Oakland County Water and Wastewater Master Plan Volume 1 Executive Summary Appendix A

Transcription

1

2

3 Oakland County Water and Wastewater Master Plan Volume 1 Executive Summary Appendix A Prepared for: Prepared by: Oakland County Drain Commissioner One Public Works Drive Waterford, MI URS Corporation Farmington Hills, MI Contact: Jan Hauser, P.E. In Association With: TetraTech MPS Plante & Moran, PLLC Southfield, MI Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. URS Project No Final Report September 2007

4

5 Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents... i Acronyms and Abbreviations... iv Summary by Cities, Villages, and Townships (CVTs) Addison Township City of Auburn Hills City of Berkley Village of Beverly Hills Village of Bingham Farms City of Birmingham Bloomfield Township City of Bloomfield Hills Brandon Township Village of Clarkston City of Clawson Commerce Township City of Farmington City of Farmington Hills City of Ferndale Franklin Village Groveland Township City of Hazel Park Highland Township Appendix A i

6 Table of Contents 20 Village of Holly Holly Township City of Huntington Woods Independence Township City of Keego Harbor City of Lake Angelus Village of Lake Orion Lathrup Village Village of Leonard Lyon Township City of Madison Heights Village of Milford Milford Township City of Northville City of Novi Novi Township Oakland Township Oak Park City of Orchard Lake Village Orion Township Village of Ortonville Village of Oxford Oxford Township City of Pleasant Ridge Appendix A ii

7 Table of Contents 44 City of Pontiac City of Rochester Hills City of Rochester Rose Township City of Royal Oak Royal Oak Township City of South Lyon City of Southfield Southfield Township Springfield Township City of Sylvan Lake City of Troy City of Walled Lake Waterford Township West Bloomfield Township White Lake Township City of Wixom Village of Wolverine Lake Appendix A iii

8

9 Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations ADD ADDF ADF ADWF AWWA BCC CBOD5 CIP CFR CFS or cfs COSDS CSO CVTs CWA DBP DWSD EFSDS ENR EPA ERP FEMA Ft. or ft. GCDC GLI GPCD GPD or gpd GPM GWKSDS Average Daily Demand (Water) Average Daily Design Flow (Wastewater Treatment) Average Daily Flow (Wastewater Treatment) Average Dry Weather Flow American Water Works Association Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern Five-day Carbonaceous Biological Oxygen Demand Capital Improvement Plan Code of Federal Regulations Cubic Feet per Second Clinton-Oakland Sewage Disposal System Combined Sewer Overflow Cities, Villages, and Townships Clean Water Act Disinfection Byproducts Detroit Water and Sewerage Department Evergreen-Farmington Sewage Disposal System Engineering News Record Environmental Protection Agency Emergency Response Plan Federal Emergency Management Agency Foot Genesee County Drain Commissioner s Office Great Lakes Initiative Gallons Per Capita per Day Gallons per Day Gallons per Minute George W. Kuhn Sewage Disposal System Appendix A iv

10 Acronyms and Abbreviations HGL HPZ HRSDS I/I IPP IPZ LPZ Mcf or mcf MCL MDD MDDF MDF MDEQ µg/1 MG MGD NPDES NTU OCDC O & M PDWF PHD PHDF PHF PSI PWS PWWF RDF RTB RTF SEMCOG Hydraulic Grade Line DWSD High Pressure Zone Huron Rouge Sewage Disposal System Inflow and Infiltration Industrial Pretreatment Program DWSD Intermediate Pressure Zone DWSD Low Pressure Zone Thousand Cubic Feet Maximum Contaminant Level Maximum Day Demand Maximum Daily ADDF (Wastewater Treatment) Maximum Daily Flow (Wastewater Treatment) Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Micrograms per liter Million Gallons Million Gallons Per Day National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Nephelometric Turbidity Unit Oakland County Drain Commissioner s Office Operations & Maintenance Peak Dry Weather Flow Peak Hour Demand Peak Hourly Design Flow (Wastewater Treatment) Peak Hourly Flow (Wastewater Treatment) Pounds per Square Inch Public Water System Peak Wet Weather Flow Regional Development Forecast from SEMCOG Retention Treatment Basin Retention Treatment Facility Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Appendix A v

11 Acronyms and Abbreviations SEMCOG RDF SEMCOG Regional Development Forecast SIU Significant Industrial User SOCWA Southeast Oakland County Water Authority SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TWP Township USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WLA Waste Load Allocation WQS Water Quality Standards WTP Water Treatment Plant WWMP Wastewater Master Plan WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Appendix A vi

12

13 Summary by Cities, Villages, and Townships (CVTs) Summary by Cities, Villages, and Townships (CVTs) Appendix A summarizes the existing water and wastewater systems; the current and projected needs (projected to the year 2035); and the alternatives that may meet those needs for each CVT in Oakland County. The CVT s costs associated with each of those alternatives are also presented. Each CVT s summary is organized into: X.1 Overview X.2 Water Needs X.3 Water Alternatives X.4 Water Financial Considerations X.5 Wastewater Needs X.6 Wastewater Alternatives Each CVT s water/wastewater system was evaluated to determine if the existing facilities are currently meeting the needs of the community and also if they will meet projected future water supply and wastewater disposal needs through year X.7 Wastewater Financial Considerations The following descriptions and definitions apply throughout this section and are not repeated in each CVT summary: Water/Wastewater Needs Each CVT s water/wastewater system is evaluated to determine if the existing facilities are currently meeting the needs of the community and also if they will meet projected future water supply and wastewater disposal needs through year It is important to note that a condition assessment of the existing conveyance and treatment systems is out of the scope of this Master Plan. Rather, the needs are based upon specific assessment criteria that varied for each group of CVTs. The assessment criteria are defined in detail in the Volume 3 - Needs Assessment Report. However, a brief summary of the criteria are presented in the following tables. Appendix A 1

