Inland Empire Utilities Agency Carollo Engineers, Inc. CH2M HILL DRAFT

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM IEUA Wastewater Facilities Master Plan TM 3 Regional Trunk Sewer Analysis PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Inland Empire Utilities Agency Carollo Engineers, Inc. CH2M HILL DATE: August 18, 2014 Executive Summary In accordance with the goals of the master planning effort, the Consultant Team evaluated the capacity of IEUA s collection system and developed flow diversion alternatives to optimize the use of recycled water within the service area for groundwater recharge. To achieve this goal, four flow diversion alternatives were developed as part of the WFMP that would allow IEUA to optimize recharge groundwater opportunities in the north. As part of this analysis, the Consultant Team updated the IEUA collection system hydraulic model. This updated model was used to conduct an evaluation of the regional trunk sewer system under existing and projected future flow conditions. Results of the analysis indicate that IEUA s collection system generally maintains adequate capacity to convey peak flows. However, capacity limitations were identified in the Montclair pipeline reach that conveys flow to RP 1 from the Montclair diversion structure. Flow diversion alternatives were evaluated using both monetary and non monetary evaluation criteria and a benefit cost analysis to identify the most suitable alternative for meeting IEUA s objectives. Alternative 2, which utilizes the existing Whispering Lakes and Haven Pump Stations to divert flows from RP 5 to RP 1 was identified as IEUA s preferred flow diversion alternative because it has a lower capital cost, is easier to implement and provides a relatively high benefit related to diverting additional flows to RP 1 for groundwater recharge. Alternative 2 also provides flexibility in that flows could still be conveyed to RP 5 by gravity should the need arise. 1.0 Background and Objectives The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) contracted with CH2M HILL and Carollo Engineers (Consultant Team) to develop a Wastewater Facilities Master Plan (WFMP). The objective of the WFMP is to plan IEUA s wastewater treatment and conveyance improvements and develop a capital program. The capital program will guide IEUA in the development of major improvements to their treatment and conveyance facilities. As part of the WFMP effort, the Consultant Team worked with IEUA to develop a series of flow diversion alternatives. The diversion alternatives were developed as a way to convey wastewater to Reclamation Plant (RP) 1 in an effort to maximize groundwater recharge opportunities in the northern portions of IEUA s service area. The flow diversion alternatives are described in Technical Memorandum (TM) No. 2. In conjunction with the analysis of the diversion alternatives, IEUA s existing conveyance system was evaluated to determine its ability to convey current and projected flows based on specified evaluation criteria. The purpose of this TM 3 is to summarize the analysis of IEUA s conveyance system and the results of the evaluation of the flow diversion alternatives presented in TM 2. 1

2 IEUA WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TM 3 REGIONAL TRUNK SEWER ANALYSIS 2.0 Evaluation and Planning Criteria Evaluation criteria were established as a means to provide a framework for the analysis of the conveyance system and the evaluation of the flow diversion alternatives. The evaluation included the criteria to evaluate the collection system using the hydraulic model and the criteria used to evaluate the flow diversion alternatives. The evaluation of the flow diversion alternatives used a qualitative non monetary approach called the Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique (SMART). The conveyance system criteria and the SMART system are summarized in this section of TM Collection System Evaluation Criteria Gravity Conveyance System Gravity sewer pipe capacities are dependent on many factors. The factors include roughness of the pipe, the chosen maximum allowable depth of flow downstream, and limiting velocity and slope. The following sections describe the factors that account for the determination of existing and future pipeline capacities in IEUA s collection system. Manning Coefficient (n) The manning coefficient 'n' is a friction coefficient that varies with respect to pipe material, size of pipe, depth of flow, smoothness of joints, root intrusion, and other factors. For sewer pipes, the manning coefficient typically ranges between and 0.017, with being a representative value used for system planning purposes. For this study, a manning n factor of was assigned to all existing sewer collection system lines in the hydraulic model, and then refined as necessary during model verification to accurately simulate field measured levels and velocities. Peak Flow Criteria The primary criteria used to identify capacity deficient sewers or to size new sewer improvements is the maximum flow depth to pipe diameter ratio (d/d). The d/d value is defined as the depth of flow (d) in a pipe during peak (design) flow conditions divided by the pipe s diameter (D). Based on the Consultant Team s experience, IEUA staff input, and industry standards, the following criteria were used and are summarized in Table 3 1 for existing and new sewers: Flow Depth for Existing Sewers. Peak flow criteria for existing sanitary sewers are established based on a number of factors, including the acceptable risk tolerance of the utility, local standards and codes, and other factors. Using a conservative criterion for evaluating existing sewers may lead to unnecessary replacement of existing pipelines. Conversely, a lenient criterion could increase the risk of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Ultimately, the maximum allowable peak flow criterion should be established to be as cost effective as possible while at the same time reducing the risk of SSOs to the greatest extent possible. For IEUA, it was decided that a maximum d/d ratio of 0.92 would be used to identify capacity deficient sewers. Flow Depth for New Sewers. When designing sewer pipelines, it is common practice to adopt variable flow depth criteria for various pipe sizes. Design d/d ratios typically range from 0.5 to 0.92, with the lower values typically used for smaller pipes, which may experience flow peaks greater than design flow or blockages from debris, paper, or rags. Since IEUA collects wastewater flow from multiple agencies, IEUA s collection system primarily consists of larger diameter interceptors (i.e., greater than 18 inches in diameter). Therefore, sewer interceptor projects will be sized to a d/d of

