Shackelford HDD Crossing

Preliminary Design Report
Shackelford Crossing
City of Modesto

September 1, 2009

Prepared under the responsible charge of

Randall ODell, P.E.
C29547

1165 Scenic Drive, Suite A
Modesto, CA 95350

ODell Engineering Preliminary Design Report

September 2009 i City of Modesto
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1
1.2 Summary of Work and Approach 1
1.3 Authorization 4

2.0 Condition Assessment 4

2.1 Field Investigation 4
2.2 Condition Assessment 8
2.3 Topographic Survey 8
2.4 Geotechnical Investigation 9
2.5 FEMA Flood Zone 9

3.0 Construction Alternatives 9

3.1 No project 9
3.2 Open Cut 9
3.3 Trenchless Construction Alternatives 10
3.3.1 Microtunneling 10
3.3.2 Horizontal Directional Drilling 11

4.0 Design Concepts/Design Criteria 14

4.1 Existing Utilities and River 14
4.2 Design Flows 14
4.3 Pipe Materials and Properties 14
4.3.1 Open Cut 15
4.3.3 HDD 15
4.4 Construction Flow Bypass 16
4.5 Maintenance 17
4.6 Right of Way 17

5.0 Construction Considerations 18

5.1 Open Cut Design Concept 18
5.1.1 Open Cut Risks and Mitigation 18
5.1.2 Geotechnical Considerations
5.2 Microtunneling Design Concept 19
5.2.1 Microtunneling Risks and Mitigation 19
5.2.2 Geotechnical Considerations 20
5.3 HDD Design Concept 20
5.3.1 HDD Risks and Mitigation 25
5.3.1.1 Hydrofracture and Inadvertent Fluid Returns 25
5.3.1.2 Conductor Casing 25
5.3.2 Geotechnical Considerations 26
5.4 Schedule Implications 26
5.4.1 Open Cut 27
5.4.2 Microtunneling and HDD 27
5.5 Construction Easements 27
5.5.1 Open Cut 27
5.5.3 HDD 28

September 2009 ii City of Modesto
5.6 Permanent Easements 32
5.6.1 Open Cut 32
5.6.3 HDD 32
5.7 Golf Course Operations 36
5.8 Recommended Alignment 36
5.8.1 Open Cut 36
5.8.3 HDD 37
5.9 Operations 37
5.9.1 Flow Control 37

6.0 Geotechnical Investigation 38

6.1 Report 38
6.2 Boring Logs 38

7.0 Permitting and CEQA Considerations 38

7.1 Project CEQA Needs 38
7.2 Resource Agencies 38
7.3 NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity 39
7.4 City Encroachment Permit 39

8.0 Construction Cost Estimate 39

9.0 Project Schedule 39

10.0 Comparison of Alternatives 39

10.1 Open Cut 39
10.2 Microtunneling 39
10.3 HDD 39
10.4 Evaluation Criteria 41
11.0 Recommended Project 43

11.1 Summary of Design Conditions and Solutions 43
11.2 Total Project Cost Summary 43
11.3 Recommended Project 44

Appendix A - Preliminary Design Drawings

Appendix B - Preliminary Geotechnical Report

Appendix C - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map 2
Figure 1-2 Existing Sewer Facilities 3
Figure 2-1 (Photo) Tuolumne River at approximate location of crossing (facing north) 5
Figure 2-2 (Photo) Tuolumne River at approximate location of crossing (facing east) 5

September 2009 iii City of Modesto
Figure 2-3 (Photo) Abandoned Modesto Tallow Company Plant (from rough off of
Dryden Municipal Golf Course second fairway) 6
Figure 2-4 (Photo) Tuolumne River and Dryden Municipal Golf Course (from
abandoned Modesto Tallow Company plant) 6
Figure 2-5 (Photo) Abandoned Modesto Tallow Company plant (facing northeast) 7
Figure 2-6 (Photo) Abandoned Modesto Tallow Company plant (facing east towards
Zeff Road) 7
Figure 2-7 (Photo) Existing sanitary sewer manholes (from abandoned Modesto
Tallow Company plant) 8
Figure 3-1 Schematic of a Microtunneling Operation 10
Figure 3-2 Conceptual Microtunneled Crossing Alternative 11
Figure 3-3a HDD Pilot Bore Schematic 12
Figure 3-3b HDD Reaming and Pullback Schematic 12
Figure 3-4 Conceptual HDD Crossing Alternative 13
Figure 5-1 Open Cut Proposed Sewer Facilities 22
Figure 5-2 Microtunneling Proposed Sewer Facilities 23
Figure 5-3 HDD Proposed Sewer Facilities 24
Figure 5-4 Open Cut Temporary Construction Easements 29
Figure 5-5 Microtunneling Temporary Construction Easements 30
Figure 5-6 HDD Temporary Construction Easements 31
Figure 5-7 Open Cut Permanent Easement or Lease 33
Figure 5-8 Microtunneling Permanent Easement or Lease 34
Figure 5-9 HDD Permanent Easement or Lease 35
Figure 10-1 Rating Matrix 42

List of Tables

Table 9-1 Project Schedule 39

List of Acronyms

CCFRPMP Centrifugally Cast Fiberglass Reinforced Polymer Mortar Pipe
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CSM Cutter Soil Mixed
DR Dimension ratio
EDM Electronic Distance Measurement
FPS Feet per second
FPVC Fusible Polyvinyl Chloride
HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
LF Lineal Feet
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MH Manhole
MTBM Microtunnel Boring Machine
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OD Outside Diameter
PCP Polymer Concrete Pipe
PDR Preliminary Design Report
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

September 2009 iv City of Modesto
USA Underground Service Alert
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
WCSMP Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
September 2009 1 City of Modesto
1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

The existing City of Modesto sanitary sewer system crosses under the Tuolumne River at
a location approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection of Crows Landing Road and
Zeff Road. The existing crossing commences on a private property which was formerly
used as a rendering plant by the Modesto Tallow Company on the east side of the river.
Flows are conveyed in a pipeline to the west side where it connects to the 66-inch Dryden
sanitary sewer trunk located in fairway number two of the Dryden Municipal Golf
Course, a City owned and operated facility. See the Vicinity Map (Figure 1-1) for an
overview of the project area. The existing crossing consists of a 400 lineal foot (l.f.) 18-
inch inverted siphon which was constructed in the 1970s and is reportedly at the end of
its expected useful service life. A previous pipeline crossing was abandoned in place at
the time the existing siphon was constructed. Figure 1-2 (Existing Sewer Facilities)
provides an illustration of the existing crossings.

The City of Modesto is planning to replace the existing 18-inch siphon with a new
pipeline crossing. A diversion box or manhole would be constructed to control flows as
necessary for maintenance or in the event of failure of the main siphon. The project was
identified in the 2007 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (WCSMP) as the
Shackelford Crossing.

1.2 Summary of Work and Approach

This Preliminary Design Report (PDR), prepared by ODell Engineering and Bennett
Trenchless Engineers, summarizes the results of field investigations, identifies and
assesses design alternatives, and recommends a preferred alternative. The following is a
summary of the Scope of Work as presented in Exhibit A of the Agreement for
Preliminary Design Report for Shackelford Crossing between the City of Modesto and
ODell Engineering.

Topographic Survey
A field survey to obtain existing topographic data was performed on February 19
th
,
2009. The findings of the topographic survey are discussed further in Section 2.3.
Geotechnical Report
Preliminary borings were performed on March 4
th
and 5
th
, 2009 and a preliminary
geotechnical report was prepared. These items are discussed in Section 6 of this
PDR and the full preliminary geotechnical report is included in Appendix B.
Concept Research
To facilitate the assessment of the potential design concepts and construction
alternatives for the Shackelford Crossing, the topographic survey, preliminary
geotechnical report, field site investigation, existing City documents and plans, and
City master plans were reviewed and the findings were presented to City staff at a
meeting on April 7, 2009. Upon consideration of this data the projects design
constraints were defined. Section 3.0 of this PDR identifies and describes the
construction alternatives including the no project alternative. Section 4.0
addresses design concepts and criteria, section 5.0 provides a discussion of
construction considerations, and section 10.0 contains a comparison of alternatives.
Resource Permitting and CEQA Documentation
Permitting considerations and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
documentation are addressed in Section 7. A list of resource agencies which may
need to be consulted is included. This section also provides commentary on CEQA
documentation which will be prepared by the City.
Right of Way and Easement Acquisitions
A list of potentially necessary right of way acquisitions and easements is included in
Section 4.6. Additionally, construction easements and permanent easements are
discussed in Sections 5.5 and 5.6, respectively.
Cost Estimate
An opinion of probable construction cost was prepared and is presented in Appendix
C.
Schedule
A preliminary project schedule was prepared and is included in Section 9.
Preliminary Design Report
This entire document constitutes the Preliminary Design Report.

1.3 Authorization

The Agreement for Preliminary Design Report for Shackelford Crossing between the
City of Modesto and ODell Engineering was authorized by the City Council on February
10, 2009.

2.0 Condition Assessment

2.1 Field Investigation

Site visits were undertaken in February 2009. Figures 2-1 through 2-7 are site
photographs in the vicinity of the crossing. The existing 400 l.f. crossing extends from
the east side to the west side. At the time of the survey, approximately 115 l.f. (29%) of
the crossing length was under the water surface. Approximately 26 l.f. (6%) was under
concrete on the east side, and approximately 259 l.f. (65%) was under the riverside
habitat corridor. See photo, Figure 2-4. Approximately 94% of the overall length of the
existing crossing is through environmentally sensitive areas (river or habitat).

During the field investigation, tentative limits were determined for surveying and
locations were selected for the geotechnical investigation borings.

The work site has physical access on the east side through private property over a paved
driveway to Zeff Road; on the west side, access is available through City property
directly through the golf course, or preferably via a dirt road east of the driving range to
Neece Drive. These approaches can provide all-weather access for construction
equipment on both sides of the river.


Figure 2-1 - Tuolumne River at approximate location of crossing (facing north)

Figure 2-2 - Tuolumne River at approximate location of crossing (facing east)


Figure 2-3 Abandoned Modesto Tallow Company Plant (from rough off of Dryden Municipal Golf
Course second fairway)

Figure 2-4 - Tuolumne River and Dryden Municipal Golf Course (from abandoned Modesto Tallow
Company plant)

Figure 2-5 Abandoned Modesto Tallow Company plant (facing northeast)

Figure 2-6 Abandoned Modesto Tallow Company plant (facing east towards Zeff Road)


Figure 2-7 Existing sanitary sewer manholes (from abandoned Modesto Tallow Company plant)

2.2 Existing Condition

The existing Shackelford Crossing consists of an 18-inch concrete pipe siphon which was
constructed in the 1970s. City staff has indicated that this crossing is approaching the
end of its useful service life.
The existing acting siphon has not been inspected or assessed. Mechanical or visual
access to the pipeline is not feasible since the pipeline is in continuous service. It is
possible that this existing siphon could be retained as a redundant pipeline. After
construction of a new siphon, the existing siphon could be assessed for its potential to
continue in service as a redundant pipeline.
The crossing which was used prior to the currently active crossing has been abandoned in
place, and is not available to provide redundant service in the event of failure of the
active crossing.
Failure of the existing siphon could result in service interruption, risks to public health,
and adverse environmental consequences, as well as associated enforcement actions and
fines.

