Boise • Carson City • El Dorado Hills • Fallon • Lake Tahoe • Reno • Roseville L:\LAProj\11390.002 - Newman Reservoir Pump Station Design\3-Design\DWG\Civil\Exhibits\Noyo River - Horizontal Directional Drilling\Noyo River - Horizontal Directional Drilling.docx
Reno
950 Sandhill Road, Suite 100
Reno, Nevada 89521
775.827.6111 LumosInc.com
Date: October 5, 2026
City of Fort Bragg
Attn: City Staff / Project Representatives
416 North Franklin Street
Fort Bragg, California 95437
RE: Noyo River Crossing - Emergency Horizontal Directional Drilling Project Dear City Representatives:
On Wednesday, October 7th, 2026, Lumos was notified of an emergency project to address issues associated with the existing 12-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) at the Noyo River crossing.
Following that notification, Lumos was provided the Noyo River Crossing Alternatives Assessment, prepared by Waterworks Engineers and dated May 8, 2025, together with record drawings from the original installation.
Lumos reviewed the assessment and the available 1987 record drawings for the Noyo River crossing. The existing crossing includes a 12-inch DIP segment beneath the Noyo River, with multiple 45-degree elbows and transition geometry at the riverbanks. The assessment also identifies environmental and permitting constraints associated with open-cut work and access within or near the river and adjacent riparian areas.
Lumos and City representatives met Friday, October 2nd, 2026, to discuss the available alternatives and a potential emergency response. Based on that discussion and our review of the assessment, the previously evaluated lining alternatives do not appear to provide a suitable solution for the existing 12-inch DIP crossing under the current conditions:
• HDPE slip lining would not accommodate the existing 45-degree elbows without additional excavation and open-cut work. It would also result in a significant reduction in flow area.
• Pressure CIPP would not accommodate the 12-inch DIP crossing geometry, including the 45-degree elbows, and would require the existing pipe to be fully dewatered and dried. Additional excavation near the river would also be required for the associated transition work.
• Primus Line can navigate the 45-degree elbows; however, the assessment indicates that this system relies on the existing host pipe for external load transfer. Given the reported deterioration and uncertainty regarding the condition of the existing 12-inch DIP, this alternative is not considered applicable without further verification demonstrating that the host pipe is suitable.
LUMOS
& ASSOCIATES
Date 10/5/2026
LumosInc.com
As a potential replacement approach, the group discussed using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) to install a new waterline offset from the existing 12-inch DIP and generally within or near the limits of the previous trench. This approach may reduce the need to disturb the active river channel and may use the previously disturbed corridor. Locating the proposed bore near the existing trench may also help mitigate the potential for encountering cobbles and boulders outside the previous excavation limits. The final alignment, offset, profile, depth, and construction method remain subject to field verification, subsurface investigation, environmental review, permitting, and contractor input.
At this stage, the HDD concept should be treated as a preliminary emergency-project direction and not as a final design. Before construction, the project should include, at a minimum, verification of the existing utilities and pipe alignment; review of available record drawings and field conditions; subsurface and geotechnical evaluation appropriate for the proposed bore; confirmation of the proposed pipe material; and a contractor-prepared HDD plan showing the bore profile, entry and exit locations, bend radii, minimum cover, pit limits, drilling-fluid controls, pullback calculations, and environmental protection measures.
Because a topographic survey was not conducted for this project, any design redlines or asbuilt information prepared by Lumos should be understood to be based on available record information and field observations and should not be considered surveyed or certified. The contractor shall verify existing conditions, dimensions, elevations, alignments, utilities, and installed improvements before construction and shall notify the City and Engineer of discrepancies that could affect the work.
Lumos will continue coordinating with the City regarding the emergency response and can further develop the HDD concept upon direction from the City.
Sincerely,
Aaron Brusatori, P.E.
Group Manager
Lumos & Associates, Inc.
Attachments:
1. Noyo River Crossing - Emergency Horizontal Directional Drilling Project - Exhibit
2. Noyo River Crossing Alternatives Assessment, Waterworks Engineers, May 8, 2025
3. Available record drawings for the original Noyo River crossing installation.
ATTACHMENT 1
-
NOYO RIVER CROSSING
EMERGENCY HORIZONTAL DIRECTION DRILLING
PROJECT
-
EXHIBIT
REMOVE 12 DIP WITHIN
HDD TRENCH EXTENTS
SEE NOTE 1
REMOVE AND
REPLACE EX 12" DIP
WITH 12" HDPE SDR 9
SEE NOTE 4
SEE NOTE 4
SEE NOTE 4
SEE NOTE 4
SEE NOTE 4
SEE NOTE 4
SEE NOTE 4
SEE NOTE 4
SEE NOTE 4
SEE NOTE 4
SEE NOTE 4
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
JOB NO.:0
IF NOT ONE INCH ON THIS SHEET,
ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY
BAR IS 1 INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING
WWW.LUMOSINC.COM
[email protected]
© LUMOS & ASSOCIATES, INC.: THIS DRAWING IS
THE PROPERTY OF LUMOS & ASSOCIATES, INC..
USE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING, IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF LUMOS & ASSOCIATES, INC. IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. THIS DRAWING IS NOT
TO BE USED FOR ANY PROJECT OTHER THAN
THE PROJECT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY 1"
3840 EL DORADO HILLS BLVD., STE. 301
EL DORADO HILLS, CA 95762
TEL: 916.980.8228 CITY OF FORT BRAGG
NOYO RIVER CROSSING EXHIBIT FORT BRAGG MENDOCINO COUNTY CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT - OCTOBER 2026 SHT 1
FHP
FHP
AB- 0
22x34 SHEETS: 1" =
11x17 SHEETS: 1" =
10' 20'
10'
20'
VERTICAL SCALE 0
22x34 SHEETS: 1" =
11x17 SHEETS: 1" =
10' 20'
10'
20'
HORIZONTAL SCALE 0
22x34 SHEETS: 1" =
11x17 SHEETS: 1" =
10' 20'
10'
20'
6" MIN SEPARATION
PROPOSED 12"
HDPE SDR 9
ABANDON EX
SACRIFICIAL ANODE
IN-PLACE
REMOVE AND
REPLACE EX 12" DIP
WITH 12" HDPE SDR 9
CONNECT TO EX 12"
GATE VALVE PER
DETAIL 1
EX 12" DIP
REMOVE AND
REPLACE EX 12" DIP
WITH 12" HDPE SDR 9
ABANDON EX
SACRIFICIAL ANODE
IN-PLACE
BEGIN HDD
END HDD
CONNECT TO EX 12"
GATE VALVE PER
DETAIL 1
END HDD
BEGIN HDD
CONNECT TO EX 12"
GATE VALVE PER
DETAIL 1
CONNECT TO EX 12"
GATE VALVE PER
DETAIL 1
MIN ENTRY
ANGLE PER MFG
RECOMMENDATIONS
MIN ENTRY
ANGLE PER MFG
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. INSTALL 12-INCH HDPE SDR 9 PIPE BY HORIZONTAL
DIRECTIONAL DRILLING (HDD) FOR THE RIVER-BED
CROSSING AS NOTED ON THE PROJECT PLANS.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A STAMPED HDD DESIGN
AND INSTALLATION PLAN FOR ENGINEER REVIEW PRIOR TO
MOBILIZATION OR DRILLING.
3. HDD INSTALLATION PLAN SHALL INCLUDE ENTRY AND
EXIT LOCATIONS, ENTRY AND EXIT ANGLES, HORIZONTAL
AND VERTICAL CURVE RADII, TANGENT LENGTHS, BORE
ELEVATIONS, MINIMUM COVER BELOW THE EXISTING RIVER
BED, AND 6" MINIMUM SEPARATION FROM OUTER WALL OF
EXISTING 12" DIP.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE PIPE
MANUFACTURER’S MINIMUM ALLOWABLE BEND RADIUS
DURING STAGING, DRILLING, PULLBACK, INSTALLATION,
CONNECTION, AND FINAL PLACEMENT.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT PULLBACK FORCE, TENSILE
STRESS, BENDING STRESS, AND DRILLING-FLUID PRESSURE
CALCULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION.
6. LOCATE HDD LAUNCH AND RECEIVING PITS OUTSIDE THE
ACTIVE RIVER CHANNEL AND OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF
RIVERBANK INSTABILITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED
BY THE ENGINEER.
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE PROPOSED LOCATION,
LENGTH, WIDTH, AND DEPTH OF EACH HDD PIT, INCLUDING
EXCAVATION SUPPORT, SLOPING, SHORING, DEWATERING,
ACCESS, AND SPOILS-MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
8. MAINTAIN THE MINIMUM COVER SHOWN ON THE PLANS
BELOW THE EXISTING RIVER BED. CONTRACTOR SHALL
VERIFY ACTUAL RIVER-BED ELEVATIONS AND SUBSURFACE
CONDITIONS PRIOR TO DRILLING.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING
AND PROTECTING ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, STRUCTURES,
BANK PROTECTION, AND OTHER FEATURES THAT MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE HDD OPERATION.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS
DRILLING-FLUID MONITORING AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY
CONTAIN AND REPORT ANY INADVERTENT RELEASE OF
DRILLING FLUIDS TO THE RIVER BED, CHANNEL, BANKS, OR
FLOODPLAIN.
11. DRILLING FLUIDS, CUTTINGS, AND SPOILS SHALL BE
CONTAINED, REMOVED, TRANSPORTED, AND DISPOSED OF
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED HDD PLAN AND
APPLICABLE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
12. PROVIDE DEWATERING, SUMP, SLURRY-CONTAINMENT,
AND DISCHARGE-CONTROL MEASURES AT EACH PIT.
DISCHARGE OF SILT, DRILLING FLUIDS, OR CONTAMINATED
WATER TO THE RIVER IS PROHIBITED.
13. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT THE SELECTED HDD
EQUIPMENT CAN ACHIEVE THE PROPOSED BORE PROFILE,
CURVE RADII, DEPTH, AND PULLBACK REQUIREMENTS.