14 Summary by Cities, Villages, and Townships (CVTs) Water Assessment Criteria Summary Quality Storage Group Quantity Regulatory Aesthetic Fire & Emergency PHD DWSD Customers Sufficient to meet 2035 MDD Meets Criteria Storage to meet 2035 fire and emergency demands Storage to meet PHD for 3 hour duration Public Well System Sufficient to meet 2035 MDD Below EPA s MCL for arsenic, nitrate and iron Softened; quality comparable to DWSD Storage to meet 2035 fire and emergency demands Storage to meet PHD for 3 hour duration Private Well System Sufficient to meet 2035 MDD Below EPA s MCL for arsenic, nitrate and iron Softened; quality comparable to DWSD Not assessed Not assessed Notes: Regulatory quality meets the criteria if arsenic, and nitrates are be below MCL (Arsenic < 10 ppb, Nitrate < 10 ppm) and iron below secondary MCL (Iron < 0.3 ppm) Maximum Day Demand; the quantity of water produced by DWSD is not assessed (see DWSD CWMP), rather the communities connections ability to meet MDD DWSD produces some of the highest quality water in the state (see DWSD WATER WINS STATE TASTE- OFF 2006), therefore communities with 100% DWSD water supply will Meet the quality assessment criteria. Fire and emergency demand was assumed to be 0.72 million gallons (3,000 gallons per minute for 4 hours) for assessing storage. Appendix A 2

15 Summary by Cities, Villages, and Townships (CVTs) Wastewater Assessment Criteria Summary Group Collection WWTP Capacity Contract Capacity DWSD Customers Sufficient to avoid surcharging Existing and projected flows do not exceed contract Not assessed see DWSD WWMP Municipally Owned WWTP Not assessed Not assessed Sufficient to meet demands and service contracts Privately Owned Wastewater Systems (Private batch plants and septic fields) Public system in these areas is appropriate Each system is categorized as either meets the criteria or does not meet the criteria and hence, requires improvements to meet the criteria. When the gap between the existing conditions and the projected needs is relatively small, the needs are characterized as Based on the assessments of existing facilities, alternatives "marginal". This would dictate that a more refined were developed to address analysis should be conducted to verify the assumptions used in the needs assessment evaluation phase of this study. Each of these criteria is evaluated considering the gaps between the existing facilities and projected needs for each community s water existing ( ) conditions and projected and wastewater system. circumstances based upon the 2035 population projections and build-out analysis included in Volume 3 Needs Assessment Report. Water/Wastewater Alternatives Based on the assessments described above, various alternatives are developed to address the gaps between the existing facilities and projected needs for each CVT. Alternatives are developed based on the following conceptual premises: a. Develop alternatives that compare the continued use of private on-site water/wastewater systems with publicly owned utility systems. Appendix A 3

16 Summary by Cities, Villages, and Townships (CVTs) b. Compare the continued cost of operation and maintenance of community systems with that of larger regionalized systems. c. Develop alternatives that consider 1) greater reliance on DWSD, 2) reduced reliance on DWSD, and 3) other water/wastewater system providers for existing DWSD customers. It is important to note that alternatives are developed where regulatory, aesthetic, growth, design, or contractual gaps/needs exist, i.e. alternatives only address the needs identified in this report. In some cases, no needs are identified and therefore, no alternatives or financial considerations are developed. While cost reduction is often perceived as a need, the analysis is purposely structured around objective criteria. Therefore, cost reduction is not identified as a gap or need. The only alternative that may be driven by cost reduction is that of community water storage. Water storage may allow DWSD customers to avoid DWSD s peaking factor. It is important to note that the addition of storage does not guarantee a CVT will avoid peaking factors. The size and location of the storage are subject to the physical characteristics of the water system. A computer model would be required to predict the affects of water storage on a system. A brief summary of the applicable alternatives is included in each community s section. However, to gain a full understanding of the existing system, its needs, and the applicable alternatives, reference Volume 2 Existing Facilities Report, Volume 3 Needs Assessment Report, and Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report, respectively. Alternatives are assigned an identification number, i.e. they are not numbered sequentially for each community. This Cumulative Cost is defined as "the was done to avoid confusion when referencing total project costs accumulated the Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report. through the year 2035 and includes the future value of the Water/Wastewater Financial Considerations Volume 5 - Financial Model Report compares capital cost plus the annual forecasted wholesale rates for the existing water operation and maintenance costs and sewer services to forecasted rates for various adjusted for inflation, as well as the alternative water and sewer services for each cost of financing the project (if CVT. Several assumptions are made in necessary) through the year 2035." Appendix A 4

