The authors would like to acknowledge the various peoples who have assisted in the success of this project. These include but are not limited to the following.

Clients

Dr. Charlie Schlinger, Civil and Environmental Engineering – NAU College of Engineering and Technology

Professor William Auberle, Civil and Environmental Engineering – NAU College of Engineering and Technology

A special thanks to our clients for the development of this project and the essential guidance they provided throughout the semester.

Consultants

Mr. Phil Smithers, APS – Project Manager for the Decommissioning of the Childs-Irving Hydroelectric Facilities
Mr. Elmer Alton, APS – Childs Facility Manager
Dr. Wilbert Odem, Civil and Environmental Engineering – NAU College of Engineering and Technology
Dr. Paul Trotta (Wastewater Treatment), NAU College of Engineering and Technology
Dr. Stephen Mead (Green Building), NAU College of Engineering and Technology
Dr. Neil Cobb (Biology Research Facility Needs), NAU

Dr. Amy Whipple (Biology Research Facility Needs), NAU
Mrs. Rebecca Brown (Capstone Conference Presentation Material)

A special thanks to Mr. Smithers and Dr. Odem. This project would not have been possible without Mr. Smithers’ assistance. Dr. Odem’s professional guidance was key to the success of this project.

Executive Summary

NAU has a vision to develop a network of field stations throughout the Colorado Plateau, with the goal of advancing the understanding of ecosystem science. Contained herein is a feasibility and cost analysis study for the proposed NAU Fossil Creek Field Station Facility. The Childs Hydroelectric Generating Facility is the proposed site, which is currently owned and operated by Arizona Public Service (APS), and is slated to be decommissioned by December 31, 2004. Decommissioning the Childs Facility presents an excellent opportunity to establish a research and educational facility, serving a diverse range of peoples and academic fields, within the Fossil Creek Region.

Minimum requirements for the proposed NAU Field Station outlined and addressed within this document are: six buildings to serve various purposes; a cost analysis for construction, start-up and operations and maintenance; recommendations that allow for future expansion. Investigation of green building techniques, applicable to the Childs site, is included in addition to the minimum requirements.

The proposed domestic water supply utilizes the well, treatment, and distribution system currently existing on site. Point-of-use five-stage reverse osmosis treatment systems are recommended to improve taste and odor.

Two on-site WWT systems currently exist at the Childs site. Recommendations for the redesign of one system are provided, while the other system is proposed to stay.

Restricted site access is recommended by utilizing the existing gate and chain-link fence.

Electric power will be taken from the APS sub-station on site. A 4.0 kW solar array is recommended and discussed as electrical power supplementation.

Current telecommunications utilize a microwave system that is owned, operated and maintained by APS. It is recommended that NAU work out a suitable contract with APS to leave the current communications network in place.

No immediate drainage issues or concerns are identified at the Childs site. All existing structures are located outside of the FEMA 100-yr flood plain.

No environmental concerns are identified at the Childs site. Due to the relative old nature of the site, APS will conduct a full abatement prior to decommissioning.

Fossil Creek winds through some of the most rugged landscape in all of Arizona and has one of the most unique ecosystems in the state. The Childs Facility is a National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark while several structures on this 15-acrea site are on the National Historic Register. The unique nature of Fossil Creek-spring fed and being restored-provides an extraordinary opportunity to study a restored riparian habitat. The proposed field station is designed to facilitate an understanding of the Fossil Creek ecosystem and the Colorado Plateau as well helping to preserve the rich history surrounding the Childs Hydroelectric Facility.

Introduction

In the early 1900’s, construction began to develop hydroelectric power plants that utilized water from Fossil Creek. The design and construction of these plants is an engineering marvel, even today. The Arizona Power Company began construction of the Childs Irving plants on March 28, 1908, with the Irving plant soon to follow. During the peak of construction, the labor force consisted of nearly 600 workers, 400 mules and more than 150 wagons. The development of the power plant involved the construction of two dams, seven tunnels, a water siphon, and 14 miles of flume. The flume was constructed from a combination of wood, steel, and concrete. The tunnels were lined with concrete. The Fossil Springs Diversion Dam is concrete, while the second dam is an earthen dam whose impoundment created Stehr Lake.

The Childs Power Plant, located along the Verde River, went on line in 1908. The second power plant is located at Irving, which is along Fossil Creek approximately 3 miles down stream from the upper dam. The Irving power plant started producing electric power in 1916. These power plants were a significant source of electricity for central Arizona in the early 1900’s, including the mining communities of Jerome and Crown King. These plants also supplied Phoenix with electric power. In the mid 1920’s, Irving and Childs provided much of the power for the Salt River Valley.

Fossil Creek has one of the most unique ecosystems in Arizona. The creek is fed by natural springs that provide a steady flow of about 43 cubic feet per second (cfs). The base flow is the dominant flow in Fossil Creek, according to gage data obtained from the Irving power plant, which indicates that surface runoff typically contributes to less than 20 percent of the flow in the course of a year. Fossil Creek contributes up to 50 percent of the flow in the Verde River during low-flow periods. The mineral-laden spring water forms travertine deposits that produce pools of clear water. The creek supplies water to a vast amount of plant and animal life, which depend on this water for life in this otherwise dry region. This ecosystem provides a unique opportunity for research and educational opportunities.

Although the power plants are still producing electric power, they will be decommissioned in the coming years. The decommissioning of the power plants is due in part to pressure from an environmental partnership. Because of the unique nature of this region, several groups feel that the area should be restored. The environmental partnership was led by American Rivers, and also included the Yavapai-Apache Nation, Arizona Riparian Council, Friends of Arizona Rivers, Northern Arizona Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and the Nature Conservancy. An agreement between the environmental partnership and Arizona Public Service (APS) for decommissioning both plants was released by APS on November 17, 1999. Under the terms of the agreement, full flow will be returned to Fossil Creek by December 31, 2004. The cost for the decommissioning of the power plants and project works is estimated at nearly 19 million dollars.

Northern Arizona University (NAU) has a desire to develop a network of field stations throughout the Colorado Plateau region that will provide opportunities for research and education for a variety of sciences. The decommissioning of the Childs-Irving Hydroelectric Facility presents an excellent opportunity for NAU to establish a research and educational facility within the Fossil Creek region. Geologists, biologists, ecologists, engineers, and other scientists will be provided opportunities to enhance their educational experience. The field station at Fossil Creek will provide a facility for a diverse range of people to research the local ecosystem. Opportunities for K-12 students to explore their environment will also be provided. This project was developed to facilitate these needs.

NAU is committed to providing sustainable and environmentally sensitive facilities that minimize the use of natural resources. The design for this field station is committed to provide a facility that uses minimal energy and preserves natural resources in the area for scientific study. The preservation of the natural environment of the area is of utmost importance. One of the goals of this study is to provide a conceptual design that will follow established green building guidelines.

Green building refers to the design, construction, and operation of facilities according to resource-efficiency standards for energy, water, building design and materials, and indoor air quality. The NAU commitment to being the environmental university mandates the implementation of systems and designs that have low resource use and environmental impacts.

