WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN

Transcription

1 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN B&V PROJECT NO PREPARED FOR Black & Veatch Holding Company All rights reserved. OCTOBER 18, 2013 Kyle McCarty, P.E. Project Manager James Strayer, P.E. Associate Vice President

2 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Background Master Plan Objectives Report Organization Study Area Description Regional Considerations Population and Land Use Land Use Population Existing Population and Large Users Evaluation of Large Water and Wastewater Use Customers Future Population Projections Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses Existing Wastewater Collection System Gravity Sewer Pipelines Siphons Diversion Structures Lift Stations and Force Mains Flow Monitoring Flow Metering Locations Flow Monitoring Studies Dry Weather Analysis Dry weather Model Existing Flow Future Flow Wet Weather Analysis Flow Monitoring Assessment Dry Weather Analysis Wet Weather Analysis R-Value Analysis Capacity Analysis Evaluation Criteria Existing System Capacity Evaluation Dry Weather Wet Weather System Capacity Evaluation Dry Weather Wet Weather Capacity Improvements District Facilities BLACK & VEATCH Table of Contents i

3 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Regional Facilities Watch List Summary of Capacity Improvements Water Reclamation Plant Option Analysis Recommendations Unit Costs Capital Costs Construction Costs Total Project Costs Cost Summary Capacity Projects Costs Water Reclamation PLant Option Analysis WRP Option Analyses Costs WRP Considerations WRP Recommendations Replacement Assessment District Facilities Regional Facilities Recommended Capital IMprovement Plan District Capacity & Replacement/Rehabilitation Projects Capital Improvement Plan Regional Capacity Projects Capital Improvement Plan Regional Replacement/Rehabilitation Projects Funding Considerations District Fees Regional Fees BLACK & VEATCH Table of Contents ii

4 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Top Water Customers Table 2-2 Top Wastewater Customers Table 2-3 Planned Developments Projected Populations Table 3-1 Wastewater Collection System Pipelines Table 3-2 Siphons Table 3-3 Diversion Structures Table 3-4 Dry Weather Flow Summary Table 3-5 UGR by Basin Table 3-6 Summary of City of San Bernardino Flows Conveyed by East Trunk Sewer Table 3-7 Summary of Dry Weather Model Calibration Table 3-8 Future 2035 Flows Table 3-9 Significant Rainfall Events Summary Table Observed Flow Summary Table Observed Rainfall Event Summary Table 3-12 R-Value Summary by Meter Basin Table 4-1 Capacity Evaluation d/d Criteria Table 4-2 Summary of Existing System Model Results Table 4-3 Summary of 2035 System Model Results Table 4-4 Summary of Capacity Improvements Table 4-5 Summary of Offload Flow for WRP Options Table 4-6 Summary of Capacity Improvements Table 5-1 Capacity Improvements Costs Table 5-2 Baseline Scenario: (Continued SBWRP) Capacity Improvements Costs Table 5-3 WRP Option 1: Offload 1.33 mgd (Harmony Alternative) Capacity Improvements Costs Table 5-4 WRP Option 2: Offload 2.25 mgd (Boulder Alternative) Capacity Improvements Costs Table 5-5 WRP Option 3: Offload 3.85 mgd (Hwy 210 Alternative) Capacity Improvements Costs Table 5-6 Prioritized Defect/Flow Matrix Table 5-7 Pipeline Prioritization Summary Table 5-8 Summary of Rehabilitation/Replacement Costs for the District Table 5-9 Regional Rehabilitation/Replacement Projects Replacement Projects Table 5-10 Capital Improvement Program BLACK & VEATCH Table of Contents iii

5 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 District Location Figure 2-1 Land Use and Major Developments Figure 2-2 Existing 2012 Population by Class Figure 2-3 Projected 2035 Population by Customer Type Figure 2-4 Residential Population Projections Figure 3-1 Existing Facilities and Meter Basins Figure 3-2 Existing District Wastewater Collection System by Pipe Material Figure 3-3 Length of District s Gravity Sewer Pipe by Installation Period Figure 3-4 Dry Weather Flow Metering Figure 3-5 Wastewater Flow Schematic Figure 3-6 Sample Diurnal Curves for Flow Meter Figure 3-7 Calibration Curve for Flow Meter CUN Figure 3-8 Observed Flow and Rainfall during December 2010 Storm (Dec. 20 Dec. 21, 2010) Figure 3-9 December 2010 Storm Frequency Figure 3-10 Wet Weather Calibration Graph Figure 3-11 Wet Weather Flow Monitoring Figure Flow Monitoring Wastewater Flow Schematic Figure Flow Monitoring Study Storm Frequency Compared to December 2010 Event Figure 4-1 Existing District System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure 4-2 Existing Regional System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure 4-3 Existing District System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure 4-4 Existing Regional System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure District System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure Regional System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure District System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure Regional System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure 4-9 Capacity Improvements Figure 4-10 Estimated Potential WRP Flows Figure 5-1 Percent of Pipes with Defects by Age Figure 5-2 VCP Survival Curve Figure 5-3 Factors Shortening Useful Pipe Life Figure 5-4 Capital Improvement Plan BLACK & VEATCH Table of Contents iv

6 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Agreements Between City of San Bernardino and District Appendix B Land Use and Population Projection Detail Appendix C 2013 Flow Monitoring Study Appendix D Weekday and Weekend Diurnal Curves Appendix E Dry Weather Calibration Graphs Appendix F Model Results Appendix G Hydraulic Profiles for Areas on the Watch List Appendix H WRP Considerations Appendix I Pipe Survival Curves Appendix J Condition Database Appendix K CIP Detail BLACK & VEATCH Table of Contents v

7 East Valley Water District Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Abbreviations ADDF Average Daily Dry Weather Flow ADS ADS Environmental Services BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CIP Capital Improvement Program CCTV closed-circuit television District East Valley Water District d/d ratio of flow depth to pipe diameter ENR-CCI Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index EDU equivalent dwelling units ft feet fps feet per second GIS Geographic Information Systems gpd gallons per day gpcd gallons per capita per day HDPE high density polyethylene IDF intensity duration-frequency Hwy 210 Highway 210 Joint Powers Agreement of 1957 between the City of San JPA Bernardino and the East San Bernardino County Water District Master Plan Wastewater Collection System Master Plan 2002 Master Plan 2002 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan MGD million gallons per day NASSCO National Association of Sewer Service Companies N/I none identified PACP Pipeline Assessment Certification Program PVC polyvinyl chloride RCP Reinforced concrete pipeline RDII rainfall-derived inflow and infiltration RTP Regional Transportation Plan, 2008 RTP Update Regional Transportation Plan Update SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments SBWRP San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant SBCUSD San Bernardino County Unified School District SCAG Southern California Association of Governments TAZ traffic analysis zone TRUSS thermoplastic VCP vitrified clay pipe UGR unit generation rates USGS United States Geological Survey WRP water reclamation plant BLACK & VEATCH Abbreviations ABB- 1

8 1 Introduction and Background The East Valley Water District s (District s) Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (Master Plan) is an update to the 2002 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2002 Master Plan). Due to increased growth and aging infrastructure, the District needs to update its 20-year capital improvement program (CIP). 1.1 MASTER PLAN OBJECTIVES The objectives of the Master Plan are to evaluate the collection system capacity and provide a general assessment of the condition of the existing sewer collection system in order to develop a comprehensive 20-year CIP. The 20-year CIP includes pipeline condition and capacity improvement projects, long range maintenance program considerations, as well as conveyance needs. The recommended CIP will be the basis for wastewater rate evaluations and long range financial plans to be completed in separate financial studies. 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION The Master Plan provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of the District s wastewater collection, conveyance, and capacity requirements under existing and projected future conditions. Based on findings of the evaluation, the Master Plan recommends facility improvements and capital cost requirements to ensure that aging infrastructure remains serviceable and to allow for the continued buildout of the District. The Master Plan contains five (5) chapters: Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the project, the study area, and the relationship between the District and the City of San Bernardino. Chapter 2 summarizes land use and population information for existing and future evaluations. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the existing collection system and sewer basins, flow metering information, and estimates of existing and future wastewater generation rates for both dry and wet weather. Chapter 4 presents the capacity analysis including: methodology and findings of the hydraulic modeling, identified capacity constraints, and alternatives to address capacity concerns. Chapter 5 presents findings and recommendations for both condition assessment and capacity limitations. For condition assessment the findings will include a summary of the pipe condition assessment and identify specific condition deficiencies. A recommended rehabilitation and replacement program will be included based on identified risk. For capacity recommendations, a capital cost and prioritization is included. 1.3 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The District is located in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains along Highway 210 (Hwy 210) between the City of Redlands to the south and San Bernardino to the west. The District serves the City of Highland, portions of the City of San Bernardino, and areas of unincorporated San Bernardino County, including the San Manuel Indian Reservation. District wastewater is conveyed to the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP) via the regional East Trunk Sewer. Both the SBWRP and the East Trunk Sewer are owned and operated by the City of San Bernardino. For BLACK & VEATCH Introduction and Background 1-1

9 the Master Plan, the study area includes the District and portions of the City of San Bernardino that drain to the East Trunk Sewer. Figure 1-1 shows the study area location, District and municipal boundaries, as well as the East Trunk Sewer and SBWRP. Topographically, the study area varies considerably. Generally, the service area drains from north to south and east to west. Terrain in the study area ranges in elevation from approximately 1,000 to 3,000 feet (ft). 1.4 REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Since 1957, the District has conveyed wastewater to the City of San Bernardino for treatment at the SBWRP via the East Trunk Sewer. This relationship is described in more detail in the Joint Powers Agreement of 1957 Between the City of San Bernardino and the East San Bernardino County Water District (JPA) and subsequent amendments and supplements, provided in Appendix A. The East San Bernardino County Water District was later renamed to East Valley Water District in Through this agreement, the City of San Bernardino owns and maintains the East Trunk Sewer and SBWRP and the District has the right to discharge wastewater into the East Trunk Sewer (or other tributary sewers) for treatment at the SBWRP. The City of San Bernardino bills the District for services, which are then passed through to District customers based on their water usage. As the District moves forward with plans to extend service there may need to be additional amendments to the JPA. BLACK & VEATCH Introduction and Background 1-2

10 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan LEGEND East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary City of Highland City of San Bernardino 0 2,500 5,000 Feet 1 inch = 5,500 feet Figure 1-1 District Location Figure1_1 February 15, 2013

11 2 Population and Land Use Population and land use information was utilized to analyze existing wastewater flows and to estimate future flows. The population and land use data were obtained from the following: United States Census Bureau San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) San Bernardino County County of San Bernardino City of Highland Additional details on land use and population projections are included in Appendix B. 2.1 LAND USE The District is comprised of the City of Highland, unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County, and portions of the City of San Bernardino. Existing land use information was provided by SANBAG. Future land use was developed from information provided by: SANBAG, City of San Bernardino Planning Division (including the 2005 San Bernardino General Plan and 2012 General Plan Update), and the City of Highland Planning Division (including the 2006 General Plan, Harmony Specific Plan, Greenspot Village & Market Place Specific Plan, and known development projects). Figure 2-1 shows existing land use in the District and the locations of the major planned developments. 2.2 POPULATION Population data, both existing and projected, was obtained primarily from the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and SANBAG s associated Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data. The RTP is a 25-year plan that provides population projections through Existing Population and Large Users As a result of the economic downturn and subsequent stagnant growth from 2008 to 2012, it was assumed that the existing population in 2008 is equivalent to the 2012 population. The existing population projections in the District were estimated using TAZ data, which provided population by class including single-family residential, multi-family residential, retail employment, non-retail employment, and students. The TAZ boundaries were then overlaid with the District Boundary. Where the TAZ boundary extended beyond the District boundary, the TAZ boundary population was decreased to match the percent of land within the District (for example, if 90 percent of a TAZ was located within District boundaries it was assumed that 90 percent of the population of the TAZ was served by the District). Figure 2-2 shows the existing population provided by class. BLACK & VEATCH Population and Land Use 2-1

12 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan LEGEND Collection System Modeled Collection System East Trunk Sewer Planned Developments Existing Land Use Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Institutional School Open Space Agriculture ROW Vacant SBWRP District Boundary City of Highland City of San Bernardino 0 5,500 Feet 1 inch = 5,500 feet Figure 2-1 Land Use & Major Developments Figure2_1 April 12, 2013

13 23,600 1,800 19,400 93,500 Resident Retail Non-Retail Student Total Residential Population = 93,500 Total Non-Residential Population = 44,800 Figure 2-2 Existing 2012 Population by Class The residential population provided by the SANBAG TAZ data was compared to the District s billing database as well as 2010 Census data. Dwelling unit data in the District s billing database seems to confirm the existing population with a population density roughly between 3 and 3.5 persons per household. Both the District s billing database and Census data verify the TAZ population projections for the District s service area Evaluation of Large Water and Wastewater Use Customers Customers who use large quantities of water or wastewater warrant a separate analysis to determine whether they are contributing significant flows to the sewer. This typically occurs with industrial customers who use large quantities of water for processing. A list of large water and wastewater users was obtained from the District and their usage was compared with the projected flows estimated from population. This analysis indicated that there were no users contributing a disproportionate amount into the system so flows were not point loaded for these customers. The customers reviewed are listed in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. BLACK & VEATCH Population and Land Use 2-3

