Roseville City Council
June 17, 2026

(916) 774-5750 • Fax • (916) 774-5690 • www.roseville.ca.us/eu February 4, 2026
Mr. Matt Robinson, Public Informant Officer
Sacramento County
827 7th Street, Room 301
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of Roseville 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. Robinson:

The City of Roseville (City) water utility has begun preparing the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, which must be completed by July 1, 2026. In accordance with California Water Code Section 10642, we are writing to notify you that preparation is underway and to encourage your active input and involvement in the process.

Prior to Board adoption of the plan a public hearing will be held, and we will notify you of the date, time, and location of the meeting. We will also make a draft of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan available to your agency in advance of the public hearing.

If you wish to contact the City about its review process, you may do so by writing to the undersigned or by email to [email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely,
George Hanson
Water Utility Manager
City of Roseville
Environmental Utilities Department
Environmental Utilities
Water Division
2005 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, California 95747

(916) 774-5750 • Fax • (916) 774-5690 • www.roseville.ca.us/eu February 4, 2026
Mr. Adam Larsen, General Manager
San Juan Water District
9935 Auburn-Folsom Road
Granite Bay, CA 95746
RE: City of Roseville 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. Larsen:

The City of Roseville (City) water utility has begun preparing the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, which must be completed by July 1, 2026. In accordance with California Water Code Section 10642, we are writing to notify you that preparation is underway and to encourage your active input and involvement in the process.

Prior to Board adoption of the plan a public hearing will be held, and we will notify you of the date, time, and location of the meeting. We will also make a draft of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan available to your agency in advance of the public hearing.

If you wish to contact the City about its review process, you may do so by writing to the undersigned or by email to [email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely,
George Hanson
Water Utility Manager
City of Roseville
Environmental Utilities Department
Environmental Utilities
Water Division
2005 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, California 95747

(916) 774-5750 • Fax • (916) 774-5690 • www.roseville.ca.us/eu February 4, 2026
Mr. Paul Lau, Chief Executive Officer and General Manager Sacramento Municipal Utility District
6201 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95817
RE: City of Roseville 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. Lau:

The City of Roseville (City) water utility has begun preparing the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, which must be completed by July 1, 2026. In accordance with California Water Code Section 10642, we are writing to notify you that preparation is underway and to encourage your active input and involvement in the process.

Prior to Board adoption of the plan a public hearing will be held, and we will notify you of the date, time, and location of the meeting. We will also make a draft of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan available to your agency in advance of the public hearing.

If you wish to contact the City about its review process, you may do so by writing to the undersigned or by email to [email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely,
George Hanson
Water Utility Manager
City of Roseville
Environmental Utilities Department
Environmental Utilities
Water Division
2005 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, California 95747

(916) 774-5750 • Fax • (916) 774-5690 • www.roseville.ca.us/eu February 4, 2026
Mr. Daniel York, General Manager
Sacramento Suburban Water District
3701 Marconi Avenue, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95821
RE: City of Roseville 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. York:

The City of Roseville (City) water utility has begun preparing the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, which must be completed by July 1, 2026. In accordance with California Water Code Section 10642, we are writing to notify you that preparation is underway and to encourage your active input and involvement in the process.

Prior to Board adoption of the plan a public hearing will be held, and we will notify you of the date, time, and location of the meeting. We will also make a draft of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan available to your agency in advance of the public hearing.

If you wish to contact the City about its review process, you may do so by writing to the undersigned or by email to [email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely,
George Hanson
Water Utility Manager
City of Roseville
Environmental Utilities Department
Environmental Utilities
Water Division
2005 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, California 95747

(916) 774-5750 • Fax • (916) 774-5690 • www.roseville.ca.us/eu February 4, 2026
Mr. Drew Lessard, Area Manager
Central California Area Office
7794 Folsom Dam Road
Folsom, CA 95630
RE: City of Roseville 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. Lessard:

The City of Roseville (City) water utility has begun preparing the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, which must be completed by July 1, 2026. In accordance with California Water Code Section 10642, we are writing to notify you that preparation is underway and to encourage your active input and involvement in the process. Additionally, in accordance with California Water Code Section 10631, as we are a retail water supplier receiving water from your agency, we will provide you with projected water use for the next 20 years (up to the year 2045).

Prior to Board adoption of the plan a public hearing will be held, and we will notify you of the date, time, and location of the meeting. We will also make a draft of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan available to your agency in advance of the public hearing.

If you wish to contact the City about its review process, you may do so by writing to the undersigned or by email to [email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely,
George Hanson
Water Utility Manager
City of Roseville
Environmental Utilities Department
Environmental Utilities
Water Division
2005 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, California 95747

(916) 774-5750 • Fax • (916) 774-5690 • www.roseville.ca.us/eu February 4, 2026
Mr. Dominick Casey, City Manager
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
RE: City of Roseville 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. Casey:

The City of Roseville’s (City) Water Utility Division has begun preparing the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, which must be completed by July 1, 2026. In accordance with California Water Code Section 10642, we are writing to notify you that preparation is underway.

Prior to Board adoption of the plan a public hearing will be held, and per the Water Code, we will notify you of the date, time, and location of the meeting. We will also make a draft of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan available for your review in advance of the public hearing.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
George Hanson
Water Utility Manager
City of Roseville
Environmental Utilities Department
Environmental Utilities
Water Division
2005 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, California 95747

(916) 774-5750 • Fax • (916) 774-5690 • www.roseville.ca.us/eu February 4, 2026
Mr. Paul Hellman, Director
Placer County Community Development Resource Agency
3091 County Center Drive
Auburn, CA 95603
RE: City of Roseville 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. Hellman:

The City of Roseville (City) water utility has begun preparing the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, which must be completed by July 1, 2026. In accordance with California Water Code Section 10642, we are writing to notify you that preparation is underway and to encourage your active input and involvement in the process.

Prior to Board adoption of the plan a public hearing will be held, and we will notify you of the date, time, and location of the meeting. We will also make a draft of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan available to your agency in advance of the public hearing.

If you wish to contact the City about its review process, you may do so by writing to the undersigned or by email to [email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely,
George Hanson
Water Utility Manager
City of Roseville
Environmental Utilities Department
Environmental Utilities
Water Division
2005 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, California 95747

City of Roseville
2025 Urban Water Management Plan

Appendix C – Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the City of Roseville’s General Plan can be accessed at the link below. https://www.roseville.ca.gov/development_services/planning/general_plan.php#doc_center_0_panel_0

City of Roseville
2025 Urban Water Management Plan

Appendix D – AWWA Water Loss Audits

Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year:

All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
WATER SUPPLIED choose entry option:

VOS Volume from Own Sources: n g 7 31,245.460 Acre-ft/Yr n g 8 462.30% volume acre-ft/yr under-registration VOSEA WI Water Imported: n g 6 1,698.300 Acre-ft/Yr n g percent acre-ft/yr select….. WIEA WE Water Exported: n g 6 2,245.900 Acre-ft/Yr n g percent acre-ft/yr select….. WEEA 31,160.160 Acre-ft/Yr
.

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
BMAC Billed Metered: n g 8 28,039.000 Acre-ft/Yr
BUAC Billed Unmetered: n g 10 117.000 Acre-ft/Yr
UMAC Unbilled Metered: n g 10 172.150 Acre-ft/Yr choose entry option:

UUAC Unbilled Unmetered: n g 5 307.540 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% custom acre-ft/yr 24061 28,635.690 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES 2,524.470 Acre-ft/Yr
Apparent Losses
Default option selected for Systematic Data Handling Errors, with automatic data grading of 3 choose entry option:

SDHE Systematic Data Handling Errors: n g 3 70.390 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr CMI Customer Metering Inaccuracies: n g 3 284.961 Acre-ft/Yr 1.00% percent acre-ft/yr under-registration UC Unauthorized Consumption: n g 3 70.390 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unauthorized Consumption, with automatic data grading of 3 425.741 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses
2,098.729 Acre-ft/Yr
2,524.470 Acre-ft/Yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
3,004.160 Acre-ft/Yr

SYSTEM DATA
Lm Length of mains: n g 10 715.0 miles (including fire hydrant lead lengths) Nc Number of service connections: n g 8 52,102 (active and inactive) Service connection density: 73 conn./mile main
Yes
Lp Average length of (private) customer service line: n g 10 ft (average distance between property line and meter) AOP Average Operating Pressure: n g 9 82.8 psi

COST DATA
CRUC Customer Retail Unit Charge: n g 10 $10.90
VPC Variable Production Cost: n g 8 $138.12 $/acre-ft $/yr (optional input) WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY TIER:
go to
dashboard
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION TO IMPROVE DATA VALIDITY: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS:

Based on the information provided, audit reliability can be most improved by addressing the following components: OPTIONAL: If targets exist for the operational performance indicators, they can be input below:
1: Volume from Own Sources (VOS) Unit Total Losses: gal/conn/day 2: Customer Metering Inaccuracies (CMI) Unit Apparent Losses: gal/conn/day 3: Billed Metered (BMAC) Unit Real LossesA
: gal/conn/day
Unit Real LossesB: gal/mile/day
If entered above by user, targets will display on KPI gauges (see Dashboard) go to start page
NON-REVENUE WATER:

If entering an
Error Adjustment,
select under- or overregistration
WATER SUPPLIED:

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:

Apparent Losses:

Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading of 10 has been applied A weighted scale for the components of supply, consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score *** The Water Audit Data Validity Score is in Tier IV (71-90). See Dashboard tab for additional outputs. *** $/100 cubic feet (ccf)
$48,238,692
Total Annual Operating Cost
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop/property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Worksheet
307.540
City of Roseville
462.300
Jan 01 2024 - Dec 31 2024
Water Supplied Error Adjustments
2024 Calendar
Real Losses:

WATER LOSSES:

Click 'g' to determine data validity grade
Click 'n' to add notes
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

To access definitions, click the input name
To edit water system info:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Worksheet 1

Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year:

All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
WATER SUPPLIED choose entry option:

VOS Volume from Own Sources: n g 7 29,021.380 Acre-ft/Yr n g 8 volume acre-ft/yr under-registration VOSEA WI Water Imported: n g 6 1,775.800 Acre-ft/Yr n g 4 percent acre-ft/yr select….. WIEA WE Water Exported: n g 6 1,803.900 Acre-ft/Yr n g 4 percent acre-ft/yr select….. WEEA 29,006.970 Acre-ft/Yr
.

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
BMAC Billed Metered: n g 8 27,078.020 Acre-ft/Yr
BUAC Billed Unmetered: n g 10 131.710 Acre-ft/Yr
UMAC Unbilled Metered: n g 10 133.860 Acre-ft/Yr choose entry option:

UUAC Unbilled Unmetered: n g 5 312.280 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% custom acre-ft/yr 24061 27,655.870 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES 1,351.100 Acre-ft/Yr
Apparent Losses
Default option selected for Systematic Data Handling Errors, with automatic data grading of 3 choose entry option:

SDHE Systematic Data Handling Errors: n g 3 68.024 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr CMI Customer Metering Inaccuracies: n g 3 274.867 Acre-ft/Yr 1.00% percent acre-ft/yr under-registration UC Unauthorized Consumption: n g 3 68.024 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unauthorized Consumption, with automatic data grading of 3 410.916 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses
940.184 Acre-ft/Yr
1,351.100 Acre-ft/Yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
1,797.240 Acre-ft/Yr

SYSTEM DATA
Lm Length of mains: n g 10 704.0 miles (including fire hydrant lead lengths) Nc Number of service connections: n g 8 50,757 (active and inactive) Service connection density: 72 conn./mile main
Yes
Lp Average length of (private) customer service line: n g 10 ft (average distance between property line and meter) AOP Average Operating Pressure: n g 9 82.2 psi

COST DATA
CRUC Customer Retail Unit Charge: n g 10 $8.81
VPC Variable Production Cost: n g 8 $144.27 $/acre-ft $/yr (optional input) WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY TIER:
go to
dashboard
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION TO IMPROVE DATA VALIDITY: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS:

Based on the information provided, audit reliability can be most improved by addressing the following components: OPTIONAL: If targets exist for the operational performance indicators, they can be input below:
1: Volume from Own Sources (VOS) Unit Total Losses: gal/conn/day 2: Customer Metering Inaccuracies (CMI) Unit Apparent Losses: gal/conn/day 3: Billed Metered (BMAC) Unit Real LossesA
: gal/conn/day
Unit Real LossesB: gal/mile/day
If entered above by user, targets will display on KPI gauges (see Dashboard) Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop/property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Worksheet
312.280
City of Roseville

13.690
Jan 01 2023 - Dec 31 2023
Water Supplied Error Adjustments
2023 Calendar
Real Losses:

WATER LOSSES:

Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading of 10 has been applied A weighted scale for the components of supply, consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score *** The Water Audit Data Validity Score is in Tier IV (71-90). See Dashboard tab for additional outputs. *** $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Total Annual Operating Cost
go to start page
NON-REVENUE WATER:

If entering an
Error Adjustment,
select under- or overregistration
WATER SUPPLIED:

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:

Apparent Losses:

Click 'g' to determine data validity grade
Click 'n' to add notes
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

To access definitions, click the input name
To edit water system info:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Worksheet 1

Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year:

All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
WATER SUPPLIED choose entry option:

VOS Volume from Own Sources: n g 7 29,720.700 Acre-ft/Yr n g 8 volume acre-ft/yr under-registration VOSEA WI Water Imported: n g 6 1,452.600 Acre-ft/Yr n g 4 percent acre-ft/yr select….. WIEA WE Water Exported: n g 6 1,648.800 Acre-ft/Yr n g 4 percent acre-ft/yr select….. WEEA 29,548.100 Acre-ft/Yr
.

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
BMAC Billed Metered: n g 8 27,285.000 Acre-ft/Yr
BUAC Billed Unmetered: n g 10 127.000 Acre-ft/Yr
UMAC Unbilled Metered: n g 10 153.300 Acre-ft/Yr choose entry option:

UUAC Unbilled Unmetered: n g 5 320.020 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% custom acre-ft/yr 24061 27,885.320 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES 1,662.780 Acre-ft/Yr
Apparent Losses
Default option selected for Systematic Data Handling Errors, with automatic data grading of 3 choose entry option:

SDHE Systematic Data Handling Errors: n g 3 68.530 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr CMI Customer Metering Inaccuracies: n g 3 277.155 Acre-ft/Yr 1.00% percent acre-ft/yr under-registration UC Unauthorized Consumption: n g 3 68.530 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unauthorized Consumption, with automatic data grading of 3 414.215 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses
1,248.565 Acre-ft/Yr
1,662.780 Acre-ft/Yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
2,136.100 Acre-ft/Yr

SYSTEM DATA
Lm Length of mains: n g 10 690.0 miles (including fire hydrant lead lengths) Nc Number of service connections: n g 8 49,482 (active and inactive) Service connection density: 72 conn./mile main
Yes
Lp Average length of (private) customer service line: n g 10 ft (average distance between property line and meter) AOP Average Operating Pressure: n g 9 83.5 psi

COST DATA
CRUC Customer Retail Unit Charge: n g 10 $6.68
VPC Variable Production Cost: n g 8 $118.21 $/acre-ft $/yr (optional input) WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY TIER:
go to
dashboard
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION TO IMPROVE DATA VALIDITY: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS:

Based on the information provided, audit reliability can be most improved by addressing the following components: OPTIONAL: If targets exist for the operational performance indicators, they can be input below:
1: Volume from Own Sources (VOS) Unit Total Losses: gal/conn/day 2: Customer Metering Inaccuracies (CMI) Unit Apparent Losses: gal/conn/day 3: Billed Metered (BMAC) Unit Real LossesA
: gal/conn/day
Unit Real LossesB: gal/mile/day
If entered above by user, targets will display on KPI gauges (see Dashboard) Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop/property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Worksheet
320.020
City of Roseville

23.600
Jan 01 2022 - Dec 31 2022
Water Supplied Error Adjustments
2022 Calendar
Real Losses:

WATER LOSSES:

Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading of 10 has been applied A weighted scale for the components of supply, consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score *** The Water Audit Data Validity Score is in Tier IV (71-90). See Dashboard tab for additional outputs. *** $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Total Annual Operating Cost
go to start page
NON-REVENUE WATER:

If entering an
Error Adjustment,
select under- or overregistration
WATER SUPPLIED:

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:

Apparent Losses:

Click 'g' to determine data validity grade
Click 'n' to add notes
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

To access definitions, click the input name
To edit water system info:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Worksheet 1

Water Audit Report for:

Reporting Year:

All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:

Volume from own sources: 7 29,242.520 acre-ft/yr 7 -1.04% acre-ft/yr Water imported: 5 1,738.400 acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
Water exported: 4 1,780.600 acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 29,507.638 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 28,541.670 acre-ft/yr
Billed unmetered: 10 125.260 acre-ft/yr
Unbilled metered: 7 109.060 acre-ft/yr Pcnt: Value:

Unbilled unmetered: 8 19.590 acre-ft/yr 1.25% 24061 acre-ft/yr AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 28,795.580 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 712.058 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:

Unauthorized consumption: 73.769 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 289.401 acre-ft/yr 1.00% acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors: 5 71.354 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses: 434.525 acre-ft/yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 277.534 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES: 712.058 acre-ft/yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 840.708 acre-ft/yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered

SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 9 686.0 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 9 47,930 Service connection density: 70 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 7 81.9 psi

COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $42,460,847 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $5.70 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 6 $109.24 $/acre-ft WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:

PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Billed metered
3: Customer metering inaccuracies
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/100 cubic feet (ccf)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 72 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Reporting Worksheet

19.590
2021 1/2021 - 12/2021
City of Roseville (CA3110008)
?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.

Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1

Water Audit Report for:

Reporting Year:

All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:

Volume from own sources: 8 29,631.250 acre-ft/yr 7 -1.51% acre-ft/yr Water imported: 5 1,351.500 acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
Water exported: 4 1,450.700 acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 29,337.560 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 28,133.950 acre-ft/yr
Billed unmetered: 10 114.700 acre-ft/yr
Unbilled metered: 7 7.560 acre-ft/yr Pcnt: Value:

Unbilled unmetered: 8 25.080 acre-ft/yr 1.25% 24061 acre-ft/yr AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 28,281.290 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 1,056.270 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:

Unauthorized consumption: 73.344 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 284.258 acre-ft/yr 1.00% acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors: 5 70.335 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses: 427.936 acre-ft/yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 628.334 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES: 1,056.270 acre-ft/yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 1,088.910 acre-ft/yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered

SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 9 660.8 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 9 46,426 Service connection density: 70 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 7 82.2 psi

COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $14,545,147 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $3.28 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 5 $116.00 $/acre-ft WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:

PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
3: Billed metered
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/100 cubic feet (ccf)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 75 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score 194.490
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Reporting Worksheet

25.080
2020 1/2020 - 12/2020
City of Roseville (3110008)
?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.

Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1

City of Roseville
2025 Urban Water Management Plan

Appendix E – SWRCB Calculated Water Loss Standards
The California State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) calculated water loss standards can be accessed at the link below.
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterboards.ca.gov%2Fconservation %2Fdocs%2Fwaterlosscontrol%2Fstandards-released.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

City of Roseville
2025 Urban Water Management Plan

Appendix F – 2015 SBX7-7 Verification Form

City of Roseville
2025 Urban Water Management Plan

Appendix G – 2020 SBX7-7 Compliance Form

SB X7-7 Table 0: Units of Measure Used in 2020 UWMP*
(select one from the drop down list)
Acre Feet
*The unit of measure must be consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.

NOTES: NOTES: The population for areas in the City of Roseville boundary not served by the City of Roseville Water Utility was subtracted from the total 2020 DOF population.

SB X7-7 Table 2: Method for 2020 Population Estimate
Method Used to Determine 2020 Population
(may check more than one)

1. Department of Finance (DOF) or
American Community Survey (ACS)

3. DWR Population Tool

4. Other
DWR recommends pre-review

2. Persons-per-Connection Method
2020 140,187
SB X7-7 Table 3: 2020 Service Area Population
2020 Compliance Year Population
NOTES:

Exported
Water *
Change in
Dist.

System
Storage*
(+/-)
Indirect
Recycled
Water
This column
will remain
blank until SB
X7-7 Table 4-B
is completed.

Water
Delivered
for
Agricultural
Use*
Process
Water
This column will
remain blank
until SB X7-7
Table 4-D is
completed.
33,263 1,451 - - - - 31,813
NOTES:

SB X7-7 Table 4: 2020 Gross Water Use
2020 Volume
Into
Distribution
System
This column will
remain blank
until SB X7-7
Table 4-A is
completed.
2020 Gross Water
Use
2020 Deductions
* Units of measure (AF, MG , or CCF) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in SB X7-7 Table 0 and Submittal Table 2-3.

Compliance
Year 2020
Volume Entering
Distribution System 1
Meter Error
Adjustment 2
Optional
(+/-)
Corrected Volume
Entering
Distribution
System
31,711 - 31,711
SB X7-7 Table 4-A: 2020 Volume Entering the Distribution System(s), Meter Error Adjustment
Complete one table for each source.

Name of Source
1 Units of measure (AF, MG , or CCF) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in SB X7-7 Table 0 and Submittal Table 2-3.
2 Meter Error Adjustment - See guidance in Methodology 1, Step 3 of Methodologies Document NOTES: Total volume excludes raw water delivered to Linda Creek.

This water source is (check one) :

The supplier's own water source
A purchased or imported source
Folsom Lake
Compliance Year
2020

Volume Entering
Distribution System 1
Meter Error
Adjustment 2
Optional
(+/-)
Corrected Volume
Entering
Distribution
System
201 0 201
This water source is (check one) :

The supplier's own water source
NOTES:

Name of Source Ground Water
SB X7-7 Table 4-A: 2020 Volume Entering the Distribution System(s) Meter Error Adjustment
Complete one table for each source.

A purchased or imported source
1 Units of measure (AF, MG , or CCF) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in SB X7-7 Table 0 and Submittal Table 2-3.
2 Meter Error Adjustment - See guidance in Methodology 1, Step 3 of Methodologies Document Compliance Year
2020
Volume Entering
Distribution System 1
Meter Error
Adjustment 2
Optional
(+/-)
Corrected Volume
Entering
Distribution
System
1,352 0 1,352
SB X7-7 Table 4-A: 2020 Volume Entering the Distribution System(s), Meter Error Adjustment
Complete one table for each source.

The supplier's own water source
A purchased or imported source
Name of Source Total water delivered from other suppliers to Roseville This water source is (check one) :
1 Units of measure (AF, MG , or CCF) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in SB X7-7 Table 0 and Submittal Table 2-3.
2 Meter Error Adjustment - See guidance in Methodology 1, Step 3 of Methodologies Document NOTES:

Compliance Year
2020

2020 Gross Water
Fm SB X7-7 Table 4
2020 Population
Fm SB X7-7 Table 3
2020 GPCD
31,813 140,187 203
SB X7-7 Table 5: 2020 Gallons Per Capita Per Day
(GPCD)
NOTES:

Extraordinary
Events1
Weather
Normalization1
Economic
Adjustment1
203 - - - - 203 247 YES
NOTES:
1 All values are reported in GPCD
2 2020 Confirmed Target GPCD is taken from the Supplier's SB X7-7 Verification Form Table SB X7-7, 7-F.

SB X7-7 Table 9: 2020 Compliance
Optional Adjustments to 2020 GPCD
Did Supplier
Achieve
Targeted
Reduction for
2020?
Actual 2020
GPCD1
2020 Confirmed
Target GPCD 1, 2 TOTAL
Adjustments1
Adjusted
2020 GPCD 1
(Adjusted if
applicable)
Enter "0" if Adjustment Not Used

City of Roseville
2025 Urban Water Management Plan

Appendix H – Intent to Retain Control of Conserved Water

City of Roseville
2025 Urban Water Management Plan

Appendix I – Groundwater Sustainability Plan
The North American Subbasin Ground Water Sustainability Plan can be accessed at the link below. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/preview/100

City of Roseville
2025 Urban Water Management Plan

Appendix J – 2025 Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Report

RECYCLED WATER

SYSTEMS EVALUATION
MAY 2025
Prepared by:

Recycled
Water Systems
Evaluation
Report
0012204.00
City of Roseville
May 2025
woodardcurran.com
2175 N California Blvd | Suite 315
Walnut Creek, California 94596
800.426.4262
9-30-25 Page 3166 of 3513
City of Roseville (0012204.00) i Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................ES-1

1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Project Goals and Approach.......................................................................................................................1-1

2. RECYCLED WATER SUPPLIES .........................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Existing Supply .................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Projected Supplies ..........................................................................................................................................2-2

3. RECYCLED WATER DEMANDS .......................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Peaking Factors................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Diurnal Patterns ...............................................................................................................................................3-3

3.3 Existing Customer Demand.........................................................................................................................3-7

3.4 Potential Future Customer Demand........................................................................................................3-9

3.4.1 Near-Term Potential Customers...................................................................................................3-9

3.4.2 UGA Demand .......................................................................................................................................3-9

3.5 Supply versus Demand Comparison .................................................................................................... 3-10

3.5.1 Supply versus Maximum Day Demand Comparison ......................................................... 3-11

3.5.2 Peak Hourly Demand Versus Supply Comparison ............................................................. 3-11

4. SYSTEM EVALUATION....................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Evaluation Methodology and Criteria.....................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Design Criteria .....................................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Existing System Evaluation..........................................................................................................................4-2

4.2.1 West Zone Evaluation .......................................................................................................................4-4

4.2.2 Gravity Zone Evaluation ...................................................................................................................4-7

4.3 Buildout System Evaluation.........................................................................................................................4-1

4.3.1 Buildout Model Results ....................................................................................................................4-1

4.3.2 Hydraulic Analysis of Placer Vineyards UGA Pipeline ..........................................................4-4

5. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN...............................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Cost Estimating Assumptions.....................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Project Descriptions .......................................................................................................................................5-3

5.2.1 Pump Station Improvements .........................................................................................................5-3

5.2.2 Storage Improvements.....................................................................................................................5-5

5.2.3 Pipeline Improvements ....................................................................................................................5-8

5.3 Phasing Summary ...........................................................................................................................................5-9

5.4 Additional Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 5-13

5.4.1 West Roseville Pump Station Facility Planning.................................................................... 5-13

5.4.2 System Operation Plan.................................................................................................................. 5-13

5.4.3 Coordination with UGA System Operations ......................................................................... 5-13

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ii Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

5.4.4 Future Updates ................................................................................................................................. 5-14

6. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................6-1 TABLES
Table ES- 1: Existing and Projected WWTP Recycled Water Supplies Table ES- 2: Summary of Exisitng Customers
Table ES- 3: Urban Growth Area Potential Demands
Table ES- 4: Existing Recycled Water System Pump Station Flowrates and Pressures Table ES- 5: Effectiveness of Operational Improvements
Table ES- 6: Buildout Max Day Storage Analysis
Table ES- 7: Proposed Pump Station Design Points at Buildout Table ES- 8: Pipeline and Supply Projects Summary
Table ES- 9: Pump Station Improvements Summary
Table ES- 10: Storage Improvements Summary
Table ES- 11: Phasing SUmmary
Table 2-1: Existing and Projected WWTP Recycled water Supply Table 3-1: Monthly Production Analysis
Table 3-2: Recycled Water Peaking Factors
Table 3-3: Diurnal demand patterns for Existing Customers Table 3-4: Summary of Existing Customers
Table 3-5: Urban Growth Area Potential Demands
Table 4-1: Hydraulic Design Criteria for Model Development Table 4-2: Existing Recycled Water System Pump Station Flowrates and Pressures Table 4-3: Effectiveness of Near-Term Operational Improvements Table 4-4: Buildout Max Day Storage Analysis
Table 4-5: Proposed Pump Station Design Points at Buildout Figure 4-5: Proposed Placer Vineyards Pipeline
Figure 4-6: Hydraulic Analysis of 24” Gravity Pipeline to Placer Vineyards Table 5-1: Implementation Allowances
Table 5-2: West Roseville Pump Station Phasing
Table 5-3: DC WWTP Recycled Water Storage Phasing
Table 5-4: Estimated Costs for Additional Storage Improvements Table 5-5: Pipeline and Supply Projects Summary
Table 5-6: Phasing Summary

FIGURES
Figure ES- 1: Existing Recycled Water System
Figure ES- 2 PGWWTP and DCWWTP Supply Patterns
Figure ES- 3: Existing Recycled Water Customers
Figure ES- 4: Projected Buildout Max Day Supply and Demand Comparison Figure ES- 5: Hourly comparison of Supply and Demands Buildout Max Day Conditions

City of Roseville (0012204.00) iii Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
Figure ES- 6: Proposed Improvements
Figure ES- 7: DC WWTP Recyceld Water Storage Improvement Project Figure 1-1: Recycled Water System and Vicinity
Figure 2-1: PGWWTP and DCWWTP Supply Patterns
Figure 3-1: Average daily production for each month (2017-2022) Figure 3-2: Existing Demand and Supply Patterns
Figure 3-3: Proposed modificaitons to existing Demand and supply Patterns Figure 3-4: Existing Recycled Water Customers
Figure 3-5: Projected Buildout Max Day Supply and Demand Comparison Figure 3-6: Hourly comparision of Supply and Demands Buildout Max Day Conditions Figure 4-1: Existing System Operation Zones
Figure 4-2: Existing MDD Scenario Model Results
Figure 4-3: Hydraulic analysis of Existing Gravity System from DCWWTP Figure 4-4: Buildout Model Results
Figure 5-1: DC WWTP Recycled Water Storage Improvements Figure 5-2: Proposed Pipeline Improvement Projects

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Near-Term Potential Demand Customers
Appendix B: Existing Pump Curves
Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimates
Appendix D: Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Reycled Water Distribution System (TM 5b)

City of Roseville
(0012204.00) Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the findings of the Recycled Water Systems Evaluation (Systems Evaluation) for the City of Roseville (City). The objectives of the Systems Evaluation include documenting an updated assessment of the system’s supplies and demands to determine recycled water infrastructure needed to supply potential future customers and UGAs. Additionally, this report details an implementation plan. The document includes recommended improvements for the City’s existing system to address anticipated future demands and identifies the location of connections for those future demands. Sizing and alignments of future piping to serve these new demands is not evaluated in this report and is left flexible to accommodate evolving development plans for future service areas
ES-1. Existing System
The City of Roseville operates a recycled water distribution system supplied by two wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), as shown in Figure ES- 1. Future development is anticipated in several Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), which will significantly increase the demand for recycled water; these UGAs are also identified in Figure ES- 1.