Towards this end, three green building guidelines have been presented. The first, the US Green Building Council’s (USGBC) ‘Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System’, is applicable to new construction. The discussion of LEED is presented as a framework for future site development. It is not applicable to the proposed site, as no new construction has been proposed. The remaining guidelines used to direct the proposed upgrades to the existing infrastructure come from two sources. The first is the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Centers ‘Guide to Developing Green Building Programs’ and the second is the Green Buildings Guideline Advisory Committee (GBGAC) and Sustainable Building Industry Council (SBIC) ‘Green Building Guidelines’. A discussion of the green building guidelines history, development, and standards follows.

LEED

The USGBC is represented by all segments of the building industry and was developed to promote buildings that are environmentally responsible, profitable and healthy places to live and work. USGBC membership consists of visionary leaders representing over 1000 leading organizations in the following areas[1]:

· Building Product Manufacturers

· Building Owners, Managers, Users and Brokers

· Financial and Insurance Firms

· Professional Societies

· Design, Architectural, Engineering and Technical Firms

· Contractors and Builders

· Environmental Groups

· Utilities

· Universities and Technical Research Institutes

· State, Local and Federal Governments

· Building Control Service Contractors and Manufacturers

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, originally launched in March 2000, is a voluntary, consensus based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings. This rating system was developed by the USGBC in an effort to:

· Define “Green Building” by establishing a common standard of measurement

· Promote integrated, whole-building design practices

· Recognize environmental leadership in the building industry

· Stimulate green competition

· Raise consumer awareness of green building benefits

· Transform the building market

The LEED Green Building Rating System provides a framework for assessing building performance and meeting sustainable goals[2].

LEED provides a project checklist and related documentation requirements for gaining accreditation. The LEED system analyzes projects in the following areas:

· Site Sustainability

· Water Efficiency

· Energy and Atmosphere

· Materials and Resources

· Indoor Environmental Air Quality

· Innovation and Design Process

Each of these areas contains specified prerequisites, which are required to be met for review, and additional credits that may improve a projects rating[3].

Guide to Developing Green Building Programs/Green Building Guidelines

The development of the Green Building Guidelines and the Guide to Developing Green Building Programs has been a collaborative effort of a number of builders, representatives from the residential buildings industry, members and staff of the NAHB and the SBIC, and the US Department of Energy’s (USDOE) Office of Building Technology State and Continuity Programs and the Building America Program.

The guidelines are reference manuals that will enable builders to easily locate general information on green building techniques and applications in order to protect national and local resources. The methodology uses whole building design principles and an integrated energy approach. The design approach looks at materials, systems, and assemblies from many different perspectives and is evaluated for cost, quality-of-life, future flexibility, ease of maintenance, energy and resource efficiency, overall environmental impact, productivity, and creativity. The guidelines were developed over the course of the 1990’s.

There is a strong growing interest among builders, environmental organizations, and local governments in tapping existing and developing new market demand for more resource-efficient homes. The key to selling the concept of green building to owners is linking resource efficiency to[4]:

· Lower operating costs – facilities that use less energies for heating/cooling and use less water have lower monthly bills

· Increased comfort – facilities that are resource-efficient have more even temperatures throughout, with less drafts and increased humidity control

· Lower maintenance – more durable building components reduce upkeep and replacement costs

· Increased resale value – documented lower monthly bills increases selling value

· Improved environmental quality (in and out of doors) – builder attention to moisture control construction details, low VOC paints, and air exchange/filtration can contribute to a more comfortable and healthy indoor environment. Builder attention to overall resource-efficiency can contribute to a better local environment

Childs Hydroelectric Facility Site

The Childs Site is located along the Verde River in Yavapai County, Arizona. The site consists of approximately 15 acres contained within a fence enclosure. There are 22 existing structures at the Childs site, which are identified on the detailed site drawing, which is located in the Appendix. The existing residential and office structures are located on the western portion of the site and are adjacent to both sides of a gravel road passing through the site. With the exception of Building 5, which has 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, the existing residential structures (Buildings 1-4 & 6) are of a common 1950’s style layout with 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. All existing residential structures have electric power and communication connections, water and wastewater lines, full kitchens, and washer/dryer hook-ups. The office structure (Building 7) has electric power and communication connections and water and wastewater lines. An office is located at one of the building, with the remaining portion being used for storage. The office does have a bathroom without shower. A roll-up door is located at the opposite end of the building from the office. The microwave relay station is located at the western end of the site. The structures located at the eastern end of the site consist of the generating station, the old icehouse, and two maintenance/machine shop facilities. All of the structures in this area are equipped with power and communication lines. Current use and general dimensions of each structure are provided in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1 – Current Structure Uses and Properties (US Customary Units)

Building	Current Use	Dimensions	Square Footage	Basement
1	Residence – U.S. Forest Service	38x24	912	Y
1a	Unknown (Shed)	20x12	240	N
2	None (Residence)	38x24	912	Y
2a	Water Treatment Facility	17x12	204	N
3	None (Residence)	48x16	768	Y
3a	Unknown (Shed)	14x9	126	N
3b	Chicken Coop	20x6	120	N
3c	Chicken Coop	8x8	64	N
4	Guest House - APS	38x23	874	Y
4a	Unknown (Shed)	20x12	240	N
5	Residence	56x26	1456	Y
6	Residence	44x38	1672	Y
6a	Unknown (Shed)	20x12	240	N
7	Office	50x30	1500	N
7a	Unknown (Shed)	21x20	420	N
8	Machine Shop	24.5x20	490	N
9	Machine/Maintenance Shop	32x24	768	N
10	Storage (Old Icehouse)	19x15	285	N
11	Hazardous Material Storage	8x6	48	N
11a	Hazardous Material Storage	12x10	120	N
Power Plant	Hydroelectric Power Generation	32x77	2464	N
Microwave Relay Station	Microwave Relay Station	13x9	117	N

The water currently used for domestic purposes is taken from the penstock, which utilizes water from the Fossil Creek Diversion. The penstock supplies Fossil Creek water to the hydroelectric generating facility. This water is subjected to chlorine and UV treatment, in the water treatment facility (building 2a), prior to distribution throughout the site[5]. The treatment system also has a 250-gallon storage tank and water pressurization tank.

Two wells are located on the site. The first is a 600’, capped well located in the southwestern corner of the site. This well, before being capped, produced high temperature, mineral-laden water. A second well is located about 10 feet directly south of Building 2a. This well is approximately 235 feet deep and provides water of “poor” quality as stated by Mr. Elmer Alston, APS Childs Hydroelectric Facility Manager. Mr. Alston provided information that the water from this well has a foul odor and taste, even after the existing water treatment system.

Current telecommunications utilize a microwave relay system that is owned, operated and maintained by APS. A small tower, located near the southwest corner of the site, transfers information to a larger tower located on Ike’s Backbone (the prominent ridge NE of the site). This microwave system is the only current means of communicating off-site.[6]

Mr. Elmer Alston, estimated the average electrical power usage for the Childs Site at about 8200 kWhr/month. This number is representative of about eight persons residing in three to four units and also includes daily use of the maintenance/machine shop facilities. A 69 kV substation, connecting the lines running from Pine to Camp Verde, is located on the site between the residential/office structures to the west and the remaining structures to the east.

