CHAPTER 8 DIXON PLANT ATTACHMENTS · DIXON, CA 95620 It is recommended and assumed that: 1. Overall plant efficiency can be improved to: 2. Water requirements will be the same as

11

CHAPTER 8 DIXON PLANT ATTACHMENTS

Attachment- DIX 61632_1



Attachment- DIX_61955_Attach 1 - WQ Summary.pdf

Attachment- DIX_61955_Attach 2 - Poulte Subdivision.pdf

Attachment- DIX_61955_Attach 3 - System Map.pdf

Attachment- DIX_61955_Attach 4 - Cost.pdf

Attachment- DIX_61955_Attach 5 - Firm Pumping Capacity.pdf

Attachment- DIX_64375_Attach 1 - Rosedale_Filter_Quote_#1907.pdf

Attachment- DIX_64375_Attach 2_Site Pictures.pdf

Attachment- DIX_64375_Attach 3 - Sta 8 Piping.pdf

Attachment- SEL_64731_1

DIX_42410_Attach 1 - Sta 6 Charges

DIX_42410_Attach 2 - Foundation Design

DIX_42410_Attach 3 - Sand Separator

DIX_42410_Attach 4 - Crutchfield Construction

Attachment- DIX_19811_ 1a - Project Charges.xls

Attachment- DIX_19811_ 1c - Timeline.pdf

Attachment- DIX_19811_ 1d - Explanation.pdf

Attachment- DIX_19811_ 2 - Dixon street map.pdf

Attachment- DIX_19811_ 3 - DIX 565.pdf

Attachment- DIX_19811_ 4 - City of Dixon Storm Drain.pdf

Attachment- DIX_19811_ 5 - Crutchfield Const Bid.pdf

Attachment- DIX_19811_ 6 - Elm Tree.pdf

Attachment- DIX_19811_ 7 - Bird Survey.pdf

Attachment- DIX_19811_ 8 - Luhdorff Report.pdf

Attachment- DIX_19811_ 9 - DIX 593.pdf

Attachment- DIX_19811_ 10 - Cusac Const Bid.pdf

582

6301 Bearden LaneModesto, CA 95357209.527.2908209.527.2921 fax800.808.9283www.powerhydrodynamics.comA Division of Power Services, Inc.

Thursday, October 09, 2008CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. DIXON201 SOUTH FIRST STREET

JACK CALDWELL

DIXON, CA 95620

It is recommended and assumed that:

1. Overall plant efficiency can be improved to:2. Water requirements will be the same as for the past year.3. All operating conditions (annual hours of operation, head above, an

water pumping level) will remain the same as they were at the time of the pump test.

It is sincerely hoped that this information will prove helpful to you, and that your concerns over maintaining optimum pumping efficiency will be continued.

Regards,

Enclosures

PUMP TEST REFERENCE NUMBER: 744

CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

SUBJECT: PUMPING COST ANALYSISHP: 75.0 Plant: DIX 08-01

EXISTING PLANT EFFICIENCY IMPROVED PLANT EFFICIENCY SAVINGS

kWh/AF 804.3

42.3%

The following Pumping Cost Analysis is presented as an aid to your cost accounting. This analysis is an estimate prepared from operating criteria supplied from the pump test performed 9/25/2008 and information provided by you during the pump test.

Overall Plant Efficiency: 66.0%

66.0%

515.2 289.1

Estimated Total kW 96879 62057 34822

Average Cost per kWh: $0.16

$8.02Average Cost per hour

$128.68 $82.43Cost Per Acre Ft.:

$5.14 $2.88

$46.25

120.5Estimated Acre Ft. Per Year 120.5

$15,500.61 $9,929.07Estimated Total Annual Cost $5,571.55

If you have any questions, please contact Bill Power at (209) 527-2908

William Thomas Power III

DIX 61632 1

583

N02-BF61A-M

POWER DATA

Plant Location:

PG & E Make:

Pump Make:

HP: U.S.75

Vertiline

CUSTOMER INFORMATION

California Water Service Co. Dixon201 South First Street

Test Date: 9/25/2008 Tester: Devin Power

Run Number: 1

Acre Feet per 24 Hr:

Cubic Feet per Second (CFS):

Horsepower Input to Motor: Percent of Rated Motor Load (%):

Kilowatt Input to Motor:

Kilowatt Hours per Acre Foot:

Cost to Pump an Acre Foot:

Overall Plant Efficiency (%):

1.5

0.8

67.04 84.9

$128.58

42.28

Pump Type: Turbine

All results are based on conditions during the time of the test. If these conditions vary from the normal operation of your pump, the results shown may not describe the pump's normal performance.

Overall efficiency of this plant is considered to be very low assuming this run represents plant's normal operating condition.

Recovered water level based on 5 minutes recovery, well could still be recovering.

Pump started for test, pumping water level could still be drawing down.

This pump has an adequate test section.

This pump did not have a flow meter.

Energy Cost ($/Hours) $8.01

Meter #: R90297 Serial Number:

Voltage: Amps:460 87

DIX 08-01

Jack Caldwell

Phone: (707) 678-5928

Fax:

Cell: (707) 249-6780

Dixon, CA 95620

Name Plate RPM: 1780

GPS Coordinates: 12127.07038 49.148LongNLat W

Measured RPM: 0

State Well #: 000744

Report and Data Prepared By Power Hydrodynamics - A Division of Power Services, Inc.

Agricultural and Domestic Pump Test Report

POWER COMPANY DATA

Rate Schedule:

Average Cost: 0.16

EQUIPMENT DATA

HYDRAULIC DATA

Pumping Water LevelRecovered Level

205.086.0

Drawdown

Discharge Pressure

Discharge Level

Total Lift

85.0

55.0

127.1332.1

Well Yield 4.0 gpm/ft

ft

ft

psi

ftftft

Standing Level 120.0 ft

FLOW DATA

Of 1

Measured Flow 338

0.5 m g/day

gpm

Flow Velocity 1.845

Customer Flow 0 gpm

REMARKS

Power Services, Inc.

WellWater Source

803.6063.69Brake Horsepower:

28.34Water Horsepower:

44.50Bowl Efficiency:

50.01

DIX 61632 1

584

6301 Bearden LaneModesto, CA 95357209.527.2908209.527.2921 fax800.808.9283www.powerhydrodynamics.comA Division of Power Services, Inc.

Monday, August 01, 2011CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. DIXON201 SOUTH FIRST STREET

JACK CALDWELL

DIXON, CA 95620

It is recommended and assumed that:

1. Overall plant efficiency can be improved to:2. Water requirements will be the same as for the past year.3. All operating conditions (annual hours of operation, head above, and

water pumping level) will remain the same as they were at the time of the pump test.

It is sincerely hoped that this information will prove helpful to you, and that your concerns over maintaining optimum pumping efficiency will be continued.