17 Summary by Cities, Villages, and Townships (CVTs) developing the financial model. The most important of those assumptions are presented below: Project costs do not include any internal community infrastructure improvements. Whenever possible, assumptions between the financial model and the DWSD water and wastewater master plan models were kept consistent for comparison purposes. The annual inflation factor for future periods is 3.0%. All project costs will be funded through the calculated wholesale rates, rather than through special assessments, property taxes or other financing means. Projects costing over $1 Million are assumed to be bond financed. The required debt will be bonded three years prior to the completion of the related project. Debt will be bonded for a period of 20 years. An interest rate of 6% was applied to future debt issuances. The financial model calculates cumulative cost for each of the alternatives pertaining to a specific community. Cumulative Cost is defined as: "The total project costs accumulated through the year 2035 and includes the future value of the capital cost plus the annual operation and maintenance costs adjusted for inflation, as well as the cost of financing the project (if necessary) through the year 2035". In addition, a value has been estimated for the total amount that would need to be bonded for each alternative, including a shared bonded amount for the communities participating in various regional alternatives, when appropriate. These are shared costs with participating communities within the service area. More detailed studies are necessary to determine cost allocations to individual communities. The wholesale cost of securing water and/or wastewater service from DWSD has been projected for each CVT through the year These wholesale rates are used as baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. Appendix A 5

18 Summary by Cities, Villages, and Townships (CVTs) Alternative 1 No Change assumes that the community will continue with its existing plans. For example, it is assumed that communities that had improvement projects under construction would complete those projects. Growth is assumed to occur on private systems unless the community is 100% public. For many communities, Alternative 1 No Change represents no public investment in improvement. It is important to note, however, that this alternative results in a necessary private investment. Section 4 Conclusions and Opportunities of Volume 1 The Executive Summary includes the results of an exercise in which the costs (both capital and operations & maintenance) have been estimated for individual residential well systems and financially analyzed. The purpose of the exercise is to (as nearly as possible) compare the public investment alternative with the private investment alternatives in the hopes of providing some insight into the best value for stakeholders. A full explanation of the exercise can be found in Section 2.1 Alternative 1 No Change of Volume 4 The Alternatives Analysis Report. It is not appropriate or practical to include the private costs associated with Alternative 1 No Change for each community in this section. Appendix A 6

19 Addison Township 1 Addison Township 1.1 Overview Addison Township is located in the northeast corner of Oakland County and encompasses Leonard Village. Addison Township is a rural community. The Township s water supply is comprised of individual water wells and a private well system for a mobile home park. The Township s wastewater is collected in individual on-site or community septic systems. One of the two private wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) is still in operation. The Copper Hills WWTP, built to serve the Copper Hills subdivision, has not been in operation due to low population and a functioning community septic system for established homes. Table 1-1 presents population data. Table 1-1 Addison Township General CVT Data Parameter Total Population 6,449 10,115 Percent of Build-Out Population (11,724) 55% 86% 1.2 Water Needs The Township relies fully on private sources for water. Since assessment of the quantity and quality of private sources is outside the scope of this Master Plan the needs are assumed. Table 1-2 summarizes the assumed current and future needs of the water system. Appendix A 7

20 Table 1-2 Addison Township Water System Needs Assessment Summary Addison Township Assessment Criteria Quantity Meets Meets Quality Regulatory Marginal Marginal Quality Aesthetic Does Not Meet Criteria Does Not Meet Criteria No specific problems or issues are documented with reference to the existing water supplies, however, concentrations of arsenic and nitrates beyond the Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) Maximum Contamination Levels (MCL) were detected in some areas. 1.3 Water Alternative The construction of a water supply to serve Addison Township is impractical due to Addison The construction of a water supply Township s low population density. Low to serve Addison Township is population density results in high costs per capita to impractical due to Addison construct transmission lines, storage structures and Township s low population density. pumping facilities. The Township wants to maintain a low density, rural population; therefore, water alternatives are not developed for this community. 1.4 Water Financial Considerations Since no water alternatives are developed for Addison Township, no financial considerations are necessary. 1.5 Wastewater Needs Addison Township has no specific wastewater needs. Local soils are poor for septic; however, service is accomplished with engineered fields. Assessment of private disposal and collection systems is not within the scope of this Master Plan. Table 1-3 summarizes the wastewater needs based upon the assessment criteria defined for this report. Appendix A 8

21 Addison Township Table 1-3 Addison Township Wastewater System Needs Assessment Summary Assessment Criteria Public System Appropriate 1.6 Wastewater Alternatives 2005 Inappropriate due to low density 2035 Inappropriate due to low density In the absence of a defined need, this report does not present wastewater alternatives. Addison Township does not have a public wastewater system and growth in the area will likely utilize either individual on-site septic systems or private disposal systems. 1.7 Wastewater Financial Considerations Since no wastewater alternatives are developed for Addison Township, no financial considerations are necessary. Addison Township does not have a public wastewater system and growth in the area will likely utilize either individual on-site septic systems or on-site disposal systems. Appendix A 9

22

23 City of Auburn Hills 2 City of Auburn Hills 2.1 Overview The City of Auburn Hills is located in central Oakland County, east of the City of Pontiac. Auburn Hills, an established area, is quickly growing as a metropolitan community, and serves as a central location for many of the amenities offered in Oakland County. Auburn Hills purchases water from Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) and recently constructed an elevated water tank and looped system to supplement the existing booster station. The Clinton-Oakland Sewage Disposal System (COSDS) collects the majority of the City s wastewater (about 75%), while the Evergreen- Farmington Sewage Disposal System (EFSDS) receives the remainder of the wastewater (about 25%) from the southernmost portion of the City. Table 2-1 presents general population and flow data. Table 2-1 Auburn Hills General CVT Data Parameter Total Population 20,269 21,097 Percent of Build-Out Population (22,160) 91% 95% Public Water Service Population 20,269 21,097 Percent Served 100% 100% Avg. Daily Demand (ADD) (MGD) Public Wastewater Service Population 16,250 21,097 Percent Served 80% 100% Avg. Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) (MGD) Notes: 1. The public Wastewater Service Population and flow is the total from COSDS and EFSDS. Appendix A 10