Electric power is used in all buildings for heating, cooling, hot water, and other appliances. Central air-conditioning is used in three buildings (Buildings 5-7). A window AC unit is utilized in Building 4[7].

No immediate drainage issues or concerns were identified. All existing structures are located outside of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-yr floodplain of the Verde River. A small wash, running north-south, bisects the site between the western and eastern portions of the site.

Current access to the Childs Site by motorized land vehicle is via 23 miles of unpaved roads that begins about 15 miles east of Camp Verde. The site can also be accessed from a dirt road that begins in Strawberry, and travels down near Irving. These roads meet approximately six miles northeast of Childs. The last six of which are of “primitive” form and are only easily traversable by a vehicle with high ground clearance or four-wheel drive. Other feasible means to access the site is by way of the Verde River.

No ADA compliant structures are recognized on the Childs site. NAU will have to evaluate this condition in order to determine the need for ADA compliant structures.

Minimum Requirements for NAU Fossil Creek Field Station

In order to develop a design concept for the NAU Fossil Creek Field Station Facility at Childs, it was necessary to determine the minimum requirements. The purpose of the design concept is to provide a minimum framework for implementation. Future needs of the facility will be evaluated and determined on an on-going basis.

The minimum requirements presented below were developed in response to interviews with NAU faculty members in engineering and biology. The major field station components, defined as those common to each interviewee, were identified and have been included.

Contained within this section is a preliminary infrastructure needs analysis for the proposed field station to located at the former site of the APS Childs Hydroelectric Power Plant. This 15-acre site is located on the Verde River, about 3 miles upstream from the confluence of Fossil Creek, and currently has 11 major structures in place, along with 10 structures designed for storage. A microwave relay station, for communications, is located at the western end of the site.

The proposed field station will serve a diverse range of peoples and academic fields and is designed to facilitate an understanding of the Fossil Creek ecosystem and the Colorado Plateau of which it is a part. The primary and secondary users of this facility have been identified and are shown below.

Primary Users

· NAU Faculty & Student Researchers (engineering, biology, geology)

· NAU Research Programs (CSE, Verde Watershed Res/Educ Program)

· USFS (human presence)

· Visiting research staff (other colleges, govt agencies)

Secondary Users

· Various K-12 school districts (Camp Verde, Pine, Maricopa)

· Arizona Historical Society

· Environmental groups

A series of interviews with NAU faculty from the various departments has been used to generate the field station parameters shown on the next page. The authors wish to thank the following faculty members for their time and expertise:

· Professor William Auberle, MSE, PE (CET)

· Professor Charlie Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG (CET)

· Professor Neil Cobb, PhD (Biology)

· Professor Amy Whipple, PhD (Biology)

NAU Fossil Creek Field Station Minimum Parameters

One structure to function as the permanent residence for the station director. The director or the director and family will occupy this structure year-round. The residence will include full bathroom and kitchen facilities, power/telephone line, and other amenities to be decided.

Two structures to function as temporary residences for 6-8 short-term research staff, defined as residents for six months or less. These structures will provide full bathroom facilities, a meeting area, lounge facilities, full kitchen/dining facilities, and other amenities to be decided.

One structure dedicated to research, with office facilities. This will provide a light-use laboratory and the following amenities:

Electric Power
Telephone and fax lines
Computers
Refrigeration (standard refrigerator and chest freezer)
Drying ovens (electric)

One or two structures to function as a maintenance shop/garage and field house for storage.

One structure to provide a wide range of services: multi-use classroom(s), research facility, outdoor learning/education pavilion that provides a gathering place and facilities for slide shows and presentations, museum for hydroelectric facilities and Arizona history, and a public information/outreach center.

Preliminary Structure Uses

The existing structures, as described in the existing infrastructure assessment, are structurally sound and in good condition. During the site visits, all structures were examined and measured from the exterior. The interior of all structures were examined for general condition, with the exception of Buildings 1, 5, & 6, which were serving as residences for APS staff or USFS rangers. Mr. Elmer Alston provided much information concerning the current condition of the structures.

Exhibit 2 presents the current and proposed uses for each of the structures located at the Childs site, along with the building exterior dimensions and square footage. It is proposed that the majority of the existing structures remain in place, to fulfill minimum requirements or for future expansions. Certain structures, as indicated in Exhibit 2, are proposed to be removed by APS.

An additional structure, indicated on the site layout but not included in this exhibit, is located within the site dump area. This structure is dilapidated and will be removed by APS during remediation of the site[8].

Systems Specifications

Six main systems have been identified as necessary for the operation of the NAU Fossil Creek Field Station at the former Childs Power Plant Facility. These are:

· Potable Water Supply

· Wastewater Treatment Facilities

· Communications

· Power Supply

· Site Access

· Drainage

A discussion of the preliminary solutions to these field station needs is shown below.

Potable Water Supply

The current domestic water supply is taken from the power plant penstock, which is fed by the Fossil Creek Diversion. This source of water will no longer be available after December 31, 2004, when full flow is restored to Fossil Creek. Three alternatives for the supply of potable water have been identified and are discussed.

1. Use of the existing 235’ well, located 10’ directly south of the water treatment facility (Building 2a). As this water is of “poor quality”[9], it is anticipated that the current water treatment facility will need to be upgraded. The current water treatment system consists of two carbon filters, chlorine treatment, and UV treatment. Additional reverse osmosis treatment could be used for drinking water.

2. Hauling of potable water from an outside source. This option will require an additional, or larger, storage tank. The feasibility of this option needs further investigation. It is anticipated that the remote nature of the site and the 23 miles of primitive roadway will make this option a last resort.

3. Acquisition of Verde River water rights from SRP and the placement of a well in the alluvial. Once again, further investigation is necessary to determine the feasibility of this option. Conversation with Dr. Charlie Schlinger indicate that acquisition of Verde River water rights from SRP will not be difficult[10], however, at this time it is not possible to propose any specific details concerning this option. It is anticipated that the current water treatment system will be adequate for production of potable water taken from the Verde River.

Upon further investigation, a Point of Use (POU) five-stage reverse osmosis treatment system is recommended for each of the proposed residences and the office/laboratory facility. A Watts Premier Inc. 5 Stage Reverse Osmosis System is specified and is readily available at the Home Depot. An implementation cost of $1540 with annual filter replacement costs of $145/year/unit is anticipated base on the following information.

· Purchase = $1260 (7 @ $180 each)

· Installation = $280 (1 hour labor/unit @ $40/hour)

· Filter/Membrane Replacement = $1015/year (7 units @ $145/unit/year)

The Watts 5 Stage Reverse Osmosis System may be used with chlorinated and non-chlorinated water supplies. The system does not treat for iron and excessive hardness, which may affect membrane life. A faucet, three-gallon storage tank, and automatic shut-off valve are included. Required system pressure for proper function is 40 – 100 psi.