Regards,

Enclosures

PUMP TEST REFERENCE NUMBER: 4260

CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

SUBJECT: PUMPING COST ANALYSISHP: 75.0 Plant: DIX 8-01

EXISTING PLANT EFFICIENCY IMPROVED PLANT EFFICIENCY SAVINGS

kWh/AF 888.0

49.0%

The following Pumping Cost Analysis is presented as an aid to your cost accounting. This analysis is an estimate prepared from operating criteria supplied from the pump test performed 7/28/2011 and information provided by you during the pump test.

Overall Plant Efficiency: 66.0%

66.0%

658.7 229.3

Estimated Total kWh 168396 124910 43486

Average Cost per kWh: $0.15

$6.83Average Cost per hour:

$133.20 $98.80Cost Per Acre Ft.:

$5.06 $1.76

$34.40

189.6Estimated Acre Ft. Per Year : 189.6

$25,259.33 $18,736.46Estimated Total Annual Cost: $6,522.87

If you have any questions, please contact Bill Power at (209) 527-2908.

William Thomas Power III

DIX 61632 2

585

N06-BF61A-MD29009

POWER DATA

Plant Location:

PG & E Make:

Pump Make:

HP: U.S.75

Aurora

CUSTOMER INFORMATION

California Water Service Co. Dixon201 South First Street

Test Date: 7/28/2011 Tester: Bill Power

Run Number: 1

Acre Feet per 24 Hr:

Cubic Feet per Second (CFS):

Horsepower Input to Motor: Percent of Rated Motor Load (%):

Kilowatt Input to Motor:

Kilowatt Hours per Acre Foot:

Cost to Pump an Acre Foot:

Overall Plant Efficiency (%):

1.2

0.6

60.88 77.1

$133.09

48.96

Pump Type: Turbine

All results are based on conditions during the time of the test. If these conditions vary from the normal operation of your pump, the results shown may not describe the pump's normal performance.

Overall efficiency of this plant is considered to be very low assuming this run represents plant's normal operating condition.

Standing water level based on 5 minutes recovery, well could still be recovering.

This pump has an adequate test section.

This pump had a digital flow meter.

Based on information obtained at the time the test was performed, this test represents the pumps standard operating conditions.

Energy Cost ($/Hours) $6.82

Meter #: R90297 Serial Number:

Voltage: Amps:460 87

DIX 8-01

Jack Caldwell

Phone: (707) 678-5928

Fax:

Cell: (707) 249-6780

Dixon, CA 95620

Name Plate RPM: 1780

GPS Coordinates: 000 0LongNLat W

Measured RPM: 0

State Well #: 004260

Power Hydrodynamics, Inc 209 527-2908 / 800 808-9283

Agricultural and Domestic Pump Test Report

POWER COMPANY DATA

Rate Schedule: A10

Average Cost: 0.15

EQUIPMENT DATA

HYDRAULIC DATA

Pumping Water LevelRecovered Level

312.50.0

DrawdownDischarge PressureDischarge LevelTotal Lift

167.5

48.5

112.0424.5

Well Yield 1.7 gpm/ft

ft

ft

psi

ftftft

Standing Level 145.0 ft

FLOW DATA

Of 1

Measured Flow 278

0.4 m g/day

gpm

Flow Velocity 1.514

Customer Flow 264 gpm

REMARKS

Power Services, Inc.

WellWater Source

887.2457.83Brake Horsepower:

29.80Water Horsepower:

51.53Bowl Efficiency:

45.41

DIX 61632 2

586

DIX 61632 3

587

DIX 61632 3

588

DIX 61632 3

589

DIXON GRC JUST IFICATION FOR WELL 4 BASED ON WATER QUALITY In rebuttal to the DRA response on disallowance of the Dixon New Source at station 4, Cal Water is providing perspective on reliability of sources with regard to Water Quality. Discussion on Nitrate Historically Dixon is an agricultural community. Past practices of farmers included the application of fertilizers containing nitrates or ammonia. The resulting effect on the groundwater is the presence of nitrates in concentrations approaching or exceeding the MCL of 45 mg/L (ppm). As an operational contingency measure to assure compliance for sources impacted with nitrate, Cal Water installed on-line nitrate analyzers which track nitrate levels and alarm / shut down sources when nitrate concentrations reach 40 mg/L. The analyzers are installed at three sources (Wells 2, 3, and 5). However, in historic review of the nitrate concentrations for sources in Dixon, wells 1, 4 and 6 have recorded concentrations above 30 mg/L. The remaining sources (wells 7, 8 and 9) have nitrate concentrations below 20 mg/L. In 2009, Dixon well 9 was constructed to a depth of 1500 feet and a production capacity 1400 gallons per minute. The sustainability of well 9 along with reduced concentrations of nitrate (14 mg/L) makes this source the lead production well. Subsequently, this resulted in reduced operation of nitrate impacted sources. Please note that this decision is a benefit to customers based on the acute health risk of nitrates, as well as compliance assurance for the district. With the success of operation of well 9 with compliant levels of nitrates, Cal water is seeking reliability of an in-kind source at Station 4. The logic is that when an in-kind construction and production source at station 4 is allowed, a higher reliability with low risk will be in place, and public health /compliance issues associated with nitrate impacted sources can be mitigated. Additionally, if the current lead source (Well 9) is out of operation, the remaining operational sources will be required to maintain production reliability and water quality compliance. Based on a worst case risk scenario, it is likely that in addition to well 9 being offline, that wells 2, 3 and 5 will likely exceed the control limit for nitrate and also be shut down. This leaves the remaining operational sources 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 to provide sustainable supply at an estimated capacity of 2675 gallons per minute. Discussion on Chromium 6 Chromium 6 will have a draft MCL in 2013. Provided that all groundwater sources in Dixon have concentrations exceeding the MCL, it will be required to treat to compliance levels at all the sources. Given that there are currently 9 sources scattered throughout Dixon, Cal Water is seeking logical and economical application of applied treatment technology at two high producing sources rather than all 9 sources. Given the geographic arrangement, and availability of real estate, the most appropriate location of the high producing second source is at station 4.

DIX 61955 1

590

The table below provides perspective of production capacity, age and depth of source, and contaminants of concern in the Dixon district.

DIXON Summary of Contaminants of Concern

Source Depth (ft) Capacity (GPM) Year Built Compound

NO3 (mg/L) Cr6 (ug/L)

Well 1 538 500 1954 32 17 Well 2 578 700 1950 42 24 Well 3 602 750 1956 42 22 Well 4 665 550 1966 35 19 Well 5 650 400 1973 45 22 Well 6 520 550 1976 39 17 Well 7 820 725 1979 18 20 Well 8 850 500 1979 21 18

Well 9 1500 1400 2009 14 19

DIX 61955 1

591

DIX 61955 2

592

DIX 61955 2

593

DIX 61955 2

594

DIX 61955 2

595

DIX 61955 3

596

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DISTRICT:PROJECT ID: PREPARED BY:BUDGET YEAR: TITLE:COMPLETION YEAR: 2015

BUDGET VALUE: DATE: 2012

I. LAND 2013

QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL

1 LS. $5,000 $5,000

1 LS. $20,000.00 $20,000

$25,000

II. WELL 2014


1 LS. $5,000 $5,000

1 LS. $5,300 $5,300

1 LS. $3,000 $3,000

1 LS. $10,000 $10,000

1 LS. $55,000 $55,000

1 LS. $792,000 $792,000

1 LS. $35,000 $35,000

1 LS. $108,000 $108,000

475 HR. $99.34 $47,187

430 HR. $76.20 $32,766

75 HR. $82.35 $6,176

50 HR. $82.35 $4,118

30 HR. $82.35 $2,471

$1,106,017

III. PUMPS and ELECTRICAL 2015


1 EA. $68,000 $68,000

1 EA. $85,000 $85,000

1 EA. $18,370 $18,370

1 EA. $75,000 $75,000

1 EA. $75,000 $75,000

475 HR. $99.34 $47,187

Structural DesignVendor budgetary bid; Attach 3, item 2. Assumed

75% of $4,000

Geological Accessment (next to residential homes)

Vendor budgetary bid; Attach 2. Assumed 160% of $3,200

Electrical equip & conduits, includ installVendor budgetary bid; Attach 13, item 3.