ES-2. Recycled Water Supplies
The City’s recycled water system is supplied by both the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (DCWWTP) and the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant (PGWWTP). Existing supply SCADA data provided by the City and future supply projections provided by the City on behalf of SPWA partner agencies were reviewed and compared to existing demands and future demand projections.

ES-2.1 Existing Supplies
Effluent flow data for the Dry Creek WWTP from 2020 through 2022 was assessed as part of the DCWWTP Capacity Capital Analysis Draft TM1to estimate an Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) of 8.60 mgd. As part of a similar study currently in progress, 2023 effluent flow data for the Pleasant Grove WWTP was assessed to estimate an ADWF of 8.49 mgd. 24-hour diurnal patterns for influent and effluent flow were developed and compared based on the provided SCADA data. A four-hour lag was noted between influent and effluent peaking factors. The hourly influent data was lagged by four hours and used to represent the diurnal pattern for available supply from each treatment plant. Resulting peaking factors are provided in Figure ES-2. 1 Woodard & Curran, Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity Capital Analysis Draft Technical Memorandum, July 2023.

ES-1 Page 3172 of 3513
City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-3 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
FIGURE ES- 2 PGWWTP AND DCWWTP SUPPLY PATTERNS
ES-2.2 Projected Supplies
Future plant sewage flows were projected to the planning horizon of fiscal year 2059-2060 (FY 59/60)1 and to ultimate buildout conditions, calculated by multiplying Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) projections by the flow contribution per EDU. EDU projections were prepared by the South Placer Wastewater Authority (SPWA) partners and provided to W&C as part of this study in May 2025; the projections generally assume linear growth. Current flow factors are approximately 144 gpd/EDU for PGWWTP and 150 gpd/EDU for DCWWTP. Projected flow factors are 150 gpd/EDU. Potential future flows are presented in Table ES- 1. For this analysis, it has been assumed that all influent sewer flows would be available for use as recycled water.

TABLE ES- 1: EXISTING AND PROJECTED WWTP RECYCLED WATER SUPPLIES Existing Supply
(mgd)
2060 Projected
EDU Growth
(EDUs)
2060 Projected
Supply @ 150
gpd/EDU
(mgd)
PGWWTP 8.49 80,566 19.6
DCWWTP 8.60 46,270 14.2
Total 17.09 126,836 33.8
1SPWA’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
ES-3. Recycled Water Demands
The existing recycled water system customers and associated demands were examined and potential future demands from expected customers within the City and from Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) were identified.

Recycled water production data was used to verify peaking previously developed in the 2016 Recycled Water System Evaluation Report. Potential future recycled water demand was compared with projections of future wastewater flows to identify potential recycled water supply issues.

ES-3.1 Existing Demands
Existing recycled water customers were identified through review of prior studies, discussions with City staff, and the City’s billing records. Billing data from 2017 to 2022 was collected and analyzed to determine average annual demands for each customer. This data was used to add new customers whose service began after August 2019 (customers added before August 2019 were already included in the model as part the 2020 Model Report model update). Including these additional customers, annual average demands were estimated to be approximately 3.8 mgd.

A summary of the ten largest demand customers is included in Table ES- 2. Locations of the existing customers are shown in Figure ES- 3. In addition to the customers shown in Figure ES- 3, DC WWTP is required to discharge a minimum of 4 mgd to Dry Creek to maintain a year round flow in the creek per California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) requirements. Note that there is no specific minimum instantaneous flow requirement for this flow into Dry Creek, just a minimum requirement of 4 million gallons over the course of the day.

TABLE ES- 2: SUMMARY OF EXISITNG CUSTOMERS
Customer Name
Customer
Type
On-Site
Storage
(Yes/No) Zone
Annual
Average
Demanda
(AFY)
Average
Day
Demand
(MGD)
Peak Day
Demandb
(gpm)
Sierra Pines (Sun City) Golf
Course Golf Course Yes Main 805 0.72 1,248
Morgan Creek Golf Course Golf Course Yes South 377 0.34 584 Roseville Energy Park Other No PGWWTP 355 0.32 550
Woodcreek Oaks Golf Course Golf Course Yes Main 353 0.32 548 Diamond Oaks Golf Course Golf Course Yes North 352 0.31 546 Timber Creek Golf Course Golf Course Yes Main 120 0.11 186 West Park High School Irrigation No Main 92 0.08 142
Other Customers within WRSP Area Main 971 0.87 1,504
Other Customers within Sierra Vista Area Main 263 0.23 408 Other Customers within Creekview Area Main 34 0.03 53
All Other City Customers 498 0.44 772
Total 4219 3.77 6540
Footnotes:
a. Based on average billing data from January 2018 to October 2022 b. Based on peaking factor of 2.5 multiplied by ADD.

ES-3 Page 3175 of 3513
City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-6 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
ES-3.2 Future Demands
Potential future customers include near-term potential recycled water customers identified by the City and Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). Potential future customer locations are shown in Appendix A and were identified based on the review of existing recycled water study reports, discussions with City staff, and review of development master plans. Peaking factors used for existing customers were also used to calculate peak day demand for potential future customers.

Near-term potential customers were identified through a review of prior studies. The largest near-term potential customers (not including UGAs,) include the Hewlett Packard Enterprise campus and the Campus Oaks Apartments. Once all customers are on-line, the annual demand for near-term potential customers is projected to be 2,360 AFY, with a peak day demand of 5.27 mgd.

The City of Roseville is anticipating the eventual connection of eight UGAs. Four of these UGAs (Sierra Vista/Westbrook, Creekview, Amoruso Ranch and the West Roseville Specific Plan) are within current City limits and are partially developed. Total existing and anticipated buildout demands for these areas are shown in Table ES- 3.

TABLE ES- 3: URBAN GROWTH AREA POTENTIAL DEMANDS
UGA
Potential
Service
Zone
Within
City
Limits
Existing
Average Day
Demand
(mgd)
Buildout
Average Day
Demand
(mgd)
Buildout
Peak Day
Demand
(gpm)
Assumed
Initial
Connection
Datea
Sierra Vista
/Westbrookb West Yes 0.41 0.96 1,390 2020
Amoruso Ranchc West Yes 0 0.22 389 2025
Creekviewd West Yes 0.05 0.10 174 2020
West Roseville
Specific Plan
e West Yes 1.34 2.02 3,507 2020
Regional Universityf West No 0 0.59 1,031 2030
Placer One / Sunset
Industrial Areag North No 0 0.34 1,451 2025
Placer Vineyardsf Gravity No 0 1.44 2,505 2030
Riolo Vineyardsf Gravity No 0 0.37 639 2030
Footnotes:
a. For purposes of phasing, it was assumed that implementation of full demand would occur over 8 years from the initial connection date. Developments with existing demands were assumed to have been connected to the system by 2020. Note that the initial connection date may not represent the beginning of UGA development. b. Sierra Vista Specific Plan, Amended April 2016
c. Draft Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area Recycled Water Master Plan, June 2024 d. Creekview Specific Plan, March 2022
e. Recycled Water Study for West Roseville Specific Plan Area, May 2003 f. Based on estimates provided by City staff, 2025
g. Placer One Recycled Water Master Plan, November 2024

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-7 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
ES-3.3 Comparison of Supply and Demands
A supply and demand comparison was performed over the West Zone, rather than on the individual WWTPs as the system has multiple points of interconnection allowing either WWTP to service the West Zone.

Estimated growth in average dry weather flow generated from the entire SPWA sewer service area through 2060 was referenced from updated data provided by the City on behalf of the SPWA partner agencies.

Figure ES- 4 shows the current projections of annual recycled water demand and supply available during maximum day conditions. As shown in the figure, there appears to be sufficient supply to meet anticipated demands. It should be noted, however, that there is significant uncertainty in the timing of growth of both future demands and future supplies. There is also significant uncertainty in the projected demands, as demands for several of the UGAs were based on estimates from several years ago (as indicated in Table ES- 3) and likely do not reflect current irrigation practices.

Figure ES- 5 shows anticipated max day buildout demand conditions compared to 2060 supply. While hourly projected supplies are greater than hourly buildout demands, there may still be a need for operational storage (aka daily storage) to shift the available supply of recycled water to the higher evening demand periods when supplies are limited. The City can undertake efforts to manage peak usage and reduce overnight demands, especially with customers that have storage facilities who may be more adept at distributing demands across a day to limit peak hourly usage as much as possible.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-8 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
FIGURE ES- 4: PROJECTED BUILDOUT MAX DAY SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-9 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
FIGURE ES- 5: HOURLY COMPARISON OF SUPPLY AND DEMANDS BUILDOUT MAX DAY CONDITIONS Footnote:
a) Discharge to Dry Creek, as required by CDFW, is not included on this plot as City operations staff can elect to discharge the required 4 mgd when it best suits system performance. In the case of the proposed patterns being implemented, this could be between 11am and 11pm.

Required discharge to Dry
Creek could occur during this
perioda

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-10 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
ES-4. Systems Evaluation
Model scenarios of the City’s existing recycled water distribution system were developed. Sizing of new pipes, and evaluation of the capacity of the existing facilities, was performed using the design criteria described in Section

4.1.1. Buildout alternatives were evaluated for comparative life cycle costs using the capital and O&M cost criteria described in Section ES-4.3.

ES-4.1 Existing System Evaluation
The existing recycled water system was run under existing average day and maximum day demand conditions to assess the system’s performance. Node pressures and pipeline velocities were compared to criteria established in Table 4-1. Table ES- 4 summarizes the peak hour operating points of each pump station in the existing system.

These peak hour flowrates represent an estimated pump station capacity accounting for pumping against system pressure under design conditions. Pump curves for each pump station are included in Appendix B. Based on a comparison of the peak hour flows and pressures against the pump curves shown in Appendix B, all existing pump stations have capacity for existing peak flows.

TABLE ES- 4: EXISTING RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM PUMP STATION FLOWRATES AND PRESSURES Pump Station Peak Hour Operating Point
Pleasant Grove
WWTP 6,585 gpm, 26-ft (11 psi)a
West Roseville PS 8 ,725 gpm, 173-ft (75 psi)a
Dry Creek WWTP 5,200 gpm, 138-ft (60 psi)a
Footnotes:
a. Total Dynamic Head (TDH) modeled directly downstream of the pump station.

Based on these model results, no existing capacity deficiencies have been identified in the West Zone nor the Gravity Zone. However, very little additional demand can be added without resulting in overuse of the West Roseville tanks or inadequate supply from DCWWTP. However, some operational changes can be implemented at low or no cost to increase system capacity. These include: 1) adjusting demand patterns for customers with storage to shift their peak demands off of the system peak demands, 2) increasing the pressure supplied by WRPS, and 3) connecting North Zone tanks and pump station to the system, which are currently offline. Items 1 and 2 provide potential increases in peak day demand as shown in Table ES- 5. Item 3 is not presented in Table ES- 5 as buildout model results discussed in Section ES-4.2 indicate that the North Zone PS is not required for the buildout system and so is not recommended for rehabilitation at this time.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-11 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
TABLE ES- 5: EFFECTIVENESS OF OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
Scenario Potential Peak Day Demanda (MGD)
Existing, No Change 8.7b
+ Adjust Demand Patterns 10.4
+ Increase WRPS Supply Pressure 10.9
Footnotes:
a. Represents the maximum peak day demand that could be met while meeting criteria established in Table 4-1.

Current maximum peak demands are estimated to be 8.34 MGD b. The model predicts that some customers in the southern part of the system would not meet 40 psi during existing peak day demands at peak hour, due to limitations in available supply at Dry Creek. It is possible that some demand shifting has already occurred to mitigate this deficiency.

ES-4.2 Buildout System Evaluation
Buildout model demands were run with the updated demand patterns as discussed in Section ES-4.1. To conservatively determine storage requirement, supply estimates for 2045 were used for modeling purposes to complete the buildout max day model runs. This represents a period of time when anticipated max day demands are closest to projected supplies, projected supplies being approximately 3 MGD. The model was run with North Zone Pump Station offline to determine if the pump station would be required for buildout conditions.

Pipeline Improvements
Under buildout max day demands, existing infrastructure provides system pressures lower than the established criteria. These pressure deficiencies are resolved with improvements to West Roseville Pump Station pumping capacity and “pinch-point” improvements discussed below. Under modeled conditions, North Zone Pump Station could remain offline and system demands could be met at sufficient pressures. However, significant differences between the modeled demand patterns and the actual demand patterns may necessitate the recommissioning of North Zone Pump Station to meet peak demands.

Two projects were identified as “pinch-point” improvements:

1. The existing 24-inch pipeline directly downstream of the WRPS to Westpark Drive. A parallel 24-inch pipeline could be installed to increase the service pressures and capacity throughout the system.

2. The existing 8-inch pipeline on Blue Oaks Blvd between Woodcreek Oaks Blvd and Diamond Creek Blvd.

A new 12-inch pipe connecting to the 30-inch main on Woodcreek Oaks Blvd and to the 8-inch main on Prairie Woods Way via Painted Desert Drive would address this deficiency.

Storage Improvements
Storage improvements will also be needed. Operational storage under buildout maximum day conditions is approximately 1.2 million gallons (MG) for the West Zone. Table ES- 6 presents the storage requirements based on this analysis. Section ES-5 provides a storage improvement project to enhance buffer storage to accommodate the additional 1.28 MG of required storage based on the analysis below.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-12 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
TABLE ES- 6: BUILDOUT MAX DAY STORAGE ANALYSIS
Pressure Zone a
Customers
w/out Storage
Buildout MDD
(mgd)
Operational
Storage
Required b
(MG)
Buffer
Storage
Required c
(MG)
Total
Storage
Required d
(MG)
Existing
Storage
(MG)
Potential
Required
Storage
(MG)
West Zone
(West Roseville
Tanks

8.34 1.19 2.09 3.28 2.0 1.28
Footnotes:
a. The Gravity pressure zone is not included as there are few, if any, customer demands without dedicated storage in this zone.
b. Operational storage requirement is derived from model runs. It is based on assumptions built into the model including pump station controls, PRV settings, and demand patterns presented in this report. c. Buffer storage required was assumed to be 25% of MDD for customers without dedicated storage for a one-day period.
d. Total required storage = Operational Storage + Buffer Storage.

Pumping Improvements
Before total buildout demands are realized the West Roseville pump station would need to be improved to meet flow and pressure design criteria. Design points for each pump station under buildout max day demand conditions are summarized in Table ES- 7. These design points represent the maximum peak hour flowrate and associated total dynamic head under max day conditions with the diurnal patterns applied to the demands. Potential operating points relative to the existing pump curves are shown in Appendix B.

TABLE ES- 7: PROPOSED PUMP STATION DESIGN POINTS AT BUILDOUT Pump Station
Existing MDD Design Point Buildout MDD Design Point
Peak Flowrate
(gpm)
Total Dynamic
Head (ft)
Peak Flowrate
(gpm)
Total Dynamic
Head (ft)
PG WWTP PS 6,585 26 10,500 24
West Roseville PS 8,725 173 13,340 162
Dry Creek WWTP PS 5,200 138 6,150 140
ES-4.3 Implementation Plan
Construction cost estimates have been developed to provide planning level estimates of future facility costs. These cost estimates are planning or conceptual level estimates and are considered to have an estimated accuracy range of -30 to +50 percent. This level of accuracy corresponds to a “Class 4” cost estimate as defined by the American Association of Cost Estimators. These estimates are suitable for use for budget forecasting, CIP development, and project evaluations, with the understanding that refinements to the project details and costs would be necessary as projects proceed into the design and construction phases.

Unit capital costs are based on engineering experience and recent bid prices for similar projects. Unit costs are indexed to the March 2025 Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). The CCI value used (14,511) was an average of the 20 Cities Average value (13,783) and the San Francisco value (15,239).

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-13 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
ES-5. Project Descriptions
Pipeline improvement projects include projects to alleviate the deficiencies identified in Section ES-4.2, as well as projects to improve the reliability of the system through improved interties between pressure zones. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix C. The proposed improvements are shown in Figure ES- 6.

ES-5.1 Pipeline Improvements
Pipeline improvements are defined below and costs summarized in Table ES- 8.

Project B-1 would increase the size of the bypass pipeline from the Pleasant Grove WWTP pumps to the West Zone system from 10-inches to 24-inches. This would improve the City’s ability to take the West Roseville Pump Station offline, either to perform maintenance or for efficiency purposes.

Project I-1 would add a 6-inch intertie pipeline between the West Zone and the North Zone at Angus Road and Casa Sedona Drive. This provides two benefits:
• Improves reliability by improving the system’s ability to backfeed from the North Zone into the West Zone during low demand periods.
• Improves the City’s ability to serve the North Zone directly from either the West Roseville Pump Station or the pumps at the PG WWTP during low demand periods.

Project I-2 would add a 6-inch intertie pipeline between the West Zone and the South Zone at Blue Oaks Boulevard.

The intertie provides two benefits:
• Improves reliability by allowing the system to bypass either the West Zone or the North Zone during low demand periods.
• Potentially improves efficiency by improving the City’s ability to bypass either the West Roseville Pump Station or DC WWTP pumps during low demand periods.

Project I-3 would add an 8-inch intertie pipeline between the West Zone and the South Zone at Baseline Road and Fiddyment Road. This project would also increase the reliability of the system by improving the system’s ability to bypass either the West Roseville PS or the pumps at DC WWTP.

Project I-4 would add a 10-inch intertie pipeline from the end of Project I-3 further south to interconnect the Main Zone with the Gravity System at Walerga Rd and Dry Creek Community Park. This project would increase the reliability of the gravity system by allowing the system to be supplied from the Main Zone if the gravity system supply was limited or taken offline. This intertie will likely not be able to convey max day, peak hour demand conditions to all customers, but under average day conditions it would provide customers with a reasonable level of service pressure for their anticipated demands. However, system performance may vary depending on the season and time of day that the intertie is operated. Under normal operating conditions, this line would be valved out of service.

Project PP-1 would install a parallel 24-inch pipeline between the West Roseville Pump Station (WRPS) and West Park Drive via Phillip Road (approx. 485 LF pipeline). This pipeline would only be needed when velocities in the existing 24-inch pipe exceed design criteria once West Roseville Pump Station improvements are implemented.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-14 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
Installing the parallel pipeline would improve redundancy for a critical component, as well as allowing greater flexibility for providing system supply during low demand periods directly from the PG WWTP pumps.

Project PP-2 proposes adding a looped pipe in the North Zone pressure zone to relieve a headloss deficiency identified under buildout max day demand conditions. Project PP-2 includes the installation of 1,600 linear feet of a new 12” main from the existing main on Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard, connecting to the existing 8” main on Prairie Woods Way via Painted Desert Drive. This project should be completed before connecting additional customers west of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard.

Project PP-3 would upsize the existing pipeline from DC WWTP Pumps to the South Zone from a 20-inch to a 30- inch pipe. This project relieves a bottleneck from DC WWTP that contributes to pressure drop in the system. The additional capacity in the system provides necessary pressure improvements under buildout conditions and would allow for greater utilization of the DC CCB recycled water storage.

&-
&-
TU
TU
TU TU
TU
TU
TU
Amoruso
Creekview
Placer One
Placer Vineyards
Regional University
Riolo Vineyards
Sierra Vista
West Roseville SP
Westbrook

PG WWTP

DC WWTP
North Zone Tanks and PS
West Roseville Tanks and PS
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 TomTom
TU
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025
Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus
DS © 2025 TomTom
Legend
±
Figure 5-1
Buildout
Improvements
Figure Exported: 5/29/2025 By: dmerlo Using: \\woodardcurran.net\shared\Projects\CA Roseville\0012204.00 2022 Recycled Water System Eval\wip\G GIS\5. ArcGIS Pro\System Evaluation Figures\Figure 5-1 Buildout Improvements.aprx Layout: Option 1 Project #: 0012204.00
Map Created: July 2024
0 0.15 0.3 0.6
Miles
Roseville Recycled Water
Systems Evaluation
Third Party GIS Disclaimer: This map is for reference and graphical purposes only and should not be relied upon by third parties for any legal decisions.

Any reliance upon the map or data contained herein shall be at the users’ sole risk. Data Sources:
&- WWTP
Existing Recycled Water Main
Future Recycled Water Pipeline
City Limits
FutureStructures
Status
TU Existing Storage and PS
TU Future Storage and PS
ProjectPipes
Project B-1
Project I-1
Project PS-1
Project S-1
Project PP-2
Project PP-1
Project I-2
Project I-3
Project I-4
ES-6 Page 3185 of 3513
City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-16 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
TABLE ES- 8: PIPELINE AND SUPPLY PROJECTS SUMMARY
Project
Number Project Description Location Size Quantity
Estimated Raw
Construction
Cost
Estimated
Capital Costa,
b
Reliability Projects
B-1
Upsize bypass at West
Roseville PS/Pleasant
Grove WWTP from 10" to
24"
West Roseville
PS 24-in 50-LF $66,000 $115,000
I-1
Install an intertie between
the West Zone and North
Zone
Angus Rd and
Casa Sedona Dr 6-in 1640-LF $431,000 $672,000
I-2
Install an intertie between
the West Zone and South
Zone
Blue Oaks Blvd 6-in 1520-LF $400,000 $622,000
I-3
Install an intertie between
the West Zone and South
Zone
Baseline Rd and
Fiddyment Rd 8-in 6,700-LF $1,985,000 $3,097,000
I-4
Install an intertie between
West / South Zone and
Gravity Zone
Baseline Rd and
Walerga Rd 10-in 6,300-LF $1,885,000 $2,941,000
Reliability Projects Subtotal $4,767,000 $7,447,000
Pinch Point Projects
PP-1
Install 485 LF of parallel
24” pipeline between
West Roseville Pump
Station and West Park
Drive.

Between the
WRPS and
West Park Drive
24-in 485-LF $289,000 $451,000
PP-2
Install 1,600 LF of 12”
pipeline along Painted
Desert Drive and Prairie
Woods Way.

Painted Desert
Drive and Prairie
Woods Way
12-in 1,600-LF $628,000 $980,000
PP-3
Install 2,530 ilnear feet of
30” pipe from DC WWTP
recycled water pumps

DC WWTP
Recycled Water
Pumps 30-in 2,530-LF $1,400,000 $2,184,000
Pinch Point Projects Subtotal $2,317,000 $3,615,000
Total $7,084,000 $11,062,000
Footnotes:
a. Includes implementation costs as described in Section 5.1. b. Costs in March 2025 dollars

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-17 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
ES-5.2 Pumping Improvements
At buildout, peak flows at the West Roseville pump station will increase from about 8,725 gpm to 13,950 gpm. To achieve buildout flows, it was assumed pumps at West Roseville would be replaced with larger horsepower pumps.

To avoid unnecessary operation and maintenance costs, installation of the replacement pumps should be phased to match the projected flow as service connections are added. To maintain operation of 5 duty pumps and 1 standby, three of the existing 150 hp West Roseville Pumps (2 duty and 1 standby) should be replaced with higher capacity pumps (300 hp motor). Note, it is possible that replacement of these pumps with larger pumps is not possible and instead the pump station would have to be modified, or new pump station constructed. This should be studied further to determine a more accurate cost estimate. Additional funds for a pump station alternatives analysis are included in the cost summary presented in Table ES- 9.

TABLE ES- 9: PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
Project ID Installed Pumps / Capacity
Estimated Raw
Construction Costa
Estimated
Capital
Costb
PS-1
c
Replace three pumps with 300 hp
pumps (two duty, one standby)
~13,950 gpm firm pump station
capacity
3 new 300 hp pumps:
3 x $564,000 =
$1,692,000
Pump Upgrade
Alternatives Analysis:
$100,000
$3,145,000
Footnotes:
a. Costs basis is March 2025 average of ENR 20 Cities and San Francisco CCI (14,511) b. CIP Costs include implementation costs as summarized in Section 5.1. c. Project cost assumes that pump may be replaced within the pump station. The presented value includes funds to perform a pump station alternatives analysis to determine whether an expansion of WRPS would be required. See Section 5.4.1.

ES-5.3 Potential Additional Storage Improvements
The DC WWTP pump station is currently served directly from treated effluent from the plant. There is currently no effective storage located at DC WWTP. This project proposes modifying the existing Chlorine Contact Basins (CCB) at the DCWWTP for use as RW storage basins. Adding storage at DC WWTP would address the anticipated storage deficiency under buildout demands. This also provides a level of operational resilience in the event the DC WWTP needs to be taken offline, there would be some available supply for the recycled water system to utilize from DC WWTP.

A conceptual diagram of the project is shown in Figure ES- 7 below. The proposed project cost shown in Table ES- 10 include costs for piping, slide gate, valves, concrete, demolition, and other modifications to provide an additional 1.1 MG of RW storage capacity.

In addition to the recycled water storage provided by conversion of the Dry Creek CCBs an additional 0.18 MG of storage will be needed to provide the City with the operational and buffer storage for max day conditions. Three alternatives could be pursued to address this, however the City should monitor recycled water supplies and demands as new customers are connected to the system. Changes to supply or demand may change the need for or quantity of additional recycled water storage.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-18 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
• Connect North Zone Tank and Pump Station
o Connecting North Zone Pump Station and Tank to the system would provide additional storage, however, demands in North Zone are lower than demands in the West Zone and South Zone, so adding storage here does not provide much hydraulic benefit, and would increase O&M costs.

Estimated costs to rehabilitate North Zone Tank and Pump Station are presented in Table ES- 10 for informational purposes.
• Rehabilitate PG CCBs
o Similar to the Dry Creek CCBs, Pleasant Grove WWTP has CCBs that could be rehabilitated and converted to recycled water storage. It is estimated that conversion of the PG CCBs would result in an additional 2 MG of storage. Hydraulically, storage at this location would be beneficial for system performance, however, costs to rehabilitate the PG CCBs will likely be more expensive than recommissioning North Zone Tank, the PG CCBs are currently uncovered. Costs for this alternative were not developed for this study but should be in subsequent studies if additional storage is required.
• Additional Tank at WRPS
o The City has previously considered adding a recycled water storage tank at WRPS. Storage at this location would benefit system performance and operation as demands increase as WRPS provides a majority of the West Zone with recycled water. However, costs for an additional tank may be significant. The minimum size of this tank would be 0.2 MG to meet storage requirements, however, the City could consider upsizing this to 1.0 MG so potential future customers not considered as part of this report could be serviced. The cost for a 1.0 MG storage tank is presented in Table ES- 10.
• Operate system with less buffer storage
o Another alternative is to operate the system with less buffer storage than 25% of max day demand for customers without storage. With the DC CCBs converted to recycled water storage, total buffer storage will be approximately 23% of the abovementioned max day demands. While it does not meet the criteria previously presented, the City may find this buffer storage is sufficient for their needs. No project is required for this alternative.

TABLE ES- 10: STORAGE IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
Project ID Project
Estimated Raw
Construction
Costa
Estimated Capital
Costb
S-1
Rehabilitate DC WWTP CCB
to utilize as 1.1 MG of RW
storage
$925,000 $1,443,000
Alternative S-2A Rehabilitate NZ Tanks and
Pump Station $610,000 $950,000
Alternative S-2B Additional 1.0 MG Storage
Tank at WRPS $3,335,00 $5,203,000
Footnotes:
a. Costs basis is March 2025 average of ENR 20 Cities and San Francisco CCI (14,511)

CONCRETE

WALL CLOSURE CONCRETE

WALL CLOSURE

OPENING

IN WALL

OPENING

IN WALL CONCRETE

WALL CLOSURE

FLOW RECEIVING
TROUGH

EMPTY TRAIN
(AIR GAP)

EMPTY TRAIN
(AIR GAP)

STORAGE FOR TRANSFER PUMP

STATION / UV FLOW SHAVE
FINAL

EFFLUENT

REPLACE
GATE

REPLACE MUD
VALVES (TYP OF 7)

DEMO GATE
FIGURE ES-7

DCWWTP RECLAIMED WATER

STORAGE IMPROVEMENTS

CONCEPT FIGURE

RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM EVALUATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 15'-0" 15'-0"

OPENING

IN WALL

RW PUMP STATION

FEED PIPING TRANSFER PUMP
STATION FEED PIPING Page 3189 of 3513
City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-20 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
ES-5.4 Phasing Summary
Many of the projects identified in Section ES-5 can be phased in as recycled water demand increases. Table ES11 below summarizes the potential phases.

TABLE ES- 11: PHASING SUMMARY
Development
Phase
Incremental
MDD (mgd)
Project
Required
Estimated Capital
Cost
Existing 8.34 -- --
2025-2030 5.4
PP-2 $980,000
PS-1 $3,145,000
S-1 $1,443,000
PP-1 $451,000
2030-2035 4.18 PP-3 $2,184,000
Total 17.92 $8,203,000
ES-5.5 Additional Recommendations
The proposed phasing plan and cost estimate identified in this report for the West Roseville Pump Station was prepared at a feasibility study level and are not suitable for more detailed planning. As noted, it may be feasible to replace existing pumps with larger pumps without other significant improvements to the station. If more substantial improvements are required, additional facility planning is recommended to investigate the potential site in more detail, particularly as more information is available on potential future demands. The facility plan would provide a better estimate of the future costs of the pump station, and give more certainty about the future layout and facilities that will need to be constructed as the developers are connected.