3 IEUA WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TM 3 REGIONAL TRUNK SEWER ANALYSIS TABLE 3 1 Maximum Flow Depth Criteria Maximum d/d Existing Sewers 0.92 New Sewers 0.75 (1) Notes: 1 For pipe diameters larger than 18 inches Pump Stations and Forcemains Industry standard practice is to require that sewage lift stations have sufficient capacity to pump the peak flow with the largest pump out of service (firm capacity). Force main piping should be sized to provide a minimum velocity of 3 ft/s at the design flow rate of the lift station and no more than 8 ft/s. For the determination of head loss, the Hazen Williams Equation is used with a C factor of 110. These factors are typical for sewer system master planning purposes. 2.2 Flow Diversion Evaluation Criteria Non-Monetary Evaluation Criteria The SMART method was used to evaluate alternatives. This approach includes development of a benefit score for each alternative based on non monetary criteria and their assigned weighting factors. Once the benefit score is established for each alternative, a monetary evaluation is conducted to estimate life cycle costs for each alternative. A benefit to cost ratio is then determined for each alternative to establish the recommended alternative. For the non monetary evaluation, a multi attribute analysis methodology was employed to develop clear and defensible benefit scores for identified alternatives. With multi attribute analysis, a set of criteria is first developed for use in ranking the appropriateness of each alternative in satisfying the project objectives. Secondly, each criterion is assigned a weighting factor that reflects its relative importance. The weighting factors range from 1 (least important relative to other criteria) to 10 (most important relative to other criteria), allowing calculation of a weighted criterion score based on how important the criterion is for the project in the overall decision making process. The non monetary evaluation criteria, definitions, and weighting factors for evaluating the flow diversion alternatives in TM 3 are presented in Table

4 TABLE 3 2 Non Monetary Evaluation Criteria, Definitions, and Assigned Weighting Factors Criteria Description Weighting Factor Optimize Groundwater Recharge Evaluate each alternative relative to the volume of water available for recharge. 10 Operational Flexibility Ability to divert flow to either RP 5 or RP Operational Risk and Reliability Operational implications on system reliability and redundancy and the associated risk involved in the operation of the lift station(s) and other major facilities. Ability to maximize use of existing assets Ability to use existing infrastructure, lift stations, and other facilities. 8 Ease of operation and maintenance Relative degree of ease and extent of time required to operate and maintain the facilities. Ability to operate one regional lift station versus operating multiple lift stations. Recycled water pumping needs Implications on pumping and conveying recycled water. 6 Impacts on liquid treatment facilities Impacts on the required level of treatment at RP 5 or RP 1 (i.e., to achieve the corresponding TN limits for groundwater recharge). Environmental considerations Environmental considerations, impacts, permitting and documentation required for project implementation. 6 Construction impacts Construction impacts on traffic, commuter schedules, ecosystems, etc. 5 Institutional feasibility Carbon footprint and sustainability Extent of coordination required for rights of way and easement procurement, as well as major crossings across freeways, channels, etc. Potential impacts on the carbon footprint of each plant or conveyance system as a result of construction and operation of the facilities. Footprint and space constraints Overall footprint requirements and space constraints

5 3.0 Evaluation of Existing Collection System IEUA WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TM 3 REGIONAL TRUNK SEWER ANALYSIS The hydraulic model developed for the WFMP was used to conduct an analysis of the capacity of IEUA s existing conveyance system. The analysis was conducted under the peak flow scenario. In general, IEUA s collection system has adequate capacity to convey peak wastewater flows. The one facility that is currently lacking adequate capacity to convey existing flows is the 30 inch pipeline downstream of the Montclair diversion. The sections of pipeline that are currently deficient are illustrated on Figure 3 1. The deficient reach of the Montclair pipeline includes approximately 24,000 linear feet of 36 inch diameter sewer. The hydraulic model was run under future system conditions as part of the analysis of the diversion alternatives discussed in the following sections of this memorandum. It was determined that in order to mitigate the capacity deficiencies the pipeline would need to be upsized to a 36 inch diameter sewer to convey peak buildout flows. It is recommended that IEUA staff conduct further flow monitoring of this reach of pipeline to determine the extent of the deficiency. IEUA staff should conduct a focused flow monitoring effort on this reach to develop a clear picture of the flow conditions during peak flow periods to verify the modeling results and help size the pipeline during preliminary and final design of mitigation alternatives. While upsizing the pipeline is a viable alternative, other options may exist such as constructing parallel reaches of conveyance trunk lines. 4.0 Evaluation of Flow Diversion Alternatives One of the goals of the WFMP is to plan the efficient use of IEUA s wastewater treatment plants and optimize the use of recycled water within IEUA s service area for groundwater recharge. One of the tasks in the project is to develop and evaluate flow diversion alternatives given an understanding of the constraints and goals of the treatment evaluations and plans for RWRP expansion. For instance, consideration of treatment plant expansions at RP 1 and RP 5 took into account nitrogen concentration limits at the groundwater recharge basin and the treatment plants. Per the Waste Discharge Order No. R (NPDES No. CA ) and Water Recycling Order No. R (and subsequent amendments), the 12 month flow weighted running average Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) concentration shall not exceed 8 mg/l. This limitation may be met on an agency wide basis using flow weighted averages of discharges from RP 1, RP 4, RP 5, and CCWRF. Per the CDPH regulations for groundwater recharge and in accordance with Water Recycling Order No. R , Total Nitrogen (TN) concentration of the recycled water used for recharge prior to reaching the regional groundwater table must not exceed 5 mg/l. The organic nitrogen content in plant effluent is typically in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 mg/l. Therefore, a plant effluent TIN of 8 mg/l corresponds to a TN of about 9.5 to 10 mg/l at the basins. In comparison, a plant effluent TIN of 5 mg/l corresponds to a TN of about 6.5 to 7 mg/l at the basins. To be conservative, this analysis assumes a plant effluent TIN of 5 mg/l for recharge. Therefore, RP 1 expansion needs are based on a plant effluent TIN of 5 mg/l. Similarly, for Alternatives 4A and 4B where flow from RP 5 is pumped to the north for groundwater recharge, the RP 5 expansion needs are based on a plant effluent TIN of 5 mg/l, reducing the overall plant capacity and causing expansions to occur sooner. For the capacity analysis of each RWRP in later TMs, capacities will be developed based on the permitted plant effluent TIN of 8 mg/l as confirmed by IEUA. This section provides a summary of the proposed flow diversion alternatives, and details the results of the nonmonetary evaluation of the flow diversion alternatives. The flow diversion alternatives are described in detail in Technical Memorandum TM 2 and are summarized below. The analysis is based on a planning horizon of 20 years (2035), which is then used to establish the infrastructure needs for each alternative. The flows diverted in each alternative are summarized in Table