24 City of Auburn Hills 2.2 Water Needs Table 2-2 summarizes the current and future needs of the water system. Table 2-2 Auburn Hills Water System Needs Assessment Summary Assessment Criteria Quantity Meets Criteria Meets Criteria Quality Regulatory Meets Criteria Meets Criteria Quality Aesthetic Meets Criteria Meets Criteria Distribution Storage Meets Criteria Marginal 2.3 Water Alternatives Alternative 6 Storage Analysis A detailed analysis of water storage (DWSD Existing Customers): As a needs and alternatives may benefit DWSD customer, the City of Auburn Auburn Hills. Hills water supply is evaluated for ground storage and re-pumping to offset peak hour demands and provide fire and emergency reserve. This analysis determined that approximately 2 MG of storage is needed to meet 2035 Peak Hour Demand (PHD) and fire/emergency demand. Therefore, 2 MG was used in the financial analysis. Since this analysis, Auburn Hills constructed a new 1 MG storage tank. No other alternatives are evaluated for water service to Auburn Hills. 2.4 Water Financial Considerations Figure 2-1 depicts the annual wholesale cost that would be paid by the average homeowner over the plan period. For the purpose of this analysis it was assumed that the average home consumes 16 mcf (thousand cubic feet) of water per year. Appendix A 11

25 City of Auburn Hills Figure 2-1 City of Auburn Hills Annual Wholesale Water Cost Alternative Comparison Costs $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $ Current Customer Water Rate Alt. 6 - Storage Analysis (DWSD Existing Customers) Table 2-3 tabulates the costs associated with an upgrade to the City s existing water supply and shows the comparison of alternatives with any bonding requirements. The cost associated with Alternative 1 - No Change assumes continued use of the water system with anticipated rate increases and inflation incorporated within the cost. Table 2-3 Auburn Hills Water Supply and Treatment Alternatives Alternative Storage Volume (MG) Tank Cost ($M) 1 Booster Station Cost ($M) Total Capital Cost ($M) Base Const. Mark-up 50% ($M) Land Acquisition Cost ($M) Total Amount To Be Bonded ($M) Additional O&M ($M/yr) Total Cumulative Cost ($M) 1 Alt. 1: No Change Alt. 6: Storage Analysis Notes: 1. Costs are presented in 2005 dollars; ($M) is millions. 2. Base Construction Mark-up includes 20% for engineering, legal, etc. and 30% in construction contingencies. 3. Land Acquisition Costs assumed to be $250,000 per acre 4. O&M costs assumed to be 1% of capital costs Appendix A 12

26 City of Auburn Hills Water storage, when managed well, will have a positive impact on water reliability, pressures, and fire/emergency demands. Based upon project assumptions, the storage alternative is marginally close to being financially advantageous for Auburn Hills. A detailed analysis of water storage needs and alternatives may benefit Auburn Hills. 2.5 Wastewater Needs The City of Auburn Hills has wastewater needs that are common to communities that utilize COSDS and EFSDS. Table 2-4 summarizes the wastewater needs based upon the assessment criteria defined for this report. Table 2-4 Auburn Hills Wastewater System Needs Assessment Summary Assessment Criteria Collection Capacity 2005 Does Not Meet Criteria 2035 Does Not Meet Criteria Collection Contract Does Not Meet Criteria Does Not Meet Criteria WWTP Capacity Not assessed see DWSD WWMP The 1991 COSDS Interceptor Relief Study identified eight miles of the COSDS that experienced surcharging during design storm events and certain areas of the COSDS where the design capacity is less than the sum of the purchased capacities. The No Change alternative is not a desirable option since Auburn Hills exceeds purchased capacity and MAC during certain storm events. The City of Auburn Hills continues to have incidents of exceeding the Maximum Assignment Capacity (MAC) (applies to COSDS) and Town Outlet Capacity (TOC) (applies to EFSDS) as a result of peak flow, while the Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) has historically been below purchased capacity for both collection systems. Wastewater contract capacities to the COSDS and EFSDS and the corresponding estimated flows are presented in Table 2-5. Appendix A 13

27 City of Auburn Hills Table 2-5 City of Auburn Hills COSDS & EFSDS Flow/Contract Summary Parameter Flow (MGD) COSDS EFSDS Total Purchased Capacity Maximum Assignment Capacity (MAC) 9.69 N/A 9.69 Town Outlet Capacity (TOC) N/A Estimated Avg. Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) Estimated Peak Flow Estimated Avg. Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) Estimated Peak Flow Notes: 1. Data for EFSDS 2005 Peak Flow was obtained from the 1999 Phase 1 Study - Supplement No. 2. All other Estimated Peak Flows were calculated using ADWF and the peaking factor obtained from ASCE Curve A. 2.6 Wastewater Alternatives Regional alternatives are developed based on contractual discharge capacities of the individual Increased capacity in the communities and overall system conveyance of Clinton-Oakland Interceptor has future flows. These alternatives utilize several the potential to benefit every previous reports including the 1991 COSDS community in the COSDS. Interceptor Relief Study, and the DWSD Wastewater Master Plan (2003). Exploration of regional alternatives requires the continuous involvement of Oakland County and DWSD. Alternative 1 through Alternative 6 may not directly affect every community in the COSDS, but there is potential benefit to every community from increased capacity in the interceptor. Appendix A 14