This Systems Evaluation anticipates that as recycled water demands grow, operation of the facilities will become more challenging. The City should develop a System Operation Plan to provide an operational approach for challenging conditions.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) ES-21 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
Several of the UGAs (Regional University, Placer One, and Placer Vineyards), are anticipated to have storage tanks that the City’s system will discharge into. The City should work with the UGA operators to maintain control of storage tank fill rates and times, and ensure that recycled water supply agreements with the UGAs provide for City to have the control needed to implement the System Operation Plan.

It is recommended this Systems Evaluation be updated every five to ten years or as significant changes in potential demands are identified to ensure that the Systems Evaluation remains current. This will also provide an opportunity to review observed peaking factors and diurnal patterns, and update the model to enable the model to continue answering operational questions.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 1-1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Roseville has been irrigating landscaped areas throughout the City and planning recycled water implementation as part of new development surrounding the City. This Recycled Water Systems Evaluation has been prepared to position the City for implementing the next phases of recycled water projects as new users within the City come online, and as the various UGAs plan for and install recycled water infrastructure. The overall implementation plan contemplates reliability improvements, pump station improvements and more improvements including storage facilities.

This chapter includes background on the City of Roseville (City) and the Recycled Water Systems Evaluation (Systems Evaluation), documentation of goals, discussion of Systems Evaluation objectives and approach, and a summary of the report organization.

1.1 Background
The City of Roseville is located 20 miles northeast of Sacramento, in the southwestern portion of Placer County.

The City is bordered by Rocklin to the northeast, Citrus Heights to the south and unincorporated Placer County to the west. The City operates a recycled water distribution system supplied by two wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), as shown in Figure 1-1. Future development is anticipated in several Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), which will significantly increase the demand for recycled water; these UGAs are also identified in Figure 1-1.

An evaluation of the recycled water system was previously completed in 20161(2016 Systems Evaluation). The 2016 Systems Evaluation generally identified that capacity improvements are not needed to serve the current customers, but significant storage and pumping capacity improvements to the West Roseville Pump Station (WRPS) would be needed to serve the future UGA connections. The 2016 Systems Evaluation also identified other (smaller) reliability and capacity improvement projects in other parts of the system.

Since the 2016 Systems Evaluation, new recycled water infrastructure has been installed in the vicinity of WRPS and the City has added new customers including Sierra Vista, Westbrook, and Creekview UGAs. The model was recently updated and re-calibrated to reflect those changes, as documented in the 2020 Model Development Report2; the recalibration also included development of demand patterns to allow for extended-period simulations, which can be used to evaluate the system’s use of storage. Additionally, development plans for Placer One, a proposed UGA that was not considered in the 2016 Systems Evaluation, have progressed and incorporated a recycled water component. Further, several of the UGAs are nearing development. For all of these reasons, a more detailed review of potential storage requirements was needed to reasonably project future funding needs.

1.2 Project Goals and Approach
The objectives of this report include documenting an updated assessment of the system’s supplies and demands to determine recycled water infrastructure needed to supply potential future customers and UGAs. Additionally, this report details an implementation plan. The document includes recommended improvements for the City’s existing system to address anticipated future demands and identifies the location of connections for those future demands. Sizing and alignments of future piping to serve these new demands is not evaluated in this report and is left flexible to accommodate evolving development plans for future service areas. 1 RMC, City of Roseville Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Final Report, July 2016 2 Brown & Caldwell, 2020 Recycled Water System Model Development Report, August 2020

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 2-1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

2. RECYCLED WATER SUPPLIES
The City’s recycled water system is supplied by both the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (DCWWTP) and the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant (PGWWTP). Previously, for modeling purposes, the treatment plants had been assumed to have an infinite supply of recycled water available to meet the recycled water demand.

To better assess the impact of supply limitations on storage, existing and future supply has been estimated and applied to the model.

2.1 Existing Supply
Effluent flow data for the Dry Creek WWTP from 2020 through 2022 was assessed as part of the DCWWTP Capacity Capital Analysis Draft TM1to estimate an Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) of 8.60 mgd. As part of a similar study currently in progress, 2023 effluent flow data for the Pleasant Grove WWTP was assessed to estimate an ADWF of 8.49 mgd.
24-hour diurnal patterns for influent and effluent flow were developed and compared based on the provided SCADA data. A four-hour lag was noted between influent and effluent peaking factors. The hourly influent data was lagged by four hours and used to represent the diurnal pattern for available supply from each treatment plant.

Resulting peaking factors are provided in Figure 2-1.

FIGURE 2-1: PGWWTP AND DCWWTP SUPPLY PATTERNS
1 Woodard & Curran, Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity Capital Analysis Draft Technical Memorandum, July 2023.
0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1

1.2 1.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hourly Supply Peaking Factor
Hour
Dry Creek
Pleasant Grove

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 2-2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

2.2 Projected Supplies
Future plant sewage flows were projected to the planning horizon of fiscal year 2059-2060 (FY 59/60)1 and to ultimate buildout conditions, calculated by multiplying Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) projections by the flow contribution per EDU. EDU projections were prepared by the South Placer Wastewater Authority (SPWA) partners and provided to W&C as part of this study in May 2025; the projections generally assume linear growth. Current flow factors are approximately 144 gpd/EDU for PGWWTP and 150 gpd/EDU for DCWWTP. Projected flow factors are at 150 gpd/EDU. Potential future flows are presented in Table 2-1. For this analysis, it has been assumed that all influent sewer flows would be available for use as recycled water.

It should be noted that in addition to uncertainties regarding the per EDU flow factor, there is also significant uncertainty regarding the number and timing of future EDUs. As discussed further in Section 3, careful monitoring of the City’s available recycled water supplies is recommended as additional customers are considered.

TABLE 2-1: EXISTING AND PROJECTED WWTP RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY Existing Supply
(mgd)
2060 Projected
EDU Growth
(EDUs)
2060 Projected
Supply @ current
gpd/EDU
(mgd)
2060 Projected
Supply @ 190
gpd/EDU
(mgd)
PGWWTP 8.49 35,092 13.5 15.2
DCWWTP 8.60 27,942 12.8 13.9
Total 17.09 63,035 26.3 29.1
1SPWA’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 3-1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

3. RECYCLED WATER DEMANDS
This section examines the existing recycled water system customers and associated demands and identifies potential future demands from expected customers within the City and from Urban Growth Areas (UGAs).

The approach to perform this market assessment was to use a combination of customer meter data and planning documents and staff estimates for existing and potential future customer demands respectively. Recycled water production data was used to verify peaking previously developed in the 2016 Recycled Water System Evaluation Report. Potential future recycled water demand was compared with projections of future wastewater flows to identify potential recycled water supply issues.

3.1 Peaking Factors
Previous iterations of the recycled water systems evaluation (including the 2016 Systems Evaluation, as well as the 2009 Systems Evaluation1), used a peak month/average day peaking factor of 2.5. To confirm that this peaking factor would be applicable for this assessment, recycled water production data from January 2017 to November 2022 was analyzed to determine typical peaking factors within the existing system.

Average daily recycled water production was compared across months to demonstrate seasonal trends in irrigation use. Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 show the variation in average daily recycled water production with a peak in July corresponding to a peaking factor (average daily production in a given month / average daily production across the analysis period) of 2.23. Table 3-2 summarizes the calculated peaking factors for each year from 2017 through 2022.

TABLE 3-1: MONTHLY PRODUCTION ANALYSIS
Month
Average Day
Production
(MGD)
Peaking Factor
Average Daily for Month / Average
Daily for Year
Jan 0.33 0.11
Feb 0.70 0.24
March 0.79 0.27
April 1.83 0.62
May 4.23 1.44
June 5.67 1.93
July 6.56 2.23
Aug 5.89 2.00
Sept 4.33 1.47
Oct 2.88 0.98
Nov 1.05 0.36
Dec 0.43 0.15
Annual Average 2.94 1.0
1 RMC Water & Environment, South Placer Regional Wastewater and Recycled Water Systems Evaluation, December 2009

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 3-2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
FIGURE 3-1: AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCTION FOR EACH MONTH (2017-2022) TABLE 3-2: RECYCLED WATER PEAKING FACTORS
Year
Recycled Water Production1
Peaking Factors
Peak Value/Annual
Average
Average Day
(MGD)
Max Month
(MGD)
Max Day
(MGD) Max Month Max Day
2017 2.28 5.76 7.11 2.53 3.12
2018 2.61 6.18 7.80 2.37 2.99
2019 2.45 5.47 7.14 2.23 2.91
2020 3.07 6.78 7.99 2.21 2.60
2021 3.33 7.40 8.29 2.23 2.49
2022 3.63 7.10 8.67 1.96 2.38
Average 2.89 6.45 7.83 2.25 2.75
Footnotes:

1. Recycled Water Production Data is based on flows from West Roseville Pump Station and the Dry Creek Gravity and Pump Station pipelines.

As indicated in Table 3-2, the Maximum Day/Annual Average peaking factor is generally slightly above 2.5, while Maximum Month/Annual Average is slightly below 2.5. This suggests that within the peak month there was a

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 3-3 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
shorter duration period of higher demands, which may coincide with a heat wave, or atypical irrigation patterns.

The current recycled water system has sufficient capacity to handle these short durations of higher demands. In the future, as recycled water demands approach system design limits, irrigation during peak demand periods may need to be more tightly managed to meet all demands. As the duration of the higher demands was generally short, it has been assumed that irrigation during these high demand periods can be managed to limit taxing the system significantly beyond typical peak month demands. Therefore, the peak day peaking factor of 2.5 used in previous system planning has been carried forward for the current analysis of buildout system needs.

For modeling purposes, existing maximum day demands were scaled to match the maximum day demand observed on June 24, 2022, of 8.7 mgd, as discussed further in Section 3.3 of this report. As future customers are added, peaking factors should continue to be monitored. Potential mitigations to address supply shortfalls are discussed in Section 3.5.1.

3.2 Diurnal Patterns
Peaking factors for hourly demand patterns were previously developed as part of the 2020 Model Development Report for use in extended period simulations (EPS). Total demands under each pattern were summed, the pattern was applied, and hourly demand values were plotted on Figure 3-2, along with the supply patterns discussed in Chapter 2. The demands follow a typical irrigation demand pattern with peak flows occurring overnight and in the morning.

As indicated in Figure 3-2, peak recycled water demands occur overnight while peak recycled water supply occurs in the afternoon and stays fairly constant throughout the evening. Low demands occur in the middle of the afternoon while low supply occurs in the middle of the morning. One way to increase the capacity of the recycled water system in the future would be to modify the hourly demand patterns for customers with storage ponds (i.e., golf courses). Aligning the system supply pattern for customers with storage with the system-wide demand pattern would optimize the operation of the system. This modification is included in this evaluation and discussed in Section 4.2.1.2. The proposed modified patterns are shown in Table 3-3 and the resultant hourly demands compared to supply is shown in Figure 3-3. The additional capacity provided by this pattern modification was determined as part of the analysis discussed in Section 4 of this report. Modification of customer demand schedules to off-peak hours would help accommodate additional system demands on the recycled water system.

For future UGA customers with storage (Placer Vineyards, Riolo Vinyards, Placer One, and Regional University), it was assumed that the City could supply recycled water when convenient for the City system to reduce peak demands. For this study this was assumed to be a constant supply over the entire day (peak hour factor equal to

1.0), except for supply to Placer One which was assumed to have a fill time during the middle of the day.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 3-4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
FIGURE 3-2: EXISTING DEMAND AND SUPPLY PATTERNS

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 3-5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
FIGURE 3-3: PROPOSED MODIFICAITONS TO EXISTING DEMAND AND SUPPLY PATTERNS 1 The diurnal pattern for discharge to Dry Creek is assumed to be constant at 4 mgd over 24 hours, however the pattern can be modified to better match the supply and demand patterns as long as 4 MG is discharged per day. 1

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 3-6 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
TABLE 3-3: DIURNAL DEMAND PATTERNS FOR EXISTING CUSTOMERS Hour
Hourly Demand Pattern Peaking Factors a
Roseville
Energy
Park
Sun City
Irrigation
(E)
Diamond
Oaks GC
(P)
Diamond
Oaks GC
(E)
Morgan
Creek GC
(P)
Morgan
Creek GC
(E)
Timber
Creek GC
(P)
Timber
Creek GC
(E) Woodcreek
GC
(P)
Woodcreek
GC
Small
Users
0 1.3 1.9 1.3 0 2.5 0 2.4 0 2.5 0 3.4
1 1.1 2 1.3 0 2.4 0 2.4 0 2.6 0 3.3
2 0.9 1.7 1.4 0 2.4 0 2.4 0 2.5 0 2.6
3 0.7 1.1 1.4 0 2.4 2.5 2.4 0 2.5 0 2
4 0.9 3.8 1.4 1.3 2.4 2.6 2.4 0 2.5 0 1.4
5 0.7 3.2 1.4 1.3 2.4 2.5 2.4 0 2.5 0 1.2
6 0.8 2.1 1.4 1.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 0 2.5 0 0.7
7 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.4 2.3 2.5 2.4 0 2.5 0 0.5
8 0.8 0 1.3 1.4 2.2 2.5 2.4 0 2.5 0 0.2
9 0.6 0 1.4 1.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 0 1.2 0 0.1
10 1 0 1.4 1.4 0.3 2.5 0 2.4 0 2.5 0.1
11 0.9 0 1.5 1.4 0 2.5 0 2.4 0 2.6 0.1
12 1.1 0 1.5 1.3 0 1.2 0 2.4 0 2.5 0.1
13 1.3 0 1.5 1.4 0 0 0 2.4 0 2.5 0.1
14 1.2 0 1.5 1.4 0 0 0 2.4 0 2.5 0.1
15 1.4 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 2.4 0 2.5 0.1
16 1.1 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 2.4 0 2.5 0.1
17 1.1 0 0.2 1.5 0 0 0 2.4 0 2.5 0.1
18 1.1 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 2.4 0 2.5 0.2
19 1 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 2.4 0 1.2 0.2
20 1 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3
21 1.1 0.1 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1
22 1.1 4.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8
23 1.1 3.2 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 3.5
Footnotes:
a) “(E)” indicates current demand pattern derived in the 2020 Model Development Report. “(P)” indicates a proposed pattern with a shift in hourly demands to align system demand patterns with system supply patterns.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 3-7 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

3.3 Existing Customer Demand
Existing recycled water customers were identified through review of prior studies, discussions with City staff, and the City’s billing records. Billing data from 2017 to 2022 was collected and analyzed to determine average annual demands for each customer. This data was used to add new customers whose service began after August 2019 (customers added before August 2019 were already included in the model as part the 2020 Model Report model update). Including these additional customers, annual average demands were estimated to be approximately 3.5 mgd.

As indicated in Table 3-2, the highest peak day demand observed was 8.7 mgd, which occurred on June 24, 2022. Modeled demands were scaled such that the total max day modeled demands matched the observed peak day demand of 8.7 mgd.

A summary of the largest demand customers is included in Table 3-4. Locations of the existing customers are shown in Figure 3-4. In addition to the customers shown in Figure 3-4, DC WWTP is required to discharge a minimum of 4 mgd to Dry Creek to maintain a year round flow in the creek per California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) requirements. Note that there is no specific minimum instantaneous flow requirement for this flow into Dry Creek, just a minimum requirement of 4 million gallons over the course of the day.

TABLE 3-4: SUMMARY OF EXISTING CUSTOMERS
Customer Name
Customer
Type
On-Site
Storage
(Yes/No) Zone
Annual
Average
Demanda
(AFY)
Average
Day
Demand
(MGD)
Peak Day
Demandb
(MGD)
Sun City Golf Courses Golf Course Yes Main 851 0.76 1.9 Morgan Creek Golf
Course Golf Course Yes South 320 0.29 0.71
Roseville Energy Park Other No Main 293 0.26 0.65
Woodcreek Oaks Golf
Course Golf Course Yes Main 345 0.31 0.77
Diamond Oaks Golf
Course Golf Course Yes North 315 0.28 0.70
Sun City Irrigation Irrigation No Main 129 0.11 0.29
West Park High School Irrigation No Main 79 0.07 0.18
Other Customers within WRSP Area Main 836 0.75 1.87
Other Customers within Creekview Area Main 33 0.03 0.07 All Other City Customers 534 0.48 1.2
Total 3735 3.34 8.34
Footnotes:
a. Based on average billing data from January 2018 to October 2022 b. Based on peaking factor of 2.5 multiplied by ADD.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 3-9 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

3.4 Potential Future Customer Demand
Potential future customers include near-term potential recycled water customers identified by the City and Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). Potential future customer locations are shown in Appendix A and were identified based on review of existing recycled water study reports, discussions with City staff, and review of development master plans. Peaking factors used for existing customers were also used to calculate peak day demand for potential future customers.

3.4.1 Near-Term Potential Customers
Near-term potential customers were identified through a review of prior studies and estimated demands for potential customers were updated where service had begun since the last update to the future customer dataset. The largest near-term potential customers (not including UGAs, discussed in Section 3.4.2) include the Hewlett Packard Enterprise campus and the Campus Oaks Apartments.

For the purposes of the supply and demand evaluation, it has been assumed that connection of new customers would begin in 2024 with growing participation occurring over the following four years. Once all customers are on-line, the annual demand for near-term potential customers is projected to be 2,360 AFY, with a peak day demand of 5.27 mgd. Potential near-term customers are identified in Appendix A.

3.4.2 UGA Demand
The City of Roseville is anticipating the eventual connection of eight UGAs. Four of these UGAs (Sierra Vista/Westbrook, Creekview, Amoruso Ranch and the West Roseville Specific Plan) are within current City limits and are partially developed. Regional University, Placer Vineyards, Riolo Vineyards, and Placer One/Sunset Industrial Area are outside of the City limits with currently no plans for annexation. Curry Creek is not included in this analysis because the City has not agreed to provide recycled water to the UGA, and due to supply limitations, as discussed in Section 3.5, supply may not be available.

Note that the Creekview and the West Roseville Specific Plan area UGAs (discussed further below) have already been partially developed; recycled water use is therefore listed as both an existing and potential future customer. Total existing and anticipated buildout demands for these areas are shown in Table 3-5.

Recycled water service to UGAs is limited by supply; customers within the City limits will have priority and potential customers outside the City will have agreements signed that allow service on a first-come, firstserved basis. Regional University, Placer Vineyards, Riolo Vineyards, and Placer One / Sunset Industrial Area would be served as wholesale customers with recycled water delivered to an on-site storage tank and distributed within the UGA by another retailer. Other UGAs (Sierra Vista, Creekview and Amoruso) would have storage located at the West Roseville pump station site.

Estimated demands for the UGAs are shown in Table 3-5. Demands were derived from previous studies and a review of planning documents. The assumed connection date indicated in Table 3-5 is the initial connection; it was assumed for this analysis that the entire demand will not be realized until eight years after the initial connection date. For UGAs with existing demands, it was assumed the initial connection date occurred in 2020 and that the entire demand would be realized in 2028. The peaking factor described in Section 3.1 was used to estimate potential max day demands. The supply window for Regional University, Placer Vineyards, and Riolo Vineyards was assumed to be constant between the hours of 3am and 10pm;

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 3-10 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
the supply window for Placer One was assumed to be between 7am and 9pm. For other UGAs the “Small Users Pattern” from Table 3-3 was used.

TABLE 3-5: URBAN GROWTH AREA POTENTIAL DEMANDS
UGA
Potential
Service
Zone
Within
City
Limits
Existing
Average Day
Demand
(mgd)
Buildout
Average Day
Demand
(mgd)
Buildout
Peak Day
Demand
(gpm)
Assumed
Initial
Connection
Datea
Sierra Vista /
Westbrookb West Yes 0 0.62 1,078 2025
Amoruso Ranchc West Yes 0 0.22 389 2025
Creekviewd West Yes 0.03 0.10 174 2020
West Roseville
Specific Plane West Yes 0.75 2.02 3,507 2020
Regional Universityf West No 0 0.47 812 2030
Placer One / Sunset
Industrial Areag North No 0 0.38 660 2025
Placer Vineyardsf Gravity No 0 1.13 1,966 2030
Riolo Vineyardsf Gravity No 0 0.07 127 2030
Footnotes:
a. For purposes of phasing, it was assumed that implementation of full demand would occur over 8 years from the initial connection date. Developments with existing demands were assumed to have been connected to the system by 2020. Note that the initial connection date may not represent the beginning of UGA development. b. Sierra Vista Specific Plan, Amended April 2016
c. Draft Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area Recycled Water Master Plan, June 2024 d. Creekview Specific Plan, March 2022
e. Recycled Water Study for West Roseville Specific Plan Area, May 2003 f. Based on estimates provided by City staff, 2025
g. Placer One Recycled Water Master Plan, November 2024

3.5 Supply versus Demand Comparison
Recycled water supply is provided from two WWTPs owned and operated by the City of Roseville, on behalf of the SPWA: Dry Creek WWTP and Pleasant Grove WWTP. These two WWTPs collect and treat all wastewater generated within the SPWA service area. The recycled water distribution system has interconnection points that allow significant flexibility for deliveries. In particular, there are existing interconnections to allow either treatment plant to serve the North Zone system and the Sun City Golf Course. Because of this flexibility, a supply and demand comparison was performed over the entire system, rather than on the individual WWTPs. Estimated growth in average dry weather flow generated from the entire SPWA sewer service area through 2060 was referenced from the 2020 SPWA Systems Evaluation Report1.
1 South Placer Regional Wastewater 2020 Systems Evaluation Report.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 3-11 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

3.5.1 Supply versus Maximum Day Demand Comparison
Figure 3-5 shows the current projections of annual recycled water demand and supply available during maximum day conditions. As shown in the figure, there appears to be sufficient supply to meet anticipated demands. It should be noted, however, that there is significant uncertainty in the timing of growth of both future demands and future supplies. There is also significant uncertainty in the projected demands, as demands for several of the UGAs was based on estimates from several years ago (as indicated in Table 3-5) and likely do not reflect current irrigation practices. If demand begins to increase faster than supply, the City can address a potential shortfall in supply with the following methods:
• Encourage water-efficient landscaping.
• Encourage reduction in peak usage for future recycled water customers. • Consider limiting recycled water demands to customers on the hottest days of the year (i.e., capping demands).
• Work with customers with storage to determine if demands could be spread across days to reduce a single-day peak demand.
• Continue monitoring summer peak demands and creek discharges as demands are added to identify potential supply limitations.
• Prepare to have supplemental potable water supplies available in the event of a shortfall or source other local raw wastewater supplies to increase available recycled water supply during summer months.

3.5.2 Peak Hourly Demand Versus Supply Comparison
Although supplies are anticipated to continue increasing beyond 2060, the projected 2060 has been used for modeling purposes to estimate the potential storage requirements. Figure 3-6 shows anticipated max day buildout demand conditions compared to 2060 supply. While hourly projected supplies are greater than hourly buildout demands, there may still be a need for operational storage (aka daily storage) to shift the available supply of recycled water to the higher evening demand periods when supplies are limited. The City can undertake efforts to manage peak usage and reduce overnight demands, especially with customers that have storage facilities who may be more adept to distribute demands across a day to limit peak hourly usage as much as possible. Note that Figure 3-6 was developed using proposed peaking factors as presented in Table 3-3.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 3-12 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
FIGURE 3-5: PROJECTED BUILDOUT MAX DAY SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 3-13 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
FIGURE 3-6: HOURLY COMPARISION OF SUPPLY AND DEMANDS BUILDOUT MAX DAY CONDITIONS Footnote:
a) Discharge to Dry Creek, as required by CDFW, is not included on this plot as City operations staff can elect to discharge the required 4 mgd when it best suits system performance. In the case of the proposed patterns being implemented, this could be between 1pm and 11pm.

Required discharge to
Dry Creek could occur
during this perioda

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 4-1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation April 25, 2025

4. SYSTEM EVALUATION

4.1 Evaluation Methodology and Criteria
Model scenarios of the City’s existing recycled water distribution system were developed. Sizing of new pipes, and evaluation of the capacity of the existing facilities, was performed using the design criteria described in Section 4.1.1. Buildout alternatives were evaluated for comparative life cycle costs using the capital and O&M cost criteria described in Section 5.

4.1.1 Design Criteria
Design criteria were compiled to reflect current City standards for recycled water distribution. These criteria, found in Table 4-1, were used to assess any deficiencies in the existing facilities and to appropriately size pipelines, pump stations, and storage tanks at buildout.

TABLE 4-1: HYDRAULIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR MODEL DEVELOPMENT System Component Unit Value
Demand Nodes
Minimum Pressure at Peak Day for Customers
without Storage psi 40
Minimum Pressure at Peak Day for Customers with
Storage psi 5
Maximum Pressure in system psi 100
Distribution Pipes
Minimum Pipe Size (including laterals) inches 6
Allowable Pipe Sizes ainches 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 30
Maximum Head Loss (existing pipe)
feet per 1,000
feet 10
Maximum Head Loss (new pipe)
feet per 1,000
feet 5
Maximum Velocity (existing pipe) feet per second 8
Maximum Velocity (new pipe) feet per second 5
Hazen-Williams Coefficient for Head Loss
Calculation n/a 130
Storage Tanks
Minimum Tank Storage MG
Operational Storage + Buffer
Storage
Operational Storage MG As Modeled
Buffer Storageb MG 0.25 * MDD
a. Per Roseville Standards for Recycled Water.
b. Buffer storage is intended to allow the system to operate in the event of unforeseen conditions (e.g. a brief supply limitation).

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 4-2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation April 25, 2025

4.2 Existing System Evaluation
The recycled water system includes approximately 40 miles of recycled water pipelines, recycled water pumping facilities at the two WWTPs (Pleasant Grove and Dry Creek), and two booster pump stations and storage facilities. The recycled water system, including facility locations and pressure zones, is shown in Figure 4-1. Pleasant Grove WWTP recycled water pumps supply water to the West Roseville storage tanks located near the treatment plant. The West Roseville pump station draws from that storage and supplies pressure to customers in West Roseville and others. The Dry Creek WWTP recycled water pumps supply portions of the main pressure zone, primarily in eastern Roseville. The Dry Creek WWTP pumps also supply the North Zone storage tank with recycled water, when connected to the system. The North Zone Pump station is located adjacent to the North Zone storage tank and although the tank and pump station were constructed, the City has operated the system without the North Zone storage tanks and pump station for several years (i.e. these facilities are currently disconnected from the recycled water system).

The City’s recycled water model, as documented in the 2020 Model Development Report and updated based on the current supply and demand data described in Section 2 and Section 3, was used for this evaluation. Two demand scenarios were evaluated: average day demand (ADD) and maximum day demand (MDD). Each demand scenario has diurnal patterns applied so that peak hour conditions could be evaluated based on patterns discussed in Section 3.2. Results from both demand scenarios indicate that sufficient pressure could be provided throughout the network to meet the established design criteria, as shown in Figure 4-2. Under the MDD scenario, the West Roseville Pump Station storage tanks combined modeled operational storage is 0.8 MG (each tank cycles approximately 0.4 MG).

The City’s existing recycled water system is best analyzed as two distinct systems under current operating conditions: the main pressure zone, termed West Zone, servicing a majority of the systems’ demands, supplied by West Roseville Pump Station and Dry Creek WWTP, and the gravity system, termed Gravity Zone, servicing a portion of the City’s customers south of Baseline Road, including Morgan Creek Golf Club, supplied by the Dry Creek WWTP.

Placer One
West Roseville PS Zone
Note: The West Roseville PS Zone, North Zone, and South Zone, are all supplied by both DC and PG WWTPs. These zones are jointly referred to as the West Zone. Page 3211 of 3513 City of Roseville (0012204.00) 4-4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation April 25, 2025

4.2.1 West Zone Evaluation
Node pressures and pipeline velocities were compared to criteria established in Table 4-1. Table 4-2 summarizes the peak hour operating points of each pump station in the existing system. These peak hour flowrates represent an estimated pump station capacity accounting for pumping against system pressure under design conditions. Pump curves for each pump station are included in Appendix B. Based on a comparison of the peak hour flows and pressures against the pump curves shown in Appendix B, all existing pump stations have capacity for existing peak flows.

TABLE 4-2: EXISTING RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM PUMP STATION FLOWRATES AND PRESSURES Pump Station Peak Hour Operating Point
Pleasant Grove
WWTP 6,585 gpm, 26-ft (11 psi)a
West Roseville PS 8 ,725 gpm, 173-ft (75 psi)a
Dry Creek WWTP 5,200 gpm, 138-ft (60 psi)a
Footnotes:
a. Total Dynamic Head (TDH) modeled directly downstream of the pump station.

Based on these model results, no existing capacity deficiencies have been identified. However, very little additional demand can be added without resulting in overuse of the West Roseville tanks or inadequate supply from DCWWTP. However, some operational changes can be implemented at low or no cost to increase system capacity. These changes are discussed further in Section 4.2.1.2.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 4-6 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation April 25, 2025

4.2.1.1Reliability and Efficiency Improvements
Several projects have been identified that would improve the City’s ability to convey recycled water between zones. These projects would improve the ability of the City to serve multiple zones from a single pump station during low demand periods, potentially reducing electrical costs. The projects would also allow the City to better manage operations during maintenance shutdowns. These projects are described in Section

5.2.3. 4.2.1.2 Existing System Operational Capacity Improvements While analyzing the existing system performance, it was recognized that there are several opportunities for system operational changes that provide the City with additional capacity to service near-term potential demands without constructing new infrastructure. The operational changes included adjusting demand patterns for customers with storage and adjusting the PRV settings at West Roseville PS and DC WWTP PS.

