2019 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATEFiles/… · PREPARED FOR: DRAFT 2019 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Section...

PREPARED FOR:

DRAFT

2019 WATER MASTERPLAN UPDATESection 1 - Supply & Demand

AUGUST 2020

PREPARED BY:

HERRIMAN CITY

SUPPLY AND DEMAND MASTER PLAN

AUGUST 2020

DRAFT

Prepared for: Prepared by:

2019 WATER MASTER PLAN

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES DRAFT

HERRIMAN CITY i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... ES-1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 BackGround ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Scope of Services .................................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 Report Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 CHAPTER 2 DEMAND PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................... 2-1 Service Area ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Rates of Growth .................................................................................................................................................................... 2-4

Residential .................................................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Non-Residential .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-8

Total ERC Projections ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-10 Short-Term Growth Distribution ................................................................................................................................ 2-10 Annual Water Demand By Landuse ........................................................................................................................... 2-13

Conservation Goal .................................................................................................................................................... 2-14 Peak Day Demand Projections ..................................................................................................................................... 2-16

Future Production Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 2-19 CHAPTER 3 WATER SUPPLY PROJECTIONS .............................................................................................. 3-1 Water Supply – Existing Sources ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 WATER SUPPLY – Future SOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 3-4 Water Supply – Recommended Source Development ........................................................................................ 3-11 CHAPTER 4 WATER SUPPLY VARIATION – NOW AND IN THE FUTURE .......................................... 4-1 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Canals ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 JVWCD ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Climate Change ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 CHAPTER 5 WATER SUPPLY RISK AND PLANNING ................................................................................ 5-1 Risk to Annual Water Supply .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1

Minor Source Loss Scenario .................................................................................................................................. 5-1 Catastrophic Source Loss Scenario ..................................................................................................................... 5-2

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 6-1



HERRIMAN CITY ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Page No.

2-1 Herriman City Projected Development Density ...................................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Secondary Water Percent System Coverage in 2065 ............................................................................ 2-5 2-3 Herriman City Residential Population Projection .................................................................................. 2-7 2-4 Projected Areas of Growth Within 10-Years .......................................................................................... 2-11 2-5 Annual Demand Projection and Conservation Effects ........................................................................ 2-15 2-6 Peak Day Demand Projection and Conservation Effects ................................................................... 2-18 3-1 Total Annual Demand & Supply Requirements....................................................................................... 3-5 3-2 Annual Culinary Demand & Supply Requirements ................................................................................ 3-6 3-3 Annual Secondary Demand & Supply Requirements ............................................................................ 3-7 3-4 Peak Day Culinary Demand & Supply Requirements ........................................................................... 3-9 3-5 Peak Day Secondary Demand & Supply Requirements ..................................................................... 3-10

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page No.

2-1 Herriman City Zoning Types ........................................................................................................................... 2-3 2-2 Limits of Secondary Service for Residential Land Use Types ............................................................ 2-4 2-3 Herriman City Residential Population Projection .................................................................................. 2-6 2-4 Herriman City Non-Residential Buildout Equivalent Residential Connections ......................... 2-9 2-5 Equivalent Non-Residential Population Projection ............................................................................... 2-9 2-6 Total ERC Projection ......................................................................................................................................... 2-10 2-7 10-Year Population Growth and Non-Residential Growth ............................................................... 2-12 2-8 Annual Indoor / Outdoor Production by Land Use ............................................................................. 2-13 2-9 Conservation Goal with Milestones Through 2065 ............................................................................. 2-14 2-10 Indoor and Outdoor Annual Production Requirements by Culinary Service Area................. 2-16 2-11 Peak Day Factors and Build-Out Demand for Culinary and Secondary Water ......................... 2-17 2-12 Historic and Projected Production Requirement ................................................................................. 2-19 3-1 Existing JVWCD Connections to Herriman City ....................................................................................... 3-1 3-2 Welby Jacob Canal Share Summary ............................................................................................................. 3-2 3-3 Source Capacity Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3-3 3-4 Future Annual Supply Requirements .......................................................................................................... 3-8 3-5 Future Peak Day Supply Requirements .................................................................................................... 3-11 3-6 Required Capacity of JVWCD Connections to Herriman City .......................................................... 3-11



HERRIMAN CITY ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

[To be developed after initial review]



HERRIMAN CITY 1-1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Herriman City desires to develop an updated master plan for its water system. This is the first in a set of two reports that will comprise the planning documents for the City’s water system. The expected reports will be:

• Supply and Demand Master Plan – An examination of water demands expected in the City and the existing and future supplies available to meet these demands.

• Conveyance and Storage Master Plan – An evaluation of the City’s existing conveyance and distribution system and its ability to deliver water when and where it is needed including long-term capital improvements needed to meet future demands.

BACKGROUND

The focus of this report is supply and demand. The primary previous master planning document addressing supply and demand is:

• 2012 Water System Master Plan Update (December 2012). Bowen Collins & Associates

Since the completion of the previous study, a number of changes have occurred. Changes that need to be evaluated and addressed for the City to meet its future water supply commitments include:

• Land Use Changes – Since the preparation of the last master plan, several changes to land use planning will affect long term projections of growth within the City:

o Herriman Hills Open Space Initiative– Through the joint efforts of the Utah National Guard, a local citizen group, and City leadership, Herriman City adopted a plan to purchase private property for the Herriman Hills area to provide additional buffer to the Camp Williams training facility and to maintain the open space quality of the mountains above Herriman City. Up to 75 percent of funds for this initiative are provided through the Army Compatible Use Buffer program with 25 percent provided by the City. This initiative significantly reduces the potential for residential growth and associated water demands in some of the hills above Herriman City while preserving the area for open space.

o Annexations – While the long-term annexation plan for the City has not changed significantly since the last water master plan update, there have been several annexations into the City since the last plan.

o General Plan Amendments – There have been several general plan amendments since the last water master plan update was completed that have affected the long-term projections for Growth in Herriman.

o Future Amendments – No change to the City’s general plan densities have been proposed as part of this master plan relative to the City’s planned annexation areas. It is assumed future annexation areas will develop as identified in the City’s general plan of land use.

• Conservation – The State of Utah recently adopted new conservation goals, customized to various regions throughout the state. This master plan updates projected demands based on these new goals.



HERRIMAN CITY 1-2

• Drought – Recent years of drought have emphasized the importance of planning for drought scenarios. Multiyear droughts affect water supplies most critically and several extended periods of drought have been observed since the completion of previous studies. Consideration of these more frequent drought periods may change how the City plans for drought in the future.

• Climate Change – Climate change has the potential to affect both demand (e.g. irrigation season becomes longer, and evapotranspiration increases with higher temperatures) and supply (e.g. less precipitation in the form of snow affects how water is available in the system). To be prepared for these impacts, the City needs to consider the potential effects of climate change in its demand and supply planning.

To consider these and other issues relative to the City’s future water supply commitments, the City has retained Bowen, Collins & Associates (BC&A) to evaluate demand and supply needs within the City.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

The scope of the work documented in this report includes three major tasks:

Task 1 – Water Demand Projections

This report will use a combination of City developed projections and Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) projections to project future residential and employment populations in the Herriman City service area thru 2060. Buildout projections will primarily be based on the City’s most recent general plan of land use. The rate of growth of the residential population will be based on City estimates of population growth due to the lack of accuracy from other planning agencies for the City. The rate of growth for non-residential populations will be based on WFRC projections of employment. There are some specific issues that will be considered as part of the demand analysis:

• Annual demands will be converted to peak day demands based on existing peaking ratios and the expected changes in the future resulting from conservation efforts.

• Conservation goals and their impact on projected demands will be considered.

• The impact to demand from drought and climate change will be estimated.

Task 2 – Evaluated Available Water Supply

The report will examine all identified potential water sources for Herriman including wholesale water provided by the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, groundwater, springs, and canal sources. This will include consideration of how the supplies will be impacted in drought scenarios and climate change.

Task 3 - Evaluate the adequacy of the projected supply of the City to meet projected demands

With updated system demands and an understanding of available supply, we will evaluate the adequacy of existing supplies and master plan future supply development as follows:

• The adequacy of City sources to meet projected demands on an annual volumetric basis will be evaluated.

• The adequacy of City sources to meet projected peak demands will also be evaluated.

• Both types of evaluations will consider the effects of conservation and will factor in the City’s plans for source development.



HERRIMAN CITY 1-3

Subsequent chapters of this report document the execution of these tasks along with the corresponding results.

REPORT ASSUMPTIONS

As a long-term planning document, this report is based on a number of assumptions. Of special significance to the City assumptions relative to:

• future growth patterns,

• service area expansion,

• source availability,

• assumed conservation, and

• development densities, especially in annexation areas.

If any variables are significantly different than what has been assumed, the results of this report will need to be adjusted accordingly. Because of these uncertainties, this report and the associated recommendations should be updated every five to ten years or sooner if significant changes occur such as annexation or changes in development patterns.



HERRIMAN CITY 2-1

CHAPTER 2

DEMAND PROJECTIONS

There are several methods that can be used to estimate future water demand. This study developed demand projections using equivalent residential connections (ERCs). The methodology of this approach can be summarized as follows:

1. Define the service area

2. Project residential populations and non-residential growth for the service area based on existing and projected patterns of development

3. Project equivalent residential connections for the service area based on projected growth of residential population and non-residential growth

4. Estimate the contribution of equivalent residential connections based on a statistical analysis of existing levels of development and historic water use. Include a breakdown of indoor and outdoor use

5. Convert projections of equivalent residential connections and land use to water demands based on their historic contributions

6. Adjust projected demands as necessary to account for conservation trends and goals.

Each step of this process is summarized in the sections below.

SERVICE AREA

The Herriman City water system service area is shown in Figure 2-1. For the most part, the system serves all development within the incorporated area of Herriman City. Herriman City also serves some of the demands of the High Country Estate subdivisions (Phases I and II which are not part of Herriman City) as a wholesale supply to the subdivisions. Included in Figure 2-1 is the approximate density in Herriman City of indoor equivalent residential connections (ERCs) per acre based on the City’s general plan. The general plan includes a currently undeveloped and unannexed area on the northwest boundary of the City.

Table 2-1 lists the general plan land use types for the area shown in Figure 2-1. Included in the table are the residential and non-residential development densities planned for each land use type.

0 2,000 4,000Feet

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 2-1 - Herriman City Densities3.mxd AMcKinnon 7/30/2020

2-1

WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN

HERRIMAN CITY PROJECTEDDEVELOPMENT DENSITY

HERRIMAN CITY

NORT

H

Herriman Town Center

Proposed Salt Lake Community College Campus

High Country Estates II

High Country Estates I

11800 S

12600 S

13400 S

13100 South

14200 S

4000

W

5600

W

6000

W

6400

W

7300

W

FIGURE NO.

LegendHillside OverlayHerriman ParcelsExisting Corporate BoundaryFuture Annexation Area

Proposed DensityEquivalent Residential Connection / Acre

0.0 - 0.3

0.4 - 2.0

2.1 - 4.0

4.1 - 8.0

8.1 - 12.0

12.1 - 22.0

High Country Estates

*Equivalent residential connections shown in this figure based on indoor water use equivalency

SCALE:NORTH:



HERRIMAN CITY 2-3

Table 2-1

Herriman City Zoning Types

Herriman City and Annexation Area Acres

Average Planning

Density of Residential

Units1

Buildout Residential population2

Non-residential

Average Density of Equivalent Residential

Units3

Agricultural Residential (1.8 - 3.0 du/acre) 1,124 2.40 10,545 0

Commercial 1,024 3.44

High Density Residential (8 to 20 du/acre) 221 14.00 12,071

Hillside/Rural Residential (0.5 to 1.7 du/acre) 325 1.10 1,396

Light Industrial Park/ Business Park 836 3.44

Light Industrial/Business Park 333 3.44

Low Density Residential (1.8 to 2.5 du/acre) 2,513 2.15 21,126

Medium Density Residential (4.6 to 8 du/acre) 1,095 6.30 26,984

Military Operation (Camp Williams) 308

Mixed Use (maximum 15 du/acre) 86 7.50 2,513 4.58

Mixed Use (Towne Center) 317 5.50 6,808 6.58

Open Space 3,761 0.00

Parks & Recreation 598 0.00

Public/Institutional/Schools 418 15.20

Salt Lake Community College Campus 87 20.28

Quasi-Public/Utilities 332 3.44

Resort/Recreational (maximum 0.4 du/acre) 154 0.20 121

Rural Residential (1 unit per 5 acres) 4,469 0.20 3,495

Single Family Residential (2.6 to 4.5 du/acre) 2,218 3.55 30,786

Total: 20,218 115,844

1 Herriman City planning personnel estimate this will be the average density for this type of land use at buildout. 2 Based on U.S. Census Household Size estimate of 3.91 persons/household for 2013 – 2017. 3 Estimated non-residential density based on historical indoor water use for similar land use or from planning information

available for the area.

Secondary Water Service Area

Herriman City currently operates a secondary water system that is used to irrigate some portions of the City. The long-term plan for the City includes development of a secondary water system capable of serving areas below an elevation of approximately 5,270 ft as indicated by the “Secondary Upper Boundary” as shown in Figure 2-1. As undeveloped parts of the City develop below this contour, developers are required to install secondary water pipelines to provide irrigation water for new connections. Exceptions for secondary water pipeline installation include the City’s higher density residential zoning types (medium density, high-density and “single family” residential zoning types). As a result, it is expected that secondary water coverage for these zoning types will be less than 100 percent. Secondary service for these specific zoning types has been assumed to be as listed in Table 2-2.



HERRIMAN CITY 2-4

Table 2-2

Limits of Secondary Service for Residential Land Use Types

Land Use Type*

Percentage Irrigated by Secondary

High Density Residential (8 to 20 du/acre) 75%

Medium Density Residential (4.6 to 8 du/acre) 50%

Single Family Residential (2.6 to 4.5 du/acre) 50% The City also has a number of existing residents without secondary service. While the goal is to eventually serve these existing residents, the City has limited plans to extend secondary water pipes in existing areas of the City due to the relatively high cost of constructing through existing roads. While the plan for the City will be to extend secondary water lines to all connections at buildout, for 2065 planning purposes, the City will primarily plan on extending secondary water for areas of new development or connecting existing pipes already within the City. Figure 2-2 shows the pressure zones within the City subdivided by major roads or other geographic boundaries and the estimated percent of area that will have secondary water available by 2065. Most areas within Pressure Zone 1 to 4 have some existing secondary pipes installed already. Areas that have few existing facilities within the City include Zone 2W and 3W. As the City phases construction of its secondary system, the priority will be to connect existing pipes to the system and to serve areas of new growth where construction of secondary pipelines is least costly for the City.

RATES OF GROWTH

Residential

Herriman City has been one of the fastest growing communities in the State of Utah, and growth within the City has consistently been higher than predicted by the State of Utah Governor’s Office of Management and Budget (GOMB) or the WFRC planning values. As a result, the City has prepared its own projections of population based on recent growth rates and as a function of the City’s buildout planning population. Figure 2-3 and Table 2-3 summarize the projected growth of the City’s residential population through 2060.

FIGURE NO.

SCALE:NORTH:A

#### ### ##

####

####

##### ### #### ## ## ##### ## ### ## ### ##### ### ### ## #

## ## ## ## ##

##

## ## ### ## ## ### ### ###

### # ### ### ### ## ## ## ## # ## #### # ## # # ### ### ### #### #### ## ## ## #### ## ## # #### ## ### ### #### ### ### # ## ## ### # ## ## ###### ## ## # ## #### ### ## ###### ##### # #### #####

# ##

#### ### # ## ##

## # ####

##

#########

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

###

##

##

##

##

#

#

##

#

##

##

##

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

##

###

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

## ## ## # ## # ### ## ########

##### ###### ### ###### ## # ## ####

### # #

###

##

# ### ##

##

##

##

## ## ## ### #####

# ### # ### ### ### ### ##### #

#

# # #### ##

## #

####

##

##

#

#

#

##

#

##

###

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

##

##

##

####

###

##

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

##

###

#

#

##

##

##

####

##

####

###

#

###

#

#

##

##

#

##

##

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

###

#

##

##

#

## #### ### #

## #

# ## #### #

##

# #### # #### # # ## ## # ### # ## ### # ## #

# ## ### # ### ## ## #### ## # ## ## ### ### # # ### # # # ###

####### # ### ## ### ### ## #### ## ## # # ### ### ##

# # # ### ## # #### # ## ## ### ## # ### ## ## ### ## #### # #### ## ## # # ## # #### ## ### ## ##

## # # ## # ## # ### ### ### # # ### ## ####

##### ## # ###

### ##

# #########

### #

##

######

##

## # ## ## ## ##

### # ###

## ## ## ## ## ###

### ## ## ## # ##

## ## ###

## # # ### # ####

#

# ## ####

# ## ### # #### ##### ### # ### #### ## # ### ## #

###

####

####

####

########

#

###

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

###

###

##

##

#

###

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#####

###

#

## ## ##### # ## ### # ## ### # ## ## ## # ## ### ### ##

# ##### #

#

#####

###

#

####

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#########

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#####

#####

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

####

####

#########

##

### #### ## ## ## ## ## ### ### ## # ### # ## ### ## ### ##

####

## ## ##

# ## # ##

## ## ## # #####

##

## # ##

# #####

## ###

####

## ##

# ### ##

# ### # #

# ##

### ## # #

# # ## #

## ## ## # #### ## ## ## ###

## #### # ##

# # ## # ## ### #

##

### #

# ## ## ####

### ###

## #

####

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

##

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

###

##

##

#

#

#

##

"M

"M

"MBlackridge

4000W

Riverton

Blackridge PS

High Country0%

Zone 2 N60%Zone 3 N

100%

Undeveloped W0% Zone 3 E

100%

Zone 1 E100%

Zone 2 C50%

Zone 4 N100%

Zone 4 W70%

Zone 1 SE100%Undeveloped E

0%

Zone 4 C60%

Zone 3 C60%

Zone 1 N30%

Zone 5 N0%

Zone 2 E100%

Zone 2 W20%Zone 5 C

50%

Zone 5 W0%

Zone 3 W20%

Zone 5 S0%

Zone 5 SE0%

Zone 2 SE100%

Zone 4 SE100%

Zone 4 E100%

Zone 6 N0%

Zone 8 W0%

Zone 7 W0%

Zone 6 W0%

Zone 4W_bf100%

Undeveloped SE0%

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 2-2 Secondary Coverage.mxd AMcKinnon 7/30/2020

0 2,000 4,000Feet

NORT

H

WATER MASTER PLAN

SECONDARY WATERPERCENT SYSTEM COVERAGE

IN 2065HERRIMAN CITY

2-2

LegendPressure Zone DivisionsPercent Secondary Coverage

0%-1%2%-25%26%-50%51%-75%76%-100%Secondary ReservoirWelby Jacob Canal

Existing Secondary Pipe4-inch6-inch8-inch12-inch16-inch18-inch20-inch24-inch30-inch

# Secondary AccountExisting Corporate BoundaryFuture Annexation Area

"M Booster Pumps



HERRIMAN CITY 2-6

Table 2-3

Herriman City Residential Population Projection

Year

Residential Population Projection

2010 21,785

2018 51,681

2019 58,287

2020 62,010

2025 79,568

2029 91,047

2030 93,465

2035 102,904

2040 108,668

2045 111,961

2050 113,772

2055 114,746

2060 115,265

A few of the assumptions used to develop these projections are described below.

• Household Size – The most recent US Census (2017) estimate of household size for Herriman City includes 3.91 persons per household. While City planning personnel recognize there is potential for change in household size over time, this household size has been used as a planning estimate for the future.

• Land Use Densities – Herriman City land use types include a range of densities allowed for development. Planning personnel have assumed that densities of future growth will be approximately an average of the range of densities allowed.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 2-7

Figure 2-3 Herriman City Residential Population Projection

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Her

rim

an C

ity

Res

iden

tial

Po

pu

lati

on

Herriman 2019 Planning Projection - Logistics Growth = 99.5% of Buildout @ 2060

US Census Estimates

Buildout Residential Population

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 2-8

• Existing Population – The last census of Herriman City’s population was in 2010. To estimate the City’s existing population, the City has used building permits of residential housing unit growth. Due to the relatively fast growth rate in Herriman, the estimate of population is based on a July 1 estimate to approximate the average population over the year and to be consistent with the timing of Census estimates.