28 City of Auburn Hills Alternative 1 No Change: The No Change alternative is not a desirable option since Auburn Hills exceeds purchased capacity and MAC during certain storm events. In this alternative, the Clinton-Oakland interceptor will continue to surcharge and the COSDS will continue to maintain in-system storage to attenuate peak flows. Cumulative costs associated with this option reflect projected rates paid to Oakland County for wastewater treatment at DWSD. Alternative 2 - Construction of Relief Sewers: The size and location of the relief sewers requires further study and system modeling; however, financial considerations were prepared based upon the recommendations of the 1991 COSDS Interceptor Relief Study. This alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS. Additional contract capacity for Auburn Hills would have to be negotiated. Alternative 3 - Diversion of 8 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP: The existing Pontiac WWTP has an average daily excess capacity of approximately 8 MGD. This alternative involves intercepting flow in the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor and diverting 8 MGD to Pontiac through approximately 12,000 L.F. of 48-inch diameter gravity sewer line tunneled within the existing Grand Trunk Western Railroad property. This alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS downstream of the diversion. Additional contract capacity for Auburn Hills would have to be re-negotiated. Alternative 4 - Diversion of 20 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP: Similar to Alternative 3, Alternative 4 diverts flow from the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor to the Pontiac WWTP. However in Alternative 4, a new parallel WWTP is proposed next to Pontiac s Auburn WWTP. This alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS downstream of the diversion. Additional contract capacity for Auburn Hills would have to be re-negotiated. Alternative 5 - Diversion of 22 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP: Similar to Alternative 3, Alternative 5 diverts flow from the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor to the Pontiac WWTP. Similar to Alternative 4, Alternative 5 utilizes a new parallel WWTP proposed next to Pontiac s Auburn WWTP. Alternative 5 expands the proposed new parallel WWTP to accommodate flow from White Lake Township. This alternative Appendix A 15

29 City of Auburn Hills would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS downstream of the diversion. Additional contract capacity for Auburn Hills would have to be re-negotiated. Alternative 6 - Construction of a New WWTP on the Clinton River: This alternative proposes a new WWTP located in Macomb County at the Ford Motor Company Proving Grounds. This alternative has not been discussed with Ford Motor Co. and land acquisition costs for this alternative were not included in the financial considerations. This alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS. Additional contract capacity for Auburn Hills would have to be re-negotiated. Regarding the collection needs identified for the EFSDS, there is only one alternative for all of the EFSDS communities, Alternative 1 No Change. Volume 2 Existing Facilities Report, Section , and Volume 3 Needs Assessment Report, Section explain that in 1988 the MDEQ approved Oakland County s Comprehensive Facility Plan resulting in Final Order Abatement Order The Order 2098 and two subsequent Amended Consent Orders (1992, 2004) outline improvements to the EFSDS and tributary communities systems. Alternatives to address conveyance deficiencies, wet weather overflows and town outlet capacity compliance are being developed as part of a separate study being conducted for OCDC. 2.7 Wastewater Financial Considerations Table 2-6 lists the alternatives and costs associated with each. Shared bonded amounts represent shared project costs for all participating communities, and therefore may be greater than total cumulative cost for any one community. More detailed studies are necessary to determine cost allocations to individual communities. Appendix A 16

30 City of Auburn Hills Table 2-6 Auburn Hills Wastewater Alternatives Alternative Shared Bonded Amount ($M) Total Cumulative Cost ($M) Alt. 1: No Change Alt. 2: Construction of Relief Interceptor Sewers with Continued Discharge to DWSD Alt. 3: Diversion of the 8 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP Alt. 4: Diversion of 20 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP Alt. 5: Diversion of 22 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP Alt. 6: Construction of a New WWTP on the Clinton River Notes: 1. Costs are presented in 2005 dollars (millions). Auburn Hills should be active in regional wastewater discussions and may want to perform detailed studies to determine the alternatives that provide the best value to the stakeholders. Auburn Hills should be active in regional wastewater discussions and may want to perform detailed Figure 2-2 depicts the annual wholesale cost that studies to determine the would be paid by the average homeowner over the plan period. For the purpose of this analysis it was alternatives that provide the best value to the stakeholders. assumed that the average home consumes and discharges 16 mcf (thousand cubic feet) of water per year. Please note that wholesale rates, and these resulting annual costs do not consider any potential local community charges applicable to administration, capital improvements, or other items related to local infrastructure. Appendix A 17

31 City of Auburn Hills Figure 2-2 City of Auburn Hills Annual Wholesale Wastewater Service Cost Alternatives $800 $700 $600 $500 Cost $400 $300 $200 $100 $ Alt. 2 - Construction of Relief Sewers Alt. 3 - Diversion of 8 MGD of Flow to the Existing Pontiac WWTP Alt. 4 - Diversion of 20 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP Alt. 5 - Diversion of 22 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP Alt. 6 - Construction of a new WWTP on the Clinton River Current Customer Sewer Rate Appendix A 18