Assumed 100% of $75,898

18' x 20' Pump Bldg (const over new well)Vendor budgetary bid; Attach 12, item 7.

Assumed 115% of $65,000

Vendor budgetary bid; Attach 9

Vendor budgetary bid; Attach 10, item 1,2 & 3. Assumed 89% of $95,396.90

Back-up Generator

ITEM

Vertical Turbine Pump / Motor (1500 gpm, 150 Hp) & Pump Foundation

Destroy Existing Well per County Standards.

CWS Engineering - Civil Estimated

CWS Environmental Affairs Project Manager Estimated

CWS Water Quality Project Manager Estimated

Vendor budgetary bid; Attach 11. Assumed 60% of $30,623.06

Well Consultant

Construct 1,500 ft Deep Well, Develop, and Pump Test per CWS std.

CWS Field Supervisor

CWS Technician (Drafting)

COST BASIS

COST BASIS



Construct and Equip Well, Sta 04

WO 61955

2,671,321.76

CEQA/Env Site Assessment

Building Permit (next to residential homes)

Dixon

M. Francis

Onsite Development of Drilling Fluids

CWS Engineering - Civil Estimated

Engineer2013 through 2015

ITEM


Phase I Environmental Site AssessmentVendor budgetary bid; Attach 1. Assumed 23% of

$21,949


COST BASIS


Estimated


PG&E Application for Service

Demo ex. Structures on site Estimated

Estimated

ITEM

158

DIX 61955 4

597

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DISTRICT:PROJECT ID: PREPARED BY:BUDGET YEAR: TITLE:COMPLETION YEAR: 2015

BUDGET VALUE: DATE: 2012

Construct and Equip Well, Sta 04

WO 61955

2,671,321.76

Dixon

M. Francis

Engineer2013 through 2015

330 HR. $99.34 $32,782

143 HR. $76.20 $10,897

40 HR. $82.35 $3,294

50 HR. $61.58 $3,079

40 HR. $68.96 $2,758

75 HR. $82.35 $6,176

$427,543

IV. MAINS 2015


1 LS. $81,400 $81,400

WQ Monitoring Equipment 1 EA. $10,000.00 $10,000

71 HR. $61.58 $4,372

$95,772

V. SITE WORK 2015


1 LS. $5,000 $5,000

1 LS. $16,500 $16,500

1 LS. $10,000 $10,000

1 LS. $5,500 $5,500

1 LF. $12,000 $12,000

$49,000

New Well SUBTOTAL 1,703,331.88 CHK 1,703,331.88$

CWS EMT Estimated

CWS Engineering - Maintenance Estimated

16 inch pipeline, valves, fittings and install

Estimated

New FencingVendor budgetary bid; Attach 16. Assumed 100%

of $12,605

ITEM

Land Surveying Estimated

COST BASIS

CWS Engineering - Electrical Estimated

CWS Technician (Drafting) Estimated

Estimated

CWS Field Labor Estimated

CWS Field Supervisor


CWS Field Labor

Base Rock/Minor Grading

Vendor budgetary bid; Attach 13, item 2. Assumed 25% of $323,295

ITEM

Vendor budgetary bid; Attach 13, item 4. Assumed 20% of $49,100

Landscaping (next to residential homes)Vendor budgetary bid; Attach 13, item 7.

Assumed 120% of $4,570

Concrete DrivewayVendor budgetary bid; Attach 15, item 6.

Assumed 150% of $11,000

COST BASIS

159

DIX 61955 4

598

Supply(system wide and individual pressure zone) - Title 22 section 64554 states:

(a)At all times, a public water system’s water source(s) shall have the capacity to

meet the system’s maximum day demand (MDD).

and

(a)(3)Both the MDD and PHD requirements shall be met in the system as a whole

and in each individual pressure zone.

and

(c) Community water systems using only groundwater shall have a minimum of

two approved sources before being granted an initial permit. The system shall be

capable of meeting MDD with the highest-capacity source off line.

The supply facilities that Cal Water utilizes to satisfy these requirements include wells

and booster pump stations. Cal Water has determined that the capacity of these facilities,

whether it be in the form of wells or a single lift station, should be computed using a firm

pumping capacity concept and that it should apply to the system as a whole and each

individual pressure zone. This concept accounts for some level of outage, thus providing

reliability within the overall supply and/or inter-zonal boosting infrastructure in a given

system. Section 3.2.2.1 of the American Water Works Association’s (AWWA) Water

Distribution Systems Handbook

directly states that:

It is also good practice to consider standby capability in the source of supply. If

the system has been designed so the entire capacity of the supply is required to

meet the maximum demand, any portion of the supply that is placed out of service

due to malfunction or maintenance will result in a deficient supply. For example,

a community that relies primarily on groundwater for its supply should, at a

minimum, be able to meet its maximum day demand (MDD) with at least one

and

of

its largest wells out of service.

Section 18.2.1.6 of the same text states that:

DIX 61955 5

599

… more than one pump usually is placed in each pumping station. The usual rule

for the number of pump units is that the station must be able to meet design flows

when the largest unit is out of service

As such, firm groundwater pumping capacity is defined by Cal Water as the total active

well capacity minus the capacity of the two most critical wells, or ninety percent (90%)

of the total active well capacity, whichever is less. And, firm pumping capacity for

booster pump facilities

is defined by Cal Water as the total station capacity minus the

capacity of the largest pump. If there are multiple pump stations serving the same service

zone, only one pump is considered to be out of service for all the stations combined.

Supply reliability criterion is consistent with numerous industry guidelines and

recommendations (like those cited above). The well supply criterion was also formulated

based on Cal Water’s historical operating experience in systems like Salinas, Marysville,

and Dixon, where water quality has rapidly deteriorated creating the need to take wells

out-of-service, or to swiftly deploy water treatment systems that have notable capital and

operating costs.

Additional examples of factors, guidelines, or practices that Cal Water considers relative

when performing supply assessments are as follows:

* Develop supply scenarios and assessments based on observed or installed

capacity levels. In Cal Water’s experience, the observed or installed capacity of a

particular facility is often times somewhat less than the recorded design capacity.