6 M-3 Montclair Diversion Structure 15'' ") C-7 C-18 CH-3A CH-4B C-5B C-16 M-1 C-15 C-5A CH-4A CH STATE PARK C-3C C-3B CCWRF C-1B RP-5 O-4C 60'' O-4A RP-2 C-1C CH-5 O-13 60'' 8'' 10'' CIW_A O-4B OA-1B OA-1A CIW_B CA-1 CA-4 O-14 CA-2 72'' O-24 O-03 O-43 72'' 66'' OA-2B_B OA-2A O-02 OA-2B_A CW-08 Legend ") Montclair Diversion Structure F-13 F-12FT O-26Montclair O-46Capacity Deficiency Regional Treatment Plant 78'' Lift Station Modeled O-19 66'' Pipelines 12" and Smaller F-5A 15" and Larger F-6 78'' Major Roads 24'' 24'' IEUA Tributary Areas Figure 3-1 Montclair Interceptor Deficiencies Inland Empire Utilities Agency Wastewater Facilities Master Plan " 0 3,600 7,200 Feet 1 inch = 7,250 feet M:\IEUA_FNO\GIS\Alternatives_with_Upgrades\Montclair Pipeline Deficiencies.mxd 8/14/2014

7 4.1 Summary of Flow Diversion Alternatives Alternative 1 IEUA WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TM 3 REGIONAL TRUNK SEWER ANALYSIS Alternative 1 is the Do Nothing alternative. This alternative makes use of the future flow projections for RP 1 and RP 5 and determines how keeping the existing methodologies for flow routing in place affects IEUA s ability to meet its goals. The assumption is that all flows from the Whispering Lakes tributary area, as well as the flows from the Haven Pump Station tributary area, are conveyed by gravity to RP 5. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 assumes that the flows from the Whispering Lakes pump station tributary area are pumped to RP 1 for treatment. Currently the Haven pump station conveys flow to RP 1 and this alternative assumes that the flows would continue to be conveyed to RP 1 in the future. The Whispering Lakes pump station collects wastewater from agency tributary area OA 1B, while Haven pump station collects from tributary area OA 2B_A. This alternative provides flexibility where the wastewater is sent, since IEUA would still have the option to send the flows south to RP 5. Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C Alternative 3 assumes a new pump station would be installed south of the Archibald Ranch area to convey flows from the Whispering Lakes, Haven, and Archibald Ranch developments. The areas diverted to RP 1 include tributary areas OA 1B, OA 2B_A, OA 2B_B, OA 1A, and OA 2A. There would be three sub alternatives of this alternative. The sub alternatives compare different locations for the new pump station in order to maximize the collection of sewer flows from the New Model Colony in the City of Ontario and to optimize the amount of flow diverted to RP 1. This Alternative includes additional flow diversions from the eastern portions of the New Model Colony. In comparison, Alternative 2 does not assume that any new flows outside the existing Whispering Lakes and Haven tributary areas would be conveyed to RP 1. This alternative maximizes the amount of flow going to RP 1 by taking flow from new growth. Potential locations for the new pump station are (a) south of Edison Avenue to intercept approximately 30 percent of the New Model Colony flows, (b) near the flood control channel and Hellman Avenue to intercept approximately 50 percent of the New Model Colony flows, and (c) near Euclid Avenue and Kimball Avenue to intercept all of the New Model Colony flows. These locations have not been analyzed to determine the percentage of New Model Colony flows that could be captured. Rather, these locations are intended to serve as starting points for the analysis and the captured flow percentages will most likely be modified. The other difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is that Alternative 3 includes the construction of a single regional pump station instead of utilizing the existing City of Ontario pump stations (Whispering Lakes and Haven). This alternative eliminates the operation and maintenance of multiple pump stations. There is still some flexibility with this alternative because the flows may be diverted to either RP 1 or RP 5. Alternatives 4A and 4B Alternative 4 assumes that instead of diverting flow to RP 1 for treatment, the flows are treated at RP 5 and pumped to RP 1 to be distributed in the recycled water distribution system in the northern portions of IEUA s service area. It is assumed that a recycled water pump station would be installed at RP 5 to pump the recycled water up to the recycled water facility at RP 1. This alternative requires an expansion of RP 5 in order to handle the increase in flow to the plant. This alternative is the least flexible of the alternatives since it is not able to divert water away from RP 5. Alternative 4 has two sub alternatives. Alternative 4A assumes that all flows at the Montclair Diversion are diverted east to the Montclair pump station and ultimately RP 1. Alternative 4B assumes that flows at the Montclair Diversion are diverted west/south to RP 5. 7

8 IEUA WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TM 3 REGIONAL TRUNK SEWER ANALYSIS TABLE 3 3 Projected Sewer Flows for Diversion Alternatives Flow Flow Flow Facility Flow (mgd) (3) Flow Flow (mgd) Flow (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Do Nothing Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (1) 3A 3B 3C Alternative 4 (2) 4A 4B RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP Notes: 1 Includes construction of a new regional lift station to convey flows to RP 1. Three sub alternatives were developed to evaluate diverting differing percentages of flows from City of Ontario's New Model Colony (NMC) growth area. Alternative 3A diverted 30 percent of NMC flow, Alternative 3B diverted 50 percent of NMC flow, and Alternative 3C diverted 100 percent of NMC flow. 2 Alternative 4A evaluated the flows if 100 percent of flow at the Montclair diversion structure was diverted to RP 1, while Alternative 4B assumes 100 percent of the flows at the Montclair diversion were conveyed to CCWRF. 3 Analysis based on 20 Year Planning Horizon. 4.2 Infrastructure Implications Once the flow diversion alternatives were established, the facilities needed to operate under the specifics of each were developed. The facilities were established using the hydraulic model discussed in TM 2 and an understanding of the treatment requirements for RP 1 and RP 5. For the expansions of the Reclamation Plants, it was assumed that additional capacity would be added in modules based on the current configuration of the unit processes. As discussed in the evaluation section, RP 1 expansion modules will provide 5 mgd capacity for a TIN concentration of 5 mg/l. RP 5 can be expanded in 7.5 mgd modules for a TIN concentration of 8 mg/l. These same modules will provide 6.5 mgd of capacity each for a TIN of 5 mg/l. The infrastructure implications for each alternative are listed in Table 3 4. As stated previously, a planning horizon of 20 years (2035) is used to establish the infrastructure needs for each alternative. 8

