water conditions. 
2.3.3 Lime 
Lime is used to raise the pH by restoring alkalinity consumed through the coagulation 
process; plant staff maintains a target finished water pH of 7.2 for corrosion control. 
Hydrated lime is stored as a dry powder, and fed through a hopper to a chemical mixing 
tank; lime slurry is then fed to the settled water in Sedimentation Basin No. 2 prior to 
filtration. Increases in turbidity require an increased alum dose, resulting in a more acidic 
treated water. Lime can restore the alkalinity consumed during these events and maintain 
treated water pH in a range optimum for corrosion control. However, depending on the 
point of addition, lime can negatively impact treatment plant performance. Both 
coagulation and disinfection performance improves in lower pH ranges; adding lime prior 
into the sedimentation basin effluent may increase settled water turbidities and decrease 
disinfection of microbes. 
Figure 2-8 shows average daily lime usage for pH adjustment from January 1999 
through July 2003. As with other chemical additions, there is a noticeable seasonal trend 
in lime dose. Lower lime dosage are generally required in the summer months; no lime 
was used at the plant during the summers of 1999, 2000 and 2001; lower "baseline" doses 
of approximately 2.5 mg/L (as C a ( O H ) 2 ) were maintained during the summers of 2002 
and 2003. Lime addition throughout the winter months typically range between 2.5 to 10 
mg/L, with maximums in excess of 20 mg/L. Higher doses are typically required in the 
winter months due to increased alum doses and decreased alkalinity in the raw water. 
During the plant tour conducted on July 28th, 2003, all lime required for pH adjustment 
was being added near the effluent of Sedimentation Basin #2. Local pH in this region 
exceeded 9.0. Impacts of this chemical dosing strategy on finished water quality are 
discussed later in this section. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-11 
OOC271 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
2.3.4 Sodium Hypochlorite 
Liquid sodium hypochlorite (12.5% solution) is stored in three 2,120-gallon fiberglass 
tanks located on site. The hypochlorite system was installed in 2001 to replace the 
original gas chlorine injection system. Hypochlorite is added to the raw water ("pre-
chlorination") to assist in coagulation, control biological growth through the 
sedimentation basins, and for disinfection purposes. Chlorine addition to the finished 
water ("post-chlorination") is intended for disinfection purposes and is added to maintain 
a chlorine residual in the distribution system. Chlorine is "boosted" throughout the 
distribution system (up to three times for some parts of the system) for residual 
maintenance. The operator-adjustable target chlorine residual entering the sedimentation 
basin was increased in February 2003 (from 0.4 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L free chlorine) to 
ensure a 0.5 mg/L residual is maintained throughout the basins. Prior to February 2003, a 
target dose of 0.5 mg/L was typically used, though this target had slight seasonal 
variations to account for changes in raw water quality and system demands (i.e. detention 
times). Chlorine residual at the effluent of the sedimentation basins was not measured 
prior to February 2003. 
Figure 2-9 shows the free-chlorine residual in the treated raw water following chemical 
addition and rapid mixing by the 36-inch static mixer (pre-chlorine dose), as well as the 
free-chlorine residual in the finished water effluent following post-chlorination. Pre-
chlorination dose has typically ranged from 0.2 mg/L to 1.4 mg/L, although this range 
represents changes in operational strategy as well as fluctuations caused by normal 
operation. Through recent sampling, plant operators observed that the chlorine residual 
entering the filters was often very low or undetectable. This observation has led the plant 
to increase pre-chlorination doses to improve disinfection through the plant; this recent 
increase is evident in Figure 2-9. Finished-water chlorine residuals are generally 
maintained between 0.9 mg/L and 1.4 mg/L with an average of approximately 1 1 mg/L. 
2.3.5 Additional Chemicals 
In addition to the primary treatment chemicals used daily at the Grants Pass WTP, the 
plant also has the capability to dose potassium permanganate (KMnC^) for taste and odor 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-31 
£>272 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
control. Though extensive research suggests that oxidation of severe taste and odor 
compounds (i.e. MIB and geosmin) with potassium permanganate is relatively 
ineffective, there is some anecdotal evidence that chemical oxidation may be effective on 
a case-by-case basis (Identification and Treatment of Tastes and Odors in Drinking 
Water, AWWA,1987). Permanganate has proven to be effective in oxidizing "minor" 
taste and odor compounds, depending on the species. 
Low, variable doses of permanganate were used consistently from January 1999 through 
July 2003. Permanganate is dosed via metering pump to two addition points, one located 
in the static mixing vault prior to the flow split to Basin #3, the second in the mixing 
basin upstream of Basin #1 and #2, thereby limiting the concentration of permanganate in 
Basin #3. This chemical dosing strategy was developed in response to short-circuiting 
leading to permanganate carryover in Basin #3. The permanganate dose is adjusted on a 
visual basis to maintain a pink hue through the first baffle of the mixing basin. The 
average daily permanganate dosages for this period are shown in Figure 2-8; actual doses 
in Basin #1 and #2 will be slightly higher, and in Basin #3 slightly lower than the 
averages presented in the Figure. The dosage of permanganate peaks in the winter 
months with increasing turbidity. Typical permanganate doses ranged from 0.3 mg/L to 
0.5 mg/L (as KMn04). These doses are considered high for control of taste and odors, 
and may lead to manganese oxide deposits in the filter media and distribution pipelines. 
Based on preliminary recommendations of this plan, the permanganate dose was lowered 
in June 2003 to approximately 0.06 to 0.10 mg/L. 
Originally, the plant was designed to dose powdered activated carbon (PAC) for an 
additional taste and odor control process. However, this system has been disconnected 
and is no longer used. 
2 .4 PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA 
The WTP staff keeps daily records of plant performance data that were used to assist in 
the evaluation of overall plant performance. This section summarizes the historic 
operating performance of the treatment processes including the sedimentation basins, and 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-13 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
filters. It is important to remember that the coagulation, flocculation/sedimentation and 
filtration processes are not independent of each other, but rather they are dependent on 
each other in terms of evaluating overall plant performance. 
2.4.1 Coagulation Performance 
The Rogue River water quality presents some treatment challenges at the WTP, resulting 
from wide swings in pH (seasonal as well as diurnal), seasonally variable turbidity, 
temperature, and color, as well as occasional taste and odor events. Excepting taste and 
odor, this variable raw water quality can significantly impact coagulation performance at 
the plant. Historically, these challenges have been met using a relatively high dosage of 
alum. This strategy has resulted in perhaps unnecessarily high solids production (putting 
a "stress" on the existing solids handling facilities), depressed pH (corresponding to an 
increase in pH adjustment chemical usage/costs), and decreased overall plant efficiencies; 
each of these issues is discussed in detail later in this report. Improvements to the filters 
and/or basins may serve to improve overall plant efficiencies. However, without these 
improvements, continued use of alum as the sole, primary coagulant may not be 
sufficient to meet performance expectations (i.e. minimal solids production, long filter 
run lengths) as the plant production demands increase. Alternative coagulation strategies 
for the City's WTP are discussed in Section 4. 
2.4.2 Sedimentation Basin Performance 
The City's WTP relies on three Sedimentation Basins for flocculation and some 
sedimentation, prior to filtration; no formal flocculation (mixing) is provided in the 
basins. Basin #1 was constructed as part of the original plant; Basin #2 and #3 were 
incorporated into the plant during the various plant expansions. Therefore, the design 
(and effluent water quality) differs between basins. Raw water flow is split into two pipes 
downstream of the static mixer; the first pipe leads to a slow mix basin for Basins #1 and 
#2, the second leads to Basin #3. Each pipe has a butterfly valve for flow control. 
However, the flowmeter installed in the pipeline during the plant expansion prior to the 
Basin #3 inlet is not currently in operation and is in need of repair. A gate valve located 
at the influent to the slow mix basin is also used to control flow. The pipes/valves were 
designed to split the plant flow proportionally to each basin, based on the basin's settling 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-10 
00' 274 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
area, or 36%, 24% and 40% of plant flow to Basin #1, #2 and #3, respectively. However, 
short-circuiting has mandated that flows through Basin #3 be reduced. Additionally, the 
valves controlling flow split through the basins were set based on maximum flow 
(approximately 20 mgd with 4 pumps on). Therefore, unless the valves are manually 
adjusted, the percentage of flow to each basin varies at lower plant flowrates. 
The slow mix basin upstream of Basin #1 and #2 has two compartments; the mixers 
installed as part of the original design have been removed. The water level in these 
basins is also very high, minimizing the head available for mixing. Flows from the slow 
mix basin are proportioned between Basin #1 and #2 using mud valves located on the end 
of each influent channel. Basin #1 and #2 are also equipped with interior baffling walls 
to ensure laminar flow through the sedimentation zone. Basin #1 has two baffle walls, 
Basin #2, only one. 
Each of the Sedimentation Basins has several chemical application points. Lime slurry 
and potassium permanganate can be added in the slow mixing basin (influent to Basins 
#1 and #2). Lacking a mixing vault, all chemical injection for Basin #3 must occur in the 
static mix vault prior to the flow split. During the plant tour conducted on July 28, 2003, 
permanganate was being added in the static mix vault and at the slow mixing basin; all 
lime for pH adjustment was being added near the effluent launders in Basin #2, a 
procedure not commonly practiced at most WTPs due to the impacts on floe formation. 
Water flows from the Sedimentation Basins to the filter influent. The settled water 
trough is continuous between the filters and is intended to allow water from each 
sedimentation basin to spread evenly between the filters. Isolation valves are installed to 
allow cleaning. In general, Filters 1-3 are fed by Basin #1, Filters 4 and 5 by Basin #2 
and Filters 6-8 by Basin #3. Because Basin #3 is further from Basins #1 and #2, 
requiring a longer pipe connection, the amount of water mixing and sharing between 
Basins #1 and #2, and Basin #3 may be somewhat restricted. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-15 
0 Of 27.5 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
The basins are each drained and cleaned twice per year. Cleaning is restricted to off-peak 
seasons, as the plant requires the full capacity to meet summer demands. As solids 
accumulate in the basins, the detention time decreases, probably reducing the solids 
removal and disinfection performance of the basins. A summaiy of basin design criteria 
is presented in Table 2-2. 
T A B L E 2 -2 : BASIN DESIGN CRITERIA 
B a s m 1 - Basin 2 • wmmu m - bi - v < Basi" 3 , • - • • 
Width x Length (ft) 61 x98 3 8 x 9 8 8 0 x 8 0 
Avg. Water Depth (ft) 13 13 13 
Surface Area, total (sf) 5,980 3,750 6,400 
Total Volume (gal) 581,600 364,700 622,400 
Nominal Rated Capacity (mgd) 7.2 4.8 8.0 
Length:Width Ratio 1.6:1 2.6:1 1:1 
Length:Depth Ratio 1:7.5 1:7.5 1:6.2 
Mean Flow Velocity (ft/min) 0.84 0.90 0.71 
Overflow Rate at Nominal Capacity 
(gpm/sf) 0.84 0.89 0.87 
Theoretical Detention Time at 
Nominal Rated Capacity (20 mgd) 
(min) 
116 109 112 
Basins #1 and #2 are rectangular basins. Water enters at the south end of the basin. 
Laminar flow conditions are improved via two baffle walls, one at the inlet, the second 
approximately half way along the length of the basins (in Basin #1 only). Basin effluent 
collects in launders located on the north end of the basins. Sedimentation Basin #3 is the 
newest basin in the plant, built in 1983. Water enters this basin via a central 36-inch 
vertical pipe that discharges through ports located from 3 to 5.5 ft below the water 
surface. The water then flows under a circular 20-ft-diameter baffle that extends from just 
above the water surface to 8 ft below. Water exits from the basin into one continuous 
square launder located 10 feet inside of the basin walls on all sides. Water from this 
square launder collects in a common trough that flows to the filter influent trough. There 
are no automated solids removal mechanism installed inside any of the basins, though 
provisions for future upgrades were included in the design of Basin #3. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-31 
£>276 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
Though the Sedimentation Basins were not designed for optimal flocculation or settling, 
the basins do provide effective removal of solids under most operating conditions. An 
optimal sedimentation basin is rectangular with a minimum length to width ratio of 4:1, a 
minimum length to depth ratio of 1T5 and a sufficient volume to keep mean flow 
velocity under 3.5 ft/min. Optimal basins provide approximately 20 to 30 minutes of 
flocculation and 90 to 120 minutes of sedimentation or a total of 120 to 150 minutes of 
detention time. Baffles are also recommended to ensure good flow distribution and 
prevent short-circuiting (Kawamura, 2001). Based on these criteria, it is expected that 
Basins #1 and #2 will remove more solids than Basin #3. With its square shape and radial 
flow, Basin #3 is vulnerable to short-circuiting, despite the large volume of the tank, the 
path length from inlet to outlet is relatively short. Also, when the hydraulic radius is 
large, as in Basin #3, stable flow is difficult to maintain. 
Figure 2-10 presents the Sedimentation Basin performance between March 2002 and 
June 2003, between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (since the SCADA system was brought on-
line); trendlines have been included in the figure for clarity. This selection of data was 
used to better represent operational conditions in the basins and minimize start-up/shut-
down impacts on settled water turbidity. Normal operating hours are between 7 a.m. and 
10 p.m. during the peak season, and 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. during off-peak season. As shown 
in the figure, Basin #1 consistently provides the highest water quality (i.e. lowest 
turbidities) throughout the year, Basin #3 the poorest. However, all basins struggle to 
maintain optimal water quality (<2 NTU, currently proposed as target for future settled 
water turbidity requirements by the EPA), for filtration during the winter months when 
raw water turbidities are elevated. Figure 2-11 presents a probability distribution of 
basin effluent turbidities, in addition to the raw water turbidities. In general, settled water 
turbidity <2 NTU is considered optimal for filter performance, and <4 NTU is considered 
acceptable for shorter durations. Sedimentation Basin #1, #2 and #3 provide <2 NTU 
water quality 70%, 55% and 30% of the time, respectively, and <4 NTU water quality 
94%, 90% and 86%, respectively. All basins experience difficulties (settled water >4 
NTU) when raw water turbidities exceed 10 NTU, which is common for this type of plant 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-17 
© O C 2 7 7 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
without formal flocculation preceding sedimentation and less than optimal sedimentation 
time an/or basin geometry. We have audited several plants in the Pacific Northwest with 
similar design characteristics; all have experienced similar treatment challenges during 
high raw water turbidity events. This increase in solids loading onto the filters typically 
results in increased backwash rates, shorter filter runs and lower overall plant 
efficiencies. 
During the July 29, 2003 plant visit, raw water flow rates were between 15 and 20 mgd 
with basin effluent water qualities were 0.8 NTU, 1.1 NTU and 2.0 NTU for Basins #1, 
#2 and #3, respectively. Raw water turbidities during the visit were between 1 and 2 
NTU, raw water temperature was approximately 68°F (20°C) and the alum dose was 
approximately 18 mg/L (as dry alum). All basins were relatively "full" of solids (6-8 
feet), minimizing the effective volume of the basin required for solids removal. In all 
basins, large (potentially settable) floe was overflowing into the launders. The size and 
nature of the floe was fairly uniform from basin to basin with the exception of Basin #2 
in the vicinity of the lime addition. In this section, significantly smaller floe was 
observed, likely resulting from the localized high pH zone. It was also noted that at 20 
mgd, the launders in Basin #2 exhibited an oscillating motion propagated by surface 
waves in the basin (a problem previously corrected in Basin #1). The oscillation was 
measured to be less than 1 mm (from center) at the top edge of the launder, however the 
surface waves generated by this motion potentially disrupt laminar flows in the basin, 
diminishing basin performance. This problem could be addressed by installing cross 
supports to the launders. 
Overall, the sedimentation basins provide satisfactory water for filtration during most of 
the year, as evident by adequate filtered water turbidities (discussed later in this report). 
All basins experience challenges with regard to short-circuiting (impacting solids 
removal and disinfection efficiencies), high solids loading (resulting from relatively high 
alum dosages), sub-optimal flocculation and seasonal turbidity spikes. The basins are not 
equipped with any type of on-line solids removal system; as solids accumulate in the 
basin, the effective volume of the basin is reduced, compromising flow characteristics 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-18 
OO,278 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
and overall performance in the basin until solids are removed. Without having 
continuous sludge removal in the basins, bi-annual cleanings of the basins create large 
"slug" doses of solids to the equalization basin and to the lagoon, increasing the chances 
for NPDES permit violations. 
2.4.3 Filter Performance 
The plant has 8 mixed-media gravity filters of varying sizes and shapes, depending on the 
time of construction. Filters 1, 2 and 3 (also called the East Filters) were constructed in 
1931 as part of the original construction. Filters 4 and 5 (also called the West Filters) 
were constructed as part of the 1950 plant expansion. The newer filters, Filters 6, 7 and 
8, were added as part of the 1983 expansion project. It is uncommon for a WTP to have 
variable filter shapes as demands on the filter support systems common to all filters (i.e. 
backwash pump, surface wash pump, washwater conveyance system, etc.) will vary 
according to the filter surface area. The filters are operated by rate of flow control; 
butterfly valves on individual filter effluent pipes modulate to maintain a specific 
filtration rate. Overall filter flow is adjusted to maintain a constant water level elevation 
in the filter influent channel. Filter aid is dosed at the influent to each filter. The filters 
share a single backwash pump equipped with a VFD to provide variable flowrates 
depending on filter size and water temperature. There is currently no back-up supply for 
backwash water. 
As part of the 1983 filter re-build project, each filter was designed to hold a 24-inch tri-
media configuration with the following specifications: 
• Top: 12 inches of 0.9 to 1.0 mm anthracite 
• Intermediate: 9 inches of 0.40 to 0.50 mm sand 
• Bottom: 3 inches of 0.25 to 0.35 mm garnet/ilmenite 
• Support: 13 inches of graded gravel, including 3-5 different sizes 
All filters are currently equipped with a proprietary underdrain system called 
"Hydrocone" produced by BIF. This underdrain system is comprised of 4' x 4' concrete 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-19 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
panels with multiple cones in the floor that allow water entry/exit through them. Several 
boxes of replacement cones are stored in the plant office, but these are no longer 
commercially available or manufactured. This system is built above the filter floor with a 
plenum underneath to collect and distribute water. Filters 6, 7 and 8 were designed with 
an underdrain flume to distribute backwash water; Filters 1 through 5 simply rely on the 
front flume created underneath for water distribution. Figure 2-12 presents a typical 
cross-section for each filter configuration; Table 2-3 summarizes design criteria for each 
set of filters. 
Filter media and support gravel for all of the filters was replaced between 1995 and 2001 
There are limited records regarding the specification of media actually placed in the 
filters. However, operators indicated that the bottom "polishing" layer of ilmenite was 
only added to Filters 1, 2 and 3; a dual media configuration (anthracite over sand) was 
installed in Filters 4 through 8. Based on the effective size of the specified media, the 
anthracite and sand were slightly mismatched (i.e. the anthracite and sand layers are not 
expected to properly separate following backwash). Thus, the media installed is expected 
to intermix, promoting tighter media (less void spaces) lending a slightly higher initial 
headloss (i.e. shorter filter runs) and though inconsistent, potentially improved filtered 
water quality. 
The filter backwash program includes a "ramp-up", surface wash, high rate and "ramp-
down" period. General durations for each step are summarized below, actual durations 
may vary between filters. 
• 0 - 4 minutes - Backwash "Ramp-up" Period (0 - 100% BW flow) 
• 2 - 7 minutes - Surface Wash 
• 4 - 1 5 minutes - High Rate Backwash (100% BW flow) 
• 1 5 - 1 9 minutes - Backwash "Ramp-down" Period (100 - 0% BW flow) 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 P a g e 2-31 
£>280 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
T A B L E 2-3: ORIGINAL FILTER DESIGN CRITERIA 
Parameter Fflürs 1-3 
• , -Ayr '•;. Filters 4 & 5 n Filters 6-8 
Length x Width (feet) 17x 15 21 x 18 18x 18 
Surface Area, each filter (sf) 255 378 324 
Surface Area, total (sf) 765 756 972 
Nominal Media Depth (inches) 24 24 24 
Support Gravel Depth (inches) 13 13 13 
Underdrain Type BIF Hydrocone BIF Hydrocone BIF Hydrocone 
Rated Maximum Filtration Rate (w/ 
largest filter in backwash) (gpm/sf) 6.57 6.57 6.57 
Rated Maximum Filter Flow, each (gpm) 1675 2480 2130 
Combined Maximum Filter Flow (gpm) 4262 4212 5415 
Distance from Troughs to Top of Media 
(inches) 37-38.5 36-37 36-37.5 
Nominal Submergence Over Top of 
Media (feet) 4.25 4.25 3.88 
Normal Maximum Operating Headloss 
(feet) 7.0 7.0 7.0 
Maximum Backwash Flow (per O&M 
Manual recommendations) (gpm) 4,500 5,500 5,000 
Maximum Backwash Rate (gpm/sf) 17.6 14.6 15.4 
Surface Wash Type "S"-type rotary "S"-type rotary "S"-type rotary 
Surface Wash Diameter (ft) 7.0 8.5 8.5 
Surface Wash Flow (gpm), approximate 200 - 300 230 - 350 230 - 350 
Surface Wash Flow Rate (gpm/sf), 
approximate 0 . 8 - 1 . 2 0 . 6 - 0 . 9 0 . 7 - 1 . 0 
According to plant staff, the maximum backwash rate is not currently varied seasonally to 
account for temperature and viscosity effects to achieve adequate bed expansion. As a 
rule of thumb, the backwash rate should be increased/decreased 2 percent for every 1-
degree C increase/decrease in water temperature over/under 20°C (68°F). With normal 
winter water temperatures in the range of 45°F (7°C) and summer normal water 
temperatures in the range of 61°F (16°C), this represents an approximate 18 percent 
difference in optimum backwash rates seasonally. There is no backup backwash supply 
when/if the backwash pump is ever out of service. To date, there have been no such 
outages. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2 - 1 0 
00' 281 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
Filters are backwashed when the headloss exceeds 7.0 ft or when the turbidity of an 
individual filter reaches approximately 0.35 NTU. Filter runs are usually terminated by 
headloss during most of the year. Filter-to-waste is employed after each backwash to 
ensure the filter has been adequately rinsed, and typically lasts 5 - 1 0 minutes. 
Backwash rates listed in Table 2-4 may have been appropriate for the original tri-media 
configuration, but are too low to achieve adequate fluidization of the dual media (with 1.0 
- 1 . 1 mm anthracite) installed in Filters 4 through 8 as part of the 1995 filter replacement 
project. Optimal backwash rates for the installed media are presented later in this section. 
During the WTP survey, it was noted that backwash flows in excess of 4,500 gpm can not 
be tolerated in Filters 1, 2 and 3 due to "choking" in the washwater channel/piping. 
Various filter performance indicators were reviewed and analyzed including filtered 
water turbidity, filter run lengths and backwash volumes. Results and conclusions from 
this analysis are presented in the following sections. 
2.4.3.1 Turbidity 
Each filter at the Grants Pass WTP is equipped with an on-line turbidimeter; another on-
line turbidimeter located in the high service pump station (HSPS) measures finished 
water turbidity. Data from each of these on-line instruments is used for regulatory 
reporting. Figure 2-13 presents a summary of daily maximum combined filtered water 
turbidities between January 1999 and July 2003, taken from the plant's regulatory 
summary sheets reported monthly to the DHS. As shown in the figure, the maximum 
daily turbidity has always been less than 0.90 NTU, and is usually less than 0.10 NTU. 
Figure 2-14 presents a statistical summary of maximum daily plant effluent turbidities 
between January 1999 and July 2003. From the figure, the plant has produced 0.12 NTU 
water 95 percent of the time. The plant has normally performed well with respect to 
meeting the desired turbidity goal for optimal particulate removal. 
Individual filtered water turbidities have only been recorded since March 2002, when the 
new SCADA system was brought on-line. Figure 2-15 presents a statistical summaiy of 
individual filtered water turbidities recorded every 5-minutes. On-line measurements 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-31 £>282 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
recorded following plant start-up and during individual backwash/filter-to-waste cycles 
were omitted from the data series. In general, there are no "problem" filters—all filters 
are generally performing well with regard to overall particulate removal. Filter 1 shows 
consistently lower filtered turbidities, possibly resulting from the smaller ilmenite media. 
Filter 4 & 5 (the largest filters) show consistently higher turbidities (approximately 0.02 
NTU higher) relative to the other six filters, potentially due to the significantly higher pH 
values through these filters resulting from the lime addition in Basin #2. All filters are 
producing filtered water turbidities <0.15 NTU for 95 percent of the time. It should be 
noted that the values presented in the figures are subject to error associated with 
instrument calibration and flow variability. Therefore, many of these values should be 
considered "statistically similar". 
2.4.3.2 Filter Production Efficiencies 
To evaluate overall plant efficiency, a relationship between a filter's production, run 
lengths and backwash volume requirements is required. Based on numerous studies and 
detailed analysis, MWH developed the concept of Unit Filter Run Volume (UFRV) as a 
tool for determining whether a filter is performing efficiently. 
In general, maximum net water production is desirable because it minimizes capital and 
operating costs. The principal parameters that impact net water production for a given 
filter and influent quality are filtration rate, filter run length and the amount of water used 
for backwash. The filter area required for a given plant capacity is determined by the net 
or effective filtration rate (Re), which is the net amount of product water generated per 
unit time per unit of filter area (commonly expressed in gpm/sf). The effective filtration 
rate is contrasted with the design filtration rate (Rd), which is the maximum rate at which 
the filter is designed to pass water. The difference between the two rates is related to: 
1. The volume of water that passes through each unit of filter area during the 
course of a filter run, typically expressed in gal/sf, and also referred to as the 
Unit Filter Run Volume (UFRV), and 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-23 
OO', 2 8 3 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
2. The volume of backwash water required per unit of filter are, typically 
expressed in gal/sf, and also referred to as the Unit Backwash Volume 
(UBWV) 
The following relationship can be developed for these parameters as follows: 
RE = R„ x [ ( U F R V - U B W V ) / U F R V ] 
Figure 2-16 illustrates the relationship between the production efficiency (R«/Rd) and 
UFRV for various UBWVs from 100 gal/sf to 300 gal/sf UBWV is calculated by 
multiplying the backwash flowrate (gpm) by the duration of backwash (min) and dividing 
by the total filter surface area. For reference, the current UBWV for the Filters 1, 2 and 
3, Filters 4 and 5, and Filters 6, 7 and 8 are 235 gal/sf, 218 gal/sf and 231 gal/sf, 
respectively, based on current backwash procedures. 
From the figure, it is apparent that a significant reduction in filter production efficiency 
results when the UFRV drops below 5,000 gal/sf. The plant production efficiency at 
5,000 gal/sf is approximately 97% (at UBWV = 150 gal/sf). As a result, WTPs in which 
the UFRV is below 5,000 gal/sf must be designed with much larger washwater handling 
facilities, not only because the volume of washwater increases, but because the rate of 
change in backwash requirements increases rapidly if the UFRV is too low. For these 
reasons, MWH designs filters for an absolute minimum UFRV of 5,000 gal/sf with a 
preference for higher UFRVs for conventional filtration plants with sedimentation basins. 
Above a UFRV of 10,000 gal/sf, there is little increase in production efficiency, so major 
efforts are not usually taken to achieve very high UFRVs. Also, most WTPs would not 
let their filters run indefinitely between backwashes assuming that headloss and/or 
turbidity criteria are still being met. Usually, the maximum filter run length limit is set 
for approximately 3 to 4 days for operational and maintenance purposes. 
The UFRV allows a comparison of water production at different filtration rates that 
contrasts with filter run lengths, which depend on rate. UFRV, which is a measure of 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 p a g e 2-24 
n r 2 8 4 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
filter throughput for a given filter run, is calculated as the product of the filtration rate 
and the filter run length. For example, a filter run of 24 hours (1440 minutes) at a 
filtration rate of 5.0 gpm/sf produces a UFRV of 7,200 gal/sf. Table 2-4 lists the filter 
run lengths necessary to achieve the minimum UFRV goal of 5,000 gal/sf for the City's 
current situation with all 8 filters on-line and with one of the larger filters off-line for 
backwashing. It should be noted that if the City achieves the 5,000 gal/sf goal with an 
average UBWV of 150 gal/sf, the production efficiency (Re/Rd) will be 97 percent, 
considered the minimum desirable filter production efficiency. [NOTE: A discussion of 
reducing the current UBWV values from approximately 230 gal/sf to 150 gal/sf are 
discussed later in this report.] 
T A B L E 2-4: MINIMUM FILTER RUN LENGTH TO ACHIEVE 5 , 0 0 0 GAL/SF U F R V 
Filtration 
Rate 
(gpm/sf) 
Average WTP Flow 
with all 8 filters on-
/ine 
(mgd) 
Average WTP Flow 
with largest filter off-
line 
(mgd) 
Minimum Filter Run 
Length to Achieve 
UFRV = 5,000 gal/sf 
(hours) 
3.0 10.8 9.1 27.8 
4.0 14.4 12.2 20.8 
5.0 17.9 15.2 16.7 
6.0 21.5 18.3 13.9 
7.0 - 21.3 11.9 
At the current rated maximum plant capacity of 20 mgd (with all 4 raw water pumps 
operating), the filters should operate for a minimum of 15 hours between backwashes to 
meet the 5,000 gal/sf UFRV criteria. During times of the year when the plant is operating 
at lower flows, the filters should operate for a minimum of 20 and 30 hours between 
backwashes for two pumps (10 mgd) or three pumps (15 mgd), respectively, to meet the 
5,000 gal/sf criteria. It should be noted that the filtration rates required to deliver flows in 
excess of 15 mgd are relatively high for the shallow tri- or dual-media installed in each of 
the filters. High filtration rates result in high incremental headloss and short filter runs. 
Plant operating records between January 1999 and July 2003 including raw water flow, 
plant production, backwash volumes and filter run lengths, were reviewed to determine 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-25 
OOC285 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
the filter production efficiencies and UFRVs. The plant production efficiencies were 
computed based on daily raw water and finished water flows. Backwash volumes were 
computed from the difference between influent and effluent daily flows. Figure 2-17 
represents weekly average backwash volumes as well as weekly filter production 
efficiencies. Seven-day running averages were used in lieu of daily averages to 
"normalize" the data. Also shown on the figure is the 97 percent production efficiency 
target. 
In general, the overall plant filter production has been significantly less than 97 percent, 
and often as low as 80 percent. It can be seen that the efficiency of the filters generally 
drops in the winter when total production is lower and the water is colder and more 
turbid. The average UFRV for the filters during this period was less than 2,500 gal/sf, 
almost one half of the suggested minimum UFRV. UBWV is also higher than desired. 
This means that the filters are performing inefficiently, resulting in poor plant production 
efficiencies and excessive use of filtered water for backwashing (i.e. higher than desired 
UBWVs). This also indicates that the filters are being "stressed" beyond acceptable 
conditions when one filter is taken off-line for backwashing. During backwashing, the 
filtration rate through the remaining filters increases overloading the filters and 
exacerbating the short filter runs. Filter investigations conducted to help identify the 
reasons for this poor performance are summarized in the following section. 
2.4.3.3 Special Filter System Analyses 
Three of the eight filters, one from each of the three filter configurations, were evaluated 
during the 2-day WTP inspection conducted July 29-30, 2003. The filters were drained, 
media depth and the top of the gravel support layer were measured. Core samples were 
also collected from one location in each filter, both before and after backwashing, and 
floe retention was measured on all three filters. Backwash turbidity profiles were 
performed on two of the three filters analyzed. Sieve analysis was conducted on the 
media samples. Results from these analyses are presented below, results from the lab can 
be found in Appendix C. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 p a g e 2-26 
> 0 286 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
Media and Gravel Support Condition: A summary of observations made during 
inspection of the media and gravel support follows: 
• All filters had significantly less media than expected. Existing media 
configurations for the three filters are summarized below. 
Filter 1: 10-12" anth / 8-10" sand / 0-1.5" ilmenite (s 18 - 20 inches total) 
Filter 5: 10-12" anth / 6-8" intermixed anth/sand (= 18 inches total) 
Filter 7: 6-8" anth / 10-12" intermixed anth/sand (= 18 inches total) 
• Very little of the original ilmenite is remaining in Filter 1 (0-1.5 inches). 
Minor depressions in the filter media were observed following backwash (1-
3" deep), indicating some minor variability in backwash flow distribution. 
Also, noticeable "cracking" in media following backwash was observed. 
• Filters 1 and 7 lacked a distinct sand layer; all remaining sand media was 
intermixed with anthracite, less sand was present in Filter 7. 
• In all filters, the top of media was too far below the surface wash "sweeps" 
(typically 4-6 inches below), potentially limiting surface wash efficiencies 
during the backwash cycle. 
• Gravel support was not "upset" (i.e. gravel was uniformly distributed 
throughout each of the filters) and appeared to be in good condition indicating 
maximum backwash rates have not been exceeded historically. Gravel depth 
(from the lip of the trough to top of the gravel) were measured and recorded: 
Filter 1: 58.2 ± 3.0 inches 
Filter 5: 54.8 ± 1.0 inches 
Filter 7: 55.2 ± 1.1 inches 
t 
In general, the filter media and gravel support appeared to be in acceptable condition. All 
filters have lost media over the years, possibly due to carry-over during backwash. No 
significant disturbances in the gravel support were observed. Filters 1, 2 and 3 and 
Filters 6, 7 and 8 lack a distinct sand layer; the sand remaining in the filters is intermixed 
with the anthracite. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-27 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
Sieve and Specific Gravity Analysis of the Media: The objective of the sieve analysis 
was to identify the size of the existing media to help determine whether the sand and 
anthracite are properly "matched". Results from the sieve analysis, combined with the 
specific gravity, can be used to determine the appropriate backwash rate for the filters. 
Current MWH sand and anthracite specifications for filter media call for a uniformity 
coefficient less than 1.4 and 1.4, and a specific gravity greater than 2.65 and 1.6, 
respectively. Table 2-5 provides a summary of the results of the sieve analysis on the 
core samples from the three filters considered during this investigation. 
T A B L E 2-5: FILTER MEDIA ANALYSIS RESULTS 
M & ; ' f f î à : 
W , J- . . ' - • «.r-
* • * - ; > ' * : 
É 8 R Ü 
1 1 • 
% 
.^Fi l ters 
•-'Ï3S5 '.T 
1 Filter 7 
Apparent 
Specific 
U ; 
Gravity* Effective 
Size (mm) 
u c 
; '4B:j -, h Si 
•Effective 
Size (mm) 
rrv: 
u c 
Effective 
Size (mm) 
UC 
W « -
Sand 
Anthracite 
0.54 
1.03 
1.29 
1.37 
0.54 
1.06 
1.32 
1.29 
0.46 
1.15 
1.21 
1.35 
2.64 
1.43 
'Analyzed from the Filter 5 sand and anthracite samples 
The media was also analyzed by a method commonly used to estimate filter performance, 
called the "L/d ratio" (depth (L) to diameter (d)). This dimensionless parameter provides 
a basis of comparing differing media types and sizes based on the depth and average 
diameter of the media. The 24-inch deep tri-media configuration specified as part of the 
1983 improvements project had an L/d ratio of approximately 1,082 (=278 [for 12" of 
0.95 anthracite] + 508 [for 9" of 0.45 sand] + 254 [for 3" of 0.30 ilmenite]). With an 
average of 18" of media remaining in the filters, and with some sand missing from Filter 
1 and 7, the L/d ratio for the existing filters are calculated to be: 
• Filter 1: 708 (= 247 [for 10" of 1.03 anthracite] + 377 [for 8" of 0.54 sand] + 
85 [for 1" of 0.30 ilmenite]) 
• Filter 5: 524 (= 335 [for 14" of 1.06 anthracite] + 188 [for 4" of 0.54 sand]) 
• Filter 7: 563 (= 287 [for 13" of 1.15 anthracite] + 276 [for 5" of 0.45 sand]) 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-10 
00' 2 8 8 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
It has been proven in many cases that a minimum L/d ratio of 1,000 is desirable and filter 
performance will suffer accordingly as L/d is reduced. The L/d ratio for the existing 
filters appears to be inadequate for meeting filtration performance goals, suggesting the 
filters have limited solids holding capacity. Additionally, it appears that the media in 
Filter 7 is not properly "matched", evident by the large intermixed zone observed. Sub-
optimal backwash rates may also contribute to this intermixed zone, as the media relies 
on high rates (i.e. fluidization) to separate following backwash. Though this intermixed 
zone is capable of producing high quality filtered water, the headloss associated with 
intermixed media is much higher compared to distinct anthracite/sand layers (i.e. less 
void space for solids holding), leading to shorter filter runs and decreased efficiencies. 