These values can be arrived at through recorded average production values and/or

recent pump test results. Variations usually arise from various operational factors

like local distribution system resistance, naturally varying ground water levels,

mutual interference from other pumping wells, and mechanical wear over time.

The complete influence of these factors are not, and can not, always be captured

during the design phase, or during spot testing. However, an appreciation of their

magnitude can generally be assessed over a period of several years. For example,

DIX 61955 5

600

it is not uncommon for the installed capacity

of a particular well to be on the

order of 75 to 90 percent of its stated design capacity, based on the in-situ factors

noted above.

* Frame supply scenarios and assessment around the historical recognition that

water quality and water quantity considerations are highly integrated in a number

of Cal Water systems (i.e., the amount of available and reliable supply is strongly

influenced by local and regional water quality trends, and many of these

underlying boundary conditions are not directly under Cal Water’s control).

Specific Cal Water systems that have been highly impacted by water quality

concerns include Dixon, Marysville, Salinas, Stockton, and Visalia.

Cal Water’s review of the DRA testimony found that the Department consistently

assumes that the full amount (100%) of a system’s supply sources will be available for a

given analysis. This lies in stark contrast to the references and practices noted above,

and comprises a chief point of contention relative to supply reliability

.

Peak Hour Supply – Section 64554(a)(1) of the Water Works Standards, which states

that: “[for] systems with 1,000 or more service connections, the system shall be able to

meet four hours of peak hourly demand (PHD) with source capacity, storage capacity,

and/or emergency source connections.” Cal Water contends that the intent of Title 22

Section 64554(a)(1) is to provide guidance, or a computational method for determining

peak system capacity. Specifically, relative to peak hour capacity assessments:

* Cal Water believes that evaluations of firm pumping capacity should use

historically observed capacity levels as a basis whenever possible. These values

are typically less than those cited as design values. Station chart data, SCADA

data, and pump test time-series data provide strong motivation for these levels.

* Cal Water believes that firm pumping capacity evaluations should also be

sensitive to the overall natural and operational environment under which the given

DIX 61955 5

601

system is placed. In particular, this overall sensitivity should include an

understanding of local water quantity/quality interactions, operating trends and

histories, general hydraulic feasibility, and an awareness of exterior (boundary)

conditions that are not necessarily under Cal Water’s control. Collectively, these

factors can lead Cal Water to conclude that more than one large facility is critical

(or unreliable) within the context of our capacity assessments. Accordingly,

based on this factor, and the prior one, Cal Water disagrees with DRA’s inclusion

of the full supply capacity for its peak hour capacity assessments.

* Cal Water deeply disagrees with the explicit or implied notion of cross functional

applications of storage. As noted above, while it is possible to compute a total

storage volume based on individual components, these individual components are

intended to serve a certain explicit function within the complex of its overall

operation, i.e., operational storage is generally earmarked for peaking, fire

storage is earmarked for fire-fighting only, etc

. Cal Water disagrees with DRA’s

interpretation and/or methodological use of Section 64554(a)(1), which suggests

that a cross-functional application of storage is in-play, i.e., all of a system’s

storage is allowed to count as a credit for peaking, even if the overall event

duration is relatively short. Several technical implications that naturally follow

from this interpretation are that:

(a) The overall storage system would be completely exhausted after the

peaking event, and as such, the system as a whole would be vulnerable to

other subsequent events for which the storage system is supposed to

provide support (i.e., a fire). In certain situations, this practice could also

contribute to backflow or back-siphoning conditions that could adversely

impact customer health and safety;

(b) This capacity assessment can place an unrealistic expectation on the

boosting facilities in a given system to be able to exhaust the full volume

of storage over four hours. For example, in the case of Cal Water’s

DIX 61955 5

602

Stockton District, a strict application of this provision would require that

the overall boosting infrastructure be capable of over 41,000 gallons per

minute (gpm) in peak supply capacity (9.88 MG in 240 minutes). The full

rated capacity of the Stockton District’s boosting infrastructure is only

17,400 gpm, while its firm pumping capacity is more likely to be on the

order of 11,300 gpm (Stockton Master Plan, Table 2-4 and Table 10-4);

(c) This capacity assessment can place an unrealistic expectation on the

supply facilities in a given system to be able to refill adequate storage

levels while also meeting normal demand after the peaking event.

DIX 61955 5

603

QUOTATION

Quantity Item Description Unit Price Amount

1.00 FILTER HOUSING 24-30-6F-1-150-CBNPB (CARBON STEEL) 7,072.00 7,072.00LEAD TIME IS 8-10 WEEKSF.O.B. ANN ARBOR, MIfreight is approximate

Freight

Quote Number: 1907Quote Date: Jan 3, 2013

Sales Rep

Quoted To:

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICEP O BOX 49033SAN JOSE, CA 95161-9033

Good Thru

4/2/13Customer ID Payment Terms

Page:

CA WATER SERVICE-SJ Net 30 Days DOUG

1

TOTAL 7,986.24

Sales Tax 539.24Subtotal 7,072.00

375.00

ROSEDALE PRODUCTS OF CA, INC17905 SKY PARK CIRCLE, #CPHONE: 877-224-3587IRVINE, CA 92614

Voice:Fax:

949-502-4990949-502-4994

DIX 64375 1

604

Figure 1- Old Unit

DIX 64375 2

605

Figure 2 - Old Unit

DIX 64375 2

606

Figure 3 - Installation of New Unit

DIX 64375 2

607

Figure 4 - New Unit Installed

DIX 64375 2

608

Figure 5 - New Unit Installed

DIX 64375 2

609

DIX 64375 3

610

Modern Custom Fabrication, Inc. QUOTATION P.O. Box 11925, Fresno, CA 93775

(800) 800-TANK (8265)

(559) 264-4741 FAX (559) 237-3413 Prepared by: Ron Cloyd

For: David Kehn Quote Number: 1589REV

California Water Service Quote Date: 8/31/2012

1720 North First Street Quote Valid For: 30 days

San Jose, CA 95112 Current Lead Time: 12 weeks

After Receipt of Approved Drawings

Job: Dixon 7

Phone: 408-367-8360

Fax: 408-367-8427

Dixon, CA

Co: Solano

Any order not shipped will be invoiced thirty days after notification of completion.