2.3 Topographic Survey

A topographic survey was performed on February 19
th
, 2009 and a supplemental survey
was performed on March 26
th
, 2009. This survey included existing features extending
200 feet beyond each end of the assumed limits of work. The results of the survey are
included in Appendix A. A boundary survey has not been prepared but it is
recommended that one be completed during the final design of construction documents.

2.4 Geotechnical Investigation

A preliminary geotechnical investigation was performed as part of the condition
assessment. Please refer to Section 6.0.
2.5 FEMA Flood Zone

The Tuolumne River and property west of the river (Dryden Golf Course) are within the
100-year flood plain (Zone AE, Panel 060384). The existing trunk lines on the west side
of the river are within the flood plain.

3.0 Construction Alternatives

3.1 No Project

This alternative is listed to illustrate the potential consequences should the City elect to
postpone the replacement of the Shackelford Crossing. The existing crossing is in place
and operational. No service malfunctions have been reported. However, because it may
have reached the end of its intended service life, the level of concern regarding its
potential for failure is elevated. Furthermore, there is currently no alternate or
redundant crossing in place to which sewage flows could be rerouted in the event of
failure, or for maintenance and inspection.

A collapse of the existing siphon or a crack resulting in leakage would likely result in an
unauthorized discharge of sewage to the Tuolumne River. This situation would create a
health and safety hazard to the public as well as to river biology. An unauthorized
discharge would also result in an enforcement action from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), Central Valley Region. Any enforcement action would likely
include substantial penalties.

3.2 Open-Cut

Historically, the most common alternative for this type of work has been the open-cut
method. Open-cut construction to install the proposed siphons would require the
construction of cofferdams to provide a dewatered area where trenching could occur.
River flow would be routed around a cofferdam while a portion of the work was
completed. Construction would need to be phased to allow the river to bypass the work
area.
This method of construction would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States (the Tuolumne River) which is regulated under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act and would require that a permit be obtained from the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The processing of this permit could extend the
project schedule substantially while simultaneously increasing project costs in the form
of consulting fees and mitigation requirements. Furthermore, an alternatives analysis
would likely be required by permitting authorities whereby less environmentally invasive
trenchless construction techniques (discussed elsewhere in this report) are considered.
The City prepared a draft set of construction drawings in 2000 for open-cut construction.
These preliminary plans have been used in this PDR to develop approximate cost
estimates and comparison analysis for the open-cut alternative.
3.3 Trenchless Construction Alternatives

Two trenchless construction methods were evaluated for the crossing: horizontal
directional drilling (HDD) and microtunneling. Descriptions of each method are
provided in the following sections.
3.3.1 Microtunneling

Microtunneling is a specialized pipejacking method that can be used to construct a
pipeline by sequentially jacking pipes horizontally from a jacking shaft to a reception
shaft. Soil is excavated using a microtunnel boring machine (MTBM). The MTBM is a
remote-controlled, guided, slurry shield that can provide continuous support to the
excavation face using both mechanical and hydraulic support. The MTBM is operated
from a control container located on the ground surface near the jacking shaft. The
guidance system consists of a laser or theodolite and electronic distance measurement
(EDM) device mounted in the jacking shaft communicating a reference line to a target
mounted inside the MTBMs articulated steering head. The MTBM is advanced by
hydraulic jacks in the jacking shaft. As tunneling proceeds, pipes are placed behind the
MTBM and jacked into place until the MTBM reaches the reception shaft. A schematic
of the microtunneling process is shown in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1
Schematic of a Microtunneling Operation.

Excavated soil is forced into a chamber behind the MTBM face where it is mixed with
water to form thickened slurry. Pumps cycle the slurry to the surface where a soil
separation plant removes the solids. The recycled slurry is then returned to the face. The
slurry system operates as a closed system of pumps and hoses. Because of the remote
operation and the closed spoil removal system, routine personnel entry into the pipeline is
not required for microtunneling. The slurry used to convey spoil typically consists
simply of water; however, it may contain additives such as bentonite for suspension and
transport of solids, and to provide gel strength to prevent the slurry from permeating
granular soils at the heading. The slurry system is pressurized and provides stability to
the excavation face by counterbalancing earth and hydrostatic pressures. The ability to
provide a stabilizing slurry pressure at the face makes microtunneling a preferred method
for unstable soils, when surface settlements must be minimized, when ground conditions
are loose or soft, or when substantial groundwater is expected.

Microtunneling can be used to install pipes ranging from 18 inches to 102 inches or
greater in diameter. For this project, the two smaller siphons could be installed most
Control container
Separation plant
J acking pipe
Reception shaft
Shaft seal
Groundwater level
J acking shaft
Launch seal
Slurry feed pipe
Spoils pipe
Plan view of
jacking shaft
Spoil pump
J acking pipe Laser
MTBM
Laser
J acking frame
Slurry
pump
Laser target
efficiently inside a single larger microtunneled casing pipe in a separate operation. The
most likely casing pipe material would be steel, but other choices for jacking pipe include
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), polymer concrete pipe (PCP), and centrifugally cast
fiberglass reinforced polymer mortar pipe (CCFRPMP). The annular space between the
casing pipe and the installed product pipes would be grouted to eliminate the need to
protect the casing from future corrosion and to restrain the siphon pipes.

Microtunneling drives must be straight-line segments with typical slope limits of less
than twelve percent. Therefore vertical shafts are typically necessary on each side of the
feature to be crossed. Typical shaft dimensions are approximately 12 to 20 feet wide by
20 to 30 feet long for jacking shafts and 10 to 16 feet wide by 12 to 20 feet long for
reception shafts. The depths are based partially on the required clearance below the
feature. For the anticipated ground conditions on this project the shafts could be
constructed using interlocking steel sheetpiles, auger drilled casings, secant piles, or
cutter soil mixed (CSM) panels.

The vertical shafts necessary for a microtunneled crossing would allow for a shorter
overall siphon length for this project, as the shafts could be constructed immediately
adjacent to the connection points. However, this option requires that the siphon be
constructed with vertical riser legs on both ends. A conceptual microtunneled crossing
for this project is illustrated in Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2
Conceptual Microtunneled Crossing Alternative

3.3.2 Horizontal Directional Drilling

HDD is a trenchless construction method whereby a pipeline is installed along an arcing
drill path, beginning and ending at the ground surface, and passing under the conflicting
feature in between. As illustrated in Figure 3-3a, a drill rig is set up on one side of the
crossing and begins by drilling a pilot bore to the exit point. The alignment typically
begins with a 5 to 20 degree tangent section that transitions to a vertical curve with a
radius between 600 and 6,000 feet, depending on drill pipe size, product pipe diameter,
product pipe material, and required alignment. After passing beneath the obstacle, the
alignment will rise to the surface at a typical angle of 5 to 18 degrees.

Figure 3-3a
HDD Pilot Bore Schematic

The pilot bore is then reamed in one or more passes to obtain the required diameter
needed for pullback of the prefabricated pipe string. To provide adequate space in the
bore for the pullback of the product pipe string, the bore is reamed to a diameter larger
than the product pipe diameter. For product pipe diameters less than 8 inches, the bore is
typically reamed 4 inches larger than the product outer diameter. For product pipes
between 8 and 24 inches, the bore is typically reamed to 1.5 times the product pipe outer
diameter. For product pipes larger than 24 inches, the bore is typically reamed 12 inches
larger than the product pipe outer diameter. Once reaming is complete, the drill pipe is
connected to the product pipe with a swivel and pulling head at the exit side of the
alignment, and pulled into place in one continuous operation, as illustrated in Figure 3-
3b.

Figure 3-3b
HDD Reaming and Pullback Schematic
During the pilot bore steering is accomplished using a slanted-face bit and rotating drill
pipe. To advance the bore in a straight line, the bit is rotated and advanced
simultaneously. To turn, the operator aligns the slanted face of the bit and advances the
drill stem without rotating. As the bit is advanced, soil resistance develops against the
slanted face and deflects the bit in the intended direction.

Guidance of the system for a typical river crossing is accomplished by the use of a
downhole wireline steering tool located in a non-magnetic drill pipe, immediately behind
the bit. This tool measures the pitch, clock face position, and magnetic azimuth of the bit
and sends the data back to the surface to the drill rig operator. The position of the bit is
calculated after each successive drill pipe has been pushed using the pipe length, average
pitch, and average azimuth angle reported for that reach. Accuracy of the downhole
wireline system can be improved with the use of an energized surface coil such as the
TruTracker or ParaTrack system. These systems create a magnetic field at the ground
surface that can be detected and interpreted by the downhole tool to triangulate the
position of the drill head. An eight to ten gauge copper wire coil must be laid on the
surface around the bore path with a width between the wire grid equal to at least twice the
depth of the bore. The corners and any bends of the coil are then surveyed prior to
drilling so that the induced magnetic field can be predicted. Line and grade tolerances for
a typical HDD installation using a downhole steering tool and surface coil are on the
order of plus or minus 2 to 10 feet over the length of the bore.

Drilling fluids consisting of a mixture of water, bentonite and/or polymers are
continuously pumped to the drilling tool during all phases of the installation process.
These fluids are used to stabilize the bore, assist the drilling/reaming processes, cool the
cutting tools, and lubricate the pipe string. The generated soil cuttings are mixed with the
injected drilling fluids to create a slurry that is removed from the bore using a drilling
fluid induced pressure gradient. The bore is filled with the drilling fluid/soil cuttings at all
times.

HDD can be used in most soil conditions and rock. Additionally, it can be used to install
pipelines below the water table and is therefore well suited for river crossings. Cobbles,
boulders, and clean gravel soils can cause problems with HDD installations due to
potential loss of drilling fluid and collapse of the borehole. However, special design
features can be used to reduce risks and accomplish bores through these soils if the length
of bore through the problem soils can be limited.

HDD is capable of installing cables and pipes ranging from 2 inches to 54 inches in
diameter. HDD is often used for river crossings and has been used to install pipelines as
long as 7,000 feet. The equipment can be categorized into three size categories: small,
medium, and large rigs. The cost, staging area required, and construction duration
increases as rig size increases. Small HDD rigs are generally used for product pipes up to
approximately 8 inches in diameter, or bundles of smaller 2 to 4-inch pipes. Medium size
rigs can install single pipes or bundles of pipe up to approximately 18 inches in diameter
and large rigs are used for larger pipes up to approximately 54 inches, or for very long
bores that have high pullback forces. The average required staging area for each of the
size classes is approximately 1,500, 15,000, and 35,000 square feet, respectively. The
Shackelford project will likely require a drill rig in the upper medium size range or lower
large size range. During final design, detailed calculations will be performed for the
design bore that will allow for a more precise determination of necessary rig size.