14 Table 2-1 Top Water Customers CUSTOMER NAME San Bernardino County Unified School District (SBCUSD) AVERAGE DAILY WATER DEMAND (gpd) 6,097 Patton State Hospital 5,093 San Manuel Mission Indians 2,737 San Manuel Bingo & Casino 1,986 Stubblefield Construction 1,458 Valencia LEA Mobile Home Park 1,178 East Highland Ranch 1,053 City of Highland 871 Lynwood Owners Association 817 gpd gallons per day Top customer list provided by District and based on revenue Table 2-2 Top Wastewater Customers CUSTOMER NAME AVERAGE DAILY WASTEWATER FLOW (gpd) San Manuel Mission Indians 2,737 SBCUSD 2,624 San Manuel Bingo & Casino 1,795 Stubblefield Construction 1,458 Valencia LEA Mobile Home Park 1,023 Victoria Village Apartments 826 Sunset Ridge Apartments 767 CS Aventerra LP 743 Highland Palms Homeowners 719 Village Lakes Homeowners Association 691 gpd gallons per day Top customer list provided by District and based on revenue Future Population Projections Future population projections were made based on the projected growth by TAZ in the RTP, which includes about 1,020 new residents per year (assuming straight-line growth). The information from the RTP was supplemented with development information from the City of Highland in the form of the Highland Housing Activity September 2012 Map, as well as other specific development information including specific plans and sewer studies. Potential population projections were calculated for each of the identified planned developments based on available land use and/or dwelling unit information. The potential populations for each planned development were then compared to the growth projected in the RTP. Many of the planned developments are smaller, and BLACK & VEATCH Population and Land Use 2-4

15 it appears that the additional population is accounted for in the RTP projections; however, the potential population growth calculated for the four largest developments appears to be significantly higher than that projected in the RTP. To be conservative in future flow estimates, the larger population was assumed for this Master Plan. These developments are shown on Figure 2-1 and the adjusted population is summarized in Table 2-3. Table 2-3 Planned Developments Projected Populations Harmony DEVELOPMENT CUSTOMER TYPE Resident Retail Non-Retail Student RTP POPULATION PROJECTIONS 6, ADJUSTED POPULATION PROJECTIONS 17, Arnott Ranch Resident 265 1,050 Highland Hills Ranch Resident 1,759 5,851 Greenspot Village and Marketplace Resident Retail ,750 4,500 Note: In general, adjusted population projections were calculated based on available dwelling unit estimates, and assuming a population density of 3.5 persons per household. For the Harmony development, more specific land use data was available. Adjusted population projections for the Harmony development are based on the land use details described in the Draft Harmony Specific Plan (2012). The maximum allowable dwelling unit densities per acre of land use were assumed, as well as a population density of 3.5 persons per dwelling unit. The adjusted population projections estimate that the total residential population for the four largest planned developments is approximately 27,500, while the RTP projections estimate a total residential population of approximately 8,900 for these same areas. Likewise, the adjusted population projections estimate that the total non-residential population for the four largest planned developments is approximately 6,600, while the RTP projections estimate a total nonresidential population of approximately 1,800 for the same areas. Again, to be conservative in future flow estimates, the larger populations were assumed for this Master Plan. Figure 2-3 summarizes the 2035 total population projections as provided by the RTP versus the adjusted population projections accounting for the higher growth rates in the larger developments listed in Table 2-3. BLACK & VEATCH Population and Land Use 2-5

16 RTP 2035 Projections Adjusted 2035 Projections 30,051 30,254 5,016 26, ,033 Resident Retail Non-Retail Student 9,501 26, ,657 Total Residential Population = 132,033 Total Non-Residential Population = 61,571 Total Residential Population = 150,657 Total Non-Residential Population = 66,368 Figure 2-3 Projected 2035 Population by Customer Type Note: The adjusted projections include the maximum potential densities for Harmony identified in the Draft Harmony Specific Plan. Based on the two population models, four growth scenarios, shown in Figure 2-4, were evaluated to bracket potential growth. These scenarios include: RTP. The original projected growth from the RTP with a 2035 residential population of 132,000. This is based on an annual growth of 1,426 persons per year. Delayed RTP. Assumes that no growth has occurred in the last 5 years, and the recovery will occur at approximately the same rate of 1,426 people per year, as originally anticipated in the RTP. This projection has a 2035 population of 126,300. Adjusted RTP. Assumes that no growth has occurred in the last 5 years, but that the recovery will include rapid growth and the adjusted projections will be met by This projection will include a growth rate of approximately 2,490 residents per year with a 2035 population of 150,700. Aggressive. Assumes that no growth has occurred in the last 5 years. It further assumes that the specific development areas will be built out in the next 5 years, by From 2017 to 2035, it assumes that the remaining growth projected in the RTP will be occurring. This projection has a growth rate of 5,160 people per year from 2012 to 2017, and a growth rate of 1,740 people per year through This results in a 2035 projected population of 150,700. BLACK & VEATCH Population and Land Use 2-6

17 160, , , ,700 Aggressive Adjusted RTP 130, , , ,000 RTP Delayed RTP 132, ,300 90,000 93,500 80, Figure 2-4 Residential Population Projections In order to position the District to address growth-related capacity issues, the aggressive growth projections were used for the hydraulic modeling. Recommended capacity improvements will be tied to specific development areas or other triggers, so that the District can adjust the timing of capital improvements based on actual growth. In 2012, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) finalized its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP Update). The RTP Update is a long-range regional transportation plan that provides a blueprint to help achieve a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system in the SCAG region. The SCAG region is comprised of six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. Currently, SANBAG is updating its population projections based on the RTP Update, with expected completion in Based on the regional population trends presented in the RTP Update, it is expected that SANBAG s 2014 population projections will not differ significantly from those presented in the RTP utilized in this Master Plan. BLACK & VEATCH Population and Land Use 2-7

18 3 Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses The first step in evaluating the capacity of the wastewater collection system is development and calibration of the wastewater collection system model. Facilities for the District hydraulic model were imported into InfoSewer by Innovyze from Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data supplied by the District. Wastewater flows were then developed and allocated to the hydraulic model under dry weather and wet weather flow conditions and calibrated to the flow metering data. 3.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM The District s existing wastewater collection system includes approximately 215 miles of gravity sewer pipelines, 4,500 sewer manholes, 6 siphons, and 5 flow diversion structures. The District s gravity sewer pipelines convey wastewater to the East Trunk Sewer, generally draining from east to west, and north to south. The existing wastewater collection system is shown in Figure 3-1 and described in the following sections Gravity Sewer Pipelines The District owns and operates approximately 215 miles of gravity sewer pipelines, ranging in size from 6 inches to 24 inches in diameter. The East Trunk Sewer, owned and operated by the City of San Bernardino, conveys the District s flows to the SBWRP. The East Trunk Sewer is approximately 9 miles of primarily gravity sewer pipelines, ranging in size from 8 inches to 54 inches in diameter. The hydraulic model includes all pipes 10 inches in diameter and larger, as well as 6 inch and 8 inch lines that were considered hydraulically necessary or important to evaluating the wastewater collection system. The model includes the entire East Trunk Sewer. Table 3-1 summarizes the District s gravity sewer pipelines by diameter. East Trunk Sewer components are also summarized. The majority of the District s gravity sewer pipelines are composed of vitrified clay pipe (VCP). VCP pipe was used until 1970; since then, the District s sewer system has included polyvinyl chloride (PVC), thermoplastic (TRUSS), and high density polyethylene (HDPE) materials for new pipe installations. Figure 3-2 summarizes the distribution of pipe materials in the existing wastewater collection system. The East Trunk Sewer was installed in 1958 and consists of VCP for diameters 36 inch and smaller and reinforced concrete pipeline (RCP) for diameters 39 inch and larger. The majority of the District s wastewater collection system was installed in the 1950s and 1960s. Figure 3-3 summarizes the District s wastewater collection system pipelines by installation period and length. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-1

19 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan LEGEND Flow Meters 2010 Flow Meter Rain Gauge 2011 Flow Meter 2012 Flow Meter Collection System Modeled Collection System < 12" 12" - 18" 21" - 30" > 30" Basin Boundaries CHU03 CON01 CUN02 SBWRP District Boundary 0 2,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 4,000 feet Figure 3-1 Existing Facilities & Meter Basins Figure3_1 February 15, 2013

20 Table 3-1 Wastewater Collection System Pipelines DIAMETER (INCHES) TOTAL DISTRICT LENGTH (FEET) MODELED DISTRICT LENGTH (FEET) EAST TRUNK SEWER LENGTH (FEET) Unknown 6, ,000 30, , , ,600 41,600 2, ,700 57,700 2, ,100 33,100 9, ,400 13,400 2, ,300 17,300 1, ,900 15,900 2, , , , , , ,810 Total 1,130, ,200 42,620 BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-3

21 VCP 75.4% Other 24.6% PVC 16.6% Note: Does not include East Trunk Sewer. Pie Chart shown on the right reflects the breakdown of the Other Category. Unknown 0.2% TRUSS 6.4% DIP 0.5% CIP 0.4% ABS 0.3% HDPE 0.3% Figure 3-2 Existing District Wastewater Collection System by Pipe Material Length of Pipe (1,000 ft) Installation Period Figure 3-3 Length of District s Gravity Sewer Pipe by Installation Period BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-4

22 3.1.2 Siphons The District owns and operates six siphons within the wastewater collection system. Siphons generally convey flows underneath storm drain channels or natural waterways where it is not possible to install a gravity sewer pipeline. Currently, the District provides weekly maintenance on the siphons. In addition, there are two siphons in the East Trunk Sewer, which are maintained by the City of San Bernardino. The siphons in the East Trunk Sewer convey flows from both the District s and the City of San Bernardino s wastewater collection systems. Siphon details are summarized in Table 3-2. All of the siphons are included in the hydraulic model, with the exception of the Warm Creek Siphon. Table 3-2 Siphons LOCATION NO. OF BARRELS DIAMETER (INCHES) LENGTH (FEET) MATERIAL YEAR INSTALLED East Valley Water District Siphons Between Elmwood Rd/Holly Vista Blvd intersection and Del Rosa Ave Pumalo St between Taylor Rd and Del Rosa Ave Pacific St between Victoria Ave and Valaria Dr North of E Third St between Palm Lane and Waterman Ave CIP CIP CIP CIP San Francisco St just north of Base Line St DIP Plunge Creek along Greenspot Rd DIP 1993 N/A Warm Creek Siphon (2) CIP 1971 East Trunk Sewer Siphons ( ¹ ) 7 8 E Sixth St between Cooley St and Pedley Rd S Waterman Ave between E Valley St and E Mill St 2 15 & RCP & RCP 1958 (1) Operated and maintained by the City of San Bernardino. Siphons were identified through review of as-built drawings provided. (2) Warm creek siphons not included in the model due to its limited service area. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-5

23 3.1.3 Diversion Structures The District has identified five diversion structures in its wastewater collection system. Diversion structures are generally installed in manholes to divert flows along an alternative route in case of a blockage in the system or during times of high flow. Table 3-3 lists the diversion manholes located within the District s wastewater collection system and are shown in Figure 3-4. Table 3-3 Diversion Structures DIVERSION NO. MANHOLE NO. INTERSECTION PRIMARY FLOW DIRECTION SECONDARY FLOW DIRECTION 1 I6-142 Pacific Street & Victoria Avenue West South 2 H8-118 Highland Avenue & Palm Avenue South West 3 G9-161 Piedmont Drive & Diablo Drive South West 4 I7-126 Central Avenue & Pacific Street South West 5 M th Street & Whitlock Avenue South West Lift Stations and Force Mains Currently, the District s wastewater collection system does not include any lift stations or force mains. 3.2 FLOW MONITORING Data from recent flow monitoring studies, as well as from a permanent flow meter located at the SBWRP, were used to calibrate the wastewater collection system model Flow Metering Locations During a flow monitoring study, flow meters capture wastewater generated within a given sub-area of the system upstream of their location. These sub-areas, called meter basins, define the area and population which contribute to flows observed at that specific location. Meter basins include all pipes upstream of the flow meter, up to the next upstream flow meter or the end of the sewer pipeline. The meter basins defined for this Master Plan are based on the location of the 2010 and 2011 flow meter locations, and are shown in Figure 3-4. Data from the 2013 Flow Monitoring Study will be used to confirm previous findings. Figure 3-5 includes a schematic of the 2010 and 2011 meter basins, numbered by flow metering manhole, and more clearly identifies how the meter basins are hydraulically related to each other. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-6

24 Electric Ave N Sierra Way S Sierra Way Valencia Ave N Tippecanoe Ave S Tippecanoe Ave Del Rosa Ave Sterling Ave Mountain View Ave Arden Ave Alabama St Church Ave N Mountain View Ave 0'' N Waterman Ave 39'' 48'' Harrison St Victoria Ave Orange St Palm Ave Church St Wabash Ave 30'' 15'' 10'' 10'' Schenk Creek 40Th St 18 E 40Th St Canal E 39Th St 330 Little Mill Creek Fredalba Creek Wastewater Collection System Master Plan E 30Th St East Twin Creek 8'' 8'' 8'' 8'' E Highland Ave 12'' 10'' 10'' Creek Sand Little 15'' 15'' Foothill Dr E Foothill Dr RG03 E Lynwood Dr Highland Canal Lynwood Dr Sand Creek Diversion No. 2 Diversion No. 3 Highland Ave City Creek Creek Plunge LEGEND Flow Meters 2010 Flow Meter Rain Gauge 2011 Flow Meter DiversionStructures Collection Sewer (Not Modeled) Modeled Sewer East Trunk Sewer SBWRP 18'' Diversion No. 1 RG02 Diversion No District Boundary Dry Weather Meter Basins W 13Th St E 13Th St W Base Line St E Base Line St 21'' 24'' Base Line St Warm Creek Baseline St North Fork Canal S Arrowhead Ave N Arrowhead Ave W 6Th St W 5Th St 33'' 27'' 27'' 24'' Diversion No. 5 Tippecanoe Ave CON01 E 5Th St 3Rd St CUN02 5Th St CHU03 Boulder Ave RG Oak Creek CHU03 W 3Rd St W Rialto Ave E 3Rd St E Rialto Ave San Bernardino International Airport CON01 CUN02 W Mi ll St E Mill St 0 2,000 4,000 Redlands Feet 54'' Municipal Airport 1 inch = 4,000 feet 36'' SBWRP 0'' S Waterman Ave Carnegie Dr Gage Canal California St San Bernardino Ave W Lugonia Ave W San Bernardino Ave Buckeye St Tennessee St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave Judson St 38 Mentone Blvd Figure 3-4 Dry Weather Flow Metering Figure3_4 March 28, 2013 K. McRae