9 TABLE 3 4 Alternative Infrastructure Implications Alternative 1 IEUA WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TM 3 REGIONAL TRUNK SEWER ANALYSIS Facility Type of Improvement Existing Size/ Diameter New Size/ Diameter RP 1 Expand 5 mgd 29 mgd 34 mgd RP 5 Expand 7.5 mgd 15 mgd 22.5 mgd Montclair Pipeline Upsize 30 in 36 in Alternative 2 Whispering Lakes PS Pump Station 2.16 mgd 4.68 mgd RP 1 Expand 5 mgd 29 mgd 34 mgd RP 5 Expand 7.5 mgd 15 mgd 22.5 mgd Montclair Pipeline Upsize 30 in 36 in Alternative 3A Proposed Pump Station 17 mgd Force Main 24 in RP 1 Expand 10 mgd 29 mgd 39 mgd RP 5 Expand 7.5 mgd 15 mgd 22.5 mgd Montclair Pipeline Upsize 30 in 36 in Alternative 3B Proposed Pump Station 29 mgd Force Main 30 in RP 1 Expand 10 mgd 29 mgd 39 mgd Montclair Pipeline Upsize 30 in 36 in Alternative 3C Proposed Pump Station 45.8 mgd Force Main 42 in RP 1 Expand 15 mgd 29 mgd 44 mgd Montclair Pipeline Upsize 30 in 36 in Alternative 4A 1 Proposed Pump Station 22 mgd Storage Tank 6 MG Recycled Water Pipeline 24 in RP 1 Expand 5 mgd 29 mgd 34 mgd RP 5 Expand 6.5 mgd 13 mgd 19.5 mgd Montclair Pipeline Upsize 30 in 36 in Alternative 4B 1 Proposed Pump Station 22 mgd Storage Tank 6 MG Recycled Water Pipeline 24 in RP 1 Expand 5 mgd 29 mgd 34 mgd RP 5 Expand 13 mgd 13 mgd 26 mgd Note: 1 The RP 5 capacity and expansion needs for Alternatives 4A and 4B are based on a TIN of 5 mg/l. For all other alternatives, the RP 5 capacity and expansion needs are based on a TIN of 8 mg/l. 9

10 IEUA WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TM 3 REGIONAL TRUNK SEWER ANALYSIS Alternative 1 Facilities required include the expansions of RP 1 and RP 5 to accommodate the projected increases in wastewater flows. Currently RP 1 is rated at 29 mgd (5 mg/l TIN) and would need to be expanded to 34 mgd to accommodate the projected increase in flow. RP 5 is currently rated for 15 mgd (8 mg/l TIN) and would need to be expanded to 22.5 mgd. Alternative 1 would also include an upgrade of the Montclair pipeline downstream of the Montclair pump station from a 30 inch sewer to a 36 inch pipeline. The added facilities are shown on Figure 3 2 at the end of this section. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes to utilize the Whispering Lakes Pump station to convey wastewater back to RP 1. This alternative would require the expansion of the Whispering Lakes Pump Station by approximately 2.2 mgd to 4.7 mgd. Similar to Alternative 1, RP 1 and RP 5 would require expansions of 5 and 7.5 mgd, respectively. The added facilities are shown on Figure 3 3 at the end of this section. Alternative 3A The infrastructure required for Alternative 3A includes a 17 mgd pump station located South of Edison Avenue and a 24 inch diameter forcemain to convey wastewater back to RP 1. RP 1 and RP 5 would require expansions of 10 mgd and 7.5 mgd, respectively. RP 1 would expand from 29 mgd to 39 mgd and RP 5 would expand from 15 mgd to 22.5 mgd. This alternative would also require upsizing the Montclair pipeline downstream of the Montclair pump station, from a 30 inch sewer to a 36 inch sewer. The added facilities are shown on Figure 3 4 at the end of this section. Alternative 3B Alternative 3B is similar to Alternative 3A in terms of the treatment plant expansions for RP 1 and the upsizing of the Montclair pipeline. However, this alternative would require a 29 mgd pump station, located near the flood control channel and Hellman Avenue, and a 30 inch diameter forcemain to convey flows to RP 1. This alternative would not require an expansion of RP 5. Alternative 3B would also include an upgrade of the Montclair pipeline downstream of the Montclair pump station from a 30 inch sewer to a 36 inch pipeline. The added facilities are shown on Figure 3 5 at the end of this section. Alternative 3C This Alternative would require an expansion of RP 1 by 15 mgd, from 29 mgd to 44 mgd, and installation of a 46 mgd wastewater pump station and 42 inch diameter forcemain. Alternative 3C would also include an upgrade of the Montclair pipeline downstream of the Montclair pump station, from a 30 inch sewer to a 36 inch pipeline. The added facilities are shown on Figure 3 6 at the end of this section. Alternative 4A This alternative assumes that 22 mgd of wastewater would be treated for groundwater recharge and pumped to RP 1 in a 24 inch diameter recycled water pipeline. There would also need to be a recycled water storage tank located at RP 5. RP 1 would need to be expanded by 5 mgd, from 29 to 34 mgd, and RP 5 would be expanded by 6.5 mgd, from 13 mgd to 19.5 mgd. The difference in the expansions for RP 5 in this alternative is the lower TIN limit of 5 mg/l for RP 5 discussed in the evaluation criteria section. Alternative 4A would also include an upgrade of the Montclair pipeline downstream of the Montclair pump station, from a 30 inch sewer to a 36 inch pipeline. The added facilities are shown on Figure 3 7 at the end of this section. Alternative 4B Similar to Alternative 4A, the infrastructure required for this alternative includes a 22 mgd recycled water pump station, and a 24 inch diameter recycled water pipeline and a recycled water storage tank. RP 1 would be expanded by 5 mgd from 29 mgd to 34 mgd, and RP 5 would increase by 13 mgd from 13 mgd to 26 mgd. This is the only alternative that does not require the expansion of the Montclair pipeline. The added facilities are shown on Figure