Backwash Efficiency: Backwash turbidity profiles were used to evaluate cleanliness of 
the media following backwash. Figure 2-18 presents backwash turbidity profiles for 
Filter 5 and 7, taken as part of the recent WTP investigation; a turbidity profile for Filter 
3, created during a brief previous filter survey was also included (Black and Veatch, 
2003). [Please Note: The Filter 3 profile was performed following a filter core 
investigation when the media was corrupted—the filter was completely drained of water, 
therefore the backwash regimen was significantly altered to accommodate the air 
entrapped in the media.] For both Filter 5 and 7, a "low profile" (i.e. low peak curve) 
was observed, indicating an ineffective washing (Kawamura, 2001). Also, washwater 
turbidities <10 NTU were achieved approximately 8 minutes after backwash water began 
spilling into the trough. There is minimum benefit to continuing backwash once 
washwater turbidities have fallen below 10 NTU. This implies that the filter backwash 
duration could be reduced now to minimize backwash water usage, thereby minimizing 
the UBWV and increasing plant efficiency. These tests should be repeated during the 
winter, when the solids loading on the filters may be higher. A summary of observations 
made during filter inspection and backwash follows: 
• Backwash water was evenly distributed throughout the filters; no "boiling" was 
observed during the backwash cycle. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-29 
;f >0 289 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
• A small accumulation of mud-balls was observed along the walls in each of the 
filters, suggesting poor expansion of the media and minimal benefits from the 
surface wash sweeps. Prior to our site visit, plant staff had removed a large 
number of mud-balls as part of routine filter maintenance. 
To evaluate the efficiency of backwash in cleaning the media, a floe retention profile 
analysis was conducted for Filters 1, 5 and 7. In the analysis, turbidity levels in solutions 
of solids extracted from various depths of media both before and after a backwash were 
used to evaluate backwash performance. The solids were collected by shaking 50 
milliliters (mL) of media collected from various depths of the filter bed into a 500-ml 
flask containing 100 mL of tap water. Following shaking, the turbidity of the solution 
was measured. The data was then normalized to 100 mL of media. Figure 2-19 shows 
the floe retention profiles both before and after backwash for Filters 1, 5 and 7; a profile 
created during a previous filter survey was also included (Black and Veatch, 2003). The 
figure also includes an "optimal" floe retention profile following a successful backwash 
(Kawamura, 2001). 
In all three profiles, turbidity levels through the entire depth of the media prior to 
backwash were relatively consistent, suggesting good floe penetration (i.e. maximum 
solids removal). However, the measured turbidities are low compared to filters in similar 
plants, suggesting a relatively low overall volume of solids removed, corresponding to 
short filter run lengths. In profiles taken following backwash, it appears that only the top 
portion of the media is truly being cleaned (turbidity < 100 NTU) in Filters 1 and 5; no 
portion of Filter 7 is effectively cleaned. These results indicate that current backwash 
conditions are not adequately cleaning the media; the backwash rates are too low, 
limiting the expansion of the filter media during backwash. 
Specific gravity analysis data, coupled with sieve analysis data, can be used to determine 
the optimum backwash rate for each of the filters. Table 2-6 summarizes the current 
maximum backwash rate, as well as the calculated "optimal" backwash rates for the 
filters. Under optimal backwash conditions, the media bed is expanded by 35 to 50 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 P a g e 2-30 
O O i 2 9 0 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
percent (Kawamura, 2001), promoting the agitation necessary to properly clean the 
media. Bed expansions during backwash, as recently measured by plant staff, are also 
reported in the table. Plant staff has experimented with backwash rates higher than those 
presented in the table, but this is not currently practiced due to pressure 
limitations/leaking in the existing backwash pipeline. 
T A B L E 2-6: BACKWASH SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA AND OPTIMAL RATES FOR 
EXISTING MEDIA CONFIGURATIONS 
Filter Number Filters 1-3 I Filters 4 & 5 Filters 6-8 
Current Backwash Flow (gpm) 4,500 5,500 5,000 
Maximum Backwash Rate (gpm/sf) 17.6 14.6 15.4 
Bed Expansion during Backwash1 (in) 2 - 4 2 2 
"Optimal" Backwash Rate2 (gpm/sf) 18.5 18.5 19 
"Optimal" Bed Expansion3 (in) 6 .3 -10 6 .3 -10 6 .3 -10 
"Optimal" Backwash Flow at 20°C 
(gpm) 
4,720 7,000 6,160 
'As measured by plant staff on July 11 and July 15, 2003 at varying backwash rates 
2Based on sand/anthracite effective size, uniformity coefficients and specific gravity 
3Assuming 18 - 20 inches of media 
r 
As shown, the current maximum backwash rates are sub-optimal, resulting in insufficient 
media expansion during backwash. Minimal bed expansion hinders adequate media 
agitation during, and separation following backwash. In addition, the minimal bed 
expansion also hinders the effectiveness of the surface wash, as the media is too far 
below the surface wash arms during backwash. The filters are not and can not be 
properly cleaned based on the media size. Poor cleaning leads to higher initial headloss, 
which reduces the available head for filtration, resulting in shorter filter runs. Relatively 
high filtration rates when one filter is out of service for backwash exacerbate the short 
filter runs. Backwashing at higher rates may not be possible with current filter 
configurations due to excessive media loss, backwash pump limitations (currently rated at 
7,000 gpm) and waste washwater flow limitations to Filter 1, 2 and 3. 
2 .5 SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS 
In general, the plant has performed well with regard to finished water quality, and has 
met the regulatory requirements for filtered water turbidity. However, plant production 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-31 
£>00291 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
efficiencies are typically 80 to 90 percent throughout the year, and generally decrease in 
the winter when total production is lower and the water is colder and more turbid. Plant 
efficiencies should be improved to minimize costs associated with plant operations 
(longer operation time, pumping and chemical costs, sludge production, etc.). 
Efficiencies of 97 percent are considered the minimum desirable filter production 
efficiency. Plant efficiencies can be improved by optimizing coagulation and increasing 
the filter run lengths via improvements to the filters and sedimentation basins. Some 
interim steps could also be taken to minimize the total volume of water used for 
backwash. 
Presented below is a summary of historical plant performance and analyses presented in 
this section. 
• Coagulation chemistry may be improved to reduce solids production and/or reduce 
chemical addition at the plant. To fully understand the possible benefits and costs of 
using alternative coagulants, pilot and/or full-scale tests should be conducted 
seasonally under different water quality conditions using a variety of 
chemicals/combinations to ensure that treatment requirements and performance are 
well understood. An "optimal" coagulation strategy will balance plant efficiency 
with coagulation chemical costs, disinfection requirements, sludge production and pH 
adjustment requirements. 
• Overall, the sedimentation basins provide satisfactory water for filtration, as well as 
adequate contact time for disinfection during most of the year. All basins experience 
challenges with regard to short-circuiting, high solids loading (resulting from 
relatively high alum dosages), sub-optimal flocculation and seasonal turbidity spikes. 
The basins are not equipped with any type of on-line solids removal system; as solids 
accumulate in the basin, the effective volume of the basin is reduced, compromising 
flow characteristics and overall performance in the basin. The addition of formal 
flocculation, and/or additional settling time would also allow for lower alum doses. 
• The plant has 8 mixed-media gravity filters of varying sizes, shapes and media 
configuration, depending on the time of construction. The filter media and 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 p a g e 2-32 
0 0 1 . 2 9 2 
HISTORICAL PLANT PERFORMANCE 
underdrains appear to be in acceptable condition. However, none of the filters have 
optimal media configurations and several filters lack a sufficient sand layer. 
• Based on our analysis, short filter runs result from relatively high filtration rates 
through a relatively shallow, dirty media. Filter media should be replaced with a new 
design, taking advantage of gravel-less systems to allow for deeper media bed. 
• The filters are not and can not be properly cleaned. In addition, the minimal bed 
expansion hinders the effectiveness of the surface wash, as the media is too far below 
the surface wash arms during backwash. Poor cleaning leads to higher initial 
headloss, which reduces the available head for filtration, resulting in shorter filter 
runs and decreased plant efficiencies. 
• The current maximum backwash rates are sub-optimal. Backwash rates for Filter 1, 2 
and 3 are limited due to "choking" in the washwater pipelines. Backwash flowrates 
are currently limited to 7,000 gpm. 
• As an interim step, the filter backwash duration could be reduced to minimize 
backwash water usage, thereby minimizing the UBWV and increasing plant 
efficiency. 
• Excessive solids production and larger volumes of waste washwater are putting a 
"stress" on the current solids handling facilities. Solids production may be minimized 
through improved coagulation. Long-term alternatives for solids management must 
• 
be developed (discussed in detail in Section 6). 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 2-33 
000293 
(aow) MOU 
294 
(sp) MO|J JSAjU 
o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o 11> o V) o to CSI CM 
o o o 
C O +5 ra 
a. 
'5 0) 
a. 
TD C 
CS 
TJ 
S 
v. 3 .. H 
a. I-
I— a> 
N 5 « 
tNI » > 
© £ 5 ì- ro > 3 0. « 
U- C C 10 (0 k — O û-
'ra 
Q o O) 
ra v. 0) > 
< 
CO o o «NI 
à> <n at 
(•ui) uo!)e)!dio3Jd pue (niN) ï^!P!<ï-"U 
00 (' 295 
CO 
(NI © 
CD 
t_ 3 4-1 CO © 
a 
E o i -i— o 
• • re 
re 
QÌ w « 
re © o> re O 2 
© > < 
co o o 
CSI 
c a> 
CT) 
1 1 U 
t i * : 
• M . r 
• 
i i • 
: M 
N I ; 
• • • 
• • • 
il 
•li! 
H i 
• f 
f* * 
m : 
« • « 
• • • 
"I, 
• • 
i : 
! M | 
L I L I 
m i 
i ; i t » 
JLJL» M ! 
i l« 
H 
« tt 
t** 
Sili 
! ! 
• • « •li 
• • • 
Ut* 
M I » 
v i • • 
• I I I 
•S 
t i * 
% 
fi' 
tt 
il 
IV 
• • 
l i : * 
1 7 
ii* 
i r 
H i 
«JLtL 
9 
2 
o O 
(0 a 
( j ) ejrnejedujejL JQ|B/V\ Mey 
2 re 
•o © 
JZ 
Vi 
c 
E! 
"O C m 
Ë £ 
t 5 ¿ es m a 
© 2 ** 2 m c 
3 CL m 
<2 D. 
C >, re = 
O O 
© O) re L-
© > < 
CO o o 
CM i o> o> <J> 
0 0 (' 2 9 7 
o 
O) •*-> 
m $ 
n 
OU 
c (0 
CM O O CM 
O O CM 
CD 
TS a) -C V) 03 
CU 
c Li. 
M H 
^0r298 
Q) 
« 
® I 
es « 
o l t L. b 3 O O) > 
i l S 
© > 
a> 
3 
O) 
o 
Oí 
& 
Ö « 
-O ® c a « £ 
C « 
m w 
O c 
O 
® Í8 
£ S 
o w 
a> 
3 O) O o; 
(A O 
0 "O 
-J O 51 
1 S 
¿ s « H-
.2 « 4-i (D 
2 ÛL 
c O O c o o 
c 
' i 
(A O a> O 
"I/6u ujiusoao 
0 0 C 2 S 9 
(l/ßui) 9SOQ J3UJÁ|Od 
O 
o o o o o «- o o 1-
(l/6iu) asoQ uiniv 
(>D 3 D O 
(H/BLU) 9SOQ 3)eue6ueuu3d uinissejod 
re Q 
(i/Bui) asoa auin 
0 0 C 3 C 1 
« re 
3 TJ 
'S» 
<D 
û£ 
0) 
C 
¿ - O 
o> > 
CM <O ™ 
Q) 18 i: re 0 
3 CL D> 
« 2 u. c © 
ra > 
O 2 c re 
co o o CM 
CT) Oí Oí 
(Ì/BUJ) l enp is^ j 
auuomo }uen|jjg pue asoQ uoijeuijomo-ajd Bot 
00C3C2 
en co 
(niN) AMPWU 
öOC 3 
s» -í sO V® 0 s O-O o O O o o O O o O) oo h- (O m t CO CM T-
3|!)U33J3d 
00 (' 304 
m e o 
9 3 j e « 
| | I | 
E N. EL 
CJ .E « 
3 
«i 
-i <4 
«SM *» r» «r « n «o 
é fe fe ^  
X X X S 
s.-* « 5 
- 4 - S - u «"".Sí A * A s — s U 
y— ? 
S 
g a: Ui 
z o u o o: o 
X 
0 3 
X 
5 
SI 
OOC 305 
(n iN) A iP iq jn i 
o o c 3 m 
>)uey }U90J8d 
00 C307 
3 b-
5. 
£ T5 
JQ 
(%) omuaojad 

(%) Âouaioryg uo ipnpo jd 
O O o O 
T— O) 00 
© E 
3 
Ö > 
JZ U) 
CO 
O «0 
Cd 
© 
© 
•a c <0 
u 
e o 
• • g 
CL ÌJ= 
FC" UJ 
£ £ e 
f i w O  t i o m o *- Q- 3 3 . -a 
.2» i2 o 
S * 
O a> 
IL 
(D CT 
2 0) > 
< 
>» 
a) 
I 
c « 
• 
IO 
o o 
CM i o> a> o> 
O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 
o" o" d o ó o" o* o o" o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 
T—" o" o> <X> <o I O V co" 
T— * — 
o 
o 
o 
CM" 
o o o 
( |EO) PASN J3ÎBAA qse/vopeg 
OC 310 
Figure 2-18 
Grants Pass WTP: Filter Performance Evaluation 
Backwash Turbidity Profiles 
Filter No. 3 (Black S Veatch) May 28, 2003 
Note: Turbidity samples for this profile were collected 
" after significant corruption of filter bed. The bed fitter had 
been drained for core sampling immediadety prior to sampling 
-for this test. This profile does not represent a normal 
backwash cycle. 
» 'S 
1 300 
Filter No. 5 (MWH) July 30, 2003 
10 
Time (min) 
S 
, Ideal "high-peak" curve indicating successful backwash cycle, Kawamura 2001. 
10 
Time (min) 
Filter No. 7 (MWH) Ju ly 30, 2003 
5 400 
« 
? 300 
Ideal "high-peak" curve indicating successful backwash cycle, Kawamura 2001. 
-Actual 
10 
Time (min) 
00 C311 
Figure 2-19: 
Grants Pass WTP: Filter Performance Evaluation 
Floe Retention Profiles 
Filter No. 1 (MWH) July 29, 2003 
Filter No. 3 (Black & Veatch) May 28, 2003 
0 50 100 150 200 250 
Turbidity (NTU) 
sjr\iT O 
Figure 2-19 (Cont.) 
Grants Pass WTP: Filter Performance Evaluation 
Floe Retention Profiles 
Filter No. 5 (MWH) July 29, 2003 
Filter No. 7 (MWH) July 29, 2003 
Turbidity (NTU) 
mx 313 
Regulatory Review 
me 314 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
3 R E G U L A T O R Y R E V I E W 
This section provides a general overview of current drinking water regulations under the 
Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act (OAR 333-061 - Rules for Public Water Systems), 
as well as anticipated future regulations. In addition, other regulatory compliance issues, 
including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Endangered 
Species Act (ESA) are reviewed. The discussion of each regulation is followed by an 
assessment of historic compliance, or in the case of future regulations, anticipated 
compliance. Recommended process/monitoring improvements to ensure continued 
compliance with all existing and anticipated regulatory requirements are discussed where 
appropriate. This regulatory summary is current as of July 2003. 
3.1 EXISTING DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 
Currently enforced national drinking water regulations that have implications for the City 
of Grants Pass WTP (City) are listed below: 
• National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (1975) 
• Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (1979, 1991) 
• Phase I, II, and V Regulations for IOCs, SOCs, and VOCs (1987, 1991, 1992, 
respectively) 
• Surface Water Treatment Rule (1989) 
• Total Coliform Rule (1989) 
• Lead and Copper Rule (1991) 
• Consumer Confidence Reports Rule (1998) 
• Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfectant By-Product Rule (1998) - supercedes Total 
Trihalomethane Rule (1979) 
• Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (1999) 
• Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule (1999) 
With the exception of the Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule, the water quality 
standards established under these national regulations have been adopted into the Oregon 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-1 
OOC315 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
Drinking Water Quality Act (OHS 333-061) by the Department of Human Services 
(DHS) Drinking Water Program (formerly Oregon Health Division). In addition to 
implementation, DHS is also responsible for enforcing these national water quality 
standards. If a system is found to be in violation, DHS will issue a Notice of Violation. If 
violations are accumulated, the system is considered a "significant non-complier", and an 
administrative order (for monitoring violations), or remedial order (where plant 
improvements are required), is issued. A schedule for compliance is included in the 
order. If the schedule is not met, civil penalties (i.e. fines) will be issued. Enforcement of 
the Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule has recently become the responsibility of 
the US EPA. 
There are currently drinking water quality standards for 95 primary and 12 secondary 
contaminants in the State of Oregon. Under the Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act, each 
contaminant has either an associated established maximum contaminant level (MCL) or 
recommended treatment technique (TT). These contaminants are grouped into the 
following general categories. 
• Microbial Contaminants, 
• Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products, 
• Inorganic Chemicals, 
• Organic Chemicals, and 
• Radiologic Contaminants. 
Table 3-1 summarizes the primary and secondary drinking water contaminants regulated 
under Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act. Note that not every contaminant has a 
corresponding MCL; some contaminants have recommended TT in lieu of an MCL. The 
following is a discussion of these state-regulated contaminants, aS well as the federally 
monitored unregulated contaminants. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 P a g e 3-23 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
•V >:, • TAB.-K,-. : 
OREGON DRTNKCTC W A T E R / " ' ' 
(MUM CON TA MTN J ^ T I i E ^ B i 
mmÊOZ 
- • - • • Sampling Frequency 
-S» m - -ï? * 
| i 
P • L , U , O S | , : W : " •m h v I • . , 
rganic Contaminants (IOCs) 
Antimony 0.006 Annually 
Arsenic 0.05 Annually 
Asbestos (fibers > 10nm) 7 MFL 9 year's 
Barium 2.0 Annually 
Beryllium 0.004 Annually 
Cadmium 0.005 Annually 
Chromium (total) 0.1 Annually 
Copper 1.3' see text 
Cyanide 0.2 Annually 
Fluoride 4.0 Annually 
Lead 0.015' see text 
Mercury 0.002 Annually 
Nickel 0.12 Annually 
Nitrate (as N) 10.0 Quarterly 
Nitrate+ Nitrite (as N) 10.0 Quarterly 
Nitrite (as N) 1.0 Quarterly 
Selenium 0.05 Annually 
Thallium 0.002 Annually 
;anic (Synthetic) Compounds (SOCs) 
Acrylamide TT Annually, if applicable 
Alachlor 0.002 Twice in 3 years 
Atrazine 0.003 Twice in 3 years 
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) 0.0002 Twice in 3 years 
Carbofuran 0.04 Twice in 3 years 
Chlordane 0.002 Twice in 3 years 
2,4-D 0.07 Twice in 3 years 
Dalapon 0.2 Twice in 3 years 
Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate 0.5 Twice in 3 years 
Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.006 Twice in 3 years 
Dinoseb 0.007 Twice in 3 years 
Diquat 0.02 Twice in 3 years 
Endothall 0.1 Twice in 3 years 
Endrin 0.002 Twice in 3 years 
Epichlorohydrin TT Annually, if applicable 
Ethylene dibromide (EDB) 0.00005 Twice in 3 years 
Glyphosate 0 .7 Twice in 3 years 
Heptachlor 0.0004 Twice in 3 years 
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0002 Twice in 3 years 
Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 Twice in 3 years 
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05 Twice in 3 years 
Lindane 0.0002 Twice in 3 years 
Methoxychlor 0.4 Twice in 3 years 
Oxymyl (Vydate) 0.2 Twice in 3 years 
Pentachlorophenol 0.001 Twice in 3 years 
Picloram 0.5 Twice in 3 years 
.Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 0.0005 Twice in 3 years 
Simazine 0.004 Twice in 3 years 
2,3,7,8,-TCDD (Dioxin) 0.00000003 Risk dependent 
Toxaphene 0.005 Twice in 3 years 
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 Twice in 3 years 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-11 
00C317 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
m 
aainplmg Frequency 
Organic (Volatile) Contaminants (VOCs) 
Benzene 
Carbon tetrachloride 
Dibromochloropropane(DBCP) 
p-Dichlorobenzene 
o-Dichlorobenzene 
1,2-Dichloroethane 
1,1 -Dichloroethylene 
eis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 
trans-1,2 Dichloroethylene 
Dichloromethane 
1,2-DichIoropropane 
Ethylbenzene 
Styrene 
Tetrachloroethy lene 
Toluene 
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 
Trichloroethylene 
Vinyl chloride 
Xylenes (total) 
Radionuclides 
Gross alpha 
Beta particle/photon activity 
Iodine - 131 
Radium-226 + 228 
Strontium 90 
Tritium 
Uranium 
0.005 
0.005 
0.0002 
0.075 
0.6 
0.005 
0.007 
0.07 
0.1 
0.005 
0.005 
0.7 
0.1 
0.005 
1.0 
0.07 
0.2 
0.005 
0.005 
0.002 
10.0 
15 pCi/L 
4 mrem/yr 
3 pCi/L 
5 pCi/L3 
8 pCi/L 
20,000 pCi/L 
30 ug/L 
Disinfectant Residuals and Disinfection By-Products (DBFs) 
Raw Water Total Organic Carbon 
Bromate 0.01 
Chlorite 1.0 
Haloacetic Acids (HAA5) 0.06 
Monochloroacetic Acid 
Dichloroacetic Acid 
Trichloroacetic Acid 
Monobromoacetic Acid 
Dibromoacetic Acid 
Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) 0.08 
Bromodichloromethane 
Bromoform 
Chloroform 
Dibromochloromethane 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
Annually 
4 years 
4 years 
4 years 
4 years 
4 years 
4 years 
Monthly 
Quarterly 
Quarterly 
Quarterly 
Quarterly 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-35 
00C318 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
. .«.'im x* •iE . 
OR KG O » -DR 1NK I N Ù W A I 
... I MAXIM! M CON I A MINA N I' LEVI 
. .. W ' , Sumplini; Frequent 
Microbial Contaminants 
Giardia lamblia 
Cryptosporidium 
Legionella 
Heterotrophic plate count 
Turbidity 
Viruses 
Total Coliform 
Fecal Coliform 
E. Coli 
Secondary (Recommended) Standards 
TT 
TT 
TT 
TT 
TT 
TT 
< 5% positive 
Confirmed Presence 
Confirmed Presence 
Color-Color Units 15 
Corrosivity Non-corrosive 
Foaming Agents 0.5 
pH 6 . 5 - 8 . 5 
Hardness (as C a C 0 3 ) 250 
Odor 3 TON 
Total Dissolved Solids 500 
Aluminum 0.05 -0.2 
Chloride 250 
Fluoride 2.0 
Iron 0.3 
Manganese 0.05 
Silver 0.1 
Sulfate 250 
Zinc 5.0 
see text 
40/month 
If TC Positive 
"Values reported in mg/L, unless otherwise specified 
'Action Level 
2MCL currently being re-evaluated by the EPA 
3.1.1 Microbial Contaminants 
3.1.1.1 Regulatory History 
The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) (December, 24, 1975) 
represented the first set of drinking water regulations promulgated by the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the MCLs established in the NPDWR were 
adopted into Oregon Law September 24, 1982. However, the microbial requirements 
outlined in the NPDWR have since been superceded by new federal regulations. The 
Total Coliform Rule, published on the Federal Register on June 16, 1989 and adopted in 
Oregon on January 1, 1991, supercedes the coliform requirements established in the 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-11 
00C319 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
NPDWR, and includes microbial testing and control measures. Similarly, increasingly 
rigid requirements for turbidity have evolved since the adoption of the NPDWR. The 
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) (June 29, 1989) and the Interim Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) (December 16, 1998), adopted in Oregon on 
January 1, 1991 and July 15, 2000, respectively, both supercede the NPDWR and outline 
improved filter monitoring and performance, as well as disinfection requirements. 
3.1.1.2 Monitoring Requirements - Coliform Bacteria 
The Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act requires that the City collect a minimum of 25 
samples per month from representative sites throughout the distribution system. If a 
routine sample is positive for total coliform, the City must collect a set of three repeat 
samples: one from the original site, one within 5 service connections upstream of the 
original site, and one within 5 service connections downstream of the original site. 
The repeat samples must be collected within 24 hours of notification of the positive 
result. Further, any routine or repeat coliform positive samples must be analyzed for the 
presence of fecal coliform or E. coli as an indicator organism. When a system learns of 
the presence of fecal coliform or E. coli, the system must notify the State by the end of 
the same day. 
In Oregon, the total coliform MCL is violated if: 
1. More than 1 sample collected within a single month are coliform positive 
(non-acute violation), 
2. A repeat sample following a total coliform positive contains fecal coliform or 
E. coli (acute violation), or 
3. A repeat sample following a fecal coliform positive or E. coli positive 
contains total coliform (acute violation). 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-10 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
3.1.1.3 Monitoring Requirements - Surface Water Treatment 
All public water Systems using surface water sources are required to comply with the 
Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act's treatment performance and disinfection 
requirements. Four specific areas are addressed within the Act, including: 
• Overall filtration performance, 
• Individual filtration performance, 
• Disinfection performance, and 
• Disinfection profiling and benchmarking. 
These are discussed in detail below. 
Overall Filtration Performance: Current overall filtration performance standards require 
that the turbidity measurements from the combined filter effluent must be measured in 
four hour intervals by grab sampling or continuous monitoring. 95 percent of these 
turbidity readings must be less than or equal to 0.3 NTU, and may never exceed 1.0 NTU. 
In addition, treatment strategies, in combination with disinfection, must consistently 
remove/inactivate 99.9 percent (3-log) of Giardia, 99.99 percent (4-log) of viruses and 99 
percent (2-log) removal (i.e. no inactivation) of Cryptosporidium. Each utility is required 
to submit a report to the State on a monthly basis and identify any exceptions. 
Individual Filter Performance: Oregon law requires continuous, on-line measurement of 
turbidity for each individual filter. This data must be recorded every fifteen minutes. If 
there is a failure in the turbidity monitoring equipment, the system may conduct grab 
sampling every 4 hours in lieu, but for not more than five working days following the 
failure. Each utility is required to submit a report to the State on a monthly basis and 
identify any exceptions. Exceptions under Oregon law occur when: 
1. Individual filter effluent turbidity exceeds 1.0 NTU in two consecutive 
measurements, 15 minutes apart at any time during the filter operation. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-7 
ope321 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
2. Individual filter effluent turbidity exceeds 0.5 NTU in two consecutive 
measurements, 15 minutes apart, after 4 hours of operation following 
backwash 
3. If the individual filter effluent turbidity exceeds 1.0 NTU in two consecutive 
measurements, 15 minutes apart, at any time during the filter operation for 
three consecutive months. 
4. If the individual filter effluent turbidity exceeds 2.0 NTU in two consecutive 
measurements, 15 minutes apart, at any time during the filter operation for 
two consecutive months. 
Disinfection Performance: The Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act requires all utilities 
served by a surface water supply to achieve a minimum of 99.9 percent (3-log) reduction 
in Giardia lamblia cysts, 99.99 percent (4-log) reduction in viruses and 99 percent (2-
log) removal of Cryptosporidium cysts during drinking water treatment. Removal credit 
is awarded to WTPs based on the types of processes provided by the plants. For 
conventional plants with filter to waste capabilities, such as the Grants Pass WTP, a 2.5-
log, 2.0-log and 2.0-log removal credit is usually granted for Giardia lamblia, viruses and 
Cryptosporidium, respectively. The remaining reduction in pathogenic organisms must 
come in the form of disinfection and/or inactivation. For Grants Pass, a minimum of 0.5-
log inactivation of Giardia and 2.0-log inactivation of viruses is required prior to the first 
customer; Giardia inactivation typically governs disinfection through the WTP 
In order to determine the level of inactivation achieved during chemical disinfection, the 
EPA developed the "CT" concept. "CT" is the product of disinfectant residual measured 
at the outlet of a disinfection section and the time in which 10 percent (by volume) of an 
added tracer passes through the section, known as the Tio- To remain in compliance with 
disinfection performance standards, the following criteria must be met: 
1. Disinfection residual must be continuously recorded at the entry point to the 
distribution system, and must never fall below 0.2 mg/L. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-23 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
2. CT must be calculated every day. To ensure that the values are conservative, 
the highest flow rate and minimum clearwell volume recorded for the day 
must be used in the calculation; tracer studies should be used to verify 
hydraulic efficiencies through the various treatment trains. 
3. CT calculated must be sufficient to meet the needed removal/inactivation 
levels. 
4. The residual disinfectant concentration in the distribution system cannot be 
undetectable in more than 5 percent of the samples. For simplicity, samples 
should be collected at coliform bacteria monitoring points. 
Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking: The purpose of disinfection profiling and 
benchmarking is to develop a process to assure that there is no significant reduction in 
microbial protection as a result of major disinfection process modifications. Disinfection 
process modification may be driven to meet the new MCLs for total trihalomethane 
(TTHMs) and five haloacetic acids (HAA5) from the recently adopted 
Disinfectants/Disinfection By-products Rule. Surface water systems serving 10,000 
people or more were required to develop four quarters of TTHM and HAA5 data by April 
2001. If the observed TTHM or HAA5 RAA exceed 80-percent of the new MCLs (>0.064 
mg/L and/or >0.048 mg/L for TTHM and HAA5, respectively), a disinfection profile will 
need to be developed. The preliminary DBP data submitted by Grants Pass is presented 
and discussed in the Disinfectant/Disinfection By-product portion of this regulatory 
review. 
The disinfection profile is developed using a minimum of one year of daily Giardia 
lamblia log inactivation. Daily log inactivations are used to calculate the average 
monthly log inactivation. The month with the lowest average log inactivation will be 
identified as the critical period or benchmark. This profile and benchmark must be 
submitted to the State; if a utility decides to make changes to the disinfection practices, 
then the utility must consult with the State to ensure that microbial protection is not 
compromised. The City completed its profile using four years of Giardia inactivation 
data tabulated by month (1999-2002) and submitted to DHS in compliance with the rule. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-10 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
3.1.1.4 Analysis of Grants Pass's Compliance History, Coliform Rule 
Coliform Bacteria: Historic microbial testing results for the City were obtained through 
the DHS; these results date back as far as January 1995. Three coliform sampling 
violations are on record at the DHS, dated February 28, 1995, October 31, 1995 and July 
31, 1996. In all cases, violations correspond to an inadequate number of samples 
submitted to the State. No violations with regard to coliform presence in drinking water 
are on record. In fact, no coliform has been detected in any of the submitted samples to 
date. Historic treatment data indicates consistent compliance with the Oregon Drinking 
Water Quality Act's coliform bacteria requirements. 
3.1.1.5 Analysis of Grants Pass's Compliance History -Surface Water Treatment 
Overall Filter Performance: Combined filtered water turbidity is measured prior to the 
point of entry into the distribution system. A statistical analysis was performed on the 
average daily filtered water turbidity data collected from January 1999 through July 2003 
to determine regulatory compliance. Figure 2-14 presents the results of this statistical 
analysis. [Please note, regulations in place between January 1999 and January 2000 
required combined filter effluent turbidity to be less than 0.3 NTU in 95 percent of the 
measurements, never to exceed 1.0 NTU, and had no requirements for individual filter 
performance.] 
From Figure 2-14, turbidity values of 0.119 NTU are achieved 95 percent of the time, 
consequently the City has met and/or exceeded all regulatory filtration standards in place 
at the time the data was collected. 
Individual Filter Performance: The on-line turbidimeters necessary for monitoring the 
individual filtered water turbidity have been installed at the City's WTP. Figure 2-15 
presents a statistical summary of individual filter performance measured at 5 minute 
intervals between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. between April 2002 and July 2003. The data 
indicates that there are no "problem" filters; all filters are performing well with regard to 
the new regulatory requirements. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-10 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
Disinfection Performance: CT-achieved through the WTP is calculated daily. Once 
calculated, this value is compared to the CT-required-, if CT-achieved is greater than the 
CT-required, then compliance is achieved. The CT-required value is based on the CT 
tables presented in the SWTR Guidance Manual for 0.5-log inactivation of Giardia with 
free chlorine (included in Appendix A), maximum daily chlorine residual, minimum daily 
raw water temperature and maximum daily pH. Figure 3-1 presents the historic results 
of both the required and calculated values for log-inactivation for the Grants Pass WTP. 
As shown in the Figure, CT was consistently met at the Grants Pass WTP during the 
January 1999 to August 2003 period of record evaluated for this study. Also, the Grants 
Pass WTP has no violations with regard to disinfection residual monitoring or residual 
concentrations in the distribution system. 
The following equations were historically used to calculate CT-achieved through the 
plant: 
1 T ("mini = [TIP/TSASIN (Reactor'Basin Volume) + TIQ/TCW (Clearwell Volume)l(gal) 
Plant Flow (gpm) 
2. C (mg/L) = Minimum In-plant Chlorine Residual 
3. CTachieved(mg/L-min) = C x T 
Where: 
Tio/Tßasin - 0.5 (OHD 1993 Comprehensive Performance Evaluation, 1993), 
Tio/Tcw = 0.7 (OHD 1993 Comprehensive Performance Evaluation, 1993), 
Plant Flow = Maximum Instantaneous Raw Water Flow for the day in question. 
Assumptions inherent in the above equation follow: 
• Surface overflow rate and Tio/T through each Basin is equal (i.e. detention 
time through each basin is equal). 
• No CT is achieved through the filters or HSPS. 
• Water quality parameters affecting the CT-required (i.e. pH, water 
temperature, chlorine concentrations) do not change through the treatment 
plant. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-11 
00C325 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
On June 24th, 2003, a tracer study was performed on the existing clearwell (B&V, July 
2003). A copy of this study is included in Appendix B; results from this study are 
summarized below: 
• At a plant flow rate of 10.5 mgd (2 raw water pumps on-line), Tio/T = 0.60 
• At a plant flow rate of 20.0 mgd (4 raw water pumps on-line), Tio/T = 0.50 
These Tio/T values are lower than those previously assigned during the 1993 
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation, and will reduce the level of CT-achieved 
through the WTP. On July 24, 2003, City staff met with a representative from the 
Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) Drinking Water Program to discuss 
incorporating these results into the CT calculations. At that time, a conservative value for 
Tio/T of 0.50 was adopted for the clearwell. 
CT Recommendations: Adjustments to the way in which CT is calculated at the plant to 
more accurately represent actual microbial inactivation will offset the hydraulic 
inefficiencies in the clearwell. Historically, to determine CT-required through the plant, 
the "worst case" conditions (i.e. highest pH, lowest temperature, and highest chlorine 
residual) throughout the WTP must be considered. Since chemicals affecting these 
parameters are often added at various stages in the treatment train, the City may benefit 
from breaking the overall treatment train into various "disinfection sections"; these 
disinfection sections are defined by the points of chemical injections. For example, if pH 
is adjusted from 7.0 to 7.5 in the combined filtered water effluent, the existing CT 
calculation would require that a pH of 7.5 be considered in determining CT-required 
throughout the entire plant. By defining the Basins as a distinct disinfection section, a pH 
of 7.0 (the measured pH through the Basins) can be used when determining CT-required 
through the Basins, significantly reducing the CT-required for this section, increasing the 
overall log inactivation. CT through the filters could also be considered. This approach 
would involve the incorporation of measured (either grab or on-line) values of chlorine 
residual, pH and temperature at the "end" of individual disinfection sections into the 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-12 
CHX 326 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
overall CT calculation. In addition, CT calculations for disinfection sections are slightly 
more complicated than those previously used at the WTP. 