25 Figure 3-5 Wastewater Flow Schematic Flow Monitoring Studies ADS Environmental Services (ADS) has completed three recent flow monitoring studies for the District: two were performed prior to the development of this master plan, and one was performed as part of this master planning effort. ADS installed flow meters and collected flow data during the following periods: March May flow meters March April flow meters December 2012 February flow meters Additional information on the flow metering sites, methodology, data collection, and data quality is available in the East Valley Water District Flow Monitoring Study (2010, 2011, and 2013) summary reports prepared by ADS (the 2013 Flow Monitoring Study is included in Appendix C). The goal of a flow monitoring study is to improve the understanding of dry and wet weather flows throughout the wastewater collection system. If performed during significant storm events, flow monitoring helps to identify areas with higher rainfall-derived inflow and infiltration (RDII) and areas with existing or potential capacity issues. While no major storm events were captured in the three most recent flow metering periods, the data has helped the District understand wastewater unit generation rates and how meter basins respond to smaller wet weather events. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-8

26 Data collected by a permanent flow meter at the SBWRP was provided by the City of San Bernardino and used to supplement the data collected during the District s flow monitoring studies and identify large wet weather flow events for evaluation. The permanent flow meter at SBWRP measures flows entering the plant from the East Trunk Sewer, which includes flows from both the City of San Bernardino and the District. 3.3 DRY WEATHER ANALYSIS The data from the 2010 and 2011 Flow Monitoring Studies was determined to be adequate to develop the dry weather model. Subsequently, the dry weather analysis was completed utilizing this data. Data from these previous studies was used to develop average weekday and weekend diurnal curves, which determine the loading pattern for flows within a particular meter basin. Dry weather flows were allocated to the model based on the average flows observed at each flow meter. The Average Daily Dry Weather Flow (ADDF) at each flow monitoring site was determined based on the average flow at that site. Once the ADDF for each meter site was identified, the flows were balanced with the total metered flow at the SBWRP. Flow balancing is an accounting procedure to verify that the sum of the meter basin flows matches the monitored cumulative flow at the SBWRP. Flow imbalances can result from measurement errors with the flow meters. These errors can be compounded in flow monitoring programs where flow is captured by multiple flow meters or when data is collected in multiple years. The flow balancing exercise generally revealed that the District experienced higher flows in 2010 than in This is expected due to increasing trends in water use efficiency and conservation. Table 3-4 summarizes the ADDF information for each meter basin and the diurnal peaking factor. Table 3-4 Dry Weather Flow Summary METER BASIN BASIN ADDF (MGD) TRIBUTARY METERED ADDF (MGD) CUMULATIVE ADDF (MGD) DIURNAL PEAKING FACTOR CON CUN CHU (1) SBWRP 6.80 (2) (3) 1.73 (1) Adjusted ADDF for the CHU03 sewer basin. (2) Includes seven connections from the City of San Bernardino wastewater collection system. (3) Average flow at SBWRP during the 2010 and 2011 flow monitoring periods. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-9

27 Diurnal curves were identified for each meter basin based on the observed flow patterns at the flow meter. Flow data for weekdays and weekends were analyzed separately to more accurately reflect the system operation specific to these conditions. Weekday and weekend diurnal curves for each flow meter are included in Appendix D. In general, diurnal curves represent behavioral patterns specific to land use or population type. Typically, peak flows in a residential area occur between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. with a lower peak in the evening hours. Areas with proportionately larger commercial and industrial land uses generally have flatter diurnal patterns with relatively constant peaking factors between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. A sample diurnal curve showing the difference between weekday and weekend flow patterns in provided in Figure 3-6. Flow (mgd) :00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 Hour Observed ADDF Weekend Observed ADDF Weekday Figure 3-6 Sample Diurnal Curves for Flow Meter BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-10

28 3.4 DRY WEATHER MODEL Dry weather flows were allocated to the model based on SANBAG population data, District s land use details, and observed flow data from the recent flow metering efforts Existing Flow The population contributing to each meter basin was identified by combining SANBAG population data with the meter basin boundaries. Once the average flow per meter basin was determined, diurnal curves were identified, and flows were balanced, Unit Generation Rates (UGR) was developed for the users within each basin based on the existing population per population class from SANBAG population data. Table 3-5 summarizes the UGR for each basin. Using these UGR rates, flows were assigned to the hydraulic model. Table 3-5 UGR by Basin BASIN UNIT GENERATION RATES BY POPULATION CLASS (gpcd (1) ) RESIDENTIAL RETAIL EMPLOYEE NON-RETAIL EMPLOYEE STUDENT CON CUN CHU (1) gallons per capita per day Since the SBWRP receives flows from both the District and the City of San Bernardino, flows from City of San Bernardino need to be accounted for in the model in order to accurately assess the capacity of the District s sewers. The hydraulic model from the City of San Bernardino s 2002 Wastewater Master Plan was initially assessed to determine flow contributions from the City of San Bernardino into the East Trunk Sewer. The model showed that the City of San Bernardino s wastewater collection system ties into the East Trunk Sewer at seven locations, four of which are south of the Waterman Avenue and 6th Street connection, and contributed an estimated 7.0 mgd into the Regional facility. Based on current GIS data, review of the 2013 flow metering data, and review of SBWRP flow records, it is assumed that the City of San Bernardino consistently contributes flows to the East Trunk Sewer via only three connection points, none of which are south of the Waterman Avenue & 6th Street tie-in. Based on the City of San Bernardino hydraulic model and the 2013 flow metering data, it is estimated that the City of San Bernardino contributes approximately 6.3 mgd of flows into the East Trunk Sewer. In addition, it is assumed based on the City of San Bernardino s most recent BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-11

29 master plan that the portions of the City of San Bernardino tributary to the East Trunk Sewer are built-out and little to no future growth is expected. The City of San Bernardino flows, summarized in Table 3-6, are included in the model as point loads applied at the appropriate manhole location. Table 3-6 Summary of City of San Bernardino Flows Conveyed by East Trunk Sewer LOCATION ESTIMATED ADDF (MGD) LOADING MANHOLE Harrison St & Marshall Blvd (1) F3-108 Mountain Ave & Eureka St (2) E3-126 Waterman Ave & 6 th St (3) TOTAL (1) ADDF estimated based on the City of San Bernardino s modeled peak flow of mgd, assuming a peak flow/addf of 1.5. (2) ADDF estimated based on the City of San Bernardino s modeled peak flow of mgd, assuming a peak flow/addf of 1.5. (3) ADDF estimated based 2013 Flow Monitoring Study data and SBWRP records. Using InfoSewer s Load Allocator Tool, loads were spatially assigned to manholes to be routed through the system. The dry weather model was calibrated by slightly adjusting the diurnal patterns for the various flow meters in order to match the simulated flow in the model to the observed flow in the wastewater collection system at the same location. In addition, to being conservative, model calibration aimed to match weekend flows at each flow meter since they tended to be higher than weekday flows. Figure 3-7 shows a sample calibration graph, comparing the simulated and observed flows at flow meter CUN02. Dry weather calibration graphs for all meters are included in Appendix E. Figure 3-7 Calibration Curve for Flow Meter CUN Flow (mgd) :00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 Hour Observed ADDF Weekend Observed ADDF Weekday Simulated Existing ADDF BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-12

30 The goal of model calibration was to have less than a 10 percent difference between the simulated and observed dry weather flows. As a result of the difference in flows between metering periods, some variation from this criterion is considered acceptable. Table 3-7 summarizes the dry weather model calibration for each flow meter. The simulated flows calibrated to within 10 percent of the observed values for all but three basins, which are explained in Table 3-7. Table 3-7 Summary of Dry Weather Model Calibration FLOW METER OBSERVED WEEKEND FLOW (MGD) SIMULATED FLOW (MGD) DIFFERENCE (%) COMMENTS CON The calibration percentage was deemed acceptable because the precision of the flow meter equipment is reduced at low flows. CUN CHU The calibration percentage was deemed acceptable because the upstream 2011 meters were calibrated within approximately 5% The calibration percentage was deemed acceptable because the precision of the flow meter equipment is reduced at low flows. SBWRP East Trunk Sewer Note: SBWRP currently treats approximately 23 mgd, and has capacity to treat 33 mgd. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-13

31 3.4.2 Future Flow Future flows were determined based on projected population growth from SANBAG population data, and from planned development information. Development information included the number of dwelling units for residential land uses and acreages of non-residential land uses. Recommended population and land use based UGRs were developed and are summarized below: 70 gpcd - Residential Population 25 gpcd Retail Employee Population 35 gpcd Non- Retail Employee Population 15 gpcd Student Population 245 gpd/dwelling unit Residential Dwelling Unit 1,500 gpd/acre Non-Residential Area The non-residential category typically includes commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses which can have a wide range of unit flows, typically from 500 5,000 gpd/acre, depending on factors, such as the number of students or employees, or whether the facility is utilized for manufacturing or warehousing. The recommended 1,500 gpd/acre is an average of these various types of uses utilized for planning purposes. The District reserves the right to apply more or less stringent criteria to future development projects on a case-by-case basis. Table 3-8 provides a summary of the existing and projected future flows for each major development and the general population increase based on the 2035 aggressive growth scenario presented in Chapter 2. The flow estimate for Harmony assumes the maximum potential densities based on the Draft Harmony Specific Plan. Table 3-8 Future 2035 Flows FUTURE FLOW COMPONENTS ADDF (MGD) Existing District Flows 6.50 Future Major Development Flows - Arnott Development - Harmony Development (1) - Highland Hills Development - Greenspot Development - Subtotal Future Population Flows - Residential Population - Retail Population - Non-Retail Population - Student Population - Subtotal TOTAL Future District Flows (2) San Bernardino Flows 6.27 TOTAL East Trunk Sewer Flows (2) (1) Harmony Development assumes the maximum potential densities in the Draft Specific Plan. (2) Includes existing flows. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-14

32 3.5 WET WEATHER ANALYSIS Wet weather responses in a wastewater collection system vary in relation to the duration and intensity of the storm event, the antecedent conditions, as well as the land use and pipe characteristics of the service area. The goal of a wet weather analysis is to determine the volume of RDII that enters the wastewater collection system relative to a rain event and develop parameters that define the responses for use in the hydraulic model. Historical rainfall records were reviewed in order to identify a recent large storm event to evaluate wastewater collection system capacity. Daily rainfall totals for the City of Highland were provided by the District for 2001 through 2012, and events receiving at least 1.53 inches of rain within 24 hours, or a 1-year, 24-hour storm, were identified. Flows observed at SBWRP during these events were reviewed to identify any wet weather responses in the system. The City of San Bernardino provided flow data records from SBWRP between 2004 through Table 3-9 summarizes the rainfall events during which a significant wet weather response was observed at SBWRP. Table 3-9 Significant Rainfall Events Summary DATE AVERAGE FLOW (MGD) INSTANTANEOUS (1) PEAK FLOW (MGD) PEAKING FACTOR 2/26/ /19/ /20/ /26/ /10/ /11/ /20/ /6/ /1/ /5/ /17/ /13/ /19/ /20/ /21/ /22/ (1) Record peak flows based on 5 minute flow readings at SBWRP. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-15

33 The December 2010 rainfall event was selected to perform the wet weather analysis on the District s wastewater collection system. This was a complex storm event which included multiple days of continuous rainfall. During the event period, SBWRP observed a peak flow of approximately 40 mgd. Figure 3-8 shows the storm response observed at SBWRP over the selected 48-hour storm period from December 20 through December 21, Flow (mgd) Rainfall (inches) :00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 Rainfall SBWRP Observed Flow SBWRP ADDF Figure 3-8 Observed Flow and Rainfall during December 2010 Storm (Dec. 20 Dec. 21, 2010) More detailed rainfall data for this event was provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Incremental 15-minute rainfall data revealed that this storm was defined by a series of 12- to 24-hour storm events. The peak flow observed at SBWRP was caused by a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event, which was preceded by a 5-year, 24-hour storm. Figure 3-9 shows the intensityduration-frequency (IDF) curves for the two rainfall events. Based on industry experience, a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event is typically the highest design storm utilized to assess wastewater collection system capacity for master planning purposes. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-16

34 6 5 Peak Cumulative Rainfall (in.) Duration (min.) Dec. 19, 2010 Dec , 2010 Figure 3-9 December 2010 Storm Frequency An average RDII volume for this event was determined based on the flows observed at the SBWRP, average day flows generated by the City of San Bernardino, and average day flows generated by the District. Approximately half of the RDII volume was uniformly distributed to the District s wastewater collection system based on the percentage of the District s total load allocated to a manhole. This method was utilized because of the limited wet weather flow metering data available. The remainder of the RDII volume was distributed among the City of San Bernardino s seven tie-ins to the East Trunk Sewer based on the percentage of the City of San Bernardino s total load allocated to the connection. During wet weather model calibration, additional RDII volume was assigned to the City of San Bernardino s flows in order to simulate the expected response at the SBWRP. Increasing the peaking factor on all wet weather loads equally caused the hydraulic model to generate significant overflows in the District s service area. Since the District s records confirmed that there were no overflows during the 2010 storm event, it was determined that more RDII volume is contributed by the City of San Bernardino s wastewater collection system. Figure 3-10 shows the existing system wet weather calibration graph for the December 2010 storm event. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-17