These changes were modeled with increasing demands until a hydraulic deficiency was identified. The increases to system capacity correlating to the adjustments are summarized in Table 4-3. Specific adjustments are discussed in detail below.

TABLE 4-3: EFFECTIVENESS OF NEAR-TERM OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS Scenario Potential Peak Day Demanda(MGD)
Existing, No Change 8.7b
+ Adjust Demand Patterns 10.4
+ Increase WRPS Supply Pressure 10.9
Footnotes:
a. Represents the maximum peak day demand that could be met while meeting criteria established in Table 4-1. Current maximum peak demands are estimated to be 8.34 MGD b. The model predicts that some customers in the southern part of the system would not meet 40 psi during existing peak day demands at peak hour, due to limitations in available supply at Dry Creek. It is possible that some demand shifting has already occurred to mitigate this deficiency.

Demand Pattern Shift
As discussed in Section 3.2, aligning the system demand pattern with the system supply pattern will maximize the available capacity of the system. One way this could be facilitated would be by shifting demand patterns for customers that have storage ponds. There are five customers with storage ponds to accommodate the demand pattern shifts proposed in Section 3.2. Shifting high demand customers with storage to an “off-peak” demand pattern would provide approximately an additional 0.7 mgd of average day demand (1.7 mgd of MDD with the “Small Users” pattern applied) before storage requirements as presented in Table 4-1 would be exceeded.

Increase WRPS Supply Pressure
If Dry Creek WWTP appears to be running low on supply, an increase in pressure from the Pleasant Grove WWTP can be used to supplement the customers served by Dry Creek and increase capacity to the system.

However, this may increase operational storage requirements at West Roseville. Balancing the two supplies can help mitigate storage requirements at West Roseville while meeting max day demands. An estimated additional 0.5 mgd of capacity could be realized through optimization of the supplies, however this could

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 4-7 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation April 25, 2025
vary depending on how the system is operated such as where the City sets the VFDs at the pumps at West Roseville and Dry Creek. However, based on modeled results, the system has capacity to adjust supply pressures leaving West Roseville and Dry Creek to increase available peak demands while maintaining minimum service pressures presented in Table 4-1.

Connection of North Zone Tank and Pump Station
The North Zone Tank and Pump Station are currently not being operated in the system. Connecting the North Zone Tank and Pump Station back into the system would provide additional capacity to the North Zone, as well as relieve West Roseville Pump Station of servicing demands in this part of the system.

However, significant rehabilitation would be needed to operate the North Zone PS. As discussed in later sections of this report, the buildout system does not require the North Zone PS, so rehabilitation is not recommended at this time

4.2.2 Gravity Zone Evaluation
The City serves customers south of Baseline Road directly from Dry Creek WWTP with 14,000 linear feet of 24-inch diameter pipe that is pressurized by gravity. The Gravity Zone is shown in Figure 4-1. Existing average day and max day demands for the gravity system are 0.8 mgd and 2.0 mgd, respectively. Due to this portion of the system being supplied directly from DCWWTP effluent storage, the pressures in the system are lower than recommended in Table 4-1, however the largest customer connected to the gravity system, Morgan Creek Golf Club, utilizes storage and their own irrigation system, reducing the required service pressure. City staff report that the system currently operates well. Figure 4-3 shows the hydraulic profile of the existing system based on peak hour demand.

Currently, the gravity system is independent from the West Zone, and there are no interconnections between the two. This means that if DCWWTP were to be taken offline for maintenance, customers on the gravity system would be without recycled water. A reliability project is proposed in Section 5.2.3 to connect the gravity system to the West Zone, to ensure a consistent supply of recycled water in the event that DCWWTP is temporarily taken offline or if future supplies or pressures are inadequate under buildout conditions.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 4-0 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation April 25, 2025
FIGURE 4-3: HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF EXISTING GRAVITY SYSTEM FROM DCWWTP

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 4-1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation April 25, 2025

4.3 Buildout System Evaluation
The existing recycled water model was evaluated under buildout demand conditions, as described in Section

3.4. Demands for potential future customers were assigned to model nodes as indicated in Table 3-5. This section discusses build out demand scenario model results and improvements identified to ensure system operability under buildout conditions.

4.3.1 Buildout Model Results
Modeling results for buildout max day demands are shown in Figure 4-4. Buildout model demands were run with the updated demand patterns presented in Section 3.2. To conservatively determine storage requirement, supply estimates for 2045 were used for modeling purposes to complete the buildout max day model runs. This represents a period of time when anticipated max day demands are closest to projected supplies. The model was run with North Zone Pump Station offline to determine if the pump station would be required for buildout conditions.

Under buildout max day demands, existing infrastructure provides system pressures lower than criteria established in Table 4-1. These pressure deficiencies are resolved with improvements to West Roseville Pump Station pumping capacity and “pinch-point” improvements discussed below. Under modeled conditions, North Zone Pump Station could remain offline and system demands could be met at sufficient pressures. Note that this analysis assumes that water usage patterns can be adjusted as described in Section

4.2.1.2, and Placer One demands can be met off-peak; significant differences from this assumption may necessitate the recommissioning of North Zone Pump Station to meet peak demands.

As future demands are connected and the West Roseville Pump Station pumping capacity is increased (described in Section 4.3.1.2), the existing 24-inch pipeline directly downstream of the pump station to Westpark Drive is deficient under the velocity and headloss design criteria. A parallel 24-inch pipe could be installed to relieve this deficiency and increase service pressures and capacity throughout the system. It is recommended that this improvement be implemented in parallel to pumping capacity improvements at West Roseville Pump Station (See Figure 5-2).

The existing 8-inch pipe on Blue Oaks Boulevard between Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard and Diamond Creek Boulevard is deficient in the headloss design criteria. This deficiency could be improved by installing a new 12-inch pipe connecting to the 30-inch main on Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard and the 8-inch main on Prairie Woods Way via Painted Desert Drive. Alternatively, the existing main on Blue Oaks Boulevard could be upsized to a 16-inch main, however construction on Blue Oaks Drive may be expensive and difficult.

The above deficiencies are proposed “pinch-point” improvements, or improvements that increase the service capacity of the system. Both projects are discussed in further detail in Section 5.2.

As noted above, this evaluation is based on supply projections provided by the City and SPWA partner agencies. Depending on the trajectory of supply and demand growth, supply may be more constrained in earlier years. This would increase the use of storage, and may trigger the need to implement some of the mitigation measures identified in Section 3.5.1.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 4-3 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation April 25, 2025

4.3.1.1 Potential Storage Requirements
Storage improvements will also be needed. Table 4-1 presents criteria for determining storage requirements. Operational storage under buildout maximum day conditions is approximately 1.0 million gallons (MG) for the West Zone. Table 4-4 presents the storage requirements based on this analysis. Section

5.2.2 provides a storage improvement project to enhance buffer storage to accommodate the additional

1.0 MG of required storage based on the analysis below.

TABLE 4-4: BUILDOUT MAX DAY STORAGE ANALYSIS
Pressure Zone a
Customers
w/out Storage
Buildout MDD
(mgd)
Operational
Storage
Required b
(MG)
Buffer
Storage
Required c
(MG)
Total
Storage
Required d
(MG)
Existing
Storage
(MG)
Potential
Required
Storage
(MG)
West Zone
(West Roseville
Tanks

8.34 1.19 2.09 3.28 2.0 1.28
Footnotes:
e. The Gravity pressure zone is not included as there are few, if any, customer demands without dedicated storage in this zone.
f. Operational storage requirement is derived from model runs. It is based on assumptions built into the model including pump station controls, PRV settings, and demand patterns presented in this report. g. Buffer storage required was assumed to be 25% of MDD for customers without dedicated storage for a oneday period. h. Total required storage = Operational Storage + Buffer Storage.

4.3.1.2 Pump Station Flow Requirements at Buildout
Before total buildout demands are realized the West Roseville pump station would need to be improved to meet flow and pressure design criteria. Design points for each pump station under buildout max day demand conditions are summarized in Table 4-5. These design points represent the maximum peak hour flowrate and associated total dynamic head under max day conditions with the diurnal patterns applied to the demands. Potential operating points relative to the existing pump curves are shown in Appendix B. The table assumes that under peak demand conditions the PG WWTP pumps would deliver flow to the tanks at the West Roseville Pump Station, which would then deliver flow to a tank in Regional University during the off-peak period. Alternatively, the PG WWTP could deliver flow directly to a tank in Regional University, but this would require a parallel pump station and piping to provide acceptable head at peak flowrates.

Upgrade recommendations to achieve buildout flows at each pump station are described in more detail in Section 5.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 4-4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation April 25, 2025
TABLE 4-5: PROPOSED PUMP STATION DESIGN POINTS AT BUILDOUT Pump Station
Existing MDD Design Point Buildout MDD Design Point
Peak Flowrate
(gpm)
Total Dynamic
Head (ft)
Peak Flowrate
(gpm)
Total Dynamic
Head (ft)
PG WWTP PS 6,585 26 10,500 24
West Roseville PS 8,725 173 13,340 162
Dry Creek WWTP PS 5,200 138 6,150 140

4.3.2 Hydraulic Analysis of Placer Vineyards UGA Pipeline The proposed Placer Vineyards development is located southeast of City boundaries and is proposed to be served through an extension of the existing gravity pipeline serving customers east of Dry Creek WWTP (see Figure 4-5). A previous study (Appendix D) evaluated the existing gravity pipeline that will be extended to serve Placer Vineyards. The study proposed locating the Placer Vineyards recycled water storage tank on the southwest corner of West Dyer Lane and 16th Street, which is in the center of the UGA. The alignment used in this study through Placer Vineyards was along West Dyer Lane. Since this study was performed, project demands for Placer Vineyards have changed and so a similar analysis was performed to determine if the existing 24” gravity pipe could remain a gravity pipe at the updated buildout demands.

The analysis was conducted for peak day demands, without consideration for peak hour demands. During peak days, the 24” pipe can remain gravity while re-filling the Placer Vineyards storage tank within 15 hours.

The results of the analysis conclude that during a peak day, the 24” pipe can remain gravity flow if Placer Vineyards storage tank is placed at the proposed storage tank location (southwest corner of West Dyer Lane and 16th Street). The hydraulic grade line of this pipeline under gravity flow is shown in Figure 4-6. To fill the tank in under 15 hours under peak conditions, a new pump station would need to be constructed.

Sizing the pump station would depend on the desired time to fill the Placer Vineyards recycled water storage tank. Figure 4-6 shows an option to decrease the fill time of the tank to 12 hours by installing a 30 HP pump station. An alternative to a new pump station is to augment the recycled water supply with one or more irrigation wells pumping into the storage tank or to locate and partially bury the storage tank at a lower elevation near Dry Creek. These alternatives could increase the fill time of the tank while maintaining the existing 24” pipe as a gravity pipe.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 4-5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation April 25, 2025
FIGURE 4-5: PROPOSED PLACER VINEYARDS PIPELINE

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 4-6 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation April 25, 2025
FIGURE 4-6: HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF 24” GRAVITY PIPELINE TO PLACER VINEYARDS

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 5-1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

5. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

5.1 Cost Estimating Assumptions
Construction cost estimates have been developed to provide planning level estimates of future facility costs.

These cost estimates are planning or conceptual level estimates and are considered to have an estimated accuracy range of -30 to +50 percent. This level of accuracy corresponds to a “Class 4” cost estimate as defined by the American Association of Cost Estimators. These estimates are suitable for use for budget forecasting, CIP development, and project evaluations, with the understanding that refinements to the project details and costs would be necessary as projects proceed into the design and construction phases.

5.1.1.1Capital Cost Criteria
A planning-level construction cost estimate for each distribution system component has been developed.

Unit capital costs are based on engineering experience and recent bid prices for similar projects. Unit costs are indexed to the March 2025 Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). The CCI value used (14,511) was an average of the 20 Cities Average value (13,783) and the San Francisco value (15,239).

Pipeline construction cost estimates utilize a raw construction cost based on the size of the pipe and the location of construction. Construction costs for proposed pipelines were based on recent bids received by Woodard & Curran for PVC pressure pipe projects in northern California. Average bid unit costs were plotted and a trendline developed to estimate unit cost of pipe per inch diameter. These align with Woodard & Curran’s typical planning estimates for pipes. Contractor markups, taxes, overhead, profit, other miscellaneous costs and a contingency were added to the raw construction cost to generate a total cost of construction
Costs for increasing the capacity of pump stations were developed based on additional required horsepower and a calculated cost per unit horsepower developed from recent bid data. Required brake horsepower for pump stations was calculated based on the total dynamic head and peak flowrate modeled in the Buildout MDD scenario, with an assumed conservative pumping wire-to-water efficiency of 70 percent. Standard NEMA motor sizes were selected based on this configuration and at least 110% of the calculated brake horsepower. Total pump station horsepower was calculated from the number of duty plus standby pumps times the selected motor size. Each pump station was assumed to have one standby pump.

Existing maximum pump station capacity was calculated based on pump curves minus the standby pump capacity. Pump curves are provided as Appendix B of this report. Additional capacity required by each pump station was calculated as the difference between the required capacity at buildout and the existing capacity minus the standby pump. The additional pumping capacity required was divided among an appropriate number of pump upgrades using engineering judgement. Due to assumed site constraints, pumps were selected for replacement rather than additional pumps added to the pump stations.

Costs for backup power systems (sized to keep the entire pump station operational) and surge tanks were developed based on recently bid projects.

Raw construction costs for new storage tanks is estimated at $2.3 million per 1 MG of storage capacity. This cost includes all site work for the storage tank, but does not include land acquisition as it is assumed the

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 5-2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
tanks will be located on land just north of the existing West Roseville Tanks and Roseville Energy Park on land already owned by the City.

5.1.1.2 Implementation Costs and Allowances
Implementation costs are defined as those non-construction costs associated with a project. These costs can include the following:
• Environmental, Legal, and Administrative (ELA) Allowance o Owner’s administration costs
o Owner’s legal costs associated with contracting and related issues o Environmental documentation (CEQA and NEPA compliance) • Engineering/Construction Management (CM) Allowance
o Permitting
o Engineering
o Construction management and inspection
• Project Contingency
o For unknown cost items, based on the level of engineering development of the project facilities.

Implementation allowances were applied as summarized in Table 5-1. Note that large new storage tanks can have significant engineering costs; engineering/CM allowance has been increased to 20% for these facilities to account for potential unknowns.

TABLE 5-1: IMPLEMENTATION ALLOWANCES
Element Values for New Storage
Tanks Values for Other Facilities

1. Raw Construction Cost Raw Cost Raw Cost
Environmental, Legal, and
Administrative (ELA) Allowance 10% 10%
Engineering/Construction
Management (CM) Allowance 20% 10%

2. Raw Cost + Engineering + Implementation
Allowances 1.3 x Raw Cost 1.2 x Raw Cost
Project Contingency (Uncertainty in
project facilities) 30% 30%

3. Final (Fully Loaded) Cost 1.69 x Raw Cost 1.56 x Raw Cost

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 5-3 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

5.2 Project Descriptions
This section presents the project component descriptions, a summary of the deficiency each project will address, potential phasing options, and any implementation issues that have been identified.

5.2.1 Pump Station Improvements

5.2.1.1West Roseville Pump Station
At buildout, peak flows at the West Roseville pump station will increase from about 8,725 gpm to 13,950 gpm. To achieve buildout flows, it was assumed pumps at West Roseville would be replaced with larger horsepower pumps. To avoid unnecessary operation and maintenance costs, installation of the replacement pumps should be phased to match the projected flow as service connections are added. Construction can be broken into two phases as described in Table 5-2. To maintain operation of 5 duty pumps and 1 standby, three of the existing 150 hp West Roseville Pumps (2 duty and 1 standby) should be replaced with higher capacity pumps (300 hp motor). Note, it is possible that replacement of these pumps with larger pumps is not possible and instead the pump station would have to be modified or new pump station constructed.

This should be studied further to determine a more accurate cost estimate as recommended in Section

5.4.1. Additional funds for a pump station alternatives analysis are included in the cost summary presented in Table 5-2.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 5-4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
TABLE 5-2: WEST ROSEVILLE PUMP STATION PHASING
Development
Phase
Incremental
Flowrate for
Phasea
(gpm)
Project
ID
Installed Pumps /
Capacity
Estimated Raw
Construction
Costb
Estimated
Capital Costc
Existing 8,500 -- -- -- --
2025-2030 4,473 PS-1
d
Replace three
pumps with 300
hp pumps (two
duty, one
standby)d
~13,950 gpm firm
pump station
capacity
3 new 300 hp
pumps:
3 x $564,000 =
$1,692,000
Pump Upgrade
Alternatives
Analysis: d
$100,000
$3,145,000 d
2030-2035e 974 -- -- -- --
Total 13,947 $3,145,000
Footnotes:
a. Peak flowrate defined as the MDD multiplied by the diurnal pattern factor at the time of the modeled peak flowrate from WRPS.
b. Costs basis is March 2025 average of ENR 20 Cities and San Francisco CCI (14,511) c. CIP Costs include implementation costs as summarized in Section 5.1. d. Project assumes that pump may be replaced within the pump station. The presented value includes funds to perform a pump station alternatives analysis to determine whether an expansion of WRPS would be required. See Section 5.4.1. e. When demands increase on the gravity system in this phase, supply from Dry Creek WWTP to the Main Zone will diminish.

This drop in supply will need to be compensated through additional pumping capacity at West Roseville Pump Station.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 5-5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

5.2.1.2 PG WWTP Recycled Water Pumps
Peak day flows from PG WWTP PS to the West Roseville PS would increase from about 6,600 gpm under existing demands to about 11,700 gpm at buildout. Currently, there are three pumps at the station with room for one more. However, the pumps are sized for higher head than necessary to deliver supply to West Roseville PS tanks and have sufficient capacity needed for buildout flows. Another potential project, not thoroughly discussed in this report, would be to install additional pumps to increase the frequency that the West Zone is served directly from the PG WWTP pump station, allowing operators to take West Roseville pump station offline and thereby conserving energy.

5.2.2 Storage Improvements

5.2.2.1 DC WWTP Recycled Water Storage Project
The DC WWTP pump station is currently served directly from treated effluent from the plant. There is currently no effective storage located at DC WWTP. This project proposes modifying the existing Chlorine Contact Basins (CCB) at the DCWWTP for use as RW storage basins. Adding storage at DC WWTP would address the anticipated storage deficiency under buildout demands as presented in Table 4-4. This also provides a level of operational resilience in the event the DC WWTP needs to be taken offline, there would be some available supply for the recycled water system to utilize from DC WWTP.

A conceptual diagram of the project is shown in Figure 5-1 below. The proposed project costs shown in Table 5-3 include costs for piping, slide gate, valves, concrete, demolition, and other modifications to provide an additional 1.1 MG of RW storage capacity. Basins 1 and 2 would operate as a single plug-flow RW storage basin. Basin 3, Pass 1 is maintained empty as an airgap between the UV Effluent Channel (CCB, Pass 2) and proposed RW storage basins. A concrete repair allowance for the CCBs has been included; however, it is recommended that the City further evaluate basin conditions during the design stage to refine this cost.

Note that the currently unused CCB at the PGWWTP could also provide greater than 2 MG of additional RW storage. However, this basin is currently uncovered and is expected to require significant additional improvements for RW storage usage so has not been recommended as a potential capital improvement project at this time.

TABLE 5-3: DC WWTP RECYCLED WATER STORAGE PHASING
Phase
Project
ID Project
Estimated Raw
Construction Costa Estimated Capital Costb
Existing -- -- --
2025-2030 S-1
Rehabilitate DC
WWTP CCB to
utilize as 1.1 MG of
RW storage
$925,000 $1,443,000
Total $925,000 $1,443,000
Footnotes:
a. Costs basis is March 2025 average of ENR 20 Cities and San Francisco CCI (14,511) b. CIP Costs include implementation costs as summarized in Section 5.1

CONCRETE

WALL CLOSURE CONCRETE

WALL CLOSURE

OPENING

IN WALL

OPENING

IN WALL CONCRETE

WALL CLOSURE

FLOW RECEIVING
TROUGH

EMPTY TRAIN
(AIR GAP)

EMPTY TRAIN
(AIR GAP)

STORAGE FOR TRANSFER PUMP

STATION / UV FLOW SHAVE
FINAL

EFFLUENT

REPLACE
GATE

REPLACE MUD
VALVES (TYP OF 7)

DEMO GATE
FIGURE 5-1

DCWWTP RECLAIMED WATER

STORAGE IMPROVEMENTS

CONCEPT FIGURE

RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM EVALUATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 15'-0" 15'-0"

OPENING

IN WALL

RW PUMP STATION

FEED PIPING TRANSFER PUMP
STATION FEED PIPING Page 3228 of 3513
City of Roseville (0012204.00) 5-7 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

5.2.2.2 Potential Additional Storage Improvements
Based on the criteria and analysis presented in Table 4-4, an additional 0.18 MG of storage will be needed, in addition to the recycled water storage provided by conversion of the Dry Creek CCBs, to provide the City with the operational and buffer storage for max day conditions. Three alternatives could be pursued to address this, however the City should monitor recycled water supplies and demands as new customers are connected to the system. Changes to supply or demand may change the need for or quantity of additional recycled water storage.
• Connect North Zone Tank and Pump Station
o Connecting North Zone Pump Station and Tank to the system would provide additional storage, however, demands in North Zone are lower than demands in the West Zone and South Zone, so adding storage here does not provide much hydraulic benefit and would increase O&M costs. Estimated costs to rehabilitate North Zone Tank and Pump Station are presented in Table 5-4 for informational purposes.
• Rehabilitate PG CCBs
o Similar to the Dry Creek CCBs, Pleasant Grove WWTP has CCBs that could be rehabilitated and converted to recycled water storage. It is estimated that conversion of the PG CCBs would result in an additional 2 MG of storage. Hydraulically, storage at this location would be beneficial for system performance, however, costs to rehabilitate the PG CCBs will likely be more expensive than recommissioning North Zone Tank, the PG CCBs are currently uncovered. Costs for this alternative were not developed for this study but should be in subsequent studies if additional storage is required.
• Additional Tank at WRPS
o The City has previously considered adding a recycled water storage tank at WRPS. Storage at this location would benefit system performance and operation as demands increase as WRPS provides a majority of the West Zone with recycled water. However, costs for an additional tank may be significant. The minimum size of this tank would be 0.2 MG to meet storage requirements, however, the City could consider upsizing this to 1.0 MG so potential future customers not considered as part of this report could be serviced. The cost for a 1.0 MG storage tank is presented in Table 5-4.
• Operate system with less buffer storage
o Another alternative is to operate the system with less buffer storage than 25% of max day demand for customers without storage. With the DC CCBs converted to recycled water storage, total buffer storage will be approximately 23% of the abovementioned max day demands. While it does not meet the criteria previously presented, the City may find this buffer storage is sufficient for their needs. No project is required for this alternative.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 5-8 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
TABLE 5-4: ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE IMPROVEMENTS OPTIONS Alternative
Estimated
Raw
Construction
Costa
Estimated
Capital Costb
Rehabilitate NZ Tanks and
Pump Station $610,000 $950,000
Additional 1.0 MG
Storage Tank at WRPS $3,335,00 $5,203,000
Footnotes:
a. Costs basis is March 2025 average of ENR 20 Cities and San Francisco CCI (14,511) b. CIP Costs include implementation costs as summarized in Section 5.1.

5.2.3 Pipeline Improvements
Pipeline improvement projects include projects to alleviate the deficiencies identified in Section 4.2 and Section 4.3, as well as projects to improve the reliability of the system through improved interties between pressure zones. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix C. The proposed improvements are shown in Figure 5-2 and their estimated costs are summarized in Table 5-5.

5.2.3.1B-1
Project B-1 would increase the size of the bypass pipeline from the Pleasant Grove WWTP pumps to the West Zone system from 10-inches to 24-inches. This would improve the City’s ability to take the West Roseville Pump Station offline, either to perform maintenance or for efficiency purposes.

5.2.3.2 I-1
Project I-1 would add a 6-inch intertie pipeline between the West Zone and the North Zone at Angus Road and Casa Sedona Drive. This provides two benefits:
• Improves reliability by improving the system’s ability to backfeed from the North Zone into the West Zone during low demand periods.
• Potentially improves efficiency by improving the City’s ability to serve the North Zone directly from either the West Roseville Pump Station or the pumps at the PG WWTP during low demand periods.

5.2.3.3 I-2
Project I-2 would add a 6-inch intertie pipeline between the West Zone and the South Zone at Blue Oaks Boulevard. The intertie provides two benefits:
• Improves reliability by allowing the system to bypass either the West Zone or the North Zone during low demand periods.
• Potentially improves efficiency by improving the City’s ability to bypass either the West Roseville Pump Station or DC WWTP pumps during low demand periods.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 5-9 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

5.2.3.4 I-3
Project I-3 would add an 8-inch intertie pipeline between the West Zone and the South Zone at Baseline Road and Fiddyment Road. This project would also increase the reliability of the system by improving the system’s ability to bypass either the West Roseville PS or the pumps at the DC WWTP. This project provides hydraulic improvements to the system under buildout conditions and would reduce operational storage by an estimated 0.1 MG.

5.2.3.5 I-4
Project I-4 would add a 10-inch intertie pipeline from the end of Project I-3 further south to interconnect the Main Zone with the Gravity System at Walerga Rd and Dry Creek Community Park. This project would increase the reliability of the gravity system by allowing the system to be supplied from the Main Zone if the gravity system supply was limited or taken offline. This intertie will likely not be able to convey max day, peak hour demand conditions to all customers, but under average day conditions it would provide customers with a reasonable level of service pressure for their anticipated demands. However, system performance may vary depending on the season and time of day that the intertie is operated. Under normal operating conditions, this line would be valved out of service.

5.2.3.6 PP-1
Project PP-1 would install a parallel 24-inch pipeline between the West Roseville Pump Station (WRPS) and West Park Drive via Phillip Road (approx. 485 LF pipeline). This pipeline would only be needed when velocities in the existing 24-inch pipe exceed design criteria once West Roseville Pump Station improvements are implemented. Installing the parallel pipeline would improve redundancy for a critical component, as well as allowing greater flexibility for providing system supply during low demand periods directly from the PG WWTP pumps.

5.2.3.7 PP-2
Project PP-2 proposes adding a looped pipe in the North Zone pressure zone to relieve a headloss deficiency identified under buildout max day demand conditions. Project PP-2 includes the installation of 1,600 linear feet of a new 12” main from the existing main on Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard, connecting to the existing 8” main on Prairie Woods Way via Painted Desert Drive. This project should be completed before connecting additional customers west of Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard.

5.2.3.8 PP-3
Project PP-3 would upsize the existing pipeline from DC WWTP Pumps to the South Zone from a 20-inch to a 30-inch pipe. This project relieves a bottleneck from DC WWTP that contributes to pressure drop in the system. The additional capacity in the system provides necessary pressure improvements under buildout conditions and would allow for greater utilization of the DC CCB recycled water storage.

5.3 Phasing Summary
Many of the projects identified in Section 4.2 can be phased in as recycled water demand increases. Table 5-6 below summarizes the potential phases.

&-
&-
TU
TU
TU TU
TU
TU
TU
Amoruso
Creekview
Placer One
Placer Vineyards
Regional University
Riolo Vineyards
Sierra Vista
West Roseville SP
Westbrook

PG WWTP

DC WWTP
North Zone Tanks and PS
West Roseville Tanks and PS
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 TomTom
TU
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025
Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus
DS © 2025 TomTom
Legend
±
Figure 5-1
Buildout
Improvements
Figure Exported: 5/29/2025 By: dmerlo Using: \\woodardcurran.net\shared\Projects\CA Roseville\0012204.00 2022 Recycled Water System Eval\wip\G GIS\5. ArcGIS Pro\System Evaluation Figures\Figure 5-1 Buildout Improvements.aprx Layout: Option 1 Project #: 0012204.00
Map Created: July 2024
0 0.15 0.3 0.6
Miles
Roseville Recycled Water
Systems Evaluation
Third Party GIS Disclaimer: This map is for reference and graphical purposes only and should not be relied upon by third parties for any legal decisions.

Any reliance upon the map or data contained herein shall be at the users’ sole risk. Data Sources:
&- WWTP
Existing Recycled Water Main
Future Recycled Water Pipeline
City Limits
FutureStructures
Status
TU Existing Storage and PS
TU Future Storage and PS
ProjectPipes
Project B-1
Project I-1
Project PS-1
Project S-1
Project PP-2
Project PP-1
Project I-2
Project I-3
Project I-4
2

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 5-11 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
TABLE 5-5: PIPELINE AND SUPPLY PROJECTS SUMMARY
Project
Number Project Description Location Size Quantity
Estimated Raw
Construction
Cost
Estimated
Capital Costa,
b
Reliability Projects
B-1
Upsize bypass at West
Roseville PS/Pleasant
Grove WWTP from 10" to
24"
West Roseville
PS 24-in 50-LF $66,000 $115,000
I-1
Install an intertie between
the West Zone and North
Zone
Angus Rd and
Casa Sedona Dr 6-in 1640-LF $431,000 $672,000
I-2
Install an intertie between
the West Zone and South
Zone
Blue Oaks Blvd 6-in 1520-LF $400,000 $622,000
I-3
Install an intertie between
the West Zone and South
Zone
Baseline Rd and
Fiddyment Rd 8-in 6,700-LF $1,985,000 $3,097,000
I-4
Install an intertie between
West / South Zone and
Gravity Zone
Baseline Rd and
Walerga Rd 10-in 6,300-LF $1,885,000 $2,941,000
Reliability Projects Subtotal $4,767,000 $7,447,000
Pinch Point Projects
PP-1
Install 485 LF of parallel
24” pipeline between
West Roseville Pump
Station and West Park
Drive.