• 2019 Population Estimate – The 2019 population estimate (for July 1) is based on using a growth rate equal to the average of the last four years (12.8 percent growth).

• 2020 to 2060 Growth – The City has assumed it will reach 99.5 percent of its buildout growth planning value by the year 2060. It is assumed that the City’s growth rate will decline gradually as it approaches buildout such that growth will follow a logistic growth curve. A technical memorandum describing growth in the City in more detail is included in Appendix A.

• 2060 to 2065 Growth – The City’s conservation goal requires projecting growth through 2065. The equation used for growth through 2060 was also used through 2065.

Non-Residential

Thus far, growth projections have only addressed residential growth. However, non-residential development will also place significant demands on City utilities and must be accounted for. Non-residential growth can sometimes be difficult to quantify because demands associated with non-residential development will vary depending on the type of development. Non-residential growth affects both indoor and outdoor demands differently depending on the type of development. For indoor demands, non-residential growth projections were developed using the following guidelines:

• Existing Non-Residential Development – Based on indoor water use records, existing non-residential development used the same amount of water as approximately 1,336 equivalent residential units (ERCs). This was based on the recommended planning value for per capita indoor water use of 54.2 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and a household size of 3.91. This is equivalent to a residential population of 5,225.

• Non-Residential Development at Buildout – Projected non-residential development at buildout based on land use is summarized in Table 2-4. Non-residential development expressed in terms of both equivalent residential units (ERCs) and equivalent residential population. Total non-residential development projected at buildout is 18,020 ERCs, or an equivalent population of 70,460.

• Projected Non-Residential Growth – Using similar assumptions to those identified previously for residential growth (e.g. logistic growth curve, buildout as calculated in Table 2-4, etc.), non-residential growth has been projected for the City and is summarized in Table 2-5.

As can be seen in the last column, the percentage of non-residential contributions to the City’s overall water demand is expected to increase significantly through the year 2065. This is not unexpected as the City is still young and currently heavy on residential development. As the City matures, a greater portion of commercial, institutional, and industrial development is expected. Addition of an expected college campus in the City will also add significantly to the portion of water used by non-residential development.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 2-9

Table 2-4

Herriman City Non-Residential Buildout Equivalent Residential Connections

Herriman City and Annexation Area Acres

Average Density of

ERCs Number of

ERCs

Equivalent Residential population

Commercial 1,024 3.44 3,523 13,773

Light Industrial/Business Park 1,169 3.44 4,022 15,727

Military Operation (Camp Williams) 308 0.19 59 229

Mixed Use (maximum 15 du/acre) 86 4.58 394 1,540

Mixed Use (Towne Center) 317 6.58 2,086 8,156

Open Space 3,761 0 0 0

Parks & Recreation 598 0 0 0

Public/Institutional/Schools 418 12.44 5,200 20,332

College Campus 87 18.43 1,603 6,269

Quasi-Public/Utilities 332 3.44 1,142 4,466

Residential Land Uses (not including mixed use)

12,118 0 0 0

Total: 20,218 18,020 70,491

Table 2-5

Equivalent Non-Residential Population Projection

Year

Residential Population Projection

Equivalent Non-

Residential Population

Residential + Equivalent Residential Population

Percentage of Non-

Residential

2010 21,785 2,202 23,987 9.2%

2018 51,681 5,225 56,906 9.2%

2019 58,287 6,522 64,808 10.1%

2020 62,010 7,607 69,618 10.9%

2025 79,568 14,054 93,622 15.0%

2029 91,047 20,011 111,059 18.0%

2030 93,465 21,551 115,016 18.7%

2035 102,904 29,280 132,184 22.2%

2040 108,668 36,782 145,450 25.3%

2045 111,961 43,937 155,898 28.2%

2050 113,772 50,786 164,558 30.9%

2055 114,746 57,411 172,158 33.3%

2060 115,265 63,889 179,154 35.7%

2065 115,539 70,275 185,814 37.8%

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 2-10

TOTAL ERC PROJECTIONS

For the purpose of water demand modeling, it is also convenient to covert these growth projections into ERCs as summarized in Table 2-6.

Table 2-6

Total ERC Projection

Year Residential ERCs

Non-Residential

ERCs Total ERCs

2010 5,572 563 6,135

2018 13,218 1,336 14,554

2019 14,907 1,668 16,575

2020 15,859 1,946 17,805

2025 20,350 3,594 23,944

2029 23,286 5,118 28,404

2030 23,904 5,512 29,416

2035 26,318 7,488 33,807

2040 27,792 9,407 37,199

2045 28,635 11,237 39,872

2050 29,098 12,989 42,086

2055 29,347 14,683 44,030

2060 29,480 16,340 45,820

2065 29,550 17,973 47,523

Buildout 29,668 18,020 47,688

SHORT-TERM GROWTH DISTRIBUTION

In addition to projecting overall growth in the City, planning efforts for City infrastructure must also consider where this growth will occur. Based on information provided by developers and the availability of developable lands, the City’s planning department has identified where it anticipates growth will occur within existing City limits over the next 10-years. Figure 2-4 shows the general location and timing of future growth while Table 2-7 summarizes the amount of growth possible within the areas identified based on the land use type.

FIGURE NO.

SCALE:NORTH:

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 2-4 - 10-year Growth.mxd AMcKinnon 1/15/2020

0 2,000 4,000Feet

NORT

H

PROJECTIONS OF GROWTH

PROJECTED AREAS OF GROWTHWITHIN 10-YEARS

HERRIMAN CITY

2-4

LegendFuture Annexation AreaExisting City Area

10-Year Growth AreasYear

20192020202120222023202420252026 - 2029

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 2-12

Table 2-7

10-Year Population Growth and Non-Residential Growth

(New Development Inside Existing City Limits)

Land Use Description Area

(acres) Residential

ERCs Residential Population

Equivalent Non-

Residential Connections

Equivalent Non-

Residential Population

Open Space 420 0 0 0 0

Medium Density Residential 323 2,035 7,958 0 0

Commercial 402 0 1,384 5,413

Single Family Residential 468 1,660 6,490 0 0

Agricultural Residential 274 658 2,574 0 0

Parks & Recreation 92 0 0 0 0

Public College Campus 20 0 400 6,260

Mixed Use 55 343 1,340 321 1,255

High Density Residential 72 1,003 3,923 0 0

Low Density Residential 412 885 3,462 0 0

Hillside/Rural Residential 125 137 538 0 0 Military Operation (Camp Williams) 9 0 59 233

Public/Institutional/Schools 65 0 985 3,851

Light Industrial/ Business Park 87 299 1,169

Total 2,824 6,722 26,284 3,449 18,180 Based on the areas of expected growth in the next 10 years identified by the City, a few observations about 10-year growth are identified below:

• Growth Rate Projection – The City’s projected growth rate would predict future development of 28,404 ERCs by the year 2029. This is an expected increase in ERCs from 2019 to 2029 of 11,829.

• 10-Year Areas of Growth – The development identified by the City to grow within the next 10-years includes an increase of only 10,171 ERCs (6,722 residential ERCs and 3,449 non-residential ERCSs). This would result in 2019 total development of 26,746. This is 1,658 ERCs short of the 2029 total population projection.

• Additional Growth Distribution – It is expected that the remaining projected growth of 1,658 ERCs will occur as infill in other parts of the City or as part of annexation of additional properties into the City within the next 10-years. The ratio of infill to annexation is difficult to predict but has been assumed to be 20 percent infill (332 ERCs) and 80 percent annexation (1,326 ERCs)1. Growth associated with annexation would likely be distributed close to the City’s current corporate boundary in the future annexation area identified in Figure 2-3.

1 A high level assessment of remaining units available for infill estimates that infill could account for between 20 and 50 percent of the remaining growth. To be conservative, this study recommends using the low end of this estimate (and correspondingly, the high end estimate of annexation) to make sure the City is adequately prepared for potential annexation.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 2-13

ANNUAL WATER DEMAND BY LANDUSE

In addition to helping define the number of residents and nonresidents in the City, the City’s general plan of land use is also critical in defining the amount of indoor and outdoor water demand under buildout conditions. Table 2-8 shows the estimated indoor and outdoor demand requirements by land use at buildout. Indoor production is related to both residential and nonresidential populations within the City while outdoor production is more related to the type of land use and irrigation needs.

Table 2-8

Annual Indoor / Outdoor Water Production Requirement by Land Use Type

Zone Type

Indoor Production

Requirement (acre-ft/year

per Gross Acre) 1

Outdoor Production


per Gross Acre) 1

Total Production


per Gross Acre) 1

Agricultural Residential (1.8 - 3.0 du/acre) 0.6 1.81 2.41

Commercial 1.04 0.61 1.65

High Density Residential (8 to 20 du/acre) 4.03 1.43 5.46

Hillside/Rural Residential (0.5 to 1.7 du/acre)

0.34 1.23 1.57

Light Industrial/Business Park 0.86 0.61 1.47

Low Density Residential (1.8 to 2.5 du/acre) 0.5 1.95 2.45

Medium Density Residential (4.6 to 8 du/acre)

1.53 1.45 2.98

Military Operation (Camp Williams) 0 0 0

Mixed Use (maximum 15 du/acre) 3.02 1.43 4.45

Mixed Use (Towne Center) 3.02 1.43 4.45

Open Space 0 0 0

Parks & Recreation 0 2.76 2.76

Public/Institutional/Schools 3.11 1.54 4.645

Salt Lake Community College 5.07 1.3 6.37

Quasi-Public/Utilities 0.86 1.43 2.29

Resort/Recreational (maximum 0.4 du/acre)

0.08 1.43 1.51

Rural Residential (High Country Estates) 0.08 0.0534 0.1334

Single Family Residential (2.6 to 4.5 du/acre)

0.86 1.81 2.67

UDOT 0 0 0

1 Production requirements are based on 2010 rates of water use. Conservation effects will reduce water production requirements per acre through buildout.

The primary source of data for the most common zoning types was Herriman City meter data. Using water sales data from the City, BC&A examined historic water use in areas where full development at a given zoning type has already occurred. It has been assumed that historic water use in these fully developed areas will be a good estimate of future use in similarly zoned areas (without conservation). For zoning types where there was insufficient water use data to calculate a meaningful number, BC&A estimated water use based on the planning density allowed in the general plan, or based on similar

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 2-14

zoning types in Herriman City, descriptions of proposed development, and/or estimates for similar zoning types calculated for other communities in Salt Lake County. It should be noted the estimates for all zoning types are based on the total water production requirement and include an adjustment to water sales data to account for system loss.

Conservation Goal

The production rates listed in Table 2-8 are based on 2010 or earlier historical water use data. However, Herriman City plans on reducing water use on a per capita and area basis based on new regional conservation goals developed by the State of Utah. It should be noted that the new goal for the Salt Lake Region will use 2015 as the baseline year for calculating water demand and conservation savings. For Herriman City, unfortunately, 2015 will not represent the most useful year to begin as a baseline for conservation. Because the City was still in the process of phasing in use of its secondary water system, data irregularities due to the secondary water system make reported water usage in this year less accurate and useful. Data from the year 2010 is considered more reliable because the City had not yet begun using secondary water. Herriman City will match the conservation goal for the Salt Region but use a 2010 baseline for conservation goals with an added 5 percent conservation from 2010 to 2015 assuming 1 percent conservation per year for that period. Draft Regional Conservation Goals

Based on data collected regarding conservation potential throughout the State, the Draft Regional Conservation Goals identified for the Salt Lake Region recommend reducing year 2015 per capita water use by 11 percent by the year 2030. As stated above, Herriman City will be using year 2010 as a baseline for conservation goals with a slightly higher goal to account for the earlier reference year. Required reductions to meet this new goal are also summarized in Table 2-9.

Table 2-9

Conservation Goal with Milestones Through 2065

Year Percent

Conservation

New Salt Lake Region Draft Goal Milestones

Reduction (gpcd)

2010 0% 192.8

2015 5.0% 183.2

2018 7.6% 178.1

2020 9.0% 175.4

2025 12.5% 168.7

2030 15.3% 162.0

2065 24.0% 146.5

Based on the land use and population projections, annual water demands through 2065 were projected with conservation effects as shown in Figure 2-5.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 2-15

Figure 2-5 Annual Demand Projection and Conservation Effects

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

An

nu

al D

eman

d (

acre

-ft)

Year

2010 Baseline w/o ConservationAnnual Demand w/ State of Utah Conservation Goals (acre-ft)State of Utah Culinary Report (acre-ft)Total Water Production (acre-ft)Landuse Based Buildout Projection w/ 24% 2010 Baseline Conservation (acre-ft)

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 2-16

Using the total developable area of each zoning type summarized in Table 2-4, the projected water use by zoning type summarized in Table 2-8, and approximate estimates of how much secondary water will be used for various land use types, it is possible to estimate water use for each area of the City at buildout. Table 2-10 summarizes indoor and outdoor water production requirements generally by the secondary service area boundary. This table assumes that the City will be fully successful in meeting the conservation goals. With conservation, demand could exceed 30,000 acre-ft.

Table 2-10

Indoor and Outdoor Annual Production Requirements by Culinary Service Area

Pressure Zone Summary

Indoor Production

Requirement (acre-

ft/year)

Culinary Outdoor

Production Requirement

(acre-ft/year)

Secondary Outdoor

Production Requirement

(acre-ft)

Total Production

Requirement (acre-ft)

Pressure Zones 1 – 4 (Below 5,270 ft) 8,201 1,998 10,095 20,295

All other pressure zones 1,061 1,946 0 3,006

Total 9,262 3,944 10,095 23,301

Culinary Water System Production Requirement1 13,206

Secondary Water System Production Requirement2 10,095

1 Indoor production for areas within secondary Service Area + Indoor and Outdoor production for areas above secondary service area.

2 Outdoor production for areas within secondary service area.

PEAK DAY DEMAND PROJECTIONS

Based on annual demand, peak day demands can be estimated using peaking factors. Table 2-11 summarizes the estimated peaking factors and peak day demands projected for the culinary and secondary systems.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 2-17

Table 2-11

Peak Day Factors and Build-Out Demand for Culinary and Secondary Water

Service Area

Culinary Peak Day Demand Peaking Factor

Culinary Peak Day Demand

(gpm)

Secondary Peak Day Demand

Factor


(gpm)

Areas with Secondary Water Service 1.25a 23,345 3.3b 26,517

Areas without Secondary Water Service 2.7c 5,422 0 0

Total 28,768 26,517

a Secondary water service was not available in 2010, and there is no reliable data available to estimate the indoor peak day factor for areas with secondary water service. It is estimated that indoor water use during the peak day of demand will be higher than winter water use. The peaking factor shown here has been assumed as a safety factor for planning purposes.

b Based on estimate of total outdoor demand for 2010 and outdoor demand on July 12, 2010 (peak day demand). c The peak day factor for culinary indoor/outdoor demand is expected to decline over time as more areas of Herriman

City have a dedicated secondary irrigation system. In addition, the development of more non-residential areas will have the effect of reducing the overall peaking factor over time. For areas without secondary water, a peaking factor of 2.7 is anticipated to remain the same. The net effect of land use changes will reduce the overall peaking factor to approximately 2.4 by 2065.

Based on these peaking factors, it is possible to estimate the peak day demands for the system overall. Peak day demands are projected with and without conservation in Figure 2-6. Historic production rates are also shown for 2010 and 2018. Note that historical production data for secondary water has been difficult to accurately assess. The City is still in the process of upgrading its supervisory control and data acquisition systems to document culinary and secondary water uses within the City. For the purpose of this study, accurate data was available for 2018. In 2010, the City had not begun using its secondary system yet, so all data shown is culinary water use. Based on the 2018 data point alone, it would appear that projections of peak day demand may be conservatively high. Until a longer history of accurate secondary data can be documented, however, the peaking factors listed in Table 2-6 are considered prudent for planning purposes.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 2-18

Figure 2-6 Peak Day Demand Projection and Conservation Effects

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070

Pea

k D

ay D

eman

d (

mgd

)

Year

Peak Day Demands w/ Conservation (mgd)

Peak Day Demands w/o Conservation* (mgd)

Peak Day Demand Estimate Based on Annual Production & Peaking Factors*(mgd)

Historical Peak Day Demand (mgd)

*Based on a Culinary Peak Day Demand Peaking Factor of 2.7.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 2-19

Future Production Requirements

Based on observed historic production requirements, Table 2-12 summarizes the calculated historic production rates for the City in year 2010 and projected future production rates for the City based on proposed conservation goals.

Table 2-12

Historic and Projected Production Requirement (With Conservation)

Component Year 2010

Year 2020

Year 2030

Population 21,785 62,010 93,465

Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) Estimate1 6,135 17,805 29,416

Annual Demand (gpd/ERC) 684.5 618.8 548.6

Annual Irrigation Rate (acre-ft/irrigated acre) 3.07 2.80 2.58

Indoor Use (gpcd) 60 55 53.9

Peak Day Demand Per Capita Production2 (gpcd) 521 479 466

Peak Day Indoor Demand3 (gpd/ERC) 267 241 214

Peak Day Irrigation Demand (gpd/irrigated acre) 9,044 8,258 7,597

1 Equivalent residential connection as defined by indoor demands 2 Includes all system demand, both residential and non-residential divided by the residential population in accordance

with the standard for State of Utah conservation goals. 3 Peak day indoor demands include an estimated 1.25 peaking factor compared to annual.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 3-1

CHAPTER 3

WATER SUPPLY PROJECTIONS

This chapter will describe the City’s sources and discuss the adequacy of existing and future supplies to meet the projected demand discussed in Chapter 2. Additional details regarding each of the City’s water sources can be found in “Existing Facilities” chapter of the Conveyance and Storage Master Plan.

WATER SUPPLY – EXISTING SOURCES

The City’s existing water supply comes from a number of different sources. For planning purposes, the City’s sources have been grouped into three categories: Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District wholesale water, Welby Jacob Canal shares, and groundwater sources.

Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District

The City has several connections to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) where the City can purchase wholesale culinary water for delivery to its distribution system. Table 3-2 summarizes the size and location of JVWCD connections to the Herriman City culinary system.

Table 3-1

Existing JVWCD Connections to Herriman City

Location Meter Size

Existing Capacity

(gpm)

Nearby JVWCD

Transmission Pipe Size

Estimated Capacity of

Existing Transmission

(gpm)

5600 W 13400 S (JV Zone C) 6” & 12” 3,084 30” 15,422

4900 W 11800 S (JV Zone C) 8” & 4” 1,371 20” 6,800

5690 W 12855 S (JV Zone C) 6” & 10” 2,330 20” 6,800

14500 S 5600 W (Rosecrest – JV Zone C) 10” & 6” 2,330 20” 6,800

6000 W 11800 S (JV Zone C) 12” 2,468 48” 30,000

15000 S 3200 W (JV Zone A) 12” & 24” 1,763 36” 22,000

11800 S U111 (JV Zone C) 16" 4,387 -- --

Future 118 S U111 (JV Zone D) -- -- -- --

Total 17,732

While the City’s connections to JVWCD have a large amount of capacity to draw water, the City’s existing contract with JVWCD limits use to 2,667 acre-ft on an annual basis. However, this contract can be expanded as necessary to meet growth in culinary demand.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 3-2

Welby Jacob Canal

The City owns water shares in the Welby Jacob Canal that runs along the east boundary of the City near Bluffdale and then through parts of Riverton City just east of the City. This is the City’s largest secondary water source. A summary of canal shares owned by the City as of summer 2019 is summarized in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2

Welby Jacob Canal Share Summary

Total Number

of Shares

Average Yield of Share

Reliable Yield of Share

Reliable Yield (acre-ft)

3,140 1.0 0.8 2,512

While the average yield of each share in the canal company is 1.0 acre-ft, this can be reduced in dry water years. For planning purposes, a reliable yield of 80 percent has been included in the table.

Peak capacity of the City’s use of Welby Jacob water is limited to its 4000 West Secondary Pump Station which has a capacity of 13,200 gpm for buildout conditions. Current equipment capacity is limited to 6,800 gpm.

Groundwater Sources

The City owns water rights for a number of groundwater sources. For evaluation purposes, groundwater sources have been broken into two categories:

• Springs – Arnold Hollow Springs is located up Rose Canyon and provides a relatively high-quality culinary water source into the City’s Zone 3 pressure zone. The capacity of the spring, however, is relatively low. The Spring has a reliable peak capacity of 44 gpm with a reliable yield of 102 acre-ft.