CT Calculation and Optimization: To assist the City in calculating CT using 
"disinfection sections", an electronic CT model was prepared by MWH; a CD containing 
this model was delivered to the WTP supervisor. This model allows an operator to input 
measured values within the plant (i.e. plant flows, pH, chlorine concentration, water 
temperature, etc.) for various disinfection sections throughout the treatment process train. 
Based on these parameters, the model calculates the overall log-inactivation achieved 
through each component of the treatment process train, as well as overall inactivation 
through the plant. This calculation involves interpolations of CT-required values 
presented in the SWTR Guidance Manual of 0.5-log inactivation of Giardia. These tables 
are included as a worksheet in the CT model; a hard copy of the tables are provided in 
Appendix A. Hydraulic efficiencies through the clearwell were taken from the recent 
tracer test studies at the plant (B&V July, 2003). Though the model was designed to help 
operators calculate CT compliance at the plant, it can also serve as a tool to help establish 
seasonal CT trends and optimize overall plant performance (i.e. adequate microbial 
inactivation with limited disinfection by-product formation). The following analysis was 
performed help optimize CT through the WTP 
Two water treatment scenarios typically create challenges for CT compliance: Winter 
conditions (low temperatures at relatively low flows), and Summer conditions (high 
temperatures at relatively high flows). The CT model was used to help summarize pre-
chlorination constraints during these "worst-case" conditions, as well as moderate 
conditions in the spring/fall. Table 3-2 presents the ranges of conditions that were 
assumed throughout this analysis. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-11 Page 3-13 
00C327 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
T A B L E 3-2: WATER QUALITY AND FLOW RANGES CONSIDERED FOR "WORST-CASE" 
C T ANALYSIS 
Parameter 
• 
Units- n 
• H E a l l H ü 
Spring/Fall M • 
Pre-Chlorine Residual at 
Filter Influent mg/L 0 .1 -0 .8 0.1-1.0 0.1-1.2 
Minimum Temperature1 °C 15.0 10.0 5.0 
pH - 6.5 - 8.0 6.5-8.0 6.5-8.0 
Flow MGD 5 - 2 0 5 - 2 0 5 - 2 0 
'Temperatures represent the "worst-case" (i.e. coldest) water temperatures observed during the seasons. 
In addition to the above parameters, the following assumptions were made throughout 
this analysis: 
• A finished water pH of 7.2 and finished water chlorine concentration of 1.0 
mg/L were maintained through the clearwell. 
• Filtration rates (gpm/sf) were assumed constant through each of the 8 filters; 
flows through the Basins were assumed to be proportional to the settling area 
of each basin (i.e. 36%, 24% and 40% of the plant flow is directed to Basin 
#1, #2 and #3, respectively.) Ti0/T values of 0.5 were assumed through each 
of these basins based on SWTR Guidance Manual recommendations for well 
baffled basins. 
• Calculations were performed with all filters on-line; CT-achieved through the 
filters, though relatively small, was considered in the overall CT-achieved 
through the plant. No CT credit was given to the wetwell beneath the filters. 
• Water temperature does not change throughout the plant (i.e. FW temp = RW 
temp). 
• Clearwell level was maintained at 13.5 feet. 
Preliminary results from the CT analysis for the Grants Pass WTP are discussed in the 
following subsections. Please note: this analysis is limited to those "worst-case" 
temperatures presented in Table 3-2. Since overall CT requirements are highly 
temperature dependent, this analysis should only be used to help establish trends in plant 
CT performance. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-14 
OiT328 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
Winter Conditions: Figure 3-2 presents the required pre-chlorination residual at the filter 
inlet needed to maintain at least 0.5-log inactivation of Giardia lamblia over a range of 
flowrates and pH values for the "worst-case" Winter conditions (5 °C). As shown in the 
Figure, at low flows (<10 mgd), the plant can tolerate a wide range in pH, while 
maintaining a relatively low chlorine residual throughout the basins (< 0.3 mg/L, as 
measured at the filter inlet). However, at higher flows (>10 mgd), pH has a greater effect 
on the chlorine residual required to achieve 0.5-log inactivation. 
Spring/Fall Conditions: Figure 3-3 presents the required pre-chlorination residual at the 
filter inlet needed to maintain at least 0.5-log inactivation of Giardia lamblia over a range 
of flowrates and pH values for the "worst-case" Spring/Fall conditions (10 °C). As 
shown in the Figure, a chlorine residual below 0.3 mg/L is sufficient to achieve adequate 
CT over the entire range of pH and flowrate up to 20 mgd. 
Summer Conditions: Figure 3-4 presents similar results for the "worst-case" summer 
conditions (15 °C). As shown in the Figure, the relatively warmer water allows for 
greater operator flexibility with regard to plant flow and pH adjustment at flows up to 20 
mgd (minimum chlorine residual = 0.13 mg/L). 
In general, a portion of the plant's CT must be achieved through pre-chlorination; without 
a chlorine residual in the filter influent, the plant would be unable to achieve 0.5-log 
inactivation of Giardia lamblia. However, if "in-plant" DBP formation is to be 
minimized via reducing pre-chlorination, the plant has two options: 
• Operate at lower flowrates by running the plant for longer periods, potentially 
increasing operational costs at the plant. 
• If the plant is operated at higher flowrates to minimize operational costs, the use of 
pH adjustment should be delayed until after filtration and/or a higher chlorine residual 
could be maintained through the Clearwell. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-10 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
The decision to make adjustments to the existing disinfection system will ultimately 
depend on the City's ability to meet the future D/DBP requirements and the desire to 
further reduce DBP concentrations in the distribution system. This issue is discussed in 
detail in the following section. 
3.1.2 Disinfectants and Disinfection By-products 
3.1.2.1 Regulatory History 
The Federal Total Trihalomethane Rule (TTHM Rule) was published on the Federal 
Register in November 1979; Oregon adopted the MCLs established in this law in 
September 1982. The purpose of the rule was to limit exposure to chemical by-products 
of disinfection treatment present resulting from disinfection treatment practices. The 
TTHM Rule set an MCL for TTHM of 0.10 mg/L based on a running annual average of 
quarterly sampling of each source water in a given system. However, these MCLs were 
recently superceded when the State of Oregon adopted the Stage 1 
Disinfectants/Disinfection By-products Rule (D/DBPR) on July 15, 2000. The D/DBPR 
added an MCL of 0.06 mg/L for haloacetic acids (HAA5), and reduced the MCLs 
associated with TTHM to 0.80 mg/L in an effort to address the risk trade-offs with 
disinfection by-products control and the levels of pathogenic microorganisms and 
particulate matter (turbidity) in drinking water. 
3.1.2.2 Monitoring Requirements 
The Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act requires monitoring of disinfection by-products. 
For the Grants Pass WTP, current sampling number/frequency requirements for DBPs are 
the same as was required under the TTHM Rule. That is, four samples per quarter for 
each source water, with one sample representative of the maximum residence time in the 
distribution system and the remaining samples collected in the distribution system 
representative of the entire system (i.e. average residence time). Compliance is based on 
a running annual average of quarterly samples. To remain in compliance, the running 
average for TTHMs and HAA5 must never exceed 0.08 mg/L and 0.060 mg/L, 
respectively. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-11 
00C330 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
For both TTHM and HAA5, monitoring frequency may be reduced if samples 
representing the longest system detention times contain less than 80 percent of the new 
MCL (0.068 mg/L and 0.048 mg/L, for TTHM and HAA5, respectively). Table 3-3 
shows the compounds and corresponding MCLs under the amended rule. 
T A B L E 3-3: STAGE 1 D / D B P RULE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS 
Contaminant 
- Maximum Contaminant 
Total Trihalomethanes1 (TTHMs) 0.080 
Haloacetic Acids2 (HAAs) 0.060 
'"Total Trihalomethanes" includes the sum of concentrations of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, 
dibromochloromethane, and bromoform. 
2"Haloacetic acids" includes the sum of concentrations of: monochloroacetic, dichloroacetic, trichloroacetic, 
monobromoacetic, and dibromoacetic acids. 
The Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act also regulates the Maximum Residual 
Disinfectant Levels (MRDLs) present in the distribution system. Since Grants Pass uses 
chlorine for disinfection, a maximum of 4.0 mg/L (as CI2) is allowed. Monitoring and 
compliance for the MRDLs of chlorine is similar to that required under the Total 
Coliform Rule (TCR). Utilities are required to collect these disinfection residual samples 
at the same location and frequency as coliform samples. 
In addition to DBP MCLs and MRDLs, conventional WTPs that have surface water as a 
supply are required to remove specific amounts of organic material through their 
treatment process. The percent of removal required depends on source water TOC and 
alkalinity. Table 3-4 provides a summary of the removal requirements. 
T A B L E 3-4: TOCREMOVAL REQUIREMENTS (PERCENT) 
Raw Water TOC (mg/L) 
V ' - ' . . . . 
Alkalinity 
0 - 6 0 6 0 - 1 2 0 \ >120 
2 .0 -4 .0 35 25 15 
4 . 0 - 8 . 0 45 35 25 
>8.0 50 40 30 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-17 
KX 331 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
Compliance with this treatment requirement must be calculated as a running annual 
average (RAA) on a quarterly basis, after 12 months of data are available. Systems 
having raw water TOC concentrations < 2.0 mg/L may be exempted from any TOC 
removal requirements. Potential revisions to the TOC monitoring requirements presented 
in the Stage 1 Rule are proposed in the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule, as discussed in the Future 
Regulations portion of this report. 
3.1.2.3 Historic Compliance 
On average, the reported running quarterly annual averages for TTHM were 0.032 mg/L 
between January 1999 and June 2003. A maximum quarterly annual average of 0.069 
mg/L was observed in May 2001, exceeding the 0.064 mg/L "cut-off" for reduced 
monitoring under the rule. The minimum, 0.009 mg/L, was recorded on February 2000. 
No instances of TTHM MCL exceedence are on record; quarterly average TTHM 
concentrations have consistently been lower than the allowable MCLs. Based on previous 
monitoring results, the City was eligible for reduced TTHM monitoring in the 
distribution system from September 2000 to November 2001 
Limited HAA5 data is available for review, as HAA5 was only recently adopted into the 
regulations. Though continuous quarterly sampling began in February 2002, running 
quarterly annual averages could not be calculated until November 2002 (when four 
quarters of data became available). However, the running quarterly annual averages for 
HAA5 since November 2002 average 0.039 mg/L, well below the allowable MCL for 
HAA5 of 0.060 mg/L. 
Historical raw and finished water TOC sampling between February 2000 and December 
2002 indicate that TOC levels in the Rogue River may occasionally exceed the "trigger" 
level of 2.0 mg/L during the winter months. However, between November 2001 and 
March 2002, when TOC levels exceeded 2.0 mg/L (requiring enhanced coagulation for a 
minimum of 35 percent TOC removal with alkalinities averaging 37.5 mg/L as CaC03), 
TOC removal efficiencies averaged 42 percent. The average raw water TOC throughout 
the sample period was 2.03 mg/L, removal efficiencies averaged 38 percent. Table 3-5 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-10 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
presents a summary of this data; actual TOC monitoring results, including quarterly 
samples taken in 2001 are presented in Figure 2-5. The City should continue to monitor 
its raw and finished water TOC on a monthly basis to ensure continued TOC removal 
compliance through the plant. As previously mentioned, the City should also consider 
monitoring UV254 (a surrogate parameter for TOC) in the raw and finished water on a 
daily basis to better understand TOC removal through the WTP. 
T A B L E 3-5: SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL T O C SAMPLING RESULTS 
r, . Parameter fSmkM. 
> ^ 
Raw Water TOC 
MÎ- - . J •VÄ.y 
Finished Wafer TOO Removal Efficiency 
* (mgd) ' (%) 
Sample Dates 
Number of Samples 
Average 
Max 
Min 
Feb 00 - Dec 02 
16 
2.14 
4.95 
1.22 
Feb 00 - Dec 02 
15 
1.31 
2.52 
0.71 
Feb 00 - Dec 02 
15 
37.86 
58.3 
25.7 
To qualify for reduced monitoring of DBPs in the distribution system, Grants Pass must 
report concentrations of DBPs representative of the longest detention time in the system 
at 80 percent or less than the new MCLs (<0.064 mg/L and <0.048 mg/L for TTHM and 
HAA5, respectively). Based on water quality test results between February 2000 and 
December 2003, 30 percent of TTHM samples taken from the Merlin Landfill 
(presumably, the end of the distribution system) exceed this lower limit; 33 percent of 
HAA samples from this same site exceeded this lower limit. Though the City may be 
eligible for reduced monitoring of DBPs in the future, it is recommended that DBPs 
continue to be monitored quarterly, if not monthly, to better quantify the impacts of 
adjustments in the disinfection strategy on the formation of DBPs throughout the year. 
DBP Control: Though current DBP compliance is not an issue, the City may elect to 
further control DBP levels in the distribution system by minimizing the "in-plant" DBP 
formation via adjustments to the pre-chlorination system. To better understand the 
impacts of pre-chlorination on DBP levels measured in the distribution system, a 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-19 
000333 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
summary of relevant plant operational data during recent DBP sampling is presented in 
Table 3-6. 
T A B L E 3 - 6 : A V E R A G E P L A N T OPERATIONAL D A T A DURING R E C E N T D B P SAMPLING 
| a m p | | - ' ^ j g - DBP_Ay 
D ä t t V " I r l TT M M 
eraqe-
' H A A S 
m i 
P r o d u c t i o n 
Pre-C 12 
r e s i d u a r 
f t p \ 
' -• . - I.- ..' . 
| Tempera tu re 2 
¡S Ì® . * C: ... 
• t ü n i P i ^ i ( rngd) (mg/L) I I S (oC) 
6/19/03 
3/17/03 
11/20/02 
0.041 
0.054 
0.037 
0.038 
0.062 
0.043 
8.95 
3.05 
3.73 
0.93 
0.94 
0.49 
6.99 
7.03 
7.01 
15.95 
10.63 
9.05 
'Average of results from four monitoring sites, representing system averages on the date of sampling. Monitoring sites 
include: New Hope PS, Water Restoration Plant, Fire Station and Merlin Landfill. 
Represents average operating conditions for one week, up to and including the sampling date. 
'Measured at the basin influent. 
NOTE: Chlorine residual in the finished water was 1.0-1.1 mg/L for each of the sample periods analyzed. 
As shown in Table 3-6, when system demands are high, as in the most recent DBP 
sample (June 2003), detention time in the distribution system is short, reducing the 
reaction time and minimizing DBP levels in the distribution system. These relatively low 
levels were observed despite the relatively high pre-chlorination residuals through the 
plant. When similar pre-chlorination residuals were observed during low flows (i.e. 
relatively long detention times in distribution system), as in the March 2003 sample, DBP 
levels were relatively high. However, when lower pre-chlorination residuals were 
maintained during low flows (November 2002), DBP concentrations were significantly 
lower. The following conclusions can be drawn from this analysis: 
• At higher flows (e.g. relatively short distribution system detention times), and 
relatively high pre-chlorine residuals (-1.0 mg/L), resulting DBP levels in the 
distribution system are below current and future MCLs. 
• At lower flows (e.g. relatively long distribution system detention times), pre-chlorine 
residuals appear to have a significant impact on overall DBP formation in the 
distribution system. Decreasing the pre-chlorine residual from 0.94 mg/L to 0.49 
mg/L appears to reduce TTHM and HAA5 concentrations by approximately 30%. 
• Distribution system detention time (i.e. water age) should be minimized to help 
reduce DBP formation in the distribution system. 
City of Grants Pass W T P Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-35 
00C334 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
It appears that the City may be able to "control" DBP levels in the distribution system by 
optimizing pre-chlorination levels at the plant, and minimizing water age in the 
distribution system. However, these efforts must be carefully balanced with plant 
disinfection performance to continue to reliably meet CT. 
3.1.3 Lead and Copper 
3.1.3.1 Regulatory History 
On December 24, 1975, the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) 
established the first lead MCL at 0.05 mg/L. This MCL was adopted into Oregon Law 
September 24, 1982. In 1991, the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) was promulgated by the 
EPA to reduce lead and copper concentrations in drinking water. Oregon adopted the 
LCR on December 7, 1992, without exception. Lead and copper regulations, under the 
Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act, require utilities to implement optimal corrosion 
control treatment that minimizes the lead and copper concentrations at user's taps, while 
ensuring that the treatment efforts do not cause the water system to violate other existing 
water regulations. 
3.1.3.2 Monitoring Requirements 
Rather than establishing maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for lead and copper, 
action levels for lead and copper were created. The action level for lead has been 
established at 0.015 mg/L, while the action level for copper is 1.3 mg/L. Utilities are 
required to conduct monitoring for lead and copper from taps in "high risk" homes. Two 
rounds of initial sampling were required during 1992-94, collected at 6-month intervals; 
annual sampling was required after these initial efforts. Following three years of annual 
sampling, samples are to be taken every three years. The action level for either 
compound is "exceeded" when, in a given monitoring period, more than 10-percent of the 
samples are greater than the action level. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-21 
•00 C 335 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
Sampling requirements of the LCR are based on the population served by the utility. For 
Grants Pass (population between 10,001 and 100,000), Oregon law required 60 initial 
sampling sites; subsequent monitoring could be reduced to 30 sites provided initial 
sampling efforts demonstrate that lead and copper action levels are not exceeded. Water 
systems unable to meet action levels must either integrate corrosion control strategies into 
their treatment process train, or develop alternate source of water. 
3.1.3.3 Historic Compliance 
Initial lead and copper sampling began in Grants Pass in the fall of 1992. Since, lead and 
copper samples have been collected per Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act 
requirements. Action levels for lead and copper were not exceeded in any samples 
collected; monitoring requirements for the City have been reduced. 
Through treatment process optimization at the City's WTP, lead and copper 
concentrations have remained low since the adoption of the LCR. Using lime for pH 
adjustment, a target pH of 7.2 for LCR compliance has been maintained. The most recent 
measurements, taken on July 19, 2002, report 90th percentile values of 0.0050 mg/L and 
0.5270 mg/L, for lead and copper, respectively. These values are well below the current 
action levels for lead and copper. 
3.1.4 Inorganic Contaminants 
3.1.4.1 Regulatory History 
All of the original MCLs established for inorganic contaminants (IOCs) in the NPDWR 
have been replaced by subsequent regulations. Excepting arsenic, the MCLs for all 
regulated IOCs under the Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act were adopted from the 
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). MCLs for IOCs outlined in the Phases II 
(promulgated July 1, 1991) and Phase V (promulgated July 19, 1992) of the SDWA 
amended the Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act on June 6, 1992 and January 14, 1994, 
respectively. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-35 
00C336 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
Impacts of the recently adopted arsenic MCL are also discussed in this section, though 
compliance with this new MCL is not required until January 2006. The rule reduces the 
arsenic MCL from 50 ug/L to 10 ug/L. 
The intent of the Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act, with regard to IOCs, is to control 
the levels of minerals and metals in drinking water that create health concerns. For most 
IOCs, these health concerns result after long-term (lifetime) exposure to the compounds. 
However, the risks associated with nitrates are acute. Thus, additional monitoring 
requirements for nitrate/nitrite are included in Oregon law. 
3.1.4.2 Monitoring Requirements 
Monitoring requirements and MCLs for regulated IOCs are contained in Table 3-1. All 
community water systems that rely on surface water systems for source water, must 
sample quarterly for nitrate/nitrite. For water systems that contain asbestos-cement (AC) 
water pipes samples testing for asbestos fibers must be taken every nine years. 
Monitoring for and compliance with the new arsenic MCL is required by January 2006. 
Concentrations of all other IOCs must be measured annually. Quarterly follow-up testing 
is required for any contaminants that are detected. 
3.1.4.3 Historic Compliance 
The Grants Pass WTP has remained in compliance with regard to all IOC MCLs during 
the period evaluated. Excepting nitrate, no there are no detection of IOC on record at the 
DHS. Nitrate/Nitrite concentrations in the treated water average 0.9 mg/L-N; a 
maximum of 1.52 mg/L-N was recorded on March 7, 2001. 
Grants Pass has no record of installing of AC pipe; all historic concentrations of asbestos 
were below detection limits. 
Arsenic has not been historically detected in the raw water at concentrations above the 
detection limit. Thus, the recent changes to the arsenic MCL should not impact the 
Grants Pass WTP. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-23 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
3.1.5 Organic Contaminants 
3.1.5.1 Regulatory History 
All of the original MCLs established for organic contaminants, both volatile and 
synthetic, in the NPDWR have been replaced by subsequent regulations. MCLs for 53 
different organic contaminants under the Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act were 
adopted from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 
Phase I Regulations of the SDWA, promulgated in June 8, 1987, established MCLs for 
eight volatile organic chemicals (VOCs); these MCLs were adopted into Oregon Law 
November 13, 1989. Phase II Regulations were promulgated in July 1, 1991 and 
established final standards for 10 VOCs and 18 synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs). 
Phase V Regulations were promulgated on July 7, 1992 and included MCLs for three 
VOCs and 15 SOCs. 
3.1.5.2 Monitoring Requirements 
Monitoring requirements and MCLs for SOCs and VOCs are contained in Table 3-1. 
The City is required to sample VOCs annually and SOCs twice every 3 years. 
Quarterly follow-up testing is required for any contaminants that are detected. 
3.1.5.3 Historic Compliance 
No concentration of regulated VOCs or SOCs above the detection limit is on record 
between April 2000 and March 2003. 
3.1.6 Radiologic Contaminants 
3.1.6.1 Regulatory History 
The original MCLs adopted from the NPDWR by Oregon on September 24, 1982 are still 
in effect in the Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act today These rules were revised in 
October, 2002 to include a new MCL for Uranium, and to clarify and modify monitoring 
requirements. Together, these established MCLs seek to minimize the cancer risk 
associated with long-term exposure to six natural and man-made radiologic contaminants. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-24 
fi>OC 338 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
3.1.6.2 Monitoring Requirements 
Monitoring requirements and MCLs for Radiologic Contaminants are contained in Table 
3-1. Monitoring for radionuclides is required once every four years from surface water 
sources. If gross alpha is measured below 5 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), no radium 
analyses are required. Additionally, only systems with elevated risks (i.e. impacts by 
man-made radiation sources) must sample for beta/photon radiation. 
3.1.6.3 Historic Compliance 
The most recent radiologic samples were taken on November 9, 2000, no radiologic 
contaminants were present at concentrations above the detection level. Additional 
sampling for Radium/Uranium was performed on October 24, 2002, again, no radium or 
uranium was detected in the samples. Grants Pass has fully complied with all DHS 
radiologic standards. 
3.1.7 Federally Monitored Unregulated Contaminants 
3.1.7.1 Regulatory History 
The Direct Final Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule was published by the EPA in 
the March 12, 2002, Federal Register. The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA required 
EPA to promulgate revisions to the existing monitoring requirements for unregulated 
contaminants every 5 years. This Rule will not be adopted into Oregon's Drinking Water 
Quality Act as the rule will be enforced by the EPA. 
3.1.7.2 Monitoring Requirements 
The Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule includes a new list of contaminants to be 
monitored, procedures for selecting a national representative sample of public water 
systems and procedures for incorporating the monitoring results into the National 
Contaminant Occurrence Database. The contaminants for monitoring are divided into 
three lists; see Table 3-7. List 1 contaminants are to be monitored by all public water 
systems serving over 10,000 people and a smaller group of public water systems serving 
less than 10,000 people. List 2 contaminants are to be monitored by a representative 
group of 300 randomly chosen public water systems. List 3 is to be monitored at 200 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-10 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
"vulnerable" systems across the country. The EPA has not requested that Grants Pass 
monitor List 2 and List 3 contaminants. 
For chemical contaminants, surface water systems shall monitor quarterly for one year 
and ground water systems shall monitor two times six months apart. For microbiological 
contaminants, systems shall monitor twice, six months apart. For all chemical 
constituents in Lists 1 and 2, monitoring shall be conducted at the entry point to the 
distribution system. For microbiological contaminants in List 1, monitoring would be 
conducted near the end of the distribution system and at a representative site within the 
distribution system. Sampling was to be conducted over a year-long period from 2001 to 
2003. The Rule will be revised again in 2004. 
T A B L E 3-7: UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING RULE MONITORING LIST 
' Assessment Mon itòrihg of 
. • I MiéS.ods •/<=• 1 " 
n . Tpjc t. x . * vw i j -
. _._.._..._ •- • — • 
B p UST2 m ; • _ 
Screening Su ryey of Co n tajn| n a n ts 
Projected t o N f t ^ ^ B l i l ^ l ^ M ^ : 
Prog ra^ l r f i f^e mehtat io n 
LIST 3 
Pro-Screen Testing [of 
eofi tarnitia nts Needing 
Research on MStlibds 
(1) 2,4-dinitrotoluene (13) Diuron (29) Algae and toxins 
(2) 2,6-dinitrotoluene (14) Linuron (30) Echoviruses 
(3) DCPA mono acid (15) Prometon (31) Coxsackieviruses 
(4) DCPA di acid (16) 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (32) Helicobacter pylori 
(5) 4,4-DDE (17) 2,4-dichlorophenol (33) Microsporidia 
(6) EPTC (18) 2,4-dinitrophenol (34) Caliciviruses 
(7) Molinate (19) 2-methyl-1 -phenol (35) Adenoviruses 
(8) MTBE (20) Alachlor ESA (36) Lead-210 
(9) Nitrobenzene (21) 1,2-diphenylhydrazine (37) Polonium-210 
(10) Terbacil (22) Diazinon 
(11) Acetochlor (23) Disulfoton 
(12) Perchlorate (24) Fonofos 
(25) Terbufos 
(26) Aeromonas Hydrophila 
(27) Polonium 
(28) RDX 
3.1.7.3 Historic Compliance 
The City was only required by the EPA to sample for List 1 contaminants. Unregulated 
contaminant monitoring has been performed quarterly since 2001; the City has remained 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-26 
nor340 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
in compliance with Unregulated Contaminants monitoring requirements. None of the 
List 1 constituents were detected in the Grants Pass water system. 
3.2 FUTURE DRINKING WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS 
The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act required some new rules and 
changed the schedule for rules already under development. A summary of pending rules, 
estimates of the timetables for promulgation, and projected effects on the City of Grants 
Pass are presented below. Future regulations discussed herein include: 
• Long-Term Stage 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) 
• Stage 2 Disinfection By-Product Rule (Stage 2 D/DBPR) 
3.2.1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 
The purpose of the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (ESWTR) is to further 
improve the control of microbial pathogens in drinking water, especially 
Cryptosporidium. The ESWTR was split into 2 phases: Long Term 1 and Long Term 2. 
The final Long Term 1 ESWTR was published in November 2000. The Long Term 1 
ESWTR only applies to public water systems serving less than 10,000 people and 
therefore does not effect Grants Pass. The Long Term 2 ESWTR was proposed in 2001, 
with the final proposed rule published in July 2003. 
Compliance with the new rule will be tied to the availability of sufficient analytical 
capacity and the availability of software for transferring, storing and evaluating the 
results of all microbial analyses. The final agreement also requires EPA to develop 
support material and guidance manuals for the use of UV disinfection, a relatively new 
disinfection technology and listed as one of the "best available technologies" for 
Cryptosporidium inactivation in the rule. In addition, the final agreement indicates that 
systems will address the Stage 2-D/DBPR and the LT2ESWTR requirements 
concurrently to protect public health and optimize technology choice decisions. Thus, 
compliance with the new rule is expected between 2004 and 2011. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-27 
OOo341 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
3.2.1.1 Anticipated Compliance Requirements 
Many revisions to the LT2ESWTR have been made since the first publication. The most 
recent requirements that apply to the City of Grants Pass include: 
1. Further increase filtration and disinfection performance criteria for all systems; 
disinfection criteria based on system (i.e. raw water) vulnerability to microbial 
contaminants. Incorporate raw water Cryptosporidium into sampling regimen. 
2. Potential Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements. 
3. Incorporation of a multi-barrier disinfection strategy. 
To quantify system vulnerability, a 24-month intensive monitoring program for 
Cryptosporidium will be required to help classify plants into different source water 
concentration ranges (or "bins"); monitoring will need to begin in 2003-2004. For 
smaller systems, E. coli may serve as a possible indicator. To assist plants, a "Toolbox" 
of proven control measures for meeting treatment requirements will be available, 
including watershed control options, treatment options, filter performance, and challenge 
tests. Table 3-8 presents the proposed treatment requirements for conventional plants 
based on results from the monitoring program. 
T A B L E 3-8: L T 2 E S W T K TREATM ENT REQIJ I K KM ENTS FOR CONVENTIONAL PLANTS 
m t m • . -''¡¡iv1' 
y 
Sample Results . 
[# Crypto oocyst/L Raw Water) 
• - - .. .. p 'v 
Treatment Requirements 
Bin #1 < 0.075 No Additional Treatment Required 
Bin #2 0.0075-<1.0 1-log Reduction 
Bin #3 1 .0-3 .0 2-log reduction (1-log from disinfection) 
Bin #4 > 3.0 2.5-log reduction (1-log from disinfection) 
Non-disinfection related reduction can be achieved through one or more alternatives 
presented in the LT2ESWTR "Toolbox", below. 
• Watershed control - 0.5 log. 
• Alternative source/intake management - can get lower bin assignment. 
• Off-stream storage - 0.5 log, 1.0 log based on hydraulic residence time. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 P a g e 3-28 
W 3 4 2 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
• Pre-sedimentation basin (w/ coagulation) - 0.5 log 
• Lime softening - 0.5 log 
• Lower finished water turbidity - 0.5 log for CFE of 0.15 NTU (95% of the 
time), or 1.0 log for individual filter effluent less than/equal to 0.15 NTU 
(95% of the time). Cannot get credit for both. 
• Membranes - Challenge test. 
Surface water systems serving >10,000 people will need to conduct 24-months of 
continuous monitoring, plus one additional month, to determine the source water 
concentration of Cryptosporidium for a given system. In addition, the rule requires that 
two samples be submitted during the first round of sampling: a field sample and a matrix 
"spike". The matrix spike is a one-time sample used to quantify the methods detection 
levels for a particular water quality; the effectiveness of the method will vary according 
to raw water alkalinity, pH, turbidity, etc. This sample is "spiked" with a known 
concentration of Giardia/Cryptosporidium, and the recovery levels measured (the 
assumption is that the "background" levels of Giardia/Cryptosporidium are the same 
between the field and matrix "spike"). Recently, the Grants Pass Laboratory was 
approved for Cryptosporidium monitoring under the new rule (EPA Method 1623). 
In addition to raw water monitoring requirements, the LT2ESWTR will require all 
systems to perform disinfection profiling. Disinfection profiling was required for public 
water systems who measured TTHM or HAA5 levels in excess of 80-percent of the new 
MCLs (>0.064 mg/L and/or >0.048 mg/L for TTHM and HAA5, respectively), during 
preliminary testing as part of the Interim ESWTR. The specific requirements for 
disinfection profiling were previously discussed in this report (Section 3.1.1). The City 
will need to work with DHS to establish an annual disinfection profile based on future 
modifications to the disinfection through the WTP to meet the new LT2ESWTR 
requirements, if any. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-10 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
3.2.1.2 Implications for the Grants Pass WTP 
The City began the 24-month Cryptosporidium monitoring program in the Rogue River 
in September 2003. Results from this sampling effort are summarized in Table 3-9. 
T A B L E 3-9: L T 2 E S W T R BIN CLASSIFICATION FOR GRANTS PASS 
m i § 
Giardia cysts' 
(# cyst/L) 
. $ "• • -
' - ; ì -a -
Cryptosporidium 
oocysts1'2 
LT2ESWTR Bin 
CÌassifìcation3 
9/16/03 3.2 0.10 Bin #2 
10/27/03 0.4 <0.0754 Bin #1 
11/12/03 0.8 <0.0754 Bin #1 
12/9/03 0.5 0.20 Bin #2 
1/13/04 0.3 <0.0754 Bin #1 
2/10/04 0.1 0.10 Bin #2 
3/9/04 0.6 <0.0754 Bin #1 
'Includes empty cysts, cysts/oocysts with amorphous structure and cysts/oocysts with internal structure. 
Processed according to EPA Method 1623 for Detecting Giardia Cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts. 
3lf the monthly results were equal to the 12-month RAA reported to the State. 
'Detection limit for Method 1623 
Based on the limited sampling data, it appears unlikely that the Rogue River contains 
Cryptosporidium oocysts at concentrations above the upper limit for Bin #2 classification 
(1.0 oocysts/L); the Grants Pass WTP will likely fall into either Bin #1 or Bin #2. 
Twenty-four months of sampling will need to be performed prior to Bin classification. 
If the City is placed into Bin #2, treatment requirements under the new rule can be met 
via operational improvements at the plant. More rigid standards for individual filtered 
water turbidity (<0.10 NTU 95% of the time) will account for the required 1.0-log 
additional removal treatment requirement. Currently, individual filter effluent turbidities 
average 0.12 NTU, and range from 0.056 to 0.148 NTU (see Figure 2-15). Filter 
improvements may be required to enhance filter performance in the future, if media loss 
continues over time. To better prepare for the LT2ESWTR, the installation of particle 
counters on the individual filter effluent lines is recommended to better understand the 
removal of particles/pathogenic organisms through the WTP, and to better predict 
turbidity breakthrough. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-30 
344 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
Classification of Bin #3 or Bin #4 is highly unlikely based on the above results. 
However, if Grants Pass is classified in Bin #3 or Bin #4 and therefore required to 
inactivate for Cryptosporidium, installation of a disinfectant stronger than chlorine (e.g. 
ozone, chlorine dioxide, ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, etc.) may be necessary, as chlorine 
is a relatively ineffective disinfectant for Cryptosporidium. Alternatives for 
Cryptosporidium inactivation are discussed in Section 6 of this report. Improvements to 
address future disinfection compliance are recommended as a "place holder" for planning 
purposes, until sufficient data can be collected to verify the need for such improvements. 
3.2.2 Stage 2—Disinfection By-Products Rule 
The purpose of the Stage 2 Disinfection By-product (D/DBP) Rule is to further reduce 
health risks associated with disinfection by-products. The draft was released in February 
2001. A Final Stage 2 Rule was expected in the Fall 2003, but has now been delayed 
until 2004 at the earliest. Compliance with the new Rule is expected by May 2008. 
3.2.2.1 Anticipated Compliance Requirements 
For Grants Pass, compliance with the proposed Stage 2-D/DBP Rule is expected to occur 
in several Phases, as described below: 
• Monitoring: Monitoring location requirements for DBPs will change to sites 
representing peak levels (i.e. maximum water age) within the distribution 
system, as identified in an Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE); 
Grants Pass will need to work with DHS to complete an IDSE. A one year 
monitoring program including sampling every sixty days, including the peak 
historic month, will be required for surface water systems serving greater than 
10,000. Compliance with these new monitoring locations is expected in 2004. 
• Phase I: Meet locational running annual average (LRAA) for DBPs at each 
new sample point identified as part of the IDSE for TTHM and HAA5 
concentrations of 0.120 mg/L and 100 mg/L, respectively. Calculating LRAA 
entails averaging the quarterly annual results for each individual monitoring 
site, and reporting results from the monitoring site with the highest LRAA. 
Compliance with Phase I is expected in May 2005. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-31 
n<>0345 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
• Phase II: Meet LRAA at each sampling point identified as part of the IDSE 
for TTHM and HAA5 concentrations of 0.080 mg/L and 0.060 mg/L, 
respectively. Compliance with Phase II is expected in May 2008 or in May 
2010 with a 2-year extension. 
3.2.2.2 Implications for the Grants Pass WTP 
To help estimate the implications of the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule on the Grants Pass WTP, 
LRAAs were calculated from the historical data, when possible. Table 3-10 presents the 
results of this analysis, as well as the quarterly annual averages currently reported to 
DHS. 