Between the
WRPS and
West Park Drive
24-in 485-LF $289,000 $451,000
PP-2
Install 1,600 LF of 12”
pipeline along Painted
Desert Drive and Prairie
Woods Way.

Painted Desert
Drive and Prairie
Woods Way
12-in 1,600-LF $628,000 $980,000
PP-3
Install 2,530 ilnear feet of
30” pipe from DC WWTP
recycled water pumps

DC WWTP
Recycled Water
Pumps 30-in 2,530-LF $1,400,000 $2,184,000
Pinch Point Projects Subtotal $2,317,000 $3,615,000
Total $7,084,000 $11,062,000
Footnotes:
c. Includes implementation costs as described in Section 5.1. d. Costs in March 2025 dollars

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 5-12 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025
TABLE 5-6: PHASING SUMMARY
Development
Phase
Incremental
MDD (mgd)
Project
Required
Estimated Capital
Cost
Existing 8.34 -- --
2025-2030 5.4
PP-2 $980,000
PS-1 $3,145,000
S-1 $1,443,000
PP-1 $451,000
2030-2035 4.18 PP-3 $2,184,000
Total 17.92 $8,203,000

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 5-13 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

5.4 Additional Recommendations

5.4.1 West Roseville Pump Station Facility Planning
The proposed phasing plan and cost estimate identified in this report for the West Roseville Pump Station was prepared at a feasibility study level and are not suitable for more detailed planning. As noted, it may be feasible to replace existing pumps with larger pumps without other significant improvements to the station. If more substantial improvements are required, additional facility planning is recommended to investigate the potential site in more detail, particularly as more information is available on potential future demands. The facility plan would provide a better estimate of the future costs of the pump station, and give more certainty about the future layout and facilities that will need to be constructed as the developers are connected.

The facility plan should investigate the following items that may significantly impact the pump station design:
• Need for new electrical service and other electrical upgrades, which could be a significant cost item • A plan for integration of the new pump station with the City’s SCADA and control system. • Consideration of potential surge control measures and needs. • More detailed examination of potential phasing approaches and integration with system operations.

5.4.2 System Operation Plan
This System’s Evaluation anticipates that as recycled water demands grow, operation of the facilities will become more challenging. The City should develop a System Operation Plan to provide an operational approach for challenging conditions. This System Operation Plan can address issues such as:
• Inadequate supply at either Pleasant Grove or Dry Creek WWTPs. • Storage levels drop below acceptable levels.
• Allowable usage patterns for specific customers, including times for filling tanks.

These conditions may require coordination with customers, and the System Operation Plan can provide a pathway to communicate any customer requirements.

5.4.3 Coordination with UGA System Operations
Several of the UGAs (Regional University, Placer One, and Placer Vineyards), are anticipated to have storage tanks that the City’s system will discharge into. The City should work with the UGA operators to maintain control of storage tank fill rates and times, and ensure that recycled water supply agreements with the UGAs provide for City to have the control needed to implement the System Operation Plan.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) 5-14 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation May 30, 2025

5.4.4 Future Updates
As previously noted, the operation of the system depends heavily on the balance of projected supplies and demands, and the daily patterns associated with each. A number of assumptions have been made about future uses, including adjustments to demand patterns associated with customers who have on-site storage, as well as demands associated with urban growth areas. As development plans are updated, or as new developments in West Roseville or other UGAs are constructed, these demand estimates may become outdated. New customers may also be identified with potentially significant demands, and the consumption patterns may differ from the assumptions described in this report.

It is therefore recommended this Systems Evaluation be updated every five to ten years or as significant changes in potential demands are identified to ensure that the Systems Evaluation remains current. This will also provide an opportunity to review observed peaking factors and diurnal patterns, and update the model to enable the model to continue answering operational questions.

City of Roseville (0012204.00) Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation August 7, 2024
APPENDIX A: NEAR-TERM POTENTIAL DEMAND CUSTOMERS

City of Roseville (0012204.00) Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation August 7, 2024
ID Customer Name Customer Type
On-Site
Storage
(Yes/No)
Annual
Average
Demand (AFY)
Average Day
Demand
(MGD)
Peak Day
Demand
(gpm)
Modeled
Demand
Node(s)
1 Mahaney Park Park No 4 0.003 6 J-115
2 Silverado Middle School School No 47 0.042 73 J-70
3 Robert Cooley School School No 38 0.034 59 J-476
4 Blue Oaks Median Streetscape No -41 -0.037 0 J-457
5 Diamond Oaks Park Park No 20 0.018 31 J-129
6 Woodcreek Oaks School School No 58 0.052 90 J-117
7 Blue Oaks Streetscape Streetscape No 6 0.005 9 J-457
8 Catholic Church Church No 16 0.014 25 J-719
9 Sadona Streetscape Streetscape No 16 0.014 25 J-714
10 Safeway Store Commercial No 11 0.010 17 J-701
11 Aquatic Center Commercial No 16 0.014 25 J-117
12 Blue Oaks Elementary School School No 14 0.012 22 J-238 13 Bank of America Building Commercial No 15 0.013 23 J-497 14 Pleasant Grove Condos Condo No 8 0.007 12 J-98
15 Pleasanton Grove Church Church No 7 0.006 11 J-98
16 Quail Glenn School/Bob Doyle School/Park No 19 0.017 29 J-724 17 Coyote School School No 17 0.015 26 J-720
18 Mistywood Park Park No 8 0.007 12 J-123
19 Fiddyment and Baseline
Streetscape Streetscape No 13 0.012 20 J-718
20 Paul Lundardi Commercial No 6 0.005 9 J-70
21 Duke Davis Park Park No 17 0.015 26 J-652
22 Park Regency Park No 11 0.010 17 J-721
23 North Central Zone G Industrial No 6 0.005 9 J-275
24 Blue Oaks Park Park No 10 0.009 15 J-726
25 WAPA Easement Streetscape No 112 0.100 174 J-118
26 Homestead Elementary School School No 18 0.016 28 J-411 27 Hewlett Packard/Campus Oaks Commercial No 179 0.160 278 J-261

City of Roseville (0012204.00) Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation August 7, 2024
ID Customer Name Customer Type
On-Site
Storage
(Yes/No)
Annual
Average
Demand (AFY)
Average Day
Demand
(MGD)
Peak Day
Demand
(gpm)
Modeled
Demand
Node(s)
28 James Hill Park Park No 18 0.016 28 J-64
29 Placer One + Sunset Industrial Area UGA Yes 373 0.333 1451 J-650 30 Regional University UGA Yes 650 0.580 1031 J-772
31 Sierra Vista/Westbrook UGA No 502 0.448 802 J-173
32 Placer Vineyards UGA Yes 1580 1.411 2505 J-55
32 Riolo Vineyards UGA Yes 403 0.360 639 J-55
33 Amoruso Ranch UGA No 245 0.219 388 J-971
34 Creekview UGA No 73 0.065 116 J-971
35 West Roseville SP UGA No -265 -0.236 30
J-606, J-667,
J-661, J-760,
J-870, J-756,
J-754, J-891,
J-589, J-873,
J-661, J-410

City of Roseville (0012204.00) Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation August 7, 2024
APPENDIX B: EXISTING PUMP CURVES

Dry Creek WWTP PS - Pump 1

Dry Creek WWTP PS - Pump 2

Dry Creek WWTP PS - Pump 3

Dry Creek WWTP PS - Pump 4

North Zone PS - Pump 1

& 4
North Zone PS - Pump 2, 3,

WRPS - Pump 1

WZPS Pump 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6

250 hp - Pump 1
Pleasant Grove WWTP PS

250 hp - Pump 2
Pleasant Grove WWTP PS

Pleasant Grove WWTP PS
30 hp - Pump 3 Page 3251 of 3513
City of Roseville (0012204.00) Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation August 7, 2024
APPENDIX C: DETAILED COST ESTIMATES

Cost Estimating Worksheet
PROJECT ID:…………………………………………………………. B-1
LOCATION:……………………………………………………………..

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:……………………
PROPOSED PROJECT PHASING: ……..

REASON FOR PROJECT:……………………..

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:…………………………..

ALTERNATIVES:……………………………………………………
MAJOR ITEMS Size Quantity Unit UNIT COST COST
Baseline Pipe Construction Cost
24 in. 50 LF 365 $/ft $18,245
2 EA 19,607 $/EA $39,215
Surface Restoration
Pavement Restoration 50' long 6' wide 300' SF 9.62 $/sf $2,887 Subtotal $60,346
10% $6,035
Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $66,000
20% $13,200
Subtotal $79,200
Project Contigency 30% $23,760
Small Project Contingency 15% $11,880
Capital Improvement Cost Total $115,000
ENR = 14,511 (Average of 20 Cities and San Francisco, March 2025) Engineering/Construction Management and Administration, and Legal Costs Mobilization and Demobilization
Pipe (PVC)
Connection to Existing System

ROSEVILLE RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Small project (additional 15% contingency)
Parallel pipe could be installed.
0 West Roseville PS
Improve system reliability and flexibility
Upsize bypass at West Roseville PS/Pleasant Grove WWTP from 10" to 24" Roseville CIP Cost Estimating Sheet_Apr2025 Page 1

Cost Estimating Worksheet
PROJECT ID:…………………………………………………………. I-1
LOCATION:……………………………………………………………..

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:……………………
PROPOSED PROJECT PHASING: ……..

REASON FOR PROJECT:……………………..

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:…………………………..

ALTERNATIVES:……………………………………………………
MAJOR ITEMS Size Quantity Unit UNIT COST COST
Baseline Pipe Construction Cost
6 in. 1640 LF 180 $/ft $295,669
2 EA 1,429 $/EA $2,858
5% $14,926
Traffic and Construction Productivity Factors
5% of baseline pipe cost 5% $14,783
Surface Restoration
Pavement Restoration 1,640' long 4' wide 6,560' SF 9.62 $/sf $63,128 Subtotal $391,365
10% $39,136
Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $431,000
20% $86,200
Subtotal $517,200
Project Contigency 30% $155,160
Capital Improvement Cost Total $672,000
ENR = 14,511 (Average of 20 Cities and San Francisco, March 2025)

ROSEVILLE RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A different alignment could be used. A larger diameter pipe could be considered to provide additional future flexibility.
0 Angus Rd and Casa Sedona Dr
Add an intertie between the the West and North Pressure Zones Improve system reliability and flexibility
Pipe (PVC)
Connection to Existing System
Misc. Pipe Appurtenances (valves)
Engineering/Construction Management and Administration, and Legal Costs Mobilization and Demobilization
Traffic Control
Roseville CIP Cost Estimating Sheet_Apr2025 Page 2

Cost Estimating Worksheet
PROJECT ID:…………………………………………………………. I-2
LOCATION:……………………………………………………………..

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:……………………
PROPOSED PROJECT PHASING: ……..

REASON FOR PROJECT:……………………..

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:…………………………..

ALTERNATIVES:……………………………………………………
MAJOR ITEMS Size Quantity Unit UNIT COST COST
Baseline Pipe Construction Cost
6 in. 1520 LF 180 $/ft $274,035
2 EA 1,429 $/EA $2,858
5% $13,845
Traffic and Construction Productivity Factors
5% of baseline pipe cost 5% $13,702
Surface Restoration
Pavement Restoration 1,520' long 4' wide 6,080' SF 9.62 $/sf $58,509 Subtotal $362,948
10% $36,295
Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $399,000
20% $79,800
Subtotal $478,800
Project Contigency 30% $143,640
Capital Improvement Cost Total $622,000
ENR = 14,511 (Average of 20 Cities and San Francisco, March 2025) Engineering/Construction Management and Administration, and Legal Costs Mobilization and Demobilization
Traffic Control

ROSEVILLE RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A larger diameter pipe could be considered to provide additional future flexibility.
0 Blue Oaks Blvd
Add an intertie between the the West and South Pressure Zones Improve system reliability and flexibility
Misc. Pipe Appurtenances (valves)
Pipe (PVC)
Connection to Existing System
Roseville CIP Cost Estimating Sheet_Apr2025 Page 3

Cost Estimating Worksheet
PROJECT ID:…………………………………………………………. I-3
LOCATION:……………………………………………………………..

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:……………………
PROPOSED PROJECT PHASING: ……..

REASON FOR PROJECT:……………………..

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:…………………………..

ALTERNATIVES:……………………………………………………
MAJOR ITEMS Size Quantity Unit UNIT COST COST
Baseline Pipe Construction Cost
8 in. 6681 LF 201 $/ft $1,341,531
3 EA 1,429 $/EA $4,286
5% $67,291
Traffic and Construction Productivity Factors
5% of baseline pipe cost 5% $67,077
5% of baseline pipe cost 5% $67,077
Surface Restoration
Pavement Restoration 6,681' long 4' wide 26,724' SF 9.62 $/sf $257,171 Subtotal $1,804,432
10% $180,443
Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $1,985,000
20% $397,000
Subtotal $2,382,000
Project Contigency 30% $714,600
Capital Improvement Cost Total $3,097,000
ENR = 14,511 (Average of 20 Cities and San Francisco, March 2025) Improve system reliability

ROSEVILLE RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Baseline Rd and Fiddyment Rd
Add an intertie between the the West and South Pressure Zones 3 Requires future extension of recycled water main south on Fiddyment Rd.

A larger diameter pipe could be considered to provide additional future flexibility.

Pipe (PVC)
Connection to Existing System
Misc. Pipe Appurtenances (valves)
Congested Traffic or Utility Corridor Factor
Traffic Control
Mobilization and Demobilization
Engineering/Construction Management and Administration, and Legal Costs Roseville CIP Cost Estimating Sheet_Apr2025 Page 4

Cost Estimating Worksheet
PROJECT ID:…………………………………………………………. I-3
LOCATION:……………………………………………………………..

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:……………………
PROPOSED PROJECT PHASING: ……..

REASON FOR PROJECT:……………………..

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:…………………………..

ALTERNATIVES:……………………………………………………
MAJOR ITEMS Size Quantity Unit UNIT COST COST
Baseline Pipe Construction Cost
Pipe (PVC) 10 in. 6316 LF 221 $/ft $1,397,794
2 EA 1,429 $/EA $2,858
5% $70,033
Traffic and Construction Productivity Factors
5% of baseline pipe cost 5% $0
5% of baseline pipe cost 5% $0
Surface Restoration
Pavement Restoration 6,316' long 4' wide 25,264' SF 9.62 $/sf $243,121 Subtotal $1,713,805
10% $171,380
Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $1,885,000
20% $377,000
Subtotal $2,262,000
Project Contigency 30% $678,600
Capital Improvement Cost Total $2,941,000
ENR = 14,511 (Average of 20 Cities and San Francisco, March 2025) Connection to Existing System
Requires future extension of recycled water main south on Fiddyment Rd.

A larger diameter pipe could be considered to provide additional future flexibility.

Improve system reliability

ROSEVILLE RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Baseline Rd and Fiddyment Rd
Add an intertie between the the West and South Pressure Zones 3 Misc. Pipe Appurtenances (valves)
Congested Traffic or Utility Corridor Factor
Traffic Control
Mobilization and Demobilization
Engineering/Construction Management and Administration, and Legal Costs Roseville CIP Cost Estimating Sheet_Apr2025 Page 5

Cost Estimating Worksheet
PROJECT ID:…………………………………………………………. PP-1
LOCATION:……………………………………………………………..

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:……………………
PROPOSED PROJECT PHASING: ……..

REASON FOR PROJECT:……………………..

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:…………………………..

ALTERNATIVES:……………………………………………………
MAJOR ITEMS Size Quantity Unit UNIT COST COST
Baseline Pipe Construction Cost
24 485 LF 365 $/ft $176,974
2 EA 19,607 $/EA $39,215
Traffic and Construction Productivity Factors
Traffic Control 5% of baseline pipe cost 5% $8,849
Surface Restoration
Pavement Restoration 485' long 8' wide 3,880' SF 9.62 $/sf $37,338 Subtotal $262,375
10% $26,238
Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $289,000
20% $57,800
Subtotal $346,800
Project Contigency 30% $104,040
Capital Improvement Cost Total $451,000
ENR = 14,511 (Average of 20 Cities and San Francisco, March 2025) Pipe (PVC)

ROSEVILLE RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION
West Roseville Pump Station to West Park Drive
Install parallel 24" pipe (1891 LF)
Implement when upgrading West Roseville PS capacity
Reduced headloss during peak periods and increase conveyance capacity.

Remove and replace existing or install parallel pipe
Connection to Existing System
Mobilization and Demobilization
Engineering/Construction Management and Administration, and Legal Costs Roseville CIP Cost Estimating Sheet_Apr2025 Page 6

Cost Estimating Worksheet
PROJECT ID:…………………………………………………………. PP-2 note acutally triggered by city future customers, n LOCATION:……………………………………………………………..

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:……………………
PROPOSED PROJECT PHASING: ……..

REASON FOR PROJECT:……………………..

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:…………………………..

ALTERNATIVES:……………………………………………………
MAJOR ITEMS Size Quantity Unit UNIT COST COST
Baseline Pipe Construction Cost
12 1600 LF 242 $/ft $386,915
2 EA 19,607 $/EA $39,215
Traffic and Construction Productivity Factors
Traffic Control 5% of baseline pipe cost 5% $21,307
Surface Restoration
Pavement Restoration 1,600' long 8' wide 12,800' SF 9.62 $/sf $123,177 Subtotal $570,614
10% $57,061
Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $628,000
20% $125,600
Subtotal $753,600
Project Contigency 30% $226,080
Capital Improvement Cost Total $980,000
ENR = 14,511 (Average of 20 Cities and San Francisco, March 2025) Pipe (PVC)

ROSEVILLE RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Blue Oaks Blvd west of Woodcreek Oaks Blvd
Replace 8" pipe with 15" pipe along Blue Oaks Blvd between Woodcreek Oaks and Diamond Creek Blvd
Before additional customers are added west of Woodcreek Oaks Blvd Reduced headloss during peak periods and improve system reliability.

Install parallel 8" pipe
Connection to Existing System
Mobilization and Demobilization
Engineering/Construction Management and Administration, and Legal Costs Roseville CIP Cost Estimating Sheet_Apr2025 Page 7

Cost Estimating Worksheet
PROJECT ID:…………………………………………………………. PP-3
LOCATION:……………………………………………………………..

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:……………………
PROPOSED PROJECT PHASING: ……..

REASON FOR PROJECT:……………………..

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:…………………………..

ALTERNATIVES:……………………………………………………
MAJOR ITEMS Size Quantity Unit UNIT COST COST
Baseline Pipe Construction Cost
30 2533 LF 426 $/ft $1,080,147
2 EA 19,607 $/EA $39,215
Traffic and Construction Productivity Factors
Traffic Control 5% of baseline pipe cost 5% $55,968
Surface Restoration
Pavement Restoration 2,533' long 8' wide 20,264' SF 4.81 $/sf $97,502 Subtotal $1,272,832
10% $127,283
Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $1,400,000
20% $280,000
Subtotal $1,680,000
Project Contigency 30% $504,000
Capital Improvement Cost Total $2,184,000
ENR = 14,511 (Average of 20 Cities and San Francisco, March 2025) Pipe (PVC)

ROSEVILLE RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Dry Creek WWTP
Replace 20" pipe with 30" pipe along Blue Oaks Blvd between Woodcreek Oaks and Diamond Creek Blvd
Before Placer One Demands added
Reduced headloss during peak periods and improve system reliability.

Install parallel 12" pipe
Connection to Existing System
Mobilization and Demobilization
Engineering/Construction Management and Administration, and Legal Costs Roseville CIP Cost Estimating Sheet_Apr2025 Page 8

Cost Estimating Worksheet
PROJECT ID:…………………………………………………………. PS-1
LOCATION:……………………………………………………………..

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:……………………
PROPOSED PROJECT PHASING: ……..

REASON FOR PROJECT:……………………..

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:…………………………..

ALTERNATIVES:……………………………………………………
MAJOR ITEMS Size Quantity Unit UNIT COST COST
Baseline Pipe Construction Cost
300 HP 3 EA $564,000 $1,692,000
Subtotal $1,692,000
10% $169,200
Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $1,861,000
10% $186,100
20% $372,200
Subtotal $2,419,300
Project Contigency 30% $725,790
Capital Improvement Cost Total $3,145,000
ENR = 14,511 (Average of 20 Cities and San Francisco, March 2025) Replacement of Pumps

ROSEVILLE RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION
West Roseville Pump Station
Replace three pumps at West Roseville Pump Station for added capacity X
Increase system capacity required for future buildout
Install new pumps at West Roseville Pump Station
Mobilization and Demobilization
Engineering/Construction Management and Administration, and Legal Costs Alternatives Analysis
Roseville CIP Cost Estimating Sheet_Apr2025 Page 9

Cost Estimating Worksheet
PROJECT ID:…………………………………………………………. S-1
LOCATION:……………………………………………………………..

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:……………………
PROPOSED PROJECT PHASING: ……..

REASON FOR PROJECT:……………………..

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:…………………………..

ALTERNATIVES:……………………………………………………
MAJOR ITEMS Size Quantity Unit UNIT COST COST
Baseline Construction Cost
2 EA $3,000 $6,000
Demo - Mud Valves, Slab 7 EA $2,000 $14,000
Demo - Wall Opening, 6'x6', Add'l. Reinf. 3 EA $4,000 $12,000 Demo - Existing 24"-REW 1 LS $8,000 $8,000
Concrete Wall Closure 3 EA $6,000 $18,000
Aluminum Flow Rec. Trough 1 EA $20,000 $20,000
48"-DI Pipe 158760 LBS $1.20 $190,512
Piping Installation Labor 1 LS $19,051 $19,051
DI Pipe Supports, 304 SS 18 EA $2,500 $45,000
48"-DI 90* Bend 1 EA $8,000 $8,000
48"-DI REW Feed Piping 132300 LBS $1.20 $158,760
Piping Installation Labor 1 LS $15,876 $15,876
48"-DI REW Feed Fittings, Couplings 3 EA $8,000 $24,000 48"-DI REW Feed Wall Pen's 1 EA $2,000 $2,000
24"-DI REW Piping 4575 LBS $1.10 $5,033
Piping Installation Labor 1 LS $5,033 $5,033
24"-DI REW Fittings, Couplings 3 EA $5,000 $15,000
36"-DI REW Feed Piping 18300 LBS $1.15 $21,045
Piping Installation Labor 1 LS $10,523 $10,523
36"-DI REW Feed Fittings, Couplings 4 EA $7,000 $28,000 DI Pipe Supports, 304 SS 4 EA $2,500 $10,000
36" Butterfly Valve 1 EA $30,000 $30,000
12" Mud Valve 7 EA $5,000 $35,000
Concrete Repair Allowance 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Aluminum Slide Gate 2 EA $20,000 $40,000
Subtotal $840,832
10% $84,083
Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $925,000
20% $185,000
Subtotal $1,110,000
Project Contigency 30% $333,000
Capital Improvement Cost Total $1,443,000
ENR = 14,511 (Average of 20 Cities and San Francisco, March 2025) Mobilization and Demobilization
Engineering/Construction Management and Administration, and Legal Costs Demo - Gates

ROSEVILLE RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements to modify (2) existing Chlorine Contact Basins for use as Reclaimed Water Storage Basins
Increase reclaimed water storage volume.

Roseville CIP Cost Estimating Sheet_Apr2025 Page 10

City of Roseville (0012204.00) Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Recycled Water System Evaluation August 7, 2024
APPENDIX D: ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION FOR REYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (TM 5B)

February 2008 1
Technical Memorandum Water andEnvironment
South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Subject: Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System (TM 5b)
Prepared For: Art O’Brien – City of Roseville
Ed Wydra – Placer County
Prepared by: Amanda Schmidt
Glenn Hermanson
Andy Smith
Reviewed by: Dave Richardson
Date: February 8, 2007; updated February 11, 2008
Reference: 0091.05
0 Previous TM Publication and Updates
Since the latest publication of technical memorandum (TM) 5b on February 8, 2007, changes in information available for the South Placer Wastewater and Recycled Water Systems Evaluation (Systems Evaluation), as well as changes in the data, have resulted in the need to identify and update out-of-date information. This newest publication of TM 5b reflects the changes in available data and/or assumptions. 1 Introduction
The objectives of this TM are to define and evaluate recycled water facilities alternatives to serve the existing City of Roseville (City) service area and Urban Growth Areas (UGAs).

This TM is organized as follows:
• Introduction
• Alternatives Development
• Alternatives Evaluation
• Implementation Plan
• Bibliography

1.1 Project Alternative Definition
Each recycled water project alternative is defined as the combination of the treatment, storage/pumping, and distribution options (supply side) necessary to serve targeted users located in a given service area (demand side). Alternatives for delivering recycled water were evaluated using H2ONet hydraulic modeling software.

The development of the recycled water project alternatives involved defining the following components for each alternative:
• Service Area: Where would recycled water be used?
Recycled water will be used in the existing Roseville service area (generally in the vicinities of the regional WWTPs; north and west of I-80/UPRR) in addition to Urban Growth Areas.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 2
Recycled water will be used as irrigation for business parks, commercial, multi-family developments, golf courses, parks, and streetscape. Industrial customers will use recycled water for non-contact cooling processes.
• Treatment: Where would recycled water be produced?
Recycled water would be produced at the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant (PGWWTP) and at the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (DCWWTP) to supply customers in the existing service area and UGAs.

An option of satellite treatment will be evaluated for Placer Vineyards (PV) and Placer Ranch (PR) UGAs. Satellite treatment would consist of seasonally operated treatment facilities to treat wastewater from the UGA before it reaches the WWTP. Treated recycled water would be directly pumped back to the corresponding UGA. • Storage: How much recycled water would need to be stored and where? Each UGA will be required to have a storage facility to hold recycled water. The minimum operational storage volume of each UGA storage tank is equal to the maximum day demand of recycled water.

The existing 1.5 MG storage tank at the North Zone Pump Station (NZPS) will be utilized to hold recycled water supplied by DCWWTP and a supplemental supply will be provided from PGWWTP.

The need for operational storage at PGWWTP and DCWWTP will be evaluated. • Distribution: How would recycled water be distributed to the different users? In general, pipelines will be located in major corridors (roadways or along property boundaries), but have flexibility in the specific alignment.

1.2 Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation Update The recycled water setting has changed since the development of the April 2000 Recycled Water Distribution Feasibility Study (RWFS), presenting new opportunities and new challenges. Because of these changes, the recommended recycled water project and associated implementation plan included in the 2000 RWFS were revisited. The treatment, storage/pumping, and distribution options identified in the 2000 RWFS formed the basis for project alternative development and evaluation. Existing facilities are listed in Table 1. Additional facility improvements will be evaluated in the following sections.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 3
Table 1: Storage and Pumping Facilities
Existing Storage and Pumping Facilities Used in the Hydraulic Model North Zone Storage Tank (Feet) North Zone Pump Station
Base Elevation (floor) 123.0 Pumps
Minimum Water Level 5.0 2 duty pumps, 1 standby
Maximum Water Level 16.5 Pump Curve (all three pumps)
Initial Water Level (for modeling) 5.0 Design Point: 950 gpm at 140 feet Diameter 124.0 Shutoff Head: 0 gpm at 234 feet
Datum for all elevations: Sea Level (0 feet) High Flow: 1,338 gpm at 0 feet Pumps water from Storage Tank
Dry Creek Pump Station Pleasant Grove Pump Station
Pumps Pumps
3 duty pumps, 1 standby 2 duty pumps
Pump Curve (all four pumps) Pump Curve (both pumps)
Design Point: 1,900 gpm at 124.6 feet Design Point: 5,120 gpm at 124 feet Shutoff Head: 0 gpm at 206 feet Shutoff Head: 0 gpm at 192 feet High Flow: 2,480 gpm at 0 feet High Flow: 7,680 gpm at 0 gpm Pumps from a wet well with a water surface
elevation of 114 ft.

Pumps from a wet well with a surface
elevation of 90 ft.

1.3 Approach
The following approach was adopted to meet the TM objectives described above:
• Develop a list of conceptual alternatives (including preliminary sizing and alignments, pumping requirements and location and storage requirements) building on the technical work of the 2000 Recycled Water Distribution Feasibility Study
• Evaluate the pros and cons of each conceptual alternative to find the preferred alternative 2 Alternatives Development
This section presents the recycled water facilities alternatives that were developed by:
• Considering the different options available for each project component • Combining these options to form logical project alternatives • Developing the necessary technical information necessary to define and evaluate each alternative

2.1 Alternatives Identification
Two basic categories of options are available for the production of recycled water: centralized treatment with distribution from Pleasant Grove and Dry Creek WWTPs, and satellite treatment and distribution.

This section will discuss satellite treatment, detail the treatment process, costs, and advantages and disadvantages (relative to centralized treatment). Distribution options and pipeline alignments along with storage requirements will also be discussed in this section.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 4

2.1.1 Satellite Treatment
Satellite facilities would treat the wastewater from local trunk sewers to tertiary standards and likely return solids back to the trunk sewer. Recycled water would be available for use in the vicinity of the satellite plant. A conceptual illustration of a facility is shown in Figure 1. Seasonally operated satellite treatment could be used to supply the furthest UGA from PGWWTP, which is Placer Ranch and DCWWTP which is Placer Vineyards.

Figure 1: Conceptual Illustration of Satellite Recycled Water Facility The treatment technology most widely used currently for new satellite treatment facilities is a membrane bioreactor (MBR). This technology combines the secondary biological process with the filtration process in a single reactor, an aeration tank with submerged membranes. RMC gathered data from ten satellite plants ranging in size from 0.3 mgd to 10 mgd (RMC, 2004). Information gathered included capital cost, MBR equipment costs, and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the surveyed satellite treatment facilities (all costs are expressed in 2004 dollars). Using this information, RMC has investigated the degree to which satellite treatment facilities could be more cost effective than serving recycled water from the central treatment plant through a pipeline.