• Groundwater Wells – The City has nine existing groundwater wells that produce either culinary or secondary water depending on water quality. Lower quality wells are used within the secondary water system. Eventually the City intends to transition many of its culinary wells over to its secondary water system as secondary demands continue to increase.

Table 3-3 summarizes the characteristics of all the City’s wells as well as the other sources in the City.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 3-3

Table 3-3

Source Capacity Summary

Source Source Type

Peak Capacity

(gpm)

Reliable Yield (acre-

ft)

Water Right2

(acre-ft)

Springs1 Culinary 44 102

6,611

HP Well #11 Culinary 194 250.3

HP Well #21 Secondary 150 193.6



Hamilton Well1 Culinary 1,750 2258.2

Stokes Well1 Culinary 200 258.1

Tuscany Well1 Secondary 400 516.2

Bodell Well1 Secondary 300 387.1

Stillman Well1 Culinary 2,900 3742.2

JVWTP3 Culinary 3,717 2,667 2,667

Welby Jacobs4 Secondary 6,800 2,512 3,140

Total 16,695 13,196 12,418

1 Reliable yield for the spring is the average production since 2004. Capacity is the average over the year because no recent data is available. The City will also be rehabilitating the spring in 2020 which may increase reliable yields and capacity. For wells, reliable yield is 80 percent of well capacity at full time operation.

2 Water rights for springs and wells have been consolidated. Approved consolidated rights = 5,438.972 af, Remaining well water rights = 1,172.182 af.

3 JVWCD peak capacity and max yield is based on a contract. Estimated physical capacity is significantly higher. 4 Average Welby Jacob shares yield 1 acre-ft/share during an average water year. Maximum reliable yield is estimated

to be 80% of average water year. Peak capacity is based on existing equipment capacity at the City’s 4000 West Secondary pump station (3,200 to Zone 3, 3,600 gpm to Zone 1).

The City also owns water shares from the Herriman Irrigation Company and Rosecreek Irrigation Company that allows diversion of water from the companies’ ditches for a specified amount of time. The City may be able to use these sources to supply a future secondary water reservoir but does not have the ability to use these effectively now. The City also owns shares of the Utah & Salt Lake Canal Company, and the Utah Lake Distributing Company, but the City does not have a reliable turnout from canals associated with those companies.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 3-4

WATER SUPPLY – FUTURE SOURCES

Annual Supply

Figure 3-1 shows the projected annual production requirements (both culinary and secondary) for Herriman City through 2065 based on 2010 per capita demands. Figure 3-1 also shows the potential sources available to meet the projected annual production requirements. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show the breakdown of sources between culinary and secondary demand. These figures assume that growth in secondary water use is primarily limited to areas of new development (i.e. limits how much of the existing City distribution system is converted to secondary). This approach results in higher projections of culinary demand through 2065 than may actually exist at buildout but allows the City to plan for the potential of higher culinary demand which generally have higher costs than secondary water purchases. In addition, JVWCD has requested an estimate of worst-case culinary demands for its planning needs which can be taken from the numbers here. Based on these figures, several general conclusions can be made regarding the annual yield of Herriman City sources:

• For the past several years, annual demand from JVWCD exceeded agreed contract amounts. This was also true for peak day demand source capacity. The City will need to increase annual and peak capacity contracts with JVWCD to eliminate shortfalls in agreed supply.

• Herriman City’s existing source production will not be satisfactory to meet production requirements through buildout, and the City will need to acquire more secondary and culinary sources to meet demands. It is expected that most of the culinary demand will be met by additional contractual purchases from JVWCD, with minor expansion of existing groundwater capacity, while secondary demand will be met by purchasing (or exchanging) shares of canal water.

• Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show using more existing well production capacity to meet secondary water needs. This should be done for two reasons:

o It will be more cost effective to use wells to support secondary system demands than to construct additional storage at the north end of the City along with associated transmission lines.

o Once the wells become fully utilized and additional JVWCD purchases are necessary, the City should utilize JVWCD supply for culinary for water quality purposes. Because the source supply for JVWCD consists mostly of treated surface water that comes predominantly from snowmelt, the water quality is better than the City’s existing well water which, while perfectly safe, typically has more dissolved minerals such as calcium and magnesium (which causes hard water and a less preferred taste). As City demands increase, it is assumed that JVWCD will make up the bulk of all culinary water supply in the City because of the relatively higher water quality, while well sources will primarily feed into the secondary system.

In addition to the secondary water growth shown in Figure 3-3 which primarily includes growth of secondary in developing areas, there is potential for converting a significant amount of culinary water to secondary water as well. Preliminary estimates show it will be possible to convert approximately 3,000 acre-ft of existing culinary demand to secondary demand by constructing additional secondary distribution connections within or adjacent to existing developed areas. The amount of culinary water converted to secondary will reduce long term culinary water and increase secondary water supply requirements.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 3-5

Figure 3-1 Total Annual Demand & Supply Requirements

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065

An

nu

al D

eman

d (

acre

-ft)

Year

Additional JVWCD Purchases

Utah Lake / Utah Salt Lake Canal Shares

Additional Welby Jacob Needs (acre-ft)

Reliable Welby Jacob (acre-ft)

Existing Wells

Purchased from Jordan Valley WCD (WS001)

Arnold Hollow Spring (WS003)

Annual Culinary Use (sales)

Annual Demand w/ State of Utah ConservationGoals (acre-ft)

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 3-6

Figure 3-2 Annual Culinary Demand & Supply Requirements

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065

An

nu

al D

eman

d (

acre

-ft)

Year

Additional JVWCD Purchases




Existing Wells

Purchased from Jordan Valley WCD (WS001)


Annual Culinary Use (sales)

Annual Demand w/ State of Utah ConservationGoals (acre-ft)

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 3-7

Figure 3-3 Annual Secondary Demand & Supply Requirements

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

An

nu

al D

eman

d (

acre

-ft)

Year




Existing Wells


Annual Demand w/ State of UtahConservation Goals (acre-ft)

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 3-8

Table 3-4 shows a summary of required supplies needed to satisfy 2065 demands with estimates of additional supplies that may be needed at buildout depending on how much culinary water can be converted to secondary water over time.

Table 3-4

Future Annual Supply Requirements

Development Condition

Culinary Demand (acre-ft)

Secondary Demand (acre-ft)

Additional Culinary

Water Capacity


Additional Secondary

Water Capacity


2065 16,260 6,953 13,250 600

Buildout 13,260 9,953 10,250 3900 Peak Day Supply

Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show the projected peak culinary and secondary production requirement for Herriman City through 2065. The figure also shows available sources needed to meet peak demands. Based on these figures, several general conclusions can be made regarding the peak capacity of Herriman City sources:

• JVWCD Agreements – Additional agreements with JVWCD will be needed in the near future to reduce the potential for exceeding contract amounts. The majority of culinary peak day demands in the future will be met through JVWCD supplies at various connections throughout the City.

• Conversion of Potable Well Capacity – Peak day and peak instantaneous demands will drive the conversion of wells to secondary. The City currently does not have transmission capacity to deliver water from the Welby Jacob Canal to the north and west end of the City. It is assumed that all capacity to the north and west end of the City for secondary water will be met with well capacity until additional transmission lines are connected from either the Welby Jacob Canal or from Blackridge Reservoir. Based on distribution requirements, HP Wells No. 3 & No. 4 will remain on the culinary system during peak day demands.

• Additional Welby Jacobs Capacity – The City’s existing pump station on the Welby Jacob Canal has sufficient room to add additional pumping capacity to meet future City secondary demands. Transmission capacity may be a larger concern. This will be discussed in more detail as part of the City’s Conveyance and Storage Report.

• Conversion Timing – Both Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show the conversion of the majority of potable well capacity to secondary use by approximately 2038. The City has already begun using culinary wells to supply irrigation needs through reduced pressure backflow preventers.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 3-9

Figure 3-4 Peak Day Culinary Demand & Supply Requirements

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065

Pea

k D

ay D

eman

d (

mgd

)

Year

Additional JVWCD Capacity (mgd)

Arnold Hollow Spring (mgd)

Dedicated Culinary Well Capacity (mgd)

JVWCD Contract Capacity (mgd)

Culinary Peak Day Demand* (mgd)

*Based on Indoor Peaking Day Demand Factor of 1.25 and Outdoor Peak Day Factor of 3.3

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 3-10

Figure 3-5 Peak Day Secondary Demand & Supply Requirements

0

5

10

15

20

25

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065

Pea

k D

ay D

eman

d (

mgd

)

Year

Additional Welby Jacob Capacity (mgd)

Dedicated Secondary Well Capacity (mgd)

Welby Jacob Capacity (mgd)

Secondary Peak Day Demand (mgd)

*Based on Outdoor Peak Day Factor of 3.3

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 3-11

Table 3-5 summarizes the schedule of required source development or conversion needed to meet peak day demands.

Table 3-5

Future Peak Day Supply Requirements

Development Condition

Culinary Peak Day

Demand (mgd)


(mgd)

Additional JVWCD

Capacity (mgd)

Additional Secondary

Water Capacity

(mgd)

2065 29.3 20.5 23.5 4.32

Buildout 20.0 29.7 14.3 13.5 Table 3-6 summarizes the required capacity from various JVWCD connections to meet 2065 peak day demands. These capacities are critical to meeting City needs and assisting with converting the Hamilton and Stillman Wells to secondary wells.

Table 3-6

Required Capacity of JVWCD Connections to Herriman City

Location Meter Size

Nearby JVWCD


Required Capacity for

Herriman 2065

Demands (gpm)

5600 W 13400 S (JV Zone C) 6” & 12” 30” 3,200

4900 W 11800 S (JV Zone C) 8” & 4” 20” 0*

5690 W 12855 S (JV Zone C) 6” & 10” 20” 900

14500 S 5600 W (Rosecrest – JV Zone C) 10” & 6” 20” 5,300

6000 W 11800 S (JV Zone C) 12” 48” 0*

15000 S 3200 W (JV Zone A) 12” & 24” 36” 7,500

11800 S U111 (JV Zone C) 16" -- 4,500

Future 118 S U111 (JV Zone D) -- -- 4,500

Total 25,900

*These connections will be maintained as emergency backup connections, but the City is better able to reduce peak demands using storage tanks as other locations.

WATER SUPPLY – RECOMMENDED SOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Culinary Water – JVWCD will represent the City’s primary source of culinary water expansion in the future. This is primarily due to the high quality of JVWCD water compared to groundwater in the Herriman City area. In addition, the City already has many connection points to JVWCD that makes wholesale purchase relatively simple. It is recommended that the City add water as needed in increments. Up to 13,250 acre-ft may ultimately be needed. This need could drop to 10,250 acre-ft of needed water if the City converts areas with no secondary water access to secondary water.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 3-12

Groundwater – The City has more groundwater rights that could be developed. However, points of diversion are limited as a result of the Salt Lake Valley Groundwater Management Plan that is directed by the State of Utah Division of Water Rights. If existing points of diversion can be acquired by the City, these have the potential of offsetting future Welby Jacob Canal purchases and could potentially be used to support non-irrigation season demands as well. The City is aware of some promising location that could expand groundwater capacity within the City.

Welby Jacob Canal – The Welby Jacob Canal follows the east edge of the City and represents a relatively accessible water source for the City’s secondary water system. The City should continue to purchase additional shares of Welby Jacob water with a goal to provide a 20 percent buffer in annual capacity to account for dry year restrictions. If no new groundwater wells are added to the City’s system, the City would need to purchase an additional 750 shares (750 acre-ft of average year and 600 acre-ft of dry year yield) of Welby Jacob water to provide sufficient buffer for the City’s supply needs. The Welby Jacob Canal Company has a total of 31,501 shares diverted by the Welby Jacob Canal (the total number of shares is 40,000). The City would need to own 3,890 shares or 9.7 percent of the total shares diverted by the Welby Jacob Canal. If the City pursues conversion of larger percentages of existing developed areas, additional Welby Jacob Canal shares should be purchased to enable use of Welby Jacob water. Note that to fully convert the existing developed City, an additional volume of 3,900 acre-ft or 4,875 additional shares would be needed. An additional connection to the Welby Jacob Canal would also be needed near the north end of the City.

Jordan Basin Re-Use Water – Another source of water that may become available in the future is re-use water from the Jordan Basin Water Reclamation Facility. Herriman City would have the water rights to the re-use water that originates from Herriman City. Costs to implement re-use water within Herriman City, however, may be expensive due to the long distance to the Jordan Basin Water Reclamation Facility. An exchange agreement with Riverton City (for Riverton’s Welby Jacob water) would potentially allow the City to utilize its water rights without significant capital costs for conveyance. However, the City would lose some of the water quality benefits of access to re-use water.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 4-1

CHAPTER 4

WATER SUPPLY VARIATION – NOW AND IN THE FUTURE

The information presented in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report is based on the some of the most up-to-date data available. Intrinsic to this analysis is the assumption that sources are expected to produce well into the future in accordance with past performance. This begs questions such as:

• Is the modern historical record sufficient to account for variation in water availability to be used for planning purposes?

• Will climate change or other factors likely affect water availability or system demands and, if so, in what ways?

This chapter is dedicated to considering these types of questions to better inform the conclusions reached elsewhere in this report, and ultimately to assist the City in understanding the long-term water supply and demand characteristics of their system inclusive of these types of considerations.

GROUNDWATER

As with most other system assets, wells can deteriorate over time and need rehabilitation or replacement. Most of Herriman City’s wells are relatively new due to the young age of the City overall. Based on recent groundwater studies, the City is not concerned with depletion of the groundwater aquifer within the City limits. As a result, it would be expected that the City’s existing wells should have an approximately 80 – 100 year life (for the groundwater well), with a 50 year life cycle for the building/piping, and 20-year life for pumps. This would be expected with regular maintenance of the well. Additional redevelopment or new wells may require restoring initial well capacity in the future.

CANALS

There are two potential problems with canal water delivered from Utah Lake: natural variability, and water quality concerns.

• Natural Variability. Natural variability may reduce the amount of volume to users per share of irrigation water. For the Welby Jacob Canal, the normal volume available per share is 1.0 acre-ft/share. During droughts, canal companies may reduce the volume available per share. In times past, it has not been uncommon for canal companies to reduce their yield per share by up to 20 percent in drought years. In extreme events, yield has been reduced even more. The City intends to provide a 20 percent buffer in share capacity to account for this variability.

• Water Quality. It is unknown if recent algae blooms in Utah Lake are primarily caused by recent isolated water quality problems, water quality problems that have accumulated over years, or if climate change is impacting temperatures to increase the frequency of algae blooms at Utah Lake. There are two potential alternatives to mitigate potential problems with canal water that comes from Utah Lake: provide treatment or provide sufficient mixing water to dilute issues with water quality. For planning purposes, the City is intending to include groundwater as a mixing source into the secondary water system. As a worst case, it would also be possible to use culinary water to dilute Welby Jacobs water as a last resort that could be used on a temporary basis.

JVWCD

The City’s existing contract with JVWCD is considered reliable for planning purposes because JVWCD has its own contingencies to account for source interruption and climate variability.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 4-2

CLIMATE CHANGE

The earth is presently undergoing a warming trend. The warming appears to coincide with the results of many climate models predicting global warming. Locally, if you examine Salt Lake City Airport average temperatures in June, July, and August from 1948 to the present, it shows the 10-year running average temperature has increased approximately 5 degrees Fahrenheit (Utah Climate Center Station ID USW00024127). Climate change can affect water supplies in a number of different ways. It can cause a change in overall precipitation in the watershed, less precipitation in the form of snow, earlier spring runoffs, and increases in outdoor demand because of the longer and warmer growing season.

The impact of climate change on supply has generally been discussed in the sections above, but the City should also consider the potential impact on system demands. A study was prepared by JVWCD in 2017 titled “Preparing for Climate Change – A Management Plan”. In this study, JVWCD hired Western Water Assessment to determine the impacts of climate change on demand. The results of this study showed that demand on their system could increase from between 2 and 17.4 percent. JVWCD used a number of 9.7% for climate change impacts to water demand, which was the midpoint of that range.

While the available data is limited, it appears that climate change could have a significant impact on the City’s water supply plan. For planning purposes, the City should consider the potential effect of a net increase of 5 to 10 percent in its long-term demands.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 5-1

CHAPTER 5

WATER SUPPLY RISK AND PLANNING

Water is one of the most, if not the most, important utilities for all communities. Therefore, it is requisite that water providers consider water supply risk in their planning efforts to provide reasonable assurance of continuity of service in the case of unexpected source loss or failure. This chapter will describe and address water supply risks.

RISK TO ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY

Annual supply has the potential for being adversely affected in several ways. The risk associated with water supply is that it may be reduced so much that it can no longer satisfy minimum annual production requirements.

The City’s water supply could be reduced if a source were lost—either temporarily or permanently. While there are many ways this could occur, the most likely imaginable ways at this time are:

• Unexpected mechanical failure of pumps or other system components limit the City’s ability convey water temporarily.

• An earthquake disables conveyance infrastructure or disturbs water availability by adversely affecting aquifer characteristics.

• A water source becomes suddenly contaminated – either intentionally through an act of terrorism or accidentally though an industrial spill or similar event.

• Climate or other environmental changes reduce water supply, increase water demand, or both. (See Chapter 4 above for a detailed discussion on this topic.)

For discussion purposes, annual water supply risk is categorized into two scenarios: Minor Source Loss and Catastrophic Source Loss. The management of these risk scenarios will define the Recommended Supply Planning Scenario for the City’s long-term annual water supply planning.

Minor Source Loss Scenario

This scenario covers the vast majority of potential source loss situations such as mechanical failure, pipe breaks, a single well becoming contaminated, etc. For this type of scenario, it has been assumed that the City will have a buffer of water supply that is sufficient to handle this type of loss without disruption to customers, even during peak periods of demand. In other words, the City will always have enough extra supply that it can weather the loss of sources that are the most vulnerable to any of the risks listed above.

Based on an evaluation of potential source failure in the City, the recommended minor source loss buffers to be included for supply planning purposes are as follows:

• Culinary Annual Supply – The two most likely events that could affect annual culinary yield are:

o Aquifer Yield – There are a number of events that could negatively affect the yield of the aquifer serving as the primary source for the City. This could include mechanical failure of the well pulling from the aquifer, contamination, reduced recharge as a result of climate change, or simply fall groundwater levels. To account for these uncertainties, it seems prudent to keep a buffer in the City’s supply plan associated with potential reduced yield from the aquifer.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 5-2

o Increased Demands Associated with Climate Change – As noted in Chapter 4, projected demands are expected to increase between 2 and 17 percent as a result of climate change. Nearly all this increase will be associated with outdoor demand, but until the secondary system is expanded to all City customers, some buffer for this potential increase will need to be included in the culinary annual supply.

Based on these events, it is recommended that the City consider an annual buffer of at least 10 percent for culinary sources. This could be built into the contract agreements with JVWCD. This provide a reasonable safeguard against reduced aquifer yield and is large enough to offset foreseeable increases in demand associated with climate change.

• Culinary Peak Capacity – The most likely event that could affect culinary peak capacity is the failure of a well pump or booster pump within the City. It is recommended that the City maintain sufficient reliable capacity to allow for the loss of the largest single well and still meet required production requirements (2,900 gpm). The City currently has several culinary connections to JVWCD that could be turned up to make up for the loss of a well or an alternate supply connection. Most of the City’s booster stations are also designed with one redundant pump. Thus, it appears that existing facilities are already adequate to meet redundancy recommendations for culinary peak capacity.

• Secondary Annual Supply and Peak Capacity – The secondary source with the greatest vulnerability associated with annual supply is the Utah and Salt Lake Canal. This source has seen reductions in the past and is expected to see reductions in the future as a result of drought and harmful algal blooms (HABs) that affect water quality.

Because this is the City’s primary source of secondary water, it is not practical to add extra capacity to be fully redundant to this source. Instead, the City should make plans on how to temporarily adjust if this source is lost. It would be possible to provide some chemical treatment to Welby Jacob during harmful algae blooms because all the water is conveyed to Blackridge Reservoir which would be a central location to provide treatment. The City may also be able to meet some reduced secondary demands with its available groundwater capacity. However, the City would likely need to restrict outdoor irrigation if algae blooms affecting Utah Lake restrict canal use. If re-use water were acquired by the City, this would further buffer the City against water quality issues associated with Utah Lake water.

