NORTH GROUP

DRAFT PRELIMINARY
ENGINEERING REPORT

Central Lake County Joint

Action Water Agency

December 2014
Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction and Background........................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Background and Overview ............................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Report Organization ........................................................................................................................... 1-2

Section 2 Description of Existing and Proposed Systems .................................................. 2-1

2.1 Description of Existing System ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Finished Water Pump Station ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Finished Water Transmission Main Piping ................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.3 Booster Pump Station ........................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.4 System Storage ......................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.1.5 Miscellaneous Finished Water Distribution Components .................................................... 2-2
2.2 Description of Proposed System .................................................................................................... 2-2
2.2.1 Proposed Finished Water Transmission Main Piping ............................................................ 2-3
2.2.2 Proposed Delivery Structures ........................................................................................................... 2-4

Section 3 Selected Pipeline Alignments ........................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Route Study ............................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Agencies and Required Permits ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1 Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (LCSMC) .......................................... 3-1
3.2.2 Lake County Forest Preserve ............................................................................................................. 3-2
3.2.3 Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) .......................................................................... 3-2
3.2.4 Lake County Department of Transportation .............................................................................. 3-3
3.3 Topographical and Utility Survey.................................................................................................. 3-3
3.4 Permanent and Temporary Easements ...................................................................................... 3-4
3.4.1 General ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-4
3.4.2 Permanent Easements .......................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.4.3 Temporary Easements ......................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.5 Challenges .............................................................................................................................................. 3-4
3.5.1 Permitting .................................................................................................................................................. 3-4
3.5.2 Constructability ....................................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.5.3 Traffic and Public Impacts .................................................................................................................. 3-5
3.5.4 Tree Impacts ............................................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.5.5 Changes to the Agreed Upon Route ................................................................................................ 3-6
3.5.6 Additional Requests During Design ................................................................................................ 3-6

Section 4 Hydraulic and Surge Analysis ........................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Basis of Modeling and Assumptions ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Hydraulic Model Results ................................................................................................................... 4-3

i
Table of Contents

4.2.1 Current Average Day Demand Results .......................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.2 Current Maximum Day Demand Results ...................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.3 2040 Average Day Demand Results ............................................................................................... 4-5
4.2.4 2040 Maximum Day Demand Results............................................................................................ 4-5
4.2.5 Water Quality Analysis – Water Age and Chlorine Residual ............................................... 4-6
4.2.6 Northeast Route – Alternative A Route vs Alternative B Route ......................................... 4-7
4.2.7 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 4-7
4.3 Surge Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 4-7

Section 5 Geotechnical Evaluation .................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Subsurface Exploration Programs ................................................................................................ 5-1
5.2.1 Phase I Subsurface Exploration Program .................................................................................... 5-1
5.2.2 Phase II Subsurface Exploration Program ................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Subsurface Conditions and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation ................................... 5-1

Section 6 Corrosion Control and Protection ..................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 6-1

Section 7 Wetland Delineation........................................................................................ 7-1

7.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Wetlands Delineation Summary .................................................................................................... 7-1

Section 8 Environmental Impact Assessment .................................................................. 8-1

8.1 Description ............................................................................................................................................ 8-1
8.2 Northwest Route .................................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.2.1 Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency ................................................................................. 8-1
8.2.2 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2.3 Endangered Species and Natural Areas ........................................................................................ 8-2
8.3 Northeast Route ................................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.3.1 Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency ................................................................................. 8-2
8.3.2 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................... 8-3
8.3.3 Endangered Species and Natural Areas ........................................................................................ 8-3
8.4 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites ............................................................................................ 8-3
8.4.1 Basis of Environmental Assessment and Analysis ................................................................... 8-4
8.4.2 Environmental Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................... 8-5
8.4.3 Environmental Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 8-5
8.4.4 Subsurface Soil Investigation ............................................................................................................ 8-6
8.4.5 Analytical Soil Results ........................................................................................................................... 8-6
8.4.6 Conclusions and Next Steps ............................................................................................................... 8-7

ii
Table of Contents

Section 9 Basis of Design................................................................................................. 9-1

9.1 Pipeline System Design Criteria ..................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Delivery Structures ............................................................................................................................. 9-2
9.3 Pipeline Materials ............................................................................................................................... 9-3
9.3.1 Ductile Iron Pipe (AWWA C150/151-04; 3” to 64”; 350psi max) ..................................... 9-3
9.3.2 High Density Polyethylene Pipe (AWWA C906-07; 4” to 63”; Availability
Limited to 54”) ....................................................................................................................................... 9-5
9.3.3 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe (AWWA C900/C905; 4” to 48”
Diameters; 305psi max through 18” 235psi max 20” through 30” 200psi
max for 36”, 165 psi max 42” through 48”) ............................................................................... 9-6
9.3.4 Comparison of the Selected Pipeline Materials ......................................................................... 9-8
9.4 Valves and Pipeline Appurtenances ........................................................................................... 9-10
9.4.1 Blow-offs .................................................................................................................................................. 9-10
9.4.2 Isolation Valves ..................................................................................................................................... 9-11
9.4.3 Pipeline Encasement .......................................................................................................................... 9-12
9.4.4 Air Release/Vacuum Valves ............................................................................................................ 9-12
9.5 Miscellaneous Appurtenances ...................................................................................................... 9-12
9.5.1 Locating .................................................................................................................................................... 9-12
9.5.2 Vaults......................................................................................................................................................... 9-12

Section 10 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost......................................................... 10-1

10.1 Cost Estimating Criteria .................................................................................................................. 10-1
10.1.1 Estimating Costs ................................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1.2 Cost Escalation ...................................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1.3 Contingency ............................................................................................................................................ 10-1
10.1.4 Source of Cost Estimate Information .......................................................................................... 10-2
10.2 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs ................................................................................... 10-2
Section 11 Implementation Plan ................................................................................... 11-1
11.1 Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1.1 Detailed Design ..................................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1.2 Permitting & IEPA State Revolving Fund .................................................................................. 11-1
11.1.3 Bidding ..................................................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1.4 Construction ........................................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1.5 Startup & Testing ................................................................................................................................. 11-2
11.2 Critical Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 11-2
11.2.1 Route Modifications ............................................................................................................................ 11-2
11.2.2 Installation Method ............................................................................................................................. 11-2

iii
Table of Contents

List of Figures (Figures Section)

Figure 2-1. Water System Expansion Map

Figure 2-2. Northwest Alternative Alignment
Figure 2-3. Northeast Alternative Alignment
Figure 4-1. 2040 Max Day Demand Hydraulic Profile
Figure 4-2. Chlorine Decay Plot at Current Low Flow Conditions
Figure 8-1. Potential Hazardous Materials Locations - NE
Figure 8-2. Potential Hazardous Materials Locations - NW
Figure 9-1. Updated Typical Delivery Structure Process and Instrumentation Diagram
Figure 9-2. Updated Typical Delivery Structure Plan and Section
Figure 11-1. Project Schedule through Construction

List of Tables

Table 4-1. Current and 2040 Water Demands for the North Group ............................................................................... 4-2
Table 4-2. Summary Basis of Analysis and Design Criteria ................................................................................................ 4-3
Table 4-3. Residual Pressure for Current Average Day Demand Conditions .............................................................. 4-4
Table 4-4. Residual Pressure for Current Maximum Day Demand Conditions .......................................................... 4-5
Table 4-5. Residual Pressure for 2040 Average Day Demand Conditions ................................................................... 4-5
Table 4-6. Residual Pressures for 2040 Maximum Day Demand Conditions ............................................................. 4-5
Table 4-7. Water Age During Minimum Day Demand Conditions (13 MGD) ............................................................. 4-6
Table 4-8. Chlorine Residual Results During Minimum Day Demand Conditions (13 MGD) .............................. 4-6
Table 4-9. Comparison of Hydraulic Results for Northeast Connection Point to Agency’s System .................. 4-7
Table 8-1. Potential Hazardous Materials Sites ....................................................................................................................... 8-5
Table 8-2. Analytical Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 8-7
Table 8-3. Soil Disposal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8-7
Table 9-1. Summary Basis of Analysis and Design Criteria ................................................................................................ 9-1
Table 9-2. Pipe Material Comparison ........................................................................................................................................... 9-9
Table 9-3. Butterfly-Gate Valve Cost Comparison ................................................................................................................ 9-11
Table 9-4. Isolation Valve Maximum Spacing ........................................................................................................................ 9-12

iv
Table of Contents

Appendices

Appendix A – List of Permits

Appendix B – Proposed Permanent Easements

Appendix C – Hydraulic Analysis Results

Appendix D - Wang Geotechnical Report

Appendix E – Corrosion Analysis Report

Appendix F – Hey Wetlands and Tree Survey Report - Northwest

Appendix G- Hey Wetlands and Tree Survey Report - Northeast

Appendix H – Environmental Approvals and Correspondence

Appendix I – Pipeline Material Selection Workshop Results

Appendix J – Specifications Table of Contents

v
Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations

ATI Applied Technologies, Inc.

AWWA American Water Works Association
bgs Below Ground Surface
CLCJAWA Central Lake County Joint Action Water Agency (Agency)
DIP Ductile iron pipe
EcoCAT Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
gpm gallons per minute
HAARGIS Historic Architectural/Archaeological Resources Geographic Information System
HDD Horizontal directional drilling
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
HMI Hazardous Material Inventory
IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources
IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation
IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
IHPA Illinois Historic Preservation Agency
IDNR/OWR Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Water Resources
INAI Illinois Natural Area Inventory
IWLC Isolated Waters of Lake County
LCDOT Lake County Department of Transportation
LCSMC Lake County Stormwater Management Commission
NE Northeast Route
NW Northwest Route
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
PER Preliminary Engineering Report
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
ppd pounds per day
ppm parts per million
psi pounds per square inch
ROW right-of-way
SRF State Revolving Fund
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
UST Underground Storage Tank
WOUS Waters of the United States

vi
Section 1
Introduction and Background
1.1 Project Background and Overview
The Central Lake County Joint Action Water Agency (Agency) has been providing its nine
members, serving 12 communities, with potable Lake Michigan water with a high degree of
quality and reliability for over twenty years. Over the past several years, a number of Lake County
communities approached the Agency for membership to access Lake Michigan as their water
supply source.

Four communities (Lake Villa, Lindenhurst, Grandwood Park, and Fox Lake Hills) formed one of
the prospective member groups designated by the Agency as the North Group. The North Group
began discussions to obtain Lake Michigan water from the Agency, and a water supply agreement
was reached in 2013. In accordance with the agreement, the Agency will supply Lake Michigan
water to the North Group, and the North Group will fund the expansion of the Agency’s finished
water transmission main system, and other associated improvements. Two of the North Group
members, Fox Lake Hills and Grandwood Park, are unincorporated communities with public
water systems that are owned and operated by the Lake County Department of Public Works.
Lake County is a current member of the Agency. The agreement includes provisions for
expanding the Lake County water service area to include these two communities. The other two
North Group members, Lake Villa and Lindenhurst, are incorporated villages. Each of these
villages has a public water system. The agreement includes adding Lake Villa and Lindenhurst to
the Agency as new members.

A North Group Membership Expansion Technical Committee was formed to review and present
recommendations to the Agency’s Board of Directors during the design and construction of
finished water transmission main system improvements. The new committee consists of
representation from the North Group, Agency staff, and an existing Executive Committee member.

1.2 Project Description

The Agency’s expansion project for the North Group involves extending the Agency’s
transmission pipeline system with approximately 13 miles of 10-inch to 20-inch piping and a
delivery structure for each community. The project is divided into the Northeast (NE) and
Northwest (NW) pipelines. The NE pipeline will serve the communities of Grandwood Park and
Lindenhurst. The NW pipeline will serve the communities of Lake Villa and Fox Lake Hills. Section
2 provides additional information on the existing and new system along with a map showing the
pipeline extension to the new communities.

In 2013, the North Group Technical Committee commissioned a Route Study to identify and
evaluate pipeline routes to serve the new communities. The Route Study recommended a route
for the

1-1
Section 1  Introduction and Background

In 2014, the North Group Technical Committee commissioned the development of a preliminary
engineering report (PER) and 30% design drawings for the transmission pipeline. This phase of
the project also includes all following field investigations:

 Topographic utility survey of the pipeline routes;

 Geotechnical investigations for the pipeline routes;

 Wetland delineation and tree survey; and

 Corrosion evaluation.

In addition to field investigations, the following evaluations were completed as part of the PER
Phase:

 Hydraulic analysis;

 Development of design criteria for the pipeline and delivery structures;

 Development of pipeline appurtenances design details; and

 Review of required permits and initiation with permit applications with critical agencies,
such as the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (LCSMC).

1.3 Report Organization

This report is divided into the following sections:

 Section 1 (Introduction and Background) – Provides background on the project and

report organization.

 Section 2 (Description of Existing and Proposed System) – Provides a description of the

existing Agency system and the proposed improvements along with a map of the
expansion.

 Section 3 (Selected Pipeline Alignment) – Provides a description of the proposed routes

along with required permits and considerations for the next phases of the project.

 Section 4 (Hydraulic and Surge Analysis) – Provides a summary of the hydraulic and surge
analysis results for the final pipeline routes.

 Section 5 (Geotechnical Evaluation) – Provides a summary of the Phase I geotechnical

program results.

 Section 6 (Corrosion Control and Protection) – Provides a summary of the corrosion

evaluation findings and recommendations for corrosion control and protection.

 Section 7 (Wetland Delineation) – Provides a summary of the wetland delineation report.

 Section 8 (Environmental Impact Assessment) – Provides a summary of the

environmental investigations, including the hazardous materials assessment.

1-2
Section 1  Introduction and Background

 Section 9 (Basis of Design) – Provides a summary of the basis of design of the pipeline
along with the conceptual design of the delivery structures.

 Section 10 (Opinion of Probable Construction Cost) – Provides the OPCC for the 30%
design along with assumptions.

 Section 11 (Implementation Plan) – Provides an implementation plan for the project thru
startup.

1-3
Section 2
Description of Existing and Proposed Systems
This section provides an overview of the existing Central Lake County Joint Action Water Agency (Agency)
finished water transmission system and expansion to serve the North Group members.