Footprint Size
Footprint sizes can vary widely; from the available data it was extrapolated that a plant size ranging from 1 to 5 mgd would require approximately 4 acres of land. This would be an appropriate land assumption for PR and PV because their demands are 3.34 and 5.4 mgd, respectively. This footprint requirement includes space for the treatment process, as well as for a distribution pump station. It does not include land requirements for recycled water storage, which might add an additional acre of land depending upon tank configuration and surrounding land use.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 5
Construction Costs
Capital costs varied widely due to the variety in construction and operation of each plant. A cost curve was developed based on MBR quotes from Zenon and US Filter and construction cost information from interviewed satellite treatment facilities, shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Planning Level Cost Guidelines – Construction Cost ($ 2004) A reasonable construction cost estimate for PR is $12.5 million (including MBR equipment costs).

Similarly, PV construction cost estimate would be $18.75 million. Placer Vineyards costs were extrapolated from the graph. This does not include the cost of land. Also this does not include the cost of recycled water storage and distribution facilities, since these costs are paid for by the developer in both the satellite and central treatment options. For reference, from this estimate, MBR equipment costs would be approximately $3.25 million for PR and $4.75 million for PV.

Operation and Maintenance Costs
Annual O&M Costs are shown on Figure 3 below. Again, the annual cost for each plant varies. This variability is due to different unit processes and different approaches to operation and maintenance that each plant employs. From the information obtained in Figure 3, annual operation and maintenance costs will be approximately $300,000 for PR and $500,000 for PV per year.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 6
Figure 3: Comparison of Annual O&M Cost to Plant Size ($ 2004) $0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Plant Size (mgd)
Annual O&M Cost (Million $)
Table 2 provides a cost summary to build and operate a satellite treatment facility at PR and PV. Total present value cost for PR would be $17.4 million and PV would be $27 million.

Table 2: Satellite Treatment Cost Summary
Cost a Placer Ranch Placer Vineyards
Construction Costs $12,500,000 $18,750,000
Present Value O&M Cost b $9,905,000 $8,176,000
Total Present Value Cost for
Satellite Treatment Alternative $17,405,000 $26,926,000 Pipeline Cost for Centralized
Transmission Treatment
Alternative c
$1,207,000 $2,840,000
Low Cost Alternative Centralized Centralized
Footnotes:
a. 2004 dollars, no inflation assumed
b. Present value is calculated over a 20 year period. Assumed inflation rate = 3%, interest rate = 5%, therefore the discount rate = 2%.
c. Cost to install recycled water pipeline including contingency factors. See Section 4.2 and Attachment C.

Conclusions
Feasibility of satellite recycled water treatment can be determined by comparing its cost effectiveness to the development or expansion of centralized water recycling and transmission of recycled water to the use site.

Note: From a cost standpoint, satellite recycled water treatment has become a competitive alternative for recycled water production and delivery to remote areas; generally 5 to 10 miles beyond the central WWTP and other recycled water customers. PR and PV are the furthest UGAs from Pleasant Grove WWTP, but their distances are not remote enough to offset the capital and O&M costs associated with satellite treatment. PR and PV are both adjacent to other recycled water

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 7
customers (UGAs) and, depending on the location where recycled water is delivered, are only 1 to 3 miles from the nearest customer.

Proposed recycled water pipelines will distribute water to UGAs along a path towards PR and PV. It would be unreasonable to pursue the option of satellite recycled water treatment because of the following reasons: the PGWWTP and DCWWTP can provide the required recycled water, a recycled water distribution system is currently being developed, and PR and PV are less then 5 miles from the nearest recycled water customer. The option best suited for the given situation would be a centralized treatment and distribution from the Pleasant Grove and Dry Creek WWTPs. Incidentally, if recycled water were needed to be distributed to regions within South Placer Wastewater Authority (SPWA) service area further from the WWTPs, (e.g. Granite Bay, Rocklin, or Loomis) at some point in the future satellite treatment may be the best choice.

2.1.2 Description of Pipeline Alternatives
A hydraulic analysis using H2O Net was performed to compute the pipeline diameter needed to serve the identified customers while conforming to a set of hydraulic criteria. The set of hydraulic criteria that was used is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Hydraulic Design Criteria for Model Development System Component Unit Value
Minimum Pressure at Customer Connections
During Irrigation Period a psi 60 b
Minimum Pressure at Customer Connections
During Non-irrigation Period psi 40
Maximum Pressure psi 120
Minimum Pipe Size (including laterals) inches 6
Available Pipe Sizes c inches 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 30
Maximum Head Loss feet per 1000 feet 5
Velocity Range feet per second 2 – 8
Hazen-Williams Coefficient for Headloss
Calculation n/a 130
Footnotes:
a. South zone of Recycled Water System (south of North Zone Pump Station) will have an operating pressure of 30 psi b. This pressure is for customers without a recycled water storage facility. c. Per Roseville Standards for Recycled Water.

Since satellite treatment is not recommended for currently anticipated demands, there are three distribution alternatives that will be evaluated in this TM. The following alternatives are described below. • Alternative A: Non-Looped System. New pipe from Pleasant Grove WWTP will connect to existing recycled water pipe along Phillip Road, and follow UGA boundaries around the western border of West Roseville Specific Plan and Sierra Vista. The pipe will end at the northern boundary of Placer Vineyards as shown in Figure 4. The pipeline will also run north on the eastern side of Creekview and end at the southwest corner of Placer Ranch. An internal Placer Ranch pipe will connect to the 30” recycled water pipeline stub on Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. with a pressure sustaining valve. This configuration will allow recycled water to flow either to or from the North Zone tank. In this alternative, it is assumed that PGWWTP will supply Placer Vineyards.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 8
Figure 4: Map of Alternative A – Non-Looped System

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 9
• Alternative B: Looped System. Recycled water pipelines would follow similar alignments as Alternative A, however pipe will continue east along the northern border of Placer Vineyards and connect the 24” gravity recycled water line near Dry Creek as shown in Figure 5. Placer Vineyards could be supplied by either DCWWTP or PGWWTP. The 24” gravity line may need to be pressurized; therefore changes may be required at the DCWWTP recycled water pump station.

Currently recycled water flows by gravity from the chlorine contact basins to Morgan Creek Golf Course. Additional pumping will most likely be required to have the necessary hydraulic head to reach Morgan Creek Golf Course and Placer Vineyards. This will be described in more detail later in the TM.
• Alternative C: Additional Flow through West Roseville Specific Plan. New pipe from PGWWTP will connect existing recycled water pipe along Phillip Road, and follow UGA boundaries around the western border of West Roseville Specific Plan and Sierra Vista. The pipe will end at the northern boundary of Curry Creek South and Sierra Vista as shown in Figure 6.

The pipeline will also run north on the eastern side of Creekview and end at the southwestern corner of Placer Ranch. Placer Vineyards will be supplied recycled water from DCWWTP via the 24” pipeline running parallel to Dry Creek. Placer Vineyards will install a pipe to distribute recycled water from the terminus of the existing 24-inch recycled water pipeline along Dry Creek to a storage tank on West Dyer Lane and 16th Street.

To balance the recycled water demands on each wastewater treatment plant, recycled water will be distributed from PGWWTP to Woodcreek Oaks Golf Course (WOGC) and Sun City Golf Course (SCGC). Their pipe connections can be retrofitted to receive recycled water from DCWWTP or PGWWTP as the system grows to best use available recycled water. This will be described more in detail in the following section.

Water will be transferred to WOGC and SCGC via the 24” recycled water pipeline through West Roseville Specific Plan and through the 18” converted force main. To minimize the amount of pumping, the WRSP pump station 24” inlet is connected to the to the 24” outlet, which allows bypassing the WRSP pump station. Recycled water can then be sent to the WOGC and SCGC storage facilities directly from the PGWWTP pump station. This configuration provides flexibility for supplying RW to the WOGC and SCGC during the 15-hour non-irrigation period.

This option is available during the non-irrigation period because the WRSP pump station will not be used. During the irrigation period the bypass will be closed and the pump station will operate normally.

The Sun City Golf Course storage pond can be connected by tying the 18” converted force main in Del Webb Boulevard into an existing 8-inch recycled water main in Del Webb Boulevard.

This will serve the purpose of filling the SCGC pond from PGWWTP. The Woodcreek Oaks Golf Course would utilize a portion of the existing 18” recycled water line which will be decommissioned. Recycled water will flow south through the 18” recycled water line from the 18” converted force main/30” converted force main connection to the lake. When completed there will be two connections to the Woodcreek Oaks Golf Course lake, the 18” recycled water line and the 30” converted force main.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 10
Figure 5: Map of Alternative B – Looped System

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 11
Figure 6: Map of Alternative C – Additional Flow through West Roseville Specific Plan

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 12
Table 4 lists the lengths and diameters of new recycled water pipelines that would be installed for each alternative and the existing force mains that will be converted to recycled water pipes. Alternative B has the largest amount of pipe installed because the northern and southern sections of the City are connected.

Table 4: Description of Alternatives
New Pipe
Diameter
(inches)
Existing Force Main
to be Converted to
Recycled Water
Pipe (feet)
Length of New
RW Pipe (feet)
30” 19,600 -
18” 9,700 -
8” 8,900 -
All Three
Alternatives
Total 38,200 -
30” - 3,100
24” - 23,000
16” - 7,300
Alternative A
Total 38,200 33,400
30” - 3,100
24” - 37,300
16” - 7,300
Alternative B
Total 38,200 47,700
30” - 3,100
24” - 21,400
16” - 5,800
12” - 2,700
Alternative C
Total 38,200 33,000

2.1.3 Recycled Water Storage Analysis
Due to the high demand for recycled water, hourly irrigation patterns, and diurnal fluctuations of wastewater effluent, an hour-by-hour analysis has been conducted to determine the storage requirement and the operational scenarios at the Pleasant Grove and Dry Creek WWTPs to optimize recycled water distribution. Scenarios are developed assuming there will be a storage facility (tank or pond) at each UGA with a volume to store one peak day (July day) of recycled water demand. Diurnal fluctuations in recycled water generation produce a challenge in supplying customers during the irrigation period from 9:00 PM to 6:00 AM for the following reasons: the highest demand for recycled water comes during the period of lowest generation and recycled water must be supplied during the non-irrigation period in addition to the irrigation period to fulfill the total demand of the UGAs.

Alternative C Storage Analysis
Multiple scenarios were evaluated to distribute recycled water to customers to show the amount of storage needed at either DCWWTP or PGWWTP in Alternative C. From the supply availability analysis, the recycled water demand in Alternatives A and B exceeded available supply, therefore a storage analysis was not deemed necessary. From the storage analysis, it was determined that recycled water storage will not be required at PGWWTP if recycled water is distributed to the UGAs as it is generated. Storage is

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 13
also not required at DCWWTP. The detailed storage calculations can be found in Attachment A and are summarized in Table 5. The following scenarios present variations in recycled water distribution to customers with storage facilities.

Pleasant Grove WWTP Distribution Scenarios:
• 24-hour Distribution – Recycled water would be distributed equally to all customers over a 24 hour period. For UGAs, the storage tank is filled evenly through the day. Recycled water generated in excess of the water supplied to the UGAs will be discharged to the creek. • 15-hour Distribution – Recycled water would be distributed to customers over the non-irrigation 15-hour period (from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM). In this scenario, while water could be distributed during the irrigation period, it is assumed that all water produced during this time period will be discharged to the creek
• Equal Tank Fill – Recycled water would be distributed as it is generated and all UGA storage facilities are filled at the same rate. Once a tank is full, remaining water will be supplied to other storage facilities until all are filled. Excess water will be discharged to the creek after all the tanks are full. Four recycled water pumps will be required to pump the maximum effluent flow rate. • Two Tank Fill – Recycled water would be distributed as it is generated and two UGA storage tanks will be filled at a time. Excess recycled water generated after all tanks are filled will be discharged to the creek. Four recycled water pumps will be required to pump the maximum effluent flow rate.
• Capped Flow Distribution – Recycled water would be distributed as generated but will not exceed a maximum flow rate of 16,000 gpm and water generated in excess of 16,000 gpm will be discharged to the creek. In this scenario, a minimum pressure of 10 psi will be at the furthest UGAs, with only three pumps operating at the PGWWTP recycled water pump station.

Dry Creek WWTP Distribution Scenarios:
• 24-hour Distribution – Recycled water would be distributed equally to creek customers over a 24 hour period.
• 15-hour Distribution – Recycled water would be only distributed to creek customers during the non-irrigation 15-hour period (from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM). • Creek Distribution – Recycled water would be distributed as it is generated to fill the North Zone Pump Station tank and to customers with storage facilities. Excess water from the filling the tank and pipeline distribution will be discharged to the creek. Creek customers will be supplied with recycled water until demand is fulfilled.
• Proportional Flow to Creek Customers – Recycled water would be distributed as it is generated to fill the North Zone Pump Station tank and to customers with storage facilities. Excess water from the filling the tank and pipeline distribution will be discharged to the creek. Creek customers will be supplied proportionally to volume demanded. This distribution is more theoretical because the creek customer’s demands will be fulfilled at the same time. In proportional flow more recycled water is distributed to Gibson Ranch than Cherry Island per hour because the recycled water demand at Gibson Ranch is higher than Cherry Island.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 14
Table 5: Storage Analysis for Alternative C
Scenario
Available RW to
Supply to Customers
During Low
Generation Period
Required
Storage at
DCWWTP
Peak Flow
Distributed through
RW Pipeline (gpm) Rank a
PGWWTP
24-hour Distribution No Yes, 2.14 MG 15,825 3 (tie)
15-hour Distribution No Yes, 1.97 MG 23,193 3 (tie)
Equal Tank Fill Yes None 26,156 b, e 1 (tie)
Two Tank Fill Yes None 26,156 b, e 1 (tie)
Capped Flow
Distribution No c
None 16,000 4
DCWWTP
24-hour Distribution No Yes, 1.70 MG 6,782 4
15-hour Distribution No Yes, 0.55 MG 6,782 3
Creek Distribution Yes d None 6,782 1
Proportional Flow to
Creek Customers Yes d
None 6,782 2
Footnotes:
a. Qualitative ranking based on analysis of required storage, supply and peak flow distribution. b. These two scenarios would require a velocity greater than 10 ft/sec in the existing 30” recycled water pipe at the PGWWTP.
c. There is not enough time to fill all UGA tanks within 24 hour period if recycled water distribution is limited to 16,000 gal/min.
d. There is supply deficiency between 5:00 AM and 6:00 AM. From 5:00 AM – 6:00 AM an additional supply of 11,073 gallons is needed. This supply deficit of ~11,000 gallons can be eliminated if customers with storage facilities (like golf courses) are supplied more water during periods of higher recycled water generation e. This scenario would require control and valve modifications to the West Roseville and North Zone Pump Stations, as well as design modifications to future pump stations.

Criteria used in ranking the distribution scenarios are based on the necessity of required storage at the treatment plant, availability of supply during all hours of the day, and the peak flow being pumped from the treatment plant pump station. Scenarios that do not require storage at the treatment plant rank higher than those that do; additionally, scenarios that do not have available supply for the demand are infeasible.

Peak flow from the treatment plant is evaluated to determine pumping requirements. Maximum flow rates may occur for only a few hours a day, however exceeding the proposed design criteria is not recommended.

According to the hydraulic model and the storage analysis, in both the Equal Tank Fill and Two Tank Fill scenarios the maximum flowrate pumped between approximately 12:00 PM and 1:00 AM will exceed the velocity design criteria of 8 ft/sec in the 30” pipe from the PGWWTP pump station to the West Roseville Specific Plan Pump Station. This is assuming all UGAs are receiving the peak day demand at buildout.

The velocity in that section of pipe (maximum 12 ft/sec) will be above 8 ft/sec for 13 hours per day and the 10 ft/sec for 4 hours per day. This daily maximum flow will peak during July and a total of four pumps would be needed to maintain pressure at the furthest UGAs from the PGWWTP. To accommodate either of these scenarios, two separate fill valves will be required to each tank at all future pump stations. This design will allow for the flexibility needed to distribute the recycled water supply as necessary.

It was concluded that this maximum flowrate and velocity would not be acceptable. To reduce the amount of flow in the 30” pipe, a new 30” pipe should be installed parallel to the existing pipe from the recycled

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 15
water pump station to the junction of the West Roseville Specific Plan pump station. It is recommended to monitor the pipe velocity over time to identify when and the length of time it is over 8 ft/sec. In the future, a parallel pipe can be installed. The 30” parallel pipe is being included as a recommended project.

It is recognized that this additional 30” parallel pipe will only be needed at buildout and if the UGAs develop as indicated herein. It is recommended to revisit this analysis approximately every 5 years to confirm the need for this parallel pipe.

Another option to reduce the maximum flow in the 30” pipe is to “shave off” the peak flow rate and pump a maximum of 16,000 gpm from the pump station. Any flow in excess of the 16,000 gpm would be discharged to Pleasant Grove Creek. This would keep the velocity in the pipe around 7.5 ft/sec. This alternative is infeasible because there is not enough recycled water to supply UGA customers with their Peak (July) Day Demand.. Too much recycled water is “shaved off” and sent to the creek. The Two Tank or Equal Tank Fill is the recommended fill scenario.

For DCWWTP, distributing recycled water to the creek customers when available is the best operational scenario. There is enough supply at DCWWTP to serve customers south of the North Zone pump station and the customers from the 24” gravity line. The creek customers have storage ponds; therefore there is flexibility to fill throughout the day. As mentioned in Footnote D from Table 5, the demand exceeds supply from 5:00 to 6:00 AM. The supply deficit of 11,073 gallons can be eliminated if customers with storage facilities are supplied extra recycled water during period with excess supply.

2.1.4 Hydraulic Analysis for 24-inch Gravity Line
A hydraulic analysis was completed to determine if the 24” recycled water line from DCWWTP to Morgan Creek Golf Course and Placer Vineyards (PV) could remain a gravity line, as shown in Attachment B.. The proposed location of the (PV) recycled water storage tank is on the southwest corner of West Dyer Lane and 16th Street, in the center of UGA. The pipeline alignment used in this analysis through (PV) is along West Dyer Lane. The results of the analysis show the 24” pipe can remain gravity flow with certain limitations. The storage facilities must be filled in 24 hours,. A fill time of 15 hours representing the non-irrigation period is also not possible. A gravity line will limit the City’s operational flexibility to supply recycled water. The pipeline also cannot be shut down in the summer months for maintenance or repair.

It is recommended to install a booster pump station at the recycled water pipe stub at Wallerga Road. This will provide the additional head needed to fill the Placer Vineyards tank in a shorter period than 24 hours.

It is also recommended to connect the 24” line to the Dry Creek WWTP recycled water pump station or a low head pump to provide pressure for the storage facilities and to two future direct tap customers. The pressurized pipe will allow the City to supply customers with recycled water when it is available. If the 24” line is pressurized from DCWWTP, then the booster pump may not be needed. 3 Alternatives Evaluation
This Section will:
• Present criteria that will be used to evaluate project alternatives identified in Section 2 • Show results of the alternatives evaluation
• Present the alternative that is recommended

3.1 Evaluation Criteria
A set of economic and non-economic criteria addressing specific issues within the planning area will be developed to evaluate the recycled water facilities alternatives. These criteria are found in Table 6 as follows:

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 16
Table 6: Alternative Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Description
Meets Recycled Water Demand Ability to meet total recycled water demand Estimated Cost Total Capital Costs
Flexibility
Ease with which (1) recycled water can be delivered from either treatment facility to meet demand, (2) SPWA can adapt to changes in planning assumptions regarding future demand patterns, projected resources or other uncertainties, and (3) system can be phased
Ease of Implementation Ease with which alternative can be permitted and constructed. This also includes easement acquisition and congestion concerns Adaptability Degree of synergy with existing recycled water system and ability to adapt to existing recycled water system
Environmental/Social Impacts Various impacts including risk of impact to biological systems and construction related impacts (i.e. traffic disruptions) Capital cost for the project alternatives are shown in Table 7. A flat cost of $8/LF-in diameter is used for 16” diameter to 30” diameter pipes installed in developing areas, like the UGAs. A cost of $12/LF-in diameter is used for urban areas where there are existing roads and/or pavement. Table 6 also includes a line item for the connection of the 24” gravity line to the DCWWTP recycled water pump station. The cost only includes the connection; pumping capacity at DCWWTP is addressed in Table 9.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 17
Table 7: Economic Assumptions and Unit Costs
Item Cost a
Open Trench Installation
30” Pipe Installation Cost $240 /linear foot
24” Pipe Installation Cost $192 /linear foot
16” Pipe Installation Cost $128 /linear foot
12” Pipe Installation Cost $144 /linear foot
Conversion of DCWWTP to pump
into 24” gravity line b
$60,000
Other Cost Estimate Criteria c
Construction Cost Contingency 30% of pipeline costs
Engineering and Administration 25% of pipeline costs
Footnotes:
a. Unit costs are in October 2005 dollars.
b. Short pipe connection between 24” gravity line and existing recycled water pump station discharge will be required.
c. An overhead markup of 62.5% was applied based on a 30% construction cost contingency a plus a 25% engineering and administration factor to calculate the capital cost. Hence, for budgeting purposes, it is assumed that the contingency and project implementation multiplier is 1.625 (1.00 x 1.30 x 1.25 = 1.625)

3.2 Evaluation Results

3.2.1 Alternatives Evaluation
Preliminary cost estimates based upon economic assumptions in Table 7 are listed in Table 8. Detailed cost estimates for the alternatives can be found in Attachment C. Criteria from Table 6 are used to evaluate the two alternatives and are listed in Table 8.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 18
Table 8: Alternatives Evaluation
Evaluation Criteria (from Table 6)
Alternative A –
Non-Looped
System
Alternative B –
Looped System
Alternative C –
Flow Through
WRSP
Meets Recycled Water Demand High High High
Estimated Cost a $11,002,000 $15,321,000 b $10,883,000 b Flexibility
Flexibility to supply RW from more
than one plant Medium High High
Adapt to changes in planning
assumptions Medium High High
Ability for project phasing Medium Medium High
Ease of Implementation
Ease to be designed, permitted,
and constructed High Medium High
Easement Acquisition High High High
Adaptability
Degree of synergy with existing
recycled water system High Medium High
Environmental/Social Impact
Biological Impacts and
Construction Related Impacts Low Low Low
Utility Congestion Low Low Low
Rank c 2 3 1
Footnotes:
a. Total capital costs are in October 2005 dollars and include all construction costs, contingencies, and fees. b. Price includes $60,000 for the retrofit of DCWWTP recycled water pump station to connect the 24” gravity line.

Refer to Table 7.
c. Qualitative ranking based on analysis of benefits, risks and degrees of impact.

3.3 Conclusions
Based upon the evaluation presented in Table 8, Alternative C is the recommended choice because it is an interconnected system that provides the optimum balance of recycled water supply and demand.

Alternative A is a moderately connected system, with Placer Ranch internal recycled water piping connecting to the 30” pipe on Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. Alternative B joins both the north and south sections of the distribution system, but there is a considerable distance between Placer Vineyards demand location and the stub of the 24” gravity line. To connect the two pipes, 14,400 linear feet of pipe would need to be installed and a piping/pumping modification at DCWWTP would need to be constructed with an additional cost of $2.8 million. Both Alternatives A and B have a recycled water demand that exceeds supply.

It is recommended that under typical operating scenarios, customers be supplied recycled water by a particular treatment facility; Alternatives B and C allow operational changes to be made in the pipeline system to move recycled water across the distribution system in response to an atypical operating scenario. Looping the southern portion of the distribution system is less beneficial than connecting PGWWTP through the West Roseville Specific Plan and converted force main because of the pipeline capital costs and the distance of the customers from the pipe. The majority of the customers are in the central potion of Roseville, in close proximity to the North Zone Tank. It would be better to have the operational flexibility in that area rather than on the outskirts of the distribution system.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 19
4 Implementation Plan
The goal of the Recycled Water System Evaluation is to develop a long-term strategy for the ultimate implementation recycled water projects in the region. Numerous tasks would need to take place between the completion of the Systems Evaluation and construction of the ultimate buildout, including conceptual engineering, environmental documentation and permitting, public outreach, funding, financing, design, and construction. This draft implementation plan describes the tasks required to implement the recycled water projects and provides an approximate schedule for their completion. The City’s pipeline infrastructure will include the trunk line from the wastewater treatment plant as well as the storage, pumping and distribution of recycled water within the property. Trunk recycled water pipeline sections from the PGWWTP to the Urban Growth Area will be installed by the City and reimbursed by individual land owners. The recycled pipeline will be built according to phasing described in the following sections.

Any interim measures/solutions developed by the UGA developers for receiving recycled water will be approved by the City.

4.1 Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative is Alternative C with recycled water sent from PGWWTP to supply Woodcreek Oaks and Sun City Golf Courses. This system will be described in detail and individual projects will be identified in the following sections. The recycled water system has been divided into projects and is shown in Figure 7. Projects are numbered in no particular order, but are organized according to implementation schedule. Projects shown in Figure 7 are listed in Table 9 with length and diameter of pipe that will be installed. Pipeline costs include contingencies and pump costs include installation.

Detailed cost information is found in Attachment C.

4.2 Project Phasing
An implementation strategy for each preferred alternative project phase is presented in this section. The phasing of the preferred alternative is summarized as follows:

Phase I – This phase includes the existing recycled water distribution system and existing users.

Recycled water is supplied from Dry Creek WWTP. This phase also includes the conversion of 8”, 18”, and 30” force mains to recycled water pipelines, which is currently in progress. Woodcreek Oaks Golf Course and Sun City Golf Course will be supplied recycled water from the PGWWTP.

Phase II – This phase expands on the current distribution system with the addition of “Existing Near Future Recycled Water Customers” from the RW Market Assessment (RMC, 2005). The new customers will be supplied by Dry Creek WWTP. DCWWTP and the North Zone pump station will install new recycled water pumps.

Phase III – This phase builds from Phase II to include all Urban Growth Areas. Pleasant Grove WWTP will supply recycled water to these customers except for Placer Vineyards. Two additional duty pumps and one standby pump will be added to the PGWWTP recycled water pump station. At the point when the velocity in 30” pipe from the PGWWTP pump station to the West Roseville Pump Station become higher than 8 ft/sec for a hours at a time a new 30” parallel pipe should be constructed. The 24” line supplying Placer Vineyards will be connected to the DCWWTP pump station.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 20
Figure 7: Recommended Projects for Recycled Water Distribution System

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 21
Table 9: Recommended Projects by Phase
Project
No. Description
Size (in.) or
flow (gpm) Length (ft.) Cost
Phase I (in Progress) a
1 18” FM Conversion for RW Use from
PGWWTP 18” 9,700 n/a
11 Sun City Pipeline from 18” Converted
Force Main (with option to supply WOGC
and SCGC) 12” 2,700 632,000
2 8” FM Conversion for RW Use 8” 8,900 n/a
3 30” FM Conversion for RW Use South of
North Zone Pump Station 30” 19,600 n/a
Subtotal 40,900 $632,000
Phase II (Year 2005 to 2010) a
8 DCWWTP one-50 HP pump 1,900 gpm - 98,000
9 North Zone PS one-50 HP pump 950 gpm - 57,000
Subtotal - $155,000
Phase III (Year 2010 to 2025) a
4 Creekview Pipeline 24” 3,300 1,030,000
Creekview to Curry Creek North 24” 4,600 1,436,000
Curry Creek North to Regional University 24” 2,100 655,000 5 Regional University to Curry Creek
South and Sierra Vista 24” 2,300 718,000
6 Placer Vineyards Pipeline 24” 9,100 2,840,000
North from PGWWTP to “Tee” 30” 1,400 546,000 7
Pipeline from “Tee” to Placer Ranch PS 16” 5,800 1,207,000 10 PGWWTP three-250 HP pumps 15,360 gpm - 609,000
12 Addition of 30” Pipe at PGWWTP for
Maximum Flow Conveyance 30” 1,700 995,000
Subtotal 30,300 $10,036,000
Total 71,200 $10,823,000
Footnotes:
a. Recycled water project phasing depends on development timing.

4.2.1 Phase I
This phase includes the conversion of 8”, 18”, and 30” sewer force main (FM) to recycled water pipe, which is in progress. The existing 24” recycled water pipe connecting the Dry Creek WWTP with the North Zone Pump Station (NZPS) will be decommissioned and the 30” FM will be used instead. An 18” FM will also be converted connecting the NZPS to Pleasant Grove WWTP via the West Roseville Specific Plan recycled water pipeline. In the northern portion of Roseville, an 8” FM will be converted and connected to an existing 30” recycled water pipe. These are Projects #1 through #3 from Figure 7. It is recommended the FM conversions be completed before the addition of the “Existing Near Future Recycled Water Customers” (referenced from the SPWA Recycled Water Market Assessment) to the network. The pipeline from the converted 18” force main to the Sun City Golf Course pond inlet, Project

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 22
#11, will be constructed during this phase. Additionally, once the 30” force main is converted Woodcreek Oaks Golf Course can be connected to the 18” converted force main. Connecting these customers to both PGWWTP and DCWWTP supply will allow the City greater flexibility as both distribution systems are growing.

4.2.2 Phase II
Phase II includes the existing customers and distribution system of Phase I, plus additional recycled water customers as sufficient supply from Dry Creek WWTP is available. Projected wastewater flows from the SPWA Projected WWTP Projected Loadings and Buildout TM 4a, estimates there will be adequate supply in 2012 to provide “Existing Near Future Recycled Water Customers” (identified in the Market Assessment TM) with recycled water. “Existing Near Future Recycled Water Customers” include Cherry Island Golf Course, Diamond Creek Park, Diamond Oaks Park, Eskaton Retirement Community, Fiddyment Park, Free Run Park, Gibson Ranch County Park, Homestead Park, Homestead Elementary School, HP Campus Current Landscaping, HP Rezone, West Roseville Specific Plan, and Woodcreek West Park.