Wastewater Treatment

Wastewater Treatment Facilities: There are currently two wastewater treatment systems in place at the Childs facility. The first is located between Buildings 4 and 5 and serves those two structures only. This system was determined to be legal conforming. It is a newer system, and is in accordance to all Yavapai County regulations. The offset distances from the FEMA 100- year floodplain, all building and road is in accordance to the offset distances required by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, as shown in Exhibit 3. It is proposed that this wastewater treatment system will be adequate to service these buildings under their proposed uses.

Exhibit 3 - Offset Distances[11]

Feature	Setback Distance (ft)
Buildings	10
Property lines	5
Water supply	100
Perennial intermittent stream	100
Drainage area > 5 acres	50
Water main/ branch water line	10
Domestic service water line	5
Driveway	5
Easement	5

The remainder of the residence structures and Building 7 are served by a wastewater treatment system located off the southwest corner of Building 7. This system has been determined to be legal nonconforming. This wastewater treatment system has two immediate problems that make it unacceptable for future use. The first is that the leach field is potentially within 100’ of the FEMA 100-year flood plain. The second is that the system has been modified from the original as-built plans and there is no information that presents the current specifications of the modified system, nor is there indication that the Yavapai County Health Department is aware of these modifications. As such, it is not possible to determine if this wastewater treatment system meets the regulations concerning health and safety. Therefore, the wastewater treatment systems for Buildings 1-3, 6, and 7 will need to be designed. Several options for the replacement of this system have been examined. They are as follows:

1. All buildings could utilize a system that separated the grey water from the black water. The grey water could then be used for irrigation or reused in the toilets.

2. Each of the residence and the office could have an individual system put in place. This would be a total of five systems. Each system would need to be approximately 1000-gallon tanks. This is in accordance to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Each system is sized for a two-bedroom house with a fixture count that does not exceed 21 units. Fixture counts for each building can be seen in Exhibit 4. The design daily flow for each of these systems is 450 gallons per day.

The following information is in accordance with the Water Quality Division RC # 006.1. The fixture count is assuming that the water closets are not low flow.

Exhibit 4 - Building Fixture Counts

Building number	1	2	3	6	7
Number of rooms	2	2	2	2	3
Fixtures
Bathtub	2	2	2	2	0
Bidet	0	0	0	0	0
Cloth washer	2	2	2	2	0
Dishwasher	0	0	0	0	0
Utility tub	0	0	0	0	0
Shower	2	2	2	2	0
Sink, Kitchen	2	2	2	2	2
Sink, bar	0	0	0	0	0
Sink, service	0	0	0	0	0
Lavatory, single	2	2	2	2	2
Lavatory, double	0	0	0	0	0
Water closet,1.6 Gal/flush	0	0	0	0	0
Water closet,>1.6-3.2	0	0	0	0	0
Water closet,>3.2	6	6	6	6	6
Total fixture count	16	16	16	16	10
Min Tank size	1000	1000	1000	1000	1000
Daily Design Flow	450	450	450	450	450

3. One wastewater treatment system could be located near Building 7 to serve Buildings 6 and 7. This system will be placed in approximately the same location as the existing system, with the guarantee that the leach field be located more than 100’ from the FEMA 100-year floodplain for the Verde River.

One wastewater treatment system could be located east of Building 3 to serve Building 1, 2, and 3. The exact location of this system will need to be specified, although it is anticipated that the location between Buildings 3b and 3c provides the best location. It will need to verified that the leach field will be more than 50’s from the floodplain of the wash that runs between the residence and power plant sections of the site.

The wastewater treatment system servicing buildings 1,2, and 3 should be designed for a flow of 1350 gallons per day, with a minimum septic tank size of 3000 gallons.

The wastewater treatment system servicing building 6 and 7 should be designed for a flow of 900 gallons per day, with a minimum septic tank size of 2000 gallons.

These numbers are in accordance to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. It is taking into consideration that each building is a two-bedroom house with a fixture count that does not exceed 21 units.

4. The current system would be replace with a storage tank in addition to a treatment unit. The storage tank would act as a primary filtering system as well as a flow equalizer. During periods of heavy flow the excess waste would be stored in this tank until the treatment unit was able to process the waste. A 3000-gallon storage tank could be used, along with an Orenco AdvanTex type system. These systems are designed for small sites and environmentally sensitive areas.

Exhibit 5 shows the minimum wastewater treatment tank size for the five structures without adequate treatment.

Exhibit 5 -Design Flow

Building	Min Septic Tank Size	Daily Design Flow
1	1000	450
2	1000	450
3	1000	450
6	1000	450
7		20 gpd per employee

Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Options

Grey water separation and composting toilets would involve extensive plumbing work, which would be very costly. A grey water collection system or grey water treatment system may also be needed. In addition to the cost, composting toilets may not be able to accommodate the demands that may be placed on the system.

Replacing the system with individual systems would be very costly. The maintenance cost of individual system would also be high. Due to the remoteness of this site it would be expensive to have the systems pumped, and with the addition of several system the potential for maintenance needs increases.

The replacement of the system with two systems is a viable option, however it still involves additional maintenance cost.

In the interest of minimizing start-up and O/M costs, and also environmental impacts, it is proposed that legal nonconforming system should be replaced with one system. This would allow the current plumbing system to be used, so that all existing piping could be left in place with minimal upgrades needed. The maintenance cost for one system will be lower than if the system were to be replaced with several systems. It is proposed that the existing system be replaced with a 3000-gallon storage tank and a treatment unit, such as the Orenco AdvanTex System. AdvanTex Treatment Systems are ideal for small sites. The AX Series produces effluent that exceeds Secondary Treatment Standards. Two AX20 models could be used. These models have a treatment capacity of 500 gpd, and can be easily expanded. These systems have low initial cost and low lifecycle costs. The addition of treatment units could be implemented in the future if the demands were to increase. The suggested design criteria for the system was done to estimate the size of the storage tank and treatment unit.

The design flow according to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality is as follows for each building:

450 gallon/day
1000 minimum tank size

The anticipated flow is lower since several of the residence will be temporary. These buildings will not be occupied year round. Only one of the building will have year round occupancy. We determined that using the Table 1. Unit Daily Design Flow, located in the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, would give a better estimation of the actual design flow. Those numbers are as follows:

One permanent residence—450 Gpd
Three temporary residence houses—100gpd per person
Office—20 gpd per employee

The seasonal and summer residence usage is estimated at 100 gpd, this is according to Table 1--Unit daily design flow in the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

It is estimated that the temporary residents will only be there an average of 2 days per week, and the number of temporary residents is 12. This number is very conservative. The actual number of temporary residence will be lower. The average flow was determined by assuming that two days out of the week the site would have full occupancy, and the remaining five days there would only be the permanent residents on site. The minimum and maximum flows were determined using these assumptions and are shown below.