Catastrophic Source Loss Scenario

It is conceivable to think that an extremely large earthquake on the Wasatch Front or other extreme event could cause the loss of more supply than discussed in the section above. However, in such a situation, it is not reasonable to expect the City to deliver water at the same level of service as it was prior to the catastrophic event. In these cases, it has been assumed that the City would move to an emergency mode of operation. This would include limiting water delivery to essential indoor functions.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 6-1

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A number of principal conclusions can be made regarding Herriman City’s water system with respect to projected available supply and demand.

1. Demand Projections – Through the planning window of this study (2065), the City is expected to see significant growth including within the existing service area and within annexation areas adjacent to the City.

2. Conservation. The City projections of demand include reducing 2010 demands 16 percent by the year 2030 with an additional 8 percent by the year 2065. Meeting these conservation goals will be an essential part of the City’s overall supply plan.

3. Culinary Water Supply. The majority of the City’s future culinary water supply will need to be purchased from JVWCD through expanded contracts.

4. Secondary Water Expansion. The City intends to expand its secondary system to most developing areas within Pressure Zones 1 to 4. Some exceptions for where secondary water is extended is dependent on land use and the cost effectiveness of constructing the secondary system. At buildout, the City would expect to continue converting existing areas without secondary water access to use secondary water. Water supply plans for the City need to account for the planning window of this study (through 2065) and the potential for buildout conditions.

5. Secondary Water Sources.

a. Canal Shares – The City will need to continue buying canal shares to satisfy long term and buildout supply needs. Although additional canal water is not anticipated to be used within the near future, the City will need to purchase between 750 and 4,875 shares of Welby Jacob canal water to provide the desired 20 percent buffer to account for dry years depending on how much of the existing City is converted to secondary water for outdoor irrigation. Although additional canal water is not anticipated to be needed in the near future because the City will be converting groundwater use to irrigation use, the City should purchase canal shares as they become available due to the time sensitivity of gaining access to the limited number of shares. Note that 750 shares is all that is needed based on the 2065 planning scenario identified in Figure 2-4.

b. Re-Use Considerations – While not absolutely necessary from a water supply standpoint, there would be some reliability and water quality benefits to using re-use water produced by the Jordan Basin Water Reclamation Facility. These would need to be balanced against the potential cost of capital facilities and energy costs to use that water. It would likely be more economical to exchange use of re-use water produced by Jordan Basin with Riverton City for more readily accessible Welby Jacobs water owned by Riverton City.

c. Groundwater – If additional groundwater can be developed by acquiring existing points of diversion, the City should pursue options as available to provide additional redundancy for Welby Jacob water and potentially reduce some conveyance needs within the City.

WWW.BOWENCOLLINS.COM

DRAPER, UTAH OFFICE154 E 14075 SDRAPER, UTAH 84020PHONE: 801.495.2224

BOISE, IDAHO OFFICE776 E RIVERSIDE DRIVESUITE 250EAGLE, IDAHO 83616PHONE: 208.939.9561

ST. GEORGE, UTAH OFFICE20 NORTH MAINSUITE 107ST.GEORGE, UTAH 84770PHONE: 435.656.3299

OGDEN, UTAH OFFICE2036 LINCOLN AVENUESUITE 104OGDEN, UTAH 84401PHONE: 801.495.2224

PREPARED FOR:

DRAFT

2019 WATER MASTERPLAN UPDATESection 2 - Storage & Conveyance

AUGUST 2020

PREPARED BY:

HERRIMAN CITY

STORAGE AND CONVEYANCE MASTER PLAN

AUGUST 2020

DRAFT

Prepared for: Prepared by:

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Note: This report is the second in a set of two reports comprising the Herriman City Water Master Plan. Chapters 1 through 6 are located in the first report in this series.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... ES-1 CHAPTER 7 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7-1 Scope of Services .................................................................................................................................................................. 7-2 CHAPTER 8 EXISTING CULINARY WATER FACILITIES .......................................................................... 8-1 Existing Service Area and Topography ...................................................................................................................... 8-1 Culinary Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................ 8-1

Existing Pipe ................................................................................................................................................................. 8-1 Existing Storage Facilities ...................................................................................................................................... 8-6 Wells ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8-7 Booster Pumps ............................................................................................................................................................ 8-8 Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District ...................................................................................................... 8-8

Culinary Pressure Zones ................................................................................................................................................... 8-9 CHAPTER 9 EXISTING SECONDARY WATER FACILITIES ...................................................................... 9-1

Existing Pipe ................................................................................................................................................................. 9-1 Existing Storage Facilities ...................................................................................................................................... 9-4 Wells ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9-4 Existing Booster Stations ........................................................................................................................................ 9-5

Secondary Pressure Zones ............................................................................................................................................... 9-6 CHAPTER 10 STORAGE AND BOOSTING EVALUATION ...................................................................... 10-1 Storage Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................................................... 10-1

Culinary Water Storage ......................................................................................................................................... 10-1 Secondary Water Storage ..................................................................................................................................... 10-6

Total Existing and Future Storage Requirements ................................................................................................ 10-9 Zone 3 East Storage Service Area ................................................................................................................... 10-12

Boosting Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................................... 10-16 CHAPTER 11 HYDRAULIC MODEL HISTORY .......................................................................................... 11-1 Model History ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11-1

Drinking Water Model ........................................................................................................................................... 11-1 Secondary Water Model ........................................................................................................................................ 11-1

CHAPTER 12 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION .......................................................................... 12-1 Model Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................................. 12-1 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................................................ 12-1 System Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................................................. 12-2

Existing Culinary Distribution Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 12-2 Existing Secondary Distribution Evaluation ................................................................................................. 12-6 Future Culinary Distribution Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 12-6 2065 Secondary Distribution Evaluation .................................................................................................... 12-11

CHAPTER 13 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................. 13-1 Culinary Storage and Booster Improvements ....................................................................................................... 13-1 Culinary Distribution Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 13-2 Secondary Storage and Booster Improvements ................................................................................................... 13-5 Secondary Distribution Improvements .................................................................................................................... 13-6 CHAPTER 14 10-YEAR CULINARY & SECONDARY PIPE IMPROVEMENTS ................................... 14-1

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Page No.

8-1 Culinary Water System Facilities .................................................................................................................. 8-2 8-2 Existing Culinary Water Facilities – West Schematic ............................................................................ 8-3 8-3 Culinary Water System Schematic – East Schematic ............................................................................ 8-4 9-1 Existing Secondary Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 9-2 9-2 Secondary System Schematic.......................................................................................................................... 9-3 10-1 Existing Culinary Demand Pattern ............................................................................................................. 10-4 10-2 Existing Secondary Demand Pattern ......................................................................................................... 10-7 10-3 Ideal Secondary Water Demand Pattern to Minimize Evapotranspiration & Pressure

Concerns ................................................................................................................................................................ 10-8 10-4 Future Culinary Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 10-14 10-5 Future Secondary Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 10-15 12-1 Existing Culinary Low Demand / High Pressure .................................................................................. 12-4 12-2 Existing Culinary Peak Hour Demand ....................................................................................................... 12-5 12-3 Existing Culinary Peak Day Demand Available Fire Flow at 20 psi .............................................. 12-7 12-4 Existing Secondary Peak Hour Demand ................................................................................................... 12-8 12-5 Buildout Culinary Peak Hour Demand ...................................................................................................... 12-9 12-6 Buildout Culinary Peak Day Demand Fire Flow ................................................................................. 12-10 12-7 Buildout Secondary Peak Hour Demand ............................................................................................... 12-12 13-1 Pressure Zone 3 East Boundary ................................................................................................................... 13-4 14-1 Short-Term (10-Year) Culinary Improvements .................................................................................... 14-2 14-2 Short-Term (10-Year) Secondary Improvements ................................................................................ 14-3

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page No.

8-1 Total Culinary Pipes in Herriman City’s Inventory ................................................................................ 8-5 8-2 High Country Estate Pipe Ownership .......................................................................................................... 8-5 8-3 Existing Culinary Storage Facilities .............................................................................................................. 8-6 8-4 Well Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................ 8-7 8-5 Existing Culinary Booster Station Capacity .............................................................................................. 8-8 8-6 Existing JVWCD Connections to Herriman City ....................................................................................... 8-8 9-1 Total Secondary Pipes in Herriman City’s Inventory ............................................................................ 9-1 9-2 Blackridge Reservoir Stage Storage ............................................................................................................. 9-4 9-3 Secondary Well Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 9-4 9-4 Existing Secondary Pump Station Characteristics ................................................................................. 9-5 9-5 Existing Secondary Water Well Sources .................................................................................................... 9-6 10-1 Existing Culinary Demand Pattern ............................................................................................................. 10-2 10-2 Culinary Required Storage ............................................................................................................................. 10-6 10-3 Secondary Demand Pattern ........................................................................................................................... 10-9 10-4 Secondary Required Storage ......................................................................................................................... 10-9 10-5 Existing Culinary Storage Requirements .............................................................................................. 10-10 10-6 Existing Secondary Storage Requirements .......................................................................................... 10-11 10-7 Buildout Culinary Storage Requirements ............................................................................................. 10-11 10-8 2065 Secondary Storage Requirements ................................................................................................ 10-13 10-9 Existing and Future Culinary Booster Stations .................................................................................. 10-16 10-10 Existing and Future Secondary Booster Stations .............................................................................. 10-17 13-1 Future Culinary Storage Tanks .................................................................................................................... 13-1 13-2 Future Culinary Booster Stations ................................................................................................................ 13-2 13-3 Future Culinary Water Distribution Pipe Projects ............................................................................... 13-5 13-4 Future Secondary Storage Tanks ................................................................................................................ 13-5 13-5 Future Secondary Booster Stations ............................................................................................................ 13-6 13-6 Future Secondary Distribution Pipe Projects ........................................................................................ 13-7 14-1 10-Year Culinary Pipe Projects .................................................................................................................... 14-4 14-6 10-Year Secondary Pipe Projects ................................................................................................................ 14-6

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

[To be developed after initial review]

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 7-1

CHAPTER 7

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

The Herriman City (City) desires to develop an updated master plan for its water system. This is the second in a set of two reports that will comprise the planning documents for the City’s water system. The expected reports will be:

• Supply and Demand Master Plan – An examination of water demands expected in the City and the existing and future supplies available to meet these demands.

• Conveyance and Storage Master Plan – Conveyance and Storage Master Plan – An evaluation of the City’s existing conveyance and distribution system and its ability to deliver water when and where it is needed including long term capital improvements needed to meet future demands.

As this is the second report in the series, the reader will notice that it starts with Chapter 7. Each report has been given unique chapter numbers to avoid confusion with chapters in the other report. Chapters 1 through 6 are located in the first report, Supply and Demand Master Plan.

BACKGROUND

The focus of this report is storage and conveyance requirements for the City. Previous studies that have examined the City’s storage and conveyance system include:

• 2012 Water System Master Plan Update (December 2012). Bowen Collins & Associates

Since the completion of the previous study, a number of changes have occurred. Changes that need to be evaluated and addressed for the City to meet its future water storage and conveyance requirements include:

• New Infrastructure – Some new infrastructure has been constructed since the previous master plan, including two new storage reservoirs and two additional booster pump stations.

• Land Use Changes – Since the preparation of the last master plan, several changes to land use planning will affect long term projections of growth within the City:

o Herriman Hills Open Space Initiative– Through the joint efforts of the Utah National Guard, a local citizen group, and City leadership, Herriman City adopted a plan to purchase private property for the Herriman Hills area to provide additional buffer to the Camp Williams training facility and to maintain the open space quality of the mountains above Herriman City. Up to 75 percent of funds for this initiative are provided through the Army Compatible Use Buffer program with 25 percent provided by the City. This initiative significantly reduces the potential for residential growth and associated water demands in some of the hills above Herriman City while preserving the area for open space.

o Annexations – While the long-term annexation plan for the City has not changed significantly since the last water master plan update, there have been several annexations into the City since the last plan.

o General Plan Amendments – There have been several general plan amendments since the last water master plan update was completed that have affected the long-term projections for Growth in Herriman.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 7-2

o Future Amendments – No change to the City’s general plan densities have been proposed as part of this master plan relative to the City’s planned annexation areas. It is assumed future annexation areas will develop as identified in the City’s general plan of land use.

• Conservation – The State of Utah recently adopted new conservation goals, customized to various regions throughout the state. This master plan updates projected demands based on these new goals.

To consider these and other issues relative to the City’s future water storage and conveyance needs, the City has retained Bowen, Collins & Associates (BC&A) to evaluate its water system.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

The scope of the work documented in this report includes three major tasks:

Task 1 – Updated the City’s Culinary and Secondary Hydraulic Models

The City maintains an existing culinary water model and secondary model. As part of this study, the existing models were updated to include the latest water system peak day demands and pipe construction. Existing facilities included in the hydraulic models were documented as part of this report.

Task 2 –Storage Evaluation

Existing and future storage requirements were evaluated based on existing and projected future demand patterns within the City.

Task 3 –Major Conveyance Evaluation

Existing and future hydraulic deficiencies were identified within the culinary and secondary water systems. Improvements to address deficiencies were recommended along with cost estimates for the recommended improvements.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 8-1

CHAPTER 8

EXISTING CULINARY WATER FACILITIES

EXISTING SERVICE AREA AND TOPOGRAPHY

Herriman City provides culinary water for all residents within its corporate boundaries as well as the High Country Estates. Herriman City’s existing service area is approximately 22 square miles and is bordered by the following: the unincorporated part of Salt Lake County and the Oquirrh Mountain Range to the west, Bluffdale City to the southeast, Riverton City directly east, and South Jordan City to the north. The City’s anticipated annexation boundary extends west to State Route 111. Areas directly south of the City are owned by or managed by the Utah National Guard. The topography of the City generally slopes away from the Oquirrh Mountains (i.e. slopes downward to the east or north depending on the location in the City). In 2018, the Herriman City estimated population included 51,681 residents. In addition to permanent residents, the City also serves commercial, industrial, and institutional entities. Figure 8-1 shows all of the City’s existing culinary water facilities. Figures 8-2 and 8-3 show schematics of how the City’s culinary sources, storage reservoirs, and pump stations are connected including pressure zones. Future pressure zones and facilities are also shown in these schematics and will be discussed in more depth later in this report.

CULINARY FACILITIES

Existing Pipe

Herriman City’s inventory of pipes includes pipes owned and operated by the City and the inventory of pipes owned by the High Country Estates. The City has a maintenance agreement with High Country Estates to provide maintenance for pipes in its distribution system, but the City does not own the pipes and is not responsible for the level of service within High Country Estates. Table 8-1 shows the total inventory of pipes in the City’s inventory. Table 8-2 summarizes the pipes owned by High Country Estates.

Cove

HP 4

HP 3

Zone 1ELookout

Hardlick

Kennecott

Rosecrest

Zone 2 North

HP Well 4

HP Well 3

HP Well 1

Hamilton Well

JVWCD U111 - ZC

Arnolds Springs

JVWCD 3.0 MG Tank

JVWCD 150th & 32nd

JVWCD 118th & 60th

JVWCD 129th & 56th

JVWCD 134th & 56th

JVWCD Copper Creek

5200 W 13400 S Well

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS,

Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 8-1 Existing Facilities.mxd AMcKinnon 1/31/2020

LegendFuture Roads

UT Tanks

KJ Source

Existing PipesDiameter

0 - 4

5 - 6

7 - 8

9 - 10

11 - 12

13 - 16

17 - 20

21 - 24

25 - 36

Pressure Zones1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Existing Corporate Boundary

Future Annexation Area

SCALE:NORTH:

0 1,500 3,000Feet

8-1

WATER SYSTEMMASTER PLAN UPDATE

EXISTING CULINARY FACILITIES

HERRIMAN CITY

NO

RT

H

FIGURE NO.

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text

FUTURE Zone 8 WEST ZONE 8 TANK (0.5 MG) 5964 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

8W

AutoCAD SHX Text

FUTURE Zone 7 WEST REGULATED 5825 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

7W

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 6 WEST COVE (1.0 MG) 5621 - 5640 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

6W

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

FUTURE ZONE 8W P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 5 WEST REGULATED 5504 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

5W

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 4 REGULATED 5410 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

4

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

3

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

COVE P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 3 HP TANKS (1.4 MG) 5226 - 5249 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

3

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 4 WEST KENNECOTT (3MG) 5393 - 5409 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

4W

AutoCAD SHX Text

HP WELL#3 & #4

AutoCAD SHX Text

ARNOLD SPRINGS

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

3

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 2 5.0 MG TANK 5113 - 5134 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

2

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 1 NORTH REGULATED 4970 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

JVWCD COPPER CREEK

AutoCAD SHX Text

JVWCD 118TH & 60TH

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

6400 W BOOSTER P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 2 ROSECREST (1.0 MG) 5113 - 5135 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

2

AutoCAD SHX Text

JVWCD 129TH & 56TH

AutoCAD SHX Text

JVWCD 134TH & 56TH

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

JVWCD BOOSTER P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 4 HARDLICK (3.0 MG) 5391 - 5410 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

4

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 5 Central LOOKOUT (0.43 MG) 5592 - 5612

AutoCAD SHX Text

5C

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOOKOUT P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

#

AutoCAD SHX Text

TANK OR PRESSURE ZONE NAME (TANK VOLUME) OR "REGULATED" (TANK ELEVATION / PRV SETTINGS FT)

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER SOURCE

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

PRV REGULATED TRANSMISSION LINE

AutoCAD SHX Text

PUMP FED TRANSMISSION LINE

AutoCAD SHX Text

PUMP STATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE STATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

GRAVITY FED TRANSMISSION LINE

AutoCAD SHX Text

PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE STATION (NORMALLY CLOSED)

AutoCAD SHX Text

JVWCD 3.0 MG 5150 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

JVWCD 118TH & U111

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

FUTURE Zone 5 North REGULATED 5550 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

5N

AutoCAD SHX Text

FUTURE Zone 6 North (1.5 MG) 5690 - 5710 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

6N

AutoCAD SHX Text

TO EAST HERRIMAN

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

Future Zone 6N P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Future Kennecott P.S. Z4

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

High Country P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 5 HC HC BUFFER 5405 - 5416 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

5H

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING SUCTION LINE TO ZONE 5H P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

TO HI-COUNTRY ESTATES

AutoCAD SHX Text

HGL 5120-5148 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

JV ZONE D 5355-5370 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

JV ZONE C 5120-5150 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

JV ZONE C 5120-5150 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

Future Kennecott P.S. Z3

AutoCAD SHX Text

20"

AutoCAD SHX Text

16"

AutoCAD SHX Text

JVWCD 118TH & U111

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 5C VFD / REGULATED 5550 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

5C

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

Future Zone 5C P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Figure 8-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

HERRIMAN WEST SCHEMATIC

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER MASTER PLAN

AutoCAD SHX Text

HERRIMAN CITY

AutoCAD SHX Text

FUTURE SUCTION LINE TO HIGH COUNTRY

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 1 East-North ZONE 1E TANK (2.0 MG) (4995-5010 FT)

AutoCAD SHX Text

1EN

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 2 East FUTURE ZONE 2E TANK (2.0 MG) 5113 - 5135 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

2E

AutoCAD SHX Text

FUTURE Zone 3 East ZONE 3E TANK (2.0 MG) 5259-5281 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

3E

AutoCAD SHX Text

FUTURE Zone 4 East 5395 - 5410 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

4E

AutoCAD SHX Text

JVWCD

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 2E P.S. 3,000 gpm

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

#

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER SOURCE

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

PUMP STATION

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 1E-N P.S. 10,000 gpm

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 5E P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

FUTURE Zone 5 East ZONE 5E TANK (0.5 MG) 5540 - 5560 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

5E

AutoCAD SHX Text

FUTURE Zone 6 East ZONE 6E TANK (0.5 MG) 5690 - 5700 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

6E

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 6E P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE STATION (NORMALLY CLOSED)

AutoCAD SHX Text

PDD: 1,424 gpm for Zone 1E-N

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 1 East-South (REGULATED) 4974 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

1ES

AutoCAD SHX Text

PDD: 385 gpm for Zone 1E-S

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONNECTED TO WEST HERRIMAN ZONE 2

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 3E P.S. 3,600 gpm

AutoCAD SHX Text

HGL @ JVWTP 4700' - 4722'

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONNECTED TO WEST HERRIMAN ZONE 4

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONNECTED TO WEST HERRIMAN ZONE 3W

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 4E P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Figure 8-3

AutoCAD SHX Text

HERRIMAN EAST SCHEMATIC

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER MASTER PLAN

AutoCAD SHX Text

HERRIMAN CITY

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 8-5

Table 8-1

Total Culinary Pipes in Herriman City’s Inventory

Length by Material Type (ft)

Diameter (in)

PVC Ductile

Iron HDPE Other Unknown Total (ft)

Total (mi)

4 7,654 15,103 433 1,135 1,178 25,503 4.8

6 16,777 38,935 0 11,812 72,853 140,377 26.6

8 433,213 221,061 605 12,066 36,837 703,782 133.3

10 63,375 27,365 1,816 5,670 5,046 103,272 19.6

12 18,073 73,071 0 0 343 91,488 17.3

14 434 5,557 0 5,635 0 11,626 2.2

16 843 91,697 0 991 3,898 97,428 18.5

18 0 878 0 0 0 878 0.2

20 13 15,297 0 0 0 15,310 2.9

24 0 5,009 0 0 0 5,009 0.9

30 0 0 591 0 0 591 0.1

32 0 0 0 672 0 672 0.1

36 0 0 0 350 993 1,343 0.3

Total 540,382 493,975 3,445 38,329 121,147 1,197,278 226.8

Table 8-2

High Country Estate Pipe Ownership

Diameter (in)

High Country

I (ft)

High Country

II (ft)

Total (ft)

Total (mi)

4 701 501 1,202 0.2

6 16,935 81,341 98,276 18.6

8 12,066 231 12,297 2.3

10 4,843 3,161 8,004 1.5

12 0 101 101 0.0

14 5,635 0 5,635 1.1

Total 40,180 85,335 125,515 23.8

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 8-6

Existing Storage Facilities

Table 8-3 lists the available storage capacity of tank and reservoirs in the City. Storage will be evaluated in more detail in a subsequent section.