Qty Part No. Description Unit Price Total

1 HHPV5K 72" X 264" Sideshell 5,000 Gallon Horizontal Hydropnuematic Tank, ASME Code $32,636.00 $32,636.00

Stamped for 150 PSI Working Pressure and Fitted With:

1 - 14" X 18" Manway Change to 18" X 24"

1 - 8" CL150 Flanged Inlet/Outlet

2 - Ball Valves

1 - Gauge Assembly

1 - Gauge Enclosure

1 - 4" X 4' Stilling Well

2 - 2" Outlet NPT Male Thread

6 - Misc. Couplings Change D, E, J, K to 304 Stainless Steel and J to 2"

2 - Lifting Lugs

2 -24" High Saddle Supports ( IBC 2009 Site Class D IF 1 R 3 )

Interior sand blasted to SSPC-SP5 and coated with 35-45 mils DFT

Plasite 4110 Vinyl Ester

Exterior sandblasted to SSPC-SP6 and coated with (2) coats S-W Macropoxy

and Finish Coat S-W Hi-Solids Urethane Total System 10-16 mils

Color - Grouse Tan Semi-Gloss

Subtotal : $32,636.00

7.38% Tax : $2,408.54

Freight : Prepay and Charge Freight : $980.00

Unloading: Not Included TOTAL : $36,024.54

REMARKS: Estimated Empty Weight - 9,200 pounds

DIX 64731 1

611


(800) 800-TANK (8265)


For: David Kehn Quote : 1589REV


1720 North First Street

San Jose, CA 95112

Quote Based on E-Mail Request With Drawing

DESIGN CRITERIA:

ASME Div 1 Section VIII

Internal Pressure: 150 PSIG Specific Gravity: 1

External Pressure: None Heat Treatment: No

Test Pressure: 195 PSI Lethal Service: No

Design Temperature: -20 / 180 Deg. F Seismic loads: Yes

Corrosion Allowance: None Wind loads: Yes

Radiography: Per ASME Ultrasonic Testing: None

Magnetic Particle Exam - None Visual Inspection: Per code

MATERIAL SPECIFICATION:

Heads: SA 516-70 Carbon Steel

Shell: SA 516-70 Carbon Steel

Gaskets: Flexitallic or Equal

Anchors : SA 36

Milestone Activity Est. Weeks:

a. Approval drawing submittal (to customer) 1 to 2 weeks

b. Customer review and approval 1 to 2 weeks

c. Material acquisition after receipt of approval drawings 4 - 6

d. Fabrication, after receipt of materials 3 to 5 weeks

Above schedules are based on present engineering and production backlog and

are subject to review and change at time of purchase order placement.

Notes:

Pricing is based upon information provided at the time of quotation and is

limited to the items detailed above.

Company policy does not permit the acceptance of purchase orders containing

either retention clauses or liquidated damage clauses

DIX 64731 1

612


(800) 800-TANK (8265)


For: David Kehn Quote: 1589REV


NOTES

1. PRICES ARE FIRM FOR 30 DAYS.

2. MODERN CUSTOM FABRICATION DOES NOT PROVIDE OPERATING, INSTALLATION,

AND/OR MAINTENANCE MANUALS.

3. MODERN CUSTOM FABRICATION DOES NOT SUPPLY FIELD SERVICES.

4. QUOTATION DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY FEDERAL OR STATE TAXES UNLESS NOTED

5. NO OTHER NDE IS INCLUDED UNLESS NOTED

6. POSTWELD HEAT TREAMENT IS NOT INCLUDED UNLESS NOTED

7. NO INTERNALS INCLUDED UNLESS NOTED

8. QUOTATION SUBJECT TO MATERIAL COST AND AVAILABILITY AT THE TIME OF ORDER

9. MODERN CUSTOM FABRICATION IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FOUNDATION, ANCHORAGE

AND EMBEDMENT DESIGN

10. CUSTOMERS TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL BE REVIEWED PRIOR TO PURCHASE ORDER PLACEMENT

MODERN CUSTOM FABRICATION RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE EXCEPTION TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS

PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF PURCHASE ORDER.

11. ANY ORDER NOT SHIPPED WILL BE INVOICED THIRTY DAYS AFTER NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION

12. ANY ORDER NOT SHIPPED FOUR MONTHS AFTER NOTIFICATION WILL BE SUBJECT TO STORAGE CHARGES

TERMS OF PAYMENT UPON CREDIT APPROVAL - NET 30 DAYS

1. 10% OF PURCHASE ORDER UPON SUBMITTAL OF DRAWINGS.

2. 40% OF PURCHASE ORDER UPON RECEIPT OF MAJOR MATERIALS.

3. BALANCE INCLUDING ADDERS AND CREDITS TO BE INVOICED

AT TIME OF COMPLETION.

CANCELLATION CHARGES

1. AFTER ORDER PLACED 10%

2. AFTER DRAWINGS SUBMITTED 15%

3. AFTER MATERIAL RECEIVED 50%

4. AFTER FABRICATION STARTS 75%

5. FABRICATION 50% OR MORE 100%

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUOTE ON THIS PROJECT.

If this quotation meets with your approval and you wish to proceed with placing an order, please sign below and return this form.

Accepted By: _______________________________________________________________________ Date: ____________________

(please print) (signature)

DIX 64731 1

613

3/15/2013 (MF Edit)Note: Powerplant Amount - $62,120.85 (as of 12/1/2012). Status: posted to CPR.

2009 ESTD ACTUAL RemarkCONSULTANTPACIFIC ENGINEERING $650.00 Foundation Design - Inv 1005301 (6/8/2010)

VENDORSAND SEPERATOR $3,200.00 VALVE & FILTER CORP $3,630.81 Sand Seperator - Inv 11952 (4/15/2010)

LS CONTRACTOR $20,000.00 CONTRACTOR - CRUTCHFIELD CONSTRUCTION $12,980.00 Proposal dated 5/14/2010FOUNDATION - 5' x 2'-10" x 14" thkPIPING, FITTINGS & OWNER FURNISHED EQUIPMTELECTRICAL CONDUITS & OWNER FURNISHED EQUIPMTSITE EARTHWORKS & GRADINGCATCH BASIN WT GRATE - 3 FT SQ.

CWS LABOR $15,472.1625 HRS DESIGN ENGR $1,724.00 ENGINEERING - CIVIL

ENGINEERING - ELECTRICAL20 HRS DRAFTING $1,087.40 ENGINEERING DRAFTING

FIELD MGR/SUPV.FIELD LABOR/EMT

CWS OVERHEADOTHER $1,339.533% INFLATION3% CAPITALIZED INTEREST $7,209.8010% CONTINGENCYTAX & INSURANCE $15,622.81

OVERHEAD $2,861.25 CONSTRUCTION $5,215.74

$28,872.65 $62,120.85

DIX 42410 1

614

DIX 42410 2

615

DIX 42410 3

616

DIX 42410 4

617

DIX 42410 4

618

DIX 42410 4

619

DIX 42410 4

620

Rev 3/22/2013

ACTUAL Piping (30%) Struc (70%)PERMITTING

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME $2,010.25YOLO-SOLANO AQMD $726.00CITY OF DIXON $16,753.77

$19,490.02 5,847.01$ # 13,643.01$ CONSULTANTS

NEIL O. ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. $762.00FOULK GOMEZ & ASSOCIATES, INC $1,380.00PMC $1,800.00PCR SERVICES CORPORATION $11,972.24KRAZAN & ASSOC INC $6,050.00KIWI TREE $2,790.00LUHDORFF & SCALMANINI CONSULTING ENGRS $4,724.75VAN PELT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $10,400.00PACIFIC ENGINEERING GROUP $1,750.00WEST YOST & ASSOCIATES, INC. $90.62