35 Figure 3-10 Wet Weather Calibration Graph Flow (mgd) Rainfall (inches) :00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 Rainfall Observed Wet Weather Flow Simulated Wet Weather Flow FLOW MONITORING ASSESSMENT The 2013 Flow Monitoring Study was completed as part of this Master Plan in an effort to capture potentially significant wet weather flow conditions in the District s wastewater collection system. Flow meters were placed at eight locations throughout the wastewater collection system from December 22, 2012 through February 24, Figure 3-11 shows the locations of the 2013 flow meters and the contributing meter basins. The data collected for the 2013 Flow Monitoring Study was utilized for two main purposes: to confirm dry weather calibration of the existing InfoSewer model, and provide an assessment of the District s wastewater collection system operation under wet weather conditions Dry Weather Analysis The flow meter locations are schematically shown in Figure 3-12 to clearly identify how the basins are hydraulically related to each other. Table 3-10 summarizes the observed flows during the 2013 Flow Monitoring period. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-18

36 Electric Ave N Sierra Way S Sierra Way Valencia Ave N Tippecanoe Ave S Tippecanoe Ave Del Rosa Ave Alabama St Sterling Ave Mountain View Ave Arden Ave Church Ave N Mountain View Ave 0'' N Waterman Ave 48'' Harrison St Victoria Ave Orange St Palm Ave Church St Wabash Ave 30'' 10'' 10'' 15'' Schenk Creek 40Th St 18 E 40Th St Canal E 39Th St 330 Little Mill Creek Fredalba Creek Wastewater Collection System Master Plan 10'' 10'' Creek Sand Little Foothill Dr E Foothill Dr RG03 Highland Canal FM5 City Creek Creek Plunge LEGEND Flow Meters Rain Gauge E 30Th St East Twin Creek 8'' 8'' 8'' 8'' E Highland Ave 12'' 15'' 15'' E Lynwood Dr Lynwood Dr Sand Creek Diversion No. 2 Diversion No. 3 Highland Ave 2013 Flow Meter DiversionStructures Collection Sewer (Not Modeled) Modeled Sewer East Trunk Sewer SBWRP 18'' Diversion Diversion No. 1 No. 4 RG02 30 District Boundary Wet Weather Meter Basins W 13Th St W Base Line St E 13Th St E Base Line St 21'' FM3 Base Line St Warm Creek Baseline St Boulder Ave North Fork Canal FM_01 FM_02 FM_03 W 6Th St W 5Th St 39'' FM1 33'' 27'' 24'' 27'' Diversion FM2 No. 5 Tippecanoe Ave FM4 E 5Th St 3Rd St 5Th S t FM6 RG01 FM7 FM8 Oak Creek FM_04 FM_05 FM_06 FM_07 FM_08 W 3Rd St W Rialto Ave E Rialto Ave E 3Rd St San Bernardino International Airport S Arrowhead Ave N Arrowhead Ave 48'' W Mi ll St E Mill St 0 2,000 4,000 Redlands Feet 54'' Municipal Airport 1 inch = 4,000 feet 36'' SBWRP 0'' S Waterman Ave Carnegie Dr Gage Canal California St San Bernardino Ave W Lugonia Ave W San Bernardino Ave Buckeye St Tennessee St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave Judson St 38 Mentone Blvd Figure 3-11 Wet Weather Flow Metering Figure3_11 March 29, 2013 K. McRae

37 Figure Flow Monitoring Wastewater Flow Schematic Table Observed Flow Summary METER BASIN BASIN ADDF (MGD) CUMULATIVE ADDF (MGD) DIURNAL PEAKING FACTOR FM (1) 12.7 (2) 1.47 FM FM (3) FM FM FM FM FM SBWRP (1) Includes connection from City of San Bernardino collection system at Waterman Avenue and 6 th Street. (2) Includes three connections from the City of San Bernardino collection system. (3) Includes two connections from City of San Bernardino collection system at Harrison Street and Marshall Boulevard and Mountain Avenue and Eureka Street. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-20

38 In general, the flows observed during the 2013 flow monitoring period confirm the dry weather calibration of the existing system InfoSewer model. The dry weather flow data summarized in Table 3-10 can be compared to the data presented previously in this chapter in Table 3-4. At comparable flow meter locations, the ADDF and diurnal peaking factors observed during the 2013 flow monitoring period are very similar to those observed during the 2010 and 2011 flow monitoring efforts. The 2013 observed flow data confirms the modeled dry weather conditions throughout the District s service area, and also confirms the assumption that nearly all of the City of San Bernardino s flow contributions to the East Trunk Sewer enter the system through the Waterman Avenue and 6th Street connection. Flows captured by FM05, located at the north end of Victoria Avenue, provide information on the volume and capacity required to convey flows generated by the San Manuel Indian Reservation. The San Manuel Indian Reservation includes residential population, but also contributes commercial flows to the wastewater collection system from the San Manuel Bingo & Casino. Based on SANBAG population data and the ADDF and flow patterns observed at FM05, the existing system model conveys approximately 85-percent of the flows allocated to the San Manuel Indian Reservation population to the Victoria Avenue pipeline. The remaining 15-percent of residential flows enter the system in Piedmont Drive, to the east of the Victoria Avenue connection. Flows entering at this location are conveyed through pipelines in Piedmont Drive, Mirada Road, and eventually Victoria Avenue south of Mirada Road. Likewise, the remaining 15-percent of retail and non-retail flows are modeled to enter the system in Valaria Drive, to the west of the Victoria Avenue connection. These flows are conveyed south through the Sterling Avenue pipeline. Given the large potential residential growth expected in the San Manuel Indian Reservation identified in the TAZ data, the 2035 system model assumed that all flows generated by the San Manuel Indian Reservation population will be conveyed south via the Victoria Avenue pipeline. Furthermore, an additional scenario was evaluated in order to model the San Manuel Indian Reservation flows as they are likely distributed to the District s wastewater collection system. This scenario is referred to as the San Manuel Alternative, and divides all future flows between the east and west connection points in Piedmont Drive and Valaria Drive, respectively. While all existing flows enter the District s wastewater collection system at the north end of Victoria Avenue, all future residential flows are directed down the Piedmont Drive pipeline and all non-residential or casino flows are conveyed via the Valaria Drive pipeline. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-21

39 Wet Weather Analysis Twelve storm events were observed during the 2013 flow monitoring period; however, none of the events were of significant duration or intensity. A storm is defined as significant if it is a 1-year, 24-hour frequency storm event. Table 3-11 summarizes the observed rainfall events, listing the observed duration and volume of rainfall, and the peak intensity. Table Observed Rainfall Event Summary EVENT START DATE RAINFALL DURATION (HOUR) TOTAL RAINFALL (INCHES) PEAK INTENSITY (INCHES/HOUR) 12/24/ /26/ /29/ /30/ /6/ /10/ /24/ /25/2013 (1) /26/ /27/ /8/2013 (1) /19-20/2013 (1) Average (1) Storm event is shown in IDF Curve in Figure 3-13 Furthermore, storms that produce at least ½ inch of rainfall in six hours are identified as potentially being large enough to cause a wet weather response in the wastewater collection system. Four storms occurred during the 2013 flow monitoring period that met these minimum criteria. These events occurred on January 10, 2013; January 25, 2013; February 8, 2013; and, February 19, Wet weather responses were observed by all meters during these storm events, except for the January 10 event. Few flow meters registered a wet weather response during this rainfall event. This indicates the rainfall that occurred during this storm event was likely centralized, not occurring uniformly over the District s entire service area. Since all meter basins were not affected, this event was not considered in the 2013 wet weather analysis. Figure 3-13 shows the IDF curves for the three largest rainfall events that occurred during the recent flow monitoring period. The IDF curves for the large December 2010 events that were used for wet weather model calibration are also shown in the figure for comparison. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-22

40 6 5 Peak Cumulative Rainfall (in.) Duration (min.) Dec. 19, 2010 Dec , 2010 Jan. 25, 2013 Feb. 8, 2013 Feb , 2013 Figure Flow Monitoring Study Storm Frequency Compared to December 2010 Event R-Value Analysis The R-Value is the ratio of the RDII volume observed by the flow meter to the volume of rainfall that fell on the contributing meter basin. An R-Value analysis was performed using the 2013 Flow Monitoring Study data in an effort to determine if any areas of the District s wastewater collection system were prone to experiencing higher RDII than others. The R-Value analysis evaluates the flows observed in the wastewater collection system during periods of wet weather to assess the amount of rainfall that enters the wastewater collection system via inflow and infiltration. The R-Value can be used as a guide to determine the relative number and size of RDII defects within the wastewater collection system. Note that calculating R-Values involves assumptions about complex physical processes that affect wet weather infiltration to sanitary sewers; therefore, R-Values can vary significantly between rainfall events depending on moisture conditions, seasons, rainfall patterns, and numerous other factors. To characterize the R-Value in each of the meter basins, the available rainfall and flow data from the 2013 flow monitoring period were reviewed to identify time of increased flow in the collection system corresponding to periods of rainfall. Wet weather responses were identified in the flow monitoring data during three of the observed storm events: January 25, 2013; February 8, 2013; and February 19, R-Values for all flow meters are summarized in Table BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-23

41 Table 3-12 R-Value Summary by Meter Basin METER BASIN R-VALUE (%) AVERAGE R- VALUE RANK JAN. 25, 2013 FEB. 8, 2013 FEB , 2013 AVERAGE FM % 0.16% 0.19% 0.18% 2 FM % 0.09% 0.10% 0.10% 5 FM % 0.20% 0.24% 0.24% 1 FM % 0.16% 0.08% 0.12% 4 FM % 0.26% 0.14% 0.18% 2 FM % 0.09% 0.07% 0.09% 6 FM % 0.03% 0.04% 0.03% 8 FM % 0.06% 0.02% 0.05% 7 While there is some variance, the calculated R-Values presented in Table 3-12 do not show great disparity, ranging from 0.02 to 0.29-percent among the flow meter basins. Typically, R-Values greater than 3-percent indicate benefit from RDII reduction. Furthermore, meter basins with the highest R-Values (FM03, FM01, and FM05) receive and convey flows from non-district customers. As shown in Figure 3-11, FM01 and FM03 were located in the East Trunk Sewer downstream of the City of San Bernardino connections; and FM05 was located downstream of the San Manuel Indian Reservation connection in Victoria Avenue. Thus, the limited available wet weather data suggests that higher RDII is contributed by the City of San Bernardino and the San Manuel Indian Reservation sewer collection systems. It is important to note that this R-Value analysis is based on flow and rainfall data collected during three small storm events, all of which are considered to be the minimum acceptable size for this type of analysis. Additional flow monitoring is required to validate the R-Value analysis presented in this section. Data from multiple significant storms would provide more information on the wet weather response experienced in each meter basin. It is recommended that flow and rainfall data from at least four 1-year, 24-hour storm events be collected to perform a more conclusive R-Value analysis. BLACK & VEATCH Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-24

42 4 Capacity Analysis The capacity analysis used the calibrated dry weather and wet weather wastewater collection system model to evaluate existing and projected 2035 conditions. In order to position the District to address growth-related capacity issues, the aggressive growth projections described in Chapter 2 were used for hydraulic model runs for the 2035 Model Scenarios. Appendix F contains the wastewater collection system modeling results. 4.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA The wastewater collection system was evaluated based on its ability to convey wastewater flow under dry weather and wet weather conditions, for both existing and projected 2035 flow conditions. Gravity sewer pipeline capacity was assessed based on the maximum depth of flow to diameter of pipe ratio (d/d) simulated in the model run. Siphon pipeline capacity was assessed based on maximum velocity and confirmation that siphons were not causing back-ups in the upstream pipelines. Capacity issues were identified in the wastewater collection system if a pipeline segment met or exceeded any of the criteria presented in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Capacity Evaluation d/d Criteria PIPELINES EVALUATED CONDITION CRITERIA Gravity Pipelines Diameter 12 inches Peak Dry Weather d/d = 0.5 Diameter> 12 inches Peak Dry Weather d/d = 0.75 All Gravity Sewer Pipelines Peak Wet Weather d/d = 1.0 (Surcharge) Siphon Pipelines All Siphon Pipelines Peak Dry Weather Maximum Velocity < 8 feet per second All Siphon Pipelines Peak Wet Weather Limited Headloss New replacement or parallel pipelines, recommended in the capacity improvement projects discussed in Section 4-4, are sized to convey peak wet weather flow at a d/d ratio of EXISTING SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION The hydraulic model was initially run on the existing wastewater collection system to identify any existing pipelines that exceeded or were above capacity under both dry weather and wet weather conditions. Model results are summarized in Table 4-2. The term Regional refers to the East Trunk Sewer. BLACK & VEATCH Capacity Analysis 4-1