Table 8-3

Existing Culinary Storage Facilities

Tank Name Size

(gallons) Pressure

Zone Min

Elevation Max

Elevation

Zone 1 East 2,000,000 1 4995.5 5010

Rosecrest* 1,000,000 2 5113 5135

Zone 2 North – 5 MG 5,000,000 2 5113 5135

HP Tanks 1,000,000 3 5228 5252

HP Tanks 400,000 3 5235 5249.17

Hardlick 3,000,000 4 5391 5410

Kennecott 3,000,000 4 5393 5409

Arnold Hollow Springs 9,600 4 -- 5700

Lookout Ridge 425,000 5C 5592 5612

Cove 1,000,000 6W 5621 5640

Total 16,884,600

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 8-7

Wells

Table 8-4 summarizes characteristics of each of the City’s existing wells.

Table 8-4

Well Characteristics

Well Source Type

Completion Date

Age (yrs)

Well Diameter

(in)

Well Depth

(ft)

Water Level at time of

completion (ft bgs1)

Capacity (gpm)

HP Well #1 Culinary 4/29/1955 65 12 615 135 194

HP Well #2 Secondary 12/2/1954 66 12 300 200 150

HP Well #3 Culinary 8/1/1988 32 8 300 137.5 116

HP Well #4 Culinary 12/1/1993 27 0'-100' - 12" 100'-350' - 10"

350 39 124

Hamilton Well Culinary 6/1/1982 38 0'-390' - 12" 390'-900' - 10"

900 600 1,750

Stokes Well Culinary 5/22/2007 13 16 530 109 200

Tuscany Well Secondary 8/20/1971 49 16 420 185 400

Bodell Well Secondary 6/25/1961 59 12 391 196 300

Stillman Well Culinary 12/15/2012 8 20 820 181 2,900

1 ft bgs – feet below ground surface

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 8-8

Booster Pumps

Table 8-5 summarizes characteristics of each of the City’s existing culinary booster pumps.

Table 8-5

Existing Culinary Booster Station Capacity

Booster Pump Source Destination Storage Flow

(gpm)

Pump Head (ft)

Emergency Backup (kW)

HP Well #3 HP Wells HP Tanks (Zone 4) 240 10


Zone 4 Hardlick Rosecrest/JVWCD Hardlick Kennecott 900 280

Zone 4 Hardlick Rosecrest Hardlick / Kennecott 4,800 330

6400 W Booster Zone 2 JVWCD Kennecott (Zone 4) 2,200 320

Zone 5 boosters Hardlick Tank Lookout Ridge (Zone 5) 1,500 210

Hi-Country Booster HP Tanks HC Buffer Tank 180 250

Cove (Zone 6W) HP Wells/Zone 4 Cove (Zone 6) 1,800 340

Zone 1E JVWCD Zone 1E 2,700 330 750

Total

Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District

The City has seven physical connections to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District as summarized by Table 8-6.

Table 8-6

Existing JVWCD Connections to Herriman City

Location Meter Size

Existing Capacity

(gpm)

Nearby JVWCD


Estimated Capacity of

Existing Transmission

(gpm)

5600 W 13400 S (JV Zone C) 6” & 12” 3,084 30” 15,422

4900 W 11800 S (JV Zone C) 8” & 4” 1,371 20” 6,800

5690 W 12855 S (JV Zone C) 6” & 10” 2,330 20” 6,800

14500 S 5600 W (Rosecrest – JV Zone C) 10” & 6” 2,330 20” 6,800

6000 W 11800 S (JV Zone C) 12” 2,468 48” 30,000

15000 S 3200 W (JV Zone A) 12” & 24” 1,763 36” 22,000

11800 S U111 (JV Zone C) 16" 4,387 -- --

Future 118 S U111 (JV Zone D) * -- -- --

Total 17,732

*The connection is nearby and readily accessible for Herriman’s future connection.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 8-9

CULINARY PRESSURE ZONES

The Herriman City water distribution system is currently divided into six generalized pressure zones within the City corporate boundary. Each of the pressure zones is approximately identified in Figure 8-1 with hydraulic grades as identified in Figure 8-2 to 8-3. While the City generally only refers to six pressure zones with respect to elevations within Herriman City, the City is hydraulically divided into several additional pressures zones as a result of relatively large transmission distances from one side of the City to the other and minor variations in pressure zones due to various pressure reducing valve separations between zones. In addition, as the City continues to develop, additional pressure zones may be added as development extends up the mountains at the south end of the City.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 9-1

CHAPTER 9

EXISTING SECONDARY WATER FACILITIES

Herriman City’s first began operation of its secondary water system in 2012. The City built the first pieces of the secondary system in conjunction with Riverton City by constructing the Blackridge Reservoir. The City leased capacity from Riverton City to utilize a pump station off the Welby Jacob Canal before constructing its own secondary pump station off the Welby Jacob Canal near 4000 West. In addition to the Welby Jacob Canal, the City utilizes some of its groundwater wells to support the secondary system. The City has primarily focused on extending pipelines to developing areas, but has added secondary pipelines to some existing roads in limited cases. Figure 9-1 shows all of the existing facilities in the City’s secondary distribution system. The pressure zones are color coded to indicate approximately how much secondary water will be provided to each area by the year 2065 based on current City planning. The City’s intent with most of the proposed improvements is to expand secondary water to most developing areas with limited extensions to existing developed areas. The City has considered the implications of full conversion of outdoor irrigation to secondary water, but full conversion is not anticipated in the planning window (2020 – 2065). Figure 9-2 shows a schematic of the City’s long-term operation plan for its secondary water system. Existing Pipe

Table 9-1 summarizes the amount of secondary pipe in the City’s inventory. For comparison, the total length of secondary pipe in the City (74.3 miles) is approximately 33 percent of the total length of culinary pipelines (226.8 miles).

Table 9-1

Total Secondary Pipes in Herriman City’s Inventory

Length by Material Type (ft)

Diameter (in)

PVC Ductile

Iron HDPE Other Unknown

Total (ft)

Total (mi)

4 4,693 0 0 69 1,052 5,814 1.1

6 65,834 161 0 0 1,152 67,147 12.7

8 227,438 335 0 0 6,916 234,688 44.4

10 12,215 149 1,236 0 0 13,600 2.6

12 6,008 13,100 0 0 856 19,963 3.8

14 0 95 669 0 0 764 0.1

16 0 6,272 0 0 681 6,953 1.3

18 0 4,652 0 0 0 4,652 0.9

20 4 17,826 527 0 23 18,380 3.5

24 986 995 530 0 1,578 4,090 0.8

30 0 16,020 0 87 119 16,226 3.1

Total 317,178 59,605 2,962 157 12,377 392,278 74.3

A

#### ### ##

########

##### ### #### ## ## ##### ## ### ## # ## ####

#### ### ## #

## ## ## ## ##

## ## ## ### ## ## ### # ## ###

### # ### ### ### ## ## ## ## # ## #### # ## # # ### ### ### #### #### ## ## ## ## ## ## ## # #### ## ### ### #### ### ### # ## ## ### # ## ## ###### ## ## # ## #### ### ## ###### ## ### # #### #### #

###

#### ### # ## ##

## # ####

##

#########

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

###

##

##

##

##

#

#

##

#

##

##

##

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

##

###

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

## ## ## # ## # ### ## #######

####

## ###### ### ###### ## # ## ####

### # #

###

##

# ### ##

##

##

##

## ## ## ### ###### ### # ### ### ### ### ##### #

#

# # #### ##

## #

####

##

##

#

#

#

##

#

##

###

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

##

##

##

####

###

##

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

##

###

#

#

####

##

####

##

####

###

#

###

#

#

##

##

#

##

##

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

###

#

##

##

#

## ###

# ### ##

# ## ## #

### ##

## #### # #### # # ## ### ### # ## ### # ## #

# ## ### # ### ## ## #### ## # ## ## ###### # # ### # # # ###

####### # ### ## ### ### ## #### ## ## # # ### ### ##

# # # ### ## # #### # ## ## ### ## # ##### ## ### ## #### # ###### ## # # ## # #### ## ### #

# #### # # ## # ## # ##

# ### ### # # ### ## ######### ## # ##

###

# ### #### #####

### #

##

######

##

## # ## ## ## ##

### # ###

## ## ## ## ## ###

### ## ## ## # ##

## ## ###

## # # ### # ###

#

#

# ## ####

# ## ### # #### ##### ### # ### #### ## # ### ## #

###

####

####

####

########

#

###

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

###

###

##

##

#

###

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#####

###

#

## ## ##### # ## ### # ## ### # ## ## ## # ## ### ### ##

# ##### #

#

#####

##

#

#

###

#

#

#

##

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#########

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##########

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

###

#####

#########

##

### #### ## #### ## ## ### ### ### ### # ## ### ## ### ##

####

## ## ##

# ## # ##

## ## ## # #####

##

## # ##

# #####

## ##

##

####

# ### ### #

## ### # #

# ##

### ## # ## # #

# # ## ## ## # #### ## ## ## ### ## ###

# # ### # #

# # ## ### #

##

### ## ## ## #

###### ###

## #

####

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

##

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

##

###

##

##

#

#

#

##

"M

"M

"M

4000W

Riverton

Blackridge PS

9

9

2

3

9

3

2

1

4

1

4

4

3

1

5

2

5

2

4

4

2

5

5

3

6

8

7

5

6

4

9

FIGURE NO.

SCALE:NORTH:

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 9-1 Secondary Existing Facilities.mxd AMcKinnon 7/30/2020

L E G E N D"M BoosterPumps

# Secondary Account

A PRV

Pipes (inches)0

4

6

8

12

16

18

20

24

30

Secondary Reservoir

Welby Jacob Canal

Pressure Zones2065 Secondary Coverage Ratio

0.00 - 0.01

0.02 - 0.25

0.26 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.75

0.76 - 1.00

Existing Corporate Boundary


9-1

WATER MASTER PLAN

EXISTING SECONDARY WATER FACILITIES

HERRIMAN CITY

0 1,750 3,500Feet

NO

RT

H

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 1 East ZONE 1E TANK (3.0 MG) (4990 - 5005 FT)

AutoCAD SHX Text

1E

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 1 North REGULATED 4950 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

1N

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 2 East (REGULATED) 5120 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

2E

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 2 North ZONE 2N RESERVOIR (3.0 MG) 5115 - 5130

AutoCAD SHX Text

2N

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 4 COVE (2.0 MG) 5385 - 5400 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

4C

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 3 East ZONE 3E TANK (2.0 MG) 5240 - 5255 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

3E

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 4 East (VFD) 5395 - 5410 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

4E

AutoCAD SHX Text

WELBY JACOB

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

ZONE 2E/3E P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 4 North BUTTERFIELD CANYON TANK (2.0 MG) 5385 - 5400 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

4N

AutoCAD SHX Text

STILLMAN WELL

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 3 BLACKRIDGE RESERVOIR (9.8 MG) 5240 - 5257 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

3C

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

WELBY JACOB

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 3 North (REGULATED) 5240 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

3N

AutoCAD SHX Text

WELBY JACOB / REUSE

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 2 (REGULATED) 5120 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

2

AutoCAD SHX Text

Zone 2 (REGULATED) 5120 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

2

AutoCAD SHX Text

TUSCANY WELL

AutoCAD SHX Text

BOWDELL WELL

AutoCAD SHX Text

HP WELL#1 & #2

AutoCAD SHX Text

#

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER SOURCE

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

PUMP STATION

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

4000W - ZONE 1E P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

4000 West P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

ZONE 2N P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

BLACKRIDGE P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

ZONE 3N/4N P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

HAMILTON WELL

AutoCAD SHX Text

ROSE CANYON CREEK

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

ZONE 4E P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

P

AutoCAD SHX Text

ZONE 3E P.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

BUILDOUT FULL CONVERSION TO SECONDARY

AutoCAD SHX Text

Figure 9-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

HERRIMAN SECONDARY SCHEMATIC

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER MASTER PLAN

AutoCAD SHX Text

HERRIMAN CITY

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 9-4

Existing Storage Facilities

The Blackridge Secondary Reservoir is the only secondary storage facility in Herriman City and has a capacity of 19.6 million gallons (9.8 million gallons for Herriman). Table 9-2 shows the stage storage curve for the reservoir (per design drawings).

Table 9-2

Blackridge Reservoir Stage Storage

Elevation Area (sf) Storage (acre-ft)

Storage (MG)

5238.25 0 0 0.0

5240 2,399 0.33 0.1

5242 90,694 2.8 0.9

5244 129,595 8.1 2.6

5246 138,486 14.3 4.7

5248 147,652 20.8 6.8

5250 160,691 27.9 9.1

5252 178,112 35.6 11.6

5254 196,486 44.2 14.4

5256 215,801 53.7 17.5

5257.25 - Spillway 228,266 60.1 19.6

5258 236,068 64.1 20.9

5260 257,278 75.4 24.6

5260.25 – Top of Dam 259,008 76.9 25.1 Wells

Table 9-3 summarizes characteristics of each of the City’s existing secondary only wells.

Table 9-3

Secondary Well Characteristics

Well Source Type

Completion Date

Age (yrs)

Well Diameter

(in)

Well Depth

(ft)

Water Level at time of

completion (ft bgs1)

HP Well #2 Secondary 12/2/1954 66 12 300 200

Tuscany Well Secondary 8/20/1971 49 16 420 185

Bodell Well Secondary 6/25/1961 59 12 391 196

1 ft bgs – feet below ground surface

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 9-5

Existing Booster Stations

Table 9-4 lists the characteristics of the City’s existing secondary booster stations.

Table 9-4

Existing Secondary Pump Station Characteristics

Pump Station

Phase 1 Flow Rate

(gpm)

Buildout Flow Rate

(gpm) Head

(ft) Type*

Blackridge Pump Station 3,500 4,000 211 VFD

4000 West Pump Station – To Blackridge Reservoir 3,200 6,000 600 VFD

4000 West Pump Station – To Juniper Canyon Reservoir -- 5,200 360 VFD

* Most existing pumps are equipped with variable frequency drives to accommodate fluctuating demand in a closed pressure zone or fluctuating supply.

The Blackridge Reservoir is supplied through a jointly owned Herriman/Riverton 30-inch transmission main and two pump stations:

• The Riverton City pump station is located adjacent to the Welby Jacob Canal (also known as the Provo River Canal) at approximately 13600 South 4200 West. The Riverton pump station has a capacity of 6,000 gpm and total pump lift of 596 ft. Through 2014, Herriman had an agreement with Riverton City to use up to 1,500 gpm of this pump station’s capacity to provide secondary water for its secondary water users and reimbursed Riverton City for associated costs.

• In 2015, the City completed construction and began operation of its own secondary pump station at approximately 4000 West near the Welby Jacob Canal to connect to the 30-inch transmission line so that Herriman is no longer reliant on Riverton City’s pump station. The 4000 West pump station connects to the 30-inch Blackridge pipeline with a new 20-inch transmission line. The 4000 West Pump Station is a dual pressure zone pump station that can pump both to the Blackridge Reservoir and to a future Juniper Canyon Reservoir (Pressure Zone 1E). The Juniper Canyon side of the pump station has not yet been equipped.

The City also has a Blackridge pump station that includes a VFD pump that supplies water to Zone 4 portions of Herriman City. This pump station pumps into a dead-end zone that will eventually have its own storage reservoir to meet peaking demands. The City also has a few groundwater wells that contribute to the secondary water system. Table 9-5 lists wells that currently contribute to the secondary system. The Hamilton Well and Stillman Well are currently part of the culinary water system, but can contribute to the secondary water system through pressure reducing backflow preventers.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 9-6

Table 9-5

Existing Secondary Water Well Sources

Source Destination Storage Capacity

(gpm)

Pump Head

(ft)

Hamilton Well Zone 2 Tank1 1750 210

Stillman Well Zone 2 Tank1 3,000 290

Tuscany Well VFD2 400 240

1 These wells currently pump to the Zone 2 Rosecrest culinary water tank. 2 This well will eventually pump to the Zone 2 Northwest Reservoir, but operates with a variable frequency drive (VFD) currently.

SECONDARY PRESSURE ZONES

The City’s secondary pressure zones will be limited to the four lowest pressure zones in the City. The City has no plans to extend secondary water above pressure zone four.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-1

CHAPTER 10

STORAGE AND BOOSTING EVALUATION

The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate the City’s water storage capacity. This chapter provides an overview of State rules and regulations pertaining to public water system storage facilities. As part of this evaluation, the size and location of existing storage reservoirs was analyzed to determine if the City has sufficient storage to adequately meet peak demands and to provide emergency and fire flow storage.

STORAGE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Regulations regarding required system storage are found in Section R309-510-8 of the Utah Administrative Code. The first portion of the code outlines the types of storage required:

“(1) General. Each public water system, or storage facility serving connections within a specific area, shall provide:

(a) equalization storage volume, to satisfy average day demands for water for indoor use and irrigation use,

(b) fire flow storage volume, if the water system is equipped with fire hydrants intended to provide fire suppression water or as required by the local fire code official, and

(c) emergency storage, if deemed appropriate by the water supplier or the Director.” Each of these storage components is discussed below for both culinary and secondary water. Culinary Water Storage

Equalization storage requirements are defined in State of Utah code as follows:

“(2) Equalization Storage.

(a) All public drinking water systems shall provide equalization storage. The amount of equalization storage varies with the nature of the water system, the extent of irrigation use, and the location and configuration of the water system.”

The code then proceeds to provide some minimum sizing standards in the absence of detailed water use data. However, since Herriman does have detailed use data, this first section of code is of most pertinence, especially as described in the following sentence:

“The amount of equalization storage varies with the nature of the water system, the extent of irrigation use, and the location and configuration of the water system.”

Staff at the Division of Drinking Water have interpreted this to mean that the need for equalization storage will vary between systems. This means that, where reliable water use data exists, the volume of equalization storage needed should be calculated based on actual water use patterns. Based on City storage tank levels and source production records, Herriman City calculated a demand pattern for its system. Table 10-1 and Figure 10-1 shows the dominant demand pattern for the City. As can be seen in the figure, water demands peak in the early morning hours when most people are irrigating their lawns. Demand then drops off significantly during the day as water use is primarily limited to smaller indoor uses. While demands vary significantly during the day, the same is not true for most supplies. It is usually most economical to size sources, major conveyance pipelines, and pump stations to produce water

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-2

at a relatively constant rate. The City currently relies on peaking capacity from JVWCD for many of its connections which essentially uses JVWCD storage capacity. The City is in the process of constructing additional storage to satisfy its internal demand fluctuations such that capacity from JVWCD and its other sources can be relatively constant.