14. DO NOT BEGIN DRILLING UNTIL THE HDD SUBMITTAL,
BORE PROFILE, PIT PLAN, UTILITY-CLEARANCE PLAN,
DRILLING-FLUID PLAN, AND ENVIRONMENTAL-CONTROL
PLAN HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED.
15. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AS-BUILT HDD RECORDS
SHOWING THE FINAL PLAN ALIGNMENT, PROFILE, ENTRY
AND EXIT LOCATIONS, BORE DEPTHS, PIPE ELEVATIONS,
AND INSTALLED PIPE LENGTH.
16. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE PLAN ALIGNMENT, MINIMUM
COVER, PIT LIMITS, OR APPROVED HDD PROFILE SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION.
17. SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED FOR THIS PROJECT.
DESIGN IS BASED ON AVAILABLE RECORD INFORMATION
AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
EXISTING CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS,
ALIGNMENTS, UTILITIES, AND INSTALLED IMPROVEMENTS
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REDLINED AS-BUILT
INFORMATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED SURVEYED OR
CERTIFIED.
INSTALL (2) FLG X
ELECTROFUSION
COUPLING
REMOVE AND
REPLACE EX 12"
DIP WITH 12"
HDPE SDR 9
REMOVE EXISTING FLG ADAPTER
INSTALL FLG X ELECTROFUSION COUPLING
REMOVE AND
REPLACE EX 12"
DIP WITH 12"
HDPE SDR 9
REMOVE
EXISTING
TIE-BACKS
CONNECTION DETAIL
EXISTING TRENCH SECTION
6" MIN SEPARATION
PROPOSED 12"
HDPE SDR 9
EX 12" DIP
EMERGENCY HORIZONTAL DIRECTION DRILLING PROJECT
L:\LAProj\11390.002 - Newman Reservoir Pump Station Design (3-Design DWG Civil Exhibits Noyo River — Horizontal Directional Drilling Noyo River - Horizontal Directional Drilling.dwg,20 sc P&P, 10/05/2026 09:49 am fhernandezperez LU MOS
& ASSOCIATES
V
•»
y (724//7S
I (
/
7 t
♦
i i
9 7 .Gr
0 7 8) 99/+ 1 //7 d
I
O
N — C
l
I
A k
M
301
IG/Y —
II
4 5
T
—AL HDNJM
Q9DN
- ( A
.£ = J
J0VMS H5INIJ
,Vi
A/1 I
e
J& J • ~
.£ = J
—
LO
\
\
S3M/)
J3A/M—
1 HT
rXYazaola. _ 2
AT
Oh ©)
//VN
— T
£b ©) cdOJ- Z
Q/
A ‘ 4 । V I I
I
/ W
I
o.
o%" , 06 APNWNV7
(a^ino^) —
(3NIVVLS=a
t_ +7,9 8/yH . V/ 1 907 (B)HD 71 3 I (07 / CUT 5EC T/ON ( 24 ‘( LOG V (W) 7V 6Z A 0^40______ / LBM TOP OF I" IKON prp^ EL EV JO 0.0 L V X GON! .--------- SLOPE 4S
V NECESSARY
1 TING 12." A C
@ 96.0_.
(OBTBO^ ’
73.9 MOg 1 ‘G f/ 4 7 J.
2MryAsYz
07o
1_/ N 0
—
2JJI3MSV9 7VIO3e
2 2 J33/0 (01 GH// ) n o - / c a/
b 0
O TA 7JJ0-MO79M
O4 ill 9 'EQ!
7 L
i I
1 A i
i V O(u3OlO^^
\ 1^0913 isi \ 79.49‘O
. , j
()
ATTACHMENT 2
-
NOYO RIVER
CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
-
WATERWORKS ENGINEERS, MAY 8, 2025
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 1
City of Fort Bragg
Fort Bragg Reservoir Project for Water Storage Resilience Noyo River Crossing Alternatives Assessment DRAFT
Date: May 8, 2025
Prepared by: Erik Ma, P.E.
Tim Lewis, P.E.
Reviewed by: Jon Roy, P.E.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .....................................................................................................................................................1 List of Figures............................................................................................................................................................2 List of Tables.............................................................................................................................................................2 1 Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................3 2 Background/ Purpose.......................................................................................................................................4 3 Design Criteria and Constraints........................................................................................................................5
3.1 Existing Noyo River Crossing Extents and Challenges..............................................................................5
3.2 Design Criteria ..........................................................................................................................................8
3.3 Existing Conditions and Risk Inherent to Rehabilitation Technologies....................................................9
3.4 Restrained Piping System.........................................................................................................................9 4 Alternatives Discussion...................................................................................................................................10
4.1 Rehabilitation: HDPE Sliplining...............................................................................................................10
4.2 Rehabilitation: Pressure Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) ..............................................................................12
4.3 Rehabilitation: Primus Line.....................................................................................................................13
4.4 Alternatives Comparison ........................................................................................................................14 5 System Hydraulics...........................................................................................................................................15
5.1 Preliminary Hydraulics............................................................................................................................15 6 Recommendation ...........................................................................................................................................16
6.1 Construction Considerations..................................................................................................................16
6.1.1 Access Pits ...................................................................................................................................... 16
6.1.2 Mobilization and Staging ................................................................................................................ 17
6.1.3 Concrete ......................................................................................................................................... 18
6.1.4 Bypass Piping .................................................................................................................................. 18 7 Recommended Next Steps.............................................................................................................................18 8 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost..........................................................................................................19 9 References......................................................................................................................................................20 () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 2
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Alternatives vs Environmental Challenges......................................................................................4 Figure 2: Project Overview .........................................................................................................................................5 Figure 3: Project Overview .........................................................................................................................................6 Figure 4: 1987 Noyo River Crossing Record Drawings ...............................................................................................7 Figure 5: Typical, Example Concrete Thrust Blocks................................................................................................. 10 Figure 6: Sliplining Example (Note: FPVC is being used) ......................................................................................... 11 Figure 7: Original Host Pipe (Left) VS Rehabilitated with CIPP (Right).................................................................... 12 Figure 8: Primus Liner Installation........................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 9: Alternatives Lining Class and Interface with Host Pipe ............................................................................ 14 Figure 10: Alternative Overview.............................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 11: Northwestern Tie-In Piping After Lining................................................................................................. 17 Figure 12: Southeastern Tie-In Piping After Lining.................................................................................................. 17 List of Tables
Table 1: Alternatives Feasibility Summary .................................................................................................................3 Table 2: Liner Design Criteria......................................................................................................................................8 Table 3: Rehabilitation Comparison Matrix............................................................................................................. 14 Table 4: Preliminary Hydraulics............................................................................................................................... 15 () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 3
1 Executive Summary
The City of Fort Bragg is addressing aging infrastructure within the raw water transmission system, which conveys raw water from three primary sources to the City’s Water Treatment Plant. A critical 800-foot segment of the transmission system crosses the Noyo River and adjacent riparian areas. Due to environmental and permitting constraints, open-cut replacement of this segment was deemed infeasible by Coleman Engineering in the 2020 Raw Water Line Replacement Project Practicality Report. The purpose of this report is to evaluate trenchless rehabilitation alternatives that reuse the existing pipeline as a “host” pipe.
The evaluation of the lining alternatives is done for two major components of the Noyo River crossing, the 12” ductile iron piping (DIP) that is directly under Noyo River, and the 10” asbestos cement (AC) pipe that spans the floodplain and adjacent riparian areas. Due to the unknown condition and alignment of a majority of the pipeline, only semi-structural or fully structural liners were considered for rehabilitation alternatives, as they could independently withstand internal pressures and varying degrees of host pipe degradation. HDPE sliplining, pressure Cured-in-place pipe (CIPP), and Primus Liner were evaluated for use on the 10” and 12” piping. Table 1 provides a summary of the key considerations discussed during the evaluation of alternatives.
Table 1: Alternatives Feasibility Summary
Criteria HDPE Sliplining Pressure CIPP Primus Liner
Max Operating Pressure (psi) 200+ Varies 196
Structural Classification IV IV III 1
Navigates 22.5° bends (Y/N) Maybe Yes Yes
Navigates 45° bends (Y/N) No No Yes
Reduction in Flow Area (%) >30% ~10% ~20%
Expected Service Life 50 years 50 Years 25 years1
Estimated Headloss per LF of pipeline High Low High
Feasible for 10” AC piping (outside Noyo River) Yes2 Yes Yes1 Feasible for 12” DIP piping (under Noyo River) No No Yes 1Dependent upon integrity of host pipe. If host pipe fails from external hazards, then Primus Liner will likely fail as well. 2 If elbows > 11.25° are dug up, exposed, and cut out.
HDPE sliplining was eliminated due to excessive flow capacity loss, and inability to navigate bends without additional open cut work. Cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) is suitable for 10" asbestos cement sections but cannot navigate the 12" ductile iron 45-degree bends and wet conditions of the piping directly under the river. Primus Liner offers compatibility across all sections but reduces hydraulic capacity more than CIPP and heavily relies on the host pipe for external load transfer, which requires the AC and DIP piping to be in good condition. The recommended approach is a hybrid rehabilitation using pressure CIPP for the older 10” AC piping, and Primus Liner for the larger diameter 12” DIP piping with significant geometric constraints. This solution maximizes structural liner coverage along the pipeline while balancing hydraulic capacity and constructability. Preliminary hydraulic modeling and CCTV are advised before finalizing a design methodology. () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 4
2 Background/ Purpose
The City of Fort Bragg (City) is currently in the process of replacing several portions of its raw water transmission system under the Raw Water Line Replacement Project (RWLRP). The City’s raw water transmission system is composed of two major pipelines that transfer raw water from three major supply sources. The first raw water pipeline transports water from the Noyo River to the City’s Water Treatment Plant (WTP). This pipeline is not being replaced as a part of the RWLRP. The second pipeline and the focus of the RWLRP conveys raw water from two raw water sources, Waterfall Gulch and Newman Gulch, to the WTP. A significant portion of this raw water pipeline is being replaced under the RWLRP, primarily due to concerns with the existing condition of the pipeline and future operational changes to the raw water system.