43 Table 4-2 Summary of Existing System Model Results PARAMETER DRY WEATHER ( ¹ ) WET WEATHER ( ² ) District Regional District Regional Pipe 12 inches, d/d > 0.5 (ft) Pipe > 12 inches, d/d > 0.75 (ft) Surcharged Pipe (ft) ,481 Siphons Exceeding Criteria (ft) Total Pipe Exceeding Criteria (ft) ,481 (1) Peak dry weather flow at SBWRP = 19.5 mgd. (2) Peak wet weather flow at SBWRP = 40.6 mgd. Identified lengths of wet weather capacity deficiencies are inclusive of dry weather. Only Surcharged pipeline lengths were shown for Wet Weather per evaluation criteria Dry Weather The existing system model was run under dry weather conditions to identify any current capacity constraints in the wastewater collection system. Figure 4-1 shows the District pipelines maximum d/d ratio during the existing system dry weather hydraulic model run. Figure 4-2 shows the Regional pipelines maximum d/d ratio during the existing system dry weather hydraulic model run. The model results identify a section of the East Trunk Sewer which exceeds the evaluation criteria; however, the deficiency is considered as minor and thus not considered for immediate improvement. No capacity constraints were identified in District trunk sewers Regional Facilities A 227-foot section of the East Trunk Sewer, 24-inch diameter, was identified in the model as surcharged under peak dry flow conditions. These pipelines are part of the East Trunk Sewer along Tippecanoe Avenue between Baseline Street and 9th Street. The pipelines in this location cross underneath Warm Creek, and as-built drawings suggest that the pipelines were designed to surcharge due to the drop manhole and flat sloped pipeline crossing underneath the Warm Creek channel. The pipeline was likely designed to surcharge and thus was not considered for immediate improvement. BLACK & VEATCH Capacity Analysis 4-2

44 Electric Ave N Sierra Way S Sierra Way N Waterman Ave Valencia Ave N Tippecanoe Ave Harrison St S Tippecanoe Ave Tippecanoe Ave Del Rosa Ave Mountain View Ave Arden Ave Alabama St Victoria Ave Sterling Ave Church Ave Orange St Palm Ave Church St Wabash Ave N Mountain View Ave Schenk Creek 40Th St 18 E 40Th St Canal E 39Th St E Foothill Dr 330 Little Mill Creek Fredalba Creek Wastewater Collection System Master Plan E 30Th St East Twin Creek E Highland Ave E Lynwood Dr Foothill Dr Little Sand Creek Highland Canal Lynwood Dr Sand Creek Highland Ave City Creek Creek Plunge LEGEND Max d/d, Existing Dry Weather Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary 30 W 13Th St E 13Th St Warm Creek Boulder Ave North W Base Line St E Base Line St Base Line St Baseline St Fork Canal Oak Creek W 6Th St W 5Th St E 5Th St 3Rd St 5Th S t S Arrowhead Ave N Arrowhead Ave W 3Rd St W Rialto Ave E 3Rd St E Rialto Ave San Bernardino International Airport W Mi ll St E Mill St 0 2,000 4,000 Redlands Feet Municipal Airport 1 inch = 4,000 feet SBWRP S Waterman Ave Carnegie Dr Gage Canal California St San Bernardino Ave W Lugonia Ave W San Bernardino Ave Buckeye St Tennessee St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave Judson St 38 Mentone Blvd Figure 4-1 Existing District System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure4_1 March 29, 2013 K. McRae

45 S Sierra Way N E St S E St N Sierra Way N Waterman Ave Valencia Ave Harrison St Tippecanoe Ave S Tippecanoe Ave Del Rosa Ave Sterling Ave Mountain View Ave N Mountain View Ave E 30Th St 18 East Twin Creek 30 E Lynwood Dr Little Sand Creek Lynwood Dr Wastewater Collection System Master Plan LEGEND Max d/d, Existing Dry Weather East Trunk Sewer only W Highland Ave E Highland Ave Highland Ave Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary W 13Th St E 13Th St W Ba se Line St E Base Line St Base Line St W 6Th St W 5Th St E 5Th St 5Th St W 4Th St S Arrowhead Ave N Arrowhead Ave W 3Rd St W Rialto Ave Warm Creek E Rialto Ave E 3Rd St City Creek 3Rd St W Mill St E Mill St San Bernardino International Airport 0 1,550 3, SBWRP S Waterman Ave Carnegie Dr Gage Canal E San Bernardino Ave Feet 1 inch = 3,100 feet Figure 4-2 Existing Regional System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure4_2 March 29, 2013 K. McRae

46 4.2.2 Wet Weather The existing wastewater collection system model was run under wet weather conditions to identify any current capacity constraints in the system. Model results showed that 4,481 feet of pipeline surcharged under wet weather conditions. Figure 4-3 shows the District pipelines maximum d/d ratio during the existing system wet weather hydraulic model run. Figure 4-4 shows the Regional pipelines maximum d/d ratio during the existing system wet weather hydraulic model run. The model results identify three sections of the East Trunk Sewer as exceeding criteria. In all cases, the pipeline deficiencies were considered allowable under existing conditions and requiring upgrades to accommodate potential future flows. No capacity constraints were identified in District trunk sewers Regional Facilities A 3,213-foot section of the East Trunk Sewer, located along 6 th Street and Waterman Avenue, was identified in the model as surcharged under peak wet weather flow conditions. These pipeline segments were not identified as dry weather deficiencies. The maximum pipeline surcharge was approximately 5 inches, and had an approximate 8.2-foot freeboard to the manhole rim. The model only predicted minor surcharging and thus was not considered for immediate improvement. A 618-foot section of the East Trunk Sewer, located along Tippecanoe Avenue between Baseline Street and 9th Street, was identified in the model as surcharged under peak wet weather flow conditions. A portion of these pipeline segments were also identified as dry weather deficiencies. The pipeline crossing underneath Warm Creek is a bottleneck under wet weather flow conditions causing capacity constraints in upstream pipelines. The maximum pipeline surcharge was approximately 11 inches, and had an approximate 13.5-foot freeboard to the manhole rim. The model only predicted minor surcharging and thus was not considered for immediate improvement. A 650-foot section of 15-inch diameter pipeline located on Del Rosa Avenue just south of Pumalo Street was identified in the model as being surcharged under peak wet weather flow conditions. The as-built drawings suggest that the pipelines were designed to surcharge due to the drop manhole and flat sloped pipeline crossing underneath the drainage channel pipeline. The maximum surcharge was approximately 4.5 inches, and had an approximate 10.7-foot freeboard to the manhole rim. The pipeline was likely designed to surcharge, and the model only predicted minor surcharging thus, it was not considered for immediate improvement. BLACK & VEATCH Capacity Analysis 4-5

47 Electric Ave N Sierra Way S Sierra Way N Waterman Ave Valencia Ave N Tippecanoe Ave Harrison St S Tippecanoe Ave Tippecanoe Ave Del Rosa Ave Mountain View Ave Arden Ave Alabama St Victoria Ave Sterling Ave Church Ave Orange St Palm Ave Church St Wabash Ave N Mountain View Ave Schenk Creek 40Th St 18 E 40Th St Canal E 39Th St E Foothill Dr 330 Little Mill Creek Fredalba Creek Wastewater Collection System Master Plan E 30Th St East Twin Creek E Highland Ave E Lynwood Dr Foothill Dr Little Sand Creek Highland Canal Lynwood Dr Sand Creek Highland Ave City Creek Creek Plunge LEGEND Max d/d, Existing Wet Weather Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary 30 W 13Th St E 13Th St Warm Creek Boulder Ave North W Base Line St E Base Line St Base Line St Baseline St Fork Canal Oak Creek W 6Th St W 5Th St E 5Th St 3Rd St 5Th S t S Arrowhead Ave N Arrowhead Ave W 3Rd St W Rialto Ave E 3Rd St E Rialto Ave San Bernardino International Airport W Mi ll St E Mill St 0 2,000 4,000 Redlands Feet Municipal Airport 1 inch = 4,000 feet SBWRP S Waterman Ave Carnegie Dr Gage Canal California St San Bernardino Ave W Lugonia Ave W San Bernardino Ave Buckeye St Tennessee St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave Judson St 38 Mentone Blvd Figure 4-3 Existing District System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure4_3 March 29, 2013 K. McRae

48 S Sierra Way N E St S E St N Sierra Way N Waterman Ave Valencia Ave Harrison St Tippecanoe Ave S Tippecanoe Ave Del Rosa Ave Sterling Ave Mountain View Ave N Mountain View Ave E 30Th St 18 East Twin Creek 30 E Lynwood Dr Little Sand Creek Lynwood Dr Wastewater Collection System Master Plan LEGEND Max d/d, Existing Wet Weather East Trunk Sewer only W Highland Ave E Highland Ave Highland Ave Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary W 13Th St E 13Th St W Ba se Line St E Base Line St Base Line St W 6Th St W 5Th St E 5Th St 5Th St W 4Th St S Arrowhead Ave N Arrowhead Ave W 3Rd St W Rialto Ave Warm Creek E Rialto Ave E 3Rd St City Creek 3Rd St W Mill St E Mill St San Bernardino International Airport 0 1,550 3, SBWRP S Waterman Ave Carnegie Dr Gage Canal E San Bernardino Ave Feet 1 inch = 3,100 feet Figure 4-4 Existing Regional System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure4_4 March 29, 2013 K. McRae

49 SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION Following the existing system capacity analysis, additional loads were applied to the hydraulic model to simulate flows in the District s wastewater collection system under the projected 2035 condition. The 2035 model was run under both dry weather and wet weather conditions in order to evaluate the ability of the system to accommodate future growth. Model results are summarized in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 Summary of 2035 System Model Results PARAMETER DRY WEATHER (¹) WET WEATHER (²) District Regional District Regional Pipe 12 in., d/d > 0.5 (ft) 14, Pipe > 12 in., d/d > 0.75 (ft) 4, Surcharged (ft) 11,313 3,500 20,771 12,439 Siphons Exceeding Criteria (ft) Total Length Exceeding Criteria (ft) 31,049 3,760 21,748 12,699 (1) Peak dry weather flow at SBWRP = 26.9 mgd. (2) Peak wet weather flow at SBWRP = 47.6 mgd. Identified lengths of wet weather capacity deficiencies are inclusive of dry weather. Only Surcharged pipeline lengths were shown for Wet Weather per evaluation criteria Dry Weather The projected 2035 model was run under dry weather conditions to identify any potential future capacity constraints in the wastewater collection system. Figure 4-5 shows the District pipelines maximum d/d ratio during the 2035 system dry weather hydraulic model run. Figure 4-6 shows the Regional pipelines maximum d/d ratio during the 2035 system dry weather hydraulic model run. The model results identified that 11,313 ft of District pipeline and 3,500 ft of Regional pipeline are expected to surcharge under dry weather conditions. An additional 18,759 ft of District pipeline are expected to exceed peak dry weather flow maximum d/d criteria. In total, model results indicate that 31,049 ft of District pipeline and 3,760 feet of Regional pipeline exceed peak dry weather flow d/d criteria Wet Weather The projected 2035 model was run under wet weather conditions to identify any potential future capacity constraints in the wastewater collection system. Figure 4-7 shows the District pipelines maximum d/d ratio during the 2035 system wet weather hydraulic model run. Figure 4-8 shows the Regional pipelines maximum d/d ratio during the 2035 system wet weather hydraulic model run. The model results identified that 21,748 ft of District pipeline and 12,699 ft of Regional pipeline are expected to surcharge under wet weather conditions. Capacity constraints expected to occur under future wet weather conditions are highly dependent on the projected aggressive growth due to development in east Highland. As shown in Figure 4-7, capacity deficiencies in the District s collection system occur along Greenspot Road, 6th Street, and Victoria Avenue. These model results provide the basis for the capacity improvement projects described in Section 4-4. As shown in Figure 4-8, capacity deficiencies in the Regional East Trunk Sewer occur downstream of the District s two main connection points on Baseline Street and 6th Street. BLACK & VEATCH Capacity Analysis 4-8

50 Electric Ave N Sierra Way S Sierra Way N Waterman Ave Valencia Ave N Tippecanoe Ave Harrison St S Tippecanoe Ave Tippecanoe Ave Del Rosa Ave Mountain View Ave Arden Ave Alabama St Victoria Ave Sterling Ave Church Ave Orange St Palm Ave Church St Wabash Ave N Mountain View Ave Schenk Creek 40Th St 18 E 40Th St Canal E 39Th St E Foothill Dr 330 Little Mill Creek Fredalba Creek Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Foothill Dr Creek E 30Th St East Twin Creek E Lynwood Dr Little Sand Creek Highland Canal Lynwood Dr Sand Creek City Creek Plunge LEGEND Max d/d, 2035 Dry Weather Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer E Highland Ave Highland Ave SBWRP District Boundary 30 W 13Th St E 13Th St Warm Creek Boulder Ave North W Base Line St E Base Line St Base Line St Baseline St Fork Canal Oak Creek W 6Th St W 5Th St E 5Th St 3Rd St 5Th S t S Arrowhead Ave N Arrowhead Ave W 3Rd St W Rialto Ave E 3Rd St E Rialto Ave San Bernardino International Airport W Mi ll St E Mill St 0 2,000 4,000 Redlands Feet Municipal Airport 1 inch = 4,000 feet SBWRP S Waterman Ave Carnegie Dr Gage Canal California St San Bernardino Ave W Lugonia Ave W San Bernardino Ave Buckeye St Tennessee St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave Judson St 38 Mentone Blvd Figure District System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure4_5 March 29, 2013 K. McRae

51 S Sierra Way N E St S E St N Sierra Way N Waterman Ave Valencia Ave Harrison St Tippecanoe Ave S Tippecanoe Ave Del Rosa Ave Sterling Ave Mountain View Ave N Mountain View Ave E 30Th St 18 East Twin Creek 30 E Lynwood Dr Little Sand Creek Lynwood Dr Wastewater Collection System Master Plan LEGEND Max d/d, 2035 Dry Weather East Trunk Sewer only W Highland Ave E Highland Ave Highland Ave Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary W 13Th St E 13Th St W Ba se Line St E Base Line St Base Line St W 6Th St W 5Th St E 5Th St 5Th St W 4Th St S Arrowhead Ave N Arrowhead Ave W 3Rd St W Rialto Ave Warm Creek E Rialto Ave E 3Rd St City Creek 3Rd St W Mill St E Mill St San Bernardino International Airport 0 1,550 3, SBWRP S Waterman Ave Carnegie Dr Gage Canal E San Bernardino Ave Feet 1 inch = 3,100 feet Figure Regional System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure4_6 March 29, 2013 K. McRae