Table 10-1

Existing Culinary Demand Pattern*

Hour Peaking Factor

0 1.34

1 1.35

2 1.36

3 1.37

4 1.47

5 1.7

6 1.65

7 1.4

8 1.15

9 0.94

10 0.85

11 0.8

12 0.82

13 0.8

14 0.7

15 0.55

16 0.5

17 0.48

18 0.46

19 0.48

20 0.6

21 0.83

22 1.12

23 1.28

24 1.35

*Demand pattern developed by City’s energy optimization study With this in mind, Figure 10-1 shows the difference between demand and supply throughout a peak day of demand. During the hours of greatest demand, water from storage is used to meet demand in excess of supply (as shown in red). During periods of lower demand, supply continues at its steady pace to refill storage reservoirs in preparation for peak demands the next day (as shown in blue). Based on the measured flows and as shown in the figure, the required equalization storage for the City was calculated to be approximately 18 percent of average peak day demands. Due to potential changes in the City’s demand pattern resulting from variations in irrigation patterns from day to day,

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-3

the City plans on using a minimum value of 25 percent of its average peak day demands to define required equalization storage for existing conditions.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-4

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Pea

kin

g Fa

cto

r

Hour of Day

Figure 10-1 Existing Culinary Demand Pattern

Storage Draining

Storage Filling

Equalization Storage = 18% of Peak Day Demand

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-5

Fire Flow Storage

Fire flow storage requirements are defined in the code as follows:

“(3) Fire Flow Storage.

(a) Fire flow storage shall be provided if fire flow is required by the local fire code official or if fire hydrants intended for fire flow are installed.

(b) Water systems shall consult with the local fire code official regarding needed fire flows in the area under consideration. The fire flow information shall be provided to the Division during the plan review process.

(c) When direction from the local fire code official is not available, the water system shall use Appendix B of the International Fire Code, 2015 edition, for guidance. Unless otherwise approved by the local fire code official, the fire flow and fire flow duration shall not be less than 1,000 gallons per minute for 60 minutes.”

As stated in the code, the primary authority responsible for establishing needed fire flows and fire flow storage is the local fire code official. The Unified Fire Authority is the fire marshal for the City. In a recent ISO survey, the maximum fire flow requirements varies by development type and size and ranges from 1,500 gpm in predominantly residential areas to 4,000 gpm in commercial areas. For the purposes of this master plan, fire flows in residential areas have been established as 1,500 gpm for 2 hours, while some commercial areas may require up to 4,000 gpm for 4 hours. Although not specifically outlined in the code, State Division of Drinking Water officials have historically allowed for fire flow for individual water pressure zones to come from storage within the zone itself or from storage in higher zones in the system. For the system as a whole, the required fire flow volume is equal to the largest single fire flow demand. For the City, this is assumed to be 4,000 gpm for 4 hours (960,000 gallons) based on the maximum fire flow demand required for fire sprinklered buildings. Emergency Storage

Emergency storage is the volume of water required to meet water demand during an emergency situation. Emergency storage requirements are defined in the code as follows:

“(4) Emergency Storage. Emergency storage shall be considered during the design process. The amount of emergency storage shall be based upon an assessment of risk and the desired degree of system dependability. The Director may require emergency storage when it is warranted to protect public health and welfare.”

It will be noted that no specific requirement is given for emergency storage in the code. The determination of required emergency storage is left largely to the entity designing and operating the water system. For the City, the most common water supply emergencies relative to storage analysis are power outages. During power outages, water supplies are unable to produce needed water. In the event of an extended City-wide outage, all wells and many booster stations would not be able to operate. While some water delivery during a power outage can be accomplished through auxiliary power to selected water system facilities, it is also wise to include some additional emergency water at storage reservoirs. This also gives system operators the benefit of a little extra buffer for system operations.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-6

Based on conversations with City personnel and common practice in the industry, it is recommended that all zones include emergency storage adequate to supply the system during a 6 hour power outage during peak day demands (or roughly 25 percent of peak day demand). State Minimum Requirements for Culinary Storage

In addition to the guidance provided in State of Utah regulations on minimum sizing requirements, the Division of Drinking Water has also issued “Detailed Guidance for Water Use Data Reporting and Setting System-Specific Source and Storage Minimum Sizing Requirements”. In those standards, the minimum amount of storage (excluding fire flow) must be greater than the average annual demand. Table 10-2 summarizes the minimum storage requirements that would be required based on this guideline compared to City planned storage requirements. As outlined here, the City’s planned storage requirements meet or exceed the requirements in the referenced guidelines.

Table 10-2

Culinary Required Storage

State of Utah Guideline for Storage, Average Annual Demand per ERC (gallons/day) 619 Herriman City 2020 Storage Requirement including Equalization & Emergency per ERC (gallons/day) 936

Secondary Water Storage

The City does not currently have accurate metering records to document the demand pattern for the full secondary water system. As part of the City’s energy optimization study, a secondary demand pattern was developed for portions of the system based on storage data. Figure 10-2 shows the secondary demand pattern for the City. Table 10-3 lists the peaking factors for this service area. Based on this demand pattern, equalization storage was calculated to be 35 percent of the peak day secondary demand. Figure 10-3 shows the ideal demand pattern for the City’s irrigation system that minimizes evapotranspiration in the day and mitigates pressure losses in City distribution piping. The demand pattern includes 50 percent equalization storage. To achieve the ideal demand pattern, the City would need to educate secondary water users on the best time of days to irrigate and time City irrigation controllers to balance demands as much as possible. Since demand patterns can change, the City would like to plan for equalization storage around the pattern identified in the energy optimization study, but include a safety factor of 2.0 to account for potential changes in the demand pattern and operational flexibility. Based on the safety factor and 35 percent equalization storage requirement, the minimum storage requirement for secondary would be 70 percent of secondary peak day demand.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-7

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Pea

kin

g Fa

cto

r

Hour of Day

Figure 10-2 Existing Secondary Demand Pattern

Storage Draining

Storage Filling

Secondary Demand Pattern

Equalization Storage = 35% of Peak Day Demand

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-8

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Pe

ak

ing

Fa

cto

r

Hour of Day

Figure 10-3 Ideal Secondary Water Demand Pattern to Minimize Evapotranspiration & Pressure Concerns

Storage Filling

Storage Draining

Demand Pattern

Equalization Volume = 50% of Peak Day

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-9

Table 10-3

Secondary Demand Pattern*

Hour Peaking Factor

0 1.6

1 1.6

2 1.65

3 1.75

4 2.3

5 2.44

6 2.1

7 1.7

8 1.1

9 0.8

10 0.45

11 0.35

12 0.4

13 0.4

14 0.24

15 0.24

16 0.2

17 0

18 0.24

19 0.28

20 0.28

21 0.85

22 1.29

23 1.74

24 1.6

*Based on Herriman City Energy Optimization Study

Table 10-4 summarizes recommended storage based on the criteria discussed above.

Table 10-4

Secondary Required Storage

Herriman City 2020 Storage Equalization Requirement (gallons/irrigated acre)1 4,124

Herriman City Safety Buffer (gallons/irrigated acre) 4,124

Total Herriman City Secondary Storage Requirement (gallons/irrigated acre) 8,249 1Based on 2.80 acre-ft per irrigated acre in accordance with the City’s conservation goal.

TOTAL EXISTING AND FUTURE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-10

The evaluation of equalization and emergency water storage facilities for existing conditions is shown in Tables 10-5 and 10-6 for culinary water and secondary water respectively.

Table 10-5

Existing Culinary Storage Requirements

Zone

Dry Year 2020 Peak Day

Demand

Required Storage

(gallons)

Cumulative Required Volume

(MG)

Associated Tank(s)2

Tank

Cumulative Tank

Volume (MG)

Pressure Zone HGL

Zone - 1N 1,232 887,189 0.89 0 0 0 4970

Zone - 2 7,556 5,440,568 6.33

Rosecrest, JVWCD, Zone

2 North 1, 5.0 6 5113 - 5135

Zone - 3 2,694 1,939,856 8.27 HP Tanks, 1.45 7.45 5230

Zone - 4 3,643 2,622,969 10.89

Hardlick, Kennecott

3.0, 3.0 13.45

5391 - 5410

Zones 1N – 4 Fire Flow 0 960,000 11.85 0 13.45 0

Zone - 5S 260 186,955 0.19 Lookout Ridge 0.425 0.425

5592 - 5612

Zone 5S Fire Flow 0 120,000 0.31 0.425 0

Zone – 5W 687 494,942 0.49 0 5500

Zone - 6W 236 169,607 0.66 Cove 1.0 1

5621 – 5640

Zone 5W -6W Fire

Flow 0 180,000 0.84 1 0

Zone - 1E 204 147,118 0.15 Zone 1E 2.0 2 4990 Zone 1E Fire

Flow 540,000 0.69

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-11

Table 10-6

Existing Secondary Storage Requirements

Pressure Zones

Existing Peak Day Demand

(gpm)

Equalization Storage

(MG)

Required Storage

(MG) Associated

Tanks

Available Storage

(MG)

Zone - 1N 0 0.00 0.00

Zone - 2 623 0.45 0.90

Zone - 3 0.00 0.00

Zone - 4 423 0.30 0.61

Zone - 1E 2 0.00 0.00

Zone - 1E-SE 0.00 0.00

Zone - 2E 501 0.36 0.72

Zone - 3E 381 0.27 0.55

Zone – 4E 290 0.21 0.42

Total 2,219 1.60 3.20 Blackridge 9.80

Table 10-7 and 10-8 show the required storage at buildout for the culinary and secondary systems. Areas of additional new storage are shown in bold italics. As can be seen the City will need construct a significant amount of additional storage as growth continues throughout the City. Figures 10-4 and 10-5 show the future storage and major conveyance facilities that will need to be constructed to accommodate future growth in Herriman City.

Table 10-7

Buildout Culinary Storage Requirements

Zone

Buildout Peak Day

Demand (gpm)

Required Storage Volume1 (gallons)


(MG)

Associated Tank(s)2

Tank Volume

(MG)

Cumulative Tank

Volume (MG)

Pressure Zone HGL

Zone - 1N 823 593,000 0.59 0 4970

Zone - 2 5,313 3,826,000 4.42

Rosecrest, JVWCD, Zone 2 North

1, 5.0 6 5113 - 5135

Zone - 3 2,710 1,952,000 6.37 HP Tanks, 1.45 7.45 5230

Zone - 4 2,514 1,811,000 8.18 Hardlick,

Kennecott 3.0, 3.0 13.45

5391 - 5410

Zone 5C 687 495,000 8.68

Zones 1N – 5C Fire Flow

960,000 9.64 13.45

Zone - 5S 282 0.20 0.203 Lookout

Ridge 0.425 0.425

5592 - 5612

Zone 5S Fire Flow

120,000 0.323 0.425

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-12

Zone

Buildout Peak Day

Demand (gpm)

Required Storage Volume1 (gallons)


(MG)

Associated Tank(s)2

Tank Volume

(MG)

Cumulative Tank

Volume (MG)

Pressure Zone HGL

Zone – 5W 544 392,000 0.392 5500

Zone - 6W 204 147,000 0.539 Cove 1 1 5621 – 5640

Zone 5W -6W Fire Flow

180,000 0.719 1

Zone - 7W 211 153,000 0.092 5825

Zone - 8W 329 238,000 0.244 Zone 8W 0.5 0.5 5964

Zone 7W - 8W Fire Flow

240,000 0.484 0.5

Zone - 1E 1,424 1,026,000 1.854 Zone 1E 2 2 4990

Zone - 1E-SE 384 277,000 0.277

Zone - 2E 612 441,000 0.718 5130

Zone 1E - 2E Fire Flow

540,000 1.258 Zone 2E 2 2

Zone - 3E 1233 888,000 1.412

Zone 3E Fire Flow

240,000 1.652 Zone 3E 2 2 5270

Zone – 4E 718 518,000 0.354 5410

Zone 4E Fire Flow

180,000 0.534 Zone 4E 0.6 0.6

Zone - 5E 344 248,000 0.044 5550

Zone - 6E & Up 319 230,000 0.132 Zone 6E 0.5 0.5 5690

Zone 5E – 6E Fire Flow

180,000 0.312 0.5

Zone 5N 1,164 838,000 0.838

Zone 6N 341 246,000 1.084 Zone 6N 1.5 1 5690

Zone 5N - 6N Fire Flow

180,000 1.264

High Country 662 477,000 0.477

Zone 3 East Storage Service Area

Most of the pressures zones within the City are designed with approximately 60 psi or approximately

140 feet of elevation difference. This allows for a pressure range of between 60 psi to 120 psi for

each pressure zone. The existing Zone 3 pressure zone on the western side of the City, however, only

has 110 feet of separation from the Zone 2 pressure zone. As a result, it would potentially increase

the number of pressure zones to match the elevation of the existing Zone 3 storage tanks and service

area. To provide more standardized separation for the service area toward the east side of Herriman

City, the City would like to separate Zone 3 West from Zone 3 East.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-13

Table 10-8

2065 Secondary Storage Requirements*

Pressure Zones

Buildout Peak Day Demand

(gpm)

Equalization Storage

(MG)

Required Storage

(MG)

Cumulative Required Storage

(MG) Associated

Tanks

Available Storage

(MG)

Pressure Zone HGL

Zone - 1N 130 0.09 0.19 0.19 4950

Zone - 2 2,810 2.02 4.05 4.23 Zone 2 3.0

5115-513036

Zone - 3 2,621 1.89 3.77 3.77 Blackridge 9.80 5240-5257

Zone - 4 3,098 2.23 4.46 4.46

Butterfield, Cove 4.0 5385-5400

Zone 5C 287 0.21 0.41 4.87 5550

Zone - 1E 1,218 0.88 1.75 1.75 Zone 1E 3.0 4950

Zone - 1SE 837 0.60 1.21 1.21 4950

Zone - 2E 863 0.62 1.24 2.45 5115-5130

Zone - 3E 1,052 0.76 1.51 3.96 Zone 3E 2.0 5240-5257

Zone – 4E 676 0.49 0.97 4.94 5395-5410

Total 13,591 9.79 19.57

*The 2065 development scenario assumes that secondary water is not extended through existing City roads where there is no existing secondary coverage. This is complimentary to the culinary buildout scenario.

It should be noted that storage requirements for secondary water have increased since the last water master plan update as a result of observed demand patterns which have indicated more aggressive water demand patterns that utilize more storage.

FIGURE NO.

SCALE:NORTH:

Zone 6E

Zone 5H

Zone 5E

Zone 8S

Zone 4E

Pump 6N

Pump 4NPump 3N

Zone 2E / 3E

Cove

HP 1.0

HP 0.4

Harlick

Lookout

Kennecott

Rosecrest

Zone 1 East

Zone 2 118th

Future Zone 6 East

Future Zone 5 East

Future Zone 2 East

Future Zone 3 East

Future Zone 8 South

Future Zone 6 North

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS,

Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 10-4 Future Culinary Facilities.mxd AMcKinnon 7/30/2020

0 1,500 3,000Feet

NO

RT

H

WATER MASTER PLAN

BUILDOUTCULIUNARY FACILITIES

HERRIMAN CITY

10-4

Legend"M Pumps

UT Tanks

KJ Source

ÍÎ $³ PRVs

RUN_DIAM<4"

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"-16"

18"-20"

24"

30"-36"

Future Roads

Pressure Zones1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

FIGURE NO.

SCALE:NORTH:Zone 4E

Zone 2N

Well #4

Zone 3E

Zone 4N

Zone 2E

Zone 3N

4000 West

Blackridge

HP Well #2HP Well #1

Tuscany WellBowdell Well

Hamilton Well13400S 5200W Well

Cove Z4 Storage

Zone 1E Storage

Zone 3E Storage

Northwest Storage

Blackridge Storage

Butterfield Storage

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri

(Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 10-5 Future Secondary Model.mxd AMcKinnon 7/29/2020

0 1,500 3,000Feet

NO

RT

H

WATER MASTER PLAN

BUILDOUTSECONDARY FACILITIES

HERRIMAN CITY

10-5

Legend"M Booster Station

UT Storage Tank or Reservoir

KJ Secondary Source

ÍÎ$³ PRV

Diameter<4"

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"-16"

18"-20"

24"

30"-36"

Future Roads

Secondary Reservoir

Pressure Zones1

2

3

4

5

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-16

BOOSTING EVALUATION

The City’s culinary water sources are primarily delivered in Pressure Zones 1 to 3 from JVWCD, groundwater wells, or springs. All of the water for Pressure Zones 4 and up are boosted to those pressure zones. The City also has several booster stations with somewhat overlapping service areas which is desirable to provide a degree of redundancy in the event one pump station is unavailable due to power or equipment failure. Table 10-9 lists existing culinary boosting capacity along with future booster stations that will be constructed to meet future needs. Additional future capacity needed through either the construction of new or expansion of existing booster stations is shown in bold italics.

Table 10-9

Existing and Future Culinary Booster Stations


(gpm)

Pump Head

(ft)

Emergency Backup

(kW)



Zone 3N Zone 2N 5MG HP Tanks (Zone 3) 2700 160

Zone 4 Hardlick Rosecrest/JVWCD Zone B

Hardlick / Kennecott (Zone 4)

900 280

Zone 4 Hardlick Rosecrest Hardlick / Kennecott (Zone 4)

4,800 330

Zone 4 N JVWCD Zone D 118th

Kennecott (Zone 4) 4,300 80

6400 W Booster Zone 2 JVWCD Zone B

Kennecott (Zone 4) 2,200 320

Zone 5 boosters Hardlick Tank Lookout Ridge (Zone 5) 1,500 210

Hi-Country Booster

HP Tanks HC Buffer Tank 180 250

Cove (Zone 6W) HP Wells/Zone 4 Cove (Zone 6) 1,800 340

Zone 1E JVWCD Zone A Zone 1E 2700

(10,800) 330 750

Zone 2E Zone 1E Zone 2E 2,700 150

Zone 3E Zone 1E Zone 3E 3,800 290

Zone 4E Zone 3E Zone 4E 500 141

Zone 5E Zone 3E Zone 6E 500 280

Zone 5C Zone 4 (Kennecott)

None (VFD with pressure vessel)

2,150 230

Total

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 10-17

The majority of the City’s secondary water sources are in Pressure Zone 1 and 2 and are boosted to Zones 3 and 4. Table 10-10 lists existing secondary boosting capacity along with future booster stations that will be constructed to meet future needs. Additional future capacity needed through either the construction of new or expansion of existing booster stations is shown in bold italics.

Table 10-10

Existing and Future Secondary Booster Stations


(gpm)

Pump Head

(ft)

4000 West - Blackridge

Welby Jacob Blackridge 3,200

(6,000) 600

4000 West - Juniper Canyon

Welby Jacob Blackridge 5200 360

Blackridge Pump Station

Blackridge Zone 4 VFD / Future Zone 4 storage

3,500 211

Zone 2E Zone 1E Juniper Canyon

Zone 2E VFD 4400 270

Zone 3E Zone 2E Zone 3E storage 2,400 170

Zone 4E Zone 3E storage Zone 4E VFD 950 180

Zone 3N Zone 2N Storage Zone 3N VFD 2,700 200

Zone 4N Zone 2N Storage Zone 4N VFD 1,200 270

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 11-1

CHAPTER 11

HYDRAULIC MODEL HISTORY

The purpose of this chapter is to document the development and history of the City’s culinary and secondary hydraulic water models. A hydraulic computer model is a digital representation of physical features and characteristics of the water system, including sources, pipes, valves, storage tanks, and pumps. Key physical components of a water system are represented by a set of user-defined parameters that represent the characteristics of the system. The computer model utilizes the digital representation of physical system characteristics to mathematically simulate operating conditions of a water distribution system. Computer model output includes pressures at each node, flow rate for each pipe in the water system, and water surface levels in storage tanks. There are several available computer programs for modeling water distribution systems. The City’s models have been developed as EPANET models and using InfoWater software developed by Innovyze.

MODEL HISTORY

The following is a history of the development process of the hydraulic models used as part of this water master plan. Drinking Water Model

• 2018 Optimization Study – The City prepared an energy optimization study in 2018 to evaluate potential improvements in operations to reduce overall energy and power costs. As part of this study, pump curves and control operations were identified and calibrated within the hydraulic model. Pipe roughness values also were updated as part of this study based on 2018 observed demands.

