MSA Memo - April 6, 2006 MISA
((' Inc
MEMORANDUM
TATE: April 6, 200 �..
PROJECT: 01.0547,101
4,i,7, t
T(3: Mr. Dennis Koellermeier
z w
Public Works Director
City of Tigard
FROM: Chris l=l. Ulber, P.E.
Murray. Smith & Associates, Inc.
RE: Canterbury Site"Water Facility Review
Introduction
In accordance with your request this metnoranduzn documents a review of the City's existing
facilities at the City's Canterbury site located near the intersection of SW Canterbury Lane
and SW 103'd Avenue. This memorandum documents the assessment of the need for future
water system facilities at the site or use of the site for a future aquifer, storage and recovery
(ASR) facility:
Assessment and Findings
Representatives of MSA and GSI completed respective reviews of the site. The City's May
2000 Water Distribution Study was reviewed and the issue was internally discussedwith
LISA"s Tigard water team. It was agreed and confirmed through this review and discussion
that no additional reservoirs, or other major above ground water facilities are needed at this
site. The master plan dues call for the abandonment of the pump station lance the 55040ot
reservoir has been installed. Other than that; the site is adequate as it stands with nes
additional facilities.
�.... _ _...... _ —_.._------- _. �.... ....
01 05471()1 Page 1 42 ( nterbury Site I :icdity Review
ptit 2000
City 3,A Tigald
GSI initially cornmented that the site is 1-104 filvorable ftir an ASR in-jection site because ot'its
relatively close proxii-frity to other existing City ASR wells, Consideration should he given
hONVCVer to Possibly USiIII-I this site as ari additional recovery point by installing an additional
production well at or near.the Canterl.)ury site possibly allowing, increased recovered Nvater
production capacity. GSI's review and evaluation oNhis issue is ftirther documented in the
attached mernorandUrn, graphics and figures,
Conclusion and Recommendations
Based on the evaluation and findings it is recommended that. the City take the following,
actions:
I. Review the findings and conclusion of this memorandum and determine if an
additional production well at the Canterbury site is desirable.
2. Secure easernerit of needed property,
3. Proceed with actions 1�6r the construction of a new production well at the site.
lte.
`rhank you for this opportunity to be of service and please feel free to contact us should You
have any questions or comments concerning the evaluation and findings of this
memorandum.
............... .................—------- ...................... ..........-..........
llatx 2 uF2 Canwrhury Sile f-';js:jIltv JZe :cvv
Apri! 2000
Groundwtiter Solutions,Inc....._.
' s 55 SSI Ya)Mhll! Strrre, 5uizc 409, FaatIand, €Ir�t3ryn 9J2t1d
gp ph: 503-139,W9 fx: 503.439 8940 e: pr.tllndwatersdutiogs.c"rn
xs '�
Meniotmdtm
To; Chris Uber, l>h.....MS
Dennis Koe-llemeier City ofTi�,aarcl
From: harry Eaton.R Groundwater Solutions, Inc.
RG -- l_7roun,,i1 alu �.tl„:tftitl e �21�,
+ F\
Date: 22-M arch-06
Re: Surplus Land Next to Canterbury Site
Claris and Dennis,
We understand t:heat the City lia.s leaned.adjaceInt to the t_allte'I'1 ttr}' ltt? 'la�3t hrls not bee ll
used and is beam,considered for other purposes,such as a,purl (sore attached photo-
l°igure'l), The question posed to GSI is whether this land should or c'(.-)u1d bo used for
future*ground water development. As previously discussed and as outlined in our
original aquifer storag e and recovery(ASR) report, we do not Relieve this site is suitable
for hosting another ASR vvell because of excess lw ad buildmi''x in the aquifer in this aceta.
In other words,if more water is injected at the C"anterbur'y site(beyond the current
larz<t of about 120 million gatlans)using one or Inc:;rc' ',re>lls,tilt,water level in ihe
Tigard Flig;h School well will likely rise to all unacceptable Iiivh level. rear dais reason,
we i1 ave reccsMmended exploring alternative sites on Bull Mountain for ASR hurl ose!s.
he'ir.anterl_my site,all:t possibly the iidjae vjit hind,could I1i7"v1'eSler,lwist ia11offier
f roundwaLer produchon well to help meet Cite=peak c erriancis since the aquifer is
already being recharged at the site. Fater injected in ASR'l could be recovered from
ASR 1 and ca new well. TO evaluate this idea,we completed a prelinain ary well
interference calculation to assess the maximum,drawdown that would be realized if two
wells were operating;at the Canterbury site. The following assumptions were niade.
Y The new well would be located approximately 500 feet from ASR 1 (see Figure 1).
Data collected from the site during.>,the 200-5 ASR program and during;previous
testing;at the Canterbury site were used to calculate a trsans:n-Iissivity for the
aquifer,which was used in the groundwater equation to calculate the theoretical
drawdown at the new well. Specifics included:
.......... ........
c-, ASR I purnpingat 775 gallons per minute
, (r Y
pl 1)
* New well pumping at 775 gpin
* Duration of purnpingat 119 days
I'he new well would perform identical to ASR (see Figure 2-as-built for ASR
1).
Using the principal of superposition and the calculated and observed
drawdowns at the site,a new drawdown was superimposed to estimate the
maximum drawdown at ASR I and the new well (see Figure 3).
Given the available drawdown at ASR 1,a second well could be located near the site.