11 M-3 Montclair Diversion Structure 15'' ") C-7 C-18 CH-3A CH-4B C-5B C-16 M-1 C-15 C-5A CH-4A CH STATE PARK C-3C CCWRF C-1B C-3B O-4C RP-5 O-4A Montclair Pipeline Existing Size: 30" New Size: 36" RP-5 Existing Size: 15 mgd New Size: 22.5 mgd RP-2 C-1C CA-4 CH-5 O-13 8'' Existing Size: 29 mgd New Size: 34 mgd 10'' CIW_A OA-1B CIW_B OA-1A CA-1 O-4B CA-2 O-14 72'' O-24 O-03 O-43 72'' 66'' OA-2B_B OA-2B_A OA-2A O-02 Legend Montclair Capacity Deficiency F-13 F-12FT O-26 ") Montclair O-46 Diversion Structure Regional Treatment Plant 78'' Lift Station Modeled O-19 Pipelines 12" and Smaller F-5A 15" and Larger F-6 CW-08 78'' Major Roads 24'' 24'' IEUA Tributary Areas Figure 3-2 Alternative 1 Infrastructure Implications Inland Empire Utilities Agency Wastewater Facilities Master Plan " 0 3,600 7,200 Feet 1 inch = 7,250 feet M:\IEUA_FNO\GIS\Alternatives_with_Upgrades\Alternative 1 With Upgrades Ver B.mxd 8/14/2014

12 Central Ave Mission Blvd I 10 Holt Blvd Riverside Dr Chino Ave Schaefer Ave Edison Ave Grove Ave State Hwy 83 State Hwy 31 Mountain Ave Ramona Ave Bain St Haven Ave Archibald Ave Milliken Ave Eucalyptus Ave Troth St Pipeline Ave 50th St Archibald St 6th St 54th St Merrill Ave Slover Ave Jurupa Ave State Hwy 142 Holt Blvd Cloverdale Rd Hellman Ave Citrus St California Ave I 15 Pipeline Ave Central Ave Ramona Ave Edison Ave State Hwy 83 66'' 68th St 24'' Bain St Etiwanda Ave Riverside Dr Van Buren Blvd Bellegrave Ave I 15 Limonite Ave Arlington Ave G St Mills Ave Airport Dr D St Montclair Diversion Structure ") Montclair Pipeline Existing Size: 30" New Size: 36" RP-5 Existing Size: 15 mgd New Size: 22.5 mgd RP-5 Existing Size: 29 mgd New Size: 34 mgd Whispering Lakes PS Existing Size: 2.16 mgd New Size: 4.68 mgd XÚ Jurupa St Phillips Blvd Milliken Ave 72'' Whispering Lakes PS XÚ Haven PS Valley Blvd Legend Existing Lift Station O-26 F-13 Alternative 2 Pipelines F-12FT Montclair O-46 Capacity Deficiency Jurupa St ") Montclair Diversion Structure O-19 Regional Treatment Plant F-6 Lift Station F-5A 24'' 72'' C-7 State Hwy 71 El Prado Rd Pine Ave RP-2 OA-1A Harrison Ave 10'' State Hwy 71 CH-4A M-1 C-5B C-5A M-3 O-4A C-1B O-13 C-3B CA-4 OA-1B C-1C O-4B O-03 OA-2A 8'' CH-5 Norco Dr CH STATE PARK CCWRF CIW_A CIW_B CA-1 O-14 CA-2 O-24 O-02 OA-2B_A M:\IEUA_FNO\GIS\Alternatives_with_Upgrades\Alternative 2 With Upgrades Ver B.mxd 8/14/2014 Modeled Pipelines 12" and Smaller 15" and Larger Major Roads IEUA Tributary Areas Figure 3-3 Alternative 2 Infrastructure Implications Inland Empire Utilities Agency Wastewater Facilities Master Plan " 0 3,600 7,200 Feet 1 inch = 7,250 feet

13 San Bernardino Ave State Hwy 83 Holt Blvd Riverside Dr Chino Ave Grove Ave State Hwy 31 Mountain Ave Ramona Ave Haven Ave Schaefer Ave Archibald Ave Milliken Ave Towne Ave Reservoir St Philadelphia St Edison Ave Peyton Dr Eucalyptus Ave Slover Ave Holt Blvd Jurupa Ave Troth St Ramona Ave Pipeline Ave Archibald St Bain St 6th St 5th St 50th St Hellman Ave Beach St Cloverdale Rd Citrus St California Ave I 15 Edison Ave Central Ave Pipeline Ave 68th St 4th St Montclair Diversion Structure ") Montclair Pipeline Existing Size: 30" New Size: 36" Existing Size: 29 mgd New Size: 39 mgd RP-5 Existing Size: 15 mgd New Size: 22.5 mgd 24" Force Main 17 mgd Lift Station OA-2B_A XÚ 4th St Valley Blvd Proposed Lift Station Alternative 3A Pipeline O-26 F-13 Montclair Capacity Deficiency F-12FT O-46 ") Montclair Diversion Structure Jurupa St Regional Treatment Plant O-19 66'' Lift Station F-6 F-5A Modeled OA-2B_A Pipelines 12" and Smaller 15" and Larger 24'' I 10 24'' Bain St Etiwanda Ave Riverside Dr Mission Blvd Van Buren Blvd Jurupa Rd Bellegrave Ave I 15 Limonite Ave Arlington Ave Airport Dr Jurupa St Mission Blvd 72'' Harrison Ave Norco Dr G St I 10 Central Ave Mills Ave Holt Ave Mission Blvd Holt Ave M-1 Phillips St Phillips Blvd C-1N C-5B C-5A M-3 O-4C C-3B O-4A O-13 OA-1B O-4B O-14 C-18 Grand Ave Pine Ave CA-4 RP-2 10'' 8'' State Hwy 71 CH-3A CH-4B CH-4A CCWRF C-1B RP-5 C-1C CH-5 OA-1A CIW_A CA-1 CA-2 CH STATE PARK CH-7 CIW_B M:\IEUA_FNO\GIS\Alternatives_with_Upgrades\Alternative 3A With Upgrades Ver B.mxd 8/14/2014 O-24 O-02 O-03 O-43 OA-2B_B OA-2A Legend Major Roads IEUA Tributary Areas Figure 3-4 Alternative 3A Infrastructure Implications Inland Empire Utilities Agency Wastewater Facilities Master Plan " 0 3,000 6,000 Feet 1 inch = 8, feet