52 Electric Ave N Sierra Way S Sierra Way N Waterman Ave Valencia Ave N Tippecanoe Ave Harrison St S Tippecanoe Ave Tippecanoe Ave Del Rosa Ave Mountain View Ave Arden Ave Alabama St Victoria Ave Sterling Ave Church Ave Orange St Palm Ave Church St Wabash Ave N Mountain View Ave Schenk Creek 40Th St 18 E 40Th St Canal E 39Th St E Foothill Dr 330 Little Mill Creek Fredalba Creek Wastewater Collection System Master Plan E 30Th St East Twin Creek E Highland Ave E Lynwood Dr Foothill Dr Little Sand Creek Highland Canal Lynwood Dr Sand Creek Highland Ave City Creek Creek Plunge LEGEND Max d/d, 2035 Wet Weather Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary 30 W 13Th St E 13Th St Warm Creek Boulder Ave North W Base Line St E Base Line St Base Line St Baseline St Fork Canal Oak Creek W 6Th St W 5Th St E 5Th St 3Rd St 5Th S t S Arrowhead Ave N Arrowhead Ave W 3Rd St W Rialto Ave E 3Rd St E Rialto Ave San Bernardino International Airport W Mi ll St E Mill St 0 2,000 4,000 Redlands Feet Municipal Airport 1 inch = 4,000 feet SBWRP S Waterman Ave Carnegie Dr Gage Canal California St San Bernardino Ave W Lugonia Ave W San Bernardino Ave Buckeye St Tennessee St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave Judson St 38 Mentone Blvd Figure District System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure4_7 March 29, 2013 K. McRae

53 S Sierra Way N E St S E St N Sierra Way N Waterman Ave Valencia Ave Harrison St Tippecanoe Ave S Tippecanoe Ave Del Rosa Ave Sterling Ave Mountain View Ave N Mountain View Ave E 30Th St 18 East Twin Creek 30 E Lynwood Dr Little Sand Creek Lynwood Dr Wastewater Collection System Master Plan LEGEND Max d/d, 2035 Wet Weather East Trunk Sewer only W Highland Ave E Highland Ave Highland Ave Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary W 13Th St E 13Th St W Ba se Line St E Base Line St Base Line St W 6Th St W 5Th St E 5Th St 5Th St W 4Th St S Arrowhead Ave N Arrowhead Ave W 3Rd St W Rialto Ave Warm Creek E Rialto Ave E 3Rd St City Creek 3Rd St W Mill St E Mill St San Bernardino International Airport 0 1,550 3, SBWRP S Waterman Ave Carnegie Dr Gage Canal E San Bernardino Ave Feet 1 inch = 3,100 feet Figure Regional System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation Figure4_8 March 29, 2013 K. McRae

54 4.4 CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS The capacity concern locations identified based on the evaluation criteria were analyzed in detail. Some involved only minor surcharging for a short duration, less than one-hour and these areas were identified as watch areas to be observed by the District. As a result of the hydraulic model runs, three areas were identified as potentially requiring capacity improvements. The proposed capacity improvements are shown in Figure 4-9 and described in more detail below. Before design or construction of the capacity improvements, the District should field verify the results of this analyses utilizing field inspections and surveys, and flow monitoring District Facilities The 2035 wet weather hydraulic model results identified three capital improvement projects in the District s collection system. Victoria Avenue. The 2035 model shows major surcharging in the existing Victoria Avenue Trunk Sewer between Highland Avenue and Mirada Road. The District identified that approximately 85 percent of the existing San Manuel Indian Reservation s wastewater flows are conveyed to this pipeline, and the TAZ projected population data showed significant increases in this area. The modeling evaluated two alternatives: 1) All of the flow enters the District s wastewater collection system through one of the connections tributary to Victoria Avenue; 2) Future non-residential flow enters the District wastewater collection system through the western-most San Manuel Indian Reservation connection, which is not tributary to the Victoria Avenue Trunk Sewer. Although moving the non-residential flows to another connection did not cause any additional capacity problems in the wastewater collection system, it did not eliminate the need for a capacity improvement in Victoria Avenue. For this assessment, it was assumed that all future flows from the San Manuel Indian Reservation will enter the District wastewater collection system at the Victoria Avenue Trunk Sewer. The 2035 model results show that approximately 2,030 ft of 8-inch gravity sewer pipeline between Mirada Road and Highland Avenue surcharges under wet weather conditions. Existing model results show no existing surcharging, however, there is no capacity to support additional growth. The recommended improvement consists of replacement of approximately 3,000 feet of existing 8-inch diameter gravity sewer pipeline with a 10-inch diameter pipeline. Pipeline replacement is the selected improvement method because of the age of the existing sewer pipeline (45 50 years old). The San Manuel Indian Reservation is not subject to state or local development guidelines or permitting and could move quickly on additional development. In order to have adequate time for capacity upgrades, the District should maintain communication with the San Manuel Indian Reservation to understand the timing and projected flows from future development. Before any improvements are made, the existing connection locations for the San Manuel Indian Reservation should be confirmed through closed-circuit television (CCTV) and the flows metered. BLACK & VEATCH Capacity Analysis 4-13

55 Electric Ave N Sierra Way S Sierra Way N Waterman Ave Valencia Ave N Tippecanoe Ave Harrison St S Tippecanoe Ave Del Rosa Ave Mountain View Ave Arden Ave Alabama St Victoria Ave Sterling Ave Church Ave Orange St Palm Ave Church St Wabash Ave N Mountain View Ave Schenk Creek 40Th St 18 E 40Th St Canal E 39Th St 330 Little Mill Creek Fredalba Creek Wastewater Collection System Master Plan W 13Th St E 13Th St E 30Th St East Twin Creek E Highland Ave E Lynwood Dr Watch Area Del Rosa Ave North East Trunk Sewer Replace 7,500 feet of 21 to 30-inch with 30 to 36-inch Development Driven Foothill Dr Little Sand Creek E Foothill Dr Warm Creek Highland Canal Lynwood Dr Sand Creek 30 Watch Area Pacific St Victoria Avenue Replace 3,000 feet of 8-inch with 10-inch Development Driven Highland Ave City Creek Watch Area Webster St North Fork Canal Creek Plunge LEGEND Max d/d, 2035 Wet Weather Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer Replacement Projects Victoria Ave Greenspot East Greenspot West East Trunk Sewer - 6th St North East Trunk Sewer W Base Line St E Base Line St Base Line St Baseline St SBWRP Boulder Ave District Boundary Oak Creek W 6Th St W 5Th St Tippecanoe Ave E 5Th St 3Rd St 5Th S t W 3Rd St W Rialto Ave E 3Rd St E Rialto Ave San Bernardino International Airport S Arrowhead Ave N Arrowhead Ave W Mi ll St E Mill St Greenspot West Replace 15,400 feet of21 to 24-inch with 30-inch Development Driven Greenspot East 21,000 feet of parallel 12-inch Development Driven 0 2,000 4,000 SBWRP S Waterman Ave Carnegie Dr Gage Canal East Trunk Sewer - 6th Street Replace 5,500 feet of 27 to 39-inch with 36 to 48-inch Development Driven California St San Bernardino Ave W Lugonia Ave W San Bernardino Ave Buckeye St Tennessee St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave Judson St 38 Redlands Municipal Airport Mentone Blvd Feet 1 inch = 4,000 feet Figure 4-9 Capacity Improvements Figure4_9 March 29, 2013 K. McRae

56 Greenspot East. The 2035 model results show major surcharging in the existing Greenspot Road Trunk Sewer from Highway 210 to the eastern extent of the system. The model shows that over 2,000 ft of 12- to 15-inch diameter pipeline surcharge under wet weather conditions and that under dry weather conditions nearly all of the existing 12-inch diameter pipeline exceeds the d/d = 0.50 criteria. This proposed project also crosses Plunge Creek, which would require upgrading the existing triple barrel siphon. The recommended improvement consists of a 12-inch diameter parallel pipeline for approximately 21,000 ft. The existing pipelines can accommodate an additional 27.1 gpm or 0.04 mgd of peak flow or roughly 100 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) (note: 1 EDU equals 3.5 people). Based on the limited number of future EDUs that the existing pipeline can accommodate it is recommended that this improvement be constructed in the next 1 2 years. Project scheduling assumes that initial growth will likely occur in the known developments at a rate of approximately dwelling units per year. Development planning should be closely monitored in order to accelerate or delay construction. Paralleling the existing pipeline was the selected improvement method because the pipeline is relatively new (20 30 years old). Greenspot West. The 2035 model results show major surcharging under dry and wet weather flow conditions for the Greenspot Road Trunk Sewer from the connection of the East Trunk Sewer back to East 3rd Street and Central Avenue. The model shows that approximately 12,300 ft of 21- to 24-inch pipeline surcharge under wet weather conditions. The recommended improvement consists of replacement of approximately 15,400 ft of existing 21- to 24-inch diameter pipeline with 30-inch diameter. The existing pipelines can accommodate an additional gpm or 0.22 mgd of peak flow or roughly 547 EDUs. Based on the limited number of future EDUs that the existing pipeline can accommodate it is recommended that this improvement be constructed in the next 2 4 years. Project scheduling assumes that initial growth will likely occur in the known developments at a rate of approximately dwelling units per year. Development planning should be closely monitored in order to accelerate or delay construction. Pipeline replacement was the selected improvement method because of the age of the existing sewer pipeline (45 50 years old) Regional Facilities The 2035 model results identified two capital improvement projects in the City of San Bernardino s East Trunk Sewer. East Trunk Sewer 6th Street. The 2035 model results show major surcharging under dry and wet weather flow conditions for the East Trunk Sewer from East 6th Street and Pedley Road to Waterman Avenue and East 3rd Street. The model shows that approximately 5,200 ft of 27- to 39-inch pipeline surcharge under wet weather conditions. This project also crosses a storm drain channel which would require upgrading the existing double barrel siphon. The recommended improvement consists of replacement of approximately 5,200 ft of existing 27- to 39-inch diameter pipeline with 36- to 48-inch diameter. The existing pipelines are at capacity under the modeled peak wet weather flows and need to be replaced prior to additional flows being added to the system. Pipeline replacement was the selected improvement method because of the age of the existing sewer pipeline (50 60 years old). BLACK & VEATCH Capacity Analysis 4-15

57 North East Trunk Sewer. The 2035 model results show major surcharging under wet weather flow conditions for the East Trunk Sewer north of 6th Street, along Pedley Road, 9th Street, Tippecanoe Avenue, and Baseline Street. The model shows that approximately 5,100 ft of 21- to 30-inch pipeline surcharged under wet weather conditions. This project crosses the Warm Creek channel which may require the installation of a siphon structure. The recommended improvement consists of replacement of approximately 7,500 ft of existing 21- to 30-inch diameter pipeline with 30- to 36-inch diameter. The existing pipelines are at capacity under the modeled peak wet weather flows and need to be replaced prior to additional flows being added to the system. Pipeline replacement was the selected improvement method because of the age of the existing sewer pipeline (50 60 years old) Watch List Areas with minimal surcharging for a short duration were not regarded as critical problem areas. Although no improvements were identified for these areas, if additional development, beyond what was considered in this report, is proposed upstream of these areas, additional analyses should be performed to evaluate the impact of the changes in proposed development on the wastewater collection system. It is also recommended that the District keep these locations on a Watch List and monitor, particularly during large storm events. These areas can be found in Figure 4-9 and are described below. Hydraulic profiles showing the projected surcharge for these areas are included in Appendix G District Facilities A 325-foot pipeline in Pacific Street, west of Valaria Drive is expected to surcharge under wet weather conditions. Due to unavailable as-built information, invert elevations were field verified by District staff. The pipeline expected to surcharge is a relatively flat pipeline, with a slope of 0.18 percent. The upstream manhole I6-140 is expected to experience a surcharge depth of approximately 3 inches into the manhole chamber, remaining nearly 11.5 ft below rim elevation. Approximately 50 ft of 15-inch pipeline in Webster Street, south of Cherokee Rose Drive, are expected to surcharge under wet weather conditions, and an additional 110 ft exceed peak dry weather flow d/d criteria of As-built drawings and aerial photographs were reviewed. The pipeline expected to surcharge is the first pipeline in a reach of relatively flat segments (slope of 0.06 percent), and is immediately downstream of a relatively steep-sloped 15-inch pipeline segment (slope of 5 percent) and an 8-inch sewer connection at Cherokee Rose Drive. The pipeline segments in Webster Street are flat in order to flow underneath a drainage channel. The upstream manhole K is expected to surcharge approximately 1.25 ft into the chamber, remaining nearly 20 ft below rim elevation Regional Facilities Approximately 650 ft of 15-inch sewer mains in Del Rosa Avenue, south of Pumalo Street, are expected to surcharge under wet weather conditions. As-built drawings confirmed that these segments have relatively flat slopes (average slope of 0.44-percent), and are immediately downstream of a drop manhole and a 12-inch sewer connection at Pumalo Street. These pipelines are expected to surcharge 1.25 ft into the chambers for manholes H4-113 and H4-114, but will remain approximately 15 and 12 ft below rim elevation, respectively. This deficiency occurs in BLACK & VEATCH Capacity Analysis 4-16