An additional consideration for HDD projects is the risk of inadvertent fluid returns
(often referred to as hydrofractures or frac-outs). Inadvertent fluid returns can occur
when excess drilling fluid pressures cause fluids to escape the bore and surface through
granular soils, cracks in cohesive soils, or along other natural or man-made conduits.
While the drilling fluid is generally a non-toxic mixture of water and bentonite clay,
drilling fluid spills are typically viewed as an environmental risk, especially for river
crossings. Therefore, it is important to design HDD projects to reduce the risks of
inadvertent returns. These risks and measures to minimize them are discussed further in
Section 5.3.1.

Figure 3-4
Conceptual HDD Crossing Alternative
4.0 Design Concepts/Design Criteria

4.1 Existing Utilities and River

The following utility companies were contacted in an effort to determine the location of
utilities in and around the project area:

City of Modesto
PG&E
AT&T
Modesto Irrigation District
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners
Comcast
Level 3 Communications
Time Warner Telecommunications
Turlock Irrigation District

Responses to these inquiries were incorporated into the results of the topographic survey
(see Appendix A). The survey also located surface features and Underground Service
Alert (USA) markings to identify the location of underground utilities. There are several
existing underground and overhead utilities within the project area, particularly on the
east side of the river at the former tallow plant site. Underground utilities in this area
include numerous gas, sewer, and, storm drain lines as well as several utility poles
supporting various overhead lines. There are two sanitary sewer trunk lines on the west
side of the river traversing the golf course property as well as a storm drain line which
discharges to the river.

The Tuolumne River is approximately 225 feet wide at the location of the crossing (as
measured between the top of bank on each side). The top of bank is approximately 36
feet above the river bottom on the east side and 14 feet above the river bottom on the
west side. As measured on February 19, 2009, the river was approximately 2.5 3.5 feet
deep. In addition to the currently active 18-inch sewer siphon crossing the river, the
previously used siphon consisting of 6-inch, 10-inch, and 18-inch pipes was abandoned in
place beneath the river bed.

4.2 Design Flows

The Shackelford Crossing will carry sewage flows from Areas 8 and 9 of the 2007
WCSMP across the Tuolumne River to the 66-inch Dryden trunk line. Per Carollo
Engineers, the author of the WCSMP, the ultimate peak flow rate for the crossing is 5.2
million gallons per day (MGD). This flow rate will be used as the design flow for this
project.

4.3 Pipe Materials and Properties

This project has unusually high risk implications in the event of pipeline or construction
failure. Each of the alternatives discussed below have preferred pipeline materials not
necessarily included in City Standards.


4.3.1 Open Cut

Ductile iron pipe is recommended for open cut construction. The DIP should be lined
with an inert material to resist corrosion. A high strength specification, such as C151 is
appropriate to this river crossing location.


A jacking pipe casing, most likely steel, is required. The carrier pipe to be installed
within the casing could be almost any material available in the necessary size including:
ductile iron (DIP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), (CCFRPMP), or polymer concrete
(PCP). Lining of the carrier pipeline may be necessary for corrosion resistance in some
of the suggested pipe materials. It is recommended that the annular space between the
casing pipe and the carrier pipes is grouted to isolate and protect the siphons and to
eliminate the need for corrosion protection for the casing. A preliminary recommended
size for the casing pipe is 60 diameter to provide adequate room for installing the twin
siphons and annular space grout. Additional commentary on pipe materials for
microtunneled construction is contained in section 3.3.1.

4.3.3 HDD

The primary pipe materials used for HDD installations are high-density polyethylene
(HDPE), fusible polyvinyl chloride (FPVC), and steel. Additionally, ductile iron pipe
with special flexible joints capable of supporting significant tensile load are available for
use on HDD projects. This pipe material has been successfully used on HDD projects,
but is not a common option. HDPE and FPVC are generally preferred for sanitary sewer
applications due to higher flexibility, corresponding tight allowable bend radii, and
corrosion resistance. Steel is generally used for high pressure gas pipelines and for long
or deep bores where tensile pullback capacity or buckling collapse of the product pipe is
a concern, or when extra protection of a carrier pipe is necessary. The main
disadvantages of steel are its susceptibility to corrosion and the large bend radii required
to avoid excessive bending stresses. Ductile iron pipe typically has lower pull strength
than steel pipe, and may suffer corrosion if not protected be external means, but has a
much tighter allowable bend radius than steel pipe.

Steel pipe is strong and resistant to rough handling. However, it has some disadvantages
for use on a sanitary sewer HDD project. First, unlined steel is subject to corrosion. To
improve corrosion resistance steel pipe can be lined and coated with mortar, coal tar, or
epoxy. For small-diameter HDD installations, however, linings cannot be patched after
sections are welded together. Coatings may also become damaged during pullback
through granular soils. Therefore, steel is often not practical for use as a sanitary sewer
carrier pipe. Unlined steel could be used as a casing pipe with corrosion-resistant carrier
pipes installed inside, however this would require a much larger bore and a more costly
two-pass installation. Additionally, HDPE and FPVC can be installed directly to provide
a corrosion-resistant pipe without the need for a casing.

A second disadvantage of steel pipe relates to the allowable bend radius of the bore. The
drill path for the HDD bore would follow a large radius arc in passing beneath the river.
Therefore, the entrance and exit points must be set back from the banks to allow the pipe
to reach the proper depth before passing beneath the river. The radius of this arc controls
how far back the entry and exit points must be located, and the radius is largely
determined by the type and diameter of the pipe being installed. Steel pipe cannot be
bent through short radius curves without risk of yield in bending. The rule of thumb for
steel pipe is that the minimum allowable bend radius in feet is equal to 100 times the pipe
diameter in inches. Therefore for an 18-inch pipe, the required minimum bend radius
would be 1,800 feet. ASCE Manual of Practice No. 108 provides specific guidance on
evaluation of steel pipe bending stresses for HDD Installation. If HDPE, FPVC, or
ductile iron pipe were used, the minimum pipe material bend radius would not be an issue
because of the much lower stiffness of the plastic pipe materials and the flexible joint
ring of ductile iron. In practice the minimum bend radius for a plastic pipe or ductile iron
installation is dictated by the steel HDD drill pipe, which is approximately 750 feet for
the rig size necessary for this project. The space available, for this project, is not
practical for the required setback distance associated with a 1,800-foot bend radius.
Additionally, the use of steel pipe would increase the overall crossing length
significantly, adding to maintenance challenges and overall project cost.

Ductile iron pipe suitable for use on an HDD project is produced by one manufacturer in
the United States. American Ductile Iron Pipes Flex-Ring pipe is available in diameters
from 14 to 48 inches with allowable pull loads and minimum bend radii that would likely
be compatible with the recommended bore design for this project. The Flex-Ring joint is
capable of supporting significant tensile load and allowing the deflections necessary for
use in a curved bore. Therefore, DIP avoids the bore geometry difficulties that steel pipe
is susceptible to. However, depending on the owners experience and preferences and the
corrosivity of the native soils, DIP may require corrosion protection measures to ensure
reasonable design life. Additionally, the sole-source nature of this pipe material could
lead to increased cost unless DIP is bid alongside HDPE and/or FPVC pipe as an option.

HDPE and FPVC are flexible, corrosion-resistant pipe materials that are well-suited to
both HDD construction and sanitary sewer conveyance. Butt-fusion welded HDPE has a
long history of successful use on HDD projects. More recently, PVC resins have been
developed that allow for butt-fusion welding, increasing PVCs usefulness for HDD
applications. FPVC is a stiffer material than HDPE, allowing for slightly thinner wall
sections for the same application, but is also more susceptible to potential brittle failure.
While FPVC is fairly new to the HDD market, numerous projects throughout the United
States have been completed with this material.

To ensure that the HDPE or FPVC pipe has adequate pipe strength, pullback capacity,
and long-term buckling resistance, calculations must be performed to determine the
necessary dimension ratio (DR) for the pipes. Both pipes come in varying DRs
depending on the interior and exterior pressure requirements. As part of the final design,
a full set of installation and long-term service load calculations must be performed to
determine the required DR necessary to prevent buckling or other failure during
installation or later during service. Based on past experience with HDD bores of similar
diameter and geometry, the required pipe stiffness will likely be DR 11 for HDPE or
DR21 for FPVC. Additionally, it is recommended that the pipe be mandrel tested and
hydrostatically tested after installation to ensure that the pipe was not damaged during
pullback. To provide an extra layer of security, the prefabricated pipe string can be tested
on the ground surface prior to pullback.

4.4 Construction Flow Bypass

West Side:
During construction, sewage flows will be rerouted to allow for the connection to existing
facilities. To construct a new manhole on the existing Dryden trunk line, sewage flows
may be temporarily rerouted to the 60-inch cannery segregation line which is located
directly east of the Dryden trunk. If the cannery segregation line is not available, a
bypass system with pumping can be used.
East Side:
Connection to an existing manhole on the former tallow plant site will require flows to be
blocked in the manholes directly upstream and pumped around to the most downstream
manhole east of the river.

4.5 Maintenance

The installation of two siphons, each capable of handling the design flow independently,
will allow for either line to be closed for maintenance without a disruption in service.
There are no unusual maintenance issues associated with either HDPE or FPVC pipe
materials. The siphons should be designed to achieve a minimum velocity of three feet
per second (fps) in order to avoid sedimentation in the line which would mandate more
frequent maintenance.
The pipeline crossings will be constantly submerged with sewage flows. The routine
static water elevation for the crossing segments will never be lower than the outlet
elevation. This results in the pipeline being constantly submerged, which presents a
challenge for routine cleaning, access, and visual inspection.

Routine cleaning, if required, can be accomplished by pigging the line. A pipeline pig
is a device that fits within the pipeline, and is sent through the pipeline by water pressure.
The pig has a slightly smaller diameter than the inside diameter of the pipeline, and
effectively pushes and scrapes debris downstream to the receiving manhole. The pipeline
would be flushed with clean water before and after the pigging operation.

Video cameras can function while submerged in clean water. If desired, the pipeline can
be periodically cleaned and televised for a permanent inspection record.

Complete evacuation of fluid from the pipeline would require a pump to be inserted in
the pipeline, and pushed or pulled to the low point of the profile. It is not expected that
pumping of the pipeline would be a routine necessity. It is possible that pumping of the
pipeline may never be required.

4.6 Right of Way

The City currently has easements over the existing pipeline facilities east of the river. A
new permanent easement will be required over all new facilities constructed on private
property (Tallow side).