2.1 Description of Existing System

The existing Agency system services its nine members, representing 12 communities located within Lake
County, Illinois. Refer to Figure 2-1 for an overview the Agency’s existing finished water transmission
system and existing member communities served. The finished water transmission system consists of the
following components:

 Finished water pump station;

 Finished water transmission main piping;

 Booster pump station and standpipes;

 Elevated storage tank;

 Delivery structures;

 Hydropneumatic surge arrestors; and

 Sodium hypochlorite system.

The Agency is not responsible for meeting peak hour flows or fire flow demands of a member community.
Member communities shall receive their allocation percentage of total flow available for distribution.

2.1.1 Finished Water Pump Station

The finished water pump station, located at the water treatment plant (WTP), includes six vertical turbine
pumps. These pumps take water from the wetwell and pump it into the 48-inch diameter water
transmission main. Three of the six pumps were replaced with larger pumps as part of the Phase 2 plant
expansion project. Assuming five pumps running with the largest pump out of service at a C-factor of 130,
the firm capacity of the finished water pump station is 48 MGD.

2.1.2 Finished Water Transmission Main Piping

The finished water transmission main is a branch system. The existing system consists of approximately XX
miles of pipe, ranging in size from 48-inch diameter near the WTP to 12-inch diameter at the perimeter of
the system. The existing transmission main has a capacity of 56 MGD. The pipe material is predominately
pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP) with some shorter segments of PVC (1.3 miles total) and ductile
iron pipe (2.55 miles total).

2.1.3 Booster Pump Station

The booster pump station (BPS) includes three vertical turbine variable speed pumps. Space has been
provided for the installation of a fourth pump. The firm capacity of the BPS, with two pumps in operation
and one pump as backup, is approximately 34 MGD. The BPS also includes an emergency power generator
system to power the station when utility electrical service is interrupted.

2-1
Section 2  Description of Existing and Proposed Systems

2.1.4 System Storage

The Agency maintains storage both at the WTP and in the transmission system. At the WTP, two clearwells
provide a total of 5MG of storage. The clearwell storage volume provides finished water storage for the
three primary functions:

 One-hour chlorine contact time - Illinois Rules and Regulations require a one-hour chlorine contact
time prior to the water reaching the first user.

 Filter backwash supply - The volume required for two successive backwashes is stored for the filter
backwash supply.

 Emergency storage - The remaining volume in the clearwells is for emergency use.

The transmission system storage provides operational storage of 10.5 MG to allow for variable demand and
pumpage in the system as well as emergency storage. This storage includes:

 Three standpipes - Located at the booster pump station, their total capacity is 9MG.

 One elevated tank - Located in Grayslake, its capacity is 1.5 MG.

2.1.5 Miscellaneous Finished Water Distribution Components

This section describes the delivery structures, hydropneumatic surge arrestors, and sodium hypochlorite
system.

 Delivery Structures - Located where individual communities receive water from the Agency, each
delivery structure includes a venturi meter for flow measurement, a control valve, and isolation
valves. The Agency provides a minimum allowable residual pressure of 25 psi at all delivery
structures.

 Hydropneumatic Surge Arrestors – This system protects the facility equipment from damage during a
surge event. The hydropneumatic surge arrestors consists of large tanks filled partially with water
and partially with air. During a surge event, which can occur after a sudden shutoff of pumps, the
tanks will be able to absorb the surge wave by compressing the air inside of the tanks.

 Sodium Hypochlorite System - A sodium hypochlorite chemical feed system composed of on-site
storage and pumping is located at the booster pump station to provide additional chlorine residual
to the system.

2.2 Description of Proposed System

The addition of the North Group involves the following improvements to the Agency’s finished water
transmission system.

 Finished water transmission main piping extension; and

 Delivery structure for each new member community.
No other improvements are required as part of the Agency’s expansion project for the North Group.

The new member communities will receive their allocation percentage of total flow available for
distribution just as the existing member communities receive their allocated percentages. The new member
communities are to provide equipment and other infrastructure required to meet peak hour flows or fire
flow demands.

2-2
Section 2  Description of Existing and Proposed Systems

2.2.1 Proposed Finished Water Transmission Main Piping

The expansion of the finished water transmission main piping to the North Group consists of two pipelines.
The first pipeline extends from an existing Agency transmission main to the Village of Lake Villa and to the
Fox Lake Hills service area of Lake County Public Works (LCPW), which will be referred to as the Northwest
(NW) Pipeline. The second pipeline extends from an existing Agency transmission main to the Village of
Lindenhurst and to the Grandwood Park service area of the LCPW, which will be referred to as the
Northeast (NE) Pipeline.

The route summaries are described below. Section 3 provides a review of the selection process of the
pipeline alignments.

The expansion will consist of 10-inch, 16-inch and 20-inch diameter pipe. The pipeline material will be
either ductile iron for the 16-inch and 20-inch diameter pipe. Smaller than 16-inch diameter will be bid
both as ductile iron and PVC. The design criteria for the finished water transmission main piping and
appurtenances are detailed further in Section 9.

2.2.1.1 NW Pipeline Route Summary

The NW pipeline is shown in Figure 2-2. The pipeline route is described as a series of legs. The selected
route begins at the existing Agency water main at the south end of Wood Street. Leg 1 of the route proceeds
north from the beginning point to the intersection of Wood Street and Rollins Road, and then proceeds east
along Rollins Road to the intersection of Rollins Road and Hook Drive. Leg 2 proceeds west along Hook
drive from the end of Leg 1 to the intersection of Hook Drive and Illinois Route 83. Leg 3 proceeds north
along Illinois Route 83 from the end of Leg 2 to the intersection of Illinois Route 83 and Monaville Road.

Leg 4 of the Northwest water main route begins at the end of Leg 3 and proceeds west along Monaville
Road to the intersection of Monaville Road and Cedar Lake Road. Leg 5 proceeds west along Monaville Road
from the end of Leg 4 to the intersection of Monaville Road and Avon Drive, then proceeds north along
Avon Drive, and then east along Lincoln Drive to the terminus of the water main at the connection to the
Fox Lake Hills water system.

Leg 6 of the Northwest water main begins at the end of Leg 4 at the intersection of Monaville Road and
Cedar Lake Road, proceeds north along Cedar Lake Road to an easement, and proceeds east through the
easement to the terminus of the water main at the connection to the Lake Villa water system.

2.2.1.2 NE Pipeline Route Summary

The NE pipeline is shown in Figure 2-3. The pipeline route is described as a series of legs. The selected
route begins at the existing Agency water main in the intersection of Washington Street and Hunt Club
Road. Leg 1 of the route proceeds east from the beginning point to the intersection of Washington Street
and Almond Road. The route includes an alternative beginning point at the intersection of Almond Road
and Illinois Route 120. The alternative Leg 1A proceeds north from its beginning point to the intersection of
Almond Road and Washington Street.

Leg 2 of the Northeast route proceeds north along Almond Road from Washington Street to Illinois Route
132. Leg 3 proceeds north along Hutchins Road from the end of Leg 2 to the intersection of Hutchins Road
and Woodland Terrace. Leg 4 proceeds north along Hutchins Road from the end of Leg 3 to the intersection
of Hutchins Road and Stearns School Road. Leg 5 proceeds northwest along Stearns School Road from the
end of Leg 4 to the intersection of Stearns School Road and U.S. Highway 45. Leg 6 proceeds south along
U.S. Highway 45 from the end of Leg 5 to the intersection of U.S. Highway 45 and Falling Waters Boulevard.
Leg 7 proceeds west along Falling Waters Boulevard from the end of Leg 6 to the terminus of the water
main at the connection point to the Lindenhurst water system.

2-3
Section 2  Description of Existing and Proposed Systems

2.2.2 Proposed Delivery Structures

Each new member community is entitled to one delivery structures as part of the finished water
transmission system expansion. The new delivery structures will be located based on the preference of the
individual community. Each delivery structure will be consistent with those of the existing members and
include a flow meter for flow measurement, a control valve, and isolation valves. Conceptual drawings for
the design of the delivery structures are included in Section 9 of the Report. The Agency will provide a
minimum residual pressure of 25 psi at the delivery structures.

2-4
Section 3
Selected Pipeline Alignments
3.1 Route Study
In April 2014, the Route Study Report was submitted and approved by the Agency’s Technical Committee.
The Route Study Report presented two alignments: Northwest and Northeast. Section 2 includes a
summary of each of these alignments as determined in the route study phase of the project. This section
identifies changes made to those alignments.

The Northwest alignment consists of seven legs. This alignment was proposed in the route study to include
an alternate (referred to as Leg 7A) for the connection to Fox Lake Hills. A slight modification of Leg 7A was
subsequently selected. Leg 7 was eliminated as it was located on a State Route, and would add additional
pipeline installation costs with no additional benefit.

The Northeast alignment consists of eight legs. Two alternates were proposed for this pipeline alignment in
the route study. During the preliminary engineering phase of the project Leg 1 and alternate Leg 1A are
continued to be evaluated, and neither has been selected. Alternate Leg 7A was selected for the Lindenhurst
connection. This leg will require easements from Principal Lindenhurst LLC and Northern Plains, LLC who
are the underlying property owners. It is anticipated that if discussions with either company cannot result
in a mutual understanding, that Leg 7 will be selected and field work will commence for this leg.

3.2 Agencies and Required Permits

Various Federal, State, County, local, and a railroad require permits and associated fees for the field
investigation required to prepare the PER report as well as for the ultimate construction of the watermain.
The agencies with the greatest potential cost impact and regulating authority are discussed below.
Appendix A summarizes all of the anticipated project permits known at this time.

3.2.1 Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (LCSMC)

LCSMC’s mission is to coordinate the stormwater activities of local jurisdictions to improve water quality,
reduce flood damage, and restore and enhance the natural drainage system. The permits that are required
by the LCSMC in accordance with the Watershed Development Ordinance (WDO) are as follows:

 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD)

 Boundary Verification (BV)

During the course of the preliminary engineering report, the Agency has completed and paid for the PJD
and BV for both the Northwest and Northeast alignments. Future fees required by the WDO will include
inspection fees required to compensate the designated erosion control inspector.

The LCSMC has indicated that the length of trenchless crossings utilizing horizontal directional drilling
(HDD) will be limited to a maximum length of 500-feet or less due to the potential for hydrofracture and
inadvertent fluid returns. Hydrofracture is a major concern to regulatory bodies because of the perceived
threats to the ecosystem as it is caused by excessive drilling fluid pressures. Hydrofractures can be caused
by a number of variables such as the following:

 Loose fill or rubble above the borehole

3-1
Section 3  Selected Pipeline Alignments

 Desiccation cracks in highly plastic clay that extend near the depth of the bore

 Pile foundations that extend to the depth of the bore

 Bridge piers, granular material around existing utilities, tree roots, etc.

 Shallow earth cover

 Collapse of the borehole

 Excessive reaming and pullback rates

 Thin drilling fluid

Because of these risks, the LCSMC may identify additional requirements for crossing Waters of the United
States (WOUS) which are regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or Isolated Waters of Lake County (IWLC) which are regulated by the LCSMC
under the Lake County Watershed Development Ordinance (WDO). Both WOUS and IWLC waters are
located within the limits of both of the alignments.

In addition, during review of the project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), The LCSMC is
expected to require any dewatering water to be treated for sediment removal prior to discharge.

3.2.2 Lake County Forest Preserve

The Lake County Forest Preserve District agreed to the installation of the pipeline within or near their
lands for specific sections of the route study phase of the project where there was no alternative. However,
if an alternate is available, the District did not want the pipeline installed on or near their property which
can, in some cases, extend to the centerline of the right-of-way. However, for the portion of Leg 5 of the
Northwest alignment they stated that they will accept the pipeline to be located on their lands even though
there is an alternate route on the south side of the street. The alternate route on the south side of the street
contains a few high quality trees that they do not want to see disturbed while the north side of the street
contains low quality vegetation. Field work had already been conducted on the originally agreed upon
(south) side of the street. Switching to the north side of the street will require additional field work and
coordination activities. It is anticipated that there will be additional as of yet unknown fees imposed on the
Agency by the FPDCC for installing the pipeline on their lands.

Lake County Forest Preserve lands are located in the vicinity of both pipeline alignments, but Forest
Preserve their lands will be directly impacted by the Northwest alignment. When direct impact is required,
an easement will be required with a fee which includes the market value of the property, tree
compensation, and additional considerations.

3.2.3 Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)

The Illinois Department of Transportation is the permitting authority for the Illinois Route 45, Illinois 83
The portion of Illinois Route 45 adjacent to Northeast leg 6 is anticipated to be widened in the near term
with IDOT currently purchasing lands to expand their right-of-way in this area. This is reflected in the 30%
design drawings.

The anticipated permits for IDOT include the Utility Construction Permit which will be completed by the
Contractor who will also be required to obtain a Utility Bond. The Northeast and Northwest pipeline
alignments both contain legs located within the IDOT ROW.

3-2
Section 3  Selected Pipeline Alignments

3.2.4 Lake County Department of Transportation

The Lake County Department of Transportation (LCDOT) is the permitting authority for the following right-
of-ways located along the Northeast alignment which include the following:

 Almond Road from Route 120 north to Washington (the portion of Almond Road between
Washington Street and Grand Avenue is under the jurisdiction of the Village of Gurnee)

 Washington Street

 Hutchins Road

 Sterns School Road

The following right-of-ways along the Northwest Alignment are regulated by LCDOT:

 Rollins Road

 Monaville Road, and

 Cedar Lake Road

For each roadway right-of-way under the jurisdiction of LCDOT, a Watermain Construction Permit will be
required as well as a performance guarantee and insurance will be required to be obtained by the
Contractor.

In discussions between LCDOT and ATI, LCDOT stated that they require the pipeline to be installed a
minimum of 36-feet offset from the centerline of the right-of-way.

3.3 Topographical and Utility Survey

A topographical and utility survey for each of the alignments was performed. The topographical survey
included survey control and benchmarks, locating geotechnical borings, locating tagged tree locations, and
wetland flagging limits.

The topographical survey was performed using total station technology. The horizontal datum used is NAD
1983, Vertical datum is NAVD 1988 with conversion to NGVD 29. All horizontal and vertical control
conforms to Class I Third Order Accuracy, and tied to the Illinois East State Plane Coordinate System.