58 the existing system hydraulic model under wet weather conditions. It is also described above in Section Summary of Capacity Improvements A summary of the identified capacity improvements and their anticipated trigger points are provided in Table 4-4. Table 4-4 Summary of Capacity Improvements NAME DESCRIPTION DISTRICT/ REGIONAL TRIGGER Victoria Avenue Replace 3,000 ft of 8-inch with 10-inch diameter pipeline District 34.7 gpm peak flow 0.05 mgd peak flow Approximately 125 upstream EDUs Greenspot East Parallel 21,000 ft with 12-inch pipeline District 27.1 gpm peak flow 0.04 mgd peak flow Approximately 100 upstream EDUs Greenspot West Replace 15,400 ft of 21- to 24-inch with 30-inch pipeline District gpm peak flow 0.22 mgd peak flow Approximately 550 upstream EDUs East Trunk Sewer - 6th Street Replace 5,500 ft of 27- to 39-inch with 36- to 48-inch pipeline Regional At Capacity (Immediately) North East Trunk Sewer Replace 7,500 ft of 21- to 30-inch with 30- to 36-inch pipeline Regional At Capacity (Immediately) 4.5 WATER RECLAMATION PLANT OPTION ANALYSIS Given the size, timing, and concentrated location of the proposed developments, the District has a unique opportunity to consider expanding its services to include wastewater treatment and recycled water production. Developing reclamation capabilities provides benefits to the District such as creating a new water supply or supplementing groundwater reserves. Three alternative Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) options were evaluated against the current system operations, or baseline, to determine feasibility. This section describes the different WRP options, which vary in capacity from mgd. Each option was simulated in the 2035 wet weather model to determine the potential reduction in the identified capacity improvements. The proposed location for the WRP is along Greenspot Road. The current system operation and three alternatives include: Baseline: Continued SBWRP. Use the existing system and SBWRP to treat and dispose of all of the District s flows. This option requires the identified capacity improvements described previously in this chapter. WRP Option 1: Offload 1.33 mgd (Harmony Alternative). Build a WRP for the Harmony Development to treat and dispose of up to 1.33 mgd of average wastewater flows. WRP Option 2: Offload 2.25 mgd (Boulder Alternative). Build a WRP to treat and dispose of up to 2.25 mgd of average wastewater flows. It is assumed that wastewater flows in the system BLACK & VEATCH Capacity Analysis 4-17

59 would be provided to the proposed treatment plant via a pump-back station along Greenspot Road near Boulder Avenue. WRP Option 3: Offload 3.85 mgd (Highway 210 Alternative). Build a WRP to treat and dispose of up to 3.85 mgd of average wastewater flows. It is assumed that wastewater flows in the system would be provided to the proposed treatment plant via a pump-back station along Greenspot Road near Hwy 210. Table 4-5 Summary of Offload Flow for WRP Options OPTION MINIMUM DRY WEATHER FLOW (MGD) AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOW (MGD) PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW (MGD) PEAK WET WEATHER FLOW (MGD) WRP Option WRP Option WRP Option For each WRP option, Figure 4-10 presents the available ADDF that could be diverted to a potential WRP. Figure 4-10 Estimated Potential WRP Flows Flow (mgd) WRP Option MGD / Harmony WRP Option MGD / Boulder Ave. WRP Option MGD / Highway Interim 2035 Note: The Interim flow projection assumes half of the flow estimated from the known major developments. BLACK & VEATCH Capacity Analysis 4-18

60 The three WRP options were evaluated in the 2035 wet weather model to determine the potential reduction in the identified capacity improvements, as compared to those identified in the baseline scenario. Table 4-6 includes a summary of the required capacity improvements for each option. Table 4-6 Summary of Capacity Improvements Baseline Scenario: Continued SBWRP OPTION WRP Option 1: Offload 1.33 mgd (Harmony Alternative) WRP Option 2: Offload 2.25 mgd (Boulder Alternative) WRP Option 3: Offload 3.85 mgd (Hwy 210 Alternative) REQUIRED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT Greenspot East - 21,000 ft of 12-inch pipeline Greenspot West - 15,400 ft of 30-inch pipeline East Trunk Sewer 6th Street - 5,500 ft 36- to 48-inch pipeline Greenspot West - 15,400 ft of 30-inch pipeline East Trunk Sewer 6th Street - 5,500 ft 36- to 48-inch pipeline East Trunk Sewer 6th Street - 5,500 ft 36- to 48-inch pipeline East Trunk Sewer 6th Street - 5,500 ft 36- to 48-inch pipeline Note: Table does not include Victoria Avenue and North East Trunk Sewer capacity improvement projects because they are not affected by the potential WRP options. As shown in the Table 4-6, a potential WRP will offload the system by diverting flows to be treated at a local WRP instead of conveyed through the District s mains and East Trunk Sewer, and treated at SBWRP. These alternative options assume that no flows will bypass the facility, meaning that the facility will include solids handling and have capacity to receive peak wet weather flows. Model results show that Greenspot East upgrades can be avoided if the District conveys no flows from Harmony Development. Moreover, the model shows that the Greenspot West replacement project can be avoided with the implementation of either a 2.25 mgd or 3.85 mgd WRP. The initial capacity of any WRP Option will be less than the projected 2035 flows. If a WRP Options is selected, the construction of the facility will likely be phased to accommodate existing and projected flows. For example, if WRP Option 3 is selected, the facility would likely have three phases. The initial phase may include 1.25 mgd of treatment with the remaining future phases adding an additional 1.25 mgd of treatment when required. To determine avoided capacity improvements for each WRP Option, it was assumed that the WRP Options would include solids handling and peak flow management. WRPs that do not include solids handling and/or peak flow management are typically referred to as Scalping Plants and require capacity in downstream sewers. Scalping Plants typically discharge solids ranging in flow from 5 to 15 percent of the treatment capacity to the downstream sewers with potentially minimal impacts to the collection system and increased Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) concentrations at regional treatment facilities. Wet weather flows, if not stored at the WRP, could potentially overload downstream sewers providing limited or no reduction in the identified capacity improvements. Expanding District services to include water reclamation will have its benefits and constraints. Wastewater is being viewed more and more as a resource as opposed to a waste. The District s entry into water reuse would provide a new locally controlled resource available to help offset water supplies and to help comply with California SB X7-7 water conservation requirements. BLACK & VEATCH Capacity Analysis 4-19

61 Having a WRP also opens up the possibility of eventually supplementing groundwater supplies. However, there will be large capital and operational costs associated with the construction and operation of a WRP that the District does not currently incur. The District currently does not operate wastewater pumping or treatment facilities and would need to provide training to existing staff and/or supplement current staff. Additional WRP considerations and disposal options are included in Appendix H. BLACK & VEATCH Capacity Analysis 4-20

62 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan 5 Recommendations The final recommendations of the master plan are presented in this chapter. Unit costs were developed for pipelines, pump stations and treatment plants. Capital, construction, and total project costs were developed for the capacity and condition projects and for each WRP alternatives. Total project costs for the WRP alternatives were compared to determine the recommended CIP. The recommended CIP includes both capacity and condition related capital projects and recommendations on further studies. District and Regional capacity projects were evaluated against the WRP options presented in Chapter 4. District and Regional condition related projects were developed from analyses of CCTV inspection data and previous Black & Veatch experience with similar sewer systems. The information from the two analyses was then combined to develop a prioritized 20-year CIP for the District. 5.1 UNIT COSTS Planning level construction and total project costs for each recommendation were developed at a Class 5 cost estimate level per the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International. The opinions of capital costs are based on information from the District and recent similar Black & Veatch projects. The Class 5 estimate is defined as an estimate prepared based on limited information, where little more than proposed facility type, its location, and the capacity are known. Planning level evaluations include, but are not limited to, market studies, assessment of viability, evaluation of alternate schemes, project screening, and location, evaluation of resource needs and budgeting, and long-range capital planning. All costs are presented in March 2013 dollars when the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI) for Los Angeles was 10,284. The probable costs are presented at a level of accuracy considered acceptable for master planning; actual project costs would depend on current labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, bid date, and other variable factors. The typical expected accuracy range for this class estimate is 20 to -50 percent on the low side and +30 to +100 percent on the high side Capital Costs Capital costs are the unit costs multiplied by the quantity. To estimate capital costs, unit costs were developed for pipelines, pumping stations, and treatment plants. A unit cost of $15 per inchdiameter-foot was used for estimating the probable capital cost for pipeline construction. Unit costs for pumping stations can vary depending on the size and economy of scale of the pumping station, assuming that the WRP pumping station will range in size from 2-8 mgd, a unit cost range of $1.50 to $3 per gallon was utilized to estimate capital costs. Unit costs for treatment plants can vary widely depending on the size and economy of scale of the treatment system. Assuming that the WRP will have solids processing on site and will range in size from 1-3 mgd, a unit cost range of $15 to $20 per gallon was utilized to estimate WRP capital costs Construction Costs The opinion of construction costs includes a 20 percent allowance of the capital costs for mobilization, overhead and profit. BLACK & VEATCH Recommendations 5-1

63 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Total Project Costs The opinion of total project cost includes the construction cost for each recommended improvement project and a 25 percent allowance of the construction costs to cover required engineering, legal, and administration fees. In addition, a construction contingency allowance of 30 percent of the construction costs is included to cover project uncertainties Cost Summary A summary of the capital, construction, and total project costs is provided below. Contingencies were calculated as a percentage of the total capital or construction cost, respectively. Percentage used for cost allowances are as follows: Capital Costs include unit costs multiplied by quantities Construction Costs include Capital Costs plus 20 percent of Capital Costs for Mobilization, Overhead and Profit Total Project Costs include Construction Costs plus 25 percent of Construction Costs for Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Construction Management No allowance was included to cover irregular construction or environmental difficulties. Details relating to the CIP and associated cost tables are provided in Appendix K. 5.2 CAPACITY PROJECTS COSTS Capacity deficiencies were identified for District facilities and along the regional East Trunk Sewer. Table 5-1 summarizes the capacity related project costs applying the budgetary unit costs described above. Table 5-1 Capacity Improvements Costs NAME Victoria Avenue Greenspot East Greenspot West East Trunk Sewer 6th Street North East Trunk Sewer DESCRIPTION Replace 3,000 ft of 8-inch with 10-inch diameter pipeline Parallel 21,000 ft with 12- inch pipeline Replace 15,400 ft of 21- to 24-inch with 30-inch pipeline Replace 5,500 ft of 27- to 39-inch with 36 to 48-inch pipeline Replace 7,500 ft of 21- to 30-inch with 30- to 36- inch pipeline DISTRICT/ REGIONAL CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECT COST District $450,000 $540,000 $837,000 District $3,780,000 $4,536,000 $7,031,000 District $6,930,000 $8,316,000 $12,890,000 District Subtotal $11,160,000 $13,392,000 $20,758,000 Regional $3,708,000 $4,449,600 $6,897,000 Regional $3,726,000 $4,471,200 $6,931,000 Regional Subtotal $7,434,000 $8,920,800 $13,828,000 Total $18,594,000 $22,312,800 $34,586,000 BLACK & VEATCH Recommendations 5-2

64 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan 5.3 WATER RECLAMATION PLANT OPTION ANALYSIS As discussed in Chapter 4, three options were considered for a District owned and operated WRP to address additional wastewater flows from planned development. Capital, construction, and total project costs were estimated for each option and compared to the capacity project costs presented in Table 5-1, or baseline condition. Operating considerations are also addressed in this chapter WRP Option Analyses Costs Construction and total project costs were estimated for each WRP Option analyzed for comparative purposes. In addition to the WRP option cost, each option will also include wastewater collection system capacity improvements. Comparison of the options needs to include both the WRP and the wastewater collection system capacity improvements required. Tables 5-3 through 5-5 summarize the capital, construction and total project costs, for the Baseline Scenario and each of the WRP Options. The Victoria Avenue and North East Trunk Sewer capacity improvement costs were not included in the comparison, because they are required for each option. Table 5-2 shows the costs for Baseline scenario of collection of sewage only with treatment at SBWRP. It should be noted that this Baseline scenario does not consider any capital costs that may be required for the expansion of capacity at SBWRP or rehabilitation costs that may be required for any processes e.g. primary clarifiers. Furthermore, it does not take into account any change that SBMWD would levy on the developments a per EDU change. Table 5-2 Baseline Scenario: (Continued SBWRP) Capacity Improvements Costs NAME DESCRIPTION UNIT COSTS CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECT COST WRP with Solids Diversion Pump Station to WRP Forcemain to WRP Not Required $0 $0 Not Required $0 $0 Not Required $0 $0 Greenspot East Parallel 21,000 ft with 12-inch pipeline $15 / inchfoot $3,780,000 $4,536,000 $7,031,000 Greenspot West Replace 15,400 ft of 21- to 24-inch with 30-inch pipeline $15 / inchfoot $6,930,000 $8,316,000 $12,890,000 East Trunk Sewer 6th Street Replace 5,500 ft of 27- to 39--inch with 36- to 48- inch pipeline $15 / inchfoot $3,708,000 $4,449,600 $6,897,000 Total $14,418,000 $17,301,600 $26,818,000 Note: Costs not included for specific development projects (onsite facilities and facilities to connect to the District wastewater collection system). BLACK & VEATCH Recommendations 5-3

65 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Table 5-3 WRP Option 1: Offload 1.33 mgd (Harmony Alternative) Capacity Improvements Costs NAME WRP with Solids Diversion Pump Station to WRP Forcemain to WRP Greenspot East Greenspot West East Trunk Sewer 6th Street 1.33 mgd DESCRIPTION Not Required Not Required Not Required Replace 15,400 ft of 21- to 24-inch with 30-inch pipeline Replace 5,500 ft of 27- to 39-inch with 36 to 48-inch pipeline UNIT COSTS $20 / gallon $15 / inchfoot $15 / inchfoot CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECT COST $26,600,000 $31,920,000 $49,476,000 $6,930,000 $8,316,000 $12,890,000 $3,708,000 $4,449,600 $6,897,000 Total $37,238,000 $44,685,600 $69,263,000 Note: Costs not included for specific development projects (onsite facilities and facilities to connect to the District wastewater collection system). Table 5-4 WRP Option 2: Offload 2.25 mgd (Boulder Alternative) Capacity Improvements Costs NAME WRP with Solids Diversion Pump Station to WRP Forcemain to WRP Greenspot East Greenspot West East Trunk Sewer - 6 th Street 2.25 mgd DESCRIPTION UNIT COSTS $17.50 / gallon CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECT COST $39,375,000 $47,250,000 $73,238,000 2 mgd pump station $3 / gallon $6,000,000 $7,200,000 $11,160,000 17,500 ft of 12-inch diameter Not Required Not Required Replace 5,500 ft of 27 to 39-inch with 36 to 48-inch pipeline $15 / inchfoot $15 / inchfoot $3,150,000 $3,780,000 $5,859,000 $3,708,000 $4,449,600 $6,897,000 Total $52,233,000 $62,679,600 $97,154,000 Note: Costs not included for specific development projects (onsite facilities and facilities to connect to the District wastewater collection system). BLACK & VEATCH Recommendations 5-4