T A B L E 3-10: RECENT RESULTS FROM T T H M / H A A 5 MONITORING, Q A A AND L R A A 
RESULTS 
Sampling Dates ' ; 
• • • • • • % 
Locational Running 
Annual Average2 
TTHM 
11/24/03 mg/L 0.041 0.056 
9/8/03 mg/L 0.042 0.059 
6/19/03 mg/L 0.040 0.060 
3/17/03 mg/L 0.039 0.064 
11/20/02 mg/L 0.032 0.055 
HAA5 
11/24/03 mg/L 0.041 0.045 
9/8/03 mg/L 0.042 0.046 
6/19/03 mg/L 0.042 0.046 
3/17/03 mg/L 0.042 0.048 
11/20/02 . . . „ mg/L 0.034 0.042 'As currently reported to DHS under the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule 
2Based on Merlin Landfill data, as might be reported to DHS under the future Stage 2 D/DBP Rule; values need to be 
confirmed following monitoring results from new sites identified under the ISDE. 
Based on the results in Table 3-10, the Grants Pass WTP should be able to achieve future 
Phase I MCLs (0.120 mg/L and 0.100 mg/L for TTHM and HAA5, respectively), as well 
as Phase II MCLs (0.080 mg/L and 0.060 mg/L for TTHM and HAA5, respectively). 
However, several issues may impact these measured DBP concentrations in the future, 
including: 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-23 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
• Additions to the distribution system at the "ends" of the system may increase 
the overall "age" of the water in the distribution system at the outer reaches. 
• The current monitoring sites include one site, the Merlin Landfill, that 
probably represents the maximum DBP concentrations in the distribution 
system. LRAAs from the Merlin Landfill were presented in Table 3-10. 
However, locations with higher levels of DBPs may be identified as new 
monitoring sites under the IDSE. Until the IDSE is completed and new 
monitoring sites are identified, the possibility of measuring higher DBP levels 
in the distribution system exists. 
Impacts from these and other future changes affecting detention time in the distribution 
system should be closely monitored. Improvements to address future DBP regulatory 
compliance is recommended as a "place holder" for planning purposes, until sufficient 
data can be collected to verify the need for such improvements. 
3.3 OTHER COMPLIANCE ISSUES 
3.3.1 NPDES Discharge Permit 
Plant solids from waste washwater, filter-to-waste and the sedimentation basins are 
collected/consolidated in one sludge lagoon (Medco Mill Pond) located across the street 
from the WTP. This sludge lagoon discharges decant/overflow into Skunk Creek and 
eventually into the Rogue River. An NPDES permit was issued for this discharge stream. 
Historic compliance with NPDES permit requirements has been maintained during the 
four-year period evaluated for this report. However, the lagoon is currently "at capacity" 
(i.e. full) and needs to be cleaned; potential short-circuiting through the lagoon is 
threatening the release of solids and/or chlorine into Skunk Creek, which would be in 
violation of the current NPDES permit. 
Improvements to ensure continued compliance with the NPDES permit for both 
immediate dredging needs, as well as long-term solids handling improvements, are 
discussed in detail in Section 6 of this report. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-33 
0 0 0 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
3.3.2 Intake and Screen 
Recent environmental regulations have been promulgated to protect threatened and 
endangered species including several anadromous fish (salmon and steelhead) which 
populate the Rogue River. These new rules include specific requirements for river 
intakes and diversions to avoid the potential "take" of these species, especially juvenile 
fish. Important features of an acceptable intake system include maximum approach 
velocity, maximum screen opening size and a sweeping velocity to ensure that juvenile 
fish are not trapped in front of the intake. 
When passing more than 9.2 mgd through the single intake opening at the Grants Pass 
WTP, the new criteria for approach velocity is exceeded. Since the plant rarely operates 
at instantaneous rates less than 10 mgd (2 pumps running), the approach velocity criteria 
is always exceeded. The existing travelling screen opening size is slightly exceeded and 
the sweeping velocity is not acceptable. A detailed analysis of the intake facilities for the 
WTP are summarized in a Technical Memorandum (TM) entitled Review of Rogue River 
Intake and Pump Station (MWH, 2003), and is included in Appendix D. Alternatives for 
improving the intake to meet existing and future regulatory requirements presented in the 
TM are summarized in Section 6 of this report. 
3.4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
In general, the Grants Pass WTP has consistently met all existing water quality 
regulations. One to three years of additional water quality monitoring will be required to 
determine the impacts from near-term, future requirements regarding disinfection 
efficiencies (CT), Cryptosporidium removal/inactivation and disinfection byproducts 
(DBPs). Areas to analyze further and perhaps make capital and/or operational and 
maintenance improvements include: 
• Tracking TOC removal through the treatment plant, 
• Further optimization of chlorine residuals and CT through the plant, 
• Update Disinfection Profile based on disinfection adjustments (i.e. location of 
pH adjustment, increased chlorine residual through the Basins, etc.), 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-34 
00(1348 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
• Continue raw water quality monitoring of Cryptosporidium, and 
• Complete IDSE and increase DBP monitoring frequency in the distribution 
system. Coordinate DBP sampling with TOC sampling to better 
understand/quantify impacts of TOC on DBP formation. 
A summary of additional water quality monitoring and treatment requirements resulting 
from existing and future regulations are listed in Table 3-11. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-35 
00C349 
REGULATORY REVIEW 
T A B L E 3-11: ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND TREATMENT 
REQUIREMENTS 
Regulation ' Additional Requirements 
Existing Regulations 
Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act (OHS 448 - Water Systems) 
Microbial Contaminants • No additional requirements 
Disinfectants and Disinfection By-
products 
• Incorporate daily UV2m monitoring as a 
surrogate for TOC to better quantify TOC 
removal through the plant. 
• Begin monthly monitoring of raw water 
TOC, coordinate sampling with DBP 
sampling efforts. 
• Increase DBP monitoring frequency to one 
month to better quantify impacts of pre-
chlorination on DBP formation. 
Lead and Copper • No additional requirements 
Inorganic Chemicals • No additional requirements 
Organic Chemicals • No additional requirements. 
Radiologic Contaminants • No additional requirements 
Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule • No additional requirements 
Future Regulations 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule • Raw water sampling regimen to determine 
raw water vulnerability to microbial 
contamination. 
• Include Cryptosporidium sampling in raw 
water. Based on vulnerability, plant may 
need to meet more strict filtered effluent 
turbidities (<0.10 NTU 95% of the time). 
Particle counters may be required to better 
monitor particle removal through the plant. 
• Perform Disinfection Profiling 
Stage 2—Disinfection By-Products Rule • Work with DHS to develop IDSE for future 
monitoring to better understand compliance 
issues associated with the Stage 2 D/DBP 
Rule. 
a Changes in DBP sampling monitoring 
frequency, location and compliance 
reporting. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 3-36 
CKX 350 
<0 
"H (B 
CD 
£ 
O 
'-M 
> 
I co 
CL +5 
h- O > « > C 
<n 
« 
3 Û-
U- c 
(0 
G) o 
(0 o 
o t s 
o «-» 
(0 
ï 
co o o 
CM 1 
O) 
O) o» 
TJ "O <D 0) 
> . t •S> 3 x: o-u ® < £ 
• 
• • 
¿ * L 1 
* 
»• • 
V 
i 
* £ 
v ; V** * i Jt . 
. ' V i V 
« s 
t 
i :«* 
V» • 
V C 
A ' V 
• t i - < 
fe 
- * 
JM-
t . . ? 
i . . * * * » * 
T ^ í 
* .•« 
* « !» 
k* • • 
Î . «c 
• V 
; r : 
• » • 
• i * . 
•V 
- : i» 
• * i < ¿ v 
J l 
• ü 1 
M i a : 
I 
t » 
i « 
i ra 
N 
9 
CM 
9 3 
£ 
9 c ra 
1 O 
a. < 
t 
S «o Q 
1 o 
to m m fN 
2 
£ 
§ 
t5 O 
oí cu 
2 
O) 
O) 
è 
ra 
uoi)eA!)oeu| 6o-j 
> > 351 
CO i o 
Hd ìUB|d-u| 
2 
'•V im 
ra 
Ö 
O) o 
T 
IO 
O 
O O o 
5 m £ H 
o a 
2 E 
<D 
O » -+-• ~— 
"O C 
a> o 
CM 
¿ g . =5 CT r-
© O g 
3 i . ü 
O I * ¡ L 
i l g S 
3 ' C 
h-"O T- Oí 
E 
Ä m k. 
5 o 
iou_ 
"" (O 
O O c 10 
c 
s CO (fi 
•«- c 
352 
Hd îUB|d"U| 
•'WC 353 
Hd ïUB|d-U| 
m mj5 
co 
Ö 
O) o 
T 
IO ^ 
O O 
5 °IO 
« T -
> II 
t> a S E 
.E o 
o b 
O) 
E « 
2 
5 
o 
mu. 
3 O ffl c « 
c CO 
C O « 
r" c 
©01354 
Capacity Review 
. -i-yv-iA < t • •wmmmmmmummm •• i mm •• * s .tu»-»"' . • •> •- aaoa 
00 C355 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
4 C A P A C I T Y R E V I E W 
A review of the capacity of the Grants Pass WTP was performed to determine the current 
capacity and possible future capacity given the constraints and limitations of each process 
and the interconnected system as a whole. Each process or support system will have its 
own process capacity relative to certain design or operating criteria/parameters which are 
independent of other unit processes. The hydraulic capacity is related to the piping, 
pumping, volume and flow control systems, which limit the ability of the water to flow 
through the interconnected system as whole. Each type of capacity is discussed and 
evaluated herein. 
4.1 HYDRAULIC CAPACITY EVALUATION 
The Grants Pass WTP can currently pump a maximum instantaneous flow rate of 
approximately 20 mgd, both into and from the WTP. The plant currently operates on a 
daily start/stop basis, as necessary, to fill storage reservoirs in the distribution system. 
Therefore, the operating schedule fluctuates with seasonal demands. During the winter 
months, the plant generally operates seven days per week, for an eight-hour period at 
instantaneous flowrates of either 10 or 15 mgd. Operational hours are extended during 
the high demand summer months, when the plant must operate in excess of twelve hours 
daily at flowrates of either 15 or 20 mgd in order to meet system demands. 
Based on this information, the 20 mgd maximum capacity was used for shorter-term 
planning upgrades at the existing plant site. As demands continue to increase, the plant 
will have to operate for longer durations. As peak day demands approach 20 mgd, the 
existing plant will need to be expanded and/or an alternative site will need to be 
developed for adding more treatment capacity. Alternatively, aquifer storage and 
recovery (ASR), if technically feasible, could be implemented to meet peak demands in 
order to defer an expansion. Capacity expansion alternatives are discussed in detail in 
Section 6 of this report. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-1 
0 0 , 3 5 6 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
This section of the report evaluates the existing plant hydraulic capacity and analyzes its 
ability to possibly accept higher flow rates. Potential "bottlenecks" to hydraulic capacity 
expansion are identified and suggested improvements are mentioned if they appear to be 
feasible. The hydraulic capacity evaluation needs to be integrated with the process 
capacity evaluation to determine the range of feasible options for maintaining and 
possibly increasing the reliable plant production capacity. 
4.1.1 Existing Hydraulic Profile 
Figure 4.1 presents the hydraulic profile of the plant developed during the design of the 
1983 expansion/upgrade for a maximum instantaneous flow of 20 mgd. The key 
hydraulic control features of the plant include: 
• River water levels and intake pumping capacity 
• Hydraulic capacity of the 36-inch raw water pipeline and chemical mixing vault 
• Hydraulic capacity of the 24-inch pipeline delivering water to the Mixing 
Basin/Influent Channels to Basins #1 and #2, and the 30-inch and 24-inch 
pipeline capacity to Basins #3 
• Hydraulic capacity of the overflow weirs in Basins #1, #2 and #3 
• Hydraulic capacity of the pipe spools-delivering water from the Basins to the 
filters 
• Filter and pipe gallery hydraulics, including minimum water level inside the 
filters, for optimum performance and adequate available headloss for filter 
operations 
• Filter underdrain and piping system capacity to the clearwell 
• High service pumping capacity from the clearwell into the distribution system 
• Finished water pipeline capacity to the distribution system 
• Backwash piping and pumping capacity 
• Washwater and Solids Handling 
Hydraulic capacity issues associated with each of these features is described in detail 
below. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-11 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
4.1.2 Intake and Raw Water Pumping Capacity 
The existing intake was constructed in the 1983 when the plant was expanded and 
upgraded to replace an older intake located immediately upstream. The intake is 
equipped with 4 identical 75 hp vertical turbine pumps (Worthington 15HH-340); the 
design operating condition for each pump is 3,200 gpm at 65 feet total dynamic head 
(TDH), for a design total of 18.4 mgd. The actual TDH values are considerably lower 
than this design point, therefore the pumps have the ability to pump higher flows up to 
the current observed maximum of 20 mgd. Following the 2001-02 SCADA system 
improvements, raw water flows with all four pumps on-line are approximately 20 mgd. 
The intake was constructed with space for two additional pumps and with two submerged 
openings to the river, but only one opening is equipped with a travelling screen. The 
other intake opening is currently equipped with a fixed screen and is normally sealed off 
from the river. Space is available to add another travelling screen for this opening if so 
desired. 
The existing intake opening appears to be too small to meet the current minimum 
approach velocity requirements to protect juvenile salmonid fish species, when pumping 
at rates greater than 10 mgd. Detailed discussion of the hydraulic and regulatory 
limitations of the intake screen, and improvement options, is presented in Appendix D. 
There is currently no reliability/redundancy in the raw water pumps at flows of 20 mgd 
(i.e. with all pumps on-line). Therefore, according to current planning and operating 
conventions within the water industiy, we would define the firm, reliable pumping 
capacity to be 15 mgd, assuming one pump is out of service. The plant will need to 
increase its pumping capacity to reliably deliver raw water to the WTP once demands 
exceed 15 mgd. As previously mentioned, there is room for two additional raw water 
pumps at the intake facility. Assuming two pumps of similar capacity (approximately 5 
mgd each) are installed, the firm pumping capacity can be increased to 25 mgd, with a 
maximum pumping capacity of approximately 30 mgd, without significant modifications 
to the existing intake facility and electrical support system. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-24 
3 5 8 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
Plant flow rates are currently defined by the number of raw water pumps on-line at any 
one time, and are therefore limited to increments of approximately 5 mgd. For increased 
flow control through the plant, installation of a variable frequency drives (VFD) on a 
minimum of one existing raw water pumps is recommended, two is preferred for 
reliability. Improved plant control will allow for greater operator flexibility and 
treatment optimization in the future. 
4.1.3 Raw Water Pipeline/Channel Capacity to the Basins 
The raw water pumps discharge into an underground 36-inch raw water pipeline which 
exits the intake facility to the north for approximately 5-feet, then bears east for 
approximately 20-feet, where water is introduced into a metering/chemical 
injection/static mix vault. Immediately following the vault, water flows through the 36-
inch pipeline split between one 24-inch pipeline (delivering water to the slow-mixing 
basin and eventually to Basins #1 and #2), and one 30-inch pipeline. This 30-inch 
pipeline also splits into two 24-inch pipelines, one providing water to Basin #3, the 
second is currently blind flanged, and was included for plant expansion, presumably to 
carry approximately 10 mgd to a 4th basin. A small vault containing a flow control valve 
and meter (not currently in use) is located along the 24-inch pipeline prior to Basin #3. A 
combination of manually actuated valves is used to control the flow split between the 
three existing basins. 
Pertinent design factors for the existing raw water pipelines are presented in Table 4-1. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-26 
^ 0 0 0 3 5 9 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
T A B L E 4-1: RAW WATER PIPELINE VELOCITIES AND HEADLOSS 
Plant Flow (mgd) ' , , , •=, 
• 
. Velocity' JSf V-72g 1 | 
(fps) « B s •• (ft) m l - ;Wiooft) , 
36-inch 
15 3.28 0.17 0.08 
20 4.38 0.30 0.14 
25 5.47 0.46 0.22 
30 6.57 0.67 0.29 
30-inch 
10 3.15 0.15 0.09 
15 4.73 0.35 0.20 
20 6.30 0.62 0.36 
25 7.88 0.96 0.57 
24-inch 
6 2.95 0.14 0.10 
8 3.94 0^24 0.17 
10 4.92 0.38 0.29 
12 5.91 0.54 0.41 
15 7.39 0.85 0.60 
As shown in the table, velocities through the 36-inch raw water pipeline exceed 6.0 fps at 
flows of approximately 27.5 mgd. Normally, for raw water pipelines exiting a pumping 
station, the maximum recommended velocity is 6.0 fps due to surge control concerns 
(water hammer) and pipe protection constraints. The specific piping network and 
operating conditions would need to be modeled to determine exact conditions and 
concerns. However, it is possible to tolerate higher flows given the relatively short 
segment of 36-inch pipe prior to the static mix, but a hydraulic modeling effort is 
required to confirm these scenarios and to determine pumping requirements. Also, the 
headloss associated with additional flow through the existing pipelines will ultimately 
raise the system TDH, reducing the capacity of the raw water pump station. To account 
for this, the City should consider slightly over-sizing any future raw water pumps to 
compensate for this increased headloss. 
Velocities through the two 24-inch pipelines are a function of the flow split to each of the 
Basins. Basin #3 was designed to handle 8 mgd, or 40-percent of the plant flow at 20 
mgd; the remaining 12 mgd is diverted to Basins #1 and #2. As shown in Table 4-1, at 
approximately 12 mgd, the velocities through these pipelines approach 6 fps, the 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 p a g e 4.5 
O O C 3 G O 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
maximum recommended velocity for a raw water pipeline. Therefore, the 24-inch 
pipeline leading to Basins #1 and #2 is currently "at capacity"; the 24-inch pipeline 
leading to Basin #3 may have an additional 4 mgd capacity before velocity criteria is 
exceeded. The 30-inch pipeline can tolerate flows of approximately 19 mgd before the 6 
fps velocity criteria is exceeded. 
As previously mentioned, flow splitting between the Basins is currently achieved by 
manually "throttling" a combination of valves along the raw water pipeline. Since 
adjustments to these valves are difficult to make, the valve settings were determined 
during maximum flow (i.e. 20 mgd) where they normally remain during all plant flow 
conditions. Therefore, the flow split is variable at flows less than 20 mgd. For increased 
operator control and flexibility, it is recommended that thé existing Basin #3 flowmeter 
(currently out of service) be replaced with magnetic type flowmeter, less vulnerable to 
interference resulting from suspended solids (coagulated particles, sand) and more 
appropriate for "buried" application. Once a meter that operates properly is installed on 
this pipeline, manual valve adjustments to account for flow are more practical. 
In general, in-line static mixers should be designed to provide between 1 to 3 seconds of 
mixing and a maximum headloss of 2 to 3 feet across the unit (imparting a mixing 
energy, or "GxT" = 3xl04 to 2xl05). The degree of mixing and the mixing time are 
directly related to the raw water flow rate through the static mixer. There is limited 
information on the type and design criteria for the existing static mixer on record; it is 
assumed that the static mixer was designed to provide optimal mixing between 5 and 20 
mgd (the current range of plant flows). Record drawings indicate the existing static 
mixer is 36-inches in diameter and approximately 8-feet long. At 20 mgd (or 4.38 fps 
through a 36-inch pipe), the current mixing time is approximately 1.8 seconds. At 30 
mgd (or 6.57 fps through a 36-inch pipe), mixing time will be reduced to approximately 
1.2 seconds, slightly higher than the minimum recommended mixing time of 1 second. 
However, at these higher flowrates, headloss through the static mixer will increase 
significantly, raising the overall TDH and decreasing the capacity of the raw water pump 
station. Efforts to better understand the mixing energies imparted at various flow rates 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-11 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
should be taken prior to plant expansion above 20 mgd (the assumed design point for the 
existing static mixer). 
The slow-mixing basin upstream of Basins #1 and #2 is currently not in use. However, 
two "flow through" baffle walls originally installed to ensure equal flow distribution 
between basins are still intact. These baffle walls create 3 to 5 inches of additional 
headloss through the basins that, if removed, may allow for a minor increase in hydraulic 
capacity to Basins #1 and #2. However, adjustments to the basin influent mud valves 
will need to be made to ensure proper flow split following baffle removal. 
4.1.4 Basins and Filter Influent Channel 
Section 2.4.2 discussed the design features of the three existing contact basins, each of 
slightly different size and shape. These basins were designed for a total combined 
hydraulic capacity of approximately 20 mgd. As discussed, these basins provide chlorine 
contact time for disinfection and efficient solids settling during most of the year. There 
are no provisions for continuous solids removal; the basins need to be manually cleaned 
periodically when the plant can afford to take a basin out of service. Settled water flows 
from all three contact basins via the launders into a filter influent channel located at the 
north end of the basins. This channel is continuous at the effluent of Basins #1 and #2, a 
30-inch pipe connects the channel at the effluent of Basin #3 with that of Basin #1 and 
#2. 
The normal water elevation in the basins is approximately 935.38 feet at 20 mgd with a 
triangular launder weir invert elevation of approximately 935.17 feet, according to field 
measurements taken during the plant survey (July 29th, 2003). The bottoms of the 
launder troughs are approximately elevation 932.67 feet. 
The current water level in the basins is relatively high (i.e., little freeboard, particularly in 
Basins #1 and #2), leaving little room for additional flow in the Basins. The contact 
basins may be able to handle combined flows up to 30 mgd (approximately 12 to 15 mgd 
for Basins #1 and #2, and 15 to 18 mgd for Basin #3), at least hydraulically. This 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-7 
0 0 C 3 6 2 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
approach could eliminate the need to add any more pretreatment basins if they can be 
properly designed for good pretreatment performance. However, this would require 
significant improvement to the process and hydraulics within each basin. Alternatives for 
basin expansion and improvements are discussed in detail in Section 6 of this report. 
However, a detailed hydraulic analysis is recommended in the future if/when the City is 
interested in "pushing" flows in excess of 20 mgd through the existing basins. 
Water flows from all three basins via the launders into the filter influent channel at the 
north end of the basins. This channel is 2-feet wide by 5-feet high for Basins #2 and #3 
(equivalent to a 36-inch diameter pipe), and transitions to a 1 '/i-feet wide by 5-feet high 
channel in front of Basin #1 (i.e. south of Filters 1 through 3). As previously mentioned, 
the channel is continuous north of Basins #1 and #2; a 30-inch pipeline connects the 
channel from Basin #3 to that of Basins #1 and #2. The channel/pipeline adequately 
distributes water from the basins to the filters at flows up to 20 mgd. No hydraulic 
deficiencies were reported when one basin was taken off-line for cleaning. However, 
hydraulic limitations may exist in channel and/or the "hard-pipe" portion connecting the 
two portions of the filter influent channel at flows in excess of 20 mgd. The hydraulics 
associated with the filter influent channel/pipeline should be considered if/when the City 
performs a detailed hydraulic analysis to "push" flows in excess of 20 mgd through the 
basins. 
Water from the filter influent channel is conveyed into the filters via a submerged pipe 
and gate valve (one for each filter). These valves are 16-inch for Filters 1 through 3, and 
18-inch for Filters 4 through 8. These valves do not appear to create excessive headloss 
at flows of 20 mgd, based on water levels measured during the plant tour conducted on 
July 28th, 2003. 
4.1.5 Filters and Filter Effluent Piping 
Section 2.4.3 provides basic design information for the filters. Water typically enters the 
filter area via the troughs to achieve a normal filter operating level of 934.1 to 934.3 feet. 
A filter effluent modulating valve is used to maintain this water level; as headloss 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-8 
0 0 v. 3 6 3 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
increases, the valve opens. This water level provides 3.9 to 4.3 feet of submergence over 
the top of the filter media. The water flows down through the media, gravel and 
underdrains, and then out an effluent pipe into the filter gallery. The filtered water flows 
through the effluent pipe, an orifice plate flowmeter, a modulating butterfly valve and 
then into the filter effluent channel below the pipe gallery. Filter effluent pipeline 
diameters are 16-inch for Filters 1 through 3 and 6 through 8, and 18-inch for Filters 5 
and 6; this pipe also delivers backwash water into the filter. The normal water level in 
the filter effluent channel is between 920.96 and 922.93 feet (per 1983 plant expansion 
drawings, CH2M Hill), which provides a total filter driving head of approximately 13 
feet. Terminal headloss is currently set at 7.5 feet. As discussed in Section 2.4.3, the 
filters are currently operated at a relatively high filtration rate, particularly when one filter 
is out of service. Additional filters will need to be added to provide a plant capacity > 20 
mgd future demands. Minor filtration rate and filter flow increases may be tolerated with 
deeper media. 
The location of the existing filter effluent meters currently prohibits the metering of 
filter-to-waste, and may contribute to particulate "surge" when transitioning from FTW to 
production mode. Also, requirements for straight-pipe both upstream and downstream of 
the meter are not met, reducing the accuracy of the meter. During the plant tour on July 
28th, 2003, the sum of the individual filter effluent meters was approximately 20% less 
than the flow determined by the raw water flowmeter. The filter effluent meters also 
rely on approximately 9 to 12 inches of headloss across the orifice plate to measure flow. 
If this head was available for filtration, filter run lengths could be increased 
approximately 10 to 15 percent longer than those currently achieved at the plant. 
Therefore, it is recommended that the meters be eventually relocated and replaced with 
meters that don't induce headloss (magnetic or ultrasonic meters, for example). 
4.1.6 Clearwell 
The clearwell at the WTP is comprised of three interconnected clearwells, one located 
under each group of filters and built at different times. A common filtered water channel 
currently routes all filtered water to the east clearwell (located beneath Filters 1 through 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-16 
0'-) - 3 6 4 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
3), where it is chlorinated, then directed through a series of serpentine baffles through the 
center and west clearwells and finally to the finished water pump area in the west 
clearwell. The ciearwell provides finished water storage, disinfection contact time and 
stored water for filter backwashing in addition to serving as the wetwell for the high 
service and backwash pumps. The clearwell overflow weir is in the north west corner of 
the west clearwell, beneath Filter 6 through 8. The overflow water is discharged into a 
square concrete structure located north of the new filter pipe gallery (near Filter 8), 
before it flows via a 36-inch pipeline connected to the 36-inch plant drain (which leads to 
the washwater and solids equalization basin). This drain pipe should be sufficient to 
handle clearwell overflows up to 20 mgd; improvements to the clearwell overflow and 
drain pipe may be required if/when the capacity at the plant is expanded. 
The total volume of the clearwell is estimated at 433,000 at the overflow weir (Water 
Filtration Plant O&M Manual, CH2MHill, 1983). Based on limited construction 
drawings, the minimum floor elevation is 907.54 feet, but drops to an elevation of 
approximately 906.0 feet in the pumping area to allow greater use of the entire clearwell 
volume. The elevation of the overflow weir is 923.04 feet. According to plant staff, the 
current minimum operating water elevation is 920.5 feet to ensure adequate detention 
time for disinfection and to provide minimum pump bowl submergence. 
During normal operating conditions, the high service pumps operate to maintain a 
relatively constant clearwell level (approximately 922.9 feet); two of the high service 
pumps are equipped with VFDs to account for this flow variability. When a filter is 
backwashing, the high service pumping rate can be reduced to maintain the clearwell 
level above 920.0 feet. Typically, a maximum of 70,000 gallons of water is used for 
backwashing the largest filters (Filters 5 and 6), representing approximately 1.5 feet 
decrease in clearwell level. 
The nominal clearwell volume at maximum operating level (921 14 feet) is 362,000 
gallons and the average detention time is 21.8 minutes at 20 mgd. The clearwell has 
limited storage for consecutive filter backwashes. Flows from the High Service Pump 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-10 
ooe 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
Station must be adjusted to minimize clearwell drawdown during periods of consecutive 
filter backwashes to ensure reliable high service pumping and to meet CT requirements. 
MWH typically recommends a minimum clearwell volume of 60 minutes of detention 
time at peak flow rate, assuming the distribution system has an abundance of storage. At 
the existing 20 mgd peak rate, this 1-hour criteria would result in a minimum clearwell 
volume of 830,000 gallons; the existing 433,000 gallon clearwell represents 52 percent of 
this recommended minimum volume. .If the plant's capacity is expanded to greater than 
20 mgd, it is recommended that the clearwell capacity also be increased to meet CT . At 
30 mgd using the 1-hour criteria, the suggested minimum clearwell volume is 1,250,000 
gallons. Detailed discussion regarding clearwell improvements for future expansion are 
presented in Section 6. 
4.1.7 High Service Pump Station 
The WTP is equipped with 5 vertical turbine, high service pumps including: 
• Two large pumps, each rated at 4,000 gpm (5.8 mgd) at 210-feet TDH, with 300 
Hp motors 
• Two medium pumps, each rated at 3,500 gpm (5.0 mgd) at 210-feet TDH, with 
250 Hp motors (one with W D installed in 2003) 
• One small pump, rated at 2,600 gpm (3.7 mgd) at 210-feet TDH, with 250 Hp 
VFD motor installed in 2002 
The four larger pumps were installed as part of the 1983 plant expansion project. The 
original pump station layout provided for seven high service pumps total (with space for 
one backwash pump). So, there is room for two additional high service and/or backwash 
pumps. The pumps can be turned on and off from the SCADA system, based on the 
distribution system demands and storage conditions. Operators use the VFDs to control 
plant output to maintain relatively "constant" clearwell level. The existing high service 
pump conditions are as follows: 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-11 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
• Static water pressure is approximately 70 to 80 psi 
• Operating pressures range from 70 psi to 102 psi, according to plant staff. 
• Actual pump TDH ranges from 160 to 240 feet, including the lift out of the 
clearwell. 
According to current planning and operating conventions within the water industry, we 
would define the firm, reliable pumping capacity to be approximately 16.7 mgd assuming 
one of the largest installed pumps is out of service. The plant will have to increase its 
pumping capacity to reliably deliver treated water from the WTP to the distribution 
system as peak day demands approach 16 mgd. There should be at least one more pump 
added to increase the reliable pumping capacity to approximately 20 mgd. At least two 
pumps should have VFDs for increased reliability. Increased flow control will allow for 
greater operator flexibility and disinfection optimization in the future. 
Assuming both available pump spaces are filled with new high service pumps, all of the 
plant's total pumping capacity can probably remain located in the existing High Service 
Pump Room at plant flows up to 30 mgd. There are a number of options for increasing 
the pumping capacity to meet these future demands; alternatives for pumping expansion 
are discussed further in Section 6. 
4.1.8 Finished Water Pipeline 
The high service pumps discharge into a 36-inch finished water pipeline which exits the 
building to the north, then bears north north-east before connecting to the distribution 
system south of "M" Street. An 18-inch connection links this transmission pipeline to 
the on-site surge tank, buried underground, north of Filter 6. The 36-inch pipeline splits 
to two 30-inch pipes, one continues north north-east, then bears east along "M" Street, 
the second bears west, then south, crossing the Rogue River. Pertinent design factors for 
the existing 36-inch pipe are presented in Table 4-2. 
r ^ 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-10 
O O C 3 6 7 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
T A B L E 4-2: FINISHED WATER PIPELINE VELOCITIES AND HEADLOSS 
Plant R o w (mgd) g j 
I K S 
U r * - i m | . Headloss (ft/100 ft) 
36-inch 
15 3.28 0.17 0.08 
20 4.38 0.30 0.14 
25 5.47 0.46 0.22 
30 6.57 0.67 0.29 
Normally, for finished water pipelines exiting a pumping station, the maximum 
recommended velocity is 6.0 fps due to surge control concerns. However, the existing 
11,300 gallon surge tank significantly reduces risks associated with system surge (water 
hammer). Therefore, the existing finished water pipeline should be sufficient to transmit 
flows of 30 mgd. However, at these higher flows, the surge tank will likely need to be 
replaced with a larger tank to provide adequate protection. A detailed hydraulic analysis 
of the down-stream distribution system is recommended before the City considers 
"pushing" flows in excess of 20 mgd out of the plant. Depending on the location of 
future system demands, distribution system improvements may be required for the system 
to receive flows in excess of 20 mgd 
4.1.9 Backwash Piping and Pumping 
The WTP is currently equipped with one vertical turbine backwash pump with a 200 Hp 
motor, rated at 7,000 gpm with 62-feet TDH. A VFD was installed on the backwash 
pump in 1999. Emergency backup to the backwash pump is provided via a connection 
with the high service pump station discharge pipeline. However, adequate pressure 
reducing and flow control valves were not installed, raising concerns about potential 
excessive pressures in the backwash header. Therefore, there is currently no reliable 
backup for the backwash pump. A replacement motor is available in the event the 
backwash pump motor fails; replacement time is estimated at approximately 7 hours. At 
current system demands/operating durations, the plant can rely on replacement of the 
backwash motor as a feasible "backup" strategy. However, as system demands (and 
corresponding operational durations) increase, installed backup capacity for the backwash 
system is recommended. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-24 
3 6 8 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
Options for backup backwash capacity include having an entire replacement pump ready 
for installation, the installation of a new backwash pump, or improvements to the existing 
backup system (i.e. connection to the existing high service pump station discharge 
header). Since the installation of additional finished water pumps will be required to 
reliably deliver flows in excess of 16.7 mgd, preserving the two additional spaces for 
future high service pumps is advised. Therefore, the purchase of a complete new pump, 
ready for installation and/or improvements to the existing backup system (including 
installation of appropriate flow control and pressure reducing valves) is recommended. 
The backwash pump discharges into a 16-inch diameter header that feeds backwash water 
to the individual filters. This pipeline could conceivably accept flows up to 7,500 gpm 
and still meet velocity/headloss design criteria. However, there is currently inadequate 
surge protection along the pipeline. One such surge event caused by the premature 
closure of a backwash valve disrupted the "push-on" joints along this pipeline, resulting 
in continuous leaking from the pipeline located in the Filter 4 and 5 pipe gallery. As a 
result, backwash pumping capacity is currently limited by the operators to less than 7,000 
gpm to prevent further damage; 7,000 gpm is required to clean Filters 5 and 6. 
Waste washwater discharges through a backwash drain pipeline (14-inch for Filters 1 
through 3, 18-inch for Filters 5 and 6, and 18-inch for Filters 6 through 8) which 
eventually connects to a 36-inch drain line leading to the washwater and solids 
equalization basin. It is reported that Filters 1 through 3 currently experience "choking" 
in the washwater channels/piping at flows in excess of 4,500 gpm. Improvements to 
these facilities will be necessary if backwash rates in excess of 4,500 gpm are required 
(based on installed media specifications). 
4.1.10 Solids and Washwater Handling 
The Washwater and Solids Equalization Basin was designed to receive large flows of 
waste washwater, filter-to-waste water and Basin cleaning/drain water. The total basin 
volume to the overflow weir elevation is approximately 116,000 gallons; water is 
diverted to the raw water intake in the event of an overflow. This basin was originally 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-11 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
sized to allow for two consecutive backwashes of the large filters, assuming 10 minutes 
are required for each backwash. However, the current backwash regimen (i.e. 15 minutes 
of backwash) produces more washwater than was designed for, thereby requiring a faster 
pumping rate to the lagoon and limiting operator flexibility. Improvements to minimize 
the amount of washwater created during backwash were discussed in Section 2. 
Two transfer pumps were installed in the Washwater and Solids Equalization Basin as 
part of the 1983 plant expansion that deliver water/solids to the sludge pond/lagoon. 
Both older pumps have 30 Hp motors, each rated at 1,500 gpm at 36-feet TDH. At this 
pumping rate with one pump on, it takes approximately 46 minutes to deliver one large 
filter backwash volume to the lagoon. The pumps operate automatically from level 
controls that turn the pumps on/off; the pumps are operated in a "lead/lag" configuration; 
the "lead" pump turns on and off according to basin water level during normal operation, 
the "lag" pump will turn on if a "high" water level is reached. A third pump was 
installed in 2000. This pump has a 60 Hp motor, and is rated at 1,750 gpm at 60-feet 
TDH. This pump was intended to eventually replace one of the original pumps. 
The transfer pipeline is 8-inches in diameter. At current single-pump flows of 1,500 
gpm, velocities in this pipeline approach 9.8 fps. With both pumps on line, velocities in 
this pipeline approaches 12 fps. The City may consider improvements to this pipeline to 
reduce the velocities in the pipeline in order to increase the pumping rate. 
4.1.11 Summary of Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation 
• The plant appears capable of handling approximately 30 mgd "into and out of ' 
• Improvements to the intake are required to meet the current minimum approach 
velocity requirements to protect juvenile salmonid species at pump rates in excess of 
10 mgd. Consider making the improvements suitable for 30 mgd. 