Location of the wetlands flagging were performed utilizing Global Positioning System (GPS) which does not
meet the accuracy requirements of the topographic survey.

A full right-of-way topographical survey was performed for the following legs of each alignment:

 Northwest: Leg1, Leg 2, Leg 3, and Leg 7A

 Northeast: Leg 6, Leg 7A, and Leg 8

A half right-of-way survey was performed for all of the remaining legs for both of the alignments.

A utility survey was performed in conjunction with the topographic survey. The following levels of utility
data (in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineering Standard Guideline 38-02) were
gathered to complete the utility survey:

3-3
Section 3  Selected Pipeline Alignments

 Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) D which involves information derived from existing records
or oral recollections.

 SUE C which illustrates information obtained by surveying and plotting visible above-ground
utility features, and by using professional judgment in correlating this information to quality level
SUE D.

 SUE B which includes obtaining information through the application of appropriate surface
geophysical methods to determine the existing and approximate horizontal position of subsurface
utilities. It should be noted that SUE D was only known to have been performed by the subsurface
locating sub-consultant (Baker Peterson), to try to identify a pipe potentially located along Almond
Road in Northeast alignment Leg 1A.

SUE quality level A (actual exposure of a utility through intrusive excavation) was not performed as part of
this project.

3.4 Permanent and Temporary Easements

3.4.1 General
Permanent easements were conceptually evaluated prior to the production of 30% design drawings. The
quantity of both is expected to vary throughout each stage of design as stakeholders and the public provide
continual input. The quantities listed below are therefore estimates.

CLCJAWA has indicated that the location of the pipeline within easements is preferred over locating the
pipeline within the existing right-of-way. Therefore, the preparation of the permanent easement locations
was evaluated with an emphasis of placing the pipeline within easements wherever possible.

3.4.2 Permanent Easements

It was estimated that approximately 160 permanent easements may be required for this project. The
locations of the proposed permanent easements are shown in Appendix B.

3.4.3 Temporary Easements

An equal number of temporary easements as permanent easements are assumed for this project.
Temporary easements are required where the construction activities extend beyond the right-of-way onto
adjacent privately owned lands.

3.5 Challenges
3.5.1 Permitting
Permitting will require the approval of an assortment of agencies, and not a single entity. As such, it is
recommended that the stakeholders requiring permits along each of the alignments be engaged early in the
process to obtain their opinions. It is suggested that engagement occur following the development of the 30
% complete design documents. These documents would be used as the basis of discussion. Currently
permitting agencies have voiced their requirements as follows:

 Village of Gurnee requires horizontal directional drilling (HDD) for the crossing of their roadways.

 The Village of Lake Villa and unincorporated Warrenville Township both requires the pipeline be
installed utilizing jack and bore techniques for the crossings of all roadways within their
jurisdiction.

3-4
Section 3  Selected Pipeline Alignments

 LCDOT and IDOT also require the pipeline to be installed utilizing jack and bore techniques for the
crossing of all roadways in their jurisdiction.

 LCDOT also requires the pipeline to be installed a minimum of 36-feet offset from the centerline of
the right-of-way and will not allow the pipeline to be installed under pavement.

 The Village of Gurnee has stated that they will not allow for the removal of select trees along Leg
1A.

 LCSMC requires horizontal directional drilling under all wetlands.

 The railroad crossing located on Leg 4 of the Northwest alignment (Canadian National Railroad
[Metra]) is required to be installed utilizing jack and bore techniques.

3.5.2 Constructability
One form of construction is preferred to maximize efficiency and cost. Open cut installation is the preferred
method of installation of the pipeline to allow for greater local participation of contractors, shallower burial
depths, and potentially lower overall costs for installation. Open cut installation is very disruptive to the
right of way, and can result in the loss of vegetation, damage to existing utilities, and damage to surface
features. Trenchless installation by horizontal directional drilling is normally preferred for the installation
of pipe around major obstacles where the pipeline cannot be installed utilizing open cut. Various local
authorities have requested the installation of the pipeline across local roads utilizing trenchless methods
including horizontal directional drilling or jack and bore technologies.

Horizontal directional drilling for larger pipelines can also result in disturbances to the surface. For
example, in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) Manual of Practice, the rig
side area is estimated as requiring an area of approximately 15,000 square feet to be cleared and stabilized
to allow for the drilling equipment, mud pump, bentonite storage, power unit, drill pipe, fluid system and
tank, and associated ancillary equipment. The exit or pipe layout side is where the pipeline is fabricated to
be pulled through the borehole. The workspace varies for the type of pipe being installed. For ductile iron
pipe it is assumed an excavation is made for the pipe to be installed by the cartridge method. Additional
workspace would include stockpiled pipe and an area for equipment to lower pipe into the excavated area.
PVC pipe would require additional surface area to butt fuse the pipes together and string them out on roller
stands.

Horinzontal directional drilling for larger pipeline also becomes more technically challenging the as the
pipe diameter increases and the corresponding rig sizes increase. For this project, assuming a coefficient of
friction between the pipe and the ground face of the bore hole, it is assumed, for a 20-inch diameter ductile
iron pipe, that a force of greater than approximately 60,000lbs would be required to pull up to 1,000 feet of
pipe (assuming no capstan forces as the cartridge method is assumed). However, the rig would be sized to
exclude the buoyancy effect of a borehole, and would be sized to have a capacity of at least 155,000lb. This
size rig capacity which would have over 100,000lbs of pullback force would be either a medi- or maxi- rig
for such a long pull distance and pipe diameter. However, the maximum pullback force would be limited by
the pipe joints which for DIP would be approximately 150,000lbs. Therefore, as longer drill paths are
approximated there is the potential for the pipe to fail in tension at the joints as the rigs can have the
capacity to pull at the yield point of the pipe. In addition, assuming a depth of 15-feet deep and the ability to
drill in a medium to stiff clay (with an assumed friction angle of 17), this same pipe has the potential to
settle up to approximately 3.5-inches over the centerline of the pipe at these relatively shallow depths. The
settlement area can span up to 13-feet either side of the centerline of the borehole with gradually
decreasing approximate settlements the farther away from the centerline of the borehole. If the pipe is able
to remain in a continuous medium to stiff clay, this would require fairly low pumping pressures of the

3-5
Section 3  Selected Pipeline Alignments

bentonite. However, sand or gravel seams (such as existing trenches, etc) can result in frac outs as the
slurry pumps compensate for the higher permeability and loss of fluids.

Jack and bore is also requested for street crossing by various municipalities. This method of trenchless
installation can be used under a variety of soil conditions, and can reduce pavement damage, traffic
disruptions. It is also used where open-cut construction is too disruptive, not cost effective, or not feasible
either due to physical conditions or regulatory requirements. The jacking and receiving pits are required to
perform this method of construction. Jacking pits are installed on one side of the road and receiving pits on
the other. These pits are excavated, and typically filled with a crushed stone or gravel to provide a firm
surface to support the boring machine e tracks, machine and casing pipe. The receiving pit is a much
smaller pit. This form of installation also becomes more technically challenging the larger the diameter of
the casing pipe, and the longer the length of the bore.

3.5.3 Traffic and Public Impacts

The traveling public, residences and businesses will be impacted by the work activities resulting in social
costs. The social costs of construction include the inconvenience to the general public, damage to the
environment, loss of business, and potential damage to existing structures. The social costs can be generally
categorized as including:

 Vehicular traffic disruption

 Road and pavement damage

 Damage to adjacent utilities

 Noise and vibration

 Pedestrian and biker safety

 Site and public safety

 Business and trade loss

 Citizen complaints

 Environmental impacts

The social costs can be mitigated utilizing trenchless techniques instead of open cut, however this can
result in higher overall project costs, and deeper pipe that is more difficult and expensive to maintain with
the potential for existing utilities, trees, or structures located above., .

3.5.4 Tree Impacts

There are many trees that will be impacted by the pipeline installation. It is assumed that the primary
installation method will be open cut which will have tree impact. Trenchless installation will also result in
tree impacts due to the area required for work zones, however they will be less than open cut. The impact
of tree loss can be minimized by relocating trees, planting trees that have restricted growth heights (and
conversely restricted root depths), or other mitigating methods.

3.5.5 Changes to the Agreed Upon Route

As mentioned earlier in this Section, the FPDCC has verbally committed to allowing the pipeline to be
installed on the north side of Monaville Road. Since field work has already been performed on the other half

3-6
Section 3  Selected Pipeline Alignments

of Monaville Road along this leg, this change could impact the project schedule as could other agencies
requiring a shift of the alignment as the design drawings are reviewed by stakeholders having jurisdiction
along either of the alignments.

3.5.6 Additional Requests During Design

Three villages have requested trenchless installation for the crossing of their roads as follows:

 The Village of Lake Villa requires HDD across all of their roadways.

 The Village of Gurnee requires HDD across all of their roadways.

 Unincorporated Warrenville Township requires jack and bore across all of their roadways.

3-7
Section 4
Hydraulic and Surge Analysis
The objectives of the hydraulic analysis are to:

 Confirm pipeline sizing for the proposed pipelines serving the new communities while maintaining
the Agency’s system operating criteria;

 Provide residual pressure results to the existing and new members at current and future flow
conditions; and

 Provide water age and chlorine residual information to the current and new members at current
low flow conditions.

4.1 Basis of Modeling and Assumptions

The Agency’s existing calibrated hydraulic model was used as the base for the new model development.
This existing model was created in WaterGEMS V8i (SELECT series 4) software Version 8.11. The existing
model included the Agency’s water transmission system and facilities (elevated tank, standpipes, reservoir,
high service and booster pumps) and also delivery structures for Lake Bluff, Vernon Hills, Libertyville,
Mundelein, Libertyville, Round Lake Park, Grayslake, Round Lake, Gurnee, and Round Lake Beach. The new
model development included addition of new transmission mains and delivery structures for Fox Lake
Hills, Grandwood Park, Lake Villa, Lindenhurst, Volo, and Wauconda. Although the communities of
Wauconda and Volo are not included in this phase of the project, it is important to simulate their water
demands and assess that impact on overall system operation. All modeling simulations and results
presented below include the water demands of Wauconda and Volo.

Transmission pipes and delivery structures of the new communities were added to the existing hydraulic
model from the GIS database. Figure 2-1 shows the locations of the new community delivery structures
and Agency transmission pipelines to those delivery structures. Proposed pipe sizes for the new
transmission pipelines are also shown. The pipe sizes are consistent with the 2012 Capacity Expansion
Assessment.

The following inputs were developed for the model development:

 New Delivery Structure Elevations - Elevations for the delivery structures were extracted from the
Lake County Digital Terrain Model (DTM).

 New Transmission Pipe Lengths Size – The transmission pipeline lengths were extracted from the
Route Study and latest revisions using GIS mapping. The initial pipeline sizing was based on the
2012 CDM Smith Study (Capacity Expansion Assessment dated August 14, 2012).

 Pipe Friction Factors (C-value) - The Hazen-Williams C-value is a relative measure of the hydraulic
capacity of a water main. The C-value for the new transmission mains was assumed to be 110. This
is consistent with the 2012 analysis. Although previous model calibration efforts confirmed a C-
value of 130, it is important to account for C-value degradation over the life of the pipeline and this
why the 110 C-value was used in the analysis.

 Demand Data and Allocations - The 2040 average day demands for the existing and new
communities were taken from the 2012 Water Demand Projection Assessment. Current water

4-1
Section 4  Hydraulic and Surge Analysis

demands for the new members were as provided in 2012 Capacity Expansion Assessment. Current
water demands for the existing members were estimated from recent water demands provided by
the Agency. Current and 2040 Maximum Day Demands were developed using a peaking factor of
1.65 times the average day demands. Table 4-1 provides a summary of water demands for the new
members used in the hydraulic analysis.

Table 4-1. Current and 2040 Water Demands for the North Group
Current Average Current Maximum 2040 Average Demand 2040 Maximum
Community
Demand (MGD) Demand (MGD) (MGD) Demand (MGD)
Fox Lake Hills 0.18 0.30 0.20 0.33
Grandwood Park 0.44 0.73 0.46 0.76
Lake Villa 0.68 1.12 1.26 2.08
Lindenhurst 1.02 1.68 1.37 2.26

 Demand Patterns – Demand patterns for the Extended Period Simulations (EPS) were assumed to
be consistent over the 24-hour period during average and maximum day demand conditions. This
is consistent with the Agency’s historical desired operation of maintaining constant flow over the
course of the day since the Agency is not responsible for diurnal flow changes (such as peak hour
flows) as well as fire flows.

The proposed transmission main sizes were evaluated for the current and 2040 demand conditions. The
evaluation was based on the following established criteria:

 Velocities not to exceed 7 feet per second (fps) and ideally less than 5 fps for the new pipelines;

 Head losses not to exceed 6 feet/1,000 feet;

 Pressures not to exceed 135 psi in the system; and

 Minimum pressure of 25 psi at each delivery structure.

The model results assume Alternative B is selected for the Northeast connection point to the Agency’s
existing system. The hydraulic comparison between the two alternatives is later discussed in this
memorandum.

Table 4-2 summarizes the basis of hydraulic and water quality analysis, as well as the design criteria for
the system.

4-2
Section 4  Hydraulic and Surge Analysis

Table 4-2. Summary Basis of Analysis and Design Criteria

Parameter Value Notes/Comments
Number of Delivery Structures Per
One -
Community
Pressure will vary depending on water
Minimum Delivery Pressure 25 psi demands and system
conditions/operation
Fire flows and peak hour flows are the
Maximum Day Demand Only (per CMAP
Design Flows responsibility of the communities via
2040 flows at 1.65 peaking factor)
adequate existing or new storage
Allocated Percentage of Plant
CLCJAWA Demand Responsibility -
Production Capacity
Each community will be responsible for
Minimum Delivery Chlorine Residual 0.2 ppm booster chlorination beyond the
delivery point
Each community is responsible for
flushing of existing distribution system
Agency will provide non-corrosive
Corrosion Control and Flushing to address hydraulic and water quality
water with an ortho-phosphate
changes in the system during the
transition to Lake Michigan water
C-value is a measure of the roughness
Pipeline C-Value 110 of the pipe and is a critical parameter in
sizing transmission main piping.
Maximum Allowable System Pressure 135 psi -
Maximum Design Velocity <7 feet per second
(1) Members cannot assume 100% continuous water service from the Agency 100% of the time.
(2) An emergency response plan for existing and new members is being developed by the individual member communities.