A permanent access easement on the east side should also be required. It appears that
access historically has been via the paved driveway from Zeff Road. The permanent
access easement could be flexible to allow the private property latitude for re-
development.

The property on the west side of the Tuolumne River is owned by the City of Modesto,
and is currently occupied by the Dryden Golf Course. Since the property is City owned,
permanent easements and temporary construction easements are not necessary. Neither is
an access easement necessary, since physical access is available through City owned
property from the project area to Neece Drive, the nearest public street.

The State Lands Commission has purview for the Tuolumne River. The Commission
will likely require an amended lease with conditions for the final alignment.

Permanent easements for open cut, Microtunneling, and HDD are shown on Fig. 5-7 to 5-
9. Section 5.6 contains discussion of permanent easements.

Temporary construction easements are shown on Fig. 5-4 to 5-6. Section 5.5 contains
discussion of temporary construction easements

5.0 Construction Considerations

5.1 Open Cut Design Concept

Please refer to Fig. 5-1 for an overview of the proposed open cut alignment. Open cut
would involve installation of two 18 ductile iron pipes, with new connections to existing
pipelines at each end.

Since the pipeline functions as a siphon under pressure, the pipelines can be constructed
to follow the existing vertical profile at minimum depths. An exception is the literal river
water crossing where agency requirements and potential river scour actions dictate
greater depths to protect the pipeline.

Open cut construction allows the new connection points on each end of construction to be
approximately same as existing.

Staging areas would be required on both sides of the river crossing. Access issues from
public streets are similar to other alternatives.

5.1.1 Open Cut Risks and Mitigation

Open cut trenching through an active river and streamside habitat contains risks. The
most serious is weather related. If the construction operation is overwhelmed by
unexpected high river flows, the consequences could include unplanned environmental
effects or damage, permit penalties, and construction delays.

The resource agency permit conditions are not yet known, but it is likely that the permits
will contain rigorous schedules and mitigation factors and costs. A risk associated with
open cut is that unexpected construction difficulties could result in a wider construction
footprint than anticipated by the permits. Reacting to unforeseen occurrence is a risk
associated with this alternative.

Mitigation for open cut construction should include a sufficiently broad and conservative
construction area.


The open cut construction method is compatible with nearly any type of soil and rock
condition. Since the open cut method is relatively shallow (8 to 20 feet), only the near-
surface soils are a factor in the construction.

On the west side, the soils types are silty sands to a depth of 40 feet. On the east side, the
soil types are silty sands and lean clay to a depth of 40 feet. Soil types below the river
segment are expected to be similar. In these soil types, the open cut method is feasible.
For depths greater than 5 feet, a shoring system will be required.

As described in Section 3.2, the open cut method will require a phased cofferdam system.
The soil types present are compatible with the cofferdam system. The cofferdam system
details would be determined during final design phase.

The existing soils types would be compatible as backfill on the west side (golf course)
and through the river segment. At the east side, during final design, a determination of
appropriate backfill will be made, since this area is private property, and may be subject
to regular vehicular traffic.

5.2 Microtunneling Design Concept

Please refer to Fig. 5-2 for an overview of the proposed Microtunneling alignment. A
detailed discussion of the Microtunneling concept is described in Section 3.3.1.

Staging areas would be required on both sides of the river crossing. This alternative
would include vertical riser shafts at each end of the tunnel. These risers would be
connected to the existing facilities at each end. Access issues from public streets are
similar to other alternatives.

5.2.1 Microtunneling Risks and Mitigation

A microtunneled crossing for this project would consist of the twin siphon pipes installed
within a single casing pipe beneath the Tuolumne River. Based on the current
technology available in the United States, microtunneling drives are limited to straight
segments with maximum inclination of approximately 12 percent. Because of the
limitations on slope and the requirement for straight drives, microtunneled crossings
require vertical shafts for launching and receiving of the tunnel. The advantage of
vertical shafts is the potential ability to begin and end a crossing close to the boundaries
of the feature to be crossed, shortening the overall trenchless crossing length. The shorter
drives lengths can help offset the higher unit cost of microtunneling when compared to
HDD, but the added cost of the shafts themselves often uses up this savings.
Potential settlement resulting from the shaft construction must be considered as a risk to
nearby existing facilities, requiring some horizontal separation from the existing buried
utilities. It is important during design to evaluate possible shaft construction methods
available, and provide specifications to the contractor that list only those methods that are
appropriate for the project conditions. The plan dimensions and depth of the required
shafts combined with the saturated ground conditions preclude the use of some common
shaft support types such as speed shores, trench boxes, slide rails systems, and soldier
piles and lagging. For this project appropriate shaft construction methods would likely
include interlocking steel sheetpiles, auger drilled shafts, secant pile shafts, cutter soil
mixed shafts, and sunken concrete caissons. If appropriate shaft support and excavation
methods are used, risks associated with shaft construction can be minimized.

Microtunneling can provide positive support of the excavation face at all times and also
uses a relatively small annular overcut, reducing the overall settlement potential.
However, given the relatively large diameter of the proposed casing pipe (approximately
60 inches) it is still prudent to provide approximately 10 feet of vertical cover beneath the
existing sanitary sewers on the west side of the crossing to minimize the risk of damage.
During final design a detailed settlement analysis will be completed to fully evaluate the
risk of damage and optimize the clearance beneath the existing sewers.

Portal stabilization is another important consideration for microtunneled crossings. For
many shaft types the shaft wall must be breached during launch and retrieval of the
MTBM. Supplemental stabilization of the ground outside the shaft is necessary to
prevent inflows of soil or groundwater into the shaft during the penetration that could
lead to surface settlement or shaft flooding. Depending on the shaft type, portal
stabilization can be provided by many different methods including grouting or other
ground improvement, double shoring walls, or concrete launch blocks. Some shaft types
that use concrete or soilcrete walls like secant piles and concrete caissons do not need
additional portal stabilization methods as the MTBM can excavate through the wall
directly. Portal stabilization requirements must be included in the specifications.
The vertical siphon risers that would be required with a typical microtunneled crossing
can complicate the flow characteristics of the siphons and present maintenance
challenges at the downstream vertical riser leg. It is possible to construct inclined risers
on the downstream end of the siphons to reduce maintenance issues; however this would
add additional cost, construction risk, and disruption to the golf course facilities.

Clearance beneath the river bottom is affected by a few factors including hydrofracture
risk, scour protection, and regulatory requirements. The hydrofracture risk for a
microtunnel bore is typically much lower than for HDD construction. Microtunneling
operations use lower volumes of drilling fluid at much lower pressures, and primarily
contained within the MTBMs slurry chamber. Often as little as 10 feet of cover can be
adequate. A detailed hydrofracture analysis will be performed during the final design
phase to determine the required depth to minimize hydrofracture risk for this crossing.
Scour protection requirements vary based on many flow characteristics of the river and
the particular flood level being designed for. We are not aware of any scour analysis
completed for the Tuolumne River near the Shackelford crossing. This issue will need to
be coordinated further with the City during final design. Finally, the various regulatory
agencies may have minimum required clearances that must be met. However, we have
had success on previous projects in justifying reasonable clearance limits based on
hydrofracture and scour calculations. To provide a conservative depth for planning
purposes, we have proposed a 20-foot vertical clearance in the conceptual design.


The microtunneling method was developed to provide a pipejacking system capable of
operating in soft and/or loose saturated ground conditions. Since its original
development many improvements have also been made to allow for construction in
harder ground, and even in full-face rock. Ground conditions that are problematic for
microtunneling include large quantities of cobbles and boulders in a soft ground matrix,
soils very high in gravel content, and very soft/loose ground with blow counts below 2
blows per foot. Additionally, soils that may contain fill debris such as reinforced
concrete, steel, or large chunks of wood can pose an obstruction to an MTBM. The
ground conditions encountered in the geotechnical investigation do not include the
problematic soils described above and are generally well suited to microtunneling.

5.3 HDD Design Concept

Please refer to Fig. 5-3 for an overview of the proposed sewer facilities. This alternative
would entail the construction of twin siphon pipelines beneath the Tuolumne River to
carry sewage flows from an existing manhole (MH1), located on the east side of the river
in the Modesto Tallow Company property to the existing 66-inch Dryden trunk sewer
located on the west side of the river on the Dryden Golf Course property.

Specific design features related to the site topography and geometry limitations of an
HDD installation warrant discussion. The entry and exit angles must be within
reasonable limits. The minimum bend radius that can be achieved in the vertical curve
section of the bore must be compatible with the bending and combined stresses exerted
on the drill pipe and product pipe. For the size of rig necessary for this project, the
minimum bend radius that can reasonably be achieved based on the drill pipe is 750 feet.
For HDPE, FPVC, and DIP the minimum bend radius for the pipe is lower than 750 feet
and therefore does not control. Further, to minimize the risk of inadvertent fluid returns
to the river and to provide future protection from scour, the bore should be sited 30 feet
or more below the deepest portion of the river channel. These constraints, combined with
the steep eastern river bank and the proximity of MH1 to the slope, preclude exit of an
HDD bore immediately adjacent to the intended manhole. That is, the required clearance
beneath the river, bend radius, entry angle, and allowable drill pipe stresses cannot be
satisfied if the HDD bore exits at MH1. The recommended solution to these constraints
is a bore that is designed to surface as close to the east river bank as possible. This
solution will then require a short section of open-cut gravity sewer to carry flow from
MH1 to a junction box (MH13) located further east on the tallow plant property.

The two existing City of Modesto sanitary sewer lines on the golf course property present
a different constraint. Because the HDD method requires the drilling of a bore larger
than the product pipe diameter to be installed, there is a potential risk of settlement
damage to underground utilities or other facilities that are within close proximity above
the bore. Further, the sensitive riparian habitat on the west bank of the river precludes a
solution where the bore surfaces east of the existing sewers. These factors combine to
require a crossing design that passes beneath the two existing sewers and surfaces on the
golf course property. To mitigate the risk of settlement to the existing sewers and
minimize the distance the siphons extend into the golf course property, oversized steel
conductor casing should be installed along the intended bore path passing beneath the
existing utilities. This casing should be approximately 110 feet long to support the bore
and contain the drilling fluid in the shallow portion of the bore, thereby minimizing
settlement and hydrofracture risk. To ensure that the installation of the conductor casing
does not cause any damage to the existing sewers, a minimum clearance of five feet is
recommended between the outside diameter of the conductor casing and the invert of the
66-inch sanitary sewer. Manholes (MH10 and MH11) will be constructed west of the
existing sewers to direct flow to a short segment of gravity pipe which will connect to a
new manhole (MH9) to be constructed on the 66-inch Dryden trunk sewer.