The existing pipeline is comprised of a combination of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), asbestos cement, ductile iron, and steel pipes that range in diameter from 6 inch to 12 inch along the alignment. The existing raw water transmission pipeline is nearing the end of its service life, with pipe failures becoming increasingly frequent and widespread according to the Project Practicality Report (2020) by Coleman Engineering. Sections of the pipeline are partially buried with exposed crowns, and one segment is elevated on a deteriorating wooden support, posing a significant threat to the reliability of a substantial part of the City’s water supply. The RWLRP aims to increase the longevity and reliability of the system by replacing at risk portions of the pipeline through traditional open-cut direct buried means.
An approximately 800 linear foot section of the raw water transmission main crosses the Noyo River and surrounding riparian and floodplain areas. This section was not incorporated into the overall RWLRP replacement project. Open cut construction and trenchless replacement alternatives (such as auger bore and jack, microtunneling, Horizontal Directional Drilling, or pipe bridges) are exposed to greater environmental constraints (i.e., are more impactful) and are exposed to greater permitting difficulty agencies, shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Project Alternatives vs Environmental Challenges () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
T T
Lower Exposure to Environmental Constraints & Permitting Difficulty T T
Replacement alternatives. Not assessed in this report.
Pipe Bridge
Open Cut
Trenching
Trenchless Horizontal
Directional Drilling
Trenchless
Microtunneling
Trenchless rehabilitation alternatives with minimal
open-cut trenching. Assessed in this report.
I
Trenchless
Rehabilitation
(lining)
• Higher
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 5
Consequently, this report is limited to assessing trenchless rehabilitation alternatives that reuse existing pipelines as “host” pipes for lining products or sliplines. See Figure 2 for an overview of the RWLRP and location of the Noyo River crossing.
Figure 2: Project Overview
The goal of the alternative assessment is to evaluate the feasibility of lining the existing Noyo River Crossing, develop conceptual design details and construction costs. 3 Design Criteria and Constraints
3.1 Existing Noyo River Crossing Extents and Challenges The Noyo River Crossing is still a part of the overall RWLRP but instead will be rehabilitated under a separate construction contract. The extents of the Noyo River Crossing segment are based on the work omitted from the initial RWLRP and includes a segment of the raw water pipeline north of the Noyo River flood plain adjacent to a small dirt path and extends south of the Noyo River at the Georgia Pacific Haul Road. See Figure 3 for the extents of the Noyo River Crossing segment to be evaluated.
() WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
Water Treatment Plant " 2 ■ .
1’] s ;
Segment 2 of RWLRP—
x
I 122
_____
P
Coastal Zone
aw.
|Newman Gulch
Summers Lane
Reservoir
- ---------
1, G
2 5
cll
9)5
1 * :
•’ - ■ i
_____
P= ah , "
"5 is — : Maamestaa — J
•• S
N
‘ A
tew
J aheg * y
UY—-- Noyo River
WT Crossing
gn 5 " r
J , 9
AWARMWed —ii. »
* H -■ “e w F ir v *
. pesras Ed
...........
s
/
" /
“heyn 0 wM , 1 • e 3 i" —.Segment 3 of RWLRP
■ . 6 |
—
- —
SSAMMkIssta
P
D
5uly PK y . o
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 6
Figure 3: Project Overview
The existing Noyo River Crossing pipeline consists of 10” AC piping across the Noyo River flood plain (assumed based on City anecdotes), and 12” DIP under the Noyo River channel. The 12” DIP section of the piping was installed in 1987, replacing the original 10” steel crossing according to City record drawings. Figure 4 shows a plan view from the record drawing of the 1987 Noyo River Crossing project. No record drawings were provided by the City for other piping outside the Noyo River. Several key considerations and assumptions were identified during review of existing as-builts of the existing crossing and discussion with the City:
• The 1987 12” DIP crossing was installed parallel to the original 10” pipeline, with a double 90-degree elbow configuration utilized to bridge the perpendicular distance between the two alignments, at both the northwest and southeast banks of the Noyo River. Due to the inability for lining rehabilitation methods to traverse a double 90, both of these double 90s must be removed with traditional open cut methods. • The 1987 12” DIP crossing was installed with a total of four rolled 45-degree elbows located under the Noyo River channel. These elbows cannot be removed without working within the flooded channel of the Noyo River and will need to be accounted for in determining a feasible lining method and product. () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
■ N
a
l JH
t d
V “Wto Jow?
♦
st t
x
ch
I. s. ss
.5 4
I III 12-DI PIPE _0
G2 ?
1 200 300
■ US Feet
RWLRP 7‘x 5' Valve]
Vault, beginning of
Segment 3
WP
’ Ml
LEGEND
Mn
1 L 1
h
—_________ Termination point of WRWLRPSegment2
ee arer - s Dues 4
—Sh
7 fr
> J J
RWL PROJECT
== 10"PVC
( GATE VALVE
EXISTING
• 10” AC PIPE
3. pw 1,
• BLOWOFF
FEM*
FLOODPLAIN
0 50 100
Auuve J “Wrt"s
20o%%
ov
mn - . .< Sdt
1 -* —a s‘e
/h
U
. * aes. v.
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 7
Figure 4: 1987 Noyo River Crossing Record Drawings
'NEW 12." PIPE
DI PESTPAINtDJT
—_ )______
BASELINE (s5°E)
\
LOG
T
e4
^5‘EL&QW 2
(NOLLEp)
/
0 /•OO
\
io sn
NOYO PI YEP
/03
\
3 |
*
12-15' NEDWOOD&
EXISTING IO"
^TEEL SUPPLY
LINE
O
$
&EGYN
BASE LINE
r
W
0:39540 RT
IIP K£F Pl
w
o
N
1t6l 8LI
45°ELBOW
(KOLLSO)
0.,/a^ 23 s'fj- -Z
CONNILI fxtSF pi W/ 10 • ELBOW
1,14 5, 14 11
46’ ELBOW
(POLLED)
CUT t KETtOVE
BELT ION OF
24’0 LOS
h oey
Y © © KX
s ) s (L/
—
(
R )
A ^FTnriff" cur £zenove 0
—V2
——= £**,=..7.
Yk w BLOn OFF AssB) '
SEF(3 \
• 2 '—--> slowOFF— --------------- 1 (N)n'aV' V
*"77 00100 (,
^YBt^-TQPOF riKON4 , 11—
PJPE EL EV IOQO \
G \
OFKPWARSTPS-
(E) 4 4 AC PIPE
P) V
(N) 12 GV
&^u
>K>'EU
%
L...
HEU
&6~EU
2152 6. n’KT
3/4^1 P NEP PT
24.6 *
It'EU
ZPOL 23'Ll ta)
CONNECT TO EXIST STEEL
N/tO 9 EL SOW
\I III/,
FOP TPEE PENOVAL
SEE NOTE 3
^O'EU
L X______________ACCE^PP I- PI 9’72
3LOW OFF SEE (3
2fO! ■ /3 5‘ LT______ 2
(NOPTH SIDE ONL 7
SEE NOTE)
18 EU^) MMMee G'EU
. • ' JEE W/BLOW OH .
( o, ~4O'EU
\E-EU .2’00
s’eu
Ui
I4EU
IO'EU
ze0
Q>6-EU
Gs’Eu
(eMBEu
.
1 /
1 $0333232
AI WATERWORKS
99 ENGINEERS
— $
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 8
• Access to the 12” DIP crossing transition to 10” AC piping at the southeast bank is from the Georgia-Pacific Haul Road. The direct path from the Georgia-Pacific Haul Road to the crossing passes through a marshland and required a temporary access road during the 1987 12” DIP crossing project. It is assumed that the same access path will be utilized. It is currently unknown if any clearing, grubbing, or disturbance of trees and vegetation along the path will be required to complete the work. • In Table 2 of the Project Practicality Report (2020) by Coleman Engineering, the approximate maximum static pressure expected at the Noyo River Crossing is approximately 140 PSI. • The 1987 12” DIP crossing was installed with a blowoff at both the northwest and southeast banks of the Noyo River. It is assumed that both blowoffs would be replaced given their extended age.
3.2 Design Criteria
Based on the existing conditions and assumptions of the river crossing, the following required design conditions are summarized in Table 2 for both sections of the Noyo River Crossing.
Table 2: Liner Design Criteria
Criteria Liner for 12” DIP Crossing Liner for 10” AC NW and SE of 12” DIP Minimum, Max Operating Pressure(psi) 175 175
Structural Load Bearing (Y/N) No Yes
Navigates 22.5° bends (Y/N) Yes Yes
Navigates 45° bends (Y/N) Yes No
The ability of a liner to be load bearing is dependent on American Water Works Association’s (AWWA) structural classification for pressure pipe linings. The AWWA classification ranges from Class I to Class IV, and have the following summarizing characteristics:
• Class I – Liners are non-structural systems primarily used to protect the inner surface of the host pipe from corrosion or improve water quality. This liner has minimal ability to bridge any discontinuities in the host pipe such as corrosion holes or joint gaps.
• Class II – Liners are semi-structural and must adhere to the walls of the host pipe. Internal pressure loads are sustained by the liner at discontinuities, however at all other portions of the pipe internal and external loads are transferred to the host pipe. This liner can extend the life of a partially deteriorated pipe by reducing leaks.
• Class III – Liners are like Class II liners and are classified as semi-structural, however Class III liners can withstand internal pressure loads independently. These liners may or may not adhere to the wall of the host pipe but typically rely upon the host pipe’sintegrity to protect the liner from earth loading, live loads, and external hazards.
• Class IV – Liners are fully structural and can operate independently if the host pipe deteriorates after installation of the liner. Class IV liners must demonstrate long and short term hoop strength independent from the host pipe, as well as the ability to survive all anticipated failure modes of the host pipe. () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 9
While the existing condition of both the 10” AC and 12” DIP are unknown, it is assumed that due to the age of the existing 10” AC pipe it will be rehabilitated with the assumption that the host pipe may be leaking and partially deteriorated. This condition means the host pipe cannot be relied on for long term structural load bearing capabilities and will require a more robust structural rehabilitation liner. For the purposes of this report, Class III (semi-structural) and Class IV (fully structural) liners will be evaluated for use as rehabilitation alternatives for the Noyo River crossing.