• 2019 Update – The original optimization study did not include some production data from JVWCD as a result of some supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) concerns. The model was updated as part of this study to reflect SCADA data provided by JVWCD. The culinary diurnal pattern reflected in Chapter 10 is based on an updated mass balance using both Herriman and JVWCD culinary water production data.

• Future Facilities – Future facilities and demands were created in the model as skeletonized connections to simulate major conveyance facilities.

Secondary Water Model

• 2018 Optimization Study – The City prepared an energy optimization study in 2018 to evaluate potential improvements in operations to reduce overall energy and power costs. As part of this study, pump curves and control operations were identified and calibrated within the hydraulic model. Pipe roughness values also were updated as part of this study based on 2018 observed demands.

• SCADA & Data Limitations – The data available for use in the secondary model was based on billing data and SCADA data.

o Billing data vs. production data – The July 2018 average daily demand based on billing data alone was calculated to be 1.65 mgd. Conversely, the peak day production in

July 2018 was calculated to be 3.19 mgd. While some system losses should always

be expected, this appears to be more differential than can be accounted for by

normal system losses. Additional investigation was conducted to identify the source

of this discrepancy.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 11-2

o Stillman / Hamilton Well Transmission Line – All of the City’s Zone 2 secondary pipes north of Herriman Parkway and including some areas south of Herriman Parkway are all supplied via the Hamilton and Stillman Wells.

▪ Rosecreek Park - Herriman City personnel identified some data gaps at Rosecreek Park that were not included in billing data as part of 2018. Based on a rough open space area estimate of 23 acres, unmetered peak day secondary demand for the Rosecreek area could account for approximately 0.2 mgd of the discrepancy.

o Billing Data Calibration – With the significant difference between billing data and production data for peak demands, system demands were calibrated in two steps.

▪ Blackridge Service Area – The Blackridge Service area includes all of the billing areas that are served by the 4000 West pump station. Peak day demands for this area for the period of record were primarily measured via the Blackridge Pump Station. So the billing data for areas in this area could be scaled up to match the measured data through the pump station.

▪ Stillman Well Service Area – Production for the areas that are served exclusively by Stillman Well and Hamilton Well can be measured as the net decrease in production from the wells and a flow meter at the Rosecrest Booster. This service area is hydraulically disconnected from the Blackridge Reservoir and can be treated separately. The billing data for this area was scaled up to match peak day production data for the area with the modification noted above for the Rosecreek area.

▪ Future Calibration Areas – As the City expands service, it will be possible to better calibrate the model by further breaking up the secondary system into production areas that can be documented by flow meters or the net difference from flow meters.

o Riverton City – Riverton City pumps flow up to the Blackridge Reservoir, but also pulls water out earlier than Herriman City. For the purpose of calibrating the model, demands from Riverton City have been left out with the assumption any net pumping from Riverton City will be reduced by demand. This cannot be entirely accurate, but there is insufficient data to identify how Riverton City demands fluctuate and may affect storage in the Blackridge Reservoir.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 12-1

CHAPTER 12

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION

The purpose of this chapter is to document the results of the culinary and secondary distribution system evaluations based on hydraulic modeling.

MODEL SCENARIOS

The City’s hydraulic models are setup to run extended period simulations. The model results that are most useful for evaluating the distribution system performance include operating conditions for several conditions: static or wintertime demands, peak day demands with fire flow, and peak instantaneous demands. Model results for the following scenarios have been documented to aid in evaluating system performance.

• Static or Low Demand – This scenario is used to identify potentially high system pressures low demands when pipe friction losses are minimal. This scenario can also be used to look for high system velocities which could indicate a cross connection between different pressure zones.

• Peak Day Demand –This scenario represents the average daily demands on the system during the peak usage day of the year. This scenario is primarily used to simulate fire flows to identify areas that do not meet fire flow requirements. It can also be used to identify source deficiencies within tank service areas to determine if sufficient production and conveyance capacity existing to fill and drain tanks properly during peak demands.

• Peak Hour Demands – The purpose of this scenario is to identify existing pressure deficiencies under peak hour demand conditions. For the culinary water system, a peak hour to peak day peaking factor of 1.7 was used based on the data provided by the City. A peak hour to peak day peaking factor of 2.44 was applied to the secondary water system based on pattern data developed as part of the City’s energy optimization study.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The performance of the system was evaluated using the following criteria:

• Culinary pressure within the system during peak demands - The State of Utah requires that a public water system maintain a minimum pressure standard of 30 psi during peak hour demands and 40 psi during peak day demands. The minimum design standard for the City is a minimum pressure of 45 psi. However, the City tries to maintain pressures between 60 psi and 120 psi for most of the distribution system and only makes exceptions for areas with topography challenges that would require excessive additional pressure zones to otherwise resolve.

• Secondary Pressure within the system during peak demands - For the secondary water system, the City would like to keep secondary water pressures 5 psi less than culinary system pressures with a minimum total pressure of not less than 40 psi during peak hour demand. The target pressure the City will ideally maintain within the secondary system will be between 55 psi and 115 psi. Tanks for the secondary system will be located at elevations approximately 10 feet lower than their corresponding culinary tanks to help maintain the relative difference in pressure. In some cases, however, secondary source connections that are substantially different from the culinary system may lead to some areas of the secondary distribution system with higher pressures than the culinary system due to pumping and conveyance requirements.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 12-2

• Pressure within the system during peak day demands with fire flow – The State of Utah requires that a public water system be capable of conveying required fire flow with a residual pressure of 20 psi. Minimum fire flows have been defined as 1,500 gpm with a residual pressure of 20 psi for residential connections. Note that historic fire flow standards allowed for 1,000 gpm for some residential areas. As a result, existing developed connections with fire flows above 1,000 gpm were considered less desirable, but low priority for improvement. Commercial areas were evaluated with a fire flow of between 3,000 and 4,000 gpm with a 20 psi residual.

• Maximum pipe velocities – While high instantaneous velocities in a pipeline are not generally as much of a concern to the system as low pressures, they can cause damage to pipes and potentially lead to pipe failure. High velocities alone do not generally require improvements to eliminate the velocity issues but indicate areas where additional conveyance improvements will have the most benefit. Pipelines with velocities above 7 ft/sec indicated areas where additional conveyance improvements would be beneficial. Any pipeline which displayed a maximum velocity greater than 10 ft/sec was flagged as a deficient pipe. The target velocity for pump transmission lines is less than 5 ft/sec to reduce energy requirements on pumps.

SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS

Existing Culinary Distribution Evaluation

The hydraulic computer model was used to simulate system conditions for the low demand scenario, peak day demands with fire flow, peak hour demands. Model results for critical model scenarios under existing demands are included in the following figures:

1. Figure 12-1 shows pressures for the low demand scenario

a. There are many areas in the City with pressures higher than 120 psi related to historical pressure zone boundaries. Fort Herriman Middle school and a nearby church building have pressures in the range of 160 psi. Because these are non-residential connections with their own pressure reducing valves and the pipe material is ductile iron, these pressures may be considered tolerable. The City could consider adding a PRV near these connections and connecting it to the Butterfield Park system which already has a pressure reducing valve for service.

2. Figure 12-2 shows pressures for the peak hour demand scenario

a. Long Ridge Dr / Palo Alto Dr – The upper edge of Pressure Zone 4 near these few streets have pressures below the City’s desired delivery pressure. Connections still meet State of Utah requirements, but do not meet the City’s pressure goal. There are several causes for low pressures near this location:

i. Elevation – These locations are at the upper end of Pressure Zone 4.

ii. Conveyance Capacity – This location is one of the further locations away from existing Zone 4 storage tanks and more pressure is lost to convey to this distant location.

iii. Cove Pumping and Zone 5 Demands – The model shows that the nearby Zone 5C area including areas between Summit Crest Lane and Herriman Hwy (Butterfield Creek) are using a significant amount of the Cove Pump Station’s capacity leading to reduced head and flow to the Cove storage tank. Model results indicate that the Cove Pump station recirculates some flow under

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 12-3

existing conditions due to the lack of available pressure. This results in some high velocities along Spring Canyon Dr pipes as flow is delivered from Zone 5 to Zone 4 via pressure reducing valves under peak conditions.

Cove

HP 4

HP 3

Zone 1ELookout

Hardlick

Kennecott

Rosecrest

Zone 2 North

HP Well 4

HP Well 3

HP Well 1

Hamilton Well

JVWCD U111 - ZDJVWCD U111 - ZC

Arnolds Springs

JVWCD 3.0 MG Tank

JVWCD 150th & 32nd

JVWCD 118th & 60th

JVWCD 129th & 56th

JVWCD 134th & 56th

JVWCD Copper Creek

5200 W 13400 S Well

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, ©

OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 12-1 Static Demand.mxd AMcKinnon 7/29/2020

LegendPressure (psi)

<30

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 120.0

120.1 - 150.0

>150.0

Future Roads

UT Tanks

KJ Source


<4"

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"-16"

18"-20"

24"

30"-36"

Pressure Zones1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SCALE:NORTH:

0 1,500 3,000Feet

12-1

WATER MASTER PLAN

EXISTING CULINARYLOW DEMAND / HIGH PRESSURES

HERRIMAN CITY

NO

RT

H

FIGURE NO.

13400 S

12600 S

14400 S

11800 S

Cove

HP 4

HP 3

Zone 1ELookout

Hardlick

Kennecott

Rosecrest

Zone 2 North

HP Well 4

HP Well 3

HP Well 1

Hamilton Well


Arnolds Springs

JVWCD 3.0 MG Tank

JVWCD 150th & 32nd

JVWCD 118th & 60th

JVWCD 129th & 56th

JVWCD 134th & 56th

JVWCD Copper Creek

5200 W 13400 S Well



P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 12-2 Ex PHD.mxd AMcKinnon 7/29/2020

LegendMin Pressure (psi)

<30

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 45.0

45.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 120.0

120.1 - 150.0

150.1 - 210.0

Max Velocity (ft/sec)0.0 - 2.0

2.1 - 4.0

4.1 - 5.0

5.1 - 7.0

7.1 - 10.0

>10.0

UT Tanks

KJ Source

Pressure Zones1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SCALE:NORTH:

0 1,500 3,000Feet

12-2

WATER MASTER PLAN

EXISTING CULINARYPEAK HOUR DEMAND

HERRIMAN CITY

NO

RT

H

FIGURE NO.

13400 S

12600 S

14400 S

11800 S

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 12-6

As demands increase into the future, the Cove pump station will not be able to keep up with demands and the tank will drain without additional conveyance improvements to this location.

b. Herriman View Cove – Herriman View Cove has relatively low pressures that are primarily related to a high elevation. This location is not that far from the Hardlick storage tank and pipe velocities in the area are not a significant concern. If this connection can be connected to Zone 5 in the future, that would be the best solution to remedy low pressures at this location.

c. Most other low pressures identified in Figure 12-2 are related to transmission lines near storage tanks that do not have any demands or service connections.

3. Figure 12-3 shows the available fire flow in conjunction with existing peak day demands

a. Most of Herriman City’s distribution system meets fire flow requirements. This is primarily because much of the City’s water distribution system is newer and meets more recent international fire code requirements. The few fire flow deficiencies in the City are caused by the following concerns:

i. High Elevation – Junctions near the upper end of pressure zones will have difficulty meeting fire flow requirements without large supply pipes and looping.

ii. Dead-Ends – Dead end connections often have fire flow deficiencies because high velocities through a single pipe cause higher pressure losses. Dead-end connections frequently require oversized pipes to meet fire flow requirements unless the connection can be looped another way.

Existing Secondary Distribution Evaluation

The hydraulic computer model was used to simulate existing peak hour demands on the secondary system. Figure 12-4 shows the results for the peak hour demand scenario. For existing conditions, the northwestern parts of the connected Pressure Zone 2 have pressures below the City’s desired level of service. However, there are few active secondary accounts in those areas and those pressure issues will resolve when Herriman begins operating its Tuscany and Bodell Wells which have not been operated much in the secondary system yet.

Future Culinary Distribution Evaluation

The hydraulic computer model was used to simulate system conditions for 2065 development conditions. New facilities were added as a skeleton system to serve developing areas. The skeleton system is intended to represent looping that should be part of the future system. As areas develop, additional looping could reduce needed pipe sizes or conversely limited looping would require larger pipe sizes. The new facilities themselves have been sized to avoid deficiencies for developing areas. Figure 12-5 and 12-6 show peak hour demands and peak day demands with fire flow:

1. Figure 12-5 shows pressures for the buildout peak hour demand scenario.

a. In some cases, there continue to be some areas that do not meet the City’s desired delivery pressure today. These are primarily related to elevation issues. In all cases, the system meets State of Utah pressure delivery requirements.

Cove

HP 4

HP 3

Zone 1ELookout

Hardlick

Kennecott

Rosecrest

Zone 2 North

HP Well 4

HP Well 3

HP Well 1

Hamilton Well


Arnolds Springs

JVWCD 3.0 MG Tank

JVWCD 150th & 32nd

JVWCD 118th & 60th

JVWCD 129th & 56th

JVWCD 134th & 56th

JVWCD Copper Creek

5200 W 13400 S Well



P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 12-3 Ex PDDFF.mxd AMcKinnon 7/29/2020

LegendAvailable Flow (gpm) @ 20 psi

<500

500 - 1000

1001 - 1500

1501 - 3000

>4000

UT Tanks

KJ Source


<4"

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"-16"

18"-20"

24"

30"-36"

Pressure Zones1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SCALE:NORTH:

0 1,500 3,000Feet

12-3

WATER MASTER PLAN

EXISTING CULINARYPEAK DAY DEMAND

AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW AT 20 PSIHERRIMAN CITY

NO

RT

H

FIGURE NO.

13400 S

12600 S

14400 S

11800 S

A

#### ### ##

########

##### ### #### ## ## ##### ## ### ## # ## ####

#### ### ## #

## ## ## ## ##

## ## ## ### ## ## ### # ## ###

### # ### ### ### ## ## ## ## # ## #### # ## # # ### ### ### #### #### ## ## ## ## ## ## ## # #### ## ### ### #### ### ### # ## ## ### # ## ## ###### ## ## # ## #### ### ## ###### ## ### # #### #### #

###

#### ### # ## ##

## # ####

##

#########

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

###

##

##

##

##

#

#

##

#

##

##

##

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

##

###

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

## ## ## # ## # ### ## #######

####

## ###### ### ###### ## # ## ####

### # #

###

##

# ### ##

##

##

##

## ## ## ### ###### ### # ### ### ### ### ##### #

#

# # #### ##

## #

####

##

##

#

#

#

##

#

##

###

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

##

##

##

####

###

##

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

##

###

#

#

####

##

####

##

####

###

#

###

#

#

##

##

#

##

##

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

###

#

##

##

#

## ###

# ### ##

# ## ## #

### ##

## #### # #### # # ## ### ### # ## ### # ## #

# ## ### # ### ## ## #### ## # ## ## ###### # # ### # # # ###

####### # ### ## ### ### ## #### ## ## # # ### ### ##

# # # ### ## # #### # ## ## ### ## # ##### ## ### ## #### # ###### ## # # ## # #### ## ### #

# #### # # ## # ## # ##

# ### ### # # ### ## ######### ## # ##

###

# ### #### #####

### #

##

######

##

## # ## ## ## ##

### # ###

## ## ## ## ## ###

### ## ## ## # ##

## ## ###

## # # ### # ###

#

#

# ## ####

# ## ### # #### ##### ### # ### #### ## # ### ## #

###

####

####

####

########

#

###

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

###

###

##

##

#

###

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#####

###

#

## ## ##### # ## ### # ## ### # ## ## ## # ## ### ### ##

# ##### #

#

#####

##

#

#

###

#

#

#

##

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#########

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##########

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

###

#####

#########

##

### #### ## #### ## ## ### ### ### ### # ## ### ## ### ##

####

## ## ##

# ## # ##

## ## ## # #####

##

## # ##

# #####

## ##

##

####

# ### ### #

## ### # #

# ##

### ## # ## # #

# # ## ## ## # #### ## ## ## ### ## ###

# # ### # #

# # ## ### #

##

### ## ## ## #

###### ###

## #

####

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

##

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

##

###

##

##

#

#

#

##

"M

"M

"M

KJ

KJ

KJ

KJ

KJ

KJ

KJ

KJKJ

KJ

KJ

KJ

4000W

Riverton

Blackridge PS

HP Well 2HP Well 1

Bowdell WellTuscany Well

Hamilton Well

Rose Canyon Creek

5200 W 13400 S Well

Welby Jacob to Northwest

Welby Jacob to E.H. Lower

Welby Jacob to Blackridge



FIGURE NO.

SCALE:NORTH:

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 12-4 Secondary ExPHD.mxd AMcKinnon 7/29/2020

L E G E N DMin Pressure (psi)

<30

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 45.0

45.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 120.0

120.1 - 150.0

150.1 - 210.0


2.1 - 4.0

4.1 - 5.0

5.1 - 7.0

7.1 - 10.0

>10.0

KJ Res

"M BoosterPumps

# Secondary Account

A PRV

Secondary Reservoir

Welby Jacob Canal

Pressure Zone 1

Pressure Zone 2

Pressure Zone 3

Pressure Zone 4

Pressure Zone 5

World Street Map

12-4

WATER MASTER PLAN

EXISTING SECONDARY PEAK HOUR DEMAND

HERRIMAN CITY

0 1,750 3,500Feet

NO

RT

H

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³ ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

UT

UTUT

UT

UT

UT

UTUT

UTUT

UT

UTUT

UT

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M"M

"M

"M"M

"M"M

"M"M

"M

"M"M

"M

"M

"M"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

Cove

HP 4

HP 3

Zone 1ELookout

Hardlick

Kennecott

Rosecrest

Zone 2 North

HP Well 4

HP Well 3

HP Well 1

Hamilton Well


Arnolds Springs

JVWCD 3.0 MG Tank

JVWCD 150th & 32nd

JVWCD 118th & 60th

JVWCD 129th & 56th

JVWCD 134th & 56th

JVWCD Copper Creek

5200 W 13400 S Well



P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 12-5 BO PHD.mxd AMcKinnon 7/29/2020

LegendMin Pressure (psi)

<30

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 45.0

45.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 120.0

120.1 - 150.0

150.1 - 210.0

"M Pump

UT Tank

ÍÎ$³ Valves


2.1 - 4.0

4.1 - 5.0

5.1 - 7.0

7.1 - 10.0

>10.0

Future Roads

UT Tanks

KJ Source

Pressure Zones1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Future Roads

SCALE:NORTH:

0 1,500 3,000Feet

12-5

WATER MASTER PLAN

BUILDOUT CULINARYPEAK HOUR DEMAND

HERRIMAN CITY

NO

RT

H

FIGURE NO.

13400 S

12600 S

14400 S

11800 S

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³


ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

UT

UTUT

UT

UT

UT

UTUT

UTUT

UT

UTUT

UT

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M"M

"M

"M"M

"M"M

"M"M

"M

"M"M

"M

"M

"M"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

HP Well 4

HP Well 3

HP Well 1

Hamilton Well


Arnolds Springs

JVWCD 3.0 MG Tank

JVWCD 150th & 32nd

JVWCD 118th & 60th

JVWCD 129th & 56th

JVWCD 134th & 56th

JVWCD Copper Creek

5200 W 13400 S Well



P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 12-6 BO PDDFF.mxd AMcKinnon 7/29/2020

LegendAvailable Flow (gpm) @ 20 psi

<500

500 - 1000

1001 - 1500

1501 - 3000

>4000

"M Pump

UT Tank

ÍÎ$³ Valves

Diameter (inch)<4"

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"-16"

18"-20"

24"

30"-36"

KJ Source

Pressure Zones1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SCALE:NORTH:

0 1,500 3,000Feet

12-6

WATER MASTER PLAN

BUILDOUT CULINARYPEAK DAY DEMAND FIRE FLOW

HERRIMAN CITY

NO

RT

H

FIGURE NO.

13400 S

12600 S

14400 S

11800 S

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 12-11

2. Figure 12-6 shows available flow at 20 psi for the 2065 peak day demand scenario. There are no significant changes in fire flow deficiencies in 2060 compared to existing conditions. As a result, most of the improvements needed for existing conditions will resolve the future fire flow deficiencies as well.