• Install 5.0 mgd additional raw water pumping capacity to increase the reliable (firm) 
pumping capacity to 20 mgd, with a maximum pumping capacity of 25 mgd at the 
time when plant demands reach 15 mgd. The intake can be equipped with 2 more 
pumps to provide approximately 30 mgd total pumping capacity. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-16 
0'-) - 3 7 0 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
• To increase operator control and optimize plant performance, installation of a VFD 
on at least one existing raw water pump is recommended; installation of VFDs on two 
pumps is preferred for equipment reliability. 
• For increased operator control and flexibility, it is recommended that the existing 
Basin #3 flowmeter (currently out of service) be replaced with magnetic type 
flowmeter, less vulnerable to interference resulting from suspended solids (coagulated 
particles, sand) and more appropriate for "buried" application. Once a meter that 
operates properly is installed on this pipeline, manual valve adjustments to account 
for flow are more predictable. 
• The City should consider removing the existing "flow through" baffle walls originally 
installed as part of the slow mixing basin (not currently in use) to recuperate the 
headloss through the slow mix basin if saving headloss is important to increase 
capacity through Basins #1 and #2. 
• Filter flow meters should be relocated to measure filter-to-waste flows. The City 
should consider installation of new meters which require minimal upstream and 
downstream "straight pipe" for increased meter accuracy and decreased headloss 
through the meter. 
• The clearwell is currently undersized. CT has been met through the plant by carefully 
monitoring and maintaining chlorine residual through the basins, limiting operator 
flexibility. The clearwell volume could be increased to add operational flexibility. 
• The current reliable (firm) capacity of the High Service Pump Station is 16.7 mgd. 
The plant will need to install additional pump(s) to increase the firm capacity when 
plant demands reach 15 mgd (same time when an additional raw water pump is 
added). 
• The City should consider improvements to provide reliability to the backwash pump 
in case the existing pump fails. Options for correcting this deficiency include 
installation of a new back-up backwash pump, improving the design and control of 
the inter-connect with the high service header to ensure that overpressurizing the 
underdrains does not occur, or purchasing a new spare pump and motor (un-installed). 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-16 
0'-) - 3 7 1 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
• Replacement of portions of the backwash discharge header through the Filter 4 and 6 
pipe gallery are necessary to eliminate leaking and remove operator-imposed 
limitations on capacity and pressure in the backwash header. 
• Hydraulic improvements to the waste washwater piping for Filters 1 through 3 will 
need to be considered if required backwash flows exceed 4,500 gpm (based on 
installed media design). 
4.2 PROCESS CAPACITY EVALUATION 
Each of the key plant processes was evaluated for its ability to meet current and possible 
future conditions, based on past proven performance and also on MWH's experience and 
opinions based on design of new plants and plant expansions observations made at other 
operating plants. 
4.2.1 Chemical Feed systems 
The primary chemical storage, metering and feed systems at the plant include: 
• Liquid alum (50%) for primary coagulation 
• Liquid sodium hypochlorite (12.5%) for disinfection (pre- and post-chlorination) 
• Hydrated lime for pH adjustment 
• Dry polymer for filter aid 
• Dry potassium permanganate (KMnO,*) for taste and odor control 
All five systems are typically used continuously whenever the plant is in operation; lime 
addition may not be needed during parts of the year. The doses of each chemical vary 
depending on plant flow and raw water quality. 
4.2.1.1 Alum 
Alum is stored in two 6,000 gallon fiberglass tanks (12,000 gallons total) inside the 
chemical storage room. The plant currently adds alum to the raw water for primary 
coagulation prior to static-mix. The chemical metering system consists of two positive 
displacement diaphragm pumps, both rated at 24 gph (at 125 psi). The alum feed is 
continuous using carrier water; carrier water flow rates are estimated at 15 gpm. On 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-17 
OOl l372 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
average, alum is diluted approximately 40:1 with carrier water, resulting in an alum 
concentration of approximately 1.25% in the chemical injection stream. 
Table 4-3 presents pertinent alum pumping rates and storage capacities for the existing 
system. 
T A B L E 4-3: ALUM PUMPING AND STORAGE CAPACITY AT VARIOUS FLOWS 
. -
Peak Day. Demand Range of Dosages Pumping Rate1 
(gph) 
Storage Capacity2 
(days) 
10 1 5 - 5 0 9.7 33.3 
15 1 5 - 5 0 14.5 22.2 
20 1 5 - 5 0 19.3 16.6 
25 1 5 - 5 0 24.1 13.3 
30 1 5 - 5 0 29.0 11.1 
'Based on minimum alum dosage at PDD 
2Based on maximum alum dosage at ADD (calculated as PDD/2.14) 
At the current maximum instantaneous plant flow of 20 mgd, the estimated maximum 
alum usage rate is 2,500 pounds per day (ppd) at an alum dose of 15 mg/L. This equates 
to a maximum chemical pumping rate of 19.3 gallons per hour (gph) using 5.4 pounds of 
alum per gallon of solution. 19 gph is below the current rated pumping capacity of the 
alum feed pumps. Assuming a dose of 15 mg/L, the existing pumping system should be 
capable of reliably meeting plant demands up to 25 mgd if maximum alum doses remain 
similar. Replacement of existing metering pumps with larger capacity pumps will be 
required to achieve reliable alum feed capacity at flows in excess of 25 mgd. The City 
may be able to avoid pump replacement if alum doses can be reduced via chemical 
optimization. However, by the time the City is ready to expand to 30 mgd, the existing 
pumps will likely have reached the end of their useful life, and will require replacement. 
MWH typically recommends 15 to 30 days of chemical storage (depending on location, 
access to deliveries, potential winter delivery outages, etc.), calculated at a maximum 
dosage and average day demand. Alum storage requirements for the plant's existing flow 
conditions (i.e. 4.9 mgd ADD and a maximum alum dose of 50 mg/L) are approximately 
5,800 gallons for 15 days or 10,600 gallons for 30 days. Thus, storage capacities at the 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-11 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
plant are sufficient for the near-term, as alum is readily available for delivery. The City 
may consider incorporating additional alum storage as peak day demands increase 
beyond 20 mgd. However, optimization of the current coagulation scheme may 
considerably decrease alum dosage in the future. Depending on the availability of alum, 
the existing alum storage tanks might be able to provide adequate storage up to 30 mgd. 
Additionally, the alum carrier water flow rate is probably too high, resulting in over-
dilution of the alum prior to injection into the process stream. Alum can be diluted up to 
5-percent solution without serious impacts on the "reactivity" of the alum. However, at 
concentrations below 5-percent, the alum can potentially start to coagulate within the 
chemical feed lines, clogging the chemical feed line and/or elevating alum demands and 
increasing solids production. A flow control device should be installed on the alum 
carrier water line to ensure feed concentrations remain above 5-percent under all dosage 
and plant flow conditions. 
4.2.1.2 Sodium Hypochlorite 
Liquid sodium hypochlorite (12.5% solution = 1 pound of chlorine per gallon of solution) 
is delivered and stored in three fiberglass reinforced plastic tanks, each with a capacity of 
2,120 gallons (total storage capacity = 6,360 gallons), located inside the hypochlorite 
feed room (adjacent to the chemical feed room). The storage tanks and metering pumps 
are located within a concrete containment area to contain a major leak. There are three 
positive displacement mechanical diaphragm-metering pumps, each rated at 17.0 gph. 
Under normal operating conditions, one pump is dedicated for pre-disinfection (with 
injection into the static mixing vault), the second for post-disinfection (with injection into 
the clearwell), and the third pump serves as backup. Space and a piping connection has 
been included for future pump addition. 
Table 4-4 presents pertinent hypochlorite pumping rates and storage capacities for the 
existing system. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-24 
3 7 4 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
ABLE 4-4: HYPOCHLORITE PUMPING AND STORAGE CAPACITY AT VARIOUS FLOWS 
Peak Day Demand 
(mgd) 
Dosage I Pumping Rate1 Storage Capacity2 
(days) 
10 0 . 8 - 3 10.4 54.4 
15 0 . 8 - 3 15.6 36.3 
20 0 . 8 - 3 20.9 27.2 
25 0 . 8 - 3 26.1 21.8 
30 0 . 8 - 3 31.3 18.1 
2Based on maximum hypochlorite dosage at ADD (calculated as PDD/2.14) 
At the current maximum instantaneous plant flow of 20 mgd, the estimated hypochlorite 
usage is 500 ppd at a combined (i.e. pre- and post-chlorination) dose of 3.0 mg/L (per the 
plant O&M Manual). Please note: maximum dosage was used in this calculation as it 
more conservatively estimates hypochlorite usage during "peak" season (i.e. summer) 
demands. This equates to a total chemical pumping rate of 20.9 gph total, or 10.5 gph per 
on-line pump, well below 17.0 gph, the current rated pumping capacity of each of the 
feed pumps. Assuming a dose of 3.0 mg/L, the existing pumping system should be 
capable of reliably meeting plant demands up to 30 mgd. 
Hypochlorite storage requirements for the plant's existing flow conditions (i.e. 4.9 mgd 
ADD and a maximum hypochlorite dose of 3.0 mg/L) are approximately 1,800 gallons at 
15 days and 3,600 gallons at 30 days. During periods of low demands, the City should 
consider dilution of hypochlorite to a concentration of 10-percent (or less, depending on 
demands) to reduce degradation of the chemical associated with longer holding times . 
Existing on-site storage capacity is sufficient for peak demand flows in excess of 30 mgd, 
while still providing more than 15 days of storage. Thus, no additional hypochlorite 
storage will be required in the foreseeable future. 
4.2.1.3 Lime 
Hydrated lime is shipped in bulk and stored in a lime bin/hopper with a total storage 
capacity of 1,900 cf, or approximately 30 tons. The lime feed system consists of a 6-foot 
diameter Vibra Screw bin activator, a BIF volumetric feeder, a 50 gallon solution tank 
and two constant speed slurry pumps rated at 40 gpm at 16 feet TDH. Lime solution is 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-11 
o o r 3 7 5 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
mixed with carrier water and directed to one of several application points. During the 
July 23rd plant visit, all lime required for pH adjustment was being fed into Basin #2, near 
the settled water launders. This has been the typical feed location for several years. 
At the possible maximum future peak day flow of 30 mgd, the estimated maximum lime 
usage is 2500 ppd (= 3.5 cfThour @ 30 lb/cf) at a conservative summer dose of 10 mg/L. 
The existing lime feed system appears capable of feeding this higher rate if desired. 
Lime storage requirements for the plant's existing flow conditions (i.e. 4.9 mgd ADD and 
a maximum lime dose of 15.0 mg/L) are approximately 4.6 tons, or 15-percent of the 
storage currently available at the plant. Existing on-site storage is sufficient to meet plant 
demands in excess of 30 mgd. Therefore, no improvements will be required through the 
20 year planning window considered for this analysis. Additionally, lime usage may 
decrease in future if alum dosages are decreased. 
Though lime storage capacity at the plant appears more than adequate*, issues associated 
with delivery may increase the desirable on-site storage capacity. There is currently no 
local vendor capable of delivering NSF certified lime; the closest vendor is located in the 
Bay Area. Therefore, the excess storage capacity will add flexibility to lime delivery 
schedules. 
The current point of lime addition at the plant may be creating water quality issues in the 
clearwell and distribution system, including manganese oxide deposits and alum "after-
floccing" in the distribution system, by raising the pH of the water leaving Basin #2. 
Adding the entire plant flow's lime dose in Basin #2 effluent is creating a "local" high pH 
(>9.0) in Filters 4 and 5, potentially re-dissolving alum floe and permanganate. These 
dissolved constituents equilibrate with the blended water pH and precipitate in the 
distribution system. 
In general, pH adjustment should be delayed as long as possible through a water 
treatment process (often in the clearwell effluent) to optimize coagulation/filtration and to 
maximize the disinfection efficiency through the clearwell. pH adjustment with lime 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-21 
>0C 3 7 6 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
may be one exception as insoluble particulates inherent in the lime will naturally increase 
the turbidity in the finished water, potentially impacting regulatory compliance. For 
example, if a lime slurry (typically 20 NTU) is dosed at 20 gpm into a total plant flow of 
20 mgd, turbidity in the finished water will increase by approximately 0.03 NTU. Based 
on these concerns, pH adjustment was moved upstream of the filters many years ago. 
Some state regulatory agencies have "forgiven" this incremental increase in turbidity, as 
the rules were intended to minimize pathogen survival through a plant. Since it was 
shown that the alkaline nature of pure lime is a prohibitive environment for pathogens, 
some WTPs have been able to sample for turbidity prior to lime addition for regulatory 
reporting. Since lime is the lowest-cost pH adjustment chemical and the existing feed 
system is already in place, the City should consider alternatives to the current dosing 
location, and engage DHS regarding impacts of lime dosage on finished water turbidities. 
Lime doses may decrease in the future if less alum is used, meaning lower solids to 
clearwell and less impact on turbidities in the finished water. If it's decided that adding 
lime to the clearwell isn't feasible or acceptable, considering switching to NaOH or soda 
ash, which will require a new feed/storage system and chemical costs will increase 
4.2.1.4 Polymer 
The plant currently adds non-ionic polymer to the filter influent pipelines as a filter aid to 
improve filter performance. A dry feed system, including two 290-gallon mix/aging and 
feed tanks and one diaphragm positive displacement metering pump rated at 16.7 gph, are 
used to make and feed the solution. Dry polymer is shipped in 55-pound bags and stored 
adjacent to the mixing tanks in the chemical room. 
At the possible maximum future plant flow of 30 mgd, the estimated maximum polymer 
usage is 12.5 ppd, assuming a polymer dose of 0.05 mg/L. The existing polymer feed 
system and storage capacity appears capable of accommodating this higher rate if 
desired. Improvements associated with the filters and basins will likely reduce the filter 
aid polymer doses in the future. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-24 
3 7 7 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
4.2.1.5 Potassium Permanganate 
The plant currently adds potassium permanganate to the raw water pipeline and slow-
mixing basin for taste and odor control. The permanganate feeder is a volumetric BIF 
type with hopper that discharges to a flushing funnel and eductor which discharges the 
resulting solution to the application point. Prior to application, the permanganate solution 
is further diluted; dilution water is controlled by a solenoid valve. Dry KMnC>4 is shipped 
in 110-pound steel drums and stored between the permanganate feeder and the polymer 
metering pumps. 
At the possible maximum future plant flow of 30 mgd, the estimated maximum 
permanganate usage is 62.5 ppd, assuming an average dose of 0.25 mg/L. The existing 
permanganate feed system and storage capacity appears capable of accommodating this 
higher rate if desired. 
Current dosages of permanganate are relatively high for background taste and odor 
control. Also, to avoid permanganate "breakthrough" (i.e. pink color reaching the filter 
influent channel) caused by short-circuiting through Basin #3, permanganate is not dosed 
equally between the basins; the majority of permanganate is dosed in Basins #1 and #2. 
The elevated pH in Basin #2 may be preventing precipitation of permanganate, resulting 
in manganese oxide carry-over through the filters and eventual deposit in the distribution 
system. In addition to previously recommended adjustments to the pH adjustment at the 
plant, the City should consider reducing the permanganate dose through the plant. A 
series of "trial and error" experiments are recommended to determine an appropriate 
dose. 
4.2.2 Coagulation Performance 
Rogue River water is generally considered a low turbidity/ good quality supply, but some 
treatment challenges exist at the WTP, resulting from wide swings in pH (seasonal as 
well as diurnal during the warmer months), seasonally variable turbidity, temperature, 
and color, as well as occasional taste and odor events. Excepting taste and odor, this 
variable raw water quality can significantly impact coagulation performance at the plant. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-23 
>00 3 7 8 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
Historically, these treatment challenges have been met using a relatively high dosage of 
alum. This strategy has resulted in relatively high solids production (putting a "stress" on 
the existing solids handling facilities by filling up the pond faster than expected after 
cleaning), depressed pH (corresponding to an increase in pH adjustment chemical 
usage/costs), and decreased overall plant efficiencies. Each of these issues is discussed in 
detail later in this report. Improvements to the filters and/or basins may serve to improve 
overall plant efficiencies. However, without these improvements, continued use of alum 
as the sole, primary coagulant may not be sufficient to meet performance expectations as 
the plant production demands increase. This section discusses some alternative 
coagulation strategies for the City's WTP. 
Table 4-5 presents potential alternative coagulation schemes for the City's WTP 
T A B L E 4-5: SUMMARY OF COAGULATION ALTERNATIVES 
Coagulant Scheme Remarks 
Single Chemical 
Aluminum Chlorohydrate (ACH)/ 
Poly-aluminum Chloride (PACI) 
•• ACH may be ineffective at higher temperatures 
based on plant tests 
Ferric Chloride/Sulfate 
• Performance similar to alum 
• Sludge more "dewaterable" 
• Out-performs alum in cold water 
• Solids production similar to alum 
Alum/Poly or Ferric/Poly Blend • Relatively expensive vs. purchasing separately 
Multiple Chemicals 
Alum + ACH/PACI 
• Not as much pH depression versus alum 
• Sludge production similar to alum 
Alum + Cationic Polymer 
• Depressed pH 
• Significantly reduces overall alum dose 
• Minimizes impacts on pH 
• Relatively low sludge production 
Ferric + Cationic Polymer 
• Performance similar to alum + Cat Poly 
• Relatively low sludge production 
• May see lower settled water turbidities in winter 
ACH/PACI + Cationic Polymer • Less impact on pH than alum + Cat Poly 
There are many plants in the Pacific Northwest treating river supplies similar to the 
Rogue, who have been successful in reducing their alum dosages by as much as 50% 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-24 
0 0 0 3 7 9 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
using alternative coagulation chemicals. For example, the South Fork Water Board WTP 
(on the Clackamas River) converted from alum alone to alum plus cationic polymer in the 
mid-1990's, reducing alum dosage from 15-25 mg/L to an average of 6 mg/L during low 
turbidity events; soda ash usage was also decreased. This resulted in a net chemical cost 
reduction as well as minimized sludge production and increased production efficiencies. 
The Lake Oswego WTP and Clackamas River Water WTP both employ a combination of 
ACH + alum to decrease alum demands. (NOTE: The Lake Oswego WTP also uses pH 
adjustment with carbon dioxide to maintain optimal pH during coagulation.) Similarly, 
the Medford WTP (Rogue River supply) is currently using alum plus cationic polymer, 
but is considering the use of PAC1 alone or PAC1 plus cationic polymer to avoid impacts 
of high alum doses on pH and reduce sludge production. The City of Roseburg recently 
converted its Umpqua River plant to ACH from alum and uses it as a single coagulant 
much of the year 
Though there is potential to optimize the current coagulation strategy at the WTP, these 
efforts must be carefully balanced with the solids loading rates placed on the filters. 
Historically, the relatively high alum doses have been successful in forming large, 
settleable floe (evident by the cleaning frequency required in the sedimentation basins). 
Though some alternative coagulation strategies may produce a smaller, more filterable 
floe at lower coagulant doses, this floe may be unable to settle in the basins, leading to an 
overall increase in the solids loading rate on the filters and shorter filter runs. 
In addition, coagulation performance can be quite seasonal. The City experienced this 
seasonal performance variability during recent full-scale testing of the alternative 
coagulant ACH (Pelican Chemicals 80IB). Preliminaiy results from tests conducted 
during the period April 10 through 19, 2002 (with an average raw water temperature of 
50°F) indicated that settled water turbidity was lower and filter runs were longer 
compared to the use of alum alone. However, similar testing performed in July 2003 
(with an average raw water temperature 67°F) resulted in poorer settled water quality, 
premature turbidity breakthrough and short filter runs compared alum alone. The 
reason(s) for the differences in performance of ACH during the two brief tests is unclear. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-25 
^ O r 3 8 0 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
To fully understand the possible benefits and costs of using alternative coagulants, pilot 
and/or full-scale tests should be conducted seasonally under different water quality 
conditions using a variety of chemicals/combinations to ensure that treatment 
requirements and performance are well understood. An "optimal" coagulation strategy 
will balance plant efficiency with coagulation chemical costs, disinfection requirements, 
sludge production and pH adjustment requirements. See Appendix E for a summary of 
jar tests conducted in November 2003 using alternative coagulants. 
4.2.3 Basins 
A summary of historical performance from the Basins is summarized in Section 2.4.2. 
The basins currently provide contact time for disinfection and some solids removal, prior 
to filtration; no formal flocculation (mixing) is provided in the basins other than "mild" 
hydraulic turbulence. Basins #1 and #2 have a combined rated capacity of 12 mgd; Basin 
#3 is rated at 8 mgd, for a combined process capacity of 20 mgd. The basins provide 
satisfactory water for filtration most of the year. However, all basins experience 
challenges with regard to short-circuiting (Basin #3 is particularly vulnerable to short-
circuiting), high solids loading, sub-optimal flocculation and seasonal turbidity spikes. In 
addition, there is no continuous solids removal system; as solids accumulate in the basins, 
effective volume is reduced, compromising CT compliance and settling efficiencies. 
Selected existing design criteria for the existing basins are summarized in Table 2-2. 
Design criteria considered "optimal" for pretreatment are summarized below in Table 4-
6. These "optimal" parameters serve as a useful comparison when considering basin 
improvement priorities. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-26 
^ 3 8 1 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
T A B L E 4-6: "OPTIMAL" FLOCCULATION/SEDIMENTATION DESIGN CRITERIA 
Parameter "'v . <W„ rr~ 
' 1- • 't : • t 
Unite > • Value 
Settled Water Quality NTU <2.0 
Mixing (Flocculation) 
Mixing Time min 2 0 - 3 0 
Mixing Energy ("G x T") - 3x10" - 2x105 
Sedimentation 
Settling Time min 90-120 
Length:Width Ratio - 4:1 
Length:Depth Ratio - 1:15 
Hydraulic Loading Rate gpm/sf 0 .34-1 .0 
Sludge Collection System Continuous 
Based on a comparison between "optimal" and existing basin design criteria, several 
improvements to the basins are recommended to ensure reliable performance at the 
current plant capacity. 
• Incorporation of formal flocculation (either mechanical or hydraulic) for improved 
settled water quality 
• Installation of a continuous sludge removal system to minimize short-circuiting 
associated with solids accumulation and to equalize sludge loading to the solids 
handling system 
• Installation of internal baffling in Basin #3, in addition to flocculation, to minimize 
short-circuiting resulting from the geometric limitations of the basin 
Alternatives to address these process limitations are discussed in detail in Section 6. The 
suggested improvements are intended to optimize the treatment process, and may not 
increase the process capacity of the basins. To meet demands in excess of 20 mgd, 
additional flocculation/sedimentation capacity or incorporation of "high-rate" processes 
(such as plate or tube settlers) is required. To avoid investments in facilities that may no 
longer be a part of the future treatment train, the selected strategy for meeting future 
demands will need to be considered prior to recommending near-term basin 
improvements. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-27 
OOP 382 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
4.2.4 Filtration 
Section 2 presents a detailed evaluation of historical filter performance and a discussion 
of possible capacity limitations. A summary of deficiencies identified as part of the 
historical performance analysis and filter investigation is presented below: 
• Filter production efficiencies are currently 80 to 90 percent; 97 percent is considered 
the minimum desirable filter production efficiency. 
• All filters have lost media over the years due to media carry-over during backwash; 
Filters 6 through 8 have lost most of the originally installed sand (either via carryover 
or through the underdrains); current media depths are 18 to 20-inches compared to the 
original design of 24-inches. 
• Filters are not and can not be properly cleaned given the current, improperly 
"matched" media sizes and backwash pumping limitations. 
• The surface wash system is ineffective due to lack of media expansion during 
backwash. 
• Short filter runs result from relatively high filtration rates through a relatively 
shallow, dirty media. 
With the filters' existing condition, it would be very difficult to operate the plant at the 20 
mgd rate on a continuous, 24 hour per day basis, due to the short filter runs and frequent 
backwashes. A discussion of alternative filtration improvements to address these 
deficiencies is presented in Section 6. 
4.2.5 Clearweil 
The current clearweil is relatively small for a 20 mgd plant; CT compliance is only 
possible through the plant by carefully monitoring and controlling the chlorine residual 
through the Basins. The recent incorporation of VFDs on two High Service pumps helps 
maintain a relatively high water level in the clearweil, however, multiple "back-to-back" 
backwashes can create challenges to CT compliance. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-28 
> > 383 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
Process changes, including longer filter runs, higher overall plant efficiencies and 
relocation of lime addition, will help ensure continued CT compliance in the near-term. 
However, if the Rogue River supply is determined to have excessive concentrations of 
Cryptosporidium, the LT2ESWTR may require other, non-chlorine based forms of 
disinfection that would result in significant plant modifications. 
Clearweil volume will need to be expanded in the future when plant demands exceed 20 
mgd. Ideally, the clearweil should provide at least 60 minutes at 30 mgd, or 1.25 MG of 
storage. Alternatives to integrate additional clearweil volume with the existing clearweil 
and HSPS are discussed in Section 6. 
4.2.6 Dlsinfection/DBP Formation 
The plant is currently capable of meeting CT within the existing basins and clearweil by 
using higher pre-chlorination residual and maximizing the operating level in the 
clearweil. However, the dependence of disinfection compliance on the contact time 
achieved through the basins significantly limits operational flexibility at the plant; free 
chlorine residual must be carefully monitored and maintained through the basins to meet 
CT requirements. In addition, efforts to increase the pre- and post-chlorination residual 
must be balanced with DBP control. 
DBP and/or Cryptosporidium requirements may "drive" the disinfection improvements at 
the plant in the coming years, if on-going monitoring indicates elevated concentrations. 
If Grants Pass is required to inactivate for Cryptosporidium in the future (depending on 
levels in the Rogue River), installation of a disinfectant stronger than chlorine (e.g. 
ozone, chlorine dioxide, or ultraviolet (UV) irradiation) would be necessary, as chlorine 
is a relatively ineffective disinfectant for Cryptosporidium. Similar disinfection process 
modifications would need to be incorporated if results from on-going DBP tests indicate 
excessive concentrations of HAAs or THMs per the proposed D/DBP Rule. Discussion 
of improvement alternatives for each case are presented in Section 6. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-16 
0'-) - 3 8 4 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
4.2.7 Washwater and Solids Handling System 
As previously stated, the existing sludge lagoon is full and needs to be cleaned. In 
addition, the existing lagoon is not capable of successfully "drying" the sludge. At least a 
portion, if not all, of the liquid (non-dried) sludge from existing pond needs to be 
removed and hauled off-site immediately. Since the sludge is less than 15% solids, 
disposal at a landfill is not an option; an alternative site for disposal will need to be 
identified in the near-term. In addition to this immediate cleaning requirement, a long-
term strategy for solids handling and disposal needs to be developed. The type of solids 
handling process appropriate for consideration depends largely on the methods available 
for disposal. 
For preliminary analysis of sludge handling alternatives, an estimate of sludge production 
(both today, as well as future production) is required. Sludge production rate can be 
estimated using the following equation (Kawamura, 2001): 
1. Sludge (dry Ib/MG) = 8.34x[(AIum dosage (mg/L)x0.26)+(Turbidity (NTU)xl.3)] 
Based on Equation 1, Table 4-7 summarizes annual as well as seasonal average sludge 
production at the WTP for various peak day demands. 
T A B L E 4-7: SLUDGE PRODUCTION ESTIMATE BASED ON CURRENT ALUM USAGE 
Peak Day, Sludge Production {dry weigt >t) 
Flow Annual Average1 Peak Seas son Average2 
- • •• 
Off-Season Average3 
E y v. •:• i' t 
(mgd) , lb/day f lb/day ton/season lb/day ton/season 
10 (current) 385 69 339 26 430 44 
15 578 104 508 39 645 65 
20 770 139 678 51 859 87 
25 963 173 847 64 1074 109 
30 1155 208 1016 77 1289 131 
Based on a peaking factor of 2.14 
2Based on a peak day:peak season ratio of 1.44; Peak season is defined as June - October 
3Based on a peak day:off-season ratio of 3.28; Off-season is defined as November - May 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-11 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
A detailed discussion of alternative solids handling and disposal methods is presented in 
Section 6. 
4.2.8 Summary of Process Capacity Evaluation 
• All chemical systems appear to be adequate to serve the next 10 to 20 years except for 
periodic maintenance and replacement. This equipment may need replacement when 
plant is expanded to 30 mgd 
• Adjust the alum carrier water to ensure alum dilution remains above 5 percent prior to 
injection at the static mix vault. 
• Keep lime as primary pH adjustment chemical (less costly alternative), but relocate 
the point of addition near end of clearwell to avoid interference with filter 
performance and disinfection efficiencies. This will likely require construction of 
new chemical feed pipelines. The City should discuss impacts of lime addition on 
plant effluent turbidity with DHS to ensure continued/compliance with finished water 
turbidity requirements. If not successful, addition of a new NaOH or soda ash system 
to adjust pH in clearwell will be required. 
• The City should try and reduce the potassium permanganate dosages and study the 
impacts on taste and odor control. The current permanganate dose is relatively high 
compared to similar plants with "background" taste and odor issues. 
• To fully understand the possible benefits and costs of using alternative coagulants, 
pilot and/or full-scale tests should be conducted seasonally under different water 
quality conditions using a variety of chemicals/combinations to ensure that treatment 
requirements and performance are well understood. An "optimal" coagulation 
strategy will balance plant efficiency with coagulation chemical costs, disinfection 
requirements, sludge production and pH adjustment requirements. 
• Incorporation of formal flocculation prior to sedimentation in all Basins is 
recommended for improved settled water quality during "challenging" water 
treatment conditions. 
• Installation of continuous sludge removal systems in the basins is recommended to 
equalize solids loading to the solids handling system, to maximize the contact time by 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-31 
>0 3 8 6 
CAPACITY REVIEW 
minimizing solids accumulation, and to eliminate the need for taking basins "off-line" 
for cleaning. 
• The City should make upgrades to the filters (media and underdrains) to increase 
plant efficiencies and to ensure continued compliance with water quality regulations. 
Modifications should include a deeper filter media to improve production efficiencies 
and provide for better cleaning. 
• The existing surface wash system is currently ineffective. Improvements to the 
existing system are recommended to ensure proper media cleaning during backwash. 
• The City should experiment with the current backwash rates and durations to better 
optimize cleaning of the existing media, and to potentially reduce backwash water 
usage. 
• The plant is currently capable of meeting CT requirements. The clearwell will need 
to be expanded as plant demands increase; these needs should be addressed during 
expansion, or if future regulations require a change in disinfection strategy at the 
plant. 
• The City should continue to monitor the impacts of increased pre- and post-
chlorination residuals on the formation of DBPs in the distribution system. Planning 
for future improvements is recommended to better prepare for impacts of future 
regulatory requirements. 
• The existing sludge lagoon is full and needs to be cleaned. In addition, a long-term 
strategy for solids handling and disposal should be developed. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 4-11 
0 0 0 3 8 8 
Facilities Review 
0 0 3 8 9 
FACILITIES REVIEW 
5 F A C I L I T I E S R E V I E W 
The final element of the WTP Evaluation is the Facilities Review. Each of the existing 
plant's major systems and structures were reviewed to determine if capital improvements 
are required, and to estimate remaining useful life. The results of this review are 
integrated with the Regulatory and Capacity Reviews to develop a Capital Improvement 
Program to maintain existing capacity and to increase capacity if so desired. 
5.1 PLANT EQUIPMENT INVENTORY 
Table 5-1 contains an inventory of major plant equipment. The following is a discussion 
of each major system, including pertinent information and observations used to determine 
remaining useful life as well as suggested capital improvements associated with the 
equipment. 
5.1.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station 
The intake and pump station were constructed in the early 1980's as part of the last major 
plant expansion. The intake is equipped with one travelling screen and a wetwell "de-
silting" system. The four raw water pumps were installed in 1983 when the new intake 
facility was constructed with space available to add two more pumps. Since installation, 
the pumps have been re-built, and the pump impellers replaced. The pumps appear to be 
functioning appropriately and with continued maintenance and repair, should have 
significant remaining useful life. As described in previous sections, the "firm" raw water 
pumping capacity is 15 mgd, installation of an additional pump is required, when 
demands approach 15 mgd, to reliably deliver 20 mgd. 
The Technical Memorandum in Appendix D reviews the status and compliance of the 
intake and pump station. As discussed in the TM, the intake does not comply with 
current fish protection screening criteria and significant modifications are required to 
bring it into compliance. Until the intake is modified with a different type of screening 
system, the City should make limited investments in the existing travelling screen. It is 
not likely to be used with the modified intake, but it requires some maintenance and 
repair to keep it operational over the next few years. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 5-1 
3 9 0 
FACILITIES REVIEW 
The raw water pumps have performed well and are in no need of immediate attention. 
The City is contemplating the addition of a new VFD on one of the raw water pumps to 
provide better flow control of the plant, and MWH supports this proposed improvement. 
5.1.2 Chemical Systems 
The plant has five chemical storage and feed systems, including: 
• Liquid alum 
• Liquid sodium hypochlorite 
• Hydrated lime 
• Dry polymer 
• Dry potassium permanganate (KMnO,*) 
In general, all chemical feed systems are in good condition, and can reliably meet the 
City's needs for many years. However, this equipment has a finite useful life, and will 
likely need to be replaced once within the 20 year planning horizon considered for this 
report. The replacement schedule will depend on when the equipment was installed, and 
is hard to predict. The City should also consider chemical feed system replacements 
when the plant capacity is expanded. 
The liquid alum storage tanks are not currently protected from leaks should the tank 
become damaged. Construction of a wall around the base of the alum tanks is 
recommended to contain potential leaks. The containment system should be designed to 
hold the maximum volume of alum (12,000 gallons), in addition to 2-hours of fire-
sprinkler per building code requirements. However, the chemical storage area is not 
currently protected by fire sprinklers, so the containment volume could possibly be 
reduced. Including the sprinkler volume, an approximate 3-feet high containment wall 
around both tanks is required. A step-ladder should also be provided for tank access. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 5-2 
FACILITIES REVIEW 
5.1.3 Sedimentation Basins 
Basin #1 was built as part of the original plant construction in 1931 and is therefore over 
70 years old. Basins #2 and #3 were added to increase plant capacity in 1950 and 1983, 
respectively. The concrete in all basins appears to be structurally sound and have many 
years of remaining useful life; few cracks in the exterior walls were observed. The 
launders in all basins show little sign of deterioration and are in fair condition. 
In order to improve the basins' solids removal capabilities, all of them require formal 
flocculation. Basin #3 also requires the installation of internal baffles to minimize short 
circuting. Once the decision is made to make improvements to the basins, the City 
should take a more serious look at the structural integrity of the basins and launders, and 
repair any cracks in the basin walls. In addition, the launders in Basin #2 oscillate during 
high flows, and should be reinforced. Similar improvements have been performed on 
Basin #1. 
5.1.4 Filters 
Filters 1 through 3 were built as part of the original plant construction in 1931 and are 
over 70 years old. Filters 4 and 5 were added in 1950. Filters 6 through 8 were added as 
part of the most-recent plant expansion project in 1983. Structurally, the filters appear to 
have many years of remaining useful life. 
As discussed in Section 2 and Section 4, improvements to the existing filter media, 
underdrains and surface wash system are recommended to increase plant production 
efficiency and to ensure continued compliance with water quality regulations. 
Alternatives for these filter improvements are discussed in detail in Section 6. 
The washwater troughs in several of the filters have significant cracks and leak during 
backwash; several have 2-inch holes associated surface wash pipes that have since been 
relocated. To ensure optimal flow distribution and minimize media carry-over during 
backwash, these leaks should be repaired. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 p a g e 5-3 
1 0 0 3 9 2 
FACILITIES REVIEW 
The location of the filter effluent flowmeters prevent the measurement of filter-to-waste 
flows, preventing the ability to monitor the filter flow during initial startup and to assist 
with "seamless" transition from filter-to-waste to filter production, thereby potentially 
compromising filtered water quality. The existing filter effluent flowmeters lack 
adequate lengths of upstream and downstream "straight-pipe", significantly reducing the 
accuracy of the meters. Replacement of these meters with a type that have less 
upstream/downstream "straight-pipe" requirements, such as magnetic-type flowmeters, is 
recommended. It is therefore recommended to install new filter flowmeters that can also 
measure filter-to-waste flows. 
