DDW-2024-006791

1/18/24, 9:31 AM State of Utah Mail - New Paria and Clark Bench Water Projects Hydraulic Model results comments
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-2125260898965825443&simpl=msg-a:r-33927160845083…1/4
J. Paul Wright <[e-mail]>
New Paria and Clark Bench Water Projects Hydraulic Model results comments
1 message
J. Paul Wright <[e-mail]>Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:58 AM
To: John Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dustyn Shaffer <[e-mail]>
John,
I have looked at the tables you submitted to me and I am only seeing one results table for each water system.
For New Paria, it appears to be the fire flow, plus peak day demand (because there is a 20 psi min in the table), but no
demands are showing, so I don't know for sure). But some of the nodes are showing below 10 psi, so I am not sure this
meets the minimum requirements.
For Clark Bench, the results show really high pressure (between 80 psi and 100 psi), so I am not even sure which
pressure scenario was modeled and if the pumps or demands are applied correctly with such high pressures. With 1 gpm
per node, this may be peak day, but how did you come up with those demands.
Anyway, for hydraulic modeling, the following are helpful when showing that you have modeled things:
1) You should have junction tables for each of the demands and pressures for three scenarios shown below, if they apply
(for example, if there are no fire hydrants, then that scenario does not apply).
Fire flow plus peak day (meeting 20 psi minimum)
Peak Instantaneous flow (meeting 30 psi minimum)
Peak day flow (meeting 40 psi minimum)
2) For each water system, a small written narrative that explains how the demands are determined for each of the three
demand scenarios and a short summary of the modeling results, indicating that each meets the minimum pressure
requirements. If there are nodes (junctions) that don't meet the minimum pressures, then an explanation of why should
be included. It is also important in this written report, that you include the fire flow requirement set by the local fire
authority (if they have one) and you should have documentation in writing from the local fire authority about what the fire
flow requirement is.
I am not asking for a full hydraulic modeling elements report, but a short written summary of the results of all three
modeling scenarios for each system needs to be shown.
Paul
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:15 PM John Jacobsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
Paul,

I have attached the tables and maps of each systems water model. Also we are trying to coordinate scheduling with
KCWCD can you give us the timetable for when your review will be done?

Thanks,

John

1/18/24, 9:31 AM State of Utah Mail - New Paria and Clark Bench Water Projects Hydraulic Model results comments
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-2125260898965825443&simpl=msg-a:r-33927160845083…2/4
From: J. Paul Wright <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 4:27 PM
To: Dustyn Shaffer <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Paria and Clark Bench Water Projects

Thanks.

I don't necessarily want the hydraulic model, just the tables showing demands, results for pressure at the nodes, pipe
lengths, and a summary of the results whether that be a map or a small write up with an explanation of the results.

Paul

On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 4:23 PM Dustyn Shaffer <[e-mail]> wrote:
Paul,
I think I can answer that. As you mention the drilling plans for Well 3 have already been reviewed. However, we
planned to drill the well and then size the pump for Well 3. We would anticipate a separate submittal for the
equipping of Well 3 that would include the drillers log, chemistry, and pump test data. You are correct in that this
submission presents the building that will house the electrical for the two wells and the booster pump.

We do have a hydraulic model and can provide that.

Thanks for your questions and please reach out with any others you might come across.

Regards,

From: J. Paul Wright <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 4:12 PM
To: John Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dustyn Shaffer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Paria and Clark Bench Water Projects

John and Dustyn,

Is the New Paria project submission also intended to include all of the well equipping information for Well #3 or is the
building modification and electrical intended for the combined well house for both Wells 2 and 3 and in preparation of
equipping Well #3? The reason I ask is because I am not seeing everything I would need for equipping Well #3 yet
(pump curve for the well, 24 hour constant rate test, new source chemistry, well drillers log, well grout witness). I
approved the drilling plans in August of this year, so maybe we just aren't there yet, which is fine since that will be
reviewed under a separate project file # (File #12564) and the remainder of the New Paria Project will be file #
13038.

1/18/24, 9:31 AM State of Utah Mail - New Paria and Clark Bench Water Projects Hydraulic Model results comments
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-2125260898965825443&simpl=msg-a:r-33927160845083…3/4
My other question is that since you are creating a higher pressure zone with an upper tank, I think we talked about
the fact that the new booster pump station is intended to serve this higher pressure zone and move water through
that upper zone and to the new tank. With that being the case, this new area should have hydraulic modeling that
was done and it should also be included in these submittals to ensure all of the required pressures are being met.

Paul

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 1:15 PM John Jacobsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

Paul,

Please follow the link to the OneDrive folder for our submittal of the New Paria New Paria Water Project and
Clark Bench Clark Bench Water Project projects for your review. Let us know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

John

JOHN JACOBSEN
Engineering Intern
[e-mail]
11 North 300 West, Washington, UT 84780
TEL [phone]   CELL 801.970.0808
sunrise-eng.com

--
J. Paul Wright, P.E. | District Engineer | Southwest Utah District
435.986.2590 (office) | 435.680.0163 (cell) | 435.986.2595 (fax)
620 S 400 E #400, St. George, UT 84770

DEQ WEBSITE
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA requirements.
1/18/24, 9:31 AM State of Utah Mail - New Paria and Clark Bench Water Projects Hydraulic Model results comments
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-2125260898965825443&simpl=msg-a:r-33927160845083…4/4