5.3.1 HDD Risks and Mitigation

5.3.1.1 Hydrofracture and Inadvertent Fluid Returns

Hydrofracture or inadvertent drilling fluid returns to the river channel are a
serious concern for any HDD river crossing. Resource agencies are often
concerned about the environmental impacts of drilling fluid entering sensitive
habitats. For this crossing, measures are available to reduce this risk, to the
extent possible. However, it is understood that this risk cannot be entirely
eliminated. The preliminary depth of the bore was determined based on past
experience and review of the preliminary geotechnical information to minimize
risk. To further reduce risk, detailed calculations analyzing the potential for
hydrofracture should be performed during final design to determine whether the
depth should be adjusted. Additionally, we recommend that a Frac-Out and
Surface Spill Contingency Plan be prepared during final design that details
contractor contingency measures to contain, clean-up, document, and report any
incidents. This plan would be a contract document provided to the contractor
detailing contingency measures in the event of a spill or fluid return. The
contingency plan is a proactive solution which would facilitate a swift response
and containment of drilling fluid should any reach the surface. Past experience
suggests that the engineer is in the best position to coordinate with permitting
agencies, address their concerns, and ensure the contractor is informed.

To reduce the risk of hydrofracture and inadvertent fluid returns, the HDD bore
entry and exit locations should be set back sufficiently from the river channel to
prevent any fluid returns at entry and exit from reaching the river. Hay bales,
silt fencing, berms, and small entry and exit pits should be used to contain and
confine drilling fluids to a small area. The minimum clearance beneath the river
bottom for the recommended alignment will be approximately 40 feet; this depth
of bore further reduces the risks of hydrofracture and inadvertent fluid returns.
Experience suggests that there is some potential for fluid returns very near the
entry and exit of the bore, where the surficial layer of soil is loose silty sand.
Detailed calculations should be performed during final design to verify this and
determine the extent of this potential. However, this risk can be minimized on
the entry side with the installation of the recommended conductor casing.

5.3.1.2 Conductor Casing

A conductor casing can be used to alleviate the risks associated with boring
through the surficial layer of loose silty sand. On the entry side, steel conductor
casing can be installed along the proposed bore path prior to beginning the pilot
bore. This consists of driving (usually by pipe ramming) a steel casing pipe,
slightly larger than the final planned bore diameter, through the upper layer of
soil to stabilize the soils and prevent loss of circulation or inadvertent fluid
returns. This casing pipe is then augered out and the pilot bore is advanced
through the casing into the denser soils below. Additionally, the conductor
casing would help to prevent settlement of the exiting 66-inch and 60-inch sewer
lines by creating a stable bore with no potential for collapse.

On the exit side, conductor casing cannot be practically used for the pilot bore.
Because of the somewhat limited accuracy of HDD, it is not practical to steer
the pilot bore into the end of a preinstalled conductor casing. However, on the
exit side only 10 feet of loose silty sand overlay the denser soils, as opposed to
the 25 feet of loose silty sand on the entry side. Also, even if an inadvertent
fluid return does occur near the exit point it can easily be contained within the
former tallow plant site with very low risk of drilling fluid impacting the river or
riparian habitat.

The HDD method is compatible with a wide range of soil and rock conditions.
Additionally, the bentonite drilling fluid used to support the bore and remove the cuttings
is heavier than water and therefore makes HDD suitable for use below the water table.
Ground conditions that are problematic for HDD include very loose, soft, squeezing, or
flowing soils that are not self supporting and highly permeable, large-grained
cohesionless soils and fractured rock where drilling fluid losses are high. Specialized
design features and construction methods can be used to minimize the risks associated
with these types of ground conditions to allow the use of HDD in certain cases.

For this project, the ground conditions are generally well-suited to an HDD bore. The
soils encountered in the two borings drilled for the geotechnical investigations consisted
primarily of clean to silty sand with some thin layers of gravel and sand with gravel. The
upper 25 feet of material on the west side of the river consisted of very loose to loose
silty sand. On the east side of the river the very loose to loose silty sand was
approximately 10 feet thick. Below the loose surficial materials, the consistency of the
soils increased from medium dense to very dense.

Overall, these soils are favorable for drilling. However, the loose materials near the
surface could present some difficulties related to bore stability, settlement, and
inadvertent drilling fluid returns. These problematic soil layers are both thicker and
looser consistency on the west side of the crossing. Additionally, the presence of two
existing sanitary sewers and sensitive riparian habitat on the west side requires that steps
be taken to mitigate the risk of inadvertent fluid returns and settlement. As previously
discussed, it is recommended that steel conductor casing be used to support the bore at
the entry and contain drilling fluids during drilling. After the bore is complete, tremie
pipes should be used to pump grout into the annulus between the casing and carrier pipe
to fill the space to minimize the risk of future settlement. The exit location on the east
side of the crossing has less than 10 feet of loose soils which pose far lower risks.
Therefore, conductor casing is not necessary for this side of the crossing. However, the
annulus should be grouted for 100 to 150 feet from the exit to reduce risks of settlement
and restrain the pipe.

5.4 Schedule Implications

Scheduling construction during the winter months would avoid the peak golf season and
reduce disruption to the golf course. Additionally, construction occurring during the
winter would allow the 60-inch cannery segregation line to be used as a bypass while the
connections are made to the existing 66-inch sewer. Use of the cannery segregation line
during construction would not be possible during summer canning season.

Construction during winter months could result in more stringent runoff mitigation
relative to the river.

Winter construction could result in more golf course remediation than during dry
weather. Wet weather construction mitigation measures such as laying down rock or
mats may be required to allow the heavy equipment to move around the job site.

Schedule issues related specifically to the construction alternatives are discussed below.

5.4.1 Open Cut

Open cut construction is not necessarily restricted to a particular season; however, the
potential for rainfall and unpredictable elevated river flows suggests that the peak rainy
season should be avoided. It is also possible that resource agencies permits would restrict
construction to a particular time of year.

Temporary cofferdam construction, included in this alternative, is less feasible during
winter high river flows. Open cut construction is likely to be most feasible during
summer months, when conditions are dry and river flows are lowest.

The estimated construction time is 75 working days.

5.4.2 Microtunneling and HDD

Microtunneling and HDD are not restricted to a particular construction season and
therefore the work could be scheduled for any time during the year. However there
would be significant difference in the construction duration for HDD construction versus
microtunneling. While the overall drive length for a microtunnel would be shorter and
only a single bore would be completed, the time required to construct and then to backfill
the shafts, and the time for installation of the carrier pipe and annular space grout would
increase the construction duration for the microtunneled alternative by approximately 30
to 50 percent.

The estimated construction times for Microtunneling and HDD are 120 and 100 working
days, respectively.

5.5 Construction Easements

Permanent easements are discussed in Section 5.6. In addition to the permanent
easements, temporary construction easements will be required. The construction
easements must be sufficient for construction access and staging the work.

An issue common to each construction alternative is access. Since the work is not
adjacent to existing public streets, access will be required through private property and
the golf course.

Construction easements particular to each alternative are described below. Construction
easement and construction access are illustrated on Figs. 5-4 through 5-7.

5.5.1 Open Cut

This alternative will require a construction footprint in the river and through adjacent
habitat areas. A corridor, estimated at 80 wide would allow room for construction
equipment, material transport, excavated spoils, and cofferdam construction and
restoration. Staging areas on both sides of the river will be required. Easements
necessary for this alternative are shown on Fig. 5-4.


This alternative requires staging areas on both sides of the river. Unlike the open cut
alternative, no construction easement in the main river corridor or embankment is
necessary.

Section 3.3.1 contains commentary on the construction operation. This technique
eliminates the need for heavy equipment and materials in the river and habitat corridor.
The staging areas on either side must be of sufficient size to install the permanent shafts,
risers and connection to existing.

Easements necessary for this alternative are shown on Fig. 5-5.

5.5.3 HDD

This alternative requires staging areas on both sides of the river. Unlike the open cut
alternative, no construction easement in the main river corridor or embankment is
necessary, except control points for pipeline tracking. HDD methods require a lay-down
surface area for the assembled pipeline, and a more robust staging area on the golf course
side. Easements necessary for this alternative are shown on Fig. 5-6.

A medium to large size horizontal directional drill rig requires approximately 15,000
square feet (sq. ft.) of work space on the entry side. There must be 60 to 70 feet available
behind the entry point to provide space for the rig. Therefore, the entry site for this
project requires a rectangular work site with minimum dimensions of approximately 150
feet in the east-west direction by 50 feet in the north-south direction. This area would
extend from the eastern edge of the golf course property approximately 100 feet into the
fairway of the second hole centered on the twin bore alignments. This area would
provide sufficient width for the two bores to be drilled with 20 feet of separation between
them. The shape of the remainder of the required work area is flexible. Because access
to the site will most likely be from the road which wraps around the tee-box of the second
hole, it is suggested that most of this space be provided as a long strip on the east side of
the second fairway north of the entry points with sufficient area to the south to complete
the open-cut tie-in to the existing 66-inch sewer. It appears that a strip approximately 50
to 60 feet wide and 150 feet long to the north of the previously described rectangular area
and 50 to 60 feet wide and approximately 50 feet long to the south of the rectangular area
could remain in the rough and minimize damage to the fairway.

On the exit side, the temporary construction easement should be large enough to allow
the pipe to be laid out as a single string. For this project a strip 800 feet long and 50 feet
wide would be required to provide sufficient space for the fabrication of both pipe
strings. An ideal location for this would be along the extension of Zeff Road that runs
into the former Modesto Tallow Company plant.

It is recommended that the HDD contractor use a wireline tracking system for steering
guidance of the two bores. This system requires a thin coil of wire be laid along the
alignment, offset up to 100 feet from the centerline. To lay and later remove the wire,
workers on foot would need limited access to walk the bore alignment at the beginning
and conclusion of the job. A temporary construction easement is not necessarily
required; however, the request for this access may impact the permitting process due to
part of it being within the riparian habitat. The riparian habitat would be disturbed to the
extent that workers would walk through the area and lay a small (typically 6 to 8 gauge)
insulated wire and survey its location. Upon completion of the bores, access would be
required again for removal of the wire. Some bushes may have to be trimmed to allow
surveying of the coils position. If a permit or access agreement could not be obtained, it
would be possible, though not preferred, to use the wireline system with the wire laid
only on the east side. However, steering would be more accurate if wire could be placed
on both sides of the river. The coil does not need to be placed across the river channel.

5.6 Permanent Easements

Permanent easements are required for the City to access and maintain the new facilities.
Permanent easements are anticipated on the east side on private property (former Tallow
site), and possibly on the west side on the City owned golf course.

The Tuolumne River is under purview of the State Lands Commission. An application to
the State for an amended lease will be required. If granted, the lease will contain
conditions of use. Although not technically an easement, the lease will serve as a long-
term right for the City to operate the facility in accordance with the conditions. Other
leases of this nature have sunset dates, and a renewal will be necessary in the future.