The following additional criteria will be factored into choosing a recommended lining rehabilitation method if multiple alternatives satisfy the above requirements:
• Reduction in flow area
• Cost
• Installation time
• Access pit size
• Expected Service Life
• Host pipe required cleaning
• Host pipe minimum structural condition
Note that the max pressure interpolated from the Project Practicality Report by Coleman Engineering may not be indicative of the final pressure profile over the pipeline. A comprehensive hydraulic model of the entire RWLRP pipeline (WTP pump station to reservoir) and a surge and transient analysis (which would denote “upsurge” potential and pressures above max working) is recommended and beyond the scope of this assessment.
3.3 Existing Conditions and Risk Inherent to Rehabilitation Technologies All construction methodologies involve constructability risks and are exposed to design constraints differently.
Trenchless construction for instance, is exposed to the risk of hidden obstacles and differing ground conditions than those estimated in geotechnical drill hole information. But trenchless rehabilitation is the only construction methodology that is exposed to and is dependent on the existing conditions of the host pipe.
The assessment conducted herein is based on limited record drawing information or anecdotal information provided to Water Works and existing conditions may vary, and can only be confirmed with tracing, potholing, and CCTV verification. If the pipeline is discovered to have a defect that affects the constructability of the trenchless rehabilitation technology (such as a hidden valve, bend, obstruction, etc.) and cannot be reliably mitigated then the rehabilitation effort would have to be paused and/or abandoned, and consequently, there is inherent risk to relying upon a rehabilitation method for pipeline assets in “unreachable” locations (i.e., under a river). Waiting until construction to dewater and CCTV the alignment is not recommended, and initial videoing of the pipeline is strongly recommended before design.
3.4 Restrained Piping System
Rehabilitation with CIPP, sliplining, or Primus Liner will require that hard connection points to valves, tees, turnouts, and bends be restrained with thrust blocks. Thrust blocks vary in size depending on the pressure, bend angle or service, and size. See Figure 5 for approximate sizes. The portions of existing host pipe that are rehabilitated will not require additional restraint systems because they will no longer experience thrust forces. () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 10
Figure 5: Typical, Example Concrete Thrust Blocks
4 Alternatives Discussion
All the proposed rehabilitation alternatives discussed in Section 4 will require some additional, albeit limited, open cut trenching work in the Noyo River Floodplain, as well as installing raw water bypass piping. Four access pits at a minimum will be required regardless of the chosen alternative due to requiring beginning and ending pits, as well as two locations with consecutive 90s that will need to be dug up, exposed, and cut out.
4.1 Rehabilitation: HDPE Sliplining
Sliplining is a Class IV trenchless pipe rehabilitation method that involves installing a pipe of slightly smaller diameter into a larger “host” pipe, then using grout to fill the annular space between the pipes and sealing each end. High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE; PE4710, Iron Pipe Size) is recommended as the sliplining material over Fusible Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC; C900, Ductile Iron Pipe Size) because it is very flexible, reducing required excavations and can accommodate scratches and gouging up to 10% of the wall thickness. Several other design considerations when utilizing HDPE for sliplining are:
• High thermal expansion potential; requires careful considerations on hot or cold days • Minimum 24 hours pipe relaxation recommended prior to installing fittings (shutdown/bypassing implications)
4 1.0 1.4 1.9 1.4 1.0
A1 A2 45 DEG 22 1/2 DEG 11 1/4 DEG
FITTING
SIZE
90 DEG
BEND OR
PLUGGED
CROSS
TEE, WYE,
OR
PLUGGED
END
PLUGGED
TEE
BEND ANGLE
(DEGREES)
BEARING AREA OF THRUST BLOCKS IN SQ FT
(HORIZONTAL BENDS)
Al WATERWORKS 9 ENGINEERS
A/2 * A/2* NOTE 12
BEND ANGLE (DEGREES)
&&
ElllialT
; in =
IIIEI1
2 06)
TEE WYE PLUGGED CROSS* PLUGGED END
14 16 .A! Illi- ll IIEI EMBEDMENT
=Illl:
BEND PLUGGED CROSS PLUGGED TEE NOTES:
1. KEEP CONCRETE CLEAR OF JOINT AND JOINT ACCESSORIES.
2. CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKING SHALL BE POURED AGAINST UNDISTURBED EARTH.
8. BEARING AREA OF THRUST BLOCK SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1.0 SQ FT.
10. TEST PRESSURES ARE SHOWN IN THE PIPING SCHEDULE.
11. ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING STRESS IS 2000 LBS/SQ FT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THIS SHEET.
12. PROVIDE 1/2" THICK PLYWOOD OVER FACE OF BOLTS
THRUST BLOCKS
NTS <33 05 09.01)
-Hi' eill
#6
#8
30"
36"
1.5 2.3
3.2 4.3
5.6 6
8 10
12 I
I
FITTING
SIZE
* EACH AREA
(A/2) IS 1/2 OF
TABULATED
TOTAL AREA
ROD
SIZE
FITTING
SIZE
GALVANIZED RODS OVER
FITTING AND EMBEDDED
IN CONCRETE (SEE TABLE
FOR SIZES)
11 1/4 DEG
0.2 0.4
0.6 0.9
1.3 1.8
2.3 VOLUME OF THRUST BLOCK
IN CUBIC YARDS (VERTICAL BENDS)
PROFILE
NTS
22 1/2 DEG
0.4 1.0
45 DEG
1.1 2.7
4.0 6.0
8.5 11.5
14.8 1
" " llllS1" II-'ISIII
12" AND LESS
14"-16"
—
ills,
me in
inis. EL ? ,
Il El -
==Illl n mis
i <11 x llllsjh c
= II-
=ini_r
SIII=
IlEllE
O
II"1 '
=
1113 L Ell —
IIi59. 14 Am Hlle0 LllE-IIII
E =m IE =
IIIISIIISIISIIHIIS’
6. THRUST BLOCKS FOR VERTICAL BENDS HAVING DOWNWARD RESULTANT THRUSTS SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR HORIZONTAL BENDS.
7. BEARING AREAS. VOLUMES. AND SPECIAL BLOCKING DETAILS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER THIS STANDARD
4. THRUST BLOCK VOLUMES FOR VERTICAL BENDS HAVING UPWARD RESULTANT THRUSTS ARE BASED ON TEST PRESSURE OF 150 PSIG AND THE WEIGHT OF CONCRETE = 4050 LBS/CU YD. TO COMPUTE VOLUMES FOR DIFFERENT TEST PRESSURES, USE THE FOLLOWING EQUATION:
VOLUME = (TEST PRESS./150) x (TABLE VALUE).
5. BEARING AREAS FOR HORIZONTAL BEND THRUST BLOCKS ARE BASED ON TEST PRESSURE OF 150 PSIG AND AN ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING STRESS OF 2000 LBS/SQ FT. TO COMPUTE BEARING
AREAS FOR DIFFERENT TEST PRESSURES AND SOIL BEARING STRESSES, USE THE FOLLOWING EQUATION: BEARING AREA = (TEST PRESSURE/150) x (2000/SOIL BEARING STRESS) x (TABLE VALUE). llleneo— ]
A2 TIelleel
9. VERTICAL BENDS THAT REQUIRE A THRUST BLOCK VOLUME EXCEEDING 5 CUBIC YARDS REQUIRE SPECIAL BLOCKING DETAILS. SEE DRAWINGS FOR VOLUMES SHOWN TO LEFT OF SOLID LINE IN TABLE III=lll==lil=llll==ill==IIl =IllI-L-D.—‘Il=
.--------—oE । I = C o (IE==IIII —elllie
=lliEem--im-=m.ll==ll
—
A1
f
IHH!!I=
3. REQUIRED VOLUMES OR BEARING AREAS AT FITTINGS SHALL BE AS INDICATED BELOW. ADJUSTED. IF NECESSARY. TO CONFORM TO THE TEST PRESSURE(S) AND ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING STRESS(ES) STATED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.
I yy
ooe Tt 09o I. co
3598238 in
S s
©
8 § 5 2 8
© 9 P P doot
D
888888
©
g 8 3 88288
D
5 Bass o i co co o !
s 5 8 N X
O
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 11
• Max pull length is approximately 1500 ft but is more likely governed by number of fittings/bends, laydown area, and easement constraints.
• Limited use on bends greater than 11.25 °, open cut excavation may be required at bends • Significant reduction in the flow capacity of the host pipe. • Requires additional access pits and open cut work to seal both ends of the sliplining.
HDPE is a thermoformed plastic that is butt fused outside of the trench and is bent down into and then winched through the host pipeline. An example1 of sliplining operations and trenching is illustrated in Figure 6. It can accommodate fused flange adapter kits, field-fused or prefabricated/mitered bends, and electrofusion couplings for plain ends. Contractors generally prefer HDPE for sliplining applications given its improved handling and ease of fusion. Appurtenance connections to HDPE pipe are best accomplished with a reducing tee (installed with electrofusion couplings or butt fusion) or sidewall fusion saddles. Mechanical saddles and electrofusion saddle connections should be avoided as they have significant performance issues with highly flexible HDPE.
The typical sliplining operation begins with
thoroughly preparing the host pipe (the existing 12”
DIP and 10” AC pipe) Preparation starts with tracing
the line, shutting it down and inspecting it with CCTV
to identify any hidden fittings and elbows not
depicted in the record drawings. Next, the internal
condition of the pipe is assessed for roughness,
presence of hard edges, offset joints, pipe damage,
and debris to determine if cleaning is required.
Based on CCTV footage, the Contractor may flush
repeatedly and manually clean out any debris
related to high sediment loads, tuberculation, and
corrosion. Cleaning can be accomplished by cleaning
buckets, kites/plugs, and pulling test sections
(“pigging”). It is possible that additional excavations may be required to cut out a portion of pipe not
suitable for sliplining if record drawings were not
accurate or cleaning is not successful in dislodging a
piece of debris.