Min gpd—530 (permanent residence, no temporary, 4 employee)
Max gpd—1890(permanent residence, 12 temporary, 12 employee)
Average gpd—1000

Primary settling tank design to hold 3000 gallons

Treatment unit designed to treat 1000 gallons per day

The proposed wastewater treatment system can be implemented for $10,000.

Communications

Current telecommunications utilize a microwave system that is owned, operated and maintained by APS. A small tower, located near the southwest corner of the site, transfers information to a larger tower located on Ike’s Backbone (the prominent ridge NE of the site). This microwave system is the only current means of communicating off-site.[12]

It is proposed that NAU work out a suitable contract with APS to use the microwave relay station at the site. If a contract cannot be reached the relay station will need to be replaced or other options for communications will need to be explored. One solution would be the use of satellite phones.

Power

Power is currently supplied to the site via a split off of the line located between Camp Verde and Pine. This split supplies a 69 kV substation located on site. Mr. Elmer Alston estimated the average electrical power usage for the Childs Site to be 8200 kW-hr/month. This number is representative of about eight persons residing in three to four units and daily usage of the maintenance/machine shop facilities.

This source of electricity will continue to be utilized at the site. It is proposed that NAU have a master meter installed and then have power distributed throughout the site. The use of solar power can also be implemented and is discussed in the Green Building Techniques section of this paper.

Site Access

The Forest Service currently maintains the dirt roads that access the site. The Forest Service will continue to maintain these roads, so no additional means of access will be needed.

Proposed Green Building Systems

Green Building Overview

NAU is committed to providing sustainable and environmentally sound facilities. The design for this field station is committed to provide an environmentally sensitive research station. The preservation of the natural environment of the area is of utmost importance. One of the goals of this study is to provide a conceptual design that will follow certain green building guidelines accepted and used today.

Green guidelines and techniques have been analyzed for the proposed field station. The four areas most applicable to this project are discussed and outlined below.

· Rainwater collection system

· Solar power supplementation

· Grey water separation

· Increased structural thermal efficiency

Rainwater Catchment System

A rainwater collection system is recommended to increase water efficiency and reduce demand on the potable water supply. This system utilizes rain gutters to convey precipitation to barrels where it is stored for future use.

This type of system is recommended for the proposed residential and office buildings (7 structures). The anticipated cost of such a system is approximately $2500[13] and is outlined below.

· Roof edge rain gutters - $2000 (652 LF @ $3/LF)

· Rain Barrels (55 gallon PVC barrels) - $490 (7 @ $70 each)

The rainwater collection system discussed on the preceding page is not able to retain all design rooftop runoff for future use. In order to model the summer monsoon thundershowers, the 2-year, 6-hour storm was used. The value of 2.2” of rain in the 6 hour period was taken from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 2, Volume VIII. This generates rooftop runoff volumes of nearly 1000 gallons for the structure with the smallest roof area. Because of this, a second phase of this system has also been examined and proposed. This includes a central cistern (3000-5000gallon) for storage and distribution that is connected to each individual rainwater collection system. The implementation of this system would include approximately 3000 feet of pipe and a pump for distribution. The estimated total cost for the discussed second phase of the rainwater collection system is $7000 and is outlined below.

· Central cistern - $4000 ($1/gal)

· Collection and distribution piping - $3000 (3000 ft @ $1/ft)

· System pump - $1000

Solar Power Generation

The design power requirement for the NAU field station at the Childs Power Plant facility has been set at 8200 kW-hr per month. The design value is simply the current monthly average of the facility, as is. Mr. Elmer Alston, APS Childs Facility Manager, provided a monthly average power usage for 8-9 people occupying the facility, and includes the power usage for the site’s machine shop.

It is believed that use of this value for design is conservative, as it is anticipated that the machine shop will not be functioning on a daily basis with the current level of usage-hours. However, the expected power usage will be high due to the large number of electrically powered appliances. Note that all buildings on the site use electric hot water heaters, electric heaters and air conditioners, electric stoves and dryers, and electric power for water pumping/treatment/distribution, in addition to lighting, computers, and other normal electric accessories/appliances. The future desire for a biological research facility has also been considered when determining the design value for the power required.

In order to adequately size the solar power system, several items needed to be decided upon. These include: Percent of design value to be provided by solar power generation, system type (individual structures, central system, central/grid integrated system), and number of sun hours per day (affects generating potential). The 10% alternative (4.0 kW system) and the 25% alternative (9.7 kW system) have been evaluated. Values higher than 25% of the monthly design power are not feasible due to the prohibitive cost.

The proposed solar array will generate 10% of the monthly design power value. The array will consist of 33 Kyocera 120-W photovoltaic panels and the associated wiring and AC inversion equipment. After the current inversion, the array will be connected directly to the power grid at the site electric meter. The 10% alternative will generate 27.7 kW-hr per day and 1.6kA-hr per day, or 832 kW-hr per month and 49 kA-hr per month. This value has been determined using the following parameters:

Solar Panels: 120 W, 7.1 A, and 16.9 V.
7 hours of sun per day for 30 days per month (assumed)[14]

There are two primary advantages to an integrated, grid-tied system. The first is that by connecting directly to the electrical grid eliminates the need for a battery bank to store the power generated. The 10% alternative would require enough batteries to store the 1600 A-hr generated each day. The cost for the batteries would be $3500. The second is that the system can take advantage of the Arizona Net Metering Law. This law requires that public power providers to purchase excess power generated on a site. The law also limits the system size that can be installed. For APS, the systems size limit is 10kW. The highlights and summary of the law are shown as Exhibit X and are taken from the Arizona Department of Commerce website.

Exhibit 6 – Arizona Net Metering Law Summary[15]

AZ Net Metering

Incentive Type: Net Metering Rules

Eligible Technologies: Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Wind, Biomass, Hydro, Geothermal Elec

Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Nonprofit

Limit on System Size: 100 kW for TEP; 10 kW for APS

Limit on Overall Enrollment: None

Treatment of Net Excess: APS: purchased at avoided cost, TEP: fixed seasonal rates

Utilities Involved: Investor-owned utilities and rural electric cooperatives

Date Enacted: 2/4/94

Expiration Date: None

Website: http://www.cc.state.az.us/

Authority 1: ACC Decision No. 52345; APS tariff: EPR-4 and TEP tariff: 101 and 102

Summary:

The original Arizona Corporation Commission regulatory decision allowing net metering was made on July 27, 1981. This ruling allows net metering for qualifying facilities (QF) as defined by PURPA. No Arizona utility filed a net metering tariff until Arizona Public Service (APS) company filed in 1994 to allow net metering of all renewable energy generators under 10 kW. Net excess generation under the APS tariff is purchased at the utility’s avoided cost.

Contact:

Ray Williamson

Arizona Corporation Commission

1200 W. Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Phone: (602) 542-0828

Fax: (602) 542-2129

E-Mail: rwilliamson@cc.state.az.us

Web site: http://www.cc.state.az.us/

Once the system was sized, a cost analysis was performed. This includes the cost per watt (panels), the hardware costs (wiring, inverters, controllers), the installation costs, and the total system cost minus the APS $2/watt rebate. The APS rebate is a direct result of the Arizona Environmental Portfolio Standard[16], which requires public power providers in Arizona to produce an annual percentage of electrical power from a renewable source.