Permanent easements particular to each alternative are described below.

5.6.1 Open Cut

A minimum width of 40, centered on the pipelines is recommended. Easements


A minimum width of 40, centered on the pipelines is recommended. Easements

5.6.3 HDD

Line and grade accuracy limitations of the HDD installations dictate that 20 feet of
separation be provided between the twin bores and at least 10 feet of easement be
provided on either side of the bore centerlines. Therefore it is recommended that a 50-
foot width of permanent easement be obtained along the new siphon alignment.
Easements necessary for this alternative are shown on Fig. 5-9.

5.7 Golf Course Operations

The west side of the project, where the siphon will connect to the Dryden trunk is located
within the second fairway of the City owned Dryden Municipal Golf Course. Temporary
closure of a portion or all of this hole will likely be required to accommodate
construction. The time period varies depending on the construction alternative.
The construction times for open cut, Microtunneling and HDD are 75, 120, and 100
working days, respectively.

The golf course hole might be able to remain open and playable during construction. A
temporary tee box could be created south of the construction zone, which would shorten
the hole by approximately half its normal playing length.

During the final design and construction phase, close coordination with the Parks,
Recreation and Neighborhoods Department will be necessary. Construction
specifications will be developed to address manhole structure placement, construction
access, golf course turf and irrigation remediation, closure time frames, safety of
construction workers, golf course maintenance crews, and the golfing public.

If this work is scheduled during the winter months, disruption of the golf course
operations could be minimized. Appropriate signage and construction fencing should be
utilized to ensure the safety of golfers as well as workers during construction. See
section 9.0 for discussion of schedule.

5.8 Alignment

Alignments for each of the alternatives are discussed below. Alignments were selected to
avoid existing facilities and habitat areas, where possible.

5.8.1 Open Cut

The alignment for open cut is through the least cluttered habitat area, primarily to avoid
removal of existing mature trees in the habitat corridor. The proposed alignment is
essentially a direct line from the existing manhole on the east side to a new connection on
the westerly 66 trunk line.

The open cut construction technique will require a construction easement corridor to
provide working room on both sides of the pipeline alignment. Work will occur in the
river for coffer dam, river diversion, and trenching and backfill. The alignment for this
alternative is shown in Fig. 5-1.


The alignment for Microtunneling is not affected substantially by the habitat corridor.
The tunneling can occur along the most efficient construction corridor, considering that
vertical shafts are required at both ends, and new connections to existing facilities are
necessary. The alignment for this alternative is shown in Fig. 5-2.

The jacking shaft would be located on the east side of the river to take advantage of the
space and access available at the abandoned tallow plant site. Temporary easement
would be required on the west side for construction of the reception shaft, retrieval of the
MTBM, and construction of the riser and connections. The jacking shaft site would
require significantly more space for setup of the microtunneling equipment and jacking
pipe. The vertical shafts used with microtunneling would allow for shorter connections
to the existing facilities, but would create difficulties with sediment transport of the
sanitary sewer flows.

5.8.3 HDD

The alignment for this alternative is shown in Figure 5-3. The total length of each HDD
bore is approximately 735 feet. The proposed bores reach maximum depth at an
approximate elevation of -15 feet to ensure that there is adequate clearance below the
river channel to minimize the risk of hydrofracture. The final reamed diameter of each
bore will be approximately 32 inches to accommodate the 22-inch OD (~18-inch ID)
HDPE DR 11 siphons.

It is recommended that the rig be set up on the west side of the river, within the second
fairway of the Dryden Municipal Golf Course. The HDD operations would require a
work area of approximately 15,000 sq. ft.

at the entry location. Much of this area is
required for storage and can be located in the rough on the east side of the fairway. A
roughly rectangular section will have to extend into the second fairway to provide space
for the HDD rig to set up. The 735-foot pipe strings would be laid out on the east side of
the river, within the Modesto Tallow Company property. This arrangement results in the
least amount of disruption to the golf course, since the rig setup area would only impact
the second hole, whereas the area required for pipe layout would impact multiple holes.
Additionally, this arrangement allows for the installation of 110 feet of conductor casing
at the entry point to protect the existing 66-inch and 60-inch sewers against settlement
and to minimize risk of inadvertent fluid returns.

The twin 110-foot, 36-inch conductor casings will be driven at the proposed entry angle
of 18. This would result in 5 feet of clearance between the conductor casing and the
existing 66-inch sewer. The bores would pass through the conductor casings and
continue through the 18 straight tangent for approximately 112 feet and then transition
to a vertical curve with a radius of 750 feet. This curve would continue for
approximately 471 feet and then transitions to the exit tangent at an angle of 18 for
approximately 175 feet to the exit point in the former tallow plant property at Station
17+20.

On the west side of the river, two manholes, one for each siphon, will be constructed at
approximate Station 10+05. Flows from these manholes will be directed to the existing
66-inch Dryden trunk sewer. On the east side of the river, the HDD bores will pass
beneath the remnants of buildings of the tallow plant. It is assumed that these remnants
should have no impact on construction activities and planning as they will be razed
before or shortly after construction of the new siphons. During final design, what
remains of the foundations of the former tallow plant buildings should be investigated to
ensure that they will not provide an obstruction to the planned bore path. The HDD bores
will pass below the buildings and exit approximately 210 feet beyond MH 1 on the east
side of the river. Approximately 210 feet of pipe will be required to deliver flow from
MH1 to a junction box (MH13) capable of diverting flow to either of the new siphons.

5.9 Operations

5.9.1 Flow Control

Since the project will result in a redundant pipeline, a method to direct flow to alternative
siphons by valves is required.

A new flow diversion manhole will be constructed on the east (upstream) side. This
manhole will contain valves to shut off flow to either pipeline for maintenance or
emergency stoppage.

Valves can be manually operated or electrical driven. Either type should be exercised
periodically. Electrical valves would require a new electrical service application.

Valves under consideration include eccentric plug valves and sluice valves. Eccentric
valves could be installed in conjunction with a standard manhole configuration. Sluice
valves would require an at grade slab at the surface, which then would likely require a
security fence.

6.0 Geotechnical Investigation

6.1 Report

Blackburn Consulting has prepared a preliminary geotechnical report for the project site.
The report includes description of the surface and subsurface conditions and is intended
only for preliminary planning purposes. To facilitate the final design of this project,
further laboratory testing and engineering analysis must be completed. It is intended that
this work will be performed during the final design phase. A copy of the preliminary
report is included in Appendix B.
6.2 Boring Logs

Two exploratory borings were performed, one on each side of the Tuolumne River.
Blackburn Consulting has prepared a boring location map and preliminary boring logs
which are included in Appendix B.
7.0 Permitting and CEQA Considerations

7.1 Project CEQA Needs

The City will conduct the CEQA process. At the present time, it is expected that an
initial study will be prepared, with the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration.
7.2 Resource Agencies

Coordination with resource agencies and necessary permitting for this project will be
provided by the City of Modesto. The following is a list of agencies with which
coordination may be required:

California Department of Fish and Game - Section 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement
California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Water Quality Certification
California Reclamation Board - Encroachment Permit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Section 10 Permit
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Section 7 Consultation (if needed)
NOAA Fisheries - Section 7 Consultation
California State Lands Commission Lease with Conditions
7.3 NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity

Construction projects that disturb land greater than one acre but less than five acres are
covered under The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Water
Quality Order 99-08-DWQ). A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be submitted to the
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared in compliance with the requirements of the
General Permit.
7.4 City Encroachment Permit

An encroachment permit must be obtained from the City of Modesto to allow for the
connection to the existing sewer system. The standard conditions for a City
encroachment permit are listed in Section 2.13 of the Citys Standard Specifications.
8.0 Construction Cost Estimate

Cost estimate were developed based on the labor, equipment, and material costs
associated with each alternative. The following markups were added to the raw
construction costs:
Overhead 8%
Profit 10%
Legal, Administration 10%
Design 15%
Contingency 20%

Estimates for each alternative are included in Appendix C.

9.0 Project Schedule

Table 9-1 contains a schedule for the alternative construction methods.

The schedule for open cut method is likely to be much longer than the two trenchless
methods. Due to more extensive environmental review and more lengthy permitting
process, a schedule for open cut methods could be 6 months to a year longer. Even with
the additional time for permit processing, it cannot be assumed the permitting authorities
will allow all the required permits.

Table 9-1. Project Schedule

Date Task
HDD Micro Open Cut
Completion Preliminary Design Report August 2009 August 2009 August 2009
Public Review and City Hearing (Complete) October 2009 October 2009 October 2009
Award Final Design Contract October 2009 October 2009 October 2009
Completion of Final Design April 2010 April 2010 Unknown
Completion of Permitting J une 2010 J une 2010 Unknown
Estimated (Earliest) Construction Commencement J uly 2010 J uly 2010 Unknown
Estimated (Earliest) Completion of Construction November 2010 J anuary 2011 Unknown

10.0 Comparison of Alternatives

This section contains comparison of the three construction alternatives.

10.1 Open Cut

Open cut construction historically has been a preferred method, primarily due to cost and
locally available construction expertise. This alternative is theoretically still a feasible
alternative. However, the permitting by resource agencies is expected to be formidable.

Considerable resistance should be expected from the permitting entities. Environmental
review is likely to be much more extensive, possibly including a full EIR. Examination
of alternative construction scenarios should be expected. This alternative would have an
open-ended schedule, due to the time required for review, and no early assurance of
permit issuance for this construction alternative.

10.2 Microtunneling

Microtunneling has the advantage of less rigorous permitting with resource agencies. No
construction would occur in the river or habitat corridors. All staging would occur
outside the river and habitat corridors.

From a constructability standpoint, microtunneling does not face significant challenges
on this project. The site soils are conducive to both the microtunneling excavation and
support, and the shaft construction methods typically used. Additionally, the vertical
shafts used allow for shorter connections to the existing facilities. Tight control of both
line and grade and excavation face stability reduces the risks associated with settlement
damage to existing facilities and the permanent easement requirements.

While microtunneling provide some benefits with respect to constructability, there are
drawbacks associated with construction cost and schedule. The required vertical shafts
are both time consuming and costly to install and the tunneling equipment is more
complex and costly than HDD equipment. Even including the shorter overall crossing
length, the cost of a microtunneled alternative would likely be 2 to 2.5 times greater than
the cost of an HDD alternative. Further, the construction duration for microtunneling
would also be longer at approximately 1.5 to 2 times longer than an HDD alternative.

Another significant drawback to this alternative is the hydraulic and maintenance issue.
This alternative necessitates a vertical shaft on each end. The downstream end of the
siphon would be expected to carry sediment in suspension a considerable vertical
distance. Since sewage pipe flows vary considerably over the diurnal cycle, it will be
difficult to select a specific riser pipe size that will satisfy all flow scenarios. This facility
could require considerably more maintenance than other alternatives.