4.2 Hydraulic Model Results

The hydraulic model results are broken into the following:

 Current average day and maximum day residual pressure results

 Future (2040) average day and maximum day residual pressure results

 Water age and chlorine residual results simulated during a current low flow condition (worse case
water age condition).

For the residual pressure results where the hydraulic model was simulated under current and future
average and maximum demand conditions, it is important to understand the limitations and assumptions:

 WTP (Water Treatment Plant) high service pumps are operational using a combination of pumps
maintaining the desired flow condition and maintaining discharge pressure of less than 135 psi.

 The new intermediate booster pump station is assumed to be operational when simulating the
2040 maximum day flow conditions. This pump station is on the finished water transmission main,
located along Route 176 near the east border of Libertyville.

4-3
Section 4  Hydraulic and Surge Analysis

 The analysis assumes that the existing and new members’ water demands are consistent and peak
(at the peaking factor of 1.65) simultaneously.

 The existing elevated tank continues to float on the system at all times to provide the surge
protection needed (continued to operate below the overflow elevation of 1000-feet and above the
minimum level of approximately 960-feet). Given the hydraulic impact of the elevated tank on the
system, the model was simulated with and without the elevated tank in service. The model
assumed an initial elevated tank level of 974-feet.

 The standpipes water level will vary to provide the Agency with the flexibility to operate the
system efficiently and stay below the standpipe overflow elevation of approximately 896-feet.

 The existing standpipes and booster pumping station are operational using a combination of
pumps required to maintain the hydraulic grade line to float the elevated tank on the system. A
future fourth booster pump will be required for the 2040 maximum flow conditions.

 The available pressures provided in this memorandum are estimated based on normal operational
scenarios and should not be used by the communities for designing their internal distribution
system improvements. The North Group should design all internal improvements assuming a
delivery pressure of 25 psi and chlorine residual of 0.2 ppm.

4.2.1 Current Average Day Demand Results

The water model was simulated for the current average day demand conditions. The total demand in the
system for this scenario is 25.3 MGD. The available residual pressures for the current average day demand
conditions are summarized in Table 4-3. Please note that these pressures are estimated based on normal
operational scenarios. The Agency will optimize its system operation to delivery 25 psi at the control point,
which can change depending on the flow conditions.

Table 4-3. Residual Pressure for Current Average Day Demand Conditions
Residual Pressure (PSI) with
Community
Elevated Tank in Service (1)
Fox Lake Hills 25 – 83 (+/- 5%)
Grandwood Park 25 – 83 (+/- 5%)
Lake Villa 25 – 71 (+/- 5%)
Lindenhurst 25 – 78 (+/- 5%)
(1) The residual pressure when the tank is out of service depends on the number of booster pumps in operation and the water demands
for the existing members. The estimate pressure ranges between 25 and 40 psi for the new communities.

4.2.2 Current Maximum Day Demand Results

The water model was simulated for the current maximum day demand conditions. A peaking factor of 1.65
was applied to the average day demands. The total demand in the system for this scenario is 41.8 MGD. The
available residual pressures for the current maximum day demand conditions are summarized in
Table 4-4.

4-4
Section 4  Hydraulic and Surge Analysis

Table 4-4. Residual Pressure for Current Maximum Day Demand Conditions
Pressures (PSI) with Elevated Tank in Pressures (PSI) with Elevated Tank Out
Community
Service of Service
Fox Lake Hills 25 – 75 (+/- 5%) 25 – 37 (+/- 5%)
Grandwood Park 25 – 75 (+/- 5%) 25 – 37 (+/- 5%)
Lake Villa 25 – 63 (+/- 5%) 25 (+/- 5%)
Lindenhurst 25 – 66 (+/- 5%) 25 – 28 (+/- 5%)

Appendix C includes a summary of flows and residual pressures for the current and future communities
under current water demand conditions.

4.2.3 2040 Average Day Demand Results

The water model was simulated for the 2040 average day demand conditions. The total demand in the
system for this scenario is 30.9 MGD. The available residual pressures for the 2040 average day demand
conditions are summarized in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5. Residual Pressure for 2040 Average Day Demand Conditions
Community Pressures (PSI) with Elevated Tank in Service (1)
Fox Lake Hills 25 - 79 (+/- 5%)
Grandwood Park 25 - 81 (+/- 5%)
Lake Villa 25 - 65 (+/- 5%)
Lindenhurst 25 - 74 (+/- 5%)
(1) The residual pressure when the tank is out of service depends on the number of booster pumps in operation and the water demands
for the existing members. The estimate pressure ranges between 25 and 40 psi for the new communities.

4.2.4 2040 Maximum Day Demand Results

The water model was simulated for the 2040 maximum day demand conditions. A peaking factor of 1.65
was applied to the average day demand. The total demand in the system for this scenario is 51.0 MGD. The
available residual pressures for the 2040 maximum day demand conditions are summarized in Table 4-6.

Table 4-6. Residual Pressures for 2040 Maximum Day Demand Conditions
Pressures (PSI) with Elevated Tank in Pressures (PSI) with Elevated Tank Out
Community
Service of Service
Fox Lake Hills 25 – 64 (+/- 5%) 25 – 47 (+/- 5%)
Grandwood Park 25 - 70 (+/- 5%) 25 - 53 (+/- 5%)
Lake Villa 25 - 50 (+/- 5%) 25 - 33 (+/- 5%)
Lindenhurst 25 - 57 (+/- 5%) 25 - 40 (+/- 5%)

This scenario assumes the operation of the new intermediate booster pumping station, WTP improvements
to provide the 51 MGD flow, and the addition of a fourth pump at the existing Booster Pumping Station. The
new intermediate booster pumping station is needed when flows from the WTP approach 46 MGD. This is
based on a C-value in the pipe of 110. Figure 4-1 provides a hydraulic profile at the 2040 maximum day
demand conditions (design condition). Appendix C includes the full hydraulic analysis results.

4-5
Section 4  Hydraulic and Surge Analysis

4.2.5 Water Quality Analysis – Water Age and Chlorine Residual

Water age is a measure of the water turnover in the distribution system (i.e. how long has the water been in
the distribution system since its original source at the water treatment plant). Long water age (distribution
system residence time) may lead to loss of chlorine residual in the system, potential formation of
disinfection-by-products, and formation of biofilm.

An extended period simulation (EPS) of the model was performed for ten days under a current minimum
day demand of 13 MGD to determine if the system has water age problems. Minimum day demand was
estimated using a peaking factor of 0.5 over the current average day demand. Water age is a function
primarily of water demand, system operation, and system design. Generally, water age decreases as the
demand in the system increases, operation of booster pumps or smaller pipe sizes. The water age under the
low demand flow condition for the new communities is summarized in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7. Water Age During Minimum Day Demand Conditions (13 MGD)
Community Water Age (hours)
Fox Lake Hills 66 (+/- 10%)
Grandwood Park 42 (+/- 10%)
Lake Villa 58 (+/- 10%)
Lindenhurst 50 (+/- 10%)

Analysis for residual chlorine is dependent on the following parameters. These parameters were based
from the 2002 Water Quality Modeling Study where the reaction rates were simulated based on actual field
conditions for the Agency’s system.

 Bulk reaction rate of 0.22/day – The bulk reaction rate or decay factor was developed based on
August 2002 chlorine residual testing where the water temperature ranged between 20 and 23
degrees Celsius. This will produce more conservative results since most low flow conditions occur
in the winter where chlorine decay is lower.

 Wall reaction rate of 0.080 feet/day.

 Diffusivity (of chlorine in water) is 1.208 x 10‐9 ft2/sec.

For this scenario a chlorine residual of 0.7 mg/L was simulated leaving the water treatment plant and a
residual of 0.8 mg/L at the existing booster pumping station. An extended period simulation (EPS) of the
model was performed for ten days under a current minimum day demand of 13 MGD to identify the
available chlorine residual in the system. Minimum chlorine residual at the delivery structure of the newer
communities are summarized in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8. Chlorine Residual Results During Minimum Day Demand Conditions (13 MGD)
Community Chlorine Residual (ppm)
Fox Lake Hills 0.2 - 0.4 (+/- 0.1)
Grandwood Park 0.2 – 0.6 (+/- 0.1)
Lake Villa 0.2 – 0.5 (+/- 0.1)
Lindenhurst 0.2 – 0.5 (+/- 0.1)

4-6
Section 4  Hydraulic and Surge Analysis

Figure 4-2 provides a chlorine decay curve from the WTP to Fox Lake Hills. Appendix C includes a
summary of flows, water age, and chlorine residual for the current and future communities.

4.2.6 Northeast Route – Alternative A Route vs Alternative B Route

As shown in the attached map, for the Northeast pipeline serving the communities of Grandwood Park and
Lindenhurst, two alternatives are currently being evaluated to where the proposed pipeline will tie into the
existing Agency’s transmission system. Alternative A is a proposed 20-inch along Washington Street
running in parallel to an existing 12-inch pipeline. The proposed 20-inch ties to the existing 30-inch along
Hunt Club Road. Alternative B is a proposed 20-inch along Almond Road. Both alternatives are currently
being included in the Preliminary Engineering Report and will be surveyed.

The hydraulic model was simulated to determine the hydraulic impact for both alternatives under the 2040
maximum day demand conditions. Table 4-9 summarizes the comparison between the two alternative
routes. Based on the hydraulic results and the additional headloss through the existing 30-inch pipeline on
Hunt Club Road, Alternative B along Almond Road is recommended.

Table 4-9. Comparison of Hydraulic Results for Northeast Connection Point to Agency’s System
Parameter Alternative A Alternative B
Pressure (PSI) at Grandwood Park Delivery Point 59 (+/- 5%) 67 (+/- 5%)
Pressure (PSI) at Gurnee Delivery Point 74 (+/- 5%) 78 (+/- 5%)
Pressure (PSI) at Lindenhurst Delivery Point 45 (+/- 5%) 54 (+/- 5%)

4.2.7 Conclusions and Recommendations

The following conclusions and recommendations were developed based on the above hydraulic and water
quality modeling results:

 The pipeline sizes previously developed to serve the new communities are confirmed.

 The new intermediate booster pump station is needed when the discharge pressure out of the WTP
high service pumps approaches 135 psi, which equates to a total system demand of 46 MGD.

 The Agency’s water system and proposed improvements will allow the Agency to meet the new
members current and future water demands while maintaining a minimum delivery pressure of 25
psi. Higher residual pressure at the delivery points depends on the operation/level of the elevated
tank, distribution of demands in the system, and the optimization of pumping operation at the WTP
and booster pumping stations.

 The expansion of the Agency’s system will result in higher water age to the new members. The
higher water age will reduce chlorine residual in the system to the new members. Based upon the
results, all four new communities should plan on booster chlorination.

 In comparing Alternative A versus Alternative B for connecting to the Agency’s existing

transmission system, Alternative B (Almond Road) is recommended due to the decrease in
headloss and the improved reliability of the system.

4.3 Surge Analysis

To be completed following completion of 30% design drawings to capture pipe profile.

4-7
Section 5
Geotechnical Evaluation
5.1 Overview
A preliminary geotechnical evaluation, including a subsurface site investigation and laboratory testing
program, was conducted as part of the preliminary design for this project.

The proposed water main will typically be constructed using the open cut method. However, due to various
physical limitations (for example railroad track), permitting, and other project constraints, a number of
trenchless crossings were proposed. Preliminary evaluation on the subsurface conditions for trench
excavation, pipe support and considerations for trenchless crossing construction is provided below.

5.2 Subsurface Exploration Programs

To assist with design of the proposed pipeline, a two-phase geotechnical exploration program was planned
to evaluate the subsurface conditions along the pipeline alignment.

5.2.1 Phase I Subsurface Exploration Program

The Phase I geotechnical exploration consisting of 74 test borings along the northeast and northwest
alignments was conducted by Wang Engineering, Inc. of Lombard, Illinois between August and November
2014. The test borings are typically spaced approximately 1000 feet to 1200 feet along the alignment and
extended to depth ranging from 12 to 36 feet. All test borings were drilled and logged by Wang
Engineering, Inc. Ten groundwater level piezometers were installed at select trenchless boring locations
along the alignment as part of this exploration program.

Laboratory testing consisting of moisture content, grain size analysis, Atterburg Limits and organic content
was conducted on selected soil samples.

Details of the Phase I subsurface investigation program, including boring logs, and laboratory testing data
are included in the Draft Geotechnical Data Report prepared by Wang Engineering in Appendix D.

5.2.2 Phase II Subsurface Exploration Program

Phase II subsurface investigation program will be conducted as part of the final design of the project. The
Phase II investigation program will include approximately 70 to 75 additional test borings along the final
pipe alignment to provide additional subsurface information, and will focus particularly on areas that
require further investigation as identified in the Phase I exploration program. Associated Phase II
laboratory testing program will also be conducted to assist in the evaluation of engineering properties of
the soils encountered.

5.3 Subsurface Conditions and Preliminary Geotechnical

Evaluation
Based on the Phase I subsurface investigation data and the approximate depth of the proposed pipeline, the
subsurface condition along the pipe alignment generally consists of medium stiff to very stiff clay and silt
with occasional layers of loose to medium dense silty sand, which are generally suitable for supporting the
proposed pipeline with the below noted exception.

5-1
Section 5  Geotechnical Evaluation

At test boring location 4NW-11, which is along Cedar Lake Road, soft silty clay was encountered over
approximately 11 feet of soft, compressible, highly organic fibrous peat to a depth of about 18 feet below
ground surface. These materials are not suitable for pipeline support due to potential for significant
settlement of the pipeline as well as other constructability issues. Method of mitigation includes over-
excavation and replacement with suitable materials. Additional test borings in this area should be
conducted during the detailed design phase of the project to further delineate both lateral and vertical
extent of this organic layer. Further evaluation on mitigation measures as well as potential limits of over-
excavation will be conducted during the detailed design phase.

Along most of the trenchless crossing areas, medium stiff to very stiff clay and silt with various amount of
sand were encountered to the depth where the test borings terminated. A sand and gravel layer was
encountered at depth along part of Almond Road in the area of Northeast alignment Leg 2, which will be
further evaluated in the selection of the trenchless method and vertical alignment of the crossing.