32

33 City of Berkley 3 City of Berkley 3.1 Overview The City of Berkley is located in southeast Oakland County. Berkley is a mature community comprised of single-family dwellings and small shopping districts. The City has three connections to the Southeastern Oakland County Water Authority (SOCWA) water supply, three emergency connections to adjacent communities, and maintains/upgrades its own distribution lines. SOCWA purchases water from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD). The City has a combined wastewater system that flows by gravity to the George W. Kuhn Sewage Disposal System (GWKSDS). GWKSDS sewage is treated at the DWSD Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Table 3-1 presents general population and flow data. Table 3-1 City of Berkley General CVT Data Parameter Total Population 15,075 13,562 Percent of Build-Out Population (16,960) 89% 80% Public Water Service Population 15,075 13,562 Percent Served 100% 100% Avg. Daily Demand (ADD) (MGD) Public Wastewater Service Population 15,075 13,562 Percent Served 100% 100% Avg. Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) (MGD) Appendix A 19

34 City of Berkley 3.2 Water Needs No existing or future water system deficiencies are noted as part of this assessment. Table 3-2 identifies the current and future needs of the water system. Table 3-2 City of Berkley Water System Needs Assessment Summary Assessment Criteria Quantity Meets Criteria Meets Criteria Quality Regulatory Meets Criteria Meets Criteria Quality Aesthetic Meets Criteria Meets Criteria Distribution Storage Meets Criteria Meets Criteria 3.3 Water Alternatives Based upon the assessment criteria, the City of Berkley does not require additional water system improvements. Improvements to the SOCWA infrastructure are completed with no deficiencies noted as a result of this study. Based upon the assessment criteria, the City of Berkley does not require additional water system improvements. 3.4 Water Financial Considerations Since no water alternatives are developed for Berkley, no financial considerations are necessary. 3.5 Wastewater Needs The City of Berkley s wastewater needs are common to communities that utilize the GWKSDS. Table 3-3 summarizes the wastewater needs based upon the assessment criteria defined for this report. Table 3-3 City of Berkley Wastewater System Needs Assessment Summary Assessment Criteria Collection Capacity 2005 Does Not Meet Criteria 2035 Does Not Meet Criteria Collection Contract Not Applicable Not Applicable WWTP Capacity Not assessed see DWSD WWMP Appendix A 20

35 City of Berkley The GWKSDS communities do not have contractual flow limitations. The GWKSDS is known to surcharge during peak flow periods and therefore does not meet the assessment criteria defined in this report. The updated 1991 Basis of Design Report for Contract 4 determined that surcharging in the GWKSDS would not result in basement flooding as long as the Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) or water level, at the GWK inlet weir remained below feet feet is 3.44 feet above the design elevation of the inlet weir and represents extreme circumstances. The service population of the GWKSDS is projected to decrease during the planning period. The decreasing population results in projected Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) and Peak Hour Flows (PHF) that is nearly equivalent to the present day flows as shown in Table 3-4. Table 3-4 City of Berkley GWKSDS Flow Summary Parameter Flow (MGD) 2005 Estimated Avg. Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) Estimated Peak Flow Estimated Avg. Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) Estimated Peak Flow 5.54 Notes: 1. Estimated Peak Flows were calculated using ADWF and the peaking factor obtained from ASCE Curve A. 3.6 Wastewater Alternatives The GWKSDS underwent a series of improvements as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit re-issued in Construction is complete or near completion for all system improvements. To address the needs identified in this Master Plan, two alternatives were explored. The wastewater alternatives related to the GWKSDS require additional detailed studies before financial considerations can be developed for comparison. Appendix A 21

36 City of Berkley Alternative 1 No Change: This alternative assumes continued use of the GWKSDS without improvement or change beyond that which is already planned as part of the reissued 1998 NPDES permit. In this alternative, the GWKSDS will continue to surcharge and it will continue to maintain in-system storage to attenuate peak flows. This is a viable alternative for communities in the GWKSDS. Alternative 12 Divert Flow From GWKSDS to an Expanded Warren WWTP: This alternative was explored in detail in the DWSD Wastewater Master Plan s technical memorandum entitled Technical Feasibility of Satellite Treatment. In it a 14 MGD WWTP would be constructed near the existing Warren WWTP to treat flow from the GWKSDS. The total capital cost for the expanded Warren WWTP in 2005 dollars is million dollars with a 7.7 million dollar annual O&M cost. A more detailed study is required to estimate specific costs allocated to each participating community. For this reason, Alternative 12 is not included in Volume 5 - Financial Model and no financial considerations are included. 3.7 Wastewater Financial Considerations The wastewater alternatives related to the GWKSDS require additional detailed studies before financial considerations can be developed for comparison. Appendix A 22

37 Village of Beverly Hills 4 Village of Beverly Hills 4.1 Overview The Village of Beverly Hills is located in southeast Oakland County. Beverly Hills is primarily a residential community with small commercial areas and recreational facilities. Beverly Hills receives water from South Oakland County Water Authority (SOCWA). SOCWA purchase water from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD). Wastewater is handled by the George W. Kuhn Sewage Disposal System (GWKSDS) and the Evergreen- Farmington Sewage Disposal System (EFSDS). Within the EFSDS, Beverly Hills utilizes the Acacia Park Retention Treatment Basin (RTB). Wastewater from GWKSDS and the GWKSDS is treated at the DWSD Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The majority of the sewer system is separated; however, combined sewers are still in use in parts of the Village. Table 4-1 presents general population and flow data. Table 4-1 Village of Beverly Hills Water System Needs Assessment Summary Parameter Total Population 10,129 10,427 Percent of Build-Out Population (13,073) 77% 80% Public Water Service Population 10,129 10,427 Percent Served 100% 100% Avg. Daily Demand (ADD) (MGD) Public Wastewater Service Population 10,129 10,427 Percent Served 100% 100% Avg. Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) (MGD) Wastewater information includes EFSDS and GWKSDS Appendix A 23