--
J. Paul Wright, P.E. | District Engineer | Southwest Utah District
435.986.2590 (office) | 435.680.0163 (cell) | 435.986.2595 (fax)
620 S 400 E #400, St. George, UT 84770

DEQ WEBSITE
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA requirements.
--
J. Paul Wright, P.E. | District Engineer | Southwest Utah District
435.986.2590 (office) | 435.680.0163 (cell) | 435.986.2595 (fax)
620 S 400 E #400, St. George, UT 84770
DEQ WEBSITE
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA requirements.
2/22/24, 1:48 PM State of Utah Mail - Clark Bench Water Improvements - Review Comments (System #13060, File #13037)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r4272227474473518778&simpl=msg-a:r279154689790971…1/2
J. Paul Wright <[e-mail]>
Clark Bench Water Improvements - Review Comments (System #13060, File #13037)
1 message
J. Paul Wright <[e-mail]>Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 1:48 PM
To: John Jacobsen <[e-mail]>, Dustyn Shaffer <[e-mail]>, Kane County Water
Conservancy District <[e-mail]>
John and Dustyn,
I have reviewed the plans for the Clark Bench Water Improvements Project and I have the following comments:
1) The plans show that they are 90% design and for review only. A final set of plans for construcon should be
provided.
Water Lines
2) The following are typical details or notes that are needed for the plans for water lines. My queson is are you
planning on using Kane County WCD’s water line standards? While these have been approved for their other water
systems (Duck Ck, Long Valley, Johnson Canyon), they have not been approved for this water system yet. But, as long
as those standards will be provided to the selected contractor, I am okay as long as that is what is happening.
· Soil type in pipe zone
· Disinfecon
· Pressure tesng
· Valves
· Fire Hydrants
· Service connecons
Well
3) Is there a detail to show where the well pump to waste line goes, showing adequate screen (#4), downturned, and
18” of freefall? If this detail is supposed to be Detail G/D1, this should be noted somewhere in relaon to the waste
line.
Booster Pump
4) Since this booster staon is replacing (essenally a modificaon of the exisng one), I am going to keep the pump
staon as the same facility ID in our database (PF001).
5) The specificaons don’t indicate what pump skid you are requiring, you only indicate Tigerflow or Grundfos. You
show 1 fireflow pump, 1,000 gpm at 230 feet of head (100 HP in the drawing) and two smaller centrifugal boosters at
20 gpm. Since this booster system is providing all the flow and pressure to this water system, is 20 gpm sufficient to
meet the peak instantaneous flow for all the connecons on this system? These smaller boosters should be able to
provide that peak flow, unless you are planning to cycle in the fire flow pump with a VFD. Anyway, I need to know
what the actual flow and HP rang will be for each of the two smaller centrifugal pumps (plans show 2.29 HP, but that
is not a nominal pump rang typically).
6) For the booster pump staon, the sucon side of the pumps need to have a compound gauge (measure both
posive and negave pressure) and discharge side with a standard gauge. The specificaons only call out regular
Ashcro gauges in 13320.2.7 of the specificaons.
Chlorinator
7) What is the make and model of chlorinator, Regal and what Model?
8) The screen on Detail C/D1 for chlorinator vent should be a #14 screen, not #4.
9) Separate switches are required outside of chlorine room for fans and lights? Has it been designed that way?
10) There is no profile view of the chlorinator room nor details of venng locaons by elevaon. You need to ensure
that exhaust vent takes from near the floor and the air intake louvers are near the ceiling.
2/22/24, 1:48 PM State of Utah Mail - Clark Bench Water Improvements - Review Comments (System #13060, File #13037)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r4272227474473518778&simpl=msg-a:r279154689790971…2/2
11) In the chlorinator descripon, you listed the well capacity at 20 gpm, but the plans show 80 gpm. This number
should be what the well pumps, so if that is 80 gpm, it should be changed to that since the chlorinator will need to be
set at the well flow rate.

Tank
12) The air vent pipe penetraon shall meet the following from the rule:
Vent pipes, in addion to seepage rings, shall have raised concrete curbs that direct water away from the vent
pipe and are formed as a single pour with the roof deck.
13) The air vent detail 119 on Sheet S3.4 does not show how high above the covered tank surface it needs to be. The
DDW rule requires that with a buried tank (as indicated on this detail showing fill), that air vent should be a minimum
of 24 inches above the covered surface.
14) The access hatch needs to have enough detail to show the minimum requirements that it is raised up at least 4
inches above the concrete curb, with a 2-inch shoebox close fing downturn, lockable, and has a gasket on the
underside with no penetraons through the hatch lid.
15) The hatch details on Sheet S3.5 don’t show a dimension of how high the curbing should be. As indicated in the
comment about the air vent, there is a detail that shows the tank to have cover (fill). If that is the case, then the
hatch curbing is required to be raised a minimum of 18 inches above the soil cover.
16) Is the Drain Detail G/D1 meant to be used for the overflow and drain from the tank? It appears that the drain and
overflow might be separate or is one of the two ouall lines meant to be a foundaon drain.
Let me know if you have any quesons.
Paul
--
J. Paul Wright, P.E. | District Engineer | Southwest Utah District
435.986.2590 (office) | 435.680.0163 (cell) | 435.986.2595 (fax)
620 S 400 E #400, St. George, UT 84770
DEQ WEBSITE
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA requirements.