Considering the size of the carrier pipe (10 to 20-inch diameter), the subsurface conditions and other
project limitations, trenchless methods including pipe jacking, horizontal direction drilling (HDD), and jack
and bore are considered technically feasible and will be further evaluated in the final design.

Rock was not encountered at any of test boring locations and very limited thickness of fill were noted in the
test borings. Therefore, it is anticipated that most of the excavation could be conducted without requiring
utilization of a rock excavation technique.

Due to the large variation of the site grade along the two alignments (NE and NW), which ranges from
approximately elevation 720 to elevation 820, groundwater elevation is anticipated to vary. Groundwater
was not encountered in most of the shallow borings that extended to about 12 feet below ground surface.
However, groundwater levels readings ranging from about 5 to 36 feet below ground surface were
recorded at selected test boring location at time of drilling. Due to the low permeability nature of the
majority of the soils encountered, the water level measured at the end of drilling may not be representative
of the steady-state groundwater level. Additional groundwater level measurements from the installed
piezometers will be recorded during the Phase II Geotechnical Program.

5-2
Section 6
Corrosion Control and Protection
6.1 Overview
A corrosion assessment was performed for both the Northwest and Northeast proposed pipeline
alignments. The assessment consisted of collecting and analyzing soil samples collected during the Phase I
geotechnical investigation program for specific parameters that influence corrosion, and performing a field
and record search for existing pipelines or other appurtenances that could impact the rate of corrosion.
This section summarizes the results of the Corrosion Evaluation Report provided in Appendix E.

6.2 Conclusions
Soil samples collected and analyzed along the Northwest and Northeast alignments indicate the soils are
corrosive due to their poorly draining clayey soil indicated by resistivity measurements less than 2,000
ohm-cm, and moisture contents of less than 25%. Additional soil parameters were also evaluated including
chloride ion concentrations, sulfate ion concentrations, soil pH, and oxidation/reduction measurements.
However, these additional parameters did not indicate they impacted the corrosion of metallic structures.

Therefore, based on the results collected, the soil conditions exhibit properties where sustained corrosion
can occur, and metallic pipelines and appurtenances would be expected to exhibit normal corrosion of
buried metallic materials.

In addition to the evaluation of the soil properties, a DC interference study was performed. It was
determined that the following pipeline operators operate and maintain foreign pipelines located in the
vicinity of the transmission main and protected by a rectified anode cathodic protection system:

 Kinder Morgan/NGPL

 West Shore Pipeline

 AGL/Nicor Gas Company

Based on the results of the corrosion protection investigation, all ferrous materials should be protected
from soil corrosion. All ductile iron pipe shall be wrapped in polyethylene sheathing (poly wrap), and
supplemented with sacrificial anodes installed with the pipe.

At the locations of pipelines containing rectified anode systems that cross the proposed transmission main,
foreign test stations should be installed to allow the draining of any DC interference current from the
transmission main back to the foreign pipeline. It is further recommended that a minimum distance of 12-
inches (preferably 24-inches) be maintained between the proposed water transmission main and any
foreign pipeline.

The PVC pipe does not require any special corrosion protection except at those locations where metallic
material is installed such as at valves or fittings. Those metallic materials should be coated with fusion
bonded epoxy and supplemented with sacrificial anodes.

6-1
Section 7
Wetland Delineation
7.1 Overview
A wetland delineation of the Northwest and Northeast alignments was conducted in the Summer and Fall of
2014 by Hey and Associates, Inc. This section summarizes the results of the wetlands delineation and
report. The reports for the Northwest and Northeast alignments are located in Appendices F and G,
respectively.

7.2 Wetlands Delineation Summary

The Northeast alignment contains thirteen wetlands and two waters of the United States. Lake County
Stormwater Management Commission (LCSMC) provided a written preliminary jurisdictional
determination letter dated November 18, 2014 which concluded that “the WOUS include Wetlands 4, 6, 7, 8,
9, 11, and 12, and Waters WOUS 1 and WOUS 2”, “the IWLC include Wetlands 1, 2 (western portion only), 5,
and 13 (including Farmed Wetland FW 13)” and that the eastern portion of Wetland 2, Wetlands 3 and 10
are “excluded from regulatory status”.

The Northwest alignment contains sixteen wetlands. Lake County Stormwater Management Commission
(LCSMC) provided a written preliminary jurisdictional determination letter dated October 17, 2014. The
letter stated that “the WOUS include Wetlands 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15”, “and the IWLC include
Wetlands 1, 2, 4, 11 and 16” and that Wetlands 3 and 5 are “excluded from regulatory status”.

Wetlands cannot be filled or otherwise impacted without permit authorization. Generally, permanent
impacts under 0.10-acre and temporary impacts for jurisdictional and isolated wetlands do not require
mitigation of wetland losses. Any permanent impacts over this acreage threshold will require mitigation at
a minimum of 1.5:1. Jurisdictional wetland/water impacts would be permitted by the Corps under a
Regional Permit 8 (Utility Line Projects) unless the permanent impacts are greater than 1.00-acre. Then an
Individual Permit would be required from the Corps as well as a 401 water quality certification from the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Isolated wetland impacts would be permitted through LCSMC.

Hey and Associates recommends avoiding wetland impacts. For the Northeast alignment, it is
recommended to especially avoid Wetland 7 which is a wet meadow/forested woodland. This wetland is
located along a Mill Creek tributary located on the east side of Hutchins Road.. This wetland has been
identified to have high functional value for water quality. For the Northwest alignment it is recommended
to especially avoid Wetland 10 which is an emergent marsh. This wetland is located on the north and south
side of Monaville Road at the intersection with Old Monaville Road. This wetland has moderate functional
value for water quality and wildlife habitat, but is of high vegetative quality. Both wetlands should be
avoided as best as practicable by going around or under each wetlands.

7-1
Section 8
Environmental Impact Assessment
8.1 Description
CDM Smith completed an environmental assessment for two pipeline routes, a northwest route and a
northeast route. The approximately 13 miles of pipeline is assumed to be 20-inches in diameter or less and
buried a minimum of 6-feet using a combination of open cut and trenchless installation. The pipelines
would be predominantly installed in the right-of-ways, but it is assumed that a portion may be installed
within easements.

The purpose of this environmental assessment is to identify historically significant sites, wetlands,
endangered species, and natural areas that could exist within the project areas and that could impact
project construction. This Section also provides an assessment of the hazardous materials impact.

Appendix H contains the environmental approvals and correspondence received to date.

8.2 Northwest Route

The northwest route extends north along Illinois Route 83 and then west along Monaville Road. The
following is a summary of the environmental assessment in relation to this route.

8.2.1 Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency

CDM Smith consulted with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) to request a federal Section 106 sign-off for this pipeline route. CDM Smith used the Historic
and Architectural Resources Geographic Information System (HARGIS) to determine if there are potential
historic sites along the proposed route. There are no historic sites in the vicinity of the proposed route. A
letter from the IHPA SHPO stated that no historic properties are affected by this undertaking.

8.2.2 Wetlands
CDM Smith coordinated with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) to identify potential
wetlands along this pipeline route. CDM Smith submitted a request through the Ecological Compliance
Assessment Tool (EcoCAT). The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) shows wetlands within 250 feet of the
proposed route and further IDNR review was required. A letter from the IDNR Division of Ecosystems and
Environment stated that the proposed action is generally considered a minimal wetland impact. Impacts
are minimal if the affected wetland is located within a maintained road right-of-way or the area is zoned
and utilized in its entirety for residential, commercial, industrial, or other developed categories, and each of
the following construction conditions exist:

 The trench width is less than 10 feet.

 Erosion control measures meet either the specifications in the “Green” book for erosion control in
construction sites or the requirements of the NPDES Construction Site Activities permit.

 Any wetland tree removal is less than 4-inch diameter at breast height (dbh).

 Soil stockpiles and construction equipment are stored outside of the wetland.

8-1
Section 8  Environmental Impact Assessment

If wetlands will be disturbed, the following 1:1 mitigation requirements must be incorporated into project
plans:

1. Grade and contour the disturbed area to its original conditions within 30 days of project
completion.
2. Reseed the area within seven days of completing step 1.
3. Restore any other pre-existing wetland condition.

If wetlands will be impacted and the minimal impact criteria will not be met, or if the 1:1 mitigation
requirements cannot be incorporated into the construction plans, IDNR must be notified and the
consultation will be re-opened. If wetlands will not be disturbed, no action is necessary.

8.2.3 Endangered Species and Natural Areas

CDM Smith coordinated with the IDNR to identify potential endangered species and natural areas along this
pipeline route. CDM Smith submitted a request through the EcoCAT. The Illinois Natural Heritage Database
shows that the following protected resources may be in the vicinity of the proposed route: Cedar Lake
Illinois Natural Area Inventory (INAI) site, Deep Lake INAI site, Fourth Lake-Rollins Road Savanna INAI site,
Gavin Bog and Prairie INAI site, Windance Acres Marsh INAI site, Cedar Lake Bog Nature Preserve, Gavin
Bog and Prairie Nature Preserve, Branded Killfish (Fundulus diaphanus), Black Tern (Chlidonias niger),
Black-Crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), Blackchin Shiner (Notropis heterodon), Blacknose
Shiner (Notropis heterolepis), Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), Common Moorhen (Gallinula
chloropus), Forster’s Tern (Sterna forsteri), Iowa Darter (Etheostoma exile), Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis),
Small Sundrops (Oenothera perennis), Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor), and Yellow-Headed
Blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus).

A letter from the IDNR Division of Ecosystems and Environment stated that the state-endangered
Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) has been recorded in the vicinity of the proposed route. To
minimize potential adverse effects during construction, the following protective measures must be
observed:

1. Educate personnel working on site about Blanding’s Turtle. Post photos of juvenile and adult
Blanding’s at a central location.
2. Install exclusionary fencing (making sure it is dug into the ground) to prevent turtles from entering
construction areas.
3. Conduct daily inspections for transiting turtles. If a Blanding’s Turtle is encountered, crews must
stop work and allow the turtle to move out of the way or call IDNR.
4. Routinely inspect trenches and excavations before starting work each day to assure no turtles have
become trapped within them. Make sure trenches and excavated areas are covered each evening to
avoid trapping any amphibians or reptiles.

8.3 Northeast Route

The northeast route extends north along Almond Road and Hutchins Road. The following is a summary of
the environmental assessment in relation to this route.

8.3.1 Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency

CDM Smith consulted with the IHPA SHPO to request a federal Section 106 sign-off for this pipeline route.
CDM Smith used HARGIS to determine if there are potential historic sites along the proposed route. There
are no historic sites in the vicinity of the proposed route. A letter from the IHPA SHPO stated that no
historic properties are affected by this undertaking.

8-2
Section 8  Environmental Impact Assessment

8.3.2 Wetlands
CDM Smith coordinated with the IDNR to identify potential wetlands along this pipeline route. CDM Smith
submitted a request through the EcoCAT. The NWI shows wetlands within 250 feet of the proposed route
and further IDNR review was required. A letter from the IDNR Division of Ecosystems and Environment
stated that if wetlands will be disturbed, the project must meet certain construction conditions and
incorporate 1:1 mitigation requirements into the project plans. Impacts are minimal if the affected wetland
is located within a maintained road right-of-way or the area is zoned and utilized in its entirety for
residential, commercial, industrial, or other developed categories, and each of the following construction
conditions exist:

 The trench width is less than 10 feet.

 Erosion control measures meet either the specifications in the “Green” book for erosion control in
construction sites or the requirements of the NPDES Construction Site Activities permit.

 Any wetland tree removal is less than 4-inch dbh.

 Soil stockpiles and construction equipment are stored outside of the wetland.

If wetlands will be disturbed, the following 1:1 mitigation requirements must be incorporated into project
plans:

1. Grade and contour the disturbed area to its original conditions within 30 days of project
completion.
2. Reseed the area within seven days of completing step 1.
3. Restore any other pre-existing wetland condition.

If wetlands will be impacted and the minimal impact criteria will not be met, or if the 1:1 mitigation
requirements cannot be incorporated into the construction plans, IDNR must be notified and the
consultation will be re-opened. If wetlands will not be disturbed, no action is necessary.

8.3.3 Endangered Species and Natural Areas

CDM Smith coordinated with the IDNR to identify potential endangered species and natural areas along this
pipeline route. CDM Smith submitted a request through the EcoCAT. The Illinois Natural Heritage Database
shows that the following protected resources may be in the vicinity of the proposed route: Almond Marsh
Illinois Natural Area Inventory (INAI) site, Fourth Lake-Rollins Road Savanna INAI site, Mcdonald Woods
Marsh INAI site, Almond Marsh Nature Preserve, Fourth Lake Fen Nature Preserve, Oak Openings Nature
Preserve, Rollins Savanna Nature Preserve, Black-Crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax),
Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus), Forster’s Tern (Sterna
forsteri), Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor), and Yellow-Headed
Blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus).

A letter from the IDNR Division of Ecosystems and Environment stated that adverse effects are unlikely to
the above listed resources and consultation is terminated.

8.4 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites

CDM Smith completed a limited Hazardous Materials Impact (HMI) Summary for the Agency’s North Group
Water System Expansion Project. The HMI was performed along the two proposed water transmission
routes (Northeast and Northwest).

8-3
Section 8  Environmental Impact Assessment

The purpose of the HMI is to identify properties within the Project area with the potential for hazardous
materials to be present in environmental media. Additionally, a list of sites requiring additional
investigation was identified based on the construction requirements proposed for the Project. These sites
have been identified to be the most likely to cause a hazardous materials impact to the proposed
construction.

This assessment is critical to optimizing soil disposal during the project to reduce environmental risks and
minimize unnecessary costs.

8.4.1 Basis of Environmental Assessment and Analysis

The scope included a review of state and federal databases in order to identify the sites/parcels with the
most potential for hazardous materials concerns.

The following is a summary of the databases included as part of the review.