1 Accessed May 2, 2025
https://www.pe100plus.com/PE-Pipes/Technicalguidance/Trenchless/Methods/PipeFigure 6 Rehabilitation/Sliplining-i1306.html : Sliplining Example (Note: FPVC is being used) () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
3 4
‘it V
f “ 4 e
J - /
1 '
S s
s, - $7 V
El
75 CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 12
4.2 Rehabilitation: Pressure Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) Like sliplining, cured-in-in-place pipe is a Class IV trenchless rehabilitation method used to replace the lifespan of existing pipelines. A distinct advantage of structural CIPP lining is that the liner is thinner than the typical HDPE pipe used for the sliplining process, discussed in section 4.1, while still providing adequate structural strength to rehabilitate the existing crossing. See Figure 7 for a visual2 of existing piping before and after rehabilitation with CIPP. Because the liner fits the existing pipe, there is no annular space that would have to be grouted, and the cured liner would not be likely to move inside the host pipe. Also, the insertion pit and staging area required for this method are much smaller than what is required for a sliplining installation. The insertion pits are typically about 5 feet long by 5 feet wide where needed, while the staging areas are typically about 20 feet long by 12 feet wide. The staging area size assumes that the felt is impregnated with the resin at the factory rather than on-site.
Installation lengths can reach up to 1,000 feet between access pits, which would cover any segment of the crossing location. Lastly, due to the existence of several companies capable of installing structural CIPP liners, this method can be cost-competitive with sliplining. CIPP is NSF-61 and is classified as a Class IV liner. Several other design considerations for CIPP are:
• CIPP is heavily reliant on the pipe interior diameter being consistent and in good condition. If there is significant buildup inside of the pipe that cannot be removed with conventional cleaning methods, or is the host pipe is deflected or bulging, CIPP may no longer qualify. • The host pipe must be 100% dewatered and dried before application. Because of this requirement, CIPP may not qualify for use for the 12” DIP segment directly under the Noyo River (this cannot be verified at this time and would require specialized dewatering efforts and CCTV investigations). • CIPP may not be able to negotiate bends greater than 22.5°. These deflections can cause wrinkling or warping in the area where the host pipe defect is located. This is another reason CIPP may not qualify for use under the Noyo River.
Figure 7: Original Host Pipe (Left) VS Rehabilitated with CIPP (Right) 2 Accessed May 2, 2025, https://www.wrenvironmental.com/blog/2024/october/top-10-advantages-of-cipp-lining/ () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
($(
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 13
4.3 Rehabilitation: Primus Line
Primus Line is a Class III, highly flexible, high-pressure, trenchless pipeline rehabilitation system designed for pressurized pipelines. It consists of three layers; an NSF-61 polyethylene inner layer, a seamless woven Kevlar middle layer, and a protective, abrasion-resistant polyethylene sheath outer layer. The installation process begins with cleaning and CCTV inspection of the host pipe. Once the pipeline is thoroughly cleaned and repaired, the liner is folded into a U-shape and pulled through the host pipe. Due to the U-shape of the liner while it is installed, Primus Line can effectively navigate 45-degree bends without issue. After pulling through the entire length of the host pipe, the liner is inflated with compressed air, and connector pieces are used at the beginning and ends of the line to reconnect the line to the existing pipeline. Unlike CIPP, Primus Line does not require curing, making it faster to install compared to CIPP, with minimal downtime after installation. Several other design considerations for Primus Line are as follows:
• Primus Line comes in pre-set sizes, and it cannot fit snugly and nor adhere to the inside of the host pipe.
It is not a structural liner (it only withstands internal pressure), meaning it still relies on the host pipe for structural integrity and is not suitable for severely deteriorated pipelines. • Annular space between the Primus Liner and the host pipe cannot be filled with grout. • Primus Line’s max operating pressure is reduced based on the alignment of the host pipe. While the liner itself may withstand 250+ PSI, its pressure rating decreases when navigating bends due to uneven stresses and strains on the liner.
• In the event of negative pressure in the pipeline, the Primus Liner can deform or buckle temporarily. Given this location is at the bottom-most profile elevation, negative pressures are unlikely, but it is assumed that the pipeline has adequate combination air relief valves designed to provide venting and vacuum relief to the pipeline crossing.
Figure 8: Primus Liner Installation
3 Accessed May 2, 2025, https://www.interflow.com.au/product/primus-line/ () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
(A. a 1
0 4
- e L
' "y
1 i
es sedest
tles
. —ar sken
— < ■ * F2 r
- . .
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 14
4.4 Alternatives Comparison
A summary of each of the proposed rehabilitation methods discussed in the previous section are listed in Table
3. Each method was evaluated based on the design criteria discussed in 3.2, with red signifying that the rehabilitation alternative did not meet the required criteria. A summary of the proposed lining alternatives and their AWWA structural class and interface with the existing host pipe are illustrated in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Alternatives Lining Class and Interface with Host Pipe Table 3: Rehabilitation Comparison Matrix
Criteria HDPE Sliplining Pressure CIPP Primus Liner
Max Operating Pressure (psi) 200+ Varies 196
Structural Classification IV IV III 1
Navigates 22.5° bends (Y/N) Maybe Yes Yes
Navigates 45° bends (Y/N) No No Yes
Reduction in Flow Area (%) >30% ~10% ~20%
Cost $ $$ $$$
Installation Time High Medium Low
Access Pit Size Large Small Medium
Expected Service Life 50 years 50 Years 25 years1
Cleaning Requirements Low High Medium
Feasible for 10” AC piping (outside
Noyo River) Yes2 Yes Yes1
Feasible for 12” DIP piping (under Noyo
River) No No Yes
1Dependent upon integrity of host pipe. If host pipe fails from external hazards, then Primus Liner will likely fail as well. 2 If elbows > 11.25° are dug up, exposed, and cut out.
Based on the comparison matrix above, HDPE sliplining is ruled out as a rehabilitation methodology because a small diameter would be required to line through the bends in the crossing and this would reduce flow area excessively. CIPP can be utilized for lining the 10” AC portions of the system, however, will be unable to line through the 12” DIP Noyo River Crossing’s rolled 45-degree fittings and due to dewatering concerns. Primus Liner is feasible for all sections of the Noyo River Crossing segment but limits the hydraulic capacity more than pressure CIPP because it is smaller diameter. Only the Primus Liner is dependent upon the long-term integrity of the host pipe, which potentially limits its ability to rehabilitate the existing 10” AC piping. All these alternatives, however, are still exposed to risk if the river were to scour out and expose the original 12”DIP crossing. Only a replacement construction technology such as HDD, microtunneling, or a pipe bridge would mitigate or eliminate this risk. () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
Unfilled No Annulus
HDPE Slipline CIPP Liner Primus Liner
Host Pipe Must
Protect Primus
Liner from Exterior
Loading
Grout Annulus \ Annulus
(Classiv) Qlassivl (ciasam))
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 15
5 System Hydraulics
The City intends to utilize the raw water line both to feed the WTP from the Newman and Waterfall Gulches, however, plans for the WTP will allow the WTP to pump directly to the existing Summers Lane reservoir and proposed reservoirs to increase the system reliability and redundancy during drought conditions. To maintain flexibility with the pump station design at the WTP, it is assumed that head loss through the rehabilitated crossing must be minimized to the extent feasible.
5.1 Preliminary Hydraulics
To estimate the existing and rehabilitated Noyo River crossing using the Darcy-Weisbach equation, the following assumptions were made:
• In the Project Practicality Report by Coleman Engineering, the design flow for the RWLRP is a conservative 300 GPM. While this is the existing flow of the raw water pipeline, it is understood that there is a pump planned as part of a separate project at the WTP raw water well which will be used to convey water from the WTP to the City’s existing Summers Lane Reservoir and proposed three additional 45-acre-foot reservoirs. Per the City, the pump is planned to convey 700 gallons per minute (gpm) at 167 feet total dynamic head (TDH). 700 GPM will be used as the flowrate through the pipeline for the headloss calculations.
• Due to the unknown alignment of the existing 10” AC piping and the quantity and location of any elbows or bends, one 22.5 degree bend will be assumed each 50 linear feet of piping. This translates to four bends northwest of the Noyo River 12” DIP Crossing, and nine bends southeast of the crossing. • Friction factors for major losses were determined based on both pipe material and age, with the assumption that the existing piping has additional buildup or roughness when compared to a new pipeline.
A calculated headloss for the existing and each proposed lining alternative for the Noyo River Crossing is estimated in Table 4 below. A combination of pressure CIPP and Primus Liner will produce less headloss than lining the entire Noyo River Crossing segment with Primus.
Table 4: Preliminary Hydraulics
Existing Conditions Primus Liner CIPP & Primus Liner
Location
Segment
Length
(ft)
Inner
Diameter
Existing
Headloss
(ft) @ 700
GPM1
Inner
Diameter
Primus
Headloss
(ft) @
700
GPM1
Inner Diameter
CIPP & Primus
Headloss (ft)
@ 700 GPM1
NW of
Noyo River 190 10 in (AC) 0.69 8.86 in (Primus) 1.07 9.52 in(CIPP) 0.76 Noyo River 215 12 in
(DIP) 0.67 10.71 in (Primus) 0.73 10.71 in (Primus) 0.73 SE of Noyo
River 420 10 in (AC) 1.60 8.86 in (Primus) 2.26 9.52 in(CIPP) 1.59 Total 2.96 4.05 3.07
Headloss Delta to Existing Conditions +1.09ft +0.11ft
1Calculated using Darcy-Weisbach (C=0.0002 assumed) along with equivalent minor K losses () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 16
The preliminary hydraulics completed are solely intended to assist in choosing a recommended lining methodology. These hydraulic calculations are based on limited data, and without knowing the condition of the existing pipeline or the number of bends/obstructions within the pipeline. It is assumed that an increase of 0.11 ft is acceptable to the City.