2065 Secondary Distribution Evaluation

Figure 12-7 shows pressures and peak velocities for peak hour demand conditions. Based on model result, there is one area of the City with pressures below the City’s desired level of service at buildout. The area is actually part of Pressure Zone 5 and is higher in elevation than originally planned for service by the secondary system. As a result, an exception for pressure delivery to this area will be allowed so that pressures at the upper system may be as low as 30 psi during peak demands. These lower pressures could be mitigated by altering demand patterns for the local area to reduce the peak hour demand and increase available pressure for secondary use.

"M

"M

"M

KJ

KJ

KJ

KJ

KJ

KJ

KJ

KJKJ

KJ

KJ

KJ

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³


ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

ÍÎ$³

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M"M

4000W

Riverton

Blackridge PS

HP Well 2HP Well 1

Bowdell WellTuscany Well

Hamilton Well

Rose Canyon Creek

5200 W 13400 S Well

Welby Jacob to Northwest

Welby Jacob to E.H. Lower

Welby Jacob to Blackridge



FIGURE NO.

SCALE:NORTH:

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 12-7 Secondary BoPHD.mxd AMcKinnon 7/29/2020

L E G E N DMin Pressure (psi)

<30

30.1 - 40.0

40.1 - 45.0

45.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 120.0

120.1 - 150.0

150.1 - 210.0

"M Pumps

UT Tanks

ÍÎ$³ Valves


2.1 - 4.0

4.1 - 5.0

5.1 - 7.0

7.1 - 10.0

>10.0

Future Roads

KJ Res

"M BoosterPumps

Secondary Reservoir

Welby Jacob Canal

Pressure Zone 1

Pressure Zone 2

Pressure Zone 3

Pressure Zone 4

Pressure Zone 5

12-7

WATER MASTER PLAN

BUILDOUT SECONDARYPEAK HOUR DEMAND

HERRIMAN CITY

0 1,700 3,400Feet

NO

RT

H

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 13-1

CHAPTER 13

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize recommended distribution system improvements for both the culinary and secondary water system.

CULINARY STORAGE AND BOOSTER IMPROVEMENTS

Project costs for culinary storage and booster stations are summarized in Tables 13-1 and 13-2.

Table 13-1

Future Culinary Storage Tanks

Tank Size (MG) Project Cost

Estimated Year of

Construction

Zone 2E 2 $3,509,000 2021

Zone 3E 2 $3,509,000 2021

Zone 5E 0.5 $1,061,000 2028

Zone 6E 0.5 $1,061,000 2035

Zone 6N 1.5 $2,895,000 2035

Zone 8W 0.5 $1,061,000 2028

10-Year Total $9,140,000

Buildout Total $12,035,000 It is worth noting that there is potential for variation in the location of future storage tanks. The Zone 5E and 6E Tanks could potentially be combined into a single storage facility depending on the timing of development in higher pressure zones. Likewise, the City may decide to split the Zone 6N storage tank into a separate Zone 5N and Zone 6N storage facility depending on the timing of future development.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 13-2

Table 13-2

Future Culinary Booster Stations

Booster Pump Flow

(gpm) Head (ft) Project

Cost Estimated Year of Construction

Zone 2E 2,700 150 $1,206,000 2021

Zone 3E 3,600 290 $2,261,000 2021

Zone 3N 2,700 160 $1,035,000 2025

Zone 4 N 4,300 80 $1,035,000 2025

Zone 4E 1,000 141 $805,000 2025

Zone 5E 500 280 $605,000 2028

Zone 6E 500 141 $605,000 2035

Zone 5C 2,400 189 $1,150,000 2025

Zone 6N 2,200 267 $1,265,000 2035

10-Year Total $8,097,000

Buildout Total $9,967,000

Like some of the City’s future storage tanks, future booster stations could potentially be combined or maintained independent depending on timing of future development:

• Zone 2E / 3E Pump Station – The Zone 2E and 3E pumps will be combined into a single building based on proximity to each pressure zone from its source water (Zone 1 East).

• Zone 5C Pump Station – The Zone 5C area currently draws demand from the Cove Tank, but this will eventually lead to demands too high for the Cove Pump Station and local conveyance pipes to keep up with demand. As a result, the Zone 5C pump station will draw flow from the transmission line leading to the Kennecott tank to reduce conveyance requirements to the Cove Pump Station. The Zone 5C pump station could potentially be used to reduce the size of the future Zone 6N pump station depending on how future storage tanks may be constructed for Zones 5N and 6N. It could also be used as a redundant backup for the High Country Estates booster because the Zone 5C distribution lines are adjacent to the High Country Estates delivery line. The design for this booster should consider these two potential alternatives.

• Zone 3N / 4N Booster Station – The Zone 3N Booster Station is intended to serve future growth and to increase source capacity directly to Zone 3 that currently is boosted to Zone 4 and then passed through pressure reducing valves to Zone 3. If possible, this pump station should draw from the Zone 2 5MG storage reservoir. The Zone 4N Booster will increase conveyance capacity to the Kennecott storage reservoir for use in Zones 5C, 5N, and 6N. If possible, this pump station should draw from the Zone 2 5 MG storage reservoir; but could draw from the JVWCD Zone D pressure zone as a source as well.

• Other Future Pump Stations – The construction and arrangement of most other future pump stations will depend on the timing of future growth.

CULINARY DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENTS

Culinary water system improvements for the City’s culinary distribution system can generally be grouped into one of three categories as follows:

• Developing – The majority of system improvements in the City will be related to development and extending new waterlines to meet the needs of future growth.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 13-3

• Dead-End Fire Flow Improvements – There are limited areas where additional looping is needed to better meet fire flow requirements for existing conditions. All of the fire flow dead-ends identified for existing conditions could likely be looped as part of extensions to future growth. As a result, looping improvement projects for these deficiencies have not been separated from the developing pipe category.

• Pressure Zone Changes – The City will be modifying Pressure Zone 3 somewhat to better serve some neighborhoods that sometimes have lower pressures during peak hour conditions and to better serve areas of East Herriman. The new Zone 3 East culinary storage tank will be positioned approximately 30 feet (13 psi) higher than the existing HP Tanks in Zone 3 West. This will require the construction of two new PRVs and several check valves at key locations as identified in Figure 13-1 to separate Zone 3 West from Zone 3 East. This will increase pressures at upper elevations in Zone 3 while preventing lower elevations in Zone 3 West from exceeding desired pressure limits.

Table 13-3 summarizes the total length and diameter of pipe that will need to be constructed to form the skeleton of the City’s future water conveyance system. Note that this table does not include the majority of neighborhood level distribution pipes. It is anticipated that most neighborhood level 8-inch pipes are to be installed through development contributions. Pipe unit costs associated with future growth will likely vary depending on whether pipe improvements need to cross or run through existing roads, require any rock excavation (as may be required in eastern part of Herriman City), or other potential unknowns. The costs listed in Table 13-3 are intended to represent average costs for waterline pipes. Detailed costs for individual projects that need to be constructed over the next 10-years will be included in the next chapter.

NO

RT

H

FIGURE NO.

SCALE:NORTH:

!

!

L E G E N D!

Proposed Check Valves

ÍÎ$³ 3E to 3W PRVs

PipesDiameter (inch)

<4"

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"-16"

18"-20"

24"

30"-36"

Pressure Zone 33E

3W

Ideal Zone 3E Lower Boundary

Ideal Zone 3E Upper Boundary

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 13-1 - Zone 3E Modifications.mxd AMcKinnon 6/25/2020

Zone 3 East to Zone 3 WestPRVs to allow reversable flowin emergency events.

Proposed check valves improve fire flow and provide zone isolation

13-1HERRIMAN CITY

WATER MASTER PLAN

Pressure Zone 3 EastBoundary

0 500 1,000

Feet

NO

RT

H

FIGURE NO.

SCALE:NORTH:

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 13-5

Table 13-3

Future Culinary Water Distribution Pipe Projects

Diameter (in)

Length (ft)

Length (mi) Percentage

Average Project Cost

Estimate

8 97,330 18.43 29.1% $23,194,000

10 10,180 1.93 3.0% $2,512,000

12 151,690 28.73 45.3% $39,480,000

14 650 0.12 0.2% $180,000

16 61,620 11.67 18.4% $18,017,000

20 13,220 2.50 3.9% $4,335,000

24 50 0.01 0.0% $19,000

30 50 0.01 0.0% $24,000

Total 334,790 63.41 100.0% $87,761,000

SECONDARY STORAGE AND BOOSTER IMPROVEMENTS

Project costs for secondary storage and booster stations are summarized in Tables 13-4 and 13-5.

Table 13-4

Future Secondary Storage Tanks

Future Secondary Storage Costs Size (MG) Project Cost

Estimated Year of Construction

Zone 1 - Juniper Canyon 3 $4,342,000 2023

Zone – 2* 3 $2,895,000 2021

Zone 4 – Cove 2 $3,859,000 2024

Zone 4 – Butterfield* 2 $1,930,000 2031

Zone - 3E 2 $2,895,000 2028

10-Year Total $9,649,000

Buildout Total $15,921,000 *Cost estimate for this reservoir is based on an open / lined reservoir.

Where possible, the City should coordinate the location of secondary reservoirs with any future debris basins or regional stormwater detention facilities to determine if there is a compatible location where a secondary storage reservoir could serve both detention needs and secondary storage requirements. The Zone 2 and Zone 4 facilities could be constructed along or near Copper Creek or Butterfield Creek if they are beneficial as dual-purpose facilities.

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 13-6

Table 13-5

Future Secondary Booster Stations

Booster Pump Flow (gpm) Head (ft) Project Cost Estimated Year of Construction

4000 West - Juniper (1E) 5,200 360 $220,000 2022

Zone 3N 2,500 195 $1,150,000 2023

Zone 4N 1,600 277 $1,150,000 2023

Zone 2E 4,300 181 $1,725,000 2023

Zone 3E 2,400 139 $805,000 2024

Zone 4E 800 139 $690,000 2028

10-Year Total $5,740,000

Buildout Total $5,740,000 The following should be noted regarding secondary booster station recommendations:

• 4000 West – Juniper – This pump station was constructed previously but will need to be equipped to begin delivering water to the east Pressure Zones 1, 2, and 3.

• Zone 3N – This pump station is needed to meet conveyance needs at the north end of Pressure Zone 3. Blackridge Reservoir is too far away from the north end of the City to adequately provide pressure for irrigation.

• Zone 4N – This pump station will serve as a backup for the Blackridge Pump Station and could help to improve pressures in Zone 4 at the northwest end of the City.

• Zone 2E – This pump station is intended to operate with variable frequency drives to meet most peak instantaneous demands in Zone 2E. Parts of Zone 2E will still need pressure reducing valves from Zone 3 to meet peak instantaneous demands.

• Zone 3E - This pump station is intended to pump to a storage reservoir at the same elevation as the Blackridge Reservoir. Blackridge Reservoir is too far away from the parts of this pressure zone to adequately provide pressure for irrigation.

• Zone 4E - This pump station is intended to operate with variable frequency drives to meet most peak instantaneous demands in Zone 4E.

SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENTS

Secondary water system improvements for the City’s secondary distribution are primarily intended to serve developing growth. In some cases, conveyance requirements will require building through existing roads where customers adjacent to the pipeline may be connected incidental to the primary purpose of the project. With this in mind, projects can be generally grouped into two categories:

• Developing – The majority of system improvements in the City will be related to development and extending new waterlines to meet the needs of future growth.

• Conveyance – The City will need to construct some major conveyance pipes to improve supply from some its existing and future sources.

Table 13-6 summarizes the total length and diameter of pipe that will need to be constructed to form the skeleton of the City’s future secondary conveyance system. Note that this table does not include the majority of neighborhood level distribution pipes. It is anticipated that most neighborhood level

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 13-7

8-inch pipes are to be installed through development contributions. Pipe unit costs associated with future growth will likely vary depending on whether pipe improvements need to cross or run through existing roads, require any rock excavation (as may be required in eastern part of Herriman City), or other potential unknowns. The costs listed in Table 13-4 are intended to represent average costs for waterline pipes. Detailed costs for individual projects that need to be constructed over the next 10-years will be included in the next Chapter.

Table 13-6

Future Secondary Distribution Pipe Projects

Diameter (in)

Length (ft)

Length (mi) Percentage

Average Project Cost

Estimate

6 1,130 0.21 0.3% $245,000

8 292,860 55.47 87.5% $69,787,000

10 0 0.00 0.0% $0

12 57,650 10.92 17.2% $15,005,000

14 3,860 0.73 1.2% $1,064,000

16 59,770 11.32 17.9% $17,476,000

18 0 0.00 0.0% $0

20 27,210 5.15 8.1% $8,922,000

24 30,360 5.75 9.1% $11,391,000

30 0 0.00 0.0% $0

Total 471,710 89.34 140.9% $123,645,000

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 14-1

CHAPTER 14

10-YEAR CULINARY & SECONDARY PIPE IMPROVEMENTS

Figures 14-1 and 14-2 identify all of the distribution, pump, and tank improvements that will need to be constructed within the next 10-years based on growth identified by Herriman City planning personnel. These projects are also summarized in Tables 14-1 and 14-2. In Tables 14-1 and 14-2, many of the pipe costs listed are likely to be project level improvements and, in many cases, will be installed by developers as the areas develop.

FIGURE NO.

SCALE:NORTH:

UT

UTUT

UT

UT

UT

UTUT

UTT

UT

UTUT

UT

T

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M"M

"M

"M"M

"M"M

"MM

M

"M"M

"M

"M

"M

M

CE2.04

CE1.05

CW2.03

CE2.02

CE3.02

CE3.03

CW

3.0

2

CW

4.0

1

CE3.06

CE4.01

CW8.0

1

CE3.07

CW4.02CW5.01

CW

1.01

CE5.

01

CW3.03

CW3.01

CW

2.0

1

CE1.04

CE2.01

CW2.02

CW

4.0

3

CE1.01

CE

1.0

3

CE3.05

CE4.02

CW

7.0

1

CW3.04

CE2.

03

CE1.02

CE3.01

CW

4.0

4

CW

2.0

4

Zone 6E

Zone 5H

Zone 5E

Zone 8S

Zone 4E

Pump 6N

Pump 4N

Pump 3N

Zone 2E / 3E

Cove

HP 1.0

HP 0.4

Harlick

Lookout

Kennecott

Rosecrest

Zone 2 118th

Future Zone 6 East

Future Zone 5 East

Future Zone 2 East

Future Zone 3 East

Future Zone 8 South

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 14-1 - Culinary Improvements.mxd AMcKinnon 7/29/2020

0 2,000 4,000Feet

NO

RT

H

WATER MASTER PLAN

SHORT-TERM (10-YEAR)CULINARY IMPROVEMENTS

HERRIMAN CITY

14-1

Legend"M Existing Pump Station

"M 10-Year Pump Station

M Beyond 10-Years

UT Existing Tank

UT 10-Year Tank

T Beyond 10-Year Tank

Existing PipesExisting Pipes

Future Roads


2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026 - 2029


Existing City Area

FIGURE NO.

SCALE:NORTH:

UT

T

UT

UT

T

UT

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M

"M"M

"M

"M

M

"M

"M

SE4.02

SE

1.0

5

SW3.07

SW

4.0

3

SE3.03

SW2.03

SE3.02

SE4.01

SW

2.0

2

SE1.02

SW

4.0

1

SE2.04

SW3.04

SW

3.0

6

SE3.06

SE2.03

SW3.03SW4.02

SE2.02

SW

1.0

1

SW

2.0

1SE1.01

SE2.

01

SE3.05

SE

3.0

4

SE1.03

SW

3.0

2

SW3.01

SE1.04

SE3.01

SW2.03

SW

2.0

2

SE

1.0

2

Cove Z4 Storage

Zone 1E Storage

Zone 3E Storage

Northwest Storage

Blackridge Storage

Butterfield Storage

P:\Herriman\2019 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.1 Projects\Figure 14-2 - Secondary Improvements.mxd AMcKinnon 7/30/2020

0 2,000 4,000Feet

NO

RT

H

WATER MASTER PLAN

SHORT-TERM (10-YEAR)SECONDARY IMPROVEMENTS

HERRIMAN CITY

14-2

Legend"M Existing Pump Station

"M 10-Year Pump Station

M Beyond 10-Years

UT Existing Tank

UT 10-Year Tank

T Beyond 10-Year Tank

Pipes (inches)

Future Roads


2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026 - 2029


Existing City Area

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 14-4

Table 14-1

10-Year Culinary Pipe Projects

Project No.

Length (ft)

Min Diameter

(inch)

Max Diameter

(inch) Description Project Cost

Estimated Year of

Construction

CE1.01 8,526 8 12 Distribution pipes for growth in Zone 1 East $1,794,000 2021

CE1.02 2,878 8 12 Distribution pipes for growth in Zone 1 East $628,000 2021



CE1.05 6,258 16 16 Transmission line pipes for growth in Zone 1 South East $1,559,000 2023

CE2.01 2,265 12 12 Transmission line across Juniper Canyon for Zone 2 East $604,000 2023

CE2.02 5,944 12 12 Transmission/Distribution lines for Zone 2 East $1,319,000 2023

CE2.03 1,365 12 16 Transmission/Distribution lines for Zone 2 East $327,000 2023


CE3.01 1,126 16 16 Juniper Canyon Crossing for Zone 3 East + PRVs $728,000 2023










CW1.01 11,754 12 12 Distribution pipes for growth in Zone 1 North $2,607,000 2021

CW2.01 13,217 8 16 Transmission/Distribution lines for Zone 2 North $2,816,000 2021


CW2.03 5,688 16 16 Transmission Line for Zone 2 $1,417,000 2023

CW2.04 1,117 8 8 Distribution and Fire Flow Loop $228,000 2024

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 14-5

CW3.01 3,998 8 12 Transmission/Distribution lines for Zone 3 North $882,000 2023







CW4.04 885 10 10 Transmission/Distribution lines for Zone 4 $186,000 2023


CW7.01 7,840 8 10 Transmission/Distribution lines for Zone 7W $1,604,000 2026

CW8.01 11,001 8 12 Transmission/Distribution lines for Zone 8W $2,351,000 2027

Total $44,502,000

WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 14-6

Table 14-6

10-Year Secondary Pipe Projects

Project No.

Length (ft)

Min Diameter

(inch)

Max Diameter

(inch) Description Project Cost

Estimated Year of

Construction

SE1.01 4,055 8 8 Distribution pipes for growth in Zone 1 East $1,539,000 2021

SE1.02 5,551 20 20 Transmission line to Zone 1 Storage $2,900,000 2021

SE1.03 3,634 8 8 Distribution pipes for growth in Zone 1 East $1,380,000 2023

SE1.04 1,299 8 8 Distribution pipes for growth in Zone 1 East $495,000 2023

SE1.05 9,385 8 12 Distribution pipes for growth in Zone 1 South East $3,580,000 2023

SE2.00 1,021 16 16 Transmission line from Zone 1E storage to Zone 2E $477,000 2022

SE2.01 3,410 12 12 Transmission line across Juniper Canyon for Zone 2 East $1,415,000 2023

SE2.02 9,548 8 16 Transmission/Distribution lines for Zone 2 East $4,162,000 2023



SE3.01 944 12 12 Transmission line across Juniper Canyon for Zone 3 East $391,000 2023








SW1.01 11,140 8 8 Distribution pipes for growth in Zone 1 North $4,229,000 2021

SW2.01 18,195 8 16 Transmission/Distribution lines for Zone 2 North $7,063,000 2021


SW2.03 13,263 16 24 Transmission line for Zone 2 North $9,482,000 2023



WATER MASTER PLAN


HERRIMAN CITY 14-7






SW4.01 6,814 16 20 Transmission/Distribution lines for Zone 4 $3,221,000 2025



Total $95,605,000

WWW.BOWENCOLLINS.COM

DRAPER, UTAH OFFICE154 E 14075 SDRAPER, UTAH 84020PHONE: 801.495.2224

BOISE, IDAHO OFFICE776 E RIVERSIDE DRIVESUITE 250EAGLE, IDAHO 83616PHONE: 208.939.9561

ST. GEORGE, UTAH OFFICE20 NORTH MAINSUITE 107ST.GEORGE, UTAH 84770PHONE: 435.656.3299

OGDEN, UTAH OFFICE2036 LINCOLN AVENUESUITE 104OGDEN, UTAH 84401PHONE: 801.495.2224

2019 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATEFiles/… · PREPARED FOR: DRAFT 2019 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Section...

Documents

Transcript of 2019 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATEFiles/… · PREPARED FOR: DRAFT 2019 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Section...