The cost to implement the 10% alternative for solar power generation has been determined to be $19,400. The cost estimate does not include taxes, special fees, delivery charges, or surcharges due to the remote nature of the site. The individual item costs are shown in Exhibit 7.

Exhibit 7 – 10% Solar Power Alternative

Solar Panels	Kyocera 120 Watt	33 panels @ $540/ea	$17820
Wiring/Mounting	Standard	TBD	$3000
AC Inverter	Trace SW	1 @ $4000/ea	$4000
Installation	Licensed Contractor		$2500
Subtotal			$27320
EPS Credit	APS	$2/watt	-$7920
Total			$19400

When implementing an alternative energy source system, conserving power is very important. On average, for every $1 spent to conserve power will save almost $2 in the cost of your solar system[17]. To conserve power, consider the following:

Heating with gas is mush more efficient then using electric.
Replace all incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs.
Purchase only Energy Star rated appliances.
Other energy-efficient measures

The 25% alternative, which has been evaluated but not recommended, is summarized in Exhibit 8.

Exhibit 8 – 25% Solar Power Alternative

Solar Panels	Kyocera 120 Watt	81panels @ $540/ea	$43740
Wiring/Mounting	Standard	TBD	$7500
AC Inverter	Trace SW	1 @ $6000/ea	$6000
Installation	Licensed Contractor		$4000
Subtotal			$61240
EPS Credit	APS	$2/watt	-$19440
Total			$41800

Grey Water Separation

Grey water separation could be implemented at the Childs site. The plumbing system would need to upgrade to accommodate the separation. A collection system and holding system would need to be implemented to allow for reuse of the grey water.

Grey water is water from kitchen sinks, dishwashers, bathtubs, and bathroom sinks. Using Grey water can reduce the drinkable water consumption by 25 to 40 percents. It can also reduce the demands placed on the wastewater treatment system.

There are two principal ways of collecting and holding grey water. The water can be piped into an aboveground, in-house holding tank. This system uses gravity to move the grey water into the tank. A pump is needed to remove the grey water from the tank. Holding tanks of this type will require an attached disinfection unit. The tank size will depend on the amount of grey water produced, and the available space in the house.

The second collection technique is an in-ground grey water treatment system. These act much like other wastewater treatment tank, but the amount of treatment needed is reduced.

Grey water can be used for irrigation of some plants, however it cannot be used on edible plants. When grey water is used for irrigation of grass and tree, fresh water should be used every other watering. Water should not be allowed to puddle or runoff.

Increased Structural Thermal Efficiency

Three methods of increasing the thermal efficiency of the existing structures are analyzed and discussed below.

Increased attic insulation
Window upgrades
Increased exterior wall insulation

Increased Attic Insulation

The energy efficiency of a ceiling is a function of insulating R-value, air leakage, and material characteristics in absorbing, transmitting, and emitting solar radiation (NAHB). The current attic insulation measures were not investigated. Increasing the insulating R-value of the attic to R-40 or higher is recommended.

Window Upgrades

The existing structures on site primarily consist of single pane, high-e windows. Gas-filled dual pane window with selective transmission, low-e glazings are recommended. Low-e qualities reduce the transfer of heat into or out of the structure while the selective properties help reduce cooling loads by allowing in daylight minus the infrared energy. The cost of such window upgrades have not been analyzed, but are expected to be quite high.

Increased Exterior Wall Insulation

Wall R-values typically range from R-11 to about R-23 (NAHB). Because the structures on site are existing, and ideal time to increase the wall R-value would be during interior or exterior remodeling. This includes new exterior siding or interior wallboard. Foam sheathing, higher density insulation between studs, and reduced framing will are feasible example of how to increase the exterior wall R-value.

Conclusion

This analysis and recommendations provided within this document are in an effort to address all of the requirements necessary for a working research and educational facility in the Fossil Creek region. These requirements were determined through extensive interviews with various NAU staff with direct interest in a NAU Fossil Creek Field Station.

Six major systems are identified as necessary for a functioning facility that meets the minimum requirements set forth by NAU. Recommendations are made for each of these systems, which include domestic water supply, wastewater treatment, site access, electrical power, communications, and drainage. Utilization of existing infrastructure is key to minimizing cost for this project. Therefore, only costs in addition to the operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure are outlined in the following paragraphs.

The proposed domestic water supply utilizes the well, treatment, and distribution system currently existing on site. Point-of-use five-stage reverse osmosis treatment systems are recommended to improve taste and odor. Anticipated purchase and installation cost for the reverse osmosis treatment systems is $1500.

Two on-site WWT systems currently exist at the Childs site. Recommended design for the replacement of one system is estimated at $10,000.

Electric power will be taken from the APS sub-station on site. A 4.0 kW solar array is recommended and discussed as electrical power supplementation. The anticipated cost for implementation of this system is $19,000.

Current telecommunications utilize a microwave system that is owned, operated and maintained by APS. It is recommended that NAU work out a suitable contract with APS to leave the current communications network in place.

The rooftop rainwater collection system recommended has an associated implementation cost of about $2500.

The total start-up cost for the proposed NAU Fossil Creek Field Station Facility, at the minimum requirements level, is estimated at $35,000 plus communications. Operations and maintenance costs are estimated at $4000/year. This is based on $2000/year for the maintenance of site roads, including grading and gravel placement, $1000/year for the replacement of the filters and membranes for the reverse osmosis treatment systems, and $1000/year for miscellaneous costs.

Recommendations for various green building applications, in addition to the minimum requirements, and the related cost is included within this document.

References

Bibliography

ADEQ – Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2001). Unified Water Quality

Permit Rules. ADEQ

GBGAC – Green Buildings Guidelines Advisory Committee and the SBIC – Sustainable

Buildings Industry Council. (August 2002). Green Building Guidelines.

GBGAC and the SBIC.

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Center. (2000). Guide to

Developing Green Building Programs. NAHB – HBI

Orenco Systems Incorporated. (1999). Retrieved March 28, 2003

Website: http://www.orenco.com

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA), and the National Weather Service (NWS) Office of Hydrology. (1973).