6 Recommendation
Based on the evaluation of available rehabilitation alternatives, it is recommended to proceed with the rehabilitation of the Noyo River Crossing Segment with a combination of pressure CIPP and Primus Liner. This alternative maximizes use of Class IV liner (CIPP) if the condition of the 10” AC piping is found to be poor and minimizes hydraulic capacity impacts. The alternative is depicted in the following Figure 10.
Figure 10: Alternative Overview
6.1 Construction Considerations
6.1.1 Access Pits
Access pits are necessary for the installation of the CIPP and Primus Liner systems, as they provide entry and exit points for the lining process and allow monitoring during the project duration. To minimize ground disturbance in the Noyo River floodplain, the project would be completed with a minimum of 4 access pits to complete the two CIPP and one Primus Liner segments. Two of these access pits are expected to be 5’ x 10’ and are located at the boundary points of the Noyo River crossing segment where the RWLRP has already been completed. An additional two larger access points will be located on the northwestern and southeastern banks of the Noyo River, where the 10” AC piping in the floodplain transitions to 12” DIP at the river channel crossing. As discussed () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
mig:
y
2 te
EXISTING ACCESS PATH
LEGEND
4 T
ISOLATION
VALVES AT
RWLRP T x 5'
VALVE VAULT
REQUIRED ACCESS PATH ALONG
EXISTING PATH ALIGHMENT
■ TO SUMMERS LANE
■ RESERVOIR
ISOLATION
VALVE
REQUIRED ACCESS PATH ALONG
EXISTING PATH ALIGHMENT
10' x 10'
ACCESS PIT
APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT OF
TEMPORARY ACCESS PATH
FROM GEORGIA-PACIFIC HUAL
RD TO SOUTHEAST BANK
ACCESS PIT
10' x 15
ACCESS PIT
EXCAVATION
AREA
5' x 10
ACCESS PIT
r
PROPOSED
— 10'CIPP J
• ••12" PRIMUS r
• BLOWOFF 1
■ir < al 53
— 10" PVC
, GATE
* VALVE ■ PATH fame 0 20 -SO
s
Y TO
S WTP
PROPOSED RWL PROJECT
80 120 160 200
5' x 10'
ACCESS PIT | MWeyyP 3
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 17
in Section 3.1, these two transition points include a double 90-degree elbow configuration, which will need to be exposed and replaced. Figure 11 and Figure 12 shows the completed tie-ins after the lining is completed for the northwest and southeast access pits respectively, with a double 45-degree configuration to reduce turbulence, headloss, and total piping lay length. The priority for the access pits is minimum disturbance with no imported or exported fill, and revegetation of the surrounding area after excavation.
Figure 11: Northwestern Tie-In Piping After Lining
Figure 12: Southeastern Tie-In Piping After Lining
6.1.2 Mobilization and Staging
Three of the four access pits are located away from roads, and access will either require transversing across the Noyo River floodplain and with limited vehicle access to bring equipment and construction materials. The most () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
10" GATE VALVE
PIPING
10" TEE BRANCH FLG
RFCA
1 7
NW TIE-IN PIPING
-
10” GATE VALVE
10" TEE, BRANCH FLG
i
SE TIE-IN PIPING
10" AC TO DIP TRANSITION
COUPLING, OR HYMAX FLEX
COUPLING DIRECTLY ON CIPP
ALL FITTINGS ARE SHOWN AS
FLG, BUT THOSE NOT CALLED
OUT AS FLG SHOULD BE MJ
10C900
PIPING
10" STL TO DIP TRANSITION
COUPLING. OR HYMAX FLEX
COUPLING DIRECTLY ON CIPP
10" 45
ELBOW
10" C900
PIPING
EXST 12
DIP PIPING
1245’
ELBOW
12" PRIMUS
TERMINATION SPOOL
12"
RFCA
10” TO 12
REDUCER
10" 45"
ELBOW'
10" COMPANION FLANGE WITH
2" THREADED OPENING FOR
BLOWOFF PER CITY
STANDARD 516
10" TO 12"
REDUCER
ALL FITTINGS ARE
SHOWN AS FLG, BUT
THOSE NOT CALLED OUT
AS FLG SHOULD BE MJ
EXST 10° STL
PIPING
12’45
ELBOW
10” COMPANION FLANGE WITH
2" THREADED OPENING FOR
BLOWOFF PER CITY
STANDARD 516
12" PRIMUS
TERMINATION SPOOL
EXST 17
y DIP PIPING
COMBINATION AIR
RELEASE VACUUM
VALVE OFF OF SADDLE
INSTALLED ON 10" C900
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 18
difficult access pit to mobilize to will be along the southeast bank of the Noyo River. This access pit is located 400 feet from the Georgia Pacific Haul Road, in the direct path to the access pit from the road are marshlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. The 1987 Newman Pipeline Noyo River Crossing as-builts identified a 1000- foot-long temporary access road from the road to the mentioned access pit. This temporary path could potentially be utilized by a small crew with minimal or no machinery to disturb as little of the area as possible. Establishment of this previously used path and mobilization along the route would take longer than the other access pits but would have to be completed to work in the floodplain.
6.1.3 Concrete
Concrete for thrust blocks will be required at the insertion pits / excavated locations, and this will entail pumping the concrete with hoses, or bringing it in smaller quantities with wheelbarrows, etc.
6.1.4 Bypass Piping
Installing bypass piping for the raw water pipeline is assumed to be required for the entire duration of the lining process. The cost of the bypass piping installation is also dependent on how long the rehabilitation work lasts, as the Noyo River Crossing needs to remain out of service until the finished product is tested and ready to be put back into service. The duration of the bypass operations will depend on how quickly the lining process can be completed. It is assumed that 1000 linear feet of bypass piping will be necessary and can be expected to last for 2-3 weeks. This bypass piping will be a 12” fused PVC pipe or HDPE pipe dragged and floated across the river along the entire segment of the Noyo River Crossing.
Depending on the City’s operational flexibility during the summer and fall when Waterfall Gulch and Newman Gulch have decreased flows to the WTP, and the majority of the City’s raw water supply is from the Noyo River via the Madsen Hole intake, bypass piping may be removed from the project. This is under the assumption that the City supply the system without the Noyo River crossing for the duration of the lining and return to service. 7 Recommended Next Steps
The preliminary assessment presented herein is dependent upon record drawings and information provided by others. Project recommendations made in this report require additional assessment and verification during design. The following actions are recommended that are beyond the scope of this report:
• Environmental assessment
o The intent of the lining rehabilitation alternatives discussed herein is to reduce exposure to environmental constraints and reduce the level of permitting. However, some point excavation and access paths and working area surface disturbances are still required and cannot be avoided.
It is assumed that the project may qualify for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption and may also qualify for a California Coastal Commission (CCC) Coastal Development Permit (CDP) exemption. It is assumed that some field surveys will be required, such as a biological survey, a cultural survey, and potentially a jurisdictional resources delineation.
Arborist services may be required. Depending on the field surveys, a consultation with CDFW is likely, and a CDFW 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSAA) permit may be required as well.
Assuming no permanent impacts to jurisdictional resources, it is likely that a consultation with () WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 19
USACE (US Army Corp of Engineers) will be required given the possibility of floating a bypass pipeline across the river, but a permit may not be necessary. It is unknown if any mitigation is required.
• Topographical survey along pipeline alignment, and access paths. • Tree survey along alignment and access path.
o Tree removal/assessment has not been ruled out at this time. It may be necessary to cut major roots that impede excavation.
• Utility verification (tracing, potholing, etc.)
o The City does not have record drawings for the portions of existing pipe outside of the 1987 DIP river crossing replacement project. Fittings, bends, valves, tees, and turnouts need to be verified.
It is highly recommended that this be completed during the design. If it is delayed till Construction, there is significant added risk to the City of delays due to unforeseen conditions. • Condition assessment (internal CCTV)
o It may not be possible to conduct this during pre-design; in which case this would become the first activity for the Contractor to do. However, waiting until Construction to verify the internal condition of the pipe does add risk for the City.
8 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A detailed Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is included below. In general, unit costs are higher due to the specialized nature of the rehabilitation work (i.e, reduced competition, suppliers, qualified sub-contractors), the remote location of the project, heavy manual labor anticipated due to environmental constraints, and the small scale of the project. The costs do not cover permitting and mitigation costs, or design and construction phase services.
() WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 20
9 References
The following reports, drawings, and as-builts were used in the preparation of this report.
Reports
• Raw Water Line Replacement Project Practicality Report; Coleman Engineering; 2020 • Raw Water Line Replacement Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration; Dewberry Engineers, Inc.; 2022
() WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
A P WATERWORKS
2 ENGINEERS
Title:
Date:
Item Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Temporary Route to Access Pit 12" Crossing SE Bank lump sum included 1 $10,000 $10,000 Tempora ry Water Supply for Construction 1 lump sum included $12,000 20 linear feet
20%
f
$323,000
$817,000
$1,140,000
$230,000
$1,400,000
$12,000
$323,000
$210,000
$30,000
$10,000
$7,000
$12,000
$25,000
$210,000
$30,000
$10,000
$14,000
$12,000
$25,000
included
included
included
included
included
included
included
included
included
included
included
included
included
$2,000
$640,000
$110,000
$8,000
$4,000
$18,000
$35,000
$817,000
Project Cost Summary
Subtotal, Site Work
Subtotal, Major Piping & Valves
SUBTOTAL
Installation
Cost
1 1
1 2
1 1
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
Each
Each
Each
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
Each
lump sum
lump sum
1 1
1 2
1 1
20% Contingency
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (2025)
Notes:
1 Does not include any permitting or mitigation costs.
$100
$640,000
$110,000
$8,000
$2,000
$18,000
$35,000
Fort Bragg Reservoir Project
Noyo River Crossing Alternatives
5/5/2025
Site Work
Mobilization
Dewatering Existing Crossing
CCTV
Access Pits 10" AC
Access Pit 12" Crossing NW Bank
Access Pit 12" Crossing SE Bank
Major Piping and Valves
10" C900 PVC Pressure Pipe
10" CIPP & 12“ Primus Liner
10"Temporary Bypass
Tie into Existing Pipelines
2" Blowoff Assembly
10" Valves
10" Fittings
CITY OF FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG RESERVOIR PROJECT FOR WATER STORAGE RESILIENCE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
May 2025 P A G E | 21
Drawings and As-Builts
• City of Fort Bragg Standard Specifications and Drawings • Newman Pipeline Noyo River Crossing; 1987
• Raw Water Line Replacement Project, Segments 2-5; 2023 • Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation Project; 2024
() WATERWORKS 29 ENGINEERS
ATTACHMENT 3
-
AVAILABLE RECORD DRAWINGS
FOR THE ORIGINAL NOYO RIVER
CROSSING INSTALLATION
FI A NG E
0 i
r n
NOTE'.