38 Village of Beverly Hills 4.2 Water Needs No existing or future water system deficiencies are noted as part of this assessment. Table 4-2 identifies the current and future needs of the water system. Table 4-2 Village of Beverly Hills Water System Needs Assessment Summary Assessment Criteria Quantity Meets Criteria Meets Criteria Quality Regulatory Meets Criteria Meets Criteria Quality Aesthetic Meets Criteria Meets Criteria Distribution Storage Meets Criteria Meets Criteria The Village has three metered connections and two unused connections with SOCWA. The majority of the distribution system has been replaced as part of a capital improvement program established in the 1990s. 4.3 Water Alternatives Based upon the assessment criteria, the Village of Beverly Hills does not require additional water system improvements. Improvements to the SOCWA infrastructure are completed with no deficiencies noted as a result of this study. New infrastructure and infrastructure improvements proposed for other communities do not affect the service or cost for service to this community. 4.4 Water Financial Considerations Since no water alternatives are developed for the Village of Beverly Hills, no financial considerations are necessary. 4.5 Wastewater Needs The Village of Beverly Hills has wastewater needs that are common to communities that utilize the EFSDS and GWKSDS. Table 4-3 summarizes the wastewater needs based upon the assessment criteria defined for this report. Appendix A 24

39 Village of Beverly Hills Table 4-3 Village of Beverly Hills Wastewater System Needs Assessment Summary Assessment Criteria Collection Capacity Collection Contract WWTP Capacity 2005 Does Not Meet Criteria Does Not Meet Criteria 2035 Does Not Meet Criteria Does Not Meet Criteria Not assessed see DWSD WWMP The GWKSDS communities do not have contractual flow limitations. The GWKSDS is known to surcharge during peak flow periods and therefore does not meet the assessment criteria defined in this report. The updated 1991 Basis of Design Report for Contract 4 determined that surcharging in the GWKSDS would not result in basement flooding as long as the Hydraulic Grade Line The wastewater alternatives (HGL) or water level, at the GWK inlet weir remained below feet feet is 3.44 feet above the design elevation of the inlet weir and represents extreme circumstances. The service population of the related to the GWKSDS require additional detailed studies before financial considerations can be developed for comparison. GWKSDS is projected to decrease during the planning period. The decreasing population results in Projected Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) and Peak Hour Flows (PHF) that less than the present day flows as shown in Table 4-4. Table 4-4 Village of Beverly Hills EFSDS & GWKSDS Flow/Contract Summary Parameter Flow (MGD) EFSDS GWKSDS Total Town Outlet Capacity (TOC) 5.62 N/A Estimated Avg. Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) Estimated Peak Hour Flow (PHF) Estimated Avg. Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) Estimated Peak Hour Flow (PHF) Notes: 1. Data for EFSDS 2005 Estimated Peak Flow was obtained from the 1999 Phase 1 Study - Supplement No. 2. All other Estimated Peak Flows were calculated using ADWF and the peaking factor obtained from ASCE Curve A. Appendix A 25

40 Village of Beverly Hills The Village of Beverly Hills has continued to have incidents of exceeding their Town Outlet Capacity (TOC) in the EFSDS as a result of peak flow, based on the events, while the Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) has historically been below capacity. 4.6 Wastewater Alternatives The GWKSDS underwent a series of improvements as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit re-issued in Construction is complete or near completion for all system improvements. To address the needs identified in this Master Plan, two alternatives are explored. Alternative 1 No Change: This alternative assumes continued use of the GWKSDS without improvement or change beyond that which is already planned as part of the reissued 1998 NPDES permit. In this alternative, the GWKSDS will continue to surcharge and it will continue to maintain in-system storage to attenuate peak flows. This is a viable alternative for communities in the GWKSDS. Alternative 12 Divert Flow From GWKSDS to an Expanded Warren WWTP: This alternative was explored in detail in the DWSD Wastewater Master Plan s technical memorandum entitled Technical Feasibility of Satellite Treatment. In it a 14 MGD WWTP would be constructed near the existing Warren WWTP to treat flow from the GWKSDS. The total capital cost for the expanded Warren WWTP in 2005 dollars is million dollars with a 7.7 million dollar annual O&M cost. A more detailed study is required to estimate specific costs allocated to each participating community. For this reason, Alternative 12 is not included in Volume 5 - Financial Model and no financial considerations are included. Regarding the collection needs identified for the EFSDS, there is only one alternative for all of the EFSDS communities, Alternative 1 No Change. Volume 2 Existing Facilities Report, Section , and Volume 3 Needs Assessment Report, Section explain that in 1988 the MDEQ approved Oakland County s The Order 2098 and two subsequent Amended Consent Orders (1992, 2004) outline improvements to the EFSDS and tributary communities systems. Appendix A 26