 Review of state and federal databases: CDM Smith retained GeoSearch to conduct a search of state
and federal databases to identify any environmental sites located within 500 feet of the study area.
The following databases were reviewed:

 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System

(CERCLIS)

 USEPA National Priority List (NPL)

 Facility Index System (FINDS)

 CERCLIS-No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP)

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System-Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

(RCRIS-TSD)

 Resource Conservation and Recovery (RCRA) Corrective Action Activity (CORRACTS)

 RCRIS-Large Quantity Generators (LQG)

 RCRIS-Small Large Quantity Generators (SQG)

 US Brownfields List

 Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS)

 Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)

 Department of Defense (DOD) sites

 Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal (OSFM) Underground Storage Tank (UST) Database

 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) Site Remediation Program (SRP) Sites

 IEPA List of Sites with Controls

 IEPA List of State Response Action Sites

 IEPA List of Construction Debris Landfills

 IEPA List of Active Landfills

8-4
Section 8  Environmental Impact Assessment

 IEPA Listing of Spills

 IEPA List of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)

 IEPA List of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Database

8.4.2 Environmental Risk Assessment

Sites may be listed in one or more databases. In general, a site listed under the Facility Registry System
(FRSIL), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and/or as a Resource Conservation
Recovery Act Generator (RCRAGR05) was considered a low risk. Sites with single listings that included dry
cleaners (CLEANERS), underground storage tanks (UST), permit compliance system (PCS), No Further
Response Action Planned (NFRAP), or spills along the roadway (SPILLS) were considered a moderate risk.
Sites with multiple listings including RCRAGR05, Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System
(HMIRSR05), Site with Controls (SC), Leaking UST (LUST) incidents, SPILLS with a UST present, or Site
Remediation Program (SRP) were given a high risk.

Table 8-1 provides the numbers of sites for each risk category.

Table 8-1. Potential Hazardous Materials Sites

Route Sites with Potential Hazardous Materials Concerns
High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk

Northeast Route 0 5 6

Northwest Route 3 0 12

8.4.3 Environmental Sampling

The environmental sampling program was performed to investigate the level of contamination in soils that
may be excavated during the construction of the Pipeline. The samples proposed for testing were
determined by CDM Smith based on the review of the database and the general area of the boring
(farmland, residential, industrial).

Each sample selected for environmental testing was analyzed for all or part of the following parameters:

 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs)

 Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs)

 Target Analyte List (TAL) metals

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals

 Pesticides and herbicides

 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

 pH

8-5
Section 8  Environmental Impact Assessment

In general, sample analysis was determined based on the following:

 All samples selected for environmental testing were analyzed for pH.

 Samples in areas near sites identified as a potential high risk in the environmental database review
were also analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and TAL or RCRA metals.

 Samples not in areas near sites as a potential risk in the environmental database review were
analyzed for VOCs only if elevated PID (photoionization detector) readings occur in the field, as
well as PNAs and RCRA metals.

 Select samples in farmland areas were analyzed for herbicides and pesticides.

 Select samples in industrial areas were analyzed for PCBs.

8.4.4 Subsurface Soil Investigation

An environmental sampling program was performed by Wang to investigate the extent of contamination in
soils that may be excavated during the construction of the Pipeline. The Phase I environmental sampling
was conducted in the same boreholes as the geotechnical investigation. Phase II sampling will be completed
upon a review of both the geotechnical and environmental findings. At this time additional samples may be
collected in order to delineated the known impacts and reduce the overall disposal costs.

The subsurface soil investigation was conducted at the Site from August 11 through October 8, 2014. As
part of the subsurface investigation, a total of 72 soil borings were advanced to assess soil quality beneath
the Site at the locations shown on Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2. The soil borings were completed using a
hollow-stem auger drill rig (HSA). Soil was collected continuously in approximately 4-foot intervals to
depths of 12 feet below ground surface (bgs). Subsurface soils were collected by driving a stainless steel
barrel into the subsurface. Upon sample retrieval, soils were examined for visual indications (i.e., staining,
discoloration, oily sheens, etc.) and olfactory indications (i.e., solvent odors, petroleum odors, etc.) of
potential contamination. In addition, a photoionization detector (PID) was used to qualitatively screen the
soil. The visual, olfactory, and PID information was used to indicate potential contamination. One sample
was collected from each boring (73 total) based on the field screening results. A field scientist classified
soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and recorded soil boring details on a field
form.

The soil samples were logged, properly labeled, placed in iced coolers and delivered to STAT Analysis
(STAT) using standard chain-of-custody procedures. STAT performed the analyses in accordance with the
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures set forth for each analytical method in USEPA SW-
846 (USEPA 1996) as well as their own established QA/QC procedures.

8.4.5 Analytical Soil Results

A total of 72 soil samples were analyzed by the environmental testing laboratory. The results were
compared to the Summary of Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC) of Chemical Constituents in
Uncontaminated Soil Used as Fill Materials from 35 IAC 1100.Subpart F. The MAC standards outline
objectives for soil to be used as clean fill based on risks to human health. A summary of soil analytical
results compared to the MAC standards is shown on Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2, and the results are
summarized in Table 8-2.

 There were no exceedances of VOCs, SVOCs, PNAs, PCBs, herbicides, pesticides, or pH.

8-6
Section 8  Environmental Impact Assessment

 Metals (Arsenic, Chromium, Iron, and Manganese) exceeding the MAC table were detected at
twelve (12) soil boring locations.

Table 8-2. Analytical Results

Route Chemical No. Borings Range MAC Background
Northeast Route Chromium (Cr) 2 23-26 21-24 16.2

Iron (Fe) 5 16,000-43,000 15,900 15,900

Manganese (Mg) 2 710-720 636 636

Northwest Route Arsenic (Ar) 1 22 13.0 13.0

Chromium (Cr) 2 34-37 21-36 16.2

Iron (Fe) 2 24,000-29,000 15,900 15,900

Manganese 1 650 636 636

8.4.6 Conclusions and Next Steps

Based upon the site investigations and results, additional investigation is recommended required during
Phase II in order to delineate the contaminants found in soil along the pipeline. Currently, approximately
17% of the material will require disposal as nonhazardous waste at a Subtitle D landfill. Typical disposal
costs at a Clean Construction and Demolition Debris (CCDD) facility is $100 per load (~$5 per ton). Typical
disposal costs at a Subtitle D landfill is $400 per load (~$20 per ton). There would also be transportation
costs that will vary depending on the location of the chosen disposal facility.

Further sampling will allow us to delineate the impacted area along the pipeline and hopefully reduce the
amount of soil that will be required to be disposed at a Subtitle D landfill as opposed to a CCDD facility, thus
potentially reducing project costs. Table 8-3 summarizes the preliminary percentages of boring locations
that exceeded the MAC standards and the subsequent disposal options.

Table 8-3. Soil Disposal

Route Disposal at CCDD Facility Disposal at Subtitle D Landfill
Northeast Corridor 82% of Borings 18% of Borings

Northwest Corridor 85% of Borings 15% of Borings

8-7
Section 9
Basis of Design
The purpose of this section is to:

 Summarize the design criteria or basis of design for the pipeline;

 Compare pipe materials and summarize design information for each material;

 Provide basis of design for the delivery structures; and

 Provide conceptual level design detail for pipeline appurtenances and valves.

9.1 Pipeline System Design Criteria

Table 9-1 summarizes the design criteria for the overall pipeline system.

Table 9-1. Summary Basis of Analysis and Design Criteria

Parameter Value Notes/Comments
Overall Basis of Design
Service Potable Water with Chlorine
Water Temperature 32 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit
Pipeline Basis of Design
Service Life 50 years or higher
Maximum Pipeline Design Operating
150 psi -
Pressure
Pressure will vary depending on
Minimum Delivery Pressure Under Normal
25 psi water demands and system
Operation
conditions/operation
Maximum Surge Pressure 225 psi
Air release and air vacuum valves will
Minimum Surge Pressure -6 psi be located to minimize negative
pressures to the extent feasible.
Maximum Design Velocity <7 feet per second
<15 feet for accessibility with minimum
Burial Depth Preference This is a general preference only
cover of 6-feet to top of pipe
Location and Soil Conditions
Predominantly clay soil with sand and
Soil Conditions gravel seams (potential for peat in few
areas)
Based on preliminary draft Phase I soil
boring logs, groundwater appears to be
Water Table
20-feet or deeper with areas of perched
groundwater at 6 -feet or deeper

9-1
Section 9  Basis of Design

Parameter Value Notes/Comments

Mostly in ROW (predominantly outside of
Pipeline Location
pavement)
Value used in conditions where
backfill is lightly consolidated on top
Modulus of Soil Reaction 400 psi of pipe. Primary driver for this value
is the HDD due to potential for gaps
in the annulus around the pipe.
Soil Density 120lb/ft^3

The following project objectives were developed during discussions with Agency staff and should be added
to the basis of design for the project:

 The Agency prefers to have common pipeline material for the bid packages to avoid having multiple
pipeline materials for maintenance.

 The pipeline will not be pre-purchased or pre-procured by the Agency and will be procured by the
Contractor as part of the construction. This was discussed and agreed based upon the pipeline sizes
for this project and also the challenges with direct pre-purchase and ownership of the pipeline
during project duration.

This project is funded by the IEPA SRF Loan Program and thus will comply with American Steel and Iron
Requirements and also multiple material and valve vendors.

9.2 Delivery Structures

Each community will have a dedicated delivery structure. Figure 9-1 and Figure 9-2 provide a
plan/section view of the delivery structure along with a process flow diagram for the delivery structure. In
addition, each delivery structure will have the following features:

 Dedicated ComEd service with ComEd meter;

 Flow metering capability with either magnetic or venturi technology;

 Isolation valves upstream and downstream of each delivery structure;

 Flow control valve;

 Check valve;

 Pressure gauges to maintain pressure control and optimize system operation;

 Bypass piping in the event the delivery structure has to be taken out of service;

 Pressure relief valve;

 Dehumidifier;

 Heater;

 Ventilation fan;

 Chlorine monitor;

9-2
Section 9  Basis of Design

 Sump/pump;

 PLC with discrete and analog data points and communication back to the main WTP SCADA system;
and

 Radio equipment. A radio or cell-based system will be evaluated as part of the detailed design phase.

9.3 Pipeline Materials

A preliminary evaluation of the following pipe materials commonly used in the potable water industry was
investigated for the North Group Pipeline. These materials included:

 Carbon steel pipe

 Ductile iron pipe

 Prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

 Bar wrapped concrete cylinder pipe

 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe

 Molecular oriented PVC pipe

 High density polyethylene pipe

 Fiberglass Reinforced Concrete Polymer Pipe

Large diameter (12-inch diameter and greater) pressure pipelines are usually constructed from four types
of pipe: ductile iron pipe (DIP), coated and lined welded steel pipe, reinforced concrete cylinder pipe
(RCCP), and bar-wrapped CCP. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Glass-
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) pipe have also been used for water mains, although not as prevalently.

Each type of pipe has its own unique requirements for field assembly, trenching, and installation as well as
differing systems for external coating, pipe section joint assembly, joint restraint, and internal lining. The
ultimate construction cost for each of these unique pipe systems is dependent on the features selected by
the designer, local availability of pipe, and the cost of construction based on local conditions and contractor
experience. A discussion of each of these materials follows.

For the North Group’s Northwest and Northeast pipeline alignments, HDPE, DIP, and PVC pipe materials
were selected for further evaluation based on the range of diameters considered for this project (10-inch to
20-inch).

Three pipeline materials commonly used in the region for the diameters being considered (10” to 20”) were
selected for further evaluation. Each of these pipe materials is used in pressure applications, and has an
associated American Water Works Association (AWWA) standard.

9.3.1 Ductile Iron Pipe (AWWA C150/151-04; 3” to 64”; 350psi max)

Ductile iron pipe (DIP) is a relative of cast iron pipe, which has been used in North American water systems
for over 150 years. Numerous cities have functioning cast iron water mains over 100 years old. DIP pipe
and fittings were first manufactured in 1948 and have been used successfully in water systems since that
time. Ductile iron pipe is manufactured by the addition of magnesium to low sulfur molten iron. At this
time, DIP is supplied in sizes from 3 inches to 64 inches in diameter.

9-3
Section 9  Basis of Design

9.3.1.1 Design
DIP has high tensile strength and high impact resistance and is manufactured in accordance with the
American Water Works Association “Standard for Ductile-Iron Pipe, Centrifugally Cast, for Water or Other
Liquids” (AWWA C151-02). The standard includes five pressure classes, from 150 psi to 350 psi in 50 psi
increments, each of which corresponds to a specific wall thickness for each diameter. The pressure class
corresponds to the related internal working pressure. Additional thickness classes are available if thicker
wall pipe is required due to loading or other structural considerations.

There are a number of local suppliers in the Midwest region, including U.S. Pipe, Griffin Pipe, and American
Cast Iron Pipe Company. DIP tends to be the material of choice for pipelines of less than 36-inches. In larger
sizes, DIP sometimes loses its cost competitive edge to steel and concrete, thus requiring a more detailed
evaluation of discriminating project factors. However, many other factors can influence the choice of pipe
material. For example, highly corrosive soils may require protective design, which could favor other pipe
materials.

For this project it is recommended that Class 350 be used for the 20-inch diameter pipe.

9.3.1.2 Pipe Joint Systems

Pipe joints are of the gasketed bell and spigot design or mechanical joints, with the bell end integrally cast
with the barrel of the pipe.

9.3.1.3 Thrust Restraint

Thrust restraint can be provided by concrete thrust blocks or by restrained joints. Restrained joints would
be “locked-type” and would involve a manufacturer’s proprietary modification of a standard gasketed
push-on bell design; a circumferential bead or ring on the spigot end; and locking segments which are
inserted into the bell after the spigot is pushed into the bell. Restrained joints are usually not required
along the entire pipeline and their use at all fittings would add significantly to the pipeline material cost.
During the final design of the pipeline, the length and number of restrained joints will be determined based
on maximum operating, test, and/or surge pressures. On straight runs of pipe, much of the pipeline would
likely be equipped with non-restrained push-on joints.

Concrete thrust blocks can be placed at bends to absorb unbalanced forces. Thrust blocks are simple to
design and construct. However, for large-diameter pipe, thrust blocks are relatively large to resist thrust
forces and their size can be impractical. The installation of large thrust blocks may also cause more
extensive conflicts in city streets with many existing utilities and consume underground space that could be
more effectively used for future utilities. Thus, concrete thrust blocks are typically not used for large
diameter pipelines and are not recommended for this project.