10.3 HDD

HDD also has the advantage of less rigorous permitting with resource agencies, since the
construction staging is located outside the river corridor.

HDD does not have the hydraulic issue described above for microtunneling. The
beginning and ending of the siphon are essentially at the grade of the existing connected
facilities. The smooth flow line of the HDD siphon will better tolerate varying velocities,
and the minimum flow rate will likely keep sediment in suspension.

A drawback to the HDD is additional connection facilities on the east side. Bend radius
limitations for HDD trigger a new gravity pipeline, and thus the overall length of siphon
is increased. These facilities also trigger a larger permanent easement requirement.

10.4 Evaluation Criteria

Each of the construction alternatives has its merits. A method to evaluate and weigh the
various factors is described herein. The factors are arranged in a table, with each factor
assigned a relative weight. Factors include permitting, community, constructability,
easements, and operations/maintenance. Each factor was assigned a relative weight,
essentially a judgment regarding its importance to this particular project relative to other
factors. Each alternative was then assigned a score from 1 to 3, with 1 being the least
desirable, and 3 being the most desirable.

Results from the ratings matrix are shown Fig. 10-1. The HDD alternative ranked higher
than other alternatives. The recommended alternative will consider both the ratings
matrix and total cost of the project in Section 11.0.

Permitting (25%)

Permitting considers impacts to land use and environmental elements. Alternatives that
score low for this factor require more permitting, or more time consuming permitting
compared to the other alternative. Additional permitting can lead to more construction
mitigation and schedule extension.

Community (5%)

Higher impacts to local residences or businesses near construction rate lower for this
factor. Construction dust, mud, noise, and disrupted traffic are considered in this factor.

Constructability (30%)

Difficult construction techniques and necessity for specialty subcontractors rate lower for
this factor. Trenchless construction requires specialty subcontractors to perform the
work. Difficult construction issues would include presence of the river, deep tunneling or
trenching, groundwater, phasing, river diversions, and environmentally sensitive areas.

Easements (10%)

Alternatives requiring more construction easements and permanent easements rate lower.
Easements must be obtained from private properties and businesses, and can involve
delays and schedule disruptions.

Operations and maintenance (30%)

Alternatives with more mechanical devices, electrical connections, and alternatives with
relatively higher expected maintenance would rate lower for this factor. Alternatives
which present more difficult access, such as deeper shafts or structure, or more structures
and pipeline length would rate lower for this factor.

R
a
t
i
n
g

M
a
t
r
i
x
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
W e i g h t
O
p
e
n

C
u
t
U n w e i g h t e d
s c o r e
W e i g h t e d
s c o r e
M
i
c
r
o
t
u
n
n
e
l
i
n
g
U n w e i g h t e d
s c o r e
W e i g h t e d
s c o r e
H
D
D
U n w e i g h t e d
s c o r e
W e i g h t e d
s c o r e
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
2
5
%
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

w
o
r
k

i
n

t
h
e

r
i
v
e
r

a
n
d

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

h
a
b
i
t
a
t

a
r
e
a
.

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

m
o
r
e

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

a
g
e
n
c
y

r
e
v
i
e
w
,

a
n
d

m
a
y

t
r
i
g
g
e
r

m
o
r
e

e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

l
o
n
g
e
r

t
i
m
e

f
r
a
m
e

f
o
r

p
e
r
m
i
t

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
.

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t

t
o

S
t
a
t
e

L
a
n
d
s

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

l
e
a
s
e
.

1
0
.
2
5
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

w
i
l
l

b
e

s
t
a
g
e
d

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

r
i
v
e
r

a
n
d

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
l
l

b
e

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

o
p
e
n

c
u
t
.

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t

t
o

S
t
a
t
e

L
a
n
d
s

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

l
e
a
s
e
.

3
0
.
7
5
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

w
i
l
l

b
e

s
t
a
g
e
d

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

r
i
v
e
r

a
n
d

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
l
l

b
e

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

o
p
e
n

c
u
t
.

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t

t
o

S
t
a
t
e

L
a
n
d
s

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

l
e
a
s
e
.

3
0
.
7
5
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
5
%
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

w
o
r
k

i
n

t
h
e

D
r
y
d
e
n

g
o
l
f

c
o
u
r
s
e

f
a
i
r
w
a
y
.

D
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

s
e
a
s
o
n
,

g
o
l
f

c
o
u
r
s
e

d
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
o
n

v
a
r
i
e
s
.

W
o
r
k

o
n

t
h
e

e
a
s
t

s
i
d
e

o
c
c
u
r
s

o
n

i
n
a
c
t
i
v
e

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.

W
o
r
k

i
n

t
h
e

r
i
v
e
r

c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

m
a
y

h
a
v
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
c
r
u
t
i
n
y

a
n
d

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
.

1
0
.
0
5
S
a
m
e

a
s

o
p
e
n

c
u
t
.

R
i
v
e
r

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

l
e
s
s

w
i
t
h

t
r
e
n
c
h
l
e
s
s

m
e
t
h
o
d
s
.
2
0
.
1
S
a
m
e

a
s

M
i
c
r
o
t
u
n
n
e
l
i
n
g
.
2
0
.
1
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
3
0
%
O
p
e
n

c
u
t

i
s

m
u
c
h

m
o
r
e

i
n
t
r
u
s
i
v
e

i
n

t
h
e

r
i
v
e
r

a
n
d

h
a
b
i
t
a
t

c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
.

D
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

s
e
a
s
o
n
,

w
e
a
t
h
e
r

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

m
o
r
e

r
i
s
k
y
.
2
0
.
6
T
r
e
n
c
h
l
e
s
s

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
c
c
u
r
s

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

r
i
v
e
r

a
n
d

h
a
b
i
t
a
t

c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
.

S
t
a
g
i
n
g

a
r
e
a
s

a
r
e

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y

s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e

a
r
e
a
s
.

L
e
s
s

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
3
0
.
9
S
a
m
e

a
s

M
i
c
r
o
t
u
n
n
e
l
i
n
g
.
3
0
.
9
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
0
%
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y

l
a
r
g
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
r
e
n
c
h
l
e
s
s

m
e
t
h
o
d
s
.

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
/
l
e
a
s
e

i
n

r
i
v
e
r

a
n
d

h
a
b
i
t
a
t

c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

a
r
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

t
o

b
e

m
o
r
e

d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t

t
o

o
b
t
a
i
n
3
0
.
3
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

o
p
e
n

c
u
t

m
e
t
h
o
d
s
.
2
0
.
2
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

l
a
r
g
e
r

p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t

t
h
a
n

o
t
h
e
r

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
2
0
.
2
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
3
0
%
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

a
r
e

l
e
s
s

c
o
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

o
p
e
n

c
u
t

m
e
t
h
o
d

p
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

T
h
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

s
i
p
h
o
n
s

a
r
e

m
o
r
e

s
h
a
l
l
o
w

a
n
d

e
a
s
i
e
r

t
o

a
c
c
e
s
s
.

F
l
o
w

d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n

v
a
l
v
e
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
d
.
3
0
.
9
S
y
s
t
e
m

o
f

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
h
a
f
t

a
n
d

s
i
p
h
o
n

w
i
l
l

b
e

c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
d

t
o

r
e
t
a
i
n

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
s

i
n

s
u
s
p
e
n
s
i
o
n
.

M
o
r
e

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
.

F
l
o
w

d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n

v
a
l
v
e
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
d
.
1
0
.
3
H
D
D

m
e
t
h
o
d

p
r
o
f
i
l
e

w
i
l
l

i
s

l
e
s
s

l
i
k
e
l
y

t
o

r
e
q
u
i
r
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.

F
l
o
w

d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n

v
a
l
v
e
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
d
.

3
0
.
9
1
0
0
%
2
.
1
2
.
2
5
2
.
8
5
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
-
1
11.0 Recommended Project

11.1 Summary of Design Conditions and Solutions

The existing Shackelford Crossing has reached the end of its service life and is need of
replacement. Failure of the existing crossing would result in an interruption in sewage
disposal service to a significant portion of the City of Modesto, potential endangerment to
public health and safety, adverse environmental impacts and associated penalties. The
crossing occurs in the sensitive area of the Tuolumne River riparian corridor. The
consequences resulting from the failure of the existing siphon renders the No Project
alternative infeasible.
The environmental permitting requirements necessary for open-cut construction would
increase the project cost and extend the schedule with no assurance that a permit could be
obtained.
Therefore, trenchless construction (HDD or microtunneling) is the most appropriate
solution for this project.
The schedules for the HDD and Microtunneling alternatives could commence at the
earliest permitted opportunity to take advantage of the dry season and the current
competitive construction bid climate. Section 9.0 lists possible schedules for all
alternatives. HDD construction could conceivably commence in J uly 2010, with
completion in November 2010. Microtunneling construction could conceivably
commence in J uly 2010 with completion in J anuary 2011. The construction contract
should contain specifications regarding golf course disruption, so as to mitigate its
disruption.

11.2 Recommended Project

This PDR recommends the construction of two new 18-inch siphons. The preferred
method of construction is HDD.

A brief summary of support for the recommended project follows.

Environmental. Trenchless construction will have minimal potential effect on either
the river or its adjacent habitat area.
Permitting. Trenchless construction permitting is the least complex.
Operations. HDD results in routine, familiar structure access for maintenance.
Rating matrix. HDD scores better on the PDR rating matrix, which takes into
account several weighted evaluation criteria, including permitting, community
impacts, constructability, easements, and operations and maintenance.
Maintenance. HDD is likely to experience less maintenance than Microtunneling,
due to the improved hydraulic profile of the siphon.
Cost. HDD is less than Microtunneling. Although HDD is more expensive than
open cut method, the cost differential is offset by most other evaluation factors.
Availability. Many west coast contractors are available to compete for the
construction project, even though HDD is a specialty construction technique.

Each siphon would be capable of handling the design flow individually. This would
result in a redundant system which would facilitate maintenance and provide an
alternative in the event of failure of the main siphon. Preliminary drawings for this
alternative are included in Appendix A

11.3 Total Project Cost Summary

Estimated project costs for all alternatives are summarized in Appendix C. For this
project, the cost of microtunneling is estimated to be more than twice the cost of HDD.
As discussed previously, the minimum bend radius of 750 feet associated with HDD will
require the installation of additional gravity pipe. However, the cost of this additional
pipe is not significant compared to the overall additional cost of microtunneling. Thus,
HDD is favored over microtunneling. Per the opinion of probable construction cost for
the project included in Appendix C, the construction cost for this project is estimated to
be approximately $1,931,000.