41 Village of Beverly Hills Comprehensive Facility Plan resulting in Final Order Abatement Order The Order 2098 and two subsequent Amended Consent Orders (1992, 2004) outline improvements to the EFSDS and tributary communities systems. Conveyance deficiencies, wet weather overflows and town outlet capacity compliance are being developed as part of the EFSDS hydrology and hydraulic model project study being conducted for OCDC. 4.7 Wastewater Financial Considerations The wastewater alternatives related to the GWKSDS require additional detailed studies before financial considerations can be developed for comparison. Appendix A 27

42

43 Village of Bingham Farms 5 Village of Bingham Farms 5.1 Overview The Village of Bingham Farms is located in southeast Oakland County, and contains a balance of commercial office space and premium secluded residential property. The Village has established connections to the South Oakland County Water Authority (SOCWA) water supply and the Evergreen-Farmington Sewage Disposal System (EFSDS). Sewage from the EFSDS is transported and treated at the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department s (DWSD) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Table 5-1 presents general population and flow data. Table 5-1 Village of Bingham Farms General CVT Data Parameter Total Population 1, Percent of Build-Out Population (1,030) 99% 94% Public Water Service Population 1, Percent Served 100% 100% Avg. Daily Demand (ADD) (MGD) Public Wastewater Service Population 1, Percent Served 100% 100% Avg. Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) (MGD) Appendix A 28

44 Village of Bingham Farms 5.2 Water Needs No existing or future water system deficiencies are noted as part of this assessment. Table 5-2 identifies the current and future needs of the water system. Table 5-2 Village of Bingham Farms Water System Needs Assessment Summary Assessment Criteria Quantity Meets Criteria Meets Criteria Quality Regulatory Meets Criteria Meets Criteria Quality Aesthetic Meets Criteria Meets Criteria Distribution Storage Meets Criteria Meets Criteria 5.3 Water Alternatives Based upon the assessment criteria, the Village of Bingham Farms does not require additional water system improvements. Improvements to the SOCWA infrastructure are completed with no deficiencies noted as a result of this study. New infrastructure and infrastructure improvements proposed for other communities do not affect the service or cost for service to this community. Based upon the assessment criteria, the Village of Bingham Farms does not require additional water system improvements. 5.4 Water Financial Considerations Since no water alternatives are developed for the Village of Bingham Farms, no financial considerations are necessary. 5.5 Wastewater Needs The Village of Bingham Farms has wastewater needs that are common to communities that utilize the EFSDS. Table 5-3 summarizes the wastewater needs based upon the assessment criteria defined for this report. Appendix A 29

45 Village of Bingham Farms Table 5-3 Village of Bingham Farms Wastewater System Needs Assessment Summary Assessment Criteria Collection Capacity 2005 Does Not Meet Criteria 2035 Does Not Meet Criteria Collection Contract Unknown Unknown WWTP Capacity Not assessed see DWSD WWMP The Village of Bingham Farms does not have data to identify incidents of exceeding their Town Outlet Capacity (TOC) as a result of peak flow; based on the events, however, the Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) has historically been below capacity. Table 5-4 summarizes the capacity agreement and estimated wastewater discharges to EFSDS. Table 5-4 Village of Bingham Farms EFSDS Flow/Contract Summary Parameter Flow (MGD) Town Outlet Capacity (TOC) Events Peak Flow N/A 2005 Estimated Peak Hour Flow (PHF) Estimated Peak Hour Flow (PHF) 2.77 Notes: 1. Data for EFSDS 2005 Peak Flow was obtained from the 1999 Phase 1 Study - Supplement No. 2. All other Estimated Peak Flows were calculated using ADWF and the peaking factor obtained from ASCE Curve A. 5.6 Wastewater Alternatives Regarding the collection needs identified for the EFSDS, there is only one alternative for all of the EFSDS communities, Alternative 1 No Change. Volume 2 Existing Facilities Report, Section The Order 2098 and two subsequent Amended Consent Orders (1992, 2004) outline improvements to the EFSDS and tributary communities systems. Appendix A 30

46 Village of Bingham Farms , and Volume 3 Needs Assessment Report, Section explain that in 1988 the MDEQ approved Oakland County s Comprehensive Facility Plan resulting in Final Order Abatement Order The Order 2098 and two subsequent Amended Consent Orders (1992, 2004) outline improvements to the EFSDS and tributary communities systems. Alternatives to address conveyance deficiencies, wet weather overflows and town outlet capacity compliance are being developed as part of the EFSDS hydrology and hydraulic modeling study being conducted for OCDC. 5.7 Wastewater Financial Considerations Since no wastewater alternatives are developed for the Village of Bingham Farms, no financial considerations are necessary. Appendix A 31

47 City of Birmingham 6 City of Birmingham 6.1 Overview The City of Birmingham is located in southeast Oakland County. The City of Birmingham has established connections to the South Oakland County Water Authority (SOCWA) water supply and both the Evergreen-Farmington Sewage Disposal System (EFSDS) and the George W. Kuhn Sewage Disposal System (GWKSDS) wastewater collection systems. The EFSDS and GWKSDS discharge to the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department s (DWSD) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Table 6-1 presents general population and flow data. Table 6-1 City of Birmingham General CVT Data Parameter Total Population 18,751 17,837 Percent of Build-Out Population (21,038) 89% 85% Public Water Service Population 18,751 17,837 Percent Served 100% 100% Avg. Daily Demand (ADD) (MGD) Public Wastewater Service Population 1 18,751 17,837 Percent Served 100% 100% Avg. Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) (MGD) Notes: 1. The public wastewater service population and flow is the total from EFSDS and GWKSDS. Appendix A 32