9.3.1.4 Standard Lengths and Fittings

The nominal pipe length for DIP is 20-feet. Short lengths and spigot-by-spigot pieces are customarily cut
from standard pipe lengths in the field. Because DIP is available in short lengths, it is a practical material of
choice for installation in heavily populated areas, where streets are laden with utilities. Many contractors
have significant experience in laying DIP and their equipment and trench boxes are suited to accommodate
this material. For restrained joint pipe, which employs a bead on the spigot end, special short lengths and
spigot-by-spigot pieces can be made to order in the foundry.

Unless specifically fabricated, DIP fittings are available as 11-1/4, 22-1/2, 45 and 90 degree. Standard pipe
joints are also capable of being deflected several degrees to allow for gradual changes in pipe alignment
without the need for fittings. Fittings would meet the requirements of AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 as
applicable and would have the same pressure rating, as a minimum, of the connecting pipe.

9-4
Section 9  Basis of Design

9.3.1.5 Lining and Coating Systems

The recommended internal lining for the water supply main and all fittings would be a double thickness
cement mortar lining in accordance with AWWA C104. A cement mortar lining provides high hydraulic flow
capacity without the build-up of tubercles. The cement provides a high pH environment in conjunction with
a low oxygen supply, and self-healing characteristics. A seal coat can also be applied, but is not always
required.

The exterior of ductile iron pipe is typically factory coated with a 1 mil thick asphaltic coating in accordance
with AWWA C151 the pipe and in accordance with AWWA C110 and C153 for fittings. The primary purpose
of the asphaltic coating is to minimize atmospheric oxidation for aesthetic reasons prior to burial. If soils
are deemed to be moderately corrosive to ductile iron pipe when tested, it is recommended that
polyethylene encasement be used in accordance with AWWA C105. Polyethylene encasement is
manufactured of virgin polyethylene material conforming to the requirements of ANSI/ASTM D1248. The
polyethylene material would be a minimum of 8-mils thick. The polyethylene wrap is not very expensive
and therefore it is becoming increasingly common to see it installed with DIP systems, even when corrosive
soils are not a concern. Highly corrosive soils may require more significant measures such as bonded
coating systems, electrically continuous joints, and sacrificial or impressed current systems. Because of DIP
industry resistance to most bonded coating systems, DIP may not be cost competitive or available when
these types of protective systems are called for.

Corrosion evaluation and recommendations is presented in Section 6 of the Report.

9.3.1.6 Field Installation

DIP can be installed using open cut or trenchless operations, and can be cut into shorter lengths in the field
to allow for ease of installation. In horizontal directional drilling (HDD) operations, HDD can be installed
using the cartridge method when space is restricted, and the pipe cannot be strung out due to space
limitations.

9.3.2 High Density Polyethylene Pipe (AWWA C906-07; 4” to 63”; Availability

Limited to 54”)
High density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe has been used in potable water applications since the 1960’s, and
has been gaining approval and growth in municipalities ever since. HDPE Pipe is designed and
manufactured in accordance with AWWA C901, AWWA C906, and AWWA M55. This pipe is a high strength
polymer conduit, which depends on the surrounding soils to support internal and external loading and to
maintain roundness. Although the use of HDPE is not common for large water mains, it has some
advantages over other materials. Like PVC, it is an inert material and impervious to most forms of
corrosion. There is generally no cost penalty to restraining systems since they are inherent in the joint
design. Also, HDPE has good characteristics for limiting surge pressure rise and is, therefore, a common
material used in force main applications. HDPE pipe is manufactured up to diameters of 63-inches and is
typically furnished in lengths of 40-feet.

9.3.2.1 Design
HDPE pipe and fittings are manufactured in accordance with AWWA C906-07 – Standard for Polyethylene
(PE) Pressure Pipe & Fittings, 4-in through 63-in, for Water Distribution & Transmission. The thickness of
HDPE pipe wall increases substantially as internal and external loading requirements are increased. The
pipe is outside diameter controlled, meaning that the internal diameter is reduced when the pipe wall
thickness is increased. This can result in an actual internal diameter that is significantly smaller than the
nominal diameter. Outside diameters are consistent with iron, ductile iron, and ISO sizing systems.
Although the frictional resistance of HDPE is less than that of ductile iron, steel or CCP, the smaller internal

9-5
Section 9  Basis of Design

diameter will result in higher fluid flow velocities and head losses. Another factor with HDPE is that it has a
high-degree of expansion, which must be accounted for. HDPE pipe can accommodate operating pressures
up to 254 psi depending on the dimension ratio available from the manufacturer. However, the larger
diameter HDPE pipe has difficulty meeting the higher operating pressures due to the increased wall
thickness.

The pressure capacity of HDPE pipe is negatively impacted by operating temperatures greater than 73.4 oF.
Temperature derating factors for the pipe material begin at operating temperatures of 81 oF and greater.
Derating factors increase with increasing operating temperatures.

9.3.2.2 Pipe Joint and Thrust Restraint System

Polyethylene piping may be joined by thermal butt fusion, socket fusion, electrofusion, flange assemblies, or
mechanical methods. HDPE is self-restraining, and generally thrust blocks or additional means of restraint
are not required. HDPE pipe can be bent to a radius 25 times the nominal pipe diameter, which can
eliminate many fittings required for directional changes in the piping system.

It should be noted the HDPE pipe weighs less than water, so if HDPE pipe is installed in high groundwater
conditions, the construction costs to restrain the pipe against buoyant forces can become very expensive.

9.3.2.3 Standard Lengths and Fittings

HDPE fittings are constructed similar to welded steel pipe fittings through fabrication from cut and mitered
pieces of HDPE, which are fused together to form the desired bend. Bends are not limited to standard
angles as with ductile iron, but can be made to any desired angle. Fittings are typically joined to straight
pipe in the field by fusing.

9.3.2.4 Lining & Coating Systems

HDPE pipe is generally one-hundred percent corrosion resistant and therefore typically requires no
corrosion protection other than what is already provided in the manufacturing process. Valves will be of
ductile or cast iron design. Corrosion protection for valves is usually achieved with coating systems and
sacrificial anodes.

The smooth interior walls of HDPE pipe offers higher flow capacities leading to savings from reduced
pumping costs over the life of the system. Since HDPE pipe is petroleum based, it can however absorb
petroleum products. In addition, the interior pipe wall of HDPE pipe has been documented as reacting with
chemical oxidants present in potable water system resulting in longitudinal cracking.

9.3.2.5 Field Installation

HDPE pipe can be installed in open cut trenches, but is more commonly used in horizontal directional
drilling (HDD) applications, pipe bursting, and lining existing pipelines. HDPE pipe can be cut into shorter
lengths in the field to allow for ease of installation. In HDD applications, HDPE pipe is typically strung at the
ground surface requiring a large work zone.

9.3.3 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe (AWWA C900/C905; 4” to 48”

Diameters; 305psi max through 18” 235psi max 20” through 30” 200psi
max for 36”, 165 psi max 42” through 48”)
PVC pipe has been manufactured and used for infrastructure applications in North America for over 25
years. This pipe is a type of flexible conduit, which depends on the surrounding soils in order to support
internal and external loading and to maintain roundness. PVC pressure pipe absorbs the underground
shear and flexure stresses from soil movement that can place traditional rigid pipe at risk. Similar to HDPE,

9-6
Section 9  Basis of Design

PVC pipe is outside diameter controlled, resulting in an internal diameter which is less than the nominal
diameter.

9.3.3.1 Design
PVC pressure pipe is manufactured in accordance with AWWA C900 or C905, and designed in accordance
with Manual M23 PVC Pipe – Design and Installation. The AWWA C905 PVC pressure pipe standard was
approved in 1988 for diameters of 14" through 36". In 1997, 42" and 48" diameters were added. PVC pipe
can accommodate operating pressures up to 305 psi, or a dimension ratio (DR) of 14. However the larger
diameter PVC pipe cannot meet the higher end of the pressure range.

The pressure capacity of PVC pipe is negatively impacted by operating temperatures greater than 73.4 oF.
Temperature derating factors for the pipe material begin at operating temperatures of 80oF and greater.
Derating factors increase with increasing operating temperature.

For this project the following parameters were assumed for PVC pipe:

 Deflection lag factor of 1.5 (as recommended by the PVC Pipe Association).

 Bedding constant of 0.110.

 Trench width of 18” on either side of the pipe.

 Maximum burial depth of 15-feet.

 Approximate internal diameter of 19.4-inches.

 Thermal derating factor of 0.88% based on a maximum operating temperature of 80 oF. A higher
operating temperature could result in a lower DR pipe material selection.

For the 20” pipe, DR21 pipe was selected which has a calculated deflection of 3.3% which is less than the
maximum allowable deflection of 7.5% allowed by the PVC Pipe Association. This pipe could maintain a
maximum internal pressure (working + surge) of approximately 247psi while still maintaining a safety
factor for surges of approximately 2.6.

The 20-inch diameter pipe would also have the following properties during construction:

During construction, a maximum temperature of 100oF was assumed which minimizes the allowable
bending stress that can be placed on the pipe such as:

 Minimum bending radius of 581-feet

 Offset for a 20-foot length of pipe of approximately 4”

9.3.3.2 Pipe Joint System

Standard bell and spigot joints are typically used for PVC pipe. Each PVC pipe manufacturer has its own
approach to joint systems. Ipex, for example, has a lock-ring gasket design proven to withstand many times
the pressure class of the pipe, while providing for fast, easy installation. Flanged joints are also available for
tapping and service connections. Pipe joints meet ASTM D3139 requirements.

There are various options for restrained joint PVC pipe. Two that would be required to meet thrust restrain
criteria, or for horizontal directional drilling. There are two common joints used for directional drilling
applications; a mechanical joint and fused joint. Both joints require a specially fabricated pipe.

9-7
Section 9  Basis of Design

An example of a mechanical joint is CertainTeed’s Certa-Lok C900/RJ and C905/RJ PVC pipe. PVC pipe that
is connected using the Certa-Lok system is a non-metallic mechanically restrained joint that meets the
performance requirements of AWWA C900 and AWWA C905, respectively. This joint can be disassembled
and reused if necessary, and can be used for pipeline restraint required for horizontal directional drilling
applications and open cut installation. Certa-Lok’s system are limited to pipe diameters up to and including
12” (SDR14 and SDR18), 16” (SDR 18, SDR 21 and SDR 25); 18” and 24” (SDR 18 and SDR 25). These
mechanical joint systems are fairly easy to install.

An example of a fusible joint is Underground Solution’s Fusible PVC is a second option for PVC pipe
restraint. This pipe is also a non-metallic restrained joint, however the two segments of pipe are butt fused
to effectively form a continuous gasket free fully restrained pipe system that is virtually leak free. Fusible
PVC meets the requirements of AWWA C900 and AWWA C905, and is most commonly used for horizontal
directional drilling applications. Fusible PVC pipe is available up to 36-inches in diameter. The joint
requires a qualified technician to correctly fuse the joint, and generally has a higher maximum safe pulling
force than the mechanical joint.

9.3.3.3 Thrust Restraint System

PVC pressure pipe is compatible with auxiliary equipment such as cast-iron restraints, tapping saddles,
stops, megalug-type mechanical-joint and slip-joint fittings. Thrust restraint can also be provided by thrust
blocks, joint restraint, and pipe bells can be restrained with bell harnesses. Thrust blocks are generally not
practical for large diameter pipes, and are not recommended for this project.

9.3.3.4 Standard Lengths and Fittings

The pipe is normally furnished in 20-foot lengths. Custom fabricated fittings are available for PVC in sizes
and pressure ratings to match the pipe. Fittings are made from segments of AWWA C905 PVC pipe, butt-
fused or bonded together, and overwrapped with fiberglass-reinforced polyester, to meet the requirements
of AWWA C905. PVC has the same outside diameter as ductile iron pipe and thus, ductile iron fittings can
also be used with a PVC pipe system.

9.3.3.5 Lining & Coating Systems

PVC pipe is generally one-hundred percent corrosion resistant and therefore typically requires no
corrosion protection other than what is already provided in the manufacturing process. It is usually
appropriate to use DIP standard fittings at bends and valves will be of ductile or cast iron design. Corrosion
protection for valves and fittings is usually achieved with coating systems and sacrificial anodes.

The smooth interior walls of PVC pipe offer higher flow capacities leading to savings from reduced pumping
costs over the life of the system.

9.3.3.6 Field Installation

PVC pipe can be installed using open cut or trenchless technologies. The pipe can also be cut into shorter
lengths in the field to allow for ease of installation. In HDD applications, HDPE pipe is typically strung at the
ground surface requiring a large work zone.

9.3.4 Comparison of the Selected Pipeline Materials

Each of the pipeline materials has advantages and disadvantages. Table 9-2 compares the three pipeline
materials.