14 State Hwy 60 Riverside Dr Chino Ave Schaefer Ave Edison Ave Grove Ave State Hwy 83 State Hwy 31 Bain St Archibald St Troth St Beach St Haven Ave Milliken Ave 50th St 6th St 54th St Eucalyptus Ave 58th St Merrill Ave Cloverdale Rd 68th St Citrus St California Ave State Hwy 83 I 15 Felspar St 66'' 78'' Edison Ave 66'' 60'' 60'' Jurupa Ave 24'' Cherry Ave Etiwanda Ave Van Buren Blvd Jurupa Rd Mission Blvd Montclair Pipeline Existing Size: 30" New Size: 36" Existing Size: 29 mgd New Size: 39 mgd Jurupa St Mountain Ave 29 mgd Lift Station 30" Force Main Bellegrave Ave Archibald Ave Bain St Mission Blvd I 15 Limonite Ave North Dr Arlington Ave La Sierra Ave Jurupa St Mission Blvd 72'' F-13 F-A Legend F-12FT F-1DT Proposed Lift Station Alternative 3B Pipeline F-3 Montclair Capacity Deficiency Regional Treatment Plant F-6 F-5A Lift Station Modeled Pipelines 24'' O-4A 72'' Riverside Dr C-3B C-1B RP-5 O-4C Pine Ave CA-4 RP-2 C-1C OA-1B OA-1A O-4B O-03 OA-2B_A OA-2A 10'' State Hwy 71 Chandler St 8'' 8'' CH-4A CH-5 CIW_A Norco Dr CIW_B CA-1 O-15 CA-2 CA-3 O-14 O-33B O-17 O-43 O-33A OA-2B_B O-48 O-26 O-19 O-46 M:\IEUA_FNO\GIS\Alternatives_with_Upgrades\Alternative 3B With Upgrades Ver C.mxd 8/14/ " and Smaller 15" and Larger Major Roads IEUA Tributary Areas Figure 3-5 Alternative 3B Infrastructure Implications Inland Empire Utilities Agency Wastewater Facilities Master Plan " 0 2,500 5,000 Feet 1 inch = 6, feet

15 78'' State Hwy 60 Central Ave Schaefer Ave Edison Ave Riverside Dr Chino Ave Grove Ave Mountain Ave Haven Ave Eucalyptus Ave I 15 State Hwy 83 State Hwy 31 Archibald St Milliken Ave Archibald Ave Vineyard Ave Central Ave Edison Ave State Hwy 83 66'' Haven Ave Merrill Ave 60'' 60'' 60'' Citrus St 78'' Jurupa St Mission Blvd Riverside Dr Bellegrave Ave I 15 Cloverdale Rd Limonite Ave 68th St Cleveland Ave Montclair Pipeline Existing Size: 30" New Size: 36" 42" Force Main 45.8 mgd Lift Station CA-4 RP-2 Jurupa St OA-2B_A OA-2B_B Existing Size: 29 mgd New Size: 44 mgd Archibald Ave Phillips St Phillips Blvd C-15 O-4A O-4C Philadelphia St C-5B OA-1B C-5A C-3B OA-1A C-3C C-1C CCWRF C-1B RP-5 O-4B OA-2A El Prado Rd State Hwy 71 Pine Ave State Hwy 71 CH-4A CH-5 CIW_A CA-1 CA-2 CA-3 O-17 O-03 O-43 Legend O-33B O-26 O-46 O-33A Proposed O-48 Lift O-19 Station 66'' O-25 Alternative 3C Pipeline Montclair Capacity Deficiency Regional Treatment OA-2B_A Plant Lift Station Modeled Pipelines 12" and Smaller OA-2B_B 15" and Larger Major Roads IEUA Tributary Areas Butterfield Ranch Rd 10'' 8'' M:\IEUA_FNO\GIS\Alternatives_with_Upgrades\Alternative 3C With Upgrades Ver B.mxd 8/14/2014 Figure 3-6 Alternative 3C Infrastructure Implications Inland Empire Utilities Agency Wastewater Facilities Master Plan " 0 2,500 5,000 Feet 1 inch = 5,400 feet