$41,719.61 12,515.88$ # 29,203.73$ VENDOR

CB & I CONSTRUCTORS, INC $347,750.00APPLIED TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. $1,064.92CONTROL MICROSYSTEMS, INC. $1,820.80EMI OIL FILTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. $12,570.19INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC MFG $57,939.55CLA-VAL, CO. $12,156.19WAGNER PROCESS EQUIPMENT $1,731.06CUMMINS WEST, INC. $52,993.01EBAA IRON SALES, INC. $8,200.00MODERN CUSTOM FABRICATION, INC. $45,981.20PUMP REPAIR SERVICE CO. $64,308.20RECOLOGY $181.24RPS INDUSTRIES $22,471.44

$629,167.80 188,750.34$ 440,417.46$ CONSTRACTOR - CARL CRUTCHFIELD CONSTRUCTION

15" RCP S/DRAIN PIPING & 2 MANHOLES $51,950.0016" DI PIPELINES, TRAFFIC PLANS & TIE-INS $96,475.00OTHER $42,388.36

$190,813.36 57,244.01$ 133,569.35$ CONTRACTOR - CUSAC CONSTRUCTION

FOUNDATIONS $47,640.00PIPING, FITTINGS & OWNER FURNISHED EQUIPMT $323,295.00ELECTRICAL CONDUITS & OWNER FURNISHED EQUIPMT $75,898.00

DIX 19811 1a

621

SITE EARTHWORKS & GRADING $49,100.00CRUSH BASE ROCK $38,767.00CONSTRUCT 40 FT CONC ASPHALT DRIVEWAY $23,700.00LANDSCAPING WORKS $4,568.56

CO 1 - Storm Drain $13,245.00CO 2 - 16" Gate Valve $15,330.00CO 3 - Site Fencing $12,605.00CO 4 - Landscaping $4,570.00CO 5 - 4" Gate Valve $1,890.00CO 6 - Removal of Surplus Dirt & Conc $9,890.00CO 7 - Paint Above Ground Piping $11,640.00CO 8 - Additional Base Rock & Paving $6,085.00CO 9 - Relocate Lock Hasp on Surge Tank $575.00CO 10 - Relocate Access Driveway Gate $1,000.00CO 11 - Install WQ Sample Point $1,064.00CO 12 - Install Elec Fans in Pump Shelters $1,680.00CO 13 - Install Landscaping Bark & Header Boards $2,280.00CO 14 - Install 4' Side Gate $1,000.00

$645,822.56 193,746.77$ 452,075.79$ PG&E SERVICE

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. $17,634.72$17,634.72 5,290.42$ 12,344.30$

MISC

JANE BEI LOH $5.00MAURICE S. FRANCIS $12.00

$17.00 5.10$ 11.90$ CWS LABOR $119,111.45ENGINEERING - CIVILENGINEERING - ELECTRICALENGINEERING DRAFTING FIELD MGR/SUPV.FIELD LABOR/EMT

$119,111.45 35,733.44$ 83,378.02$ CWS OVERHEAD

Others $12,318.063% INFLATION3% CAPITALIZED INTEREST $155,961.8010% CONTINGENCYTAX & INSURANCE $126,833.99CONSTRUCTION $326,652.03

$621,765.88 186,529.76$ 435,236.12$

$2,285,542.40 $2,285,542.40 $685,662.72 $1,599,879.68

DIX 19811 1a

622

SUMMARY 2009 Estd Actual DifferenceDI Piping - West F Street $190,813.36 $190,813.36Labor $15,156.67 $119,111.45 $103,954.78Struc & Imp - Pumping Plant $35,347.31 $659,255.46 $623,908.15Pumping Equipment $542,923.98 $64,308.20 -$478,615.78Reservoir & Tanks $164,452.96 $347,750.00 $183,297.04DI Piping - T&D Mains $186,325.09 $282,538.05 $96,212.96Overhead $155,793.99 $621,765.88 $465,971.89

Total $1,100,000.00 $2,285,542.40 $1,185,542.40

DIX 19811 1a

623

Rev 3/18/2013STA 10 Milestone Accomplishment

Date PHASE IA - Land Purchase

2/1/2009 Work with realtor, CWS legal and district to complete transaction3/18/2010 Property purchase transaction completed - APN: 0113-073-240 (A Portion)

PHASE IB - Piping Works on West F Street

2/20/2009 Design5/1/2009 Permitting

7/30/2009 Bid Package9/1/2009 Award Job to Crutchfield Construction9/4/2009 Design plans approved

9/16/2009 Complete 16" DI pipe (846 ft) and 15" RCP s/drain (365 ft) installation wt stub out

PHASE IC - 0.5 MG Welded Steel Tank Construction

9/8/2009 Geotechnical bid package10/9/2009 Award job to Krazan & Assoc7/28/2010 Design8/24/2010 Tank bid Package

10/18/2010 Award Job to CB&I Tank Constructors12/26/2010 Permitting

2/26/2011 Design plans approved3/14/2011 PG&E new service application

2/25/2011 Tank Shop Drawing Approval4/18/2011 Site Survey & Layout5/23/2011 Construct tank foundation7/11/2011 Start tank erection

11/30/2011 End tank erection5/22/2012 Tank final punch list6/21/2012 Final tank disinfection

PHASE II - Site Development

4/19/2011 Bid Package - 5,000 gal surge tank4/25/2011 Design Completed

5/6/2011 Bid Package - 300 gpm (10HP), 500 gpm (15HP) & 700 gpm (25HP) booster pumps5/13/2011 Award Job to Modern Customs

6/3/2011 Award Job to Pump Repair Services6/27/2011 Bid Package - Site Development7/21/2011 Permitting7/26/2011 Award Job to Cusac Construction8/19/2011 Design plans approved

10/25/2011 Pre-Construction Meeting & Bid Package11/7/2011 Site Mobilization

1/6/2012 Cast pad - booster pump padestal, genset, pressure tank and panel board1/12/2012 Genset, panel board and surge tank site delivery & install2/15/2012 New Fencing3/20/2012 Pressure tank accessories installation completed

DIX 19811 1c

624

4/25/2012 Complete electrical conduits & backfill4/27/2012 PGE site inspection & approval

5/9/2012 PGE transformer pad energized5/16/2012 Site Grading

6/5/2012 Landscaping6/27/2012 Preliminary station start-up6/29/2012 CDPH Permit Submittal (re-submittal)

11/16/2012 Install booster can11/28/2012 CDPH Permit Final Approval12/14/2012 Install station piping and tie-ins12/18/2012 Station goes online

1/31/2013 Genset check list for start-up completed2/1/2013 Final Project Closeout

DIX 19811 1c

625

Project timeline for PID 19811.

- In early Feb 2009 (about the same time when CWS was finalizing property purchase agreement) we were informed that the city of Dixon was planning to repave ex. streets on West F Street and N. Jefferson Street, close to Sta 10. Street repaving works to commence in early 2010 and a 5 year moratorium would take effect after street re-pavement works is completed.

Phase I - Pipe Install on West F Street

- The new storage tank pipeline would tie-in to ex. 16 in DI pipeline at intersection on West F St/Jefferson Street (see Attach 3, detail A).