In this phase, the Dry Creek WWTP and North Zone pump stations will need to be upgraded. Projects #8 and #9 specify the addition of one 50 hp pump at DCWWTP and one 50 hp pump at NZPS, respectively.

Based on the hydraulic model, these additional pumps will be necessary to maintain a minimum pressure of 10 psi for the furthest customers on the recycled water distribution pipeline. The additional pumps will be required during high flow periods. A volume increase to the North Zone storage tank will not be required.

4.2.3 Phase III
Phase III includes all of the customers in Phase II plus the Urban Growth Areas. New recycled water pipeline installations to Creekview, Curry Creek, Regional University, Sierra Vista, and Placer Ranch are Projects #4, #5, and #7. The Urban Growth Areas will begin construction in 2008 through 2010, with buildout of the recycled water service area estimated to be completed in 2025. Based on the hydraulic model two additional duty pumps and one standby pump will be required at the Pleasant Grove WWTP recycled water pump station. The additional pumps will be required to keep a minimum pressure of 10 psi in the pipeline at the furthest customers and to supply recycled water to the Woodcreek Oaks (WOGC) and Sun City Golf Courses (SCGC). Upgrades to the Pleasant Grove WWTP pump station is Project #10.

The installation of a 30” parallel pipe from PGWWTP to the West Roseville Specific Plan pump station (Project #12) should occur when the velocity in the existing 30” line increases over 8 ft/sec. This project should occur before UGA buildout. Recycled water from PGWWTP will be transferred to the WOGC and SCGC through the West Roseville Specific Plan pipeline and the 18” converted force main. A continuation of the 24” pipe will be installed to serve Placer Vineyards, Project #6. The booster pump station at the recycled water pipe stub at Wallerga Road could be installed to produce the hydraulic head to fill the tank in a shorter period than 24 hours.

4.2.4 Urban Growth Area Storage Requirement
UGAs will be required to have a recycled water storage facility with the capacity to store one peak day (July day) demand volume. July demands have been documented in the SPWA Market Assessment TM (RMC, January 2008). The minimum storage tank volume required for each UGA is listed in Table 10.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 23
Table 10: Minimum Required Storage Volumes
UGA
Minimum Tank Volume
(MG)
Brookfield 0.94
Creekview & Panhandle 1.25
Curry Creek North 0.78
Curry Creek South 3.33
Placer Ranch 3.34
Placer Vineyards 3.50
Regional University 1.72
Sierra Vista 2.46

4.3 Permitting
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the State Department of Health Services (DHS) have regulatory and permitting authority over recycled water projects in the State of California. The City of Roseville must have a Master Water Reclamation Permit from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The City has Master Reclamation Permit No. 97-147, and it is understood that a new permit has been adopted by the Regional Board recently.

4.4 Funding
The following are the possible funding sources for the projects in this report:
• Connection Fees – Currently, the City does not collect a connection fee for recycled water connections. A connection fee analysis could be performed and connection fees collected would fund regional facilities necessary to serve new developments. • Developer/Community Facilities District – In this financing scenario, developer funded community facilities would be shared through reimbursement agreements.

4.4.1 Pipelines to Urban Growth Areas
Recycled water pipeline to the UGAs will be paid for by the Urban Growth Area developers. Individual UGA developers will be responsible for the construction of the recycled water transmission pipeline from the upstream UGA to their connection point with a pipe diameter appropriate to the peak day July recycled water demand. UGAs will also be responsible for upsizing recycled water pipe upstream of their location. As an example, Curry Creek North will need an 8” pipe to deliver recycled water. The 8” section of pipe connecting Creekview downstream to Curry Creek North will be paid for by Curry Creek North.

Since 3 UGAs are downstream, the 8” pipe will need to be upsized to a 24” pipe. The upsizing cost will be split amongst the other 3 UGAs proportional to their recycled water demand. This process is continued down the recycled water pipe to Curry the Creek South/Sierra Vista connection point. Since Placer Vineyards is the only user on the pipe after the Morgan Creek Golf Course connection point, Placer Vineyards will pay the full installation cost of the 24” pipe. Further details of pipeline costs are found in Attachment D. Developers will be required to reimburse the City (or other funding party) if the transmission pipeline is built before the UGA undergoes construction.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System February 2008 24

4.5 CEQA/NEPA Compliance
CEQA review will be conducted by the City of Roseville for Regional Facilities. Mainly constructionrelated impacts will be addressed in the CEQA review. Urban Growth Area CEQA/NEPA review will be the responsibility of the UGA developers. The letter from the City of Roseville to Jim Durfee dated April 26, 2005 provides guidance for the preparation of environmental impact documents, consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 5 Bibliography
RMC Water and Environment. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) Recycled Water Satellite Facility Study, June 2004.

RMC Water and Environment. SPWA Recycled Water Market Assessment, November 2005.

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System Attachment A
Storage Analysis

Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Supply Analysis for Alternative C gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd
2,200,756 1,584,000 940,000 776,816 3,333,321 1,720,000 3,340,000 1,250,000 2,460,000 3,862,911 Hour
Effluent Flow
into Chlorine
Contact Basin
(gal)
Flow to NZ
Tank for
WOGC &
SCGC
(gal)
Roseville
Energy
Park
(gal)
Brookfield
(gal)
Curry Creek
North
(gal)
Curry Creek
South
(gal)
Regional
University
(gal)
Placer
Ranch (gal)
Creekview
(gal)
Sierra Vista
(gal)
WRSP
(gal)
Recycled
Water sent
to Creek
(gal)
Flow Leaving
Plant to be
pumped in
distribution
system (gpm)
Supply and
Demand
Check
6:00 524,393 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 0 15,825 -425,1187:00 495,114 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 0 15,825 -454,3968:00 535,354 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 0 15,825 -414,1579:00 666,840 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 0 15,825 -282,671 10:00 852,098 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 0 15,825 -97,41311:00 971,019 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 21,508 15,825 012:00 1,213,621 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 264,111 15,825 013:00 1,257,452 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 307,941 15,825 014:00 1,189,343 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 239,832 15,825 015:00 1,299,146 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 349,635 15,825 016:00 1,257,229 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 307,718 15,825 017:00 1,202,861 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 253,350 15,825 018:00 1,128,692 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 179,182 15,825 019:00 1,390,748 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 441,237 15,825 020:00 1,563,137 146,717 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 613,627 15,825 021:00 1,569,379 0 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 766,585 13,380 022:00 1,492,147 0 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 689,354 13,380 023:00 1,165,859 0 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 363,065 13,380 0 0:00 1,178,080 0 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 375,286 13,380 01:00 1,020,537 0 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 217,743 13,380 02:00 839,464 0 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 36,671 13,380 03:00 747,830 0 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 0 13,380 -54,964 4:00 635,130 0 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 0 13,380 -167,6645:00 561,868 0 66,000 39,167 32,367 138,888 71,667 139,167 52,083 102,500 160,955 0 13,380 -240,926 Totals 24,757,340 2,200,756 1,584,000 940,000 776,816 3,333,321 1,720,000 3,340,000 1,250,000 2,460,000 3,862,911 5,426,845 24-hour Recycled Water Distribution

Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Supply Analysis for Alternative C gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd
2,200,756 1,584,000 940,000 776,816 3,333,321 1,720,000 3,340,000 1,250,000 2,460,000 3,862,911 Hour
Effluent Flow
into Chlorine
Contact Basin
(gal)
Flow to NZ
Tank for
WOGC &
SCGC
(gal)
Roseville
Energy
Park
(gal)
Brookfield
(gal)
Curry Creek
North
(gal)
Curry Creek
South
(gal)
Regional
University
(gal)
Placer
Ranch (gal)
Creekview
(gal)
Sierra Vista
(gal)
WRSP
(gal)
Recycled
Water sent
to Creek
(gal)
Flow Leaving
Plant to be
pumped in
distribution
system (gpm)
Supply and
Demand
Check
6:00 524,393 146,717 66,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 311,676 3,545 07:00 495,114 146,717 66,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282,397 3,545 08:00 535,354 146,717 66,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 322,637 3,545 09:00 666,840 146,717 66,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 454,123 3,545 0 10:00 852,098 146,717 66,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 639,381 3,545 011:00 971,019 146,717 66,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 758,302 3,545 012:00 1,213,621 146,717 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 0 20,227 -177,966 13:00 1,257,452 146,717 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 0 20,958 -134,13514:00 1,189,343 146,717 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 0 19,822 -202,24415:00 1,299,146 146,717 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 0 21,652 -92,44116:00 1,257,229 146,717 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 0 20,954 -134,35817:00 1,202,861 146,717 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 0 20,048 -188,72618:00 1,128,692 146,717 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 0 18,812 -262,89519:00 1,390,748 146,717 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 0 23,179 -83920:00 1,563,137 146,717 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 171,551 23,193 021:00 1,569,379 0 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 324,509 20,748 022:00 1,492,147 0 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 247,277 20,748 023:00 1,165,859 0 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 0 19,431 -79,011 0:00 1,178,080 0 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 0 19,635 -66,7901:00 1,020,537 0 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 0 17,009 -224,3332:00 839,464 0 66,000 62,667 51,788 222,221 114,667 222,667 83,333 164,000 257,527 0 13,991 -405,4053:00 747,830 0 66,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 681,830 1,100 04:00 635,130 0 66,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 569,130 1,100 05:00 561,868 0 66,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 495,868 1,100 0 Totals 24,757,340 2,200,756 1,584,000 940,000 776,816 3,333,321 1,720,000 3,340,000 1,250,000 2,460,000 3,862,911 5,258,680 15-hour Recycled Water Distribution

Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Supply Analysis for Alternative C gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd
2,200,756 1,584,000 940,000 776,816 3,333,321 1,720,000 3,340,000 1,250,000 2,460,000 3,862,911 Hour
Effluent Flow
into Chlorine
Contact Basin
(gal)
Flow to NZ
Tank for
WOGC &
SCGC
(gal)
Roseville
Energy
Park
(gal)
Brookfield
(gal)
Curry Creek
North
(gal)
Curry Creek
South
(gal)
Regional
University
(gal)
Placer
Ranch (gal)
Creekview &
Panhandle
(gal)
Sierra Vista
(gal)
WRSP
(gal)
Recycled
Water sent
to Creek
(gal)
Flow Leaving
Plant to be
pumped in
distribution
system (gpm)
Supply and
Demand
Check
6:00 524,393 146,717 66,000 38,959 38,959 38,959 38,959 38,959 38,959 38,959 38,959 0 8,740 07:00 495,114 146,717 66,000 35,300 35,300 35,300 35,300 35,300 35,300 35,300 35,300 0 8,252 08:00 535,354 146,717 66,000 40,330 40,330 40,330 40,330 40,330 40,330 40,330 40,330 0 8,923 09:00 666,840 146,717 66,000 56,765 56,765 56,765 56,765 56,765 56,765 56,765 56,765 0 11,114 0 10:00 852,098 146,717 66,000 79,923 79,923 79,923 79,923 79,923 79,923 79,923 79,923 0 14,202 011:00 971,019 146,717 66,000 94,788 94,788 94,788 94,788 94,788 94,788 94,788 94,788 0 16,184 012:00 1,213,621 146,717 66,000 125,113 125,113 125,113 125,113 125,113 125,113 125,113 125,113 0 20,227 013:00 1,257,452 146,717 66,000 130,592 130,592 130,592 130,592 130,592 130,592 130,592 130,592 0 20,958 014:00 1,189,343 146,717 66,000 122,078 122,078 122,078 122,078 122,078 122,078 122,078 122,078 0 19,822 015:00 1,299,146 146,717 66,000 135,804 135,804 135,804 135,804 135,804 135,804 135,804 135,804 0 21,652 016:00 1,257,229 146,717 66,000 149,216 149,216 149,216 149,216 149,216 149,216 149,216 0 20,954 017:00 1,202,861 146,717 66,000 165,024 165,024 165,024 165,024 165,024 165,024 0 20,048 018:00 1,128,692 146,717 66,000 183,195 183,195 183,195 183,195 183,195 0 18,812 019:00 1,390,748 146,717 66,000 235,606 235,606 235,606 235,606 235,606 0 23,179 020:00 1,563,137 146,717 66,000 270,084 270,084 270,084 270,084 270,084 0 26,052 021:00 1,569,379 0 66,000 375,845 375,845 375,845 375,845 0 26,156 022:00 1,492,147 0 66,000 356,537 356,537 356,537 356,537 0 24,869 023:00 1,165,859 0 66,000 366,620 366,620 366,620 0 19,431 0 0:00 1,178,080 0 66,000 370,693 370,693 370,693 0 19,635 01:00 1,020,537 0 66,000 954,537 0 17,009 02:00 839,464 0 66,000 773,464 1,100 03:00 747,830 0 66,000 681,830 1,100 04:00 635,130 0 66,000 569,130 1,100 05:00 561,868 0 66,000 495,868 1,100 0 Totals 24,757,340 2,200,756 1,584,000 1,008,867 859,651 3,332,471 1,862,776 3,332,471 1,173,891 2,595,158 4,287,008 2,520,292 Equal Tank Fill

Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Supply Analysis for Alternative C gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd
2,200,756 1,584,000 940,000 776,816 3,333,321 1,720,000 3,340,000 1,250,000 2,460,000 3,862,911 Hour
Effluent Flow
into Chlorine
Contact Basin
(gal)
Flow to NZ
Tank for
WOGC &
SCGC
(gal)
Roseville
Energy
Park
(gal)
Brookfield
(gal)
Curry Creek
North
(gal)
Curry Creek
South
(gal)
Regional
University
(gal)
Placer
Ranch (gal)
Creekview &
Panhandle
(gal)
Sierra Vista
(gal)
WRSP
(gal)
Recycled
Water sent
to Creek
(gal)
Flow Leaving
Plant to be
pumped in
distribution
system (gpm)
Supply and
Demand
Check
6:00 524,393 146,717 66,000 155,838 155,838 0 8,740 07:00 495,114 146,717 66,000 141,199 141,199 0 8,252 08:00 535,354 146,717 66,000 161,318 161,318 0 8,923 09:00 666,840 146,717 66,000 227,061 227,061 0 11,114 0 10:00 852,098 146,717 66,000 319,690 319,690 0 14,202 011:00 971,019 146,717 66,000 379,151 379,151 0 16,184 012:00 1,213,621 146,717 66,000 500,452 500,452 0 20,227 013:00 1,257,452 146,717 66,000 522,367 522,367 0 20,958 014:00 1,189,343 146,717 66,000 488,313 488,313 0 19,822 015:00 1,299,146 146,717 66,000 543,215 543,215 0 21,652 016:00 1,257,229 146,717 66,000 522,256 522,256 0 20,954 017:00 1,202,861 146,717 66,000 495,072 495,072 0 20,048 018:00 1,128,692 146,717 66,000 457,988 457,988 0 18,812 019:00 1,390,748 146,717 66,000 589,015 589,015 0 23,179 020:00 1,563,137 146,717 66,000 675,210 675,210 0 26,052 021:00 1,569,379 0 66,000 751,689 751,689 0 26,156 022:00 1,492,147 0 66,000 713,074 713,074 0 24,869 023:00 1,165,859 0 66,000 1,099,859 0 19,431 0 0:00 1,178,080 0 66,000 1,112,080 0 19,635 01:00 1,020,537 0 66,000 954,537 0 17,009 02:00 839,464 0 66,000 773,464 1,100 03:00 747,830 0 66,000 681,830 1,100 04:00 635,130 0 66,000 569,130 1,100 05:00 561,868 0 66,000 495,868 1,100 0 Totals 24,757,340 2,200,756 1,584,000 1,005,107 685,416 3,682,048 1,721,661 3,450,826 1,553,783 2,473,903 3,879,549 2,520,292 Two Tank Fill

Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Supply Analysis for Alternative C Max flow 16,000 gpm gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpd gpdMax flow 960,000 gal/hr 2,200,756 1,584,000 940,000 776,816 3,333,321 1,720,000 3,340,000 1,250,000 2,460,000 3,862,911 Hour
Effluent Flow
into Chlorine
Contact Basin
(gal)
Flow to NZ
Tank for
WOGC &
SCGC
(gal)
Roseville
Energy
Park
(gal)
Brookfield
(gal)
Curry Creek
North
(gal)
Curry Creek
South
(gal)
Regional
University
(gal)
Placer
Ranch (gal)
Creekview
(gal)
Sierra Vista
(gal)
WRSP
(gal)
Recycled
Water sent
to Creek
(gal)
Flow Leaving
Plant to be
pumped in
distribution
system (gpm)
Supply and
Demand
Check
6:00 524,393 146,717 66,000 38,959 38,959 38,959 38,959 38,959 38,959 38,959 38,959 0 8,740 07:00 495,114 146,717 66,000 35,300 35,300 35,300 35,300 35,300 35,300 35,300 35,300 0 8,252 08:00 535,354 146,717 66,000 40,330 40,330 40,330 40,330 40,330 40,330 40,330 40,330 0 8,923 09:00 666,840 146,717 66,000 56,765 56,765 56,765 56,765 56,765 56,765 56,765 56,765 0 11,114 0 10:00 852,098 146,717 66,000 79,923 79,923 79,923 79,923 79,923 79,923 79,923 79,923 0 14,202 011:00 971,019 146,717 66,000 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 11,019 16,000 012:00 1,213,621 146,717 66,000 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 253,621 16,000 013:00 1,257,452 146,717 66,000 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 297,452 16,000 014:00 1,189,343 146,717 66,000 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 229,343 16,000 015:00 1,299,146 146,717 66,000 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 339,146 16,000 016:00 1,257,229 146,717 66,000 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 93,410 297,229 16,000 017:00 1,202,861 146,717 66,000 106,755 106,755 106,755 106,755 106,755 106,755 106,755 242,861 16,000 018:00 1,128,692 146,717 66,000 106,755 106,755 106,755 106,755 106,755 106,755 106,755 168,692 16,000 019:00 1,390,748 146,717 66,000 124,547 124,547 124,547 124,547 124,547 124,547 430,748 16,000 020:00 1,563,137 146,717 66,000 124,547 124,547 124,547 124,547 124,547 124,547 603,137 16,000 021:00 1,569,379 0 66,000 178,800 178,800 178,800 178,800 178,800 609,379 16,000 022:00 1,492,147 0 66,000 178,800 178,800 178,800 178,800 178,800 532,147 16,000 023:00 1,165,859 0 66,000 178,800 178,800 178,800 178,800 178,800 205,859 16,000 0 0:00 1,178,080 0 66,000 223,500 223,500 223,500 223,500 218,080 16,000 01:00 1,020,537 0 66,000 223,500 223,500 223,500 223,500 60,537 16,000 02:00 839,464 0 66,000 193,366 193,366 193,366 193,366 0 13,991 03:00 747,830 0 66,000 227,277 227,277 227,277 0 12,464 04:00 635,130 0 66,000 189,710 189,710 189,710 0 10,585 05:00 561,868 0 66,000 165,289 165,289 165,289 0 9,364 0 Totals 24,757,340 2,200,756 1,584,000 1,025,248 811,739 3,033,384 1,810,743 3,033,384 1,274,343 2,451,109 3,033,384 4,499,250 Capped Flow of 16,000 gpm

Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Supply Analysis for Alternative C gpd gpd gpd gpd
4,747,168 1,103,689 2,876,213 4,000,000
Hour
Effluent Flow
into Chlorine
Contact Basin
(gal)
RW Pumped
to North &
South Zone
(gal)
Flow in 24"
RW Line (gal)
Recycled
Water to
Cherry
Island (gal)
Recycled
Water to
Gibson
Ranch (gal)
Flow to meet
min. Fish and
Game Req.
(gal)
Excess flow in
Creek (gal)
Total Flow
Down the
Creek (gal)
Flow Leaving
Plant into
distribution
system (gal/hr)
Flow Leaving
Plant
(gal/min)
Supply and
Demand
Check
6:00 369,449 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 0 332,495 230,299 3,838 -193,3457:00 348,822 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 0 332,495 230,299 3,838 -213,9728:00 377,171 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 0 332,495 230,299 3,838 -185,6239:00 469,807 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 0 332,495 230,299 3,838 -92,987 10:00 600,326 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 37,532 370,027 230,299 3,838 011:00 684,109 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 121,315 453,811 230,299 3,838 012:00 855,029 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 292,235 624,730 230,299 3,838 013:00 885,909 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 323,115 655,610 230,299 3,838 014:00 837,924 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 275,130 607,625 230,299 3,838 015:00 915,284 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 352,490 684,985 230,299 3,838 016:00 885,752 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 322,958 655,453 230,299 3,838 017:00 847,448 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 284,654 617,149 230,299 3,838 018:00 795,194 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 232,400 564,896 230,299 3,838 019:00 979,819 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 417,026 749,521 230,299 3,838 020:00 1,101,273 32,500 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 538,479 870,974 230,299 3,838 021:00 1,105,670 209,125 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 366,251 698,746 406,924 6,782 022:00 1,051,258 209,125 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 311,839 644,335 406,924 6,782 023:00 821,379 209,125 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 81,960 414,456 406,924 6,782 0 0:00 829,989 209,125 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 90,570 423,065 406,924 6,782 01:00 718,996 209,125 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 0 332,495 406,924 6,782 -20,423 2:00 591,425 209,125 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 0 332,495 406,924 6,782 -147,9943:00 526,866 209,125 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 0 332,495 406,924 6,782 -212,5534:00 447,466 209,125 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 0 332,495 406,924 6,782 -291,9535:00 395,851 209,125 197,799 45,987 119,842 166,666 0 332,495 406,924 6,782 -343,568 Totals 17,442,217 2,369,625 4,747,168 1,103,689 2,876,213 3,999,984 4,047,954 12,027,840 24-hour Distribution

Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Supply Analysis for Alternative C gpd gpd gpd gpd
4,747,168 1,103,689 2,876,213 4,000,000
Hour
Effluent Flow
into Chlorine
Contact Basin
(gal)
RW Pumped
to North &
South Zone
(gal)
Flow in 24"
RW Line (gal)
Recycled
Water to
Cherry
Island (gal)
Recycled
Water to
Gibson
Ranch (gal)
Flow to meet
min. Fish and
Game Req.
(gal)
Excess flow in
Creek (gal)
Total Flow
Down the
Creek (gal)
Flow Leaving
Plant into
distribution
system (gal/hr)
Flow Leaving
Plant
(gal/min)
Supply and
Demand
Check
6:00 369,449 32,500 197,799 0 0 0 139,150 139,150 230,299 3,838 07:00 348,822 32,500 197,799 0 0 0 118,523 118,523 230,299 3,838 08:00 377,171 32,500 197,799 0 0 0 146,873 146,873 230,299 3,838 09:00 469,807 32,500 197,799 0 0 0 239,508 239,508 230,299 3,838 0 10:00 600,326 32,500 197,799 0 0 0 370,027 370,027 230,299 3,838 011:00 684,109 32,500 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 0 531,993 230,299 3,838 -78,183 12:00 855,029 32,500 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 92,737 624,730 230,299 3,838 013:00 885,909 32,500 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 123,617 655,610 230,299 3,838 014:00 837,924 32,500 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 75,632 607,625 230,299 3,838 015:00 915,284 32,500 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 152,992 684,985 230,299 3,838 016:00 885,752 32,500 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 123,459 655,453 230,299 3,838 017:00 847,448 32,500 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 85,156 617,149 230,299 3,838 018:00 795,194 32,500 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 32,902 564,896 230,299 3,838 019:00 979,819 32,500 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 217,527 749,521 230,299 3,838 020:00 1,101,273 32,500 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 338,981 870,974 230,299 3,838 021:00 1,105,670 209,125 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 166,753 698,746 406,924 6,782 022:00 1,051,258 209,125 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 112,341 644,335 406,924 6,782 023:00 821,379 209,125 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 0 531,993 406,924 6,782 -117,538 0:00 829,989 209,125 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 0 531,993 406,924 6,782 -108,9281:00 718,996 209,125 197,799 73,579 191,748 266,667 0 531,993 406,924 6,782 -219,9212:00 591,425 209,125 197,799 0 0 0 184,502 184,502 406,924 6,782 03:00 526,866 209,125 197,799 0 0 0 119,943 119,943 406,924 6,782 04:00 447,466 209,125 197,799 0 0 0 40,543 40,543 406,924 6,782 05:00 395,851 209,125 197,799 0 0 0 0 0 406,924 6,782 -11,073 Totals 17,442,217 2,369,625 4,747,168 1,103,689 2,876,213 4,000,000 2,881,165 10,861,067 15-hour Distribution

Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Supply Analysis for Alternative C gpd gpd gpd gpd
4,747,168 1,103,689 2,876,213 4,000,000
Hour
Effluent Flow
into Chlorine
Contact Basin
(gal)
RW Pumped
to North &
South Zone
(gal)
Flow in 24"
RW Line (gal)
Recycled
Water to
Cherry
Island (gal)
Recycled
Water to
Gibson
Ranch (gal)
Flow to meet
min. Fish and
Game Req.
(gal)
Excess flow in
Creek (gal)
Total Flow
Down the
Creek (gal)
Flow Leaving
Plant into
distribution
system (gal/hr)
Flow Leaving
Plant
(gal/min)
Supply and
Demand
Check
6:00 369,449 32,500 197,799 46,383 46,383 46,383 0 139,150 230,299 3,838 07:00 348,822 32,500 197,799 39,508 39,508 39,508 0 118,523 230,299 3,838 08:00 377,171 32,500 197,799 48,958 48,958 48,958 0 146,873 230,299 3,838 09:00 469,807 32,500 197,799 79,836 79,836 79,836 0 239,508 230,299 3,838 0 10:00 600,326 32,500 197,799 123,342 123,342 123,342 0 370,027 230,299 3,838 011:00 684,109 32,500 197,799 151,270 151,270 151,270 0 453,811 230,299 3,838 012:00 855,029 32,500 197,799 208,243 208,243 208,243 0 624,730 230,299 3,838 013:00 885,909 32,500 197,799 218,537 218,537 218,537 0 655,610 230,299 3,838 014:00 837,924 32,500 197,799 202,542 202,542 202,542 0 607,625 230,299 3,838 015:00 915,284 32,500 197,799 228,328 228,328 228,328 0 684,985 230,299 3,838 016:00 885,752 32,500 197,799 327,726 327,726 0 655,453 230,299 3,838 017:00 847,448 32,500 197,799 308,575 308,575 0 617,149 230,299 3,838 018:00 795,194 32,500 197,799 282,448 282,448 0 564,896 230,299 3,838 019:00 979,819 32,500 197,799 374,760 374,760 0 749,521 230,299 3,838 020:00 1,101,273 32,500 197,799 435,487 435,487 0 870,974 230,299 3,838 021:00 1,105,670 209,125 197,799 349,373 349,373 0 698,746 406,924 6,782 022:00 1,051,258 209,125 197,799 644,335 0 644,335 406,924 6,782 023:00 821,379 209,125 197,799 414,456 0 406,924 406,924 6,782 0 0:00 829,989 209,125 197,799 423,065 1,253,055 406,924 6,782 01:00 718,996 209,125 197,799 312,072 1,031,068 406,924 6,782 02:00 591,425 209,125 197,799 184,502 775,927 406,924 6,782 03:00 526,866 209,125 197,799 119,943 646,809 406,924 6,782 04:00 447,466 209,125 197,799 40,543 488,009 406,924 6,782 05:00 395,851 209,125 197,799 0 395,851 406,924 6,782 -11,073 Totals 17,442,217 2,369,625 4,747,168 1,346,948 3,425,317 4,484,107 1,080,125 13,839,559 Creek Distribution

Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Supply Analysis for Alternative C gpd gpd gpd gpd
4,747,168 1,103,689 2,876,213 4,000,000
7,979,902 0.14 0.36 0.50
Hour
Effluent Flow
into Chlorine
Contact Basin
(gal)
RW Pumped
to North &
South Zone
(gal)
Flow in 24"
RW Line (gal)
Recycled
Water to
Cherry
Island (gal)
Recycled
Water to
Gibson
Ranch (gal)
Flow to meet
min. Fish and
Game Req.
(gal)
Excess flow in
Creek (gal)
Total Flow
Down the
Creek (gal)
Flow Leaving
Plant into
distribution
system (gal/hr)
Flow Leaving
Plant
(gal/min)
Supply and
Demand
Check
6:00 369,449 32,500 197,799 139,150 139,150 230,299 3,838 07:00 348,822 32,500 197,799 118,523 118,523 230,299 3,838 08:00 377,171 32,500 197,799 146,873 146,873 230,299 3,838 09:00 469,807 32,500 197,799 33,126 86,326 120,056 0 239,508 230,299 3,838 0 10:00 600,326 32,500 197,799 51,178 133,370 185,480 0 370,027 230,299 3,838 011:00 684,109 32,500 197,799 62,766 163,568 227,477 0 453,811 230,299 3,838 012:00 855,029 32,500 197,799 86,406 225,173 313,152 0 624,730 230,299 3,838 013:00 885,909 32,500 197,799 90,677 236,303 328,631 0 655,610 230,299 3,838 014:00 837,924 32,500 197,799 84,040 219,008 304,578 0 607,625 230,299 3,838 015:00 915,284 32,500 197,799 94,739 246,891 343,355 0 684,985 230,299 3,838 016:00 885,752 32,500 197,799 90,655 236,246 328,552 0 655,453 230,299 3,838 017:00 847,448 32,500 197,799 85,357 222,440 309,352 0 617,149 230,299 3,838 018:00 795,194 32,500 197,799 78,130 203,607 283,159 0 564,896 230,299 3,838 019:00 979,819 32,500 197,799 103,665 270,151 375,704 0 749,521 230,299 3,838 020:00 1,101,273 32,500 197,799 120,463 313,927 436,584 0 870,974 230,299 3,838 021:00 1,105,670 209,125 197,799 96,643 251,851 350,253 0 698,746 406,924 6,782 022:00 1,051,258 209,125 197,799 644,335 644,335 406,924 6,782 023:00 821,379 209,125 197,799 414,456 414,456 406,924 6,782 0 0:00 829,989 209,125 197,799 423,065 423,065 406,924 6,782 01:00 718,996 209,125 197,799 312,072 312,072 406,924 6,782 02:00 591,425 209,125 197,799 184,502 184,502 406,924 6,782 03:00 526,866 209,125 197,799 119,943 119,943 406,924 6,782 04:00 447,466 209,125 197,799 0 0 406,924 6,782 05:00 395,851 209,125 197,799 0 0 406,924 6,782 -11,073 Totals 17,442,217 2,369,625 4,747,168 1,077,844 2,808,860 3,906,332 2,502,918 10,295,954 Proportional Flow to Creek Customers

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System Attachment B
24-inch Gravity Line Hydraulic Analysis

Hydraulic Analysis of 24" RW Pipe from DCWWTP to Placer Vineyards Recycled Water Tank 405060708090
100110120130
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
Distance from DCWWTP (ft)
Elevationabovesealevel(ft)
Invert Pipe ElevationGround Surface Elevation Water Surface Elevation at DCWWTP = 117.0 ft
MacKay&SompsProposed
LocationofRWTank
EndofExistingPipe
LocationofMorganCreek
GolfCourse
HGL - Fill Morgan Creek G.C. Pond and Placer Vineyards Tank in 24 hours Tank
LocationA
3,296 gpm 2,430 gpm
Tank at Location A can befilled faster than a tank atLocation B.