All of the suggested filter improvements, including valve/actuator replacements discussed 
later in this Section, should ideally be completed as part of one construction effort for 
economies of scale and for ease of sequencing filter outages during construction. This 
work can not be done during the peak summer demands season as all eight filters are 
required to meet demands, but any seven of the existing eight filters can provide adequate 
treatment and capacity during other times of the year when the plant operates at lower 
rates. The City should consider making filter gallery improvements in unison with filter 
media/underdrain improvements for economy-of-scale reasons and to minimize plant 
disruption. 
5.1.5 Clearwell 
The 433,000 gallon clearwell, which serves as a wetwell for the high service and 
backwash pumps, and a contact basin for disinfection, appears to be structurally sound 
and has significant remaining useful life. The clearwell is actually comprised of three 
interconnected clearwells, one located under each group of filters and built at different 
times. A common filtered water channel currently routes all filtered water to the east 
clearwell (located beneath Filters 1 through 3), where it is chlorinated, then directed 
through a series of serpentine baffles through the center and west clearwells and finally to 
the finished water pump area in the west clearwell. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 5-12 
FACILITIES REVIEW 
A recent inspection of the clearwell(s) by the City indicated no major structural 
deficiencies, but did identify that the inter-connecting pipe (actually a piece of culvert 
pipe) between the area underneath Filters 4 and 5 appears to be leaking. This section of 
pipe should be replaced. 
Additional clearwell volume should be added when the plant's capacity is increased, 
preferably to provide a minimum of 1-hour of detention time at peak flow, but with 
enough volume to provide for successive filter backwashes at 70,000 gallons each 
without compromising disinfection performance. 
5.1.6 High Service Pump Station 
The high service pump station consists of two large pumps, two medium pumps and one 
small pump, installed in 1961, 1983 and 1983, respectively. The high service pump 
station is currently rated for a firm capacity of 16.7 mgd, with a maximum pumping 
capacity of 21 mgd with all five pumps operating. All of the pumps and motors have 
been re-built within the last 15 years and the City has budgeted for at least one 
pump/motor re-build over the next 5 years. With continued maintenance and repair, the 
pumps appear to be capable of continued service throughout the 20-year planning horizon 
considered for this report. 
The original backwash pump was installed in 1983 as part of the plant expansion project. 
A back-up backwash line, connected to the high service discharge header, was also 
installed but has never been used due to a lack of pressure/flow control. The backwash 
pump has required little maintenance according to plant staffs and appears to be 
functioning appropriately. The pump should have significant remaining useful life. 
Since there is currently no back-up backwash supply, increased inspections and service 
are recommended on a semi-annual basis to ensure that major repairs are minimized. As 
demands increase, improvements to the back-up supply are recommended to avoid 
extended backwash down-time. The City's preferred option is to purchase a complete 
pump and motor to have it available at the plant in case the existing pump fails 
unexpectedly. 1 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 5-12 
FACILITIES REVIEW 
5.1.7 Flowmeters 
Both the raw water and finished water pipelines are equipped with Venturi-type flow 
meters; the backwash flow also used to be measured with a similar type of meter. The 
pressure sensing tubing associated with these meters are prone to collecting air bubbles, 
significantly decreasing the accuracy of the meter. The City recently replaced the 
backwash flowmeter with a magnetic-type flow meter. Replacement of the raw and 
finished water flow meters with similar meters is recommended when the budget will 
allow. Replacement of the Basin #3 influent flowmeter is also recommended to better 
monitor and control flow-split between basins. 
5.1.8 Major Valves and Actuators 
Most pneumatic actuators were installed prior to 1980 except those installed in Filters 6 
through 8, during the most-recent plant expansion. All pneumatically-operated filter 
valve actuators are old and in need of repair; replacement parts for these actuators are 
becoming increasingly difficult to obtain. Replacement of these actuators with modern 
electric valve actuators for ease of control and maintenance is recommended. All air 
piping in the filter galleries should be removed as part of the actuator replacement 
project. Several valves, including the filter influent valves and the backwash valves, leak 
and are in need of replacement/repair. The City should also consider installing new 
valves with the actuator replacements since the valves are relatively inexpensive 
compared to the electric actuators and it will benefit installation and warranties if new 
valves are provided along with new actuators. These improvements should be made in 
conjunction with other filter gallery piping and flowmeter improvements. 
5.1.9 Air Compressor System 
The plant is equipped with two compressor/air receiver systems located in the High 
Service Pump Room. Both systems provide plant air to operate the pneumatic valve 
actuators for the filters, as well as providing air to keep the surge tank pressurized. Both 
systems have required little maintenance, and appear to be functioning properly. It is 
expected that these systems have many years of useful life remaining, although they may 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 5-9 
0 0 C 3 9 5 
FACILITIES REVIEW 
not be required in the future, once all the pneumatic valve actuators are replaced with 
electric actuators. 
5.1.10 Washwater and Solids Handling 
Depending on the long-term strategy for solids handling at the plant, significant 
improvements to the solids and washwater lagoon may be required. Improvement 
alternatives for solids and waste washwater handling are presented in Section 6. 
The equalization basin contains 3 transfer pumps which deliver washwater and solids to 
the lagoon. The two smaller pumps were installed as part of the 1983 expansion and the 
larger pump was installed a few years ago. The City intends to remove one of the 
original smaller pumps and replace it with a higher capacity pump to increase pumping 
capacity and reliability. With continued maintenance, the washwater piping and pumps 
have significant useful remaining life and require no major capital investments. 
5.1.11 Water Quality Testing and Monitoring Facilities 
The plant utilizes on-line water quality instrumentation and bench-top equipment to 
monitor and control plant performance. Raw water turbidity is continuously monitored 
using a HACH Surface Scatter on-line analyzer. Settled water turbidity from each basin 
is also continuously monitored using individual HACH 1720D turbidimeters for process 
optimization. Each filter is equipped with an on-line turbidimeter (HACH 1720D) to 
monitor filter performance and ensure regulatory compliance. If the turbidity from a 
filter rises above 0.12 NTU, then the filter is backwashed. A similar on-line turbidimeter 
is installed on the HSPS discharge header pipe to continuously monitor the combined 
filtered water quality exiting the plant. All turbidimeter signals are integrated into the 
SCADA system. Installation of individual particle counters on the filter effluent is 
recommended to better predict turbidity breakthrough in the future and ensure continued 
regulatory compliance. 
The plant is equipped with on-line finished water pH analyzer (HACH EC 310) to 
continuously monitor the plant effluent pH to monitor for corrosion control compliance. 
Raw water and settled water pH are measured periodically each day via grab samples. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 5-7 
« O f 3 9 6 
FACILITIES REVIEW 
One on-line chlorine residual analyzer (HACH CL-17) is used to monitor the plant 
effluent residual from the HSPS discharge header. Pre-basin and settled water chlorine 
residuals are measured periodically each day via grab samples. 
The plant's laboratory appears to be equipped with adequate bench-top analytical 
equipment to perform routine daily testing for monitoring and control. It is 
recommended that the plant invest in a UV254 spectrophotometer to better monitor TOC 
removal through various stages in the treatment process. 
5.1.12 Instrumentation & Control Systems 
The plant has a Windows-based SCADA and control system that is operated via a central 
computer station. The existing control systems were installed as part of the SCADA 
improvements in 2002, and should have significant remaining useful life. As new 
systems and equipment are added to the plant, the SCADA system will need to be 
modified and integrated accordingly. 
As technology evolves, the SCADA system at the plant will likely require additional 
upgrading. During the 20-year planning horizon considered for this report, replacement 
hardware and software may be needed to stay current with developing technology. These 
improvements and upgrades should be made via operating budget investments at the 
appropriate time and there are no capital investments included in this Plan. 
5.1.13 Electrical Systems 
The plant's electrical power is provided via a 1,500 kVA main transformer located on the 
plant site. The electrical service and transformer were upgraded during the 1983 plant 
expansion project. The existing plant electrical service and transformer appear to be 
adequate over the next 20 years as demands increase to 20 mgd. Improvements to the 
electrical system capacity and service need be addressed as part of future expansion 
projects or if major new electrical loads are added prior to the expansion. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 page 5-3 
-me 337 
FACILITIES REVIEW 
The plant has not experienced any prolonged or severe power outages over the past 20 
years. During "normal" power outages, service has been restored within 1 to 2 hours. 
This historical level of power service is expected to continue, but there is no guarantee 
that the City will not face an extended power outage during critical periods in the future 
when water production would be prohibited. 
Some water treatment facilities are equipped with backup/emergency power sources, 
such as generators, which can allow a minimum level of water production in case of an 
extended power outage by the service provider. Some water providers also have dual 
electrical feeds from different parts of the power grid to reduce the risk of an extended 
outage. The City will have to decide if investments in backup power supply is warranted 
considering the risk of an extended outage. Addition of a backup generator is included in 
the 20-year CIP. 
5.1.14 Control Building 
The City should consider improvements to the HVAC system to provide efficient climate 
control; temperatures are often too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter. 
Improvements to update heating and cooling systems in the Control and Break Rooms 
located within the Control Building are recommended. 
There is currently limited space available for storage and maintenance/repair within the 
Control Building. As demands increase, storage requirements for dry chemicals will 
increase, exacerbating the storage limitations. Improvements to increase the available 
storage and working space at the plant site are recommended. 
5.1.15 Other Code Compliance Issues 
The WTP was cursorily reviewed for its conformance to current regulatory codes and 
standards, including seismic and structural integrity, building code conformance, OSHA 
and ADA compliance. This information will help identify further needs and planning-
level costs associated with future efforts. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 5-9 
0 0 C 3 9 8 
FACILITIES REVIEW 
The general construction of the Control Building and older Basin and Filter structures 
probably do not meet current building code requirements for seismic-resistant structures. 
There have been several earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest over the past 10-years that 
could have severely damaged the plant had they occurred in proximity to Grants Pass. A 
system vulnerability study is recommended to define the plant's and entire water 
system's vulnerability to seismic events. Anticipated improvements as part of this 
project include installation of pipeline restraints and reinforcement of concrete structures, 
especially the older basins and filters. 
The walkways around the filters and basins are protected by guardrail. The spacing 
between horizontal railing may be too large to meet current OSHA requirements. No 
improvements are recommended at this time. 
The plant access and pathways does not meet current ADA compliance requirements. 
The City should formally decide whether it desires to make the WTP ADA-compliant or 
provide a statement of non-compliance. 
5.1.16 Integration of Vulnerability Assessment 
The City has recently completed a Vulnerability Assessment (VA) of its water system per 
EPA requirements. It was decided to keep the recommendations of the VA Study 
separate from this WTPFP document. There may be some capital improvements 
recommended from the VA Study which could be integrated with improvements 
recommended by this Plan. 
5.1.17 Summary of Facilities Review 
• All chemical feed systems are in good condition, and can reliably meet the City's 
needs for many years. However, this equipment has a finite useful life, and will need 
to be replaced once within the 20 year planning horizon considered for this report. 
The replacement schedule will depend on when the equipment was installed, and is 
hard to predict, so is shown as a longer-term CIP item within the 20-year CIP. The 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 5-12 
FACILITIES REVIEW 
City may also need to replace/upsize chemical feed systems when the plant capacity 
is expanded. 
• The liquid alum storage tanks are not currently protected from leaks should the tank 
become damaged. Construction of a wall around the base of the alum tank is 
recommended to contain potential leaks. 
• The launders in Basin #2 oscillate during high flows, potentially compromising 
process performance. Installation of lateral supports, similar to those installed in 
Basin #1, are recommended during basin modifications. 
• The washwater troughs in several of the filters have significant cracks and leak during 
backwash; several have 2-inch holes associated surface wash pipes that have since 
been relocated. To ensure optimal flow distribution and minimize media carry-over 
during backwash, these leaks should be repaired during filter modifications. 
• All pneumatically-operated filter valve actuators are old and in need of repair; 
replacement parts for these actuators are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain. 
Replacement of these actuators with modern electric valve actuators for ease of 
control and maintenance is recommended. The City should also install new valves 
with the actuator replacement since the valves are relatively inexpensive compared to 
the electric actuators and it will benefit installation and warranties if new valves are 
provided along with new actuators. 
• The location of the filter effluent flowmeters prevents the measurement of filter-to-
waste flows, resulting in potential operations and water quality problems. The 
existing flowmeters lack adequate lengths of upstream and downstream "straight-
pipe", significantly reducing the accuracy of the meters. Therefore, replacement of 
the filter effluent flowmeters is recommended along with piping changes to integrate 
filter-to-waste flow measurement. 
• All of the suggested filter improvements, including valve/actuator replacements 
discussed later in this Section, should ideally be completed as part of one construction 
effort for economies of scale and for ease of sequencing filter outages during 
construction. This work can not be done during the peak summer demands season as 
all eight filters are required to meet demands, but any seven existing filters can 
provide adequate treatment and capacity during other times of the year. This 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 5-11 
( K X 4 0 0 
FACILITIES REVIEW 
construction may be integrated with the filter media/underdrain rehabilitation effort 
for further economies of scale and to minimize plant disruptions. 
• Replacement of the raw and finished water flowmeters with magnetic meters is 
recommended for consistency with the new backwash flowmeter. Replacement of the 
Basin #3 influent flowmeter is also recommended to better monitor and control flow-
split between basins. 
• It is recommended that the plant invest in a UV254 spectrophotometer to better 
monitor TOC removal through various stages in the treatment process. 
• As technology evolves, the SCADA system at the plant will likely require additional 
upgrading. During the 20 year planning horizon considered for this report, 
replacement hardware and software will be needed to stay current with developing 
technology. 
• The City should consider improvements to the HVAC system to provide efficient 
climate control; temperatures are often too hot in the summer and too cold in the 
winter. Improvements to update heating and cooling systems in the Control and 
Break Room in the Control Building are recommended. 
• There is currently limited space available for storage and maintenance within the 
Control Building. As demands increase, storage requirements for dry chemicals will 
increase, exacerbating the storage limitations. Improvements to increase the available 
storage space at the plant site are recommended. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 5-12 
* 
Table 5-1 
Inventory of Existing Grants Pass WTP System 
Unit F 'rocess/Components No. Type Manufacturer/Model Capacity/Size 
Screening | I 
Raw Water Intake Screen 2 Stationary Bar 
Wash System Travelling Screen 
Raw Water Pumping 
Raw Water Pumps 
Pump #1 1 Vertical Turbine Worthlngton/ 15HH-340 75-hp/3200gpm/65-ft 
Pump #2 1 Vertical Turbine Worthington/15HH-340 75-hp/3200gpm/65-ft 
Pump #3 1 Vertical Turbine Worthlngton/ 15HH-340 75-hp/3200gpm/65-fl 
Pump #4 1 Vertical Turbine Worthington/ 15HH-340 75-hp/3200gpm/65-ft 
Chemical Feed 
Alurr I I 
Storaqe 2 Fiberglass Cylindrical 6000 gal 
Metering Pumps 2 PD Diphragm JAC/Model 1212-21-9612 24 gph/125 psi 
Lime 
Hopper 1 1900 cf 
Volumetric Feeder 1 Volumetric Screw Auqer BIF/Model 25-12 
Mixing Tank 1 Stainless Steel 50 gal 
Mixer 1 Propeller | GE/Model C242 1/4 hp /1725 rpm 
Slurry Pump 1 Constant Speed Goulds/Model 3196 1.5"X6"/40gpm/16ft/1150rpm 
Air I I I 
Compressor #1 1 Twin Units Qulncy/Model 325L 5hp/19scfm/130 gal receiver tank 
After Drier #1 1 I Zum/Air & Gas Drier 1 
Compressor #2 1 Twin Units Baldor/Model MJ104 1/5hp/10scfm 
After Drier #2 1 Honeywell/Model 8010 1/6hp 
Permanganate • 
Storage Stored in Metal Buckets 
Feed Unit 1 Hop per/ Feeder/ Mixer BIF/Model 2506 
Polymer I 
Storage 2 Stainless Cyl, Open-top 290 gal 
Mixing 2 Propellor Neptune Model D-4.00 480 rpm 
Volumetric Feeder — Pump 1 Positive Displacement BIF/Proportioneer/Chemofeeder 
Hypochlorite I 
Storage 3 CylFRP RTP, Ine 2,120 gal 
Pre-chlor Metering 1 PD Diphragm Wallace and Teiman/ Encore 700 0.75 hp/16.7gph 
Post-chlor Metering 1 Wallace and Teiman/ Fncore 700 0.75 hp/16.7gph 
Back-up Metering 1 Wallaoo and Teiman/ Encore 700 0.75 hp/16.7gph 
Transfer 1 Seal-less Magnetic Iwakt Seal-less Magnetic Drive 1 hp/50 gpm 
Filtration I I I 
Backwash Pump 1 Vertical Turbine w/VFD Peabody Floway/ Model 22-BLK 200 hp/7000 gpm 
Surface Wash System 
Filters 1,2,3 
Filters 4,5 
Filters 6,7,8 
On-line Monitoring 
Turbidity 
Raw Water 1 Digital- Integrated In SCADA HACH Surface Scatter 
Settled Water I 
Contact Basin #1 1 Digital- Integrated in SCADA HACH 1720D 
Contacl Basin #2 1 Digital- Integrated In SCADA HACH 1720D 
Contact L7as<n #3 1 Diqital- Integrated in SCADA HACH moo 
Filter Effluent I I 
Filter #1 1 Digital- Integrated in SCADA HACH 1720D 
Filter #2 1 Digital- Integrated in SCADA HACH 17200 
Filter #3 1 Digital- Integrated in SCADA HACH 1720D 
Filter #4 1 Digital- Integrated in SCADA HACH 1720D 
Filter #5 1 Digital- Integrated in SCADA HACH 1720D 
Filter #6 1 Digital- Integrated in SCADA HACH 172QD 
Filter #7 1 Digital- Integrated in SCADA HACH 1720D 
Filter #8 1 Digital- Integrated in SCADA HACH 172ÜD 
Plant Effluent 1 Digital- Integrated in SCADA HAÇH 17ÎÎÛD 
Chlorine Analyzer 
Mixed Water 
Clearwell HACH CM 7 
:low Meters I 
Raw Water 1 i/enturi Differential Pressure 
Filter Effluent I I 
Filter #1 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol1 ,CCG Signature 0-100 inches of water 
Filter #2 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol/AC ;o Siqnature 0-100 Inches of water 
Filter #3 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Briaol/ACCO Signature 0-100 inches of water 
Filter #4 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Siqnature 0-100 Inches of water 
Filter #5 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Siqnature >-100 Inches of water 
Filter #6 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Signature J-100 inches of water 
Filter #7 1 Drifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Signature tt-100 inches of water 
Filter #8 1 Drifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Siqnature 3-100 inches of water 
3ackwash 1 Drifice Differential Pressure 
1 
rinished Water 1 /enturi Differential Pressure 
• ' v i ! 4 0 ? 
Table 5-1 
Inventory of Existing Grants Pass WTP System 
Unii process/Components No. Type Manufacturer/Model Capacity/Size 
Filler Heactoss I i I 1 
Filter #1 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Signature 0-700 inches of water 
Filter #2 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Signature 0-700 inches of water 
Filter #3 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Signature 0-700 inches of water 
' Filter #4 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Signature 0-700 inches of water 
Filter #5 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Signature 0-700 inches of water 
Filter #6 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Signature 0-700 inches of water 
Filter #7 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Signature 0-700 inches of water 
Filter #8 1 Orifice Differential Pressure Bristol/ACCO Signature 0-700 inches of water 
pH 
Raw Water 
Cleaiweil HACH EC 310/PS1202 
Point of Entry 
HSPS 
Finished Water Pumps 
Pump#1 1 Vertical Turbine Fairbanks Morse/ Model 18HC 300 hp/4000 gpm/ 210 ft 
Pump #2 t Vertical Turbine Fairbanks Morse/ Model 18HC 300 hp/4000 gpm/ 210 ft 
Pump #3 1 Vertical Turbine Worthington/Model 15HB-340 250 hp/3500 gpm/210 ft 
Pump #4 1 Vertical Turbine Worthington/Model 15HH-340 250 hp/3500 gpm/ 210 ft w/ VFD 
Pump #5 1 Vertical Tuibine Worthington/Model 15HH-277 250 hp/2600 gpm/ 210 ft w/VFD 
Sump Pump 
Waste Water 
Sewage Pumping 
I Pumps 2 Submersible Peabody Barnes/ Model 45E154E 1.5 hp /100 gpm/ 22 ft 
WWW and Solids Equalization Basin .. I I I. 116,000 gal | 
Pumps 2 Quick-disconnect Submersible Peabody Barnes/ Model 6GSEH2004 30 hp/1,500 gpm/36 ft 
Pumps 1 Ouick-disconnect Submersible 60 hp/1,750 gpm/60 ft 
Plant Sump I I I 
Pumps 2 Quick-disconnect Submersible Peabody Barnes/ Model 65E1003 10 hp/830 gpm/15 ft 
I I I I ! 
/î k 
1 • 
Facilities Planning for Grants Pass WTP 
a a M M 9 H M 
• • » < > € 4 0 4 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
6 F A C I L I T I E S P L A N N I N G F O R T H E G R A N T S P A S S W T P 
Based on the findings and information presented in Sections 2 through 5, the City's 
existing Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is capable of treating and delivering potable water 
for the 20-year planning horizon and beyond. Significant improvements are required to 
maintain the existing 20 mgd rated capacity, to ensure continued compliance with 
increasingly-stringent drinking water quality and other regulations, and to improve 
operations and cost-effectiveness for the plant's remaining useful life. The WTP's 
capacity can also be expanded up to 30 mgd with significant improvements. 
The WTP is now operating "at capacity" even though the current maximum day 
production is less than 11 mgd because the plant is not operated for 24 hours per day. 
The plant is operated for 12 to 15 hours per day during peak demand periods, often at the 
20 mgd rated production capacity, to make the required daily volume of water. If water 
demands continue to increase as projected, the plant will have to be operated for longer 
durations each day until the maximum daily production capacity (20 mgd) is reached. At 
that time (currently projected for approximately year 2025), the plant will have to be 
expanded or an alternative source of supply needs to be implemented. To meet the longer 
operating periods as demands increase, the City will eventually require additional 
operations staff. 
The recommended plant improvements to be implemented at the WTP, along with 
detailed analyses of key issues, are presented in this Section of the report. This Section 
concludes with prioritized capital improvements and costs for the WTP over the next 20 
years and beyond. 
6.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PLANT EVALUATION 
This Section summarizes the major conclusions and recommendations based upon the 
evaluation of the City of Grants Pass WTP. Major topics addressed herein include plant 
capacity, treatment processes, regulatory compliance, support facilities, and 
monitoring/control issues. Addressing these topics in a prioritized and systematic fashion 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-1 
OO 4 0 5 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
will ensure that the WTP continues to serve the City for 20 years and beyond as the 
primary source of potable water. 
6.1.1 Plant Capacity 
• The current maximum daily production is 10.5 mgd with the plant operating 12 to 15 
hours per day during the peak demand season, often at a 20 mgd production rate. 
• The plant's existing hydraulic capacity is capable of supporting the existing 20 mgd 
design rate for a 24-hour period. 
• The plant's main unit processes, including flocculation/sedimentation and filtration, 
require improvements to reliably provide 20 mgd capacity under all water quality and 
operating conditions. 
• The plant can meet disinfection requirements under all flow and water quality 
conditions by carefully controlling the pre-chlorination process to achieve target 
residuals and by also maintaining the clearwell level as full as possible. 
• The plant and site appear capable of supporting an ultimate maximum capacity of 30 
mgd with significant improvements. A plant expansion will be required in the next 
20 to 25 years if demands continue to increase as they currently are. 
• The City should continue to develop and protect its water rights on the Rogue River. 
• The existing raw water and finished water pumps have a firm, reliable capacity of 15 
mgd and 16.7 mgd, respectively, and additional pumps should be added when the 
maximum daily demand reaches these production rates, in approximately 10 to 15 
years. 
• The existing intake is hydraulically capable of withdrawing the maximum flow, but 
current fish protection (screen) criteria are not being met. Improvements are required 
to meet fish screen criteria, and the City should seriously consider expanding the 
intake's capacity to 30 mgd as part of these improvements. 
• A new flowmeter should be installed ahead of Basin #3 to accurately and reliably 
monitor and control the flow split between the 3 basins. 
• Filter effluent flowmeters should be relocated to measure filter-to-waste flows for 
reliable filter control. As part of this process, the City should consider installation of 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-13 
¿>000406 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
new flowmeters which require minimal upstream and downstream "straight pipe" for 
increased meter accuracy and decreased headloss through the meter. 
• Reliable plant production capacity is currently vulnerable to an extended outage if the 
existing single backwash pump fails. The City should invest in a reliable backwash 
backup system, either by purchase of a spare pump and motor (and perhaps installing 
it), or improving the existing inter-tie with the high service header. 
• Replacement of the backwash discharge header pipe through the Filter 4 and 5 gallery 
is necessary to eliminate leaking and to remove operator-imposed limitations on 
capacity and pressure in the pipe. Depending on the type of pipe (asbestos lined), 
building codes may mandate replacement of the entire pipe system within the gallery. 
6.1.2 Treatment Processes 
• In general, the plant and filters have performed well with regard to finished water 
quality; the plant has consistently met regulatory requirements for filtered water 
turbidity. 
• Plant production efficiencies are typically 80 to 90 percent throughout the year, and 
generally decrease in the winter when total production is lower and the water is colder 
and more turbid. Plant efficiencies should be improved to minimize costs associated 
with plant operations (longer operation time, pumping and chemical costs, sludge 
production). Efficiencies of 97 percent are considered the minimum desirable filter 
production efficiency. Plant efficiencies can be improved by increasing the filter run 
lengths, which can be via improvements to the filters and sedimentation basins, as 
well as possibly improving the coagulation process. 
• Based on our analysis, short filter runs result from relatively high filtration rates 
through a relatively shallow, dirty media. Filter media should be replaced with a new 
design, maximizing the overall media depth. 
• The filters are dirty and can not be properly cleaned with the current backwash 
regime. Poor cleaning leads to higher initial headloss, which reduces the available 
head for filtration, resulting in shorter filter runs and decreased plant efficiencies. 
Optimum cleaning can be accommodated with an optimum media and underdrain 
system design. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-3 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
• The plant can modify its existing backwash sequence and volumes to slightly improve 
production efficiency until filter modifications are completed. 
• There is potential to optimize the current coagulation strategy at the WTP to reduce 
chemical usage, reduce sludge production and increase plant production efficiencies. 
However, these efforts must be balanced with the overall solids loading on the filters 
and seasonal performance variability resulting from a change in coagulants. Jar 
testing conducted as part of this planning effort were inconclusive. Staff should 
continue experimenting with different coagulants. 
• Operators report manganese oxide deposits throughout the distribution system. This 
may result from either: 1) overfeeding of potassium permanganate, 2) sub-optimal pH 
ranges for permanganate solubility in Basin #2, or 3) both. The continued use of 
potassium permanganate at the plant needs to be reviewed and optimized. It is 
possible that permanganate doses can be reduced compared to historic usage rates. 
• Similarly, operators report alum "after-floccing" in the distribution system, likely 
resulting from sub-optimal pH characteristics in Basin #2. The City should consider 
relocating lime addition point to downstream of the filters. An increase in finished 
water turbidity may result from the "inert" particles associated with lime addition to 
the clearwell. The City should discuss impacts of lime addition on plant effluent 
turbidity with DHS to ensure continued compliance with the regulations. 
• If lime is found to no longer be a viable option for pH adjustment at the plant, 
alternatives to lime, including soda ash and caustic soda, should be considered. 
Chemical costs associated with these alternatives may be substantially higher when 
compared to lime. Also, there are space limitations for a new chemical 
injection/storage system on site. 
• A long-term plan for solids handling and disposal is needed for the plant. The sludge 
lagoon is full and requires immediate cleaning to support another operating season. 
The City needs to implement solids handling improvements at the plant to support the 
long-term disposal option. 
• The basins currently need to be cleaned of accumulated solids twice per year and this 
cleaning cannot be performed during the summer when all basins are required for 
treatment. Solids accumulation in the basins reduces the plant's performance and 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-4 
OOv, 408 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
reduces the contact time for disinfection. When the basins are cleaned, slug loads of 
solids overload the solids handling system. As plant demands and solids production 
increase, the basins will require more frequent cleaning. It is recommended that an 
automated, continuous sludge removal system be installed in the basins. 
6.1.3 Regulatory Compliance 
• A review of historical compliance records indicates that the Grants Pass WTP has met 
all primary and secondary drinking water standards since 1998. There are no 
immediate requirements to modify the plant to meet current primary drinking water 
regulations. 
• Further optimization of chlorine disinfection through the plant to reliably meet CT 
requirements is needed, including moving the lime addition point, increasing the 
chlorine residual through the basins and increasing the minimum allowable clearwell 
water level. 
• Increasing the chlorine dose for CT compliance may increase the concentrations of 
disinfection by-products (DBPs) in the distribution system. The City will have to 
closely monitor the DBP concentrations with respect to meeting the future Stage 2 
DBP Rule. 
• The City should develop new DBP sampling and monitoring protocols per the Stage 2 
DBP Rule (using ISDE methodology) to better prepare for future DBP regulations. 
• The City should update its plant Disinfection Profile based on modifications to the 
disinfection process. 
• Frequent tracking of TOC removal through the treatment plant, using UV254 as a 
surrogate parameter, is recommended to better define seasonal water quality 
variations and organics removal, and to help understand the relationship between 
TOC and DBP formation. 
• If DBP concentrations ultimately exceed the Stage 2 DBP requirements, the City may 
need to alter its disinfection process to reduce DBP formation. Options include 
conversion to chloramines as a residual disinfectant for the distribution system, and/or 
use of a stronger disinfectant such as ultraviolet light, ozone or chlorine dioxide. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-41 
00.. 409 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
• The Long-Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) will require 
two years of monitoring for Cryptosporidium and Giardia in the plant's raw water. If 
excessive concentrations of Cryptosporidium are detected, then the City may need to 
install a stronger and more-expensive disinfectant compared to chlorine, such as 
ultraviolet light, ozone or chlorine dioxide. The City began this monitoring in 
September 2003 and initial results indicate low levels of these pathogens, which 
would not require a change in the plant's disinfection scheme if these results continue 
for the next 18 months of sampling. 
• The existing solids lagoon is currently full and needs to be cleaned. Potential short-
circuiting through the lagoon is threatening the release of solids and/or chlorine into 
Skunk Creek, which would be in violation of the current NPDES permit. To ensure 
continued compliance, immediate removal of some or all of the accumulated solids is 
required. In addition to this immediate cleaning requirement, a long-term strategy for 
solids handling needs to be developed. The type of solids handling process 
appropriate for consideration depends largely on the methods available for disposal. 
The City should then make improvements to its solids handling system to 
accommodate the selected disposal option. 
• Recent environmental regulations have been promulgated to protect threatened and 
endangered (T&E) species including several anadromous fish (salmon and steelhead) 
which populate the Rogue River. These new rules include specific requirements for 
river intakes and diversions to avoid the potential "take" of these species, especially 
juvenile fish. The City's existing intake does not meet specific requirements for 
screen type, approach velocity and sweeping velocity. Significant improvements are 
required to bring the intake into compliance. The City should consider making 
improvements to allow withdrawal of 30 mgd to support the ultimate WTP site 
capacity. 
6.1.4 Support Facilities 
• The intake, basins, filters, clearwell and plant buildings have many years of 
remaining useful structural life, but some of the structures are over 70 years old. 
These facilities should be reviewed with respect to their vulnerability to damage 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-13 
¿>410 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
during a severe earthquake. There have been several earthquakes in the Pacific 
Northwest over the past 10 years which could have severely damaged the plant if the 
event occurred closer to Grants Pass. A detailed seismic evaluation of the plant is 
recommended to determine improvements necessary to ensure that it can reliably 
produce water for the remaining useful life. 
The existing raw water, high service and backwash pumps, although 20 years old, 
appear to be functioning appropriately and should have significant remaining useful 
life. These pumps require routine inspections and maintenance. 
The plant electrical and I&C components are performing well and have significant 
remaining useful life. The plant's I&C/SCADA system was recently upgraded to 
replace older and outdated systems. The plant's primary electrical service will need 
to be upgraded if major new electromechanical facilities are constructed at the 
existing WTP site. 
The plant has never been out of service for an extended period of time due to 
unplanned power outages. The City should consider installation of an on-site 
emergency power generation system, to allow the plant to produce 3 to 5 mgd, if it 
feels vulnerable to severe power outages. Alternatively, emergency power could be 
provided from another grid if available. 
As discussed previously, the City should implement a plan to keep the plant in service 
if the existing backwash pump fails. 
The existing pneumatic controls for all filter valves and backwash valves are old and 
have little remaining useful life. Pneumatic control technology is being replaced with 
electric/electronic controls throughout the industry and replacement/repair parts are 
becoming more difficult to obtain. Replacement of all pneumatic control valves with 
electric-actuated valves is recommended. Due to the age of the valves (some leak 
now) and the relative low cost of the valves versus the electric actuators, the valves 
should all be replaced at the same time. During this replacement project, old and 
structurally-inadequate filter and backwash piping should be replaced. 
All filter flowmeters should be replaced with non-contact technology (magnetic or 
ultrasonic) due to reliability, age and potential fouling problems. The filter 
flowmeters should also be relocated to allow measurement of filter-to-waste flows. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-7 
00,7411 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
• The City has decided that the existing plant, due to its age, use and location, does not 
need to comply with current ADA access requirements, both for potential employees 
and for the general public. 
• There are a few locations within the plant that may not meet current employee 
protection against falls and accidents (OSHA standards). Various stairs, steps, ladders 
and handrails should be improved/modified to meet current codes. 
6.1.5 Monitoring and Control 
• The current I&C/SCADA system was upgraded recently and provides a good level of 
monitoring and control, including the ability to monitor and control the plant 
remotely. Various upgrades to the control system, including hardware and software, 
will be required to integrate any improvements made to the plant. 
• The City should consider adding particle counters for each filter, even though not a 
regulatory/monitoring requirement, to further optimize plant and filter performance. 
• The City should routinely monitor the total organic carbon (TOC) in its raw and 
filtered water. The City should measure UV absorbance at 254 nanometers (UV254) 
as a surrogate for TOC measurements. 
6.1.6 Integration of Vulnerability Assessment Recommendations 
• The City has recently completed a Vulnerability Assessment (VA) of its water system 
per EPA requirements. It was decided to keep the recommendations of the VA Study 
separate from this WTPFP document. There may be some capital improvements 
recommended from the VA Study which could be integrated with recommended plant 
improvements from this Plan. 
6.2 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FOR CRITICAL PROCESS ISSUES 
Based on the summary of recommendations presented above, the project team selected 
four potential improvements for more-detailed analysis, to provide better definition and 
to assist in prioritizing these improvements. These potential improvements were 
determined to have the highest priority requiring implementation over the next few years: 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-8 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
• Filter Modifications 
• Basin Modifications 
• Solids Handling and Disposal 
• Intake Modifications 
Each of these topics is reviewed and discussed in the following sub-sections and a 
recommended course of action is presented. 
6.2.1 Filter Modifications 
Filter production efficiencies are typically between 80 and 90 percent throughout the 
year, and generally decrease in the winter when total production is lower and the water is 
colder and more turbid. Poor efficiencies contribute to increased operational costs, 
including longer operation time, increased pumping and chemical costs, and increased 
sludge production. The minimum desired filter production efficiency is 97 percent. 
Based on our analysis, low plant efficiencies result from short filter runs at relatively high 
filtration rates through a shallow, dirty media. To increase overall efficiency, the existing 
filter media should be replaced with a new design, maximizing the overall media depth. 
There are three options to improve the filters and increase plant production efficiency 
including: 1) replace the existing media while keeping the existing underdrains, 2) install 
new underdrains to allow for a deeper media, and 3) replace the conventional media 
filters with membrane filtration. The potential benefits/drawbacks associated with each 
alternative are discussed below. A summary of capital costs is presented at the end of 
this sub-section. 
6.2.1.1 Membrane Filtration 
Membrane filtration has become an increasingly popular filtration alternative. As the 
technology comes of age, the costs for new construction are increasingly competitive 
with conventional filtration. However, the costs associated with converting existing 
media filters to membrane filtration, especially if no capacity expansion is desired, are 
still significantly higher than for other alternatives. During membrane filtration, 
suspended particles are rejected from the influent as the water flows through the pores of 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-27 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
the membrane. The pore size of the membrane determines which particles are rejected. 