- Several site visits, including time and labor charges were incurred to obtain site information required to complete design plans. Assume approx. 30% of CWS labor charges - $119,111.45 (see Attach 1a - Project Charges). We had to confirm locations of all ex. utilities in vicinity. We also had to survey each location point and re-confirm with city’s planned repaving final grade and elevation plans. We also had to review ex. city storm and sewer plans. Many a time, we had to pothole on site when available data were insufficient.

- Once information was obtained. Pipe design and grade (two 16 in diameter for portable and one 15 in diameter for drainage) was reengineered in reverse order, starting from ex. CWS 16 in diameter pipeline invert tie-in location to stub-out point at station 10 (see Attach 3, detail A & B).

- In addition, the proposed portable pipelines had to be constructed to by-pass an ex. 12 in diameter storm drain that runs across above West F St/Jefferson Street intersection (see Attach 3, detail A-A & Attach 4).

- Also, design for gravity flow tank drain line was required to tie into ex. storm drain at same intersection. Two new manholes (MH 1 & 2) were also installed on West F Street as part of drain line installation works (see Attach 3, detail C-C).

- Design was completed and permit approval was received in early Sept 09. See attach 1. - Due to nature of project and timeline, Crutchfield Construction was shortlisted due to past work

experience with CWS and in our Dixon district. - All work on West F Street had to be completed by end of Sept 09 to enable street repaving

works. Crutchfield Construction completed all works around mid Sept. Total cost for piping install on West F Street was $190,813.36 (see Attach 9, page 1-2).

- A summary between 2009 estimate vs actual charges incurred is shown below:

Phase II & III - 1.5 MG Tank Construction at Sta 10

Description Amount (Est) Actual Difference Permitting $24,249.99 $19,490.02 -$4,759.97

DIX 19811 1d

626

Consultant $16,755.56 $41,719.61 $24,964.05 Vendor $633,515.83 $629,167.80 -$4,348.03 Contractor $261,302.10 $836,635.92 $575,333.82 PG&E Service

$17,634.72 $17,634.72

Design & Labor $15,156.67 $119,111.45 $103,954.78 Overhead $149,019.85 $621,765.88

$472,746.03

Total $1,100,000.00 $2,285,525.40 $1,185,525.40

a. Consultant Services: Refer to Attach 1a - project charges.

Additional use of consultant services was required for permitting purposes. An existing Elm Tree had to be cut down for new storage tank (see Attach 6). A bird survey/study by PMC was carried as part of CEQA permitting (see Attach 7, item 1 & 2A). Similarly, Kiwi Tree arborist was hired to assist with tree replacement/landscaping as part of city permitting approval (see Attach 6, page 8).

Van Pelt Construction is a local project management consultant firm that is based in Fairfield, CA. They were hired to assist CWS as project PM due to availability of qualified technical personnel in the district to manage project. They managed all construction activities on site and help coordinate project with CWS personnels, both in Dixon and San Jose.

Land parcel at station 10 parcel is slightly over 1 acre in size. During the initial stages for tank design, CWS also explored the possibility of adding a future new well on site. Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting was engaged to carry out preliminary geotechnical investigation to evaluate this option (see Attach 8 - Luhdorff Report). However, CWS decided not to proceed due to system demands, operational and other requirements.

b. Contractor Cost: Refer to Attach 9 & 10.

The difference

a. Piping install on West F Street - $190,813.36

between 2009 estimate vs. actual cost to develop/complete booster facility in support of 1.5 MG storage tank is $1,185,542.40. Breakdown cost difference as shown:

b. Labor cost - $103,954.78

c. Structural & Pumping Plant - $623,908.15

d. Reservoir and tank - $ 183,297.04

e. Station DI Piping - $96,212.96

f. Overhead - $465,971.89

DIX 19811 1d

627

DIX 19811 2

628

OH

W

UG

G

DIX 19811 3

629

DIX 19811 3

630

DIX 19811 4

631

DIX 19811 4

632

DIX 19811 5

633

DIX 19811 5

634

DIX 19811 5

635

DIX 19811 6

636

DIX 19811 6

637

DIX 19811 6

638

DIX 19811 6

639

DIX 19811 6

640

DIX 19811 6

641

DIX 19811 6

642

2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220 • Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 • P: (916) 361-8384 • F: (916) 361-1574

January 14, 2011

Kim Donovan, Environmental Project Manager

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 2222 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Pkwy.

Chico, CA 95928

RE: CAL WATER - DIXON DISTRICT BIOLOGICAL SURVEY PROPOSAL

Dear Ms. Donovan:

PMC is pleased to provide the following scope of services and cost estimate to conduct pre-

construction surveys for migratory birds and raptors, at 620 North Jackson Street, Dixon California.

This scope is based upon the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mitigation for this

project.

TASK 1: NEST SURVEY FOR THE ELM TREE

The removal of the elm tree (Ulmus sp.) will occur outside the typical nesting season (i.e.

February 15 to August 31) and will be completed by a licensed and qualified contractor under

current standards and guidelines. A qualified PMC biologist will conduct a survey of the elm tree

for any nesting species just prior to the removal of the tree. If any active nests are detected,

removal of the tree will be delayed until the nest is abandoned.

Task 1 will be conducted at a fixed fee of $800.00

TASK 2A: BURROWING OWL PROTOCOL SURVEYS (PHASE II)

In accordance with the 1993 Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines and

Solano Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, and due to the presence of suitable habitat

within the project site, a Phase II, Burrow Survey is warranted no more than 30-days prior to the

start of construction-related activities. PMC biologists will conduct a Phase II survey which will

focus on the detection of burrowing owl burrows, individual burrowing owls, and diagnostic signs

of their occurrence, such as molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or

excrement at or near a burrow entrance. Transects will be utilized, spaced no more than 100

feet apart, to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface as well as a 500-foot

buffer around the project impact zone. The location(s) of any burrowing owls and/or burrows

observed will be recorded through use of a GPS unit and mapping, if applicable.

A survey results letter report will be prepared and submitted to the California Water Service

Group within one week of the survey.

DIX 19811 7

643

mfrancis

Highlight

mfrancis

Highlight

Task 2A will be conducted at a fixed fee of $1,000.00

TASK 2B: BURROWING OWL PROTOCOL SURVEYS (PHASE III) If burrowing owl or evidence of burrowing owl is identified on-site, Phase III, Burrowing Owl

Surveys, Census and Mapping for burrowing owls are warranted. PMC biologist will conduct four

additional surveys on four separate days during the burrowing owl peak-breeding season (April

15 to July 15). These surveys will be executed in accordance with the 1993 Burrowing Owl Survey

Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Additionally, PMC will conduct a 30-day pre-construction

burrowing owl survey within the project site and 500-foot buffer where suitable habitat is present

is warranted prior to ground disturbing activities (Task 3 below). A PMC biologist will walk

transects, spaced approximately 100-feet apart, within all suitable habitat on the project site

(and buffer) searching for burrowing owl or sign of current burrowing owl use. The survey will be

conducted in the early morning hours, one hour prior to sunrise to two hours after, or near dusk,

two hours before sunset to one hour after. The survey will be conducted in accordance with the

1993 Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.