TREADED
FLANGED
CONCRETE
TRUST BLOCK
SOUTH SIDE TIES TO STEEL PIPE (ODHO.75")
INSTALL SPECIAL DIELECTRIC GASKET PER
SPECS.
xto
69 (
JIN
(
-1 ECrm
U
" 12"FLANGED TEL
CONC HAPNESb EL
564(5
Z"BLOW OFF
TTP EA SIDE
SEE(3
2)
CONCFETE FAPNE55
SLOCK, SEE (2
12" GV, FL -
I
' pt "
PP/A
TYPICAL TIE IN DETAIL
!"= 2'-O'
*
LOG
I2T EU
4."
\ \ 10 EU
-
!2"EU
V
8 847
4 N
12.” O.C.-trsr N 24
(
(0 1 /
____ _
POO
/
• \1&"EU
& EU
CUT 4 PEF10VE
(E) LOG
EXISTING IO''
STEEL SUPPLY
UNE
1 1
7 1 )'
|
\
\
V
I
1 /04
"OLP
42" EU ,
Now 45 4 C.
77 I I
2tOL 23'LT
/+6/, 8‘ LT^
45* ELBOW
(ROLLED)
'A L-T
45 ° ELBOW
(ROLLED)
7.7 PL S + 72
/ SLOW-OFF SEE (3
/2tO! . 13. 5' LT &
TEE W/BLOW-OFF ASSBLY
4&"EU , ,
। New 1 —___________
2-^00
- —
P50
LLO UN (Cl2G
owICI’SEEUPIPE 1.2dr
'\S7AKE PARCS
\ LOCATION
y \ (PPECTP)
, : 66‘EU
llEEp
Ij
/
6o
7.44 T/U
z RDBUG'LT
SAC ANODE(
d54 ff
-
3/5"Eu uot4t
W U 7
" 369 '
V CONNECT TO OUST. STEEL
\ W/TO ° ELBOW
\ NV“24‘*3 (^24 EU
Now24%‘.\ Ce,IBtu BLO*osle
I'lu^p/N) IZ"GN.
Ch
\ Ho
^lEi'ElJ. i N‘*4* ACCE5S RD
VY
2-AL—
i
cd
l‘-4
ESLOw
tZVEC $ 1)
S BASELINE
N^S5l°E)
) .
0 ()8"EU
22 "EU
I5"EU
!4"EU
/A/ AANK9Y M/CA7
y&'Eu
©06
$
TYPE-A.
\
GRAVEL BE DOING
4 COVER-SEE SPECS
2132.6, P'RU
3/4 " / F REF PT.
TIDAL WATER
SURFACE VARIES
FOR TREE REMOVAL
SEE NOTE 3
NATIVE BACKFILL
© 50 % RELATIVE
COMPACTION
A
•lo’FU
Y I
^FINISH GRADE
/
SITE PLAN
/"MO'
Os
3 y
$
- -SLOPE AS
NECESSARY
‘s ._
ao/
\
\
1 ,
n
NEW 12 PIPE
D. I RESTRAINED JT
°
I! If III
l 2ce C C3 O S PY8 Pof
d • O “o Of
A1L44 He
T
//AW/Aw4/_______
$0 9%ӣ - .777.. e
0______
1 /
1 1
X
V
P
X
LOG
I
/
\
\
\
\
|
W
\
N
^CUT f REMOVE
SEC TION OF
24'(J) LOG
IN1
-1‘
\
50,35 ‘L7 XEFPX
.. e
o I'
l
I '
II
1 I1) (E) i4.4 AC PIPE
(NORTH SIDE ONLY)
SEE NOTE)
- 4
।
i
l
I
i
I
I
। i
/
(N) 12 90°EL :
(N) /2 "NO F
/
(SOUTH SIU
&
CU i
FLANGED 4
.(E) TRANS
Y
0 4
MIN TYR
! /
0 Sr. 000- wil) H i tg‘
1 / 1 J
00 000 00 0-0- 0.0 e ■ C
'! I
J08 NO
37-844 -MiO
SHEET
1 2
Beie
I
•
8 1
va Smason
mororenGs
os
- CONNECT T-O-E.
W/ TO °- ELBOFN 1 -
/00
(
D
A5) Ut
i"
(f
s'STUMP-
।
X
I
4' +
+
\
12- IS"REDWOODS
«EY
0 i-3T.5,4O'PT
I" IP. REF PT.
S
T
344
i
2) I
/2-4‘±
"ATSA -
/8. B0y
ED)
0±18.523. 5‘ IT t
°‘90
—q/—. 9392
IO1 ST^FIP-PI Otoi
/ !3EG(N
&ASEUINE
/ n
—Nr O14
T
I
I
X
P 9.
n .
/
1 • 4.” i s
f
top---======90,%5 “6s---77. "ANE-—
Oi-IB.5, IB. 5' LT ±
3 \
2 6 PAAu
. \ O-3
t —(N)I2"GV
XX
—z T , T
TEE W BLOW-OFF ASSBLp SEF/3 s1
( 2 Diz” qel y_
f
—) ww1
I
\
12 REDWOOD 5TLJMPB
x TO REMAIN
<,
ey \ - ) A to 'STUMP--'
/3± l\ve
avu KS
6-24 "*
O140_ /
TBM - TojPoF /"IRON
PIPE EL EV. 100-0
X A vvv G —4 LiE O F eses
2 AY —ave c GDwAC ©V Ft
. Ps s 30 -= S ' ns A QA • /
o tS- 0 a cze o G3 c. As -Cav CC(C
/
/
/ . / 000 I 6 OY
0 0 “A O) 6
.0,0
NOTUS.
/
DSGN CHKD RR. CITY OF FORT BRAGG
2. DRWN SCALE RM
3. approved date SITE PLAN 9 SECTION
V t
DATE REVISIONS BY APPR.
YaNE) “SO WSSGAWIAMWWLNGOTAlshs
NEWMAN PIPELINE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING
HORIZONTAL 4 VERTICAL CONTROL DATUM SHOWN HEREON
ARE ASSUMED FOR THIS PROJECT
ADJUST LOCATION OF BENDS AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN
COVER AND HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
NOT ALL TREES ARE SHOWN REMOVE TREES AS NECESSARY
FOR CONTRACTORS ORERAT ION P
SECTION
r'uo'
WINZLER & KELLY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
495 TESCONI CIRCLE SANTA ROSA. CALIFORNIA (707) 523-1050
TYPICAL TRENCH SECTIONS
NTS
1 S.
H r^iy
v r=io'
NO
sauuacau
RROfESS/O,,
65 EXPIRES a2 SNeoA
&— 12-31-89 O5
— No. C39866 SL
T 7 K j
Wc/VI../
“o cnuO”
A - G
approved, ) . date
—7,26 007/9-25-87
— TT!!
r..............
V7
C
7 /DO -4
HO
T
1 BO ---9
OtOO
-NO 2 BACKING
PLACED12“ THICK
FOR TRENCH WIDTH
a
P
-
TYPE A TRENCH
OtSO
SACK Z
’ /Co N C - *
...-- r....................... '
EXISTING 12" AC
TOP @ 4G O — E/1ST I NG, GROUND OVER NEW PIPE
SET TOP 9G.O
RESTRAINED
45° ELBOWS^
(ROLLED)
_
DOWN STREAM
NATIVE RIVERBED GRAVELS
e O..
I
o
dI
IS ‘±
4'
M/N
NEW 12" DUCTILE
IRON PIPE
TYPE -B
EXISTING
STEEL PIPE
An-*
wlu
.^-R/VER BED
( (RESTORE TO
„ EXIST GRADE)
3‘y
88,
—
-
2 A
O 5 O
St
EXISTING lE' BT^EL
\
too
------ 3
- HO
I
TYPE B TRENCH TYPE A TRENCH
FOO 2^00
SE T TOP
@ 93.2
NEW 12" DUP/PE
TOP OF PIPE @ BL O
MAINTAIN
MIN 4' COVER
r
80.5 PLATER SURFACE
© H:/5 AM
2-20-&7
TOP C 93.2
—।-------------------------
/
A
/
/
I
MEO
. RESTRAINED
45° ELBOWS
(ROLLED)
— BO
-X--
c
4 I
I
I
I
N
II ld
6 s ’ D ICimolis WMNNSWNCSWMpacaaanactt • icou nwot)
v - Mdsmosnay MN SCarly AhAUGEAzSondrENC fobol. Ge ElllEC.9.1 HAisorentl JMWWSFNSSGi MMCAni ih W"noelas SmadmesnWI Eo! clisEMAa, 5. Jollta 1 ■ P
s
PER PLAN
—MEE MMMANfNEWEWEr
2'MIN. COVER
WPAOOSTAMOsMAttkCorUSnA. taaeetle-azil*
tald suds Nasktakatn IheK. vrints U tostacesifss We.
t
/
}
NOTE: A
THREADED PLUG
L 072,
CONCRETE
1 AVX
8 -
- ]
\-
f=A— [- 3 /
[
L. D '■L
MINIMUM DIMENSIONS
2" GATE VALVE
HARNESS BLK.
ANGLE IRON A
4 SO. FT. ‘A”
4” 7
VAL VE STEM RISER LEGEND PLAN
4 4"
3 ri J
1 I
<
S...