The available drawdown at ASIS I inav be suffideia so that consideratioii could t1ca
to installing,an even higher yield we near the Canterbury site,
Operationally,werecd n-anend that ASR be used for injecthig Source water and that
one or both wells (assuming a new groundwater production well is installed) be used to
pump stored water to meet City peak-demands. We would not
1-11ore th,-,in tho.current storago of 1120 inillioii 8allo17s. "HIQ ,vaher ro,,,nvl red at tlw
now well, however,will approach the quality (if native. -roundwi-.Iter 5 1
1, - 0 ooilor than ASR, 1,
but exactly when this would ocean U uritig Lhe reccwery phase is uncertain (it most likely
would be near the end of the recovery phase). This
Hie Cita/c)J'Bearertojt is pIaizjriijgfi)r al its Sorreiih)ASR
fizcility.
Please note that this h;a preliminary assossmeiit and that a more thorough evaluation
would lie recommended before the CAN C01,11miLs, toasecond prcxf uctioti well at this site.
SUCII an evaluation would.have to taloa into accOullt the hldraqructure at the,Canterbury
site. 'Ale also would recommend completion of a cost benefit analysis.
Please do nest hesitate to call with questions.
PAW-TIGARU00.06 OPERATIONq';{EP(-',Rl'S-kifEM(3`� AN-iEREtiPY,,SP(,,'OND-'AIEI.L,rX',
�3
t nftr a0 42
,s'� Cs tkcl
a � �p/` e •,', � Viz., a x x: ,
'44 L SFr•E � y �9' �e '�'.
s
Figure 1
C'antabury Site -Potential New Groundwater Production Well Site
(:'ADocumentsjnd scion s",dw\Locarl Settings;"I-emporaary InternaFII ,f37.I�Ei il'l trr l,._,Ca�nt�:rbory-Second-weli
t:3),diic
AS-BUILT for ASR-1
Depth Lithologyfrom (aka COT-1 R WASH 58003) Elevation
(ft BGS) geochemical analyses It MSL)
U 7777,77 Gnt,,nd surface Elei troy, - .)S ft M$
Frenchman Springs Member nzxgrto;e
{h':yhly weathered to do',
U Gout ed
11 i:iays .t..nt:_kerd _4k`
Sentinel Bluffs flow 300
weacne,p,,
a a <-!nchOG)
Sentinel Bluffs flow
;weathered)
t Winter Water Flow
stlmwed�tat
���3��,.�,?�ncacrs`5urcErd2::rY
?st i GSt,33 f M 1F
00
f `+
r .. _......<.-,
4. -. �niRtrlaw Zana tEl4-#2$'1
� a
>? Winter Water Flaw p
4010— l -ir r. G
' interflowzone 006-4101 tasrr.lrx�le
s tnterifaw3one(437-443)
Ortley or Grouse Creek? Syron Jackson
- 5:5 l'1+3be.,u`!-S't,�(..SCili 1gt133 i17
,.rlr n atie '>�diirse
.....,.__ ,..... : 44Kf
�, o lnterrlaw Yana{44F-Sf 2'i
d�innd7}i3t�1
Ortley or Grouse Creek?
��`.'"'.- ? lnterflow Zona lit&52$'1
d ro'6 m ..9.:
InterflaNr Zanet55&-5$Y}
Ortley or Grouse Creek?
Fit C nzerflow zone rss4-ssv'1 WELL PERFORMANCE: i It l
r
a![zecth razalrT:;ch
Yield--t,{KIO gpm
Specific Capacity-9 gPMAI
AQUIFER PERFORMANCE
Siltstone,Claystone,Weathered Basalt to Clay t_ong tern,Tran>ntrssivity Ii.�r >gpdtf,
storativity coerflc3ent-9,05 x r,'a
Well EW-ienry-50%,
YesicularFlowTnp 300
Interior Flow Basalt
El
Nate
Billow Basalt t. Interflow zones estimated,
2, BGS-below ground surface.
lnterflow Zone I MSL-rnean sea level.
.Geology compiled by Dr.Beeson
Colonnade Fractures using macroscopic identification
and geochemical analysis. Figure
As-Built
City of Tigard ASR-1 Well
Groundwater Solutions,Inc, (aka COT-1 R;WASH 58003)
December t2,20011
S gpn-i i
--- 135'--0 V� 505'
i ground surfacp {€
LEGEND I
-- - *- Static water level
100
.� ... I'Aindmum water level obset'vttd I
I during AKA-2005 ASR Operation
` Predicted minimum water level E
rewlting from add4ional groundwater ;
pumping E f
200
I
... ,. _ .. �. .. r ..» ,. ... .. «» ... .. ... .,. _ .. 21' Additional dd
Vi
ZZ 63' � UZI :with New well
-al 775 glom
30'C'
i
1'C.:, a Theis Equation. °
(used to calculate interference)
Parameters:
ASR 1 dd=:27 ft
400 ASR 1 Q=775 gpm
Time=119 days
Pump[make S=5 x 1 Q_ {source:Golder&Assoc.'
47g'g S Tcalc. 313,000gpdfft
SCALE
Notes:
4 d J=drawdown
( SOO
1-Discharge:date(glom)
..Gc5=below ground su4ace
's.9prrt-gallons per minute
S-5toratiVty
.5.T_Transmissivity
gPd=gallons per day
to-feet '
FiCi=,1
� — 6OFaBta5
Groundwater Soiutkan�j
W` Figure 3
New Well Predicted Drawdown
C7.yofTaar.., Jregor?
.__..............._..-------__. ._.