A survey results letter report will be prepared and submitted to the California Water Service

Group within one week of completion of the survey. If active bird/raptor nests are found within

and/or adjacent to the project site, the letter report will provide appropriate avoidance and/or

exclusionary methods.

Task 2B will be conducted at a fixed fee of $2,500.00

TASK 3: PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEYS

The project site provides habitat that may support nesting for migratory birds and raptors. If

future proposed construction activities are planned to occur during the nesting seasons for local

avian species (typically February 15th through August 31st), a qualified PMC biologist will

conduct a focused survey for active nests of songbirds birds and raptors within the project

footprint and vicinity of construction area (no less than 100-feet for songbirds and 500 feet for

raptors) outside project boundaries, where possible, no more than 30 days prior to ground

disturbance. These surveys are not necessary if construction activities occur during the non-

breeding season for migratory birds (generally September 1st through February 28th).

All suitable habitat shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a PMC

biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a suitable buffer

(300 feet for songbirds and 500 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until

the nesting cycle is complete, as determined by the PMC biological monitor, to minimize

impacts. A survey results letter report will be prepared and submitted to the California Water Service

Group within one week of the survey.

Task 3 will be conducted at a fixed fee of $1,000.00

DIX 19811 7

644

ASSUMPTIONS:

The following assumptions were made in preparation of this scope and cost estimate:

� This scope of work and cost estimate does not include the physical application of any

exclusionary methods identified for this project.

� This scope of work and cost estimate does not include the monitoring of owl, raptor, bird, or

nests if such features are identified within the project footprint or buffer areas.

Sincerely,

Jeannette Owen PMC | Biological Resources Division 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220 |Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p: 916.361.8384 ext. 10255| tf: 866.828.6PMC | cell: 916.949.0937 | fax: 916.361.1574 [email protected]|www.pmcworld.com

DIX 19811 7

645

DIX 19811 8

646

DIX 19811 8

647

DIX 19811 8

648

DIX 19811 9

649

DIX 19811 9

650

DIX 19811 9

651

DIX 19811 9

652

DIX 19811 10

653

DIX 19811 10

654

1- 1 DIX STA 10 - SITE DEVELOPMENT 562,970.00EA 1.00 562,970.00 09/05/2011

Schedule Total 562,970.00

562,970.00Item TotalCWS Item ID:

2- 1 storm drain 13,245.00EA 1.00 13,245.00 11/17/2011



3- 1 gate valves 15,330.00EA 1.00 15,330.00 11/17/2011



4- 1 install site fencing (bid item#8 optional) at Dix Sta 10

12,605.00AMT 1.00 12,605.00 02/15/2012



PER PROPOSAL DATED 1/20/12

Purchase OrderCHANGE ORDER Dispatch via E-MailPurchase Order Date Revision PageCWSCO 0000064293 08/12/2011 4 - 06/05/2012 1Payment Terms Freight Terms Ship ViaNET 15 DESTINATION BEST WAYBuyer Phone CurrencyPeinado, Salvador (PURCH408/367-8252 USD

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO.1720 NORTH FIRST ST.SAN JOSE CA 95112-4598Phone: 408-367-8200Fax: 408-392-9797

Vendor: 0000001774CUSAC CONSTRUCTION, INC.12832 VALLEY VIEW ST., SUITE AGARDEN GROVE CA 92845Fax: 714-894-6316

Tax Exempt? N Tax Exempt Replenishment Option: StandardLine-Sch Item/Description Vendor Item-ID Quantity UOM PO Price Extended Amt Due Date

Ship To: Dixon Field Office201 SOUTH FIRST STREETDIXON CA 95620-3523

Bill To: PO Box 49033San Jose CA 95161-9033

Change Order - 4

UnauthorizedUnauthorized

DIX 19811 10

655

5- 1 landscaping - item #7 4,570.00AMT 1.00 4,570.00 03/26/2012



6- 1 4” b/fly valve 1,890.00AMT 1.00 1,890.00 03/26/2012



7- 1 Removal of surplus stockpileddirt and concrete asinstructed

9,890.00AMT 1.00 9,890.00 06/05/2012



8- 1 Apply finish coat paint toabove ground piping asinstructed

11,640.00AMT 1.00 11,640.00 06/05/2012









Change Order - 4


DIX 19811 10

656

9- 1 Additional base rock andpaving as instructed

6,085.00AMT 1.00 6,085.00 06/05/2012



10- 1 Relocate lock on pressure tankas instructed

575.00AMT 1.00 575.00 06/05/2012

Schedule Total 575.00

575.00Item TotalCWS Item ID:

11- 1 Relocate drive gate asrequested

1,000.00AMT 1.00 1,000.00 06/05/2012



12- 1 Install 1-16/1 by 2/1 saddlesand taps for blow off andwater sampling

1,064.00AMT 1.00 1,064.00 06/05/2012









Change Order - 4


DIX 19811 10

657

13- 1 Install electrical for fans inpump shelters

1,680.00AMT 1.00 1,680.00 06/05/2012



14- 1 Furnish and install additionallandscaping bark and headerboards

2,280.00AMT 1.00 2,280.00 06/05/2012



15- 1 Furnish and install 4' widepedestrian access gate

1,000.00AMT 1.00 1,000.00 06/05/2012



11/17/11 CHANGE ORDER #1, ADD LINE 2 FOR $13,245. FOR STORM DRAIN, ADD LINE 3 FOR $15,330.00 FORGATE VALVES. Additional work to remove and re-install 16” storm drain to correct grade & cost for 2additional 16” gate valves. For additional services and install on the Dix Sta 10 Storage Tankproject. PER VENDOR EMAIL DATED 11/16/11. DO NOT DUPLICATE. RAE

2/15/12 CHANGE ORDER #2, ADD LINE 4 FOR install site fencing (bid item #8 optional) at Dix Sta 10.PER VENDOR PROPOSAL DATED 1/20/12. DO NOT DUPLICATE. RAE







Change Order - 4


DIX 19811 10

658

3/26/12 CHANGE ORDER #3, ADD LINE 5 FOR $4,570.00, ADD LINE 6 FOR $1,890.00 Additional work tocomplete landscaping & install a 4” b/fly valve on tank flush cleanout. Note. bid item #7 forlandscaping was optional on Cusac’s bid. DO NOT DUPLICATE. RAE

6/5/12 CHANGE ORDER #4, ADD LINE 7-15, SEE LINES FOR DETAILS. Per attachments. Per change orderrequest, dated 6/4/12 by Cusac Construction for additional services on the Dix Sta 10 Storage Tankproject. DO NOT DUPLICATE. RAE

Total PO Amount 645,824.00







Change Order - 4


DIX 19811 10

659

Documents

CHAPTER 8 DIXON PLANT ATTACHMENTS · DIXON, CA 95620 It is recommended and assumed that: 1. Overall plant efficiency can be improved to: 2. Water requirements will be the same as