OVER 12" BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER
NOTE:
s
ELEVA T/ON (o
DUCTILE IRON PIPE
400 I X
JOINT
1 /
TOE
o f ! GB
1300 Z M67,106.9
/
PIPE JOINT BONDING !4“A
i L
'IE'A
MARSHLAND
7 I4"A
*/8"A
V A
1 /
-A 1200 12" A
8,
14" A
/
TWIN 8" A
-- D.. /
V
/
l^'A GRAVEL. MIN. 6” THK.
/
I EA
SEE SPECS. ! 100 V
SEE DETAIL A 1500 1600
/
NOTES.
1 49, END ACCESS ROAD^72
)
1 1000 1 . 1
XL v MARSH LAND 3. ONLY TREES NEAR ROAD ARE SHOWN
))
i i Y
NOTES: 900 1000 HOO 1200 1300 1400
1. 6- P!. MARK WITH LATH BY CITY.
2. DSGN F R CHKD IS CITY OF FORT BRAGG
3. DRWN PS. /R.M SHOWN SCALE
SWEET
appro
...
/ .7-
t
TYPICAL DETAILS
approved date
/
NO. DATE REVISIONS 8Y APPR.
SMCTTETS EsonNa $ alacus
'2"B.u TAPPED
- CENTER
CONFORMING TO A STM 3034. RISER PIPE
TO BE PLUMB AND CENTERED OVER VALVE STEM.
DUCTILE IRON
WA TER MAIN
X -REMOVE
• -REMAIN
M+97
105.2
18" MIN.
30" MAX.
EXISTING
10" PIPE
SEE CONNECTION
DETAIL TO RIGHT
CHRISTY F-14 CURB
VAL VE BOX AND LID
STOCKPILE
LOGS HERE
PIPE
SIZE
A
A
42 A .
O+ 76
EL. 128.6
TIE
RODS
4 + 63
EL 973
i
I
2 !
I
4 . /^'EU
'P—24"EU
J-I8"EU
I2"A
is .
^12 AWG COPPER
WIRE W/ TYPE
TW INSULA TION
/
/
THE TABLE BELOW IS BASED ON ASSUMED SOIL BEARING VALUE OF 2000 POUNDS PER SO. FT. IF BEARING VALUE FOR SOIL
IS LESS, THEN AREA SHOWN HEREIN
SHOULD BE INCREASED ACCORDINGL Y.
AFTER ASSEMBL Y ALL IRON PIPE SHALL BE PAINTED
WITH A BITUMINOUS PAINT (OR AN APPROVED EQUAL)
AS PER MANUFACTURER’S RECOMMENDATIONS.
CONCRETE THRUST
BLOCK
7+72
EL 102.5
CONNECTIONS TO THE WATER MAIN SHALL BE MADE BY
THE THERMITE BRAZING METHOD, CAD WELD OR APPROVED
EQUAL. PRIOR TO WELDING THE PIPE SHALL BE
CLEANED TO BARE METAL BY MEANS OF SCRAPING
AND FILING.
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE EXTENT
OF STABILIZATION REQUIRED AND PROVIDE
AS NECESSARY FOR HIS OPERATIONS
ANODES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN VERTICAL AUGURED
HOLE AT A DEPTH RE LOW THE BOTTOM OF THE WATER
MAIN.
2 4
7 11
15 12''A
x
ALL ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS AND SPLICES SHALL BE
INSULA TED W/ 2-1/2 LAPPED LA YERS OF 3/4 ” WIDE
RUBBER TAPE AND 2-1/2 LAPPED LAYERS OF 3/4" WIDE
POLYETHYLENE TAPE.
PRECAST CONC. METER BOX SET FLUSH
WITH GROUND SURFACE
LOW PT
EL 95.8
A= ALDER
EU ^EUCALYPTUS
TIE RODS-^
(SEE TABLE)
NEWMAN PIPELINE
NOYO RIVER CROSSING
H
II
5 v
P 2
4 WA TER MAIN
TEE
2 1/2x2x1/4
3x3x1/4
3 1/2X3X1/4
4x3x5/16
4X3X1/2
/
^VERY WET AREA. ROADWAY STAEILIZATiON
MAY BE REQUIRED. SEE NOTE 7
II
HI
SACRIFICIAL ANODE INSTALLATION
NOT TO SCALE
2'
2’
3’
3’
3'
Oi-OOEL. 141.6
4. DO NOT DISTURB ANY REDWOOD TREES NOR
GROUND WITHIN 5' OF BASE.
/_ TEMP ACCESS ROAD TO BE 1O‘L WIDE AND
FOLLOW EXISTING GRADE
FLANGE, TAPPED
FOR 2" PIPE
-APPROX. ALIGNMENT
OF TEMP ACCESS
ROAD (P-LINE)
TYPICAL GA TE VAL VE AND
VAL VE BOX IN STALL A TION
NOT TO SCALE
TEMP. ACCESS ROAD
l"--50'
# 6 AWG COPPER
WIRE W/ TYPE
TW INSULA T/ON
2. TREES SMALLER THAN 6" NOT SHOWN REMOVE
AS NECESSARY
----------- 10 FEET MIN. -----------------------------
(PER PLAN LOCATION)
SACRIFICIAL ANODE48 4 HP. MAGNESIUM
5. ANY ADDITIONAL TREE REMOVAL REQUIRED
TO BE APPROVED BY CITY.
BOND #6 COPPER UF
MIN. 12” LONG
PLUS SLACK FOR
FULL DEFLECTION
TYPICAL HARNESS DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
FILL RECESSED AREA OF WELD CAP W/ COLD
APPLIED EPOXY BOND. COVER WELD
CONNECTION AND ALL BARE METAL W/ COLD
APPLIED COAL TAR THEN PRESS WELD CAP
OVER WELDED CONNECTION.
CABLE CONNECTION
1/2"
5/8"
3/4“
1"
1 1/8“
COVER THE ENTIRE CONNECTION W/
1170 PRIMER AND COVER THOROUGHLY
W/ PRO TEC TO- WRAP
-08 NO
87.844-MiO
^6^62
EL.100.6
CAD WELD ^15 CARTRIDGES .
FOR STEEL OR DUCTILE IRON 3
WA TER MAINS OR TYPE XF FOR
CAST IRON WA TER MAINS SHALL
BE USED A CONNECTOR TO MAINS
SEE CONNECTOR DETAIL
BOTTOM OF PIPE
THERMITE WELD
CONECTION. USE
COPPER SLEEVE ON
#6 WIRE
-SPL/T-BOLT, SOLDERLESS
ELECTRICAL CONNECTION
SOW
PROPOSED^
12" PIPE
2x6 RDW. BLOCK
GATE VALVE
CLP
J
WATER MAIN
*C
WINZLEE & KELLY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
495 TESCONI CIRCLE SANTA ROSA. CALIFORNIA (707)523-1010 v 1)-
"oy.
2 CLUSTERS^2
CLEAN AREA OF WELD —
TO BRIGHT METAL
NOTE:
/^2t86, 99.0
—4.
0 1/4'/
V C
40 y
.0
/7/.XSNXKN7
r
ASCONNECTION DETAIL FOR DUCTILE IRON PIPE
_ ) NOT TO SCALE Q
/5"A^
P >
6 2
3 /
/
/
——
/
/ ; /
/
date
2 2-7587
/01
(1)
\
^6"A
^9^-02
x EL . 102.8
—
C‘
—
(X
&
y
\I3 —)
GB .
/W4^
- 7 .
li
/
/
2'MIN
/6"A
/
, EL. 1032
v
AP/ 10^-18
EL.102.7
-IF VALVE IS INSTALLED SO THAT TOP OF
OPERATING NUT IS MORE THAN 30" BELOW
FINISHED GRADE, INSTALL VAL VE STEM RISER OF
SUFFICIENT LENGTH TO RAISE NUT TO MAX.
24" DEPTH.
A. C.P. OR SDR 35 PVC SEWER PIPE
I/
•36 "A
(4) WRAP 8" RISER IN FEL T
8"
PRECAST CONC. VAL VE BOX WITH
CI LID MARKED “WATER” AND “OPEN < "
CHRISTY G-5 OR AN APPROVED EQUAL.
-/
UNPAVED AREA
FINISHED GRADE
2" IRON PIPE
@3/16“ THK. x 7 1/2“ DIA. STEEL
GUIDE PLA TE WELDED TO RISER
SHAFT.
4“
6"
8"
10"
12”
MANY _
ALDERS , \
O
^WIRE TO TEST
/ STA T/ON
(1) VAL VE OPERA T/NG NUT OR 1 7/8" x
1 7/8“ x 2" SOLID STEEL WELDED
TO GUIDE PLA TE.
QQOrESSIOM,
AARED,6
P?/ s*EXPIRES 2m
& 12-31-89 25
F No. C39866 sl
7 9"
XJCIVW//
“foFcAKO
3 .
R=4" MJN
SS
3' MIN. ——
—I
5 )
)
6+00 )
EL 973 )
6, A
LANDS OF GEORGIA PACIFIC
• lUME. ,US PAINT (OR AN APPROVEL EQUAL) AS PER MANUFAY, ZENDA RONS.
I
M----- REGRADE EXISTING I O' SKID ROAD
V (15-25% SLOPE)
z2012
-HI-
/
1 =
) —1
/ /
/ /
/ /
AREA OF LIGHT
TO DENSE SMALL
ALDERS
s ; ’"
C. VLIALS SHALL BE -
FOR INFORMATION
REGARDING ACCESS p
, iP+IP
TO THIS RIDGE, ELJOOO
A -
--->
0 ------- CCY
BL (
/ ^'
A MEa>
ro" -
8"A
' 100.4
TYPICAL BLOW-OFF WITH 2“ VALVE
NOT TO SCALE
]
L
NOTE. 4-/EA A. EMBLY, ALL /RON Pir
L
WA TER MA/N )
__ 20 (3) 2“ x 2" x 3/16“ SQUARE STRUCTUAL C
STEEL TUB/NG TO FIT OPERA TING 0
NUT LENGTH AS REQUIRED.
lp
«
3 /
THERMITE WELD