For application at the Grants Pass WTP, microfiltration (possibly in conjunction with pre-
chlorination and coagulation) would be recommended. These filters would provide an 
absolute barrier to Giardia and Cryptosporidium, ensuring continued compliance with 
future regulations. 
There are several "submerged" microfiltration systems on the market today which may be 
appropriate for the Grants Pass WTP, including those systems manufactured by Zenon 
Environmental Inc. and USFilter/Memcor. The plant's existing filters or basins can be 
retrofitted to accommodate the "submerged" technology, better matching the plant's 
existing HGL and minimizing additional pumping requirements. These systems normally 
require minimal chemical addition for treatment and provide high quality drinking water 
and operational simplicity within a relatively small footprint. However, membranes do 
require periodic chemical cleaning. 
A pilot study to determine the design constraints for full-scale performance would be 
required if the City decides to implement this technology. Significant engineering would 
be required to successfully integrate membrane technology into the existing plant's 
treatment process, as well as identify a site for all the ancillary equipment. As previously 
mentioned, these proprietary technologies generally require large capital investments and 
costly periodic membrane replacements. These additional costs make this alternative less 
attractive compared to other alternatives. A planning-level capital cost estimate for this 
alternative is presented in Table 6-2. 
6.2.1.2 Replace Existing Media and Gravel 
The least expensive filter improvement alternative is to simply re-build the filter media 
and gravel while leaving the existing underdrains intact. This alternative limits the 
available depth of media to approximately 20 to 24 inches. If the top of media is any 
closer to bottoms of troughs, the plant will continuously lose media via "carry-over" 
during backwash as has occurred at the plant. Shallow media limits the filter run lengths 
and ultimately reduces plant efficiencies. There may be room to raise the troughs to 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-13 
¿>414 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
allow for a deeper media, however, limitations on the media depth may still exist. A 
planning-level capital cost estimate for this alternative is presented in Table 6-2. Costs 
associated with this alternative include improvements to the surface wash system, 
discussed later in this section. 
6.2.1.3 Re-build Filter Media and Underdrains 
The existing depth from the filter floor to the bottom of the filter media is approximately 
2.07 feet (24.84-inches) including 11.84-inches of underdrain and grout and 13-inches of 
support gravel. It is possible to gain additional filter media depth in the existing filters by 
replacing the existing underdrain and support gravel with a gravel-less underdrain 
system. Profiles for these gravel-less underdrains range from as low as 6 inches to as 
high as 14 inches. This section describes the potential underdrain options for the plant. 
The advent of gravel-less underdrains has allowed retrofits inside existing filter cells to 
deepen media. Essentially, the space previously used for gravel layers to support the 
filter media and to promote even backwash flow distribution can now be used for more 
filter media. Also, gravel-less underdrains eliminate the operational problems often 
encountered by migration and mounding of gravel, which can quickly upset a filter and 
require complete re-building. Basically, there are 3 types of gravel-less underdrains for 
consideration by the City including 1) false floor with plenum, 2) slotted screens, and 3) 
plastic blocks. 
Plenum under false floor with nozzles. These types of systems have been successfully 
used for many years and are made by Infilco Degremont (IDI), General Filter (GF), 
Patterson Candy (PCI) and others. A false floor with proper structural design 
characteristics must be constructed above the filter floor to create the plenum where 
water and air can uniformly enter and leave the filters. Specially-designed nozzles are 
installed through the false floor to allow proper collection of filtered water as well as 
proper distribution of air and water during backwash, and to keep media from entering 
the plenum. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-13 
¿>415 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
The height of the false floor off the filter bottom will determine the overall filter box 
configuration when designed with a specific filter media configuration. A minimum 
plenum depth of two feet is normally recommended, but up to three feet is often provided 
if access to the plenum is desired. Plenum depths less than two feet are possible, but this 
must be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure proper air and water 
distribution characteristics; less depth is required if air scour backwashing is not used. 
The manufacturers of these systems need to be consulted to determine the lowest-possible 
plenum depth. These systems offer the highest profile of the underdrain system 
alternatives, so they offer the lowest potential to maximize filter media depth in a retrofit 
situation. 
The nozzle design and nozzle spacing must also be determined to meet the needs of the 
specific installation. The nozzle slit width must ensure controlled air and water 
distribution as well as retain the smallest media size. Nozzle materials must be carefully 
selected to avoid erosion of the slits over time, which can be caused by high water 
velocities during backwash. Some nozzle systems are designed with a shallow gravel 
layer over and around the nozzles to minimize slit erosion problems. The nozzle heights 
are adjustable, but each must be located within close tolerances to ensure uniform flow 
distribution during backwash. When used without a deep layer of gravel support under 
the filter media, there is some concern that the media between the nozzles can be cleaned 
adequately. 
Low-profile laterals constructed of stainless steel or plastic. These types of systems 
have been in limited use for only the past five to ten years, and entered the marketplace as 
an alternative gravel-less underdrain for retrofit applications. EIMCO, AWI-Anthratech 
and CPC all market similar products, but the stainless steel products are typically of most 
interest due to their durability compared to plastic. These types of underdrains are 
generally reserved for small package plants and there are few larger installations in the 
U.S. to gather operating data and opinions of performance from operators. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-13 
¿>416 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
These systems offer the lowest profile of any underdrain system so they offer the greatest 
potential to maximize filter media depth in a retrofit situation. Air and water pass 
through specially designed slits in the underdrain and must be carefully designed to 
ensure even flow distribution along its length. Unlike the other underdrain systems, air 
usually enters from the top and the air piping must be installed inside the filter box and 
penetrate down through the media. MWH has concerns about these types of systems for 
two major reasons: 
• The uniform distribution of air and water or water alone during backwash is suspect 
based on observations made at operating facilities. The longer the laterals are, the 
more concern about this problem. 
• The durability of the materials during installation is a concern. It is possible for 
untrained workers to damage the laterals, or slightly displace the slits, by walking on 
them or kicking them, such that the integrity of the system as well as the backwashing 
performance is jeopardized. 
Plastic block with porous plate cap. The plastic 
Universal Type S Underdrain system, made by 
Leopold, has been successfully used in many 
installations for years. Leopold then created its 
IMS Cap for use with the Universal Underdrain 
to eliminate the need for gravel. The IMS Cap is 
a porous plastic plate attached directly to the 
block. The IMS Cap system has been 
successfully used at a number of plants for many years also. Several years ago, Leopold 
introduced its Type SL system, which has a lower profile (4 inches lower) than the Type 
S system. The Type SL system should not be used for lateral lengths greater than 20 feet 
due to flow distribution concerns, and therefore is acceptable for the Grants Pass WTP 
(15 to 18-foot laterals). 
Profile of Leopold 
Type S and SL Underdrains 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-13 
¿>00417 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
Leopold had the patent on this type of system until a few years ago and now there are at 
least three other plastic-block underdrain manufacturers besides Leopold including 
TETRA, Roberts Filter and US Filter. MWH has less experience with these 
manufacturers than with Leopold, but they all have a number of representative 
installations. The major difference is in the width and length and cap type of the various 
products. Roberts Filter underdrains are made of PVC, while the others are made of 
HDPE. 
MWH has designed many new filters, as well as many filter modifications, using this 
type of system. It offers a lower profile than the plenum/nozzle system, but not as low as 
the screened laterals described above. Designed and installed properly, plastic block 
underdrains offer a good choice for a gravel-less underdrain system for use with or 
without air as demonstrated in several recent Oregon installations (City of Newberg, 
McMinnville Water and Light, Joint Water Commission, City of Lake Oswego, City of 
Wilsonville and South Fork Water Board WTPs). 
Underdrain Recommendation. To extend the life of the filters and to maximize the 
new filter media depth, the most reliable and shallowest underdrains available at a 
reasonable price should be selected. We feel these criteria are best achieved by the low 
profile plastic block underdrains with gravel-less caps represented by numerous 
manufacturers. The plastic-block type underdrains are more commonly installed in filter 
retrofits than the low profile laterals and are less expensive to purchase and install. 
Planning-level capital cost estimates for this alternative are presented in Table 6-2. Costs 
associated with this alternative include improvements to the surface wash system, 
discussed in the following sub-section. 
6.2.1.4 Surface Wash System Improvement Alternatives 
If conventional media filters remain at the WTP, an auxiliary filter media cleaning system 
is necessary for effective cleaning of the filter media. Air-scour and surface water wash 
are the most common media cleaning methods. Air-scour has become popular during the 
past 10 to 15 years, as deeper filter media have become more common. As a result, older 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-14 
"K>3418 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
filters have rotating surface wash systems; most new filters have air-scour. Some filters 
have been designed with both systems for redundancy and superior cleaning. However, 
incorporation of air-scour at the Grants Pass WTP will require significant financial 
investment. In addition, even with the installation of gravel-less underdrains, the filter 
media will not be deep enough to warrant installation of air-scour. A properly installed 
and maintained surface wash system will provide enough agitation during backwash to 
sufficiently clean the media. Therefore, only surface wash systems are recommended for 
further consideration. 
Based on the age and condition of the existing surface wash systems, particularly in the 
older filters (Filters 1 through 3), it is recommended that the piping, supports and surface 
wash arms inside the filters be replaced with new equipment. Since this equipment must 
be removed to rehabilitate the filters, there is not a significant economic incentive to 
salvage any of the equipment. Costs for these improvements have been included in both 
the media/gravel replacement, and the filter media and underdrain re-build alternatives. 
There are two primary types of surface wash systems, fixed grid and rotating arm. The 
existing filters use a rotating arm system with straight arms. Table 6-1 compares the pros 
and cons of the two types of surface wash systems. Although rotating arm systems 
require more maintenance, they generally provide as effective cleaning action with lower 
water requirements and less obstruction for filter access. But, they can not provide deep 
penetration to allow adequate cleaning of deeper media. 
Incorporation of a fixed-grid system would require significant improvements to the 
current surface wash piping system, including a larger transmission pipe from the high 
surface pump station discharge header, installation of a surface wash grid in each existing 
filter and additional flow/pressure control devices. Further, it may be difficult to 
simultaneously keep in service the existing rotating arm system and a new fixed grid 
system as the filters are individually reconstructed. Therefore, we preliminarily 
recommend that a rotating arm system continue to be used at the plant. Further review of 
the preferred surface wash system should be performed during detailed design. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-15 
m i 4i9 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
T A B L E 6-1: COMPARISON OF ROTATING ARM AND FIXED GRID SURFACE WASH 
SYSTEMS 
— — ; — m $ m Advantages 
I' !••• Ill .•III HI ' Hi 
Rotating Arm 
Fixed Grid 
Fewer components 
Proven effectiveness if system is 
properly designed and maintained 
Lower flow needed (0.5 to 0.7 
gpm/sf) 
Plant operators familiar with this 
system 
Consistent with existing system 
which eliminates the need to 
replace the pump and piping in 
the filter gallery 
No moving parts 
Proven technology with over 50 
years of US experience 
Needs only 10 psi pressure 
Effective even if bed depth 
reduced from media loss due to 
angle of jets (25° - 35°) 
Can be fabricated by any shop 
May be more effective in reaching 
comers and along walls 
Lower maintenance requirements 
Only 1 or 2 reliable suppliers 
Loses effectiveness if bed 
depth is reduced with 15° 
nozzle angle 
Less effective at cleaning 
deeper media 
More susceptible to clogging 
with the shallow nozzle angle. 
70 to 100 psi needed to drive 
arms 
Requires greater maintenance 
Higher flow needed (3 gpm/sf) 
requiring replacement of all 
existing piping and pump. 
Proper design is essential to 
performance 
Might be more expensive to 
install 
Creates more dirty washwater 
to dispose of 
The rotating arms can be either straight or S-shaped. The S-shaped arm was developed to 
more effectively reach the corner area during backwash. However, in most cases there is 
sufficient lateral mixing of the media during backwash to provide effective cleaning with 
the straight arm system. Since the cost between the two types of arms is not significant, 
we recommended using the S-shaped rotating arms. The surface wash arms should be 
located approximately 2 inches above the media surface and the top of the media 
elevation should be consistently maintained to ensure effective cleaning. 
6.2.1.5 Filter Modifications Summary and Recommendations 
Planning-level capital cost estimates for the three filter modification alternatives are 
presented in Table 6-2. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-13 
¿>420 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
T A B L E 6-2: COMPARATIVE PLANNING-LEVEL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR FILTER 
MODIFICATION ALTERNATIVES 
Alternative Capital Cost 
Option 1: Replace Conventional Media Filters with Membrane Filtration 
Option 2: Replace Existing Media and Gravel Support 
Option 3: Re-build Filter Media and Underdrains 
$11,500,000 
$350,000 
$600,000 
Based on capital cost and overall "value" added to the plant, we recommend re-building 
all filters with plastic block underdrains and installing a deeper dual-media (20-inches of 
1.0 mm anthracite over 10-inches of 0.5 mm sand). Figure 6-1 presents a cross-section 
of a representative existing filter (Filters 6, 7 and 8) and the recommended filter 
modification alternative. 
Although there are some advantages of rebuilding the filters "bank-by-bank" during 
individual projects, including optimization of the design based on previous experience, 
rebuilding all of the filters as part of one construction project will minimize the overall 
cost of the project and ensure uniformity and consistency throughout construction. 
Assuming 3-weeks on average for each filter re-build, the construction project will last a 
total of 24-weeks, or approximately 6-months total. Construction is limited to the "off-
peak" season (October through April) due to demand constraints. If construction were 
started in October, the project could be completed by the end of March, before water 
demands begin to increase. To meet this schedule, the City would need to issue Notice to 
Proceed (NTP) to contractor in Spring/early Summer to ensure materials are on-site by 
early October. Therefore, it is feasible to re-build all of the filters in one year under one 
construction contract. This would result in a savings of approximately 25% of total costs 
and effort, when compared to the "bank-by-bank" separate project approach. 
The City should also consider incorporating all suggested filter improvements, including 
valve/actuator replacements discussed later in this Section, as part of one construction 
effort for economies of scale and for ease of sequencing filter outages during 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-41 
00.. 421 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
construction. Combining these projects would add approximately 1-week per filter to the 
construction schedule, or a total of 32-weeks (8-months) construction duration. 
6.2.2 Basin Modifications 
As discussed in Section 4, the existing 3 basins have deficiencies with respect to 
providing optimal pretreatment ahead of the filters. During challenging water quality 
events (high turbidities, cold water, high alum doses), the settled water turbidity exiting 
the basins is significantly higher than desired, thereby loading additional solids to the 
filters, reducing production efficiencies and increasing the risk of poor filtered water 
quality. Also, Basin #3 suffers from poorer performance than the other 2 basins, due to 
its square shape, center-feed and peripheral launders, which results in a higher degree of 
short-circuiting. 
At a minimum, flocculation should be added to each basin for faster forming and better 
settling floe. Currently, none of the basins provide any degree of controlled mixing to 
enhance floe formation. Flocculation options include mechanical (vertical turbine or 
horizontal paddle wheels) and hydraulic flocculation using baffles. Basin #3 requires 
other baffling improvements to minimize flow short-circuiting in addition to adding 
flocculation. These improvements will optimize plant performance, reduce chemical 
consumption and improved filtered water quality. 
The addition of flocculation to each basin as an immediate improvement should be 
developed with a plan for the future plant capacity increase. The plant's pre-filtration 
(flocculation/sedimentation) capacity can be expanded to 30 mgd in a number of different 
ways for a wide range of costs including: 
• Add a 4th basin, rated at 10 mgd +/-, to operate in parallel with the other 3 basins 
rated at 20 mgd 
• Uprate the capacity of the three existing basins to 25 mgd and add a 4th basin rated at 
5 mgd +/-
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-13 
¿>000422 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
• Uprate the capacity of the three existing basins to 30 mgd and don't add any new 
basins 
• Use of high-rate proprietary clarification systems, such as Actiflo, SuperPulsators or 
dissolved air flotation (DAF), to increase capacity within the existing plant's footprint 
From a long-term planning perspective, any of these approaches appears to be technically 
feasible for a range of costs. With respect to decision-making for immediate basin 
improvements to add flocculation, it is suggested to assume the entire 30 mgd 
pretreatment capacity will remain inside the existing basin footprint. This will allow the 
greatest degree of flexibility for future plant expansions that may not occur for another 20 
to 25 years. Based on our experience, it is likely that the lowest-cost approach for the 
plant expansion will also be to uprate the basins to 30 mgd. 
A preliminary review of hydraulic capacity and basin configurations suggests the 
following approach for expanding the basins to 30 mgd: 
• Uprate the flow to Basins 1 and 2 to 15 mgd from the current 12 mgd capacity 
• Uprate the flow to Basin 3 to 15 mgd from the current 8 mgd capacity 
This uprating to 30 mgd would incorporate the use of flocculation, baffling and high-rate 
tube settlers in all basins. The entrance to Basin 3 would also be changed to the south 
end (from the existing centerfeed) to promote longitudinal flow. New launders would be 
required for the basins in conjunction with the tube settlers. With the addition of tube 
settlers, all basins would require the addition of continuous sludge removal systems. 
Lamella plate settlers are also an option versus tube settlers, but they typically require a 
deeper setting than tubes and therefore may conflict with sludge removal systems. 
* 
Proposed design criteria for the basins at 30 mgd are shown in Table 6-3. 
Based on this analysis, it is suggested to provide flocculation facilities for immediate 
basin improvements that allow approximately 20 minutes of flocculation time under the 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-41 Page 6-19 
00.. 423 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
future 30 mgd capacity scenario. Longer flocculation times would therefore be provided 
under today's lower flowrates in each basin, which is acceptable. 
T A B L E 6-3: PROPOSED BASIN DESIGN CRITERIA AT 30 MGD 
p . Basin 2 Basin 3 
Width x Length (ft) 61 x 98 38x98 80x80 
Avg. Water Depth (ft) 13 13 13 
Surface Area, total (sf) 5,980 3,750 6,400 
Total Volume (gal) 581,600 364,700 622,400 
Nominal Rated Capacity (mgd) 9.5 5.5 15.0 
Flocculation Time (min) 20 20 20 
Flocculation Volume (cf) 17,500 10,000 27,500 
Flocculation Surface Area (sf) 1,350 770 2,120 
Flocculation Length (ft) 22 20 26.5 
Tube Settler Area (sf) 2,600 1,500 4,200 
Length:Width Ratio 1.6:1 2.6:1 2:1 
Length:Depth Ratio 1:7.5 1:7.5 1:6.2 
Mean Flow Velocity (ft/min) 1.0 1.0 1.2 
Overflow Rate at Nominal Capacity 
(gpm/sf) 1.10 1.02 1.63 
Theoretical Total Detention Time at 
Nominal Rated Capacity (min) 85 90 60 
As mentioned previously, flocculation options include mechanical (vertical turbine or 
horizontal paddle wheels) and hydraulic flocculation using baffles. The use of hydraulic 
flocculation requires additional headloss, in the range of 9-inches to 24-inches, which 
may be feasible to consider for 20 mgd, but the higher future flows in each basin might 
make this a difficult approach. For planning purposes, it is recommended to add 
mechanical flocculators to each basin with a minimum of two stages, with each stage 
separated by a baffle wall. Vertical turbine flocculators probably represent a lower cost 
solution for this retrofit application compared to horizontal flocculators, so this approach 
is suggested for planning purposes. Detailed comparison of flocculation alternatives 
should be conducted during preliminary design. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-41 
00.. 424 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
Basin #3 requires other improvements to minimize flow short-circuiting in addition to 
adding flocculation. The existing center-feed and peripheral launder system will be 
removed. The raw water pipe will be re-routed to enter the southern part of the basin. 
New effluent launders will be added to the northern part of the basin. Two divider walls 
will be installed to create three separate "sub-basins" to improve flow and reduce short-
circuiting. Electrical and control improvements will also be required for a complete 
mechanical flocculation system. 
Figure 6-2 indicates the conceptual improvements to allow the basins to treat 30 mgd in 
the future. The estimated capital cost to add the flocculation systems, baffle walls and 
other Basin 3 modifications is $600,000. This cost does not include the addition of 
continuous sludge removal systems, which are included as lower-priority improvement 
not necessarily required for the immediate improvements, nor does it include addition of 
tube settlers, which would not be required until the plant capacity is expanded. 
These improvements should be constructed during the non-peak demand season, one 
basin at a time, to keep the plant in service. It is estimated that each basin will require 
approximately 1 month to modify, on average, for a total on-site construction period of 3 
months. The total construction contract duration will be approximately 12 months to 
allow for submittals, approvals and delivery time for long-lead equipment. Timing of 
improvements to Basin #3 should be carefully determined when plant production is at its 
lowest, since it has the highest hydraulic capacity of any of the basins. The City may 
want to integrate the basin improvements project with the filter rehabilitation project to 
complete these process upgrades at the same time, in order to reduce total costs and 
minimize plant disruptions. 
6.2.3 Solids Handling and Disposal 
A detailed review of solids handling issues and current solids production at the plant is 
presented in Section 4. As previously stated, the existing lagoon at the Mill Pond site is 
currently full and needs to be cleaned immediately; potential short-circuiting through the 
lagoon is threatening the release of solids and/or chlorine into Skunk Creek, which would 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-21 
r è 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
be in violation of the current NPDES permit. The lagoon was cleaned in 2000 and it has 
now re-filled. At least a portion, if not all, of the liquid (non-dried) sludge from existing 
pond needs to be removed and hauled off-site immediately. Since the sludge is less than 
15% solids, disposal at a landfill is not an option unless the solids are dewatered first. An 
alternative site for solids disposal, to accept lower solids concentrations, may need to be 
identified in the near-term if dewatering is not implemented. In addition to the need for 
immediate cleaning requirements, a long-term strategy for solids handling should be 
developed. This long-term strategy should be developed to account for future capacity 
increases at the plant. 
Selection of the appropriate solids handling process depends largely on the methods 
available for disposal. A brief review of disposal methods for the City is presented 
below, followed by a discussion of alternatives to meet immediate and long-term solids 
handling needs at the plant. 
6.2.3.1 Method of Disposal 
Ultimately, the long-term solids handling strategy will depend on the available methods 
of disposal. The four disposal options available to the City are: 
Option A. Delivery of solids to the Water Restoration Plant (WRP) 
Option B: Landfill disposal of dewatered solids 
Option C: Dispose of liquid sludge at the Redwood Pump Station site 
Option D: Delivery of dewatered solids directly to the City's JO-GRO™ facility 
Option A. The City's WRP is approximately one mile west of the WTP. Assuming that 
the WRP has sufficient solids and hydraulic capacity, and that the inert WTP solids do 
not negatively affect the WRP solids processes, disposal of the WTP solids to the sanitary 
sewer is the simplest option for the City since solids dewatering would only occur at one 
location (at the WRP) versus separate dewatering facilities at each plant. It is understood 
that the WRP solids are used for composting at the JO-GRO™ facility. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-22 
CM-.426 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
Waste washwater and basin solids can be equalized and pumped directly to the WRP, or 
alternatively, thickened to approximately 2 to 4 percent solids to deliver a lower volume 
(but the same amount of solids) to the WRP. Thickening and equalization substantially 
reduces the pumping and piping capacity needed to divert solids and reduces the 
hydraulic load to the WRP. Another WRP disposal approach is to deliver liquid solids to 
the WRP via tanker trucks, which would require removal of solids from the lagoon on a 
frequent basis; this approach would eliminate the need to install piping to the WRP. 
Except for the trucking option, the existing lagoon would no longer be used for WTP 
solids storage. 
The existing sewer line located along "M" Street is 12-inch diameter, and is believed to 
lack the hydraulic capacity to carry additional flows from the WTP. Additionally, the 
line is located beneath several buildings along the Rogue River, and is relatively old. The 
City feels the potential for solids accumulation in this pipeline, coupled with the lack of 
accessibility, create too great a risk to consider this pipeline for WTP solids discharge. 
Therefore, a new, dedicated forcemain is presumed to be required between the WTP and 
the WRP to adequately deliver the solids to the WRP. The size of the pipeline (and 
pumps) depends on whether all backwash and basin solids and liquids are delivered to the 
WTP (higher flows) or thickened solids are delivered to the WRP (lower flows). The 
existing transfer pumps in the WTP's equalization basin may be able to deliver the higher 
flow alternative. If the City is seriously interested in a WRP disposal option, then it 
should further explore the possible use of the existing 12-inch sewer main for disposal of 
thickened solids, to reduce capital costs. 
Option B. If sludge is hauled to a landfill, the sludge must be thickened and dewatered 
to a minimum of 15 to 25-percent solids depending on individual landfill requirements. 
Either a mechanical dewatering process (such as a belt filter press or centrifuge), or 
gravity dewatering process (such as lagoons, drying beds or Geo-Tubes) could be used. 
Mechanical dewatering systems are typically only used for very large plants, or plants 
with significant space constraints. Mechanical dewatering systems can be labor-and 
power intensive and can only reliably produce 15 to 25 percent solids maximum. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-23 
00€427 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
Lagoons and drying beds require less labor to operate, and if designed and operated 
properly under adequate climatological conditions, can produce greater than 30 percent 
solids. Another possible dewatering approach which has gained the City's interest is the 
use of "GeoTubes" which are geotextile products that can be filled with liquid sludge, 
and then allowed to slowly drain until the solid content has risen for proper handling and 
disposal. If acceptable to the City, these tubes could be filled and left around the 
perimeter of the lagoon for long periods of time until properly dewatered. 
Option C. The City has recently identified the Redwood Pump Station Site as a potential 
alternative for solids disposal. The site is relatively large (approximately 40 acres), 
secluded, and located approximately 8-miles from the WTP Liquid sludge could be 
trucked to the Site, and solids holding/dewatering facilities (such as drying beds or 
lagoons) could be constructed on-site for dewatering; dry solids could potentially be land 
applied on-site for ultimate disposal. 
In recent discussions with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the 
City learned that transfer of solids to this site would not likely fall under the Solids Waste 
Agency purview, and therefore would not require a solids permit. However, there may 
be public perception problems or challenges to use of this Site. This alternative site for 
solids disposal was not seriously considered for this analysis. 
Option D. The City has the ability to haul dewatered WTP solids directly to the City's 
JO-GRO™ facility, which currently accepts dewatered solids from the WRP for use in 
developing soil amendment products. With proper conditioning and control of mix 
ratios, it is believed that dewatered alum sludge can be used in a similar manner as the 
WRP solids. In this case, the City would have to produce dewatered sludge (> 15% 
solids) for hauling to the facility using one of the techniques mentioned in Option A. The 
operating costs of this Option would be considerably less than Option A, since there 
would be no "tipping" or disposal cost incurred. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6 - 4 1 
00.. 428 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
6.2.3.2 Alternatives to Address Immediate Solids Handling Needs 
The existing WTP sludge lagoon is full and the City needs to implement a short-term 
solution to handle its solids until a long-term solution is implemented. The short-term 
solution requires continued use of the lagoon to store solids, but the lagoon needs to be 
emptied of solids to allow more solids storage over the next few years. The City has two 
alternatives to removing solids from the lagoon, including: 
• Dredge/remove solids from the lagoon and truck the liquid solids to a site that can 
accept the liquid solids (either the WRP or a site which may be available to store and 
dry solids such as the Redwood Pump Station Site), or 
• Dredge/remove solids from the lagoon, dewater the liquid solids (either on-site or 
remotely), and then dispose of the dewatered solids in a landfill or at the City's JO-
GRO™ facility. 
The existing lagoon is approximately 1.5 acres (65,340 sf), and the lagoon depth is 
approximately 4-feet average, which is equivalent to 260,000 cubic feet or 2 million 
gallons of total stored solids. These solids are estimated to be approximately 4-percent 
by weight on average. The solids in the lower portion of the lagoon may have 
significantly higher solids content. For discussion purposes, this volume of solids 
currently stored in the lagoon represents almost 400 tanker truck loads carrying 5,000 
gallons each. 
For both short-term options, the City may opt to haul and dispose of a minimum amount 
of solids as soon as possible, and then plan to remove solids annually or semi-annually 
over the next few years. The costs associated with each option will depend on the total 
volume removed. As the solids level in the lagoon continue to rise, the "immediate" 
decision regarding method of disposal may ultimately be based on availability of 
resources to perform the desired removal and disposal services. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-41 
00.. 429 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
6.2.3.3 Alternatives to Address Long-term Solids Handling Needs 
The City has several alternatives to meet long-term solids handling and disposal needs for 
the WTP, including: 
Option 1. Create new sludge drying beds/lagoons at the existing Mill Pond site; 
dispose of dewatered solids (25-40% solids) in landfill or at JO-GRO™ 
Option 2: Construct new mechanical dewatering facility at the Mill Pond site; 
dispose of the solids (20-25% solids) in a landfill or at JO-GRO™. 
Option 3: Equalize waste washwater and basin solids in the existing equalization 
basin, and pump all of the liquid + solid flow (-0.1% solids average) to 
the WRP through a new dedicated force main. 
Option 4: Equalize waste washwater and basin solids in the existing equalization 
basin, construct new thickening/clarification facility, and pump the 
thickened solids (-2% solids) through a new dedicated force main to the 
WRP. 
Option 5: Use existing solids lagoon for storage as currently practiced; install 
permanent dredging equipment in the lagoon and frequently haul solids 
(-4% solids) via truck to the WRP, Redwood Pump Station Site or to the 
JO-GRO™ site. 
Option 6: Use existing solids lagoon for storage as currently practiced; install 
permanent dredging equipment in the lagoon and use Geo-Tubes to 
dewater the solids removed from the lagoon; dispose of the solids (15-
40% solids) in a landfill or at JO-GRO™. 
These six options were developed for comparison and evaluation purposes. There may 
be other variations of these options which could also be considered, but these six 
represent a wide range for the purposes of this planning effort. These options are 
discussed in detail in the following sub-sections. Planning-level capital and operations 
and maintenance cost estimates for each option are presented in Table 6-4. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-26 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
OPTION 1. The creation of new solids drying beds/lagoons on the site of the existing 
Mill Pond lagoon, to replace the lagoon, is considered a viable alternative that can meet 
the City's needs for the next 20 years or more. The site is capable of handling solids 
production up to a maximum day demand of 20 mgd, at current alum dosages; efforts to 
optimize coagulation, reduce alum doses and minimize solids production may support 
solids storage and dewatering beyond the 20 mgd maximum day demand. 
The lagoons would receive washwater and solids from the existing equalization basin and 
the clarified overflow would continue to be discharged to Skunk Creek. Once a certain 
amount of solids have filled the lagoon, it would be taken off line, slowly decanted 
(decant to Skunk Creek) and the solids allowed to dry. The dried solids would be 
removed via a front-end loader and hauled via dump truck to a landfill or to the JO-
GRO™ facility. 
The new drying beds/lagoons would require sequential construction to keep part of the 
existing lagoon in service while at least one or 2 beds are completed. Removal of 
existing solids in the lagoons would be required as part of construction. 
The new sludge drying beds would consist of 4 isolated cells, each with a capacity to 
handle 4 months of sludge production. The operating philosophy would allow two 
lagoons drying, one available for service and one in service. Maximizing the number of 
cells increases the flexibility and dewatering conditions considering the limited drying 
season. The design criteria for each cell is presented below: 
• Cell Dimensions: 55' x 255' x 6' (each) 
• Decantation facility: telescoping valve(s) 
• 10-foot access roadway surrounding each of the cells 
• Cement gunite or soil-cement lining 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-27 
OiK 431 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
The cells would be capable of dewatering the solids to at least 25%, perhaps as high as 
40%, depending on drying conditions. Higher solids content would result in lower 
removal and disposal costs. 
OPTION 2. Mechanical dewatering is a relatively expensive alternative, typically 
reserved for larger plants, or plants with space constraints. For application in Grants 
Pass, the process would require a clarifier/thickener (which may also serve as sludge 
equalization) prior to the dewatering process. There are several mechanical dewatering 
processes available including diaphragm filter press, conventional filter press, belt filter 
press and centrifuge. Based on past experience with alum sludge, centrifuges are 
recommended for further consideration. 
Washwater and basin solids would flow from the existing equalization basin to the 
thickener to create approximately 2% solids. Overflow/supernatant from the thickener 
would be discharged to Skunk Creek under the existing NPDES permit, if acceptable. 
Centrifuges typically operate according to a counter-current flow principal; a "scroll" 
forces dewatered solids to one end of the mechanism, where they are stored and 
eventually discharged into a truck for transport to a landfill or to JO-GRO™. Liquid 
centrate from the centrifuge would be combined with that of the thickener and discharged 
to Skunk Creek. To achieve "optimal" solids concentration, relatively high 
concentrations of polymer must be added to the sludge, thereby increasing costs 
associated with operations and maintenance. 
The centrifuge would be located inside a two-story building which would allow gravity 
flow of dewatered solids from the centrifuge into a dump truck below. Alternatively, a 
single-story building could be used with a conveyor system to deliver solids to the truck. 
OPTION 3. Discharging all of the washwater and basin solids to the WRP would 
require the installation of a new 12-inch dedicated force main, sized for approximately 
2,000 gpm instantaneous flow. For this analysis, it was assumed that the existing 
equalization basin and transfer pumps are sufficiently sized to pump the liquid/solids to 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-41 
00.. 432 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
the WRP (approximately 1 mile). Operations and maintenance costs for this alternative 
include WRP charges for the discharged liquid plus solids, in addition to pumping costs 
(which are presumably about the same as the current pumping costs to deliver the 
washwater to the lagoon across the street). 
OPTION 4. The addition of a thickener or clarifier at the WTP site would significantly 
decrease the volume of liquid/solids discharged to the WRP. A thickener/clarifier that 
i increases the solids concentration to 2% solids would reduce the overall volume 
discharged to the WRP by a factor of 20 or more. The discharge fee to the WRP would 
presumably be less to handle less volume compared to Option 3 although the total solids 
delivered to the WRP would be the same. A new 4-inch forcemain to the WRP would be 
required, but smaller and less costly than for Option 3. Overflow/supernatant from the 
thickener/clarifier would be discharged to Skunk Creek under the existing NPDES 
permit. Operations and maintenance costs for this alternative include WRP charges for 
the discharged liquid plus solids, in addition to pumping costs. 
OPTION 5. This alternative requires no immediate improvements to the existing lagoon, 
however, a capital investment associated with the installation of permanent dredging 
equipment at the pond is required. For this analysis, it was assumed that the existing 
lagoon is capable of creating solids up to 4% by weight on average. Supernatant would 
continue to be discharged to Skunk Creek. Solids from the lagoon would be periodically 
pumped by the dredge into a tanker truck (perhaps on a weekly or monthly basis) and 
hauled to the WRP site in a tanker truck for disposal. The liquid solids could 
alternatively be hauled to the Redwood Pump Station Site or to the JO-GRO™ site for 
dewatering and disposal. Operational and maintenance charges associated with this 
alternative include WRP charges if this approach is used (less than Option 4 because the 
total volume is less), in addition to those associated with operating and maintaining the 
dredge and trucking the liquid plus solids to the WRP on a frequent basis. 
OPTION 6. This alternative requires no immediate improvements to the existing lagoon, 
however, a capital investment associated with the installation of permanent dredging 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-29 
<>-' - 433 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
equipment at the pond is required. For this analysis, it was assumed that the existing 
lagoon is capable of creating solids up to 4% by weight on average. Supernatant would 
continue to be discharged to Skunk Creek. Solids from the lagoon would be periodically 
pumped by the dredge into Geo-Tubes located around the pond perimeter and allowed to 
dewater through the Geo-Tube fabric by gravity. Conditioning polymer would be added 
to assist with dewatering. Once full and at the proper solids concentration, the Geo-Tube 
would be hauled to the landfill or to JO-GRO™ where the dewatered solids would be 
released from the tube. In addition to the costs associated with operating and maintaining 
the dredge and trucking the solids to the on an annual or semi-annual basis, depending on 
how long the tubes take to dewater the solids. Of all the options available, Option 6 has 
perhaps the highest risk since there is little proven experience with this method at other 
western US water treatment plants. 