NOAA Atlas 2, Volume VIII: Isopluvial of 2yr-6hr precipitation and 25yr-6hr

Precipitation. HDSC/NWS Office of Hydrology

Interviews

Alston, Elmer. Personal Interview. 2/19/03. APS, Supervisor of Day to Day

Operations – Childs Hydroelectric Facility

Auberle, Professor William. Personal Interview. Various Dates. Civil and

Environmental Engineering, NAU College of Engineering and Technology

Cobb, Dr. Neil. Personal Interview. February 5, 2003. NAU, Biological Sciences

Schlinger, Dr. Charlie. Personal Interview. Various Dates. Civil and Environmental

Engineering, NAU College of Engineering and Technology

Smithers, Phil. Personal Interview. February 19, 2003. APS - Project Manager for the

decommissioning of the Childs Facility

Whipple, Dr. Amy. Personal Interview. February 5, 2003. NAU, Biological Sciences

Websites

http://www.batterycountry.com/ShopSite/sec.htm (Solar Power Calculator)

http://www.icpglobal.com/html/solarcal.asp (Solar Power Calculator)

http://www.solar-panels-for-energy.com/prod_store/PV_kyocera.html (Solar Panels)

http://www.solar-panels-for-energy.com/prod_store/PS_intertie.html (Grid-tie System)

www.pinestrashs.org/childsiriving.htm

www.rmrs.nau.edu/lab/4302/fc/

www.aps.com/my_community/storyarchive/story/archive_18

www.americanrivers.org/tablecontents/fcoverview.htm

Appendix

Existing Structures Discussion

Building 1: This structure currently serves a residence for the USFS Rangers in charge of this area. The rangers are part of the Coconino National Forest Beaver Creek Ranger District. It is believed that the use of this structure will not change after APS relinquishes control of the site to National Forest, as there currently are no ranger stations in this area. This structure has 912 ft² of space, a half-basement, and is located furthest from the site entrance.

Building 1a: Located northwest of building 1 at a distance of 70’. This structure serves a storage shed and is the only structure of this type that has a concrete floor slab. The area of this structure is 240 ft². It is anticipated that building 1a will serve as a storage shed for building 1.

Building 2: This is a residence structure that contains two bedrooms, one bathroom, a full kitchen, and washer/dryer connections. The floor space of this structure is 912 ft², not including the half-basement. Building 2 does not have any form of air-conditioning system and is currently unoccupied. This structure has been identified for use a short-term residence for research staff at the field station. This structure appears to be in the worst condition of any of the residences at the site. Preliminary observations indicate the following (minimum) upgrades are necessary for this structure to serve as a short-term residence for 2-3 people:

New carpeting
Front porch reconstruction
Provision of kitchen appliances (electric stove and refrigerator)
New exterior siding and insulation
Exterior and interior painting

Building 2a: This structure, with an area of 204 ft², currently serves as the water treatment facility for the potable water of the Childs site. It is intended that this structure continue to serve this purpose. The building is relatively new and not in need of any upgrades. Upgrades to the water treatment system are discussed in the Potable Water subsection of the Systems Specifications section which follows this discussion.

Building 3: This structure is very similar to building 2, although it slightly smaller and has a different layout. Building 3 has 768 ft² of space, two bedrooms, one bathroom, a full kitchen, and a half-basement. Washer and dryer hookups are located in enclosed porch on rear of structure. The air-conditioning system is a window unit. Building 3 is currently unoccupied. This structure has been identified for use a short-term residence for research staff at the field station. Preliminary observations indicate the following (minimum) upgrades are necessary for this structure to serve as a short-term residence for 2-3 people:

New carpeting
Front porch reconstruction
Provision of kitchen appliances (electric stove and refrigerator)
New exterior siding and insulation
Exterior painting

Building 3a: This structure is a relatively new storage shed located between buildings 2 and 3. The area of this building is 126 ft² and it is intended that this structure will serve as storage shed for the residents of buildings 2 and 3.

Buildings 3b and 3c: These structures currently serve a chicken coops. It is intended that these structures are to be removed. Due to the need for a newly designed septic system and leach field to serve building 1, 2, and 3, the location currently occupied by these buildings will be used for this purpose. See the discussion of wastewater treatment that follows in the Systems Specifications section.

Building 4: This structure, which has an area of 874 ft², two bedrooms, one bathroom, a full kitchen, and a half-basement, currently serves as a guesthouse for APS staff. It is intended that this structure remain in place and be used a residence for distinguished visitors to the site. Preliminary observations indicate that no upgrades are necessary for this structure to serve as a guesthouse; however, BBH did not have the opportunity to examine the interior of this structure. It is proposed that the interior of this structure must have the same interior conditions as all other short-term residences at this site, which may include new carpeting, interior painting, and other upgrades as necessary.

Building 4a: This structure is currently used as a storage shed for building 4, and it is intended that the proposed use be the same. The building has an area of 240 ft².

Building 5: This building is the second largest of the residence structures at the Childs site. The building has an area of 1568 ft², central air conditioning, three bedrooms, two bathrooms, full kitchen, and a half-basement. An APS staff member and his family currently occupy this structure. It is proposed that this structure be used as the permanent residence of the station director. Preliminary observations of the exterior of this structure indicate that no upgrades are necessary at this time for this building to fulfill the role of permanent residence for the station director. It is proposed that the interior of this structure must have the same interior conditions as all other short-term residences at this site, which may include new carpeting, interior painting, and other upgrades as necessary.

Building 6: This is the largest of the existing structures at 1672 ft². This building has two bedrooms, one bathroom structure with a full kitchen, half-basement, and a rooftop AC unit. The current use for this structure is as the residence for Mr. Elmer Alston, the plant manager for the Childs facility. There is no immediate need for this structure under the minimum requirements developed earlier in this document. It is proposed that this structure be retained on the site for future use as a long-term research staff residence. Preliminary observations that the following upgrades will be necessary for this structure to fulfill this role:

· Exterior painting

· Possible reproofing

· Interior upgrades as necessary for satisfactory interior conditions

Building 6a: Storage shed for building 6 is the current use of this 240 ft² is storage for building 6. It is proposed that the building serve the same function for the field station.

Building 7: This structure currently serves as the plant office for the Childs facility. The structure has an area of 1500 ft² and a half-bathroom. A large roll-up is located at the eastern end of this structure. Most of the structure is open with the exception of an office at the western end. It is proposed that this building serve as the field station office and light-use lab facility. The following preliminary (minimum) upgrades have been identified for building 7 to serve as the field station office and laboratory:

· Complete renovation and reconfiguration of building interior

· Electrical upgrades to provide sufficient power for computers and laboratory equipment

· Provision of suitable furniture and tables

· Necessary computer and communications equipment

· Necessary laboratory equipment (electric drying ovens, refrigeration/freezing capabilities, and other)

Building 7a: This 420 ft² structure currently serves as sto4rage for building 7. It is proposed that this structure be utilized as the field house for the station, to store large field equipment. It is proposed that this structure will require the placing of a concrete slab floor and upgrading of the entry door, with locks, to provide secure storage for equipment.
Buildings 8 and 9: These two structures, with areas of 490 ft² and 768 ft², respectively, currently serve as the machine/maintenance shops for the Childs facility. Needed parts have been fabricated on-site within these two structures. This has been a very important aspect of this facility for the simple reason that the remote nature of the site has forced the APS staff to be self-reliant in many cases. It is proposed that one or both of these structures serve as the station’s maintenance facility. No upgrades have been identified at this time for these two structures. It is anticipated, given the current usage of the structures as maintenance facilities, that they will be able to adequately fulfill this role with minimal upgrades, if any at all.