9-8
Section 9  Basis of Design

Table 9-2. Pipe Material Comparison

Pipe Material Advantages Disadvantages
 Less stringent bedding requirements  Pipe can leak at joints
 Easy to install and adapt to field  Unprotected pipe is susceptible to
conditions corrosion and may require corrosion
 Rapid contractor production rates due protection system
to familiarity.  Not all corrosion protection methods
 Excellent long term performance history used over the decades have been
of standard pipe materials. effective in all environments.
 Each piece of pipe pressure tested to  Standard SBR gaskets are subject to
500psi at the factory chemical attack and permeation over
Ductile Iron Pipe
the small exposed area of the joints.
 Strong material with a good ability to
handle surge pressures, high load  Standard 20’ lay lengths.
bearing strength, impact strength,
beam strength and ability to bend or
deform when external loads applied.
 Cement mortar lining prevents
tuberculation and enhances hydraulic
capability. Can be field repaired if
impacted during construction
 Inert material and resistant to most  May be subject to stress cracking.
forms of internal and external Ongoing studies currently being
corrosion. undertaken to evaluate.
 Typically does not require any special  PE 4710 which is now commonly used,
corrosion protection. is not yet approved by an AWWA
 Butt fused connections essentially standard for potable water systems.
create a leak free restrained joint.  Skilled labor and special equipment
 High ductility and flexibility. required for butt fusion to join pieces
of pipe together.
 Good characteristics for limiting surge
pressure rise.  Very sensitive to temperature
differentials when compared to other
 Low internal friction
common pipe materials.
 Resists shatter-type or rapid crack
High Density Polyethylene
propagation failure
 Cannot be located unless buried with
Pipe metallic wire or tape.
 Can be field cut to accommodate
changes in field conditions.
 More permeable to certain chemical
contaminants than other
 Typically furnished in 40’ lay lengths. thermoplastic pipes.
 Fittings not limited to standard angles.  Lower hydrostatic design basis (HDB)
 Can be field bent. than other thermoplastic materials
requiring thicker walls resulting in a
smaller diameter flow area.
 Sensitive to operating temperature.
Must be de-rated in case of long term
exposure to temperatures that are
generally higher than room
temperature

9-9
Section 9  Basis of Design

Pipe Material Advantages Disadvantages

 Inert material and resistant to most  Susceptible to impact damage in cold
forms of internal and external temperatures resulting in rapid crack
corrosion. propagation.
 Fusible type PVC pipe essentially  Gasket joints can fail in the long term
creates a leak free restrained joint. if spigot is over-inserted into bell.
 Low internal frictional resistance  Susceptible to chemical permeation in
 Expansion significantly lower than HDPE cases of gross contamination.
pipe.  Sensitive to backfill design and
Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe
 At least 2.5 times stronger than HDPE. installation when used in open cut.
 Light material that is easy to handle  Normally furnished in 20’ laying
lengths.
 Sensitive to operating temperature.
Must be de-rated in case of long term
exposure to temperatures that are
generally higher than room
temperature

On September 29, 2014 CDM Smith facilitated a pipe material selection workshop with Agency staff. The
workshop presented and discussed each of the following three pipe materials: DIP, HDPE, and PVC. A
Material Selection Evaluation Matrix was developed to evaluate each pipeline material against specific
criteria. Appendix I shows the pipeline material selection workshop results. Each of the criterion were
weighted based on their relative importance to the Agency. DIP scored the best with PVC scoring second,
followed by HDPE.

Based on the evaluation and subsequent discussions with the Technical Committee, the pipeline materials
will be as follows:

 For pipelines 12-inches and larger, ductile iron pipe will be used as the bid with PVC as an alternate;

 For pipelines smaller than 12-inches ductile iron and PVC pipe will be bid against each other; and

 For locations and where ductile iron pipe is not feasible due to construction method, PVC will be
used.

9.4 Valves and Pipeline Appurtenances

Pipeline valves, blow-offs, air release/vacuum valves, and other miscellaneous appurtenances were
discussed with Agency staff during the September 29, 2014 workshop. It is the goal of the Agency to limit
the number of valves and other appurtenances on the transmission main system in an effort to minimize
points of failure in a branch system.

9.4.1 Blow-offs
Blow-off hydrants are located at pipeline low points between isolation valves and at intermediate pipeline
low points to allow for pipeline drainage for maintenance. The typical arrangement for a blow-off is
illustrated on CD-1 of the 30% Design Drawings. The auxiliary valve shall be located as close to the blow-off
as site conditions allow. This is a preference expressed by the Agency transmission main staff and will
increase the efficiency of the anode bag to protect both the auxiliary valve and hydrant from corrosion.

9-10
Section 9  Basis of Design

Cathodic protection for blow-off hydrants will be designed to meet site specific conditions during detailed
design.

The existing transmission main system is comprised typically of two blow-off hydrants:

 Super Centurion 250 Fire Hydrant manufactured by Mueller Company

 Model WB67-250 manufactured by Waterous

The Agency’s preference is to continue with one of these two blow-off hydrants for the installation of the
new transmission main and is consistent with recent projects executed.

The auxiliary valve used by the Agency is a resilient seated gate valve, specifically the Mueller Company’s
Series 2360 resilient wedge gate valve and American Flow Control’s Series 500 NRS gate valve. American
Flow Control’s Trench Adapter or equivalent will be utilized.

9.4.2 Isolation Valves

A high level evaluation of gate versus butterfly valves was performed. Here is a summary of the findings:

 Butterfly valves are more common for transmission systems (valves larger than 12-inches) mainly
due to cost.

 Gate valves do have an advantage when it comes to pressure rating and sealing, and also allow for
the pipeline to be pigged should the need arise. Also, gate valves, if designed to address the service
conditions, can potentially last longer than butterfly. There are also advantages to gate valves in raw
water or wastewater applications from a solids handling/damage control perspective over butterfly
valves (due to damage/clogging at the disc), but those are not applicable on this project.

 Butterfly valves on the other hand do weigh less (can be easier to install/handle) and are generally
easier to operate.

 The below table (Table 9-3) provides a cost comparison of gate versus butterfly valves for the
different valve sizes:

Table 9-3. Butterfly-Gate Valve Cost Comparison

Size (inches) Butterfly Gate
10 $1,700 $2,700
16 $3,000 $10,000
20 $4,000 $18,000

Based on the above, it is recommended to proceed with butterfly valves since the Agency has butterfly
valves and there is generally no “special” need to require the more expensive gate valve. The original cost
estimate was based on butterfly valves. The Agency currently utilizes butterfly valves for isolation within
the transmission main system. Triton rubber seated butterfly valves manufactured by Henry Pratt
Company have been standard for the Agency on any new installations in recent years. This is a butterfly
valve similar to what was previous installed throughout the existing transmission main system.

For 24-inch diameter or smaller, valve and actuator will be located in a vault. The butterfly valves are side
actuated which creates a tight maintenance space in a standard 6-foot diameter vault. The vaults will be

9-11
Section 9  Basis of Design

increased to 8-foot diameter where site conditions permit. The valve vault detail shown on CD-1 of the 30%
Design Drawings.

Isolation valves are located at intervals specific to the pipe diameter for isolation, pipeline branches and at
highway, railroad and stream crossings. When locating isolation valves based on pipe diameter, the criteria
is based on the Agency’s ability to drain a pipe in two hours at 450 gpm. The length of pipe derived
represents the maximum spacing permitted between isolation valves. Table 9-4 provides the maximum
valve spacing for different diameter pipes.

Table 9-4. Isolation Valve Maximum Spacing

Pipe Diameter (inches) Valve Spacing (feet)
10 13,500
16 5,200
20 3,300

9.4.3 Pipeline Encasement

Sheet CD-1 of the 30% Design Drawings provides a detail for pipeline encasement where required for the
Pipeline Project. Insulated spacers shall be used to provide corrosion protection for the ductile iron pipe.

9.4.4 Air Release/Vacuum Valves

Air release/vacuum valves are located at pipeline high points between isolation valves and at intermediate
high points to allow release of air accumulated during operation and allow air to enter during pipeline
drainage. The typical arrange currently found in the Agency’s transmission main system is illustrated on
Sheet CD-1 of the 30% Design Drawings.

The air release/vacuum valves are located in a standard 6-foot diameter vault. The Agency has expressed
no issues with access for maintenance. The current arrangement is to have separate units for the air release
and air vacuum assemblies. The Agency prefers this to the alternative of a combination air valve assembly.

The current air release/vacuum valves continue to be a maintenance issue throughout the existing
transmission main system. The Agency has been experiencing issues with material compatibility as well as
poor performance of appurtenances related to the air release/vacuum valve arrangement. During detailed
design, the air release/vacuum valve detail and specification will be further revised to address issues
experienced by the Agency transmission main staff.

9.5 Miscellaneous Appurtenances

9.5.1 Locating
Tracer wire will be required for locating the pipeline in the future regardless of pipe material selected.
Tracer wire will be NEPTCO TRACE SAFE or equal. Critical transmission main components will be locatable
utilizing the 3M Electronic Marker System RFID tagging markers.

9.5.2 Vaults
Vaults housing Agency appurtenances shall be watertight. Brick and mortar will not be an acceptable
method of sealing penetrations. Link seals or rubber boots are the preferred method of sealing
penetrations into vaults by the Agency.

9-12
Section 9  Basis of Design

The Agency has requested an alternative to the standard Neenah manhole covers. A traffic rated product
such as FiberShield by McGard and equivalent products will be evaluated during specification development.
The benefit is a lightweight manhole cover that is easier for transmission main staff to handle.

9-13
Section 10
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
10.1 Cost Estimating Criteria
This section provides the opinion of probable construction cost estimate for NE and NW pipeline routes.
This section details the cost estimation justification and criteria in addition to presenting the cost estimate
table.

10.1.1 Estimating Costs

Several types of cost estimations can be made and updated at different stages of a project. The type of cost
estimate made depends on the state of development of the project, the definition of scope, and the level of
design detail. The three main categories of cost estimates as defined by the American Association of Cost
Engineers are:

 Order-of-Magnitude Estimate: An approximate estimate, this type of cost estimate is made without
detailed engineering data. Examples include cost capacity curves, scale-up or scale-down factors, and
approximate ratios. Order of magnitude estimates are provided with accuracy within 50% above or
30% below the actual construction cost. This is the cost estimate developed by CDM Smith in the
August 2012 Report.

 Budget Estimate: This type of estimate is used to help establish the owner’s project budget and is
prepared from flow diagrams, layout drawings, and equipment details. Accuracy is expected within
30% above or 15% below the actual construction cost.

 Definitive Estimate: This estimate is prepared from engineering data. Plot plans and elevations,
piping and instrument diagrams, structural sketches, soil data, sketches of major foundations and
buildings, one-line electrical diagrams, equipment data sheets and quotations, and a complete set of
specifications are the minimum requirements for a definitive estimate. “Approved for Construction”
drawings and specifications give a maximum definitive estimate. Accuracy is expected within 15%
above or 5% below the actual construction cost.

The estimates provided in this report shall be considered the first level of a Definitive Estimate based upon
the criteria set forth by the American Association of Cost Engineers.

10.1.2 Cost Escalation

Methods commonly used for projecting costs are: (1) escalation based on an assumed rate of inflation; or,
(2) a published cost index. The Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index (ENRCCI), published in
the magazine ENR (a McGraw-Hill publication), is one of the commonly used indexes in the water
engineering field. The cost estimate will be developed in December 2014 dollars and escalated to the mid-
point of construction.

10.1.3 Contingency
Contingency, added to the construction cost estimate, attempts to account for construction costs not
identified or that may be required due to incomplete information. The more detailed the design, the less the
contingency will be required. The AWWA textbook recommends a contingency between 25% and 35% for
an order-of-magnitude estimate, between 15% and 25% for a budgetary estimate, and between 5% and
15% for a definitive (or final design) estimate.

10-1
Section 10  Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

A contingency of 20% is used for the cost estimate.

10.1.4 Source of Cost Estimate Information

In order to prepare the cost estimates presented in this report, several different sources of information
were considered, including:

 Vendor Quotes: Recent vendor quotes were obtained and utilized to estimate material and
installation costs for some individual process components.

 CDM Smith Experience: All costs were compared to recent bid costs for CDM Smith projects of
similar size and scope across that nation to confirm that the cost curves and vendor quotes used
were applicable.

 Quantity take-offs were based on the 30% design drawings.

10.2 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

The cost estimate is broken in four bid packages (in accordance with the 30% Design Drawings).

OPCC will be completed following preparation of quantity take-offs based upon the 30% Design Drawings.

10-2
Section 11
Implementation Plan
This section provides an overview of the schedule through the end of construction for the Central Lake
County Joint Action Water Agency (Agency) finished water transmission system expansion to serve the
North Group members.

11.1 Implementation Plan

The remainder of the project consists of five phases:

 Detailed Design
 Permitting & IEPA State Revolving Fund
 Bidding
 Construction
 Startup & Testing
Each of these phases s discussed briefly to address critical assumptions that would impact the overall
schedule. A draft project schedule through construction is shown in Figure 11-1.

11.1.1 Detailed Design

Upon submission of the final PER documents, CDM Smith will proceed into the detail design phase of the
project. The detail design phase of the project is anticipated to take between 8 to 10 months to complete.
30% design specifications are listed in Appendix J.

11.1.2 Permitting & IEPA State Revolving Fund

Prior to commencing the construction phase, required permits for the project will be procured. This will
occur in parallel of bidding. The required permits are discussed elsewhere in the PER.

11.1.3 Bidding
The bid packages will be advertised as detailed design is completed. The bid packages will be advertised for
two months. Bids will be received by the Agency and publically opened and announced. CDM Smith will
review the bids for compliance with the contract documents, along with contractor references and
experience on similar projects. CDM Smith will make a recommendation to award the contracts to the
lowest responsive and responsible bidders, subject to review by the Agency’s legal counsel. The overall
bidding phase is anticipated to take approximately three months.

It is assumed that bid packages will be advertised for bidding as soon as the documents are completed and
permits are received or in review.

11.1.4 Construction
The general contract for construction is expected to take approximately 20 months for the entirety of the
project. Mobilization by the contractor is anticipated for the spring of 2016. The critical milestone for the
project is delivering water to the new member communities by June 2017. Site restoration and project
close-out is anticipated to be completed in the fall of 2017.

11-1
Section 11  Implementation Plan

11.1.5 Startup & Testing

The startup and testing the transmission main piping will consist of the following:

 Pressure tests;
 Disinfection; and
 Sampling.
Pressure tests will be completed as stretches, valve to valve, of pipe are installed by the contractor. At the
completion of a bid package, the contractor will execute their previously approved disinfection plan. The
Agency will sample and test the water quality for final approval.

11.2 Critical Assumptions

11.2.1 Route Modifications
The schedule assumes the alignments based on the previously completed route study will remain relatively
set and no deviation from the alignments presented in the PER will be required. Any modifications to the
alignment requiring additional field investigation or revisiting of previously completed tasks could
potential delay a bid package advertisement. Circumstances that could result in route modifications
include, but is not limited to, the following:

 Failure to procure all temporary and permanent easements by bidding.

 Electing to pursue an alignment not previously approved by Technical Committee.
 Regulatory agency (or agencies) delaying approval or input on the project or not granting a
construction permit

11.2.2 Installation Method

Trenchless methods of installation, both bore and jack and horizontal directional drilling (HDD), is assumed
to require a minimum of four weeks per installation. Based on the conditions documented in the route
study, it is assumed that a given trenchless setup would yield up to

 400 linear feet of pipe installed per bore and jack setup; and
 2,000 linear feet of pipe installed per HDD setup.
Using the same information from the route study, it is assumed that open cut would yield approximately
200 linear feet of pipe installed per day. The trenchless installation becomes the critical path for any of the
bid packages if used as the primary method of installation.

11-2