66 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Table 5-5 WRP Option 3: Offload 3.85 mgd (Hwy 210 Alternative) Capacity Improvements Costs NAME DESCRIPTION UNIT COSTS CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECT COST WRP with Solids 3.85 mgd $15 / gallon $57,750,000 $69,300,000 $107,415,000 Diversion Pump Station to WRP 5 mgd pump station $1.50 / gallon $7,500,000 $9,000,000 $13,950,000 Forcemain to WRP 22,000 feet of 18-inch diameter $15 / inchfoot $5,940,000 $7,128,000 $11,049,000 Greenspot East Not Required Greenspot West Not Required East Trunk Sewer 6th Street Replace 5,500 ft of 27- to 39-inch with 36- to 48-inch pipeline $15 / inchfoot $3,708,000 $4,449,600 $6,897,000 Total $74,898,000 $89,877,600 $139,311,000 Note: Costs not included for specific development projects (onsite facilities and facilities to connect to the District wastewater collection system). The costs presented in the tables above are planning level cost estimates utilized for comparative purposes and should be revised once specific treatment technologies, sizing, and location are identified. Furthermore, costs were developed assuming that pump back facilities would relieve 100 percent of the flows at their identified locations and that treatment facilities would operate with onsite solids handling corresponding to the hydraulic analyses performed. A WRP facility constructed without solids handling or full pump-back would require additional capacity in the downstream trunk sewer. Further analyses of the existing system s and the East Trunk Sewer s ability to deliver solids to the SBWRP would need to be conducted, if solids handling were not to be included on site WRP Considerations In addition to construction costs, the District should consider other factors when deciding whether or not to get into the wastewater treatment as one of its business units. Some of these considerations are included below: Operating a WRP will require additional qualified and certified staff to operate and maintain the facility, implement a backflow prevention and/or industrial discharge program, operate non-potable reuse sites, and potentially require other additional staff. Construction of a new WRP provides the District with a valuable new resource. The District would have a new locally controlled water resource available to help offset limited water supplies and to help comply with California SB X7-7 water conservation requirements. The facility may help defer or avoid other water system costs. BLACK & VEATCH Recommendations 5-5

67 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan WRP Recommendations Based on the cost comparisons between the baseline scenario and the WRP options, the least cost option may be to continue conveying wastewater flows to the SBWRP. However, potential SBWRP expansion or rehabilitation costs may warrant further evaluation of the cost feasibility of the WRP options. As stated earlier this cost does not account for any costs that may be passed on as a result of any expansion or rehabilitation. The District may choose that the higher costs of the WRP options are mitigated by the development of a new water supply source. If the District decides to pursue a WRP option it is recommended that the District perform a recycled water market assessment, and a comprehensive rate study. The District has two options to meet capacity needs for future growth. The District may elect to continue to rely on the regional system by constructing new pipeline capacity and delivering additional flows to the SBWRP. Alternatively, the District may elect to pursue a more independent approach through construction of a new District WRP to serve a portion of the District. However, there are other considerations including the value of being less reliant on external agencies and the value of the new water created by a District reclamation plant. This master plan provides budget costs and considerations for both options to aid the District in making this important policy decision. 5.4 REPLACEMENT ASSESSMENT An assessment was performed on the District and Regional gravity sewer pipelines to estimate the capital cost to repair and rehabilitate the pipeline assets. The assessment of the District s wastewater collection system was based on recent CCTV inspection and condition assessment data provided by the District. Because no inspection data was available for the Regional East Trunk Sewer, the assessment is limited to an understanding of the pipelines characteristics based on previous Black & Veatch experience with similar types of gravity sewers District Facilities An assessment was performed on the sewer pipelines to estimate the capital cost to repair and rehabilitate the District s wastewater collection system based on defect trends. The assessment of the existing wastewater collection system was based on the District s condition inspection database, which included more than 98 percent of the overall District gravity sewer pipeline length Evaluation of District Inspection Data District CCTV inspections utilized the standard Pipeline Assessment Certification Program s (PACP) rating system per the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO). The PACP rating system is utilized to rate structural and maintenance defects as they are observed by the camera operator. The defect codes range from one to five, with five being the most severe. Defects were organized by defect code and the top two defect codes and their respective number of occurrences is presented in the condition inspection database as a score for both structural and maintenance defects, by reach of pipeline. For example a structural code of 5846 represents a pipeline that had eight occurrences of defect grade five defects and six occurrences of grade four defects. A rehabilitation/replacement length was estimated for each pipeline based on the structural PACP score in order to identify the estimated capital cost. The score was based on the severity of the defect multiplied by the number of occurrences, not exceeding the length of the pipeline. Defect severity codes were assigned the following lengths: 5 40 feet, 4 30 feet, 3 20 feet, 2 10 feet, BLACK & VEATCH Recommendations 5-6

68 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan and 1 4 feet. The capital cost was then calculated by multiplying the pipeline unit cost of $15 per inch-diameter per foot described above. For example, a 10-inch diameter pipeline with a structural code of 5846 would have an estimated rehabilitation/replacement length of 500 ft ([8 x 40 ft] + [6 x 30 ft]) and an estimated capital cost of $75,000 (500 ft x 10-inches diameter x $15 per inchdiameter-foot). The condition inspection database was utilized along with the existing system hydraulic model results to develop a matrix that categorized estimated pipeline capital costs by maximum defect rating and amount of average daily flow in order to establish initial priorities for District consideration. Table 5-6 presents the Defect/Flow matrix and identifies the initial priorities by color. Table 5-7 summarizes the estimated replacement length, total project cost, and number of identified pipelines by priority. Table 5-6 Prioritized Defect/Flow Matrix FLOW MAXIMUM DEFECT RATING 1 (Least) (Worst) PROJECT COST TOTAL BY FLOW > 1.5 mgd N/I N/I $13,400 N/I N/I $13,400 > 1.0 mgd N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I $0 > 0.5 mgd N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I $0 < 0.5 mgd $1,300 $203,300 $263,400 $205,000 $173,800 $846,800 Not Modeled $76,300 $1,027,400 $3,033,000 $1,925,900 $399,500 $6,462,100 Capital Cost Total by Defect Rating $77,600 $1,230,700 $3,309,800 $2,130,900 $573,300 $7,322,300 Note: Project Cost include: 20 percent of Capital Costs for Mobilization, Overhead and Profit, 25 percent of Construction Costs for Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Construction Management, and 30 percent of Construction Costs for Construction Contingency Table 5-7 Pipeline Prioritization Summary PRIORITY NUMBER OF PIPELINES ESTIMATED LENGTH (FEET) PROJECT COST Priority ,756 $573,300 Priority ,061 $2,114,300 Priority ,473 $3,296,400 Priority ,333 $1,308,300 Total ,623 $7,322,300 Note: Project Cost include: 20 percent of Capital Costs for Mobilization, Overhead and Profit, 25 percent of Construction Costs for Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Construction Management, and 30 percent of Construction Costs for Construction Contingency BLACK & VEATCH Recommendations 5-7

69 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Deterioration Trends Defect codes were sorted by material and age to evaluate trends. As expected, older pipes generally had a greater number of defects. Figure 5-1 shows the percent of pipes with defects by age. Half of the pipes installed before 1960 (over 50 years old) showed at least minor defects and half of those defects were categorized as moderate to severe. The results are consistent with expectations that as pipelines approach the last portion of their useful life, deterioration and failure rates increase substantially. 60% Percent of Pipes with Defects 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Maximum Defect Rating % Pre Post 2000 Year Figure 5-1 Percent of Pipes with Defects by Age The increase in defect rates and defect severity above can be correlated to typical survival curves for pipelines. Figure 5-2 shows a typical VCP survival curve categorized into favorable and unfavorable conditions (other materials are included in Appendix I). As pipelines reach 50 to 60 years of age, the likelihood of failure accelerates increasing overall risk to the agency. This situation is now commonly occurring through the United States with the large portion of the infrastructure built in the 1950s and 1960s. BLACK & VEATCH Recommendations 5-8

70 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Figure 5-2 VCP Survival Curve 100% Percent Survival 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Favorable Survival Curve Unfavorable Survival Curve Years Note: The curve above represents a typical survival curve for VCP pipelines. Favorable and unfavorable curves are shown to represent more ideal and less ideal condition. Actual results can vary depending on specific conditions. It is important to note that the District s current assessment and PACP scoring is limited to what was visible on the CCTV camera and the judgment of the PACP assessor. Non-visible defects and dynamic conditions in the system can cause unexpected pipeline failures. Therefore, best management practices include ongoing monitoring and assessment of aging infrastructure, and adoption of an asset management program to maximize the life of the assets and reduce overall agency costs. Due to the prevalence of older VCP pipelines, it is recommended that the District continue its condition assessment program to refine the expected survival curves and long-term financial impact. The condition assessment program is included in the 5-10-year CIP Rehabilitation/Replacement Projects and Costs A recommended budget was determined for the rehabilitation and replacement of the District s facilities to support a proactive condition assessment and asset management program. Many wastewater agencies across the country have shifted to place a major focus on asset management as much of the pipeline infrastructure approaches the end of its useful life. A proactive approach, placing more focus on aging assets now, will help the District avoid potential failures and bigger liabilities. A condition assessment budget was estimated based on a review of the highest priority pipelines (summarized as Priority 1 and Priority 2 pipelines in Table 5-6 and Table 5-7) and an assessment of the remaining life cycle of the District pipelines based on age and material. The remaining life cycle assessment estimated an approximate replacement length of 12,000 feet per year. The costs are summarized in Table 5-8 and only include costs associated with the rehabilitation/replacement of District sewer facilities. BLACK & VEATCH Recommendations 5-9

71 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Table 5-8 Summary of Rehabilitation/Replacement Costs for the District PIPELINES CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL PROJECT COST Priority 1 Pipelines Pipes with Class 5 defects $573,000 $687,600 $860,000 Priority 2 Pipelines Pipes with Class 4 defects $2,144,000 $2,572,800 $3,216,000 Rehabilitation/Replacement of Aging Pipelines¹ Total Pipelines Reaching Useful Life in Next 20 Years $27,000,000 $32,400,000 $40,500,000 $29,717,000 $35,660,400 $44,576,000 ¹ Cost estimated based on replacement/rehabilitation of 12,000 ft of pipe per year, at a cost of $15 per inch-diameter-foot using an average of 10 inches in diameter. It was assumed that half of the pipelines would require replacement, and half would be rehabilitated at one half of the cost to replace the segment. Note: The projects above include replacing/rehabilitating pipelines to maintain existing capacities. These segments are separate from capacity upgrades identified in this chapter. Based on a review of the highest priority pipelines identified in the condition database, it is recommended that the District allocate approximately $4.1 million over the next five years to address the highest priority pipelines (Class 4 and Class 5 defects), equating to an annual budget of approximately $820,000. These immediate costs are included as an annual cost during years 1 5 of the CIP. It is also recommended that the District take a proactive asset management approach and budget approximately $41 million over the next twenty years to address aging infrastructure. This total is included as an annual cost for years 6 20 of the CIP. Furthermore, it is recommended that the District: continue to maintain the condition database; identify condition improvements on an annual basis; and, within the next 5 10 years, perform an additional condition assessment and re-assess condition project budget allocations Regional Facilities Because no inspection data was available for the East Trunk Sewer, the assessment is limited to an understanding of the pipelines materials, age, hydraulic characteristics, and experience with similar types of gravity sewers Pipeline Background and Understanding The main portion of the East Trunk Sewer begins at Del Rosa Avenue and Lynwood Drive. It was constructed in 1957 and includes approximately 26,900 feet of 15- to 36-inch VCP and approximately 14,000 feet of 39- to 54-inch RCP. The system includes two siphons under Highland Creek: west of Cooley Street on 6th Street and south of Valley Street on Waterman Avenue. Dry weather ADDF at the SBWRP is approximately 13 mgd with a peak wet weather flow of 40.5 mgd. Based on the hydraulic model results, the peak velocities in the system generally range from 4 to 6 feet per second (fps) in the VCP section to 2 to 4 fps in the RCP section. BLACK & VEATCH Recommendations 5-10

72 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Life-cycle Factors The typical published useful life for VCP is up to 100 years. RCP useful life is typically 70 years to 100 years. However, the useful life of a pipeline is subject to many factors that can significantly extend or decrease the useful life of a gravity sewer pipeline. Figure 5-3 shows some factors that can shorten the useful life including: Improper installation including pipe bedding, bedding compaction, joint connections, depth of pipe, and/or damage during installation. Corrosion from external soil characteristics and groundwater. Corrosion from internal water quality and characteristics. This is particularly important with wastewater. In addition to the factors shown on Figure 5-3, damage from other utility installation or nearby construction activities can also shorten the useful life. Figure 5-3 Factors Shortening Useful Pipe Life BLACK & VEATCH Recommendations 5-11