16 I 10 Holt Blvd Reservoir St Riverside Dr Chino Ave Central Ave Mountain Ave Ramona Ave Schaefer Ave I 15 Edison Ave Peyton Dr State Hwy 83 Archibald St State Hwy 31 Bain St Archibald Ave Haven Ave Milliken Ave Eucalyptus Ave Troth St Pipeline Ave 6th St 5th St 50th St 54th St Merrill Ave Slover Ave Holt Blvd Jurupa Ave Edison Ave Pipeline Ave Central Ave Ramona Ave 66'' Cloverdale Rd Citrus St 60'' California Ave Etiwanda Ave Bain St Mission Blvd Van Buren Blvd Bellegrave Ave I 15 Limonite Ave 68th St Milliken Ave Holt Ave Airport Dr D St Montclair Diversion Structure M-3 4A - Divert 100% of ") 4B - Divert 100% of flow West to CCWRP 6 MG Recycled water storage tank RP-5 Existing Size: 13 mgd New Size: 26 mgd flow East to UTXÚ 22 mgd Recycled water pump station Montclair Pipeline (4A) Existing Size: 30" New Size: 36"!( Euclid Ave Existing Size: 29 mgd New Size: 34 mgd Ex. 930/800 PRV!(!( 24" recycled water pipeline Jurupa St Phillips Blvd 72'' 72'' Philadelphia St C-1N Grand Ave Pine Ave CH-4A CH-3A CH-4B M-1 C-5B C-3B C-1B O-4A O-4C O-13 RP-2 C-1C OA-1A CA-4 O-4B OA-1B OA-2A Harrison Ave 10'' 8'' Norco Dr State Hwy 71 CH STATE PARK CCWRF SARI RP-5 CH-7 CH-5 CIW_A CIW_B CA-1 O-14 CA-2 O-03 OA-2B_B O-02 OA-2B_A M:\IEUA_FNO\GIS\Alternatives_with_Upgrades\Alternatives 4A and 4B With Upgrades Ver B.mxd 8/14/2014 Legend UT O-26 Proposed Storage Tank F-12FT Proposed O-46 Lift Station Montclair Capacity Deficiency Jurupa St!( Potential Terminating Location O-19 ") Montclair Diversion Structure F-5A Regional Treatment F-6 Plant Lift Station Modeled Pipelines 12" and Smaller 15" and Larger Major Roads IEUA Tributary Areas Figure 3-7 Alternative 4A and 4B Infrastructure Implications Inland Empire Utilities Agency Wastewater Facilities Master Plan " 0 3,000 6,000 Feet 1 inch = 7, feet

17 4.3 Evaluation of Proposed Flow Diversion Alternatives IEUA WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TM 3 REGIONAL TRUNK SEWER ANALYSIS The Consultant Team used the SMART evaluation approach described above to conduct a non monetary evaluation of the flow diversion alternatives. The non monetary and monetary evaluations are summarized in this section of this technical memorandum. The non monetary and monetary evaluations are ultimately combined as a means to develop a cost benefit analysis of the alternatives Non-monetary Evaluation Each alternative was evaluated relative to one another using the SMART criteria described previously in this memorandum. Each evaluation criterion for each alternative was given a performance score between one (1) and five (5). The performance score was multiplied by the weighting factor for each criterion to develop a weighted score that criterion. The total weighted performance for each alternative was then determined by summing the weighted scores for each alternative. The results of the evaluations are summarized in Table 3 5. As illustrated in Table 3 5, the scores ranged from a low for Alternative 1 of 217 to a high of 279 for Alternative 3B. Figure 3 8 depicts a summary of the relative weights of each criterion for each alternative. The bars show the contribution of each weighted score towards the total score for each alternative. As shown in the chart, Operational Flexibility, Optimizing Groundwater Recharge, and Ease of Operation and Maintenance had the biggest impact of the total performance scores for each alternative. 17

18 TABLE 3 5 Non Monetary Evaluation Results Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3A Alternative 3B Alternative 3C Alternative 4A Alternative 4B Criteria Weighting Factor Performance Score Weighted Score Performance Score Weighted Score Performance Score Weighted Score Performance Score Weighted Score Performance Score Weighted Score Performance Score Weighted Score Performance Score Weighted Score Optimize Groundwater Recharge Operational Flexibility Operational Risk and Reliability Ability to maximize use of existing assets Ease of operation and maintenance Recycled water pumping needs Impacts on liquid treatment facilities Environmental considerations Construction impacts Institutional feasibility Carbon footprint and sustainability Footprint and space constraints Total Weighted Performance

19 IEUA WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TM 3 REGIONAL TRUNK SEWER ANALYSIS FIGURE 3 8 Non Monetary Evaluation Results Monetary Evaluation The Monetary Evaluation included several assumptions that had an impact on the cost estimates. The assumptions included the following: The WFMP assumed a 20 year planning period 3% inflation rate 6% bond (interest) rate $10 per gallon for liquid treatment capacity costs Pump Station costs were based on a cost curve established from historical pump station projects Pipeline costs were developed based on the costs per linear foot for varying diameters Labor and Power costs were provided based on IEUA cost factors. 30% contingency for unknown conditions Footprint and space constraints Carbon footprint and sustainability Institutional feasibility Construction impacts Environmental considerations Impacts on liquid treatment facilities Recycled water pumping needs Ease of operation and maintenance Ability to maximize use of existing assets Operational Risk and Reliability Operation flexibility Optimize Groundwater Recharge 30% contingency for Engineering, Construction Management, Environmental, and Legal costs Based on the flow curves for each diversion alternative, the year in which each treatment plant expansion will be required was determined. For each alternative, the costs for expansion was escalated to the mid point of construction using the inflation rate, and was brought back to present worth with the bond interest rate. Operations and maintenance and power costs were annualized and brought to a net present value in the same manner. 19