September 2009 City of Modesto

Appendix A
Preliminary Design Drawings



Appendix B
Preliminary Geotechnical Report

File No. 1664.1
March 22, 2009

Mr. Randall ODell
ODell Engineering
1165 Scenic Drive, Suite A
Modesto, CA 95350

Subject: SHACKELFORD AREA SANITARY SEWER PIPELINE
Modesto, California
Preliminary Geotechnical Report

Dear Mr. ODell:

Blackburn Consulting (BCI) prepared this Preliminary Geotechnical Report for the
Shackelford Area Sanitary Sewer Pipeline in accordance with our February 10, 2009
agreement. This report contains descriptions of the surface and subsurface conditions.
This report is intended for preliminary planning purposes only and should not be relied on
for final design.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

To prepare this letter, BCI performed the following:

Discussed the project with the design team.
Marked the boring locations and notified Underground Service Alert.
Observed, sampled, and logged the subsurface conditions in two exploratory borings
on March 4and 5, 2009 to a depth of 101 feet below existing grade.

SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project will consist of installing two, 400 foot long, 18 diameter sewer pipelines
under the Tuolumne River. It is our understanding that the pipelines will be installed using
horizontal directional drilling techniques. The proposed pipelines will replace the existing
sewer pipeline that runs between the Tallow Plant and Dryden Golf Course.

The project site is shown on the attached Vicinity Map.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

To characterize the subsurface conditions, BCI observed, logged, and sampled two
exploratory borings on both sides of the Tuolumne River. BCIs geologist, Aaron Wood,
performed the sampling, logged the borings, and transported the samples to the lab.

Modesto Office:
1720 G Street Modesto, CA 95354
(209) 522-6273 Fax: (209) 522-6274

Main Office: (530) 887-1494
11521 Blocker Drive, Suite 110 Auburn, CA 95603
West Sacramento Office: (916) 375-8706

Geotechnical Construction Services Forensics
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Shackelford Area Sanitary Sewer Pipeline
Modesto, California
BCI Job No. 1664.1 March 22, 2009
Page 2
Below, we summarize the subsurface conditions observed. Refer to the attached
preliminary LOTBs for more specific descriptions at each location.

Subsurface Soil Conditions

Our borings indicate that the site is underlain by alternating layers of loose to very dense,
silty sand and poorly-graded sand and stiff to very hard, lean clay and sandy silt. We
observed occasional thin layers (less than two feet thick) of medium dense to dense, gravel
and silty gravel 34 to 53 feet below existing grade in boring B1 and 63 to 81 feet below
existing grade in boring B2.

Ground Water

We observed free groundwater in both borings at elevations ranging from 36 and 38 feet
above mean sea level (MSL).

LIMITATIONS

This Preliminary Geotechnical Report is based on our preliminary boring logs without
laboratory testing or analysis. This report is not intended for final design or construction.
During the final design phase of the project BCI will complete laboratory testing and
engineering analysis to prepare a Final Geotechnical Report for the project.

Sincerely;

BLACKBURN CONSULTING,

Kimberly I. Schmidt, E.I.T Benjamin D. Crawford, P.E.
Project Engineer Principal

Attachments: Vicinity Map
Log of Test Boring Legend
Log of Test Borings

Copies: 4 to Addressee



Appendix C
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

U
n
i
t
s
U
n
i
t

C
o
s
t
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
1
S
i
t
e

C
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
S
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
1
8
"

S
i
p
h
o
n
L
F
$
3
0
0
7
8
0
$
2
3
4
,
0
0
0
3
J
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

B
o
x
E
A
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
4
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
t

M
H

1
E
A
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
5
C
o
f
f
e
r
d
a
m
s
L
S
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
6
S
e
w
e
r

b
y
p
a
s
s

p
u
m
p
i
n
g
E
A
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
7
E
a
s
t

s
i
d
e

r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
L
S
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
8
G
o
l
f

c
o
u
r
s
e

r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
L
S
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
9
E
r
o
s
i
o
n

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
,

p
e
r
m
i
t

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
L
S
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
$
7
1
4
,
0
0
0
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r

O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
t
1
8
%
$
1
2
8
,
5
2
0
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
$
8
4
2
,
5
2
0
L
e
g
a
l
,

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

C
o
s
t
s
2
5
%
$
2
1
0
,
6
3
0
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t

w
/
o

L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
$
1
,
0
5
3
,
1
5
0
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

-

P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

E
a
s
t
S
F
$
2
.
0
0
1
4
,
4
5
8
$
2
8
,
9
1
6
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

-

P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

W
e
s
t
S
F
$
0
.
0
0
2
8
,
5
2
4
$
0
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

-

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

E
a
s
t
S
F
$
0
.
5
0
3
2
,
7
7
5
$
1
6
,
3
8
8
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

-

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

W
e
s
t
S
F
$
0
.
0
0
4
0
,
2
7
5
$
0
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
4
5
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y

-

P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

D
e
s
i
g
n
2
0
%
$
2
1
9
,
6
9
1
T
o
t
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
$
1
,
3
1
8
,
1
4
4
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
:
1
S
e
e

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

l
a
y
o
u
t

a
t

F
i
g
.

5
-
1
2
C
a
s
i
n
g

n
o
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
1
O
P
E
N

C
U
T

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

M
E
T
H
O
D
S
h
a
c
k
e
l
f
o
r
d

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s
1
6
1
2
0
-
E
-
E
S
T

A
p
p

C
1
-
3

0
9
0
1
0
9
.
x
l
s
U
n
i
t
s
U
n
i
t

C
o
s
t
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
1
S
i
t
e

C
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
S
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
6
0
"

j
a
c
k
i
n
g

c
a
s
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

2
-
1
8
"

s
i
p
h
o
n
s
L
F
$
1
,
7
5
0
4
8
0
$
8
4
0
,
0
0
0
3
1
8
"

g
r
a
v
i
t
y

s
e
w
e
r
L
F
$
2
0
0
6
0
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
4
W
e
s
t

s
i
d
e

s
h
a
f
t
L
S
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
5
E
a
s
t

s
i
d
e

s
h
a
f
t
L
S
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
6
3
0
"

g
r
a
v
i
t
y

s
e
w
e
r
L
F
$
2
5
0
9
0
$
2
2
,
5
0
0
7
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
t

M
H

9

(
w
e
s
t

s
i
d
e
)
E
A
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
8
J
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

b
o
x
E
A
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
9
S
e
w
e
r

b
y
p
a
s
s

p
u
m
p
i
n
g
E
A
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
1
0
E
a
s
t

s
i
d
e

r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
L
S
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
1
G
o
l
f

c
o
u
r
s
e

r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
L
S
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
1
2
E
r
o
s
i
o
n

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
,

p
e
r
m
i
t

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
L
S
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
$
1
,
6
4
4
,
5
0
0
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r

O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
t
1
8
%
$
2
9
6
,
0
1
0
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
$
1
,
9
4
0
,
5
1
0
L
e
g
a
l
,

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

C
o
s
t
s
2
5
%
$
4
8
5
,
1
2
8
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t

w
/
o

L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
$
2
,
4
2
5
,
6
3
8
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

-

P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

E
a
s
t
S
F
$
2
.
0
0
1
8
,
8
5
7
$
3
7
,
7
1
4
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

-

P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

W
e
s
t
S
F
$
0
.
0
0
3
1
,
2
5
5
$
0
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

-

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

E
a
s
t
S
F
$
0
.
5
0
3
2
,
7
7
5
$
1
6
,
3
8
8
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

-

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

W
e
s
t
S
F
$
0
.
0
0
4
8
,
8
2
5
$
0
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
$
2
,
4
7
9
,
7
3
9
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y

-

P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

D
e
s
i
g
n
2
0
%
$
4
9
5
,
9
4
8
T
o
t
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
$
2
,
9
7
5
,
6
8
7
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
:
1
S
e
e

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

l
a
y
o
u
t

a
t

F
i
g
.

5
-
2
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
2
M
I
C
R
O
T
U
N
N
E
L
I
N
G
S
h
a
c
k
e
l
f
o
r
d

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s
1
6
1
2
0
-
E
-
E
S
T

A
p
p

C
1
-
3

0
9
0
1
0
9
.
x
l
s
U
n
i
t
s
U
n
t
i

C
o
s
t
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
1
S
i
t
e

C
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
L
S
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
1
8
"

G
r
a
v
i
t
y

S
e
w
e
r
L
F
$
2
0
0
4
0
$
8
,
0
0
0
3
3
0
"

G
r
a
v
i
t
y

S
e
w
e
r
L
F
$
3
0
0
2
7
0
$
8
1
,
0
0
0
4
M
a
n
h
o
l
e
E
A
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
3
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
5
J
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

B
o
x

E
A
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
6
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
t

M
H

1
E
A
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
7
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
t

M
H

9
E
A
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
8
S
e
w
e
r

b
y
p
a
s
s

p
u
m
p
i
n
g
E
A
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
9
E
a
s
t

s
i
d
e

r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
L
S
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
0
H
D
D

1
8
"

B
o
r
e

1
L
F
$
3
3
5
7
3
0
$
2
4
4
,
5
5
0
1
1
H
D
D

1
8
"

B
o
r
e

2
L
F
$
3
8
5
7
3
0
$
2
8
1
,
0
5
0
1
2
G
o
l
f

C
o
u
r
s
e

R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
L
S
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
1
3
E
r
o
s
i
o
n

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
,

p
e
r
m
i
t

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
L
S
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
1
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
$
1
,
0
3
4
,
6
0
0
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r

O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
t
1
8
%
$
1
8
6
,
2
2
8
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
$
1
,
2
2
0
,
8
2
8
L
e
g
a
l
,

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

C
o
s
t
s
2
5
%
$
3
0
5
,
2
0
7
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t

w
/
o

L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
$
1
,
5
2
6
,
0
3
5
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

-

P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

E
a
s
t
S
F
$
2
.
0
0
3
0
,
9
7
2
$
6
1
,
9
4
4
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

-

P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

W
e
s
t
S
F
$
0
.
0
0
3
1
,
9
8
8
$
0
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

-

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

E
a
s
t
S
F
$
0
.
5
0
4
1
,
9
5
0
$
2
0
,
9
7
5
L
a
n
d

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

-

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

W
e
s
t
S
F
$
0
.
0
0
7
3
,
2
2
4
$
0
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
$
1
,
6
0
8
,
9
5
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y

-

P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

D
e
s
i
g
n
2
0
%
$
3
2
1
,
7
9
1
T
o
t
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
$
1
,
9
3
0
,
7
4
5
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
:
1
S
e
e

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

l
a
y
o
u
t

a
t

F
i
g
.

5
-
3
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
3
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L

D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
L

D
R
I
L
L
I
N
G
S
h
a
c
k
e
l
f
o
r
d

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s
1
6
1
2
0
-
E
-
E
S
T

A
p
p

C
1
-
3

0
9
0
1
0
9
.
x
l
s

Shackelford HDD Crossing

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Shackelford HDD Crossing

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Preliminary Design Report

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen