HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 08-30 06/16/2008
RESOLUTION 08 - ~
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD WASTEWATER
MASTER PLAN DATED JUNE 2008
WHEREAS, the City of Springfield owns, operates -and maintains a public
wastewater collection and conveyance system to s~rve lands within the corporate limits
of the city; and
WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (#102486) to the City
of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission,
as co-permittees, to permit the discharge of treated wastewater to the Willamette River;
and
WHEREAS, said Permit includes certain conditions related to the operation of
the collection and conveyance system owned and operated by the City of Springfield; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2006, the City entered into a contract with CH2M-
Hill, Inc. to prepare a Wastewater Master Plan for the City of Springfield that will
evaluate the existing system deficiencies and future system needs to accommodate
growth within the current Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Springfield; and
WHEREAS, said Plan identifies existing deficiencies and future needs in the
City's wastewater collection and conveyance system; and
WHEREAS, public notice was provided and a public hearing was held to provide
an opportunity to the public comment on said Plan and the City Council did consider said
comments, if any, in its deliberation on said Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did by motion on April 21, 2008 initiate the
process of amending the Public Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan as needed
to be consistent with said Plan; and
WHEREAS, said Plan was prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the City Engineer has recommended that the City Council adopt said Wastewater Master
Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the City Council hereby
adopts the Wastewater Master Plan prepared by CH2M-Hill, dated June 2008, for use by
the City of Springfield in operating and maintaining its wastewater collection and
conveyance system.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect upon
adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
RESOLUTION
Page 1 of2
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield, Oregon, by a vote of
~ for and ~ against, this 16th day of June ,2008.
ATTEST:
~~
City R order
RE\!!EWH) & APPiW\!ED
Ac. TO FORM \
~~:,~ ..J ~\~
~\ )'2 \0"8
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION
Page 2 of2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Acknowledgements
Springfield City Council
Christine Lundberg - Ward 1
Hillary Wylie - Ward 2
Anne Ballew - Ward 3
Dave Ralston - Ward 4
John Woodrow - Ward 5
Joe Pishioneri - Ward 6
City of Springfield Staff
Matt Stouder - Supervising Civil Engineer
Susie Smith - Environmental Services Director
George Walker - Stormwater Facilities Planner
Ken Vogeney - City Engineer
CH2M HILL Staff
Mark Johnson
Dan O'Leary
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contents
Contents ..................................... ....................................................... ...................................... 1
Glossary of Acronyms....... ...................... ........................................................................................ v
Executive Summary ....................................... .................................. .,...... .........................................1
Background......................................................................................................................... .1
Regulatory Drivers............. ........................................ ........................ ............................... ...1
Public Process....................................................... ................ ...............................................2
Alternative Analysis.............................................................................................................2
CIP Recommendations..... ............;...................... ........................... ......................................4
1.0 Introduction and Background........................................................... ...................................9
1.1 Background and Goals.................................................................. .'..........................9
1.2 Regulatory Requirements..................................................... ....................................9
1.2.1 Federal..... ....... ..... ........ .... .......................... .................... ................... ...... .................... ....10
1.2.2 State of Oregon......................................... ............................... ......................................10
1.2.3 Statewide Planning Goals ............. ...................... ........... ......... ................... ...... ......... .....10
1.2.4 Pump Station Sizing Requirements........................ ................. ..................................... ..11
1.2.5 City of Springfield Development Code..........................................................................11
2.0 Related Documents........................................................................................................... .12
2.1 Wet Weather Flow Management Plan (WWFMP) ................................................12
2.2 ' MWMC Facilities Plan........................................................................................ ..12
2.3 Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)............................................................13
2.4 Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual........................................14
2.5 North Springfield Sewer Study.................. ........ .................................................. ..14
2.6 SHN 1&1 Investigation ......... ............................. ............................... ..................... .14
2.7 Standard Construction Specifications.. ... ............................. ................... ... ..... .......15
2.8 Sanitary Sewer Study for RiverBend Subdivision.................................................15
2.9 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan............................................ 16
3.0 Study Area Characteristics................ ...................... .......................................................... .17
3.1 Study Area............................................................................................................ .17
3.2 Physical Environment.......................................................................................... ..17
3.2 .1 Temperature.... .................................................................................. ............................ .17
4.0
5.0
3.2.2 Precipitation Patterns... ........... .............. .......... ........................... ........... ............. ............ 17
3.2.3 Groundwater....... ................ ......... ........... ................................................................... ..... 17
3.3 Socioeconomic Environment .......................................... ............. ..........................19
3.3.1 Historical Population...... ........ .................... .......... ....................................................... ...19
3.3.2 Population Growth Projections .................. ..... ....... ....................................................... .20
3.4 Land Use Regulations .......... .... ....... ..... ....... .................... ........ ..... .......... ........ ..... ...21
3.4.1 Springfield Facilities Located Within the Urban Growth Boundary .............................21
3.4.2 Zoning Designations ......... ....... ..... ........... ..... .......... .............. ...... ......................... ..........21
3.4.3 Land Use ..... ....... .............. ...... ....................... ...... ........................ .............. ...... ......... ...... 21
3 .5 Vertical Datum used for Mode1...................................................... ........... ........................21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
I
I
6.0
Existing Wastewater Collection System ...... ... ..... .... ... .... ......... ..... ............ ........... ..... ....... ..26
4.1 Inventory of Existing System................ ...... ...... ...... ............ ..... .............. ........... .....26
4.1.1 Springfield Wastewater Collection System ...................................................................26
4.1.2 Pump Stations..... .......... ........ .......................... ........ .......................................................29
Sewer System Evaluation .......... ....................................... ......... ........... ..... ....................... .31
5.1 Planning Scenarios......... ......... .............................. .... ............. ............................... .31
5.2 Design Storm Selection.................... ................ ... ... ...... ............ ........ ..... ..... ....... .....31
5.3 Model Development.............................................................................................. .31
5.4 Collection System Capacity Analysis........ ........ ........ .............. .................. ..................32
5.4.1 Deficiency Definition............. ................. ... ................. ............................ .......................32
5.4.2 Existing Deficiencies ................. ..................................................................................... 33
5.4.3 System Improvement Options............. ... ... .......... ........... ......... ........................................33
5.4.4 Description of Improvement Methodology...... ..~........................... ..................... .... ........36
5.4.5 Private Lateral Program... .......... ...................... ..................... ........................... ..... .........36
5.4.6 Existing System Improvements ..... ........... ......... ..... ..................... ................................. ..43
5.4.7 Future System Improvements... ........ ................. ...... ................ ...... ......... .... ....................48
5.4.8 Expanding System to Meet Development......................................................................51
Capital Improvements Program ............................ ...... ....... ....... ............ ..... ...... ....... ..... ......55
6.1 Cost Estimate Development.... ............... ........... ...... ............... .............................. ..55
6.2 Capital Improvements Projects ........ ....................... ............. .............. ............... .... .56
6.3 SDC Allocations ........ ....... ....................... ...................... ...... .......................... ....... .56
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tables
Table ES-l- Capital Improvement Project List .........................................................................6
Table 2.1 - WWFMP Solutions for Existing Conditions .........................................................12
Table 2.2 - Inventory of Collection System in Study Area...................................................... 15
Table 3.1 - Average Temperature and Precipitation in Springfield......................................... 19
Table 3.2 - Historical Population Data for Springfield, 1990-2006 ..........................,..............20
Table 3.3 - Existing Land Use Zoning................................................................................... ..22
Table 3.4 - Future Land Use Zoning......... ............. ...... ................ ..... ....;....:...... ......... ..............23
Table 4.1 - Summary of the System per Flow Monitoring Basin............................................26
Table 4.2 - Summary of Collection System Age .....................................................................27
Table 4.3 - Summary of Stations Modeled and No. of Pumps ................................................30
Table 5.1 - Pump Station Needs ......................................................... ...... ~.'.......... ................ ...34
Table 5.2 - Status of Rehabilitation ........... ...... ....... ......................... ......................... ...............36
Table 5.3 - Subbasins Targeted for Rehabilitation .............................................~....................45
Table 5.4 - Pipeline Improvements for Existing Land Use .....................................................47
Table 5.5 - Collection System Improvements for Future Land Use ........................................48
Table 5.6 - Existing and Future Peak Flows with Proposed Improvements............................49
Table 5.7 - Summary of Expansion Projects.......................................................................... .52
Table 6.1 - Capital Improvement Project Listing .......~............................................................57
Table 6.2 - Peak Flows for SDC Allocation ............................................................................59
Figures
Figure ES-I - System Improvements..... ...................... ..... .... .......... .......... ......................... ........7
Figure 3.1 - Study Area........................................................................................................... .18
Figure 3.2 - Average Temperature.......................................................................................... .19
Figure 3.3 - Precipitation..... ....................................... ........................ ...... ............................. ..19
Figure 3.4 - Historical Population for Springfield .......... .......................... ..................... ..........20
Figure 3.5 - Existing Land Use Zoning ...................................................................................24
Figure 3.6 - Future Land Use Zoning....................... ............................ .............. .................... .25
Figure 4.1 - Existing Wastewater Collection System ..............................................................28
Figure 5.1 - Hydraulic Gradeline Elevations for 5-Year Event, Existing
Land Use Conditions............................................................... ~............................3 5
Figure 5.2 - Rehabilitation................................... ......................... ...........................................38
Figure 5.3 - System Improvements.................................................. ..... .................................. .46
Figure 5.4 - Future Deficiencies with Existing Improvements in Place ..................................50
Figure 5.5 -Expanded Service Pipes................................................ ......... ........................... ...54
111
Appendix A - Modeling Development and Methodology ......................................................... A-I
A.I Model Development........................................................................................... . A-I
A.I.I Pipe and Manholes ...... .......... .....'.... ..... ......... ........................... .................. .................. A-:-I
A.I.2 Lift Stations.................... .................. ............ ..... .......... ...... .................... ........ ...... ........ A-I
A.I.3 Weirs....................................................... ...... ...... ...... ....... ....... .... ............... ................. A-2
A.I.4 Near-term Projects .... .................. ........ ........... .... ....... ...... ... ..... ..... ................ ............... A-2
A.2 Flow Monitoring and Data Analysis................................................................... A-2
A.3 Modeling Methodology ........................... .,............. ............................................. A-6
A.3.I Hydraulic Model............... ...... ....... ....... .............. .............. ....... .......... ....... .................. A-6
A.3.2 Flow Development....... ................. ...... ............ .......... ....... ........... ...... ........... ............. A -13
'A.4 GIS Metadata and Reference Data.................................................................... A-17
Appendix B - III Characteristics for Monitor Basins
Appendix C - Design Storm Development
Appendix D - Calibration Hydrographs for Monitoring Basins
Appendix E - Regression Plots
Appendix F - Inventory Data by Monitoring Basin
Appendix G - Detailed Cost Data for Capital Improvement Projects
IV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Glossary of Acronyms
AACE
CIP
DEQ
EDU
EPA
E/S WPCF
GIS
gpad
gpm
gpd
HGL
1/1
LCOG
mgd
MWMC
MH
NRCS
NPDES
PFSP
PVC
QA/QC
RCP
RDI/I
SAM
SDC
SSMP
SSO
SSS
UBC
UGB
WERF
WWFMP
American Association of Cost Engineering
capital improvement project
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Equivalent Dwelling Unit
U.s. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Pollution Control Facility
geographic information system
gallons per acre per day
gallons per minute
gallons per day
Hydraulic grade line
Infiltration/ inflow
Lane Council of Governments
million gallons per day
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Manhole
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Public Facilities and Services Plan
polyvinyl chloride
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
reinforced concrete pipe
rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow
System Analysis Model
system development charge
Sewer System Master Plan
sanitary sewer overflow
Sanitary Sewer Study
Uniform Building Code
urban growth boundary
Water Environment Research Foundation
Wet Weather Flow Management Plan
v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
Background
The City of Springfield provides wastewater collection and conveyance services using a system
of pipelines and pump stations that it owns and operates. Along with the City of Eugene,
Springfield discharges to a regional collection and treatment system owned by the Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). Springfield's collection system discharges to
the East Bank Interceptor, a MWMC facility. The master plan provides an assessment of
existing and future needs for the City's collection system. Because the City's system contributes
to the regional system, the master plan must consider and reflect results of the MWMC's Wet
Weather Flow Management Plan'(WWFMP) that identified improvements and activities for the
wastewater collection and treatment facilities in the Eugene/Springfield (E/S) metropolitan
area. That plan determined the most cost-effective and politically feasible solution for
managing excessive wet weather wastewater flows acceptable to the MWMC and the Eugene
and Springfield communities. Therefore, Springfield's plan provides a local solution for
existing and future needs in the context of the regional solution. This is most evident in the
level of 1/1 reduction achieved through pipeline rehabilitation which has been an ongoing
system improvement activity following the WWFMP completion in 2001.
The Springfield Wastewater System Master Plan is intended to identify existing and future
capacity constraints, determine capacity requirements and identify system improvements
necessary to meet the city of Springfield's projected population and employment growth
through the (2025) .planning year. The hydraulic model used to develop Springfield's
Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) was developed with current inventory and land use data
provided by the City. Wet Weather Flow Management Plan (WWFMP) results were
considered, and based on additional monitoring data and updated modeling results, a refined
solution for Springfield was developed.
Goals of this plan include:
· management of collection system flows and review of projected infiltration and inflow (1/1)
removal requirements established in the WWFMP so as to not exceed the capacity of the
MWMC Regional Wastewater Facilities currently being upgraded to meet projected flows
and loads through 2025,
· providing continued public health and safety, and
· guidance to the development community.
Regulatory Drivers
DEQ has issued a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit (#102486)
for Springfield, Eugene and MWMC, which includes conditions under which treated
wastewater can be discharged to the Willamette River. Included in those conditions is the
requirement that Springfield, Eugene and MWMC fully implement the WWFMP, and that no
discharges of untreated wastewater can be discharged to the waters of the state and US except
1
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
under the following conditions; for flows greater than those occurring for the 24-hour duration,
1 in 5-year winter and 1 in 10-year summer storms. These conditions form the baseline
assumptions for overflow avoidance in this plan and are consistent with the assumptions of the
WWFMP. The Springfield/Eugene/MWMC NPDES permit will expire December 31, 2007 and
DEQ is currently drafting a permit that will cover management of the wastewater system for the
subsequent five years.
Public Process
Public Workshop
City staff facilitated a three hour open house/public workshop at City Hall, which allowed the
public to explore the WWMP update in detail. The focus of the workshop was on the
infrastructure improvements identified for both the existing wastewater system and the future ,
expanded wastewater system. Copies of the plan were available for review, and staff answered
questions from the public.
Outreach to the Engineering & Development Community
The WWMP was posted to the City's website for public review and comment. Staff conducted a
mail-out notice to local engineering firms and developers, notifying them of both the public
workshop and the web posting.
Public Hearing
In addition to City Council work sessions held during the WWMP update process, staff will '
facilitate a public hearing with the Springfield City Council for adoption of the WWMP. This
hearing will be open to the public and allow for testimony prior to plan adoption.
Alternative Analysis
Deficiencies
The design storm was applied to the calibrated model to evaluate the existing (2007) pipeline
system. System deficiencies were identified and are based on locations where the hydraulic
grade line (simulated water surface) is within 2 feet or less than the ground surface elevation.
This occurs at a number locations, therefore, sanitary sewer overflows are possible, particularly
in the downtown area and in the eastern end of the Thurston trunk and connecting pipelines to
the Main St. trunk.
Improvement Options
1. Reduction Through Pipeline Rehabilitation - Rehabilitation has the potential to reduce
construction costs-larger pipes may not be necessary if peak flows due to III can be
reduced. Consistent with the WWFMP, rehabilitation is assumed to consist of main lines
and laterals within the public right-of-way (" public o~y").
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The WWFMP includes recommendation for the Formulation/Definition and
Implementation of a Voluntary Private Lateral Program. While the additional reduction
due to private lateral replacement is not assumed in the solutions presented, it has been
identified as a future program by the City and is described in Section 5.4.5 of the plan.
2. Pipeline Replacement With Larger Pipes - This option increases pipe diameters to
create more capacity to convey peak flows. These improvements can also involve a pipe
in parallel with the existing line, where the existing line is maintained and its capacity
utilized.
3. Diversion Pipelines - This option involves installation of new pipes to divert flow from
locations with limited capacity to those with available capacity.
4. Pump stations - When pump stations in collection system do not have capacity to
convey the peak flow with the largest pump out of service, they are identified for
improvement.
Storage was not considered a cost effective option. Infiltration and Inflow reduction,
conveyance improvements, and additional treatment capacity consistent with the MWMC
Facilities Plan were ultimately selected for implementation. In addition, storage was thought to
be more of a problem with implementation and siting (being a good neighbor) than any public
amenity opportunities (parks, etc.) it would offer.
Existing System Improvements
Gravity replacement pipes, parallel pipes, diversions and pump station upgrades, in addition to
system rehabilitation are required to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows under existing
conditions (see Figure ES-l). A diversion pipe proposed to convey flow from the Thurston
trunk to the Main St. trunk will avoid more costly improvements along both trunk lines.
There are 6 manholes evaluated in the model where improvements do not eliminate hydraulic
grade lines (HGLs) within 2 feet of the ground surface. There is no surface flooding at these
locations and they are relatively isolated and distributed in the system. The HGL elevations are
not the result of local pipeline capacity or high levels of 1/1 but are the result of the backwater
produced by surcharge in pipelines downstream of these locations. As a result, the extent of
additional improvements required to further reduce the HGL would likely be hundreds of feet
of pipeline replacement to achieve HGL compliance at a relatively few manhole locations. The
cost would be far greater than the recommended improvement to install water tight manhole
covers at these limited number of manholes.
Future System Improvements
Future improvement projects are identified to eliminate system deficiencies observed when the
future flows are applied to the system after improvements for existing conditions are made. The
model indicates surface flooding at multiple downtown locations around the 21 st and E pump
station and at the eastern end of the Main St. trunk, which requires the identification of
3
4
I
I
I
\1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
additional improvements. In most cases the future defiCiencies require improvements in
additional areas where no improvement has been identified for existing conditions.
Additional rehabilitation is included as part of the future improvements to meet 2001 WWFMP
targeted peak flow reductions. One additional improvement along the Main St. trunk is
necessary to address remaining deficiencies resulting from future land use. Table 5.5 lists the
projects. These projects are separate and distinct from the projects identified from the existing
conditions.
There are 4 manholes in addition to those identified for existing conditions, where
improvements do not eliminate HGL's within 2 feet of the ground surface. For the same
reasons as previously stated, the extent of additional improvements required to further reduce
the HGL are greater than the recommended improvement to install water tight manhole covers
at these limited number of manholes.
Expanding System to Meet Development Needs
Several areas have been identified for future development that are not served by the system as it
existed in 2007. To plan for the needed infrastructure to service these areas, design peak flows
were developed and the needed pipe locations, diameters and lengths were calculated as
follows.
Ground elevations at locations along the probable pipe route were determined along with
manhole depths and preliminary pipe slope. Based on the projected flow, the City's design
standard, and calculated pipe slope, pipe diameters were calculated. To assist the City in future
refinements to this master plan level of design, the expanded service pipes and manholes were
entered into the hydraulic model based on estimated manhole depths. Pipe diameters for the
expansion areas should be reviewed and adjusted as updated information becomes available.
With the exception of the Harbor Drive area, all areas are expected to be developed within the
20-year planning time frame (see Figure 5.5 of the plan).
CIP Recommendations
Shown on Figure ES-1 and listed in Table ES-1 is a complete listing of existing and future
pipeline and pump station improvements. The table provides information in the following
categories:
. Project location
. Comments on project characteristics
. Project to serve expansion areas
. Costs
. Priority provided by City of Springfield
. A proposed implementation year (or range of years)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In the COMMENTS section of the CIP project listing, the diameter increase for existing pipelines
that is required for future flow conditions is provided. For cases where an existing pipe needs to
be up sized for both the existing and future conditions, the diameter required for both land use
conditions is provided with the assumption that the diameter required for future land use will
be installed.
Pipes for expanded (currently un-served) areas serving future development areas and their
associated costs are also shown in the CIP section of the master plan.
The project priorities are based on a review of the projects by City staff and their understanding
of other system drivers including health and safety, environmental impacts and development
patterns. In addition, downstream to upstream logic, availability of monitor data inclose
proximity to improvement locations and basin boundaries, and quality of calibration were also
considered. This results in recommendations for implementation and potential additional
actions to refine project needs and associated characteristics that affect project costs.
SDe Allocations
In order to identify the relative contribution to the projects by land use condition, peak flows
are provided for existing and future land use conditions'for each project. Based on those peak
flows a percentage of peak flow was calculated for existing and future land use.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
",...~....."..
....' . ~.. ~-
. p)eacehe:~h
l. ,;"
. ";;,:'
~ . ,,-;:t;;;:'
/
--.-.,---~......
"'*....-'~
/"J
"Ltt~'" .,
,\':v~W;J.m~ "(, R1v6i
d\ef2Tr c<,' ~ :;....
."i!. ,~
~~.:t]\~" . ,',.1"...;
'" 4'"
Po
Jasper
Meadows
(private)
Y:.r~'!r
\' ~,J
,;;>
l;
".f
J'
iI
~
[K]
.
Pump Stations
Existing Pump Station Improvements
Pump Stations to be
Decommissioned
o Existing Water Tight Manhole Improvements
. Future Water Tight Manhole Improvements
Future Pipe Improvement
Future Basin Rehabilitation
(WWFMP Subbasin 10)
Existing Basin Rehabilitation
-
~
D
II
.
Urban Growth Boundary
~
FIGURE E5-1
Executive Summary
- Existing Pipe Improvement
Future Pump Stations
4,000
I
o
I
2,000
I
I
I
TABLE ES-1
Capital Improvement Project Listing
fi
;1
I
I
I
SDrinQJ leld Wastewater Master Plan
Springfield Wastewater Collection System Improvements
Existing Oia Proposed No of Length Priority Proposed Construction Total Cost
Project 10 Purpose Diameter (Inch) or Description Comments Year Cost
(Inch) Peak Rate (aDm) MHs (ft)
1 Existing 24 22 6418 Parallel existing 24.,im;:h pipe with new 24-inch pipe Will require 300 ft auger bore (bore & jack) 36-steel casing 6 2009 - 2010 $2,539,000 $3,935,000
uporade -- from MH1 0033730, dls toMH10033409 $75,000 (at $250/ft) under HWv 126
Used to control simulated overflow at MH10033395.
2 Existing 12 21 4 795 Replace existing 12-inch with 21-inch from Downstream pipe segment from MH10033284 uls to 10 2010 - 2011 $307,000 $476,000
upgrade MH10033284 uls to MH10033293 MH 10033294 is upgraded to 27 -inch for future
improvements.
3 Existing 12 18 5 1112 Replace existing 12-inch with 18-inch from 19 2013 - 2014 $398,000 $617,000
uPQrade MH10034175 uls to MH10034164
4 Existing 10 12 11 1538 ,Replace existing 10-inch with 12-inchfrom Crosses Mohawk Blvd 20 2103 - 2014 $477,000 $739,000
uporade MH10033706 d/s'toMH10033719 .
Existing Replace existing 15-inch with 24-inch pipe from Flow monitoring basins 83 and 84 just uls of improvements. $1,625,000 $2,519,000
5 15 24 21 4161 MH10034054 dls to MH10033730. Project not
upgrade reauired iffuture rehabilitation is Derformed. Calibration fair in this area.
Existing Replace existing 1 O-inch with 15-inch pipe from $391,000 $606,000
6 10 15 6 1231 MH10033920 dls to MH10033982. Project not Flow monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design
upgrade reauired if future rehabilitation is Derformed.
Existing Flow at va~lt on west dls end of Main Street No construction assumed. Reconfiguration of flow achieved
7 27/36 Interceptor reconfigured to prevent flow from going - --
upgrade -- -- -- through valve or weir adjustments.
north. All flow is diverted south.
8, Existing 10 15 3 714 Replace existing 10-inch with 15-inch from Lucerne Meadows~~ is routed to the West. As of 2007, this $224,000 $347,000
uporade MH10034589 uls to MH10034519. LS discharged to the north throuoh these pipe seoments.
Existing , ' New 15-inch'wet weatnerbypass from Bypass weir set at 496.0 ftelevation (COS) at MH10035662. 8 2010 - 2011 $1,416,000 $2,195,000
9 15 ' , 17 4837
uporape -- MH10035662 dls to MH1Q035367. Crosses BobStral,Jb'Pkwv at start of 1105.
' ' ,
, A21-inch isnecessaiyfor'existing land use. For future land
10 Existing 15/18 21-,..existing,24- 11 3589 Replace existing 15"'inch ancl18-inch pipe with 24- use, this projecfis upgraded toa 24-inchpipe. Flow 11 2010 - 2011 $1,356,000 $2,102,000
upgr~de future inch from MH10035908 dls to MH10035636. monitorino is recommended prior to preliminary design..,
, , ',." " , c.. .
11 Existing 12 15 9 1014 Replace existing 12-inch with 15-inch from Flow monitoringcis, recommended prior to preliminary design 15 2012 - 2013 $348,000 $539,000
uporade MH10035903 dls toMH1 0035835.
12 Existing 10 . 12 3 529 Replace existing 10-inch with 12-inch from Flow monitoring' is recommended prior to preliminary design 1'6 2012 - 2013 $159,000 $246,000
upgrade MH10036187 dls to MH10036186.
Rehabilitation Existing All rehab in basin SN 22. This completes the Review cost effectiveness relative to conventional 5 2009 - 2010 $3,908,968 $7,573,000
for 1/1 Rehab Varies 8-12 -- 23,548 existing rehab listed in the 2001 WWFMP. conveyance improvements
Reduction
Nugget Way Existing 642 gpm (single 911 peak wet Upgrade 2 pump system with 911 gpm capacity Flow monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design 3 2008 - 2009 $769,417 $1,443,000
pump) 898 gpm -- --
PS upgrade (pumps 1 &2) weather each
Existing 380 gpm (single 494 gpm existing Upgrade 2 pump system with 494 gpm capacity Flow monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design 21 2013 - 2014 $560,379 $1,050,000
Hayden PS upgrade pump) peak, 494 gpm -- -- each
future peak
Existing 379 gpm (single 525 gpm existing Upgrade 2 pump system with 664 gpm capacity Flow monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design 22 2014 - 2015 $653,152 $1,224,000
River Glen PS upgrade pump) peak, 664 gpm -- -- each
future peak
13 Future 12 18 6 2224 Replace existing 12-inch pipe with 18-inch pipe from 13 2011 - 2012 $739,000 $1,145,000
uporade MH10035908 u/s to MH10036270.
14 Future 10 12 3 325 Replace existing 10-inch pipe with a 12-inch pipe 17 2012 - 2013 $105,000 $163,000
upgrade from MH10036195 dls to MH10036187
Rehabilitation 22.6k ft in SN19, 7k feet in SN48, 1.5k feet in SN49. SN19 - 1 2008-2009
This plus reduction due to pipe improvements Review cost effectiveness relative to conventional $5,181,026 $10,038,000
for III Future rehab Varies 8-12 -- 31,211
Reduction completes the future rehab listed in the 2001 conveyance improvements SN48&49 - 9 2010-2011
WWFMP.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Existing Dia Proposed No of Length Proposed Construction
Project 10 Purpose Diameter (Inch) or Description Comments Priority Total Cost
(Inch) Peak Rate (Qpm) MHs (ft) Year Cost
Service requirements: 1) new "Harbor Drive" PS
Harbor Drive System 8 (gravity) and 5 ' equipped with 2 pumps each with 145 gpm capacity. Project evaluated if river crossing reduced cost. Most cost
expansion -- (force main) 32 7818 2) 134 ft of 5-inch to extend existing "dry pipe" force effective'solution makes use of the existing "dry pipe' force 25 2017 -2018 $2,156,000 $3,342,000
main 3) 7684 ft of 8-inch pipe to service entire main in place north of the neighborhood..
neighborhood.
Extends'system along Jasper Road to allow for the ,
Jasper Road System decommissioning of Lucerne Meadows and Golden
expansion -- 10, 12,21 89 22992 Terrace PSs. Service requirements: 1) 2581 ft of 10- 4 2008-2010 $7,496,000 $11,619,000
inch pipe, 2) 3395 ft of 12-inch pipe, and 3) 17016 ft
of 21-inch pipe. ,
System Extends the system from the existing 30-inch south Includes the 150,trailer parcels not originally contained in the
Franklin Blvd -- 8, 15 27 6280 along Franklin Blvd. Service requirements: ,1) 2411 ft 2 2008 - 2009 $1,934,000 $2,998,000
expansion of 8~inch pipe, and 2) 3868 ft of 15-inch pipe. GIS.
Thurston Rd System Extends the system from the existing 15-inch east
expansion -- 8 17 3882 along Thurston Road. Service requirements are 24 2016 - 2017 $949,000 $1,471,000
3882 ft of 8-inch pipe.
Extends the system from the existing 21-incheast
McKenzie Hwy System -- 10,12 17 3906 along McKenzie Highway. Service requirements: 1) Pipe extended east as far as grade supported gravity flow. 14 2011 - 2012 $1,049,000 $1,,626,000
expansion 1924 ft of 1 O-inch pipe, and 2) 1983 ft of 12-in'ch Last manhole shown is at crest of hill.
pipe.
System Services the development east of the new Vera
Vera Area expansion -- 8, 12 39 9583 pump station: Service requirements: 1924 ft of 10- 23 2014 - 2016 $2,570,000 $3,984,000
, , inch pipe 'and 1983 ft of 12-inch pipe.
PeaceHealthl System Pump stati~n de:sigredas. part of the Basis for Cost is the Sanitary Sewer Study for Riverbend
Riverbend . PS expansion -- PeaceH~c:llth/Riverpend Campus Development. Subdivision (KPFF Consulting Engineeers, 2005). Costs 12 2011 - 2012 $2,232,930 $3,189,900
, "'" ''', ':', ,': ' aqjf)sted to 2008 dqllars.
.
. -- ..
, ,.., ,
Exis~ing SlJbtotal .. $15,131,917 $25,611,000
,
Future Subtotal $6,025,026 $11,346,000
System Expansion Subtotal $18,386,930 $28,229,900
Total $39,543,873 $65,186,900
R
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 Background and Goals
The City of Springfield provides wastewater collection and conveyance services using a system
of pipelines and pump stations that it owns and operates. Along with the City of Eugene,
Springfield discharges to a regional collection and treatment system owned by the Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). Springfield's collection system discharges to
the East Bank Interceptor, a MWMC facility. The master plan provides an assessment of
existing and future needs for the City's collection system. Because the City's system contributes
to the regional system, the master plan must consider and reflect results of the MWMC's Wet
Weather Flow Management Plan (WWFMP) that identified improvements and activities for the
wastewater collection and treatment facilities in the Eugene/Springfield (E/S) metropolitan
area. That plan determined the most cost-effective and politically feasible solution for
managing excessive wet weather wastewater flows acceptable to the MWMC and the Eugene
and Springfield communities. Therefore, Springfield's plan provides a local solution for
existing and future needs in the context of the regional solution. This is most evident in the
level of III reduction achieved through pipeline rehabilitation which has been an ongoing
system improvement activity following the WWFMP completion in 2001.
The Springfield Wastewater System Master Plan is intended to identify existing and future
capacity constraints, determine capacity requirements and identify system improvements
necessary to meet the city of Springfield's projected population and employment growth
through the (2025) planning year. The hydraulic model used to develop Springfield's
Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) was developed with current inventory and land use data
provided by the City. Wet Weather Flow Management Plan (WWFMP) results were
considered, and based on additional monitoring data and updated modeling results, a refined
solution for Springfield was developed.
Goals of this plan include:
· management of collection system flows and review of projected infiltration and inflow (1/1)
removal requirements established in the WWFMP so as to not exceed the capacity of the
MWMC Regional Wastewater Facilities currently being upgraded to meet projected flows
and loads through 2025,
· providing continued public health and safety, and
· guidance to the development community.
1.2 Regulatory Requirements
Springfield's design, operation, maintenance and management of the wastewater collection
system is regulated under Federal, State and local regulatory requirements.
9
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
1.2.1 Federal
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) has delegated permitting authority
under the Clean Water Act to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). However,
compliance with Clean Water Act requirements is reviewed periodically by the EP A, which
retains independent enforcement authority.
1.2.2 State of Oregon
DEQ has issued a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit (#102486)
for Springfield, Eugene and MWMC, which includes conditions under which treated
wastewater can be discharged to the Willamette River. Included in those conditions is the
requirement that Springfield, Eugene and MWMC fully implement the WWFMP, and that no
discharges of untreated wastewater can be discharged to the waters of the state and US except
under the following conditions; for flows greater than those occurring for the 24-hour duration,
1 in 5-year winter and 1 in 10-year summer storms. These conditions form the baseline
assumptions for overflow avoidance in this plan and are consistent with the assumptions of the
WWFMP. It should be noted that the EP A has not approved DEQ's 1 in 5-year and 1 in 10-year
24-hour storm exceptions and draft EPA policy on sanitary sewer overflows (SSO's) currently is
undergoing interagency review. It should be noted that the SpringfieldjEugenejMWMC
NPDES permit expired December 31, 2007 and has been administratively extended pending
DEQ's completions of a "renewed" discharge permit. In addition to existing permit conditions
regarding collection system maintenance, the Cities will be specifically required to identify and
eliminate all inflow sources. Additionally, inclusion of the 1 in 5 year and 1 in 10 year SSO
exceptions will be dependent on EP A approval of an SSO rule that enables DEQ to maintain this
standard.
After reviewing the total rainfall in 24 hours for the one in 5 year winter and one in 10 year
summer, it was determined that the one in 5 year winter storm was greater. Because of the
relatively wide range in historic 5-year, 24-hour rainfall totals, uncertainty about the
methodologies used to establish the total depth, and the relative remoteness in time when the
rainfall frequency analyses were conducted, a new frequency analysis was performed using
Eugene Airport historic hourly rainfall data for the 1948 to 2005 period. The frequency analysis
used wet season (not full year) annual maximums to calculate a 5-year, 24-hour rainfall of 3.83
inches compared to 3.9 inches used in the most recent planning studies.. This revision is
currently under review by DEQ.
1.2.3 Statewide Planning Goals
Statewide planning goals also govern local jurisdictions planning for key urban services and
public facilities. Specifically, Statewide Planning Goal 11 requires 20 year public facilities plans.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area (Metro) General Plan and the Public Facilities and
Services Plan (PFSP), a functional refinement of the Metro Plan, are acknowledged as compliant
with Statewide planning Goal 11. The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan adopted most recently,
promulgated significant amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP, and Springfield Collection
System Master Plan and must not conflict with or result in internal inconsistencies. The Metro
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plan requirements include policies for provision of key urban services and the PFSP which
compel the City to extend the system to support new development.
1.2.4 Pump Station Sizing Requirements
The state has design standards that must be met for pump stations. According to the DEQ
Oregon Standards for Design and Construction of Wastewater Pump Stations, a pumping
system consisting of multiple pumps, must include one spare pump sized for the largest series
of same-capacity pumps to provide for system redundancy.
1.2.5 City of Springfield Development Code
Chapter 4.3-105 of the Springfield Development Code requires sanitary sewer systems to be
installed with new developments in the City and requires new developments connect to
existing mains. The Code requires new systems to be designed in conformance with the,
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
I
I
I
11
Sub-Area Solution E24 (Springfield)
Description
Public system rehabilitation in seven sub-basins
Further investigation and remediation as necessary in
Gateway area
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 Related Documents
2.1 Wet Weather Flow Management Plan (WWFMP)
In 1998, MWMC initiated a project to develop a comprehensive WWFMP for the local and
regional wastewater collection and treatment facilities in the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan
area. Developing the plan essentially consisted of evaluating four technologies for managing
excess wet weather flow relative to performance (frequency of SSOs), cost, and political and
community acceptance. The four technologies included: (1) system rehabilitation to control
rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow (RDI/I); (2) in-line and off-line storage of peak flows; (3)
additional conveyance (including greater pipe conveyance and pump station capacity); and (4)
additional capacity to treat peak flows at the treatment plant. The objective of the plan was to
develop and implement the most cost-effective set of solutions, looking at the locally owned
and MWMC owned system as a whole. The resulting strategies, which were adopted in 2001 by
MWMC, Eugene and Springfield, are outlined in Taole 2.1 below.
TABLE 2.1
WWFMP Solutions for Existing Conditions
City of Springfield Wastewater Master Plan
Component of WWFMP
Upgrades to the Willakenzie Pump Station and
potentially the Gateway Pump Station
Sub-Area Solution W25 (Eugene)
No storage
Public system rehabilitation in 21 sub-basins
Installation of valve at 14th and Tyler
Upgrade to screw pumps at treatment plant
No Storage
Manage 100 percent of 82-mgd excess flow rate and
59.4-million-gallon excess volume by adding two
primary treatment trains to E1S WPCF. Two additional
primary treatment trains will increase primary
treatment capacity to approximately 263 mgd, or 88
mgd beyond the current primary treatment capacity of
175 mgd.
Strategy to Manage Excess Flow at E~gene/Springfield
Water Pollution Control Facility (E/S WPCF) for Existing
Conditions
2.2 MWMC Facilities Plan
The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan is the result of a comprehensive evaluation of the regional
wastewater treatment facilities serving the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The Facilities
Plan is a comprehensive update to the original "208 Plan," which was completed in 1977. The
208 Plan established the original projections, requirements, and projects needed to serve the
Eugene-Springfield community through 2004. This Facilities Plan also builds on previous,
targeted studies, including the 1997 MWMC Master Plan for the Eugene/Springfield Water
12
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pollution Control Facility (E/S WPCF), 1997 Biosolids Management Plan, 2001 Wet Weather
Flow Management Plan and the 2003 Management Plan for a Dedicated Biosolids Land
Application Site.
Both Eugene and Springfield have separate sewer systems that come together into a regional
system of pipes. Over 800 miles of sewer pipes and 47 pump stations transport wastewater to
the E/S WPCF. Most of the conveyance pipelines of 24 inches in diameter or greater and
associated pumping facilities necessary to convey the region's wastewater to the regional
facility were included in the facilities' original construction by regional and local resources.
This new MWMC Facilities Plan identified facility enhancements and expansions that are
needed to serve the community's wastewater needs through 2025 as described below.
Excess flow management (increasing from 175 mgd to 277 mgd--2025 projection) will be
attained by implementing a peak flow management approach within the WPCF. The peak flow
will be conveyed to the WPCF and the entire peak treated through preliminary treatment
(screenings and grit removal). A portion of the preliminary effluent will then be routed to the
existing four primary clarifiers; the remaining portion will be routed directly to the aeration
basins. The primary effluent will then be diverted around secondary treatment and re-blended
with the secondary effluent before being discharged to the Willamette River.
No additional primary clarifiers will be constructed but rather primary peak flow treatment
capacity will be increased in these existing four tanks by retrofitting them with new energy
dissipation inlets and baffling (in the range from 72 - 86 mgd existing capacity to 137 - 165 mgd
after enhancements). Secondary treatment capacity will be expanded from approximately 103
mgd to 165 mgd by retrofitting 4 of the existing 8 aeration basin cells with step feed and anoxic
selector technology, retrofitting/ enhancing the existing 8 secondary clarifiers, and constructing
two additional secondary clarifiers.
2.3 Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)
This Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public
Facilities and Services Plan, December 2001) is a refinement plan of the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). The plan evaluates public facility needs in the
Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area, including estimated costs and timing of planned
projects, and describes existing and alternative methods of financing public facilities and
services.
A companion document, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and
Services Plan, Existing Conditions and Alternatives report (Apri11999) serves as a technical
background document to the Public Facilities and Services Plan and can be referenced for more
detailed information on existing water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities,
including alternative financing and service delivery options.
The PFSP was updated and amended in 2005 to include revised population and employment
projections and associated regional wastewater facilities for a new PFSP planning horizon of
2025. Springfield's wastewater capital improvements will need to be consistent with the PFSP.
13
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
2.4 Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual
The City of Springfield Public Works Department updated the Engineering Design Standards
and Procedures Manual for public infrastructure in 2006. The manual is intended to help the
development community identify acceptable design options and standards, and to explain
permitting procedures, requirements and schedules. For the purpose of this document the
following engineering design standards are used:
. gravity and force main velocities
. minimum cover
. minimum slope
2.5 North Springfield Sewer Study
The City of Springfield recognized the need to plan for future sanitary sewer service for the
unsewered areas north of 1-105 in North Springfield where most homes were on individual
septic systems. In 1991, CH2M HILL conducted an engineering study and developed a
conceptual sewer layout for sewer service areas generally bounded by Gateway Street on the
west, 1-105 to the south, Mohawk Road to the east and the UGB to the north. The report
summarizes the finding of the engineering study and includes discussion and recommendations ,
pertinent of the facilities needed to expand the sewer system to serve North Springfield. Major
elements of the report included:
1. Development sewage flows
2. Development of infiltration and inflow rates
3. Development of pipe sizes
4. Determined pump station sizes
5. Prepared sewer system maps
6. Prepared opinions of cost of proposed facilities
7. Modified existing System Analysis Model (SAM) program to reflect new sewer
configurations
8. Ran modified SAM program to determine impacts on the existing North Springfield
Interceptor.
2.6 SHN 1&1 Investigation
This report discusses sanitary sewer interceptor investigations performed by the SHN
Consulting Engineers and Geologists for the City of Springfield on the Glenwood and Marcola
interceptors. Findings and recommendations are presented which include conclusions about
the potential causes of major defects, rehabilitation methodologies that could be employed to
solve the deficiencies noted, and subsequent analyses to optimize the type of repair. A
preliminary project description and budgetary cost estimate is presented to assist the City begin
the process of planning and implementing critical III reduction improvements on the Marcola
Interceptor.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City of Springfield conducted an 1&1 and pipe defect investigation in the sanitary sewer
collection systems located between Glenwood Blvd. and Franklin Blvd. (Study Area 1) and
between Olympic Street and Marcola Road. (Study Area 2). Following rainfall events, the
collection systems in both of these areas experience III induced flows that increase normal daily
flow rates by as much as 8:1. Typically, a rainfall event that is greater than 0.5 inches in 24
hours is sufficient to create noticeable increases in the pipeline flows.
The major elements identified during the project study are summarized in Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2
Inventory of Collection System in Study Area
City of Springfield Wastewater Master Plan
Description Line Size Estimated Footage or No.
Marcola Interceptor ,42 -inch 5,682 Lineal Feet
Marcola Interceptor Manholes 9
Glenwood Trunk Line 24-inch 3,399 Lineal Feet
Glenwood Trunk Line 18-inch 1,450 Lineal Feet
Glenwood Trunk Line 15-inch 203 Lineal Feet
Glenwood Trunk Line 12-inch 853 Lineal Feet
,
Glenwood Trunk Une 8-inch 93 Lineal Feet
Glenwood Trunk Line . Manholes 26
Total CCTV Footage 11,680 Lineal Feet
Total Manhole Inspections 35
2.7 Standard Construction Specifications
Springfield's Standard Construction Specifications were adopted in 1994, and have been
updated periodically thereafter. Division 400 of the Standard Specifications provides guidance
to contractors for standard construction practices for sewers, including construction techniques
and materials.
2.8 Sanitary Sewer Study for RiverBend Subdivision
The Sanitary Sewer Study (SSS), prepared by KPFF Consulting Engineers, is a supplemental
report submitted in March 2005 in support of PeaceHealth's RiverBend Master Plan and
Subdivision Tentative Plan applications. It provides the framework for the sanitary sewer
study approach and also describes the sanitary sewer service available to the RiverBend
Subdivision campus and proposed the conceptual layout necessary to serve the campus,
including the site of the Sacred Heart Medical Center. The site of the study is generally bounded
by Deadmond Ferry Road and a residential area to the north, the McKenzie River to the east,
South Game Farm Road to the west, and a residential neighborhood to the south.
15
2.9 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Modifications to the Springfield sanitary system are required to be consistent with the overall
policy framework and planning and land use designations set forth in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan 2004 Update (Metro Plan; 2004). The Metro Plan is the official
long-range comprehensive plan (public policy document) of metropolitan Lane County and the
cities of Eugene and Springfield. The Metro Plan sets forth general planning policies and land
use allocations and serves as the basis for the coordinated development of programs concerning
the use and conservation of physical resources, furtherance of assets, and development or
redevelopment of the metropolitan area.
The Public Facilities and Services element of the Metro Plan provides direction for the future
provision of wastewater collectio'n and treatment infrastructure as "key urban services" to
planned land uses within the Metro Plan, Plan Boundary.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 Study Area Characteristics
This chapter describes the location, physical environment, land uses and zoning, and other
general characteristics of the study area that affect this facilities planning effort.
3.1 Study Area
The Springfield metropolitan area is located in the heart of Lane County, Oregon, and is
situated in the southern Willamette Valley between the Willamette and McKenzie rivers. When
combined with Eugene, it makes up Oregon's second largest metropolitan area. Interstate 5
divides the metropolitan area; Eugene is located on the west side, and Springfield is located on
the east side of Interstate 5. MWMC provides regional wastewater conveyance and treatment
services for Springfield. The current Springfield service area is shown in Figure 3.1 (the urban
growth boundary (UGB) of Springfield serves as the boundaries of service). The UGB defines
the area where Springfield will continue to provide wastewater collection services to a growing
metropolitan area over the next 20 years.
3.2 Physical Environment
3.2.1 Temperature
The average winter temperature is approximately 42 degrees F with an average daily minimum
temperature of 35 degrees. The lowest temperature occurred on December 8, 1972, and
registered -12 degrees F. In summer, the average temperature is 64 degrees F and the average
daily maximum temperature is about 76 degrees F (NRCS, 1977). Additional temperature data
are shown in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2.
3.2.2 Precipitation Patterns
The City of Springfield website'documents an average annual rainfall of 46 inches. Almost fifty
percent of this precipitation occurs during the wet season spanning November to January. The
dry months of July and August receive less than 1 inch of rainfall. MontWy precipitation data
are shown in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.3.
3.2.3 Groundwater
The stages 'of both the McKenzie and the Willamette rivers rise and fall with the wet and dry
seasons and with releases and storage from upstream dams. The groundwater level generally
stays constant during the dry season, normally 10 feet to 20 feet below grade. However,
groundwater level can experience a 7-foot increase during the wet season.
Table 3.1 and Figures 3.2 and 3.3 provide montWy temperature and precipitation data.
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I LEGEND
I L-.-: Urban Growth Boundary
~
~
FIGURE 3.1
Study Area
o
2,000
4.000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3.1
Average Temperature and Precipitation in Springfield
City of Springfield Wastewater Master Plan
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Source: http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/stats.htm
Figure 3.2
Averag. Temperatures
gooF
SOOF
7ffF
6O"F
5ffF
4ffF
3O"F
200F
Jan Feb Mar AprMay Jun JuS Aug Sep Oct Novoec
Average Temperature
(%F) (%F)
46 33
52 35
55 36
61 39
67 43
74 48
82 51
81 51
76 47
64 42
53 38
47 35
Average
Precipitation
(in)
7.5
5.5
5.1
2.8
2
1.3
0.4
0.8
1.5
3.7
7.5
7.9
46.0
Figure 3.3
Precipitation
8i1
lin
6i1
Sit
4i1
3i1
2in
1in
Oil
-
City
Average
~!<"i~t
US average
Source: http:j jwww.city-data.comjcityjSpringfield-Oregon.htmI
JanFebMar Apr .May Jun Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee
3.3 Socioeconomic Environment
3.3.1 Historical Population
Historical population data obtained from the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) for both
Eugene and Springfield were collected for years 1990 and 1995 through 2002 (Figure 3.4).
Historical population data have been summarized and presented in Table 3.2.
19
20
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3.2
Historical Population Data for Springfield, 1990-2006
City of Springfield Wastewater Master Plan
Year Springfield Population
1990 44,683
1995 49,005
1996 50,140
1997 50,670
1998 51,700
1999 52,945
2000 53,005
2001 53,483
2002 53,946
2003 54,720
2004 55,350
2005 55,860
2006 57,065
FIGURE 3.4
Historical Population for Springfield
Springfield Population
100000
90000
80000
70000
5 60000
:t:I
cu
'5
a.
o
11.
50000
1___ Population I
40000
30000
20000
10000
o
1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
3.3.2 Population Growth Projections
The following population projections were obtained from the City's web site and are based on
Lane County growth trends. The values assume Springfield=16% of Lane County. The year and
estimated population is provided below:
. 2010: 60,960
. 2015: 66,130
. 2020: 71,216
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.4 Land Use Regulations
3.4.1 Springfield Facilities Located Within the Urban Growth Boundary
For planning and coordination of services within the urban growth boundary (UGH), the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the provision of
wastewater services, describes respective service areas and existing and planned wastewater
facilities, and contains planned facilities maps for these services.
Springfield's development will remain consistent with Metro Plan policies by using planned
facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide the general wastewater projects
in the metropolitan area. In addition, Springfield will use refinement plans and ordinances as
the guide for detailed planning and project implementation.
3.4.2 Zoning Designations
The Springfield sanitary system is situated in numerous zoning designations within the UGH.
However, to describe all of the various zoning designations occupied by Springfield's
infrastructure would be overly complex and beyond the scope of this discussion. Therefore, to
simplify the description, the existing and future land use zoning is shown in Figures 3.5 and 3.6
and Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
3.4.3 land Use
The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area has undergone a 50 percent to 70 percent growth in
land area during the past two decades. It encompasses a total of 48,898 acres in the UGH.
Currently, approximately 39,683 acres are served by MWMC. Of this area, 36 percent is
classified residential, 15 percent is comm~rcial, 3 percent is industrial, and the remaining
46 percent is either government, water, right-of-way, open space, or vacant. A certain portion of
this total acreage does not contribute to the wastewater collection system or is known to be
undeveloped. Examples include areas served by septic tanks, wetland areas, and areas with
steep slopes. The steep slope areas were ide~tified by City staff in a geographic information
system (GIS) layer to estimate areas undevelopable due to steep slopes. For the purposes of
wastewater planning, all of these areas (approximate total of 2,065 acres) are considered
noncontributing and are not included in the flow analysis. The total noncontributing areas for
Eugene and Springfield are 1,778 and 283 acres, respectively. The total area contributing to the
wastewater collection system is composed of 67 percent residential, 28 percent commercial, and
5 percent industrial. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 list the Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) and area
served within each flow monitoring basin for existing and future land use conditions
r.espectively. The land use type within each flow monitoring basin is shown in Figures 3.5 for
existing conditions and in 3.6 for future conditions.
3.5 Vertical Datum used for Model
The elevations used in the hydraulic model developed for this Springfield wastewater master
plan are in the City of Springfield vertical datum. The following is provided for reference only
21
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
for coordination between City of Springfield and MWMC hydraulic models and projects.
The City of Eugene uses the NGVD29 vertical datum, except at the airport where it is NA VD 88
(source: Mike Miller January 10, 2007 email). NGVD29 is 3.5 feet lower than NA VD88 and the
City of Springfield uses a datum that is 0.35 feet lower than NGVD29 in elevation (source:
David Starns January 19, 2007 email). The City of Springfield is in the process of converting to
NA VD 88, but the City of Eugene is intending to stay at NGVD1929. The final MWMC datum
will be NGVD1929.The adjustment to bring City of Springfield vertical datum to equal the
NGVD29 datum used by the City of Eugene is to add 0.35 feet to all elevation data used in the
Springfield hydraulic model which was based on GIS and as-builts.
TABLE 3.3
Existing land Use
City of Springfield Wastewater Master Plan
Basin 10 land Use Cate~ EOU Acres
---- ---'-'-
5173 Commercial 3843 332.6
-
5173 Industrial 993 224.9
"'-" f-"
5173 Residential 17590 2366.3
F70 Commercial 1047 45.6
..------.- f--..
F70 Industrial 350 66.0
..-..-,- f---------'-
F70 Residential 700 60.6
F72 Commercial 79 3.6 ..
----
F72 Industrial 3 0.5
-.-.-...- -- f19.7
F72 Residential 1056 - ._n .
F74 Commercial 453 26.6
-- 1----------''''- -146.5-'-
F74 Industrial 690 -.----.- -
F74 Residential 1068 213.7
,,-- ----.----
F77 Residential 658 73.1
F81 Commercial 98 17.2
-------..---.-..-..-
F81 Industrial 179 48.1
-- ----
F81 Residential 65 45.3
"----"-'- ---..--
F83 Commercial 90 9.7
F83 Industrial 81 7.6
F83 Residential 228 35.5
. -..-----.
F84 Commercial 24 0.9
F84 Industrial 5 0.7
-----
F84 Residential 287 40.8
F85 Commercial 262 6.7 --
F85 Industrial 3 0.01
F85 Residential 358 45.3
F86 Commercial 40 2.9
,,,------ ----""" 34.7
F86 Residential 219
F87 Commercial 17 0.4
F87 Residential 298 21.8
F88 Commercial 276 15.1
''''
F88 Industrial 1008 400.4
F88 Residential 585 97.7
F89 Industrial 7 4.5
'"
F89 Residential 2831 425.4
F90 Commercial 227 12.3
F90 Industrial 63 0.6
F90 Residential 1122 154.9
" " 36,902 5,108
TOTAL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3.4
Future Land Use
City of Springfield Wastewater Master Plan
Basin 10 Land Use Category EOU Acres
5173 Commercial 4529 491.4
5173 Industrial 1862 613.1
5173 Residential 28496 4335.6
F70 Commercial 1077 55.9
F70 Industrial 570 244.6
F70 Residential 1775 160.8
F72 Commercial 79 3.6
F72 Industrial 3 0.5
F72 Residential 1056 119.7
F74 Commercial 453 26.6
F74 Industrial 1002 391.8
F74 Residential 1088 215.8
F77 Residential 658 73.1
F81 Commercial 152 23.8
F81 Industrial 222 59.9
F81 Residential 113 64.6
F83 Commercial 90 9.7
F83 Industrial 81 7.6 '
F83 Residential 228 35.5
F84 Commercial 24 0.9
F84 Industrial 5 0.7
F84 Residential 287 40.8
F85 Commercial 262 6.7
F85 Industrial 3 0.0
F85 Residential 358 45.3
F86 Commercial 40 2.9
F86 Residential 219 34.7
F87 Commercial 17 0.4
F87 Residential 298 21.8
F88 Commercial 276 15.1
F88 Industrial 1319 482.6
F88 Residential 585 97.7
F89 Industrial 7 4.5
F89 Residential 2996 509.1
F90 Commercial 227 12.3
F90 Industrial 63 0.6
F90 Residential 1122 154.9
TOTAL 51,642 8,365
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -,.--_.~._._----~ - -------...._--
i
!
j
I
L--.J Urban Growth Boundary
Existing Land Use
Single-Family Residential
~L~l Multi-Family Residential
_ Religious
Retail and Wholesale Trade
Industiral
Government, Education and
General Services
_ Communication and Utilities
_ Transporatation
Vacant
.1
Roads, Alleys and Railroads
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture and Timber
o 2,000 4,000
I I I I f
Approximate scale in feet
FIGURE 3.5
Existing Land Use
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L-J Urban Growth Boundary
Future Land Use
Single-Family Residential
r, I Multi-Family Residential
Religious
Retail and Wholesale Trade
Industiral
Government, Education and
General Services
_ Communication and Utilities
_ Transporatation
Vacant
j
Roads, Alleys and Railroads
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture and Timber
Mixed Use
o 2,000 4,000
I I I I I
Approximate scale in feet
FIGURE 3.6
Future Land Use
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 Existing Wastewater Collection System
4.1 Inventory of Existing System
The City of Springfield's wastewater system consists of seven major interceptors and trunk
sewers serving various sectors of the service area. Gravity lines follow local topographic
features, generally flowing from east to west. All sewage flows are conveyed to the East Bank
Interceptor near 1-5 and the Willamette River. Sewage flows are then routed to the
Eugene/Springfield WPCF through the Willakenzie Pump Station.
4.1.1 Springfield Wastewater Collection System
The Springfield collection system includes approximately 229 miles of pipelines.
The major trunk systems in Springfield are Gateway, Thurston, Main Street, East Springfield
Interceptor (a MWMC owned and maintained pipeline), South Springfield Interceptors, Central
and Downtown. Springfield's existing collection system consists of approximately 28 miles of
interceptor and trunk sewers 10-inches in diameter and larger. Of this, 1,546 pipe segments
(75.7 miles) and 1,548 nodes representing 34 percent of the system are included in the system
model developed to project flows and capacity requirements of the system. Based on
information on the City's web site there are 16,720 service connections.
Table 4.1 summarizes the pipeline lengths by flow monitor basin for existing pipelines in the
Springfield sewerage system. A detailed break down of pipe diameters and lengths by flow
monitoring basin is shown in Appendix F.
The basis for developing the physical system in the hydraulic model was the City's
geographical information system (GIS) data supplemented with as-built and survey data~
TABLE 4.1
Summary of the System per Flow MonitQring Basin
, City of Springfield Wastewater Master Plan
Flow Monitor Basin No of Pipes Length (ft) Area (Acresl
5173 3,932 762,4 76 5,779
F70 186 32,728 433
F72 109 30,416 251
F74 397 84,8591-'9:i~
F77 76 18,965 109
----.----
F81, 71 17,995 324
F83 46 10,320 84
------
F84 45 9,543 69
--------
F85 73 14,137 88
- ---.--.------
F86 32 9,393 53
F87 30 6,585 43
F88 208 46,105 704
F89 652 120,110 924
F90 179 46,366 258
Total
6,036 1 1,209,998 I
10,048
26
27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The original downtown basin is the oldest portion of the Springfield collection system.
Constructed before World War I, it was designed to carry and discharge both stormwater and
sanitary flows to the Willamette River. In the 1950's, the City constructed a wastewater
treatment plant. Wastewater flows remained in the existing conduits, but new conveyance
facilities were built to transport stormwater to the Willamette River.
The remainder of the system was developed around the downtown core as the City expanded.
The original East Springfield Interceptor was constructed in 1962; the South Springfield
Interceptor was construction in 1997. Table 4.2 summarizes the collection system by age.
TABLE 4.2
Summary of Collection System Age
City of Springfield Wastewater Master Plan
_~_~~_~~~_~J~ct~~,_______,___J ___, ,~~~9tl:l__~,fJ~i,p~ ,(~i~~,~ t "!,:
1987-2007 j 41.3 ,
-1966-:.1986------------r-"'---'..---..,.--"S6'j--..'---"'---'"---"'!
"-1-945=1965----- ..,... ------ ...------'------r-------- 76.0S-'------'--'---'--'r
Percent (%)
20.3
42.4
37.3
The existing Springfield wastewater service area is divided into seven major areas which are
generally defined by topographic and demographic features. These areas are individually
discussed as follows and shown in Figure 4.1.
North SpringfieldfNorth Branch: The North Springfield/North Branch areas are served by the
East Springfield Interceptor. Constructed in 1962 following the annexation of East Springfield
(1960), this interceptor consists of 2 miles of 48-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe running
from the connection to the East Bank Interceptor north and east upstream to Laura Street. The
North Springfield area is generally bounded by the north city limits, highway 126 to the south,
the head of the East Springfield Interceptor to the east, the intersection of Lochaven and Don
Streets to the west. The North Branch Basin is generally described as a rectangle bounded by I-
S, Belt Line Road, the Willamette River and an imaginary north/ south line running through
Kelly Butte.
Typical pipe depth varies from 10- to 18-feet (ground surface to pipe invert), with an average
slope of approximately 0.001 feet/ft. From Laura Street to its head near the railroad spur line
service 32nd street, the line is 42-inches in diameter, having an average depth of about 12- to 13-
feet with a typical slope of 0.001 to 0.0015 feet/ ft.
All sanitary sewage generated east of 32nd Street enters the EastSpringfield Interceptor via the
Thurston or Main Street trunk sewers. Other major tributary lines served by this interceptor
include the City Center relief sewer and the Gateway Street trunk sewer.
Thurston Road: This is located in the extreme easterly portion of the City. The Thurston trunk
sewer ranges in size from IS-inches near Thurston School to 27 -inches at the confluence with
East Springfield Interceptor. Pipe depths and slopes vary widely as slightly higher relief in the
eastern sector allows' for shallow trenches and smaller pipes with moderate gradients. West of
Highway 126, pipe depths and slopes are deeper with less gradient, respectively, which is more
characteristic of the low relief alluvial plains.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
r-
I
. .. , ,l" '..-: ,.,
,~:i:Jtlt\l~'t~f?iv:
Fpr\<i,~Jt,,,,,,,~ '0"." "\ ~);
~-""
.
..l
1ff!,
I
"''''''
I
LEGEND
Q[J Pump Stations
I
· Manholes
MWMC Facilities _ Flow Monitoring Basins
II Glenwood Pump Station D Urban Growth Boundary
Existing Major Wastewater System Pipes
~
n
? nnn
4000
FIGURE 4.1
Existing Wastewater Collection System
.. Weir/Diversion
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
,I,
I
I
I
I-
I
I,
I
I
I
I
Main Street: This basin currently drains southeast Springfield. The Main Street trunk sewer
ranges in size from I-inch near 71 st Street to 3~-inches at the confluence with the Thurston and
East Springfield Interceptor.
Downtown: The downtown trunk system collects sewage flows generated in the older
downtown core area. The total area served is generally bounded by Mill Street to the west, 16th
Street to the east, North "G" Street to the north and South II A" Street to the south.
The original downtown system was constructed prior to World. War I. Sewers collected both
sanitary wastes as well as storm wastewaters, and were discharged directly into the Willamette
River. The sanitary and storm sewer systems were separated in the early 1950's when the City
constructed the sewage treatment plant. The sanitary system remained in the older, formerly
combined sewers with the storm sewer system routed into new pipelines.
Central: The Central Basin encloses the Downtown Basin on all sides except the south. The
central trunk system, combined with the Downtown trunk, serves the entire area east of
Prescott Street, west of 28th Street, south of Highway 126 and north of South II A" and Main
Streets. The Central trunk sewer was constructed in conjunction with the Downtown trunk.
Two diversion structures remove excessive storm flows from the Central Basin. A 24-inch relief
sewer near 13th and Centennial Boulevard routes flow to the East Springfield Interceptor. A
pump station located at liE" and 21st Streets diverts flow to the South II A" trunk line, reliving
the overloaded upper reaches of the Central trunk.
South II A": This basin primarily consists of industrial lands adjacent to South II A" Street. The
South II A". trunk also provides some relief capacity for the Central Basin.
Glenwood: The Glenwood Basin is bound to the south and west by the Willamette River and to
the east by Interstate 5. The Glenwood Pump station (an MWMC owned and operated facility)
collects all flows from the Glenwood Basin and pumps them across the Willamette River to the
East Bank Interceptor. Additional flows from the Riverview-Augusta and Laurel Hills area in
Eugene contribute to the flows at the pump station.
The Glenwood Trunk sewer, a 30 inch line, serves a major portion of the Glenwood basin, and
extends east from the Glenwood Pump station in Franklin Boulevard to the intersection of
Franklin Blvd. and McVey Highway.
4.1.2 Pump Stations
Springfield's location on nearly flat alluvial plains makes gravity conveyance of wastewater
sewage to the East Bank Interceptor difficult from several sectors of the City. Thirteen City-
owned pump stations augment gravity lines either by lifting flows from low-lying areas into
major interceptors or by diverting flows from overloaded lines to pipelines with available
capacity. These are listed in Table 4.3 and also shown on Figure 4.1.
29
TABLE 4.3
Summary of Stations Modeled and No. of Pumps
Ci of S rin field Wastewater Master Plan
Pump Station
Golden Terrace
Lucerne Meadows
Harlow (new)
Hayden
Oeadmond Ferry
Commercial
21st E St
Nugget Way
49tn St
Ramada
Glenwood
Marshall Oil
River Glen
I
I
Total Number of Pumps
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
I
I
I
Additional information regarding current and future land use pump station requirements is
presented in Table 5.2.
I'
I
'.
.
I
I
.
I
..
I
I
30
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
,.
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
I
.
5.0 Sewer System Evaluation
5.1 Planning Scenarios
Three land use conditions were identified and used to evaluate the ability of the collection
system to meet wet weather flow conveyance requirements:
· 20 year plan consistent with the PFSP and state-wide planning goals,
· existing land use (corresponding to the December 2005/January 2006 monitoring period,
and
· build-out land use condition used for sizing pipeline improvements
The basis for these scenarios are GIS land use data provided by City staff and estimates for
development within the future 20-year planning horizon also provided by the City. Residential
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) counts were developed based on parcel data within the UGB
and identification of the parcels that are served currently and in the future. The development
and area served for the 20-year PFSP was assumed for the purpose of the analysis but is
dependent on future growth rates.
I
The characteristics of the existing and building out land use conditions were summarized' in
Sections 3.5 and 3.6.
5.2 Design Storm Selection
In the WWFMP, a 5-year design event with a total rainfall of 3.9 inches over 24-hours was used
as the basis for identifying deficiencies and developing improvements. CH2M HILL updated
the rainfall frequency analysis resulting in 5.99 inches over 72 hours (including 3.83 over 24
hours) as the 5-year design storm. This was applied to the Springfield model and the MWMC
WWFMP model also updated in 2007. To ensure the design storm was applied consistently
with the initial conditions developed from calibration, the design storm was inserted within the
precipitation time series on December 25, 2005 (peak rainfall intensity occurs at noon on
December 27,2005). The storm is applied uniformly across the City in the model. Appendix C
provides a detailed description of the rainfall analysis and selection of the design storm..
5.3 Model Development
To predict system performance under wet weather flow conditions a hydraulic model was used.
Initially an expansion of the MWMC model was considered but given the amount of new data
that was made available by the City of Springfield it was determined that creating a new model
from the most current inventory data was preferable. The MIKEURBAN model from DHI
Software had already been selected and used for the MWMC model, and it was used for
Springfield. This includes the use of the RDII module to develop wet weather flow
contribution, incorporating impacts of antecedent rain on an urban watershed. In general, pipes
lO-inches and larger were modeled.
31
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Once the model data input was accomplished, area hydrologic elements were input (basin area,
imperviousness, time of concentration, percentage of catchment area contributing to RDI runoff,
soils data) to estimate both dry and wet weather flows. Finally, flow prediction accuracy is
produced through a calibration process where flow monitoring data gathered during the
December 2005, January 2006 wet weather season is used to adjust the model's flow generation
variables. Once the model is able to generate flow rates that occurred (using rainfall during the
monitoring period), that generally match the flow measured at the flow monitors, the model is
considered ready to predict flows for other wet weather periods such as the 5-year design
storm. The Springfield model appears to accurately independently predict peak flows
measured at the flow monitors.
However, when the design storm was input to the model and flows predicted from the model
they were determined to initially be too high based on other prediction methods such as linear
regression estimation and City staff's observations. Therefore, an adjustment factor was
applied to hydrologic variables in the model resulting in reduced flow rates for more than half
of the contributing area. The resulting model was then used to identify hydraulic deficiencies
and associated improvements. Details of this process is provided in Appendix A.
5.4 Collection System Capacity Analysis
5.4.1 Deficiency Definition
5.4.1.1 Pipelines
The DEQ requirement is that no overflows occur other than during periods where
rainfall is equal to or greater than the design storm event. Therefore a deficiency is
defined by the water surface elevation in manholes predicted by the hydraulic model
relative to the ground surface. As a result, pipelines are allowed to surcharge or
pressurize for short durations during peak flow periods. From the 2001 Wet Weather
Flow Management Plan, each improvement must meet the criterion of keeping
maximum water surface elevations in manholes lower than critical elevations. These
critical elevations include 3 feet above pipe crown elevations in the manhole in areas
where there are basements. In areas without basements, the water surface elevation
must be 2 feet below the ground surface. For the Springfield Master Plan, all locations
where the modeled water surface reaches the ground surface an improvement is
recommended to lower the water surface to meet the 2 foot criterion.
For pipe improvements, pipe slopes consistent with existing pipes are used. The
minimum diameter needed to convey the peak wet-weather flow rates is based on the
need to maintain the maximum water level below the 2 foot criterion.
For new pipes needed to service areas of future (buildout = 20 year planning horizon)
development, pipe sizing is based on the projected flows associated with buildout land
use conditions and 'the 2000 gallons per acre per day (gpad) infiltration allowance
established in the 2001 WWFMP. Where possible, 2 feet per second minimum velocity is
maintained during dry-weather. In most cases new pipe gravity capacity is equal to or
greater than the peak flow rate. However, some new pipes are surcharged at acceptable
levels based on backwater from downstream conditions.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.4.1.2 Pump Stations
The state also has design standards that must be met for pump stations. According to
the DEQ Oregon Standards for Design and Construction of Wastewater Pump Stations,
a pumping system consisting of multiple pumps, must include one spare pump sized for
the largest series of same-capacity pumps to provide for system redundancy.
Pump station capacity requirements are provided for existing and future flow rates in
Table 5.1.
5.4.2 Existing Deficiencies
The design storm was applied to the calibrated model to evaluate the existing (2007) pipeline
system. System deficiencies based on hydraulic gradeline elevation criteria are shown in Figure
5.1. There are a number locations where surface flooding is indicated by the model, particularly,
in the downtown area and in the eastern end of the Thurston trunk and connecting pipelines to
the Main St. trunk.
Table 5.1 lists the pump stations evaluated. A field draw down test was used to determine
pump station capacity. Existing and future flows are compared to the capacity which identified
three capacity deficiencies.
5.'4.3 System Improvement Options
1. Reduction Through Pipeline Rehabilitation - Rehabilitation has the potential to reduce
construction costs-larger pipes may not be necessary if peak flows due to III can be
reduced. TheWWFMP documents a review of the available data relating RDIII reduction to
system rehabilitation. These data represented local experience (four sub-basins in Eugene
and one in Springfield) and experience of other agencies in Oregon and elsewhere. A
relationship between the amounts and type of system rehabilitation performed and the
amounts of RDIII consequently reduced was developed.
Consistent with the WWFMP, rehabilitation is assumed to consist of main lines and laterals
within the public right-of-way (" public only"). Table 5.2 is a summary of the status of the
rehabilitation program as identified in WWFMP.
Section A.2 in Appendix A provides the results of the flow monitoring data analysis that is
the basis for selection of basins where III reduction will have the greatest'benefit.
2. Pipeline Replacement With Larger Pipes - This option increases diameters to create more
capacity to convey peak flows. These improvements can also involve a pipe in parallel with
the existing line, where the existing line is maintained and its capacity utilized.
3. Diversion Pipelines - This option involves installation of new pipes to divert flow from
locations with limited capacity to those with available capacity.
33
TABLE 5.1
Pump Station Needs
C' f S . ft I Wi
It V 0 iJ)rmQlle d astewater Master Plan
Firm Existing Existing Future Land
Pump 10 Capacity 1 Number of Land use use Improvement Need 2,3 Comment
(aDm f Pumps (gpm) (gpm)
Golden Terrace 225 2 316 -- None PS to be decommissioned. Flow routed west as
part of Jasper Road Extension Proiect
Lucerne Meadows 186 2 260 461 None PS to be decommissioned. Flow routed west as
part of Jasper Road Extension Proiect
New Harlow -- 3 2729 3694 None No improvement needed. Pumps designed at
3500 apm/each.
Hayden Lo 380 2 494 494 PS capacity increase for existing Add capacity to 494 gpm firm capacity.
land use
Deadmond Ferry 1010 2 232 503 None Force main recently rerouted south.
Commercial 274 2 215 218 None
21 st & E Street 954 2 785 898 None Wet weather pump station
Significant source detection performed and
sources of inflow/infiltration were removed.
PS capacity increase required for Therefore, additional flow monitoring is
Nugget Way 642 2 911 911 existing land use recommended prior to improvement. An
alternative to a PS capacity increase has been
developed by others to build gravity pipelines to
convey flow to lines in McVav Hiahway.
49th Street 288 2 269 274 None
Ramada 120 2 16 16 None
Glenwood (MWMC Space for two additional pumps is available,
Facility) -- 2 5489 5889 None however' based on pump and elevation data
provided, no improvement is needed.
Marshall Oil 230 2 224 224 None
River Glen 379 2 525 664 PS capacity increase Add capacity to 664 gpm firm capacity.
Vera (Constructed in -- 2 -- 405 None Pump capacity is estimated at 500 gpm based on
2007) pump curves and elevation data.
1. Defined as the capacity With the largest pump not operating based on 2005 smgle pump drawdown tests.
2. Pump station capacity improvements are sized to meet future land use flow rates given that the development is expected to occur within the 20 -year planning period.
3. Flow monitoring recommended at all improvement locations prior to improvement design
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
34
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
I
Depth to Water Level from Manhole Rim (feet) tEa Pump Stations
. 0 . Weir/Diversion
I
. 0-2
. 2-5
Existing Major Wastewater System Pipes
D Urban Growth Boundary
~
o
2,000
4,000
FIGURE 5.1
Hydraulic Gradeline Elevations for 5- Year
Event, Existing Land Use Conditions
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Storage - This option is not considered. The WWFMP does not identify storage as a cost-
effective solution. Rather, III reduction, conveyance improvements, and additional
treatment capacity were ultimately selected for implementation. In addition, storage was
thought to be more of a problem with implementation and siting (being a good neighbor)
than any public amenity opportunities (parks, etc.) it would offer.
5. Pump stations - When pump stations in collection systems do not have capacity to convey
the peak flow with the largest pump out of service, they are identified for improvement.
TABLE 5.2
Status of Rehabilitation
Ci of S rin leld Wastewater Master Plan
SN
Basin 10
SN-08
SN-10
SN-23
SN-50
SN-18
SN-21
SN-20
SN-07
SN-11
SN-49
SN-48
SN-19
TOTAL
Existing Future
Planned Planned
Rehab(ft) Rehab(ft)
3,419
6,799
11 ,449
1,223
7,749
6,332
10,000
Remaining
Existing
Remaining
Future
Original ROil
Reduction
Estimate
Remaining
ROil
Reduction
Estimate*
42.0%
Rehab
Completed
2,725
6,373
7,466
694
426
3,983
1,223
7,749
13.8%
13.8%
43.3%
34.9%
40.5%
43.3%
45.7%
32.5%
15.4%
37.0%
43.3%
42.0%
8,326
10,000
46,971
11,379
4,358
1,534
. '__"_'__'___M_
7,048
_..__....._m__________._..._
, ,-,--,~~-'~~~..L----
46,948 I 34,890
11,3791
4,358
1,534
7,048
22,629
46,938
* shaded is reduction for "existing", non-shaded is reduction for "future"
14,075
5.4.4 Description of Improvement Methodology
The Springfield Master Plan must consider multiple goals when developing solutions to
identified deficiencies:
· Eliminate overflows for the 5-year design storm
· Maintain general consistency with the improvement approach identified in the 2001
WWFMP, and updated for the 2003 MWMC Facilities Plan.
As a result of these goals the following approach was utilized for the identification of III
reduction and conveyance improvement projects:
1) Existing System Rehabilitation: Since the 2001 adoption of the WWFMP, Springfield has
been systematically implementing a sanitary sewer rehabilitation program to address
the basins identified as having high III. Of the WWFMP planned rehabilitation work
about 14,000 feet of pipe rehabilitation in the public system remains to be performed.
Based on the updated modeling of the Springfield system, as well as review of actual
36
37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
flow monitoring data, this Plan identifies 14,463 feet of public rehabilitation to address
existing conditions and identifies basin SN22 as the basin projected to have the greatest
impact on the 1/1 problem. As SN22 is predicted to have a greater impact on peak flow
reduction and elimination of downstream deficiencies than the remaining WWFMP
identified basins (SN8, 10, 23, 50 and 18), the city may wish to consider some re-
prioritization, consistent with WWFMP guidance. After the 14,463 feet was applied to
the model, there continued to be deficiencies downstream of the rehabilitation. Because
additional rehabilitation is identified in the WWFMP for future conditions, an additional
9,473 feet of public system rehabilitation was added to SN22 shown on Figure 5.2 for a
total of 23,548 feet. This resulted in the elimination of downstream deficiencies and need
for associated improvements.
Given that the WWFMP obligation for rehabilitation is projected to be metior existing
conditions by the work to be completed in SN22, the remaining deficiencies for existing
conditions are proposed to be addressed through pipeline replacement and pump
station upgrades. These improvements appear to have lower costs than additional
public system rehabilitation.
2) Future Conditions: Based on the amount of public system rehabilitation performed for
existing conditions and the WWFMP requirement for peak flow reduction, additional
public system rehabilitation locations have been identified. Similar to the existing
condition locations of high 1/1 that are upstream of system deficiencies, additional
basins have been identified for rehabilitation. Basins SN 19, 48 and 49 from the WWFMP
are shown on Figure 5.2 and identified with a total rehabilitation length of 31,211 feet, to
help meet WWFMP requirements. After applying this rehabilitation only two additional
projects (projects 13 and 14) to improve existing pipelines are needed to convey the peak
flows. In addition, projects 5 and 6 (See Figure 5.3) that had been identified for existing
conditions are no longer required due to the peak flow reduction resulting from the
public system rehabilitation.
This approach is consistent with the WWFMP plan that used rehabilitation of the publicly
owned system to achieve 1/1 reduction.
5.4.5 Private Lateral Program
The WWFMP includes recommendation for the Formulation/Definition and Implementation of
a Voluntary Private Lateral Program. While the additional reduction due to private lateral
replacement is not assumed in the solutions presented, it has been identified as a future
program by the City.
I
Landuse Basin Rehab Reduction
(ft) (0/0)
Existing SN22 14,075 38
45.7
Future SN22 9,473 (with existing)
Future SN19 22,629 42
Future SN48 7,048 43.3
Future SN49 1,534 37
I
I
I
-~.~--..,..~ - ---.
I
.- ~_.-., ~"--"'--"'-- ..........
I
-,~.......'" "'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~..,,;,<<:
~"~
~ .." . .. ~'LC-10~
DA~ "", '.
Vii' ~ 'Ii '!!; ,i;"Ol
~34 ~
~~
^'f!::'."",
I
-~
"!l'
:~
~
<>:;.0
I
LEGEND
I
~ Existing Basin Rehabilitation D Urban Growth Boundary
_ Future Basin Rehabilitation
~
FIGURE 5.2
Rehabilitation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.4.5.1 Definition of Private Lateral Program
The intention of a private lateral rehabilitation program is to achieve more III reduction
than with rehabilitation of the public sewer system only, and build a higher confidence
for achieving reduction targets in the long term. Industry findings are that public system
rehabilitation alone isn't as effective as a public and private rehabilitation program given
that: 1) a public only program doesn't address theJ/I from the private laterals and 2)
because III can migrate to locations in the private system where defects allow III to
enter the system. As a result, the most effective program includes a combination of
public and private system rehabilitation.
A private lateral rehabilitation program requires new processes and associated
administration including the following elements:
· Increased public involvement
· Regulation/Ordinance
· Payment options
. Enforcement
· Inspection
5.4.5.2 Experience from Other Communities
According to a 2006 Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) report, entitled,
Methods for Cost-Effective Rehabilitation of Private Lateral Sewers, most municipalities have
problems with III and want to know to what degree laterals are responsible. The survey
revealed that 45% of the 58 participating agencies had analyzed how much private
sewer laterals contribute to total III in their wastewater systems and that the average of
the estimates was in the range of 40% with one estimate as high as 80%. Such estimates
are valuable as an indication of the magnitude of the problem, not as absolute measured
values given the difficulty in directly quantifying the III contributions due to laterals
alone. More information on this report (#02-CT-SS) can be found at wef.org.
The City has several implementation options to evaluate based on the experience of
other municipalities. Cities andlor Agencies in Oregon include Clean Water Services
and the Cities of Salem and McMinnville. Rehabilitation programs for these agencies
that included both public and private portions of the system resulted in 60% to 92%
reduction in sewer basins where 100% of the system was rehabilitated. Some cities have
budgeted the replacement of private laterals in their CIP or O&M programs, some have
budgeted funds to reimburse qualifying property owners for replacing laterals on their
own property, and some have simply required property owners to replace deficient
laterals at the property owner's cost. Some do a combination of the above. Incentives
and penalties for complying or failing to comply with the program are also included in
some programs.
39
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Value of a Private Lateral Program
The WERF study mentioned above derived several conclusions from their case-study
analyses:
. Projects that included rehabilitation of private sewers from the right-of-way to the
house achieved 50-70% peak-hour ROIl flow reductions in the basins where the
work was performed.
. Public sewer rehabilitation may beneficially reduce overall ROIl volume.
Reductions in peak 24-hour average ROIl volumes ranged from 2-30%. Reductions
in peak monthly average flows ranged from 2-65 %. Reduction in the total volume of
ROIl, but not the peak, suggests that infiltration from the groundwater entering
public sewers can be reduced significantly under certain conditions (depending on
the overall groundwater conditions). Reductions in peak-day and peak-month RDII
volumes benefit wastewater treatment facilities, but do not necessarily benefit the
conveyance system.
Reduction Estimates
As a part of a 2003 WERF study titled, "Reducing Peak Rainfall-Derived Inflow and
Infiltration Flow Rates", 44 utilities were contacted regarding their programs and a
detailed analysis of 12 projects for six utilities was performed. Several conclusions were
derived from the case study analyses:
. Rehabilitation of only the sewers in the public-right-of-way may provide little
reduction in peak-hour ROIl flows. One study found a 17% reduction in peak-hour
flows when the portion of building laterals in the public right-of-way was replaced.
The other projects of this type found 5% or less reduction.
. As a corollary to the above, projects that addressed private sewers from the right-of-
way to the house achieved 50-70% peak-hour RDII flow reductions.
. Public sewer rehabilitation may beneficially reduce overall RDII volume.
Reductions in peak 24-hour average ROIl volumes ranged from 2-30%. Reductions
in peak monthly average flows ranged from 2-65%. Reduction in the total volume of
ROIl, but not the peak, suggests that infiltration from the groundwater entering
public sewers can be reduced significantly under certain conditions (depending on
the overall groundwater conditions). Reductions in peak-day and peak-month RDII
volumes benefit wastewater treatment facilities, but do not necessarily benefit the
conveyance system.
. The exception to the rule described above was a manhole rehabilitation project in
Milwaukee, WI, that apparently achieved a 45 % reduction in peak RDII flows
through manhole rehabilitation only . The circumstances suggest that attention to
manholes as inflow sources in instances where ground conditions reduce the impact
of groundwater may produce significant results. Manhole rehabilitation in other
case studies, however, did not achieve the same results.
More information on this study (#99-WW-F8) can be found at wef.org.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Reduction Estimates for City Planning
Because private laterals have not been included in local rehabilitation projects, no local
data are available to assist the City in development of a relationship between RDII
reduction and system rehabilitation that included upper I private property laterals.
Through research performed as part of the 2001 WWFMP, reduction was estimated from
agencies that included private laterals in their rehabilitation projects. A number of other
agencies have data representing 100% rehabilitation that included upper I private
laterals. Some agencies reported that subsequent to rehabilitating 100% of the public-
owned portions of their systems, they were able to increase RDII reduction rates by 50%
to 70% by rehabilitating the privately owned portions of their system, Le., the upper
la terals.
Monitoring data from other agencies wer~ typically obtained within a few years of
completing system rehabilitation projects so the data was not necessarily representative
of RDII reduction over the long term.
The results from other agencies vary widely, probably because of the range of
techniques, protocols, and quality control methods employed. If, however, a high
standard of care is assumed, it is reasonable to expect that 100% system rehabilitation
should yield RDII reduction greater than 50%. Taking other agency data only from sub-
basins yielding greater than 50% RDII reduction in association with full system
rehabilitation (including privately owned upper laterals), tl1e average RDII percent
reduction is approximately 70%. This represents a reduction amount that is 40% greater
than the public system curve developed for the WWFMP (without privately owned
upper laterals) assuming 100% basin rehabilitation. This increase is similar for
rehabilitation amounts from 30% of a given basins pipelines through 100% of the
pipelines.
5.4.5.3 Private Lateral Program Implementation
Many options exist for a private lateral program, including the use of monetary
incentives, phased implementation (where at some point in the future defective lateral
replacement becomes mandatory), and initial program implementation only in basins
targeted for public system rehabilitation versus a citywide program.
The following benefits of a private lateral program have been identified:
1. Increases probability of achieving long-term flow reduction as a part of system
rehabilitation efforts.
2. Reduces undesired flows into the system at their source rather than having to
building additional piping and treatment downstream in the system.
3. Is consistent with the system-wide efforts to maintain, rehabilitate, and lor replace
elements of the sanitary sewer infrastructure.
4. Produces additional reductions in III that allow for greater available capacity in
downstream portions of the system.
5. Reduces potential for migration of infiltration,
41
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The following items should be considered in program development and
implementation:
. Inspection of private laterals, roof drains, and foundation drains (continued field
verification program to identify problem areas).
. Notice of defects and required corrections (mailers to affected property owners
identifying the problem and the required action).
. Repair of defects (addresses the repair or replacement of the defective lines).
. Enforcement (policy developed to address noncompliance by property owner).
. Who Pays? Identification of payment policy based on the alternatives stated above.
. Incentives for completion (identification of any incentives to the property owner to
complete the repair work in a timely manner).
Provided below is a summary of program characteristics and options for
implementation.
Program Participation
Private lateral replacement is a system-wide issue. However, specific drainage basins in
the system have been identified through flow monitoring as contributing more III than
other basins. The rehabilitation program could target one or both of the following
groups:
. Property owners whose laterals are determined to be defective through inspection as
part of a public rehabilitation project.
. Anyone whose lateral fails or is determined to be defective independent of its
location (relative to public rehabilitation projects).
Incentive Options for Participation
A program that includes some financial incentives would be desired given the
disruption to private property caused by private lateral replacement. Several options to
consider individually or in combination are as follows:
. Pay lateral replacement in part or in whole through rates (by cities).
. Reduce the property owner's sewer bill.
. Add a surcharge to the bills of property owners who do not comply with a
replacement directive.
. Provide financial assistance to qualifying low-income property owners.
. Incorporate deferred payment options into the program.
Voluntary vs. Mandatory
Two options to consider include:
. Implement the program as a long-term, voluntary program.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Incorporate a phased approach, where initial participation in the program developed
is voluntary but would become required at some point in the future. An example
would be to provide incentives for voluntary replacement during public
rehabilitation projects but make inspection and potential replacement mandatory at
the time of ownership transfer.
Timing of Participation
Participation could be required for one or more of the following conditions:
· When public rehabilitation is being performed in that lateral's basin.
· When the lateral fails, independent of public rehabilitation activities.
· When property ownership is transferred.
Total or Partial Lateral Rehabilitation
Consider the following rules for determining when the property owner is responsible,
for rehabilitating only the privately owned portion of the lateral or the entire lateral:
· If the mainline in the public right-of-way is not being rehabilitated private lateral
replacement includes the-entire lateral to the public mainline.
· If the mainline in the public right-of-way is being rehabilitated, private lateral
replacement includes the lateral to the property line.
5.4.5.4 Rehabilitation Methods
A variety of methods are available for agencies to rehabilitate sewer laferals. The
"Methods for Cost-Effective Rehabilitation of Private Lateral Sewers", WERF survey showed
that most popular trenchless methods are pipe bursting and CIP relining and that almost
every other agency has used one or both of these methods on sewer laterals. Other
already proven methods include chemical grouting, flood grouting, and robotic repairs,
whereas a new method just being introduced isslug grouting. The WERF report
provides detailed data about currently available technologies in the U.S. market, which
was provided by manufacturers. The research did not involve any field or laboratory
testing of methods/technologies, so relevant assessments of these technologies were
sought from municipalities or other independent sources.
5.4.5.5 Drivers for Program Implementation
Through the master and facility planning efforts that have occurred since the 2001
WWFMP plan it can be concluded that the total flow contribution from Springfield of
100 mgd estimated at build-out land use, is at best constant and likely increasing. The
master plan identifies improvements to control overflows for the design storm for
Springfield's collection system. Improvements must also control the contribution to the
treatment plant where the peak flow limitation is 277 mgd from all sources. Peak flow
exceedences up to and including the design storm condition that cause overflows at the
plant are not permitted.
43
44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
While the City has implemented many of the "public-only" rehabilitation projects
identified in the WWFMP, the combination of growth and changes in RDII contributions
have the potential to exceed this 100 mgd target. To limit the RDII contribution and
create a wet weather flow management plan that increases the likelihood of greater and
longer term flow reduction, the implementation of a private lateral rehabilitation
program is warranted.
Future updates to the WWFMP will refine the peak flow targets from the contributors to
the regional system. However, the results of Springfield's Master Plan support an RDIl
reduction program that maximizes the amount and duration of wet weather flow
reduction. A RDII program that includes private laterals will best achieve this program
goal.
5.4.6 Existing System Improvements
Listed in Table 5.3 are the public system rehabilitation improvements proposed to reduce
existing deficiencies. The targeted RDI reduction and the associated percentage of pipelines to
rehabilitate was developed as part of the WWFMP to minimize downstream pipeline
improvements and reduce peak flows at the EjS WPCF. The target RDI reduction summarized
in Table 5.4 were consistent with the WWFMP, however, the subbasins selected for future
rehabilitation were selected based on the results of the hydraulic modeling and flow
monitoring. Varying levels of RDI reduction and locations were incorporated into the model to
mitigate the system capacity upgrades through improvement projects. The final combination of
alternatives was a blend of rehabilitation and system improvement upgrades.
Figure 5.3 and Table 5.4 show the gravity replacement pipes, parallel pipes, diversions and
pump stations that need to be upgraded to correct the existing hydraulic deficiencies. These
projects are necessary with the rehabilitation described above to eliminate sanitary sewer
overflows under existing conditions. Project 9 is a diversion proposed to convey flow from the
Thurston trunk to the Main St. trunk to avoid more costly improvements along both trunk lines.
Provided in the table is the existing diameter and a description of the project. Project 10 must be
increased in diameter when future land use is incorporated in the analysis.
There are approximately 6 manholes where improvements do not eliminate HGL's within 2 feet
of the ground surface. The extent of additional improvements required to further reduce the
HGL are greater thanthe recommended improvement to install water tight manhole covers at
these limited number of Itlanholes.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5.3
Subbasins Targeted For Rehabilitation
City of SDringfield Wastewater Master Plan
%of
pipes to
rehab -
Total Based Total
Flow Total Target ROI length of on length of
Monitor SN Catchment Area land Reduction Pipes in length pipes for
Basin Basin 10 (Acres) Use (%) Basin (ft) of pipe rehab, ft
72 SN22 10033374 12.671 ExistinQ 45.7% 33640 70% 23548
10033395 16.123
10033002 21.372
10033021 40.633
10033266 8.784
10033275 32.709
10033284 17.507
10033289 38.061
10033295 52.856
90 SN19 10033565 26.664 Future 42.0% 41144 55% 22629
10033642 27.363
, 10033650 28.983
10033696 11 .446
10033734 53.29
10033991 14.879
10033995 9.952
10034008 10.525
10034054 25.256
10034065 20.826
84 10034030 10.555
10034033 18.627
10034045 28.487
10034063 6.84
83 SN48 10033997 8.612 Future 43.3% 11747 60% 7048
10033999 9.805
10034001 23.014
10034013 42.17
5173 SN49 10033920 69.1 Future 37.0% 3835 40% 1534
Totals 90,366 54,759
45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[K] Pump Stations 0 Existing WaterTight Manhole Improvements Ell Future Basin Rehabilitation
(WWFMP Subbasin 10)
. Existing Pump Station Improvements CD Future Water Tight Manhole Improvements ~ Existing Basin Rehabilitation
g Pump Stations to be Future Pipe Improvement D
Decommissioned Urban Growth Boundary
. Future Pump Stations Existing Pipe Improvement
<1 nnn
FIGURE 5.3
System Improvements
~
? nnn
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5.4
Pipeline Improvements for Existing land Use - (See Figure 5.3)
City of SDrinafield Wastewater Master Plan
Proposed
Project 10 Purpose Existing Diameter No of Length Description
Dia (Inch) (Inch) or Peak MHs (ft)
Rate (aDm)
1 Existing -- 24 22 6418 Parallel existing 24-inch pipe with new 24-inch
upgrade DiDe from MH10033730 dls to MH10033409
2 Existing 12 21 4 795 Replace existing 12-inch with 21-inch from
upgrade MH10033284 uls to MH10033293
3 Existing 12 18 5 1112 Replace existing 12-inch with 18-inch from
upgrade MH10034175 uls to MH10034164
4 Existing 10 12 11 1538 Replace existing 10-inch with 12-inch from
upgrade MH10033706 dls to MH10033719
Replace existing 15-inch with 24-inch pipe from
5 Existing 15 24 21 4161 MH10034054 dls to MH10033730. Project not
upgrade required if future rehabilitation is
Derformed.
Replace existing 1O-inch with 15-inch pipe from
6 Existing 10 15 6 1231 MH10033920 dls to MH10033982. Project not
upgrade required if future rehabilitation is
Derlormed.
Existing Flow at vault on west dls end of Main Street
7 27/36 - -- -- Interceptor reconfigured to prevent flow from
upgrade aoina north. All flow is diverted south.
8 Existing 10 15 3 714 Replace existing 10-inch with 15-inch from
upgrade MH10034589 uls to MH10034519.
9 Existing 15 17 4837 New 15-inch wet weather bypass from
upgrade -- MH10035662 dls to MH10035367.
10 Existing 15/18 21--existing, 11 3589 Replace existing 15-inch and 18-inch pipe with
uparade 24-future 24-inch from MH10035908 dls to MH10035636.
11 Existing 12 15 9 1014 Replace existing 12-inch with 15-inch from
upgrade MH10035903 dls to MH10035835.
Existing , Replace existing 10-inch with 12-inch from
12 uparade 10 12 3 529 MH10036187 dls to MH10036186.
Rehabilitation Existing All rehab in basin SN 22. This completes the '
for III Varies 8-12 - 23,548
Reduction Rehab existing rehab listed in the 2001 WWFMP.
642 gpm
( single
Nugget Way Existing pump) 911 peak wet - -- Upgrade 2 pump system with 911 gpm capacity
PS upgrade 898 gpm weather each
(pumps 1
&2)
380 gpm 494 gpm
Hayden PS Existing (single existing peak, - - Upgrade 2 pump system with 494 gpm capacity
upgrade pump) 494 gpm future each
peak
379 gpm 525 gpm
River Glen PS Existing ( single existing peak, - -- Upgrade 2 pump system with 664 gpm capacity
upgrade pump) 664 gpm future each
peak
47
5.4.7 Future System Improvements
I
I
I
Future improvement projects are identified to eliminate system deficiencies observed when the
future flows are applied to the system after improvements for existing conditions are made.
Figure 5.4 shows the potential water level for this condition. As shown, multiple downtown
locations around the 21st and E pump station and at the eastern end of the Main St. trunk
indicate surface flooding which requires the identification of additional improvements. In most
cases the future deficiencies require improvements in additional areas where no improvement
has been identified for existing conditions. Improvements identified for existing conditions
have been reviewed to determine if pipe size increases are required. Only one of the
improvements identified for existing conditions, project 10 has been required up sizing to meet
future conditions.
I
I
I
As stated in Section 5.4.4, additional rehabilitation is included as part of the future
improvements to meet 2001 WWFMP targeted peak flow reductions. One additional
improvement along the Main St. trunk is necessary to address remaining deficiencies resulting
from future land use. Table 5.5 lists the projects. These projects are separate and distinct from
the projects identified from the existing conditions.
I
There are approximately 4 manholes (See Figure 5.3) in addition to those identified for existing
conditions, where improvements do not eliminate HGL's within 2 feet of the ground surface.
The extent of additional improvements required to further reduce the HGL are greater than the
recommended improvement to install water' tight manhole covers at these limited number of
manholes.
I
I
TABLE 5.5
Collection System Improvements for Future land Use - (See Figure 5.3)
I
CiwofSpringfie~WasmwamrMasmrPmn
Proposed
Existing Diameter No of Length
Project 10 Purpose (Inch) or Description
Dia (Inch) Peak Rate MHs (ft)
(gpm)
13 Future 12 18 6 2224 Replace existing 12-inch pipe with 18-inch pipe
upgrade from MH10035908 u/s to MH10036270.
14 Future 10 12 3 325 Replace existing 10-inch pipe with a 12-inch pipe
upgrade from MH10036195 d/s to MH10036187
,
Rehabilitation 22.6k ft in SN19. 7k feet in SN48. 1.5k feet in
Future SN49. This plus reduction due to pipe
for III rehab Varies 8-12 - 31,211 improvements completes the future rehab listed
Reduction in the 2001 WWFMP.
PeaceHealthl System - Pump station designed as part of the
Riverbend PS expansion PeaceHealth/Riverbend Campus Development.
I
I
I
I
I
Note: Expansion areas listed in Table 5.7
I
The routed peak flows for existing and future land use conditions with the proposed
improvements in place are listed in Table 5.6
I
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5.6
Existing and Future Peak Flows with Proposed Improvements, Diversions and 1/1 Reduction in Place
Ci of S rin field Wastewater Master Plan
Thurston Trunk east of 32" Street
Main St. Trunk east of 32" Street
Glenwood-into lift station
E. Springfield Interceptor - downstream of
Gatewa Trunk
Downtown/Central Trunks-north of river
and south of 0 Street
Total Flow to E. S rin field Interce tor
Existing land Use Peak
Flow m d
8.4
22.0
7.9
40.4
Future land Use Peak
Flow m d
8.2
23.7
8.5
40.9
13.5
99.5
13.4
101.7
49
I
1'''',,""- .<,'
~".,..,...,'.,.."""'.'."..~~
> ., *',,--
~
l,,,'
I
I
I
- ._~-~. -_.~- _._._~
I
I
I
I
$ ~
.
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
Depth to Water Level from Manhole Rim (feet) [E] Pump Stations
· 0 ... Weir/Diversion
I
. 0-2
Existing Major Wastewater System Pipes
~
FIGURE 5.4
Future Deficiencies with Existing
Improvements in Place
... '"l C
...--, I 1_1-__ "'__...~a.... 0_. ._......__.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.4.8 Expanding System to Meet Development Needs
Several areas have been identified for future development that are not served by the system as it
existed in 2007. To plan for the needed infrastructure to service these areas, design peak flows
were developed and the needed pipe locations, diameters and lengths were calculated as
follows.
Ground elevations at locations along the probable pipe route were determined along with
manhole depths and preliminary pipe slope. Based on the projected flow, the City's design
standard, and calculated pipe slope, pipe diameters were calculated. To assist the City in future
refinements to this master plan level of design, the expanded service pipes and manholes were
entered into the hydraulic model based on estimated manhole depths. Pipe diameters for the
expansion areas should be reviewed and adjusted as updated information becomes available.
The areas shown in Figure 5.5 and listed in Table 5.7 were identified for expansion of the 2007
system. With the exception of the Harbor Drive area, all areas are expected to be developed
within the 20-year planning time frame. A brief description of the expansion areas and
associated improvements are provided below.
Harbor Drive
The Harbor Drive, Dorris Ranch, Inland Way area consists of single family residential parcels
currently with septic tanks. The City recognizes the potential impact to the Willamette River
bordering this area due to possible tank discharges and plans to extend wastewater service to
reduce the impact to water quality. The City has constructed a 5-inch force main terminating
near the intersection of Dorris Street and Harbor Drive. In the northern portion of the area,
7,684 ft of 8-inch diameter pipe and a 150 gpm pump station is needed to service the existing
and planned development.
An evaluation of a river crossing and pumping wastewater into the Franklin Blvd. system was
performed. This approach requires approximately 1300 feet of additional force main (across' the
river) compared to 134 feet if flow is directed north to the existing force main. Pumping west to
Franklin Blvd. does create lower power and maintenance costs due to elevations. However, the
horizontal drilling and additional force main results in a less cost effective approach than the
HarborDr. route to the north. It is recommended the City pump the wastewater north along
South 2nd Street.
McVay Highway
In Southwest Springfield, 6,280 feet of 8 and IS-inch diameter pipe are recommended to extend
service to the parcels identified for future development on the southern portion of McVay
Highway. The proposed pipes will connect to the existing30-inch diameter pipe near
intersection of McVay Highway and Franklin Blvd. The future parcels include industrial land
use and new residential development south of E 19th Avenue. The pipe size for future service
was developed assuming existing flow would not be diverted from Nugget Way PS. During
preliminary engineering, the alternative to deepen the existing line in order to decommission
the Nugget Way PS should be evaluated as alternatives are developed. The flow was loaded
51
based on the projected land use. This loading may be revised in the future based on the
development from near the Lane Community College and Bloomberg Road Basin areas.
Following improvement definition an additional 588 EDUs were identified for a total of 1194
ED Us in this location and should be included in future analyses.
TABLE 5.7
Summary of Expansion Projects
City of Springfield Wastewater Master Plan
Avg Peak Total Pipe
Area of Future Area Sanitary Wet Diameter
Service (acre) EDU Flow Weather Flow (inch) , Length Comment
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (ft)
Includes a pump station
72.2 128 0.04 0.01 0.22 8" (gravity) 7684 to connect to existing
Harbor Drive force main along S. 2nd
Street.
5" (force 134
main)
Includes 150 trailer
212 606 0.14 0.25 0.49 8" 2411 park parcels. Following
improvement definition
McVay an additional 588 EDUs
Highway were identified for a
total of 1194 EDUs in
15" 3868 this location and should
be included in future
analyses.
546 1308 0;31 1.09 1.63 10" 1924 Following improvement
definition an additional
1252 EDUs were
Main Street identified for a total of
Extension 12" 1983 2560 EDUs in this
location and should be
included in future
analyses.
.. Following improvement
definition an additional
520 EDUs were
Thurston Road 40 60 0.01 0.08 0.11 8" 3882 identified for a total of
Extension 580 EDUs in this
location and should be
included in future
analys~s.
Includes Jasper
Meadow and Brand S
Rd. stubouts.
1233 3447 0.81 2.47 3.85 10" 2581 Construction timing
may impact capacity
needs at Golden
Jasper Road Terrace. Following
12" 3395 improvement definition
an additional 318 ED Us
were identified for a
total of 3765 EDUs in
21" 17016 this location and should
be included in future
analyses.
Vera 185 532 0.13 0.37 0.58 8" 1703
Main Street Extension
Also located at the east end of the City along the McKenzie Highway, 1308 EDUs are identified
for future development. A total of 3,902 feet of 10- and 12-inch pipe is recommended to extend
52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
east as far as elevations support gravity flow into the system. However, there are portions of
parcels at the east end of this area that may require lift stations. Following improvement
definition an additional 1252 EDUs were identified fora total of 2560 EDUs in this location and
should be included in future analyses.
Thurston Extension
Located at the east end of the City on Thurston Rd., approximately 60 EDUs have been included
in the model for future development. As of 2007, the system terminates with a IS-inch diameter
pipe just east of Weaver Road on Thurston Road. To service these future parcels, 3,882 feet of 8-
inch diameter pipe is recommended. Following improvement definition an additional 520
EDUs were identified for a total of 580 EDUs in this location and should be included in future
analyses.
Jasper Road
The City has planned for the extension of the pipeline along Jasper Road in the southeast
portion of the City, ultimately connecting to existing 27-inch diameter pipe at South 42nd Street
and Jasper Road. As a result, Lucerne Meadows and Golden Terrace pump stations can be
decommissioned. A peak flow of 3.85 mgd was estimated from the Jasper Road expansion area
served by a 21-inch line. Two" stubouts" are included in the expansion area: 1) 12-inch line to
service the 0.78 mgd Jasper Meadows area from the temporary existing private Jasper Meadows
pump station, and 2) 12-inch line to service the 2.78 mgd flow from the southern Jasper Road
extension area placed along the Brand S Road. This alignment was selected due to proximity to
the proposed future parcels and natural drainage in the area. Following improvement
definition an additional 318 EDUs were identified for a total of 3765 EDUs in this location and
should be included in future analyses.
Vera
The Vera Street pump station in North Springfield was constructed in 2007 in anticipation of
servicing the Hayden Bridge and Yolanda A venue neighborhoods. The area consists of
predominantly single family residential units. The peak flow was estimated to be 0.58 mgd
versus a revised single pump capacity, of approximately 0.72 mgd based on pump curve and
elevation data. This is adequately sized to convey the future peak flow.
The natural drainage of the neighborhood indicates that wastewater will flow north to Hayden
Bridge Rd where 8- and 12-inch diameter pipes are recommended.
PeaceHealthfRiverbend PS
The RiverBend Subdivision planned for the northwest corner of the City near Deadmond Ferry
Road and Baldy View Lane includes a wastewater pump stations in coordination with the
Peace Health hospital. The Sanitary Sewer Study for RiverBend Subdivision (KPFF Consulting
Engineers, March 2005) indicates the pump station will have a peak capacity of 0.52 mgd. Cost
of the pump station is included in the elP listing in Section 6.
53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Iiij
.
rU11I1-I ~Li::ILlVII~ LV Utl
Decommissioned
Future Pump Stations
~
Pump Stations
A Weir/Diversion
Expanded Service Pipes by Diameter
5 inch
8 inch
10 inch
12 inch
15 inch
21 inch
Existing Major Wastewater
System Pipes
D Urban Growth Boundary
Expansion Areas
-
-
-
-
-
_,~~~.. ,c~0 __ .
.,;':.iI
I/.li\(<
East South
East Thurston Rd
Franklin Blvd
Harbor Drive
Jasper Road
Vera PS Area
Note: Q at point (mgd)
j
o 2,000 4,000
I I I I I
Approximate scale in feet
FIGURE 5.5
Expanded Service Pipes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0 Capital Improvements Program
6.1 Cost Estimate Development
The costs prepared are order of magnitude, Class 5 estimates as defined by the American
Association of Cost Engineers (AACE). Typically, Class 5 estimates are planning level estimates
based on a limited amount of information. Because of this, the accuracy of these estimates
typically can range from -20 to -50 percent on the low side and from +30 to +100 percent on the
high side. Class 5 estimates are prepared for many different strategic business planning
purposes, including but not limited to, market studies, assessment of initial viability, evaluation
of alternate schemes, project screening, project location studies, evaluation of resource needs,
budgeting, and long-range capital planning.
The cost basis for these Class 5 estimates is unit costs based on bid tabulations from municipal
projects in the Northwest. These bid costs have been adjusted to current (2008) dollars and
averaged to create a database of unit prices that serve as the basis for calculating capital
improvement project costs. If a bid tabulation was not available, costs were developed using
appropriate material costs, crews, and production rates from cost references, vendor input; and
the professional judgment of the estimator. Unique items and repair technologies for which bid
tabulations do not exist are priced individually using quotations and detailed cost breakdowns.
For rehabilitation projects bid tabs were reviewed from City of Springfield rehabilitation
projects. The unit cost of $166jfoot was developed from these data.
The pumps station costs were based on pump station replacement using cost data originally
produced in the City of Eugene's WWMP, adjusted using the ENR index for use in the WWFMP
and then adjusted again for the Springfield MP using an October 2007 ENR index value of 8045.
For the pump station improvements the peak future flow rate was multiplied by two, assuming
a two pump system and the DEQ redundancy requirement that the peak flow must be
conveyed with the largest pump out.
The costs presented in this Plan have been developed as guidance for evaluating the projects.
The costs are based on currently available information and are presented in'2008 dollars, which
have not been adjusted for future escalation. Costs for potential discovery and remediation of
contaminated materials have not been included. '
The final project costs will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions,
productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope, final project schedule, and
other variable factors. Because of these other factors, final costs will vary from the costs
presented in this Plan; therefore, funding needs must be carefully reviewed before making
specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Project markups include the following:
· Contingency at 25 percent, included as a direct cost to account for unknown construction
costs
55
56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Indirect costs include:
. Engineering, legal, administration, and coordination at 3D percent
. Services during construction at 15 percent
. Environmental mitigation at 5 percent
. Easements and right-of-way acquisition where needed at 5 percent
Other assumptions include:
. PVC for pipes 15" and less
. RCP for pipe diameters greater than 15 inches
. 8 foot depth for all pipe diameters up to 3D-inches, 8.5 for 36-inches
Appendix G provides supporting documentation for capital improvement project costs.
6.2 Capital Improvements Projects
Table 6.1 provides a complete listing of existing and future pipeline and pump station
improvements including:
. Expansion areas with costs
. A project description
. Comments
. Priority provided by City of Springfield
. A proposed implementation year (or range of years)
The project priorities are based on a combination of downstream to upstream logic, availability
of monitor data in close proximity to improvement locations and basin boundaries, and quality
of calibration. This results in recommendations for implementation and potential additional
actions to refine project needs and associated characteristics that affect project costs. The
priorities do not incorporate the impacts resulting from improvement project financing.
6.3 SDC Allocations
Table 6.2 repeats the list of projects for existing, future and system expansion areas. In order to
identify the relative contribution to the projects by land use condition, peak flows are provided
for existing and future land use conditions for each project. Based on those peak flows a
percentage of peak flow was calculated for existing and future land use.
Pipes for expanded (currently unserved) areas serving future development areas and their
associated costs are shown in the CIP section of the master plan. In the COMMENTS section of
the CIP project listing, the increase in pipe size required for future flow conditions is provided.
For cases where an existing pipe needs to be upsized for both the existing and future conditions,
the diameter required for both land used conditions is provided with the assumption that the
diameter required for future land use will be installed.
I
TABLE 6.1
Capital Improvement Project Listing
S' fildW; M P,
I
~prmglle astewater aster tan
Springfield Wastewater Collection System Improvements ,
Existing Dia Proposed No of Length Priority Proposed Construction Total Cost
Project 10 Purpose Diameter (Inch) or Description Comments Year Cost
(Inch) MHs (ft)
Peak Rate (gpm) ,
1 Ex~sting , 24 22 6418 Parallel existing 24-inch pipe with new 24-inch pipe Will ' require 300 ft auger bore (bore & jack) 36-steel'casing 6 2009 - 2010 $2,539,000 " $3,935,000
upgrade -- from MH10033730 dls to MH10033409 ' $75,000Jat $250/ft) under Hwy 126
Used to control simulated overflow at MH10033395.
2 Existing 12 21 4 795 Replace existing 12-inch with 21-inch from Downstream pipe segment from MH10033284 uls to 10 2010 - 2011 $307,000 $476,000
upgrade MH10033284 uls to MH10033293 MH 10033294 is upgraded to 27 -inch for future
, , improvements.
3 Existing 12 18 5 1112 Replace existing 12-inch with 18-inch from 19 2013 - 2014 $398,000 $617,000
upgrade MH10034175 uls to MH10034164
4 Existing 10 12 11 1538 Replace existing 10-inch with 12-inch from Crosses Mohawk Blvd 20 2103 - 2014 $477,000 $739,000
upgrade MH10033706 dls to MH10033719
Existing Replace existing 15-inch with 24-inch pipe from Flow monitoring basins 83 and 84 just uls of improvements. $1,625,000 $2,519,000
5 15 24 21 4161 MH10034054 dls to MH10033730.Project not
upgrade required if future rehabilitation is perfQrmed. Calibration fair in this area.
Existing Replace existing 10-inch with 15-inch pipe from $391,000 $606,000
6 10 15 6 1231 MH10033920 dls to MH10033982. Project not Flow monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design
upgrade required if future rehabilitation. is performed. '.. ,
, Flow at vault on west dls end of Main Street
7 Existing 27/36 Interceptor reconfigured to prevent flow from going No construction assumed. Reconfiguration of flow achieved -- -
upgrade -- -- -- through valve or weir adjustments.
north. All flow is diverted south. " , .
8 Existing 10 15 3 714 Replace existing 10-inch with 15-inch from Lucerne ,Meadows LS is routed to the West. As of 2007, this $224,000 $347,000
upgrade MH10034589 uls to MH10034519. LSdischarged to the, north through these pipe seoments.
9, Existing 15 17 4837 New 15-inch wet weather bypass from Bypass weir set at 496.0 ft elevation (CaS) at MH10035662. 8 2010 - 2011 $1,416,000 $2,195,000
upgrade . - MH10035662 dls to'MH10035367. Crosses Bob Straub Pkwy at start of 1105.
. , ,,', . ,
Existing 21-existing,24-- Replace existing 15~inch and 18-inch pipe with 24- A 21-inch'is necessary for existing land use. For future land 2010- 2011 $1,356,000 $2,102,000
10 15/18 11 3589 use, this project is upgraded to a 24-inch pipe. Flow 11
~pgrade future inch from MH10035908 dls to MH10035636. monitoring is recommended prior to preliminary design.
' :,,' ", , " , ' " "
11, Existing 12 15 9 1014 Replace existing 12-inch with 15-inch from Flow monitoring is recommended prior to preliminary design 15 2012 - 2013 $348,000 $539,000
Upgrade MH10035903 dls to MH10035835.
, Existing Replace existing 10-inch with 12-inch from 16 2012 - 2013 $1 ~9,OOO $246,000
12 upgrade 10 12 3 529 MH10036187 dls to MH10036186. Flow monitoring is recommended prior to preliminary design
, ,':;, ,
Rehabilitation " Review cost effectiveness relative to conventional
for 1/1 Existing 23,548 All rehab in basin SN 22. This completes the 5 2009 - 2010 $3,908,968 $7,573,000
Rehab Varies 8~12 -- , existing rehab listed in the 2001 WWFMP. conveyance improvements
Reduction
642 gpm (single ,
Nugget Way Existing pump) 898 gpm 911 peak wet -- -- Upgrade 2 pump system with 911 gpm capacity Flow monitoring suggested prior to prelimi~ary design 3 2008 - 2009 $769,417 $1,443,000
PS upgrade (pumps 1 &2) weather each
Existing 380 gpm (single 494gpm existing Upgrade 2 pump system with 494 gpm capacity Flow monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design 21 2013 - 2014 $560,379 $1,050,000
Hayden PS upgrade pump) peak, 494 gpm -- -- each
future peak
Existing 379 gpm (single 525 gpm existing Upgrade 2 pump system with 664 gpm capacity Flow monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design 22 2014 - 2015 $653,152 $1,224,000
River Glen PS upgrade pump) peak, 664 gpm -- -- each
future peak
13 Future 12 18 6 2224 Replace existing 12-inch pipe with 18-inch pipe from 13 2011 - 2012 $739,000 $1,145,000
upgrade MH10035908 uls to MH10036270.
14 Future 10 12 3 325 Replace existing 10-inch pipe with a,12-inch pipe 17 2012 - 2013 $105,000 $163,000
upgrade from MH10036195 dls to MH10036187
Rehabilitation 22.6k ft in SN19, 7k feet in SN48, 1.5k feet in SN49. SN19 - 1 2008-2009
This plus reduction due to pipe improvements Review cost effectiveness relative to conventional $5,181,026 $10,038,000
for III Future rehab Varies 8-12 -- 31,211 completes the future rehab listed in the 2001 conveyance improvements
Reduction SN48&49 - 9 2010-2011
. WWFMP. I I I I I I
. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Project 10 Existing Oia Proposed No of Length Proposed Construction
Purpose Diameter (Inch) or Description Comments Priority Total Cost
(Inch) Peak Rate (gpm) MHs (ft) Year Cost
Service requirements: 1) new "Harbor Drive" PS
Harbor Drive System 8 (gravity) and 5 equipped with 2 pumps each with 145 gpm capacity. Project evaluated if river crossing reduced cost. Most cost
expansion -- (force main) 32 ' 7818 2) 134 ft, of 5-inch to extend existing "dry pipe" force effective solution makes use of the existing "dry pipe'force 25 2017 -2018 $2,156,000 $3,342,000
main 3) 7684 ft' of 8-inch pipe to service entire main in place north of the neighborhood..
, neiQhborhood.
Extends system along Jasper Road to allow for the
Jasper Road System deconi'missioning of Lucerne Meadows and Golden
expansion -- 10, 12,21 89 22992 Terrace PSs. Service requirements: 1) 2581 ft of 10- 4 2008-2010 $7,496,000 $11,619,000
, inch pipe, 2) 3395 ft of 12-inch pipe, and 3) 17016 ft
of 21-inch pipe. ,
Franklin Blvd System Extends the, system from the existing 30-inch south Includes the 150 trailer parcels not originally contained in the
-- 8, 15 27 6280 along Franklin Blvd. Service requirements: 1) 2411ft 2 2008 - 2009 $1,934,000 $2,998,000
expansion of 8-inch pipe, and 2) 3868 ft of 15-inchpipe. GIS.
Thurston Rd ' System ,':, Extends the system from. the existing 15-inch east
expansion -- 8 17 3882 along Thurston Road. Service requirements are, 24 2016 - 2017 $949,000 $1,471,000
3882 ft of 8-inch pipe.
Extends the system from the existing'21";incheast
McKenzie Hwy System -- 10,12 17 3906 along McKenzie Highway. Service requirements: 1) Pipe extended east as far as grade supported gravity flow. 14 2011 - 2012 $1,049,000 $1,626,000
expansion 19~4 ft of 10-inch pipe, and 2) 1983 ft of 12";inch Last manhole shown is at crest of hill.
pipe. " '
System Services,the development east of the new Vera
Vera Area expansion -- 8, 12 39 9583 pump station. Service requirements: 1924 ft of 10- 23 2014 - 2016 $2,570,000 $3,984,000
inch pipe and 1983ft of 12-inch pipe.
Peace Health/ ' System Pump station .O,esigned as part of the Basis for cost is the Sanitary Sewer Study for Riverbend
Riverbend ,PS expansion -- PeaceHe~lth/Riverbend Campus Development. Subdivision (KPFF Consulting Engineeers, 2005). Costs 12 2011 - 2012 $2,232,930 $3,189,900
. ' , adjusted to 2008 dollars.
" --
Existing Subtotal $15,13'1,917 $25,611,000
Future Subtotal $6,025,026 $11,346,000
System Expansion Subtotal $18,386,930 $28,229,900
Total $39,543;873 $65,186,900
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 6.2
Peak Flows for SDC Allocation
Springfield Wastewater Collection System Improvements
Peak Flow (mgd) Peak Flow (mgd)
Project in Most in Most Percent of Flow From
Identification Downstream Pipe Downstream Pipe Existing/Future Sources
Number Section--Existing Section--Future
land Use 1,2 land Use1,2
1 8.3 8.4 100% Existing/O% Future
2 1.8 1.8 100% Existing/O% Future
3 2.1 2.1 100% Existing/O% Future
4 1.3 1.3 1000/0 Existing/O% Future
5 2.5 2.5 100% Existing/O% Future
6 1.1 1.1 100% Existing/O% Future
7 22.0 23.7 93% Existing/7% Future
8 1.5 1.5 100% Existing/O% Future
9 1.3 1.4 88% Existing/12% Future
10 4.3 5.4 80% Existing/20% Future
11 1.3 1.8 65% Existing/35% Future
12 1.0 1.5 70% Existing/30% Future
Rehabilitation for Varies Varies 100% Existing/O% Future
III Reduction
Nugget Way 100% Existing/O% Future
Pum Station3 911 m 911 m
Hayden Lo 100% ExistinglO% Future
Pump Station3 494 m 494 m
River Glen
Pump Station3
13 2.4 3.2 75% Existing/25% Future
14 1.0 1.6 60% Existing/40% Future
Rehabilitation for flows from future
varies varies development are 9.0% of
III Reduction the total future flow
Harbor Drive
Jasper Road
McVey Hwy.
E. Thurston Rd
E. McKenzie Hwy
Vera Pump
Station Area
PeaceHealth/
Riverbend PS3
Notes:
1) All flows result from the peak 5-year winter storm event with all rehabilitation and system improvements in place.
2) Existing system rehabilitation and associated costs for future land use conditions reduce pipeline improvement
requirements in the existing system as well as treatment costs.
3) Peak flow for all pump stations are in gallons per minute (gpm).
4) Peak flows are based on revised land use projections and should be included in future analyses.
0.76
0.22
4.1
0.71
0.5
2.1
0010 Existing/100% Future
19% Existing/81 % Future
0% Existing/100% Future
0% Existing/100% Future
0% Existing/100% Future
0.58
0% Existing/100% Future
360 gpm
0% Existing/100% Future
59
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A.1 Model Development
A.1.1 Pipe and Manholes
The process to identify the modeled pipes and nodes started with identifying the" active"
pipes with diameters of 10 inches and greater. To this dataset, some 8 inch diameter pipes
were added for connectivity and City added 8-inch pipes most likely to be impacted by
future development. The City provided the primary GIS dataset, but also provided separate
datasets that were not yet included in the City's GIS. These additional areas included the
Jasper Meadows and the Game Farm Road/Deadmond Ferry extensions.
Once the delineation of the model was complete, the system data was reviewed to ensure
the data met the requirements of the model and project objectives. CH2M HILL performed
data filling (interpolation) and used as-built data and additional survey to address the data
inconsistencies. Examples of data flagged for correction include the following:
· Moved/inserted nodes to align with end of pipe segments
· Pipes below the invert of the manhole ("floating" manholes)
· Missing invert or ground elevations
· Invert elevations above the ground elevations (upside-down manholes)
· Inconsistent connectivity
The City early in the project expressed an interest in updating its GIS based on the final
model elevations. For this reason, particular attention was made to track the changes from
the original GIS dataset. CH2M HILL used the documenting processes available within the
MIKE URBAN model to track the changes as the modeling progressed. For the City's
convenience, CH2M HILL exported the model pipes and nodes from the model showing the
system as it exists in September 2007 allowing the City to review the data in an ESRI
shapefile format. See Appendix A for metadata on the model export shapefiles including
codes used to track the changes.
A.1.2 Lift Stations
Operational and physical data on the lift stations were compiled and incorporated into the
model. This data included wetwell dimensions and elevations, influent line data, start/ stop
elevations, and pump curves. As part of the calibration process, adjustments were made to
the lift station configurations in the model so lift station peak flow rates matched the most
recent drawdown tests (2005) results. Table A.1lists the stations modeled and the number of
pumps at each station.
A-I
A-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE A.1
Summary of Stations Modeled and No. of Pumps
Ci of S rin field Wastewater Master Plan
Pump 10 Total Number of Pumps
71 Golden Terrace 2
72 Lucerne Meadows 2
Exist Harlow 2
__ LS73 H~y~en Lo 2
LS7 4 D~admond Ferry_J 2
LS75 Commercial I 2
LS76 21st & E Str! 2
LS78 ~ug..get _Way I 2
LS80 491" Str ! 2
LS85 Ramada 2
LS86 Glenwood 2
LS8 Marshall Oil _ 2
-LS88RiverGlen----------1 2
A.1.3 Weirs
There are two weirs included in the hydraulic model: 1) The wet-weather bypass weir
diverting flow into the E Street Lift Station, and 2) The diversion structure on the parallel
North-South Interceptor near the discharge from the new Harlow LS. Weir elevations and
orientation were set based on as-built information.
A.1.4 Near-term Projects
The calibration period of the model was December 2005 through January 2006. The system
as it existed during this period was used to develop the calibrated model as is referenced as
the "2006 system" in the model's Scenario Manager. After calibration and to reflect the
system as it exists in 2007, the near term projects that were about to be constructed/
implemented by the City were incorporated and referenced as the "2007 System" in the
Scenario Manager. The updates to the system are as follows:
. Jasper Meadows 12 inch line connecting at MH 10036735
. New Harlow Lift Station and force main
. Diversion at MH10035212 near 57th PL
. Deadmond Ferry reroute
A.2 Flow Monitoring and Data Analysis
Fourteen flow monitors were used to analyze dry and wet weather flow characteristics
during the period of December 2005 to January 2006. Figure A.l shows the flow monitor
locations and Figure A.2 shows a schematic of the flow monitors to indicate up and
downstream locations relative to one another. This allows for the appropriate subtraction of
upstream monitor flows to isolate the contribution from the local monitor area.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
I
~ Pump Stations
Existing Major Wastewater System Pipes
~
Weir/Diversion 1F.77~ Flow Monitoring Basins
Manholes CJ Urban Growth Boundary
~
FIGURE A.1
Flow Monitoring Locations
I
.
o
?nnn
dnnn
I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
Figure A-2. Flow Monitoring Schematic
,,-f81
F70 '
jCf
cr
cr
crcr~cr~
! . 1
_f90,.
F77
1
C~j
MWMC
Meter
The monitor data was analyzed to identify dry weather flows as shown in Table A-2 as well
as the absolute and relative contribution of wet weather flows in the collection system. Flow
monitor data is used to calibrate the model and identify potential candidate basins for
rehabilitation and associated 1/1 reduction. The following information was produced for
each monitor basin:
· % of the volume of rainfall over the monitor basin measured at monitor location often
call the II return" or "R" value.
· Peak flow rate per footage of pipe in the basin (peak gpm/ ft)
· Total volume of 1/1 for a storm event per foot of pipe in the basin (Gallons/ ft)
· Peak flow rate per contributing acre within the monitor basin (gpd/ acre)
A-4
A-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE A.2
Average Ory Weather Flow Contributed from Each Monitor Basin
City of Springfield Was~wa~rMas~rP~n
Flow Monitoring Basin Acre (Acres) Average Flow (mgd)
5173 5779 5.64
..--.-----.-.---------.--...-..--...-...-.-.---...-.-.......-.-...--.-.-..-
F70 433 0.27
---.--------.---.--.-.-......--..-.----..
F72 251 0.12
-----.----...--..-.-..----
F74 928 1.30
.---------..--------.--..-..-....---
F77 109 0.18
---..-.--..--.-..----.--..-.--.--...---.--.
F81 324 0.20
----.-.-.-----------...-..---.---...
F83 84 0.16
-.---..-...-------.----.--.--.-.-...---....-.--..-.-..--"'-.--
F84 69 0.04
--------....-.--.....-.--...----.---.---.
F85 88 0.08
----.----.-..-.-----.--.-----
F86 53 0.03
F87 43 0.07
---------...----.-..-...---..--...-.....--...-....-..-.-.-...-.---...--.--..--.-
F88 704 0.44
----.--------.---.---.,.---.-..--.-.-.-..-..--..---.
F89 924 0.29
-----..-.-.----..-.--.--------
F90 258 0.28
Based on the review of these data, monitor basins upstream of deficiency areas with large
1/1 contributions relative to the other monitor basins and to other rates typically seen in
municipal systems in the northwest where selected as rehabilitation basin candidates. The
flow monitor basins selected correspond to the City's "SN" basins 19,22,48 and 49. The
flow monitor basins that align with these SN basins are F72, 83, 84, 90 and 5173.
As shown in Figure A.3, the rate for peak gallons per day per acre of basin area in many of
the basins is greater than 5,000 gpd/ ac for most of the storm events recorded. 5,000 gpad
corresponds to a peaking factors of 10.5 in F72, 8.6 in F84, 2.6 in F83, 4.6 in F90 and 5.1 in
5173 which is excess of the 3.5 peak flow factor included in the City's design standards for
sizing new systems and therefore good candidate basins for 1/1 reduction.
Additional tables showing 1/1 characteristics in each monitoring basin is in Appendix B.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure A.3. Peak Gallons per Day per Acre Within Flow Monitoring Basins
Rainfall Dependent Inflow/Infiltration
..
12/29/2005 3:45:00 PM
NetIIPeakEvent for Various Storms (Normalized by Acreage)
1.:..-..1
1/16/20069:00:00 PM
r!!I
1/29/20064:30:00 AM
25000
Peak Flow GPD lac)
0-
~ 15000
<!)
~
o
iI 10000
5000
o
EBI5173 F72 F81 F84 F86 F88 F90
F70 F74 F83 F85 F87 F89
Basin
A.3 Modeling Methodology
A.3.1 Hydraulic Model
Boundary conditions in hydraulic model are the hydrological and sanitary flow loads on the
sewer system. For the City of Springfield hydraulic model, there are several types of
boundary conditions used in the model:
· Sanitary flow loading
· Model outfall
· Evaporation
· Inflow / infiltration
Flow monitors installed and maintained by the City were the basis to quantify and
distribute flow within the system.
A-6
A.3.1.1 Sanitary Flow Loading
Basin
5173
81
88
88
88
5173
81
5173
83
74
74
85
88
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
Sanitary flow loads reflect the flows found in the system during periods not
impacted by precipitation. To characterize the existing land use sanitary flow
loading, CH2M HILL first identified the periods of repeatable dry-weather data.
From this dataset, the monitor and net average flow rates and consistent diurnal
pattern were calculated for each flow monitor.
To improve the accuracy of the flow distribution, the City provided CH2M HILL the
largest water customers. A portion of the purchased water was assumed to be routed
to the sewer as summarized in Table A.3.
TABLE A.3
Largest Water Customers
Ci of 5 rin field Wastewater Master Plan
SIU
Hexion Chemical formerly Borden Chemical)
Lane Coun
Weyerhaeuser Company
Sierra Pine
Weyerhaeuser Springfield Plywood
McKenzie Forest Products
Pepsi Cola Bottling Company
Rosboro Lumber Company
Dynea Corporation
Voith Paper
McKenzie Chrome
MXR Services
Quadra Chemical
Q
Purchased
mgd
0.043
0.040
0.032
0.028
0.028
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.006
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.000
0/0 to
Sewer
50%
85%
50%
85%
50%
50%
50%
85%
85%
50%
85%
85%
50%
Q to Sewer
m d
0.022
0.034
0.016
0.024
0.014
0.006
0.005
0.008
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
To distribute the average net flow within the basins, catchments were delineated.
Catchments are smaller areas within each flow basin with one load point associated
for each catchment. Using land use and parcel information, CH2M HILL calculated
equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) for each parcel and then the total number of EDUs
for each catchment and flow basin. CH2M HILL divided the total number of EDUs
in each flow basin by the average dry-weather flow resulting in a per capita sanitary
flow load. Groundwater infiltration was not determined separately so the sanitary
flow load includes the groundwater infiltration component.
Table A.4 is a summary of the per EDU loading calculation used in the model for
existing land use scenarios.
A-7
I
II
I
I
TABLEA.4
Existing Land Use Flow per EOU
Ci of S rin field Wastewater Master Plan
Basin
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Total
EOU1
; -_._-_??..!.~?.~_._._.;
! ......._...__~.Q.~~___.._....J
_..._._.'L1._~~_.____.
2211
~......~._...._._._...._._._..._.._..-
_::::t--I
399
..._ h'~..'",_,__,,,_,,,_,,,,__,,
..._._...__J_1~._._.._._.....-
623
. -......-. "-'-"~-"'-"'-"'-'-'" ....
;-_...__...._??.~--- ;
j 315
....... .............................
1870
.........-.--...-.--.-..-...-.-......-.-..
.-.??~~-----
1412
36,902
A.3.1.2 System Outfall
I
Average Flow
m d
5.64
0.27
0.12
1.30
0.18
0.20
0.16
0.04
0.08
0.03
0.07
0.44
0.29
0.28
9.08
Less
Industrial
Sources
m d
0.035
0.003
I
1--- O~03.~_____ _
0.005
0.001
0.054
0.137
Flow to
Oistribute
mgd
5.60
0.27
0.12
1.30
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.04
0.08
0.03
0.07
0.384
0.292
.279
8.94
Flow (gpd)
per EDU2
250
129
104
586
273
459
395
123
124
100
207
205
103
197
The City of Springfield sewer system discharges into the East Bank Interceptor of the
MWMC sewer system. This interceptor in the MWMC system was not included in
the City's hydraulic model, but CH2M HILL used fixed water level as a boundary
condition at the model outfall to account for potential hydraulic influence from the
interceptor. Hydraulic simulations performed in the 2005 MWMC update were
referenced to identify the peak wet-weather level resulting from the 5-year storm.
Prom this analysis, a constant water level with an elevation of 404.81 feet is used.
This water level equates to the discharge pipe being half full in the model.
5173
F70
F72
F74
F77
F81
F83
F84
F85
F86
F87
F88
F89
F90
Total
Notes:
1) The number of ED Us per catchment is in the Persons Equivalent (PE) field in the hydraulic model's catchment editor.
2) The flow per EDU is used in the cyclic PE basecl"Value"field in each catchment's boundary item in the hydraulic model.
3) Higher flow values (>290 gpd based on City design standards for single family dwellings) are a direct result of actual flow
monitor based measurements and may indicate either, 1) greater groundwater infiltration rates since average flows were
developed for dry weather, but wet season conditions, or 2) basins containing higher flow generation sources other than the
industries already identified.
I
I
.
A.3.1.3 Evaporation
Evaporation-transpiration data was compiled from City of Eugene airport
meteorological data. The data was time series data from 2005 and 2006 and loaded as
a catchment boundary load (see ET_LookoutPoint_estimated.dfsO in the
MIKEURBAN model). The evaporation data improves the accuracy of the model by
causing the /I infiltration limb" of the wet-weather response to return to typical
system flows following a rain event at a faster rate.
I
I
I
I
A-8
A-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A.3.1.4 Inflowjlnfiltration
Inflow /infiltration (III) due to precipitation was accounted for in the model by
using the Model A and RDI/I module hydrology models in MIKEURBAN. After
importing the catchments into the model, the hydrology parameters were adjusted
until the wet-weather response matched the flow monitoring data in terms of both
peak rate and volume. The final calibrated hydrology parameters are available in the
MIKEURBAN model.
The total area of each catchment results from the catchment delineation done in
ArcGIS, but is not used by the hydrology runoff models, rather the model uses the
"drainage" area in each catchment. For the City of Springfield model, the drainage
area is the total area of the parcels identified as being connected to the sewer in
January 2006.
A.3.1.S Calibration
Calibration of the model was conducted first for dry weather and then for wet
weather. The dry weather calibration was used to correct connectivity within the
model. After completing the dry weather calibration, the rainfall that occurred
during the flow monitoring period was loaded into the model. The wet weather
calibration was an iterative process adjusting the hydrology models to correlate the
peak flow rate, shape, and volume from the model to the monitored data. Figure A.4
below is shows the most downstream monitor in the system, Monitor 5173 located
just upstream before discharging into the MWMC Eastbank interceptor. As seen in
the figure, the model calibrated well to this monitor. Appendix D includes the
calibration hydro graphs from all the monitoring locations.
In addition to reviewing the accuracy of the model at the monitoring locations,
CH2M HILL also reviewed the peak pumping capacities at each of the modeled lift
stations. Initial simulations resulted in the model over predicting the pumping
capacity at many of the lift stations. Drawdown tests for individual pumps were
conducted in 2005 and were the basis for comparison. CH2M HILL adjusted pump
curves to improve the accuracy of the model. Table A.5 below lists the capacity of the
modeled lift stations established during the calibration process.
-------------------
Figure A.4. Calibration of Monitor 5173
120
100
80
:s-
Q
.s 60
~
o
u:
40
20
o
1211/05
F5173 Calibration
o
0.1
0.2
0.3 _
'5
g
c
o
0.4 ~
-
'a
.~
..
0.5 0..
0.6
0.7
'3:5%lriJ'p ~
30;mi nit" Qf.~\)~
50% RIDI
0: 6511 C Qaff^"
- Monitor
-Model
12111/05
0.8
1/30/06
12121/05
12/31/05
1/10/06
1/20/06
A-l0
TABLE A.S
Lift Station Capacities based on Calibration Results
Ci of S rin field Wastewater Master Plan
2005 Orawdown Model Lift Station
Pump 10 Test (Single Model Single Capacity
Pump) Pump (gpm) (Combined
Pumps)
71 Golden Terrace 225 225 316
72 Luceme Meadows 186 186 260
Exist Harlow 1107 ~ 1104 2406
~
LS73 Hayden Lo 380 359 449
LS74 Deadmond Ferry 1010 1038 1038
LS75 Commercial ~ 274 253 292
~ ~------
LS76 2151 & E Street i 954 902 1100
LS78 Nugget Way ~ 642 642 898
LS80 49thStr 288 275 275
LS85 Ramada 120 120 120
LS86 Glenwood 4533 4533
LS87 Marshall Oil 230 230 230
LS88 River Glen 379 379 530
Number of
pumps
operating for
peak
Total Number
of Pumps
2
2
, ,
-------- ._- _. -j---- -- - -- - --- -.i
2 ! 2 !
- - - - - - - - - ~- -- - - -- - - - - ~
2 ~ 2 '
- - - --- - - - -1--- -- - - - - -I
2 i 2 ,
-- -------1- - -----; - - --1
-- - ----- --- - -~- - --- - - - - - ~
2
------------~------_.__.:
~
- - - -~-- - - -1-- - -!- - - - j
--------~---------i-----~--------i
i 2 !
~ !
-- - --_..- - - - - :- - - -- - - - - _.~
i !
---------~---!----l
__________!_____!.___u_~
;
2
2
2
A.3.1.6 ROlli Peak Flow Adjustments
As part of project's QAI QC of the initial model results, CH2M HILL compared the peak
III rates resulting from the 5-year storm and compared this to the peak IjI rates
determined by monitored storms. The peak III rates for the 5-year storm were estimated
based on a regression analysis of the monitored data. The regression analysis produces a
relationship between volume of rainfall measured at a flow monitoring location for
multiple storms with the peak flow rate measured at that monitor location. By
developing this relationship it allows for the prediction of peak flow rates given rainfall
events that were not monitored such as a larger design event. Typically, the flows
predicted for events larger than those measured at the monitor location either follow the
regression trend line or may fall below the line as pipeline defects that allow IjI to enter
the system reach capacity and the % of III that enters the system can decrease for larger
rainfall events. This approach to estimate IjI is consistent with that described in the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Guidelines for Making Wet-Weather and Peak
Flow Projections for Sewage Treatment in Western Oregon as well as the approach applied in
the 2001 WWFMP Plan (see Section 4.2.5.2).
The values produced through the regression analysis were compared to those resulting
from the application of the RDII module utilized by the hydraulic model. In a majority
of the basins the linear regression projections were less than the values predicted in the
RDII module. The regression plots are included as Appendix E. A clear example of the
difference between the regression results and the model results using the RDII module is
for monitor 5173 which has the largest contributing area of all the -monitored basins. The
A-II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
graph shows the peak flows relative to the storm volume for all the storms monitored at
that location. The regression trend line is then established from those data points and
extended to the 5-year storm volum~ for that basin. The peak flow rate predicted by the
model using the RDn module to estimate IjI flows is also plotted. The regression trend
line predicts 55.6 mgd as the peak 5-year flow rate versus the RDn module estimate of
106.4 mgd. As a result the model was adjusted to match the regression results for all
basins where the regression values were less than the original model results. The results
from the RDn module were used for monitor basins where the model predicted flows
less than the regression equations. This is because this was the anticipated trend of flows
predicted for the larger storm events as the capacity of pipe defects is reached and a
decreasing amount of flow can enter the pipelines. No adjustment was applied to the
flows from these basins. Although the regression based predictions should be valid for
all basins in a majority of locations where the regression equation was not used, the
monitor data did not support a quality predictive equation. This is shown in Table A.6
where low correlation coefficients are associated in most cases with basin values that
were not adjusted.
In order to achieve the predicted flow rates an adjustment factor was applied to the
impervious area. This model variable was selected because it will result in the same
proportional adjustment desired in the RDn flow rate. Table A.6 provides the flow rates
and adjustment factors for all monitor basins derived from the graphs in Appendix E.
TABLE A.6
Adjustment Factors
City of Sorinafield Wastewater Master Plan
Flow Regression Model ROil Delta ROil Correlation
Monitor ROil Peak Q Peak Q Peak Q Adjustment Coefficient
Basin (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Factor (R2)
F70 1.17 1.93 0.76 0.61 0.40
F72 9.70 12.87 3.17 0.75 0.92
F74 22.56 6.59 -15.98 1.00 0.77
F77 13.17 2.19 -10.98 1.00 0.37
F81 18.64 8.28 -10.36 1.00 -0.86
F83 1.74 3.43 1.69 0.51 - 0.11
F84 1.25 3.48 2.23 0.36 0.96
F85 1.43 2.52 1.09 0.57- 0.99
F86 10.90 2.60 -8.29 1.00 0.71
F87 0.63 1.01 0.38 0.63 0.76
F88 3.45 0.88 -2.57 1.00 0.33
F89 7.53 9.05 1.51 0.83 0.63
F90 4.85 1.71 -3.14 1.00 0.80
5173 55.60 106.44 50.84 0.52 0.96
A-I2
A-I3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A.3.2 Flow Development
A.3.2.1 Flow/EDU Development
To calibrate the model, the flow measured at the flow monitoring locations must be
distributed upstream within the basins. To distribute the dry weather flow, equivalent
dwelling units (EDUs) are assigned to the sewer parcels. The EDUs are used to weight
the distribution of the flows based on the land use. The project team used available
information in the taxlot, land use, and building shapefiles to assign EDUs to each
parcel. This Section summarizes the EDU assignments.
For the single family and multiple density residential listed in the table, parcel areas
were reviewed. For relatively large parcels (e.g., greater than 2 acres), it was assumed
that additional units were on the parcel and a density of 1 unit (e.g., 1 quad) per 0.5 acres
was applied.
For single family residential development, City Planning provided EDU density based
on the slope. The average slope of each parcel was determined and assigned the
appropriate residential density.
Minimum lot size
10,000 s ft
20,000 s ft
40,000 s ft
Many of the land use categories are based on area. Where building information was
available, the number of floors times the building footprint was used to calculate area. If
parcel information was the only area data available, it was assumed that only a portion
of the parcel area contributed to sewer flow - between 25 and 50 percent of the parcel
area.
Lastly, for the balance of parcels that are not addressed by the categories listed in Table
A-8, an EDU assignment equivalent to the commercial assignment was used -1,100
gpdj parcel.
For the full development (build-out) scenarios, the City identified parcels that are
expected to be ultimately connected to the sewer system in the future. Similar to the
existing land use EDU estimates developed above, CH2M HILL used the PlanDes field in
the land use data to estimate the future EDUs. For each future parcel, a sanitary flow
loading of 236 gpd per EDU was assigned. This value was derived from updated census
and LCOG 2006 data. Flow from 3,773 additional parcels (14,740 EDUs) is accounted for
in the future development scenario. This equates to 3.4 mgd additional dry-weather flow
each day. The sanitary flow component of the future parcels is incorporated in the
catchment table editor identified with a "FU_." prefix followed by a identification
I
I
.
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
number based on the City's GIS 6-digjt Geofeat_ID field (there were several duplicates
where another u1" was added at the end to make it unique).
A.3.2.2 Future Development Loading
Future development areas were identified and based on the future land use of the
parcels, equivalent dwelling units (EDU) were assigned. Projected maximum flow was
identified for each of the areas that comprised both a sanitary flow (dry weather) and a
wet weather component. The sanitary flow component was derived by using 236 gallon
per day per EDU and multiplying this average sanitary flow by a diurnal fluctuation
representative of residential development. An instantaneous factor of 1.7 is included in
this diurnal pattern and was used to size the future service pipes. To this, a wet weather
component of 2000 gpad based on the total area was added.
Based on information provided by the City, the future developed parcels have been
assigned to a connection point in the existing system. This is reflected in the model.
A.3.2.3 RDIfI Rate for Future Conditions
For the future development scenarios, it was necessary to account for the wet-weather
response the future parcels would have on the system. Consistent with the WWFMP, a
wet-weather allocation of 2000 gpad was used. This was incorporated in the model as a
Network Load using a unit hydrograph and a scaling factor. The shape of the unit
hydrograph was taken from a monitored basin that represented more recent
construction.
The 2000 gpad was established based on a J'/Total Area", not the drainage area described
above. To ensure the 2000 gpad wet-weather allocation was consistently applied, the
drainage area for each future parcel was divided by 0.789-this factor was derived by
comparing the drainage area to the total area in flow monitoring basin 84 (a basin
dominated by single residential parcels). A scaling factor applied to the unit hydro graph
was then calculated based on the calculated total area of each parcel (see the Scaling
Factor field in the model network load boundary item for future scenarios).
A-I4
TABLE A.S
EOU Assignment
CiwofSpringfie~WasmwamrMasmrP~n
Land Use Category GIS FIELD (Attribute) EDU Assignment (EDUlday) Assumption Source
Single Residential LANDUSE: (1100,1111,1113,1116, 1 EDU/parcel -- Industry Standard
1150)
USECODE: S)
Duplex LANDUSE: l 1120) 2 EDUlparcel -- Industrv Standard
Apartments with 1 to 4 units LANDUSE: I 1131,1132) 4 EDUlparcel -- Industrv Standard
Apartments with 5 to 19 LANDUSE: I 1133) 12 EDU/parcel -- Proiect assumotion
Apartments with more than 20 units LANDUSE: 1134) 25 EDUlparcel -- Proiect assumption
Hospital McKenzie-Williamette Medical Center 0.66 EDU/bed -- Metcalf & Eddy
(165 gpd/bed)
Medical (clinic, dental) LANDUSE: (6512,6513,6514,6515, 2 EDU/1000 sq ft 25 percent of parcel area W A Department of Ecology
6517,6519) (500 gpd/1000 sq ft) contributes (WA DOE)
Dormitory/ Building name 0.16 EDU/student (40 gpd/student) 1 00 student Un, Shun Water and
Residence Hall Wastewater Calculations
Manual
School School name 0.1 EDU/student 500 students Metcalf & Eddy
(25 gpd/student)
Dwellings Misc. (Community Center, Fire Stations) 0.4 EDU/occupant (100 gpd/occupant) -- Industry Standard
WA DOE
Airport Mahlon Sweet Field Airport 0.012 EDUlpassenger -- Metcalf & Eddy
(3 gpd/passenger)
Shopping Center USECODE: (R) 1 EDU/1000 sq ft 33 percent of parcel area WA DOE
Retail FM TYPE: (Shoooina center) (250gal/1000 sq ft) contributes
Hotel/Motel LANDUSE: (1510) 0.18 EDU/room 100 rooms Metcalf & Eddy
(45 gpd/room)
Restaurants/bars LANDUSE: (581 0) 0.25 EDUlseat 50 percent of area is WA DOE
(50 gpd/seat at 29 sq Wseat) restaurant and
29 ft2/seat
Auto Service Stations LANDUSE: (6411) 2 EDUlparcel 50 cars/day Metcalf & Eddy
(12 gpd/car, assumed 50 cars/day)
Industrial USECODE: (I) 10 EDUlparcel -- Un, Shun Water and
(1800 gpd/acre) Wastewater Calculations
Manual and consistent with
CH2M HILL approach to similar
land use
Commercial PROPCL: ("Commercial") 4 EDU/parcel -- Un, Shun Water and
(1150 gpd/acre) Wastewater Calculations
Manual and consistent with
CH2M HILL approach to similar
land use
Group Quarters USECODE: (M) 20 EDUlparcel 50 occupants at 100 CH2M HILL assumption
(Fraternity, Sorority, Boarding Houses) gpd/person
A-I5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Also, although the model was calibrated from flow monitoring data provided between
December 2005 and January 2006, precipitation data was available from September 2005.
The RDI/I module includes non-linear reservoirs to account for the effects of preceding
precipitation. To ensure that these reservoirs were" filled" in the hydrology model and
initial conditions were accurately accounted for in the model, the hydrology runoff
model was run from September 2005 to January 2006.
A unit hydrograph was used in the model to account for the wet weather component of
future parcels connected to the collection system. The shape of the unit hydrograph was
based on the system response on a basin with relatively new construction. The peak of
the unit hydro graph has a rate of 1 gpm. A scaling factor was applied in the model to
account for a peak rate of 2000 gpad based on the total area of the future land use parcel.
The peak of the unit hydro graph coincides with the peak flow rates observed in the
system following the peak rainfall intensity.
To account for the antecedent soil conditions, the rainfall prior to the calibration period
was included from September 2005 through January 2006. For this reason, it was
necessary to insert zero precipitation before the unit hydrograph. This approach allows
flexibility in the simulations performed by the model.
A public-only curve was developed that incorporated monitor data as well as the
substantial experience and field observations developed by City of Eugene and
Springfield staff. The curve was based on a logarithmic trend of four out of five data
points that was further adjusted based on experience and knowledge of staff and to
allow for a margin of error. The curve also represented the belief that about 5 percent of
a sub-basin will need to be rehabilitated before any measurable RDII reduction can be
achieved. The MWMC public-only curve that excludes the privately owned upper
portions of the laterals is shown in Figure A.6.
The methodology to incorporate rehabilitation in the model is applied to the ImpArea
field (Model A Time Area) and to the RDIIArea (RDIjI module) under the Runoff Model
menu. For example, a review of rehabilitation progress recommended in the WWFMP
indicated IjI in basin SN18 would be reduced by 40.5 percent. To incorporate in the
model, the fields identified above were multiplied by a factor of 0.595 (1 - 0.405)
reducing the peak IjI rates proportionally. This methodology can be applied by the City
as rehabilitation progress is updated for future simulations.
A-16
Figure A.5. Unit Flow Hydrograph for Future JfI.
0.90
0_80
0.70
0.60
0.50
Unit Flow [gal/min] -
1.00
Discharge
--T----
,
,
--T----
,
,
,
,
,
--+----
-----+
,
0.40
,
,
, , I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
, I
I I
I ,
I .
, I
, ,
I ,
I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I , I
I . I
I . I
. I I
I , I
, , I
. , .
I , I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I , I
, . ,
, , ,
, I I
, , I
, , I
, , ,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
, ,
: :
, ,
, ,
, , ,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
, , ,
, , ,
I , ,
I , ,
. , ,
, , ,
I , ,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
, , I
, , I
, , I
, , I
, , I
I , I
, , I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
, I
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
I ,
, ,
. . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. I
. ,
, .
, ,
, ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
-
-
0_30
0.20
0.10
0_00
September
2005
October
2005
November
2005
December
2005
A-IS
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------------------
Figure A.6 Reduction Curve for Public-Only Rehabilitation
100
CD 90
E
::J
- 80
0
>
- 70
-
c
~
c 60
.-
c 50
0
;:;
(J 40
::J
~
CD
~ 30
.....
c 20
CD
(J
~ -
CD 10
D..
0
g
ROil Reduction Curve
Public-Only (not Including Upper/Private Laterals) Associated with System Rehabilitation
I-
......... ......-
.........
- -I- . . . . · · · ·
. ........
....'
....
~ ......--
-----
/ ~
- MWMC Public Only Curve
/ V . Pre-/Post-Rehabilitation Data (4 of 5 Sub-basins)
/ ....... Trend (Pre-/Post-Rehabilitation Data 4 of 5 Sub-basins)
I T
T I I "I I
o
10
20
30 40 50 60 70
Rehabilitation as Percent of Total Pipe
80
90
100
A-I6
A-I7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
A.4 GIS Metadata and Reference Data
Scenario Manager:
The MIKEURBAN Scenario Manager was used to document the progression of modeling
simulations, particularly in the" Comments" fields available in the scenario manager tool
Within the tool, CH2M HILL used consistent naming conventions to document the
progression of simulation alternatives and scenarios. The primary references are described
as follows:
Scenarios
. Run #: A unique hydraulic simulation ID
. ADJ: indicates the peak wet-weather components were adjusted to fit the regression of
the peak inflow j infiltration flow rates with precipitation for each monitored storm
. ExLU: Existing land use-used for simulations to incorporating calibration or current (as
of January 2006) land use.
. FuLU: Future land use - Incorporates the ultimate buildout of the system for both wet-
and dry-weather.
. 5Yr: Hydrology runoff model is linked to the 5-year design storm
. Norm: Nodes have been set to "normal" -allows ponding above the manhole and flow
to enter the system as response to a storm recedes. Note, force main_ nodes and some
manholes identified by City personnel as being bolted (e.g., those manholes just
upstream of the Glenwood lift station in the vicinity of MH 10038011), are set as "sealed"
in all the scenarios. The "normal" node cover setting is used for deficiency analyses.
. Spill: Nodes have been set to "spilling" - once the maximum water level (hydraulic
grade line) reaches the ground surface of the node, flow is allowed to leave the system.
Using spilling nodes more closely represents the hydraulic conditions of the system
during a storm and used to for report figures.
. Imp: Documents that the run incorporates improvements (larger pipes, lift station
capacities, or reduced inflow/infiltration due to planned rehabilitation).
Alternatives
On the right side of the "Scenario Manager" tool screen, the Alternatives are presented.
These are classified per data type (network, boundary conditions, etc.) required in the
model to perform a simulation. To view the applicable tables associated with each
alternative, a "Right click" shows the model inputs corresponding to that alternative. Most
are documented in the "comment" field or are self explanatory. A similar naming
convention listed above for the scenarios was used in the alternatives.
Model Nodes and Pipes Shapefiles
A ,model node and pipe shapefile were exported from the MIKEURBAN model for the
City's convenience and possible source to update the City's GIS. These shapefiles
incorporate all the data reviews and QAj QC efforts to clean the data in order for hydraulic
simulations to be performed. This functionality to export shapefiles is built-in into the
MIKEURBAN model, but is specific to the" Activated" scenario in the Scenario Manager. The
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
modeling node and pipe shapefile provided to the City are of the "2007 System" with
"Normal" nodes and represents the most current data source of the existing system as of
September 2007.
The fields in the shapefiles match the field names used in the MIKEURBAN geodatabase
and are each described extensively in the software documentation. To access this metadata
documentation, browse to *.PDF file in the following path where MIKEURBAN is installed
on the City computer: C:\Program Files\DHI\MIKE URBAN\Manuals\MIKE URBAN
Tables.pdf See the documentation ~or the msm_Node and the msm_Pipe tables on pages 34
and 41 of the PDF file.
CH2M HILL documented whenever elevations were changed from the GIS within the
MIKEURBAN model in the Status, InvertLevel_S, and the GroundLevel_S fields for nodes and
UpLevel_S and DwLevel_S for pipes in their respective editors. A <Null> entry indicates the
source of the data is the City's GIS. If referencing the exported model shapefiles, the fields
are changed to Element_S, InvertLE_l and GroundLe_l.
The status codes shown in Figure A-1 detail where data fields were changed from the GIS.
The codes shown in Figure A-1 are found in the MIKEURBAN model under the Tools,
Customize, Status Code menus.
A-18
A-I9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- - - - - ~ ,.. ....."..". .~ - ~-
FJ' Domain Editor
)Status Codes CS
!lila
~
Co t.. I Coded T ex!
~ 1 Model
2 GIS
3 Imported
4 Inserted
5 Modified
6 Calibrated
7 Verified
B Errorneous
9 Unknown
10 Other
11 Interpolated
12 Survey
13 From DN Elev
14 From UP Elev
15 Extrapolated
16 .As-builts
17 Null Value
1B Consistent Depth
20 Jasper Meadowas-builts
21 New Harlow LS Dwgs
22 ExLU _Improvement
23 F uLU -'mpro'lement
*
OK Cancel I
Status codes to denote data changes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B - III Characteristics for Monitor Basins
-------------------
Rainfall Th~nlel1 Inflow/Infiltratioo
NetII Volume Event for Various Storms (Normalized by Acreage)
-
12/1/2005 3:00:00 AM
-
12/29/2005 3:45:00 PM
CJ
1/27/2006 10:00:00 AM
-
2/27/2006 4:30:00 AM
I::::J
12/18/2005 10:45:00 PM
-
1/6/2006 1:00:00 PM
-
1/29/2006 4:30:00 AM
-
12/21/2005 1:00:00 AM
r::::J
1/9/2006 3:30:00 PM
I::::J
1/31/2006 10:30:00 AM
I::::J
12/26/2005 10: 00: 00 PM
-
1/16/2006 9:00:00 PM
CJ
2/3/2006 9:30:00 PM
~
m
~
c:
.-
m
0:::
~
e...
~
o
u.
; I
J~'r-I
.~ .~U
1
II
EB15173
F72
FTl
F83
F85
F87
F70
F74
F81
F84
Basin
F86
Faa
Fro
Rainfall ~IXrrlent Intlow/Infiltration
NetII Volume Event for Various Storms (Normalized by Acreage)
-
1/16'2(00 9:00:00 PM
c;:J
12/29'20C6 3:45:00 PM
-
1/29/2(00 4: 30: 00 AM
,.....,
-
-
m
"-
f::
m
~
oe.
...........
~
o
u:
EB15173
F72
F83
F89
F70
F74
F81
F84
Basin
F86
Faa
FOO
-------------------
-------------------
"""""
E
~1
C>
'-""
;:
o
u: -1
I:::l
12/1/2005 3:00:00 AM
-
12/29/2005 3:45:00 PM
-
1/27/2006 10:00:00 AM
-
2/27/2006 4:30:00 AM
Rainfall Th~rrent Inflow/Infiltratioo
NetIlPeakStorm for Various Storms (Normalized by Linear Footage)
1~;4"r::'.1t<1 I:::l
12/18/2005 10:45:00 PM 12/21/2005 1:00:00 AM
c:::J _
1/6/2006 1:00:00 PM 1/9/2006 3:30:00 PM
I:::l I:::l
1/29/2006 4:30:00 AM 1/31/2006 10:30:00 AM
I~ d r1
-
12/26/2005 10:00:00 PM
I:::l
1/16/2006 9:00:00 PM
I:::l
2/3/2006 9: 30: 00 PM
i
- j
II
F~ Fffi F~ F~
F~ -Fffi Fffi FOO
Basin
Rainfall Th~nlert Intlow/Infiltratioo
NetIlPeakStorm for Various Storms (Normalized by Linear Footage)
-
1/16'2005 9:00:00 PM
I~~'I
12/29'2005 3:45:00 PM
-
1/29'2005 4: 30: 00 AM
..-..
E
~
0..-
(!)
..........
;:
.Q
LL
I
E~~~ Fn Fn F~ Fffi F~ F~
Fro FN F~ F~ Fffi Fffi Fro
Basin
--------------------
------------------~
Rainfall Th~nIent Inflow/Infiltratim
NetIIV olumeEvent for Various Storms (Normalized by Linear Footage)
- - I:::J
12129'2005 3:45: 00 PM 1/16'2<m 9: 00: 00 PM 1/29'2<m 4: 30: 00 AM
,.....
E
m
(!)
..........
3:
o
LL
l
l
l
l
.::J
l
EB15173 F72 F77 F83 F85 Fa7
Fro F~ F~ F~ Fffi Fffi FOO
l3a;in
120000
0' 00000
as
.........
o
(L
(!) 80000
3:
o
u::
~ 60000
Q)
(L
40000
20000
Rainfall Dependent Inflow/Infiltration
NetIlPeakEvent for Various Storms (Normalized by Acreage)
_ 0 c:::J
12/29/2005 3:45:00 PM 1/16/2006 9:00:00 PM 1/29/20064:30:00AM
j.
o
EBI5173 F72 F77 F83 F85
F70 F74 F81 F84 F86
Basin
F89
F88 F90
------------------~
____-___________-__1
25000
~ !OOOO
.......
Cl
a.
G
~ 5000
iI
~
co
CD
a. . 0000
5000
. Rainfall Dependent Inflow/Infiltration
NetIIPeakEvent for Various Storms (Normalized by Acreage)
-
12/29/2005 3:45:00 PM
o
1/16/2006 9:00:00 PM
-
1/29/20064:30:00 AM
o
EBI5173 F72 F81 F84 F86
F70 F74 F83 F85 Fa7 Fa9
Basin
Rainfall Dependent III by Monitor Basin for the 5-year Storm Event
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Flow Area Discrete Peak Discrete A vg Discrete Peak RDI/Area
Peak RDI Ranking
Monitor (acres) Flow (mgd) DWF (mgd) (mad) (gpad)
F70 433 1.43 0.27 1.16 2,678 12
F72 251 6.28 0.12 6.16 24,551 2
F74 928 9.76 1.3 8.46 9,120 9
F77 109 2.12 0.18 1.94 17,758 4
F81 324 7.83 0.2 7.63 23,552 3
F83 84 1.60 0.16 1.44 17,114 5
F84 69 0.90 0.04 0.86 12,415 8
F85 88 1.28 0.08 1.20 13,619 6
F86 53 1.79 0.03 1.76 33,136 1
F87 43 0.65 0.07 0.58 13,501 7
F88 704 1.15 0.44 0.71 1,008 13
F89 924 7.23 0.29 6.94 7,516 11
F90 258 -0.32 0.28 -0.60 (2,307) 14
F5173 5779 55.12 5.64 49.48 8,562 10
Totals 97.1 9.1 88.3 --
Note: F90 has a negative RDI due to the calibrated peak flows from upstream basins (e.g., F83, F84)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix C · Design Storm Development
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The December 2000 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Wet
Weather Flow Management Plan "defines" the 5-year, 24-hour wet season precipitation as
3.9 inches. However, the document does not specify how the value of 3.9 inches was
obtained. A review of available published documents shows some uncertainty in the 5-year,
24 hour rainfall total. The following list Su.minarizes the 5-year, 24-hour values obtained
from several sources:
. 3.9 inches from the MWMC Wet Weather Flow Management Plan (December 2000).
. Greater than 3.5 inches, but less than 4.0 inches, from NOAA Atlas 2, Volume X, Figure
26. Published in 1970, and based on precipitation-reporting stations that had at least 20
years of daily or hourly precipitation data between 1897 and 1970, the NOAA frequency
analysis is based on full year annual series data that is transformed to pa~tial duration
data using empirical conversion factors. Figure 26 is included as an attachment.
· 3.6 inches from the Eugene Areawide Drainage Master Plan, Figure 4.1 (OTAK, 1990). Results of
this analysis are included in the City of Eugene Stormwater Management Manual Guly 2006), but
does not include any discussion of the methodology that produced these results.
· 3.8 inches from the City of Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures
(EDSP, April 2006). The Springfield EDSP is "based on information gathered from the
West Springfield Master Plan, as well as the Eugene Areawide Drainage Master Plan".
Updated Rainfall Frequency Analysis
Because of the relatively wide range in these 5-year, 24-hour rainfall totals, uncertainty
about the study methodologies, and the relative remoteness in time when the rainfall
frequency analyses were conducted, a new frequency analysis was performed using Eugene
Airport historic hourly rainfall data for the 1948 to 2005 period. The frequency analysis uses
wet season (not full year) annual maximums to calculate a 5-year, 24-hour rainfall of 3.83
inches. The wet season is defined as November 1 to May 21 according to Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) 340. The more rigorous (and time consuming) approach to
rainfall frequency analysis (not performed for this updated frequency analysis) requires the
use of a partial duration series. This means that rather than using only the largest rainfall
event for each year in the analysis (annual series), the partial duration series recognizes that
more than one large rainfall event may occur in the same year. The partial duration analysis
will therefore result in a higher rainfall total for a given frequency and duration. Figure C-1
shows a comparison between the Eugene Airport 5-year depth-duration-frequency curve
calculated using the annual series frequency analysis methodology and the 5-year, 24-hour
design rainfall used in the 2000 Wet Weather Flow Management Plan. The design storm
follows the calculated depth-duration-frequency curve quite closely except for the longer
durations. The Wet Weather Flow Management Plan 5-year design storm is a 16-day period
of rainfall that includes a peak 24-hour rainfall total of 3.9 inches. It includes antecedent
rainfall that the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan considered conservative.
Figure C-2 compares the updated Eugene Airport 5-year depth-duration-frequency curve
with depth-duration values from some recent historic rainfall events in the
EugenejSpringfield area. As can be seen, for example, the 12-hour rainfall for the January
2006 rainfall event approached a 5-year event, but was over one inch less than the 5-year
frequency for the 24-hour duration. The November 1996 storm produced rainfall in excess of
the 5-year event for all durations between 6 and 72 hours.
C-I
-------------------
Figure C-1. Comparison of WWFMP 5-year Design Storm and 5-year Frequency Wet Season
Depth-Duration-Frequency Curve Based on 1948-2005 Annual Maximums (Eugene Airport:
Extreme Value [Gumbel] Distribution)
7.0
6.0
.
5.0
Rainf II (inches)
4.0
3.0
2.0
-+- Calculated 5-year Frequency Depth-Duration Curv
. MWMC Wet Weather Master Plan 5-year Storm
1.0
0.0
o
4
8
12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72
Storm Duration (hours)
C-3
Figure C-2. Comparison of Historic Rainfall Events and 5-year Frequency Wet Season Depth-
Duration-Frequency Curve Based on 1948-2005 Eugene Airport Annual Maximums
1000
10
I I
I I I I &
I I I I I I I &i &..a
1,440 Minutes = 24 hours
A ....~
A . ----- ~
~ ....~ PI
~ ...... u ....
~ . .
.-- "",- r. .... . 0
~~ ..
V . .
I 0
~ . . .
1'1nnth inChoc: ,.. tI\
.;;" ~ ...,
~ - I
~" /It. .
~ ;11' .
",. - CJ I
I I
II I
.
-0.. I
1
I
( I
I
I
.
- Calculated 5-year Frequency Depth-Duration Curve - 1--
A November 1996 Airport Rainfall
. December 1996 Airport Rainfall
0 January 2003 Airport Rainfall
. December 2005 Springfield City Hall Rainfall
. January 2006 Springfield City Hall Rainfall
I I I I
.
Rainf-mb(
Storm Ouration (Minutes)
1000
C-4
10000
10
100
-------------------
---
0.6
0.5
0.4
-
.c
u
.5
-
c
o
.. 0.3
ns
..
'a
'u
!
Q.
0.2
0.1 -
-
-
- --
- - --
Cumtllative Precioitation
3.83 inch-24 hour
5.99 inch--72 hour
iPeaklntensitv
'O.524inch/lhour
o
o
10
- -
5-Year Design Storm
City of Springfield Wastewater Master Plan
20
30
40
50
-
-
-
60
70
- -
_-I
80
r- --- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix D - Calibration Hydrographs for Monitoring
Basins
:a 1
CJ)
E
-
~
Ii: 0.8
F70 Calibration
1.8
1.6
1.4
- Monitor
- Model
1.2
0.6%,,Jmp
20 minTofC
17% RDi
0.4 Cqof
0.6
0.4
0.2
o
12/25/05
12/30/05
1/4/06
1/9/06
1/14/06
1/19/06
1/24/06
1/29/06
Calibration_ WWF .xls
o
0.1
0.2
0.3
-
.r:::
u
So
c
0.4 ~
I
Do
U
l!
Go
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
-------------------
May 29, 2007
-------------------
F72 Calibration
7
6
- Monitor
-Model
7% Imp
60 minT of C
_ __.. 85% RDI
0.75 Calaf
12 hf CKof
100 hr CKif
5
_ 4
"0
0)
E
-
~
u:
3 ----.-.-
2
o
12/24/05
12/29/05
1/3/06
1/8/06
1/13/06
1/18/06
Calibration_ WWF .xls
1/23/06
1/28/06
o
0.1
0.2
0.3
~
u
g
c
0.4 ~
S
ea
eu
e
a.
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
11/29/2007
-
'0
CD
E
-
~
ii:
F74 Calibration
25
o
0.1
0.2
0.3 _
.c
C,)
.5
-
c
o
0.4 ;::
S
"a.
"u
e
0.5 Q.
0.6
0.7
0.8
-------------------
20
Site could not be calibrated. Monitor flow
does not trend with precipitation.
-Monitor
- Model
15
10
5
o
12/24/05
12/29/05
1/3/06
1/8/06
1/13/06
1/18/06
1/23/06
1/28/06
-------------------
10
9
8
7
6
-
't:J
C)
E 5
-
~
ii:
4
3
2
F77 Calibration
2';8% Imp
15"niin Tate
30% ~[)I
0.4 CQot
_______n___ 8 hrs.,C'Kof
-Monitor
-Model
o
12/24/05
1/3/06
1/8/06
1/13/06
1/18/06
1/23/06
1/28/06
12/29/05
Calibration_ WWF .xls
o
0.1
0.2
0.3 _
.c
CJ
.5
-
c
o
0.4 :w
C'lS
....
'is.
'u
CD-
..
0.5 a..
0.6
0.7
0.8
11/29/2007
-
"
0)
.5. 3
~
ii:
F81 Calibration
6
5 --_.-.----
~~.Jmp
15 minT of C
99%'fUDI
O~6 'CQof
0,;:2 Umax
3JQ ~ooaK
-Monitor
- Model
4
2
1
o
1/24/06
1/25/06
1/26/06
1/27/06
1/28/06
1/29/06
1/30/06
1/31/06
2/1/06
2/2/06
Calibration_ WWF .xls
o
0.1
0.2
0.3 _
.c
(,)
.5
-
c
o
04 .-
. 1i
..
'Q.
'u
~
0.5 D..
0.6
0.7
0.8
2/3/06
-------------------
11/29/2007
-------------------
F83 Calibration
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
-
"
C>>
e 1
-
~
u:
0.8
0.6
0.4 -.---.......
0.2
0
12/24/05 12/29/05
-Monitor (mgd)
-Model
3%. Imp.
20 min'T of C'
57% RDI
0.8 Cqof
0.2 Umax
.. 8 hrs CKof
1/8/06
1/13/06
1/18/06
1/23/06
1/28/06
1/3/06
Calibration_ WWF .xls
o
0.1
0.2
0.3 _
.c
u
.5
-
c
o
0.4 ~
ftI
..
.s.
.u
!
0.5 Do
0.6
0.7
0.8
11/29/2007
-
"0
0)
.s. 0.8
~
u::
F84 Calibration
1.6
1.4 ---._- _m..._.______._
1.2
-Monitor
-Model
1
q.5 %?lrflp.
1'-'~, ,)1- "","'1;';
:1 0 mln'T of~C,
73~ ~Dt
O.J';~qbf.
... --a;ihrSif~Kof
62 h'rS>€l<jf;'
0.6
0.4
0.2
o
12/29/05
2/17/06
0.8
2/27/06
1/8/06
1/18/06
1/28/06
2/7/06
Calibration_ WWF .xls
o
0.1
0.2
0.3 _
.c
C,)
c
~
c
o
0.4 :w
S
.0.
I
0.5 A.
0.6
. 0.7
11/29/2007
------~------------
_____-r.-------------
-
"C
en
.s 0.6
~
u:
1.2
1
0.8
0.4
0.2
o
12/24/05
Calibration_ WWF .xls
12/29/05
F85 Calibration
- Monitor
-Model
0.5% Imp
25min T of C
4%ROf
O!8 COeSf
..---- 8 hfs ,OK
1/3/06
1/13/06
1/18/06
1/23/06
1/28/06
1/8/06
o
0.1
0.2
0.3 _
oS:
u
.5
-
c
o
0.4 ~
as
..
'Q.
'u
l!
0.5 Q,
0.6
0.7
0.8
11/29/2007
-
"
D)
!. 0.8
~
it
F86 Calibration
1.6
1.4
1.2
- Monitor
- Model
1
t~: Imp
?;min T of, C
600/0'., RDI
0.8,Cqpf
8"nrs ck
0.6 -
0.4
0.2
o
1/18/06
1/20/06
1/22/06
1/24/06
1/26/06
1/28/06
1/30/06
2/1/06
Calibration_ WWF .xls
o
0.1
0.2
0.3
-
~
u
e
c
0.4 !
J
D.
13
!
G.
0.5
0.6
- 0.7
0.8
2/3/06
- - - - - ,- - .- - - - - ,- - - - - - -
11/29/2007
- - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
"
Q
.s 0.6
~
ii:
F87 Calibration
1.2
1
0.8
0.4
0.2
o
12/24/05
1/3/06
1/8/06
1/13/06
12/29/05
Calibration_ WWF .xls
-Monitor
-Model
1% Imp'
30 min T.of C
320t'o RDI
"0.7 COof
8.hrCK
1/18/06
1/23/06
1/28/06
o
0.1
0.2
0.3 _
.c
CJ
.E
-
c
o
0.4 ;i
C'lI
..,
'a
'u
!
0.5 Q.
0.6
0.7
0.8
11/29/2007
;;- 5
0)
E
-
~
ii:
F88 Calibration
9
8
7
6
3
2
1
o -
12/24/05
12/29/05
1/3/06
1/8/06
1/13/06
1/18/06
1/23/06
-Monitor
-Model
O.~5%Jmp
15,mirt f dfiC
5.% RE>I ..,
- O.4:CQ~f
1/28/06
o
0.1
0.2
0.3 _
.c
C,)
c
:::.
c:
o
0.4 ..
:m
a.
"(5
l!
0.5 Q.
0.6
0.7
0.8
-----~---------_._--
-----~~------------
F89 Calibration
9
8
7
-Monitor
-Model
6
q~35% Imp
20(,min T of c,
48%' RDI
.--- 0.35 CQof
Upstres'n1.of Fa8'
ii
0)
E
-
i
3
2
1
--" -....-.... .-- . -.-'.._--- ._---- ----..- -----_.- .-------" -------------
o
12/20/05
12/25/05
12/30/05
1/4/06
1/9/06
1/14/06
1/19/06
1/24/06
1/29/06
Calibration_ WWF .xls
o
0.1
0.2
0.3 _
.c
(,)
.5
-
c
o
0.4 ;:;
co
-
a.
'u
!
0.5 Q.
0.6
0.7
0.8
11/29/2007
F90 Calibration
7
o
0.1
6
-Monitor 0.2
-Model
5
1% Irm:f' 0.3 -
t5 minTof C- ,J:.
30%,RDI CJ
- 4 .5
"C -
C) o:~ Cqof . c
E ~5~hrs6Ckof 0.4 0
- \l ;;
~ &O-hrS'CK.if J!
00.
u: 3 'u
e
0.5 a.
2 --...--
0.6
1
0.7
o
1/24/06
1/25/06
1/26/06
1/27/06
1/28/06
1/29/06
1/30/06
1/31/06
2/1/06
2/2/06
0.8
2/3/06
-------------------
-----------~----~--
F5173 Calibration
120
o
0.1
100
3.5% Imp
3Q,min T of C
50%,RDI
Q..65 CQQff,
- Monitor
-Model
0.2
80
0.3 _
.c
u
- .5
"C -
Q c
E 60 0
- 0.4 ~
~ as
....
os.
u: o~
0.5 D.
40
0.6
20 -
0.7
o
12/1/05
12/11/05
12/21/05
12/31/05
1/10/06
1/20/06
'0.8
1/30/06
Calibration_ WWF .xls
11/29/2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix E - Regression Plots
F70
III Rate
2.5
2
A
-
'a
g)
E 1.5
-
.!!
IV
0:
. Monitor
A ModeL5Yr
- Linear (Monitor)
:::::
C
0:
~
IV
G)
Q.
1 .._-
.
y = 0.014709852215077x + 0.134289094447333
R2 = 0.403659963426643
..
0.5 -_.. .
.
.
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
-------------------
-------------------
14
12
10
-
"C
g)
E 8
-
CD
1ii
0::
:::
Q
0:: 6
.JI::
cu
CD
Q.
4
2
o
0.0
L___
F72
III Rate
.
y = 0.257298006854206x - 0.802032796966050
R2 = 0.917436862833045
.
5.0
10.0
15.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
. Monitor
. ModeL5Yr
- Linear (Monitor)
50.0
F74
III Rate
20
18
16
14
-
"a
f 12
-
.!
~ 10
::::
Q
a::
.)t 8
ftI
CD
Q.
6
4
2
.
y = 0.153141088235349x - 0.560804613668737
. Monitor
. ModeL5Yr
- Linear (Monitor)
.
.
_._-- ------.-.-;-----.------..--___._______ .u._.._..____.. ..._ _ ......___
o
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0 80.0 100.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
120.0
140.0
160.0
-------------------
----~--------------
16
14
y 1.004337581952860x - 4.643441712855350
R2 = 0.367435908022087
12
-
"C 10
CD
E
-
CD
...
ca
0:: 8
:::::
is
0::
~
ca 6
CD
Q.
4
2
o
0.0
6.0
8.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
2.0
4.0
F77
III Rate
.
.
.
-.-----.
18.0
. Monitor
. ModeL5Yr
- Linear (Monitor)
20.0
12
10 ____..__h__________
F81
III Rate
y = 0-:-303~040328gcr46x
R2 = -0.86373200119104
8
-
"
Q
E
-
CD
..
t1 6
::::
;S
~
.:w::
tel
CD
Q.
4
.
2 __.'_.~_'.A ._._.~--
o
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
A
40.0
50.0
60.0
. Monitor
A ModeLSYr
- Linear (Monitor)
-------------------
------------~------
4
3.5
3
i 2.5
E
-
CD
..
ca
a:: 2
==
is
a::
~
ca
CD 1.5
0..
1 -----
0.5
o
0.0
F83
III Rate
y = 0.107615332144702x + 0.270001313974116
R2 = 0.813751466389933
- _.._.~.
..
.
2.0
4.0
6.0
10.0
12.0
8.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
14.0
. Monitor
.. Mode,-5Yr
- Linear (Monitor)
16.0
F84
III Rate
4
3.5
A
3
i 2.5
E
-
. 96151184406184x + 0.170398083125558
R2 = 0.964510303205634
E
~ 2
:::::
C
0:
Jill:
as
:. 1.5
. Monitor
A ModeL 5Yr
- Linear (Monitor)
1
0.5
o
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0 8.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
10.0
12.0
14.0
-------------------
-------------------
F85
III Rate
3
2.S
..
2
-
"C
C)
E
-
y = 0.102248551357085x - 0.024974941545817
R2 = 0.992712941617752
Q)
-
ftI
IX 1.S
::::
S
IX
~
ftI
CD
0..
. Monitor
A ModeLSYr
- Linear (Monitor)
1
O.S
o
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0 8.0 10.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
12.0
14.0
16.0
F86
III Rate
4.5
4 -----------------------------------------.--.---- .-.-----------
y = 0.701629842231045x - 0.337703842549202
R2 = 0.706158971877271
3
"
3.5
-
't:S
Q
E
i 2.5
fa
0::
:::
~ 2
.:Ill:
as
CD
Q.
. Monitor
. ModeL5Yr
- Linear (Monitor)
1.5
1
0.5
o
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0 5.0 6.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
-------------~----.-
----------------~-----
F87
III Rate
1.2
1
..
0.8
-
'a
0)
E
-
.
0.4 --.-----.~---..---..~--.-. -.---.-----..-.~--.-.--..-. ._..__...__..-.~..._.._--_._.'--~-
y = 0.086768001005457x + 0.021205598606861
R2 = 0.755298872107685
CD
-
ftS
~ 0.6
-
C
0::
~
ftS
CD
Q.
. Monitor
. ModeL5Yr
- Linear (Monitor)
.
.
.
0.2
.
o
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
I
L __
F88
III Rate
4.5
.
4
3
y = 0.032769634514669x - 0.307801374711700
R2 = 0.325403825926806
3.5
-
"
m
E
i 2.5
~
. Monitor
. ModeL5Yr
- Linear (Monitor)
-
-
Q
D::
~
ftI
CI)
Q.
2 -...----..-----.
1.5
.
1 ---.-------------.-
A
0.5
.
o
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
- - - - - .. .. _ iiiii iiii iiiI iiiii ,iIIiI .. _ .. _ ._ _
------------.------
10
9
8
7
-
"C
C) 6
E
-
CD
...
ca
0:: 5
:::::
is
0::
~ 4
ca
CD
0-
3
2
1
o
0.0
F89
III Rate
-_._----- -.-...---&
.
y = 0.047961281992753x + 0.325189155219414
R2 = 0.627400196626802
. Monitor
& ModeL5Yr
- Linear (Monitor)
.
.
.
.
.
.
20.0
40.0
100.0
140.0
160.0
60.0
80.0
120.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
F90
III Rate
6
y = 0.089888450729213x + 1.074753625640240
R2 = 0.802978556367833
5
4
-
"
CD
e
-
s
ca
~ 3 -
:::
Q
~
~
ca
CD
Q.
. Monitor
... ModeL5Yr
- Linear (Monitor)
2
...
1
o
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0 25.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
-------------------
-------------------
80
-
"
Q
E
-
CD
..
ca
a: 60
=:::
C
a:
~
ca
CD
0..
40
F5173
III Rate
120
.
100
y = 0.047061687898309x + 11.367013180598400
R2 = 0.964727835369662
20 --------
o
0.0
400.0
600.0
Rain Volume (mgal)
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
200.0
. Monitor
. ModeL5Yr
- Linear (Monitor)
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix F -Inventory Data by Monitoring Basin
[
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Flow Diameter Length of Flow Diameter Length of
Basin (inch) Pipe (feet) Basin (inch) Pipe (feet)
F70 4 22 F86 6 385
6 985 8 6031
8 19314 10 1031
10 6300 12 796
12 2274 15 621
15 3153 F87 4 100
18 297 8 6485
F72 8 22502 F88 6 2280
10 918 8 31526
12 2750 10 1377
18 2943 12 155
21 1124 27 11271
24 89 F89 6 8345
F74 4 826 8 92705
6 7802 10 1752
8 58521 12 725
10 4522 15 . 7183
12 587 18 3080
27 1101 21 4348
30 2731 24 1942
42 8621 F90 4 73
F77 6 1108 6 2111
-
8 11187 8 26094
10 2819 10 4306
12 501 12 2092
21 1610 15 5230
27 1429 18 733
F81 6 3581 24 3323
8 2445 5173 2 1135
10 2199 3 300
12 3331 4 3536
15 290 5 2186
18 1445 6 47332
24 4504 8 475999
30 200 10 48319
F83 6 32 12 36919
8 8595 14 1781
12 1693 15 12923
F84 4 197 18 20086
6 240 20 1973
8 7578 21 7594
10 1528 24 19979
F85 6 1363 27 11142
8 10834 30 9186
10 1940 36 6764
42 12454
48 28124
60 5379
72 435
Note: Based on 2007 City GIS
Length of pipe denotes "Active" or pipes not otherwise designated
II
II
I
:1
I
Appendix G - Detailed Cost Data for Capital
Improvement Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE: 10/1/2007
PIPELINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.: 350467
I CLASS 5 COST OPINION ESTIMATE BY: D OLeary
TOTAL
CIPID DESCRIPTION COST
I Gravity Pipeline. 24" with new alignment
Gravity Pipeline - 24" with new alignment 6,418 LF $272 $1,743,268
Bore & Jack Undercrossing (36n Casing) 300 LF $250 $75,000
I Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 20 EA $5,124 $102,488
Manhole - 84" Extra Depth 2 EA $15,990 $31,979
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $1,952.736
CONTINGENCIES 30.0% $585,821
I CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $2,539.000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $2,539,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $761,700
I CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $380,850
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $126,950
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $126,950
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $1,396,000
I PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 3,935,000
2 Gravity Pipeline. 21" with Removal
Gravity Pipeline - 21' with Removal 795 LF $271 $215,770
I Manhole - 48" diameter x S' deep 4 EA $5,124 $20,498
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $236,268
CONTINGENCIES 30.0% $70,880
I CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $307,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $307,000
I ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $92,100
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $46,050
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $15,350
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $15,350
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $169,000
I PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 476,000
3 Gravity Pipeline. 18" with Removal
I Gravity Pipeline - 1 S" with Removal 1,112 LF $252 $280,238
Manhole - 4S" diameter x S' deep 5 EA $5,124 $25,622
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $305,860
CONTINGENCIES 30.0% $91,758
I CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $398,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $398,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $119,400
I CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $59.700
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $19,900
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $19,900
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $219,000
I PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 617,000
4 Gravity Pipeline. 12" with Removal
Gravity Pipeline - 12n with Removal 1,53S LF $212 $325,586
I Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 11 EA $5,124 $56,368
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $381,954
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $95,489
I CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $477,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $477,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $143,100
I CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $71,550
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $23,850
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $23,850
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $262,000
I
---- ----
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE: 101112007 I
PIPELINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.: 350467
CLASS 5 COST OPINION ESTIMATE BY: D OLeary
I
TOTAL
CIPID DESCRIPTION COST
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 739,000 I
5 Gravity Pipeline - 24" with Removal
Gravity Pipeline - 24" with Removal 4,161 LF $287 $1,192,757
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 21 EA $5,124 $107,612 I
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $1,300,370
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $325,092
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $1,625,000 I
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $1,625,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $487,500
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $243,750 I
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $81,250
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $81,250
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $894,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 2,519,000 I
Gravity Pipeline - 15" with Removal
Gravity Pipeline - 15" with Removal 1,231 LF $229 $282,200
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 6 EA $5,124 $30,746 I
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $312,946
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $78,236
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $391,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0 I
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $391,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $117,300
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $58,650
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $19,550 I
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $19,550
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $215,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 606,000 I
7 Vault Recontiguration
Vault Reconfiguration LF $201 $0
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep EA $5,124 $0
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $0 I
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $0
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $0 I
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $0
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $0 I
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $0
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $0
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $
8 Gravity Pipeline -15" with Removal I
Gravity Pipeline - 15" with Removal 714 LF $229 $163,680
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 3 EA $5,124 $15,373
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $179,054 I
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $44,763
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $224,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $224,000 I
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $67,200
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $33,600
Gravity Pipeline. 30" New Alignment 5.0% $11,200
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $11,200 I
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $123,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 347,000
I
I CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE: 10/1/2007
PIPELINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.: 350467
I CLASS 5 COST OPINION ESTIMATE BY: D Oleary
TOTAL
CIPID DESCRIPTION COST
I 9 Gravity Pipeline - 15" with new alignment
Gravity Pipeline - 15" with new alignment 4,837 LF $216 $1,045,395
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 17 EA $5,124 $87,115
I DIRECT SUBTOTAL $1.132,510
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $283,127
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $1,416,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
I CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $1,416,000
ENGINEERING, lEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $424,800
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $212,400
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $70,800
I EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $70,800
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $779,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 2,195,000
I 10 Gravity Pipeline - 24" with Removal
Gravity Pipeline - 24" with Removal 3,589 LF $287 $1,028,793
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 11 EA $5,124 $56,368
I DIRECT SUBTOTAL $1,085,161
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $271,290
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $1,356,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
I CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $1,356,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $406,800
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $203,400
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $67,800
I EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $67,800
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $746,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 2,102,000
I 11 Gravity Pipeline -15" with Removal
Gravity Pipeline - 15" with Removal 1,014 LF $229 $232,454
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 9 EA $5,124 $46,120
I DIRECT SUBTOTAL $278,573
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $69,643
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $348,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $348,000
I ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $104.400
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $52,200
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $17,400
I EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $17,400
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $191,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 539,000
I 12 Gravity Pipeline -12" with Removal
Gravity Pipeline - 12" with Removal 529 LF $212 $111,986
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 3 EA $5,124 $15,373
I DIRECT SUBTOTAL $127,359
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $31,840
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $159,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
I CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $159,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $47,700
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $23,850
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $7,950
I EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $7,950
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $87,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 246,000
I
--------
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE: 10/1/2007 I
PIPELINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.: 350467
CLASS 5 COST OPINION ESTIMATE BY: D OLeary
I
TOTAL
CIPID DESCRIPTION COST
13 Gravity Pipeline .18" with Removal I
Gravity Pipeline - 18" with Removal 2,224 LF $252 $560,475
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 6 EA $5,124 $30,746
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $591,222
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $147,805 I
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $739,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $739,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $221,700 I
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $110,850
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $36,950
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $36,950
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $406,000 I
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 1,145,000
14 Gravity Pipeline .12" with Removal
Gravity Pipeline - 12" with Removal 325 LF $212 $68,801 I
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 3 EA $5,124 $15,373
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $84,174
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $21,043 I
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $105,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $105,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $31,500 I
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $15,750
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $5,250
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $5,250
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $58,000 I
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 163,000
Existing Rehab Gravity Pipeline - 8-12" with Removal
Gravity Pipeline - 8-12" with Removal 23,548 LF $166 $3,908,968 I
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 0 EA $0 $0
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $3,908,968
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $977 ,242
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $4,886,000 I
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $4,886,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $1,465,800 I
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $732,900
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $244,300
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $244,300
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $2,687,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 7,573,000 I
Future Rehab Gravity Pipeline. 8-12" with Removal
Gravity Pipeline - 8-12" with Removal 31,211 LF $166 $5,181,026
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 0 EA $0 $0 I
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $5,181,026
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $1,295,257
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $6,476,000 I
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $6,476,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $1,942,800
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $971,400 I
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $323,800
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $323,800
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $3,562,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 10,038,000 I
Existing PS Nugget Way PS
Nugget Way PS 1,822 GPM $422 $769,417
I
r-- ----- ---- ----
I CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE: 1011/2007
PIPELINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.: 350467
I CLASS 5 COST OPINION ESTIMATE BY: D OLeary
TOTAL
CIPID DESCRIPTION COST
I Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep $0
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $769,417
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $192,354
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $962,000
I SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $962,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $288,600
I CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $144,300
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $48,100
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 0.0% $0
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $481,000
I PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 1,443,000
Existing PS Hayden PS
Hayden PS 988 GPM $567 $560,379
I Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 0 EA $0 $0
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $560,379
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $140,095
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $700,000
I SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $700,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $210,000
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $105,000
I ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $35,000
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 0.0% $0
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $350,000
I PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 1,050,000
Existing PS River Glen PS
River Glen PS 1,328 GPM $492 $653,152
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 0 EA $0 $0
I DIRECT SUBTOTAL $653,152
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $163,288
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $816.000
I SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $816,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $244,800
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $122,400
I ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $40,800
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 0.0% $0
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $408,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 1,224.000
I Exp_Harbor Drive Gravity Pipeline - 8" New Alignment
Gravity Pipeline - 8" New Alignment 7684 LF $173 $1,329,878
Manhole - 48ft diameter x 8' deep 32 EA $5,124 $163,981
I DIRECT SUBTOTAL $1,493,859
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $373,465
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $1,867,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
I CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $1,867,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN. COORDINATION 30.0% $560,100
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $280,050
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $93,350
I EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $93,350
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $1,027,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 2.894.000
I Exp_Harbor Drive Harbor Drive PS
Harbor Drive PS 145 GPM $1,430 $207,389
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 0 EA $0 $0
I
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE: 10/1/2007 I
PIPELINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.: 350467
CLASS 5 COST OPINION ESTIMATE BY: D OLeary I
TOTAL
CIPID DESCRIPTION COST
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $207,389 I
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $51,847
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $259,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $259,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $77,700 I
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $38,850
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $12,950
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $12,950 I
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $142,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 401,000
Exp_Harbor Drive Forcemain Pipeline - 5" New Alignment I
Forcemain Pipeline - 5" New Alignment 134 LF $182 $24,365
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 0 EA $5,124 $0
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $24,365
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $6,091 I
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $30,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $30,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $9,000 I
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $4,500
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $1,500
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $1,500
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $17,000 I
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 47,000
Exp_Jasper Road Gravity Pipeline -10" New Alignment I
Gravity Pipeline - 10' New Alignment 2581 LF $186 $479,256
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 11 EA $5,124 $56,368
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $535,625
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $133,906 I
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $670,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $670,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $201,000 I
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $100,500
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGA liON 5.0% $33,500
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $33,500
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $369,000 I
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 1,039,000
Exp_Jasper Road Gravity Pipeline - 12" New Alignment
Gravity Pipeline - 12" New Alignment 3395 LF $197 $668,097 I
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 15 EA $5,124 $76,866
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $744,964
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $186,241
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $931,000 I
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $931,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $279,300 I
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $139,650
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $46,550
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $46,550
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $512,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 1,443,000 I
Exp_Jasper Road Gravity Pipeline - 21" New Alignment
Gravity Pipeline - 21" New Alignment 17016 LF $256 $4,362,548 I
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 69 EA $5,124 $353,584
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $4,716,131
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $1,179,033
I
I CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE: 10/1/2007
PIPELINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.: 350467
I CLASS 5 COST OPINION ESTIMATE BY: D OLeary
TOTAL
CIPID DESCRIPTION COST
I CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $5,895,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $5,895,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $1,768,500
I CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $884,250
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $294,750
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $294,750
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $3,242,000
I PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 9,137,000
Exp_Franklin Blvd Gravity Pipeline. 8" New Alignment
Gravity Pipeline - 8" New Alignment 2411 LF $173 $417,274
I Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 11 EA $5,124 $56,368
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $473,643
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $118,411
I CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $592,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $592,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $177,600
I CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $88,800
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $29,600
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $29,600
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $326,000
I PROJ.ECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 918,000
Exp_Franklin Blvd Gravity Pipeline - 15" New Alignment
Gravity Pipeline - 15" New Alignment 3868 LF $256 $991,675
I Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 16 EA $5,124 $81,990
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $1,073,665
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $268,416
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $1,342,000
I SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $1,342,000
ENGINEERING. LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $402,600
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $201,300
I ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $67,100
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $67,100
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $738,000
I PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 2,080,000
Exp_Thurston Road Gravity Pipeline - 8" New Alignment
Gravity Pipeline - 8" New Alignment 3882 LF $173 $671,862
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 17 EA $5,124 $87,115
I DIRECT SUBTOTAL $758,977
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $189,744
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $949,000
I SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $949,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $284,700
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $142,350
I ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $47,450
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $47,450
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $522,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 1,471,000
I Exp_McKenzie Highway Gravity Pipeline - 10" New Alignment
Gravity Pipeline - 10" New Alignment 1924 LF $186 $357,260
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 9 EA $5,124 $46,120
I DIRECT SUBTOTAL $403,380
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $100,845
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $504,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
I
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE: 10/1/2007 I
PIPELINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.: 350467
CLASS 5 COST OPINION ESTIMATE BY: D OLeary
TOTAL I
CIPID DESCRIPTION COST
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $504,000 I
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $151,200
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $75,600
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $25,200
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $25,200 I
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $277 ,000
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 781,000
Exp_McKenzie Highway Gravity Pipeline _12" New Alignment I
Gravity Pipeline - 12" New Alignment 1983 LF $197 $390,232
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 9 EA $5,124 $46,120
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $436,352 I
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $109,088
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $545,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $545,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $163,500 I
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $81,750
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $27,250
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $27,250
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $300,000 I
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 845,000
Exp_Vera_PS Area Gravity Pipeline. 8" New Alignment I
Gravity Pipeline - 8" New Alignment 1703 LF $173 $294,740
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 8 EA $5,124 $40,995
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $335,735
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $83,934 I
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $420,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $420,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $126,000 I
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 15.0% $63,000
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $21,000
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $21,000
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $231,000 I
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 651,000
Exp_Vera_PS Area Gravity Pipeline .12" New Alignment I
Gravity Pipeline - 12" New Alignment 7880 LF $197 $1,550,695
Manhole - 48" diameter x 8' deep 33 EA $5,124 $169,105
DIRECT SUBTOTAL $1,719,800
CONTINGENCIES 25.0% $429,950 I
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (ROUNDED) $2.150,000
SALES TAX 0.0% $0
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH SALES TAX (ROUNDED) $2,150,000
ENGINEERING, LEGAUADMIN, COORDINATION 30.0% $645,000 I
CONSTRUCTION'ENGINEERING 15.0% $322,500
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5.0% $107,500
EASEMENTS & ROW ACQUISITION 5.0% $107,500
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (ROUNDED) $1,183,000 I
PROJECT TOTAL (ROUNDED) $ 3.333,000
I
I
I