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION. Planning-level costs for the long-term 
solids handling alternatives discussed above are presented below in Table 6-4. A 
comparison of the relative advantages and disadvantages associated with each alternative 
is presented in Table 6-5. 
T A B L E 6-4: PLANNING-LEVEL COSTS FOR COMPARISON OF LONG-TERM SOLIDS 
HANDLING ALTERNATIVES 
Option Capital Costs 
Ü 
Annual 0 & M Costs 
1 ($/year) 1 
Total P r e s e t Worth J 
Option 1 600,000 45,000 1,212,000 
Option 2 800,000 65,000 1,684,000 
Option 3 700,000 45,000 1,312,000 
Option 4 800,000 35,000 1,274,000 
Option 5 175,000 75,000 1,195,000 
Option 6 175,000 35,000 650,000 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 
0 434 
Page 6-30 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
T A B L E 6-5: COMPARISON OF LONG-TERM SOLIDS HANDLING ALTERNATIVES 
¿Sfesj '•ä'y« 7TT — — 
Option 1 Advantages Disadvantages 
Option 1 
• City owned property 
• Existing NPDES permit for 
discharge into Skunk Creek 
• No need to "re-handle" solids 
. Potentially high dewatering 
efficiencies (up to 30% solids) 
Appears less "natural" than 
existing lagoon 
Dewatering efficiency significantly 
impacted during winter rainy 
season 
• Requires careful management of 
drying process to ensure high % 
solids 
Option 2 
• Relatively small foot-print; 
facilities can be installed at 
existing WTP site or at pond 
site 
• Without lagoon, Mill Pond site 
might be available for 
alternative uses (i.e. park 
expansion or commercial) 
• Thickening and dewatering 
processes require careful operator 
attention to ensure proper 
dewatering 
• Relatively expensive 
• Additional chemical requirements 
• Increased O&M costs 
Option 3 
• Simplest approach for WTP 
operation 
• Potential benefit to WRP pre-
treatment due to alum 
• Eliminates discharge to 
Skunk Creek 
• Mill Pond site available for 
alternative uses (i.e. park 
expansion or commercial) 
• Will WRP accept WTP solids? 
• Potential impacts to WRP solids 
processes 
Higher hydraulic loading to WRP 
Option 4 
• Potential benefit to WRP pre-
treatment due to alum 
At least 20 times less volume 
pumped to the WRP 
. Will WRP accept WTP solids? 
• Potential impacts to WRP solids 
processes 
• Additional WTP operations 
associated with thickening process 
Option 5 
• Minimal capital investment 
• Minimum footprint 
• No adjustments to current 
plant operations 
Potential benefit to WRP pre-
treatment due to alum 
• Will WRP accept solids? 
• Potential impacts to WRP solids 
processes 
• Need for dewatering at other sites 
besides WRP 
• Operator intensive for dredging 
operations 
• Truck traffic 
Option 6 
• Minimal capital investment 
• Lowest O&M costs 
• Minimum footprint 
• No adjustments to current 
plant operations 
• Little increase in truck traffic 
• Geo-Tubes un-proven 
• How fast will solids dewater? 
• Safety and security issues with 
tubes around pond 
Operator intensive for dredging 
operations 
• Requires careful management of 
polymer addition and drying 
process to ensure high % solids 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-13 
¿>435 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
The capital costs include a 40% markup over the estimated construction costs for 
contingencies and engineering. Present worth of annual O&M costs were determined 
based on 20-year period at an interest rate of 4%. 
The annual O&M costs are based on an annual solids production of 140 dry tons/year (= 
900 pounds per day average) assuming current/historical alum doses and river turbidities, 
and an annual average WTP flow of 7.2 mgd which represents a 15 mgd maximum day 
flow. This condition was used to represent an average condition over the next 20 years 
considering the current WTP production (10.5 mgd max. day, 5 mgd annual average) and 
the WTP production in the future (20 mgd max. day, 9.5 mgd annual average). Solids 
production will vary seasonally. 
The analysis for Option 3 also assumes that the plant will operate at 97% production 
efficiency and that 3% of the water will be produced as washwater and solids flows, 
resulting in an annual average flow from the WTP to the WRP of approximately 200,000 
gallons per day (gpd), with ranges from 100,000 gpd to 500,000 gpd during the year. 
Instantaneous flows to the WRP for Option 3 were assumed to be 2,000 gpm maximum. 
Option 4 assumed 20 times less flow to the WRP which represents an annual average 
flow of 10,000 gpd with instantaneous flows to be 200 gpm maximum. 
O&M costs for dewatering options (1,2 and 6) include $75/wet ton for landfill disposal 
including handling and removal, trucking and landfill tipping fees. Assume drying beds 
and Geo-Tubes produce 30 % solids and a centrifuge produces 20 % solids. The O&M 
costs for these options will be significantly lower if solids are disposed of at the JO-
GRO™ facility. 
O&M costs for the WRP disposal options (3,4 and 5) were assumed to be: 
• Annual discharge fee = $350/MG + $50/1000 lbs of solids + $12/1000 lbs of COD 
• Assume COD of WTP solids = 0 mg/L 
• An initial connection fee" to the WRP of $ 100,000 required for Options 3 and 4 
• Tanker truck costs for Option 5 = $150 per trip with at 5,000 gallons per trip 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-41 
00.. 436 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
The lowest capital cost Options are 5 and 6. Option 6 has the lowest present worth costs. 
The City prefers to implement a low-cost solution using a permanent dredge which 
allows use of either Option 5 or Option 6. Initially, the City will use the Geo-Tube 
approach for on-site dewatering, and use Option 5 as a fall-back approach. The preferred 
disposal location for dewatered solids is at the JO-GRO™ facility assuming that this 
material can be properly mixed with other products to achieve a desirable soil 
amendment product. 
Option 1 should be considered from a long-term planning perspective as the plant 
continues to increase water production and subsequent solids production. Over time, use 
of the dredge and Geo-Tube approach may become infeasible or requires too much 
operator time. Figure 6-3 presents a schematic of sludge drying beds/lagoons at the Mill 
Pond site to replace the existing storage lagoon in the future. This approach has the 
lowest capital cost for Options 1 through 4 and offers simpler operations. Further 
discussion about the feasibility and costs associated with WRP discharge will be required 
before implementing Option 1. Currently, the City does not prefer the WRP discharge 
option. 
This discussion of solids handling options assumes that the City will continue to receive 
extensions of its NPDES permit to Skunk Creek and that recycling of lagoon 
overflow/decant will not be required. However, the City should consider the possibility 
that discharge to the creek will not be allowed indefinitely, and that recycle may 
eventually be required. Planning for potential recycle should be considered when making 
any major plant modifications in the next 5 to 10 years. 
6.2.4 Intake Modifications 
As discussed previously, the intake requires modifications to meet fish protection criteria. 
A Technical Memorandum that summarizes current intake deficiencies and improvement 
options is included in Appendix D. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-33 
00(143 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
The recommended approach for planning purposes includes modifications to the existing 
structure to install flat-plate screens into the river and away from the existing back-eddy. 
A figure representing the conceptual design for this approach is contained in Appendix D. 
A new screen cleaning system will be required and the existing travelling screen will be 
removed. The modifications should be designed to allow a 30 mgd withdrawal rate to 
avoid the need for future (expensive) work in the river when the plant capacity is 
expanded. The City should make minimal investments in the existing travelling screen to 
keep it functional for the new few years, but don't purchase and install a new travelling 
screen as currently budgeted. 
The bulk of the construction work for the intake modifications needs to be accomplished 
during the 6-to-8 week in-water work period during July and August. The predesign, 
permitting, design and construction will require approximately two years to complete. 
The City will need to integrate certain features of the new intake system, including 
headloss monitoring and cleaning initiation, into its existing WTP SCADA/control 
system. The estimated project cost for the preferred intake improvement approach is $1.6 
million. 
6.3 IMPROVEMENTS TO MAINTAIN EXISTING CAPACITY 
Based on the information presented previously, there are significant improvements to be 
made at the existing WTP to maintain the existing 20 mgd rated capacity, to ensure 
continued compliance with increasingly-stringent drinking water quality and other 
regulations, and to improve operations and cost-effectiveness for the plant's remaining 
useful life. Based on discussions with staff, the recommended improvements are divided 
into two categories based on prioritized need and/or benefit. Tier-one improvements 
should be implemented as soon as possible and are considered to be the highest priority. 
Tier-two improvements are considered to be important for long-term benefits, but of a 
lower priority than Tier-one. The recommended Tier-two improvements should be 
implemented soon after the Tier-one improvements are made, or incorporated into Tier-
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-26 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
one projects if funds are available due to economies of scale (such as re-building filter 
gallery piping and valves, combined with the filter re-build effort). Some of the Tier-two 
improvements have lower priority than others and can be deferred until funds are 
available. 
Table 6-6 presents Tier-one improvements and costs followed by brief descriptions of 
each recommended improvement. Table 6-7 presents Tier-two improvements and costs 
followed by brief discussions of each improvement. Figure 6-4 indicates the proposed 
improvements to maintain existing plant capacity and to improve operations. 
Total estimated project costs for improvements to the existing plant are $3.0 million for 
Tier-one and $1.8 million for Tier-two in 2003 dollars. These costs should be escalated 
due to inflation depending on when the improvements are actually made. 
Project costs represent the total estimated cost of implementation including construction 
costs, engineering and construction management costs, administrative and legal costs, 
and also contingencies. Estimated construction costs were developed and then 40% was 
added to develop the project cost estimate. Intake improvements used 50% markup 
above estimated construction costs due to greater level of uncertainty and risk. The level 
of accuracy of these estimates represents planning-level within +/- 30% of actual costs. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-41 
00.. 439 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
T A B L E 6-6: RECOMMENDED TIER-ONE PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS 
s I rriprbve me nt/Dèsc H pti on $ 
. V. : ~ f , ••• i * '" • • • - Estimated Project Cost - - . ( 
1. Re-build Existing Filters with surface wash improvements $ 600,000 
2. Add flocculation and baffling to Existing Basins $ 600,000 
3. Solids Handling and Disposal Improvements $ 175,000 
4. Intake Modifications (for 30 mgd capacity) $1,600,000 
Total $2,975,000 
T A B L E 6-7: RECOMMENDED TIER-TWO PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS 
. | g g g g m m g n . v . ? Est! mäteil P roject Cost j 
5. Replace existing filter valves and new electric actuators $ 450,000 
6. Rebuild filter gallery piping $ 150,000 
7. Replace and relocate filter effluent/filter-to-waste meters $ 80,000 
8. Spare backwash pump and motor $ 50,000 
9. Install continuous sludge removal systems in basins $ 300,000 
10. Relocate lime addition to clearwell; repair clearwell piping $ 75,000 
11 New coagulant feed and injection system $ 75,000 
12. New flowmeters for Basin #3, Raw water and Finished water $ 75,000 
13. Filter effluent Particle Counters $ 60,000 
14. Spectrophotometer for UV254 measurements $ 10,000 
15. Containment for Alum Tanks $ 30,000 
16. Storage and Maintenance Area $ 75,000 
17. HVAC Upgrades $ 75,000 
18. Seismic Vulnerability Study $ 25,000 
19. Emergency Power for 5 mgd $ 300,000 
Total $1,830,000 
6.3.1 Tier-One Improvements 
6.3.1.1 Re-Build Existing Filters with Surface Wash Improvements 
As discussed in previous sections, the existing filter media is in poor condition, is very 
shallow, is not the same in each filter and can not be cleaned properly. The poor media 
conditions, operating at relatively high filtration rates, are the biggest reason why the 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-13 
¿>000440 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
plant production efficiencies are too low. It is therefore recommended to install new 
media in each filter. This will first require removal of all support gravel and media. 
With the advent of "gravel-less" underdrains which do not require support gravel, it is 
possible to install a deeper filter media while keeping the elevation of the top of media 
elevation low enough to minimize the potential for media carryover to the troughs. A 
larger and deeper dual media of anthracite and sand is recommended to enhance the 
storage capacity, effluent quality and filter run times compared to the original tri-media 
of anthracite, sand and garnet. 
The filter re-build effort should also include demolition of the existing filter underdrains 
(Hydro-cones) and installation of low-profile plastic block gravel-less underdrains. Ten 
inches of 0.5 mm effective size sand and approximately 20 inches of 1.0 mm effective 
size anthracite can then be installed for a total media depth of 30 inches. MWH has 
successfully implemented filter re-builds using this same approach in numerous plants in 
the Pacific Northwest and around the country. 
The filters must be re-built one at a time so that the remaining filters are available for 
treatment. Construction will require approximately 3 weeks per filter for a total of 24 
weeks. This field work should begin in the fall following the high demand summer 
season and should be completed in the spring prior to the beginning of the next high 
demand season. The entire project duration will be approximately 18 months including 
design, bidding and construction. 
The existing filters have rotating arm surface wash systems which require 
repair/replacement. The rotating arms, if used, need to be located approximately 2-inches 
above the top of the new filter media for optimal cleaning. Use of air scour for auxiliary 
filter cleaning is an attractive idea, but will be significantly more costly compared to 
surface wash since this would require new air blower(s), piping, valves and 
electrical/controls. The relatively shallow filter media can be cleaned with surface wash, 
and therefore this approach is assumed for planning purposes. The City should review 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-37 
O , : - 4 4 1 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
the use of rotating arms and a fixed grid system for surface wash during detailed design. 
The City will need to modify the backwash sequencing and controls to accommodate the 
new filters. 
6.3.1.2 Add Flocculation and Baffling to Existing Basins 
A review of possible basin improvements for improved pretreatment prior to filtration is 
presented in Section 6.2. At a minimum, flocculation should be added to each basin for 
faster forming and better settling floe. Flocculation options include mechanical (vertical 
turbine or horizontal paddle wheels) and hydraulically using baffles. Basin #3 requires 
other improvements to minimize flow short-circuiting in addition to flocculation. 
The addition of flocculation to each basin should be developed with a plan for the future 
plant capacity increase. The plant's pre-filtration (flocculation/sedimentation) capacity 
can be expanded in a number of different ways for a wide range of costs. It is possible to 
increase the pre-filtration capacity without adding new structures (to avoid increasing the 
site's footprint). The lowest cost expansion approach appears to be modifications to 
Basins 1 and 2 to treat 15 mgd and modifications to Basin #3 to also treat 15 mgd. 
Currently, Basins 1 and 2 treat 12 mgd and Basin 3 treats 8 mgd. These improvements 
can be accomplished by adding the proper type of flocculation combined with high-rate 
settling devices (tube settlers). Continuous sludge removal systems would also be 
required in each basin. 
Therefore, it is recommended that the City add new flocculation systems to each Basin, 
as part of Tier-one improvements, that are capable of treating the higher flows through 
each basin in the future. The preliminaiy improvements plan and cost estimate were 
based on the addition of vertical turbine flocculators to each basin for planning purposes. 
Electrical and control improvements will also be required for a complete system. 
These improvements should be constructed during the non-peak demand season 
beginning in the fall, one basin at a time, to keep the plant in service. Timing of 
improvements to Basin #3 should be carefully determined when plant production is at its 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-13 
¿>442 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
lowest, since it has the highest hydraulic capacity of any of the basins. Similar to the 
filter re-build project, the project duration is approximately 18 months including design, 
bidding and construction. 
6.3.1.3 Solids Handling and Disposal Improvements 
As discussed previously, the City needs to implement a solids handling and disposal 
system to proactively manage the solids produced at the WTP. Options include discharge 
to the City's WRP, on-site dewatering for disposal to a landfill or to the JO-GRO™ 
facility, or trucking liquid solids to an off-site facility for storage, dewatering and 
ultimate disposal. Discharge of all WTP solids and liquid residuals to the WRP is the 
simplest approach for the WTP, but it may be not be acceptable from the WRP's 
perspective, with respect to the solids' impact to the WRP digestion process. The City 
should continue reviewing the feasibility and costs of the WRP discharge option over the 
next few years while the short-term improvements are implemented and proven. 
The preferred short-term solids handling and disposal option includes the installation of a 
permanent dredge at the existing pond, and on-site dewatering using Geo-Tubes. The 
City's preferred disposal site is the JO-GRO™ facility assuming that the dewatered solids 
can be used as a soil amendment. The City has performed preliminary dewatering tests 
using polymer addition and alternative Geo-Tube fabrics and feels that this approach has 
a good chance of success. As a fallback option, the liquid solids removed by the dredge 
can be trucked off-site. 
For long-term planning purposes when the plant exceeds 20 mgd production capacity, the 
City should plan to develop a series of new sludge drying beds/lagoons at the existing 
Mill Pond site to replace the existing solids storage lagoon. Water from the equalization 
basin will be pumped to the lagoons and the clarified overflow will continue to be 
discharged to Skunk Creek under the City's NPDES permit. When solids fill a lagoon, 
another lagoon will be put into service and the liquid will be decanted (to Skunk Creek) 
to allow the solids to dry enough to be removed and hauled to a landfill or to the JO-
GRO™ facility. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-26 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
Construction of the new lagoons would need to be carefully planned to keep part of the 
existing lagoon in service to allow the WTP to continue discharging solids. Since this is 
mostly an earthwork project, construction should be planned to occur during the driest 
months from April through October. Similar to the other projects, the total project 
duration is approximately 18 months including design, bidding and construction. 
6.3.1.4 Intake Improvements 
As discussed previously, the intake requires modifications to meet fish protection criteria. 
The recommended approach for planning purposes includes modifications to the existing 
structure to install flat-plate screens into the river and away from the existing back-eddy. 
A new screen cleaning system will be required and the existing travelling screen will be 
removed. The modifications should be designed to allow a 30 mgd withdrawal rate to 
avoid the need for future work in the river when the plant capacity is expanded. 
The bulk of the construction work needs to be accomplished during the 6-to-8 week in-
water work period in July and August. The predesign, permitting, design and 
construction will require approximately 30 months to complete. 
The City will need to integrate certain features of the new intake system, including 
headloss monitoring and cleaning initiation, into its existing WTP SCAD A/control 
system. 
6.3.2 Tier-Two Improvements 
6.3.2.1 New Electric Valves/Actuators for Filters 
The existing pneumatic valve actuators for the filter process piping are past their useful 
service life and in need of replacement. Pneumatic actuators are becoming somewhat 
obsolete in the water industry as utilities migrate towards electric and electronic devices. 
Replacement and repair parts for pneumatic actuators are also becoming more difficult to 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-40 
0 0 . , 4 4 4 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
obtain. Filter control will be simplified and more exact with electric actuators that can be 
directly linked to the SCAD A/control system via new PLC(s). 
The City desires to replace the valve actuators with new electric actuators. Also, due to 
the age of the valves and because some are leaking, it is appropriate to replace the valves 
since the valves are relatively inexpensive compared to the actuators. Purchasing and 
installing new valves and actuators may have a similar cost to just replacing the actuators 
since the actuators can be factory-mounted with the valves versus field installation of the 
actuators. Providing new valves with the actuators also makes it possible to assign a 
single point of responsibility for warranty and repair issues, if required. 
Each filter has five valves/actuators, of different sizes depending on the filter surface 
area, which require replacement: 
Open/close influent gate valve 
Modulating effluent valve 
Open/close FTW valve (these valves/electric actuators were installed in 2001) 
Open/close backwash valve 
Open/close waste washwater valve 
The new valve actuators will require control stations in the gallery to allow auto/manual 
valve control, and the valve actuators will also require a dedicated power supply, 
preferably linked to an Uninteruptible Power Supply (UPS), to operate properly under all 
conditions. The existing filter control panels located upstairs in the Filter Area should 
probably remain to allow filter control if the SCADA/computer system is down for any 
reason. 
All of the existing air lines and pneumatic equipment in the gallery should be removed. 
Once the replacement is completed, the new air compressor and air filter system may no 
longer be required at the plant, except for perhaps a source of laboratory air. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-41 
00.. 445 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
This work needs to be accomplished in the fall or spring since filters can not be out of 
service during the peak demand summer season. One filter at a time should be upgraded 
so that the remaining filters are available for treatment. It is suggested that this work be 
included with new filter gallery piping and new filter effluent/filter-to-waste meter 
replacements as part of one project. 
For additional economies of scale and to minimize plant disruptions, the City should 
consider incorporating these filter improvements with the filter media upgrades described 
for the Tier-one projects. In that case, each filter may require 4 weeks each to re-build, 
for a total construction duration of 32 weeks. 
6.3.2.2 New Filter Gallery Piping 
Most of the filter gallery piping is old and leaks in places. Some of the piping materials 
do not meet today's standards. The pipe supports and joint restraints do not appear to be 
adequate to ensure a reliable useful life for the next 20+ years. The backwash header 
recently was damaged due to a hydraulic surge, which pulled a joint apart and started 
leaking. 
Therefore, it is recommended to implement a filter gallery pipe replacement program that 
should be coordinated with other filter gallery improvements including new valves and 
actuators, and meter relocations. The City should consider steel pipe and ductile iron as 
alternative pipe materials. 
Each filter's piping would be replaced in such as way as to keep the rest of the plant in 
service. Ideally, this work would be completed at the same time as the filter re-builds 
(per Tier-one improvements) to minimize the total disruption to the plant and to achieve 
economies of scale to lower the costs. If this work is constructed separately, then it will 
take approximately 3 weeks per filter to complete or 24 weeks total. 
6.3.2.3 New Filter Effluent/Filter-to-Waste Flowmeters and Other Instrumentation 
The other main components of the filter control system include the filter effluent 
flowmeters and filter headloss (differential pressure) sensors. It is recommended to 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-42 
OCT 446 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
replace all of these systems with new equipment while the valves and actuators are being 
replaced. The new flowmeters are required to measure both filter effluent and filter-to-
waste flows for better control and process optimization. These meter replacements would 
best be accomplished with the filter gallery piping and valve/actuator replacements 
described above. The City should consider using meter technology that matches other 
plant meters. Magnetic-type meters may be preferable considering the City recently 
replaced the backwash flowmeter with a magnetic flowmeter. 
The existing headloss measurement systems are relatively old and may not be functioning 
properly since the pressure-sensing tubing may be clogged, and new equipment would 
ensure a long remaining useful life. The new electronic controls will be linked directly to 
the SCADA/control system via PLCs which will be installed for the filter valve/actuator 
controls. 
6.3.2.4 Spare Backwash Pump 
The plant does not have a reliable backup method for providing backwash water to the 
filters. If the existing backwash pump fails for any reason, the filters could not be 
backwashed until the pump is fixed. This would severely limit plant production, 
especially during summer months when extended operating time is required. 
Options for correcting this deficiency include installing a new 2nd backwash pump, 
improving the design and control of the inter-connect with the high service header to 
ensure that overpressurizing the underdrains does not occur, or purchasing a new spare 
pump and motor (un-installed). Based on discussions with staff, the purchase of a new 
pump is preferred, to save the pump space for a future high service pump and for other 
reasons. Therefore, the purchase cost of a new pump/motor is included for planning 
purposes. 
6.3.2.5 Continuous Sludge Removal Systems in Basins 
The existing basins fill with sludge and need to be manually removed twice per year. 
The basins must be drained and hosed out, and solids are dumped into the equalization 
basin, where solids are then pumped to the lagoons. The basins can not be cleaned during 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-43 
0 0 4 4 7 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
the peak summer demand season. As demands increase, sludge production will also 
increase and basins will fill more quickly. 
The accumulation of sludge in the basins reduces the effective volume for settling and 
disinfection. The sludge also has potential for causing tastes and odors. The large 
volumes of sludge discharged during semi-annual cleanings create solids management 
challenges and can "overwhelm" the lagoon and create possible NPDES discharge 
violations. If high-rate settling devices (tube settlers or plates) are installed for a capacity 
expansion, then installation of a solids removal system is required. 
It is recommended to add a continuous sludge removal system in each basin. There are a 
number of options to consider including Trac Vac, chain and flight and SuperScraper. For 
this planning analysis, assume the use of a TracVac system in each basin, along with 
floor modifications to accept the mechanisms and piping modifications to discharge the 
sludge to the equalization basin. Electrical and control improvements are also required. 
This work should be constructed during fall or spring when a basin can be taken off line. 
This work should be coordinated with planned sludge removal operations and may 
require each basin to be out of service for up to one week. If the City has available 
budget, it should consider including this work with the Tier-one basin modifications. 
6.3.2.6 Relocate Lime Addition Point to Ciearwell; Repair Clearwell Piping 
Lime is currently added as a slurry to the end of Basin #2. This hinders plant 
performance (coagulation/filtration and disinfection) by raising the pH above 9.0 in this 
water and probably is a cause for manganese deposits and alum "after-floccing" in the 
distribution system. 
Since lime is the most economical pH adjustment chemical, the City should endeavor to 
continue using lime, but add it to the latter stage of the clearwell to optimize disinfection. 
There may be concerns about inert particulate matter in the lime slurry increasing the 
filtered water turbidity, but MWH does not believe this is a health concern. New slurry 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-44 
(>0 448 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
piping should be installed to deliver the lime to the clearwell. The City should consult 
with DHS to confirm that this approach will meet regulatory acceptance before 
implementing the improvements. 
The connecting pipe between clearwell sections (actually a piece of culvert pipe) appears 
to be leaking based on a visual inspection. The City should make appropriate repairs to 
this leak when the clearwell can be taken out of service for a period of time. 
6.3.2.7 New Coagulant Feed and Injection System 
If testing is successful, the City will need to implement a new chemical feed system to 
add another coagulant in addition to alum. For now, it is assumed that cationic polymer 
will be used as a coagulant aid. At 1.0 mg/L average dose, this represents a current peak 
usage rate of 90 pounds per day (ppd) which is equivalent to 10 gallons per day. 
Therefore, 300 gallons provides 30 days of storage under current conditions. 
It is recommended to store cationic polymer in 250 or 400 gallon portable "totes" and 
feed with a metering pump directly from the tote. Two metering pumps would be 
required, one for standby. It is recommended to add carrier water to the neat polymer 
solution for delivery to the raw water feed point. A new polymer feed line needs to be 
installed from the chemical room to the raw water meter vault. Ideally, the injection of 
cationic polymer should be prior to alum addition to optimize the reduction in alum dose. 
The proper injection location should be determined during design. 
If the City determines that another coagulant/coagulant aid is preferable compared to 
cationic polymer (such as ACH or PAC1), then the storage and feed system requirements 
need to be reviewed. It may be possible to use totes if the dosages are low enough, or it 
may require a new bulk storage tank. In the interim, it may be possible to use one of the 
alum tanks for the alternative coagulant storage, but this would result in a loss of alum 
storage capacity and plant reliability in the long-term. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-45 
OO >449 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
6.3.2.8 New Flowmeters for Basin #3, Raw Water and Finished Water 
The plant does not have a functional flowmeter for the flow to Basin #3. It has not been 
operational for many years. Having a functional meter in this location would allow more 
accurate raw water flow split to all of the basins. Currently, the flow split is 
accomplished inexactly by manual means. 
It is likely that the existing meter sensing lines have been plugged and the underground 
location may create additional problems. A new magnetic flowmeter is suggested for 
installation that can withstand the environmental conditions. 
The City should also consider replacing the raw water and finished water flowmeters 
with similar technology as the new basin #3 meter for consistency and ease of 
maintenance. The new backwash flowmeter is magnetic and the proposed new filter 
effluent flowmeters may also be magnetic-type. 
This work should be constructed during the fall or spring when the Basin #3 can be taken 
off-line for a long enough duration to not disrupt plant production. 
6.3.2.9 New Filter Particle Counters 
The City currently measures the filtered water turbidity from each filter as required by the 
Surface Water Treatment Rule. The City should consider installing particle counters for 
each filter effluent to assist in further optimization of plant and filter performance. 
Particle counting is a more-sensitive measurement than turbidity and can detect the 
breakthrough of cyst-sized particles sooner than a turbidimeter can. Many surface water 
treatment plants throughout the Pacific Northwest and the United States have been using 
particle counting for many years. 
6.3.2.10 New UV Spectrophotometer 
The City should monitor the TOC of its raw and filtered water periodically and on a 
routine basis to better understand the removal of organics through the WTP. This 
monitoring will also benefit the reduction of DBPs in the distribution system by targeting 
lower pre-chlorine doses when the raw water TOC is higher. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-27 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
^ 
Measurement of TOC is expensive and usually requires out-sourcing to a lab. 
Alternatively, the City can measure the UV absorbance of the water at 254 nanometers as 
a surrogate to TOC measurements. In most waters, it is possible to develop a statistical 
equation between UV254 and TOC. Therefore, it is recommended that the City purchase a 
spectrophotometer capable of measuring UV254. 
6.3.2.11 Alum Tank Containment 
The City should construct a containment wall around the two existing bulk alum tanks to 
protect against a catastrophic rupture or leak. The wall will have to be at least 2 feet tall 
with a surface area of 900 sf to contain 12,000 gallons of liquid alum. 
6.3.2.12 Storage and Maintenance Area/Building 
The WTP has inadequate protected and sheltered space for storing spare equipment and 
materials, as well as having limited maintenance/workshop space. It is recommended 
that the plant construct a 1,000 sf +/- "low-cost" building on the plant site for more-
permanent storage. This building could also serve as a limited maintenance area also. 
6.3.2.13 HVAC Upgrades 
The City should implement improvements to the HVAC system to provide efficient 
climate control; temperatures are often too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter. 
Improvements to update heating, cooling and ventilation systems in the Control and 
Break Rooms located within the Control Building are recommended. 
6.3.2.14 Seismic Vulnerability Study 
It is recommended to perform a seismic and structural evaluation of the existing plant's 
buildings, piping and structures to determine if significant improvements may be required 
to prevent catastrophic damage during a seismic event. The site stability should also be 
evaluated by a geotechnical professional to determine if there are any issues relative to 
the long-term viability of the site, including potential issues related to plant modification 
and expansion improvements. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-41 
00.. 451 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
6.3.2.15 Emergency Power for 5 mgd 
The City should plan to add an emergency power generation system at the plant to protect 
against prolonged power outages. Providing the ability to pump and treat 5 mgd with a 
backup power supply appears to be adequate to serve the baseload needs of the City. 
Preliminary sizing indicates that a 500 kW diesel engine generator would be able to 
operate one raw water pump (75 Hp), one finished water pump (300 Hp) and smaller base 
plant loads to produce 5 mgd. The generator would be built with its own weatherproof, 
soundproof enclosure and would require a transfer switch and other electrical work to tie 
into the plant's existing electrical system. A one to two day fuel storage tank should also 
be included. Further review and discussion with City staff is required to refine the 
design, costs and location. 
6.3.2.16 Items Not Included 
Not included in the lists of recommended improvements and costs presented in Tables 6-
6 and 6-7 are: 
• New caustic soda or soda ash systems if lime addition to elearwell isn't feasible 
• Alternative disinfection system, if required, to meet future regulations such as the 
D/DBP Rule or the LT2ESWTR 
• Seismic and/or structural improvements recommended as a result of the Seismic 
Evaluation 
• OSHA and ADA improvements 
• Other items not identified herein 
Additional elearwell volume is recommended to be included in the plant expansion 
improvements as discussed in the following section. 
6.4 IMPROVEMENTS TO INCREASE CAPACITY 
Various improvements are required to expand the plant's capacity as discussed in Section 
4. The existing plant site, intake, basins and yard piping are capable of supporting a 
maximum capacity of 30 mgd. Table 6-8 summarizes the recommended improvements 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 P a g e 6-13 
¿ > 0 0 0 4 5 2 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
and project cost estimates for a capacity increase to 30 mgd. Each of the improvements 
is briefly described and discussed following the table. Figure 6-5 indicates proposed 
improvements to increase the capacity to 30 mgd. 
T A B L E 6-8: RECOMMENDED PLANT EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS (TO 30 MGD) AND 
COSTS 
improvement/Description 
-
Estimated Project Cost 
1. Two new raw water pumps $ 100,000 
2. Chemical System Improvements $ 150,000 
3. Basin Improvements $2,800,000 
4. Three new filters $1,500,000 
5. Additional clearwell volume $1,250,000 
6. Two new high service pumps $ 200,000 
7. Yard Piping Improvements $ 200,000 
8. Surge control improvements $ 150,000 
9. Increase site electrical service $ 200,000 
10. Site electrical improvements to support upgrades $ 750,000 
11. Instrumentation and control improvements to support upgrades $ 150,000 
Total $7,350,000 
Total estimated project costs for expanding the plant capacity to 30 mgd are $7.4 million 
in 2003 dollars. This equates to an approximate unit cost of $0.74 per gallon of added 
capacity. These costs should be escalated due to inflation and construction cost indices 
according to when the improvements are actually made. Based on the current rate of 
demand growth, the plant expansion is not expected to be required until approximately 
2025 assuming the City continues to operate the existing plant for longer durations until 
the 20 mgd production capacity is observed. 
Project costs represent the total estimated cost of implementation including construction 
costs, engineering and construction management costs, administrative and legal costs, 
and also contingencies. Estimated construction costs were developed and then 40% was 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-49 
i r ò . 4 5 3 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
added to develop the project cost estimate. The level of accuracy of these estimates 
represents planning-level within +/- 30% of actual costs. 
6.4.1.1 Two New Raw Water Pumps 
A summary of the condition and requirements for the intake and raw water pump station 
is discussed in previous sections and also in the Intake Review Technical Memorandum 
(in Appendix D), 
The existing four raw water pumps provide a total pumping capacity of 20 mgd and a 
firm, reliable capacity of 15 mgd with one pump out of service. There is currently space 
to add two more pumps for capacity expansion. 
There are a number of options for increasing the pumping capacity. If two additional 5 
mgd pumps are added, then the total installed pumping capacity will be 30 mgd. The 
firm capacity with this arrangement would be 25 mgd. To develop a firm 30 mgd 
pumping capacity, two of the 5 mgd pumps would have to be replaced with 10 mgd 
pumps. Upsizing existing pumps requires careful evaluation of the electrical equipment 
and motor control center. At least two of the raw water pumps should be equipped with 
VFDs for optimum plant flow control. 
For planning purposes, it is assumed that two new 5 mgd pumps will be added to the Raw 
Water Intake. One pump will be provided with a new VFD since the plant is currently 
planning to add one VFD to a raw water pump within the next two years. As discussed 
previously, at least one of the new pumps should be added prior to the full plant 
expansion, when demands exceed 15 mgd, to provide a firm/reliable pumping capacity of 
20 mgd. Based on current growth projections, the new raw water pump will be required 
in the next 10 to 15 years. 
Improvements to the intake to bring it into compliance with fish protection criteria and to 
expand the capacity to 30 mgd were presented previously in this section. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 P a g e 6-13 
¿>0454 
FACILITIES PLANNING 
6.4.1.2 Chemical System Improvements 
As part of the plant expansion, it is recommended to replace all chemical metering pumps 
and delivery systems assuming that the equipment currently installed will exceed its 
useful life within the 20-year planning period. The bulk chemical storage systems will 
likely need replacement or upsizing also to handle the higher plant flows and higher 
chemical usage rates. 
6.4.1.3 Basin Improvements 
Proposed basin improvements to achieve the ultimate capacity of 30 mgd were discussed 
previously. It is possible to achieve the pre-treatment capacity inside the existing basins 
via the use of high-rate tube settlers which will minimize the site impact and also provide 
the lowest cost approach. Basin improvements for Tier-one modifications will provide 
flocculation to meet the future 30 mgd capacity requirements. Tube settlers will be added 
for the expansion, including the structural supports and launder modifications required 
for proper performance. Costs for continuous sludge removal systems are shown for 
Tier-two improvements. 
6.4.1.4 Three New Filters 
To achieve a plant capacity of 30 mgd, three new gravity filters should be constructed by 
extending the existing filters and gallery to the west. The filter surface area, underdrains, 
media, cleaning systems, and piping/valves should match the systems in the existing 
filters 6 through 8 (= 324 sf each). The total filter surface area for all 11 filters would 
then be 3,465 sf. At 30 mgd with one large filter out of service for backwashing, the 
maximum filtration rate will then be 6.6 gpm/sf. 
It is feasible to consider constructing part of the new elearwell volume underneath the 
new filters as discussed below. Various buried piping needs to be demolished and/or 
relocated modified to allow the filters to be constructed in the designated area and a 
construction sequencing plan needs to be developed to ensure that the existing filters 
remain in service during construction. 
City of Grants Pass WTP Facility Plan 
May 2004 Page 6-41 
00.. 455