AlignmentLeavesCreek
HGL - Fill in 15 hours
Tank
LocationB

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System Attachment C
Detailed Cost Analysis

Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate for
Recycled Water System Evaluation Improvements
Alternative A
Project
No. Capital Construction Item Size Length Unit Cost1 OH Factor2 Total Amount
1 18" FM Converted for RW Use from PGWWTP 18 in. 9,700 ft n/a 1 Total 9,700 ft
2 8" FM Converted for RW Use 8 in. 8,900 ft n/a
2 Total 8,900 ft
3 30" FM Converted for RW Use South of NZPS 30 in. 19,600 ft n/a 3 Total 19,600 ft
4 Creekview Pipeline 24 in. 3,300 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 1,029,600 $ 4 Total 3,300 ft 1,030,000 $
Creekview to Curry Creek North 24 in. 4,600 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 1,435,200 $ Curry Creek North to Regional University 24 in. 2,100 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 655,200 $ Regional Univ. to Curry Creek S. & Sierra Vista 24 in. 8,100 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 2,527,200 $ 5 Total 14,800 ft 4,618,000 $
6 Placer Vineyards Pipeline 24 in. 4,900 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 1,528,800 $ 6 Total 4,900 ft 1,529,000 $
North from PGWWTP to "Tee" 30 in. 1,400 ft 240 $/LF 1.625 546,000 $ Pipeline from "Tee" to Placer Ranch PS 16 in. 5,800 ft 128 $/LF 1.625 1,206,400 $ From Placer Ranch Pipeline to 30” RW Stub 16 in. 1,500 ft 128 $/LF 1.625 312,000 $ 7 Total 8,700 ft 2,065,000 $
8 DCWWTP Pump Station Improvements (1-50 HP
pump) 1,900 gpm n/a $60,000 1.625 97,500 $
8 Total $ 98,000
9 North Zone Pump Station Improvements (1-50 HP
pump) 950 gpm n/a $35,000 1.625 56,900 $
9 Total $ 57,000
10 PGWWTP Pump Station Improvement (3-250 HP
pumps) 15,360 gpm n/a $375,000 1.625 609,400 $
10 Total $ 610,000
11 Addition of 30" Pipe at PGWWTP for Maximum
Flow Conveyance 30 in. 1,700 ft 360 $/LF 1.625 994,500 $ 11 Total 1,700 ft 995,000 $
Grand Total 71,600 ft 11,002,000 $
Notes:
1 2 An overhead markup of 62.5% was applied based on a 25% engineering and administration factor plus a 30% construction cost contingency to calculate the capital cost. Hence, for budgeting purposes, it is assumed that the contingency and project implementation multiplier is 1.625 (1.00 x 1.25 x 1.30 = 1.625) Unit costs based upon a $8/LF-in diameter for rural areas (Urban Growth Areas) and $12/LF-in diameter for urban areas (existing roadway or paving) 5 7

Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate for
Recycled Water System Evaluation Improvements
Alternative B
Project
No. Capital Construction Item Size Length Unit Cost1 OH Factor2 Total Amount
1 18" FM Converted for RW Use from PGWWTP 18 in. 9,700 ft n/a 1 Total 9,700 ft
2 8" FM Converted for RW Use 8 in. 8,900 ft n/a
2 Total 8,900 ft
3 30" FM Converted for RW Use South of NZPS 30 in. 19,600 ft n/a 3 Total 19,600 ft
4 Creekview Pipeline 24 in. 3,300 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 1,029,600 $ 4 Total 3,300 ft 1,030,000 $
Creekview to Curry Creek North 24 in. 4,600 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 1,435,200 $ Curry Creek North to Regional University 24 in. 2,100 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 655,200 $ Regional Univ. to Curry Creek S. & Sierra Vista 24 in. 8,100 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 2,527,200 $ 5 Total 14,800 ft 4,618,000 $
6 Placer Vineyards to 24" Gravity Line 24 in. 19,200 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 5,990,400 $ 6 Total 19,200 ft 5,991,000 $
North from PGWWTP to "Tee" 30 in. 1,400 ft 240 $/LF 1.625 546,000 $ Pipeline from "Tee" to Placer Ranch PS 16 in. 5,800 ft 128 $/LF 1.625 1,206,400 $ From Placer Ranch Pipeline to 30” RW Stub 16 in. 1,500 ft 128 $/LF 1.625 312,000 $ 7 Total 8,700 ft 2,065,000 $
8 DCWWTP Pump Station Improvements (1-50 HP
pump) 1,900 gpm n/a $60,000 1.625 97,500 $
8 Total $ 98,000
9 North Zone Pump Station Improvements (1-50 HP
pump) 950 gpm n/a $35,000 1.625 56,900 $
9 Total $ 57,000
10 PGWWTP Pump Station Improvement (2-250 HP
pumps) 10,240 gpm n/a $250,000 1.625 406,300 $
10 Total $ 407,000
11 Addition of 30" Pipe at PGWWTP for Maximum
Flow Conveyance 30 in. 1,700 ft 360 $/LF 1.625 994,500 $ 11 Total 1,700 ft 995,000 $
Grand Total 85,900 ft 15,261,000 $
Notes:
1 2
Unit costs based upon a $8/LF-in diameter for rural areas (Urban Growth Areas) and $12/LF-in diameter for urban areas (existing roadway or paving) An overhead markup of 62.5% was applied based on a 25% engineering and administration factor plus a 30% construction cost contingency to calculate the capital cost. Hence, for budgeting purposes, it is assumed that the contingency and project implementation multiplier is 1.625 (1.00 x 1.25 x 1.30 = 1.625) 5 7

Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate for
Recycled Water System Evaluation Improvements
Alternative C
Project
No. Capital Construction Item Size Length Unit Cost1 OH Factor2
Total
Amount
1 18" FM Converted for RW Use from PGWWTP 18 in. 9,700 ft n/a 1 Total 9,700 ft
2 8" FM Converted for RW Use 8 in. 8,900 ft n/a
2 Total 8,900 ft
3 30" FM Converted for RW Use South of NZPS 30 in. 19,600 ft n/a 3 Total 19,600 ft
4 Creekview Pipeline 24 in. 3,300 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 1,029,600 $ 4 Total 3,300 ft 1,030,000 $
Creekview to Curry Creek North 24 in. 4,600 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 1,435,200 $ Curry Creek North to Regional University 24 in. 2,100 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 655,200 $ Regional Univ. to Curry Creek S. & Sierra Vista 24 in. 2,300 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 717,600 $ 5 Total 9,000 ft 2,808,000 $
6 Placer Vineyards Pipeline 24 in. 9,100 ft 192 $/LF 1.625 2,839,200 $ 6 Total 9,100 ft 2,840,000 $
North from PGWWTP to "Tee" 30 in. 1,400 ft 240 $/LF 1.625 546,000 $ Pipeline from "Tee" to Placer Ranch PS 16 in. 5,800 ft 128 $/LF 1.625 1,206,400 $ 7 Total 7,200 ft 1,753,000 $
8 DCWWTP Pump Station Improvements (1-50 HP
pump) 1,900 gpm n/a $60,000 1.625 97,500 $
8 Total $ 98,000
9 North Zone Pump Station Improvements (1-50 HP
pump) 950 gpm n/a $35,000 1.625 56,900 $
9 Total $ 57,000
10 PGWWTP Pump Station Improvement (3-250 HP
pumps) 15,360 gpm n/a $375,000 1.625 609,400 $
10 Total $ 610,000
11 Sun City Pipeline from 18" Converted Force Main 12 in. 2,700 ft 144 $/LF 1.625 631,800 $ 11 Total 2,700 ft 632,000 $
12 Addition of 30" Pipe at PGWWTP for Maximum
Flow Conveyance 30 in. 1,700 ft 360 $/LF 1.625 994,500 $ 12 Total 1,700 ft 995,000 $
Grand Total 71,200 ft 10,823,000 $
Notes:
1 2
5 7
Unit costs based upon a $8/LF-in diameter for rural areas (Urban Growth Areas) and $12/LF-in diameter for urban areas (existing roadway or paving) An overhead markup of 62.5% was applied based on a 25% engineering and administration factor plus a 30% construction cost contingency to calculate the capital cost. Hence, for budgeting purposes, it is assumed that the contingency and project implementation multiplier is 1.625 (1.00 x 1.25 x 1.30 = 1.625)

South Placer Regional Wastewater & Recycled Water Systems Evaluation Project Alternatives Development and Evaluation for Recycled Water Distribution System Attachment D
Urban Growth Area Cost Details

Urban Growth Area Individual Recycled Water Pipeline Costs Urban Growth Areas July Peak Day Demands and Pipeline Requirements Segment Location
Length
(ft)
Diameter
(in)
Upsize
Diameter
Total
Downstream
Demand (mgd)
Placer Ranch
Demand (mgd)
Creekview &
Panhandle
Demand (mgd)
Curry Creek
North Demand
(mgd)
Regional
University
Demand (mgd)
Curry Creek
South Demand
(mgd)
Sierra Vista
Demand (mgd)
Placer
Vineyards Pipe
Demand (mgd)
1 PGWWTP to "Tee" 1,389 8 30 12.881 3.340 1.250 0.778 1.720 3.333 2.460 02 "Tee" to Creekview 3,292 8 24 9.541 0 1.250 0.778 1.720 3.333 2.460 03 Creekview to Curry Creek North 4,582 8 24 8.291 0 0 0.778 1.720 3.333 2.460 04 Curry Creek North to Regional Univ. 2,097 12 24 7.513 0 0 0 1.720 3.333 2.460 05 Regional Univ to Curry Creek South and Sierra Vista 4,708 24 n/a 5.793 0000 3.333 2.460 0 6 "Tee" to Placer Ranch 5,789 16 n/a 3.340 3.340 0000007 Placer Vineyards Pipeline 9,100 24 n/a 3.443 000000 3.500

3.340 1.250 0.778 1.720 3.333 2.460
Segment Location
Length
(ft)
Diameter
(in)
Segment
Cost
Cost to Upsize
to Necessary
Diameter
Placer Ranch
Pipe Cost
Creekview
Pipe Cost
Curry Creek
North Pipe
Cost
Regional
University Pipe
Cost
Curry Creek
South Pipe
Cost
Sierra Vista
Pipe Cost
Placer
Vineyards Pipe
Cost
Total Cost of
Pipe Segment
from UGAs
1 PGWWTP to "Tee" 1,389 8 $88,896 $244,464 $86,442 $32,351 $20,125 $44,515 $86,261 $63,667 $0 $333,3602 "Tee" to Creekview 3,292 8 $210,688 $421,376 $0 $210,688 $39,522 $87,420 $169,402 $125,031 $0 $632,0643 Creekview to Curry Creek North 4,582 8 $293,248 $586,496 $0 $0 $293,248 $134,270 $260,188 $192,038 $0 $879,7444 Curry Creek North to Regional Univ. 2,097 12 $201,312 $201,312 $0 $0 $0 $201,312 $115,825 $85,487 $0 $402,624 5 Regional Univ to Curry Creek South and Sierra Vista 4,708 16 $903,936 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $520,079 $383,857 $0 $903,936 6 "Tee" to Placer Ranch 5,789 16 $740,992 $0 $740,992 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $740,9927 Placer Vineyards Pipeline 9,100 24 $1,747,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,747,200 $1,747,200 Total 30,957 $4,186,272 $1,453,648 $827,434 $243,039 $352,895 $467,518 $1,151,755 $850,080 $1,747,200 $5,639,920 * Costs do not include contingencies
July Peak Day Recycled Water Demand in mgd
UGAs Individual Costs to Install Recycled Water Pipeline *

woodardcurran.com

Prepared by:
801 T Street
Sacramento, CA 95820
800.426.4262

City of Roseville
2025 Urban Water Management Plan

Appendix K – Regional Wastewater 2020 Systems Evaluation Report The South Placer Regional Wastewater 2020 Systems Evaluation Report can be accessed at the link below. https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Environmental%20Utili ties/SPWA/Systems%20Evaluation%20Report%20Dec2020%20Final_web.pdf

City of Roseville
2025 Urban Water Management Plan

Appendix L – 2015 USBR Record of Decision

City of Roseville
2025 Urban Water Management Plan

Appendix M – Water Shortage Contingency Plan

City of Roseville
2025 Urban Water Management Plan

Appendix N – Roseville Municipal Code 14.09

Roseville Municipal Code
Title 14 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Chapter 14.09 WATER CONSERVATION

§ 14.09.010. Short title.

This chapter may be cited as the Water Conservation and Drought Mitigation Ordinance. (Ord. 2413 § 2, 1991; Ord. 5311 § 2, 2014)
§ 14.09.020. General provisions.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure compliance with all federal, state and local requirements relating to water conservation and drought mitigation for the protection of public health, safety and welfare by:

1. Reducing the per capita water consumption throughout the City of Roseville (the "city") during years of normal precipitation and during years of drought;

2. Protecting and conserving the city's supply of water during specified times of emergency and/or crisis;

3. Minimizing and/or eliminating the waste of water through voluntary compliance or punitive action, if necessary;

4. Promoting the use of drip irrigation and other low volume irrigation methods that reduce outdoor water use by applying water more efficiently than traditional irrigation methods;

5. No person shall use, or cause to be used, any city water for landscape irrigation between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., unless the city manager, or designee provides prior written consent to a different time limitation. A waiver may be granted for turf areas if the landscape contains too many irrigation valves to complete an irrigation event within the watering window.

6. Upon city declaration of a water shortage, the city manager, or designee, may impose revised and/or additional limitations on outdoor water use, as specified in Section 14.09.040, and no person shall use, or cause to be used, city water in violation of such limitations while the water shortage remains in effect.

B. Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all customers, users and/or recipients (hereinafter "users") of the city's potable and recycled water service within the city's territorial limits.

C. Administration and Enforcement. The city manager, or designee, including, but not limited to, an enforcement officer as defined herein, shall administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this chapter. For purposes of this chapter an "enforcement officer" means any city employee or agent of the city with the authority to enforce any provision of this chapter and the authority to make any decision on behalf of the city manager required or called for by this chapter.

D. Compliance. All provisions of this chapter are subject to the compliance procedures set forth in this chapter unless otherwise expressly stated herein.

E. Notification. The city manager, or designee, shall determine the means by which the city shall notify its water users of drought stage determinations and any City of Roseville, CA
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RO4998 on 2026-03-30

(Ord. 2413 § 2, 1991; Ord. 4629 § 1, 2008; Ord. 5311 § 2, 2014; Ord. 5491 § 1, 2015) § 14.09.030. Definition of water waste.

Any of the following acts or omissions, whether willful or negligent, shall constitute the waste of water:
(Ord. 2413 § 2, 1991; Ord. 3834 § 3, 2002; Ord. 4629 § 1, 2008; Ord. 5311 § 2, 2014; Ord. 5491 § 2, 2015; Ord. 6500 § 3, 2022)
§ 14.09.040. Water conservation and drought stages.

The following water conservation and drought stages are hereby established:
applicable upgrade or downgrade of such determinations or restrictions.

Notification may be achieved through mass media, newspaper, public notice, mailings, utility billings or by any combination of such notice, or by other means as determined by the city manager, or designee.

A. Causing or permitting water to leak, discharge, flow or run to waste into any gutter, sanitary sewer, watercourse or public or private storm drain, or to any adjacent property, from any tap, hose, faucet, pipe, sprinkler, pond, pool, waterway, fountain or nozzle. In the case of irrigation, "discharge," "flow" or "run to waste" means that the earth intended to be irrigated has been saturated with water to the point that excess water flows over or through the earth to waste. In the case of washing, "discharge," "flow" or "run to waste" means that water in excess of that necessary to wash, wet or clean the dirty or dusty object, such as an automobile, sidewalk, or parking area, flows to waste.

B. Allowing water fixtures (including, but not limited to, toilets, faucets, shower heads) or heating or cooling devices to leak or run to waste.

C. Maintaining ponds, waterways, decorative basins or swimming pools without water recirculation devices.

D. Backwashing so as to discharge to waste swimming pools, decorative basins or ponds in excess of the frequency necessary to ensure the healthful condition of the water or in excess of that required by standards for professionally administered maintenance or to address structural considerations, as determined by the city manager, or designee.

E. Operation of an irrigation system that applies water to an impervious surface or that is in disrepair.

F. Use of a water hose not equipped with a control nozzle capable of completely shutting off the flow of water except when positive pressure is applied.

G. Irrigation of landscaping during rainfall or 48 hours after a measurable rain event.

A measurable rain event is the equivalent of ¼ inch of rain in an hour.

H. Overfilling of any pond, pool or fountain which results in water discharging to waste.

City of Roseville, CA
§ 14.09.020 § 14.09.040
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RO4998 on 2026-03-30

(Ord. 2413 § 2, 1991; Ord. 4629 § 1, 2008; Ord. 4724 § 3, 2009; Ord. 5311 § 2, 2014; Ord. 5491 § 3, 2015)
§ 14.09.050. Groundwater use as an alternate supply.

While the city routinely pumps relatively small volumes of groundwater during all water year types for maintenance purposes, the city may use groundwater as an alternate source of water supply to aid in meeting demands associated with dry periods, peak demands, or due to surface water supply curtailments. The city may also use groundwater as an alternate source of water supply to achieve obligations associated with the Sacramento Water Forum, American River flow standards, or when participating in groundwater banking to achieve California Water Code obligations under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act or to be consistent with other regional or statewide objectives.
(Ord. 2413 § 2, 1991; Ord. 4629 § 1, 2008; Ord. 5311 § 2, 2014; Ord. 6500 § 4, 2022) A. Basic Water Conservation Stage ("Basic Stage"). The basic stage shall exist when the city's water supply is adequate to meet all projected demands as determined by the city manager, or designee.

B. Stage One Drought. A stage one drought shall exist when the city's water supply is adequate to meet 90 percent of projected demands as determined by the city manager, or designee. An objective of a stage one drought condition is to reduce water usage up to 10 percent. Water shortage surcharges shall be implemented as set forth in Section 14.08.095.

C. Stage Two Drought. A stage two drought shall exist when the city's water supply is adequate to meet 80 percent of projected demands as determined by the city manager, or designee. An objective of a stage two drought condition is to reduce water usage up to 20 percent. Water shortage surcharges and excess water use charges shall be implemented as set forth in Section 14.08.095.

D. Stage Three Drought. A stage three drought shall exist when the city's water supply is adequate to meet 70 percent of projected demands as determined by the city manager or designee. An objective of a stage three drought condition is to reduce water usage up to 30 percent. Water shortage surcharges and excess water use charges shall be implemented as set forth in Section 14.08.095.

E. Stage Four Drought. A stage four drought shall exist when the city's water supply is adequate to meet 60 percent of projected demands as determined by the city manager or designee. An objective of a stage four drought condition is to reduce water usage up to 40 percent. Water shortage surcharges and excess water use charges shall be implemented as set forth in Section 14.08.095.

F. Stage Five Drought. A stage five drought shall exist when the city's water supply is adequate to meet 50 percent or less of projected demands as determined by the city manager, or designee. An objective of a stage five drought condition is to reduce water usage up to 50 percent. Water shortage surcharges and excess water use charges shall be implemented as set forth in Section 14.08.095.

City of Roseville, CA
§ 14.09.040 § 14.09.060
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RO4998 on 2026-03-30

§ 14.09.060. Basic stage restrictions.

During the basic water conservation stage, the following restrictions shall be in force:

Water shall be used for beneficial purposes only; all unnecessary and wasteful uses (as defined in Section 14.09.030) of water are prohibited.

A. Water shall be confined to the user's property and shall not be allowed to run off to adjoining properties, or to the roadside or to the gutter. Care shall be taken not to water past the point of saturation.

B. Free-flowing hoses for all uses are prohibited. Automatic shut-off devices shall be attached on any hose or filling apparatus in use.

C. All leaks (including irrigation systems, pipes, fixtures, pools, ponds, fountains and waterways) shall be repaired within five calendar days or less if warranted by the severity of the problem as determined in the discretion of the city manager, or designee.

D. All pools, spas, and ornamental fountains/ponds shall be equipped with a recirculation pump and shall be constructed to be leak-proof. Pool draining and refilling shall be allowed only to the extent required for health, maintenance, or structural considerations, and must otherwise comply with all applicable federal, state and local stormwater management program requirements, including, but not limited to, the urban stormwater quality management and discharge control ordinance set forth in Chapter 14.20 of Title 14 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code.

E. Landscaping.

1. All landscaping installed in the City of Roseville shall comply with the water efficient landscape requirements adopted by resolution of the city council.

2. Irrigation of new landscaping shall be allowed on any day of the week for a period of 30 days after the new landscaping is planted, unless the city manager, or designee, provides prior written consent to extend this time period based on plant type and the season when the new landscaping is planted. After the 30 days, irrigation days and run times should be decreased to settings appropriate for an established landscape.

3. Upon city declaration of a water shortage, the city manager or designee may impose revised and/or additional limitations on the irrigation of new landscaping, as specified in Sections 14.09.060 through 14.09.100, and no person shall use, or cause to be used, city water in violation of such limitations while the water shortage remains in effect. A waiver may be granted to irrigate during an establishment period for actively used turf areas and/or sports fields or as approved by the city manager or designee. Allowance shall also be made for irrigation testing and repairs.

F. All site reviews shall include an evaluation of using recycled water. Recycled water City of Roseville, CA
§ 14.09.060 § 14.09.060
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RO4998 on 2026-03-30

(Ord. 2413 § 2, 1991; Ord. 2762 § 1, 1993; Ord. 4629 § 1, 2008; Ord. 5311 § 2, 2014; Ord. 5491 § 4, 2015; Ord. 6500 § 5, 2022)
§ 14.09.070. Stage one drought restrictions.

During a stage one drought, the following restrictions may be required, as determined by the city manager and upon notification pursuant to Section 14.09.020(E):
shall be required if economically feasible.

A. All basic stage restrictions required by Sections 14.09.030 and 14.09.060 shall continue in place, except to the extent they are replaced by more restrictive conditions imposed by this section.

B. Residential users and nonresidential users shall reduce water usage up to 10 percent.

C. Residential water users shall be permitted to irrigate with city water on the following schedule, unless the city manager, or designee, provides prior written consent to a different irrigation pattern:

1. 1st day of November – last day of February: up to one day per week irrigation on Monday of each week, if needed.

2. 1st day of March – last day of April and 1st day of September – last day of October: up to two days per week irrigation on Monday and Friday of each week, if needed.

3. 1st day of May – last day of August: up to three days per week irrigation on Monday, Wednesday and Friday of each week, if needed.

D. Nonresidential water users (including, without limitation, commercial, industrial, church, cemeteries, and publicly owned users) shall be permitted to irrigate with city water on the following schedule, unless the city manager, or designee, provides prior written consent to a different irrigation pattern:

1. 1st day of November – last day of February: up to one day per week irrigation on Tuesday of each week, if needed.

2. 1st day of March – last day of April and 1st day of September – last day of October: up to two days per week irrigation on Tuesday and Thursday of each week, if needed.

3. 1st day of May – last day of August: up to three days per week irrigation on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday of each week, if needed.

E. The limitations specified in subsections C and D shall not apply to a properly functioning low volume landscape irrigation system, the irrigation on container plants, or to the irrigation of new landscaping that is subject to the provisions of Section 14.09.060(E). Low volume irrigation means the application of irrigation water at low pressure through a system of tubing or lateral lines and low-volume emitters such as point source drip and in-line drip lines or soaker hose. These systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near City of Roseville, CA
§ 14.09.060 § 14.09.070
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RO4998 on 2026-03-30

(Ord. 2413 § 2, 1991; Ord. 2636 § 1, 1992; Ord. 2817 § 1, 1994; Ord. 4629 § 1, 2008; Ord. 4724 § 3, 2009; Ord. 5311 § 2, 2014; Ord. 5491 § 5, 2015; Ord. 6500 § 6, 2022) § 14.09.080. Stage two drought restrictions.

During a stage two drought, the following restrictions may be required, as determined by the city manager and upon notification pursuant to Section 14.09.020(E):
the root zone of plants.

F. References in this section to any day of the week shall mean the period beginning at 12:00 a.m. on that day and ending 24 hours later.

G. City park sites shall, as an aggregate, reduce usage up to 10 percent.

H. Washing streets, parking lots, driveways, sidewalks or buildings, except as necessary for health or sanitary purposes or pursuant to a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency, is prohibited.

I. Water shall not be served at restaurants except by request.

J. Water shortage surcharges shall be implemented as set forth in Section 14.08.095.

A. All basic stage and stage one restrictions required by Sections 14.09.060 and

14.09.070 shall continue in place, except to the extent they are replaced by more restrictive conditions imposed by this section.

B. Residential users and nonresidential landscapes shall reduce water usage up to 20 percent.

C. City park sites shall, as an aggregate, reduce usage up to 20 percent.

D. Residential water users shall be permitted to irrigate with city water on the following schedule, unless the city manager, or designee, provides prior written consent to a different irrigation pattern:

1. 1st day of November – last day of February: up to one day per week irrigation on Monday of each week, if needed.

2. 1st day of March – last day of April and 1st day of September – last day of October: up to two days per week irrigation on Monday and Friday of each week, if needed.

3. 1st day of May – last day of August: up to three days per week irrigation on Monday, Wednesday and Friday of each week, if needed.

E. Nonresidential water users (including, without limitation, commercial, industrial, church, cemeteries, and publicly owned users) shall be permitted to irrigate with city water on the following schedule, unless the city manager, or designee, provides prior written consent to the Environmental Utilities-Water Efficiency Section for a different irrigation pattern:

1. 1st day of November – last day of February: up to one day per week irrigation City of Roseville, CA
§ 14.09.070 § 14.09.080
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RO4998 on 2026-03-30

(Ord. 2611 § 1, 1992; Ord. 4629 § 1, 2008; Ord. 4724 § 3, 2009; Ord. 5311 § 2, 2014; Ord. 5491 § 6, 2015; Ord. 6500 § 7, 2022)
§ 14.09.090. Stage three drought restrictions.

During a stage three drought, the following restrictions may be required, as determined by the city manager and upon notification pursuant to Section 14.09.020(E):
on Tuesday of each week, if needed.

2. 1st day of March – last day of April and 1st day of September – last day of October: up to two days per week irrigation on Tuesday and Thursday of each week, if needed.

3. 1st day of May – last day of August: up to three days per week irrigation on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday of each week, if needed.

F. The limitations specified in subsections D and E shall not apply to a properly functioning low volume landscape irrigation system, the irrigation on container plants, or to the irrigation of new landscaping that is subject to the provisions of Section 14.09.060(E). Low volume irrigation means the application of irrigation water at low pressure through a system of tubing or lateral lines and low-volume emitters such as point source drip and in-line drip lines or soaker hose. These systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants.

G. References in this section to any day of the week shall mean the period beginning at 12:00 a.m. on that day and ending 24 hours later.

H. Washing of vehicles or boats is prohibited except:

1. When using a hose that is equipped with a control nozzle capable of completely shutting off the flow of water except when positive action or pressure to maintain the flow of water is applied; or

2. When washed in either an automatic or manual commercial car wash that recirculates its water and uses high pressure/low volume wash systems.

3. Temporary car washes, held for fundraising purposes, are encouraged to partner with an automatic commercial car wash that recirculates its water and uses high pressure/low volume wash systems. If run independently, the participants must use a hose nozzle that completely shuts off the flow of water when not in use and must comply with all applicable federal, state and local stormwater management program requirements, including, but not limited to, the urban stormwater quality management and discharge control ordinance set forth in Chapter 14.20 of Title 14 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code.

I. Water shortage surcharges and excess water use charges shall be implemented as set forth in Section 14.08.095.

A. All basic stage, stage one, and stage two restrictions required by Sections City of Roseville, CA
§ 14.09.080 § 14.09.090
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RO4998 on 2026-03-30