Building 10: This structure, currently serving as a storage facility, is the “Old Icehouse”. The icehouse has been identified by Mr. Phil Smithers, APS, as being one of two structures that will remain on the site, regardless of the final usage of the site. This is due to the request by the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that the icehouse, power plant, penstock, and other features remain due to their historical significance. It is proposed that building 10 be restored, according to the standards set forth under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 19??, and be utilized as the information/public outreach center for the site museum (see entry 18 below). BBH is unable to propose any preliminary upgrades until a better understanding of the policies and procedures set forth under the NHPA has been gained.

Buildings 11 and 11a: These structures currently serve as storage for hazardous/flammable materials. It is proposed that these structures be removed, with the burden of remediation to be placed on APS.

Historic Childs Power Plant: The power plant structure has 2464 ft² of space. It is proposed that this structure remain in place due to its unique heritage and be utilized as a museum and educational center for the understanding of hydroelectric power generation and early 20^th century Arizona. At this time, no preliminary upgrades have been identified. It is proposed that one of the three generators on site be retained, along with placement of the generator from the Irving power plant, for preservation and education purposes.

Microwave Relay Station: This is not a structure, however, it is a very critical aspect of the site infrastructure in terms of communications. There are no landlines coming to the Childs site, and it is believed that the cost of doing so would be prohibitive. Therefore, it is proposed that the relay station be retained for the purpose of providing communications for the field station. A satisfactory arrangement will need to be made with APS to gain access to their repeater station (located on Ike’s Backbone) for communication with the outside world.

Team Timesheet

Team Time Sheet
		Jake	Dan	Krissy	Total By Task
Project Initiation		1	1	1	3
Site Visit 1 (Irving) (11/11/02)	Travel Time	3	3	3	9
	On-site	5	5	5	15
	Mgr Interview	3	3	3	9
Project Development		1	1	1	3
Team Meeting 1		2	2	2	6
Facility Historical Research		1	0	3	4
Communication w/ APS		2	0	0	2
Progress Report 1 (01/28/03)		2	3	3	8
Project Development Mtgs	Auberle	1	1	1	3
	Schlinger	1	1	1	3
	Cobb/Whipple	2	2	2	6
Odem Meeting 1		1	1	1	3
AutoCAD (Irving)		0	1	0	1
Team Meeting 2		2	2	2	6
Facility/Environmental Research		0	1	4	5
AutoCAD (Childs)		0	1	0	1
Scope of Services Mtg (02/11/03)	Auberle/Odem	1	1	1	3
Team Meeting 3 (02/13/03)		2	2	2	6
Site Visit 2 (Childs)	agenda develop	1	1	1	3
Progress Report 2 (02/18/03)		3	3	3	9
LEED Research		2	0	0	2
Client Meetings		1	1	1	3
APS supplied data retrieval		0	2	0	2
APS supplied data analysis		2	4	2	8
Site Visit 2 (Childs) (02/19/03)	Travel Time	4	4	4	12
	On-site	4	4	4	12
	Mgr Interview	2	2	2	6
Team Meeting 4 (02/20/03)		2	2	2	6
WWT System Research		0	1	4	5
Visions' Document		1	2	1	4
Minimum Requirements' Document		1	2	1	4
Odem Meeting 2		2	2	2	6
Refine Client/Minimum Requirements		1	1	1	3
Web Research		2	2	2	6
Week of 02/24/03
Client Meetings	Auberle	0	0	0.5	0.5
Research		0	0	0.5	0.5
Site Visit 2 Summary		1.5	0	0	1.5
Site Infrastructure Analysis		1	1	2	4
Team Meeting 5 (02/26/03)		2	2	2	6
AutoCAD (site plan)		0	0	6	6
Week of 03/03/03
Odem Meeting 3		1	1	1	3
Writing DCR		5	5	6	16
AutoCAD (site plan)		0	4	0	4
Team Meeting 6 (03/06/03)		2	2	2	6
Week of 03/10/03
Progress Report 3 (03/11/03)		2	2	2	6

Week of 03/31/03
Meeting w/ Dr. Mead		1	0	0	1
Odem Meeting 4		1	1	0	2
Week of 04/07/03
Team Meeting 7 (04/07/03)		1	1	1	3
WWT System Design		0	0	10	10
AutoCAD		0	2	0	2
Team Meeting 8 (04/07/03)		2	2	2	6
Progress Report 4 (04/08/03)		4	4	4	12
Trotta Meeting 1		1.5	1.5	1.5	4.5
Week of 04/14/03
Webpage Design		0	0	3	3
Odem Meeting 5		1	1	1	3
Green Building Design		2	0	0	2
Drinking Water Treatment Systems		1	0	0	1
Team Meeting 9		2	2	2	6
Trotta Meeting 2		0	1	1	2
Powerpoint Presentation Design		1	1	0	2
Week of 04/21/03
Powerpoint Presentation Design		4.5	6	5	15.5
Webpage Design		0	1	2	3
Team Meeting 10		2.5	2.5	2.5	7.5
Team Meeting 11		1.5	1.5	1.5	4.5
Team Meeting 12		1	1	1	3
Powerpoint Presentation (In-class)		0.5	0.5	0.5	1.5
Posterboard Design & Presentation		6	6	8	20
Team Meeting 13		1	1	1	3
Team Meeting 14		4	4	4	12
Powerpoint Presentation (capstone)		0.5	0.5	0.5	1.5
AutoCAD		0	4	0	4
Week of 04/28/03
Final DCR		8	8	8.5	24.5

	Total By Person	119.5	133.5	147

				Project Total	400
	Mileage	400

[4] NAHB and GBGAC/SBIC Green Building Guidelines Documents

Building	Current Use	Proposed Use	Dimensions	Square Footage
1	Residence - U.S. Forest Service	Residence - U.S. Forest Service	38x24	912
1a	Unknown (Shed)	Storage Shed	20x12	240
2	None (Residence)	Short-term Residence	38x24	912
2a	Water Treatment Facility	Potable Water Treatment Facility	17x12	204
3	None (Residence)	Short-term Residence	48x16	768
3a	Unknown (Shed)	Storage Shed	14x9	126
3b	Chicken Coop	Removed	20x6	120
3c	Chicken Coop	Removed	8x8	64
4	Guest House - APS	Distinguished Visitors	38x23	874
4a	Unknown (Shed)	Storage Shed	20x12	240
5	Residence	Station Director Residence	56x28	1568
6	Residence	Long-term Residence	44x38	1672
6a	Unknown (Shed)	Storage Shed	20x12	240
7	Office	Office/Light-Use Lab	50x30	1500
7a	Unknown (Shed)	Field house	21x20	420
8	Machine Shop	Machine Shop	24.5x20	490
9	Machine/Maintenance Shop	Machine/Maintenance Shop	32x24	768
10	Storage (Old Icehouse)	Information Center (restored)	19x15	285
11	Hazardous Material Storage	Removed	8x6	48
11a	Hazardous Material Storage	Removed	12x10	120
Power Plant	Hydroelectric Power Generation	Museum/Education Center (restored)	32x77	2464
Microwave Relay Station	Microwave Relay Station	Microwave Relay Station	13x9	117