20 IEUA WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TM 3 REGIONAL TRUNK SEWER ANALYSIS With this method, the total life cycle cost for each alternative was developed. The estimated cost for each alternative is summarized in Table 3 6. These cost estimates range from a high of $341 million for Alternative 3C to a low of $172 million for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 was the second lowest cost at $178 million. The unit costs and the detailed cost breakdown is provided in Appendix A of this TM. Benefit/cost ratios are explained in the next subsection. TABLE 3 6 Life Cycle Cost and Benefit/Cost Ratio Summary Alternative Life Cycle Cost ($ Millions) Benefit/Cost Ratio 1 $ $ A $ B $ C $ A $ B $ Benefit/Cost Ratio The non monetary scores and monetary cost estimates were used to develop a benefit cost ratio as a means to determine the alternative with the highest overall benefit for IEUA. For each Alternative, the weighted performance score was divided by the estimated life cycle cost to determine the Benefit/Cost (B/C) Ratio. The calculated B/C ratio for each alternative is summarized in Table 3 6. The alternative with the highest weighted score is Alternative 3B with a score of Both Alternatives 1 and 2 also scored high, and close to Alternative 3B, with scores of 1.26 and 1.25 respectively. 5.0 Conclusions The results of the flow diversion alternatives evaluation and the benefit cost analysis were presented to IEUA staff at the WFMP Workshop No. 2 on June 11, The benefit cost analysis scores for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3B are very similar and vary by only 0.03 points. IEUA discussed the alternatives and ultimately selected Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. Alternative 2 provides IEUA with near term benefits in diverting flow from both the Whispering Lakes and Haven pump stations while prolonging the treatment expansion of RP 1 and RP 5. Alternative 2 also offers a lower capital cost than alternative 3B. The preferred Alternative 2 includes the following improvements during the planning horizon: Expand RP 1 by 5.0 mgd Expand RP 5 by 7.5 mgd Upgrade the Whispering Lakes Pump Station to a firm capacity of 4.7 mgd Construct improvements to mitigate the deficiencies in the Montclair pipeline In order to provide greater system reliability and redundancy, IEUA also requested that, for RP 5 facilities planning, the Consultant Team assume both the Whispering Lakes and Haven pump stations are offline, whereby the full flow is conveyed to RP 5 instead of RP 1. This flow condition is reflected in TM 4 Flow and Loading Forecast and forms the basis for establishing RP 5 facilities planning and expansion, hereinafter. 20

21 IEUA WASTEWATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN TM 3 REGIONAL TRUNK SEWER ANALYSIS Appendix A Cost Estimates 21

22

23 2014 Potential Flows Type of Description / Ex. Size/ New Size/ Replace/ Cost for GW Recharge Improv. Limits Diam. Diam. New Length (ft) AF Proposed Alternatives Alternative 1 Expand Expand by 5 mgd 29 mgd 34.0 mgd Rehab - $ 70,834, Expand Expand RP-5 by 6.5 mgd 15 mgd 21.5 mgd Rehab - $ 84,485, Upsize Montclair Improvements 30 in 36 in Replace 24,000 $ 17,130,000 Alternative 1 Total $ 172,449,000 None Alternative 2 Pump Station Upgrade to 4.5mgd Firm Capacity 2.16 mgd 4.68 mgd Rehab - $ 4,923,000 Maintanence Pump Station Maintanence $ 760,000 Pump Station Energy Consumption $ 582,000 Expand Expand by 5 mgd 29 mgd 34.0 mgd Rehab - $ 75,020,000 Expand Expand RP-5 by 6.5 mgd 15 mgd 21.5 mgd Rehab - $ 79,771,000 Upsize Montclair Improvements 30 in 36 in Replace 24,000 $ 17,130,000 Alternative 2 Total $ 178,186,000 42,559 Alternative 3A Force Main South of Edision to - 24 in New 16,700 $ 10,118,000 Pump Station 13.8 mgd Firm Capacity mgd New - $ 7,258,000 Pump Station Energy Consumption $ 3,981,000 Maintanence Pump Station Maintanence $ 1,120,000 Expand Expand by 10 mgd 29 mgd 39.0 mgd Rehab - $ 150,041,000 Expand Expand RP-5 by 6.5 mgd 15 mgd 21.5 mgd Rehab - $ 71,116,000 Upsize Montclair Improvements 30 in 36 in Replace 24,000 $ 17,130,000 Alternative 3A Total $ 260,764, ,245 Alternative 3B Force Main South of Pine Ave and Hellman Ave to - 30 in New 31,000 $ 28,069,000 Pump Station 22.9 mgd Firm Capacity - 29 mgd New - $ 12,033,000 Pump Station Energy Consumption $ 9,622,208 Maintanence Pump Station Maintanence - $ 1,857,000 Expand Expand by 10 mgd 29 mgd 39 mgd Rehab - $ 150,040,758 Upsize Montclair Improvements 30 in 36 in Replace 24,000 $ 17,130,000 Alternative 3B Total $ 218,752, ,457 Alternative 3C Force main Forcemain - 42 New 35,000 $ 49,186,000 Pump Station 45.8 mgd Firm Capacity - 57 mgd New - $ 24,088,000 Pump Station Energy Consumption $ 21,327,000 Maintanence Pump Station Maintanence $ 3,718,000 Expand Expand by 15 mgd 29 mgd 44 mgd - - $ 225,061,000 Upsize Montclair Improvements 30 in 36 in Replace 24,000 $ 17,130,000 Alternative 3C Total $ 340,510, ,578 Alternative 4A Pump Station 24 mgd Recycled Water PS - 22 mgd New - $ 9,257,000 Eg. Basin 6 mgd Recycled Water Eq. basin - 6 mgd - - $ 10,100,000 Maintanence Pump Station Maintanence $ 1,429,000 Pump Station Energy Consumption $ 23,316,000 Force main Recycled Water Pipeline - 30 in New 43,500 $ 39,387,000 Expand Expand by 5 mgd 29 mgd 34.0 mgd Rehab - $ 75,020,000 Expand Expand RP-5 by 6.5 mgd mgd Rehab - $ 89,478,000 Upsize Montclair Improvements 30 in 36 in Replace 24,000 $ 17,130,000 Alternative 4A Total $ 265,117, ,823 Alternative 4B Pump Station 24 mgd Recycled Water PS - 22 mgd New - $ 9,256,500 Eg. Basin 6 mgd Recycled Water Eq. basin - 6 mgd - - $ 10,100,000 Maintanence Pump Station Maintanence $ 1,429,000 Pump Station Energy Consumption $ 23,316,000 Expand Expand by 5 mgd 29 mgd 34.0 mgd Rehab - $ 56,298,000 Expand Expand RP-5 by 13 mgd 13 mgd 26.0 mgd Rehab - $ 195,053,000 Force main Recycled Water Pipeline 30 in New 43,500 $ 39,387,000 Alternative 4B Total $ 334,840, ,823